[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 174 (Tuesday, December 10, 2013)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8595-S8597]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST--S. 1797

  Mr. REED. Mr. President, as in legislative session, I ask unanimous 
consent the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 1797, 
which was submitted earlier today; that the bill be read three times 
and passed; and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid 
upon the table, with no intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I want to reserve the right to object. I 
am certainly willing to let the good Senator make comments. But at this 
point I want to reserve the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. HOEVEN. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, first of all, I think it is appropriate to 
make some comments. I appreciate the Senator from North Dakota being 
here and making his point. But we are at a juncture that within 2 weeks 
1.3 million Americans will lose their Federal unemployment compensation 
insurance.
  It will be a shock to them economically and particularly since it 
will be just a few days after the Christmas holiday. My legislation is 
very simple. I am seeking to extend for an additional year the 
unemployment compensation program that has been in place for several 
years. That will allow 1.3 million Americans to have some support as 
they face a very difficult economy.
  We have asked, as Democrats, that this UI proposal be part of the 
budget negotiation. Our colleagues in the House of Representatives have 
made the same request. It appears that will not be the case. So we have 
to seek a stand-alone legislative vehicle. That is why I proposed the 
legislation as I have done today.
  What we were trying to do, with the request that was just objected 
to, and what we have to do within 2 weeks is pass this legislation--so 
the upcoming expiration does not allow us the time for the procedural 
process of committee deliberation and markup, et cetera. What we have 
to do is try to avoid a huge economic shock to 1.3 million Americans 
immediately. There will be more after that. But as of December 28, if 
you are on unemployment insurance, Federal unemployment insurance, you 
lose it.
  In my State, that is 4,900 people celebrating New Year's Day by 
losing their Federal unemployment insurance benefits; for families who 
are struggling just to keep their heads above water in a very difficult 
economy--who have seen their jobs disappear, who after years of 
dedicated work find themselves now looking at very difficult 
circumstances for employment, in my home State particularly, but not my 
home State alone--this is a very difficult burden to bear.
  So we have to act. That is why we are here this evening, to ask for 
immediate consideration of my legislation to extend unemployment 
insurance, not further review, but immediate consideration.
  I think it is important to point out that the average weekly benefit 
is about $300 per week. This is not a program that people are using to 
enrich themselves by any means. This is basically keeping the heat on, 
keeping some food on the table, maybe keeping the rent paid. Also, this 
is a program that people only qualify for after working and 
establishing a work history.
  So for all of these reasons, we are not talking about some lavish 
benefit that is a windfall to Americans. This is something that can 
keep families together. That is why I think we have to be willing, 
beginning this evening, to get this program extended through next year 
at least.
  There is another aspect to this too. Unemployment insurance is one of 
the best countercyclical economic programs we have when it comes to 
Federal fiscal policy. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office 
estimates that

[[Page S8596]]

with the expiration of UI, if we do not act, it will cost our economy 
next year 200,000 jobs. It will cost us jobs if we do not act. It will 
slow economic growth by about .2 percent is their estimate.
  So not only is this sensible, in fact the decent thing to do for 
millions of families, it is the smart thing to do for our economy. 
Because if we do not do it, we are literally seeing, under very 
rational estimates, 200,000 jobs disappear. What is the one thing 
everybody claims we need to do in this country right now? Put more 
people back to work.
  This extension has been scored at about $26 billion for the year. 
Traditionally, we have treated unemployment insurance as an emergency 
expenditure. We have not offset it. That tradition has been abandoned 
recently and we have had to come up with offsets. But there are 
offsets. There are tax loopholes that should be closed. There are 
provisions that encourage companies to move jobs overseas that we can 
close and pay for this.
  There are other provisions that would stop subsidizing significant 
multimillion dollar corporate benefits so American families can have a 
chance. These loopholes we have talked about--and many of my colleagues 
talked about--they should be closed anyway. But if it helps pay for 
unemployment insurance, that is not only good, that is something that 
would be a very positive step forward.
  We need to extend these benefits not only for the individual families 
but for the overall economy. We have to start immediately. We are 
running out of time. We have just 2 weeks. Nothing is more important 
than getting people back to work. As I said, if we do not do this, we 
are going to see 200,000 jobs that are going to be forgone in the next 
year. So this is about jobs, as well as it is about keeping families 
together and keeping them able to provide for their basic needs.
  It is progrowth. It is smart. I hope we can come together and do it. 
I hope again--I appreciate certainly the objection of the Senator from 
North Dakota. But I hope we can find a way to not object but to move 
forward together. The benefits cut across party lines. If you look at 
the States that are suffering the most--as we all know, the 
unemployment compensation program is a tiered program. It depends upon 
the level of unemployment in our States. But if you look at the States 
that are suffering the most, and unfortunately I am going to have to 
say Rhode Island is one of them. Nevada has the highest unemployment 
rate, 9.3. We are right behind them, 9.2 percent.
  It has been 5 long years of unacceptable and elevated unemployment. 
It has come down from above 10 percent, but it is still much too high. 
But this is not a regional phenomenon. Illinois, 8.9 percent 
unemployment; Mississippi, 8.5 percent unemployment; Kentucky, 8.4 
percent unemployment; North Carolina, 8 percent unemployment; Georgia, 
8.1 percent unemployment; Arizona, 8.2 percent unemployment. These are 
tough numbers. It is not concentrated in one place; it is across this 
entire country. This is not a red issue or a blue issue. This is an 
American issue for workers who have worked and now cannot find jobs and 
need support. There is something else that is important to mention; 
that is, we have seen some progress on the jobs front. The last report 
showed we actually grew last month, 203,000 jobs. That is the good 
news. The bad news is despite this improvement, long-term unemployment 
remains high.
  More than 4 million workers, 37 percent of those unemployed, were 
jobless for 27 weeks or longer in November. So what we are seeing is 
some short-term movement, but the longer term unemployment, the ones 
who qualify for the Federal benefits, they are still finding it 
virtually--very difficult, if not impossible, to find work.
  That is exactly what this Federal program is designed to fix. Those 
long-term unemployed who are in an environment, in a State where the 
economy is not working as well as some other States. There are some 
States that are doing exceptionally well. I am glad for them. But there 
are more, as I said before, who are experiencing unacceptably high 
unemployment rates.
  This program started to take shape in its most recent incarnation in 
June 2008, when President George W. Bush signed the program into law. 
When he did it, the unemployment rate was 5.6 percent and the average 
duration of unemployment was 17.1 weeks. So we are looking now at a 
situation that nationally and in many States is much higher than when 
we initiated this program back in 2008.
  Now is not the time to stop, and in order to get this done, we have 
to move expeditiously. There is not time for elaborate hearings. There 
is not time for conferences with the House. The House is proposing to 
leave this Friday. We have to move immediately.
  Today, our national unemployment rate is 7 percent. The duration of 
unemployment is 37.2 weeks. That is 7 percent compared to 5.6 and 37.2 
weeks compared to 17.1 weeks. We still need this program to help the 
families of this Nation. We can't end it now. We have to move forward, 
particularly during this holiday season.
  The reality--and finally to make this point--is that people will be 
looking at a new year coming with the knowledge that what little 
benefit they are getting as they search for work--an average of $300 a 
week--is gone. That is a tough reality, to look at your family on New 
Year's Day and understand that you don't have those resources.
  So we have to act, and I hope we can.
  With that, I yield the floor for my colleague and his comments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I objected earlier, and I want to express 
my appreciation to the good Senator from Rhode Island. I understand his 
concerns, but I want to take a minute just to explain the objection 
that we have.
  I don't think there is anyone in this Chamber who is indifferent to 
the plight of the long-term unemployed. However, this legislation falls 
under the jurisdiction of the Senate Finance Committee and, as of yet, 
the committee has not had the opportunity to consider it.
  There are a number of concerns that Members on our side of the aisle 
have with the legislation, most notably the price tag. According to the 
CBO, a full 1-year extension of the Emergency Unemployment Compensation 
Program would cost $25 billion for a single year. That is the cost of 
this bill, and the bill contains no offsets to cover that cost.
  So the Senate Finance Committee needs to have an opportunity to 
consider this legislation to find a way to pay for it. In addition, the 
committee needs to have an opportunity to consider alternatives. Rather 
than simply providing additional benefits to the unemployed, hopefully 
we can come up with something that really helps them get back to work. 
Republicans are willing to consider such ideas and need to have an 
opportunity to do so through the committee process.
  It is on that basis that I object to my colleague's unanimous consent 
request.
  I thank the Chair for the time and the courtesy of my colleague.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I certainly respect my colleague from North 
Dakota for stating his principled position. I think we can both agree 
on one thing: We have to start moving very quickly because this reality 
is moving very rapidly on 1.3 million Americans. I hope we can move 
forward.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I too hope we can resolve the issue my 
colleagues were just discussing. It is an important one for the 
country. We are very blessed in Louisiana to have a relatively low 
unemployment rate because our economy is doing so well, in large 
measure because of extraordinary new technologies, which I think the 
Chair understands as well in Indiana, where they used to discover oil 
and gas, and particularly natural gas in places and in ways we never 
thought possible. That is creating a real resurgence of manufacturing 
in our State, and that is benefiting not only us and our neighbors 
along the gulf coast, but it is benefiting States all over America.
  The economic numbers, despite the great challenges we have here in 
the Congress on our budget, on paying down our debt, on reducing our 
annual deficit, on procedural measures and how to run the Senate and 
work more effectively on behalf of the people of all of our States, are 
really quite good in

[[Page S8597]]

North Dakota, in South Dakota, in Texas, Louisiana, and other States. 
They are experiencing really very low numbers of unemployment because 
the jobs are plentiful. Our challenge is, just to comment briefly, on 
training the workforce we are going to need to fill all the jobs we 
have. These are very good-paying jobs, some starting at $40,000 or 
$60,000 a year--construction, welders--going up to $125,000. Some are 
temporary, but many of them will be permanent.
  So I hope we can resolve this unemployment issue, because, 
unfortunately, in Senator Reed's State--the State of Rhode Island--and 
in 20 other States there is very high unemployment. In some States it 
might still be over 9 percent. They are chronically unemployed because 
of the competition of globalization and other factors. So I think we 
have to try to find a way to work together as a Nation. As I said, 
Louisiana is blessed to have relatively low unemployment, but we have a 
big job skills training gap we are working on in our State.

                          ____________________