[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 19]
[Senate]
[Pages 25749-25752]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




   UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION EXTENSION ACT OF 2009--MOTION TO PROCEED

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will be 30 
minutes of debate prior to a vote on the motion to invoke cloture on 
the motion to proceed to H.R. 3548, with the time equally divided and 
controlled between the leaders or their designees.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, the unemployment rate is now 9.8 percent. Before long 
economists expect it to top 10 percent. That means nearly 15 million 
Americans have lost their jobs--15 million. That is 15 million people 
looking for work. About 5 million people have been looking for work for 
more than 6 months. There are about 3 million job openings. That is 15 
million people chasing 3 million jobs.
  We are in what folks call the ``Great Recession.'' Real people are 
facing real hardships every day. On September 15 of this year, the 
Finance Committee held a hearing on unemployment insurance benefits and 
where we would go from there. Senators discussed the effects of the 
current condition on beneficiaries, the business community, and the 
State unemployment systems. We considered proposals to support 
unemployed workers through the continuing recession.
  A recent edition of the Federal Reserve's Beige Book reported that 
the economy is still stabilizing. Unfortunately, the labor market still 
remains weak. Companies are being cautious about adding permanent 
staff. Instead, they are asking more from their existing staff.
  We need to continue our work to create jobs, and we also need to help 
our neighbors who are looking for work. That is what we did in the 
Recovery Act. We need to act on behalf of unemployed Americans and 
their communities. In helping our unemployed neighbors, we also can 
help to keep open the neighborhood grocery store and the neighborhood 
gas station. That is how unemployment insurance benefits not just 
people who are unemployed but helps communities.
  In helping our unemployed neighbors, we also help to keep houses out 
of foreclosure. In helping our unemployed neighbors, we also help our 
economy and ourselves.
  The House of Representatives passed a bill to give an additional 13 
weeks of benefits to unemployed people in States with unemployment 
rates of 8\1/2\ percent or more. That is what the House did. I commend 
our colleagues in the House for their rapid response. But Leader Reid 
and I want to make sure all Americans who have exhausted their benefits 
during these tough times get help.
  Today we are joined by Senator Reed of Rhode Island, Senator Shaheen, 
Senator Dodd, and a total of 38 Senators in all in offering an 
amendment to the House bill. Our amendment would give 14 additional 
weeks of benefits to unemployed people who exhaust their benefits no 
matter what State they live in--14 additional weeks of benefits for 
everyone. Our amendment would also give 6 additional weeks of benefits 
on top of that to unemployed people who exhaust their benefits in 
States with 8\1/2\ percent unemployment or more. So 14 weeks to all 
States, and then an additional 6 weeks in those States where 
unemployment is 8\1/2\ percent or more.
  The total cost of our package is $2.4 billion and paid for with an 
extension of the Federal unemployment tax, or FUTA, until June 30, 
2011.
  Today we have a chance to lend support to unemployed Americans. In so 
doing, we have a chance to help our economy and ourselves. But first we 
have to proceed to the bill. I urge my colleagues to support this 
important legislation and vote for the motion to invoke cloture.
  Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from New Hampshire, 
Mrs. Shaheen, who is one of the main cosponsors of the amendment. She 
is the real strong advocate of getting this legislation passed and a 
strong advocate for the people of her State, and I deeply appreciate 
her work.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I thank Senator Baucus for his very kind 
remarks and for his leadership to do something to help those workers 
who are unemployed across this country who are losing their benefits 
and don't know where to turn.
  As Senator Baucus has said, the Senate is about to vote on a motion 
to advance the Unemployment Compensation Extension Act. I am 
disappointed that we still haven't been able to pass this extension, 
but this evening we can vote to overcome a procedural hurdle and take 
an important step forward.
  As Senator Baucus has said, this is critical legislation that will 
help nearly 2 million jobless Americans who are about to have the 
safety net pulled out from under them. The bill provides 14 additional 
weeks of unemployment insurance to jobless workers in all 50 States, 
and in those States where unemployment is the highest, they would 
receive an additional 6 weeks.
  For 3 weeks, this critical legislation has been delayed for nothing 
more than political reasons. In that time, more than 100,000 Americans 
have exhausted their unemployment benefits. The American people should 
be outraged about these delays. I hope today those in opposition will 
end their obstruction, will stop the political games, and will help us 
pass this bill to stimulate our economy and help those Americans who, 
through no fault of their own, can't find a job.
  I am confident that when we finally get to the vote, this extension 
will garner the broad bipartisan support it deserves. That is because 
unemployment isn't a New England problem or a Montana problem or a 
southern problem. It isn't a Republican, an Independent, or a 
Democratic problem. It is a hardship that hits every community in every 
State in every part of our country.
  I recently visited an unemployment office in Manchester, NH, and I 
heard from people who, despite their best efforts, are unable to find a 
job. They want to get back to work, but they face one of the worst job 
markets since the Great Depression. I want to share this afternoon a 
couple of stories I heard from unemployed workers and

[[Page 25750]]

those who have called my office pleading for help.
  Carry-Ann is a 39-year-old single mother from Concord. She wrote that 
she has been out of a job for more than a year, and she has been 
relying on unemployment to support her two teenagers and to pay the 
mortgage. Carry-Ann qualified for a job training program, and she has 
been training for a career in health care.
  That is appropriate, given the other debate that is going on in this 
body.
  She has been training for that career in health care because she 
knows that is a sector that needs workers. But if her unemployment runs 
out, she wrote, she will lose her home and she will have to relocate, 
which means she would not be able to finish her job training program 
and will lose the prospects of getting a good new job.
  Carry-Ann isn't asking for a handout. She is trying to gain self-
sufficiency for herself and for her family by getting educated and 
gaining the skills she needs to build a career. But she will be unable 
to do so unless we pass this extension.
  Richard is a 43-year-old from Somersworth, NH, one town over from 
where I live in the southern part of the State. He explained that he 
has been looking for work for over a year. He has been using his 
unemployment benefits to support his family. Richard used to have a 
management job, and at interviews he has been told time after time that 
he is overqualified and he would not be considered. Employers think he 
will leave their job as soon as better opportunities open.
  But Richard has a family to support today and his benefits are going 
to run out soon. He is like many Americans looking for work right now. 
If we do nothing, he could lose his credit, his car, and his home.
  Extending unemployment benefits will help Richard and Carry-Ann and 
their families and tens of thousands of others like them across this 
country. It will help them weather this storm.
  As I have said many times, when we extend unemployment, we are not 
just helping jobless workers, we are also helping the businesses that 
provide the goods and services that unemployed workers need. People 
collecting unemployment spend their benefits immediately on necessities 
to keep their families going, which means these dollars get into 
communities almost as soon as the check arrives.
  Economists say, dollar for dollar, extending unemployment benefits is 
one of the most cost-effective actions we can take to stimulate the 
economy. Passing this extension of unemployment benefits is the right 
choice for unemployed workers and for our communities.
  Mr. President, this extension is long overdue. We owe it to those 
Americans who are out of work to pass this extension.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, if Senator Shaheen wishes to take more 
time, I am more than willing to extend it to her.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. I have finished, but I thank my colleague very much, 
and I yield the floor.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I thank the Senator very much.
  I say to my colleagues that now is a good time to speak on extending 
unemployment insurance, now that we are on the motion to proceed. We 
will vote fairly quickly, but if Senators do want to come over to 
express their views, now is the time to do so.
  Pending the arrival of Senators, Mr. President, I suggest the absence 
of a quorum, and I ask unanimous consent that the time during the 
quorum call be equally divided between both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask the Presiding Officer, how much time 
is remaining on each side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 7 minutes for each side.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I yield to the Senator from North Dakota as much time as 
he wishes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I appreciate the courtesy of the Senator 
from Montana.
  The issue before us is very simple. When you have a severe economic 
downturn of the type we have had, a very deep recession, that is when 
you try to employ the economic stabilizers that help people who lose 
their jobs--unemployment insurance. The extension of unemployment 
insurance has almost always been nearly automatic because everyone 
understands the urgency of doing it. When many additional people have 
been unemployed for lengthy periods of time, you try to reach out and 
help.
  The cloture vote tonight is on a motion to proceed, and it so 
demonstrates the dysfunction of the Senate these days. The motion to 
proceed is filibustered by the other side when we are trying to help 
some folks who have lost their jobs. Many have lost hope during a steep 
economic decline. We can't even get cooperation on a motion to proceed 
to try to address the extension of unemployment benefits. It is pretty 
unbelievable to me.
  Last fall, I watched some of the same folks who were objecting to 
that rush to the starting line to see if we couldn't give hundreds of 
billions of dollars to the biggest financial firms in the country that 
ran this economy into the ditch--let's give them a lot of money. But 
you know what, not when it comes to helping the folks at the bottom, 
those who have lost their jobs.
  By the way, last month 263,000 Americans lost their jobs; last 
month--263,000. Just pick one out of 263,000 and think of somebody 
coming home from work and saying: Honey, I have lost my job; to say to 
their husband or wife: I have lost my job. It wasn't because I did a 
bad job, it was because they cut back at the plant or the office, so 
now I am unemployed. It was not their fault. The question is, What do 
we do when this happens? Normally when this happens, we extend 
unemployment benefits to those who are facing very difficult times.
  This is the steepest, deepest economic decline since the 1930s. This 
country has been in very serious economic trouble for some long while 
now. It nearly fell off a cliff last October. So this action now should 
be almost automatic. But nothing, even common sense, is automatic 
around here because we are now struggling, at the end of today, a 
Tuesday, to get a cloture vote on a motion to proceed to do something 
that everybody knows we have a responsibility to do. It is almost 
unbelievable.
  I want to say how frustrating it is that we do not get any 
cooperation on anything to move forward things that are of an urgent 
nature. I suppose this is not urgent, perhaps, unless you are 
unemployed and trying to figure out: How do we get the money to eat? 
How do we get the money to pay rent? How do we get the money to provide 
the funding for the kids to go to school? It is probably not urgent for 
people who are not in that situation, but if you are in that situation 
during a very severe economic downturn, this is urgent. We need to 
extend these benefits.
  My colleague from Montana and his committee have worked on this and 
brought it to the floor. It would have been nice if they had gotten 
just a little cooperation so we would not have to go through this, file 
a cloture motion, wait 2 days for it to ripen, then 30 hours 
postcloture. What is the deal? I don't understand at all. Dig your 
heels in when it comes to trying to help the folks who need help the 
most and say the sky is the limit when it comes time to help those who 
have the most? That turns logic on its head, in my judgment.
  My hope is that at 6 o'clock tonight when we vote, we will have the 
60 votes. We should never have been put in the position to have to try 
to break a filibuster on a motion to proceed. We are not even on the 
bill; it is a motion to proceed to the bill. What an unbelievable lack 
of cooperation on something that is so essential during a steep 
economic downturn, to help those

[[Page 25751]]

whose jobs have been washed away, who desperately need help for 
themselves and their families. That is what we are trying to do.
  I hope that perhaps following the disposition of this--and I hope we 
will get this done--we will get some additional cooperation on things 
that really matter.
  I appreciate the time given me by the Senator from Montana.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask 
consent that the time be equally charged to both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Shaheen). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             Cloture Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, pursuant to rule 
XXII, the Chair lays before the Senate the pending cloture motion, 
which the clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

  We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the provisions of 
rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, hereby move to bring to 
a close debate on the motion to proceed to Calendar No. 174, H.R. 3548, 
the Unemployment Compensation Extension Act of 2009.
         Harry Reid, Patty Murray, Mark Udall, Roland W. Burris, 
           Mark Begich, Byron L. Dorgan, Frank R. Lautenberg, Amy 
           Klobuchar, Bill Nelson, Jack Reed, Carl Levin, Jeff 
           Bingaman, Bernard Sanders, Sherrod Brown, Sheldon 
           Whitehouse, Barbara Boxer, Kirsten E. Gillibrand, 
           Richard J. Durbin.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call is waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the 
motion to proceed to H.R. 3548, the Unemployment Compensation Extension 
Act of 2009, shall be brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. The clerk will call 
the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 87, nays 13, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 329 Leg.]

                                YEAS--87

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Brownback
     Burr
     Burris
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corker
     Crapo
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kaufman
     Kerry
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     LeMieux
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Thune
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                                NAYS--13

     Barrasso
     Bond
     Bunning
     Coburn
     Cornyn
     DeMint
     Enzi
     Graham
     Hatch
     Inhofe
     Johanns
     Sessions
     Vitter
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 87, the nays are 
13.
  Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in 
the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. Madam President, I note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  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.


                            Pension Funding

  Mr. CASEY. Madam President, we are in the midst of a terrible 
economic recession. Over the course of the last year, we have lost 
millions of jobs. In Pennsylvania, for example, by comparison, the 
unemployment rate percentage is lower than a lot of States, but in many 
parts of our State it is at a historic high, or at least a 15-year 
high. What that means in Pennsylvania is that we have just about a half 
a million people out of work, even though some States have a much 
higher percent in their unemployment rate. So we have a half million 
people out of work.
  The fact that we just had this vote on unemployment insurance is 
vitally important. It helps us meet a real need across the country. So 
we have an economic crisis. People are living through the loss of a 
job, the loss of a home, or both--in some ways, the loss of their hopes 
and their dreams. Unfortunately, even as we get through this, even as 
we begin to recover, and even as we are dealing with a longer term 
challenge to our economy, which is health care--which is one of the 
reasons I think we have to pass a bill this year--there are other 
threats we have to bear in mind. One of them involves not just 
businesses but, by extension, workers and families. I speak of the 
funding of pension plans.
  A lot of businesses across the country--a lot of workers have come to 
Washington to remind us that this pension issue is a looming problem 
for a lot of businesses. I happen to be a member of the Health, 
Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, and that is one of the issues 
we must deal with, and I think we will be dealing with, in the near 
term.
  Millions of Americans, not just throughout our history our recent 
history but especially now, rely upon any kind of retirement vehicle, 
and one of those, of course, is a good pension plan. We need to give 
people in the twilight of their life the kind of security that comes 
with a pension plan. We also have to make sure workers have that same 
peace of mind as they make their way through this very difficult 
economy.
  In 2006, the Pension Protection Act was passed by Congress. The main 
purpose of that act was to strengthen pension plans by implementing 
tougher funding rules. Most of the rules under the act took effect in 
2008, and at that time the stock market was in turmoil. The combination 
of stronger pension funding rules in a chaotic stock market caused 
almost all pension plans to sustain a net loss, in essence.
  I wish to turn to one chart that depicts that. One study released by 
Mercer stated that the combined loss for pension plans totaled $469 
billion for 2008. We can see the differential from 2007 where there was 
an overfunding of some $60 billion. So in 2007, $60 billion up; the 
next year lost over $400 billion, down; to be exact, $469 billion in 
terms of where we were in 2007 versus where we were at the end of 2008. 
Based upon this loss, pension plans have a funding deficit, a 
differential of $409 billion--$409 billion in 2008. In 2009, the 
pension funding deficit is expected to increase yet again despite 
recent recoveries in the stock market.
  We have to do what we must to strengthen our economy and to give our 
workers and their families and our businesses some peace of mind. That 
might be the best way to describe it. So this is more than just a 
looming crisis, more than just a problem in the near term, it is a 
problem we have to deal with right now, in the next couple of months.
  Recently, the House Ways and Means Committee held a hearing that 
focused on pension funding relief. They gave an example at the hearing. 
NCR Corporation, a 125-year-old global technology company, testimony at 
this hearing provided a specific example of how company pension plans 
have been affected. NCR, this global technology company, had a pension 
plan that was 110 percent funded as of January 1, 2008.
  So at the beginning of 2008, they were funded at 110 percent. They 
were in

[[Page 25752]]

good shape, for the most part. The funding status, as those in the 
business know, is based on the amount of assets compared to the amount 
of liabilities. By January 1, 2009, just 1 year later, this same 
company, due to unprecedented losses in the market, had its funding 
percentage drop to 75 percent. So in 1 year, this company goes from 110 
up of funding to 75 percent, a huge loss.
  This is what it means in terms of dollars. The percentages only tell 
part of the story. Prior to the market loss, this company, NCR 
Corporation, expected to make payments totaling $200 million over a 7-
year period. That is what they could see down the road: $200 million 
over that period. Instead, that payment has increased to $1.5 billion--
$1.5 billion looking out ahead of them instead of $200 million. So $200 
million becomes $1.5 billion, and that is what we are going to see 
unless Congress provides some relief.
  We have heard from countless companies across Pennsylvania and across 
the country that are in the same situation as this one example, the NCR 
company. The companies are not requesting a bailout. Let me say that 
again: They are not requesting a bailout. The companies are not 
requesting the American taxpayer to assist directly. The companies are 
simply asking Congress to extend the time period of recognizing the 
losses incurred during the market downturn.
  In 2009--I will point to another study--Watson Wyatt reported that 
there would be $32 billion in payments to fund pension plans in 
America. Without any relief from Congress in 2010, that amount will 
increase to over $90 billion and increase to $146 billion in 2011. So 
we go from, in 2009, $32 billion, to 2010, and it keeps going up until 
we get to 2011, just 2 years from now, $146 billion to pension plans in 
America.
  American companies that are already struggling to break even today 
will have to decide between funding their pension plans and cutting 
jobs. In order to avoid losing more jobs, at a time when the national 
unemployment rate is 9.8 percent, Congress should act swiftly to extend 
the amortization period for recognizing certain losses in pension plan 
assets, including other temporary provisions that will provide funding 
relief. Any relief should apply to single- and multiemployer pension 
plans.
  As companies recover from the economic recession, we should not 
discourage economic growth by requiring a pension payment that will 
require companies to cut jobs. Instead, Congress should provide 
targeted relief--targeted relief--that will enable companies to spread 
out the losses over an extended period of time, which will allow 
capital to be invested in activities that will promote growth.
  Ultimately, the intention of any pension funding relief legislation 
is to ensure the survival of the pension plan system. The American 
people have a right to expect that pension plans be stable and secure 
for their future. In Congress, we should work to implement any 
legislation that provides a healthy pension system just in the same way 
we provide security with a reformed health care system. In exchange for 
ensuring a good pension, a secure pension, and a better health care 
system--that is what we are saying to the American workers and to 
American businesses--it is important that we be very honest with 
people, with our workers.
  We are going to say to our workers: We want you to compete in a world 
economy; we want you to go out and get more education; we want you to 
enhance your skill level; we want you to have a broader-based skill 
level so that when the economy takes a turn or market forces lead to a 
change in the industry that you are employed in or lead to a change in 
our economy, you will have the skill and the knowledge and the training 
and the education to be able to adjust.
  So we encourage people all the time to get more education. We 
encourage people all the time to enhance their skill level. But we will 
be more successful in achieving that goal and we will be more honest 
with workers if we can say to them: You don't have to worry as much as 
you used to about your pension or about health care.
  That should be a large part of the bargain, a large part of the 
agreement we make with our workers and our businesses because, if we 
are going to compete in a world economy, if we are going to have a 
highly skilled workforce that does that for us over time, we cannot say 
to people: Go out and improve your skills, go out and get more 
education, but we are not sure we can help you with your retirement 
security or your health care security. We can't ask them to do three 
things at one time. We can't ask them to go to work every day and worry 
about whether they are going to have health care coverage or worry 
about whether their kids are going to be covered or worry about whether 
there is going to be a preexisting condition that will bar them from 
treatment or coverage.
  We can't allow a situation to persist where we say to them: Go to 
work every day and continue to improve your skills and maybe get more 
education, but we are not sure we can help you on health care and, by 
the way, your pension plan might be at risk in the future; it may not 
be there for you when you retire.
  We have to do something in a very strategic and focused way to take 
away some of that worry on health care and on pension and retirement 
security. If we do that, if we lessen that anxiety for people, I 
believe we are going to have a much more successful strategy as it 
relates to telling people and encouraging our workers to get more 
education, to get a heightened degree of training. If we do that, we 
are going to have a much stronger long-term economy. But we can't ask 
people to do it all themselves--to bear the burden of health care, to 
bear the burden of retirement security, and to bear the full burden of 
their education, their training, and their skill development.
  So that is why this pension issue, even in the midst of a health care 
debate, is so critically important.
  Madam President, I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Udall of Colorado). Without objection, it 
is so ordered.

                          ____________________