[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 13]
[Senate]
[Pages 18893-18894]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                         UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE

  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, I thank the senior Senator from 
Montana, who laid out exactly why his efforts to extend the Bush tax 
cuts to the middle class up to $250,000 and to not extend them beyond 
that is the exact right public policy. It is good fiscal policy. It is 
good economic policy. It is good for our country. It is exactly the 
right thing to do. I thank him for his explanation of including the 
earned-income tax credit, which is the best tax incentive to help 
people who are working hard, playing by the rules, making $20,000 to 
$30,000 a year, get a much fairer tax--really encouraging work the way 
the IETC does.
  I also thank the chairman of the Finance Committee, the senior 
Senator from Montana, for including the unemployment insurance in this 
because 85,000 Ohioans have lost their unemployment insurance. These 
are people--or many of them are, as I have read letters on the Senate 
floor and will read a couple today--who have worked for 20, 30, 40 
years and simply can't find a job.
  There are five people applying for every one job opening in my State 
and in this country. It is so important that these people continue to 
get some assistance. In spite of what some of my Republican colleagues 
suggest, unemployment insurance is insurance, not welfare. Their 
employer, on their behalf, pays into the unemployment insurance fund in 
their States. When they lose their jobs, because it is insurance, they 
should get assistance. It is like fire or health insurance. You don't 
want to use it, but you want it to be there if you need it. That is why 
it is so important. I appreciate Senator Baucus's discussion of why 
this is the right policy.
  Before I read some letters from people about unemployment benefits, I 
want to talk about why that is the right policy. The Bush tax cuts 
primarily went to the wealthy in 2001 and 2003. As Senator McCaskill 
said, it was an experiment. For 10 years, we tried to see if this 
worked. I didn't support that when it passed in the House many years 
ago because I thought they were tilted toward upper income people and 
not focused on the middle class. So it was an experiment in many ways 
where major tax breaks were given to the rich, and according to the so-
called trickle-down economic theory, they would hire people and much 
would trickle down and they would provide jobs and strengthen the 
middle class.
  What we saw during the Bush 8 years as the main thrust of the 
economic policy was the tax break for the rich. That was the stated 
policy; that if we cut taxes enough on the wealthiest Americans, it 
would drive the economy forward. But we know that in those 8 years of 
the Bush administration there was a 1 million net job increase, not 
enough to provide jobs to keep up with the growing population or not 
enough to provide jobs for the kids coming out of high school or those 
leaving the Army or those coming out of college.
  So it is clear the experiment failed. They cut taxes for the rich and 
there was only a 1 million increase in jobs. It didn't work.
  Look at the 8 years before that, the Clinton years--and these are 
facts, not opinions--where President Clinton did a mix of tax cuts, tax 
increases on the wealthy and spending cuts, and he balanced the budget. 
We ended up with a 22 million job increase with that economic policy, 
which we want to follow today, versus a 1 million job increase, which 
was not even enough to keep up with the growing population with the 
Bush economic policy.
  It is clear what this means--not to mention what Senator Baucus 
pointed out too. We are, in essence, borrowing $700 billion from the 
Chinese to pay for these tax cuts. That is where we borrow a lot of 
money. We are talking about borrowing $700 billion and putting it on a 
credit card for our children and grandchildren. The pages sitting here 
will get to pay off that $700 billion in tax cuts for the rich, and 
then the $700 billion is given to the wealthiest taxpayers. So they 
want to borrow from China, charge it to our children and grandchildren, 
and give it to millionaires and billionaires.
  What kind of moral policy, let alone the bad economic policy, is 
that? It is

[[Page 18894]]

bad fiscal policy to do anything but tax cuts for the middle class. It 
is bad economic policy. It is not fair to our children and 
grandchildren.
  Also, I will make a comparison in this bill between unemployment 
benefits, extending and maintaining unemployment benefits to the 85,000 
families in Ohio who found out 2 days ago their unemployment insurance 
was no longer. Some of those families will lose their homes, and a 
father will have to sit down with his 12-year-old daughter and say: 
Honey, we are going to lose this house and move somewhere else. The 
child will say: What school district are we going to be in, Dad? He 
would say: I don't know yet.
  We know the hardship this will create if we don't extend these 
benefits. These people want to go back to work and they are trying to 
find jobs, but there are not enough jobs out there. They need money for 
gasoline to drive around and look for jobs, and they need all these 
things just to stay alive and have a decent standard of living. But 
take the money in the unemployment extension--as John McCain's chief 
economic adviser during his 2008 campaign said, $1 put into 
unemployment benefits of a person in Zanesville or Lima or Hamilton, 
OH, that father or mother, that man or woman will spend that money 
because they need to. They need to buy shoes for their kids, food for 
themselves; they need to heat their homes and put gas in their cars. 
That money will be spent. Every dollar you put into unemployment 
generates $1.60 in economic activity, and that will create jobs.
  Conversely, a dollar in tax cuts for the wealthy--a dollar that goes 
to a millionaire--what are they going to buy that they are not already 
buying? They meet their needs. They have millions of dollars at their 
discretion to do it. They are not going to buy more food or go to a 
fancy restaurant or take an extra vacation. They have the money they 
need. That $1 going to the wealthy, according to the analysis of John 
McCain's chief economic adviser, ends up generating about 30 cents in 
activity and creating significantly fewer jobs.
  I want to read a couple of letters from people in my State of Ohio 
about what this legislation means in terms of unemployment benefits.
  This is from Shanata from Montgomery County, in the Dayton area:

       I have been out of work since February and have been 
     receiving unemployment benefits. I am 36 years old and have 
     been working since I was 16.

  This is par for the course in the letters we get. These people have 
been working hard since a very young age.

       I have applied for 100 jobs in the past month alone, and 
     have found absolutely nothing. If unemployment stops, I will 
     have even less. I am in school full-time, but I know that I 
     can't return in January since I will have absolutely no way 
     to pay my bills. Unemployment is not allowing me to go on 
     trips, eat out every day, shop 'til I drop, or anything else 
     frivolous. I just need to keep a roof over my head and food 
     in me and my daughters' stomachs. Please work diligently to 
     help extend unemployment for those who will have nothing 
     without it.

  This is Dagney from Lorain County, my home county, between Cleveland 
and Toledo:

       Please, Senator, please do everything you can to get the 
     unemployment extension passed. I have been unemployed for 
     more than a year and have not found a job yet. We are two 
     months behind on our mortgage and I am so afraid we are going 
     to lose our house. We have exhausted our savings and my 
     husband is off work too due to an accident. I am so worried. 
     Please help us.

  This is from Carol from Summit County, in Akron:

       I am writing for myself and thousands of other unemployed 
     Ohioans whose unemployment benefits are running out. We need 
     help.

  Mr. President, again, 85,000 families lost their benefits in my State 
alone three nights ago.

       I am 61 years old and have been on unemployment since June 
     2010 and my benefits run out December 20. There are no 
     extensions at this time and there are no jobs for a senior 
     citizen with over 40 years of work experience. Believe me, I 
     have tried everything from Walmart to McDonalds. I have no 
     savings and lost what little retirement I had a couple years 
     ago with many others. I'm not asking for a handout--just some 
     help until the job market picks up out here. Please encourage 
     Congress to provide at least one more extension--without it, 
     many Ohioans will be destitute. I never thought when I was 
     raising my family as a single mom that I would find myself in 
     this position at this age.

  I know my colleagues want to do the right thing. I believe even those 
who vote no on everything that I believe in, I think they want to do 
the right thing. I just wonder--I know they get letters like this 
because every one of us--whether you are in Missoula or in Eugene or in 
Dayton, every one of us gets letters from constituents in our States 
who are hurting, even in States that have pretty good economies. I 
don't know if they don't read them or if our colleagues never meet 
people like this. I assume our colleagues probably don't visit food 
pantries as I do, but some of my other colleagues do and hear the 
stories. I don't know that I have been to a food pantry in the last 2 
years where I don't hear a volunteer--and most of them are staffed by 
all volunteers--or a paid director say: You know, see those people over 
there? They used to bring food in, and now they are picking up food. 
That is the story I hear time after time.
  I don't think my colleagues are hard hearted or callous. I just 
wonder if they know, or if they are hearing from, people like Carol and 
Shanata and Dagney, or if they are not visiting food pantries and 
stopping at a union hall and talking to an out-of-work carpenter or a 
laborer who hasn't been called to a worksite for 7 or 8 months.
  I have said to the majority leader that I think we should stay here 
until New Years. I would rather be home with my family; family is very 
important to me. But if we don't continue these unemployment benefits, 
we are going to ruin the holidays for those 85,000 Ohioans--and that 
number keeps growing--so we don't deserve much of a holiday either if 
that is the best we can do.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business for up to 20 minutes.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________