[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 4]
[Senate]
[Pages 5728-5729]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                         UNEMPLOYMENT EXTENSION

  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to discuss the 
vote that is about to occur on the unemployment benefits extension act. 
I have repeatedly said that the Senate should have a full and open 
debate on this important issue and that debate should include the 
opportunity for those of us in the minority--and perhaps those in the 
majority--to offer amendments and changes that would represent the view 
of the people they represent in Congress. Those amendments could 
strengthen the bill, make it better, and perhaps make it something that 
the House could consider, since they have not taken up this 
legislation.
  Clearly, for those who are truly in need and for those who have 
played by the rules, the issue of extended unemployment benefits is a 
legitimate issue for debate--and for many here, for passage. I have not 
only worked with my colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle, but 
also with my Democratic colleagues, to secure two items which would 
give me a better sense of where we are going and would provide for 
better legislation--legislation that could perhaps work its way through 
the Congress and onto the President's desk.
  One of those two items was a legitimate pay-for. We clearly have a 
fiscal situation where, if we can't offset new spending with spending 
on programs that have not proven their worth, then we are going to 
continue to spend more than we take in, continue to add to our national 
debt, and continue to trot down the precipitous road to a fiscal 
crisis--$17 trillion-plus and counting, an ever-accumulating debt and 
continued unbalanced budgets. You can only run a business, a family or 
a government for so long when you do not make ends meet by having your 
revenues there to pay for your expenses. So having a legitimate pay-for 
was one of the criteria that I was trying to address along with my 
colleagues.
  Secondly was reforms to the program. It was the President himself who 
publicly acknowledged that the unemployment insurance program needed 
reforms. There were abuses in the program. It was not reaching all of 
the people it was intended to reach. It had some flaws and needed to be 
fixed. Once again, all of those attempts for reasonable reforms--not 
only by me, but by a number of my colleagues--were to provide what I 
believe is deemed, even on a bipartisan basis, as reasonable, but they 
have been rejected. They have been rejected not because we had a debate 
and voted and didn't achieve the requisite number of votes for passage, 
but they were rejected because the majority leader simply used 
procedures, once again, to deny the minority any opportunity--and, of 
course, that also includes the majority--to stand on this floor, to 
offer an amendment, to debate that amendment, to have a vote on it, to 
accept the result, and then move to forward.
  The two reforms I had mentioned--and that I thought made eminent 
sense--didn't really have much opposition to them. One was to simply 
end a process that resulted in a waste of taxpayers' money by violation 
of the law. The law requires that if you apply for

[[Page 5729]]

unemployment benefits, you must prove you are able to work and that you 
have been seeking work--but most importantly, you are capable of 
working.
  The Social Security Disability Insurance Program requires, by law, 
that you are unable to work. Therefore, you cannot be eligible for 
those benefits unless you can prove--through a medical process or 
evidence--your inability to work. Yet the Government Accountability 
Office has found a significant number of folks in our country who are 
receiving checks from both programs. You can't have it both ways. You 
can't say you are not able to work and therefore receive a disability 
payment, and at the same time--and in the same mailbox--receive a 
government check for unemployment insurance where you have to prove you 
are willing to work. I don't know what provision might be more logical 
than that in terms of reforming the program. It saves the taxpayer 
money, it eliminates fraud, and it simply puts the program on better 
footing. Given our fiscal plight today, it is the least we can do. Yet 
I have been denied--and my colleagues who have tried to offer the same 
amendment have been denied--the opportunity to do just that.
  Had we had the opportunity to come down here and offer that 
amendment, we could have had a debate. Those who saw it another way or 
didn't agree with what we were saying would have had every opportunity 
to vote no and turn down that amendment. They would then be accountable 
for their no or yes when they went back home--one way or another. There 
are people on both sides of the reform issue, and that is how the 
Senate is designed to work.
  The Senate is not designed to simply shut off a debate and deny the 
minority the opportunity to offer amendments. We are not asking for 
passage. We are simply saying: Give us a chance to make our case, and 
we will have to accept the outcome. That way every Member of this body 
will be responsible for how they voted and will go home and tell folks: 
This is why I did such and such. That is how the system is designed to 
work.
  Yet we find ourselves in a dysfunctional situation where there is no 
opportunity to have a debate and no opportunity to vote and to let 
people know where we stand. Maybe it is designed that way. Maybe we 
don't want people to know where we stand. I don't think anyone in this 
body can go home and tell the people they represent--their 
constituents: We are not going to tell you how we feel about that. I 
didn't want to put my vote on the record, and therefore, we are not 
going to have an opportunity to do that.
  It is a black mark on the Senate. It is a dysfunctional situation. It 
is no wonder that the American public holds us in such low regard. This 
body, which was created by our Founding Fathers, enshrined in the 
Constitution, and labeled as the greatest deliberative body in the 
world has simply turned into something totally different and totally 
opposite from that. We are a rubberstamp Senate, depending on what the 
majority leader decides he wants or doesn't want. I think that is a 
great disservice to the American people, and it is a great disservice 
to this institution.
  Having had the opportunity to serve here on two different occasions, 
the contrast between my two tenures in the Senate could not be more 
stark. When I first came, the rights of the minority were recognized by 
a variety of majority leaders who simply said: This is the Senate. You 
take tough votes, you have the debate, and you allow the minority their 
rights. As a consequence, the Senate has functioned as the world's 
greatest deliberative body for more than 200 years.
  Suddenly, we are now in a situation where that is not the case, and 
we have turned this simply into somewhat of a fiefdom where the 
majority leader has the full power to deny the minority their rights.
  I think we will come to rue the day when this practice was first 
initiated and rue the day when it has been accepted because it denies 
those of us who have had the great honor and privilege of representing 
our States the opportunity to do just that.
  Along with the amendment that I had for suitability, which simply 
gives States more flexibility in terms of providing suitable work for 
the unemployed--if it is provided to them, they have to accept it or 
they don't receive the unemployment checks. Those two amendments are 
two of the many suggested reforms that I think would make sense. But 
whether you agree with that or not, shouldn't we have the opportunity 
to present to the American people an honest, intellectual, rational 
debate on legislation--whether it fails or passes--so we can have a 
full understanding and they can have a full understanding of how to 
measure us in terms of whether we are true representatives of those who 
sent us here?
  Having said 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. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I hope for and expect a strong bipartisan 
vote today for legislation to extend emergency unemployment benefits 
through the end of May and applies retroactively from the point 
emergency benefits expired in December.
  This is an important victory I wish had come much sooner--sooner for 
the 80,000 Michiganians who already have gone without unemployment 
benefits and for the thousands more who stand to lose them if Congress 
fails to act.
  These benefits keep food on the table and a roof overhead for 
families affected by job loss through no fault of their own. The idea 
that some of our colleagues have advanced--that unemployment insurance 
gives workers an excuse not to find a job--is as inaccurate as it is 
insulting. For all but a handful of recipients, unemployment benefits 
are not a free pass from working but the economic lifeline that keeps 
them going while searching for the job they so desperately want and 
need.
  I wish to commend Senators on both sides of the aisle who have not 
given up on this issue and who worked so hard to forge a compromise, 
led by Senators Jack Reed and Dean Heller. Republicans have joined with 
Democrats on the procedural votes necessary to move this bill forward, 
and I hope the bipartisan support for this measure in the Senate will 
prompt Speaker Boehner to bring it to a vote in the House. There is a 
strong bipartisan majority for passage in the House. It is now up to 
Speaker Boehner to respond to the will of the American people who 
understand that people who are unemployed don't want to be unemployed. 
There may be a few exceptions and a few stories and a few anecdotes, 
but that is about it. The unemployed in this country are suffering. 
They have suffered for too long. The job growth that has come following 
the recession has been weak, and the least we can do is respond.
  There is a bipartisan majority to do that here. It will be strong. My 
hunch is it will be well over 60, perhaps over two-thirds of the 
Senate, and there is no excuse for Speaker Boehner not to bring this 
bill to the floor of the House. I hope he does so. It is just in all 
conscience essential that he do so.
  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. DURBIN. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________