[Congressional Record Volume 171, Number 59 (Wednesday, April 2, 2025)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2118-S2120]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
Unanimous Consent Request--H.R. 1156
Mr. President, I also want to be able to spend some time talking
about an issue that we have that we also have to address. It is a
totally different subject, but it is dealing with unemployment
insurance that was actually done during the pandemic.
This may not seem like a big issue to some who say: That was a long
time ago that we were dealing with the pandemic. Thankfully, it is more
and more in our rearview mirror.
But during the pandemic, we had billions of dollars of unemployment
fraud that occurred during that time period--billions. Criminal
organizations saw that America was moving fast to be able to stop the
unemployment problem that was in our country, obviously, during the
pandemic itself. The United States quickly ramped up to be able to
provide benefits, and criminal organizations ramped up just as fast to
be able to go after it.
During that time period, as far as the inspector general has seen at
this point, the inspector general identified $191 billion--with a
``b''--$191 billion of unemployment insurance that was inappropriately
distributed--$191 billion.
You may say: What is the issue with that, and why are we bringing it
up now?
Unemployment fraud is a criminal action. There is a 5-year statute of
limitations on that. The first of the unemployment benefits were
actually put out 5 years ago this week. That means
[[Page S2119]]
criminal organizations that moved quickly to actually try to go after
unemployment insurance that did not qualify for it--5 years ago this
week. If we have not actually started that prosecution of them, they
are going to get away with it.
Do you know what. Next week, there is another group. The next week,
there is another group. The next week, there is another group. Until
this body determines that we need to stop unemployment fraud and that
we should not allow criminal organizations to get away with $191
billion of tax dollars, they are going to continue to get away with
more of it every single week.
Mr. President, what I bring is actually a solution to this. It is a
simple extension of the statute of limitations for the unemployment
insurance. This is simple. This is straightforward. This has already
overwhelmingly passed the House of Representatives. It passed with a
vote of 295 to 127. That is 83 House Democrats voting for this bill.
This is a very bipartisan bill, and this is just a straight extension
of this so that we stop the fraud that we know 100 percent and our
inspectors general have already identified and say this has occurred to
the tune of $191 billion that we know of.
As if in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 29, H.R. 1156. I
further ask that the bill be considered read a third time and passed
and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the
table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. WYDEN. Reserving the right to object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, first of all, I want it understood that we
take a backseat to nobody--nobody--when it comes to fighting this
fraud. That is why I negotiated a bipartisan package in the last
Congress dealing with a host of issues relating to addressing fraud and
making improvements to unemployment insurance. I negotiated that bill
with our ranking member, now the chairman of the Finance Committee.
I am a little struck by what is going on here because my colleague,
my friend from Oklahoma, was a cosponsor of that proposal. In other
words, we did what the American people say they want, which is to have
people find common ground on commonsense matters like fighting fraud.
Our bipartisan proposal went after pandemic-era fraud by extending
the statute of limits on prosecution. It would help to prevent fraud in
the future. It would help States improve their unemployment insurance
programs to get benefits out on time in the event of a big economic
crash shall like we saw in 2020. It would make better use of data to
prevent abuse. It would protect people who got overpayments entirely
due to somebody else's mistake, who may not even know it to this day.
I will tell you, I think it is odd at best but certainly
disappointing that our Republican colleagues have decided to walk away
from a really good bipartisan agreement. The proposal they brought to
the floor is much smaller, is much narrower. In fact, instead of
looking forward, it is looking backward--no improvements to
unemployment insurance, no fraud prevention looking at the future. In
fact, the bill before the Senate actually cuts $5 million of crucial
fraud-prevention funding that Democrats secured after the pandemic.
So you ask yourself, why are Republicans attempting to make this cut?
The nonpartisan experts at the Congressional Budget Office, looked at
this narrow proposal my colleagues have brought forward, and they said
if Congress were to pass this bill, Republicans would spend more
money--more money--trying to track down fraud than they would actually
recover from the fraudsters.
Government efficiency is something we are all interested in. You had
me at hello on the concept of working on those kinds of issues in a
bipartisan way. But here is a Republican anti-fraud proposal that loses
taxpayer dollars overall, and to pay for it, they cut future fraud
prevention. That just strikes me as defying common sense.
Another issue with this approach I want to highlight is that the bill
now before the Senate fails to provide any protection for workers who
got overpaid through no fault of their own. Colleagues may remember
that when the pandemic UI program was created, it was in the midst of
the COVID crisis--highest unemployment since the Great Depression, tens
of millions of Americans out of work, entire sectors of our economy
essentially mothballed.
Congress scrambled to create an unemployment insurance program for
Americans who weren't eligible for traditional unemployment insurance.
Without it, a whole lot of people would have gone hungry and lost their
homes.
In the rush to get urgently needed relief to those out of work, some
States made mistakes, provided a number of workers more in unemployment
than they were entitled to. These workers didn't defraud anybody. A lot
of those people who received overpayments had no idea they had gotten
more money than they should have.
The issue is that some States are running their unemployment
insurance programs with decrepit, old systems that can barely keep up,
and they made mistakes.
Now 5 years down the line, my colleagues on the other side of the
aisle want to claw back these payments--even from people who did
nothing wrong. In fact, some of these people to this day aren't even
aware they were overpaid. They certainly aren't fraudsters.
States made mistakes in the heat of an economic crisis, and Congress
shouldn't be punishing individual workers who had no idea in the first
place what was going on.
Final issue with the proposal: The Trump administration has made a
mockery of fraud prevention by illegally firing the Department of Labor
inspector general.
The inspector general's office successfully oversaw unemployment
fraud investigations throughout the pandemic. In my view, firing the
inspector general is a big setback in the fight against fraud in the
unemployment insurance program.
The Trump administration has also given DOGE unfettered access to
unemployment insurance claims data. The bill before the Senate would
allow DOGE to falsely accuse innocent workers of fraud years after
unemployment insurance helped them keep food on the table during the
pandemic. That is not being tough on fraud. That is making innocent
people victims.
Democrats are all in--all in--on bringing criminals who defrauded the
UI system to justice and building a more reliable, durable unemployment
insurance system for the future. That is why, colleagues, we negotiated
a really strong, bipartisan antifraud package. For the life of me, I
don't understand walking away from that package now, especially in
favor of a narrower proposal that would lose taxpayer dollars and
sacrifice the effort to fight fraud.
Therefore, I would ask the Senator to modify the request so that the
Wyden substitute amendment, which is at the desk and is a text of the
Wyden-Crapo Unemployment Insurance Integrity and Accessibility Act, be
considered and agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be considered read
a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be
considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or
debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there an objection to the modification?
The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. LANKFORD. Reserving the right to object, my friend from Oregon--
and we are friends, and we had the opportunity to be able to serve
together, and we have worked on a lot of issues. He is correct, and I
am glad to be able to see a larger proposal to deal with unemployment
insurance. It has been an issue for a long time, but this is one of the
most classic examples of saying the perfect is the enemy of the good.
Today, we have people getting away with fraud--today--and we can do
nothing about it because the statute of limitations has run out. The
House has passed a bipartisan bill by a wide majority to deal with this
one problem, and they have come to an agreement by a wide, bipartisan
majority to say let's at least solve this part and then we will work on
bigger solutions later.
What my friend is recommending is to say: No. Let's force everyone to
work on the bigger solution, and every single day, let more people get
away
[[Page S2120]]
with fraud until we come up with a bigger solution and can agree on it.
We should stop as much fraud as we can today and keep working on the
bigger solution to be able to get the bigger issues done.
If I can also say to my friend, he also knows this bill well. This is
not about incidental actions that have happened through someone who
accidentally filled out something or a State did something
inappropriately. This bill is very clear. That is why it had such
strong bipartisan support out of the House. This is about criminal
actors. These are people who criminally engaged in large-scale fraud
deliberately. It is $191 billion out there that the inspector general
under the Biden administration even identified.
I want to do as much as we can on the unemployment insurance side,
but let's do things as quickly as we can to be able to stop criminal
activity and be able to prosecute those individuals.
So, in knowing that, I will not modify my request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection to the modification is heard.
Is there an objection to the original request?
The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. WYDEN. Reserving the right to object, let me make sure we are
clear with my friend because we do a lot of work together, and I am
looking forward to continuing it.
I don't see much to object to this afternoon. We both want to be all
in on the fight against fraud. Those were the first words out of my
mouth: Let's go all in on fighting this horrendous fraud. That is why
we worked so long in a bipartisan way, because you are not the only
Republican from the committee who worked with me and it is a large bill
and it deals with a big problem. And, for the life of me, I can't
figure out why we aren't dealing with the big problem and not creating
innocent victims--more of them.
At this point, I guess there is gridlock today, but I want to extend
the olive branch again, which I have been doing from day one. I want a
big bill that goes after big-time fraud in a very aggressive way. I am
still baffled by why we are not out here with a whole lot of
Republicans who are cosponsors of my bill, with the Senator from Idaho
as the chair, and saying: This is the way we ought to be governing.
But I object.
I hope we are back.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, I look forward to working on a larger
proposal in the days ahead, but that larger proposal is not going to
move in the House in the next month or 2 months. In the meantime, we
are going to have criminal organizations getting away with it over and
over and over again. So let's move as much as we can as fast as we can,
but at least, at this point, let's solve what we can today.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, just very briefly, my colleague says
nothing is going to happen in the House to fight fraud. I have got to
tell you that I don't see any fraud caucus out there in either the
Senate or the House. There are no rallies for people who are committing
outrageous fraud. I think we ought to move. We ought to move here.
We have done the hard work. We have done the heavy lifting. My
colleague from Oklahoma knows what it is like when he is trying to put
together a bipartisan bill. We have done that work. I think we ought to
move here and then talk to our colleagues in the House. Why don't you
now pick up on the hard work we have done and we will get serious about
fraud.
So we are going to continue this conversation. I always wanted to
work with my colleague from Oklahoma on these kinds of issues, and we
are going to stay at it until we deal with big-time fraud in a big-time
way, in the U.S. Senate, in a bipartisan way.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.