Congressional Record, Volume 156 Issue 154 (Tuesday, November 30, 2010)

[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 154 (Tuesday, November 30, 2010)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8282-S8288]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today we have an opportunity to assist
literally hundreds of thousands of families across this country who are
out of work through no fault of their own, who are battling with the
most severe economic downturn since the Great Depression, who are
chasing jobs that have disappeared, and they are looking everywhere to
try to find work. We have the opportunity to extend unemployment
benefits for an additional year.
In my State of Rhode Island, people are in a very serious situation.
They are struggling to stay in their homes, to educate their children,
to deal with the challenges of everyday life. They

[[Page S8283]]

have worked hard and long all of their lives, and now they are finding
it difficult to find a job.
In every situation previously in this country, we have come to their
assistance. We have done so by extending unemployment benefits. We have
never failed to do that as long as the unemployment rate was above 7.2
or 7.4 percent. Today across the country, it is close to 9 percent
nationally. In my State of Rhode Island, it is much higher. We have
always done it on an emergency basis because it truly is an emergency.
We haven't had to offset because we have always determined that it was
necessary to get the money to the people who could use it, who needed
it desperately, and we should do that again.
I find it difficult to understand how some of my colleagues on the
other side would object to an extension of unemployment benefits for a
year that are not offset but at the same time insist that we provide
tax cuts to the very richest Americans, without paying for them, and
insist that we add approximately $700 billion to our deficit by
extending tax cuts for people making over $250,000 a year--and many
making many times that amount--yet for unemployed Americans desperately
seeking work and not finding it, they would insist that we not only
have to pay for it, but we have delayed and delayed the process of
getting them assistance. It is difficult to justify those two
positions.
It is also difficult to justify those two positions because what we
know is that unemployment compensation benefits give us a much bigger
bang for the buck than the extension of tax relief to upper income
citizens. The Congressional Budget Office has rated the effectiveness
of various techniques to provide assistance and stimulate demand in the
economy. They have found that unemployment insurance is far and away
the most effective form--much more effective than tax cuts to the
wealthy.
CBO estimates that for every dollar of unemployment compensation
benefits that we inject into the economy, we get $1.90 of economic
activity, which is almost a 2-for-1 payback. So we are in a situation
where this is not only the appropriate policy to pursue, but it is the
most effective one in order to keep demand and the economy and growth
moving forward.
I am someone who believes in fiscal responsibility. That is why I
took, in the 1990s, difficult votes in order to balance the budget
under President Clinton, to raise not only our output but also to
balance the budget and have a surplus in 2000. I opposed the proposal
and the tax cuts favored by Republican colleagues in 2000 because I
understood that the difficult, hard fought, fiscal responsibility could
easily be frittered away because what looked like a surplus in 2000
could be affected by unforeseen events, such as terrorist attacks,
natural disasters, or changes in the world economy that we could not
contemplate. I knew how difficult it was in the nineties to get our
house in order. I was opposed to these tax cuts. I hope everybody else
realizes the demographics of the country at that time.
In 1993-1994, we took tough votes to build up a surplus because we
knew what was coming. We had a demographic wave--the baby boomers--that
would qualify for Medicare and Social Security, and that would, by the
nature of the sheer size of that population, put extra demands upon our
budget.
Despite all of that, taxes were cut, wars were pursued unpaid for.
For the first time in the history of the country, we engaged in major
military operations and didn't even make an attempt to pay for them.
That is not the definition of fiscal responsibility. Yet many of the
same proponents of that policy are urging us today that we cannot do
unemployment compensation insurance unless we pay for it. But, of
course, let's extend the Bush tax cuts for all Americans, including the
wealthiest, and in that case add another $700 billion to our deficit
over 10 years. That doesn't seem to make any economic sense.
This proposal is supported by people who are knowledgeable about the
way the economy works. In a statement released today, 33 economists,
including 5 recipients of the Nobel Prize in economics and 5 former
chairs of the Council of Economic Advisers, have said:

Continuing the about-to-expire federal emergency
unemployment insurance program, which provides extra weeks of
benefits to the long-term unemployed, is sensible economic
policy that will not only assist the unemployed but help
maintain spending, overall demand, and employment at this
critical point in the recovery. . . . Eliminating these
benefits, on the other hand, will cause hardship for the
long-term unemployed, scale back spending, and weaken the
economy since unemployment benefits are one of the most
effective means available to support overall demand.
Unemployment has remained above 9 percent for 18 months
already and will likely remain high for some time to come,
making a strong case for continuing the current program for
another 12 months. Moreover, the special provisions for
extending unemployment insurance during recessions have
traditionally been financed by short-term fiscal deficits and
this remains a prudent approach. The program will not
contribute significantly to long-term deficits because its
costs will diminish automatically as the economy recovers and
unemployment returns to more normal levels.

Let me say that again in my own words. Our colleagues are suggesting
a permanent extension of tax cuts that will cost, over 10 years, $700
billion, and presumably 10 years after that and 10 years after that.
That is a huge structural change to our revenue. Unemployment
compensation benefits are cyclical. They rise in difficult times, like
today, and they fall as the economy recovers. So we are not talking
about a long-term commitment to a program of deficit enhancement; we
are talking about short-term relief for struggling Americans.
I think these economists make the case extraordinarily well. I ask
unanimous consent that their letter be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Economic Policy Institute,

Washington, DC, November 29, 2010.
Hon. Barack Obama,
President of the United States, The White House, Washington,
DC.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
Speaker, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Harry Reid,
Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Hon. John Boehner,
Minority Leader, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Mitch McConnell,
Minority Leader, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. President, Speaker Pelosi, Majority Leader Reid,
Congressman Boehner, and Senator McConnell: Congress must
decide whether to continue the Emergency Unemployment
Compensation program (EUC), a decision that will directly
affect millions of families and the entire economy.
Authorization for the additional benefits Congress has been
providing since the passage of the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act in February 2009 expires tomorrow, November
30, and millions of unemployed workers will soon be affected.
I write you out of concern for the jobless, who through no
fault of their own, cannot find work in an economy with only
one job vacancy for every five unemployed workers, and who
depend on EUC to pay their rent or mortgage, pay for
groceries and gas, and pay for their heating bills and other
utilities.
But I write also out of concern for the economy. Together
with Lawrence Katz of Harvard University, I gathered the
signatures of 33 prominent economists on the attached
statement, which warns that letting the Emergency
Unemployment Compensation program expire will weaken the
economy by reducing the spending of the unemployed and
overall consumer demand. All of us agree that EUC should be
extended for another 12 months and that there is no danger
that continuing to provide extended unemployment insurance
benefits will materially raise overall unemployment. We also
agree that deficit financing for EUC is prudent and will not
contribute significantly to long-term deficits.
We hope that you act swiftly to renew these benefits, for
the good of the economy and the well-being of millions of
deserving Americans who depend on them.
Sincerely,
Lawrence Mishel,
President, Economic Policy Institute.
____

Statement From Leading American Economists

[[Page S8284]]

economy since unemployment benefits are one of the most
effective means available to support overall demand.
Unemployment has remained above 9.0% for 18 months already
and will likely remain high for some time to come, making a
strong case for continuing the current program for another 12
months. Moreover, the special provisions for extended
unemployment insurance during recessions have traditionally
been financed by short-term fiscal deficits and this remains
a prudent approach. The program will not contribute
significantly to long-term deficits because its costs will
diminish automatically as the economy recovers and
unemployment returns to more normal levels.

SIGNERS

Henry J. Aaron, Brookings Institution; Kenneth Arrow,
Nobel Laureate in Economics, Stanford University; David
Autor, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Martin
Neal Baily, Chair, Council of Economic Advisers,
Brookings Institution;
Dean Baker, Center for Economic and Policy Research; Alan
S. Blinder, Princeton University; Gary Burtless,
Brookings Institution; Raj Chetty, Harvard University;
David Cutler, Harvard University; Janet Currie,
Columbia University; J. Bradford Delong, University of
California--Berkeley; Robert H. Frank, Cornell
University; Richard Freeman, Harvard University; James
K. Galbraith, University of Texas; Claudia Goldin;
Harvard University; Jonathan Gruber, Massachusetts
Institute of Technology;
Harry J. Holzer, Georgetown University; Robert Johnson,
Roosevelt Institute; Lawrence Katz, Harvard University;
Frank Levy, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Eric
S. Maskin, Nobel Laureate in Economics, Princeton
University; Daniel L. McFadden, Nobel Laureate in
Economics University of California--Berkeley; Lawrence
Mishel, Economic Policy Institute; Christina Romer,
Chair, Council of Economic Advisers University of
California--Berkeley; Christopher Ruhm, University of
North Carolina--Greensboro; Emmanuel Saez, University
of California--Berkeley; Charles L. Schultze, Chair,
Council of Economic Advisers, Brookings Institution;
Robert M. Solow, Nobel Laureate in Economics,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Timothy M.
Smeeding, University of Wisconsin; Joseph E. Stiglitz,
Nobel Laureate in Economics, Chair, Council of Economic
Advisers, Columbia University; Laura D. Tyson, Chair,
Council of Economic Advisers University of California--
Berkeley; Till Von Wachter, Columbia University; Justin
Wolfers, University of Pennsylvania.

Mr. REED. As I indicated before, their view has been echoed by the
CBO. Tax cuts, in their view, are the least effective form of economic
stimulus, and the most effective is unemployment insurance benefits.
On November 16, the Department of Labor released an independent study
that was commissioned during the Bush administration. It found that
since mid-2008, the Federal unemployment insurance program has saved
1.6 million jobs in every quarter, averting 1.8 million layoffs per
quarter at the height of the downturn, and reduced the unemployment
rate by 1.2 points.
Separately, the Economic Policy Institute has found that continuing
the programs through the end of 2011 will support the creation of
700,000 full-time equivalent jobs.
People who get unemployment insurance benefits tend to take that
money and go to the grocery store or buy shoes for their children or
pay down, if they can, some of their credit card debt. Maybe in this
holiday season they will buy an extra present for their children. That
keeps our economy moving, and it keeps the people in the grocery stores
working, people at department stores working, and the manufacturers
producing these goods working.
Our economy grew at 2 percent in the third quarter and in a recent
Wall Street Journal article, Goldman Sachs analyst Alec Phillips
estimated that if unemployment insurance benefits expired, it would
shave half a percentage point from growth. Such a decline would cost
hundreds of thousands of jobs. So here is a policy that will expand
jobs, maintain jobs, and if we don't pursue it, we will find ourselves
contracting employment at the very time that all Americans are asking
us to do something very clear-cut: get jobs, keep jobs, produce jobs,
and find a way to create them. This could also engender a downward
spiral because if the jobs contract, that could be the beginning of
further contraction, and it could leave us in a worse situation.
So not only will families feel the brunt of this lack of unemployment
compensation benefits, it is the small businesses throughout every
community--it is the retailers and the people who depend upon their
neighborhood customers to come in and buy the goods and services that
not only provide them what they need but also provides the cash flow
for small businesses to keep operating.
Failure to maintain unemployment insurance will mean that 2 million
jobless workers will lose benefits in December. Two million Americans,
this December, will stop receiving benefits. Several hundred thousand
unemployed workers will lose their benefits every month, culminating in
up to 6 million losing benefits by the end of 2011. Now is the time to
govern, the time to act, and now is the time to do what we have always
done in a situation like this. It is the time to act promptly and
timely and pass an extension of the unemployment insurance benefits.
We have seen over the last year delay after delay. We have seen
benefits expire only to retroactively be restored through procedural
votes and delays.
One of the ironies is that we get these procedural votes that we
can't move forward on a bill but, finally, when the bill comes up to a
vote, there is overwhelming support, which suggests to me that the
process of delay has taken primacy over the substance of policy. That
is not worthy of our constituents and the crisis they face today in
this country. We have, as I said, continuously maintained unemployment
compensation benefits, and we have extended benefits whenever our
unemployment rate nationally is above 7.2 percent. Republican
administrations, Democratic administrations, Republican Congresses, and
Democratic Congresses have always recognized that at the level of 9
percent unemployment, extended unemployment benefits were almost
automatic--something you had to do for all the reasons I have cited,
such as the economic effects on the economy, but most fundamentally it
is giving people a chance to just make ends meet until they can find a
job.
So I think we are in a position where we must go forward. Acting now
is the right thing to do, the responsible thing to do, and the wise
economic thing to do. We need to swiftly pass this 1-year extension.
Many colleagues are joining Senator Baucus, the chairman of the
committee, in introducing this legislation. I urge at this point that
we move forward, and at this point I make the following request.
Mr. DURBIN. Before the Senator makes his request, may I pose a
question to the Senator.
Mr. REED. Yes.
Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator for his time and his leadership on
this issue. I am happy to join him. I want to make sure we put this
into the context of the lameduck session. This is a session when we are
debating tax cuts, and the position held by the other side of the aisle
is that we should give tax cuts to those making $1 million a year in
income, which is roughly $20,000 a week. If I understand the
differences in the Democratic position and the Republican position, we
think those making $1 million a year should get roughly $6,000 in tax
cuts. They believe those making $1 million year should get $100,000 in
tax cuts. I also understand if the Republican position prevails, it
will add $700 billion to the deficit over 10 years, just to give tax
cuts to those making over $250,000 a year or $70 billion a year.
So their position, when it comes to tax cuts for the wealthiest in
America, is that we can afford to add $70 billion to the deficit with a
tax cut for millionaires each year and not accept the reality that that
is one of the poorest ways to spark growth in our economy. Our position
is that, historically, when we reach high levels of unemployment--over
7.2 percent--we have extended unemployment benefits. We are now at
about 9.6 percent. And we believe we should extend unemployment
benefits for those who have lost their jobs through no fault of their
own. The benefits average about $300 a week for someone to keep their
family in food, clothing, pay the utility bills in the winter, that
sort of thing. And we are told by the Congressional Budget Office that
unemployment benefits are the best catalyst for sparking growth in the
economy. It is money spent immediately by people who need disposable
income and who will turn around and purchase goods and services
immediately with it.

[[Page S8285]]

So $70 billion for tax breaks--$70 billion in deficits each year for
tax breaks for the wealthiest people in America, for something that
doesn't spark the economy, versus some $60 billion for extending the
unemployment insurance benefits for 1 year, which will spark growth in
the economy. Is that the choice we are facing?
Mr. REED. I think the Senator from Illinois has stated it very
clearly, very succinctly, and very accurately. That, apparently, is the
choice. It is a choice I find difficult to understand for the reasons
the Senator has laid out. We want to respond to the needs of so many
families, working families. And this is one of those programs that, by
definition--if you qualify for unemployment benefits, you had a job,
you just lost it. So these are working families who are now looking for
some support as they search desperately for jobs.
As we pointed out too, not just in terms of the individual recipients
but for the economy overall, the benefit is substantial. It is about
$1.90 in economic activity for every $1 that we put into the benefit.
On the other side of the spectrum, economists have looked at the impact
of these tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans and find very little
growth in economic activity, and, frankly, that makes sense. This is
not economics at MIT or Harvard or anyplace else. If you are struggling
at $368 a month, it is not going to go into your vacation fund or for
buying objects of art. It is going to go to the grocery store and into
all of the demands of a family. If you are fortunate enough through
your hard work and through your ingenuity to be making over $1 million
a year, your consumption package is not going to be altered
dramatically by these tax cuts. That is the conclusion of the
economists, and I think the Senator said it very well.

Unanimous-Consent Request--S. 3981

So I thank the Senator from Illinois, but at this juncture, I would
like to formally, Madam President, ask unanimous consent that the
Finance Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 3981,
a bill to provide for a temporary extension of unemployment insurance
provisions, and that the Senate then proceed to its immediate
consideration; that the bill be read three times, passed, and the
motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; and that any statements
relating thereto appear at the appropriate place in the Record, as if
read.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Hagan). Is there objection?
Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts. Madam President, I object. And I have a
pay-for alternative on which I would like to speak.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. REED. If the Senator will pause for a moment, I am concluding,
and then the Senator will have his own time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. REED. Again, I think it is unfortunate that we cannot move this
bill. I think, to put it very succinctly, we will try again. I hope we
can. I hope we will for the sake of our country, small businesses, and
families across my State and in this Nation who need this help and
assistance.
With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts. Madam President, I wish to thank the
Senator from Rhode Island, who passionately spoke about his proposal,
his bill to deal with a very important problem we are facing in the
United States.
I am not the new person here anymore. Somebody came in yesterday. But
I will say that it is still new to me that here we are, with 6\1/2\
hours before the benefits will expire, and we are now discussing this.
God forbid we actually think ahead and spend a little bit of
forethought in preparing and working together to try to come up with
some type of solution before being faced with a 6\1/2\-hour deadline
before the benefits expire. So, once again, I know I am not the newest
guy anymore, but I have to say that this is not the way to do business
in the Senate. And if it is, it needs to change.
So here we are. The Senator just spoke about our needing to do this
to keep the economy moving. No, we have to start focusing on jobs. That
is what we have to do to get this economy moving. We have to start
focusing on the things that are important--the deficit, the spending.
Yesterday, we couldn't even pass the 1099 fix--something small
businesses and all businesses in this country are clamoring for. We
could not do that one thing--one thing. Now all of a sudden we are
going to do another extension.
I have complete and total sympathy and understanding for this. I want
to help. More than anybody here, I want to help. But to just keep
throwing money at a problem when it is not paid for, with 6\1/2\ hours
left, to put people on the spot instead of doing it the right way--
working together, getting together in an office with the leadership and
the people who care about these issues and coming up with a common
solution--makes no sense to me.
The reason we are having this high unemployment which my colleagues
keep referring to--9 percent unemployment--is because there is no
certainty in business. There is so much uncertainty right now in the
business world, whether it is with the financial services people or the
estate planners. Right now, we have zero percent. If you die--folks say
it is a good year to die because next year it could be 55 percent or it
could be less. Who knows. So there is so much money on the sidelines
right now that we don't know what to do. It is not coming in to get the
economy moving.
We can't do the 1099 fix, we can't do the R&D tax credits, we can't
work on accelerated depreciation, and we haven't repatriated any of the
monies that are offshore. What do we do? We put up more and more
roadblocks for businesses, so they do not want to hire these people off
the unemployment rolls. Yet here we are with 6\1/2\ hours left, people
aren't hiring, and we spent 7 days on food safety. Listen, I love to
eat as much as the next guy, but give me a break. We should have spent
7 days working on the one thing the people who voted in November
wanted--and they sent us a very powerful message--and that is getting
our economy moving again; focusing on jobs, jobs, jobs; streamlining
the regulatory process; and firing away to get this economy moving. But
we needed to work on food safety. Oh my gosh, that was so important. I
am glad I rushed back from our break to work on food safety. Now, I
know we have some issues in that regard, but don't you think the 1099
fix and unemployment benefits and all these other things are a little
bit more important?
Some of my colleagues will say--the Senator from Illinois just said
it--that we are here debating tax cuts. No, we are not. We are not
debating tax cuts. I have been here for every vote we have had. I have
been to every meeting since I have been back here. Where were we
talking about tax cuts? Am I missing something? No, we haven't been
talking about tax cuts. We haven't debated or discussed anything to do
with business and getting our businesses and our economy moving again.
The recent job numbers in Massachusetts reflect over 280,000 people
unemployed in my State alone--over 8 percent of the Massachusetts
workforce. As the Senator from Rhode Island mentioned--and I know Rhode
Island well; I eat in Federal Hill regularly--the unemployment is much
higher there. They have very serious problems. And one of the reasons
we have problems is because we are not focusing on anything to do with
business. We are not giving them the tools and resources they need to
actually hire the people on the unemployment rolls. It is like a catch-
22.
Nearly 15 million people across the country are unemployed, 6 million
of them having been without work for 6 months or more. That is roughly
five people for every one job opening. Families in Massachusetts, Rhode
Island, and Illinois are all struggling. They sent that very powerful
message a couple of week ago. They are struggling to make ends meet
and, as the Senator from Rhode Island said, to buy food, to buy shoes,
to buy extra Christmas presents. I understand that. But if they had a
job and had the pride of going out and working hard each day and if
businesses had that certainty of hiring that new employee, they could
do that and a lot more. They could actually invest in the future of our
country.

We are in the midst of a historic economic crisis. I realize that.
People are unable to find work, and I recognize that as well. The
longer they are out of

[[Page S8286]]

work, the harder it is to actually find work and become employable.
I could go on and on as to how Congress has chosen to spend its time.
I remember that before we went on break, before the elections, we
wasted so much time on stuff that did nothing to help the economy. So
here we are. I figured that when we came back, after the message was
sent, we would get it loudly and clearly--big change over in the House.
Here we are. We are going to get right back to the economy. But what do
we do? We do food safety. Are you kidding me? People deserve better.
The people who are unemployed deserve better.
The consequences of our failure to act are the 15 million unemployed
workers in our country because they are unable to find that job. So
here we are, 6\1/2\ hours before the benefits are going to expire. And
I do not want to see that happen. Let me make it very clear to anyone
listening or watching or however the press wants to regurgitate my
statements: I don't want this to happen. It doesn't need to happen. As
many of my colleagues know, if we fail to act today, 60,000 Bay Staters
will see their unemployment checks evaporate at the end of the week and
800,000 workers will see their checks disappear. That number will
increase to 2 million by the end of December.
So we are faced with another important decision, as we are with every
other decision we make here: Do we provide the important benefits by
burdening future generations, by adding on to that almost $14 trillion
national debt, or do we provide the important benefits by raising taxes
on businesses that are already struggling?
If you want to talk about the Bush tax cuts, listen, that was a tax
policy proposed by a President, supported by Congress, and it has been
the tax policy for the last 10 years. To put a tax increase on anybody
in the middle of a 2-year recession is going to add to these
unemployment numbers and will be an absolute job killer.
So is there a better way? Of course. There is always a better way,
especially when we work together. We can always find a better way, as I
have tried to work with the Senator from Oregon and other Senators to
find commonsense solutions to our very serious problems. That is why I
am once again offering an offset extension of unemployment benefits.
The funny thing is that the proposal--and this is what I find so
ironic. I will see where everyone wants to stand. If my colleagues want
to do something today, I say to the Senators who are here and
listening, we can provide that 1-year extension. In fact, I am offering
an offset that was supported by 21 Democrats yesterday when we tried to
do the 1099 offset bill, which I supported. I was a cosponsor, in a
bipartisan manner. I supported both the Republican and the Democratic
proposal just hoping, God forbid, we could get one thing done--just
one. Twenty-one Democrats supported that bill.
So here I am with my offer. My proposal is to offset the unemployment
insurance--sorry, I need to take a breath here--the offset they
supported yesterday would rescind unobligated discretionary funding. It
is the same offset we did yesterday. So what is the difference? Do you
know what the difference is? People are hurting, and they need the help
in 6\1/2\ hours. The 1099 fix we can address down the road, but others
need it in 6\1/2\ hours.
So for those who supported it yesterday, I am certainly hopeful that
they will support it again today. I don't know, is it me? I ask my
colleagues to join in and be cosponsors. Is it because I am a
Republican that we will not pass it? It is because it is my idea? I am
the almost new guy. I get that. But what about looking past party
politics, as I have done since the day I got here, to try to find
commonsense solutions for people who are hurting. And trust me, there
are a lot of people hurting. Why don't my colleagues join me in
supporting this proposal that 21 other Democrats proposed yesterday and
who actually went down in the well and voted on? This is a truly
bipartisan proposal that we should be able to rally around. I am
confident that we can work together, as the people demanded only a
couple of weeks ago.
As we enter the final weeks of this 111th Congress, there are several
priorities that lie ahead. As I said earlier--I know I am getting
worked up, but it just incenses me--we are here with 6\1/2\ hours
remaining, and we just found out really today, or late yesterday, that
we were even going to talk about this. We have to provide that
certainty to businesses, from small mom-and-pop businesses all the way
to the biggest corporations. They need to know what is up. They need to
know they can actually rely on us to set policy that allows them to
plan for the future, so they can get those 9-plus percent people off of
unemployment.
Do you think we are going to keep creating more and more government
jobs; that is it? We are just going to keep printing the money and
there is no consequence? There is plenty of consequence. The
consequence is not on our grandchildren now; we are at our great-great-
grandchildren as to paying this obligation back.
We still have to ensure that the Federal Government keeps running.
Let me see: We have the estate tax issue, we have dealing with tax
proposals or policy at all, we are trying to get the regulatory scheme
in place so we can give businesses the incentive to maybe bring money
back from the offshore accounts they are holding so they do not invest
in other businesses in other countries, we have this issue--we have a
lot of other things on the table and we have done nothing. We spent
time on food safety.
I love to eat. I have seen many people around here, we all love to
eat. I want my food safe, make no mistake about it. I do not want to
belittle that effort. But we need to provide money so people can
actually go out and buy the food we are trying to make safe. We cannot
keep spending and borrowing with no regard to our future, to our fiscal
future. We need to be fiscally responsible and find ways to pay for the
initiatives and policies that we think are important.
When you talk about the money--listen, it is not the government's
money. It is people's money. When they have money, they traditionally
invest it, and they invest in businesses and they continue to get that
economic engine going. It is not the government's money.
It is also very clear to me that people want to work and they want us
to focus on that one issue. I do not know why we are avoiding it--I do
not. Did you know we are avoiding that one issue that can get our
country back on track? Let's just say we took all the recommendations
from the debt commission that have been proposed. If we do not do the
other things, it is going to be short-lived, if it works at all.
Creating jobs and supporting policies that improve economic growth
have been my priority and will continue to be my focus in the Senate.
There is nothing more important. I encourage the administration to
immediately drop everything and focus on the economy. It is the one
thing that is our ticket out of the economic mess we are in right now;
instead, we are doing food safety.
I also think we need to give people that lifeline in order to get
them through the tough times. Make no mistake, I agree they need help.
But I look at it, are we going to do it from the bank account or are we
going to put it on the credit card--bank account, credit card? How
about you folks up there--bank account, credit card? OK. I know what I
want to do. I will use the bank account. Let's use money that is
already in the system and put it to good use immediately by 12 o'clock
tonight. Let's do it.
We can settle this tonight. We can provide that extension of benefits
tonight. My bipartisan idea will allow that to happen and will prevent
millions of Americans from losing their benefits. Providing this 1-year
extension will allow us to focus on the many other important priorities
we have and that we have to handle before the end of the year.
You want to stay through the holidays and everything. Hey, I am here.
Whatever. My kids are grown; they do their own thing anyway. Do I want
to stay here? Sure, I will stay. We will stay and we will go out and
celebrate Christmas here. Whatever. But we have so many things we need
to do and we could do them right now.
I am glad food safety is done. We do not have to do it anymore. So
what is next? Let me see--just pick something. I guarantee, I bet--I
know betting is illegal here--I will bet we do not do anything that has
to do with the economy. I will bet you.

[[Page S8287]]

I encourage my colleagues to join with me and stop using the credit
card and burdening additional generations with this tremendous debt
that we cannot afford.

Unanimous Consent Request--H.R. 4915

I ask unanimous consent the Finance Committee be discharged and the
Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 4915; that all
after the enacting clause be stricken and the substitute amendment at
the desk be agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be read a third time
and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. REED. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts. I yield.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. REED. Madam President, my colleague from Massachusetts has made a
rather vigorous and impassioned statement. What I sense, though, is he
is quite willing to put $700 billion of tax cuts for the wealthiest
Americans on the credit card but not extend unemployment benefits, as
we have done persistently, decade after decade, without offsets, for
people who are struggling without work. So if we are talking about
coming together, avoiding increased deficits, let's look at this big
issue of these tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. Let's look at the
offsets there, I suggest.
I also suggest, in terms of his argument we are not doing anything,
that the record, unfortunately, of my colleagues on the other side,
with respect to this issue--and we are talking about the issue of
unemployment compensation benefits extension--has been one of delay and
delay and delay. June 17 of this year we tried to extend these benefits
and it failed in a cloture vote. They would not even let us get to the
substance of the bill or amendments, perhaps, which could have paid for
them or tried to offset them.
Then we came back on June 24, a week later, and had another vote. Of
course, again, by 57 to 41 it was opposed.
Now we come to July 20. It finally passed 60 to 40, the minimum
number of votes. The vast majority of the opposing caucus still says
no.
The notion that we are somehow blocking dealing with the economic
issues is so far from reality. What we have seen is obstruction,
particularly when it comes to unemployment compensation benefits. Now
here we are again. As I said, when you look back to Republican
administrations and Democratic administrations, when we have had this
level of unemployment, we have always managed to come together and to
go ahead and pass these measures on a bipartisan basis and not with
three cloture votes but with one perhaps procedural vote and then a
substantive vote.
The issue, though, is let's not be selective. If we are serious about
the deficit, let's take some positive steps to reduce the deficit. One
is not to extend tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans at $700 billion
over 10 years. That is a positive step. If that is something that is
going to be entertained by the other side, I encourage that discussion.
But as we go forward, we are going to come back, again, because
ultimately we have these discussions.
I think my colleague from Massachusetts has passion, sincerity, and
great energy which he has brought to this body, but ultimately we are
going to have to go to people in Rhode Island and Massachusetts,
several million of them over the next year, and say: Sorry, you are not
getting any unemployment compensation benefits.
Will we go to the wealthiest and say: Oh, by the way, we took care of
you folks; you are getting $100,000 in tax benefits. I think we have to
deal with the immediate crisis. I think we have to deal with the
families who are struggling today. I think we have to do it now. I hope
our leaders could work out an arrangement where we could come to this
floor and, in a scheduled debate, 5 hours on one side, 5 on the other,
and take the vote. That has not been the record on unemployment
compensation in this Congress.
Again, I object. The issue, the offset, discretionary spending--I
think if you burrowed down into that, you would find that would be
funds of a whole category of programs that could be spent, should be
spent, to help the economy move forward.
But I again urge we reconvene, that we once again see if we can work
our way forward on these unemployment compensation benefits. We have
done this before through these procedural delays that were as a result
of votes by my colleagues on this side not to take up the bill in a
timely manner. We had periods of time where unemployment lapsed and we
had to retroactively restore it. We may have to do that again.
If there is delay, if we are at the 11th hour, I, frankly, looking
backward, and others would have preferred an extension of benefits that
would have gone way past this point, would have gone into next year if
we had to. We are talking about a year's extension now. I hope we can
get that. We will continue to fight.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts. Madam President, once again, make no
mistake, I have great respect for the Senator from Rhode Island. We
worked on many regional issues--fishing and military issues. I respect
his service not only to the military but also to his State. But I have
to respectfully disagree with his presentation and representation on
some of the issues.
He keeps referring back to the tax cuts for the rich. That is great.
We are not dealing with that right now. It is not something we are
dealing with because we have not dealt with anything to do with any tax
policy or structure since I have been here--zero. We have not done the
estate tax, we have not done any tax policies, we have not done
anything. Now you want to kind of muck it up and talk about if you do
this, we should not do that. Listen, we are here, we have 6 hours and
15 minutes to deal with this issue. I am not quite sure why it took so
long to get to this point. Why couldn't we have spent the last 7 days,
when we were doing food safety, dealing with this? Why? Because there
is no priority in taking care of people who are hurting and dealing
with the issues that are affecting our economy and our country on a
very real and personal basis.
My colleague says there have been delays, we should just do it for
longer than 1 year. He wants to do it for longer than 1 year? Great.
Pay for it. The reason there have been delays is because we wanted to
find a funding source. We could have initially taken it out of the
unallocated stimulus dollars that were being used as special slush
funds for folks and agencies. That was one of the delays, I remember,
being part of that. That didn't pass. I think I got two Democrats.
Yesterday, we did a 1099 fix and 21 Democrats supported it. What is
the difference? Now we are talking about real people--about kids. It is
about the kids. I keep saying it is about the kids. It is not just
about the kids who are here right now; it is about the future
generations who are going to have to try to figure out a way to pay for
this insurmountable debt.
I reiterate, it is pretty simple--bank account, credit card. That is
all I am saying. Happy to help, folks. The folks up there listening, go
back and say to your friends and family: Senator Brown of Massachusetts
said bank accounts, credit card. It makes sense.
I want to help. But I also want to streamline, consolidate this, weed
out any fraud, waste, abuse, any money we are not using properly, and
get it out the door into businesses and families and get the economy
moving again.
So here we are. I am very curious to see what is next. I enjoyed the
food safety. I voted for it. I gave some input on it, and I voted for
it. I am happy to help. It is not going to be implemented in 6 hours
and 15 minutes. The people need our help right now.
Madam President, I appreciate your paying attention and leading us. I
am just hopeful that we can come together and use some common sense and
start to focus on the economy. It is the economy, period.
I yield the floor.
Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, every once in a while, Congress is faced
with a policy choice that clearly defines for the American people
exactly who each member is fighting for.
We are nearing one of those clarifying moments here on the Senate
floor.

[[Page S8288]]

Today, the authorization for emergency unemployment insurance
expires.
For the 15 million Americans who are struggling to put food on the
table as they look for work during this Great Recession, the
Republicans are demanding that we cancel the extra assistance we have
provided since the economic crisis began.
The Democrats will fight to ensure that this assistance to struggling
middle class families continues through the holidays and through next
year.
Even as emergency unemployment assistance expires, the Republicans
are demanding that the Bush-era tax cuts be extended for everyone.
Most importantly for them, the Republicans are demanding that the
wealthiest people in America receive a massive tax cut, on top of the
hundreds of billions of dollars of tax cuts they have already pocketed
over the last 10 years.
The Republicans don't think a $6,300 tax cut per year is good enough
for millionaires. They are demanding that millionaires receive $100,000
in tax cuts every single year--and if not, no one should receive
anything.
The cost for permanently extending the Bush tax cuts for people
making over $250,000? About $700 billion over the next 10 years alone.
Plus interest.
Meanwhile, the Republicans oppose extending emergency assistance to
the unemployed, supposedly because it costs too much.
The cost for extending emergency unemployment assistance for 1 year?
About $60 billion.
Just as importantly, the Republicans are demanding that we spend
another $700 billion on what CBO has determined is one of the weakest
options we have for spurring job growth.
The wealthy don't spend extra money they receive. That doesn't drive
up demand for goods and services. Employers don't hire more people if
they can't sell more things.
At the same time, the Republicans oppose spending $60 billion on what
CBO has determined is one of the strongest options we have for spurring
job growth.
The unemployed spend every extra penny they receive as they buy the
bare necessities, so aggregate demand gets a boost. Employers hire more
people when they can sell more things.
Democrats oppose spending $700 billion we don't have on tax cuts that
don't help people get back to work.
We support spending less than 10 percent of that amount--$60
billion--on assistance to the unemployed that does help people get back
to work.
We have seen this movie before, of course.
Republicans opposed extending the TANF Jobs program, which helped
create 250,000 new jobs and which even some Republican Governors
applauded as an example of smart government. That program expired at
the end of September.
They oppose extending the Obama tax provisions from the Recovery Act
which benefit middle-class Americans, including the earned-income tax
credit, the child tax credit, and the making work pay credit. Those
provisions expire at the end of the year.
We can't afford those, the say. But we can afford to give another
$700 billion to the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans, according to the
Republicans.
We have the money for the equivalent of another economic recovery
bill but we can't afford a small fraction of that cost to help middle-
class families who need a helping hand.
The difference between the Republicans and Democrats couldn't be more
clear.
Republicans won't allow tax cuts for anyone unless the rich get a far
bigger share, and won't allow those looking for work to receive any
continued emergency assistance.
The Democrats, on the other hand, want to give 98 percent of
Americans a tax cut, and want to help the unemployed keep food on the
able for their children while they compete with the other 15 million
unemployed Americans in looking for work.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.

____________________