[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 95 (Wednesday, June 23, 2010)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5288-S5289]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                    UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I wish to speak briefly about the issue 
of unemployment insurance benefits. We, the Congress, allowed these 
benefits to expire 21 days ago. I believe there is a major 
misperception on the part of some about what the effect of this is.
  This proposal to extend these benefits is talked about as a so-called 
extension of unemployment insurance. That suggests that the provision 
simply provides additional weeks of unemployment compensation payments 
to people who have used up all their benefits. Understandably, there 
are people in my State and around the country who say: Wait a minute. 
At some point you don't want to keep adding more and more weeks of 
unemployment benefits.
  What we need to understand is that is not what we are proposing to do 
here. What we have been trying to do is not to add more weeks but 
merely to allow the unemployed to continue drawing the same number of 
weeks of benefits that they were able to draw prior to the expiration 
of the program we are trying to extend.
  The provision does not provide additional payments to anyone who has 
exhausted his or her Federal and State benefits before the 
authorization of this program expired on June 2. It does not extend the 
number of weeks of benefits under the programs. Rather, it simply 
allows the programs to continue operating for people who use up the 
weeks of State-provided unemployment benefits that are available to 
them.
  In plain language, what this provision will do is give a person who 
lost his or her job last month the same unemployment compensation 
benefits as someone who lost his or her job a full year ago.
  What are we talking about as far as the amount of these benefits? 
There is an editorial in the New York Times this morning indicating 
that the average unemployment check is $309 a week. It is not that high 
in my State. Mr. President, $295 a week is the average. We are not 
talking about a vast amount of money, particularly if a person is 
trying to support a family and trying to pay some portion of their 
bills while they seek another job. People need to understand also that 
you cannot draw unemployment benefits under the State programs or the 
Federal programs unless you continue to be actively seeking employment.
  In plain language, what this provision would do is give a person who 
lost his or her job just recently the same opportunity that people who 
lost their jobs some time ago have had.
  The bill we are debating would allow what we call the Emergency 
Unemployment Compensation Program to continue operating. A person who 
loses his job is eligible to receive up to 26 weeks of benefits through 
the State unemployment compensation program. When those benefits are 
exhausted, some States add additional benefits through what they call 
the extended benefit program, and many do not. Once all the State 
benefits have been exhausted, the person may be eligible to receive 
additional benefits through this Emergency Unemployment Compensation 
Program, which is the subject of our discussion. That program is what 
we are debating today as part of this extenders package.

[[Page S5289]]

  Clearly, the date on which a person becomes eligible for the 
Emergency Unemployment Compensation Program depends on when that person 
lost his or her job.
  Moreover, the number of payments for which that person is eligible 
also depends on when he lost that job because the benefits are paid in 
a series of four tiers, with each tier lasting a certain number of 
weeks.
  Because this program has been forced to stop operating, people who 
lost their job recently will not receive as much unemployment 
compensation or as many weeks of unemployment compensation as people 
who lost their jobs months ago.
  Continuing the Emergency Unemployment Compensation Program is simply 
a matter of fairness to those people if they continue to seek 
employment.
  From the week of June 2--21 days ago when this program expired--until 
the end of last week, there were right at 4,000 people in my State who 
had run out of State benefits. Those individuals then would find they 
did not have the benefit they could have had had they run out of State 
benefits and lost their jobs a few weeks earlier.
  Until the Congress acts, none of these people will be eligible for 
the Emergency Unemployment Compensation Program. An additional 4,600 
people who are in one of the lower tiers of the Emergency Unemployment 
Compensation Program will exhaust their tier of benefits and be unable 
to receive the next tier of benefit. That is roughly 8,000 New Mexicans 
who will be affected by the expiration of this Federal program.
  In my view, the obstruction that has forced this program to stop is 
not fair to those New Mexicans. It is not fair to many Americans. These 
are people who worked for companies that were able to hang on to their 
employees longer than other companies once the recession hit. Cutting 
the benefits of these individuals is not fair. These individuals are 
ones who primarily live in States such as my home State of New Mexico 
where the recession hit hardest a few months later than it had hit in 
other parts of the country. It is not fair that the people in these 
States should be eligible for fewer weeks of benefits when they have 
paid into the unemployment insurance system just like everybody else.

  It is easy to find maps on the Internet to show States that are 
disadvantaged by what the Senate has failed to do. There are animated 
maps that show how high unemployment spread across the country. It 
started on the east coast and the west coast. It crept toward the 
middle of the country. States such as New Mexico, Texas, Oklahoma, 
Kansas, Nebraska, Wyoming, South Dakota, and Colorado, I say to the 
Presiding Officer, were among the last to be affected by the recession. 
It is the people of these States who are being disadvantaged because 
the Emergency Unemployment Compensation Program has been allowed to 
lapse.
  I want to be clear that I do not believe this program needs to be 
continued indefinitely, not least because of the substantial cost 
involved. When the job market improves, we need to find a way to phase 
out these costs. In my view, the fair thing to do would be to choose a 
date and say people who lose their job after that date and begin 
drawing unemployment benefits after that date will not be eligible to 
receive the extra weeks of benefits that the Federal Government is 
adding to what the States are providing.
  The economy is much better than it was last year when the country was 
losing 750,000 jobs every month. The free-fall has stopped. The private 
sector is once again creating jobs at a very modest level. But the 
unemployment rate is still at 8.7 percent in my State of New Mexico and 
at 9.7 nationally. Now is not the time to eliminate the assistance this 
program has been providing to the many people who have been forced to 
lose their jobs during this recession.
  I urge my colleagues to support the continuation of this Emergency 
Unemployment Compensation Program until we can find a fairer way to 
phase it out and terminate these extra Federal benefits.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor. I see a colleague seeking 
recognition.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida is recognized.
  Mr. LeMIEUX. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at the 
conclusion of my remarks, the senior Senator from New Hampshire be 
recognized.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________