[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 2]
[Senate]
[Pages 2046-2047]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                       UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, we talk a lot in the Senate about procedure. 
Our debates sometimes relate only to procedure, and often that is 
appropriate. As we know, sometimes these procedural rules we have in 
the Senate are complex. But the issue before us today is not something 
that is arcane, very ritualistic, or very complex. It is very simple. 
It is clear that it is going to be a lot more noticeable by people 
Monday morning because it is going to affect the lives of thousands of 
Americans and their livelihoods.
  The issue before us is this: Our country is in a state of economic 
turmoil. Lots of people are out of work. Lots of people have been out 
of work for a long time. They are trying to make ends meet drawing 
unemployment compensation, which is something we have had in effect in 
this country for a long time. By Monday morning, tens of thousands of 
Nevadans and more than a million Americans who rely on unemployment 
insurance and health benefits will simply lose them.
  We have traditionally, during times of stress, automatically given 
unemployment benefits, and we should do that. These people are getting 
poorer every day. They are out of work for long periods of time. 
Unemployment is rampant in every single State in the country, some 
worse than others. So many of those unemployed have lost their jobs 
through no fault of their own.
  Those opposed to helping people who are down and out, at a time of 
their greatest need, should not have to talk about process. If you 
can't afford to feed your kids, process doesn't mean a thing. If you 
can't make your car payment, it doesn't mean one thing to talk about 
process. If you can't make your house payment, if you can't go to the 
drugstore and buy a prescription that needs to be filled, process 
doesn't matter.
  If we do not act, these benefits will expire, but the need to buy 
groceries, medicine, make a car payment or house payment does not 
expire. Those benefits will expire but the need to heat their homes--it 
is wintertime--or put gas in their cars doesn't expire. They do not 
care about the procedure or process. Those benefits will expire. I 
repeat, the need to take their medicine does not or the need to take 
care of an aging parent or to take care of their children does not 
expire. They don't care a thing about process.
  The catch here is that these benefits do not need to expire. We have 
the ability right now to extend them for just a short time until we 
work out a longer term solution. We are going to start working on that 
on Monday. It is irresponsible and basically it is immoral.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Texas is 
recognized.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I was not on the floor after the vote last 
night, but I did get a chance to read some of the transcript of the 
back-and-forth between Senator Bunning and Senator Durbin and others. I 
understand that Senator Durbin retained the floor for the most part and 
yielded for questions, but basically the procedure denied Senator 
Bunning and Senator Corker, who I know also weighed in, an opportunity 
to explain precisely what was going on.
  I have seen some news reports this morning that have suggested that 
because of the objection to more deficit spending in order to pay for 
this temporary extension of benefits--that this

[[Page 2047]]

was an unreasonable thing to do, to actually insist that Congress pay 
for benefits it is providing.
  I would like to put it in a little bit of context. I think if there 
are two things that are causing the lack of approval of the American 
people of Congress these days it boils down to two things. One is a 
lack of fiscal discipline, and the second is a complete lack of 
credibility whatsoever when it comes to fiscal matters.
  Let me give one example. Pay-go, the so-called pay-as-you-go 
requirement that was passed about 2 weeks ago, in the jobs bill that 
was passed earlier this week, $15 billion, the Senate voted to waive 
those pay-as-you-go rules that it passed 2 weeks ago and the President 
signed into law with great fanfare.
  But the problem goes further than that. It is not just the Senate 
being unwilling to live by the very law that it passed 2 weeks earlier 
and was signed by the President. It is the illusion of fiscal 
responsibility.
  Let me tell you what I mean by that. For example, within the pay-go 
requirement itself, I think most Americans would be surprised to learn 
that discretionary spending, which is about a third of the Federal 
budget, is exempted completely. In other words, the senior Senator from 
New Hampshire frequently calls this the Swiss cheese pay-go because it 
is so full of holes, it is not what it would otherwise appear to be, 
and you can see why, if it exempts discretionary spending. Nor does 
pay-go apply to current entitlement spending--baseline. For example, 
many of us talked about the $38 trillion in unfunded liabilities for 
Medicare itself which is not fixed, which was actually made worse by 
the health care proposals which have been made by the President most 
recently and which passed the Senate on Christmas Eve. The pay-go rules 
don't even apply to current entitlement spending. So under the rules 
that give the illusion of fiscal responsibility but not the reality, 
entitlement spending can continue to grow 6 percent annually.
  Suffice it to say as well that the problem the majority leader just 
got through talking about, which is the inability to pass these 
benefits because they are not paid for, is really a product of his own 
creation. You recall a couple of weeks ago Senator Baucus and Senator 
Grassley were working on a large jobs bill, which was a bipartisan 
bill, which was rejected in its entirety by the majority leader in 
favor of a partisan bill. He did not allow any amendments, did not 
allow any other suggestions. That was the very jobs bill that was 
passed by waiving the pay-go requirement.
  All the Senator from Kentucky has asked for is that we do what every 
American family has to do and what every small business has to do; that 
is, be honest in our accounting of the public's money and to not 
continue a sham, which is to pretend as if we are being fiscally 
responsible when, in fact, we are not--by waiving the requirements, by 
creating the perception or patina of fiscal responsibility with these 
pay-go rules but which are so fraught with exceptions that they really 
do not mean what they are sometimes represented to be.
  We know there is broad bipartisan support for the legislation that is 
pending before this body. All the Senator from Kentucky has asked for 
is that it be paid for, that we not add $10 billion more to the Federal 
deficit. That is on top of the roughly $1.6 trillion that already 
exists. That is just the deficit. That is not dealing with the unfunded 
liabilities of the Federal Government.
  I am advised that there is about $100 billion left in discretionary 
spending from the stimulus bill that was passed the first part of last 
year--$100 billion. Using those funds, using $10 billion of that to pay 
for this extension of jobless and other benefits does not seem like an 
unreasonable request at all. It does raise the question, again, of 
whether Congress is continuing to say one thing and do another.
  I remember when we talked about the stimulus funds that it was 
advertised as being targeted, timely, and temporary. We know it was 
none of those things because now there is still $100 billion left in 
discretionary spending here a year later, along with the TARP which is 
used as sort of a revolving charge account by Congress--again, more 
deficit spending. This has been anything but fiscal responsibility when 
it comes to doing the people's business here in the Congress.
  If there is one message I hear from my constituents in Texas and 
other people around the country it is this: Stop the spending and be 
responsible when it comes to these unmet liabilities, whether they be 
annual deficits or when it comes to unfunded Federal liabilities.
  But while Congress purports to be fiscally responsible on a number of 
fronts, you see small bills such as this benefits extension, not paid 
for, $10 billion a clip, which continue to add up, and pass the burden 
of paying for that on to our children and grandchildren, because that 
is what they are going to inherit, huge deficits, huge unfunded Federal 
liabilities, that they are going to pay for, not the present 
generation. That is not right.
  I want to say I admire the courage of the junior Senator from 
Kentucky, Mr. Bunning. It is not fun to be accused of having no 
compassion for the people who are out of work, the people for whom 
these benefits should be forthcoming, and I believe will be 
forthcoming.
  But somebody has to stand up finally and say enough is enough: No 
more intergenerational theft from our children and grandchildren by not 
meeting our responsibilities today. That is what I interpret him to 
have done. If the majority leader and the majority wanted to have this 
taken care of, they could have had it done in the Baucus-Grassley 
bipartisan bill that the majority leader shelved in favor of his 
partisan jobs bill.
  I anticipate that next week when we do take up further legislation, 
we will take care of these requirements that are now being objected to 
because of deficit spending. That is appropriate. But I hope, unlike 
this current proposal, we will do the right thing by the American 
people and by our children and grandchildren and not borrow or, 
probably more correctly stated, steal from future generations. We will 
meet our responsibilities by making sure that any legislation we pass 
is paid for by an offset, unlike the current bill that has been 
objected to.
  I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________