[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 52 (Tuesday, April 1, 2014)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1893-S1894]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Emergency
Unemployment Compensation Extension Act of 2014. In my view, this
legislation is flawed in many respects, and that being the case, I
intend to vote against it.
First and foremost, it needs to be said that the fact that we are
even having a debate about extending unemployment benefits is
unfortunate. Throughout the Obama administration, our Nation has been
plagued with lackluster job growth, lower and lower rates of labor
force participation, and high levels of long-term unemployment. Indeed,
under this President it has been harder to find a job than at any other
point in our Nation's recent history.
But, as has been said before, these are just symptoms of a much
larger problem. The plight of the long-term unemployed--which this bill
is supposed to address--is not the major problem facing America today.
Instead, the major problem is that despite the best efforts of many of
us in Congress, our government hasn't done enough to foster economic
growth. In fact, more often than not in recent years government has
stood in the way. It has been an impediment.
We are now more than 5 years into this administration, and it is
becoming increasingly clear that President Obama does not have a plan
to address these problems. True enough, he has proposals that would
expand the government and redistribute income but nothing resembling a
plan to promote growth in the private sector or to actually put people
back to work. Many of the President's redistribution schemes end up
costing labor supply and jobs, as the nonpartisan Congressional Budget
Office has made clear with respect to ObamaCare and the President's
proposed minimum wage hike.
Growth is what we should be debating, ideas and proposals that would
actually grow our economy and help people find jobs. But instead we are
here once again to debate an extension of the emergency unemployment
compensation program, or EUC.
Let's talk about the EUC program for just a few minutes.
The proponents of this legislation have told us that extending
``temporary'' unemployment benefits is vital to our economy, but I
think the facts tell a much different story. Between July 2008 when the
program started and December 2013 when it expired, we spent roughly
$265 billion on EUC benefits. That is more than a quarter of a trillion
dollars on a temporary Federal benefit program. For much of that time
the program paid up to 73 weeks of Federal benefits, amounting to a
record total of 99 available weeks of unemployment benefits when you
add the State and Federal benefits together. All told, we have paid EUC
benefits for 66 months, which is 2\1/2\ years longer than any similar
emergency unemployment program in U.S. history.
In other words, EUC is a program with a long track record, and when
we look at the record, we see that it hasn't had the positive economic
impact proponents of the program often claim it has. Indeed, despite
the hundreds of billions of dollars in benefits we have already paid
under this program, we have suffered through the worst jobs recovery in
our Nation's history, and the long-term unemployed have suffered the
most.
There is evidence to suggest this program has actually made the
recovery worse. For example, according to recent research published by
the National Bureau of Economic Research, ``unemployment benefit
extensions can account for most of the persistently high unemployment
after the Great Recession.''
So while some Democrats have claimed that extending unemployment
benefits is the best way to create jobs, the facts certainly tell a
different story.
I am not going to condemn anyone for wanting to extend a helping hand
to those who continue to face difficulties under the Obama economy, but
if we are going to debate yet another extension of Federal unemployment
benefits, we should at the very least get our facts straight.
So with all this in mind--the cost of the EUC program and the
questionable benefits--let's take a look at the legislation before us
now.
One thing I would like to point out is that with this legislation we
have once again abandoned regular order and bypassed the committee
process entirely. I have remarked on this problem here on the floor
several times before. When we ignore the traditional role of the Senate
committees, we short-circuit the legislative process, and more often
than not we end up with an inferior product. This bill is certainly no
exception.
We learned this last month when the National Association of State
Workforce Agencies, NASWA, sent a letter to the Senate outlining its
concern with this bill. Chief among these concerns was that it would be
extremely difficult for States to retroactively pay unemployment
insurance claims, as this bill would require. Indeed, according to
NASWA, backdating EUC claims ``would make it nearly impossible'' to
apply individual State work search requirements, which is a key factor
in determining eligibility for unemployment insurance. In addition, the
letter indicated that there would likely be a large increase in new EUC
overpayments as a result of this retroactivity requirement.
Due to these concerns and others, NASWA concluded that it would take
States up to 3 months to implement this legislation, which is
problematic because although the bill before us is technically for a 5-
month extension, only 2 months of benefits would be paid prospectively.
In other words, many States would not be ready to implement this
legislation by the time it expires.
This is more than a glitch or a bump in the road; it is State
workforce agencies--the very people who will have to implement this
legislation on a day-to-day basis--telling the Senate that this bill is
unworkable. According to the NASWA letter, there are a number of States
that would consider not participating in the program due to these
problems and the short time available to address them.
Labor Secretary Perez sent his own letter in response to NASWA's
statement, promising to help States address these concerns. Oddly
enough, however, this letter was very short on actual details as to how
that assistance would be offered.
[[Page S1894]]
All of that said, these are the kinds of problems I was talking
about--problems which can be addressed if committees are given an
opportunity to operate. Had the committee had an opportunity to vet
this legislation, we could have also fully examined the offsets my
colleagues are using to pay for this EUC extension. These are also
problematic.
The main pay-for in this bill is the use of what is called pension
smoothing, which is little more than a budget gimmick but an especially
pernicious budget gimmick when repeated. It has the potential to do
real harm to pension plan funding levels, threatening the future
retirement security of American workers.
Since the great recession of 2008, pension plans have struggled to
regain their footing financially. The drastic drop in interest rates
forced many plans to dramatically increase their pension contributions
to keep pace. In 2012, at the historic low point for interest rates,
Congress essentially gave pension plans 4 years of funding relief to
get through the worst period of low interest rates. Congress did this
by allowing pensions to fund their plans as if interest rates were
higher than they really were.
But we can't indefinitely pretend that interest rates are
artificially high and contribution levels artificially low. Reality
still matters. The reality is that, although still low by historical
standards, interest rates are no longer at rock bottom and pension
funding needs to gradually adjust to market rates just as current law
provides.
Put simply, we should avoid additional pension smoothing because it
permits lower pension funding, and poor pension funding is bad pension
policy. Pension funding remains a serious concern, and this is not the
time to make it easier to underfund pensions. Doing so is worse than
just kicking a can down the road. This can of pension underfunding will
explode on American workers in the form of underfunded pensions that
will somehow have to be rescued either through painful cuts in
benefits, much higher PBGC premiums, or taxpayer-funded bailouts. There
is no other way around it.
The other major offset in this bill is the extension of customs user
fees. This is also problematic. Traditionally speaking, offsets in the
trade space are reserved for legislation that actually extends trade
programs, such as the Generalized System of Preferences or the African
Growth and Opportunity Act. If we start using these offsets in other
areas, we won't have anything left over when it comes to extending
these important programs.
Both of these offsets--pension smoothing and customs user fees--fall
under the jurisdiction of the Senate Finance Committee, just like the
underlying UI extension. Once again, had the committee been given an
opportunity to consider these issues, it is likely that these offsets
would not have been used.
As we can see, there are a number of problems with this bill that
could have been considered and addressed had the Finance Committee been
allowed to do its work. And it should have been allowed to do its work.
Other problems could be addressed if there were a fair and open
amendment process here on the floor. Sadly, it doesn't appear that we
are going to get that either as the Senate Democratic leadership
appears poised to once again try to force a major piece of legislation
through the Senate without giving the minority an opportunity to offer
amendments.
Before our next vote on this legislation, I think we will see a
number of amendments filed, many of which would likely improve the
bill. Others would address the more pressing need to stimulate the
economy and create jobs.
I personally have amendments that would do both. For example, I have
an amendment that would repeal the ObamaCare tax on medical devices,
which enjoys bipartisan support in both the House and the Senate and
would prevent further job losses in one of our most important U.S.
industries.
I have another amendment that would repeal the ObamaCare employer
mandate. I am sure my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would
deem this out of bounds, but they shouldn't. After all, the Obama
administration seems pretty intent on delaying the employer mandate; it
has already been delayed for 2 years. If the mandate is that harmful to
implement, why don't we do away with it altogether and ensure that it
doesn't cost us any more jobs and further requests for unemployment
benefits?
One amendment I have would help to ensure that the retroactive EUC
benefits do not threaten program integrity. Specifically, it would
require States, as part of their EUC agreements, to certify that paying
retroactive benefits will not lead to an increase in fraud or
overpayments.
These are just some of the amendments I may offer to this bill, and
all of them, in my opinion, would be improvements. But it doesn't look
as though we are going to be able to offer amendments in the greatest
deliberative body in the world--and I am saying that pretty
sarcastically at this time. I know many of my Republican colleagues
have amendments they would like to offer as well. Yet my friends on the
other side of the aisle don't want to have a real debate about these
issues. Instead, they are content to let the majority leader fill the
tree and block any and all Republican amendments from coming up for a
vote. One can only wonder what they are afraid of. Presumably the
majority has the votes to defeat any amendments the minority wants to
offer. Where is the harm in having a real debate? Where is the harm in
having an open amendment process? I can only conclude they are worried
that some of the votes they would have to take would be difficult
politically. Indeed, preventing difficult votes seems to be priority
No. 1 for the current Senate majority.
At this point, it appears they have the votes to pass the bill. I
assume we will be through with this process this week. Yet, while the
Senate debate over unemployment insurance may be coming to an end, I
can only conclude that the process failures we are seeing in this
Chamber will continue as we move on to the next item of business, which
is, in my opinion, very unfortunate.
This week's debate over EUC is just the latest example of what is
wrong with the Senate these days. Sadly, it doesn't look as if things
are going to get better under the current leadership. These are
important issues. We really need to let the Senate operate the way it
always has, and let's quit playing these games of power play.
Madam President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Heitkamp). The Senator from Kansas.
(The remarks of Mr. Roberts pertaining to the introduction of S. 2191
are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills
and Joint Resolutions.'')
Madam President, I note the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. CASEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________