[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 25 (Thursday, February 25, 2010)]
[Senate]
[Pages S776-S792]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST--H.R. 4691
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 4691, a 30-day extension
of provisions which expire on Sunday, February 28--unemployment
insurance, COBRA, flood insurance, Satellite Home Viewer Act, highway
funding, SBA business loans and small business provisions of the
American Recovery Act, SGR and poverty guidelines--received from the
House and at the desk; that the bill be read three times, passed, and
the motion to reconsider be made and laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. BUNNING. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, the Senator has objected to extending
unemployment benefits across the United States of America which will
expire on Sunday night. He has also objected to extending COBRA
benefits, which is health insurance for the unemployed people across
America. This has been done regularly, now that we are in this
recession, because millions of Americans are out of work. We know there
are four or five, maybe even six people for every available job. Folks
have depleted their savings, they run the risk of losing their homes,
they are trying to keep their children in school, they are trying to
provide the necessities of life, and the Senator from Kentucky objects
to their having unemployment benefit checks.
What does it mean to me? Well, in the State of Illinois, it means
that as of Sunday night, 15,000 people in my State will stop receiving
unemployment benefits because of the objection of the Senator from
Kentucky. It means that every week thereafter another 15,000 will lose
their unemployment benefits. It is a harsh reality that many of these
families have been looking for work for a long time.
The Senator has also objected to providing assistance to small
business. The request I made would extend, for 30 days, provisions of
the Small Business Act and the Recovery Act lending programs for small
businesses. So what the Senator from Kentucky is doing, as of Sunday
night, is shutting down the availability of credit for small businesses
across America through this Small Business Administration program. In
the midst of a recession, when we are told small businesses are the
engine that will bring us out of this recession, when they are
desperate for credit to keep their doors open, families who have spent
a lifetime building a small business are going to be denied an
opportunity to borrow money through the Small Business Administration
because of the objection of the Senator from Kentucky.
Let me say a word about COBRA. One of the first casualties of
unemployment is health insurance. Sadly, many of these people are in a
position where they do not qualify for Medicaid--health insurance for
the poorest people. So they find themselves without health insurance
for the first time because they are unemployed. We said, under
President Obama's Recovery Act, we are going to help you pay for those
premiums so you can continue to have health insurance for your family.
That expires Sunday night too. The objection of the Senator from
Kentucky means thousands of people across America will lose their
health insurance. Because of his objection, they will lose it on Sunday
night.
Workers who lose their jobs count on COBRA. And COBRA, frankly, is
expensive. On average, COBRA coverage consumes 84 percent of
unemployment benefits. It is not cheap. The average monthly
unemployment benefit in Illinois is just over $1,300. The average
monthly family COBRA premium is over $1,100. Through the Recovery Act,
we said we would pick up 65 percent of that. Well, because of the
objection of the Senator from Kentucky, if these people want to
maintain their health insurance through unemployment, they are
basically going to have to turn to savings or give it up.
Why? Why would we want to heap this kind of suffering on people who
are already going through such misfortune? It isn't just Illinois that
suffers, it is virtually every State. As of December, there were
221,000 people in Kentucky unemployed--10.7 percent of the Kentucky
workforce--63,000 people in Louisville, 18,000 people in Lexington,
6,000 in Bowling Green, 5,500 in Elizabethtown, 5,000 in Owensboro. As
they are desperately looking for work, many of these people are just
getting by on unemployment checks. They are just trying to get by.
Last month, the State of Kentucky had the sharpest increase in
unemployment claims in the country--in the entire United States--with
2,510 more claims than the month prior due to the automobile industry
and manufacturing job cuts. Unfortunately, many of these people will
lose their unemployment benefits in Kentucky because of the objection
of their Senator. If Senator Bunning has his way, more than 14,000
Kentucky residents will lose their unemployment assistance in March and
60,000 by the end of June.
Why? Why are we doing this to these families in Kentucky and Illinois
and every State? Everyone acknowledges there is only one objection.
Everyone in this Chamber acknowledges we are a caring and compassionate
country, and we will, on an emergency basis, extend a helping hand to
those who have lost their jobs.
Most Senators have left for the evening, but some have stayed on the
floor. I have asked them if they would like to say a word on this
issue. They are going to go home and tell their people back home there
are going to be some terrible things happening as of Sunday night
because of the objection of the Senator from Kentucky: 15,000 in my
State, thousands in his own State and all across the country.
I am staying tonight to talk about this because, frankly, I don't
think this ought to be business as usual. I don't think one Senator
ought to be able to heap this kind of suffering and misfortune on
people who are already struggling in this economy. If you wish to take
it out on somebody, take it out on a colleague or a debate, but these
are helpless people out of work.
Senator Reid offered to the Senator from Kentucky an amendment--bring
to the floor your theory on how to pay for this. He has a theory. He
wants to pay for it with unexpended stimulus funds, as I understand
it. He would have had his chance on the floor to make his case. He
would have had a rollcall at the end of the day. He might have won, he
might have lost, but he came to the floor yesterday and said I am not
going to fall for that. I may lose this amendment and therefore I am
going to object.
That is the nature of things. It is like when you pitch a ball game.
Sometimes you win and sometimes you lose. On the floor, sometimes you
win----
Mr. BUNNING. Do you know about that?
Mr. DURBIN. I have never pitched a ball game. I never have. I am very
proud of what you have done in your baseball career. But let me tell
you, this is a wild pitch you are throwing tonight because this is a
pitch that is hitting somebody in the stands, it is hitting an
unemployed worker in Illinois. That is a wild pitch that should not
have been thrown, Senator.
I believe when you look at what this is going to do across America,
this is unforgivable that we would do this to these unemployed people.
For the Senator from Michigan, I yield for the purpose of a question.
Ms. STABENOW. I appreciate the Senator from Illinois, my friend, in
his comments. I guess my question would relate to the State of Michigan
because the Senator listed off some very important statistics. I wonder
if the Senator is aware that in March, 62,000 people in the great State
of Michigan, where we have the highest unemployment rate--we have a
14.6-percent unemployment rate, over 700,000 people right now
unemployed, looking for work. These are people trying to keep a roof
over their head, trying to keep food on their table, they are trying to
hold things together as they are looking for a job. Yet we have 62,000
great people from Michigan who are going to lose their benefits in
March. In fact, if this continues--and I know all of us are working
very hard to get a year extension of
[[Page S777]]
unemployment benefits. But I am wondering if my friend is aware that by
May, 225,000 people in Michigan will be out of their benefits. These
are people who are looking for work. We know for every one job
available there are six people right now who are fighting to get that
job. We have a jobs agenda. We are working very hard to make sure there
are more jobs and partnering within the private sector.
But in the meantime, I am wondering if my friend would agree with the
fact that this is a disaster, in fact. This is as much a disaster for
families as anything else. We do emergency spending for floods and
hurricanes and all kinds of disasters. For families, would my friend
agree, this is as much of a disaster and warrants as much immediate
attention as anything else we do?
Mr. DURBIN. I would say to the Senator from Michigan, this has been
characterized as an emergency because it is an emergency. It has been
acknowledged by the Budget Committee. It will be treated as an
emergency spending situation. It is an extraordinary situation, just
like a drought or flood or hurricane or tornado. These people have had
their lives disrupted. We are trying to keep these families together.
If there is ever a family value issue, this is it.
At this point I would like, on behalf of the people of Michigan and
Illinois and Kentucky, Mr. President, to ask unanimous consent that the
Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 4691, a 30-day
extension of provisions which expire on Sunday, February 28,
unemployment insurance, COBRA, flood insurance, Satellite Home Viewer
Act, highway funding, SBA, business loans and small business provisions
of the American Recovery Act, SGR, and poverty guidelines received from
the House and at the desk; that the bill be read three times, passed,
and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. BUNNING. The Senator from Kentucky objects.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Rhode Island
for purposes of a question.
Mr. REED. I am wondering if the Senator can confirm that we have
routinely extended unemployment benefits over many decades, over both
Republican and Democratic Presidents and Republican and Democratic
Congresses, and we have always done it when the unemployment rate was
at least above 7.4 percent. I think the lowest unemployment rate in
which we suspended unemployment, extending benefits, was 7.4 percent. I
say that because in Rhode Island we are up to 12.9 percent and there
are other States that are equally disadvantaged.
This not only sort of upsets what I think is the logical way to
proceed on this tonight, but it rejects decades and decades of the
common sense and common decency of the Congress.
I think and I hope you can confirm that understanding.
Mr. DURBIN. I say to the Senator from Rhode Island he is correct. In
these extraordinary times when people have lost so many jobs, we set
politics aside and we say we are going to help these people, whether it
is victims of an economic disaster or a natural disaster. I cannot
imagine if I were going home to Rhode Island, facing 12.9 percent. It
is 11.1 in my home State of Illinois. You have a larger percentage of
your population going through this. I am sure you have examples of
friends, of folks who have already contacted your office who are at
their wits end to figure out how to keep their families together.
I have seen it. I went to the unemployment offices in Chicago. I hope
the Senator from Kentucky has visited with unemployed families in his
State and understands how desperate they are. These are people who will
do anything to get a job. They will do anything to get an interview.
They are trying desperately. Some of them are taking training
courses, trying to figure out anything that might work to get a job.
They are really up against it when it comes to health insurance. It
is one of the first casualties. This objection by the Senator from
Kentucky will make it next to impossible for these families to have
health insurance as a result of his objection.
I don't understand why we would do this. We are a caring people. On a
bipartisan basis we step up as an American family when people are in
need. I would not ask twice if someone came to me with a disaster in
another State, because I know I have needed help in my own State. This
is a real disaster. It is one that has affected virtually every State.
When you take a look at some of the provisions in this bill--
incidentally, beyond unemployment--some people, particularly those
living in rural areas, are affected by this Satellite Home Viewer Act
which will not be extended because of the Senator's objection. It is a
minor inconvenience for some, maybe more of an inconvenience for
others. But why would we do this? Why would we object to the extension
of these basic provisions in the law for 30 days? That is all we are
asking for. I would think that is very basic and something we should be
doing.
I also think the idea of helping the doctors who are treating
Medicare patients is not an unreasonable thing to do. These are people
who are taking care of the elderly in America, our parents and
grandparents. This so-called SGR, the sustainable growth rate, or doc
fix, is also one of the provisions which the Senator from Kentucky is
objecting to.
It doesn't make sense. We want to make sure patients across America
receive the care they are entitled to, that Medicare patients can go
visit their doctors and doctors can receive adequate compensation for
doing that. I do not think that is an unreasonable thing for us to ask
and I hope my colleagues who are on the floor here, if they have
similar situations in their own State with unemployment, or if they are
dealing with small businesses needing credit, would join me in this
conversation on the floor about how unfair it is to be objecting to
this extension of unemployment benefits.
I yield to the Senator from Missouri for purposes of a question.
Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, I am not prepared with some of the
questions I would like to ask because, frankly, I am surprised. I would
like to be able to ask you and compare the numbers in Missouri, the
number of families who are going to find out tomorrow morning that even
though we have appropriately extended unemployment benefits, that now
we are not going to. I think they are going to be as surprised as I am.
It is easy to get out of touch in this place. People are deferential to
you around here. They open doors for you and bow and scrape. It is easy
to forget what people are going through, what families are feeling
right now, how hard it is for them to look to the future and still see
that American dream on the horizon.
Really, 30 days of unemployment? Really? Have we gotten to that? Have
we gotten to the point that that is going to be a political football? I
think we have to take a hard look in the mirror, if it comes to this--
30 days of unemployment insurance for families who want to work, who
deserve to work, who are trying to work.
By the way, let me ask the Senator from Illinois, if the unemployment
runs out, where do those families go? What happens then? Where do they
go?
Mr. DURBIN. I would say to the Senator from Missouri that for many
people there is almost no place to turn. In my hometown of Springfield,
IL, there is something called township assistance, when you have no
place to turn. It is a fraction of the money you would receive for
unemployment. It would barely provide money for food for these people.
Mrs. McCASKILL. I am assuming if they get to the point, then it is
food stamps, right?
Mr. DURBIN. That is correct.
Mrs. McCASKILL. There is other governmental assistance that is
available to them. Maybe they will have to lose their homes. They would
have to go to homeless shelters.
What I am trying to get at is there is a cost to this. It is not like
all of a sudden the government is not going to get any cost if these
people stop getting unemployment insurance. If they lose their health
insurance, it is not as though they are going to not get treated in the
emergency room if they get hit by a car on Monday. We are going to take
care of them in the emergency room. We are all going to pay for it.
[[Page S778]]
This is wrong. I hope the Senator sticks around and renews this
motion for a while. I hope some of us stick around and help.
The American people need to realize how out of touch this place has
gotten.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, on behalf of unemployed people in Kentucky
and Rhode Island and Michigan and Illinois and Missouri, I ask
unanimous consent the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of
H.R. 4691, a 30-day extension of provisions which expire on Sunday,
February 28; unemployment insurance, COBRA, flood insurance, Satellite
Home Viewer Act, highway funding, SBA business loans and small business
loans and small business provisions of the American Recovery Act, SGR,
and poverty guidelines received from the House and at the desk; that
the bill be read three times, passed, and that the motion to reconsider
be laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. BUNNING. Reserving the right to object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator reserves the right to object.
Mr. BUNNING. It seems to me people have not been listening,
particularly the Senator from Illinois. He has been through two of
these with the leader. He heard the arguments on both sides.
Unfortunately, he has a one-side-only view of this situation. I have
offered the same COBRA, flood insurance, unemployment insurance,
Satellite Home Viewing Act, highway funding, SBA loans, small business
provisions--I have offered to do the same thing for the same amount of
time. The only difference I have, and some of my good friends from the
other side of the aisle, is that I believe we should pay for it. There
is a right over the last 3 years of the Democratically controlled
Congress. We have run up $5 trillion in debt. There has to be a time to
stop that.
We just passed, last week, pay-as-you-go. The first bill up--and I
have said this before earlier--was the small business bill that just
passed. Now, $5 billion out of that bill was paid for; $10 billion was
not.
This is the second request after we passed the small business bill
that the leader proposed. This also adds $10 billion to the deficit.
That is $20 billion in two small bills.
What I have proposed is that we pay for it. My gosh, we have over
$400 billion in unspent stimulus money. I also worked, or tried to
work, with the leader and his staff. I know he was busy at the White
House, but I tried very hard to work with his staff to get other pay-
fors and cut the time down to 2 weeks to make sure these people were
taken care of.
I did not get any support from my good friends on the Democratic side
of the aisle. I did not think it was fair to do what you are proposing
to do, the Senator from Illinois. I will be here as long as you are
here and as long as all of those other Senators are here. I am going to
object every time because you will not pay for this and you propose
never to pay for it.
Eventually, by Tuesday, when we do have another vote, you will get a
vote, and you will get this done. So I am trying to make a point to the
people of the United States of America: We have a debt of $14-plus
trillion. I listened to the head of the Federal Reserve speaking to me
in the Banking Committee today, and he looked straight at me and said
the debt and the proposed budget of the Obama administration makes the
debt unsustainable. We cannot sustain it.
I have a family of nine children and 40 grandchildren. I am as
concerned as all of those good Senators sitting over there to pay for
this and make sure we give these benefits to those people. But that is
not the case. So it is their way or the highway, and I am not taking
the highway.
Mr. DURBIN. Regular order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. BUNNING. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. DURBIN. I wanted to give the Senator from Kentucky an opportunity
to explain his position. I did not assert regular order until he had an
opportunity to do so. But I would like to remind him, on November 4 of
last year, he issued a press release entitled, ``Bunning Supports
Extension of Benefits for Kentucky's Unemployed.'' The legislation
includes Senator Bunning's net operating loss amendment. It passed by a
vote of 98 to 0. And he said:
Kentucky has been hit hard by the current economic
downturn. This legislation will lend a helping hand to
working families across the Commonwealth who are in search of
a job.
It was not paid for either. The point is, we are in the same
recession. It has gotten worse in some areas of the country,
particularly in the Senator's area of the country.
As I reported earlier, unemployment figures are growing in Kentucky.
The situation is just as dire and just as serious.
I share the Senator's concern about our deficit situation. But
virtually every reputable economist you will talk to will tell you, in
the midst of a recession you need to insert into the economy economic
activity and spending, and the money that flows through the fastest is
unemployed benefits to those out of work because they spend it
instantly. It goes right back into the economy.
This idea of somehow we are going to hold back on unemployment
benefits and balance the budget on the backs of unemployed people in
Illinois and Kentucky, you could not pick a worse strategy or a worse
time to do it. The stories coming out of Kentucky and the stories
coming out from Illinois are as graphic as can be.
Samantha, who lives in Kentucky, writes: I am in desperate need of
help. I have been unemployed since January 31, 2007, cannot find work
anywhere. I was laid off after 10 years of employment. I was able to
get 26 weeks of UI benefits. After these ran out, I thought I needed to
take whatever job I could find. I took a job that I was told would be
full time at minimum wage. I never got more than 20 hours a week. When
I asked my employer, I was told I would get more hours. I was forced to
quit due to not being able to afford childcare and transportation. I
still cannot find work. I have been forced to sign up for government
assistance. This is not enough to live on. I have three children.
Talk about 40 grandchildren. This lady has three children she is
trying to support--``and we have already lost our home. Is there
anything I can do to try and qualify for unemployment?''
I mean, for goodness' sakes, why would we want to make this deficit
battle on the back of Samantha from Kentucky. Let's have this battle
out on the budget resolution. Let's have it out on appropriations
bills. But on unemployment benefits, for someone in this circumstance?
That, to me, is pushing it too far. This is a national emergency. It
should be treated as such.
I am supportive of the commission we voted for and only had 53 votes.
But I believe it is a step in the right direction toward resolving our
deficit difficulties. The majority leader has appointed me as a member
of the Presidential Commission on the Deficit and Debt. It is not an
easy assignment. I take it seriously. But I will tell you, if the
belief is that we can somehow deny enough unemployment benefits to
people to balance the budget, I do not want to see what America will
look like. I cannot imagine what it will look like with Samantha and
her three children if that becomes our national strategy.
Ms. STABENOW. Will the Senator yield for a question? I want to ask a
question. Would the Senator from Illinois agree that we make choices
here every day about what, in fact, we are going to do? And there is no
question that the deficit is a huge issue. But I, along with you, have
a reaction this evening listening to my friend from Kentucky, who is my
friend. We have worked together on a number of different issues.
But to hear that somehow, when there has not been a concern about
rising deficits when we were talking about tax benefits for the
wealthiest Americans that did not have to be paid for, but now we are
talking about those who find themselves, through no fault of their own,
without a job, who are trying to hold it together in one of the worst
economies certainly of my lifetime, and that somehow we are now--now--
going to worry about balancing the budget and the deficit on the backs
of the least of our brothers--I mean, that is really what is being
talked about tonight. I find it outrageous that we would be having this
kind of discussion.
[[Page S779]]
Would my friend agree that, in fact, there are other choices? In
fact, when we have the debate about extending the tax cuts to the
wealthiest Americans, I want to hear the same debate and the same
objection coming as is coming to people right now who are trying to
hold it together for $200 or $300 a week and keep food on their table
for their families.
Would my colleague agree?
Mr. DURBIN. I agree with the Senator from Michigan. I will tell you
that because the Senator from Kentucky has noted our current national
debt, $14 trillion, I think it is worth a moment to explain that debt
and how we reached that astronomic figure.
When President George W. Bush became President of the United States,
we had a national debt of $5 trillion, and we handed him a surplus--as
President Clinton left office, he gave to President George W. Bush a
surplus. At the end of the George W. Bush Presidency 8 years later, we
were knocking on the door of $12 trillion in debt. We had more than
doubled the national debt in 8 years.
How did that happen? Some of it came from circumstances beyond
President Bush's control. 9/11 devastated the economy, and that
devastation cost us dearly in terms of jobs and services and businesses
and revenue lost.
But conscious decisions were made by the George W. Bush
administration to enact tax cuts in the midst of a war. That has never
happened before in the history of the United States. It is
counterintuitive. In addition to your ordinary budget of your country,
you have a war budget on top of it. When you desperately need revenue
to pay for that war and the ordinary expenses of your government, this
administration, the previous administration under George W. Bush said:
Let's give tax cuts to the wealthiest people in the midst of those two
wars. They were voted on by the other side of the aisle, who supported
the idea, driving us deeper in debt as a nation. And, of course, we
waged the wars under President Bush without paying for them. That, too,
added to our national debt.
Another $400 billion was added to the debt with the Medicare
prescription drug program, which was not paid for. So when this
President came to office, he inherited not only a recession, but $12
trillion in national debt brought on by the previous administration.
The recession has taken and added another $1 trillion to that debt in
this last year, and we are trying to claw our way out of it.
Now, that is the reality and the history of how we reached this point
of $14 trillion in debt. To suggest it is the Democratic side of the
aisle that does not take the deficit seriously, I would say, we
produced a surplus under President Clinton, a surplus that was handed
to President George W. Bush and quickly mushroomed into the biggest
debt in the history of the United States of America.
Mr. SESSIONS. Would the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. DURBIN. I would be happy to yield for a question.
Mr. SESSIONS. The Senator from Illinois is very eloquent in his
advocacy. But I think he is avoiding the question posed by Senator
Bunning, who simply says he is prepared tonight to fund the programs
that you wish, to have them go forward.
As I understand it, is it not true he said that if you take this $10
billion, I think it is, that is required to fund this program, and you
fund it out of the $400 billion unspent from the stimulus--a large part
of it was supposed to be for this very purpose--that he would let the
bill go tonight; that what he objects to is not doing that, and which,
in effect, means--does it mean that the debt will be increased again
tonight by another $10 billion.
Mr. DURBIN. In response to the Senator from Alabama, there is one
element that he has forgotten to include; that is, the majority leader,
Senator Reid, offered to the Senator from Kentucky a vote, an up-or-
down vote, as to whether these unemployment benefits and COBRA benefits
would be paid for out of stimulus funds. He rejected it. He said: I do
not want to agree to that because I may lose the vote. And he may.
The Senator from Kentucky would not agree to a vote on that question.
He said: I may lose it. Well, he may. He may win it. But the fact is,
he would not agree to a vote. He said: You have to put in this
unanimous consent request a provision that says this would be paid for.
Now, I would say to the Senator from Alabama, I understand that the
remaining stimulus funds, most of which are already committed and
obligated, will be spent this year on projects in Alabama, Illinois,
and Kentucky to create jobs. So the money we take out of that stimulus
fund now unspent is money that will not be spent to create jobs across
America.
Now that, to me, would be a misfortune because we want to create
jobs. I will concede to you this money for unemployment will add to the
deficit, as previous emergency spending for unemployment has as well.
What we are asking for tonight has been the ordinary care of business,
which the Senator from Kentucky has supported as recently as November.
Mr. SESSIONS. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. DURBIN. I yield only for the purposes of a question.
Mr. SESSIONS. We are well aware that the Democrats have a sizable
majority in this body, and if the Democratic leadership, including
yourself, is committed to not paying for this and taking care of this
appropriation by borrowing additional money from the world on which we
pay interest, then it is likely to be a futile act to have this vote.
He is asking you to step to the plate, as I understand it, is he not,
and say: Join with me and let's pay for it, either through the stimulus
or some other way, and let's not keep adding debt because that is what
the American people are asking. And I ask you, are you not hearing that
from your constituents?
Mr. DURBIN. I am hearing from my constituents that they want jobs.
They are out of work. Many of them are unemployed. And I would say to
the Senator from Alabama, we may have 59 votes, but you know as well as
I do that 60 votes is the coin of the realm in this body.
You also know that with very little parliamentary effort, you can
drag out this whole question through motions to proceed and cloture and
filibusters. It can go on literally for days if not weeks.
I ask the Senator from Alabama, why would we do that in a situation
where these people desperately need help for unemployment assistance
and for health insurance? Why do we want to heap this misery on them?
We said to the Senator from Kentucky: You can have a vote. You may
win. You may lose. You will have your day on the floor of the Senate.
He said: No. Unless you accept my way, go to the highway. Did I hear
that earlier? As far as I am concerned, that is not a reasonable
approach.
I have called up amendments on the floor and lost them. But the point
is, you make your best case, and the Senate decides whether to support
your position.
Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Senator from Illinois for allowing me to
ask those questions. I think the Senator from Kentucky is speaking on
behalf of the conscience of a lot of Americans, a majority of
Americans, if they heard this debate. He is doing it as a matter of
principle. I know he has no desire to see people not receive
unemployment compensation. He is willing to support that. He simply is
saying that enough is enough.
Mr. BUNNING. I have a question for the Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. I yield for a question.
Mr. BUNNING. The press release you read from was about an
unemployment insurance extension that was fully paid for. So don't
compare apples to oranges.
Mr. DURBIN. I will verify that. I was given information it was not.
If I am incorrect, I will state so. But we have extended unemployment
benefits repeatedly and not paid for them.
Mr. BUNNING. I understand that. I have voted for that occasionally.
But this one you read from was fully paid for.
Mr. DURBIN. I will check on that. If the Senator is correct, I will
make that point in the record.
I would like to notify the Senator from Kentucky about Joetta from
Ferguson, who wrote:
I have been laid off since October 31, 2008. When I was
laid off, I lost my health insurance coverage. The COBRA plan
offered cost so much, I could not keep the insurance. I
[[Page S780]]
was told if business picks up in the spring, I could get
called back to work. However, since I was laid off from the
concrete company, there have been two other office personnel
laid off this past January, so I doubt I will be called back
to work. I am 58 years old. I have a high school education. I
am finding it extremely difficult to find a job, even though
I apply for work and am registered with the local
unemployment office. I am not one to seek after handouts.
However, I have worked all my adult life and have paid taxes
as most everyone else has. And I do not expect favors from
anyone. I am completely down and out and can hardly pay
bills, buy food, et cetera, let alone medical expenses. My
husband has insurance through his employment but the cost to
add me onto his plan is so high, we simply cannot afford it.
Also, he makes $10 per hour, so it isn't as if we have an
abundance of money to live on. And I am a very economic
person.
It is hard to imagine why we would say no to unemployment benefits
for Joetta from Ferguson under the circumstances. If we want to fight
this budget and deficit battle, why would we hurt her in the crossfire
of the conversation? Why wouldn't we extend these unemployment benefits
for her and thousands like her in Illinois and Kentucky and other
States?
Mr. MERKLEY. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. DURBIN. I am happy to yield to the Senator from Oregon.
Mr. MERKLEY. First, I would like to know, as we stand here tonight,
have we paid for the tax cuts handed out to the wealthiest Americans?
Mr. DURBIN. If you are talking about the tax cuts under President
George W. Bush, no.
Mr. MERKLEY. I am a new Senator. I have been here just over a year.
But I don't recall, in January of 2009 when I arrived, that any Member
stood up and said: I am going to hold up everything right now until we
pay for the tax cuts for the wealthiest. Did that happen in January?
Did I miss that?
Mr. DURBIN. No, it did not happen. I don't think it has ever
happened. It is an indication that when it comes to giving relief to
those who are in a pretty luxurious state, we don't pay for it.
Mr. MERKLEY. It sounds as if the Senator shares my memory, because I
don't remember it in January 2009. I don't remember it in February
2009. I don't remember it in March 2009. I don't remember it in April,
May, June, July, August, September, October, November, December, or
January of this year or this month.
I am confused. I am confused that the principle has been put forward
tonight that there is a reason to hold up a program that hasn't been
paid for. Even if we haven't been here late into the evening having a
discussion about paying for the tax cuts, are there Members of this
body who have held up affairs over the last 14 months, saying it is
time to take care of paying for the tax cuts for the wealthiest
Americans?
Mr. DURBIN. No. As a matter of fact, there are some who are trying to
extend estate tax benefits to even the wealthiest of the wealthy and to
give them additional assistance and argue that tax cuts should not be
paid for.
Mr. MERKLEY. So the principle being presented tonight is that if you
are fortunate to be among the wealthiest Americans, we will give you
additional benefits and it doesn't matter if we pay for them. But if
you are among the most unfortunate Americans who have lost their jobs--
and when you lose your job, you might well have lost your health care
that went with your job--if you are struggling, then it matters that it
is paid for immediately.
Mr. DURBIN. I agree with the Senator. It is a double standard, and it
is one that benefits those who are wealthy as opposed to those who are
out of work.
Mr. MERKLEY. It is a double standard that bothers me a great deal.
We in this Chamber are fortunate enough to receive a paycheck. But
back home, I have a tremendous number of families, working families in
Oregon who are not going to get a paycheck. I have unemployment in
Crook County of 16.8 percent. I have unemployment in Douglas County of
14.9 percent. In Harney County, it is 15.5 percent. In Deschutes
County, it is 14.5 percent; Jefferson County, 14.1 percent; Lake
County, 12.9 percent; Josephine County, 13.6 percent. These are
counties where more than one in eight people is out of work.
Am I to say to my good citizens back home that if you are among the
most fortunate, we will give you additional benefits, unpaid for, but
if you are down and out, it is just too bad, we are going to hold up
everything and say we are not going to help you?
Mr. DURBIN. That is exactly what has happened with this objection,
this objection to extend unemployment benefits for 30 days. That is all
we are asking for, 30 days.
Mr. MERKLEY. So if I understand right, there is the complete
opportunity to have a debate 30 days from now, but we could have had
the debate tonight because there could have been a vote tonight. It was
offered but turned down. There will be opportunities throughout this
next month, but we are going to cut people off at the worst moment here
because one Senator says: I am happy about unfunded gifts to the most
fortunate, but I am determined not to help people who are down and out.
Mr. DURBIN. I would say to the Senator from Oregon, that is exactly
what has happened. When it came to the tax cuts, they weren't paid for.
They went primarily to the wealthiest people in America. Now
unemployment benefits not paid for are objected to.
Mr. MERKLEY. I am deeply disturbed that one could be so disconnected
from the challenges of working Americans as to have us in the situation
we are in at this moment.
Mr. DURBIN. I would say to the Senator from Oregon, here is a comment
from Sharon, who is also from Kentucky. She writes:
I have worked since the age of 15. I hold two MA degrees
and have worked a full and part-time job for 15 years. I
entered the private sector until my position was eliminated
approximately 14 months ago. Gas prices almost prevented my
seeking employment very far from home. At 55 years of age, I
never thought I would be without health care. I never
considered that I would have difficulty finding a job. By the
way, my spouse was also employed by a company which was
downsized and sold twice within 1 year. He is also
unemployed. We live in Kentucky which is a more rural part of
America. Our state and county typically have a high
unemployment rate as well. Extension of unemployment
insurance would be a lifeline.
That lifeline has been cut off by the objection of the Senator from
Kentucky.
I yield to the Senator from Vermont for purposes of a question.
Mr. SANDERS. I thank the Senator for yielding. We have talked about
the fact that unemployment today and economic suffering is probably
greater than at any time since the Great Depression of the 1930s. But I
wonder if the Senator from Illinois is aware that the problem is not
just high unemployment but long-term unemployment; that, in fact, I
believe we have never seen in modern history a length of time in which
people are unemployed as is currently the case. Would the Senator
concur that what we are looking at now is a modern tragedy in terms of
the length of time people are experiencing unemployment?
Mr. DURBIN. I would agree with the Senator from Vermont. You have to
go back 70 or 80 years to the Great Depression to see this long a
period of unemployment.
Mr. SANDERS. I want to ask another question. My recollection is that
a number of months ago there was a vote here on the floor of the Senate
regarding the repeal of the estate tax. My understanding is that vote
to repeal a significant part of the estate tax would have benefited, as
I recall, the top three-tenths of 1 percent of the population; 99.7
percent of the people would not have benefited. I could be wrong, but
my understanding is that if that legislation, that bill, that amendment
had passed, it would have cost our government about $1 trillion in a
10-year period, $1 trillion in benefits to the top three-tenths of 1
percent.
Can my friend from Illinois remind me as to how many Republicans
voted against giving $1 trillion in tax breaks to the top three-tenths
of 1 percent that was not paid for?
Mr. DURBIN. I would say to the Senator from Vermont, I do not recall,
but I think he might recall. Does he?
Mr. SANDERS. On my suspicion--I won't swear to it--I don't recall
that any Republican did not. I may be wrong on this, but my
recollection is that all Republicans voted to repeal the estate tax,
voted for that legislation. Some Democrats did as well.
But I find it remarkable, picking up on the point the Senator from
Oregon made a moment ago, here we were talking about $1 trillion over a
10-year
[[Page S781]]
period to benefit the top three-tenths of 1 percent. I don't recall
hearing anybody saying: Hey, we have a huge national debt. We can't
afford another trillion dollars. But somehow, when it comes to
desperate people who are hanging on by their fingernails, trying to
keep their families afloat in the most serious economic moment since
the Great Depression of the 1930s, somehow, right now that has to be
paid for. We have to pay for $10 billion, but somehow you don't have to
pay for $1 trillion over a 10-year period. I don't quite understand
that. Maybe my friend from Illinois can elucidate.
Mr. DURBIN. I would say in response, I do not understand it. It is
hard for me to follow the logic that we need to reward those who are
the most comfortable in America and punish those who are suffering.
That is what this objection does. By denying unemployment benefits and
COBRA benefits to those out of work, it literally makes their lives
more difficult. Yet many of the same people have argued that these tax
breaks for the wealthy should be considered as part of our future, even
if they are not paid for. I don't follow the logic behind that position
in any way whatsoever.
Mr. SANDERS. For the record, the sum was $350 billion over 10 years,
not $1 trillion. The trillion would have been the complete repeal of
the estate tax. But nonetheless, $350 billion benefiting the top three-
tenths of 1 percent is a sizable chunk of cash. I am somewhat amazed
that nobody at that point was terribly worried about how that was going
to be paid for.
I thank the Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. I yield to the Senator from Pennsylvania for a question.
Mr. CASEY. I don't know if the Senator has seen this, but this is the
National Employment Law Project, February 2010. One of the columns
highlights the total number of individuals exhausting their
unemployment benefits in the month of March. I don't know if the
Senator from Illinois quoted this number earlier. I don't think he did.
But the total for the month of March in Illinois would be 65,431
people. In my State of Pennsylvania, the total would be not quite that
high but 62,599 people.
That leads me to my second question. I had the opportunity a couple
weeks ago to sit with 8 of the 560,000 people in my State who are out
of work. In Pennsylvania, that 560,000 adds up to 8.9 percent of the
workforce, but it is an incredibly high number--maybe not a record but
very close. Those eight individuals were like every one of the people
in this country who has lost their job, not through anything they did.
Through no fault of their own, they are out of work.
I would ask the Senator from Illinois about what he has seen and
heard from individuals he has sat down with in Illinois who have lost
their jobs and are going to job centers and places such as that to fill
out unemployment forms, fill out job applications. I would ask you
about that.
(Mr. MERKLEY assumed the Chair.)
Mr. DURBIN. I say to the Senator from Pennsylvania, in response to
the question, through the Chair, that I have been to these unemployment
centers in Chicago and downstate, and I am always heartened by the fact
that these people are just not going to give up. They really keep
trying. But you can tell that many of them are beaten down. Some of
them tell me about how many times they now apply on the Internet for
any job openings and they do not even get a response. They consider it
a victory just to get an interview or a response, and they just keep
trying every single day. Meanwhile, they are trying to keep their
families together, and the only lifeline they have is unemployment
insurance checks. It is not a lot of money: $1,100 a month. Imagine
trying to live on it. It is a very meager amount of money, particularly
for someone who is used to a larger paycheck and more comfort in life.
Why would we cut off the $1,100 a month to these people at this moment
in time when the economy is so weak? I do not understand why we would
object to providing unemployment benefits to these people, whether they
are in Pennsylvania or Kentucky or Illinois. In my way of thinking,
many of these folks are in this situation through no fault of their
own, and they are trying their best to turn their lives around and it
is not an easy circumstance for any of them.
Mr. CASEY. The ones I have met in that--they call it a career link, a
job center--of those eight individuals, all but one--but maybe even the
one--of those eight people were in their fifties, sixties, or
seventies. In most instances--probably five out of the eight, maybe six
out of the eight--they had never lost their job before; they had never
had to depend upon unemployment insurance, food stamps, any kind of
help. In fact, one woman said she felt ashamed that she had to apply
for food stamps. She had never had to be that reliant on anything.
Another woman by the name of Debbie said to me: We just want to get
back to work. We don't want to be in this condition. We want to get
back to work. So there was no complaining.
But I want to ask the Senator, as well, you referred earlier to
another part of this discussion, which is that we focus on those who
need this unemployment insurance--and we are talking here just about a
30-day extension; we are not talking about providing this for years or
a long period of time--but the Senator talked about the economic impact
of the spending of these dollars. I do not know if the Senator is
familiar with what Mark Zandi, the economist, talked about. I do not
know if the Senator is familiar with that. Let me just ask the Senator
that.
Mr. DURBIN. I say to the Senator from Pennsylvania, I am aware of
that economist, and I am aware the CBO recently reported that the one
thing we can do to generate more economic activity in our economy that
is better than anything else is unemployment assistance. It is No. 1 on
their list. They talked about tax credits for new jobs in small
businesses, but No. 1 was unemployment assistance. So as we cut back on
unemployment assistance, the economy starts to go into a stall. We are
not putting the money back into the economy; we are pulling it out at a
time when the Federal Reserve is trying to keep interest rates low to
generate more economic activity and move us forward to better
employment. We are pushing against it. We are taking unemployment
assistance out because of the objection of the Senator from Kentucky--
one Senator who has objected. So from the economist viewpoint, we are
doing exactly the opposite of what we should be doing to get this
economy moving again.
Mr. CASEY. Let me add that the reference to the Congressional Budget
Office--that has been the referee or the arbiter of what is used as a
number for health care, what protections are for spending--I heard the
summary of that same report on the House side at a Joint Economic
Committee meeting.
But the reference I made earlier is a very similar analysis made by
Mark Zandi. Mark Zandi is an economist from moodys.com. He happened to
be an adviser to John McCain's Presidential campaign, so he is not some
partisan in this debate. But he said, going back a year ago, when we
were debating the recovery bill--whether to enact it or not--he said
that if you spend $1 on unemployment insurance, you get I think it is
more than $1.60 back, somewhere in the $1.60 to $1.70 range. So this is
not only a question of how we help people who have lost their jobs
through no fault of their own; the secondary benefit here is it can
help people who are out of work and need a stimulated economy, need an
economy that is jump-started by the spending we would provide through
unemployment insurance. So it makes no sense.
As the Senator from Illinois said earlier, there are lots of ways to
make the argument that our friend from Kentucky is making, but this is
not the time or the place, when all we are talking about is a 30-day
extension of unemployment insurance for people who, through no fault of
their own, have lost their jobs. It makes no sense. And as I look at
these numbers in Pennsylvania of 62,599 people losing or will lose, if
he prevails, their unemployment insurance in the month of March, it
makes no sense.
Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator from Pennsylvania.
I yield to the Senator from Alaska for a question.
Mr. BEGICH. I thank the Senator very much.
I have a couple questions in regard to the bill. I will probably have
more later, but, first, remind me and the
[[Page S782]]
people who are watching what the unemployment rate for our country is
today.
Mr. DURBIN. Currently, on a national basis?
Mr. BEGICH. On a national basis.
Mr. DURBIN. I believe it is now just slightly below 10 percent on a
national basis. In my State, it is still over 11 percent.
Mr. BEGICH. In your State, it is 11 percent?
Mr. DURBIN. Yes.
Mr. BEGICH. In my State, it is 9 percent.
I will lay out a couple points. In my State, the 9 percent, which is
one of the highest in years for us, one of the highest numbers ever in
a long time, but when you look at it by region--and I am curious if in
your State it has similar impacts like this--for example, 9 percent is
a lot, no question about it, but in the Aleutians East Borough in
Alaska it is 20.2 percent; in Bethel it is 14.8 percent; in Aleutians
West Borough it is 13.7 percent; in the Northwest Arctic Borough it is
12.89 percent; in Kenai Borough it is 12.3 percent; in Mat-Su it is
10.4 percent. Those are examples. The number is high for our State. It
is one of the highest in many years. But it really does not tell the
whole story.
I ask the Senator, do you have similar circumstances that are
regionally higher than the average for your State?
Mr. DURBIN. I say to the Senator from Alaska that Rockford in the
northern end of my State was as high as 15 percent. You know, it does
not tell the whole story because, as they say, some people get
discouraged when they are out of work and they do not get counted on
these rolls anymore. So the actual unemployment rate is much higher.
These people will not be affected by our action tonight because they
are not in the program, they are not receiving unemployment assistance.
But the actual misery index of people unemployed over a long period of
time is even higher.
Mr. BEGICH. They have given up. They have lost faith.
Mr. DURBIN. They have lost faith and they have stopped trying.
I would say to the Senator from Alaska, when I look at the State of
Kentucky, here is Allen County with 13.9 percent unemployment; Bath
County, 15.7 percent unemployment; Carroll County, 13.8 percent; Clay
County, 13.3 percent unemployment; Cumberland County, 13.4 percent;
Edmonson County, 14.3 percent; Elliott County, 13.0 percent; Estill
County, 12.7 percent; Fleming County, 12.4 percent; Floyd County, 12.3
percent; Fulton County, 14 percent; Gallatin County, 13 percent;
Garrard County, 12 percent; Grant County, 11.2 percent; Graves County,
10.6 percent; Grayson County, 16 percent--one of the highest; Green
County, 12 percent; Hardin County, 10.1 percent; Harlan County, 12.5
percent; Jackson County--this is even higher--17.8 percent.
On this page, as I look through here, the highest in Kentucky appears
to be--I may mispronounce this--Magoffin County, 21.4 percent
unemployment in that one county; Marion County, 11.8 percent. The list
goes on and on. McCreary County, 14.1 percent; Meade County, 14.3
percent; Menifee County, 17.5 percent; Metcalfe County, 14.4 percent;
Morgan County, 15.1 percent; Powell County, 16.9 percent; Trigg County,
16.5 percent; Wolfe County, 15.6 percent.
The Senator from Alaska is right. The average does not tell the
story. There will be pockets in Kentucky and Illinois and Alaska with
much higher unemployment. So when we cut off the benefits because of
the objection from the Senator from Kentucky, as of Sunday night some
of these counties will be hit harder than others. There is no question
about that.
Mr. BEGICH. I will ask if I can read something toward a question. As
you drill down--that is what we are doing here a little bit, and your
answer to my question is what I wanted to ask to make sure I was clear
on that. It is not just the average that we should always be thinking
about, but how do we drill down?
When I got back from my break, I received this e-mail. I am sure you
have similar e-mails. That is going to be my question. What kind of
responses have you gotten from those who are unemployed?
Here is one from my State:
. . . I implore you as your first order of business upon
your return from the snow--
Which I thought was very interesting--
and recess to extend the emergency unemployment benefits
through the end of 2010 that are due to expire on the 28th of
Feb. Thank you.
He was thanking me in advance for something this gentleman believes
we will do because it is right. This gentleman is 46 years old, a
professional in the legal field. He had applied for over 30 different
jobs. He has had two interviews. He is still unable to get a job. He is
Jeff from Eagle River. I will not use his last name. He did not
authorize me to do that. But just reading this letter tells me, why are
we not doing this?
I am a new Member. Like the Senator from Oregon, I have been here a
little over a year. I have the same question he had on, literally, the
$1 trillion that was unfunded, given to the richest of the rich. It has
never been revoked or changed, but it was funded by whom? Not by this
body but on the backs of people like my son who is 7\1/2\ years old,
who will pay for the richest of the rich. I do not call it a tax cut; I
call it a tax scheme. To me, that is outrageous when I think about it.
So I associate my comments with those of the Senator from Oregon. As
a new Member, this is not necessarily new to me, but being here in the
Chamber and watching this process over the last year and a half, this,
to me, seems so simple. These are the people who are hurting the most.
Yet when it comes time to do a small item of a $10 billion extension to
allow them to make sure, come Monday, they know they can provide for
their family, as this gentleman here who is 46 years old--it is just
shocking to me and unbelievable.
I am assuming the Senator from Illinois receives these same kinds of
letters every day from people who are stressed and concerned. And they
are not out there looking for a handout; they are looking at someone in
our position to assist them in this unbelievable recession we are
facing. Is that similar to what the Senator receives?
Mr. DURBIN. It is exactly what I have run into. Here is a letter from
a man from Yorkville, IL, who wrote me:
On bailout after bailout for businesses, my tax dollars
have been used to save companies that should have planned
better in the first place. Now I am unemployed--not because I
made some poor decisions like AIG or Citigroup, but because
in today's economy, the company I worked for folded. . . .
If the Senate cannot reach an agreement . . . to extend
unemployment, myself, my wife, and our two young children
will have nowhere to live other than our car. How about a
bailout for those of us Americans that have worked all our
lives and now cannot get a decent job?
I am begging you to stand up in front of the Senate . . .
and demand that congress work harder for those of us who put
all of you in office. The next time you need our votes,
hopefully the 10% of unemployed Americans will not have had
their cars repossessed so that we may make it to our local
polling places.
Well, he kept a sense of humor in his misfortune. But this is an
example of a man who thought he had a good job and a good future who
now is contemplating living in his car. And now we are saying, because
of the objection of one Senator, that we are not going to provide
unemployment benefits to thousands of people in similar situations as
of Sunday night. Why we are doing this to these poor people at this
moment in time is impossible to explain.
Mr. BEGICH. I thank the Senator. I have other questions, but I know
there are others who are standing to ask questions. But I have a
question on the small business fund and the Medicare component, which
are vitally important to keep our economy moving. I will withhold and
ask those questions in a few minutes.
Mr. DURBIN. I yield to the Senator from Rhode Island for a question.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I thank the Senator. I very much appreciate the
Senator from Illinois yielding for a question. If the Senator would not
mind a series of questions, the first question has to do with, I guess
I would say the sense with which we on this side of the aisle should
receive the protestations of intense concern about the deficit that
come from the other side of the aisle, and it relates back to when the
previous Republican administration first took office.
As the Senator from Illinois mentioned, the last Democratic
administration left an annual budget in surplus and a nation that had a
$5 trillion
[[Page S783]]
debt. But my recollection is that in addition to a nation in annual
budget surplus, what President Clinton also left the Republican
administration that followed was a budget trajectory projected by the
nonpartisan professional Congressional Budget Office to eliminate the
national debt of the United States of America. We would be a debt-free
nation if the Democratic policies of President Clinton had been
followed according to the nonpartisan, professional Congressional
Budget Office. If I additionally recall, there were actually economic
debates that were provoked by that, wondering whether it was actually a
good idea for the Nation to be, for the first time since President
Andrew Jackson, debt free.
So my question is, Is it not true that more than just an annual
budget surplus was left to the Republicans by the Democrats last time,
but what was left to them also was a budget trajectory that would have
made this Nation debt free during President Bush's term had he extended
those Democratic policies?
Mr. DURBIN. The Senator from Rhode Island is correct. The Senator
from Kentucky has talked about the Nation's deficit and debt, and he
should realize that when President Clinton left office in January of
2001, the national budget was in better shape than it had been in a
generation.
In fiscal year 2000, the final year in which President Clinton had
full responsibility for the national budget, our Nation's budget
surplus was $236 billion--budget surplus. That year, the debt held by
the public declined for the third consecutive year. As President
Clinton left office, budget surpluses were projected to continue
throughout the next 10 years. CBO, in its January 2001 budget outlook,
projected surpluses of $5 trillion for 2001 through 2010, including
nearly $800 billion in 2010 alone. Those surpluses were so large, as
the Senator from Rhode Island indicated, that the Congressional Budget
Office told us the debt held by the public would be entirely paid off
by 2006.
Fast forward 8 years, at the end of George W. Bush's Presidency, that
administration, and the national debt had climbed from $5 trillion that
he inherited to more than double that amount.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. The question I was asking is, Is it not fair to
ascribe to that Republican administration and its policies the
responsibility for more than just the difference between $5 trillion
and $12 trillion? Because if those policies hadn't changed, according
to the nonpartisan, neutral, professional Congressional Budget Office,
during the term of President Bush, we would have actually been a debt-
free nation and, therefore, responsibility for the entire Federal debt
that was inherited by President Obama could fairly be said to be the
responsibility of the policies from the other side of the aisle.
Mr. DURBIN. The Senator from Rhode Island is correct.
I don't know how the Senator from Kentucky voted when it came to the
tax cuts for the wealthy. I don't know, so I can't presume to state it
on the floor. I don't know if he voted for the annual budgets to
prolong the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan without paying for them. I
don't know how he voted on the Medicare prescription drug benefit that
was not paid for, at least the $400 billion cost. I will acknowledge he
was correct that the unemployment I referred to in November was paid
for. I want that clear on the Record and I stand corrected and
acknowledge it to the Senator from Kentucky. But I would say that his--
--
Mr. BUNNING. Will the Senator from Illinois yield?
Mr. DURBIN. I will yield after one more question from the Senator
from Rhode Island. But I would say, when it came to his party position,
tonight we hear this idea of fiscal conservatism, strict spending,
punish those who are unemployed, take money away from those who have
been out of work in order to bring down this budget deficit. But for 8
years, under President George W. Bush, we certainly didn't hear this
sentiment expressed when it came to people who were so well off across
our country.
I yield to the Senator from Rhode Island for a question.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. In evaluating this concern about the deficit, we have
just determined that the policies of the other side of the aisle
contributed to virtually all the national debt we have inherited. Then
let's look to the situation now because I think we understand we have
to fix this deficit problem.
The distinguished Senator from Illinois earlier mentioned a vehicle
for trying to do this, which was the establishment of a statutory
deficit commission. My recollection is, the votes were inadequate for
that, in significant part because on the Republican side of the aisle,
seven of our colleagues whose names were on that plan as cosponsors of
it voted against the bill that they had cosponsored for a mechanism
that would potentially, at least, have provided a vehicle for resolving
some of our deficit concerns.
My question is, Is that also the recollection of the Senator from
Illinois? And how, in the light of this debate about the budget deficit
and the fact that the budget deficit is so important, it is worth
forcing honest, hard-working--when they can find work--Americans into
their cars to sleep, as the Senator from Illinois has said, out of
their homes, into penury. Why is it not important enough for our
friends on the other side to support legislation of which they were
cosponsors, and what was the motivation for that?
Mr. DURBIN. I would say in response to the Senator, for those who
have not been following the debate from the beginning, tonight we are
speaking to the fact that the Senator from Kentucky, Mr. Bunning, is
objecting to extending unemployment benefits for 30 days in the United
States to those who are out of work and extending COBRA benefits which
help to pay for health insurance for 30 days, in addition to several
other items, and has stated his reason is because of his concern about
the budget deficit.
I don't know how the Senator from Kentucky voted on this commission,
but I do remember it well because Senator Kent Conrad, the chairman of
the Senate Budget Committee, came to me and said he had worked out an
agreement with Senator Judd Gregg, a Republican, that they would try to
create a commission which would take a look at our national deficit and
make recommendations to Congress which we would then have to vote on.
It was controversial, that is for sure.
When it was called for a vote, it ended up with, I believe, 53 votes
and fell short of passage because 7 Republican Senators who had
cosponsored the measure initially voted against it, cosponsors who
voted against it, and it included the Republican minority leader. Their
determination to deal with the deficit and the debt withered away and
disappeared when they had a chance to vote for it on the floor. I don't
know how the Senator from Kentucky voted.
So here is a chance for the Republicans to join the Democrats to deal
with the deficit and debt, and they walked away. Seven of them turned
their back on a bill they had cosponsored and walked away from it.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, with the indulgence of the Senator
from Kentucky, if I may ask my final question. If we have established
that it was the Bush administration and Republican policies that
created virtually all the national debt we now carry, and if we have
established that when the mechanism that many believe would be the best
vehicle to address the deficit was abandoned by our friends on the
other side in significant measure, even those who had cosponsored it,
thus preventing it from passing, what am I supposed to tell Carol
Thomasian from North Providence? She is unemployed. She is a Rhode
Islander. She has worked hard all her life. She went to work first as a
teenager. She eventually got married. She started a family. She got a
college degree to increase her earning potential. She bought a home.
Her family lived in the home. She did everything right, pursuing the
American dream.
Two years ago, when the Rhode Island economy collapsed--and it
collapsed in Rhode Island sooner than in other States; we have been in
a recession for a long time now--she was laid off from her job as a
construction project manager, and she hasn't been able to find work
since. She is struggling to keep her family together. She is a single
mom now. She is raising a 12-year-old son and a 15-year-old daughter.
She has all those responsibilities of teenager parenting. She is also
[[Page S784]]
trying to care for her disabled mother. She has a bachelor's degree in
business administration. She has an associate's degree in architecture.
She is a capable, trained, hard-working woman. Because she is out of
work, her car has been repossessed, making it so much more difficult to
try to find work, and it is unemployment insurance that is keeping her
family together. This will cut 309 Rhode Islanders in our small State
right off, in another few months it will cut up to 1,500 people right
off.
How am I supposed to explain to them this principle that they need to
suffer because of our budget deficit, with a party that is forcing that
suffering on them and that did more to run up our national deficit than
ever and that has obstructed the vehicle that would have started the
work to fix the deficit and is absolutely silent about the deficit when
millionaires and multimillionaires and billionaires are given tax
breaks? How can I explain that? What do I tell her?
Mr. DURBIN. I would say to the Senator from Rhode Island, there is no
explanation because it doesn't make sense. You certainly couldn't
explain to this woman who has worked so hard throughout her entire life
and now faces this misfortune that we are heaping additional misfortune
on her because of this objection to extending unemployment benefits. In
the State of Rhode Island--I know it is small in comparison to so many
others--the Senator from Rhode Island is likely to meet some of these
309 people or hear from them when their unemployment benefits are cut
off. I am sure my office will hear too. I will not know how to explain
to them that the Senator from Kentucky has objected to a 30-day
extension of unemployment benefits. If we are going to fight this war
on the deficit and debt, why fight it on the backs of unemployed people
such as the one we have just heard described in the State of Rhode
Island?
Mr. BUNNING. Would the Senator from Illinois give me a chance to
respond? You have had the floor for an hour and a half.
Mr. DURBIN. I would be happy to yield for a question from the
Senator.
Mr. BUNNING. A question. OK. If all the things that have been said on
the other side are true, all of the programs you have talked about
could have been extended and for much longer periods if Senator Reid,
your leader, had not blown up the bipartisan jobs bill agreed to by the
chairman of the Finance Committee and the ranking member, Senator
Baucus and Senator Grassley, and jammed through his own bill which we
talked about; and all the spending forces of that compromise, of those
programs that you are talking about, were paid for in that bill.
Explain that to the American people.
Mr. DURBIN. I would be happy to. The Senator from Kentucky has not
stated it 100 percent accurately.
Mr. BUNNING. Oh, he has.
Mr. DURBIN. Because in the original proposal from the Finance
Committee, the unemployment benefits were extended for 3 months, as I
understand it. The tax extenders----
Mr. BUNNING. They were paid for.
Mr. DURBIN. Let me explain. There was a source of revenue for the
bill, but it wasn't enough to pay for the entire bill. The source of
revenue was enough for those who wanted to say: Well, this will pay for
unemployment, to point to it; and those who wanted to say: No, it pays
for another part of the bill. So it did not pay for the entire bill.
Mr. BUNNING. That is your interpretation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois has the floor.
Mr. DURBIN. I yielded for a question and I answered the question, but
I will yield for another question.
Mr. BUNNING. It has been brought up during this debate that the
balanced budget amendment and the balanced budget is a product of the
Clinton administration. The Senator from Illinois knows that to be
false.
Mr. DURBIN. No, I don't know that to be false.
Mr. BUNNING. Well, do you know anything about how the balanced budget
bill was brought to the floor of the House of Representatives?
Mr. DURBIN. I would say to the Senator from Kentucky I was serving in
the Senate.
Mr. BUNNING. I was serving.
Mr. DURBIN. I will tell my colleague what has been said on the floor
and which I stand behind; that is, the fact that when President William
Clinton left office, he left a budget in balance and in surplus.
Mr. BUNNING. Yes.
Mr. DURBIN. I yield for a further question.
Mr. BUNNING. That is only because Representative John Kasich and the
Budget Committee that he chaired in the House, for 3 years in a row,
brought a balanced budget bill to the floor of the U.S. House of
Representatives. I was a member of that Budget Committee.
The first 2 years, the Clinton administration rejected the balanced
budget bill. In the third year, instead of getting run over by the
train, President William Jefferson Clinton got on the train and agreed
that the balanced budget bill should be passed. Then the Senate
concurred and we balanced the budget. It took a little bit, but we did
it. That is where the surplus came from--a Republican's idea, John
Kasich, of Ohio, who brought a balanced budget to the floor.
Mr. DURBIN. If that is a question--
Mr. BUNNING. The questions I have are--I wanted to straighten out my
good friend from Rhode Island.
Mr. DURBIN. If that was a question, it is clear that there was
bipartisanship, and we can use a little bit more of that around here.
Mr. BUNNING. Even the fact that our President--somebody who talked
about extending tax cuts to the wealthy and talked about extending tax
cuts, and the fact that nobody on the floor of this Senate--explain to
me, with 60 Democrats and 40 Republicans, why someone on the Democratic
side of the aisle didn't make a bill that would rescind those tax cuts?
Your President--our President--wants to extend 85 percent of those same
tax cuts without paying for them. He has a bill in his budget to do
just that. Explain that. I have one more. Your President also wants to
pass a $250 billion estate tax bill, also without paying for it. That
is right. Well, it is right. Look it up. I am on the Budget Committee,
so I see these bills. Is the Senator on the Budget Committee?
Mr. DURBIN. No, I am not. I yield further for a question.
Mr. BUNNING. The Senator in the chair is, so he knows what has been
proposed.
Mr. DURBIN. I yield for the purpose of a question.
Mr. BUNNING. The question I asked about the 60/40, I didn't hear
anybody answer that. The Senator from Oregon is gone. He was the guy
who posed the question.
Mr. DURBIN. In response to the Senator from Kentucky, this is a great
debate. I think we ought to continue it. But can we remove from the
audience the millions of Americans who will not have unemployment
checks as of Sunday night because of the Senator's interest in this
issue? When you think about this, we ought to be engaged in this, and
you and I ought to stay up late to talk it over and talk about what we
should do. But why are we leaving these unemployed people in Kentucky
and in Illinois in the middle of this debate? These people have nothing
to do with what happened with John Kasich, of Columbus, OH, or what
happened with President William Jefferson Clinton. They are trying to
provide food for their families in the morning. Instead, we have
dragged them into the middle of this deficit and debt debate.
For those who have just tuned into this conversation, the Senator
from Kentucky has objected to extending unemployment benefits for 30
days, and COBRA benefits, which pay for health insurance for the
unemployed for 30 days.
Because of his objection--he is the only Senator to object--I will
find 15,000 people in my State of Illinois, as of Sunday night, losing
their unemployment benefits. If you wonder why I am still on the floor
at 10:20 p.m. in Washington, on Thursday night, after a pretty long
day, it is because I thought to myself: How in the world can I walk
away from this Chamber, go home and relax, realizing that 15,000
people, come Sunday night, in Illinois are going to get cut off from
unemployment benefits?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri is recognized.
Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, we have been talking about whether tax
cuts were paid for. Let's talk about
[[Page S785]]
other things that weren't paid for. That is what this is about. As the
Senator knows--in fact, I know the Senator from Illinois gets irritated
at me sometimes because I am constantly trying to figure out ways that
we can be more fiscally responsible around here. Sometimes I swim
upstream on some of those things. I was one of the cosponsors of pay-
go. In fact, pay-go was in place in the 1990s, and it was allowed to
expire in Congress. It was 2000, or 2001, or 2002, in the early years
of the Bush administration, when the Republicans had the majority. They
let it go. They said they didn't need pay-go anymore. This is probably
the most glaring example, and it gets in my craw, because I now hear so
much about fiscal responsibility, and as we struggle with this health
care bill, making sure that we pay for it, I look back at Medicare Part
D. Now that is a lallapalooza right there, Medicare D.
I am wondering if the Senator from Illinois remembers what the vote
was on the motion to waive the Budget Act on Medicare D.
Mr. DURBIN. I do not.
Mrs. McCASKILL. Well, it is interesting. It was a big majority to
waive the Budget Act. I have the vote here. There were 61 votes to
waive the Budget Act, including our friend from Kentucky. I think the
CBO score on that was around $450 billion, as I recall.
Mr. DURBIN. That is correct.
Mrs. McCASKILL. Not a dime of it paid for--not one dime. It is all on
the credit card, one big blob of red ink.
Is the Senator aware how many of our friends on the other side of the
aisle have new religion--this is new religion about balancing the
budget--and how many actually voted for Medicare D? It was a brandnew
entitlement program, a massive government entitlement program, a
government-run health care-related government program, and not one dime
was paid for? Do you know how many on the other side, who are still
serving today, voted for this new entitlement program?
Mr. DURBIN. No, I do not.
Mrs. McCASKILL. It was 24. Do you know who the Senators were who
voted for this massive, government-run entitlement program that added
hundreds and billions of dollars to our debt--not tax cuts? We can
argue about whether tax cuts create jobs. Clearly, those didn't because
we inherited a big mess in terms of job creation. But do you know who
the Senators serving on that side are who now want to preach about
fiscal responsibility and pay for programs--how many were willing to
put that kind of program on the credit card? They were Senators
Alexander, Bennett, Bond, Brownback, Bunning, Chambliss, Cochran,
Collins, Cornyn, Crapo, Enzi, Grassley, Hatch, Hutchison, Inhofe, Kyl,
Lugar, McConnell, Murkowski, Roberts, Sessions, Shelby, Snowe, and
Voinovich.
All of it was a massive government entitlement program run out of
Washington--big government, big bill, not paid for, and there was not
one word about it needing to be paid for. And we fast forward to now.
That is a big part of our deficit. We now figured out on Medicare D
that we transferred a bunch of taxpayer money straight to the bottom
line profits of the pharmaceutical companies. I wasn't here then, but
maybe the Senator can enlighten me. My recollection is that the biggest
people in favor of Medicare D were pharma.
Mr. DURBIN. The Senator is correct. It was their belief that they
would make a lot of money.
Mrs. McCASKILL. They have made a fortune on the backs of taxpayers.
Mr. DURBIN. Those of us who supported some kind of competitive
bidding and government buying in bulk to reduce costs were defeated
because pharma objected.
Mrs. McCASKILL. In that bill, they even outlawed the ability of the
government to negotiate for lower prices based on volume. Those are
``good business practices''--make sure we cannot get a good deal based
on how many drugs we are going to buy. We cannot even lower the cost of
this massive government entitlement program by negotiating for lower
prices based on volume. They outlawed that.
Mr. DURBIN. This cost over $400 billion, and many Republican
Senators, including the Senator who has objected to unemployment
benefits for millions of people in America who are out of work, voted
for this program that was unpaid for. Now they tell us we cannot extend
unemployment benefits to people in Kentucky and Illinois and Missouri
because we have not paid for them. Clearly, it is a double standard.
I might add that when it came to the estate tax, aka the ``death
tax,'' according to some, on June 7, 2006, the Senator from Kentucky
took the floor and said:
Mr. President, I rise today in strong favor of abolishing
one of the most unjustified taxes we have in America today,
the death tax. Americans should not have to talk to their
undertaker and their tax man on the same day. Small
businesses and family farms should not be forced to close
down in order to pay the government money because a loved one
has passed away.
Then when the Death Tax Repeal Permanency Act was called for a vote,
the Senator from Kentucky voted to repeal this tax, costing the
government $300 billion; that is over $300 billion added to our
national debt. This tax affects less than one-half of 1 percent of all
the people in America, the wealthiest people in our country. To provide
$300 billion in tax relief to them--the Senator from Kentucky said we
can add that to the deficit and that is OK. But when it comes to
providing a $1,100 monthly unemployment check to someone in Illinois
who is struggling to find a job, he says no, that adds to the deficit.
So for the wealthiest in America on the estate tax, there is no
accountability, no reckoning, but for the poorest in America, the most
struggling families in America, we are going to hold them to the
hardest economic standard. To me, that is at least inconsistent, if not
inexplicable.
Mr. BUNNING. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. DURBIN. I have yielded to the Senator from Missouri for a
question.
Mrs. McCASKILL. I have a couple more questions. I wasn't here when
the major tax cuts went through in the Republican Congress with
President Bush--the tax cuts that were supposed to bring about great
prosperity and job creation in our country. Of course, they didn't. We
have had record job losses. As President Bush left office, my
recollection is that we were having between 600,000 and 700,000 job
losses every month. Clearly, the plan that these tax cuts would be a
time of wine and roses for all didn't work out. My recollection is that
that tax cut was done by reconciliation, wasn't it?
Mr. DURBIN. I would have to check my notes.
Mrs. McCASKILL. I think it was. Reconciliation only lasts for so long
and then they sunset. I think that was one of those things where a
massive amount of government liability was incurred through
reconciliation at that time.
Let me also ask a couple questions about the stimulus. I know the
Senator from Kentucky was offered a chance to have an amendment paid
for by the stimulus. I don't think that we have talked enough about
what is left of the stimulus money and what it is for. It is my
understanding--and correct me if I am wrong--that a big chunk of the
stimulus that is left is in fact the tax cuts for working families. In
fact, the tax cuts were a 2-year period. So, of course, that was about
one-third of the money, and only half of that has been paid out because
we have only been through a year of the stimulus. We still have money
waiting to go out in the form of tax cuts to 95 percent of America--in
fact, the exact opposite folks who got the tax cuts under George Bush.
Is that my understanding about what is remaining in the Treasury as
it relates to stimulus?
Mr. DURBIN. I believe the Senator from Missouri is correct. It is
interesting that those who are critical of the stimulus, the Recovery
and Reinvestment Act, on the Republican side virtually never
acknowledge the fact that one-third of that whole package is tax cuts,
which is the Holy Grail on the Republican side of the aisle--tax cuts
for working families.
Mrs. McCASKILL. Tax cuts for working folks.
Mr. DURBIN. Working families.
Mrs. McCASKILL. These are working folks. They are not--frankly, my
family is very blessed. The tax cuts that were passed helped my family.
It didn't help some of the families out there now struggling with
unemployment.
The rest of the stimulus that is out there--I have been interested in
Missouri. In fact, I wrote a letter to the
[[Page S786]]
budget chairs in Missouri because they were kind of puffing up about
how they were going to be able to balance the budget this year. I
looked into it and realized that the only way they were balancing the
budget this year was because of the stimulus money. It is, in fact, the
stimulus money that has gone to Kentucky, gone to Illinois, gone to
Missouri, gone to Oregon, gone to Alaska, and gone to Rhode Island.
That is what is allowing these State legislatures to keep from making
massive layoffs of public school teachers. There would be massive cuts
in education in Missouri this year, and, frankly, no cuts in public
education would be popular in Missouri.
I asked the Missouri legislators. I said: Some of you have been
talking about doing away with the stimulus, pulling back the stimulus.
In fact, some of our friends across the aisle said we should get rid of
the rest of the stimulus. I asked the State legislators: What will you
cut if we pull the stimulus? Tell me how Missourians will be hurt if we
decide to pull the rest of the stimulus and maybe spend it on other
things, such as perhaps this emergency bill dealing with unemployment
insurance. They would not tell me. They want the people of Missouri to
think they are balancing that budget with fairy dust. They don't want
the people of Missouri to know that, in fact, the stimulus is what is
out there helping these States balance these budgets because their
revenue has dropped off the charts, just like our revenue has, which is
causing some of the deficit and which is certainly contributing in a
great way to the debt as it relates to a drop in revenue, an increase
in unemployment expenses, and then the programs that have been passed
in the previous administration not paid for.
I have 20,000 Missourians--20,000--who are going to find out sometime
in the next 48 hours that they are done with unemployment. I cannot
help but believe that if we have this kind of crisis at the other end
of the income scale, that all of a sudden we would not have this
newfound religion that this is the moment, this is the hour, this is
the day that we are going to find new religion about deficits. It is
the wrong time.
I am a cosponsor of pay-go. I am a cosponsor of the fiscal
commission. I don't take earmarks. I voted against the omnibus. I voted
against many budget bills because I think there was too much fat in
them. I voted against a lot of fiscal measures in this body. But this
is not the time to do this on the backs of these families. It is the
wrong time.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Missouri and for
those who are following this debate.
Mr. BUNNING. You said you would yield to me.
Mr. DURBIN. I know. For those who are following this debate, we have
asked to extend unemployment benefits for those out of work in America
for 30 days and to extend COBRA benefits which helps them to pay for
their health insurance for 30 days. It passed the House of
Representatives. We were prepared to pass it this week so that when the
benefits expire for many people on Sunday night, they would continue.
One Senator from Kentucky, Senator Bunning, who is on the Senate
floor, objected. As a consequence, we have taken to the floor to make
certain that the people who are following this debate understand the
gravity of this decision. It is not a casual decision. It is a decision
made by one Senator that will literally affect the lives of a lot of
people.
I give an example of Stan Lipowski who lives in Rockford, IL, as I
mentioned earlier an area hard hit. Stan is pretty nervous. He is 60
years old. He lives in Loves Park near Rockford. He lost his job in
June and relies on his unemployment check to keep his household afloat.
This is from the Rockford newspaper where he is quoted as saying:
It's not sufficient, but without it, I'd be in real
trouble. I'm already borrowing against my house to put my
daughter through college.
He is living on his unemployment check, and the objection of the
Senator from Kentucky is going to cut off the checks for people just
like him. I cannot understand why we would do this. I am going to renew
my unanimous consent request.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the
immediate consideration of H.R. 4691, a 30-day extension of provisions
which expire Sunday, February 28, unemployment insurance, COBRA, flood
insurance, Satellite Home Viewer Act, highway funding, SBA business
loans and small business provisions of the American Recovery Act, SGR,
and poverty guidelines received from the House and at the desk; that
the bill be read three times, passed, and the motion to reconsider be
made and laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sanders). Is there objection?
Mr. BUNNING. Reserving the right to object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. BUNNING. There are so many things that I would like to say in
response to so many Senators. Before I do that, I want to straighten a
few things out. First of all, the prescription drug Part D--I want to
help out my good friend from Missouri and my good friend from Rhode
Island. I want them to know that the $400 billion that was spent has
not been spent. Just for their information. And the Democratic
alternative proposed by Representative Pete Stark on the Ways and Means
Committee in the House of Representatives cost over $1 trillion to
fund. That was the alternative to the Republican $400 billion.
I know the Senator from Missouri was not here. She probably doesn't
know Representative Stark. I served with him for 8 years on the Ways
and Means Committee. The same thing goes. If you don't like Part D of
Medicare, you have 59 Senators and you can repeal it anytime you want,
or at least try to, if you think it is misspent money.
Somebody complained about HHS negotiating drug prices. Our own
scorekeeper, CBO, said we would have--I was on the committee--we would
have no savings if they negotiated directly with the drug companies.
Those profits that my good friend from Illinois talked about are not
profits that go to the drug companies because any of the Medicare
facilities we use, whether it be a hospital or a doctor or Medicare
Part B or Part A or Part D--all of those moneys go to doctors,
hospitals, and people who get prescription drugs to pay for those
prescription drugs.
You have to look at the benefits and see if they outweigh the
complaints.
I object.
Mr. DURBIN. I ask for the regular order.
Mr. BUNNING. I object and would like to make a unanimous consent----
Mr. DURBIN. Regular order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator asked for the regular order. Is
there objection to his request?
Mr. BUNNING. No.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. He said he did not object.
The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. As I understand it, the unanimous consent request is
agreed to?
Mr. BUNNING. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky objects?
Mr. BUNNING. Yes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. I thought maybe we had gotten through to the Senator from
Kentucky.
It is interesting, he wants to talk about everything except the
unemployed people affected by his objection. I say to the Senator from
Kentucky, we can relitigate all you want. The fact is, the Medicare
prescription drug program, which costs $400 billion over a 10-year
period of time, is not paid for and you voted for it. So when it comes
to deficit reduction, you pick and choose those issues that you will
spend money on. Tonight you are making it clear that you will not spend
money to help unemployed people--people across Kentucky and across
Illinois.
Some of these stories I received from my State I am sure you received
from your State. Here is one from a woman in Bullhead City, IL:
My husband and I are in our fifties and lost our jobs in
2008. I knew immediately we were in trouble so we took our
savings and moved to a state park where rent is $400 a month,
including utilities.
They were living in a camper.
My husband has gotten sick and not been able to see a
doctor as we have no medical insurance, our unemployment
benefits ran
[[Page S787]]
out in August and we have no income. The $400 rent that
seemed so cheap a year ago is now a struggle to pay. To keep
our phone and Internet on is a struggle, yet imperative--
Because that is the way they look for jobs.
Neither of us has ever been without until now. I have found
that it is more and more difficult and our spirits are at an
all-time low. I write this with tears in my eyes, not so much
for myself but for the thousands who are facing these
difficult times alone. I could not do it alone.
When my husband left the house this morning to look for
work, I slipped a baggie of Life cereal in his pocket so he
would not go hungry. We had no milk . . . too early to offer
ramen noodles or macaroni and cheese.
I've always been proud to be American and of this great
country, yet I can't seem to hold my head up these days. I
barely have enough money left to make it. . . . I wait and
pray for an extension [of unemployment benefits] to buy us
more time.
I implore the Republicans to quit dangling carrots in our
faces and do the right thing.
That is what this is about, Senator Bunning. This woman and people
like her all across America who will be turned down for unemployment
benefits because of your objection. Why are we doing this to these
people, whether they live in Tennessee, Kentucky, or any other State?
We are a caring people, and I know the Senator from Tennessee feels
that way. I do too.
Mr. BEGICH. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. DURBIN. I will be happy to yield for a question from the Senator
from Alaska.
Mr. BEGICH. I know we talked about unemployment which is a
significant piece of this bill. I also want to point out there are
other pieces. I want to make sure I am correct. Maybe the Senator could
clarify this.
I know he mentioned in the very early hours when we started this
discussion that there were issues that deal with small business,
seniors, and it has two other major components.
Is it correct that this bill also deals with seniors and small
businesses?
Mr. DURBIN. Yes, it is correct.
Mr. BEGICH. I appreciate the Senator's constant reminder that this
debate is about real people. I don't know what the debates were in
years past. I was not here, as Senator McCaskill and Senator Merkley
mentioned. I was not here. People read and watch what is going on. They
see right through what is going on: The wealthiest of the wealthiest
get the privileges of this body, and people working every single day
and those now unemployed ask for a little bit of help to make sure they
can make it through these tough times, and the other side of the aisle
turns their back on them.
You used the example of seniors. In Alaska, the Medicare
reimbursement rate is critical. We are one of the highest cost States.
We have less doctors today than yesterday, the year before and the year
before. We have very few. I met with our clinics today. I think it is
down to one in Anchorage that accepts new Medicare patients. Now we say
we are not going to make sure these reimbursement rates are the right
rate. So now we will have more doctors not serving our seniors. It is
not only about the unemployed. They are about to throw seniors over the
cliff, at least in my State.
Does this bill deal with seniors and making sure the reimbursement
rate is the right rate so doctors can perform the services these
seniors need?
Mr. DURBIN. I would say to the Senator from Alaska that is correct.
According to the 2009 Medicare Trustees Report, on January 1, 2010,
physicians were expected to face an across-the-board cut of 21\1/2\
percent. By 2014, the cuts to physicians treating Medicare patients
would be 40 percent. We have averted these cuts with short-term
extensions, because at those reimbursement levels many doctors would
stop treating Medicare patients.
Mr. BEGICH. I know in my state the answer is: They will. This is a
significant problem even at the 21-percent rate of reimbursement. So
not only do we have the unemployed now, whom the other side seems to
have a problem with, yet when it comes to the richest of the rich, they
have no problem dealing with them, taking care of them unfunded.
The pharmaceuticals--I know this debate a little bit. I know how the
talk I just heard from the Senator from Kentucky sure did go around and
around, but the bottom line was the pharmaceutical companies got those
monies, made extensive profits, and on the backs of taxpayers. But now
it is time to help our seniors, make sure they get basic care, and they
are going to be thrown over. It is amazing to me, when I look at this
bill--I thought it was simple. Maybe I am naive, being a new Member
here, but these are simple things. The crisis in this country is the
biggest recession since the Great Depression. Yet when it comes time to
giving a little bit of assistance to make sure we can move through this
tough time, we are not willing to assist the unemployed. Yet the
richest of the rich get taken care of.
I want to ask one question about that so-called bipartisan bill that
was mentioned earlier. I know earlier there was discussion, and I hope
I can ask this question. The ``bipartisan'' bill that was talked about
earlier, I know I flipped through the multiple pages of the index and
saw all these extenders for businesses, and, if I remember this right--
correct me if I am wrong--the unemployed had a very short extension but
all these businesses got the long extensions for their tax benefits.
Again, it is a question of who do we support here and who do we help?
Am I mistaken that so-called bipartisan bill--that really wasn't
bipartisan and which had a lot of issues with it--am I correct there
was some imbalance there that people were concerned about?
Mr. DURBIN. I think the Senator from Alaska is correct.
Mr. BEGICH. The other piece I want to talk about, and I will end on
this because I know the Senator from Oregon has a question or two, and
it is one of the things I heard over and over again, and that is why I
think the way this is being approached is very simple: Here it is,
don't cloud it with a lot of other junk. The public has spoken, and
they want transparency. They want it clean, they want it simple, and
they want to understand what it is talking about, without this whole
business of jamming in things left and right. Here, this is simple:
Unemployment for the unemployed, taking care of our seniors.
I am on Alaska time, so this is early for me. I have plenty of time.
When it is midnight here, it is 8 o'clock in Alaska, so I have plenty
of time here. But when I think about these issues of seniors and the
unemployed that the other side doesn't want to help, it seems the next
issue--and I will wait my time here and ask about it--is small
businesses--the people who are the backbone of this country--trying to
help those unemployed become employed. That is another piece of this
bill. Is that correct, that small business is another piece?
Mr. DURBIN. It is. The SBA programs, which would provide credit for
small businesses--we were looking for a simple 30-day extension so
these programs would be available. This objection has stopped that 30-
day extension and it is going to close down some of those programs, as
of Monday, that would be available to small businesses across the
Nation.
Mr. BEGICH. Small businesses that were probably in the process of
pursuing their dreams and hopes in this recession of creating a new
opportunity to help those unemployed and others to build our economy.
In Alaska, 52 percent of our employment is small business. They are the
backbone of this country. They were kind of left out last year. This is
an effort to continue to help them. Is that a fair statement?
Mr. DURBIN. The Senator from Alaska is correct.
I want to make it clear for the record, because the Senator from
Tennessee came and asked me why we didn't offer to the Senator from
Kentucky an opportunity to have an amendment to pay for these
unemployment benefits out of the stimulus package, that was offered to
him. He said, no, he didn't want to have an amendment offered on the
floor because he wasn't sure he could pass the amendment. So he was
offered the same chance that every Senator has had to take his idea
before the Senate and to get a majority vote. That is not an
unreasonable thing. That is how the Senate works.
I would also say to the Senator from Kentucky that if he believes we
have surplus funds in the stimulus or Reinvestment and Recovery Act
that can be spent on unemployment and the like, I am afraid he is
wrong. It is important to note that of the $166 billion in funds
[[Page S788]]
remaining to be obligated, almost every dollar has already been spoken
for, even if not yet obligated. So if he thinks the money that has not
gone out the door of the stimulus act is not spoken for, it is not
true. It is spoken for. That would have been part of the argument when
his amendment could have come to the floor, an amendment which he did
not care to offer.
I would tell him there are two projects in his State that will be
affected if he cuts the balances in this. And I know he may not care,
but some may. It is a Milton-Madison bridge replacement--Milton, KY, to
Madison, IN--asked for by the Kentucky transportation cabinet. The
total cost is $131 million; TIGER funding, $21 million--a vital link, I
am told, between two towns. If the bridge is taken out of service, the
resulting detours will create resulting hardships for residents on both
sides of the river.
There is also another project under this Recovery and Reinvestment,
which I know you voted against, but it is the Appalachian Regional
Short-Line Rail Project; the location, Kentucky, West Virginia and
Tennessee, and the TIGER funding there is $17 million. The fact is many
people believe these will create jobs in Kentucky and put people to
work. They have been spoken for and obligated. If that money were taken
out of the stimulus package, it may affect that project or some other
project. But the fact is the money is not just sitting in the stimulus
fund waiting to gather dust or interest; it is money that has been
spoken for to put people to work in Kentucky and Illinois and all
across America.
The fact is the Senator from Tennessee came and asked me why didn't
we offer the Senator from Kentucky a chance to offer his amendment. We
did. And if he had taken that opportunity, he might have won, he might
have lost, but he would have had his day on the floor of the Senate,
which is all any of us can ask for--an up-or-down vote. Instead, he
said: If you don't pay out of the stimulus, no one is going to get
unemployment benefits, and that is, I believe, an unreasonable
position, and that is why we have taken to the floor this evening.
Mr. CORKER. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. DURBIN. I will yield to the Senator for the purpose of a
question.
Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I have been working in an unusual way
across the aisle on an issue that I think is important in this body for
the last 2 weeks, and I had planned to spend all day tomorrow,
Saturday, Sunday, and Monday--whatever it takes--to get a bill that I
think is important to this country and important to this body. It is 10
till 11, 5 till 11. And whether you agree or disagree with the Senator
from Kentucky, I am here because I think this is a broadside. The fact
is that we here in the Senate give each other notice.
I understand the frustration with my friends on the other side of the
aisle. I talk to many of you after the lunches that take place. I know
there is a lot of frustration. I understand the concerns of the people
on my side of the aisle, especially after we just voted for a pay-for.
And my guess is everybody on the other side of the aisle who is here
tonight voted for it. Yet we are continuing to pass bills that are not
paid for.
I am not going to debate the merits. I know you can talk about taxes
for the rich, tax reductions, and all that. The fact is, you did not
give the Senator from Kentucky notice this was going to occur.
Mr. DURBIN. If that is a question, I would like to respond to it. If
that is a question, it is incorrect, and I want the record to be clear.
MR. CORKER. Let me just say this----
Mr. DURBIN. I am sorry, that is not correct.
Mr. CORKER. If I can just finish.
Mr. DURBIN. Regular order. I have the floor.
Mr. CORKER. If I could just----
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois has the floor.
Mr. CORKER. This also is not comity.
Mr. DURBIN. I will yield for a question after I respond to the
Senator from Tennessee, and what I would say is the Senator is
incorrect. After the Senator from Kentucky objected this evening, the
Republican side was notified that I was going to come to the floor and
renew this unanimous consent request. The Senator from Kentucky knew
it. He was notified in advance. We then had three subsequent rollcall
votes and a unanimous consent request, and then I came to the floor. So
the Senator from Tennessee is not correct. He was given prior notice.
I would be happy to yield further for a question.
Mr. CORKER. I appreciate the explanation. I believe we are stooping
to a low level.
Mr. DURBIN. I am sorry, I did not hear the Senator.
Mr. CORKER. I believe we are stooping to a low level. The Senator
from Kentucky and I agree on a lot and we disagree on a lot, and I am
not here at this moment to debate the merits of either side. What I am
saying is this is not the way the Senate functions.
Everybody in the country now knows that the Senator from Kentucky has
a hold on this bill. That is something that is honored. Not a hold on
the bill, but he is objecting to unanimous consent, and that is
something that we honor in this body. If the attempt made tonight is
going to be to keep a man 20 years my senior here, without the
knowledge that this was going to happen--obviously other people had
this knowledge--you can see that nobody on our side did.
I was getting ready to go to bed, get up in the morning, resume my
talks with Senator Dodd--which regardless of what you all do tonight I
am going to continue because I think our country has serious problems
that need to be dealt with--but this, in my opinion, is beneath the
Senate. And while I might be weary, I will stay here the entire night
to defend the Senate and defend the fact that the Senator from Kentucky
did not know this was going to happen.
I am tired. I have been working hard for a long time on a bill that I
think is important. I would rather go to bed and be fresh and deal with
the issues that need to be dealt with for this country, but I will stay
here all night because this is not the way the Senate functions.
I am disappointed. I know that we have a lot between us, but I have
felt actually, recently, that we were beginning to sort of make things
click. I have seen people stepping out and doing things that I feel are
the right things to do on behalf of the country, and I have talked to
my good friend, the Presiding Officer tonight, about those kinds of
things. I have a lot of friends on both sides of the aisle. But this is
not the way the Senate functions.
Mr. DURBIN. I did yield for a question, and I don't believe the
Senator has a question, but I respect him and respect his point of
view.
Mr. CORKER. My question is: Is this the way the Senate functions? And
I am asking someone who I respect right now.
Mr. DURBIN. I said to the Senator that we gave notice to the Senator
from Kentucky, after he had made his objection. So this was not a sneak
attack. As soon as he made his objection, we notified the Republican
side of the aisle of what I was going to do.
Secondly, I would say that I think those of us who----
Mr. BUNNING. Unfortunately, that is not true.
Mr. DURBIN.--Put a hold on a bill or a hold on a nomination can
certainly do that. I think they ought to step forward and say publicly
when they do that and why they do that.
Mr. CORKER. That has been done.
Mr. DURBIN. In this situation, in fairness to the Senator from
Kentucky, he has been very public and open about his objections to
this. I certainly respect we have different points of view. But I would
say to the Senator from Tennessee, here is what I face and what other
Senators face. After we completed these rollcalls here, we would have
walked out the door and gone home and relaxed and headed home for the
weekend, and then come Sunday, somebody might have noticed the
unemployment benefits for 15,000 people in my State were cut off,
eliminated, people out of work.
I could have left. I would like to be home relaxing too--I am not a
spring chicken--but I think it is an important enough issue to stand up
and speak about it tonight. We have heard from the Senator from
Kentucky. I have yielded to him in a way that may go beyond what is
required, but I wanted him to express his viewpoint, and he has, about
why he has done this.
[[Page S789]]
And, yes, I am a little weary standing here, too, and I don't plan to
stand here all night. But if we were to walk out that door and ignore
the impact of that objection on the thousands of people in our own
State, do you think we are meeting our obligation as Senators? I think
it is worth speaking out. You must receive these same communications I
receive from people who are out of work. These are sad, heartbreaking
stories. We are about to make these stories even worse because of the
objection of one Senator.
Yes, it is his right to do it. But it is our right to stand and
explain the effect this is going to have on a lot of innocent people.
I yield to the Senator from Oregon for purposes of a question.
Mr. MERKLEY. I thank the Senator. I have before me a chart on workers
losing Federal unemployment benefits at the beginning of March. It
notes ``Workers Exhausting Regular State Benefits without Additional
Federal Extensions'' as 380,000 workers. Then there is an additional
column that says ``Workers Prematurely Exhausting Their Federal
Benefits'' at the start of March: 813,000. I am rounding off. It has a
``total'' column that says, for the United States as a whole: 1,193,838
individuals lose their benefits.
As I am reading this chart, my impression is they are losing their
benefits at the end of February if we do not have an extension. Am I
reading this correctly?
Mr. DURBIN. I say to the Senator from Oregon, I believe it is the end
of March.
Mr. MERKLEY. The end of March. But there are many people who lose
their benefits much sooner if we do not pass this extension?
Mr. DURBIN. As I understand it, some will start to lose them as of
Sunday night. Then, as their benefits expire, by the end of the month,
the Senator is correct: 1,193,000 people. The Senator from Kentucky and
others have said eventually you are going to get around to the process
of actually getting the 30-day extension. It is true we could do that.
We could use up another week of time of the Senate to go through the
filibusters and cloture motions on the motions to proceed and the rest
of it. But it strikes me as a colossal waste of time and a sad
commentary on the Senate that we are forced to do this to provide
simple unemployment benefits to people across America who are out of
work.
Mr. MERKLEY. My friend from Tennessee has made some comments about
the process. I must say I very much respected the dialog he has been
involved in, in the Banking Committee, through the year I have served
on that committee, working to find the right way to have regulatory
reform that will help put our economy back on track. There is so much I
agree with him on. But I completely, respectfully, disagree that it is
inappropriate, when unemployment benefits are threatened for our
workers in our States, to come to this floor and say: This matters.
This matters for working families.
When I was asking the people of Oregon to consider my candidacy to
come here to represent them, I went on a 100-town tour with 100 public
townhalls. In every townhall, people came and talked to me about the
challenge of employment and health care. Tonight, both are at stake.
I had one woman who stood and she said: I got a letter from my doctor
whom I have had for many years. I think she said 20 years. She said:
The letter fired me from being a patient because I am on Medicare now
and that the doctor had dismissed all the Medicare patients because the
calendar could now be filled with folks with private insurance that
paid better.
My colleague from Alaska was talking about that problem in Alaska. It
is a huge problem in Oregon that our seniors who are on Medicare cannot
get in the door of a doctor--at least it is increasingly difficult. The
result of it being increasingly difficult is, a program they have
counted on to provide their health care they are unable to utilize.
Tonight we are considering an extension or a fix of the physician
payments related to this very issue, whether doctors are going to take
and keep taking Medicare patients in their agenda. We have talked about
unemployment, but it is equally important we address this Medicare rate
because, in my State, it is a growing challenge. We have a generational
contract with our citizens over Medicare that they are going to be able
to get in the door of a doctor's office. If we do not address this
payment issue, then we are not honoring that generational commitment
under the Medicare Program.
So I do, respectfully, disagree with my colleague from Tennessee. I
wish we had more debates such as this. I wish we had more debates such
as this with votes. I wish we had a vote tonight, with a debate, and
that my good colleague from Kentucky had agreed to have the debate and
had made his case and persuaded us on this floor of his point or that
others would have made a different point and would have been
persuasive. But we didn't have that debate because the offer was made
and the offer was rejected.
Here I am tonight, looking at the thousands and thousands of
Americans who are going to lose their health care because they will not
be able to get in a doctor's door, who are going to lose their COBRA
benefits and therefore will not be able to afford the expense of health
care because they are unemployed, who are going to lose their
unemployment insurance benefits--or looking at the businesses that are
trying to get small business loans that will not be able to get them if
we are not extending the small business loan guarantee program.
I think this is about one of the most important debates for working
Americans. We need to get this 1-month extension, we need to respect
that everyone in this Chamber, every one of our 100 Senators can
proceed to carry this debate on over this coming 30 days. We are going
to have another chance to vote on this. But tonight we should not take
our differences over the process--or our differences over what happened
during the Bush administration--and take it out on the most vulnerable
members of our society.
So I ask my colleague from Illinois, does he share my concern that we
are taking procedural differences and age-old debates and we are taking
it out on the most vulnerable? Is it the wrong thing to do, as I
believe?
Mr. DURBIN. I say to the Senator from Oregon that is exactly why I am
standing. I didn't plan on doing this. I had a pretty full day down at
the Blair House and other places. I believed, by the end of the day,
the Senator from Kentucky would agree to a vote. He would have had his
chance on the floor--which is all we can ask for in the Senate, to
argue his point of view--and that we would be able to go home for the
weekend knowing unemployed people across the United States would not
have their benefits cut off--cutting off unemployment checks in the
midst of this recession.
I had not planned on being here tonight, but I thought to myself, I
say to the Senator from Tennessee, how can I walk out that door and go
home and go to bed and say: Well, just another day, another objection.
Those 12 million people who sent me here expect me to stand for them
once in a while.
That is what I am trying to do. I cannot believe we have reached the
point in the Senate where these battles over cosmic issues are being
visited on people who are struggling to survive day to day, to put food
on the table. That is what it has come down to. That is exactly what it
has come down to. I think that is unfortunate. I think we are better
than that. I think we should be better than that as a Nation and as a
Senate.
Does the Senator from Vermont seek the floor to ask a question? I
yield for the purposes of a question.
Mr. SANDERS. I say to my good friend, the Senator from Tennessee, he
is a good friend as is the Senator from Kentucky. I like the Senator
from Kentucky. I know he is honest. He is sincere. He is not hiding. He
is here. I respect that. We disagree very strongly on his position.
The Senator from Tennessee said a moment ago his point of view, this
is not the way the Senate functions, that is not what the Senate is
about, in so many words.
If you go and ask millions of people and say if the amendment of
Senator Bunning came to the floor of the Senate--no one can predict
what the vote would be, but my guess is he would probably lose. That is
my guess. But he has decided, one person, to say to hundreds and
hundreds of thousands of
[[Page S790]]
workers, I, one Senator, am exercising my right, no question about
that, and I am going to object. I, one person who does not have the
votes to pass my amendment, am saying to people--you have heard the
Senator from Illinois describing these stories of the pain, turmoil
that families are going through. No one disputes what he is saying. It
is going on in Tennessee, it is going on in Vermont, Kentucky,
Missouri. We all understand that. I don't think there is a
disagreement. People are hurting terribly.
I don't think there is a disagreement. When people Monday morning
wake and find they are not getting the safety net of that life-
supporting check, do you know what people are going to be feeling? Do
you know what panic? They don't know how the bureaucracy works.
Suddenly, they wake and somebody says: I am not getting my check. Am I
ever going to get a check? Well, they are going to get a check, but it
is delayed.
There was an article in the paper just the other day, one of the
ramifications of this recession, and we all know it is true, is what it
is doing to the emotional health of people. Think about people who want
to work, who have worked their whole lives and cannot find a job. Do
you know what it is doing to them? To their emotional well-being? Do
you think they like unemployment checks? The vast majority don't want
it--a thousand times more they would like a job. Suddenly, for no
understandable--they don't understand what is going on. I don't
understand what is going on half the time in the Senate. Suddenly,
because one Senator says: I am sorry, I object, I object, and thousands
and thousands of people are wondering whether they are going to
survive.
They are going to get their checks. We will eventually pass this.
This is a good debate. We have a $14 trillion national debt. How did
we get here? How do we resolve that debt? Who in this room thinks that
a $14 trillion debt is sustainable? Nobody does. We have to deal with
that issue. Who caused it? We have disagreements. How do you solve it?
We have disagreements. Let's argue out those disagreements but not on
the backs of people today who are hurting and hurting terribly.
One of the points I would like to ask the Senator about is we are not
just looking at record-breaking unemployment in our lifetimes. This
unemployment rate takes place after years and years of decline.
There was an interesting piece--I don't have the date, it was a
couple months ago--in USA Today; astounding facts. What they said--this
is from USA Today, I think going through the census data. Between 2000
and 2008, men between 25 and 34 saw an 11.7-percent drop in their
median income; people, then, from 45 to 54, 11.2 percent drop. In other
words, all over this country we see people who are furious. They are
angry. They are confused. Do you know why? They went through a decade
where they worked hard and at the end of that decade they were poorer
than when they began the decade and then came the Wall Street collapse
and then came massive unemployment. What we are trying to do--no one
thinks the extension of unemployment is the solution. We have to
rebuild the economy. We have to create jobs. But I hope nobody in this
room thinks it is acceptable or moral that we allow desperate people to
go over the cliff--not to have money to buy food?
Hunger in the United States of America today is a serious problem. It
is not a joke. This is America. Desperate people, for their kids, for
their parents, need that unemployment check.
We are going to pass this. I gather we will pass it next week. But
all we are doing is disrupting the lives of hundreds of thousands of
people for no good reason. Senator Bunning has raised important issues.
I disagree with him, but those issues are important. Let's debate them.
But you do not have to do it on the backs of the middle class and the
working class who have been decimated for years and are now in worse
shape than they have been and now we are suddenly pulling out the rug.
I ask my friend from Illinois, my assumption is, we are at some point
soon going to pass these unemployment extensions. My understanding is,
I don't know how it is going to be, but I suspect many Republicans are
probably going to vote with many on this side; is that a correct
assumption? And are we simply bringing more pain and confusion to
hundreds of thousands of people who suddenly, Sunday, Monday, are going
to find out they don't get a check?
Mr. DURBIN. I would say, in response to the Senator from Vermont, the
last time we went through this exercise about unemployment benefits, he
may recall there was a Republican Senator who insisted on an amendment
on the bill relating to ACORN. If he could not get another chance to
take a swing at the organization, ACORN, he was going to hold up the
unemployment benefit bill.
I reached the limit of my patience at that moment. I thought to
myself, it was not the first, second, third, or fourth or fifth time,
it was going to be the sixth or seventh time. There was a belief on his
part that he had to keep taking a swing at this organization, even at
the expense of delaying unemployment benefits.
I will tell you, I think that is unfortunate. If you want to fight a
battle, for goodness' sakes, make it a fair fight. Do not fight the
battle over the bodies of people who are unemployed and struggling to
get by on a day-to-day basis. If you want to fight the battle of the
deficit, fight the battle of the deficit on the budget resolution or
whatever appropriations bill you choose.
But to deny unemployment benefits to make your point about the
Nation's debt takes this to an extreme. That is why I am here. That is
why I did not go home tonight. I would like to be there to see what is
happening with the Olympics and what every other American family is
doing. But I thought to myself, I cannot walk out that door without
speaking up for what I consider to be an unjust decision by one of my
colleagues.
He sees it differently. I do like Senator Bunning. He and I may have
had our differences, but we have had some good conversations about
baseball. Maybe that is all but about baseball.
Mr. SANDERS. I would say that the Senator and I have had strong
agreements. I would ask the Senator from Illinois, in the hearing of
the Senator from Kentucky: Look, the Senator from Kentucky has raised
important issues. I would hope that he would allow us, not for our
sake, but for the sake of tens and tens of thousands of people, to get
those checks out. Let's come back and continue that debate.
You have raised the right issues. These unemployment checks are going
to go out, unless I am mistaken. So all we are doing is disrupting the
process. We understand where you are coming from. You have raised a
fair point. It is a very important issue.
But I would, through my friend from Illinois, ask my friend from
Kentucky, who is a friend--I like Jim Bunning: Let us continue this
debate. But it does not have to be tonight. It does not have to be in a
way that causes confusion and uncertainty and a lot of pain for a lot
of people. So I would--
Mrs. McCASKILL. Would the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. DURBIN. I would be happy to yield. But I would say also to the
Senator from Tennessee and the Senator from Kentucky, there is a
version of this unanimous consent request which will give you your
vote. If the Senator would agree to that. You will not.
I yield to the Senator from Missouri.
Mrs. McCASKILL. The Senator from Tennessee and the Senator from
Vermont and the Senator from Rhode Island all came here in the same
class. The Senator from Oregon just arrived in January. So we have not
been here for a long time to watch how the Senate works and how the
Senate traditionally has worked. I know it appeared to my pal from
Tennessee that this looked like some organized ambush of the Senator
from Kentucky. I have to tell you the truth, we are not that well
organized. If we were that well organized, we probably would have been
doing more of this a long time ago.
I honestly came down to the Senate floor understanding a deal had
been made to give Senator Bunning a vote on his amendment. I expected
that vote to occur. I had not talked to my office. I was surprised when
I got to the floor and realized that Senator Bunning, which he can do
under the rules, was going to hold it.
[[Page S791]]
I walked up as I was finishing voting on the third bill, and I said
to Dick: Are you going to stick around and make him object again?
He said: You know, I think I am going to stick around for a while. I
just do not feel right going home.
At that moment I thought: I do not feel right about going home
either. I think it is time, if we are going to do an objection every 5
minutes, and if we are going to have holds--if this was a hold on a
nominee, it could wait until Monday. But when Senator Bunning decided
to do this, it came at a risk. And the risk it came with was that there
were going to be Senators who were going to speak out about it. There
were going to be Senators who were going to disagree with him, and they
were going to publicly say that this is not the moment.
This $10 billion, with all of this deficit spending that has gone on
for the last decade, this is not the moment to have one Senator say: I
can stop it. So I felt like I wanted to talk about it. But nobody
organized this. Nobody said: Jeff Merkley, can you stay? This is just
some of us decided we wanted to stay and talk about it.
Here is what I ask. Have there been this many objections and holds
traditionally in the Senate?
Mr. DURBIN. No.
Mrs. McCASKILL. Have we had this many? Have there been this many
obstructions to the regular order of the Senate traditionally?
Mr. DURBIN. I have been here 14 years--14 years in the House, 14
years in the Senate. This Senate has changed so dramatically in the 14
years I have been here. We actually had debates on the floor of the
Senate. We had Members offering amendments back and forth. I mean good
debates. I thought it really was a joy to be part of a deliberative
body that engaged in that.
But now we are in this era of cloture and filibuster and holds and
objections, and it grinds to a halt. You think to yourself: No wonder
there is frustration among the membership, and no wonder so many people
on the outside look at us and say: Why are they not doing things?
How can we explain to people in Missouri, Illinois, or Tennessee or
Kentucky that we are here tonight because we are going to cut off
unemployment benefits? You know, the Senator is right, the Senator from
Vermont is right. The day will come when those unemployment benefits
will go through. It may take us a week. We may have to eat up a whole
week of the Senate Calendar to get that done.
You think to yourself: Senator, is there not something you should be
doing that is more important? And we know there is. We should be
working on a jobs program. We should be working on health care. You are
working on financial regulations. I know, Senator Corker, you may be
upset with me at this moment. But I respect you so much. It shows
extraordinary courage on your part to step up and try and tackle this
tough issue.
I am glad you are doing it. It does harken back to a better era in
the Senate when people did work on a bipartisan basis. So I would say
to the Senator from Missouri, we have been here for a while, and I know
there are staff people here who did not plan to be here this late. In
deference to them, I am going to allow the Senator from Missouri to ask
a question. I am going to then make a unanimous consent request again.
Then at that point, I will not make it after that point.
Mrs. McCASKILL. Well, I guess what I am trying to ask the Senator
is--I do not think most Americans think the Senate is working very well
right now. I think most Americans think we are behaving sometimes like
children. I think most Americans are not sure what the rules are and
what the difference is between a cloture, a filibuster, a motion to
proceed, and a motion to recommit; what is the difference between a
reconciliation and a conciliation or all of the other terms we throw
around here.
But there is one thing I think we all need to come to grips with;
that is, if we are going to try to stop the place, we need to be proud
to own it. I think that goes on both sides of the aisle. If a Senator
wants to hold a nomination, I do not think they should be allowed to
keep it secret for 10 seconds. If somebody wants to try to hold a bill
or wants to object to something, I think this nonsense that they have
had in the Senate forever that it is a secret for a while is the
stupidest thing that I can possibly imagine.
If you are big enough to get elected to the Senate, you ought to be
big enough to own what you do with your rights when you get here.
Senator Bunning has stood up strong tonight, and he has explained his
position. A few of us stuck around and talked about our positions. I
think that is about the healthiest thing we can do. I think it is a
heck of a lot healthier than running around behind closed doors placing
holds that nobody knows are there or why.
I make a pledge tonight that if I am ever going to hold anything, the
minute I decide to do it, I am going to say what it is, why it is, and
I am going to own it. I think it is time that all of us do that. If
somebody is not willing to own it, then I hope someone comes to the
floor and does to them what we are doing tonight.
I think the sooner we own what we are doing with our rights in the
Senate, the sooner we wear them like a proud coat of bright-colored
feathers, the better off we are going to be in terms of getting things
done around here. This is not about making the other side fail. That is
not what this is supposed to be about. This is supposed to be about us
working together like you are trying to do.
My friend, the Senator from Tennessee, you are doing the right thing.
You are trying to find common ground and work hard, and there are
plenty of us who want to do that. I hope that whatever is motivating
you to work as hard as you are working in a bipartisan way, I hope it
is contagious because if you can spread it around a little, I think the
American people would be so proud that we would quit this nonsense of
political holds and political ``gotcha'' amendments.
By the way, I am the first to admit this has gone on on both sides.
This is an equal opportunity Senate. But it is time that we try to make
this place work better.
I have to tell you honestly, my dear friend, I think tonight helps. I
do not think it hurts. I think it is a good thing, and I am proud to
have participated in this tonight. I think the Senate would be a
healthier place if we did it more often.
I thank the Senator from Illinois for yielding for this time, and I
thank him for sticking around as long as he has, so at least we now
know what has happened and why.
Mr. DURBIN. If that is a question, I agree. In defense of the
question, I agree with what the Senator said.
I yield to the Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I was presiding during the time that my friend,
Senator Corker, was speaking. I did not have the chance to respond. But
I want to assure him, through the Chair and through this question, that
as the distinguished Senator from Missouri has just said, this was not
planned on our side, at least not by me. I came for the votes.
The only surprise tonight was my surprise that a Senator was going to
stop our unemployment insurance program. It never crossed my mind,
until it just happened tonight, that was within the realm of
possibility. I have 75,000 people unemployed in my small State of Rhode
Island. We are at 13 percent unemployment.
So when I discovered, as a surprise tonight at these votes, that this
was going to happen, like Senator Durbin, I could not just walk away
from this Chamber. No way. No way.
But it was not as part of a planned surprise. The person in my life
who was surprised as to what happened tonight was me. Frankly, I am
still surprised, and I am surprised this has not resolved itself during
the course of this discussion.
I am surprised that the 75,000 people in Rhode Island and over 1
million people in this country, who are going to wake up to the worry
and concern and extra anxiety that Senator Sanders spoke about, are
going to have to face that. I think it is unfortunate. But it is not
because of a surprise attack by me. It is because I am responding to a
surprise to something that I think is very unfortunate and
extraordinarily painful for tens of thousands of regular working people
who did nothing wrong but cannot find work in this economy in my home
State.
I thank the Chair.
Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator. I am happy to yield for a question
from the Senator from Tennessee.
=========================== NOTE ===========================
On pages S791 and S792, February 25, 2010, the Record reads: . .
. in this economy in my home State. The Presiding Officer (Mr.
Begich). The Senator from Tennessee. Mr. Corker. Mr. President, I
thank . . .
The online Record has been corrected to read: . . . in this
economy in my home State. I thank the Chair. Mr. DURBIN. I thank
the Senator. I am happy to yield for a question from the Senator
from Tennessee. Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I thank . . .
========================= END NOTE =========================
[[Page S792]]
Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Illinois. I have
to say to my friend from Missouri that I agree that the discussion has
been very good. I received an e-mail from my staff regarding what was
happening. I got in my car and drove down here. I have to say that as I
look across the other side of the aisle and on this side, I have a lot
of friends, a lot of goodwill.
I say to the Senator from Illinois, I don't think I have ever, in my
short time here, 3 years 2 months, I don't think I have offered a
message amendment. I don't think I have ever offered anything that was
meant to obstruct unnecessarily. As a matter of fact, I offer very few
amendments. I try to do my work with other Senators and bring things to
the floor that are hopefully ready to pass.
At the end of the day, the Senator from Vermont is the best I know in
this body at talking about compassion for people that I know he
believes; I think we all believe. I always listen to him with great
awe, candidly, at his ability to express what all of us feel about
people who are unemployed or have large heating bills or whatever may
exist. I don't really think that is what this debate is about. It
isn't. This debate is about the fact we are spending money that we
don't have. Yet we have passed a $787 billion stimulus bill that won't
be spent until way beyond 2012.
I cosponsored an amendment, a piece of legislation with the Senator
from Colorado, Mr. Bennet, to use some of that unspent money past 2012
to pay down the deficit. He is in a tough race. He wanted me to
cosponsor something that was sensible, and I did.
This is really not about the fact that all of us want to see people
who are unemployed have these benefits. We don't want to see physicians
take a 21 percent cut. It is about paying for it. I wonder if the
Senator from Illinois would agree to me offering unanimous consent that
we pass this measure that is before us, and we do it tonight. And we
pay for it with unspent funds from the stimulus bill that won't be
utilized or are not planned to be utilized until beyond 2012. That is
what this debate is about. All of us want to see people get
unemployment benefits. We want that. We want to see them have all the
things that are in this bill. It is not about that. You know that if
this bill were offset, it would have been voice voted out of here.
I ask unanimous consent that we pass this measure out, that we offset
it with unspent stimulus moneys that are going to be utilized past the
year 2012, and then we work together, just like we are tonight, to
figure out a way to make up that difference. I know this is something
that is very important to the administration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask for the regular order. I yielded for
the purpose of a question.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois yielded for a
question.
Mr. DURBIN. I would say to the Senator from Tennessee, here is the
difficulty we face. Of the stimulus funds currently sitting there, they
have been obligated. They will be spent. There won't be a surplus, we
are told, of any funds. This would have come out during the course of
the debate, if Senator Bunning had accepted our offer of the amendment.
To agree to this now is to basically agree to what he has been asking
for, just say we will pay for it with the stimulus. I don't think it
should be, and I don't think it can be. It should be the subject of a
good floor debate. That is what the Senate is for.
I understand you can't make a unanimous consent request when I have
yielded only for a question. But that would be my response to you based
on that.
Mr. CORKER. I would like a ruling from the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois is correct.
Mr. CORKER. I thank the Senator for yielding for a question, and I
thank him for this discussion. I understand my request is out of order.
I actually thank each of you for your heartfelt comments. All of us
know that we all want to see these benefits extended.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I am going to ask this unanimous consent
request one last time this evening. I will not be making another
unanimous consent request until tomorrow morning. There will be an
opportunity, I believe, with the Senate coming into session, pursuant
to the adjournment script, at about 9:30 in the morning. I will make
one request. I will make the same unanimous consent request in the
morning. That is the only time I will make it. But at this point that
is my plan.
I thank the members of the staff, all of them, who were not notified
that this was going to happen this evening and had to make changes in
their own personal and family plans as a result.
As we have said, there will be thousands and thousands of people
across America impacted by this decision in just a few days. That is
why many of us thought it was worth the wait and the effort. I still
believe it was.
I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to the immediate
consideration of H.R. 4691, a 30-day extension of provisions which
expire on Sunday, February 28--unemployment insurance, COBRA, flood
insurance, Satellite Home Viewer Act, highway funding, SBA business
loans and small business provisions of the American Recovery Act, SGR,
and on poverty guidelines--received from the House and at the desk,
that the bill be read three times, passed, and the motion to reconsider
be made and laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. BUNNING. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. DURBIN. It is my understanding we will now move to closing the
session. I thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, particularly
on the Democratic side, for sticking with me through the course of the
evening. None of us had planned for this, and it came as a surprise
that this issue came before us. I think there were heartfelt sentiments
stated here, and I thank them very much for staying with me.
____________________