[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 3 (Tuesday, January 7, 2014)]
[Senate]
[Pages S37-S39]
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. 1845, a bill to
provide for the extension of certain unemployment benefits,
and for other purposes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will be 30
minutes of debate equally divided and controlled in the usual form.
The assistant majority leader.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, on the side supporting the pending motion,
there is 15 minutes under the unanimous consent agreement and a similar
amount of time on the other side. If all time is used, I would notify
Members our rollcall vote will be about 11 o'clock.
I ask unanimous consent that on our side, supporting the motion, I be
allowed 5 minutes, Senator Reed of Rhode Island 5 minutes, and Senator
Klobuchar of Minnesota 5 minutes.
[[Page S38]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I listened carefully to the Republican
leader today. Here is what he said.
If we are going to give 1.3 million Americans unemployment insurance
which has now expired, we have to pay for it. Then he suggested how he
would pay for it. He would pay for it by attacking ObamaCare. That is
no surprise. But the provision he would attack is the individual
mandate--the mandate that people buy health insurance. Well, what is
the impact of that? The mandate that people have the responsibility to
buy health insurance is necessary if we are going to protect Americans
from being discriminated against who have preexisting conditions in
their families. Follow me now. In order to make sure a parent with a
child who has asthma or a child who has diabetes can still buy health
insurance, we needed to expand the insurance pool. We expanded the
insurance pool by saying to everyone across America: You have the
responsibility to buy health insurance.
So what Senator McConnell, on behalf of Senate Republicans, is
suggesting is this: If we are going to give 1.3 million Americans
unemployment insurance, we have to say to everyone living in America we
can no longer keep our promise that health insurance will not
discriminate against your family because of a preexisting condition.
Wow. What a tradeoff, 1.3 million people get unemployment benefits over
300 million Americans lose the protection of discrimination in their
health insurance because of a preexisting condition in their families.
That is the Republican logic: Help the unemployed but at the expense of
300 million American families and their health insurance protection.
It is interesting to note that we have had a dramatic increase in
people living in the Commonwealth of Kentucky--represented by Senator
McConnell--when it comes to the Affordable Care Act. Governor Beshear,
a Democrat, is promoting affordable care in Kentucky and has one of the
most successful efforts under way across America. Yet every day the
Senators from Kentucky both come to the floor and criticize the very
program that is so popular in their State.
The second point I want to make is this: All we are asking for this
morning is a vote to start the debate on unemployment insurance
benefits. We are asking 5 Republicans to join 55 Democrats to let us
debate whether we extend unemployment benefits across America. It is
that simple. At about 11:00 that vote will take place.
This used to be a bipartisan issue.
The Presiding Officer of New Jersey is the newest Member of the
Senate, and I welcome him again.
There was a time when Republican Presidents thought unemployment
compensation was a pretty good idea. Why? Because families with
breadwinners who are out of work need to feed their children, need to
feed themselves. Senator McConnell criticizes this program as a
temporary government handout. Let me tell you, if you don't have food
on the table, you need a temporary helping hand so you can put food on
the table so you are strong enough tomorrow to look for jobs again.
That is what it is all about, and they don't get it. They say we should
be talking about creating jobs. What about creating some food in the
bellies of children? What about paying the utility bill or the rent or
keeping the lights on or keeping the place that you live warm enough
while you are out looking for a job? That is part of the reality facing
people across America. There were 81,867 individuals in my home State
of Illinois who lost their benefits between Christmas and New Year.
They have written me letters.
Ryan, a 35-year-old man with two children from Antioch, IL, writes to
me about how difficult it is for him to keep his family together as he
continues day after weary day looking for a job. What I hear from the
Republican leader is: Well, isn't it a shame that Ryan doesn't have a
job? But we can't let government come in and provide the solution.
Well, historically government has stepped up when the private sector
cannot or will not. In this case, we know it is absolutely essential.
What we need to have is five Republicans to at least give us a chance
this morning at 11 to move forward on the debate on unemployment
insurance. This is basic and it is humane. It used to be bipartisan
before the tea party takeover of the Republican Party. I hope there are
enough moderates left on the Republican side to join us to make this a
bipartisan issue again. Helping people keep their families together,
the lights on, the heat in their homes, and food on the table while
they are looking for a job is not a government giveaway. For goodness
sake, it defines who we are as a nation. If we can't stand and help
these people looking for work, then it is a sad commentary on who we
are, where we are, and our principles.
Finally, this notion of thrashing out at ObamaCare every time there
is an issue coming up on the floor has reached its extreme today, when
the Republican leader would eliminate the protection against
discrimination for preexisting conditions for 300 million Americans in
order to provide unemployment benefits for 1.3 million.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, could the Presiding Officer instruct me when
I reach the 4-minute mark?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise with my colleagues to support this
motion to bring this legislation to the floor to begin a debate.
There were 1.3 million Americans who were pushed off an economic
cliff on December 28 when their extended unemployment benefits ended.
They are searching for work. They have to search for work. They are in
a market where there are typically two or three applicants for one job.
Yesterday I read a story from the Washington Post that talked about
the opening of a new dairy plant in Maryland. They were expecting a lot
of interest in the 36 jobs: 1,600 applicants. I would wager that many
of those applicants never thought in their lives, after being a vice
president of sales in a company or a sophisticated manager of the
financial aspects of a company, that they would be applying for work in
a dairy. Some of them might even be on extended benefits, and that is
the only thing keeping them whole. And they are looking for work, 1,600
applicants for 36 jobs.
This is not unique to Maryland. It is in my home State of Rhode
Island. It is in States all across this country, Nevada, Tennessee,
Arizona, States with unemployment numbers above the national average of
7 percent. In my case, it is 9 percent. We have to help these families.
And as Senator Durbin pointed out, we have done this on a bipartisan
basis until very recently.
This is a smart economic program. This program, according to CBO,
will create 200,000 jobs next year if we extend it. Those are 200,000
jobs we are going to give away. And the minority leader was talking
about how we have to do more to create jobs around here. Well, if we
don't pass this measure, CBO has told us we are going to forfeit
200,000 jobs. So from an economic basis in this country, this is smart.
But from a human basis, this helps people who have worked--and the only
way you qualify for this program is if you worked and then you are let
go through no fault of your own. So we have to do that.
Colleagues on the other side are talking about: Well, we have to pay
for these benefits. This is a selective sort of notion, because,
frankly, the last time we extended these benefits in January of 2013,
it was not offset and the vote was 89-8. It included tax provisions and
other provisions, but we extended these benefits, unpaid for, 89-8. Yet
now we have to pay for these benefits.
What Senator Heller and I have done is said: Listen, we need to help
these people now. Let's do a 90-day extension, provide retroactive
relief, and help these 1.3 million--and it will grow, because several
million more people will lose their benefits this year. Let's do it,
and then let's sit down and work on this program.
But let me also remind my colleagues, we have made significant
changes to the unemployment insurance program. In early 2012, we had a
conference report between the House and the Senate which made changes
in unemployment insurance. We reduced the total time from 99 weeks to
73 weeks. We created the work-sharing
[[Page S39]]
program, a very innovative program which allows people to collect for
part of the week but also stay employed the rest of the week. It is a
program which has helped companies all across the country, small
companies in particular. We have given States more flexibility on job
training. We have given States more flexibility in oversight of their
programs. We have made changes. We are willing to listen to thoughtful
proposals again. But we can't do it on the backs of 1.3 million
Americans who have lost the only benefit they have.
If we really want to talk about job training, if we want to talk
about cooperation, why haven't we been able to reauthorize the
Workforce Investment Act since 1998? We have not made the changes in
workforce training that affect this whole country--not just the
unemployed but those young people who are trying to move out of high
school and junior college into the workforce. We haven't done it. Why?
Well, from 1998 until 2007, we had a Republican Congress. Since 2007,
we have been struggling very mightily with an economic crisis. And we
have made progress.
But if we want to start cooperating, let's bring the Workforce
Investment Act to the floor. It has passed the committee on a
bipartisan basis. Let's bring it to the floor. Let's help people.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DURBIN. Would the Senator yield for a question?
How much time is remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 3\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. DURBIN. I ask the Senator from Rhode Island under that time to
yield for the following question.
I don't know if the Senator was on the floor when the Republican
leader said he wanted to pay for the cost of these unemployment
benefits by eliminating the individual mandate under the Affordable
Care Act--which is the key element in protecting families who have
children with preexisting conditions--cancer survivors, children with
diabetes, children with asthma. As I understood the Republican leader,
he believes that the best way to take care of people who are unemployed
and can't feed their children is to deny the protections of the
Affordable Care Act for those families who have children with
preexisting conditions. Would the Senator from Rhode Island comment on
whether that is a good trade for either side?
Mr. REED. I think it is a terrible trade. It is not just about
families with children, it is about many of these working adults who,
if they have a preexisting condition, lose their coverage. It is not
just a question of children. That I think is very sensitive. Without
the Affordable Care Act, if you get sick, you can't get coverage. The
only way you can get coverage if you are middle-aged is if you are
healthy and you don't need it. When you needed it, the insurance
companies took it away--before the Affordable Care Act.
Mr. DURBIN. If I might ask another question to the Senator from Rhode
Island from the time allotted on our side, I listened carefully to the
speech given by the Republican leader this morning.
I see my colleague from New York here, so I will yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
Mr. SCHUMER. I thank my friends from Illinois and Rhode Island.
How much time is remaining on our side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 1 minute 30 seconds.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I see what is going on here. Our
colleagues on the other side of the aisle know the power of this issue
but don't really want to vote for it, and so they are putting
impossible logjams in the path.
Who would believe that on this side of the aisle we would delay an
important part of the ACA which would hurt--as my colleagues from
Illinois and Rhode Island brought out--parents who have kids with
cancer? We are not going to do that, and we are not going to do it on
the fly.
So what I would say to my colleagues is if you believe in
unemployment benefits and extending them, pass them clean and simple.
Don't play games. Don't put obstacles in their path that you know would
be insurmountable. Get it done.
I make one other point. The bottom line is very simple: People want
to work. People who have lost their jobs after working decades for a
company are knocking on doors every day. They are going online. They
are desperate to work.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. SCHUMER. This idea that unemployment benefits encourage them not
to work is balderdash.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
Mr. ISAKSON. I yield back all time on the Republican side.
____________________