[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 4]
[Senate]
[Pages 4981-4982]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                         UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE

  Mr. REED. Madam President, even though we have made an extraordinary 
advance in health care reform, we still have millions of Americans who 
are without jobs and in need of unemployment insurance. We are in a 
situation that requires action.
  Early this month, we were able to pass a 30-day extension by a vote 
of 78 to 19. It was overwhelmingly adopted, but it was not quickly 
adopted because of the delay and the procedures imposed upon the 
process. We might in this Chamber understand the nuances of rules and 
procedures, but for the people who have been without work for up to a 
year or more, the nuances escape them. They need help. The reality is, 
on April 5 this extension will expire. We will not be in session, so we 
are here today to continue the work that we must do as Members of this 
Senate.
  We have already passed in this body a year-long extension along with 
some other tax provisions--again, under the leadership of Chairman 
Baucus. That provision is over in the House, and it is unlikely to move 
today or tomorrow. The House sent us a provision for another 1-month 
extension. That is bottled up. But, again, all of these legislative 
initiatives do not put the check in the mail for those who are without 
work.
  That is what we have to do. We have to pass another extension, at 
least to get us from April into next month and beyond. Of course, I 
think the year-long extension until the end of this calendar year is 
the right approach. It has already been adopted, and I hope we can 
return and embrace that proposal.
  If we do not move, at a minimum, for a temporary extension, 
approximately 1,200 Rhode Islanders will start losing their benefits 
each week starting April 5. By the end of April, three-quarters of 1 
million unemployed workers across the Nation will lose their benefits.
  This is at a moment when we are beginning to see some economic 
traction, some reports of progress in labor markets. Just today it was 
reported that initial unemployment claims fell by 14,000--a number much 
larger than the experts expected. Now we are in a very difficult moment 
when we look at the good news being that ``the claims fell.'' But that 
is a prelude to the point we have to achieve: when not only the claims 
fall but the jobs start growing and growing and growing.
  We have come a long ways since President Obama took office: 700,000 
people a month who were losing their job--with huge, catastrophic, 
ramifications throughout the economy. That is beginning to turn around. 
But until we are back to a robust employment situation, we cannot 
ignore people who need help through the unemployment compensation 
system.
  I believe the major point at this juncture between the two sides is 
the issue of how do we pay for this, its cost. We have adopted, as 
Democrats, what was ignored and then dismissed by Republicans, which is 
the concept of pay-go, of paying for government activities either by 
revenue increases or by offsetting reductions. But we have always 
understood that in emergencies these pay-go rules properly can be 
suspended; that we can go ahead and deal with an emergency.
  Frankly, this situation we are in today, that is triggering all this 
concern--and rightfully so--of the deficit is not something that was 
created by President Obama. He walked in with a $1.3 trillion deficit--
in sharp contrast to President George W. Bush, who walked into office 
with a $5.6 trillion surplus over 10 years. That was not the result of 
just the economy humming along, that was the result of very difficult 
choices that were made in this body and in the House of Representatives 
under the leadership of President Clinton and, once again, under the 
leadership of my colleagues such as Max Baucus.
  But that surplus, that opportunity of a robust employment picture 
where unemployment was around 5 percent, that was the legacy of 
President Clinton. Frankly, the legacy of President Bush is significant 
deficits and significant unemployment and financial crisis. More debt 
was added in that administration--$3 trillion--than all previous 
administrations combined, from George Washington all the way up to 
George W. Bush.
  So this deficit is a real problem. But a lot of it was the result of 
decisions that were made by that administration to finance activities 
not through pay-go but through just piling it on the deficit. Tax cuts 
were not paid for, and the tax cuts were skewed in the nature of a 
progressive tax to the wealthiest. Iraq, Afghanistan--none of those 
wars were paid for through offsets or anything else. The prescription 
drug program, Part D, was not paid for. It was, again, added to the tab 
of future generations. It is interesting, today we

[[Page 4982]]

have actually tried to fix that with the passage of the health care 
bill by closing the doughnut hole.
  So at this moment, when we face a true employment emergency, when 
people say: Well, we are now going to insist upon complete offsets, it 
misses what was done casually and repeatedly during the Bush 
administration for areas that you could argue were not true 
emergencies. Now we face a critical emergency. In my State of Rhode 
Island, we have a 12.7 percent unemployment rate. If we do not start 
supporting and turning that around, it will get worse rather than 
better. We have never in recent history--going over several decades--
ever suspended emergency unemployment benefits when the unemployment 
rate was at least 7.4 percent or higher. We are at nearly 10 percent 
unemployment nationally, and in some States--again, in Rhode Island, it 
is close to 13 percent. Until we lower joblessness significantly, we 
are still in an employment emergency.
  The other aspect of this, too, is unemployment compensation is one of 
the major activities for stimulating the economy. The bang for the buck 
is significant. There is $1.90 of economic activity for every $1 
invested in unemployment insurance. It makes sense. People need the 
money to go to the store to buy food for their children. They need to 
pay for the gas to look for a job. That money will come in and be 
multiplied in the economy.
  The irony, too, of trying to use, in some respects, the stimulus 
money to pay for the unemployment is it is basically taking away money 
we have designed to get the economy moving and spending it for a 
program that will also help the economy move. But you are going to get 
a lot less bang for the buck in terms of decreasing our overall 
commitment to that economic activity in the country.
  So we have to move. I would urge an immediate extension of the 
unemployment compensation legislation to give us a chance to return and 
work with our colleagues in the House for the legislation that will at 
least guarantee an unemployment extension until the end of this 
calendar year. But we have to move. We have to act. We should do so 
now.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.

                          ____________________