[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 52 (Tuesday, April 1, 2014)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1890-S1893]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         UNEMPLOYMENT EXTENSION

  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I would like to discuss the legislation 
currently under consideration. But I want to begin by briefly 
discussing how we arrived at this point.
  In January, I was one of a few on our side of the aisle who voted to 
begin debate on the bill to extend unemployment insurance benefits. I 
said at the time--and I still believe today--that the Senate should 
have a full and open debate on this important issue, a debate that 
includes consideration of modifications and changes to the program.
  The President, after all, said the program needs reforms. This is an 
opportunity to implement those reforms.
  Members on both sides of the aisle--Republicans and Democrats--have 
acknowledged the need for reforms. So my vote to consider this 
legislation early on, when it came up, was not about supporting or 
opposing an extension of the emergency unemployment insurance program, 
but it was about initiating a debate on this important topic and 
setting the stage for both sides to work together to find a credible 
way of paying for this extension, if it was granted, and having 
responsible reforms in terms of amending or changing the current law so 
we could avoid some of the duplication and some of the misuse of funds 
that go into this particular program.
  So those two things--a responsible pay-for and measures to reform the 
program--were critical. I felt that was the debate we needed and, in 
fact, we did have a bipartisan discussion back and forth with the 
caucus on our side of the aisle and the caucus on the other side.
  It is clear that we have gotten to the point where not all of us are 
happy with the result that came forward. I see my colleague from Nevada 
Senator Heller on the floor. No one could have been a better leader in 
terms of pulling the group together, working to find a sensible 
solution to this issue. I commend him for the efforts he has made.
  However, I am disappointed in not having the ability to offer 
amendments when a bill comes to the floor, and being shut down by the 
majority leader who simply says: I am going to use Senate procedures--
some of them arcane procedures--to deny the opposing party any 
opportunity to include their ideas, their thoughts, their amendments in 
the process.
  Throughout the discussion we have had with our colleagues across the 
aisle in trying to form a consensus and bring the bill forward, some of 
us were disappointed that those items that we offered, that we thought 
were reasonable, were not included in the final version.
  You do not always get everything you want. But nevertheless, at least 
around here you used to be able to go down to the floor and say: I want 
to give my colleagues a shot at hearing what my amendment tries to 
accomplish, and allow it a vote. And if you win, you win; if you lose, 
you lose. In the end, you look at the total package, as amended--or at 
least as attempted to be amended--and make a decision: Do I want to 
support this or not support this?
  That is the position we were in, and I had what I thought were two 
reasonable requests. One was prohibiting the simultaneous collection of 
Social Security disability insurance and receiving unemployment 
insurance.

[[Page S1891]]

  Look, the law is basic and it is common sense. If you are eligible to 
receive unemployment benefits, you have to be determined as someone 
capable of performing suitable work. I had an amendment to incorporate 
this proposal into the language of the final bill that is going to come 
before us. The amendment language is identical to the language 
previously proposed by Senate Democrats that would offset Social 
Security disability benefits by the amount of unemployment insurance 
received.
  So, as I said, by law, a person has to be able to work to qualify for 
unemployment benefits. Yet, as we have found, some people claiming 
those benefits also are claiming Social Security disability benefits. 
The law provides that in order to claim disability payments, you have 
to prove that you are not capable of working, that there are basic 
medical reasons why you cannot work.
  But here we have, documented by agencies of the government, people 
who are getting checks for both programs. All we were trying to do--all 
I am trying to do is put forth a provision that says you cannot do 
both; you either are able to work or you are not able to work. If you 
are not able to work, you can qualify for disability payments. But if 
you are able to work, you may qualify for unemployment benefits if 
there is no work available, but you should not be able to qualify for 
both.
  While some adjustments have been made, there still are several 
billions of dollars of costs to the taxpayers because of this 
duplication.
  Secondly, I offered a provision that gave the States the flexibility 
to make decisions as to how people would qualify for these benefits. I 
hear frustration from employers all across Indiana that are basically 
being told by people who are looking for work: I would rather keep 
collecting unemployment than accept the job you are offering to me.
  In this time of slow economic growth, as we come out of the recession 
very slowly, some people, as has been documented to me by many 
employers across the State of Indiana, are basically saying people 
would rather collect the benefits.
  So we put in what was called a suitability provision that would 
prohibit individuals from receiving emergency unemployment compensation 
if they fail to accept any offer of suitable work. That is defined as 
work within their capabilities or suitable work referred to them by the 
State employment agency. Unfortunately I thought we had bipartisan 
support. Instead they said let's study this. It has been studied. It 
has been documented. We do not need to study. ``Study'' is a way for--
let's take this decision out of the process and it will put it down 
some dark, deep hole and maybe some study will come out later on.
  So the bottom line is that the two amendments I had hoped would be 
part of this final package have not been incorporated. What I am asking 
for, what I have been asking for now, is the opportunity to bring those 
two proposals forward, debate it on this floor, call for a vote. I am 
not going to filibuster it. I am not going to delay it. I am not going 
to throw a monkey wrench into the process. Let's have a time-limited, 
straightforward debate and give Members the opportunity to vote their 
yes or vote their no.
  Then, at the end, when this process has been worked through, as the 
Senate was designed to do but under the leadership of the current 
majority leader has not been able to do, once again--once again--the 
very function, the design of the Senate has been thwarted by the 
leadership or lack of leadership of the majority leader who simply 
said: I will use procedural measures to keep you from offering any 
amendment to this bill.
  I do appreciate the work that went on behind the scenes to try to 
come up with a consensus bill. I think that fell short of where I would 
like to go. I would at least like to have the opportunity as a Senator 
to offer on the floor an amendment to the bill and then accept the 
results, yea or nay.
  Since both of these things that I have mentioned have had bipartisan 
support, why are we not allowed to vote for it or against it. Why are 
we not allowed to have the opportunity to do what the Senate is 
supposed to do on behalf of the constituents whom we all represent? 
That was the basis for my decision to go forward with this. A lot of 
people misunderstood that, but it was simply a decision I made that we 
ought to return to some form of regular order.
  The reason we come to the Senate is to be able to be a participant in 
fashioning legislation. Our majority leader Senator Reid has disallowed 
that opportunity, meaning essentially robbing the soul of the Senate, 
the purpose of the Senate, the purpose of Senators, turning us into 
robots, rubberstamping whatever the majority leader wants us to pass or 
not pass, telling us that the 200-and-some years of tradition, of 
debate and vote in the Senate, the ability to offer an amendment has 
been denied us.
  Once again here we are back in the same situation because we have one 
individual who has made a decision that the minority does not count, 
that Senators--even some in the majority--do not count. They do not get 
to offer amendments either. We are going to do it his way and not the 
way it has been done for more than 200 years.
  With that in mind, having the ability to bring forward something that 
I think has bipartisan support, is responsible, will address the 
reforms the President called for has been once again denied. With that, 
I simply cannot support going forward with this, even though there are 
people out there who are legitimately looking for work, making every 
possible effort, should be able to qualify for an unemployment program. 
But the most basic of reforms that ought to be debated and voted on--we 
ought to have the courage to put our yes or our no to it so people back 
home know where we stand--that has been denied us yet once again.
  This is a dysfunctional body, led by a dysfunctional leader. It is 
not operating as the Constitution has put forth, as the tradition of 
the Senate has required. It is a shame. It is a shame on us that we are 
not even allowing debate and the opportunity to offer reforms, even 
when they have bipartisan support.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. HELLER. Mr. President, I wish to begin by thanking the two 
previous speakers for their comments and their dedication to their 
particular cause. My friend from Indiana knows both of his amendments 
are something I would have supported if given the opportunity to 
actually vote on them, but the important point is this, we are moving 
forward. The Senate is moving forward with a debate on a bipartisan 
proposal to responsibly extend unemployment benefits. I am encouraged 
by our progress so far. I hope we can continue to work with our 
colleagues to pass this piece of legislation.
  In speaking on this bill, I would be remiss not to again thank my 
friend from Rhode Island for his tireless efforts to help unemployed 
Americans by temporarily extending unemployment insurance benefits. I 
admire his dedication. I am greatly pleased we are here today to 
support a bipartisan effort and to help all Americans keep American 
families on their feet in a very difficult economic climate.
  I also wish to thank Senators Collins, Portman, Murkowski, and Kirk 
for their continued willingness to come to the table to craft a bill 
that would garner enough support to pass in the Senate. I also, as I 
just mentioned, wish to acknowledge the contributions of both Senator 
Coats and Senator Ayotte, who though not cosponsors of this particular 
version of the bill have been essential in these negotiations, as well 
as Senator Isakson and Senator Hoeven, who have also been engaged in 
this matter in recent months.
  Last December the Federal unemployment insurance benefits were 
allowed to expire, leaving millions of job-seeking Americans wondering 
how they would cover their mortgage, pay the utilities, fill their car 
with gas, put food on the table for their families. My constituents who 
have written to me, who have called my office, and the people I have 
spoken with when I am home in Nevada have shared many heartbreaking 
stories with me.
  I have heard from individuals all across the spectrum, from every 
sector, from every industry. I would like to share one of those letters 
from Michael in Carson City, NV, who wrote to me several weeks ago. 
After Michael and his friend moved to Nevada from California just a few 
years ago, they needed

[[Page S1892]]

unemployment insurance benefits to help them bridge the gap between 
jobs. Sometimes they had to visit the local food pantry to keep food on 
their table, but Michael kept looking for a job.
  Eventually he found some work as a substitute teacher. He also found 
another part-time job working nights and even weekends. Through 
perseverance, Michael ended up finding a full-time job, and now he and 
his wife and their young daughter are enjoying some financial stability 
that they did not have just a few years ago.
  I think Michael's story is a great example of how valuable 
unemployment insurance is to American families who have fallen on some 
hard times. I thank Michael for taking the time to share that story 
with me. I am very glad his family is doing well in Carson City.
  I have another letter from John from Henderson. John lost his job 
last April. He has been looking for work for nearly 1 year now. 
Unemployment insurance has helped him keep a roof over his head. It 
also helped him keep the power on. John is doing everything he can to 
make ends meet while he continues to search for a job, but it is 
getting tougher and tougher to put food on the table and provide for 
his young family.
  Without any help, John and his family may lose their home. They are 
worried about where to go and they are worried about what options they 
have left. I have a stack of letters just like these, Nevadans sharing 
their individual experiences with me. Those stories are why I am here 
today and I have fought so hard to find a way to temporarily extend 
these benefits in a responsible way.
  These are real American families trying to make ends meet. They are 
people who want to get back to work, want to be self-sufficient, want 
to provide for their families. Without unemployment insurance, many of 
them would have lost their homes, been forced to search and seek out 
additional government services. Unemployment insurance helps people 
before things go from bad to worse and does make a difference for 
millions of Americans.
  Last week I spoke briefly on the need to extend these benefits. I 
want to reiterate an important point that I think is often 
misunderstood. Unemployment insurance benefits go to unemployed 
individuals who are actively seeking employment. I share the desire of 
my colleagues and constituents to rein in out-of-control Federal 
spending and reduce the dependence on Federal aid, but I believe 
unemployment insurance is a critical safety net for American families, 
especially during periods of high unemployment such as we are currently 
experiencing.
  Further, additional benefit tiers are only available to States that 
meet certain unemployment rate thresholds, meaning that the duration of 
benefits decreases as the State recovers. This ensures that job seekers 
in the hardest hit States have access to critical resources when they 
need it the most. Nowhere is this more apparent and important than in 
my home State of Nevada, which has the unfortunate distinction of 
carrying the Nation's highest unemployment rate for nearly 5 years--
nearly 14 percent unemployment at the highest.
  Nevada's current unemployment rate at 8.5 percent remains still one 
of the highest in the country, high above the national average and far 
from where we need to be as a State. What concerns me even more is the 
fact that thousands of Nevadans have dropped out of the workforce 
entirely, people who lost their jobs, exhausted both their State and 
Federal unemployment insurance benefits and were still unable to find 
work in this tough economy.
  Nevada is now trending in the right direction, thanks in large part 
to the vision of our Governor, Governor Sandoval. But again, we still 
have a long way to go. That is why we need to temporarily extend 
unemployment insurance benefits to give the people of Nevada, Rhode 
Island, and many other States some financial certainty as our country's 
economy recovers.
  As we continue to push forward to restore our economy, the need for 
these benefits will naturally diminish. This brings me to another 
important point I wish to highlight about this bill. There is a 
temporary extension of unemployment insurance benefits, 5 months to be 
exact. Temporary extensions of these programs during high periods of 
unemployment have found bipartisan support in the past. I think they 
merit bipartisan support. I agree we should not indefinitely extend 
these programs. I would also like to see additional reforms. We should 
continue that discussion.
  I strongly agree with my colleagues on this side of the aisle that 
the key to our economic recovery is through the creation of new jobs. 
Under this administration, there are still three workers for every 
available job, leaving far too many qualified workers out of a job 
simply because there are not enough opportunities available.
  My Republican colleagues, including Senators Hoeven, Thune, Lee, and 
many others, have introduced more than a dozen bills to spur job 
creation by reducing governmental burdens and making it easier for 
businesses to grow and create new jobs--bills that will help reduce the 
need for unemployment insurance benefits, strengthen our economy, and 
improve the financial security of millions of Americans.
  I hope that as we are debating this bill before us today, we have the 
opportunity to debate and vote on these important job creation 
measures.
  I know there are some questions regarding how State workforce 
agencies might administer retroactive benefits and enforce some of the 
new requirements provided in this bill. These concerns are not 
unreasonable. However, I firmly believe that not only can Congress work 
with States to overcome any of these challenges, but Congress has the 
responsibility to overcome these challenges. No bill is perfect, and 
the varying capabilities of State systems compound the difficulty of 
the task at hand.
  This isn't a new obstacle for Congress. Every person in this Chamber 
is familiar with the challenges involved in finding a balance between 
Federal and State laws and ensuring that what we do in Washington isn't 
an undue burden back home. We deal with that problem every single day. 
Additionally, the Department of Labor has provided $345 million to 
States over the past 5 years to help States modernize their systems so 
that they are more responsive and efficient.
  I know we can find a way to work with our State agencies to find a 
way to reduce the burden of administering these benefits. In fact, 
Department of Labor Secretary Thomas Perez wrote a letter last week in 
response to some of these very concerns and believes that the 
challenges are not--I repeat, are not--insurmountable. As a former 
labor secretary for Maryland and now Secretary of the U.S. Department 
of Labor, Mr. Perez has hands-on experience with unemployment insurance 
at both the Federal and State levels. In his letter, Secretary Perez 
indicated that the Department of Labor already has guidance on how to 
administer retroactive benefits. This is not the first time there has 
been a gap in UI extensions. Although this gap may be a little longer 
than usual, Secretary Perez states that ``we are confident that we 
could successfully address this challenge again.''
  It may also be difficult to implement measures in our UI systems to 
determine whether someone is a millionaire, but I think most of us 
would agree that jobless millionaires and billionaires should not be 
receiving unemployment benefits. The limited resources we have to 
provide for this social safety net ought to be reserved for Americans 
who need this help the most. Some State systems may not be responsive 
or responsible enough to get this done by the time these benefits 
expire again. I recognize that. But if we continue to provide a series 
of short-term extensions without any reforms, we will never fix the 
underlying issues. We have known for years that there are some well-off 
individuals abusing the UI system, and it is long past time that we do 
something about it.
  We should not be content to just extend Federal programs if we know 
there are inefficiencies. We need to do something to make these 
programs run more efficiently, effectively, and ensure that our hard-
earned taxpayer dollars are used in a responsible fashion.
  I am proud to have worked with my colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle on this legislation. It hasn't always been easy, but I thank my 
colleagues for their patience and their continued hard work to help the 
American people find

[[Page S1893]]

some stability as they look to get back to work. I look forward to 
moving to this bill, passing it, and working with the House to restore 
unemployment insurance benefits as we continue working to improve the 
health of the American economy.
  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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. HELLER. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________