[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 108 (Wednesday, July 21, 2010)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6042-S6044]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE

  Mr. REED. Mr. President, yesterday, the Senate voted for cloture on 
the unemployment insurance extension bill. Unfortunately, we are still 
delaying and deferring the final vote on this measure. This is 
essential to millions of Americans who need the money they receive--
which, frankly, it is not a huge amount. In Rhode Island, the average 
weekly unemployment compensation is $360 a week. But they need to have 
some certainty that this program is going to be there at least for the 
next several months.
  We have made a lot of points rhetorically. Now it is time to take the 
final vote, to move forward, and to deal with a more fundamental issue; 
that is, how to create the jobs--now that we are providing some 
assistance to those who are unemployed. How do we go ahead and further 
create jobs in this economy so our unemployment rolls shrink?
  That task is challenging. We have taken 2 months now to get to this 
juncture. In the past, extending unemployment compensation was a 
bipartisan initiative. It was done routinely and repeatedly. It was 
always extended as long as the unemployment rate was at least 7.4 
percent. Today the unemployment rate nationally is 9.5 percent. In my 
State of Rhode Island it is 12 percent. We are not alone. There are 
many States that are very much mired in a huge economic crisis.
  The other factor of this unemployment situation is that it has been a 
long-term unemployment for so many people, nearly half of those 
unemployed. So the money they put aside, the rainy day money, the money 
they put in the coffee can for that special occasion or that special 
treat, has long been exhausted. This unemployment compensation is 
absolutely essential for people.
  There are many on the other side who will stand and say: We are all 
for unemployment compensation; we just want to pay for it. Well, 
historically, we have not paid for it. It is truly an emergency 
expenditure.

[[Page S6043]]

  The other factor that is critical to notice is that unemployment 
compensation does not add to the structural deficit. That is in sharp 
contrast to the tax cuts, which my colleagues on the other side are 
urging be extended without paying for them, and in sharp contrast to 
the largest expansion of an entitlement program since the 1960s, the 
Medicare Part D Program, which was not paid for. Those programs do add 
to the structural deficit because they are not replenished periodically 
in the good times because people qualify for them as soon as they hit 
an age--65--or as soon as they qualify by filing their income taxes. 
Those are structural deficit issues. Yet the other side says that is 
not important. I can't figure that out.
  If the deficit is so overwhelming, so all-consuming, then why are my 
colleagues on the Republican side, first, suggesting we extend all the 
tax cuts of the Bush years without any offsets; and why did they, in 
the past, vote for the creation of Medicare Part D, really? Why did 
they vote for 2 wars that were unpaid for? There is something 
inconsistent in that.
  As I pointed out, unemployment compensation is not a problem of 
structural deficit because, as the economy recovers, people will 
continue to pay into the unemployment compensation trust fund through 
payroll taxes. In good times those funds increase so that in the 
unfortunate times we can provide assistance.
  What we are doing now with this legislation is recognizing that this 
is a particularly challenging moment for families and for States, and 
they need further assistance. Part of the legislation we have is fully 
compensating the States for the Extended Benefits program, which, in 
other times, are shared 50 percent by the States and 50 percent by the 
Federal Government. In these extraordinary times, we have to pass this 
legislation.
  We also recognize, too, in terms of the offsets of the legislation, 
that this is part of our overall attempt to stimulate the economy. For 
every dollar of unemployment benefits, there is at least $1.60 or $1.90 
in economic activity. It makes sense. When they get that $360 a week, 
they take whatever resources they have and they go to the store. They 
don't go off jetting to Europe on a vacation. They go to the store and 
buy food, clothes, and those things that are essential to their 
families.
  Mr. President, I am continually baffled by the reluctance, the 
resistance, and the obstruction of the other side in terms of doing 
what has to be done, and done promptly. It will be done in a way in 
which it will assist the recovery that we are beginning to sense 
throughout the country.
  I note the arrival of my colleague, the junior Senator from Rhode 
Island. I think he is about to take the floor.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The junior Senator from Rhode 
Island is recognized.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, first of all, let me compliment the 
work of my senior Senator, Jack Reed, on this issue. When I first came 
to the Senate 3 years ago, Senator Reed had already established his 
reputation as somebody who fought passionately for unemployment 
insurance for people who were out of work. He understood that a family 
who is out of work, through no fault of their own, very often has the 
unemployment insurance they and their employers have contributed to as 
their only lifeline; that as our vibrant economy goes through ups and 
downs, there are times when individual families pay a terrible price 
when the economy contracts, when jobs are lost, and when individual 
families have to make what Vice President Biden called that ``longest 
walk'' up the stairs to tell their kids, their families, they have lost 
their job.
  At that time, that lifeline for a hard-working family who, through no 
fault of their own, is out of work is all important. Senator Reed knows 
that well. He has been a champion on this issue, not just when it has 
been at the forefront of national attention as it is right now, but day 
in and day out, constantly fighting for the people in Rhode Island and 
folks across this country who need this lifeline.
  I wanted to say a few words to echo Senator Reed's comments. Rhode 
Island still has 12 percent unemployment. We have the fourth worst 
unemployment of any State in the country. It has been that way month 
after month after month after month, with individual families paying 
the terrible price of the economic consequences of something that took 
place well outside of Rhode Island. It was Wall Street that collapsed. 
It was the big Wall Street banks. It was the bets by the Wall Street 
banks in a wild derivatives market, a wild mortgage security market, 
that tanked this economy, that required emergency action by Congress to 
try to put it right before a real depression ensued, and that kicked 
off the great recession that we have been suffering since then. That 
great recession washed like a tsunami across our country, and it hit 
particularly hard in my home State of Rhode Island.
  In Rhode Island, we have 70,000 families who have somebody out of 
work. It is actually probably more than that because the unemployment 
numbers tend to undercount the actual harm. But the official count is 
over 70,000 families. I can promise you this: There aren't 70,000 jobs 
waiting around for those people in Rhode Island. They are just not 
there.
  The notion that the Republican side has often developed, which is 
that unemployment insurance contributes to unemployment; that people 
who are looking for work need a little bit more motivation to go out 
there and take a job, and if you could just threaten their families' 
survival, threaten their ability to have food on the table, threaten 
their ability to stay in their homes, and threaten their ability to 
afford health care, they will then be motivated enough and will go out 
and get those jobs--I don't know where they get that from, but it is 
not from Rhode Island. We are a hard-working State. We don't have the 
jobs to take 70,000 people and put them back to work as this economy 
just haltingly now begins to recover.
  Six-thousand Rhode Islanders have lost their emergency unemployment 
insurance benefits because of the stall tactics of the other side of 
the aisle; 2.5 million Americans across the country have lost their 
benefits. Those sound like big numbers. Behind every one of those 6,000 
Rhode Islanders is a family story, a story about an individual who has 
to face some hard choices about whether they are able to pay the 
mortgage, whether they are able to buy new clothes for kids when the 
kids go back to school, whether they are able to pay for their 
medications, whether they are able to simply keep food on the table and 
a roof over their heads.
  It certainly played a crucial part in preventing economic disaster 
for Sandy in Warwick, RI, who is 60 years old. She has a background in 
accounting. She has been unemployed now for 13 months and is trying to 
find a job in that tough, tough, tough, Rhode Island economic climate. 
She has applied for about 100 jobs. She is out there working. She is 
out there trying to find a place where she can put her skills back to 
work the way she always did, but no luck so far.

  Her lifeline was unemployment insurance. If the Senate Republicans 
had been successful in their filibuster of this unemployment insurance, 
Sandy would have lost what is now her only remaining source of income. 
The consequences of that, obviously, are catastrophic for Sandy, for 
the other 6,000 Rhode Islanders in that position, and for 2\1/2\ 
million Americans around the country.
  The great argument we hear our friends on the other side make is: We 
understand how painful this is going to be. We understand that people 
are going to have to come home and tell their kids we are going to have 
to move. We can't keep our home any longer. You are going to have to 
pack up your bedroom, put the stuffed animals in a box, and we are all 
going to have to clear out because I simply don't have the income.
  Crossroads, our biggest shelter in Rhode Island, is packed. We have 
people sleeping in conference rooms. But the Republicans say: You know, 
we understand that is tough. We understand if you can't pay for 
medication for your spouse, that is tough. As people start to think 
about heading back to school in September, and you can't pay for 
clothes for the kids, you can't pay for pens, pencils, and schoolbooks, 
that is tough. But something more important is at stake here, they tell 
us, and

[[Page S6044]]

that is our national debt. We have to worry about that more than the 
care of American families who are out of work, through no fault of 
their own, because of the wild spree that Wall Street took under the 
Bush administration.
  I would think more of that argument if it were at least consistent, 
but it is not consistent. It is an argument that they apply when 
regular working families are out of work through no fault of their own 
because of the Wall Street meltdown from the Bush policies. That is 
when they get all excited about how important the deficit is. But when 
it comes to, say, oh, tax cuts for billionaires, tax cuts for corporate 
CEOs, well, then a different rule prevails. Then the debt isn't so 
important. Then the deficit isn't so important. What is more important 
are the folks with the big salaries--the CEOs earning on average these 
days 400 times what a regular average salaried worker gets paid--400 
times more every day than the average worker. That is the kind of tax 
cut that is more important than the deficit.
  I saw this cartoon the other day, and I wanted to share it on the 
Senate floor. I thought it was a pretty good description of where we 
are on this. Here are our friends on the other side. It says ``Senate 
GOP'' on this cranky fellow's hat, and a little cat on the front of the 
boat says ``jobless benefits,'' if you can't read it. The fellow is 
saying to the little cat on the front of the boat: Too much weight. You 
get off the boat into the water. You are on your own. We don't care. 
Actually, it ends at get off the boat. I added the rest. On the back of 
the boat we see tax cuts for the wealthy.
  But the Republicans do not see that. They do not worry about that. 
They are not concerned about that. Since the estate tax went to zero, 
four estates have been reported in the media of more than $1 billion--
more than $1 billion. Each estate has gone through tax free, at a cost 
to the Treasury, at a cost to the deficit and the debt of hundreds of 
millions of dollars, and not a peep--not a peep--from the other side 
from those who are concerned about the deficit, when that is the issue. 
But you get a poor family out of work, one lifeline left keeping them 
in their home, one lifeline left keeping food on the table, and giving 
that lifeline the chop is something they are all for. That is something 
they are all for.
  Well, fortunately, what happened here in the Senate yesterday is they 
lost. They didn't lose on a fair-and-square up-and-down-majority-rules 
vote. They lost on a 60-40 filibuster vote. They made us win by 20 
points. Not just majority rules, the way it is in most places, but they 
forced us to 60-40 and we still won. So the unemployment insurance 
benefits should begin to flow to those families who are in such 
distress right now, and wondering how they are going to make it through 
the next day, through the next moment.
  But it is not enough for them, once losing the debate, to simply pick 
themselves up, dust themselves off and, like good sports, go on to the 
next disagreement. We have other things we will disagree about. Nope. 
That is asking too much of our friends, unfortunately, to have that 
kind of good sportsmanship--to stand up, get back on the field and go 
back to the battle. We have to burn 30 hours of Senate floor time to no 
purpose. We can't do other work during this period. We can't do 
amendments during this period.
  We know how the vote is going to come out. Literally, no possible 
purpose is accomplished by requiring us to burn the 30 hours, except 
two things for sure will happen. One thing for sure that happens is 
that all those families out there--those 6,000 Rhode Island families, 
those 2\1/2\ million families across the country--will have to wait a 
little longer. They have been stretched to the very end of their 
budgets and they are hanging on by their fingernails. But instead of 
saying: Fair and square, okay, we tried. We threw up every obstacle we 
could, but we lost 60-40, so let's go on to the next thing--nope, they 
are going to make them hang on for another 30 hours.
  The other thing they accomplish through this is that they burn Senate 
floor time. The Good Lord only gives us so much time. You can't get 
minutes back when they are gone. You can't get hours back when they are 
gone. You can't get days back when they are gone. We have a lot of work 
to do in this Chamber, and our friends on the other side would like to 
have us do as much work as possible in as little time as possible, 
because, frankly, they want as little done as possible. So it actually 
suits their goal to burn floor time to no effect here on the Senate 
floor.
  So that is what we are doing. I am here alone right now. Senator Reed 
was here alone a minute ago. I suspect that when I leave, we will go 
back into a quorum call and time will tick, tick, tick, tick past with 
nothing being accomplished here. We could be working on jobs 
legislation. We sure need that. We could be working on energy 
legislation. We sure need that. There are a host of things Americans 
want us to be working on. But the Republican side of this Chamber has a 
strategy to prevent anything from getting done. Their policy is saying 
no, no matter what the question is--that is their answer, no matter the 
proposal--as long it comes from the Obama administration. That is their 
purpose, and they achieve that purpose when they burn this time.
  So here we are on the Senate floor with time ticking away, second by 
second, minute by minute, accomplishing nothing other than burning 30 
hours that, frankly, belongs to the American public. These are 30 hours 
we should be accomplishing the public's business, moving on to the next 
issues and going forward.
  I would hope that, if nothing else, out of the spirit of good 
sportsmanship, our friends on the other side would call this off and 
say: All right, enough. We wish we had won. We want a world in which 
the deficit only applies to unemployment benefits for working families 
and we get to dig big holes in the debt and the deficit when it is our 
tax cuts for the wealthy, but we lost on that one. Let us move on. We 
will take the hand up off the field, we will dust ourselves off and 
move on to the next one. If for no other reason than good 
sportsmanship, I would hope they would do that and call off this period 
of delay.
  That would also allow us to get to other business. We may disagree, 
but we might as well get to the business. We might as well have these 
arguments out. We might as well have our fight. Let's not just kill 
time here. So I hope my colleagues will reconsider. Time ticks away, 
awasting here. Everybody has work to be done. The American people await 
us, particularly on jobs legislation. There is an enormous amount we 
could do to help them if we could simply get to it.
  We have a small business bill we are trying to tee up that would 
provide enormous value to the economy, including in particular Rhode 
Island, where small business is so important. Small business is the 
heartbeat of Rhode Island's economy. To the extent we can provide 
additional capital and support for small business, we could get to 
that. We could be working on that right this minute instead of being 
stuck in this long delay, in this empty Chamber while 30 hours ticks 
uselessly away because our friends simply can't dust themselves off 
after their defeat, stand up and go on to the next issue. They have to 
force this long 30-hour stall.
  I thank the Presiding Officer again for the time, I yield the floor, 
and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burris). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________