[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 2 (Monday, January 6, 2014)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5-S7]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  EMERGENCY UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION EXTENSION ACT--MOTION TO PROCEED

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of the motion to proceed to S. 1845, which the 
clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       Motion to proceed to Calendar No. 265, S. 1846, a bill to 
     provide for the extension of certain unemployment benefits, 
     and for other purposes.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, Senators are 
permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.
  The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to vote 
in favor of the Reed-Heller bill, which would extend unemployment 
insurance for 1.3 million Americans--very critical--for 3 months, 
because it is the right thing to do for these workers, and it is the 
smart thing to do for our economy.
  Unemployment insurance has been around since the 1930s, and it has 
historically received bipartisan support. Indeed, I am pleased that 
Senator Heller has joined me. So this is a bipartisan bill, also. This 
is something we have to deal with today. It is a huge crisis. As I 
said, 1.3 million Americans have lost their benefits as of December 28. 
But we can expect through this next year approximately 3 million more 
to exhaust their State benefits--typically 26 weeks--and not have this 
Federal long-term benefit available to them.
  This has always received support on a bipartisan basis because it is 
not a red State and blue State issue. It is something which impacts 
this entire country. It impacts people who work. You cannot get this 
program unless you have a job and, through no fault of your own, you 
have lost that job. In this economy, people who lose jobs are competing 
with many others for very few jobs.
  These 1.3 million Americans were pushed off an economic cliff just 9 
days ago. This vital lifeline would help them cope. They were not let 
go from their jobs because of something they did. It was through no 
fault of their own, and they are searching for work in an economy which 
has nearly three job seekers for every one job opening.
  Illustrative of this is a front-page story in the Washington Post 
today. In Maryland, they are opening up a new dairy operation, and what 
this story speaks to is something that is happening across this country 
in so many places:

       When the Good Humor ice cream plant closed here two summers 
     ago, more than 400 jobs and a stable, punch-the-clock way of 
     life melted away, another in a string of plant closings that 
     have battered this once-proud manufacturing town.

  I would add parenthetically that in Connecticut, Rhode Island, west 
coast, east coast, north and south, we have seen this happen. 
Manufacturing plants close, move overseas, and shut down entirely.

       The hulking plant sat vacant until a co-op of Virginia 
     dairy farmers purchased it in summer 2013 to process milk and 
     ice cream, though on a far smaller scale than the 60,000 
     cases of ice cream that global food giant Unilever churned 
     out every day.
       Randy Inman, the board president for Shenandoah Family 
     Farms, said he expected the plant's revival to trigger plenty 
     of interest in its three dozen or so initial jobs. What he 
     did not expect: 1,600 applicants and counting--a deluge.

  That is what this economy is about. Skilled people lose jobs through 
plant closures, many of them working for decades, and suddenly they see 
a possibility. But it is not one job for one applicant. It is 1,600 
applicants for about 36 jobs. They are trying--they are trying awfully 
hard. But unless we pass this legislation this evening and begin the 
process, we are not trying.
  On the economic side of the ledger, moving away from the human 
dynamic, the nonpartisan Congressional

[[Page S6]]

Budget Office estimates that failure to renew unemployment insurance 
will cost the economy 200,000 jobs and sap 0.2 percent of economic 
growth by the end of the year. Why? Because these payments go to people 
who are really desperate. They need this extra cash. It is about $300, 
maybe $350 a week. They need it to pay rent, to buy groceries, to keep 
the boiler running in subzero temperatures, to keep their families 
together as they look for work. By the way, in order to collect, you 
have to keep looking for work.
  So this program is not just fair to people who have worked hard. It 
is smart for our economy. This is one of the best fiscal tools we have 
available to ensure that we are creating demand, creating additional 
jobs. As I indicated, if we do not pass this, if these benefits lapse 
and go away, 200,000 jobs will be lost--at a time when every Member of 
this body would say one of the most important jobs is to create more 
jobs in America. We can do that, but we have to start today on this 
procedural vote.
  Our bill is designed to help families who have weathered the toughest 
part of the great recession--2008, 2009, 2010--and many were laid off 
about 1 year ago. The maximum extended unemployment benefits is 72 
weeks, which includes, in most cases, 26 weeks of State benefits. So 
they got through the hardest part of this recession, which suggests to 
me these are good workers. These are people who were struggling and 
working when unemployment was much higher, and now they need help. I 
believe we have to give them that help.
  We should be working together to create an expanded economy so the 
jobs are there, so that when there is a new plant opening it is not 
just 36 jobs and 1,600 applicants, so it is a lot more jobs. In fact, 
we would like to see it the other way. We would like to see 1,600 jobs 
and 1,600 applicants. We have to do that.

  I have heard from a lot of my colleagues who said they cannot do this 
because they need an offset.
  This has traditionally been emergency spending. It is emergency 
spending up until December 28 because we extended it last year on an 
emergency basis, probably creating on the order of 200,000 jobs--just 
as we will lose 200,000 jobs if we do not extend it--and helping our 
economy overall. We have to do this.
  We have tailored this--Senator Heller and I--so that it is just 3 
months, so it provides immediate assistance to unemployed workers. It 
is retroactive, so we will pick up the people who lost their benefits 
on December 28. But it also gives the Senate, the appropriate 
committees, and the House the ability to think through this program in 
an orderly way, to make changes if necessary, and to look for 
appropriate offsets if it is deemed that those offsets are necessary. 
But it will in these 3 months ensure that people have something to help 
them get by while we do our job.
  By my count, colleagues have voted to move forward on these non-
offset emergency benefits more than 10 times since 2008. More than ten 
times we have taken up this unemployment insurance program and we have 
passed it on an emergency basis without offsets, so this is not a new, 
novel approach. In fact, what is somewhat new is actually providing 
offsets for this emergency spending.
  I wouldn't hesitate to say I venture that if we brought up a bill 
that had huge tax cuts, particularly for the wealthiest corporations 
and individuals, there would be very little discussion on the other 
side that it should be offset, but when we are talking about a program 
that helps working people, we have to have offsets? Traditionally, we 
have not done it, and we can have that conversation, but in order to 
have it appropriately and help these people, we have to move this 
legislation forward to give us the time to work constructively, 
collaboratively, and thoughtfully on the program and also on possible 
offsets.
  We should not be filibustering this measure. We should be passing it 
and then working collegially and cooperatively to improve the program 
if we can and, if we deem it appropriate, to pay for the program.
  I have heard some of my colleagues say we need offsets. They are very 
vague about what types of offsets. There are some suggestions about 
Medicare, Social Security, or discretionary spending. I do not think 
Americans, our constituents, would want to see those types of cuts. I 
think they are relieved, in fact, that through the good work of Senator 
Murray and Congressman Ryan, we have a budget for 2 years and we are 
doing appropriations bills and we are beginning to provide certainty 
and support for the economy.
  I do sense, though, that my constituents know there are many people 
out there who are struggling to find a job, who want to work and need a 
little help just to get by. That is what we would be doing if we pass 
these measures this afternoon or begin the process of passing them this 
afternoon.
  Again, I think if we are going to seriously talk about offsets or 
programmatic changes or responding to different dynamics in the 
economy, it should not be done here on the floor with dueling 
amendments or dueling proposals, it should be done through regular 
order in the committee.
  I offered a 1-year extension that was not offset, and my Republican 
colleagues objected, and I completely understand the privilege of doing 
that and the right to do that. One of the arguments was that it should 
go through committee. This 3-month bill does both. It helps people 
immediately, and it gives us the time to do our job.
  A few weeks ago I also came to the floor to address an argument that 
has been percolating throughout this discussion that somehow this whole 
unemployment insurance program is just being abused, that beneficiaries 
would rather collect than work. The reality is that I think $300 a week 
or $350 a week is not something for which people would give up good 
jobs or allow themselves to be displaced from those jobs just to 
collect the benefit. I believe Americans really want to work and they 
want to get back to work as quickly as they can. They want to do the 
work for which they have been trained. They want to do the work in 
which some of them have spent decades investing not just their time but 
their whole selves.
  One of the interesting things about work is that it is not only a 
form of economic remuneration, it is a way we define ourselves. Within 
a few minutes of meeting any stranger, I bet one question pops up: What 
do you do for a living? It is awfully difficult today for millions of 
Americans to say: I am just looking desperately for a job. But millions 
are.
  I discussed earlier that there is academic research out there that 
has been bandied about suggesting that, no, this is a ruse, an abuse. 
But research actually supports the notion that individuals would rather 
work than collect unemployment insurance. Unemployment insurance 
benefits, as I have indicated, are a fraction of what an individual 
would earn in the job he had previously. These are benefits that keep 
people whole while they are searching for work.
  There was a very eloquent editorial by Charles Blow in the New York 
Times that addressed some of these issues. I think his words are very 
thoughtful because they strike the right tone. He wrote:

       Whereas I am sure that some people will abuse any form of 
     help, I'm by no means convinced that this is the exclusive 
     domain of the poor and put-upon. Businesses and the wealthy 
     regularly take advantage of subsidies and tax loopholes 
     without blinking an eye. But somehow, when some poor people, 
     or those who unexpectedly fall on hard times, take advantage 
     of benefits for which they are eligible, it's an indictment 
     of the morality and character of the poor as a whole.

  I don't think that is the case. I agree with Mr. Blow. These are 
people who want to work, but they need some help. We have given them 
help in the past, and we should continue to do so.

  This program has been a critical, crucial safety net for families, 
helping them avoid poverty, helping them get back on their feet, 
helping them get back into the workforce. It has been with us since the 
Great Depression. It affects a whole spectrum of individuals. Indeed, 
if we look at 2012 data, about 40 percent of the households that 
receive these benefits had an income prior to job loss of between 
$30,000 and $75,000. These are middle-income Americans who would much 
rather be working and making close to what they made before they were 
laid off than

[[Page S7]]

collecting $300 a week. So these benefits are not the exclusive 
province of the very poor.
  In fact, more and more they are middle-class, middle-age people who 
never thought they would be on unemployment insurance, who need this. 
They are supporting elderly parents. They have children. They have 
mortgages. They had a professional career--accountant, paralegal, 
bookkeeper. They are now looking desperately for work. They are people 
who used to work in dairy processing plants or people who used to work 
as vice presidents for sales who are so desperate--I assume some of 
these people, if we looked at their resumes, would be qualified to do 
many things other than work at a plant, but they are looking because 
they desperately need work.
  We hear this argument, though: Oh, it is a program that doesn't work 
and the people are undeserving and we are not even doing them a favor 
by letting them have this benefit. I disagree. I think we have to pass 
this measure. We have to do it because it is the right thing for these 
families, it is the right thing for our constituents, and it is the 
right thing for the economy. It would be foolish, frankly, to take a 
program that we are confident can save 200,000 jobs, can increase GDP 
by .2 percent, that is one of the best forms of fiscal policy to 
stimulate demand and economic growth, and say we are not going to do 
it. I think we say we have to do it.
  There is another aspect of this, too, particularly appropriate to the 
issue of long-term unemployment. We are seeing a remarkable number of 
long-term unemployed individuals in this recession. Typically, Congress 
has only ended these benefits when the long-term unemployment rate was 
1.3 percent. Today it's double that at 2.6 percent. Again, this program 
is a program that takes care of the long-term unemployed.
  The standard program in the States is one of 26 weeks. If you have a 
brief episode of unemployment, if you lose a job and then 5 weeks later 
you get a job, you are in that first tranche of State benefits. The 
long-term unemployed are those who have been without work for at least 
26 weeks. We have seen the number of long-term unemployed double since 
previous recessions--from 1.3 percent to 2.6 percent. So this program 
is more important now than in any previous economic downturn we have 
had based upon looking at these numbers. This is another reason we have 
to extend these benefits.
  I urge my colleagues to support this procedural vote so that the full 
Senate can consider the measure and move toward passage. We need to 
move swiftly to pass this bipartisan bill to provide some certainty, 
some stability, and some support for families who are struggling in a 
very difficult market.
  The answer I suggest to those who are considering voting against 
cloture this evening is, fine, you can come down and tell the clerk no. 
What are you going to tell the 1,600 people in Hagerstown, MD, and 
across this country who are desperately looking for work and need some 
support? What are you going to tell them? No? I hope not.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MURPHY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Hirono). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________