[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 13]
[Senate]
[Pages 18265-18271]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                         UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS

  Mr. REED. Mr. President, today we have an opportunity to assist 
literally hundreds of thousands of families across this country who are 
out of work through no fault of their own, who are battling with the 
most severe economic downturn since the Great Depression, who are 
chasing jobs that have disappeared, and they are looking everywhere to 
try to find work. We have the opportunity to extend unemployment 
benefits for an additional year.
  In my State of Rhode Island, people are in a very serious situation. 
They are struggling to stay in their homes, to educate their children, 
to deal with the challenges of everyday life. They have worked hard and 
long all of their lives, and now they are finding it difficult to find 
a job.
  In every situation previously in this country, we have come to their 
assistance. We have done so by extending unemployment benefits. We have 
never failed to do that as long as the unemployment rate was above 7.2 
or 7.4 percent. Today across the country, it is close to 9 percent 
nationally. In my State of Rhode Island, it is much higher. We have 
always done it on an emergency basis because it truly is an emergency. 
We haven't had to offset because we have always determined that it was 
necessary to get the money to the people who could use it, who needed 
it desperately, and we should do that again.
  I find it difficult to understand how some of my colleagues on the 
other side would object to an extension of unemployment benefits for a 
year that are not offset but at the same time insist that we provide 
tax cuts to the very richest Americans, without paying for them, and 
insist that we add approximately $700 billion to our deficit by 
extending tax cuts for people making over $250,000 a year--and many 
making many times that amount--yet for unemployed Americans desperately 
seeking work and not finding it, they would insist that we not only 
have to pay for it, but we have delayed and delayed the process of 
getting them assistance. It is difficult to justify those two 
positions.
  It is also difficult to justify those two positions because what we 
know is that unemployment compensation benefits give us a much bigger 
bang for the buck than the extension of tax relief to upper income 
citizens. The Congressional Budget Office has rated the effectiveness 
of various techniques to provide assistance and stimulate demand in the 
economy. They have found

[[Page 18266]]

that unemployment insurance is far and away the most effective form--
much more effective than tax cuts to the wealthy.
  CBO estimates that for every dollar of unemployment compensation 
benefits that we inject into the economy, we get $1.90 of economic 
activity, which is almost a 2-for-1 payback. So we are in a situation 
where this is not only the appropriate policy to pursue, but it is the 
most effective one in order to keep demand and the economy and growth 
moving forward.
  I am someone who believes in fiscal responsibility. That is why I 
took, in the 1990s, difficult votes in order to balance the budget 
under President Clinton, to raise not only our output but also to 
balance the budget and have a surplus in 2000. I opposed the proposal 
and the tax cuts favored by Republican colleagues in 2000 because I 
understood that the difficult, hard fought, fiscal responsibility could 
easily be frittered away because what looked like a surplus in 2000 
could be affected by unforeseen events, such as terrorist attacks, 
natural disasters, or changes in the world economy that we could not 
contemplate. I knew how difficult it was in the nineties to get our 
house in order. I was opposed to these tax cuts. I hope everybody else 
realizes the demographics of the country at that time.
  In 1993-1994, we took tough votes to build up a surplus because we 
knew what was coming. We had a demographic wave--the baby boomers--that 
would qualify for Medicare and Social Security, and that would, by the 
nature of the sheer size of that population, put extra demands upon our 
budget.
  Despite all of that, taxes were cut, wars were pursued unpaid for. 
For the first time in the history of the country, we engaged in major 
military operations and didn't even make an attempt to pay for them. 
That is not the definition of fiscal responsibility. Yet many of the 
same proponents of that policy are urging us today that we cannot do 
unemployment compensation insurance unless we pay for it. But, of 
course, let's extend the Bush tax cuts for all Americans, including the 
wealthiest, and in that case add another $700 billion to our deficit 
over 10 years. That doesn't seem to make any economic sense.
  This proposal is supported by people who are knowledgeable about the 
way the economy works. In a statement released today, 33 economists, 
including 5 recipients of the Nobel Prize in economics and 5 former 
chairs of the Council of Economic Advisers, have said:

       Continuing the about-to-expire federal emergency 
     unemployment insurance program, which provides extra weeks of 
     benefits to the long-term unemployed, is sensible economic 
     policy that will not only assist the unemployed but help 
     maintain spending, overall demand, and employment at this 
     critical point in the recovery. . . . Eliminating these 
     benefits, on the other hand, will cause hardship for the 
     long-term unemployed, scale back spending, and weaken the 
     economy since unemployment benefits are one of the most 
     effective means available to support overall demand. 
     Unemployment has remained above 9 percent for 18 months 
     already and will likely remain high for some time to come, 
     making a strong case for continuing the current program for 
     another 12 months. Moreover, the special provisions for 
     extending unemployment insurance during recessions have 
     traditionally been financed by short-term fiscal deficits and 
     this remains a prudent approach. The program will not 
     contribute significantly to long-term deficits because its 
     costs will diminish automatically as the economy recovers and 
     unemployment returns to more normal levels.

  Let me say that again in my own words. Our colleagues are suggesting 
a permanent extension of tax cuts that will cost, over 10 years, $700 
billion, and presumably 10 years after that and 10 years after that. 
That is a huge structural change to our revenue. Unemployment 
compensation benefits are cyclical. They rise in difficult times, like 
today, and they fall as the economy recovers. So we are not talking 
about a long-term commitment to a program of deficit enhancement; we 
are talking about short-term relief for struggling Americans.
  I think these economists make the case extraordinarily well. I ask 
unanimous consent that their letter be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                    Economic Policy Institute,

                                Washington, DC, November 29, 2010.
     Hon. Barack Obama,
     President of the United States, The White House, Washington, 
         DC.
     Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
     Speaker, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Harry Reid,
     Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. John Boehner,
     Minority Leader, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Mitch McConnell,
     Minority Leader, U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. President, Speaker Pelosi, Majority Leader Reid, 
     Congressman Boehner, and Senator McConnell: Congress must 
     decide whether to continue the Emergency Unemployment 
     Compensation program (EUC), a decision that will directly 
     affect millions of families and the entire economy. 
     Authorization for the additional benefits Congress has been 
     providing since the passage of the American Recovery and 
     Reinvestment Act in February 2009 expires tomorrow, November 
     30, and millions of unemployed workers will soon be affected. 
     I write you out of concern for the jobless, who through no 
     fault of their own, cannot find work in an economy with only 
     one job vacancy for every five unemployed workers, and who 
     depend on EUC to pay their rent or mortgage, pay for 
     groceries and gas, and pay for their heating bills and other 
     utilities.
       But I write also out of concern for the economy. Together 
     with Lawrence Katz of Harvard University, I gathered the 
     signatures of 33 prominent economists on the attached 
     statement, which warns that letting the Emergency 
     Unemployment Compensation program expire will weaken the 
     economy by reducing the spending of the unemployed and 
     overall consumer demand. All of us agree that EUC should be 
     extended for another 12 months and that there is no danger 
     that continuing to provide extended unemployment insurance 
     benefits will materially raise overall unemployment. We also 
     agree that deficit financing for EUC is prudent and will not 
     contribute significantly to long-term deficits.
       We hope that you act swiftly to renew these benefits, for 
     the good of the economy and the well-being of millions of 
     deserving Americans who depend on them.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Lawrence Mishel,
     President, Economic Policy Institute.
                                  ____


               Statement From Leading American Economists

       Continuing the about-to-expire federal emergency 
     unemployment insurance program, which provides extra weeks of 
     benefits to the long-term unemployed, is sensible economic 
     policy that will not only assist the unemployed but help 
     maintain spending, overall demand, and employment at this 
     critical point in the recovery. Given that there remains a 
     historically high number of unemployed workers per job 
     opening, there is no danger that continuing to provide 
     extended unemployment insurance will materially raise overall 
     unemployment. Eliminating these benefits, on the other hand, 
     will cause hardship for the long-term unemployed, scale back 
     spending, and weaken the economy since unemployment benefits 
     are one of the most effective means available to support 
     overall demand. Unemployment has remained above 9.0% for 18 
     months already and will likely remain high for some time to 
     come, making a strong case for continuing the current program 
     for another 12 months. Moreover, the special provisions for 
     extended unemployment insurance during recessions have 
     traditionally been financed by short-term fiscal deficits and 
     this remains a prudent approach. The program will not 
     contribute significantly to long-term deficits because its 
     costs will diminish automatically as the economy recovers and 
     unemployment returns to more normal levels.


                                SIGNERS

         Henry J. Aaron, Brookings Institution; Kenneth Arrow, 
           Nobel Laureate in Economics, Stanford University; David 
           Autor, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Martin 
           Neal Baily, Chair, Council of Economic Advisers, 
           Brookings Institution;
         Dean Baker, Center for Economic and Policy Research; Alan 
           S. Blinder, Princeton University; Gary Burtless, 
           Brookings Institution; Raj Chetty, Harvard University; 
           David Cutler, Harvard University; Janet Currie, 
           Columbia University; J. Bradford Delong, University of 
           California--Berkeley; Robert H. Frank, Cornell 
           University; Richard Freeman, Harvard University; James 
           K. Galbraith, University of Texas; Claudia Goldin; 
           Harvard University; Jonathan Gruber, Massachusetts 
           Institute of Technology;
         Harry J. Holzer, Georgetown University; Robert Johnson, 
           Roosevelt Institute; Lawrence Katz, Harvard University; 
           Frank Levy, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Eric 
           S. Maskin, Nobel

[[Page 18267]]

           Laureate in Economics, Princeton University; Daniel L. 
           McFadden, Nobel Laureate in Economics University of 
           California--Berkeley; Lawrence Mishel, Economic Policy 
           Institute; Christina Romer, Chair, Council of Economic 
           Advisers University of California--Berkeley; 
           Christopher Ruhm, University of North Carolina--
           Greensboro; Emmanuel Saez, University of California--
           Berkeley; Charles L. Schultze, Chair, Council of 
           Economic Advisers, Brookings Institution; Robert M. 
           Solow, Nobel Laureate in Economics, Massachusetts 
           Institute of Technology; Timothy M. Smeeding, 
           University of Wisconsin; Joseph E. Stiglitz, Nobel 
           Laureate in Economics, Chair, Council of Economic 
           Advisers, Columbia University; Laura D. Tyson, Chair, 
           Council of Economic Advisers University of California--
           Berkeley; Till Von Wachter, Columbia University; Justin 
           Wolfers, University of Pennsylvania.

  Mr. REED. As I indicated before, their view has been echoed by the 
CBO. Tax cuts, in their view, are the least effective form of economic 
stimulus, and the most effective is unemployment insurance benefits.
  On November 16, the Department of Labor released an independent study 
that was commissioned during the Bush administration. It found that 
since mid-2008, the Federal unemployment insurance program has saved 
1.6 million jobs in every quarter, averting 1.8 million layoffs per 
quarter at the height of the downturn, and reduced the unemployment 
rate by 1.2 points.
  Separately, the Economic Policy Institute has found that continuing 
the programs through the end of 2011 will support the creation of 
700,000 full-time equivalent jobs.
  People who get unemployment insurance benefits tend to take that 
money and go to the grocery store or buy shoes for their children or 
pay down, if they can, some of their credit card debt. Maybe in this 
holiday season they will buy an extra present for their children. That 
keeps our economy moving, and it keeps the people in the grocery stores 
working, people at department stores working, and the manufacturers 
producing these goods working.
  Our economy grew at 2 percent in the third quarter and in a recent 
Wall Street Journal article, Goldman Sachs analyst Alec Phillips 
estimated that if unemployment insurance benefits expired, it would 
shave half a percentage point from growth. Such a decline would cost 
hundreds of thousands of jobs. So here is a policy that will expand 
jobs, maintain jobs, and if we don't pursue it, we will find ourselves 
contracting employment at the very time that all Americans are asking 
us to do something very clear-cut: get jobs, keep jobs, produce jobs, 
and find a way to create them. This could also engender a downward 
spiral because if the jobs contract, that could be the beginning of 
further contraction, and it could leave us in a worse situation.
  So not only will families feel the brunt of this lack of unemployment 
compensation benefits, it is the small businesses throughout every 
community--it is the retailers and the people who depend upon their 
neighborhood customers to come in and buy the goods and services that 
not only provide them what they need but also provides the cash flow 
for small businesses to keep operating.
  Failure to maintain unemployment insurance will mean that 2 million 
jobless workers will lose benefits in December. Two million Americans, 
this December, will stop receiving benefits. Several hundred thousand 
unemployed workers will lose their benefits every month, culminating in 
up to 6 million losing benefits by the end of 2011. Now is the time to 
govern, the time to act, and now is the time to do what we have always 
done in a situation like this. It is the time to act promptly and 
timely and pass an extension of the unemployment insurance benefits.
  We have seen over the last year delay after delay. We have seen 
benefits expire only to retroactively be restored through procedural 
votes and delays.
  One of the ironies is that we get these procedural votes that we 
can't move forward on a bill but, finally, when the bill comes up to a 
vote, there is overwhelming support, which suggests to me that the 
process of delay has taken primacy over the substance of policy. That 
is not worthy of our constituents and the crisis they face today in 
this country. We have, as I said, continuously maintained unemployment 
compensation benefits, and we have extended benefits whenever our 
unemployment rate nationally is above 7.2 percent. Republican 
administrations, Democratic administrations, Republican Congresses, and 
Democratic Congresses have always recognized that at the level of 9 
percent unemployment, extended unemployment benefits were almost 
automatic--something you had to do for all the reasons I have cited, 
such as the economic effects on the economy, but most fundamentally it 
is giving people a chance to just make ends meet until they can find a 
job.
  So I think we are in a position where we must go forward. Acting now 
is the right thing to do, the responsible thing to do, and the wise 
economic thing to do. We need to swiftly pass this 1-year extension.
  Many colleagues are joining Senator Baucus, the chairman of the 
committee, in introducing this legislation. I urge at this point that 
we move forward, and at this point I make the following request.
  Mr. DURBIN. Before the Senator makes his request, may I pose a 
question to the Senator.
  Mr. REED. Yes.
  Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator for his time and his leadership on 
this issue. I am happy to join him. I want to make sure we put this 
into the context of the lameduck session. This is a session when we are 
debating tax cuts, and the position held by the other side of the aisle 
is that we should give tax cuts to those making $1 million a year in 
income, which is roughly $20,000 a week. If I understand the 
differences in the Democratic position and the Republican position, we 
think those making $1 million a year should get roughly $6,000 in tax 
cuts. They believe those making $1 million year should get $100,000 in 
tax cuts. I also understand if the Republican position prevails, it 
will add $700 billion to the deficit over 10 years, just to give tax 
cuts to those making over $250,000 a year or $70 billion a year.
  So their position, when it comes to tax cuts for the wealthiest in 
America, is that we can afford to add $70 billion to the deficit with a 
tax cut for millionaires each year and not accept the reality that that 
is one of the poorest ways to spark growth in our economy. Our position 
is that, historically, when we reach high levels of unemployment--over 
7.2 percent--we have extended unemployment benefits. We are now at 
about 9.6 percent. And we believe we should extend unemployment 
benefits for those who have lost their jobs through no fault of their 
own. The benefits average about $300 a week for someone to keep their 
family in food, clothing, pay the utility bills in the winter, that 
sort of thing. And we are told by the Congressional Budget Office that 
unemployment benefits are the best catalyst for sparking growth in the 
economy. It is money spent immediately by people who need disposable 
income and who will turn around and purchase goods and services 
immediately with it.
  So $70 billion for tax breaks--$70 billion in deficits each year for 
tax breaks for the wealthiest people in America, for something that 
doesn't spark the economy, versus some $60 billion for extending the 
unemployment insurance benefits for 1 year, which will spark growth in 
the economy. Is that the choice we are facing?
  Mr. REED. I think the Senator from Illinois has stated it very 
clearly, very succinctly, and very accurately. That, apparently, is the 
choice. It is a choice I find difficult to understand for the reasons 
the Senator has laid out. We want to respond to the needs of so many 
families, working families. And this is one of those programs that, by 
definition--if you qualify for unemployment benefits, you had a job, 
you just lost it. So these are working families who are now looking for 
some support as they search desperately for jobs.
  As we pointed out too, not just in terms of the individual recipients 
but for the economy overall, the benefit is substantial. It is about 
$1.90 in economic activity for every $1 that we put

[[Page 18268]]

into the benefit. On the other side of the spectrum, economists have 
looked at the impact of these tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans and 
find very little growth in economic activity, and, frankly, that makes 
sense. This is not economics at MIT or Harvard or anyplace else. If you 
are struggling at $368 a month, it is not going to go into your 
vacation fund or for buying objects of art. It is going to go to the 
grocery store and into all of the demands of a family. If you are 
fortunate enough through your hard work and through your ingenuity to 
be making over $1 million a year, your consumption package is not going 
to be altered dramatically by these tax cuts. That is the conclusion of 
the economists, and I think the Senator said it very well.


                   Unanimous-Consent Request--S. 3981

  So I thank the Senator from Illinois, but at this juncture, I would 
like to formally, Madam President, ask unanimous consent that the 
Finance Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 3981, 
a bill to provide for a temporary extension of unemployment insurance 
provisions, and that the Senate then proceed to its immediate 
consideration; that the bill be read three times, passed, and the 
motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; and that any statements 
relating thereto appear at the appropriate place in the Record, as if 
read.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Hagan). Is there objection?
  Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts. Madam President, I object. And I have a 
pay-for alternative on which I would like to speak.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. REED. If the Senator will pause for a moment, I am concluding, 
and then the Senator will have his own time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Again, I think it is unfortunate that we cannot move this 
bill. I think, to put it very succinctly, we will try again. I hope we 
can. I hope we will for the sake of our country, small businesses, and 
families across my State and in this Nation who need this help and 
assistance.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts. Madam President, I wish to thank the 
Senator from Rhode Island, who passionately spoke about his proposal, 
his bill to deal with a very important problem we are facing in the 
United States.
  I am not the new person here anymore. Somebody came in yesterday. But 
I will say that it is still new to me that here we are, with 6\1/2\ 
hours before the benefits will expire, and we are now discussing this. 
God forbid we actually think ahead and spend a little bit of 
forethought in preparing and working together to try to come up with 
some type of solution before being faced with a 6\1/2\-hour deadline 
before the benefits expire. So, once again, I know I am not the newest 
guy anymore, but I have to say that this is not the way to do business 
in the Senate. And if it is, it needs to change.
  So here we are. The Senator just spoke about our needing to do this 
to keep the economy moving. No, we have to start focusing on jobs. That 
is what we have to do to get this economy moving. We have to start 
focusing on the things that are important--the deficit, the spending. 
Yesterday, we couldn't even pass the 1099 fix--something small 
businesses and all businesses in this country are clamoring for. We 
could not do that one thing--one thing. Now all of a sudden we are 
going to do another extension.
  I have complete and total sympathy and understanding for this. I want 
to help. More than anybody here, I want to help. But to just keep 
throwing money at a problem when it is not paid for, with 6\1/2\ hours 
left, to put people on the spot instead of doing it the right way--
working together, getting together in an office with the leadership and 
the people who care about these issues and coming up with a common 
solution--makes no sense to me.
  The reason we are having this high unemployment which my colleagues 
keep referring to--9 percent unemployment--is because there is no 
certainty in business. There is so much uncertainty right now in the 
business world, whether it is with the financial services people or the 
estate planners. Right now, we have zero percent. If you die--folks say 
it is a good year to die because next year it could be 55 percent or it 
could be less. Who knows. So there is so much money on the sidelines 
right now that we don't know what to do. It is not coming in to get the 
economy moving.
  We can't do the 1099 fix, we can't do the R&D tax credits, we can't 
work on accelerated depreciation, and we haven't repatriated any of the 
monies that are offshore. What do we do? We put up more and more 
roadblocks for businesses, so they do not want to hire these people off 
the unemployment rolls. Yet here we are with 6\1/2\ hours left, people 
aren't hiring, and we spent 7 days on food safety. Listen, I love to 
eat as much as the next guy, but give me a break. We should have spent 
7 days working on the one thing the people who voted in November 
wanted--and they sent us a very powerful message--and that is getting 
our economy moving again; focusing on jobs, jobs, jobs; streamlining 
the regulatory process; and firing away to get this economy moving. But 
we needed to work on food safety. Oh my gosh, that was so important. I 
am glad I rushed back from our break to work on food safety. Now, I 
know we have some issues in that regard, but don't you think the 1099 
fix and unemployment benefits and all these other things are a little 
bit more important?
  Some of my colleagues will say--the Senator from Illinois just said 
it--that we are here debating tax cuts. No, we are not. We are not 
debating tax cuts. I have been here for every vote we have had. I have 
been to every meeting since I have been back here. Where were we 
talking about tax cuts? Am I missing something? No, we haven't been 
talking about tax cuts. We haven't debated or discussed anything to do 
with business and getting our businesses and our economy moving again.
  The recent job numbers in Massachusetts reflect over 280,000 people 
unemployed in my State alone--over 8 percent of the Massachusetts 
workforce. As the Senator from Rhode Island mentioned--and I know Rhode 
Island well; I eat in Federal Hill regularly--the unemployment is much 
higher there. They have very serious problems. And one of the reasons 
we have problems is because we are not focusing on anything to do with 
business. We are not giving them the tools and resources they need to 
actually hire the people on the unemployment rolls. It is like a catch-
22.
  Nearly 15 million people across the country are unemployed, 6 million 
of them having been without work for 6 months or more. That is roughly 
five people for every one job opening. Families in Massachusetts, Rhode 
Island, and Illinois are all struggling. They sent that very powerful 
message a couple of week ago. They are struggling to make ends meet 
and, as the Senator from Rhode Island said, to buy food, to buy shoes, 
to buy extra Christmas presents. I understand that. But if they had a 
job and had the pride of going out and working hard each day and if 
businesses had that certainty of hiring that new employee, they could 
do that and a lot more. They could actually invest in the future of our 
country.
  We are in the midst of a historic economic crisis. I realize that. 
People are unable to find work, and I recognize that as well. The 
longer they are out of work, the harder it is to actually find work and 
become employable.
  I could go on and on as to how Congress has chosen to spend its time. 
I remember that before we went on break, before the elections, we 
wasted so much time on stuff that did nothing to help the economy. So 
here we are. I figured that when we came back, after the message was 
sent, we would get it loudly and clearly--big change over in the House. 
Here we are. We are going to get right back to the economy. But what do 
we do? We do food safety. Are you kidding me? People deserve better. 
The people who are unemployed deserve better.
  The consequences of our failure to act are the 15 million unemployed

[[Page 18269]]

workers in our country because they are unable to find that job. So 
here we are, 6\1/2\ hours before the benefits are going to expire. And 
I do not want to see that happen. Let me make it very clear to anyone 
listening or watching or however the press wants to regurgitate my 
statements: I don't want this to happen. It doesn't need to happen. As 
many of my colleagues know, if we fail to act today, 60,000 Bay Staters 
will see their unemployment checks evaporate at the end of the week and 
800,000 workers will see their checks disappear. That number will 
increase to 2 million by the end of December.
  So we are faced with another important decision, as we are with every 
other decision we make here: Do we provide the important benefits by 
burdening future generations, by adding on to that almost $14 trillion 
national debt, or do we provide the important benefits by raising taxes 
on businesses that are already struggling?
  If you want to talk about the Bush tax cuts, listen, that was a tax 
policy proposed by a President, supported by Congress, and it has been 
the tax policy for the last 10 years. To put a tax increase on anybody 
in the middle of a 2-year recession is going to add to these 
unemployment numbers and will be an absolute job killer.
  So is there a better way? Of course. There is always a better way, 
especially when we work together. We can always find a better way, as I 
have tried to work with the Senator from Oregon and other Senators to 
find commonsense solutions to our very serious problems. That is why I 
am once again offering an offset extension of unemployment benefits.
  The funny thing is that the proposal--and this is what I find so 
ironic. I will see where everyone wants to stand. If my colleagues want 
to do something today, I say to the Senators who are here and 
listening, we can provide that 1-year extension. In fact, I am offering 
an offset that was supported by 21 Democrats yesterday when we tried to 
do the 1099 offset bill, which I supported. I was a cosponsor, in a 
bipartisan manner. I supported both the Republican and the Democratic 
proposal just hoping, God forbid, we could get one thing done--just 
one. Twenty-one Democrats supported that bill.
  So here I am with my offer. My proposal is to offset the unemployment 
insurance--sorry, I need to take a breath here--the offset they 
supported yesterday would rescind unobligated discretionary funding. It 
is the same offset we did yesterday. So what is the difference? Do you 
know what the difference is? People are hurting, and they need the help 
in 6\1/2\ hours. The 1099 fix we can address down the road, but others 
need it in 6\1/2\ hours.
  So for those who supported it yesterday, I am certainly hopeful that 
they will support it again today. I don't know, is it me? I ask my 
colleagues to join in and be cosponsors. Is it because I am a 
Republican that we will not pass it? It is because it is my idea? I am 
the almost new guy. I get that. But what about looking past party 
politics, as I have done since the day I got here, to try to find 
commonsense solutions for people who are hurting. And trust me, there 
are a lot of people hurting. Why don't my colleagues join me in 
supporting this proposal that 21 other Democrats proposed yesterday and 
who actually went down in the well and voted on? This is a truly 
bipartisan proposal that we should be able to rally around. I am 
confident that we can work together, as the people demanded only a 
couple of weeks ago.
  As we enter the final weeks of this 111th Congress, there are several 
priorities that lie ahead. As I said earlier--I know I am getting 
worked up, but it just incenses me--we are here with 6\1/2\ hours 
remaining, and we just found out really today, or late yesterday, that 
we were even going to talk about this. We have to provide that 
certainty to businesses, from small mom-and-pop businesses all the way 
to the biggest corporations. They need to know what is up. They need to 
know they can actually rely on us to set policy that allows them to 
plan for the future, so they can get those 9-plus percent people off of 
unemployment.
  Do you think we are going to keep creating more and more government 
jobs; that is it? We are just going to keep printing the money and 
there is no consequence? There is plenty of consequence. The 
consequence is not on our grandchildren now; we are at our great-great-
grandchildren as to paying this obligation back.
  We still have to ensure that the Federal Government keeps running. 
Let me see: We have the estate tax issue, we have dealing with tax 
proposals or policy at all, we are trying to get the regulatory scheme 
in place so we can give businesses the incentive to maybe bring money 
back from the offshore accounts they are holding so they do not invest 
in other businesses in other countries, we have this issue--we have a 
lot of other things on the table and we have done nothing. We spent 
time on food safety.
  I love to eat. I have seen many people around here, we all love to 
eat. I want my food safe, make no mistake about it. I do not want to 
belittle that effort. But we need to provide money so people can 
actually go out and buy the food we are trying to make safe. We cannot 
keep spending and borrowing with no regard to our future, to our fiscal 
future. We need to be fiscally responsible and find ways to pay for the 
initiatives and policies that we think are important.
  When you talk about the money--listen, it is not the government's 
money. It is people's money. When they have money, they traditionally 
invest it, and they invest in businesses and they continue to get that 
economic engine going. It is not the government's money.
  It is also very clear to me that people want to work and they want us 
to focus on that one issue. I do not know why we are avoiding it--I do 
not. Did you know we are avoiding that one issue that can get our 
country back on track? Let's just say we took all the recommendations 
from the debt commission that have been proposed. If we do not do the 
other things, it is going to be short-lived, if it works at all.
  Creating jobs and supporting policies that improve economic growth 
have been my priority and will continue to be my focus in the Senate. 
There is nothing more important. I encourage the administration to 
immediately drop everything and focus on the economy. It is the one 
thing that is our ticket out of the economic mess we are in right now; 
instead, we are doing food safety.
  I also think we need to give people that lifeline in order to get 
them through the tough times. Make no mistake, I agree they need help. 
But I look at it, are we going to do it from the bank account or are we 
going to put it on the credit card--bank account, credit card? How 
about you folks up there--bank account, credit card? OK. I know what I 
want to do. I will use the bank account. Let's use money that is 
already in the system and put it to good use immediately by 12 o'clock 
tonight. Let's do it.
  We can settle this tonight. We can provide that extension of benefits 
tonight. My bipartisan idea will allow that to happen and will prevent 
millions of Americans from losing their benefits. Providing this 1-year 
extension will allow us to focus on the many other important priorities 
we have and that we have to handle before the end of the year.
  You want to stay through the holidays and everything. Hey, I am here. 
Whatever. My kids are grown; they do their own thing anyway. Do I want 
to stay here? Sure, I will stay. We will stay and we will go out and 
celebrate Christmas here. Whatever. But we have so many things we need 
to do and we could do them right now.
  I am glad food safety is done. We do not have to do it anymore. So 
what is next? Let me see--just pick something. I guarantee, I bet--I 
know betting is illegal here--I will bet we do not do anything that has 
to do with the economy. I will bet you.
  I encourage my colleagues to join with me and stop using the credit 
card and burdening additional generations with this tremendous debt 
that we cannot afford.

[[Page 18270]]




                  Unanimous Consent Request--H.R. 4915

  I ask unanimous consent the Finance Committee be discharged and the 
Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 4915; that all 
after the enacting clause be stricken and the substitute amendment at 
the desk be agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be read a third time 
and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. REED. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts. I yield.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Madam President, my colleague from Massachusetts has made a 
rather vigorous and impassioned statement. What I sense, though, is he 
is quite willing to put $700 billion of tax cuts for the wealthiest 
Americans on the credit card but not extend unemployment benefits, as 
we have done persistently, decade after decade, without offsets, for 
people who are struggling without work. So if we are talking about 
coming together, avoiding increased deficits, let's look at this big 
issue of these tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. Let's look at the 
offsets there, I suggest.
  I also suggest, in terms of his argument we are not doing anything, 
that the record, unfortunately, of my colleagues on the other side, 
with respect to this issue--and we are talking about the issue of 
unemployment compensation benefits extension--has been one of delay and 
delay and delay. June 17 of this year we tried to extend these benefits 
and it failed in a cloture vote. They would not even let us get to the 
substance of the bill or amendments, perhaps, which could have paid for 
them or tried to offset them.
  Then we came back on June 24, a week later, and had another vote. Of 
course, again, by 57 to 41 it was opposed.
  Now we come to July 20. It finally passed 60 to 40, the minimum 
number of votes. The vast majority of the opposing caucus still says 
no.
  The notion that we are somehow blocking dealing with the economic 
issues is so far from reality. What we have seen is obstruction, 
particularly when it comes to unemployment compensation benefits. Now 
here we are again. As I said, when you look back to Republican 
administrations and Democratic administrations, when we have had this 
level of unemployment, we have always managed to come together and to 
go ahead and pass these measures on a bipartisan basis and not with 
three cloture votes but with one perhaps procedural vote and then a 
substantive vote.
  The issue, though, is let's not be selective. If we are serious about 
the deficit, let's take some positive steps to reduce the deficit. One 
is not to extend tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans at $700 billion 
over 10 years. That is a positive step. If that is something that is 
going to be entertained by the other side, I encourage that discussion. 
But as we go forward, we are going to come back, again, because 
ultimately we have these discussions.
  I think my colleague from Massachusetts has passion, sincerity, and 
great energy which he has brought to this body, but ultimately we are 
going to have to go to people in Rhode Island and Massachusetts, 
several million of them over the next year, and say: Sorry, you are not 
getting any unemployment compensation benefits.
  Will we go to the wealthiest and say: Oh, by the way, we took care of 
you folks; you are getting $100,000 in tax benefits. I think we have to 
deal with the immediate crisis. I think we have to deal with the 
families who are struggling today. I think we have to do it now. I hope 
our leaders could work out an arrangement where we could come to this 
floor and, in a scheduled debate, 5 hours on one side, 5 on the other, 
and take the vote. That has not been the record on unemployment 
compensation in this Congress.
  Again, I object. The issue, the offset, discretionary spending--I 
think if you burrowed down into that, you would find that would be 
funds of a whole category of programs that could be spent, should be 
spent, to help the economy move forward.
  But I again urge we reconvene, that we once again see if we can work 
our way forward on these unemployment compensation benefits. We have 
done this before through these procedural delays that were as a result 
of votes by my colleagues on this side not to take up the bill in a 
timely manner. We had periods of time where unemployment lapsed and we 
had to retroactively restore it. We may have to do that again.
  If there is delay, if we are at the 11th hour, I, frankly, looking 
backward, and others would have preferred an extension of benefits that 
would have gone way past this point, would have gone into next year if 
we had to. We are talking about a year's extension now. I hope we can 
get that. We will continue to fight.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts. Madam President, once again, make no 
mistake, I have great respect for the Senator from Rhode Island. We 
worked on many regional issues--fishing and military issues. I respect 
his service not only to the military but also to his State. But I have 
to respectfully disagree with his presentation and representation on 
some of the issues.
  He keeps referring back to the tax cuts for the rich. That is great. 
We are not dealing with that right now. It is not something we are 
dealing with because we have not dealt with anything to do with any tax 
policy or structure since I have been here--zero. We have not done the 
estate tax, we have not done any tax policies, we have not done 
anything. Now you want to kind of muck it up and talk about if you do 
this, we should not do that. Listen, we are here, we have 6 hours and 
15 minutes to deal with this issue. I am not quite sure why it took so 
long to get to this point. Why couldn't we have spent the last 7 days, 
when we were doing food safety, dealing with this? Why? Because there 
is no priority in taking care of people who are hurting and dealing 
with the issues that are affecting our economy and our country on a 
very real and personal basis.
  My colleague says there have been delays, we should just do it for 
longer than 1 year. He wants to do it for longer than 1 year? Great. 
Pay for it. The reason there have been delays is because we wanted to 
find a funding source. We could have initially taken it out of the 
unallocated stimulus dollars that were being used as special slush 
funds for folks and agencies. That was one of the delays, I remember, 
being part of that. That didn't pass. I think I got two Democrats.
  Yesterday, we did a 1099 fix and 21 Democrats supported it. What is 
the difference? Now we are talking about real people--about kids. It is 
about the kids. I keep saying it is about the kids. It is not just 
about the kids who are here right now; it is about the future 
generations who are going to have to try to figure out a way to pay for 
this insurmountable debt.
  I reiterate, it is pretty simple--bank account, credit card. That is 
all I am saying. Happy to help, folks. The folks up there listening, go 
back and say to your friends and family: Senator Brown of Massachusetts 
said bank accounts, credit card. It makes sense.
  I want to help. But I also want to streamline, consolidate this, weed 
out any fraud, waste, abuse, any money we are not using properly, and 
get it out the door into businesses and families and get the economy 
moving again.
  So here we are. I am very curious to see what is next. I enjoyed the 
food safety. I voted for it. I gave some input on it, and I voted for 
it. I am happy to help. It is not going to be implemented in 6 hours 
and 15 minutes. The people need our help right now.
  Madam President, I appreciate your paying attention and leading us. I 
am just hopeful that we can come together and use some common sense and 
start to focus on the economy. It is the economy, period.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, every once in a while, Congress is faced 
with a policy choice that clearly defines for the American people 
exactly who each member is fighting for.

[[Page 18271]]

  We are nearing one of those clarifying moments here on the Senate 
floor.
  Today, the authorization for emergency unemployment insurance 
expires.
  For the 15 million Americans who are struggling to put food on the 
table as they look for work during this Great Recession, the 
Republicans are demanding that we cancel the extra assistance we have 
provided since the economic crisis began.
  The Democrats will fight to ensure that this assistance to struggling 
middle class families continues through the holidays and through next 
year.
  Even as emergency unemployment assistance expires, the Republicans 
are demanding that the Bush-era tax cuts be extended for everyone.
  Most importantly for them, the Republicans are demanding that the 
wealthiest people in America receive a massive tax cut, on top of the 
hundreds of billions of dollars of tax cuts they have already pocketed 
over the last 10 years.
  The Republicans don't think a $6,300 tax cut per year is good enough 
for millionaires. They are demanding that millionaires receive $100,000 
in tax cuts every single year--and if not, no one should receive 
anything.
  The cost for permanently extending the Bush tax cuts for people 
making over $250,000? About $700 billion over the next 10 years alone. 
Plus interest.
  Meanwhile, the Republicans oppose extending emergency assistance to 
the unemployed, supposedly because it costs too much.
  The cost for extending emergency unemployment assistance for 1 year? 
About $60 billion.
  Just as importantly, the Republicans are demanding that we spend 
another $700 billion on what CBO has determined is one of the weakest 
options we have for spurring job growth.
  The wealthy don't spend extra money they receive. That doesn't drive 
up demand for goods and services. Employers don't hire more people if 
they can't sell more things.
  At the same time, the Republicans oppose spending $60 billion on what 
CBO has determined is one of the strongest options we have for spurring 
job growth.
  The unemployed spend every extra penny they receive as they buy the 
bare necessities, so aggregate demand gets a boost. Employers hire more 
people when they can sell more things.
  Democrats oppose spending $700 billion we don't have on tax cuts that 
don't help people get back to work.
  We support spending less than 10 percent of that amount--$60 
billion--on assistance to the unemployed that does help people get back 
to work.
  We have seen this movie before, of course.
  Republicans opposed extending the TANF Jobs program, which helped 
create 250,000 new jobs and which even some Republican Governors 
applauded as an example of smart government. That program expired at 
the end of September.
  They oppose extending the Obama tax provisions from the Recovery Act 
which benefit middle-class Americans, including the earned-income tax 
credit, the child tax credit, and the making work pay credit. Those 
provisions expire at the end of the year.
  We can't afford those, the say. But we can afford to give another 
$700 billion to the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans, according to the 
Republicans.
  We have the money for the equivalent of another economic recovery 
bill but we can't afford a small fraction of that cost to help middle-
class families who need a helping hand.
  The difference between the Republicans and Democrats couldn't be more 
clear.
  Republicans won't allow tax cuts for anyone unless the rich get a far 
bigger share, and won't allow those looking for work to receive any 
continued emergency assistance.
  The Democrats, on the other hand, want to give 98 percent of 
Americans a tax cut, and want to help the unemployed keep food on the 
able for their children while they compete with the other 15 million 
unemployed Americans in looking for work.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.

                          ____________________