[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.

                          ____________________