[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Pages 503-506]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                       UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, first, I thank the Senator from Rhode 
Island and the Senator from Utah for agreeing to the way we worked this 
out so we could all have our time to speak on the Senate floor. I 
appreciate it very much.
  Extending unemployment compensation benefits is one of the most 
important things, vital things we should be doing right now in 
Congress, both for the people who are unemployed but also for our 
economy. Our economy is improving--slowly. There are still 20 million 
Americans either out of work or marginally employed who want to work. 
Almost 4 million of those have been out of work for over 6 months. So, 
faced with this, it is reprehensible that Congress failed to extend 
Federal unemployment benefits at the end of last year, 3 days after 
Christmas.
  To correct this failure, last week the Senate began considering a 
bill that was intended to extend those benefits, and I wholeheartedly 
support this effort. As our economy makes steady improvements on the 
long road of recovery from the great recession, we continue to support 
our fellow Americans who are out of work through no fault of their own. 
The way to do that is to restore Federal unemployment insurance

[[Page 504]]

programs for the long-term unemployed. But to garner the votes needed 
to pass the unemployment insurance extension, my colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle insisted we find a way to pay for it, through 
cuts to existing programs, cuts that one columnist for the Los Angeles 
Times said were Swiftian in their absurdity and cruelty.
  I refer to the January 10 issue of the Los Angeles Times by Michael 
Hiltzik. It is titled ``An awful idea: hammer the disabled to pay for 
unemployment benefits.''
  The first paragraph says:

       It would take the pen of Jonathan Swift to fully describe 
     Congress's willingness to beat up on the least fortunate 
     members of society to protect the richest. The latest example 
     is a plan to pay for a one-year extension of unemployment 
     insurance by cutting Social Security benefits for the 
     disabled.

  First of all, I wish to say I do not believe that an extension of 
Federal unemployment insurance benefits needs to be offset. We have 
done it before. We did it under the Bush administration and we have 
done it before and it has always been an emergency. It is just as if a 
hurricane hits or terrible storm; this is a terrible storm for people 
who are unemployed for long periods of time. Frankly, the recent budget 
deal we just passed reduced the deficit by $25 billion. I disagree with 
having to find extra money. But the other side--the Republicans--says 
we have to find offsets. I guess I am reluctantly willing to do so.
  However, the proposal before us would do so in one of the most 
pernicious ways possible. I guess the most positive comment I can make 
about it is it is comparatively less damaging than some of the 
amendments that have been filed by some of my Republican colleagues. 
But understand this. The proposal before us to extend unemployment 
benefits and to ``pay for it,'' what it would do is it would deny 
individuals who have a disability and who are receiving Social Security 
disability insurance--it would say that if someone gets unemployment 
compensation, their disability payments will be reduced, dollar for 
dollar, for every dollar they get in unemployment compensation. That is 
bad enough. I will get into that in a second. Amendments filed on the 
Republican side would go further, and they would say if someone gets $1 
in unemployment compensation payments, they would lose all their 
disability rights, all their disability payments, and all their 
Medicare support that comes along with being approved for SSDI--Social 
Security disability insurance.
  The proponents of these policies say that people with disabilities 
who receive disability insurance payments and unemployment compensation 
payments are double dipping. They claim this is a loophole; that 
somehow people who receive both are scamming the system. This is not 
true. This is simply not true. SSDI, Social Security disability 
insurance, is designed to address the needs of people with 
disabilities. Unemployment insurance is designed as a partial, 
temporary replacement of income for people who lost jobs through no 
fault of their own. They are two separate programs with two separate 
designed benefits. It is possible for an individual to be eligible for 
both.
  How can this be? First of all, we have to disabuse ourselves of what 
we keep hearing on the Senate floor from my friends on the Republican 
side. They keep talking about disability insurance as though, if 
someone gets Social Security disability insurance, then they are unable 
to work. That is not true. That is simply not true. SSDI is set up as 
system to give some support while looking for work--or get a job and 
supplement that.
  Under the law, people who qualify for SSDI, Social Security 
disability--I will just say disability. People who qualify for 
disability insurance can work and are encouraged to work, and they can 
make up to $1,070 a month without losing their SSDI. Why is it? Because 
we want people to work to the best of their ability--especially when 
they have a disability. People with disabilities also want to work.
  Keep in mind the SSDI Program is not a freeloader program. When you 
work and get a paycheck, they take out FICA taxes, which is the Federal 
Insurance Contribution Act. There are three parts of it. You pay to an 
insurance program for Social Security, old age, and survivors. It is 
indemnity insurance so when you get old, you get a check. Most people 
think of it as Social Security. The second part is hospital insurance, 
or Medicare. The third part is disability insurance. If you don't work 
and you haven't paid your FICA taxes, you don't get SSDI.
  Listen to this. An adult becomes eligible for disability insurance 
compensation when they have worked at least 10 years. You have to work 
at least 10 years and at least 5 years prior to getting Social Security 
disability, and you have to have earned at least $4,800 a year. You 
have to earn at least $400 a month for 5 years before you even qualify.
  So this idea that I keep hearing about, oh, someone works for 4 
weeks, and then they go out and file for disability and are on 
disability for the rest of their lives is nonsense. That is not true. 
Yet we keep hearing these stories going around and around. You will 
have worked at least 10 years and will have had earnings during at 
least 5 of the previous 10 years prior to receiving it, and you have to 
have made at least $4,800 a year before you qualify.
  Then let's say you do become disabled and file for disability. What 
is your chance of getting it? One out of three. For every three persons 
who file for Social Security disability insurance compensation, only 
one out of three actually gets it. Why is that? You have to go through 
a long evidentiary process--a medical evidentiary process--and the 
administrative law judge is going to send you back to get further 
opinions. So it is not something you just file and you get it. Only one 
out of three qualifies for it.
  That is why if a person works and pays taxes--your FICA taxes--and is 
then laid off, they can get unemployment. But if they also qualify for 
disability insurance, they should get that if they paid into the 
system. People with disabilities who work and pay into that system can 
also be eligible for unemployment compensation. Why shouldn't they get 
that?
  Listen to this. If we deny people with disabilities their right to 
the insurance they have paid for, we are discriminating against a group 
of people in a way that no other group is singled out. In other words, 
we are discriminating against you just because you are disabled. How do 
you like that? Is that what we are about? We are going to discriminate 
against you just because you are disabled. Because if you are not 
disabled, you won't be discriminated against. If you are not disabled, 
you will get your unemployment compensation. You might even be eligible 
for some other government programs, such as section 8 housing or 
something like that. We don't take that away.
  God forbid you become disabled and you are working--you are disabled, 
you get a disability check, and you go to work. You can work and make 
up to $1,070 a month. You are providing a little bit of extra income so 
you can live independently and maybe provide a few things for yourself. 
But you, and only you--if you get unemployment compensation, we are 
going to take away your disability payments. Only you. Nobody else. 
Nobody else is denied their full unemployment compensation. Under the 
bill we have, only people with disabilities will be affected.
  Let me provide a real-life example of what this means to a real 
person. I will call him Henry. This is a real person. Henry lives in 
the District of Columbia. Henry has a disability. He is deaf, and he 
has other health problems on top of being deaf. But Henry worked. He 
worked for 10 years. He worked and paid his taxes, but then in his 
thirties, because of other health reasons, he couldn't continue to work 
full time so he went on disability and qualified for it. So now he is 
making $740 a month on his disability insurance--$740 a month. Well, he 
can earn up to $1,070 a month, as I said, under the law and still get 
that. He can't work full time, but he likes to work. He wants to work. 
He wants to be a productive citizen, so he went out and got a part-time 
job

[[Page 505]]

consistent with his disabilities. He makes $950 a month.
  If you add $950 and $740, you get $1,690 a month. Big deal. But I can 
tell you what that $1,690 does for him. It allows him to live 
independently. It allows him to provide some payments for a support 
system. It allows him to sign up for cable TV. It allows him to go see 
a movie once in a while and maybe even go out and have a hamburger--
$1,690 a month. That is what Henry was doing.
  Henry became unemployed. But now mind you, every month he worked and 
made $950 a month, he paid his FICA taxes every month. Now he is 
unemployed. Well, what happens? He went on unemployment compensation 
and he gets $520 a month. He gets $740 for disability, $520 for 
unemployment, which adds up to $1,260 a month. It is a little over $400 
and some less than what he was getting when he worked full time. Still, 
$1,260 a month allows him to live independently. It allows him to 
support himself.
  Under the amendment that is in this bill, here is what happens: He 
gets his $520 in unemployment, but his disability is reduced to $220 a 
month. Now Henry is getting $740 a month. What is he going to do? He 
won't be able to afford his apartment, let alone have cable TV. I don't 
know if Henry has cable TV. But $740 a month?
  No other person working in America and paying their FICA taxes is 
treated like that--no one. And they still aren't unless this amendment 
is adopted, and then we will discriminate against you simply because 
you are disabled. I mean, you wonder what people are thinking about.
  Yes, I have compassion for those who are unemployed. I would like to 
see our economy improve. We have to extend unemployment benefits but 
not at the expense of people who are on the lowest rung of our ladder--
people with disabilities, who have paid into the system, and who have 
become unemployed. Henry wants to work. He wants to work. He wants to 
make that $950 a month. Pernicious? Pernicious? That is just a fancy 
way of saying it is abominable that we would even consider it.
  Henry is not double dipping. He is not scamming the system. He is not 
a slacker. He is not defrauding anybody. He is only getting what is 
rightfully his because he paid into the program. If people with 
disabilities are earning income, as Henry was, and paying into the 
disability insurance program, they should be eligible for that just as 
any other citizen who paid into that program. Again, to do otherwise 
would be to discriminate against someone just because they are 
disabled.
  One of my proudest moments in my history here in the Senate--indeed, 
in the entire Congress--is when I stood on this floor as a chief 
sponsor of the Americans with Disabilities Act in 1990. When we passed 
that and President Bush signed it into law, the cheers went up. It was 
passed 25 years after the passage of the great Civil Rights Act of 
1965. That was sort of the emancipation proclamation for people with 
disabilities. Because of that law, we have encouraged people with 
disabilities to work. They want to work. Now we want to break down the 
barriers, provide for accommodations and transportation and ramps and 
widen doors and all the other factors that make it possible for people 
with disabilities to get a job and go to work. It changed the system.
  I can remember when we had the hearings. We had people come in and 
testify. Employers said they would hire people with disabilities, but 
sometimes they don't show up for work and this and that. Well, I looked 
into it, and I found out they couldn't get on the bus because the bus 
wasn't accessible. How are they going to get to work? They couldn't 
drive because they were in a wheelchair and they couldn't get on the 
bus. So we changed it. We made the buses and the metro accessible. 
Everything is accessible now. People with disabilities are working, and 
they want them to work.
  Now we are saying to them, you can work. Like Henry, you can work, 
and you should. If you qualify for disability insurance, you can get 
your disability insurance and make up to $1,070 a month because we 
would like you to work if you want to work. But if you are like Henry 
and pay into the system and become unemployed, you will go from $1,690 
to $740 a month simply because we are discriminating against you. What 
kind of signal does that send?
  That is why this provision is opposed by members of the entire 
disability community, Arc, the National Disability Rights Network, the 
National Organization of Social Security Claimants Representatives, 
American Association of People with Disabilities, and on and on and on.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter expressing 
opposition to this proposal from these groups be printed in the Record 
at the end of my remarks.
  I also ask unanimous consent that this article from in the L.A. Times 
be printed in the Record at the end of my remarks.
  As I pointed out, you hammer the disabled to pay for unemployment 
benefits? You sometimes wonder.
  I want to be clear about one thing: I don't ascribe bad motives to 
anybody in this body--not in the least. As a matter of fact, I am told 
there will be a motion to strike this provision when we vote on the 
cloture on this tomorrow, and that is good. I hope it is generally 
supported by everyone here. So I don't ascribe bad motives, but what 
happens sometimes is we don't think these things through. Someone 
starts this thing, and they say these people are double dipping and 
scamming the system, and all of a sudden it sounds--oh, my gosh, yes.
  But when you look into it and examine it, and you see these people 
have been paying their FICA taxes--they have been paying their taxes. 
But you say because you are disabled, you don't get it if you become 
unemployed.
  We are busy around here, and we look at different things, so there 
are no bad motives. I take the floor to set the record straight and to 
let everyone know just what is at stake. Do we really, truly want to 
discriminate against 117,000 Americans? That is what the General 
Accounting Office said in a study done a couple of years ago--that 
there were about 117,000 Americans at any one time who are getting 
disability insurance as well as unemployment.
  If Henry's health improved, and he was able to get a full-time job, 
he wouldn't get his disability. He would go back and start earning 
money full-time. So are we saying that somehow we are going to take 
away their incentive to work? No, I don't think so. I think it is just 
one of those things that comes up and people say they are double 
dipping and they are scamming the system. But, no, that is not what is 
happening at all. They pay into the system. It is insurance. They pay 
for it. They ought to receive it, and they shouldn't have their 
disability payments reduced because they are getting unemployment. They 
are two separate programs.
  So I hope two things happen. I hope we can get cloture on the bill to 
proceed to extend Federal unemployment benefits. But I also hope all of 
my colleagues will see the error of this part of the amendment and move 
to strike it. Fundamentally, it is the only right thing to do. So I 
hope we will do that. I hope we will begin to take a look more and more 
at disability insurance in terms of what it means, how it operates. The 
notion that, somehow, if a person gets disability insurance they cannot 
work--that is not true. A person can work. If a person is able to work, 
they can earn up to $1,070 a month without losing their disability 
payments.
  So I hope as we go forward, we will begin to shed more light and have 
a more enlightened discussion on this program and how it operates and 
why it is so essential to ensure that people with disabilities are not 
discriminated against in a manner that no other part of our society 
would be, if this provision were left in the bill.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:


[[Page 506]]


                                           Consortium for Citizens


                                            with Disabilities,

                                 Washington, DC, January 11, 2014.
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators:  The undersigned members of the Consortium 
     for Citizens with Disabilities are writing to express our 
     opposition to proposals to eliminate or reduce Social 
     Security Disability Insurance (DI) benefits for individuals 
     who concurrently receive Unemployment Insurance (UI) benefits 
     as a partial offset for extending the Emergency Unemployment 
     Compensation (EUC) program.
       The DI and UI programs have been established for different 
     purposes and largely serve different populations. As 
     highlighted in a 2012 report by the Government Accountability 
     Office (GAO), less than one percent of individuals served by 
     the DI and UI programs receive concurrent benefits.
       At the same time, receiving UI and DI is not inconsistent. 
     This has been the long-standing position of the Social 
     Security Administration and of the courts. Individuals who 
     receive concurrent benefits do so because they have 
     significant disabilities that make them eligible for DI, and 
     because they have also attempted to work at a low level of 
     earnings but have lost their job through no fault of their 
     own. According to the GAO, the average quarterly concurrent 
     benefit in fiscal year 2010 was about $1,100 in DI and $2,200 
     in UI for a quarterly average of about $3,300 in total 
     benefits.
       These benefits can be a lifeline to workers with 
     disabilities who receive them, and their families. We are 
     concerned about any cuts to these already modest benefits, 
     and about the prospect of worsening the economic security of 
     workers with disabilities and their families at a time when 
     the economy continues to struggle.
       Finally, we believe that changes to our nation's Social 
     Security system should be carefully considered as part of 
     discussions about how to strengthen Social Security, and that 
     benefit cuts to Social Security should not be considered as 
     part of offsets for other important benefit programs.
       In closing, while we strongly support extending the EUC 
     program, we oppose amendments to partially offset the costs 
     by eliminating or reducing concurrent DI and UI benefits.
           Sincerely,
       ACCSES, The Advocacy Institute, The Arc of the United 
     States, Association of University Centers on Disabilities
       Autism National Committee, Autistic Self-Advocacy Network 
     (ASAN), Community Legal Services, Inc., Brain Injury 
     Association of America, Disability Rights Education & Defense 
     Fund, Easter Seals, Goodwill Industries International, Health 
     and Disability Advocates, Lupus Foundation of America.
       National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI), National 
     Association of Disability Representatives, National 
     Association of County Behavioral Health & Developmental 
     Disability, Directors National Council for Community 
     Behavioral Healthcare, National Council on Independent Living 
     (NCIL), National Disability Rights Network, National Multiple 
     Sclerosis Society, National Organization on Disability, 
     National Organization of Social Security Claimants' 
     Representatives, TASH, United Cerebral Palsy, United Spinal 
     Association, World Institute on Disability.
                                  ____


                   [From the LA Times, Jan. 10, 2014]

  An Awful Idea: Hammer the Disabled to Pay for Unemployment Benefits

                          (By Michael Hiltzik)

       It would take the pen of Jonathan Swift* to fully describe 
     Congress's willingness to beat up on the least fortunate 
     members of society to protect the richest. The latest example 
     is a plan to pay for a one-year extension of unemployment 
     insurance by cutting Social Security benefits for the 
     disabled.
       This flinthearted idea has been endorsed by Senate 
     Democrats, of all people, who have written it into a proposal 
     that could reach the floor as early as Monday. Its chief 
     sponsor is Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., but it's got the support 
     of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid too.
       Advocates for Social Security and for disabled workers are 
     in a fully justified uproar over this measure for two main 
     reasons: it uniquely burdens the disabled among all workers, 
     and it sets a terrible precedent of raiding Social Security 
     to pay for other social programs. As a coalition of disabled 
     advocacy groups put it in a letter to Sen. Tom Harkin, D-
     Iowa, chairman of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, 
     and Pensions, the measure would mean ``worsening the economic 
     security of workers with disabilities and their families at a 
     time when the economy continues to struggle.''
       How crucial is this offset for the federal budget, you 
     fiscal hawks in Washington? It would save about $100 million 
     a year. That's less than three thousandths of a percent of 
     the annual federal budget. Sure, fiscal responsibility has to 
     start somewhere, but surely there are deeper pockets to mine 
     than those of disabled people struggling to make ends meet.
       The offset, moreover, is based on the unjustified treatment 
     of disability pay and unemployment compensation as somehow 
     two sides of the same coin, so that receiving one should 
     disqualify you from the other.
       The idea that disabled persons are ``double-dipping'' by 
     collecting wages or other compensation while also getting a 
     disability check is enshrined in conservative attacks on 
     disability. But it's untrue. The Social Security disability 
     program is designed as a bridge to full employment. Its 
     benefits aren't intended as a substitute for wages, but a 
     supplement.
       As the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities observes, 
     disabled beneficiaries can earn up to $1,070 a month in wages 
     this year without jeopardizing their benefits so they can 
     ``test their ability to return to work'' and ease their 
     transition back into the labor market.
       The average monthly disability benefit was about $1,130 
     last year and the average unemployment check $1,200, so no 
     one is getting rich here. Add together the averages, and 
     we're still talking about poverty level income for a family 
     of four.
       The coalition of disability groups points out that the 
     unemployment and disability programs were designed for 
     different purposes and for the most part serve different 
     populations. But there is an overlap estimated at about 
     117,000 of the 8.9 million Americans receiving disability, 
     according to Rebecca Vallas of the National Organization of 
     Social Security Claimants' Representatives, a leading 
     advocacy group.
       These are people who have passed through the very stringent 
     gauntlet necessary to qualify for disability benefits, and 
     they've also worked long enough to become eligible for 
     unemployment. There's no justification in law or logic for 
     offsetting one benefit by the other.
       Vallas and other advocates are especially nervous that this 
     sort of proposal encourages lawmakers to view Social Security 
     benefits as a ``piggy bank'' to pay for other social 
     programs. ``It's death by a thousand paper cuts to call this 
     a pay-for'' to cover the expansion of unemployment insurance, 
     she says.
       But the idea is becoming disturbingly common in Washington. 
     The disability-unemployment offset also appeared in President 
     Obama's 2014 budget proposal, which called it a ``smart 
     reform . . . (to) root out duplicative or wasteful 
     spending.'' (The budget hasn't been passed.)
       It's anything but a ``smart reform'': it's a hacking away 
     at the safety net for the disabled and unemployed that only a 
     Scrooge would contemplate. The very idea that we should bill 
     the disabled to pay for benefits for the jobless suggests 
     that our national standards of fairness and civilization have 
     fallen very, very low indeed. This is a proposal that should 
     die in its crib.

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, with that, 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.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________