Diplomatic solution that is the preferred solution. Im very cleareyed about the iranian threat. Not only the Nuclear Threat ask not only the history of past events, but current events. Human Rights Violations have been mentioned and a history of and current practices that are bellicose and destabilizing of other governments in the region and beyond. And it is the case that the sanctions that congress has put in place in so many i have not been part of that legislation. I came here after the legislation was passed, but i can praise those who have been here for putting tough sanctions in place, the vote in 2011 was 1000 in this body, and the administration has been able to utilize sanctions to bring iran to the table because it has crippled their economy and isolated them in the international community. But sanctions are not enough to stop an Iranian Nuclear program. And the one thing that i think you would say if you looked at the history is that the sanctions have crippled the economy. But if anything, it is also by making iran isolated, accelerated their path to try to develop Nuclear Technology for whatever purpose. And so if were going to stop that Nuclear Program and that quest for Nuclear Weapons, we have to either do it diplomatically or do it militarily. I support the sanctions, and ill easily and gladly vote for more if we cannot find an agreement. And i have some ideas about additional ones i want to raise either with this panel or the second one. But i do think that this joint plan of action and the diplomatic efforts of the administrationing give us an historic opportunity that we cant afford to put a crosswind into the middle of. The joint plan of action in the sewer rim agreement, in sewer rim agreement in my view, from analyzing it and reading analysis done by many slows and even reverses aspects not all aspects, but critical aspects of the Iranian Nuclear program which sanctions alone has not been able to do, and it also provides this country and our partners and all of our allies in the entire world a better Early Warning system about whether iran is cheating. We get more time on the clock and a better Early Warning system because of this deal. We have to give diplomacy a chance. We have to. I think aggressive diplomacy has been an underexercised american muscle in the last 15 years. We have to return to the kind of adepress withive diplomacy that the nation embraced when president roosevelt, Teddy Roosevelt brokered the end of japanese war. Won a nobel prize for doing that. Since that time weve been measured by the strength of our moral example and the strength of our diplomatic effort. And is we can be appropriately skeptical. The president has been very candid in talking to all of us that its maybe 50 50 or whether we will find a deal that we would think would be sufficient. And if we dont, of course, there will be greater sanctions that we will put in place and that well support. But weve got to give diplomacy a chance not only in this instance, but weve got to return to the tradition of aggressive american diplomacy thats been one of the very core elements of our power in the world. It has been an exercise, and im glad to see were getting back to it. And last thing ill say just quickly, if there may be a day when this deal doesnt work that we do have to contemplate military action to stop iran. I dont think its that hard to contemplate that we might be at that day at some point in the future. Ask as ive said, ill state on the record right now if there is no other way to stop iran from getting a Nuclear Weapon than for us to engage in military action hopefully with others, im going to vote yes on that. But in order for us to vote yes on that, we have got to be able to look our allies and our citizens and especially the men and women that we would ask to fight that battle, we would have to be able to look them in the eye and tell them that we had exhausted every diplomatic effort prior to undertaking that significant step. We may have to undertake that significant step, but we shouldnt do it if we, if we leave diplomatic avenues unexplored. Lets make this negotiation about irans good faith. Lets not make it about our good faith. Lets demonstrate our good faith and put them to the test of whether theyre serious about ending their Nuclear Weapons program. Let me thank the senator for his thoughtful comments and maybe the administration can be enlightened to understand difference between tactics and warmongering and fear mongering. Senator flake. I thank the chair, and i appreciate the comments of my colleague there virginia. And i share from virginia. And i share many of those sentiments. Ive not signed on to the new sanctions bill here. I believe that if diplomacy can work, we ought to allow it to work. I havent appreciated some of the comments from the administration describing those who are in favor of the sanctions bill, implying that theyre warmongering or that they have anything but the best motives. I think that everyone here wants the same thing. And for the administration or others to describe people who have a different view, i think, is unfair. But for myself, i hope that these negotiations will work. There are some concerns that i have just in terms of the specifics. One of the criticisms of the joint plan of action, ms. Sherman, is that it deals with known Nuclear Facilities in iran, but its a little bit unclear as to what will happen if we discover other facilities that were not known prior to this. How are they covered . Are they the term any new nuclear facility, is that a new one or newlydiscovered, and what means do we have to try to find other facilities out there . Thank you very much, senator, and thank you for your comments and, senator kaine, thank you very much for yours. And let me say for the record i dont believe any of you, any senator, any member of the house are warmongers. I dont believe that anyone prefers war. I understand how as senator kaine described, as Jeffrey Goldberg in his excellent piece an irans hawk case against new irans sanctions describing how one gets to military action and the concerns that we have that tactical considerations may lead us to that choice, but that is an issue of tactics as you have pointed out, not an issue of intent and not a characterization of any individual. So i quite agree. With that. In terms of new Nuclear Facilities, we meant exactly what the joint plan of action says. There can be no Nuclear Facilities either declared or undeclared. And if we find undeclared new Nuclear Facilities, then that is a cause of grave concern to all of us, because it would be against the compliance thats required for the joint plan of action. I cant today tell you what a response would be, but i would imagine it would be quite, quite concerning, and we would have to respond in a very forceful way. All right. Do you have concerns that if we were to impose new sanctions, that our partners in the p5 1 would strike their own deal and leave us out . Is that a possibility . Is that a concern that the administration has . I think thats a possibility, of course. I think more broadly, senator, where our allies and partners in the world are concerned one of the reasons the sanctions regime has been as effective as it has been is because people have climbed onboard with us, particularly in our unilateral sanctions even when they dont believe in unilateral sanctions and tell us so at every opportunity. They have, in fact, followed them because dealing with the American Banking system so crucial to the economy of virtually every country in the world that they have complied even though they dont like them. And so if we, in fact, dont give negotiations a chance, they have less of an incentive to stay onboard with that sanctions regime, and we could unwittingly create a rupture this that sanctions in that sanctions enforcement and sanctions regime which is crucial to the kind of aggressive diplomacy that senator kaine was outlining. Well, thank you. Thats always been hi my feeling. Unilateral sanctions rarely work. There are certain areas, strang bank sakss, the Financial Sector where we can certainly lead there, but we always run the risk of getting ahead of our allies or partners somewhere where they wont go, and then the sanctions regime will unravel. Anybody who thinks unilateral sanctions work very well, i would give you cuba as exhibit a for a long time of unilateral sanctions that simply have not produced the desired outcome. We need our p5 1 partners and others to participate with us here, and the stakes are, obviously, much higher in this regard. So thank you for your testimony. Senator durbin. Thank you very much, and i want to associate myself with the remarks my colleague from virginia. I thought he articulated my point of view in terms of the importance of these negotiations. Let me ask you a specific question. On the issue of enrichment capacity, it appears at least at the outset there is a divergent point of view in terms of whether or not iran can retain enrichment capacity at the end of a successful negotiation process, any enrichment capacity. Not weapons grade level, but any enrichment capacity. Would you address that . Sure, senator t. Senator. There is no question it would be far preferable if iran did not have an indigenous enrichment capability, and by they will always have the capability because as i said earlier, they cant unlearn what they know. But in terms of actually having a program, it would be prefer bl if they got any fuel they needed from outside sources, bought it on the open market, had international cooperation, international consortia. These would always be preferable routes to go. But it may be that at the end of a comprehensive agreement we have allowed for consideration of a very small, limited enrichment ram to dc program to meet practical needs that would be highly monitored, highly verified with Intrusive Inspections over a very Long Duration of time. As potentially a part of a comprehensive agreement. But what is very critical in a joint of plan of action is nothing is agreed to until everything is agreed to. So there is no prospect that iran could even have such a small, limited and highly monitored program without us agreeing to all of that verification monitoring and all of the other aspects that would be necessary for a comprehensive agreement including addressing the u. N. Security council resolution. So we have a long way to to go here. Going back to Ronald Reagans famous trust but verify, the verification process here involves iaea inspectors now currently on the ground. And i believe you testified before aarrived i arrived that reports coming back are at least encouraging in terms of their access. Can you elaborate on that a bit . There are those who say there are things going on theyll never be able to see and theyll never be told about, and those things could be the most dangerous and threatening. There will be no way even with military action to insure that we know everything that there might be to know. That is true in any country. Both with iaea inspectors, our National Technical means and other ways we work to know as much as we possibly can know. And the verification and monitoring that weve put in place with the joint plan of action increases our ability to know whether there are covert activities going on that we may not have been aware of. Not only because we have greater access daily to natanz and fordo, greater access to iraq at least monthly, their plans for iraq, access to Uranium Mines and mills, access to their centrifuge production, all of which provide clues as to whether something is going on somewhere else when we can look at the guts of all of these facilities. So i think we have greatly increased our ability to know if theres something that is covert that is going on, but im not going to kid this panel, this committee or the world to know that there is any way ever that any country can give you 100 guarantee that we know everything. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, since my colleague from illinois, senator kirk, has been part of the effort on enhanced sanctions along with senator menendez, i want to join in the chorus that you have joined in, ms. Sherman. Of i dont question for a moment the motives of anyone engaged in this. We all have the same goal, stop a nuclear iran, keep israel safe, stabilize and bring peace to the the middle east. And that hearing earlier today. Well go live now the u. S. Senate as lawmakers continue work on the farm bill this afternoon. A vote on final passage coming up just after 2 30. If no time is yielded, time thereby equally charged to both sides. Ms. Stabenow madam president . The presiding officer the senator from michigan. Ms. Stabenow thank you, madam president. We have heard a lot from colleagues over the last two days about just how important this farm bill is, and thats because there is so much more in this bill than what we would call a farm bill. Really, 12 different pieces of legislation from farm to research to fruits and vegetables to energy across the board all put together in something we call the farm bill. This is most importantly a major bipartisan jobs bill that makes sure that 16 Million People who work in agriculture from michigan to mississippi to oklahoma and everywhere in between have the support they need. This is an exports bill that will help expand opportunities for american agricultural exports. One of the few areas where our nation maintains a healthy, robust trade surplus. This is a Research Bill that will make a permanent longterm commitment through a new publicprivate foundation and other investments that will allow us to find solutions to pests and diseases and focus on innovations for the future. This is an energy bill that will help create the next generation of biofuels to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and will help farmers and rural Small Business owners generate their own power to improve Energy Efficiency and lower their costs for their businesses. This is an Economic Development bill that will help Rural Businesses and communities get Broadband Internet access so they can find new consumers and customers and compete and connect around the country and around the world. This is a conservation bill that helps farmers and ranchers protect our precious land and water resources. This is our countrys largest investment in conservation on private lands that we make as americans, and most of our land is privately owned, and it includes an historic new agreement between commodity and conservation groups that ties conservation compliance with Crop Insurance so that we are being the best possible stewards of our land. It will save taxpayers money and conserve our lands and waters for years to come by preserving millions of acres of Wildlife Habitat which in turn has helped rebuild populations of ducks and quail and pheasants, among others. Thats why the bill has the strong support of the National Wildlife federation, ducks unlimited, the Nature Conservancy and Pheasants Forever and the World Wildlife fund, who are only a handful of the more than 250 conservation groups who have endorsed this farm bill. This is a nutrition bill that mitigation sure makes sure families have a safety net. The savings and Food Assistance comes solely through addressing fraud and misuse, while maintaining and correcting critical benefits for those who need help, most often temporarily to put food on the table for their families while they get back on their feet after having lost a job. It strengthens the integrity and accountability of snap, makes sure that every single dollar goes to families in need while they get back on their feet, and it gives our children more healthy food options in schools and will help bring more healthy locally grown food into our communities. This is a deficit reduction bill that will save taxpayers 23 billion. All together we have cut spending, a portion of it, accounts through sequestration, the rest additional spending in this bill where we have voluntarily as i have often said voluntarily agreed to cut spending in our own area of jurisdiction, which by the way that 23 billion is more than double the amount of agricultural cuts recommended by the bipartisan simpsonbowles commission. And this is a reform bill that contains the greatest reforms to agricultural programs in decades. We have finally ended direct payment subsidies which are given to farmers even in good times. Instead we move to a responsible Risk Management approach that only gives farmers assistance when they experience a loss. This farm bill is focused on the future, not the past. This bill is taking a critical step toward changing the paradigm of agriculture and the broad range of Agricultural Production in this country. And this bill has the support of over 370 groups and counting from all parts of the country and ideological backgrounds. Thats because as we wrote this bill, we worked hard to find Common Ground, to develop a bill that works for every kind of agriculture production in every region of our country. We worked hard and together, and i want to thank my Ranking Member, the distinguished senior senator from mississippi for his leadership and partnership in this effort. We have included valuable input from both sides of the aisle and from the house and the senate. I want to thank all of our colleagues for their ideas, for their willingness to put partisanship aside and work together. This really is an example of how we can get things done, and i hope that its just one step of a productive year coming forward. And thanks to all that work, we have arrived at a farm bill that works for all of america, for families and farmers, for consumers, for those who care so deeply about protecting our land and our water, and this bill will strengthen agriculture for years to come. Its time to pass it. Its time to get it to the president for signature. Every single senator in this chamber has constituents who work and benefit from agriculture and certainly just coming from lunch today, we should each be thanking a farmer for the safest, most affordable food supply in the world. And after 491 days without a farm bill, our constituents need us to get this done. So, madam president , i would urge colleagues to join together in a bipartisan way as we have throughout this process, to vote yes on this farm bill, and to give our farmers, our ranchers and the rest of the 16 Million People who work in agriculture the farm bill that they deserve. Thank you, madam president. I yield the floor. Mr. Cochran madam president . The presiding officer the senator from mississippi. Mr. Cochran madam president , i first of all want to commend the distinguished senator from michigan for her outstanding leadership of the agriculture committee. As we proceed from the hearings to review those suggestions being made for change and modernization of our agriculture act to the final days of Committee Hearings and now full debate in the senate and in the house, and now it comes to this final vote. Last night, there was a decisive vote of 7222 to end debate on the farm bill. That reflects the appreciation and reflect the committee the senate has for the work of this Committee Led by our distinguished chairman, the senator from michigan. I want to thank her as well as our House Committee counterpart, frank lucas of oklahoma, and Ranking Member Colin Peterson of minnesota as well as the members of their staff as we worked our way through the conference between the house and Senate Agriculture committee leadership. I want to thank, too, our majority staff director, chris odomo and all of chairwoman stabenows staff for their hard work in developing this farm bill. Our Committee Clerk Jesse Williams and her staff have also provided great assistance throughout this process. They have worked diligently and competently and thoughtfully on this legislation. Their dedication to developing the bill in the conference report led to long days, many working weekends, and we do owe them a very strong debt of gratitude and commendation for this work product. My staff director t. A. Haucks has been at the job it seems like day and night for a long time to help make sure we passed a bill that reflected the sentiment and the suggestions for this congress for modernization of our agriculture legislation. James glick also worked closely with t. A. Haucks and has been a trusted advisor. Im grateful for his good help as well. All of our Staff Members have done great work in helping move the farm bill to a successful conclusion, and the approval by the senate of this work. Madam chairman, my personal Office Agriculture l. E. Daniel elmer also was involved in the work of this committee and advising me personally as we worked our way to the conclusion of our responsibilities. He worked very closely with the committee to help develop the farm bill, and likewise the chief of staff bruce evans and legislative director adam tell, legislative aide bennett mines or others from my staff who added valuable input into this process, and i appreciate their good work. Madam president , with that, i yield the floor. Ms. Stabenow madam president . The presiding officer the senator from michigan. Ms. Stabenow thank you, madam president. I realize that we will be having the vote at 2 35, so let me just take one more moment to stress how important it is that we recognize that this really was an effort in good faith between the house and the senate and republicans and democrats. I, too, want to join with my Ranking Member, senator cochran, in thanking the chairman in the house, chairman lucas. We he and Ranking Member Collin Peterson were True Partners with us as we moved through this process. We actually started about two and a half years ago when the Super Committee on deficit reduction asked each committee to come up with a way to reduce the deficit to cut spending in their area of jurisdiction. We decided to do it a little differently. Chairman lucas and i talked and we decided the four of us would get together and actually come up with a housesenate democratrepublican recommendation that would be solidly supported by all sides. So it really was a prenegotiation on the farm bill that we were going to be doing in the next year. So in august, july, august of 2011 we sat down and started going through ways we could save dollars, we all agreed that direct payment subsidiesed could no longer be justified and needed to be eliminated. We knew it was important to have a safety net for our farmers, Disaster Assistance for our ranchers and farmers as well and we needed to help them manage their risk and came up with an approach that took part of the dollars that put it back into strengthening Risk Management tools like Crop Insurance, which is, by the way, just like any other insurance, you pay a premium, you get a bill, not a check, and you dont get any kind of help unless you have a loss. But we also took a look at other areas of the farm bill. We found that there were 23 different conservation programs. Every time somebody had a good idea we added a new program. We thought lets go back and really take a look at this and if we were starting from scratch how would you put together these programs and do it in a way that was nor user friendly for farmers and ranchers and organizations that work on land and water president s day vaition. We went from 23 to 13 programs and put it in four different buckets, as we called it or subject areas. And we saved money. So then we looked at every part of the farm bill and i asked our staff not to talk about programs but principles. What should we be doing, what should the farm bill be doing for agriculture, for farmers, ranchers, consumers, rural communities, job creators. Lets not protect programs, lets look broadly at principles. And so we did that and we ended up eliminating about a hundred different authorizations or programs. Consolidating, cutting down on duplication, really doing what i think taxpayers, what americans are asking us to do in every part of the federal government. Now we then turned around to set priorities about where to invest because its not just cutting for cuttings sake. Its trying to make things work better, be more effective, save precious dollars, but at the same time investing in the future, investing in those things that will strengthen agriculture, create jobs, strengthen rural communities, new opportunities for the broad array of production, what consumers are asking for in organics, local food systems and so on. So we basically put together a plan that started with the deficit reduction process, the Super Committee, and we made a recommendation of 23 billion in cuts, in deficit reduction. We all know that the broader deficit reduction process did not proceed, but we decided to keep the commitment to that 23 billion. And so we have. We have moved forward, part of those cuts now that we have put into place have been accounted for by the Budget Office as part of sequestration, most have not but when you add it all up, its still 23 billion that we started with back in 20112011 when we decided, the four of us together to sit down and listen to each other, understand each other, find Common Ground and make some tough decisions about how we could do things better in the area of agriculture and the farm bill. So as we come to a close i again want to thank my colleagues who have given such valuable input and been involved every step of the way. I hope everyone will feel a sense of pride that this is something we have done together, that people expect us to do together, which is do our jobs. And to make decisions and to govern, and to operate in a way that allows us to listen to each other, find Common Ground, and get things done. I would yield the floor. I would yield back all remaining time. And i would ask for the yeas and nays. The presiding officer without objection. Under the previous order, all postcloture time has expired and the question occurs on the adoption of the conference report. Is there a sufficient second . There appears to be. The yeas and nays are ordered. The clerk will call the roll. Vote vote vote the presiding officer does any senator wish to change his or her vote . If not on this vote the yeas are 68. The nays are 32. And the conference report is grate to the conference report is agreed to. Mr. Reid madam president . The presiding officer the majority leader. Mr. Reid can we have order, please. The presiding officer the senate will be in order. The senate will be in order. Mr. Reid would the presiding officer tell me the pending business. The presiding officer the be motion to proceed to calendar number 297, s. 1950. Mr. Reid madam president , did we move to reconsider and lay on the table the preceding announcement of the vote . The presiding officer we did not. Mr. Reid i would do so. The presiding officer without objection. Mr. Reid now, the motion to proceed to calendar number 297 is the pending business; is that right . The presiding officer the majority leader is correct. Mr. Reid i withdraw my motion to proceed. What is now pending before the senate . The presiding officer s. 1845 which the clerk will report. The clerk motion to proceed to calendar number 265, s. 1845 a bill to provide for the extension of certain Unemployment Benefits and for other purposes. Mr. Reid i ask the pending motion to commit be withdrawn. The presiding officer is there objection . Without objection. Mr. Reid i ask unanimous consent to withdraw the pending amendment number 2631. The presiding officer is there objection . Mr. Mcconnell reserving the right to object. The presiding officer the republican leader. Mr. Mcconnell mr. President , could we have order in the chamber. The presiding officer the senate will be in order. Mr. Mcconnell we have a number of ideas on this side of the aisle to promote Economic Growth and job creation, and we would like the opportunity to offer amendments to implement these ideas. For example, senator paul has an amendment to create Economic Freedom zones to help struggling areas of our country to recover from economic downturn. Senator tim scotts skills act would improve job Training Programs for the very longterm unemployed. His extension is actually designed to help. In addition, senator ayotte, collins, portman and others have been working very hard. Senator coats as well; to come up with a path forward on a meaningful offset that would extend Unemployment Benefits without adding to the deficit. Their ideas have so far been blocked. So id like to ask the majority leader to modify his request to provide for an orderly process for amendments. I ask consent that the pending amendments and motions be withdrawn and that the majority and minority sides be permitted to offer amendments in alternating fashion so that these important ideas can be considered. Mr. Reid reserving the right to object, mr. President. The presiding officer does the majority leader so modify the request . Mr. Reid reserving the right to object. Mr. President , when we last dealt with Unemployment Insurance, i offered a unanimous consent request at that time that would have allowed up to 20 relevant amendments. 20. Mr. President , my friend, the republican leader, is again through a lot of words saying we dont want this and were not going to help you pass it. Theres more than one way to filibuster a bill. Providing for endless number of amendments is one of the ways to kill this bill. Mr. President , what we are going to do here is offer a fully paid for threemonth extension of Unemployment Insurance. Its simple as that. Simple as that. Either thats what the republicans said they wanted, and we agreed to do it. We will not agree to an unlimited number of amendments. I look forward to hearing from our republican colleagues if they have a proposal thats different than this, which is a, again, a different way of saying we dont care about Unemployment Compensation as its now focused, and were not going to support it. In the meantime, i object to an order providing amendments without limit and without any commitment to vote on passage of the bill. The presiding officer objection is heard. Objection is heard. Mr. Reid i move to table the pending amendment number 2631. Mr. Mcconnell and i ask for the yeas and nays. The presiding officer is there a sufficient second . There appears to be. The clerk will call the roll. Vote vote vote the presiding officer are there any senators wishing to change their vote or vote . If not, on the motion to table the ayes are 98, the nays are zero, the motion to table is approved. The majority leader. Mr. Reid on behalf of senator reed of rhode island i have an amendment at the desk. The presiding officer the clerk will report. The clerk the senator from nevada, mr. Reid, for mr. Reed of rhode island, proposes an amendment numbered 2714. Mr. Reid i ask for the yeas and nays on that amendment, mr. President. The presiding officer is there a sufficient second . Appears to be. The yeas and nays are ordered. The clerk will call the roll. Mr. Reid i have a seconddegree amendment at the desk. The presiding officer the clerk will report. The clerk the senator from nevada, mr. Reid, proposes an amendment numbered 2715 to amendment numbered 2714. Mr. Reid i have a cloture motion on the reed amendment id ask be report he. The presiding officer the clerk will report the cloture motion. The clerk cloture motion, we the undersigned senators in accordance with provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate hereby move to bring to a close the debate on the reed of rhode island amendment numbered 2714 to s. 1845, a bill to provide for the extension of certain Unemployment Benefits and for other purposes. Signed by 17 senators as follows reid of nevada, reed of rhode island, gillibrand, whitehouse, schatz, boxer, casey, carper, warren, murray, begich, brown, merkley, king, schumer, nelson, coons. Mr. Reid i have a motion to commit s. 1845 with instructions. The presiding officer the clerk will report. The clerk the senator from nevada, mr. Reid, moves to commit the bill to the committee on finance with instructions to report back being amendment number 2716. Mr. Reid on this, mr. President , i ask for the yeas and nays. The presiding officer is there a sufficient second . There appears to be. Mr. Reid i have an amendment to the instructions at the desk. The presiding officer the clerk will report. The clerk the senator from nevada, mr. Reid, proposes an amendment number 2717 to the instructions of the motion to commit. Mr. Reid i ask for the yeas and nays, mr. President. The presiding officer is there a sufficient second . There appears to be. The yeas and nays are ordered. Mr. Reid i have a seconddegree amendment at the desk. The presiding officer the clerk will report. The clerk the senator from nevada, mr. Reid proposes amendment numbered 2718 to amendment numbered 2717. Mr. Reid i have a cloture motion at the desk. The presiding officer the clerk will report. 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 s. 1845, a bill to provide for the extension of certain Unemployment Benefits and for other purposes, signed by 17 senators. Mr. Reid waived. The presiding officer without objection. Mr. Reid i move to proceed to calendar number 298, s. 1963. The presiding officer the clerk will report. The clerk motion to proceed to calendar number 298, s. 1963, a bill to repeal section 403 of the bipartisan budget act of 2013. Mr. Reid i ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum under rule 22 be waived for the cloture motion just filed and on bette wednesday, february 5 count as an intervening day. The presiding officer is there objection. The presiding officer without objection. Mr. Reid mr. President , let me take just a moment to explain where we are. Over the last few months weve been struggling to try to find a way to help some desperate people in our country. Its hard to find a way to convince our republican colleagues that these people are in desperate situations and joining with us in extending Unemployment Insurance benefits for 1. 6 million of our fellow citizens. Last month we tried to pass a bipartisan bill that would simply extend those benefits on a shortterm basis for three months. All but a few republicans voted against proceeding to that measure. Republicans complained that we had not paid for the extension so we offered then a paid for 11month extension. Every republican voted against cloture on this amendment. Every republican. And all but one republican voted against cloture on the bipartisan threemonth extension. So today were trying yet again. Were offering an amendment that extends excuse me. Benefits for three months and pays for that extension. Not a disputed, controversial extension. And certainly not a controversial payfor. Our alternative includes something senator coburn has been talking about for several months, an amendment to prevent millionaires from getting Unemployment Benefits. Because it has happened. A person won a lottery and was still drawing Unemployment Benefits. So thursday were going to cloat on cloture on that amendment. One thats paid for and would take care of this issue for lots of people. And after that well vote on cloture on the bill as amended if we amend it and in the meantime im happy to continue discussion with senators about setting up votes on relevant amendments. But, mr. President , the Republican Leaders proposal is absolute absurdity. I mean i dont know why they dont come out and say were not going to do this. Were not going to extend Unemployment Benefits. But they have alternating amendments and they want amendments related to i mean its just a george mitchell, who was the democratic leader for a period of time that i served here, a wonderful human being, his statement was dont depend on the republicans. Theyll break your heart every time and thats what theyre doing. Theyre breaking our hearts and the 1. 6 Million People, their hearts are broken. The main proponent of this bill has been jack reed from rhode island. Jack reed and i have a contest, i wish we didnt, and that is which state, rhode island or nevada has the highest unemployment. We care about this greatly. But others care about this. Im sure there are some republicans that care about it but why are they hung up on this foolishness that they can only do it if one time they have alternating amendments, they wouldnt take 20 amendments, mr. President , they are theres a handful of republicans who have tried really hard, worked in good faith with senator reed of rhode island. But the problem is they have no control over the tea party driven republicans that make up most of this republican caucus. Mr. Reed mr. President . The presiding officer the senator from rhode island. Mr. Reed thank you very much, mr. President. We are at a critical moment. It has been 38 days since emergency Unemployment Compensation expired forcing now not 1. 6 million but 1. 7 million americans off an economic cliff. And also draining 2. 2 billion from state economies and these are according to estimates and data from the department of labor and the ways and means committee. So this has had a huge impact on families and a huge impact on the economies throughout this country. And congress should be doing everything it can to focus on creating jobs and improving our economy. Theerk we have an opportunity this week we have an opportunity to do that. Thats why we should vote to renew u. I. And help put more americans back to work and restoring these benefits is an imperative. We must do it. We have to act with a sense of urgency. People are out there every day looking for employment. Theyre doing everything they can to support their families. And themselves. And while this modest level of support helps them stay afloat, what they really want is a job. And so our constituents who are trying so hard and doing what they need to do to provide for themselves and their families are looking to congress to uphold its end of the bargain. Because, frankly, mr. President , many of our constituents are running out of options. The rents coming due, the telephone bill is coming due and without a phone, you cant actively compete for work. Theres no way employers can get a hold of you. College twigs are coming due for middle aged people who are out there looking for jobs. For their children. And some people who are paying their way through college. Theyre being squeezed from all sides, and the expiration of these benefits is hurting not just them but its hurting our economy overall. Time is of the essence. Its been seven weeks since senator heller and i introduced a bipartisan, shortterm plan designed to provide immediate relief. We tried different permutations of extending these benefits with provisions that the other side said they wanted but to this point without success. I must say that i have been found not only senator heller but many of my colleagues on that side both thoughtful and willing to contribute exrfnlt senator collins and senator coats and senator portman and so many others who are sincere in trying to get this done. What we have to do get over this 60vote threshold, at least to provide this immediate relief of three months to our constituents. And, again, the face of this unemployment in this downturn is i think a bit different than in the past. Were hearing and seeing more and more middle aged workers who worked all their lives and for the first time are confronted with unemployment. Theyve sent out runs of resumes, theyve sought job interviews, many times unsuccessfully. They are squeezed because theyre trying to support parents at the same time theyre trying to support children who are in college or young adults who are at home. This is a tremendous toll on people who worked hard all their lives. And theyre simply asking us to step up as weve done consistently in the past and give them some modest support while they search for work. Were a month into 2014, still debating a threemonth fix, at some point, mr. President , well reach the point where the retroactive benefits will be greater than the benefits going forward. Thats not a place we want to be. Not for people who have worked hard. The only way you qualify for Unemployment Insurance is to have worked and then through no fault of your own to be dismissed from your work. And you still have to look for work. Thats the whole program. So its not right. I think we have to move forward and weve done this on a bipartisan basis three times under president ronald reagan, five times under george w. Bush with overwhelming majorities on a bipartisan basis. No question. And many times, in fact, in most times they were completely unpaid for. It was emergency spending. Not only because people needed the money, but its a great form of economic support to our economy. The c. B. O. Estimates that if we fail to extend for the full year these benefits, we will lose another 120,000 jobs at a time when our First Priority should be to put more jobs in the marketplace. Now, we have a plan today that is short term, its three months retroactive back to december 8, its fully paid 28, its fully paid by pension smoothing for four more years. In addition to paying for these benefits, it will reduce the deficit by 1. 2 billion over ten years. So we have a mechanism that not only helps people but also goes to the issue of the deficit which is another pressing concern particularly for my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. And this offset has been used several times before. It passed 7919 as part of the 2012 map21 transportation bill. So this is a noncontroversial payfor, its been used before, it has been proposed by members on sides of the both sie aisle for various proposals requiring payfors. So we have an urgent need, a very shortterm focus, and a noncontroversial payfor, and i would urge my colleagues, lets support this. Lets move this. If theres work to be done on the architecture of Unemployment Insurance, if there are other collateral issues or issues that are could be thrown into the mix, lets get this done and then lets focus on those issues. The language also incorporated in this bill, a measure senator coburn has proposed that would bar millionaires, individuals making over a Million Dollars from qualifying for Unemployment Insurance. This has been unanimously supported 1000 in this chamber so we thought we would go ahead and put that in as an additional measure that would be embraced by everyone in the chamber. This is an issue that has huge smart among the american public. There is a fox news poll that says over twothirds of americans support and Want Congress to act now to renew u. I. For their neighbors. Let me thank again my colleagues on the other side who have worked very sin seerld and very diligently sin seerl sincerey diligently to come up with a solution. My concern is helping those constituents who are getting increasingly desperate. We share this. Now what we have to do is find a pathway forward. I hope because of the shortterm nature of this bill, because of the noncontroversial payfor, that we can get this done and then i think we can embark on a much more expansive review and a much more expansive set of issues with respect to u. I. And other issues that come before this chamber. It is time i think to vote, to vote yea to get this michigan t measure passed. With that, i would yield the floor. Ms. Ayotte mr. President . The presiding officer the senator from new hampshire. Ms. Ayotte thank you, mr. President. I come to the floor today to talk about the attack on our consulate on september 11 of 2012. I am here to talk about the fact that four brave americans were murdered that day by an act of terrorism, and one of them was our ambassador to libya. When those four americans were killed in benghazi at our consulate. And i want to talk about really what i was what i believe is a pattern of misinformation, misimpressions, and, frankly, misleading the American People about what happened there and during an election season what was represented about the attack on our consulate on september 11. Let me walk through some of the situation and the tangled web that was really weaved here. First of all, right after this attack that occurred, we know that on september 16, ambassador susan rice appeared on behalf of the administration on every major sunday television show, and during that time people rightly wanted to know what happened. This was a big deal. An ambassador had been murdered, three other americans in libya, where we had gone in to remove, working with our nato partners, to get rid of qadhafi and really had established alliances with libya. And here we have a murdered ambassador on september 11. And that day ambassador rice during the context of a precedential election, went on every single sunday show. And when she was asked about what happened that day, she blamed this on the spontaneous reaction to a hateful video. Well, recently the Senate Select committee on intelligence did some very good bipartisan work, looking at what happened on the attack of the consulate, and in that report is something very, very telling. In that report, the report found that contrary to many press reports at the time, eyewitness statements by u. S. Personnel indicate that there were no protests at the start of the attacks. In fact, the thenDeputy Director of the could i received an email sent from the c. I. A. s chief of station in tripoli to him on september 15, four days after the attacks occurred, and in that email, the Deputy Director of the c. I. A. , mike m morell, were told that the attacks were not an escalation of protests. Not an escalation of protests. Why is that important . It is important for many reasons because what ends up happening during this period is that ambassador rice is going on the sunday shows to talk about this. Shes designated to do this on behalf of the administration, and weve always wondered why why did she go on as opposed to secretary of state Hillary Cline continue or perhaps secretary of state Hillary Clinton or perhaps. She has said that this was a direct result of a heinous video. Protests that came as a result of this video. Yet the day before the thenDeputy Director of the c. I. A. Had already gotten an email from the people on the ground, eyewitness statements because there were survivors, people who survived this attack that were interviewed to find out like in any situation where youve had a terrorist attack or a murder case, youre going it talk to the eyewitnesses on the ground. And there were eyewitnesses. They were spoken to. As a result of those eyewitness interview, the day before she goes on those sunday shoarks the Deputy Director of the c. I. A. Is told, there was not an escalation of protests, that what has been reported, thats not the case. Yet she went on the show and said that anyway. What is even more troubling is that this information is communicated to the Deputy Director of the c. I. A. And somehow theres talking points prepared that dont reflect this information. Moreover, wref the president ofe president of the United States and somehow this information that was given to the Deputy Director of the c. I. A. , nobody tells the president. I dont know. Or they didnt like the story that they received because during that period of time, if you look at this on september 11, the president gave many media interviews during this period. It was a president ial election. And on september 18, which is seven days after the attacks on the consulate, two days after susan rice went on the sunday shows, the president is on the Dave Letterman show. Weve all watched the comedy, the Dave Letterman show. Ants Dave Letterman asks him about the attacks. And on that show, he blames it on he talks about the video, this video being a cause of the attack on the consulate. Yet on september 15, the thendenytDeputy Director alread some information, this the not an escalation of the protests. There were interviews of survivors on the ground. Yet a week later on the Dave Letterman show, in fact thee days after this information is received by the Deputy Director of the c. I. A. , you have the president talking about the video. But it et goes worse. But it gets worse. Nine days after the attack and in fact so on september 20, the president gives another interview at the univision town hall. This is five days after the Deputy Director of the c. I. A. Is given this information, apparently coming from the survivors. What does the president say . What we do know is that the natural protests that arose because of the outrage over the video were used as an excuse by extremists to see if they can also directly harm u. S. Interests. When hes asked about the attack on our consulate. And so here we have nine days after the attack, five days after this information given to mike morell, the thenDeputy Director of the c. I. A. , and yet we have another interview on the view, another popular sh show, 13 days almost two weeks after the attack on the consulate. And again the president of the United States talks about this being about the individual i did not. About the video and a reaction to the video. And so here we have, i think, the work that was done on this, clear misinformation about what happened that day. And very troubling pattern in the context of an election where on those sunday shows ambassador rice made sure to tell everyone, al qaeda has been decimated because that was the narrative during this time period, that al qaeda has been decimated. And if this is a terrorist attack, thats going to be problematic to that narrative. In fact, recently the president nrvetion w in fact, we hady before the Senate Armed Services committee from thensecretary of defense leon pan net tavment he said there was no question into my mind that it was a terrorist atafnlgt when i appeared before the Armed Services committee three days after this i tol tolu it was a terrorist atafnlgt but secretary panetta toled made clear that he knew it was a terrorist attack. Yet the president , again on september 12, when even though the day of it he said we wont tolerate any act of terror, hes actually asked directly by then the interviewer mr. Croft from 60 minutes, mr. President , this morning you went out of your waytoa i had vo the use of the word you have terrorism in connection with the lib a tafnlg do you believe this was a terrorism attack . The president said, well, it is too early to tell exactly who this came about, what group was involved, but obviously it was it was an attack on americans. Refusing to call it what it was. When his own secretary of secrew that it was a terrorist attack because would you know that the narrative was that al qaeda has been decimated. If it was a terrorist attack, it didnt quite fit with the narrative. In fact, recently, the president gave an interview on fox news with bill oreilly on february 2, and what he said is, when he was asked about the attack on the skull larkts he said, we revealed to the American People exactly what we understood at the time. The notion that we would hide the ball for political purposes when a week later we all said in fact there was a terrorist attack taking place the day after i said it was an act of terror, that wouldnt be a very good coverup. Well, i guess the president when he told mr. Oreilly this, that he forgot about the interview that he gave. In fact on the view, which was almost two weeks after this event, 13 days after it, obama t two weeks later when in fact he was asked about ms. Behar, i heard Hillary Clinton say it was an act of terrorism. Is it . What do you snai well, he says, were still doing an investigation. Theres no doubt that the kind of weapons that were used, the ongoing assault, that it wasnt just a mob action. This is in the context where of course his secretary of defense said he knew right away it was an act of terrorism. He came to the Armed Services committee three days afterward and said it was an act of terrorism and again within a week he isnt saying it is an act of terrorism when he is directly asked, was it an act of terrorism . Now, in this recent interview with mr. Oreilly, the president talked about the security at the consulate. In fact, there was a strong report recently done by the Senate Intel Committee on a bipartisan basis. In fact one of the issues that they raised deep concerns about it is that the state department should have increased its Security Posture more significantly in benghazi, based upon a deteriorating security situation on the ground and that the threat reporting on the prior attacks against westerners in benghazi, there were many cables leading up to this thereaftethat havebeen made pubd that there was sufficient warning that the security should have been increased at the consulate and the president acknowledged that in his recent interview with mr. Oreilly, where he said in the aftermath what became clear was that the security was lax, that not all the precautions that needed to be taken were taken. Thats certainly confirmed by the bipartisan Senate Intel Committee. If thats the case, yes is it that ambassador susan rice was on the sunday shows on september 16 where she said on the shows to talk about what happened that day. And she is directly asked by Chris Wallace in an interview, he says, terror cells in benghazi had carried out five attacks since april, including a bombing at the same consulate in june. Should u. S. Security have been tighter on that consulate given the history of terror activity in ben gas dismi whats her response . Well, we obviously did have a Strong Security presence. But not only that. On other interviews she gave that day she was on several shows. Abc with george stephanopoulos. She was on face the nation with bob schieffer. She was asked about the security at the consolate
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.