[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 3 (Tuesday, January 7, 2014)]
[Senate]
[Pages S45-S65]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
EMERGENCY UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION EXTENSION ACT--MOTION TO PROCEED--
Continued
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican whip.
Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, last month the President of the United
States gave a speech on what has come to be known by the code words
``income inequality,'' which means different things to different
people. He also talked about a very important aspect of that, and that
is upward income mobility. In other words, we want to make sure that
somebody who goes to work in a restaurant bussing tables can work their
way up the income and education ladder to where they can actually own
their own restaurant and create jobs and opportunities for other
people. The President called it ``the defining challenge of our time.''
Well, the timing, coming as it has, one might be forgiven from
wondering whether the President and his allies want to change the
subject from ObamaCare. We know that the rollout of ObamaCare has been
an unmitigated disaster, and, frankly, there is more to come. We can
certainly understand why the President might want to change the
subject. But while he is changing the subject, Republicans should
embrace the challenge of discussing this: What are the policies that
have resulted in income inequality and insufficient upward mobility
when it comes to jobs in America?
Of course, the President, you might predict, has talked about his
proposed solutions, which are creating more government programs and
more spending, including up to $6 billion of money that we have to
borrow from China and our other creditors just to extend the
unemployment insurance program by 3 months. My question is: What
happens after that 3 months? I don't want to be rash, but I will make a
prediction that the Democrats will say: We need another 3 months. After
that, they will say: We need another 3 months. Before you know it,
unemployment insurance has been extended beyond the half-year mark,
which is the basic program, to another full year beyond that at a cost
of $25 billion.
Just to put all of this in context, the Federal Government spent $250
billion for extended unemployment insurance benefits since 2008. Of
course, the President did not mention some of the primary causes for
income inequality and the loss of upward mobility because he is
responsible for a lot of that, along with his allies. He failed to
mention that under his administration America has suffered the longest
period of high unemployment since the Great Depression, and he failed
to mention his signature health care law. I mentioned that a moment
ago. He is trying to pivot to another subject, but inevitably we find
ourselves coming back to ObamaCare and its negative impact on job
creation and the 40-hour workweek.
We know that ObamaCare has done a number of things in the short
period of time since it began the rollout, which was October 1st.
Millions of people have lost their existing insurance coverage. In
fact, more people have lost their insurance coverage than have
[[Page S46]]
signed up for ObamaCare or even Medicaid. Then there is the issue of
skyrocketing insurance premiums. So I thought the idea was: How do we
make health care more affordable? In fact, instead of making health
care better and more affordable, it has become less affordable.
We are not just talking about the insurance premiums, we are talking
about deductibles. We have all heard the stories of people signing up
on the ObamaCare exchanges only to find out: Yeah, they have health
insurance, but you know what, the first $5,000 per person is the
deductible, which effectively means--for all practical purposes--that
person is self-insured. That is a deal breaker for many hard-working
middle-class Americans.
We know, of course, that even organized labor has complained about
the fact that ObamaCare has turned full-time work into part-time work.
Why is that? For employers who put their employees on a 30-hour
workweek, they are not required, under the law, to pay for health care
benefits. But if you have a full-time worker, you are required to pay
for health care benefits. So what is happening is that many employers
are cutting people back from 40 hours to 30 hours with a commensurate
loss of income.
Recently, I was in Tyler, TX, sitting around a table at a restaurant
when one gentleman who owns a restaurant said that because of ObamaCare
one of the single moms who works in his restaurant lost her 40-hour
workweek job. He had to cut her down to 30 hours. So she had to get two
30-hour jobs in order to get by. In other words, she now has to work 60
hours instead of working 40 hours, and obviously she is worried about
the lack of time she has with her children in addition to having lost
her full-time job.
The President has also failed to mention a number of other items
which have contributed to income inequality and the loss of upward
mobility, such as the medical device tax that is a feature of
ObamaCare. In Texas we have a number of medical device companies that
came to see me after the ObamaCare legislation passed.
They said: We have a duty to our shareholders not to spend their
money inefficiently, and so our only alternative is to expand our
existing facility in Costa Rica rather than in Texas. So the jobs that
would have been created in Texas effectively moved to Costa Rica
because of the medical device tax. So much for job creation and
reducing income inequality and enhancing upward mobility.
The President also declined to talk about his refusal to approve the
Keystone XL Pipeline. Of course, this is a pipeline that would start in
Canada and end up in Port Arthur, TX, in an area we call the Golden
Triangle. We happen to have a lot of refineries there that can refine
that oil into gasoline, jet fuel, and other products for Americans
consumers.
The President promised the country he would make a decision by the
end of 2013. I may have missed something during the holidays, but I
don't recall the President making any announcement whatsoever on the
Keystone XL Pipeline. Not only would it produce thousands of good well-
paying jobs, it would also produce a dependable supply of energy from a
friendly country--the nation of Canada.
What else did the President fail to mention in his income inequality
and upward mobility speech? He failed to mention how the impact of his
regulatory policies are piling hundreds of billions of dollars of
additional costs on small businesses.
For example, the small banks in Texas have told me that they have
hired new people, but the people they hired are the people who help us
comply with the Dodd-Frank regulations. This bill--just to remind
everybody--was filed to address the abuses on Wall Street that led to
the subprime loan crisis and collapse in 2008. As we now know, while
Wall Street was the target of Dodd-Frank and these regulations, Main
Street is the collateral damage. Yes, people are being hired but not
for the purpose of loaning more money and helping small businesses
start and grow their businesses but, rather, just to comply with new
government regulations.
What else did the President fail to mention in his discussion about
the lack of jobs and upward mobility? He failed to mention his proposed
greenhouse gas rules, which will kill jobs and drive up energy costs.
He failed to mention that during the so-called Obama economic
recovery--the President has now been President for 5 years. He can't
blame this on George Bush anymore. But during the so-called Obama
economic recovery, real median household income has fallen more than
$2,500. At the same time that real household median income has fallen
by $2,500, households are finding that their health care insurance
costs have gone up by $2,500, for a net loss of $5,000 for most hard-
working American families.
The President has failed to acknowledge--in his discussion of slow
economic growth--high unemployment. He has failed to mention that the
economic recovery following the 2008 recession has been the weakest
U.S. recovery since World War II.
Economists ordinarily say that after a recession there will be sort
of a V-shaped recovery--once you hit the bottom, you come out of it
very quickly and the economy grows fast. Under the Obama recovery, that
has been flatlined to anemic growth, which is not fast enough or strong
enough to hire more American workers.
Indeed, we have the lowest percentage of Americans actually in the
workforce in the last 30 years. What that means is that even though the
unemployment rate is roughly 7 percent--that is on a national basis--
millions of people have simply dropped out of looking for a job because
they see the prospects for finding work so dim.
The President also failed to mention that his 2009 stimulus package--
at that time you may remember that Speaker Pelosi said: Our goal is to
make timely, targeted, and temporary investments in government spending
to help stimulate the economy and help bring down the unemployment
rate.
The President later joked and said--we found out it wasn't a funny
joke--that ``shovel ready'' didn't actually mean it was shovel ready,
which was absolutely true. He failed to add that his 2009 stimulus
package added more than $1 trillion to the national debt, which now
stands at $17.3 trillion. That is equivalent to more than $54,000 worth
of debt for every man, woman, and child living in America today.
I don't think anyone in their right mind believes we can continue
down this same path of racking up more and more debt by borrowing more
and more money without having some negative consequences at some point
in the future. One thing we do know will occur is that the present
generation that is racking up all of this debt will probably not be
around to have to pay it back, but the next generation and beyond will.
If the President wants to have an honest debate about income
inequality, he needs to be honest about his own record, and he needs to
talk about it in a holistic context.
A few months ago, the New York Times reported that the trend of
rising inequality ``appears to have accelerated during the Obama
administration.'' Indeed, according to one measure of the income gap,
inequality has increased about four times faster under President Obama
than it did under President George W. Bush.
Here is the reality: If we want to reduce income inequality, we need
to boost economic growth. That is the debate we should be having and
which this side of the aisle embraces--not how we can pay more
government benefits to people who can't find work or artificially fix
the price of wages. We need to figure a way to benefit the entire
country by growing the economy.
Largely--at least where I come from--people say there are three
things that the Federal Government can do to help grow the economy: Get
out of the way, get off our back, and get your hand out of our pocket.
Those are three things the Federal Government could do which would help
the economy grow, create more opportunity, and deal with this issue of
income equality in an effective sort of way.
So we need to boost economic growth. That is the debate we should be
having--how do we create more jobs, or actually how do we allow the
private sector to create more jobs? We tried having the government
spend borrowed money to create more jobs, and that did not turn out so
well. So now we need to figure a way to get out of the
[[Page S47]]
way so the private-sector economy can create the jobs that will put
Americans back to work and deal with this issue of income inequality
once and for all.
As we saw last night, instead of trying to actually solve the
problem, sometimes I am tempted to think that the majority leader and
his allies really want a political issue rather than a solution to the
problem, because we saw last night the majority leader was ready to
have a vote with 17 Senators missing because of the storms around the
country. We know people could not get back because of cold weather and
storms and flight cancellations and the like, and I predict if we had
had the vote last night, the cloture vote that we had today would have
failed, and that would have fit very nicely into the majority leader's
and the President's desire to change the subject from ObamaCare to
Republicans blocking this unemployment compensation bill.
It did not turn out that way because we had the vote here this
morning. We embrace the opportunity to talk about our progrowth
alternatives, which will actually make life better for the American
people, not worse, as the policies of this administration have over the
last 5 years.
Basically, we know that the demand is this: to extend long-term
unemployment benefits beyond the half year, which is the basic program,
another 3 months, and to put the entire $6.5 billion tab on our
national credit card. But I ask you, What is going to happen after 3
months? Will the President and his allies be back asking for another 3
months and another $6.5 billion in deficit spending that will be added
to the debt? I think so. How about in 9 months? If we extend it for two
3-month periods, we will be here for another one that will extend it to
9 months and beyond, ad infinitum--$25 billion in added deficit and
debt spending--unless we solve the root of the problem.
Republicans would prefer that we offset any real extension with
spending cuts that would make it revenue neutral. We would also like to
reform the unemployment insurance program so it delivers better results
to the unemployed.
For example, if there is one thing that most people who are
unemployed need it is the opportunity for job skills training. We ought
to make sure things such as Pell grants are available for people during
that 26-week period of time they are on unemployment, that they can go
to a community college in their own town and learn new job skills, and
so they do not have to be stuck in the same old position. They could
learn new job skills, which will open a whole new world of opportunity
for them when it comes to jobs.
Before I conclude, I want to mention a few numbers that help put the
Obama economy in perspective. According to the Joint Economic
Committee, the economy grew during the first 4 years of the Reagan
administration by 22.3 percent--22.3 percent. During the first 4 years
of the Obama administration, it was about 9 percent--less than half.
Why is that? Why is it that the economy grew during the first 4 years
of the Reagan administration by 22 percent; in the first 4 years of the
Obama administration by about 9.2 percent?
As I pointed out, there are some good reasons why this recovery has
been anemic and so slow and why so many people are still struggling to
find work. If the Obama recovery had been as strong as the Reagan
recovery, we would have millions more private-sector jobs. Isn't that
what we want? The recipients of unemployment insurance compensation do
not want to receive a government check. What they want is the dignity
and the self-confidence and the opportunity to provide for their family
that comes with a good job. That is what is missing in this whole
equation and this transparent political exercise to play gotcha at
their expense.
We know it was President Reagan's economic strategies, combined with
permanent, broad-based tax cuts and sensible regulatory policies that
helped grow the economy. By contrast, President Obama's strategy is to
combine massive tax increases--including the payroll tax, a year ago
January--with a regulatory bonanza. We do not have to speculate about
what the impacts of President Obama's policies are. We are living with
them today.
So I would say to President Obama, if you really want to reduce
income inequality and promote upward mobility, we want to have that
conversation. Let's get back to the policies, though, that have worked
so well in the past, not those which have failed us and the American
people during the last 5 years. Let's put a stop to regulations that do
not pass a cost-benefit test. Let's do what we need to expand domestic
energy production and create jobs.
Do you know where the two lowest unemployment rates in the country
are? Bismarck, ND, and Midland, TX, and that is because of the shale
energy renaissance that has created jobs. If you can pass a commercial
driver's license test, you can get a job driving a truck with a high
school degree in both of those places and earn between $75,000 and
$100,000 a year; the lowest unemployment in the country but this
administration's policies have made it harder and harder for those jobs
to be created, along with the Keystone Pipeline and the jobs that would
create.
We need also to reform our Tax Code to encourage more investment. We
need to reward earned success so that small businesses can be started,
so existing small businesses can expand. All of the President's
policies, including, of course, most notably, ObamaCare, have made that
harder. We need to do what we can, as I said, to expand domestic energy
production and create jobs. We need to reform unemployment insurance to
get more people back into the workforce by making sure they have the
job training they need to learn employable skills.
Then, of course, the subject that will not go away--notwithstanding
the President's most earnest desire--that is, we need to dismantle
ObamaCare before it does any more harm to our health care system and
our broader economy. We need to replace it with more affordable
coverage that lets consumers keep the doctor they trust--a promise that
ObamaCare made, but a promise that has been broken, as too many people
already know.
Mr. PORTMAN. Madam President, will the Senator yield for a moment?
Mr. CORNYN. I will.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. PORTMAN. I was just walking through the Chamber and I had the
opportunity to visit with some of my colleagues in the back, and I
heard what my colleague from Texas was saying, and I just want to add a
couple things, if I could. One is to say he is absolutely right in
terms of the underlying problem here, which is a weak economy, and
really a historically weak economy. Never coming out of a recession
have we had a recovery this weak.
The Senator made that point well--that typically we go into a
recession in sort of a V formation. We go in and then come back out
with a relatively strong recovery from a relatively deep recession.
That certainly happened in 1981, where at this point in Ronald Reagan's
recovery we had created over 8 million new jobs. Unfortunately, we are
not creating the new jobs that we created in these other recoveries. As
a result, we do have these problems with folks who are both unemployed
and long-term unemployed.
I think it is important to note that we now have historic levels of
long-term unemployment, people who have been out of work for more than
a half year, more than 26 weeks--the highest levels ever. So something
is not working. It is different this time. I think what is not working
is that some of our basic structural institutions--such as our tax
system, our regulatory system, the regulations that have come from
ObamaCare, and so on--are adding more and more burdens to the economy.
The historic debt and deficits the Senator talked about are also
adding to our economic woes. It is hurting the economy today, and it is
certainly unfair, I would say even immoral to put that burden on future
generations. Some of the young people who are here today are going to
get left holding the bag for the $17 trillion national debt we now
have--$145,000 for every family in Texas or Ohio.
So the Senator makes the right points. We have to get this economy
moving. There are some very specific policy proposals the Senator has
outlined that we ought to turn to. The President has talked about tax
reform, he has talked about regulatory relief,
[[Page S48]]
but he has not delivered. If we do not get at those issues, we are not
going to ultimately solve the problem.
But here we find ourselves within a few hours of having voted to
proceed on a debate on whether we do extend unemployment insurance for
people for the next 3 months beyond the normal unemployment insurance
that would be out there. Most States provide about 6 months of
unemployment insurance, about 26 weeks; some States a little more, some
States a little less. What we are talking about is how much do you add
at the Federal level as emergency unemployment benefits? I did vote,
along with some of my other colleagues on both sides of the aisle, to
proceed to this debate. As the Senator said earlier--I heard him--
perhaps that was not what the majority leader was hoping for because
maybe he wanted more of a political issue. But I did so because I took
to heart what was said on the other side of the aisle about the fact
that we are going to now have a debate.
I think this debate breaks down into a couple things. One is, how do
you deal with paying for this? Because, as we indicated, this economy
is not going to grow until we deal with these historic levels of debt
and deficit.
How ironic would it be if we were saying: We are going to help those
who are unemployed by making it harder to get the economy moving--by
not doing anything with regard to the debt and deficit, in fact, adding
to it.
So what I am going to be filing is an amendment. It is a very simple
amendment that says let's pay for this extension for 3 months. I just
heard my colleague from Texas saying he would support that. Others, I
hope, on both sides will support this. The specific idea that we have
is let's take the proposal out of the President's budget that says if
you are on Social Security disability and, therefore, not working, you,
of course, should not be getting unemployment insurance. It is in the
President's budget. I would also say trade adjustment assistance, of
course, should not be available to you because you are not working by
definition.
So it is basically tightening up some of the provisions in current
law to make them work better. That provides the funding to be able to
say: OK, let's go ahead and extend unemployment insurance, but only for
a few months while we do sit down and work on these bigger problems
that the Senator from Texas has taken a lead on and talked about today.
I hope that is where we will end up, that we will actually pay for this
rather than adding to the burden and making the economy even weaker by
adding to our deficit.
Second, I think we need to have an honest discussion, even in the
next couple of days here, as to how to make the unemployment system
itself work better. Unemployment insurance, as has been noted, is not
connecting people to jobs. That is the reason we have these historic
levels of long-term unemployment.
The Senator mentioned the Pell grants, for instance, being available
to people who are on unemployment insurance. That is incredibly
important, but also having our worker retraining programs at the
Federal level work better for those folks who are uninsured. I think we
should engage in that topic now--not only on how do we pay for this,
but how do we actually make the unemployment insurance system work for
the people who are unemployed?
The Federal Government spends over $15 billion a year in worker
retraining programs--47 programs spread over 9 different departments
and agencies. Often the right hand does not know what the left hand is
doing. The GAO, which looks at these issues--the General Accountability
Office--has said there is duplication in most of these programs, and
only a handful--four or five--are seeing the kind of performance
measures you would want to have in a Federal program.
So there is a great opportunity here on a bipartisan basis for us to
get those worker retraining programs working better and into the hands
of the people who really need the retraining to match skills with jobs.
In Ohio--and I am sure the same is true in Texas--we have a lot of jobs
going wanting right now. We have about 100,000 jobs available. We have
about 400,000 people out of work. How do you connect those? A big part
of that is providing the skills to those workers to be able to access
those jobs that are available that do require a higher skill--maybe it
is advanced manufacturing, maybe it is biotechnology.
The Federal Government is not providing that help right now. Those
worker retraining skills that are needed are not being provided. So I
do think there is an opportunity here for us to pay for this, to be
sure we are not adding to the debt and deficit, at a time when the
economy is too weak already, and, second, to provide the skills workers
need--Pell grants and so on--to actually give people some hope and give
people some additional tools to be able to access this economy and
these jobs that are available and get this economy moving again.
I thank the Senator for yielding.
Mr. CORNYN. Before the distinguished Senator from Ohio leaves the
floor, I did not know he was coming down, but I am delighted he did.
Not only is he an expert and former Director of the Office of
Management and Budget, distinguished Member of the House, now the
Senate, and a great new addition since 2010, he understands these
issues, particularly the fiscal issues, better than most of us.
But the Senator makes a very important point. I am worried, based on
what the majority leader did last night, that they preferred to have a
``gotcha'' moment, have the bill fail at the very outset, rather than
have a fulsome debate and a realistic discussion about what the
alternatives are to basically permanently paying people not to work,
through virtually a permanent extension of unemployment.
More than most people, the Senator from Ohio, when he came to this
Chamber, said what we need is a jobs program. So he advocated among
those in our Republican conference. He said: We need a positive program
for how do we facilitate the economy, the private sector, creating
those jobs. Of course, he described the amendment that he intends to
offer on this bill, not only to pay for this 3-month extension, which
would be a welcome measure, but also to reform the unemployment system
so that people can learn skills that actually match them with the jobs
that do exist.
I would add, while the Senator is on the floor, that as he knows,
there are a lot of other good ideas that will be offered this week by
this side of the aisle, but it is entirely dependent upon the majority
leader allowing that sort of fulsome debate and those ideas to come to
the floor and be available for a vote, things such as the Forty Hours
Is Full Time Act that Senator Collins has promoted, the medical device
tax which I talked about, the repeal sponsored--the chief sponsor,
Senator Hatch of Utah.
Senator Barrasso from Wyoming has got one that would repeal the
health insurance tax from ObamaCare, which is a direct passthrough to
consumers. Senator Paul, Senator McConnell have their economic freedom
zones idea to help blighted areas where unemployment is high, and to
create a way for the private sector to be incentivized to come in and
start jobs and to create opportunity.
We have got regulatory reform bills and proposals. We have got the
Keystone XL Pipeline idea. I know Senator Lee and Senator Rubio have
both recently come up with some very visionary ideas about how do we
fight the war on poverty in a realistic sort of way. But my point is
that whether we are going to get into that debate and give a full and
fair consideration of all of these ideas about how to solve this
problem depends on the majority leader allowing amendments to be
offered and voted on.
I would ask the Senator from Ohio what his expectation is in that
regard, and what the consequences would be if the majority leader
decides to deny any amendments and basically shut down this process?
Mr. PORTMAN. I appreciate the Senator yielding. I would say that
having listened to some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle
speak earlier today prior to the vote about what their intentions were,
including one of the authors of the legislation, and one of the leaders
in the Senate, it seems to me they are interested in a debate. They
encouraged those from the Republican side to vote yes on the motion to
proceed, with the understanding that there would be the opportunity
then to at least discuss these issues
[[Page S49]]
and to therefore offer amendments and to have what the Senate typically
has had over the years, which is the opportunity for some give-and-
take, and the opportunity to have voices heard, people representing
both the States on the Democratic side and the Republican side of the
aisle. So I am hopeful we will have that debate. That is my
expectation.
I plan to file an amendment to pay for the unemployment insurance
extension, and I know a lot of support will come from both sides of the
aisle for that. I also hope to be able to offer other amendments that
have to do with growing the economy in a more direct way. The Senator
mentioned regulatory reform, for instance.
We have bipartisan proposals on this side of the aisle that are
intended to take the unemployment situation and deal with it in a
broader context of reducing the burdens on small businesses, for
instance. When you try to get a permit, for instance, from the Federal
Government right now, sometimes with an energy project, sometimes there
are as many as 34 different permits you have to obtain. That is one
reason we are not seeing investment in some of the energy projects we
would like to see. It is a great potential for our economy right now.
We can make the potential even greater and achieve it if we can do
something on the regulatory reform side. So these are all issues that
ought to be part of the broader discussion as to how to increase
economic growth and therefore to increase jobs and opportunity for
people who find themselves unemployed and are looking for those job
skills and are looking for the jobs that are open.
I look forward to that debate over the next few days. That is
certainly my expectation. I hope that Members on both sides would come
down to the well and offer their amendments, have them voted up or down
in the great tradition of the Senate.
Mr. CORNYN. I thank the Senator for responding to that question.
I would point out, in conclusion, that this bill extends unemployment
benefits for 3 months at a cost of $6.5 billion, right now which is
unpaid for. But if the amendment of the Senator from Ohio is adopted,
there is the solution to that problem, along with reform of the job
training components of our current unemployment compensation system.
But if we are unable to have this broader debate, we will find
ourselves right back here in 3 more months because none of the
underlying problems, of which high unemployment and low growth are
symptoms, will have been addressed. So what I hope--and I would love to
be optimistic about the majority leader's willingness to allow those
amendments and allow those votes and have that fulsome debate. If he
does not, then we have had a 3-month patch and we will be right back
here with the same problems confronting us, with the underlying
symptoms of an anemic economy, with slow economic growth and high
unemployment.
I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mrs. FISCHER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. FISCHER. I rise today on behalf of over 37,000 unemployed
Nebraskans and nearly 21 million Americans who are searching for work.
The vast majority of these men and women are jobless through no fault
of their own. They are the real-life casualties of failed Washington
policies. They are our friends, our neighbors, and in many cases they
are our family members. They are decent people, and they are desperate
to regain the dignity of a full day of labor.
We have had 5 years of economic fits and starts--glimmers of hope
dashed by the harsh reality of persistent economic headwinds. But the
weak job reports and the Pollyanna claims of recovery don't tell the
full story. Our real unemployment rate or the total percentage of
unemployed and underemployed workers tops 13 percent, significantly
higher than the 7 percent reported by the Department of Labor in
November. That is nearly 21 million people out of work. At the same
time our labor force participation rate is at 63 percent, a near 35-
year low.
The greatness of a nation cannot endure without work for its people.
It is not only about putting food on the table. It is about the ability
of families to buy a home, to save for their kids' college education,
and to retire with a modest nest egg. It is about hard-working moms and
dads in need of the simple assurance that their government isn't going
to pass laws that intentionally make life harder for them.
I am interested in promoting thoughtful economic policies that
increase employment opportunities and make life a little bit easier for
our people. But instead of a laser focus on job creation, politicians
in Washington seem to pivot from issue to issue, frantically chasing
the topic du jour. Jobless Americans aren't interested in who is to
blame; they are interested in who is going to fix this mess and how.
Congress has returned to Washington for a new year, a new chance to
take on daunting challenges, such as joblessness in America. We have
all been informed by the media and the so-called wise men of Washington
that 2014 will be a year in which very little is accomplished. The
pundits point to election-year politicking, and some Members are
fretting about taking those very tough votes. There is no will for
action, they say. There is no chance for any kind of compromise, they
claim.
The 21 million Americans without jobs are counting on us to do our
job. They expect and they demand that we do better. Promoting policies
to create jobs is not election-year rhetoric; it is the duty of the
people's government.
The best way to support the unemployed is not to just extend the
benefits; we need to grow the economy, and we need to provide paychecks
for families.
Lately, there has been a lot of talk about income inequality or the
need to bridge the gap between rich and poor. Some argue that deficit
spending is the way to go, while others insist on increasing the
minimum wage.
Arthur Brooks, the president of the American Enterprise Institute,
offers a different take on how to best conquer the income divide. In a
July 31, 2013, opinion piece published in the Wall Street Journal,
Brooks notes:
Again and again, the president offers a higher minimum wage
as a solution. Yet as the overwhelming majority of economists
have argued for decades, the minimum wage actually harms the
poorest and most marginalized workers--those with the most
tenuous grip on their jobs.
In January, a study from the National Bureau of Economic
Research surveyed the most recent studies and concluded:
``The evidence still shows that minimum wages pose a tradeoff
of higher wages for some, against job losses for others.''
Brooks continues:
The story for strivers and entrepreneurs is no better.
Scott Shane of Case Western Reserve University has shown that
business formation fell by 17.3% between 2007 and 2009.
Launching a business is never a walk in the park, especially
given the explosion of red tape at all levels of government.
While it is still possible for the educated and
comfortable, government bureaucracy can crush
entrepreneurship entirely for those at the bottom of the
income scale.
As a pro-poor rule of thumb, I suggest this: If you want to
start a landscaping business, all you should need is a lawn
mower, not an accountant and a lawyer to help you hack
through all the red tape before setting up shop.
I think Brooks is right.
Regulatory overreach is also holding back American business.
Regulations can be helpful. They ensure the health and safety of
Americans. However, overregulation places unnecessary burdens on small
business owners, and it does stifle economic growth. A homebuilder in
Nebraska once told me that he was fined $7,000 for leaning a ladder
against a wall.
There is solid legislation out there to address the rampant redtape.
Here are a few examples.
The Regulatory Responsibility for our Economy Act of 2013 is a bill
that was introduced by Senator Pat Roberts that I am cosponsoring. It
requires the executive branch to repeal duplicative and onerous rules
currently hindering our Nation's job creators. It also requires Federal
agencies to modify, streamline, or repeal significant regulatory
actions that are unnecessary or overly burdensome. The legislation
ensures that regulations put forth by the administration account for
their economic impact on American businesses. It ensures stakeholder
input and promotes innovation.
[[Page S50]]
These simple commonsense policies are a good start toward relieving
business owners of some of the unnecessary challenges they face in
these already difficult economic times. I believe and I know many
Nebraskans believe that executive agencies should be held accountable
for the rules they put in place which directly affect our economic
growth and our job creation.
Another key way we can spur economic growth is through broad-based
tax reform. Our current tax system is arcane and riddled with loopholes
for special interests from the eighties. It is time that we simplify
our Tax Code so that we can encourage progrowth behavior.
Whenever I travel in my State and I meet with Nebraska's business
owners, both large and small, I hear the same message over and over: We
need more certainty. We need more certainty.
They need more certainty in the Tax Code, they need more certainty in
health care, and they need more certainty in the regulatory
environment. A business cannot grow today if it cannot adequately
predict its needs for tomorrow.
This is especially true for small business owners, who are
responsible for 64 percent of all net new private sector jobs. Jobs
will come when these entrepreneurs have confidence that the bureaucrats
are going to get off their backs. Jobs won't come from just another DC
Government program.
I believe we must shift the focus of economic growth from government-
driven regulation to private sector innovation. The great government-
controlled experiment has failed us yet again, so it is time for a
change of course.
There is no shortage of good ideas out there. My colleagues and I
have introduced dozens of bills to directly address job creation by
repealing specific regulations, preventing new burdensome mandates, and
encouraging a fairer tax system. But so far we haven't had any form of
meaningful debate. Why? Why can't we debate in this body in a
meaningful way? I believe it is because we are restricted in this
Senate by what we can actually vote on. It is a radical form of
control, and we are tired of it. Rather than allowing an open amendment
process, the majority leader has locked this place down. We hear
constant calls to end obstruction, but if we are being honest, we would
all acknowledge that the primary obstruction here is in the broken,
nonexistent amendment process.
My friend and colleague Senator Coburn recently noted in the Wall
Street Journal:
Mr. Reid had already used Senate rules to cut off debate
and prevent the minority from offering amendments 78 times--
more than all other Senate majority leaders combined.
Why?
It appears designed to advance a partisan political agenda--show
votes in an election year. In other words, let's airdrop bills on the
floor and prevent any form of modification or improvement. That seems
to be routine business around here these days, and it is shameful.
It is my hope that in this new year all thoughtful ideas will get a
vote. It is my hope that in this new year we will actually get a chance
to amend bills. That is the only way we can actually pass legislation
to improve the lives of the American people.
I look forward to putting forth my own proposals to fulfill my duty
to the people of Nebraska to get our friends and our neighbors back to
work. Rather than focusing on issues that divide us, I hope my
colleagues, Republicans and Democrats, will come together to support
policies that promote opportunities for all.
Show votes might make for good election-year politics, but make no
mistake--they are bad policy. And unfortunately it is ``we the people''
who pay the steep price for politics over policy.
I am excited for another year here in the Senate where I can
represent my friends and neighbors, Nebraskans from back home, and I
look forward to helping put Americans back to work in the year ahead.
Our citizens send us here to do a job and they are counting on us, so
let's not let them down.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Manchin). The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, the Chair and I earlier today were
part of a historic majority--a very bipartisan majority--that voted 60
to 37 to extend unemployment insurance for millions of Americans across
this country who are struggling to make ends meet, to keep their
families together, to keep a roof over their heads--basic essentials
not only to continue living but to continue searching for work. These
Americans are not without a work ethic. In fact, they are devastated by
being out of work for so long with such destructive results for their
sense of self-worth and their family.
This measure is limited in its scope and significance. It is only a
procedural vote on a temporary measure for 3 months, and only a partial
solution to the grave and pressing issue of putting Americans back to
work, restoring employment for Americans who want to work and keep
their families together, but it is profoundly important.
I want to thank my colleagues, Senators Reed of Rhode Island and
Heller of Nevada, as well as all of our colleagues who voted for it,
and even many of my colleagues who may have voted against it but were
torn and, hopefully, will vote for it on final passage. I urge all my
colleagues to get this job done so we can send it to the House of
Representatives and make sure it is approved there.
What is significant about this measure is in fact it was bipartisan.
It was overwhelming. It shows Congress is listening; that it is heeding
the calls for action from those 4 million Americans, including over
60,000 of them in my home State of Connecticut, who need this measure
so they can continue seeking work, hopefully successfully.
It is a temporary fix, but it is a measure with profound significance
for those men and women who courageously are facing the searing facts
of life during long-term joblessness. One of those individuals, in
fact, from Connecticut, very courageously appeared with the President
earlier today. Katherine Hackett of Moodus, CT, is the parent of two
sons in the military, who herself is struggling to keep the heat on and
put food on her table. She described her situation in introducing
President Obama when he spoke about this problem earlier today. I am
proud she is at the forefront of this fight, and I am proud to be
fighting with her so that Americans have the benefit of unemployment
insurance when they are unemployed for longer than the 26 weeks that is
recognized under the statute.
This story is one of numbers. We can't deny the statistics. The great
recession may have ended for a lot of Americans, but it continues for
the unemployed, the jobless, particularly long-term jobless. Those
numbers have become almost mind-numbing, but they are very significant.
According to a report recently released by the Joint Economic
Committee, 3 years after the recession ending in 1991, long-term
unemployment was at 1.3 percent. Three years after the recession ending
in 2001, long-term unemployment was also at 1.3 percent. Today, long-
term unemployment is double those numbers, at 2.6 percent.
Here we are, 4 years after the supposed end of the recession in 2009
with double the percentage of long-term unemployed that we had in
previous recessions. Our economy simply is not growing fast enough or
creating enough jobs to end that persistently high rate of long-term
unemployment. About 4 million Americans, more than one-third of
unemployed Americans, have been looking for work for 6 months or more.
In my home State of Connecticut, long-term unemployment has become
even more prevalent among those who have lost their jobs. In fact, 43.6
percent, or almost half of Connecticut's overall unemployed population,
are long-term unemployed. That means over 60,000 people.
But those numbers are less convincing and compelling than the human
stories. I was proud and moved to sit with a number of my fellow
Connecticut citizens--hard-working, dedicated people of all ages, some
of whom have spent lifetimes working for a single employer only to find
themselves rejected and released. Many of them told me they expected to
find work right away, within a couple of weeks, and here they are--more
than 6 months later, many of them--still struggling to find work and
working to improve
[[Page S51]]
their skills so they can match the job opportunities that may exist.
Rosa Dicker, who has been out of work for almost a year, is a former
health insurance project manager who also has experience with health
care reform implementation in Massachusetts, our neighboring State.
Rosa has sent out 500 job applications in the past year. I almost
misstated that figure. I thought it was 50. It is 500 job applications
in the past year. And she has been granted how many interviews? She has
interviewed three times.
Nyrsa Cruz, an experienced social worker with a master's degree, has
also been unemployed since early 2013. Despite hours and hours she has
devoted to countless job applications, she has been unable to find
work.
Michael Kubica, unemployed after years of experience in the insurance
and publishing industries, went back to school to pursue an MBA. Yet
despite his educational experience, despite his degrees, despite his
dedication, he has been unable to secure more than temporary holiday
season work.
Anyone who suggests the long-term unemployed are somehow content or
have decided to stay out of work or have abandoned the search ought to
talk to people in their own communities--people such as Rosa, Nyrsa, or
Michael, who have struggled and worked to find suitable jobs. They are
driven, passionate, and absolutely dedicated.
One woman I met, Erin London, described it this way:
My whole family is impacted. My son asks, ``Am I going to
be able to go to college?'' I don't know how to answer. I
don't want him to know I am scared.
Imagine yourself as a parent thinking--and we have all thought it--I
don't want him or her to know I am scared.
Another Connecticut woman, Alicia Nesbitt, was proud to be working
and to have worked continuously since the age of 16, until she was
unemployed. Now she depends on food stamps and heating assistance.
These stories are powerful and compelling, even more so than the
numbers and statistics, shocking as they are. I hope we will heed those
human stories when we come back tomorrow and the next day to vote on
this bill.
In the long term we need measures such as targeted tax credits and
skills training so people can be matched with jobs and so they can
prepare for the jobs of the future. Pathways Back to Work is a bill I
have introduced that supports creation of new jobs as well as training
for the ones that exist. I have introduced it with my colleagues
Senators Murphy and Gillibrand, and I think it would do a great deal to
address the fundamental underlying challenges that are keeping
unemployed people from reconnecting with the world of work. But these
measures are for next week or the week after. Right now, the urgency of
this week is passing a measure that is fundamentally important to keep
people moving forward, searching for work, and to keep our economy
moving forward.
Those folks who receive unemployment insurance use it to buy clothes
or food or a car that drives the economy, provides for the kinds of
consumer demand we need to enable our economy to continue moving
forward. So we are helping these folks avoid the precipice of poverty
and homelessness, which makes their job search even more difficult, but
we are also helping our economy. All of us who want job creation and
economic progress want it to be our Nation's priority and success.
I am proud to stand and join Senators Reed and Heller, and thank also
our majority leader Senator Reid for their leadership, because our most
urgent task is to move our economy forward, provide these unemployment
benefits as soon as possible, and then look toward more permanent
measures--skills training, the Pathways Back to Work Act, veterans
programs that will enable all Americans to enjoy more equally the
benefits of the greatest nation in the history of the world.
The challenge of our growing inequality is also our growing inequity.
This measure is a start--a temporary, limited start--in the right
direction toward making America fulfill its great promise for the
future.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I come to the floor today, and as I do
so, Washington has an incredible opportunity for a new beginning--a
beginning that would begin by listening to the American people and what
the American people want, and not just what Washington and the
Democrats in this body think is best for all the American people.
According to a new Associated Press poll, most Americans say health
care reform is the top issue they want the government to work on this
year--the top issue they want government to work on this year. Fifty-
two percent of people have said that is what they are asking us to work
on.
People have seen--and I heard about this all around Wyoming over the
Christmas holiday--the complete failure of the health care law's big
rollout last year. They saw President Obama and they saw Washington
Democrats break one promise after another. As a matter of fact, one of
the President's promises was designated ``the lie of the year.'' The
American people have lost faith this administration can ever get health
care reform right.
It wasn't just a bad Web site. The President said: Well, the Web site
was bad. He said: The health care law is more than a Web site.
In spite of what the Obama administration has said, it wasn't all
fixed last year because the Web site is just the tip of the iceberg.
And huge Web site failures? Absolutely. I heard it everywhere I went
around Wyoming, and I actually even heard it brought up when I was in
Afghanistan visiting the troops on New Year's Day.
So it is not just the Web site, with the higher premiums, canceled
coverage, can't keep your doctor, fraud and identity theft, higher
copays and higher deductibles; the Web site continues to be just the
tip of the iceberg.
Beyond all of those things we have been talking about coming down the
line and hitting the American people, we have also seen even more
problems surface already this year.
Here is a headline from the Wall Street Journal, January 3:
``Consumers Hit Snags as Health Law Kicks In.'' The snags? We can
imagine what they are. People have been going to the doctor, going to
the pharmacy looking for help, and even though they signed up for
insurance in the new exchange, it turns out they can't be found. They
are not in the system.
So Web site failures? Absolutely. Insurance companies aren't sure who
is signed up with them. People aren't sure if they are covered. Doctors
aren't sure who is covered.
Doctors, as a result of their training, their compassion, their care
for human beings, are trying their best to help their patients. They
have been fighting a losing battle against the exchanges and all of the
problems with the new Washington-mandated health insurance. One Chicago
doctor tried for 2 hours to verify the new insurance for a patient who
was scheduled for surgery. The office manager finally gave up. The
doctor went ahead with the surgery without what should have been a
routine approval from the insurance company.
Here is another problem some people are going to have to deal with
this year. The Associated Press ran an article headlined ``Adding a
baby to health plan is not easy.'' Every day, babies are born and need
to be included in the family's health plan. For common life changes
such as having a baby, you would normally just call your insurance
company and they would take care of it from there. Not under this law.
If you have to buy your insurance through one of the new health care
exchanges, it is not that simple. According to the article, ``the
HealthCare.gov website can't handle new baby updates, along with a list
of other life changes including marriage and divorce, a death in the
family, a new job or a change in income, even moving to a different
community.'' Yet the Obama administration and the Secretary of Health
and Human Services says the Web site is fixed. It can't handle a baby
being born, marriage, divorce, moving, change in income. It can't
handle any of those things, and they claim it is fixed.
Here is another problem that has turned up. Washington Democrats said
the law would lead to fewer people visiting emergency rooms--I heard it
right here on this floor: fewer people getting their care in emergency
[[Page S52]]
rooms--and that would reduce expenses. The reality is very different.
The New York Times, Friday morning, January 3: ``Emergency Visits Seen
Increasing With Health Law. Doubt Cast on Savings.'' But Democrats on
this floor said that emergency visits would decrease and that it would
save money. That is not what the New York Times says. They said,
``Oregon Medicaid Test at Hospitals Found Rise of 40 Percent.'' The
Wall Street Journal, in the same issue, talks about how the Medicaid
expansion drives up emergency room visits. The Washington Post said,
``Study: Expanding Medicaid Doesn't Reduce ER trips. It increases
them.''
Democrats don't want to talk about all these problems. They don't
want to talk about all of the reform bills which Republicans passed in
the House last year but which never got a vote in the Senate in spite
of our efforts to try to get votes on those bills. Democrats hope
people believe what they are saying, accept their claims that the Web
site is working fine and that all the law's problems have been fixed.
The American people see through this. They know that what has been done
to them by this administration is not right.
It is time for Washington Democrats to play it straight with the
American people and to make a new beginning on health care reform. I am
not talking about more fake fixes like the one we saw right before
Christmas. That was the Obama administration quietly announcing that
people whose insurance had been canceled because of the law could apply
for a hardship exemption to avoid the individual mandate.
Well, the newer numbers have come out. There are now more than 5
million health insurance cancellations in 35 States. And we don't even
know how many were canceled in Texas, Ohio, Virginia, South Carolina,
Missouri, and Wisconsin. We don't know those numbers yet. So we know
that a minimum of 5 million people have received cancellation notices
and the anxiety that comes with that, as well as the anger. When people
tried to replace the plans they lost, many found that their premiums
would skyrocket and their deductibles would be higher than ever.
I find it interesting that Democrats I have talked to said: Well,
January 1 has come, so the numbers aren't going to go up anymore. That
is just not true. I was just in my office and got off the phone with a
friend in Douglas, WY. He is a pharmacist and provides health insurance
for employees. He has fewer than 50 employees, so it is not mandatory
under the law that he do so, but he does it anyway and he has done it
for years. But Gary is in a situation where he has now received a
letter of cancellation of his own insurance policy, and it was dated
January 1. This is not something from last year; this is something
dated January 1, 2014. It is a letter from the Madison National Life
Insurance Company to Gary Shatto at Shatto's Frontier Drug in Douglas,
WY.
``Important Notice.'' Can you imagine getting this letter and opening
it? ``Important Notice'' in bold print. ``This Affects Your Insurance
Contract Rights. Please Read Carefully.'' That would get your
attention.
This notice is to inform your company that Madison National
Life Insurance Company . . . will be exiting the employer
small group major medical insurance market in Wyoming
effective June 30, 2014 at midnight.
Exiting June 30, 2014, at midnight.
So what this tells us is these numbers are going to go up because, at
3,000, the numbers in Wyoming are such that we know more people are
going to get cancellation notices. And this isn't just for Gary; this
is for everybody who works there.
They ``will be exiting the employer small group major medical
insurance market in Wyoming effective June 30, 2014 at midnight. This
decision was prompted by the increased regulation since the federal
government's passage of its recent federal health care reform, commonly
referred to as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
(``PPACA'').
``The increased regulation will make it difficult for Madison
National to continue to operate and compete meaningfully in Wyoming's
small group major medical market. As such, your referenced insurance
coverage will terminate at midnight on June 30, 2014.''
This is what people are going to continue to deal with, letters like
this continuing to go out, a new round of letters going out January 1.
The President of the United States needs to be honest with the
American people about the significant damage his health care law is
doing to families all across the country. And as the employer mandate--
which the President has delayed for a year--kicks in this year, we are
going to see more and more letters like this and more and more people
dumped, losing their insurance, in spite of the President's claim that
``if you like your coverage, you can keep your coverage.'' No wonder
the folks who look into these things have labeled it the ``lie of the
year.''
The White House continues to try to do this little bandaid approach.
Now they say they are going to let some Americans buy catastrophic
coverage. That is an idea I proposed to the President at the White
House health care roundtable back in February of 2010. After 25 years
of practicing medicine, I know that for some people catastrophic
coverage is the right option. For many people it is, and it encourages
patients to be smart consumers of medical services. But at our meeting
4 years ago President Obama said that these plans were suitable only
for the wealthy, that they weren't good ideas. He said that letting
people be smarter consumers wouldn't help. Now he has changed his mind.
Don't expect him to admit that Republicans were right all along. The
President said: Well, the Republicans have no ideas. If they have some
ideas, they can bring them to him. There were a number of different
bills and proposals by Republicans. The President seems to want to
ignore that just as much as he wants to ignore the problems and the
misery his health care law has caused for so many people all around the
country.
Instead of trying to patch this terrible health care law together
with chicken wire and duct tape, it is time for Democrats in Washington
to admit that this entire law is failing the American people because it
absolutely hurts so many American families. Then we can move on to
talking about real reforms to give people access to quality, affordable
health care. That is the year's top priority of the American people,
and it needs to be our top priority in the Senate.
I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the
Emergency Unemployment Compensation Extension Act. That would be S.
1845. This is legislation that will continue to be a critical safety
net for workers who have fallen on tough times through no fault of
their own. Just a few short hours ago, as you know, the Senate sent a
strong message by voting to move forward on this vital legislation to
restore unemployment insurance for the more than 1 million Americans
whose benefits expired on December 28.
I wish to thank Senator Jack Reed and Senator Heller for their
bipartisan leadership on this issue. This is a very important step in
providing economic security for the millions of Americans who lost
their unemployment benefits at the end of the year or who will lose
them this year if Congress does not act.
By helping people to stay on their feet after an unexpected job loss,
unemployment insurance has kept millions of Americans out of poverty.
Rather than removing the safety net these people rely on, we should be
focused on policies that help the long-term unemployed get back to
work, including the help that will allow them to pay their rent and
fill their gas tanks while they are searching for jobs.
Yesterday I released the Joint Economic Committee report making the
economic case for extending the Federal support for our unemployment
insurance, designed to keep long-term unemployed Americans above water
as they search for work. Approximately 1.3 million workers, as we know,
lost their unemployment benefits on December 28. Barring Congressional
action, benefits will expire for an additional 3.6 million over the
next year. In
[[Page S53]]
my home State of Minnesota, roughly 8,500 people lost benefits at the
end of last year and about 65,000 Minnesotans will lose benefits by the
end of December of 2014.
These are people who may have had a plant close in their town. Maybe
their position was eliminated and no one is hiring. Either way, these
are people who have been paying into the system for their working lives
and we need to see them through to their next job.
This is especially important at a time of stubbornly high long-term
unemployment. For most Americans, State-funded unemployment insurance
lasts 26 weeks. Yet the average unemployment spell lasts 10 weeks
longer. In 2008, as our country went into the worst downturn since the
Great Depression, Congress authorized Federal support for extended
unemployment benefits for those who were out of work for more than 26
weeks. For people struggling to find work during those dark days, the
extension was a lifeline. For the millions of Americans still searching
for work as our economy recovers, it is a critical safety net.
Our economy, as we know, has come a long way since the downturn
began, with the national unemployment rate now lower than it has been
in 5 years. In my home State of Minnesota we are doing even better. The
unemployment rate is more than two points below the national average.
We are proud of that for our businesses. We are proud of that for our
workers.
But there is a problem that remains. While the overall workforce is
growing stronger every day, we are still facing significant challenges
with long-term unemployment. At 2.6 percent, that is people long-term
unemployed more than 6 months, it is more than twice what it was when
Congress last allowed Federal unemployment insurance to expire after
the recessions of 1990-1991 and 2001. In fact, in our report we have a
graph that shows that literally this unemployment rate we are facing
now for the long-term unemployed is twice what it has been in any other
year when we faced a decision in Congress and decided in fact to
terminate those benefits.
Literally, that long-term unemployment rate is now twice what it was
in those other years. That is why there is so much concern about
stopping the benefits at this point.
In Minnesota, our long-term unemployment rate is 1.4 percent, much
better than it is in many States in the country, but too many Minnesota
communities are still hurting, with unemployment rates reaching as high
as 9.5 percent in Clearwater County in Minnesota.
Given the numbers, Federal support for unemployment insurance is more
important than ever for the long-term unemployed. Extending this
critical safety net is fair. American families, struggling against
long-term unemployment, are working hard to find a job, to put food on
the table, to pay their bills. They are not exactly the ones who have
seen the upturn from the stock market that many people have seen in the
last years. They are not the ones who have seen their stocks rise. They
don't have stocks. They are just trying to put food on the table for
their families. They are not faceless, nameless charity cases. They are
our neighbors, they are our family members, and they are our friends.
In fact, nearly one out of every five Americans has either received or
is living with someone who has received Federal unemployment benefits
since 2008. That is 69 million people. Almost 24 million long-term
unemployed workers have directly benefited and another 45 million
Americans, including nearly 17 million children, are living with
someone who is receiving unemployment insurance.
These benefits help carry families through long unemployment spells,
pay the mortgage, rent, utilities. While the average unemployment
insurance benefit of $300 per week only replaces about one-third of an
individual's average weekly wage, unemployment insurance benefits have
kept 11 million Americans out of poverty; 2.5 million in 2012 alone.
That is 2.5 million Americans kept out of poverty because of this
program.
In 13 States, over 40 percent of those who are unemployed have been
out of work for more than 26 weeks and have exhausted their State-
funded benefits. Nationally nearly 38 percent of unemployed workers are
long-term unemployed. These are the workers, the 4.9 million Americans
who will lose their unemployment insurance if we fail to pass this
bill. These benefits help them to keep looking for work, support their
children and families, and contribute to the economy.
The longer a person is unemployed, the more difficult it is for that
person to find a job. Skills atrophy and professional networks dry up.
But you can't go on a job interview if you cannot even fill up your car
with gas, so we also need to make sure the long-term unemployed are not
left high and dry after State-funded unemployment benefits run out.
Addressing long-term unemployment is a problem that calls for an all-
of-the-above solution. We need to do more to support American workers.
This is the right thing to do. We also know it is better for the
economy. The CBO has found that each dollar of unemployment insurance
increases the GDP by as much as $1.90, and extending the Federal
unemployment benefits through 2014 would boost GDP by a .2 percentage
point and increase employment by 200,000 jobs. Failing to extend
Federal unemployment benefits will cost the economy 240,000 jobs,
according to the Council of Economic Advisors. Those are the numbers
with which we are dealing.
We also know if we look at the suggestions of the debt commission--
something that I think is a very important body of work and has some
very good ideas in it--their idea is trying to get about $4 trillion in
debt reduction. We are something above $2.6 trillion of the way there
with more to do, but the point is there are ways to get there. One of
my favorite ways is to pass the immigration bill. CBO has found that in
the second 10 years that will actually save $700 billion on the debt by
making people pay taxes, by bringing them out of the shadows so they
pay fines. That is what we are dealing with.
If we want to look at ways to reduce our debt, I don't think we
should be doing it on the backs of the most vulnerable, those kids,
those people who are long-term unemployed who still have not been able
to find a job. In many States it is still a very difficult economy.
Especially for the long-term unemployed, this is the right thing to do.
We shouldn't leave these Americans in the lurch. We need to restore
this critical safety net and focus on getting Americans back to work.
I urge my colleagues to support the bill.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, I come to the floor to talk about an
amendment I will seek to offer on the pending bill, amendment No. 2603.
We all sympathize with those who are struggling to find work in a
difficult economy, and I want to see people get back to work. Certainly
a short-term extension for those who are relying on unemployment
insurance--if it is paid for--will allow a transition for those who are
out of work. What we need to do most in this Chamber is to give them an
opportunity to get a good-paying job. The focus in this Chamber, most
of all, needs to be on enacting progrowth policy that will encourage
both small and large businesses to thrive and grow in our economy and
create jobs.
I have voted today to begin debate on the legislation to provide a
temporary extension of unemployment insurance. I voted to begin this
debate because I believe both sides of the aisle can find a way to
grant this temporary extension to those who are struggling to find work
in this difficult economy while making sure we don't add to the $17
trillion of debt that also threatens our country and our economy.
I continue to believe that any temporary extension in a long-term
unemployment benefit should be paid for in a responsible manner. So I
have submitted an amendment, Ayotte amendment No. 2603. I think it is
an amendment that makes a ton of sense.
Let me tell you what this amendment does. This amendment pays for
[[Page S54]]
the 3-month extension of unemployment insurance. It fixes the unfair
cut to the military cost of living that was just enacted in the budget
I voted against. I felt this was unfair to those who have served in our
military and were singled out for cuts to their retirement benefits,
unlike anyone else, and it included, by the way, those who were retired
because they had a medical retirement. In other words, those who many
of us--I know the Presiding Officer has visited Walter Reed, as have I;
those who have lost arms, legs--they have received a medical
retirement, and their cost of living was cut under this budget as well.
So my amendment not only would pay for this temporary unemployment
insurance for those who are struggling to find work, to give them a
transition to get them back to work, but it would also pay to fix and
reverse this unfair cut in military retirement benefits--many who, by
the way, have served multiple tours for our country and have sacrificed
a tremendous amount because they moved around, because they served both
in Iraq and Afghanistan, on behalf of our country.
It would also give approximately $7 billion toward reducing our
deficit.
The way I pay for this is to fix an egregious problem in our Tax
Code. It is a problem that was identified by the Treasury IG. It is,
frankly, egregious. This is a problem in our Tax Code that has allowed
illegal immigrants to claim a refundable tax credit for children who
should not be entitled to it--children that do not even live in the
United States of America or may not even exist. Why? Because when
someone claims this refundable tax credit, they do not have to include
a Social Security number on their return. A Treasury IG report
identified this problem.
This amendment--a simple fix that would require a Social Security
number for anyone who is claiming the additional child tax credit on
their tax return--is estimated to save approximately $20 billion over
the next 10 years. So paying for reversing the cost-of-living increase
for those who have sacrificed so much for our country, paying for a
temporary unemployment insurance extension for those who are struggling
to find work, and reducing our deficit by approximately $7 billion over
10 years--all three of those things are done by fixing an egregious
problem in our Tax Code.
The audit of the Treasury IG in 2011 reported that individuals who
are not authorized to work in the United States of America received
$4.2 billion by claiming this additional child tax credit. The audit
found that the payment of Federal funds through this tax benefit
appears to provide an additional incentive for aliens to enter, reside,
and work in the United States without authorization, which contradicts
Federal law and policy to remove such incentives.
The audit was based upon an analysis of tax returns filed by persons
with individual taxpayer identification numbers which are issued to
individuals who are required to have a taxpayer ID number for tax
purposes but are not eligible for a Social Security number because they
are not authorized to work in the United States of America.
Again, this saves approximately $20 billion over the next 10 years.
Let me tell you how egregious this is. Here are some of the reports
about this problem in our Tax Code. It is fraud. This is fraud we are
going to fix here. This is good government. We should fix this now,
regardless. This $20 billion is money that should not be going out the
door over 10 years.
Here are some examples from Indiana. In fact, I just saw walk into
the Chamber one of my colleagues from Indiana, Senator Coats. In
Indiana, a local television station found that an undocumented worker
who was interviewed at his home in southern Indiana by a reporter
admitted his address was used this year to file tax returns by four
other undocumented workers who do not even live there. Those four
workers claimed 20 children who live in one residence, and, as a
result, the IRS sent the illegal immigrants tax refunds totaling over
$29,000.
The local station has found many undocumented workers are claiming
tax credits for children who live in Mexico. Many children who do not
even live in this country are being used by those committing fraud on
the IRS to claim this tax credit.
In Indiana, a tax preparer who acted as a whistleblower to an Indiana
news station said: ``We've seen sometimes 10 or 12 dependents--most
times nieces and nephews--on these tax forms. The more you put on
there, the more you get back.'' The whistleblower had thousands of
examples.
Another example from the whistleblower: ``We've got an over $10,000
refund for nine nieces and nephews,'' he said, pointing to the words
``niece'' and ``nephew'' listed on the tax form nine separate times.
``We're getting an $11,000 refund on this tax return.'' ``There are
seven nieces and nephews,'' he said, pointing to another set of
documents. ``I can bring out stacks and stacks. It's just so easy, it's
ridiculous.''
In North Carolina, investigators uncovered more than 1,000 tax
returns linked to eight addresses in that state last May, with refunds
worth more than $5 million. Investigators tied at least 17 tax returns,
totaling more than $62,000 in refunds, to a Charlotte, NC, apartment
one woman leased. At another apartment nearby, investigators discovered
153 returns, valued at over $700,000 in refunds.
Another address in the same apartment complex had 236 returns worth
$1.1 million in refunds.
At another Charlotte apartment complex, investigators traced 398
returns to two apartments, totaling more than $1.9 million in
additional child tax credits, with no guarantee that the children even
existed or lived in the United States of America.
Another North Carolina woman owned a tax preparation business. A
search of that business and her home turned up more returns, dozens of
uncashed U.S. Treasury checks, a FedEx box containing dozens of foreign
birth certificates, and a notary public stamp and signature stamp
listing her as a notary. That fraud case by the IRS totaled over $5
million.
In Tennessee, a search warrant prepared by the IRS claims that a
Murfreesboro, TN, tax company encouraged undocumented workers to lie on
their tax returns by claiming children who live in Mexico as
dependents. The IRS says that the Tennessee tax preparer has filed
6,000 tax returns over the last 3 years and although his clients only
paid $3.3 million in taxes, they were able to claim more than $17
million in refunds. The refunds left the United States on the hook for
$14 million.
So here is the question in this Chamber. The question is, Should we
fix egregious fraud in our Tax Code, where we have people, who are not
entitled to work in this country, claiming tax refunds for children,
some of whom have not been determined to exist, some of whom do not
even live in our country? Should we fix that in our Tax Code? Isn't
that good government?
And if we fix it, we can use the pay-for, the $20 billion that the
Joint Tax Committee has estimated to save over the next 10 years, to do
the following: to provide for a 3 month temporary extension of
unemployment insurance to those Americans who are struggling for work
right now; to fix the unfair cut to our military retirees, including
those who have gotten a medical retirement, those who are our wounded
warriors who have been injured, many of them serving in Afghanistan and
Iraq; and return $7 billion to the Treasury.
So here is the choice. Only in Washington would this be the choice:
We can fix the egregious problem with the Tax Code, where there is all
kinds of fraud and save billions of dollars; we can fix it for those
who have sacrificed the most--the unfair cuts to their cost-of-living
increase--those who have served our country admirably, and our wounded
warriors; and return money to reduce the deficit or what? We can be
denied a vote. I hope I will get a vote on this amendment. It is pretty
outrageous if I am not granted a vote on this amendment to prevent tax
fraud that needs to be fixed on behalf of the taxpayers in this
country.
If I cannot get a vote to take that $20 billion to help struggling
workers and to fix the unfair cuts to those who have sacrificed the
most and taken the bullets for this country and also to help fix our
deficit--only in Washington would that be a tough choice for anyone.
How do you vote against doing that?
I really hope the majority leader will allow a vote on this
commonsense
[[Page S55]]
amendment that will allow us to help struggling workers without adding
to the $17 trillion debt, that will allow us to say to our men and
women who have sacrificed the most: We are not going to continue to
target you with these unfair cuts to your cost of living, when no one
else has sacrificed under this budget agreement like that--and
particularly our wounded warriors--and to say to the American public:
We are going to fix fraud in our Tax Code, and also take some money and
apply it to the deficit.
It makes so much sense that only in Washington would I even be asking
the question on the Senate floor: Will I get a vote on this commonsense
amendment that allows us to do important things for the Nation and
fixes egregious fraud in our Tax Code, putting taxpayer dollars to uses
that they should be put to.
I end with the hope that I will get a vote on this commonsense
amendment and that my colleagues will support this amendment.
Thank you, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I would like to discuss today's vote, as
others who have come down here.
First of all, it is important to understand that this was a vote on
whether to start debate. I was one of those who joined several of my
colleagues saying: Yes, this ought to be debated. It was not a vote to
pass or not pass the legislation. That will come.
But the frustration that so many of us have had over this past year
in particular of not being able to participate in the process of
legislating boiled over at the end of the year and ended with a change
in the rules in the way the Senate has operated for more than 200 years
and stuffed the desires of the minority to be able to participate in
certain areas regarding nominations. Now there is some talk about doing
the same for legislation.
That frustration has led many of us to try to rethink: How can we get
back to what is called regular order--the way the Senate has always
operated in the past, the way it operated when I came here in my first
tranche in the Senate.
I started in the House of Representatives back in 1980. I was part of
a minority for four straight terms. There are majority rules. If one is
in the minority, they do not have a whole lot of authority. Maybe at
that time we held the White House under Ronald Reagan. He had the
ability to go above a Congress which did not support him but went to
the American people, and through their efforts many changed their minds
in the majority party and supported the policies of President Reagan.
When I came to the Senate in 1989, I was asked: What is the
difference between the House and the Senate? You are in the minority in
the Senate. You were in the minority in the House. I said: The
difference is like going to legislative heaven from a place a lot lower
than that in the House, because any Senator, majority or minority, had
the opportunity to offer an amendment, to offer an alternative, to
offer a statute, to participate in the effort to pass better
legislation.
Any Senator had that in the minority. The majority leader, then-
Senator George Mitchell, the Democratic leader, honored that. It was
honored throughout my term in the Senate. I was then gone for 12 years
and came back. I thought I was coming back to that same process, only
to find that, no, the whole process has been changed.
We do not have the rights we once had. We do not have the
opportunities we had. I came here to represent the people of Indiana
and their wishes. Yet now I am in a position where I do not even have a
chance to offer an amendment. I do not have even have a chance to offer
an alternative or a substitute saying: Look. This may be a legitimate
issue. I cannot support what is being handed to us take it or leave it.
It deserves debate. It deserves alternatives. It deserves to give us an
opportunity to try to convince our colleagues that a majority of us can
work together to pass legislation.
That is the kind of legislation that works, as opposed to some of the
legislation we are dealing with now that has been enacted simply by
one-party rule. I think looking back on the Affordable Care Act, so-
called ObamaCare, those who supported it wish now that it did have
bipartisan support, that it was worked out, that some of the
alternatives that were presented by Republicans were debated and
perhaps supported. Maybe we would be in a different position now.
It is not right to characterize a vote on a procedural motion to say
let's go forward and open this for debate, the opportunity to have
amendments. That is why I voted for it. Unemployment insurance is a
legitimate issue, policy issue to debate. I cannot support the proposal
that was brought before us. But I can support going forward to discuss
that proposal, to look at the alternative, to offer my own amendments
and see if our thoughts, our ideas prevail.
I am hoping that is what will happen. That is up to the majority
leader Senator Reid. Mr. President, 2013 did not offer us very many--in
fact, very few--opportunities to do that. We ended up on a very sour
note in 2013. It was good we had that break and we are back, the second
day of a new session of Congress. I hope Members on both sides of the
aisle reflected over this period of time on how we can return the
Senate to its original intent, how we can get back to so-called regular
order, so we can have legitimate debate on the floor, we can go back
and forth with our colleagues.
I think if we amend this, it will be a better bill. We do not think
that bill is the one that ought to address this problem, but here is a
substitute. Let's debate it. Then let's have a vote. Some of us will
win and some of us will lose. But every one of us will have the
opportunity to have their voice heard, their amendment voted on, their
alternative evaluated, and perhaps work in a bipartisan way to come up
with something constructive.
So that was the purpose for leaving most of my party and voting for
the motion to proceed, to go forward. Here we are. Now we have a chance
to debate it. Senator Ayotte was on the floor speaking before me,
Senator Portman, Senator Cornyn, all proposing ways in which we can
offset the cost.
We all know we are adding to our debt and deficit on a daily basis.
We have not come to grips with that. Yet the future consequences for
this country, our economy, our children, our grandchildren, future
generations is something we are all going to be ashamed of if we do not
try to impose some discipline. How do we do that?
We made many efforts going all the way back to Simpson-Bowles. All of
the major efforts, we were unable get the President's support for any
of those, even though he commissioned the Simpson-Bowles group, which
was bipartisan. But nevertheless, we have not yet to this point been
able to get that large effort in place that will put us on the path to
fiscal health.
But one thing we can do is when we have programs--new programs, an
extension of programs such as this--come before us, we can say: Let's,
one, reform this so we achieve what we want to achieve, and, No. 2,
let's make sure we do not add more taxpayer dollars to our deficit
spending and our debt. Let's offset it with something.
For those who say we cannot cut a penny more, for goodness' sake, the
organizations--the Federal organizations, the Office of Management and
Budget, the Congressional Research Service, on and on, GAO and others,
have proposed numerous ways of billions of dollars, hundreds of
billions of dollars in savings for programs that are deemed wasteful
and fraudulent.
Senator Ayotte just mentioned specific examples, some in my State, of
abuses of the system. There are concerns about abuse of the
unemployment insurance, people seeing this not as a help to getting a
job and getting back into the workforce but seeing this as yet another
entitlement benefit they can receive without putting the effort in to
get meaningful employment.
We have the responsibility to bring forward measures that I think
give people a connection between unemployment and their ability to get
employed. That has been suggested by Senator Portman and others here.
Senator Cornyn also talked about that. So whether it is an offset in
order to pay for this so we do not go further in debt and use taxpayer
money for excess
[[Page S56]]
spending, when we know over here is waste and fraud and abuse in
programs that have been deemed dysfunctional, unnecessary, the Federal
Government never should have been involved in this process in the first
place, why not take those programs that have been recommended to us by
nonpartisan agencies of the Federal Government?
Senator Coburn has spent his career down here pointing out excessive,
outrageous, egregious waste that has gone on and a misuse of taxpayer
dollars. That is not how to run a government. My State has had to face
this. They have faced up to it. We made the tough decisions. Of course,
there have been interest groups supporting every possible item we spend
money on. But we separated the necessary, the efficient, the effective
from the unnecessary, ineffective.
We now have been rated as the most taxpayer conscious friendly State
in the Nation. Our per capita tax impact on Hoosiers in Indiana is the
lowest of any State in the Nation. We have an efficient, effective
government that has a AAA credit rating, that has been deemed business
friendly, taxpayer friendly, residential friendly, family friendly. It
is a good place to live because we are not wasting taxpayer dollars.
People are tired of spending money on what does not work.
I have gotten way off my intended statement. But I guess I am
expressing my frustrations over the inability to participate in the
process that can bring about better use of the taxpayers' dollars and
more effective government. I think I speak for a lot of people on both
sides of the aisle, that the way to do this is simply not to freeze out
debate, not to freeze out amendments, not to freeze out the opportunity
to offer alternatives. By moving through this motion to proceed, I am
hoping this is a step forward to returning to a process in which we are
able to do what I just suggested.
This decision is going to be up to the majority leader. If he wants
honest debate, if he wants the American people and all of us in this
Chamber to know--to examine alternatives, if he wants to be
conscientious about spending taxpayer dollars, allow us the opportunity
to offer some offsets.
Senator Ayotte had a specific and I think very compelling offset. If
we took a fraction of the money that we would save, we can cover the
cost of this extension, if that is where we think we should go. I think
major reforms need to be made to this program, and we ought to be
emphasizing getting people back to work rather than how to keep
extending unemployment. But the two go somewhat hand in hand.
There are people in Indiana and other places who have made every
possible effort to get a job and have come up short. We need to be
sensitive to the plight of those people, but we do not need to be
sensitive to those who have taken advantage of this program and are
abusing this program who simply say: I do not have to work because the
government will send me a check; when I add up all of my benefits, I am
doing as well as I could if I worked. That is not the kind of policy we
ought to be advocating or enabling in the Senate.
As I said, there are numerous alternatives or ways in which we can
find a way to pay for this, if we can also put the reforms in place
that mean we ought to go forward with this particular program. Let me
suggest three. My colleagues have suggested others also, which I
support. Any one of these could work. This program is scored at about a
cost of six point something billion dollars.
This is a program, a policy, which requires taxpayers, in order to
claim refundable portions of the child tax credit, it would require
them to provide a Social Security number. I mean, this is so
elementary, it is unbelievable to discover that a government agency has
said: This is not in place. In other words, if you want to qualify for
a refundable child tax credit, you have to verify who you are by giving
them your Social Security number, so they can check to see if this is
legitimate or not legitimate.
Senator Ayotte laid out a situation where people were claiming 10,
15, 20 exemptions for children who did not even live in the United
States, who were not even citizens. I was embarrassed that one of
examples came from my State. But I think it is true of all States. But
the savings to put a good bit of common sense into a program is scored
not by Dan Coats, not by a Republican Senator but by a government
agency. It is scored at $27 billion.
So here is a program that wants to spend $6.6 billion. Republicans
say: First of all, we have problems with the program. I may or may not
support extending this. But if it does get extended, surely we do not
want to dump more money, more future debt, onto our children and
grandchildren. So let's take this $27 billion, or a fraction of that
$27 billion, and pay for this.
Let me offer another option: a delay for 1 year of the individual
employer mandates under ObamaCare, the legislation I introduced in the
Senate. If the President has delayed the mandates for businesses,
should not he offer the same delay to families and individuals as a
simple issue of fairness? What is the score--$30 billion.
A third option: Prohibit those who are eligible for unemployment
insurance from claiming Social Security disability benefits. Under the
law, one must be able to work to qualify for unemployment benefits.
Yet some people claiming unemployment benefits are also claiming
Social Security disability benefits. We can't make some of this stuff
up. Savings: roughly $6 billion, maybe more, that, if we want to
support this bill, would be a pay-for. So whether it is a pay-for or
whether it is the necessary policy changes to make the program more
effective--including, and I would suggest, a number of efforts that
have been proposed by my colleagues in terms of better connecting the
unemployed with those who are seeking, with the employers.
I can't tell you how many employers I have talked to in Indiana who
have said: I have jobs.
I have talked to others, but the bottom line is this. There are
people out there who look at what I have to offer. It is not the
greatest, but it is a job. It covers benefits, and it is a step forward
for them.
But they say: It doesn't match what I am getting from the government,
so I think I will take a pass.
This is not America and not the principles that made America the kind
of country it is. We should not be enablers in that regard through
legislation that we pass.
I hope that we can have a full and open debate on this bill and move
to policies that will grow and create jobs, and that we will adopt a
practice of paying for new spending with offsets from known waste,
fraud, and abuse that has been documented by government agencies.
Can't we at least do that? Can't we at least agree, in the future
interest of our country, both fiscally, domestically, on a number of
issues, for all of the reasons that I have articulated or tried to
articulate, this makes sense?
Breaking with some of the past ways I have given my vote, I have said
I am going to vote for the motion to proceed, and I going to challenge
the majority leader to look at this and say let's run this place
differently in 2014 than it was in 2013. Let's not be afraid of debate.
Let's not be afraid of amendments. Let's let the yeas be yeas and the
nays be nays. Let's give everybody an opportunity to state their case,
to offer an alternative, and to be recognized. As a Member of the
Senate, and the way this Senate was designed to be and traditionally
for over 200 years it has been, let's move back to that.
What happens next is now up to the majority leader. The ball is in
his court.
Had we not passed the motion to proceed with the support of
Republican help, then we wouldn't have given the majority leader the
need to make a decision.
What kind of a Senate do we want in 2014? A Senate that is doing what
the American people want us to do, representing the people of our State
with their interests, representing our beliefs about how government
should be run, how it should be funded, having an open and honest
debate, not afraid to take votes, trying to construct good policy for
the future of this country? We can't do that if this body is run by one
person saying: My way or the highway. You are in the minority. Tough
break.
This is a chance for the majority leader. Let's give us the
opportunity and return this back to the Senate it was once and always
has been until lately. It is up to the majority leader.
[[Page S57]]
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Ms. WARREN. I am here today with some good news. This week the
government will fix something that was broken. I know that some people
wish to deny that is possible, but hear me out.
Five years ago, during the 2008 financial crisis, we witnessed
firsthand that the market for home mortgages was badly broken. The
fundamental problem was that many lenders issued mortgages without any
concern about whether the borrower would be able to repay those
mortgages in the long run. Why would they do that? They did it because
they could immediately sell the mortgage to another financial
institution. If the borrower couldn't pay, that would turn out to be
somebody else's problem.
We all know what happened next. Millions of these dangerous mortgages
were bundled together, sliced, diced, slapped with AAA ratings, and
then sold to retirement funds, local governments, and investors all
over the country. When borrowers couldn't make their monthly payments,
those bundles of mortgages began collapsing, and the effects were felt
in every corner of the economy.
This Friday, that basic business model will change, thanks to the
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's new mortgage rules. When these
rules go into effect, lenders will be able to issue a mortgage only
after they determine that the borrower has the ability to repay it.
Lenders will no longer be able to make loans they know will blow up
and then feed those dangerous loans into the financial system. Because
of the consumer agency's new rules, families will be safer. Pension
funds and other investors will be safer. Our whole economy will be
safer--not completely safe, but with a new cop on the beat, it will be
safer.
The new rules will fix other problems as well. Before the crisis,
some mortgage brokers who were supposed to be helping consumers find
the best mortgage were actually taking money from lenders to steer
those consumers into higher-cost loans. The CFPB's new rules will
prohibit this sort of under-the-table dealing and protect consumers
from being tricked by people they think they can trust.
The rules will also address many of the mortgage servicing problems
that emerged during the crisis. After mortgages were sold off, bundled,
and cut up into pieces for various investors, too many borrowers were
unable to track down clear information about their accounts. Some of
the companies responsible for servicing their loans took days or even
weeks to give them credit for their payments.
When borrowers fell behind, these servicers often began foreclosure
proceedings without giving people full information about the options
they had to modify their loans. The consumer agency's new rules will
help clean up the mortgage servicing industry so more families can keep
up with their payments and stay in their homes.
CFPB Director Rich Cordray and his hardworking and incredibly
talented staff have worked for a long time to put these new rules
together, and its rules will reshape the mortgage market for the
better. They will give people a better chance to buy homes and a better
chance to keep those homes. They will force mortgage lenders and
servicers to compete by offering better rates and customer service, not
by tricking and trapping people. These rules will help markets work
better, and they will reduce the risk that the economy will crash
again.
Our work is not done. The march toward financial reform has been too
slow, and the chances of another crisis, while dialed back in some
areas, remain unacceptably high in others. Even today, the too-big-to-
fail banks that nearly crashed the global economy in 2008 are nearly 40
percent bigger than they were back then.
Yes, we have more work to do on dangerous banking practices, but this
week marks an important milestone. Six years ago, I noted that it was
impossible to buy a toaster with a one-in-five chance of bursting into
flames and burning your house down, but it was possible to take out a
mortgage that had the same one-in-five chance of putting a family out
on the street.
The point was that consumers had the Consumer Products Safety
Commission to keep people safe from dangerous toasters, and they needed
the same kind of agency to keep people safe from dangerous and
deceptive financial products.
In the years since, we have built that agency. It has already
returned nearly $1 billion to consumers who were cheated, and it has
helped tens of thousands of consumers resolve complaints against
financial institutions. Now, this Friday, that agency will put in place
some commonsense rules that will make a real difference for millions of
families who own--or someday hope to own--their own home.
The consumer bureau's new mortgage rules show, once again, that
government can fix problems. Sure, we have to work hard. We have to
fight against those who benefit from the broken system, and we have to
stick with it even when the odds are against us. But when we do those
things, real change is possible in this country. We are seeing that up
close this week.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SHELBY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Warren). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The Federal Reserve
Mr. SHELBY. Madam President, last night here in the Senate we
confirmed Janet Yellen to be the next Chairman of the Board of
Governors of the Federal Reserve System. I firmly opposed her
confirmation. In 2010 I also voted against Dr. Yellen's nomination to
serve as Vice Chairman of the Federal Reserve. I want to explain.
At that time I stated my deep concerns about Dr. Yellen's Keynesian
bias toward inflation as a member of the Federal Open Market Committee
and her poor record of bank regulation as president of the San
Francisco Federal Reserve. Those concerns have not faded; rather, they
are magnified in light of the importance of the position to which Dr.
Yellen has now been confirmed, and that is the Chairman of the Board of
Governors of the Federal Reserve.
It is not just that the Chairman of the Fed is perhaps the most
powerful individual in the global economy; it is that the institution
itself is in utterly uncharted waters. I believe we need a Federal
Reserve Chairman with the record and resolve to navigate our economy
through this incredibly delicate situation. In my judgment, I thought
Dr. Yellen was not that person.
The Federal Reserve's balance sheet currently stands at $4 trillion.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a copy of the
balance sheet as of January 1 of this year.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
8. CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF CONDITION OF ALL FEDERAL RESERVE BANKS
[Millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Change since
Eliminations Wednesday Jan -------------------------------
Assets, liabilities, and capital from 1, 2014 Wednesday Dec Wednesday Jan
consolidation 25, 2013 2, 2013
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assets:
Gold certificate account.................... .............. 11,037 0 0
Special drawing rights certificate account.. .............. 5,200 0 0
Coin........................................ .............. 1,955 -8 -148
Securities, unamortized premiums and .............. 3,952,587 -7,327 +1,113,092
discounts, repurchase agreements, and loans
Securities held outright (1)............ .............. 3,756,159 -6,835 +1,086,566
U.S. Treasury securities............ .............. 2,208,775 -54 +542,657
[[Page S58]]
Bills (2)....................... .............. 0 0 0
Notes and bonds, nominal (2).... .............. 2,103,871 -1 +523,399
Notes and bonds, inflation- .............. 91,379 0 +16,639
indexed (2)....................
Inflation compensation (3)...... .............. 13,525 -53 +2,619
Federal agency debt securities (2).. .............. 57,221 0 -19,562
Mortgage-backed securities (4)...... .............. 1,490,162 -6,781 +563,471
Unamortized premiums on securities held .............. 208,610 -492 +37,730
outright (5)...........................
Unamortized discounts on securities held .............. -12,352 +20 -10,788
outright (5)...........................
Repurchase agreements (6)............... .............. 0 0 0
Loans................................... .............. 171 -21 -416
Net portfolio holdings of Maiden Lane LLC .............. 1,541 0 +128
(7)........................................
Net portfolio holdings of Maiden Lane II LLC .............. 63 0 +2
(8)........................................
Net portfolio holdings of Maiden Lane III .............. 22 0 0
LLC (9)....................................
Net portfolio holdings of TALF LLC (10)..... .............. 109 0 -747
Items in process of collection.............. (0) 165 +4 -22
Bank premises............................... .............. 2,289 -1 -42
Central bank liquidity swaps (11)........... .............. 272 -1 -8,617
Foreign currency denominated assets (12).... .............. 23,821 +35 -1,181
Other assets (13)........................... .............. 24,579 -1,637 +3,987
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total assets.................................... (0) 4,023,640 -8,935 +1,106,451
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Components may not sum to totals because of rounding. Footnotes appear at the end of the table.
Liabilities:
Federal Reserve notes, net of F.R. Bank .............. 1,197,920 +2,719 +71,059
holdings...................................
Reverse repurchase agreements (14).......... .............. 315,924 +164,667 +212,653
Deposits.................................... (0) 2,445,620 -174,717 +822,821
Term deposits held by depository .............. 0 0 0
institutions...........................
Other deposits held by depository .............. 2,249,070 -201,663 +740,398
institutions...........................
U.S. Treasury, General Account.......... .............. 162,399 +68,506 +77,941
Foreign official........................ .............. 7,970 -10 +1,660
Other................................... (0) 26,181 -41,550 +2,822
Deferred availability cash items............ (0) 1,127 -87 -66
Other liabilities and accrued dividends (15) .............. 8,035 -1,514 -311
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total liabilities............................... (0) 3,968,627 -8,930 +1,106,158
Capital accounts:
Capital paid in............................. .............. 27,507 -2 +147
Surplus..................................... .............. 27,507 -2 +147
Other capital accounts...................... .............. 0 0 0
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total capital................................... .............. 55,014 -4 +294
Note: Components may not sum to totals because of rounding.
Mr. SHELBY. A recent Bloomberg analysis contains figures that help us
put this staggering number--$4 trillion--into perspective.
I also ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record that
Bloomberg article.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From Bloomberg, Dec. 17, 2013]
Fed's $4 Trillion in Assets Draw Lawmakers' Scrutiny
(By Jeff Kearns)
The Federal Reserve's balance sheet is poised to exceed $4
trillion, prompting warnings its record easing is inflating
asset-price bubbles and drawing renewed lawmaker scrutiny
just as Janet Yellen prepares to take charge.
The Fed's assets rose to a record $3.99 trillion on Dec.
11, up from $2.82 trillion in September 2012, when it
embarked on a third round of bond buying. Policy makers meet
today and tomorrow to decide whether to start curtailing the
$85 billion monthly pace of purchases.
Among Fed officials, ``there's discomfort in the sense that
the portfolio could grow almost without limit,'' former Fed
Vice Chairman Donald Kohn said last week during a panel
discussion in Washington. Kohn said there was ``discomfort in
the potential financial stability effects'' and added:
``There's some legitimacy in those discomforts.''
Fed Governor Jeremy Stein has said some credit markets,
such as corporate debt, show signs of excessive risk-taking,
while not posing a threat to financial stability.
Representative Jeb Hensarling, chairman of the House
committee that oversees the Fed, last week said he plans
``the most rigorous examination and oversight of the Federal
Reserve in its history.''
While any effort to rewrite the law establishing Fed powers
lacks support from Democrats who control the Senate, the
scrutiny is undesirable for central bankers who believe
``independence is priceless,'' said Laura Rosner, a U.S.
economist at BNP Paribas SA in New York.
Not Welcome
The Fed Approaches a Taper on Tiptoe
``It's not a welcome development that a lot more time and
focus is spent on answering questions'' from Congress, said
Rosner, a former researcher at the Federal Reserve Bank of
New York. Lawmakers may also use the size of the balance
sheet to ``draw attention to concerns they have about the
Fed's responsibilities and growing role in financial
regulation.''
Chairman Ben S. Bernanke, whose second four-year term ends
next month, has quadrupled Fed assets since 2008 with bond
purchases intended to lower long-term borrowing costs and
reduce unemployment. Vice Chairman Yellen, who may win Senate
confirmation this week to replace Bernanke, has been a
supporter of the policy.
The Fed has said it will keep buying bonds until the
outlook for the labor market has ``improved substantially.''
Thirty-four percent of economists surveyed by Bloomberg Dec.
6 predicted the Fed will start reducing purchases this month,
while 26 percent forecast January and 40 percent said March.
Assets Held
The Fed's balance sheet exceeds the gross domestic product
of Germany, the world's fourth-largest economy. It's enough
to cover all U.S. federal government spending for more than a
year. It could pay off all student and auto loans in the
country with $2 trillion to spare, Fed data show. The central
bank's assets are set to exceed the $4.1 trillion held by
BlackRock Inc. (BLK), the world's largest asset manager.
The third round of quantitative easing probably will total
$1.54 trillion before it ends, bringing the balance sheet to
$4.3 6 trillion, according to economists in the survey.
``This is a stimulus of the first order. It's just
unprecedented,'' Alabama Republican Senator Richard Shelby
said in an interview last week. ``The Fed is an independent
body, but we can point out what they're doing.''
Jeffrey Lacker, president of the Richmond Fed and a critic
of the Fed's bond buying, said in a Dec. 9 speech he expects
the Fed policy makers to discuss reducing purchases at this
week's meeting. Adding to the balance sheet ``increases the
risks'' associated with exiting stimulus, he said.
`Real Risk'
Shelby, a five-term senator and past chairman of the
Banking Committee sees ``a real risk'' the balance sheet will
ignite inflation. So far, there's little sign that's
happening: a measure of prices watched by the Fed rose 0.7
percent in October from a year earlier, below the central
bank's 2 percent target and the least in four years.
At 22 percent of the $16.9 trillion U.S. economy, the
balance sheet is surpassed by those of other major central
banks as a percentage of gross domestic product, according to
third-quarter data compiled by Haver Analytics in New York.
In the euro zone, the figure is 24 percent, and in Japan,
it's about 44 percent.
That doesn't mollify Republican critics. When Yellen
started to make global comparisons at her Senate confirmation
hearing last month, Shelby interrupted her.
``I'm asking about the Federal Reserve of the United States
of America,'' he said.
Warning Signs
Yellen is set to take over amid warnings that assets from
leveraged loans to farmland are showing signs of froth.
The Fed and other U.S. banking regulators have said they
want to crack down on underwriting standards in the market
for high-risk, high-yield loans.
[[Page S59]]
Non-bank lenders such as mutual funds, hedge funds and
pools of collateralized loan obligations, bought $630 billion
of the loans this year, surpassing the 2007 peak of $581.5
billion, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.
Sales of high-yield, high-risk bonds, rated below Baa3 by
Moody's Investors Service and lower than BBB- at Standard &
Poor's, soared to an annual record of $373.2 billion this
year, data compiled by Bloomberg show. That compares with
$149.2 billion in 2006, the year before the start of the
credit crisis.
The extra yield investors demand to hold speculative-grade
bonds rather than government debt reached 411 basis points,
or 4.11 percentage points, last week, the least since October
2007, according to Bank of America Merrill Lynch index data.
Spreads ended the week at 412 basis points.
Record Loans
Sales of institutional loans have also reached an annual
record, soaring 71 percent from 2012 to $627.1 billion,
according to data compiled by Bloomberg.
Potential losses on the Fed's investments are also cause
for concern and ``something we will be watching,''
Representative John Campbell, a California Republican who
leads the House Financial Services subcommittee on monetary
policy and trade, said in February.
The Fed sent a record $88.4 billion to the Treasury in 2012
and $75.4 billion in 2011, up from $31.7 billion in 2008.
Most of the income was from interest on assets bought under
the quantitative easing program.
The risk for the Fed is that rising interest rates reduce
the value of its bond holdings, potentially causing losses if
the central bank had to sell the securities back into the
open market.
``Losses are dangerous for the Fed from a political
perspective because they would be a risk to its
independence,'' said Roberto Perli, a partner at Cornerstone
Macro LP in Washington.
Deficit Spending
Campbell and Hensarling also say the Fed's purchases of
government debt are encouraging deficit spending by allowing
the government to borrow cheaply. The yield on the 10-year
Treasury note has averaged 2.31 percent this year, compared
with a 6.61 percent mean over the past half century.
``The Fed's additional extraordinary purchases of Treasury
bonds have supported the Obama administration's trillion-
dollar deficits,'' Hensarling said at a Dec. 12 hearing.
Yellen says bond purchases have put Americans back to work.
Asset purchases helped the private sector add 7.8 million
workers since 2010 and boosted home prices and auto sales,
Yellen said in her confirmation hearing, adding that the
progress will let the central bank get back to more normal
monetary policy.
Jobless Rate
The jobless rate has fallen to 7 percent from a 26-year
high of 10 percent in October 2009. Since then, the economy
has regained most of the jobs it lost during the 18-month
recession ended in June 2009.
``The balance sheet is growing because that's how the
Federal Reserve thinks it's going to accomplish the mandates
that Congress gave to it'' for full employment and price
stability, Kohn, now a senior fellow at the Brookings
Institution's Hutchins Center on Fiscal and Monetary Policy
in Washington, said in an interview last week.
Still, policy makers haven't spurred the growth they
expected. Officials forecast 2013 growth of 2 percent to 2.3
percent in September, down from a 2.3 percent to 2.8 percent
estimate in March.
``QE turned out to be a safety net, a floor, a way to catch
the economy to keep it from crashing,'' said Steve Blitz,
chief economist at ITG Investment Research Inc. in New York.
``A safety net to catch a falling economy is not the same
thing that can springboard the economy to a higher rate of
growth.''
Mr. SHELBY. The article contains the following three comparisons that
I found more than interesting. Four trillion dollars is equivalent to
24 percent of the U.S. GDP. That is greater than the GDP of the world's
fourth largest country--Germany. Think about it. Four trillion dollars
is twice the amount of all student and auto debt in this country. Yes,
$4 trillion far surpasses even the amount of money the Federal
Government spends in an entire year.
This brings me to my next point. Many hold the misconception in this
country that China is the world's largest owner of U.S. debt. That is
not true. In fact, the Federal Reserve's balance sheet shows the
Federal Reserve itself is by far the largest holder of U.S. Treasury
bonds. With $2.2 trillion in Treasury debt, the Fed holds nearly $900
billion more than China does, if you can think in those terms. The Fed
holds more in Treasury bonds than do China and most of the eurozone
combined.
The rate of acceleration with which the Federal Reserve is purchasing
Treasuries should be alarming to all Americans. On the day of President
Obama's first inauguration, the Federal Reserve held $475 billion in
Treasuries. Today it holds $2.2 trillion in Treasuries. That represents
a 363-percent increase in the past 5 years.
It is no coincidence that President Obama has greatly accelerated our
national debt over that same period of time. There is a connection.
When he took office, the national debt stood at a large $10.6 trillion.
That is a lot of money. Today it stands at $17.3 trillion--5 years
later. I believe the Federal Reserve is aiding and abetting the failed
policies and the reckless spending of the Obama administration.
But the Fed's binge on Treasuries alone doesn't tell the full story
of its exploding balance sheet. The Federal Reserve's portfolio is also
loaded with nearly $1.5 trillion of mortgage-backed securities. I have
long been concerned that this aggressive and extraordinary purchasing
program is artificially propping up home prices, and this is especially
pertinent since an overheated housing market greatly contributed to the
financial crisis that caused this situation in the first place.
Taken altogether, the Federal Reserve has added more than $3 trillion
to its balance sheet since early 2008, just before the investment bank
Bear Stearns failed and the Federal Reserve stepped in.
I realize that sometimes it is easy to become lost in all of these
huge figures I have been sharing. I brought a simple chart that
illustrates the magnitude of the Federal Reserve's actions. It shows
here the size of the Federal Reserve's balance sheet by decade, from
its creation in 1913, 100 years ago, to present day. As we can see, it
took 95 years for the Federal Reserve's balance sheet to reach $1
trillion. But look at the incredible spike in just a few years since,
in the red here. Here we are today, just 5 years later, at $4 trillion
and growing.
Let's call this what it is: a backdoor stimulus program through
monetary policy. Very complicated, yes, but very important. It dwarfs
even the fiscal stimulus package President Obama rammed through
Congress during his first days in office about 5 years ago. President
Obama's fiscal stimulus package totaled $787 billion--a lot of money--
and I have just described the Fed's monetary stimulus package as nearly
four times larger and growing.
This highly unconventional monetary policy poses huge risks to our
economy--namely, inflation in the future and a devaluation of our
currency. I realize that current inflation expectations are relatively
low and anchored. However, again we are in completely uncharted
territory. Should inflation expectations become unglued, prices could
increase uncontrollably. There is simply no playbook that I am aware of
on how to deal with such a situation successfully.
Yes, I also understand that the Fed has recently announced it will
modestly scale back its so-called quantitative easing program. The Fed
will still purchase tens of billions of dollars of securities each
month.
Make no mistake--the Fed's balance sheet will continue to expand
rapidly. How long will this continue? We don't know. How large will the
Fed's balance sheet ultimately grow? We don't know. Will the Fed be
able to contain inflation if it does begin to rise? Again, we don't
know. And when will the Federal Reserve actually begin to unwind the
balance sheet--which will be tricky? Again, we don't know. How exactly
does the Federal Reserve plan to unwind the balance sheet? Again, we
don't know, and I don't believe they know.
I raise these points because I met with Dr. Yellen in my office and
attended her confirmation hearing in the Banking Committee. I received
no meaningful answers to any of those questions, only the usual
platitudes that so often mark such meetings.
If I may, I will now turn briefly to the subject of bank regulation,
which is very important in this country--a primary and critical
function of the Federal Reserve.
I have been a member of the Banking Committee since I first came to
the Senate in 1987. I served on the committee through many difficult
times in the financial markets, including the savings and loan crisis
and the 2008 financial crisis. In all of my experience, I have never
seen a financial institution fail that was well managed, well
capitalized, and well regulated. The
[[Page S60]]
fact is that so many financial institutions failed in 2008 and 2009 in
no small part because the Federal Reserve failed spectacularly in its
role as their regulator. I think that is a given.
As President of the San Francisco Fed from 2004 to 2010, Dr. Yellen
presided over a regional housing bubble and failed to restrain the
excesses in the market. Yet, despite this record of failure, she now
runs the most powerful bank regulatory institution in the world--the
Federal Reserve. I guess failure begets promotion in President Obama's
view. We have seen it time and again.
This is all the more important considering that the Fed gained even
greater power under the Dodd-Frank financial regulation law despite the
fact that the Federal Reserve's own failures contributed to the need
for financial reform in the first place.
In light of Dr. Yellen's weak touch as a bank regulator and her
strong inclination to print more and more money, I firmly opposed her
nomination. Only time will tell, but I believe a vote in the
affirmative is one many of my colleagues will come to regret.
Madam President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a
quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, I presume we are in a quorum call. I
ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Global Warming
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, I am back today for the 54th time to
urge my colleagues to wake up to what carbon pollution is doing to the
Earth's climate and oceans. We see the facts all around us, but can't
seem to penetrate the politics of Congress.
We, in this body, are willfully ignoring changes we have never seen
before, changes that threaten our planet and its rich array of plant
and animal life, our homes, farms, and factories, and our very health
and well being.
Carbon-driven climate change can be seen in warming surface
temperatures and shifting seasons, but perhaps nowhere is carbon
pollution doing more harm than in our oceans. The year 2013 brought
ample new evidence of these changes in our oceans.
People often talk about climate change as if it were a theory. Here
is what we know. We know that the oceans are warming. That is not a
theory; that is a measurement. It is done with thermometers. It is not
complicated. Sea level, we know, is rising; that is another
measurement. It is very simple. We could do it with a yardstick. Oceans
are becoming more acidic. Every American with an aquarium measures
acidity with litmus paper. Again, it is simple measurement and proven
facts.
If we put those proven facts into context, let's look at geologic
context. According to an article published in 2012 in the journal
Science, our current rate of carbon dioxide emissions--mainly from
burning fossil fuels--is enough to cause the most severe changes to the
chemistry of our oceans in 300 million years, and 300 million years ago
is before the dinosaurs.
We know the oceans are warming. The oceans have absorbed more than 90
percent of the excess heat in the atmosphere between 1971 and 2010,
according to a 2013 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change.
Here is where the heat goes: 93.4 percent goes into the ocean. The
rest we are seeing, 2.3 percent, goes into the atmosphere. Our oceans
are really taking the brunt of the added heat.
We also know that sea level is rising. We know this. It is driven not
only by melting glaciers carrying water into the seas and raising their
level, but also by ocean water expanding. As water warms, it expands.
The principle of thermal expansion is known in every science class in
this country.
At the Newport tide gauge in Rhode Island, sea level is up almost 10
inches since the 1930s. So that means that storms driving the sea
against Rhode Island's coast have 10 more inches of sea to throw
against our homes and infrastructure.
Recent satellite measurements from the University of Colorado Sea
Level Research Group show 3.2 millimeters of sea level rise per year
from 1993 to 2013. Between 1901 and 2010, that rate was estimated at
1.7 millimeters per year. So the rate of increase has nearly doubled,
and that means sea level rise is very likely speeding up. That is all
stuff we measure. That is not theory.
The IPCC report also projects--conservatively, in my view--that sea
level will likely rise one-half to one full meter by the year 2100 if
we do nothing to dial back carbon pollution. Obviously, the other
estimates are for far more extreme sea level rise.
We know the oceans are becoming more acidic. Oceans not only absorb
90 percent of the heat that has come from climate change, they are
absorbing about 30 percent of the carbon itself. The carbon itself goes
to the surface of the ocean, and it is absorbed there. Roughly 600
gigatons worth of carbon have been pumped into our oceans as a result.
As all that carbon dissolves into the oceans, what happens? Ocean water
becomes more acidic. It is a chemistry experiment you can duplicate in
any simple lab. Indeed, if you do the measurement, we have gotten about
26 percent more acidic--the seas have--since the Industrial Revolution.
That was reported, again, last year by the International Programme on
the State of the Ocean.
The rate of change in ocean acidity--we can see it is speeding up--is
already faster than at any time measured in the past 50 million years
according to research published in the journal Nature Geoscience. Yet
we sleep walk here in Congress, narcotized by polluter money.
Ocean acidification and warming are fundamentally altering our
undersea environment--what Pope Francis in his recent exhortation
called the ``ocean wonder world.'' These changes, among other things,
have made the world's coral reefs extremely vulnerable to decay and
bleaching. Areas such as the Great Barrier Reef--one of the great
global wonders of the world off the coast of Australia--has already
experienced large-scale bleaching.
As a boy, I used to scuba dive in the Andaman Sea. If you go back
now--30 years later--it is heavily bleached. These are pictures that
were taken in 2002 by the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, and
they clearly show a once lush and vibrant reef now gone and barren.
Worsening this bleaching would be particularly hard on countries
whose people depend on the bounty of the reef for their protein,
sustenance, and economy. Remember, the reefs are the ocean's nurseries,
and they support food and economic stability as well as pretty tropical
fish.
New research also suggests that even the most remote depths of the
ocean will suffer the consequences of climate change. A study published
in the journal Global Change Biology looked at various climate models
to predicate changes in food supply throughout the world's oceans. The
models predict that the changes to our ocean could lead to a worldwide
drop in sea floor dwelling life by the year 2100.
The North Atlantic--off our shores in Massachusetts and in Rhode
Island--may lose more than one-third of all deep-sea marine life. These
drastic changes from our carbon pollution are daunting ones--
particularly for our ocean State of Rhode Island. Our way of life in
Rhode Island, like the Presiding Officer's in Massachusetts, has always
been closely tied to the sea. Yet here in Congress we ignore all of
that and continue perilously sleepwalking through history.
The Obama administration has at last put forward a Climate Action
Plan, the cornerstone of which will be EPA regulations to limit
greenhouse gas emissions from new and existing powerplants. Our 50
worst powerplants--in terms of emission--put out more carbon pollution
than the entire country of Canada and the entire country of Korea. So
solving that problem is vitally important.
The plan also directs executive branch agencies to take concrete
steps to safeguard the American people and our interest in the world
against the harmful effects of excessively high temperatures, melting
ice, ocean acidification, and sea level rise.
These are important steps, but they must ultimately be backed up by
congressional action. EPA regulations and executive orders will never
have the same economy-wide effect as a congressionally approved carbon
fee, for instance.
[[Page S61]]
The sweeping changes taking place in our oceans make adapting to
these changes particularly important along our coastlines. Warmer
waters and higher seas load the dice for more damaging storms. Our
coastal counties in this country harbor 39 percent of the country's
population and account for 41 percent of our GDP.
Let's look at our ports, for example. According to a 2009 National
Ocean Economics Program report: ``Three-quarters of all United States
trade passes through estuary ports.'' No wonder, then, that the
American Association of Port Authorities is taking climate change
seriously--working to reduce carbon pollution and stave off its
effects, rather than waiting for Congress to awaken from our slumber.
American ports are switching trucks and cranes from diesel to
electric and installing onshore power supply to ships, thus reducing
emissions from the port and from idling vessels. Likewise, the
International Association of Ports and Harbors has launched the World
Ports Climate Initiative to reduce the CO2 output from port-
related activities.
In my State, the Rhode Island Climate Change Commission reported:
Inundaton of the state's ports and railroads may reduce
interstate access, affecting economic viability and
potentially limiting imports and exports. Sea level rise may
also reduce navigational clearances for the State's bridges,
additionally limiting access.
These changes will be particularly harmful for the Port of
Providence, which today brings hundreds of millions of dollars to the
region.
We need strong Federal action to reduce the carbon emissions that are
threatening our coastal communities. We must also take firm Federal
action to adapt ourselves, and our States and our coastal communities,
to the changes that we can no longer avoid because of what we have
already pumped into the atmosphere and the harm we have already done.
This is a real threat. It is embarrassing, and it is wrong for
Congress and the Senate to continue to ignore it. Somebody who knew
something about looming threats was Sir Winston Churchill. He gave this
advice:
One ought never to turn one's back on a threatened danger
and try to run away from it. If you do that, you will double
the danger. But if you meet it promptly and without
flinching, you will reduce the danger by half.
That is good advice. What's embarrassing and wrong is that not only
are we failing to meet it promptly--and flinching--but that failure and
that flinching is the result of special interest influence in this
body.
We face uncommon challenges and they demand uncommon resolve. America
has not overcome past crises by pretending they did not exist; that
state of play is preposterous for us to embark from. We actually have
clear scientific understanding of the problem. The doubt is passed, the
jury is in, and the verdict has been delivered. Yet we lack the will of
leadership to forge a solution. Another great leader who knew something
of leadership in times of crisis was President Lincoln. He understood
that the greatest challenges require clear vision and brave thinking.
When faced with a crisis, President Lincoln said:
The occasion is piled high with difficulty, and we must
rise with the occasion. As our case is new, so we must think
anew, and act anew. We must disenthrall ourselves, and then
we shall save our country.
It is past time to disenthrall ourselves of the corrupt thrall of
polluting special interests. It is time, at last, to wake up and get to
work on the job we have before us.
I thank the Presiding Officer, and I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I want to share in some remarks
Senator Ayotte had relative to the amendment she submitted that would
pay for the unemployment insurance extension and veteran pensions
benefits. I will just say her pay-for is an issue that I have had some
experience with. I offered several years ago an amendment to fix the
same problem, and I was disappointed when the majority leader, Senator
Reid, objected to that amendment.
Senator Ayotte's amendment would pay for the jobless benefits of
unemployed Americans and restore veterans' pensions by cutting off
fraudulent tax payments to illegal aliens. This is a very simple
concept. There is a clear abuse going on here that needs to be fixed,
and it should have been fixed a long time ago.
The amendment contains an offset of $20 billion--$20 billion--by
closing this loophole and ending this abuse of American tax dollars.
Remember, the veterans' retirement benefit reductions in their
retirement plans that were voted on recently in this body--part of the
Ryan-Murray budget agreement--only saved $6 billion over 10 years by
altering the retirement benefits of veterans. So this amendment--
closing the tax loophole--would save $20 billion over 10 years.
In 2011--this is when the matter first came to my attention by the
Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration. Each Department has
an inspector general. The inspectors general are part of the Obama
administration, but they take pride in their independence, and they are
by and large a very valuable part of the American Government.
So this Treasury Inspector General made this statement in a report:
Millions of people are seeking this tax credit who, we
believe, are not entitled to it. We have made recommendations
to the IRS as to how they could address this, and they have
not taken sufficient action in our view to solve the problem.
A clear statement by the Inspector General of the U.S. Treasury
Department that there were problems with this policy, and they could be
fixed, and the Internal Revenue Service was failing to take steps to
fix the problem.
One press report that highlighted the abuses occurring within this
program reported that an illegal alien admitted that his address was
used to file tax returns by four other illegal workers. All were in the
country working illegally, and they filed tax returns. Did they file
the tax returns to pay taxes? No. They filed the tax returns to get a
tax credit back from the government, a check from the government. They
claimed 20 dependents living inside their residence, and the Internal
Revenue Service sent the illegal tax filers $30,000--direct checks from
the U.S. Government, from the U.S. Department of Treasury, went to
them. They filed a return, they said they had all these children, and
they were given $30,000.
According to the report, none of those dependents lived in the United
States or had even visited the United States. The illegal alien in the
story justified the enormous tax fraud by saying: ``If the opportunity
is there and they can give it to me, why not take advantage of it?''
Well, this is an interesting development. Let's go along a little
further. As the Treasury Inspector General himself said: ``The payment
of Federal funds through this tax benefit appears to provide an
additional incentive for aliens to enter, reside, and work in the
United States without authorization, which contradicts Federal law and
policy to remove such incentives.''
So the inspector general took the obvious position that it is the
government's position that people who enter the country illegally ought
not to receive tax credit checks from Uncle Sam and that this policy
not only encouraged that, it encouraged more people to come to America
to claim benefits, as this person who entered the country illegally
said: If they can give it to me, why not take advantage of it?
Now one of the things I have learned as I have traveled the world is,
a lot of people have an exaggerated opinion of the wealth and power of
the United States. You meet good people in underdeveloped countries,
and they say: Why doesn't the United States do this, that, and the
other--as if we had unlimited power, unlimited money, and unlimited
ability to solve the problems they face at any given time.
So a lot of people, maybe, when they come to the country do not
realize we are a nation of limited resources and we cannot be wasting
money, we cannot be having people enter our country contrary to the
law, undocumented, working, taking jobs that Americans need, and then
sending them big checks--$30,000 for children who do not even exist or
certainly have never been in the United States.
How do they do it? They use an ITIN, an individual tax identification
number. They do not have Social Security numbers. They have a tax ID
number. Why? That is a tax number that the Treasury Department came up
with to
[[Page S62]]
allow noncitizens who do not have Social Security numbers to pay taxes
to Uncle Sam. That is what it was supposed to be used for. These clever
individuals have figured out a way--they do not qualify for a Social
Security number, so they get an ITIN number, and then they immediately
start filing a tax return, claiming benefits, tax credits for children
they may not even have or are not in the country, and they are not
entitled to it. It is billions of dollars. According to the best
estimates we have, if this loophole were closed--that the Treasury
Department themselves has identified--it would save $20 billion over 10
years. Well, that is a lot of money.
In fact, in 2011, they claimed--and I do not know why it is not
more--that illegal aliens received a staggering $4.2 billion in
refundable tax credits in 2010. So in 2010, they received illegally
$4.2 billion under this program. Can you imagine that? That is more
than the budget of the State of Alabama--the general fund budget of the
State. This was in 2010, and it has been growing substantially. It is
probably more than that now.
So the legislation Senator Ayotte proposes would fix this problem,
and it is time we fixed it. I cannot imagine why anyone would oppose
it. The House has passed legislation already that would fix this
problem and it died in the Senate. Senator Reid refused to bring it up.
He obstructed its passage. It should have long since been passed.
So I pose a question to my colleagues: Which would you rather do?
Would you cut the retirement benefits of men and women who served this
country for 20 years or more in the U.S. military, being deployed in
harm's way, placing their lives at risk--even those who are disabled as
a result of service in the U.S. military in combat zones; they have
their retirement cut too--would you choose to cut their pay to save $6
billion, when you could cut out a totally unjustified claim of tax
credits of $20 billion? Is it political correctness run amok that we
are dealing with here? Why can't we fix this? So I think this is
something that needs to be fixed. It is past due to be fixed.
Senator Ayotte is correct to raise it as a legitimate pay-for for
unemployment compensation and veterans' retirement, and I salute her
for it. It is something I pushed for, and I offered a very similar
amendment when the Murray-Ryan bill moved through the Senate. I think
it is something we need to work on.
We are not talking about as much as we should now the chatter has
receded a little bit--but our deficit situation is still very grim. We
now have a current debt of $17 trillion. That is unprecedented in the
history of the United States. It has doubled in recent years. They are
the kind of deficits we have never seen before, and it is something we
have to address.
Mr. J.T. Young, in the Washington Times, a former member of the
Department of Treasury, I believe, in the Bush administration, and a
former staffer on the Budget Committee, wrote that what we are seeing
in our budgeting is a tip of the iceberg. The interest payments we are
making now--some $250 billion a year on the $17 trillion we owe--is a
tip of the iceberg. Because if interest rates return to their 40-year
average, we are going to see a dramatic increase in interest payments
on that debt.
When we say we have $17 trillion, we are talking about money the U.S.
Government has borrowed so it could spend. That borrowed money comes
from a source. Much of the source of that money are foreign nations.
The largest creditor is China. They loan us money, and we pay them
interest every year.
Right now interest rates are low, unusually low, exceedingly low
according to historic averages, and most people expect they are not
going to stay low. The bond market is already slipping because people
expect interest rates to go up, making their bonds less valuable. All
the experts--virtually all--expect we will have a rising interest rates
in the year to come.
Our Congressional Budget Office analyzes the debt of the United
States and our whole fiscal policy--taxing and spending and income and
outgo and has calculated that 10 years from today, under their baseline
budget plan, with interest rates increasing, and the increased
deficits--the deficits every year that we will have that will add to
the $17 trillion--in 10 years we will be paying interest, each year, of
over $800 billion.
Mr. Young refers to that as a ``third entitlement.'' Actually, under
these figures, it looks as though that interest payment will exceed
Social Security's payment and Medicare's payment and the Defense
Department. Not together, but each. This is a stunning danger that we
face. So it is not mean-spirited to say that before we pass an
unemployment compensation extension beyond our historic levels that we
need to ask: Will we just borrow all the money, or will we look around
this government and find places to save money such as the child tax
credit going to people without Social Security numbers illegally in the
country? What should we do?
The challenge we face is how to confront the rising debt. Every year,
every month , virtually, some other issue rises before the Senate. It
sounds persuasive and it is something we want to do, sometimes it is
something we really need to do. Certainly Americans are hurting today.
There is no doubt about that. There are a lot of reasons for it. We
need to work to reverse those trends. Middle America, poor America are
not doing well financially.
One reason is, there are millions of people in the country illegally
taking jobs, pulling down wages and reducing the employment prospects
of American citizens. There is no doubt about that. President Obama
proposed, and this Senate voted by a sizable majority, to double the
amount of guest workers who come into America. Meanwhile, they come
before the Senate and say: We need another $7 billion in unemployment
benefits because we have too much unemployment in America. How can that
possibly resonate logically with the American people? We should control
immigration in America. We are a very generous nation of immigrants. We
support immigration. One million people enter our country every year
legally. We have guest workers who come every year.
The immigration bill that was before us, that was voted on by this
body, would have not ended the illegality it would reduce it only by 40
percent or so, according to the Congressional Budget Office. But it
would have doubled the legal flow of guest workers to America. What a
stunning number, at a time of high unemployment, low wages, and the
lowest workplace participation rate this country has seen since the
1970s.
Americans are having a hard time finding work. So we have our
colleagues, our Senate majority, who voted for that immigration bill,
ranting to the Senate, demanding now that we extend unemployment
insurance, demanding that we raise the minimum wage. Well, I would like
to see the wages of Americans go up, all of them. I would like to see
people make $15, $18, $25, $30 an hour. We need more of that kind of
growth and prosperity in America. But I am not comfortable with the
Federal Government setting wages and price controls in this country. It
has never worked effectively.
We should do things that make sense. We should create economic
policies that create prosperity. We should not import large increases
in labor in America when we have huge numbers of people here that are
unemployed. That is just common sense.
I want to share with our colleagues some thoughts about where we are
with regard to the unemployment insurance extension legislation that is
now before us. Since 2009, the Senate has required that any extension
of unemployment insurance benefits be paid for because we agreed that
we need to reduce the amount of money we are borrowing. We are spending
considerably more than we take in. We are going to have to raise the
debt ceiling again next month so we can borrow even more money. So all
of the money my colleagues want to spend on extending unemployment
insurance, unless some savings are found elsewhere in the government,
will be borrowed. The legislation that is before us now borrows every
cent of it. Every cent of the $7 billion that is proposed will be
borrowed.
We are $17 trillion in debt, much owed to foreign creditors. It does
not seem wise to do this. This is the wrong thing. In the past,
Congress has paid for unemployment insurance extensions. This is
unprecedented, an
[[Page S63]]
extranormal unemployment insurance extension. The current amount is
always out there, but because the unemployment rate has been high, we
have extended it up to 99 weeks. We paid for this in 2009. We paid for
it in 2011, and we paid for it in 2012.
So clearly the Senate's policy approach has been consistent in recent
years to pay for this. Many remember our former colleague, Jim Bunning,
that Hall of Fame baseball pitcher, who stood right back here and
objected to this one time before, I think it was in 2009, all alone and
he insisted that it be paid for, and eventually he prevailed. It caused
quite a stir. He stopped the train until there was an agreement to pay
for this.
According to a report yesterday in National Journal, some Senators
want to rush this bill through now and will worry about paying for it
later. They will promise to pay for it later. This ``spend now, pay
later'' policy is how we racked up $17 trillion in debt. It is smoke
and mirrors. If you do not in this Congress agree to pay for something
before it is spent, it is not going to be paid for later. We have got
debt in the hundreds of billions of dollars every year and we are
certainly not going to go back and pay for more, pay down the money we
spent the year before. We have got to deal with the year we are in. If
we do that, it would be helpful. This is how we go broke.
But what I want to say is, fundamentally, the spending provided for
in this extension of unemployment insurance violates the spirit of the
Budget Control Act of 2011. It spends money above what we agreed to
spend. It should not be done. We need to know, every one of us, that by
voting for this bill, you are voting to violate the promise you made to
the American people in August of 2011 that we would limit the growth in
spending, not cut spending, but limit the growth in spending, that we
would raise the debt ceiling $2.1 trillion so that money could be
borrowed and be spent, but we would reduce, over 10 years, the growth
in spending enough to offset that increase. That was the bargain that
was made.
More importantly, this legislation violates the budget agreement that
was passed into law, the Murray-Ryan bill that was signed by President
Obama just before Christmas--just a few weeks ago. The ink is barely
dry on that agreement and my colleagues now are proposing to bust it
completely. This has become too common. This is too much how we operate
here. Some of our Members take umbrage at the fact that millions of
Americans are unhappy with us in Washington. People complain about how
we are doing our jobs. They say the Tea Party people are angry and
therefore they are evil people. Well, why should they not be angry with
us? We promised not to spend over a certain amount of money and we have
repeatedly voted to do that since 2011.
We voted in December to contain spending and maintain spending
levels. Now, in January, as soon as the year began, we have a proposal
to add $7 billion to the debt above what we agreed to spend. So I think
the American people have a right to be hot with us. We need to vote
some people out of here. If we do not change the spending habit, this
country is going to be facing a fiscal catastrophe as independent
observers have warned us for years.
Next month, the President is going to ask Republicans for our help in
passing a bill that raises the debt ceiling. We have already hit the
debt ceiling again. So he will be asking for us to raise it again,
because we need to borrow more money because we haven't cut spending.
We are spending more money than comes in. We are spending that every
year. The President wants to keep spending and not reduce spending. So
he is asking us to raise the debt ceiling to let him borrow even more
than the $17 trillion we have. They are going to threaten, cajole, and
try to scare Americans with horror stories of imminent financial
collapse if we do not agree to raise the debt ceiling. We know that is
coming. Hopefully we will reach an agreement that will raise the debt
ceiling but get some real reforms in this government and bring down the
rate of growth in spending in this country.
But how can we talk about promise to contain spending in the future
when we have got a bill before us right now that blatantly violates the
Budget Act? All we are doing is spending more money, borrowing more
money, and raising the debt ceiling even faster than otherwise would be
the case. This is the wrong direction for America. We need to be
reducing our deficit, not voting to increase deficits. This is simple
and plain. We need to be reducing deficits.
We need to be working every day, as the American people have told us,
to bring our spending under control. Wasteful Washington spending is
threatening America. The Federal Government already taxes too much,
spends too much, borrows too much, regulates too much. It is time for
us to live within our means, to balance our budget. That includes
finding offsets and spending savings to pay for any extension of
unemployment insurance or really any other proposal for new spending.
This Congress has not been doing that. I would note that in the New
York Times recently, Jonathan Weisman wrote this:
The drive to extend unemployment insurance has put both
parties into awkward political positions. Mr. Reid opened the
second session of the 113th Congress Monday by declaring:
`The rich keep getting richer. The poor keep getting poorer,
and the middle class are under siege.' It was hardly an
endorsement for an economy entering its sixth year under
President Obama's watch.
Gene Sperling, the President's economic advisor, just said this
recently. ``Three people are looking for every one job open.''
So what are we to do about this? What do we say about this? I would
say, colleagues, that while hopefully we can help unemployed Americans
today with some sort of a benefit that we will pay for in a financially
sound manner, hopefully we will see wages rise. We need to see wages
rise, in my opinion, because I think the middle class is under siege. I
think poor people are getting hammered in this current economy.
But I will ask this question: Who has been setting the agenda
economically for America for the last 5 years? Has not President Obama
taxed more? Hasn't he regulated more? Has he not spent more? Hasn't he
borrowed more? Hasn't ObamaCare, the Affordable Care Act, hammered
American businesses and caused them to lay off workers and hire people
part time rather than full time?
Actually two-thirds of the people hired in 2013 were hired part time.
This is not healthy. Things are not going well. The model that is
planned that we are seeing overall is not working.
How much longer will it take for people to recognize that? The
promises were made. If we just send out more checks, if we pass more
stimulus bills, if we spend more money, if we do all these things,
somehow this will create growth and prosperity in America. But all this
time, we have been increasing the debt dramatically, trillion-plus-
dollar deficits for 4 years. We have never seen anything like this in
American history.
The debt itself is a detriment and a depressant to economic growth in
America. It causes fear and concern throughout the entire American
populace and the world, unease about the future of the United States
with these kinds of debts.
The point I would make is let's do some things that fix the disease,
and the disease is an excessive government domination of the economy
that is suppressing growth and prosperity, suppressing wages, and
government actions that create more unemployment and part-time
employment than is necessary and should be happening. That is the
problem we need to be addressing. The symptoms of that are being
addressed when we deal with unemployment insurance or mandatory wage
rates.
I thank the Chair and my colleagues for the opportunity to share
these thoughts. I really do believe Senator Ayotte's proposal to deal
with the waste and fraudulent abuse of tax money through the improper
use of the ITIN--the individual tax identification number--is very
real. It is very effective, would save billions of dollars, and would
help us pay for some of the things we would like to do. That is what we
should be doing, not adding more debt to the people of America.
I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
[[Page S64]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. REED. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call
be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REED. I come to the floor this evening to express my hope that
the bipartisan effort that brought this 3-month bill to the floor can
be sustained as we go forward so that we can swiftly help the 1.3
million long-term unemployed workers who were cut off from these
benefits on December 28. As many of my colleagues have discovered from
going back to their home States, in many cases these folks are
desperate. This benefit was the difference between things we take for
granted--having a car to be able to get to a job, having a cell phone
so they can get a message saying they have a job interview, paying for
heat in the cold weather, putting groceries on the table. For many
people, this is truly an emergency.
That is why working with Senator Heller, whom I applaud for his
vision, collaboration, and for his sense in terms of the difficulties
of his constituents and, nationally, many people, and for his effort--
he did a superb job. What we sensed was we needed to provide relief
immediately. Longer term, there are issues to address, and my
colleagues have been on the floor discussing these issues, but
immediately we have 1.3 million Americans, and every day many more who
need help go off the rolls.
I hope we can move very expeditiously and provide at least this
short-term aid. Then, of course, we have very significant issues going
forward for the entire-year extension, which I hope ultimately we can
resolve.
In addition to Senator Heller, I wish to thank all of my colleagues.
Particularly, I thank Senators Collins, Murkowski, Portman, Ayotte, and
Coats for their support, along with all of our Members of the
Democratic caucus who came together.
Now we have the challenge of providing this relief and then thinking
creatively, constructively, and collaboratively about how we provide
this relief at least through the full year. I hope we can extend the
program for the next 90 days immediately and quickly, but that other
issue is certainly before us.
I understand also that my colleagues have raised issues about the
structure of the program, about whether this spending--even the short-
term spending--should be offset. Again, I go back to the point that we
have 1.3 million Americans--and growing each day--who are looking for
immediate help, not thoughtful, careful, long-term deliberation. That
was the logic behind moving to a 90-day extension, getting it done, and
then going forward and dealing with inherently more difficult issues
for a full-year program.
We already understand that short-term lapse from the 28th until today
has already had dramatic impacts on families. This is what I think my
colleagues have heard, seen, and read about when they have gone home.
Men and women who worked for decades, never thinking they would ever
use their unemployment benefits, which they have earned since they
started working, are now suddenly facing a weakened job market where
there are nearly three people for every one job, where there are issues
of skill training for the new jobs that are emerging. These are very
difficult challenges.
I think what finally led us to at least this point of moving forward
was the perception that this program is not subject to some arcane
abuse by people in the system; this is for working men and women who,
through no fault of their own, lost their jobs, who are desperately
looking for jobs, and they are our neighbors and our constituents--many
of whom we thought and they thought would never be in this predicament.
They have families, elderly parents, and young children. They have
responsibilities.
They have something else too, which I think we sometimes don't give
enough credit for: They want to work. They have spent a life, many of
them, working to a position of responsibility where they are using all
of their talents. The idea that they are just going to give that up for
the only available job, which might be working at a counter at a fast-
food restaurant--that is a challenge not only to your pocketbook, but
that is a challenge to your person, to who you are--we have to
recognize that also.
These benefits are usually helpful to people in so many different
capacities.
As I said, we are trying to deal with a situation where people have
been let go through no fault of their own. If someone quits, they don't
qualify. If they are fired, they don't qualify. Many of these people
are unemployed as a result of the new economy--information technology
that makes their job something that can be done away with; mergers,
acquisitions, and downsizing that caused the bottom line of a
corporation to grow, but they are out of a job. We have to deal with
it, and we have to deal with it as we have done so many times before by
providing these long-term unemployment benefits.
We also have to do it because it is good for our economy. The CBO
estimates that if we do not renew UI for the full year 2014, we will
lose 200,000 jobs because the weekly benefits, which are rather
modest--$300 to $350 a week--go almost immediately from the recipient
into the economy. It is the reason some grocery stores can keep two or
three extra people on, because the demand is still there. It is the
reason some service stations can keep the extra mechanic on, because
the demand is still there. If we shut down that demand, we will have
200,000 more people--ironically--who will qualify, at least initially,
for State unemployment benefits.
This is about our economy.
I would like to draw our attention to the report our colleague
Senator Amy Klobuchar did as the vice chair of the Joint Economic
Committee. It was very thoughtfully done. It is not a surprise given
that it was authored in large part by Senator Klobuchar. This report
touches on these important issues and notes that ``unemployment
insurance (UI) has kept more than 11 million people out of poverty
since 2008--including 1.8 million adults and 620,000 children in 2012
alone. People of all demographic and socio-economic backgrounds have
been helped by unemployment insurance following a job loss.''
This cuts across the whole spectrum. Again, how does someone get to
qualify? They have to work. I would suspect that every one of my
colleagues would say this country should be all about work, rewarding
work, and if someone loses a job through no fault of their own, give
them a chance to get back in the workforce.
The reality of this economic downturn has been so pervasive that it
has affected virtually every American. And so unemployment insurance
has been a key part of the recovery. We all know that economists who
have looked at this program suggest there is anywhere from a $1.50 to
$1.60 benefit for every $1 we put in the economy. Economically, for the
national economy as a whole, this is a very powerful tool to keep
economic growth, expansion, and demand moving forward. That is exactly
what we need to keep the economy growing.
Indeed, one of the aspects of this recession and one of the aspects
highlighted very insightfully by the report from the Joint Economic
Committee is the long-term rate of unemployment. This might be a new
structural phenomenon in our economy, but definitely something is
happening out there.
I will go back to when I was a kid. Someone is on the third shift
because they are the junior person. The recession comes and guess who
gets laid off. The third shift. The second shift, the middle people,
and the first shift, the most senior people, typically weren't touched.
The economy came back, and that third shift got rehired, but those
workers with 10, 15 years' experience were pretty safe.
Now that is not the case. Now we are seeing first, second, and third
shift gone. Now we are seeing, well, this is a great opportunity, with
interest rates at in some cases 1 percent--at least for the major
financial institutions--to replace a lot of workers with a lot of
machines. Let's do that. Let's get value. Let's downsize. Let's make
sure we invest in capital. This is the phenomenon we are seeing, and it
is causing some of this significant increase in long-term unemployment.
In the JEC report, they note:
The current long-term unemployment rate of 2.6 percent is
twice as high as it was when Congress allowed emergency
federal UI programs to expire after the 1990-91 and 2001
recessions.
[[Page S65]]
Let me say that in my terms. Previously, we have never taken away
these benefits when long-term unemployment has been so high, and these
benefits are not directly responsible for long-term unemployment. The
26 weeks of the State benefit programs is for people who lose work and
find it relatively quickly. This program, the one we are debating
today, is specifically designed for those people who are having a
difficult time finding work over a long period of time.
We are now at twice as high a level of unemployment as we were in
previous recessions when we ended these benefits, which would suggest
this is not the time to end these benefits.
Let me continue from the JEC report:
While employment prospects have improved for many jobless
Americans (the national unemployment rate is 7.0 percent--the
lowest rate in five years), finding work is challenging for
the long-term unemployed. More than one-third of unemployed
workers (roughly 4 million Americans) have been searching for
work for more than 26 weeks, when state-funded UI benefits
typically run out, and 2.8 million unemployed people have
been searching for work for more than one year.
This is a phenomenon we have to deal with. This program we are
discussing today is specifically designed for those long-term
unemployed. So if there is one program that is responsive to one of the
most salient aspects of this current recession, it is the long-term UI
program because long-term unemployment seems to be the most difficult
issue to resolve, even as our overall employment numbers continue to
grow--not fast enough, but they are growing.
I want to also dispel the belief of some of my colleagues that these
benefits only flow to one or two distinct constituencies. That this is
a targeted program that provides some benefits, but it doesn't apply
across the board. That is not the case. This is about every American
from virtually every type of education, income, and ethnic background.
As the JEC report documents:
The 23.9 million Americans who have directly benefited from
the EUC program since 2008 include people of all demographic
and socioeconomic backgrounds . . . [I]n 2012, more than 60
percent of the recipients were between the ages of 25 and 54.
Let me stop. There is a stereotype out there that a lot of these
folks are 18 year olds who had a job for a while but decided they would
rather go skiing in Utah or snorkeling in the Caribbean, and what
better way to do that than just essentially sort of perform so that
when the layoffs come you get one--but so what, I am not going to look
for work; I'm going to just go. Sixty percent of these people are 25
years old to 54 years old. They are starting the prime or are in the
prime of their work career. They have responsibility. They typically
have families. They have, probably, if they are in their 50s, been
working for 30 years.
So this notion this is just a convenient time to take a vacation
subsidized by the government is erroneous.
Let me continue from the report:
The remaining recipients were about evenly split between
those younger than 25 and those 55 and older.
Again, the 55 and older--and this is very close to home--for these
people it is a desperate struggle because they are caught right in the
middle. They have a 75-year-old or 80-year-old mother or father; they
have 30-year-old children and some younger who are going to school or
they need the help. They have been working for 30-plus years. They have
reached positions of responsibility in their firm and now, suddenly,
for the first time--many is the case--they are without a job. That is
not just economic, as I suggested. That also goes deeply to who they
are, their value, and how they can help their family if they can't
work. What is the effect on the family? How do they come home every day
from looking for work without a job and not have it affect the family?
This is the reality we are dealing with.
That is why, frankly, I have been pleading to at least get this
program restored for 90 days. That will give us the time--not on the
backs of the unemployed--but give us the time to do the work for a
longer extension.
Now let me continue:
More than half the recipients in 2012 were white, while 22
percent were black, and 19 percent were Hispanic. The vast
majority (85 percent) lived in households with more than one
adult, and 43 percent lived in households with at least one
child.
So these are not single transients who move around and are used to
being unemployed and could work if they wanted to. These are people
with real family responsibilities.
People of all levels of education have received EUC
benefits. The majority of recipients in 2012 had earned a
high school diploma, and almost one-fifth held a 4-year
college degree.
These are people that have skills. They have at least got the
credentials, which, again, 20 or 30 years ago put you into the
workplace and probably kept you there, if you were diligent.
So I hope my colleagues take time to review this report. It is
extremely useful. It shatters some stereotypes and reinforces the point
this is about helping working Americans who need help.
I think the facts are clearly on the side of continuing this program,
and I think the reality is they need the help now. If we can get them
that help, then we will have the time to deliberate the very serious
questions that my colleagues have raised; and they have raised them
constructively and raised them sincerely about the long-term approach
of this program. But to continue to trade legislative ideas on the
floor while millions of Americans either are losing their benefits or
are seeing the end come within days, weeks or months is not the right
response.
So I urge my colleagues to move forward through these procedural
hurdles. Let's get this bill done as Senator Heller and I have proposed
it. Let's get it done, and then we have another huge challenge because
we want, frankly, and I think the sentiment is across the board--if we
are going to do this, let us at least continue it through the year
2014.
We are beginning to sense some positive economic shifts. We hope
those materialize. We hope they come forward to the point where the
unemployment rate, which has fallen--I heard the President today say
when he took over we were losing 800,000 jobs a month. It was rocketing
up into the stratosphere in some states, 12 percent, 14 percent. In
Rhode Island it is still 9 percent. We have seen some progress--not
enough in my State, in Nevada, and other States. But we have seen
progress, and we hope that progress continues.
Indeed, one of the other aspects of this program, if we pass these
benefits--and the economists have pointed it out, particularly if we
pass them on an emergency basis--it will add more fuel to our economy,
not less. It will add more demand. It will, in fact, increase growth at
a time when everyone is on the floor talking about the fact that we
just have to grow more jobs. Of course we do. But this program is, in a
way, the proverbial two-fer. You help people who need help, and you
help the economy grow faster--200,000 jobs at least.
So I really do think we should move forward as quickly as we can to
get this Reed-Heller bill completed, and then we have a lot of careful,
thoughtful, collaborative effort to engage in. Because if we want to go
forward for a full year, which we do, we have other significant
issues--not just the size of the program, but other issues as were
brought up by my colleagues, and brought up very fairly, very
constructively, and very thoughtfully.
So Madam President, my message is: No. 1, I thank my colleagues for
giving us the chance to seriously debate this bill, and I urge them to
pass it quickly, and then we will set ourselves up for another serious,
thoughtful and constructive debate. That is my wish.
With that, Madam President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the
absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REED. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________