[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 103 (Tuesday, July 13, 2010)]
[House]
[Pages H5540-H5542]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  2220
               EXTENDING AMERICA'S UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 6, 2009, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Critz) is 
recognized for 60 minutes.
  Mr. CRITZ. Madam Speaker, I rise today to address the egregious 
actions taken by both the House and Senate against unemployed 
Americans. Members of this body have continued to vote against 
extending benefits to millions of Americans who need it the most right 
now. While these citizens are facing the worst job market that this 
Nation has seen in generations, these Members have turned their backs 
on them. They claim that the Restoration of Emergency Unemployment 
Compensation Act is budget-busting legislation. Madam Speaker, any bill 
whose intention is to assist 14.7 million jobless Americans while 
adding a needed infusion of cash into our still fragile economy is not 
budget-busting legislation. It is the right legislation.
  Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has claimed that the 
Republicans continue to block the extension of unemployment benefits 
because they are not ``willing to use worthwhile programs as an 
excuse'' to create ``even bigger national debt than we've already 
got.'' Where were these same Republicans when we began our descent into 
fiscal disarray? Where were the Republicans when our national debt 
doubled when they had control of the White House and Congress? Where 
were the Republicans in stopping this atrocity from taking place?
  And with that, I would like to put a chart up that some of my former 
colleagues used to show where we were

[[Page H5541]]

and where we came from. In western Pennsylvania, where I'm from, many 
times I've been taught over the years that you have to look back to see 
where you were to know where you're going. And I think this chart shows 
pretty dramatically where we were just a decade ago and where the last 
administration brought us.
  Republicans have made a political calculation and decided to present 
this as a debate about our national debt. If we look back at history, 
we can see this new mantra of fiscal responsibility heralded by the 
Republican Party of today was not what they lived by a few years ago. 
Our national debt grew to enormous numbers because of actions 
Republicans have taken in the past decade. Let us not forget, when 
President Bush came into office in 2001, he inherited a $236 billion 
budget surplus, 2.4 percent of our total GDP. This was the first 
surplus of this magnitude in the history of our country. These 
surpluses were projected to continue for at least the next 10 years.
  According to a Congressional Budget Office report on the Economic 
Outlook for the Next Decade published in January of 2000, if the 
policies in place under President Clinton were maintained, total 
surpluses would have accumulated to between $3.2 and $4.2 trillion over 
the next 10 years. With these surpluses, it was projected that the 
Treasury would have sufficient cash on hand sometime between 2007 and 
2009 to retire all debt held by the public. Now, let me read that to 
you again. With these surpluses, it was projected that the Treasury 
would have sufficient cash on hand sometime between 2007 and 2009 to 
retire all debt held by the public.
  Madam Speaker, we've come a long way from the days of President 
Clinton, and it's been under the Republican leadership that this 
descent has taken place. As a country, we were on a path towards true 
fiscal responsibility and recovery. Rather than demand that we use 
these funds to eradicate our national debt then, Republicans dwindled 
our surplus on unpaid programs that greatly benefited the wealthiest 
citizens in our Nation. The Economic Growth--and I love the titles--the 
Economic Growth and Tax Reconciliation Act of 2001 passed the 
Republican Congress and was signed by President Bush, and it was an 
unpaid tax cut for the rich.
  The CBO revised its economic outlook at the beginning of 2002 to 
reflect the changes in spending policy that have taken place during 
President Bush's first year. Although they still projected surpluses, 
the total amount had dropped by $4 trillion under the prior year's 
estimate; $2.4 trillion, or 60 percent, of that decline was attributed 
to laws enacted in 2001, including the Bush tax cuts. When the tax 
policy was studied for its long-term impact on our national budget, it 
was determined that the plan would cost us $1.35 trillion over 10 
years. At the end of fiscal year 2002, we reported our first budget 
deficit since 1997 in the amount of $157.8 billion. Even then, there 
were no trumpets sounded by the Republicans to reverse our spending 
habits to pay down the national debt. In fact, they continued to 
embrace policies that would lead us deeper and deeper into the 
financial black hole we see ourselves in today.
  In 2003, there was a second round of major tax cuts enacted. The law 
accelerated previous provisions from the 2001 cuts while enacting new 
terms. Here we go with these great titles. The Jobs and Growth Tax 
Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 was projected to increase Federal 
budget deficits by $349.7 billion in the next 10 years. From 2001 to 
2008, the Republicans added $4.9 trillion to our national debt, 
bringing it to a total of $10.6 trillion by the time President Obama 
took office. The Republican leadership was able to turn a projected $4 
trillion surplus into a nearly $5 trillion budget deficit in a matter 
of 8 years.

  Madam Speaker, 2008 was a trying year for all Americans. We witnessed 
a dramatic dip in housing prices, a skyrocketing number of foreclosed 
homes, the failing of financial institutions, what appeared to be a 
full collapse of our banking system, and the loss of 3.1 million 
American jobs by the end of the year. It was a catastrophe on a 
magnitude this Nation had not seen in decades. The economic meltdown 
prompted President Bush's Treasury Secretary Paulson and Federal 
Reserve Chairman Bernanke to visit the Speaker's Office on Thursday, 
September 18 of that year to deliver information to congressional 
leaders on our country's dire economic situation.
  The Treasury Secretary and Chairman of the Fed described how, under 
the Bush administration, our economy had reached the equivalent of 
driving a tanker off of Allegheny Mountain. They believed that a 
serious government intervention was needed in order to rescue the 
system. On Saturday, September 20, a mere 2 days after this briefing, 
the Treasury Department delivered a three-page proposal to Congress 
asking for $700 billion and giving the Secretary authority to purchase 
mortgage-related assets from any financial institution.
  In a hearing held by the House Financial Services Committee on the 
financial crisis, Secretary Paulson stated this major outlay of 
government money was needed to restore confidence in our financial 
markets and financial institutions so that they can perform their 
mission of supporting future prosperity and growth. The CBO estimated 
that the bill, signed by President Bush on October 4, 2008, in its 
entirety, including several tax provisions added on to it, would 
increase the national debt by $814 billion.
  In the 8 years that President Bush and his administration led this 
country, they doubled our national debt. Not once did Republicans stand 
up to say the Bush administration and the Republican-controlled 
Congress were responsible for this. But now when Americans are in need 
of help, the Republicans refuse to offer it.
  The financial crisis left a lasting effect on our country. Not only 
were Wall Street and our Nation's financial institutions left in 
disarray, but millions of Americans were left without jobs. Our 
unemployment rate jumped to 7.4 percent at the end of December 2008 and 
now stands over 9 percent. Americans are suffering because of this 
crisis and are in dire need of assistance, yet Republicans believe that 
it is politically astute to deny millions of American families the aid 
they need to put food on their tables while searching for a job during 
this difficult time.
  When the House took up the Restoration of Emergency Unemployment 
Compensation Act on July 1, it passed by a 270-153 vote. It is 
wonderful that 270 Members of this body see the needs of the people and 
are appropriately providing for them, yet 80 percent of the Republicans 
in the House opted to continue being the party of ``no.''

                              {time}  2230

  Nearly all Republicans in the Senate decided to do the same. They 
continue to turn their backs on American families in need.
  Republicans believe that this is all in the name of fiscal 
responsibility. How is denying Americans needed funding to support 
their families fiscally irresponsible?
  Not only do these funds help American families, they help the 
American economy. One reason there is not enough jobs right now is weak 
consumer demand. CBO has found that extending unemployment benefits to 
be one of the most cost-effective and fast-acting ways to stimulate the 
economy.
  Every dollar in unemployment benefits creates at least $1.64 in 
economic activity, as opposed to the 29 cents the Bush tax cuts would 
generate if extended, according to chief economist Mark Zandi of 
moodys.com. Virtually every dollar from unemployment benefits would be 
quickly spent on living expenses with the purchase of goods and 
services.
  The CBO projected that the Restoration of Emergency Unemployment 
Compensation Act of 2010 would cost $33 billion, which works out to be 
about $2,200 per unemployed person of those 14.7 million people. This 
is roughly seven-thousandths of 1 percent of the debt amassed by the 
Republicans under the Bush administration. Yet the Republicans now want 
to claim fiscal responsibility. Providing these benefits is fiscally 
responsible and, more than that, it's a moral responsibility.
  In the month of May, the State of Pennsylvania had a 9.1 percent 
unemployment rate. And in my area in southwest Pennsylvania we see many 
counties that are still hovering around the 10 percent market. While I 
was in the district over this past week I heard

[[Page H5542]]

many stories about families and how they're hurting while I was around 
visiting them.
  At a senior center I talked to a young woman whose husband used to 
work in one of the factories in Johnstown. He worked there for 30 
years. They paid their taxes. They did everything that they were 
supposed to do. Now his unemployment benefits are running out, but the 
Republican Members in this body and in the Senate feel it's not 
important enough to pass the emergency unemployment benefits.
  One unemployed constituent lost her car because she's unable to make 
her payments once she stopped receiving the benefits in June. She's now 
left to find a jobs with no means of transportation, but that's not 
important enough for the folks in this body.
  I received this letter last week from one of my constituents who 
desperately needs Congress to pass the unemployment extension. Her 
letter reads, ``I am writing this message to tell you about the harm 
that failure to extend unemployment is causing for my family. Both my 
husband and I lost jobs through no fault of our own, like millions of 
other Americans. We have worked hard and paid taxes for a combined 
total of 71 years; two of these include my husband's 2 years in the 
military service.
  ``We have tried to get work since being laid off over a year and a 
half ago. My husband has worked for the Census.'' Remember, those are 
some of those jobs that have been noted that they're not real jobs. 
``My husband has worked for the Census a few weeks each of these past 2 
years, but that will end soon. I have tried to get work during the past 
2 years, but so far have not found anything. I have read that for every 
job that opens in Pennsylvania, there are five workers that would need 
it.
  ``We feel that we have been let down. Our country has bailed out 
companies and banks, and has saved high-paying jobs and bonuses, but 
feels it is too expensive to continue to help the unemployed. Some say 
that there are jobs out there that people aren't taking. I would like 
to know what they are and especially whether they are jobs that my 
husband and I could do.''
  Now, this is western Pennsylvania. The people in my district want to 
work. Sometimes there isn't work though, and they need the help that 
these unemployment benefits offer. And it really, it hurts my feelings 
and it angers me that this body can turn that kind of help down.
  ``Most of our 71 years of work have been in public libraries, which 
are hurting more than any other service from huge cuts by the State and 
local governments.
  ``I don't know how Congressmen and Senators can take a break when 
millions of Americans' lives are on hold. We can't make the rent or 
mortgage, pay for prescription drugs, feed and clothe our children, put 
gas into our cars so that we can continue to look for jobs and many 
other necessities.''
  And just as a side note, before I continue the speech that my staff 
and I put together, in western Pennsylvania we've seen the loss of jobs 
over many years. It used to be the hub of the steel industry of this 
country. Well, steel left in the late seventies and early eighties, and 
we've been fighting to create jobs in western Pennsylvania for a long 
time. We're a very hard working people. We do the best job that we can.
  And why I'm so angered by the rhetoric that's been thrown around 
about this unemployment extension of unemployment benefits is these are 
hard working people, and if the jobs were there they'd be working. 
They're not looking for any kind of handout. But sometimes you need 
help, and that's all they're asking for.
  She goes on to say, ``I would like for you to share this letter with 
other Congressmen and Senators. I hope that you will all realize that 
we did not ask for this situation and would be glad to return to work 
if only we could.
  ``The unemployed need help and we need it fast. Please work as hard 
as you can to get our benefits back.''
  Madam Speaker, these families, like millions of other American 
families, need our help. I urge my colleagues in the Senate to pass the 
Restoration of Emergency Unemployment Compensation Act and provide our 
citizens the help they require in this time of crisis.
  And again, let me reference where we were and then where we went.
  This is not budget busting. This is helping men and women who are in 
need.

                          ____________________