Emergency Unemployment Compensation Extension Act -- Motion to Proceed

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. REED. I would be happy to.

Mr. DURBIN. I would like to ask a question of the Senator from Rhode Island through the Chair.

There has been a debate on the floor, and we have heard it off the floor, about whether we should pay for unemployment benefits. Historically, if I am not mistaken, most of the decisions to extend unemployment insurance benefits have been considered emergency measures and not paid for, and now there is a suggestion from many Republicans that we need to cut spending in areas to compensate for this extension of unemployment benefits which, if I am not mistaken, are in the range of $25 billion or $26 billion a year.

One of the suggestions yesterday from Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell would, not surprisingly, address the Affordable Care Act, so-called ObamaCare, and would eliminate one of the basic protections in that law. What Senator McConnell proposed yesterday was to eliminate the responsibility of every individual to have health insurance, which was put in the law so we could have a large pool of insured people and say to anyone with a preexisting condition: You will not be disqualified for health insurance.

So the Senator from Kentucky has given us this approach which the Republicans support: If you will agree to eliminate protection from health insurance for people with preexisting conditions, then we will allow you to give unemployment benefits. In other words, if you will eliminate this protection in health insurance for 300 million-plus Americans, we will give you 1 year of unemployment benefits for 1.3 million Americans. I might add, for the record, there are 1.9 million individuals with preexisting conditions in the State of Kentucky--the State of the Senator who made this proposal.

I would ask the Senator from Rhode Island, who has shown extraordinary leadership on this issue of extended unemployment benefits: First, would he address the issue of paying for these benefits? And, second, would he address the specific suggestion of the Republican leader that the best way to pay for the benefits for 1.3 million unemployed people is to reduce protections in health insurance for over 300 million Americans?

Mr. REED. I thank the Senator from Illinois.

Let me first address the issue of paying for the benefits. The Senator from Illinois is correct, typically these benefits are considered emergency spending and they are not offset. In fact, the legislation which was passed in the wee hours of January 1, 2013, as I recall, had a 1-year extension of unemployment benefits, unpaid for. It received overwhelming votes--I believe 89 to 8--a huge majority of Republicans and Democrats coming together. So a year ago, this issue of pay-for was not even on the table. And, by the way, I think it probably led to the creation, given CBO's estimates going forward, of roughly 200,000 jobs this year because it was enacted and it wasn't offset.

It goes to a second point about sort of the bang for the buck. This is one of the best commonsensical programs we have, because when we give these benefits to individuals and don't take other benefits, other funds out of the economy, it has a multiplier effect, some people estimate $1.50 for every $1 in terms of economic activity. And it makes common sense. These funds go directly from the recipient, not to their savings account or to build up, but right out to buying gasoline, keeping cell phone service on. By the way, if you don't have a car and don't have a cell phone today, you can't find a job, you can't go to the interview, you can't get the call for the interview, you can't apply for the job. It is not 1955 anymore, where you take the bus and hand your clipboard across the barrier to the clerk. You have to have this electronic connection to be in the workforce, as well as mobility.

So from the point of view of an economic national perspective: One, we typically have done these as emergency spending; two, you get a big bang for the buck when you do it that way. There is a strong argument that is probably the most sensible approach.

With respect to the pay-for the Republican leader suggested, I concur entirely with the Senator from Illinois in that it is robbing Peter to pay Paul. I am sure, not only these folks who are struggling to find a job, but of the 1.3 million people who are currently receiving benefits, I have to assume a significant number--at least some of them--have preexisting conditions. For the first time many of them are able to qualify for health care benefits. And to take this protection away for millions of Americans--you say it is 1.9 million just in Kentucky alone. It is a huge number across the country--would be bad policy, and it would in fact for many families be a crushing blow. Again, I don't think we have to rob Peter to pay Paul.

From an economic standpoint, we have typically done this without offsets because we want to have the economic stimulus and the demand creation which comes. But from a basic fairness point of view, we are going to go ahead and give benefits of $300 a week to people who need them. I want to do that. But we are going to pay for it by telling some families: No, you don't get insurance. Or: You have to pay $25,000 a year because your child has asthma. That is not fair. It is not good common sense and it is not good economics. So I concur.

To resume: We talked about some of the big issues here and paying for this bill. This is all in the context of deficit reduction, which we have made significant progress on.

The Bowles-Simpson report suggested that over 10 years we cut $4 trillion from the deficit, and we achieved roughly about $2.5 trillion of that, most of it coming from cuts to programs--not revenue increases, but cuts. So we have made significant progress on deficit reduction. We have to do more, but we have to do it sensibly and logically. And we have proposals we have brought forward.

I must commend my colleagues in the Senate. This was on a bipartisan basis. We passed an immigration reform bill in this body. It has languished in the House. But in that bill alone, scored by CBO, will cut nearly another $1 trillion in the deficit, which will get us to that target or very close to that target. Yet it is languishing in the House. If we can pass it, then this issue of deficit--which has dominated and been very important over the last several years--is something we can practically resolve. And, by the way, as I suggested in my colloquy with Senator Durbin, if we pass this legislation, it will help too in terms of stimulating economic growth, et cetera.

There are many things we can do. But, again, I go back to this point. These people are in a desperate situation. As my constituent wrote, 30 years of work, middle-aged, getting retraining, 300 applications, no interviews, looking for anything. It is not just about dollars and a check. It is about dignity. It is about who you are.

We have to respond and we have to respond quickly. And we have the opportunity to do this. As we look at a longer term effort, it doesn't foreclose and it shouldn't foreclose considering programmatic changes, considering if we would offset or not. In response to Senator Durbin, I pointed out, typically we don't offset this program but we have at certain times in the past. My preference would be, frankly, to get this bill done and then look at this issue over the longer term without preconditions. So we have to be clear. We can move this and we should move it.

Again, this question of offsets seems to be coming up more and more, as was reflected in the comments of the Senator from Illinois. As we initiated this program under President Bush back in 2008--and the unemployment rate was roughly 5.5 percent, much lower than it is today--we did not ask for offsets every time. In fact, it was the exception to the rule. I think now is not the time, particularly in this 90-day proposal which Senator Heller and I have.

We have worked through some difficult issues, and I commend Senator Murray and Congressman Ryan particularly for the work on the budget, and I think we can work through this issue. So I again urge that we thoughtfully and very conscientiously and collaboratively work together longer term, but not ignore the crisis today--not leave 1.3 million, and more, Americans dangling, uncertain, desperate, frustrated, losing not only their income but in many respects their identity and their dignity. We can do better than that. Then we have the time--we have the time to work constructively, collaboratively, and cooperatively to come up with principled proposals to extend these benefits for hopefully the whole year.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, 50 years ago today, in his first State of the Union Address, President Lyndon Johnson committed America to what he called a war on poverty. Over the next several years, America conducted the most ambitions, determined, and successful campaign in history to reduce poverty since the Great Depression.

Later today, my friend Senator Harkin, the chairman of the Senate HELP Committee, will speak in detail about the accomplishments of the war on poverty. I hope my colleagues will listen closely. Senator Harkin himself has spent over four decades in Congress working to make sure these antipoverty programs continue to work.

We believe on our side of the aisle that we have to be careful in spending taxpayers' dollars. But we also believe in a safety net, a safety net for those Americans who, because of circumstances beyond their control, need a helping hand. I once worked for a man who served in the Senate. He was my inspiration to enter public life. I am honored today to have his Senate seat. He was Paul Douglas of Illinois. He once said, ``To be a liberal one does not have to be a wastrel.'' He went on to say, ``We must, in fact, be thrifty if we are to be really humane.'' I think we can balance both. We can help people who need a helping hand, but we can do it without wasting taxpayers' dollars.

So what did this war on poverty of 50 years ago, that has been much maligned, achieve? Medicare. Medicaid. The Head Start Program. The Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which was the first time our Nation committed the Federal Government to helping local school districts; special education legislation, the Higher Education Act, which increased grants, loans, and work-study opportunities.

My story is a story that many can repeat. I went to college and law school borrowing money from the Federal Government. It was called the National Defense Education Act. I borrowed money to get through college and law school; otherwise, I could not have done it. The deal was that starting a year after graduation, you paid it back over 10 years at 3-percent interest. I like to think that loan from the government, which I paid back, was a good investment. It sure was in my life, for my family, and I hope some people in Illinois might think it was a good investment for the Nation. But it is an indication that a helping hand from the government can make a difference, a profound difference in a person's life.

Before the Higher Education Act and the war on poverty, just over 9 percent of Americans had college degrees.

Today almost one-third of Americans have at least a bachelor's degree. There has been no act of Congress, since President Lincoln pushed through the land grant college system during the Civil War, that has done more for higher education to democratize it and to give us the scientists, doctors, and other educated citizens we need.

Before the war on poverty, before the Higher Education Act, before Federal loans for students, take a look at the colleges and universities. It was the province of those who were well-off. It was the province of great alumni who took care of their sons and daughters. It was a very sophisticated group of people who went on to higher education. It did not include a lot of folks like me, the son of an immigrant woman who grew up in East Saint Louis, IL. But I got my chance, and millions like me got their chance, because of the war on poverty, because of the Higher Education Act, and because of the thoughtful programs of this Federal Government that gave me and many others a helping hand.

What else was in the war on poverty? The Civil Rights Act of 1964, one of the most transformative laws in our history; the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which some view as the most important civil rights legislation in our history; the Fair Housing Act of 1968; we expanded efforts to feed families who were hungry; we created the food stamp program, now known as SNAP; and we created the School Breakfast Program.

How important is the School Breakfast Program to America and to education? Visit a school. Meet the kids. Talk to the teachers about what a well-fed child is as a student compared to one who has stomach pains from lack of breakfast and lack of food.

A few years ago there was an interesting exchange, not surprisingly on the Glenn Beck show on Fox. There was an actor on there who was really upset about the growing role of the Federal Government. Here is what he said, this actor on Glenn Beck's Fox News show:

We are a capitalistic society. Okay. I go into business and I don't make it, I go bankrupt. They, the government, aren't going to bail me out.

And then he added:

I have been on food stamps and welfare. Anybody help me out? No.

Wait a minute. He was on food stamps and welfare. That came from the same government he was just maligning. Let me repeat that. This conservative actor said:

I have been on food stamps and welfare. Anybody help me out? No.

That is an indication of how people get so far afield when they criticize the government without pausing to reflect. Folks used to say to us during the course of this health care debate: Keep government out of my Medicare. My Medicare is important to me. Do not mess it up. Do not let government--government created your Medicare. Government created Medicaid for the poor and disabled.

The idea or some variation on it seems to be the position of many of our friends across the aisle. When it comes to government efforts to reduce poverty and create opportunities for middle-income and poor families, they seem to think these programs are just going to reward the lazy.

We are in the middle of a debate right now on unemployment benefits. The belief on the Republican side of the aisle is, if you give people enough money to pay their rent and their utility bills, to put gas in their cars, those lazy people will never go to work.

I do not believe that. Will there be people who cheat the system? Of course. There are wealthy people cheating our tax system. But the fact is, the vast majority of Americans given a helping hand want to get back to work.

The extension of unemployment benefits is the humane and right thing to do. It used to be the bipartisan thing to do. Right now, we are divided. We could only get six Republicans to step up to extend unemployment benefits in America. Those benefits are now cut off at 27 weeks. The average person is out of work in our country for 38 weeks. I have met them and I have talked to them. Perhaps people on both sides of the aisle should. These folks want to get back to work. They are desperate to get back to work. But if you do not give them unemployment benefits they cannot put gas in the car, they cannot pay for their cell phone. In this day and age, as Senator Reed of Rhode Island said on the floor, that is how you go to work and find a job. You need to have your cell phone and your car to get up and go. It is not a matter of taking a bus and filling out an application on a clipboard any more. We need to give those folks a helping hand. Government needs to do it, because at this point in their lives they desperately need it.

I say to my friends in the right conservative circles, put down those Ayn Rand books for a minute and take a look at the real world and listen to some real economists too. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office tells us that extending unemployment benefits for the long-term unemployed will create 240,000 jobs in America.

How is that possible? How can spending $26 billion on unemployment benefits create jobs? I thought these folks were out of work. What do they do with the money they receive in unemployment benefits? Do they put it into the stock market, into their savings account? No. They spend it. They buy clothes for their kids. They pay the utility bills. They fill up their cars with gas. They put it right back in the economy because they are living literally day-to-day. So 240,000 jobs will be created if we extend unemployment benefits. For those who say we should not, sadly they are reducing the number of jobs available. That is the fundamental point that many on the far right do not seem to understand. Helping to reduce poverty and create opportunity in America is going to help us all. All of us. It creates a stronger economy.

I know Paul Ryan. He is my neighbor, being a Congressman from the neighboring State of Wisconsin. I like him. We served on the Simpson-Bowles Commission together. He is thoughtful. We disagree on a lot of issues, but he is a thoughtful, conscientious person. But when he calls America's social safety net a hammock that creates dependency and perpetrates poverty, he is just plain wrong.

Opponents of government action who look at the fact that there are still poor people in America and conclude that therefore the war on poverty failed are just as wrong as he is. The official poverty level looks only at cash income. It does not take into account noncash benefits such as SNAP or housing assistance.

A recent analysis by the Center on Budget Policies and Priorities used a broader, more accurate measure of poverty called the supplemental poverty measure. That measure looks not just at cash income but noncash benefits. Using this more accurate measure, the center found that government benefits elevated 40 million Americans out of poverty in 2011.

We have these Republican critics of the food stamp program who say: It is just plain wrong that so many people are drawing food stamps. They ought to go out and meet these people. Who are these people? Out of the 43, 44 million Americans drawing food stamps, over half of them are children, dependent children who are receiving enough money through the food stamp program for their parents to put food on the table. There is also a large portion of them who are elderly and disabled, and a large portion, 1 million, who are veterans. Those are the recipients. Many of those who qualify for food stamps are working. They are not getting a very good paycheck. They are earning the current minimum wage, which is not enough to get by. Food stamps give them a little extra help each month to keep food for their family. That is the reality of low-income, hard-working Americans, a reality which sadly this Chamber is removed from many times. This Chamber does not realize what people are up against.

Social Security has had the largest impact of any program. But means-tested programs, such as SNAP, the earned income child credit and the child tax credit, lifted 20 million Americans, including 8 1/2 million children, out of poverty. When the Republicans in the House particularly want to cut back on these programs, they are going to push these hard-working, low-income families deeper into debt and further away from the basics they need in life.

The poverty rate in America is already too high. Growing income inequality should be an embarrassment to all of us. Lifting 40 million Americans out of poverty through the war on poverty programs and government assistance is an undeniable success. Without the public social safety net, the poverty rate in America would be nearly twice what it is today.

Joe Califano served as the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare under President Johnson. Here is what he said 15 years ago:

If there is a prize for the political scam of the 20th century, it should go to the conservatives for propagating as conventional wisdom that the Great Society programs of the 1960s were misguided and failed social experiments that wasted taxpayers' money.

Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, from 1963 when Lyndon Johnson took office until 1970 as the impact of his Great Society programs were felt, the portion of Americans living below poverty dropped from 22.2 percent to 12.6 percent, the most dramatic decline over such a brief period in this century.

Califano went on to say:

This reduction in poverty did not just happen, it was the result of a focused, tenacious effort to revolutionize the role of the Federal Government in a series of interventions that literally enriched the lives of millions of Americans.

Some of the critics say that it is the job of churches and charities, not government, to help those who have hit a rough patch in life.

One of my ``sheroes'' in life is a woman named Sister Simone Campbell. She is the director of NETWORK, a Catholic social justice organization, and she is probably better known as the ringleader of the ``Nuns on the Bus.''

Sister Simone Campbell testified last summer at a House hearing chaired by Congressman Paul Ryan of Wisconsin. She said that Bread for the World has calculated how much money religious institutions and charities would have to raise just to make up for food stamp cuts proposed by last year's House Republican budget.

Sister Campbell said: Every church, synagogue, mosque, and house of worship in the United States--every one of them--would need to raise $50,000 each year for 10 years to make up for proposed cuts that the Republicans wanted to make in the food stamp program in the House of Representatives. That is only one cut that they have proposed.

To say that the charities of America, which are legendary and well deserved in terms of their praise--to say that they can take care of this problem ignores the reality.

Denigrating and decimating anti-poverty programs won't reduce poverty or create jobs or strengthen America's struggling and shrinking middle class. As President Johnson said nearly 50 years ago: ``Our time is necessarily short and our agenda is already long.''

So we ask our friends on the other side of the aisle to work with us to help Americans. Please start off by extending unemployment benefits for 1.3 million Americans. For goodness sake, at this time of year when most of this country is facing bone-chilling cold in Wisconsin and Illinois--we just went through it this week. I have never seen conditions such as this that I can ever remember--and to think that it might be part of an unemployed worker's family, wondering if they might be able to pay that utility bill, keep the kids warm, put some food on the table, while they look for a job--and we pick this moment in time to cut unemployment benefits.

We are a caring and compassionate nation. If we can't stand behind those who are struggling at this point in life, who are we? What are we? There are all kinds of excuses that could be made, but at the bottom line it gets down to something very basic.

John Kasich is the Governor of Ohio. He and I came to know one another when we were both elected to the House of Representatives some years ago. He is a Republican. He is one of the few who won in 1982 and went on to become Governor of the State.

He had a moment of reflection the other day, which I will paraphrase. He said: I would like to say to my Republican friends, when you die and get to the pearly gates, St. Peter is not going to ask you how much you invested in your life in making government smaller, you are going to be asked what did you do to help the poor while you were on Earth?

That is a legitimate question Governor Kasich raised, not only for Republicans but for all of us. What have we done to help those people who are struggling to get by--those who would be very interested in a long-term debate about growing our economy but are more interested in putting food on the table today. That is what it is all about.

The war on poverty successfully raised Americans out of poverty. The government stepped in when there was no place else to turn. That is truly the role of government, to be there when there is no place else to turn.

The American family, through its government, stood by those who were less fortunate. We have to do the same thing.

I will close by saying the proposal Senator McConnell made yesterday troubles me greatly. He said: We will pay for the extension of unemployment benefits, $26 billion, but the way we will pay for it--the Republicans suggested--was to eliminate that section of the Affordable Care Act which guarantees that you can't discriminate against people because of preexisting medical conditions.

What the situation was before this law passed was, of course, if someone had a child with diabetes, if their wife was recovering from cancer, they might not be able to buy health insurance or if they did, it would be too expensive. We changed that. We said they can't discriminate against people with preexisting conditions.

Senator McConnell came to the floor yesterday and said: We want to eliminate the personal responsibility section when it comes to the Affordable Care Act, we want to eliminate the so-called individual mandate, and that is how we will pay for 1 year of unemployment benefits.

What Senator McConnell was suggesting was reintroducing into health insurance this discrimination against people with preexisting conditions for 300 million Americans as a way to pay for 3 months or 1 year of unemployment benefits. That is a terrible trade-off.

I know how much the other side hates and loathes the Affordable Care Act. A Senator from Arkansas, Dale Bumpers, used a phrase often: They hate the Affordable Care Act like the devil hates holy water.

But the fact is to turn on 300 million Americans and to remove their protection under the Affordable Care Act against discrimination based on preexisting medical conditions to pay for unemployment benefits--what a Faustian bargain.

Is that the best the other side can come up with? It isn't.

The best they can come up with is to stand by these people, the less fortunate people among us struggling to find work and give them the basics of life, give them the necessities they need to get by. I am confident they will find a job, get back to work, and they will be taxpayers again someday. Let's stand by them, their spouses, and their children in this time of need.

That is what happened 50 years ago with President LBJ's State of the Union address. That is what should happen today.

I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I wish to thank the majority leader for his comments, and I will be very brief because I know the Senator from Iowa has a statement he wants to make.

Let me just say that the statement made on the floor earlier this afternoon by the Republican leader never once addressed the issue pending before the Senate. Pending before the Senate is an emergency unemployment insurance bill that will provide benefits to 1.3 million Americans who are out of work and for 8 days now have been receiving no assistance whatsoever. Imagine the struggles they are facing.

That is why we called this bill first when we returned from our holiday recess. We consider it a priority. We were heartened yesterday when six Republicans joined us to move this bill forward. It gave us hope that we were going to do something to get this done in a timely way to help a lot of deserving people all across the United States.

We hoped today, when the Republican leader from Kentucky came to the floor, that he would address the urgency and necessity of this bill. He did not. As Senator Reid has said, he wanted to talk about the Senate rules.

The Senate rules are important, make no mistake. But they are certainly not as important as providing essential benefits, essential relief and help to 1.3 million unemployed Americans--people who are trying to pay their utility bills, avoid eviction, put gas in the car, and go out and find a job. That is a higher priority, and I had hoped the Republican leader would address it. Instead, he wants to talk about the rules.

What the Senator from Nevada, our majority leader, has said is a matter of record. It is still amazing to consider this: Nearly half of all the filibusters waged on nominations in the history of the United States of America have been waged under the leadership of Republican Senator McConnell during the Obama Presidency--nearly half. In the history of the United States, 168 nominees have been filibustered; 82 occurred under the leadership of the Republican Senator from Kentucky during the Obama administration.

In the history of the United States, 23 district court nominees have been filibustered--in our entire history. Twenty have been filibustered under the leadership of the Republican Senator from Kentucky during the Obama administration--20 out of 23. Nearly half of all the nominations that have been filibustered: under this Senate Republican leadership. Is there any wonder why the rules needed to be changed?

We look at the wait time of those who finally get out of committee and sit on the calendar waiting indefinitely. It breaks my heart to think of the fine women and men who are willing to offer their lives in public service, go through extensive background checks, make the necessary personal sacrifices, and languish on our calendar for no earthly reason.

In the end many of them have been approved with overwhelming votes, and yet they have been subjected to these incessant Republican filibusters. The case involving our colleague, Congressman Mel Watt of North Carolina, is one of the most egregious. It is the first time, I believe, since 1843 that a sitting Member of Congress has faced a filibuster in the Senate when appointed to a Presidential nomination. Finally, we broke that after the rules change. I was heartened to see that Congressman Watt was sworn in yesterday to this position dealing with America's housing challenges.

But that was an example of an outrageous filibuster against a colleague, a fellow Member of Congress, a Member of the House of Representatives. The coup de grace, of course, was the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, where we offered three well-qualified nominees to fill obvious vacancies on that Court, and they were stopped by the Republican filibusters, one after the other without any complaint about their qualifications, well qualified for this position to serve on the DC Circuit Court.

It was not until Senator Reid lead us in changing the Senate rules that we finally found this necessary relief. It is time for us to return to the issue at hand. Pending before the Senate is emergency unemployment benefits for 1.3 million Americans. As important as a rules debate may be to some in this Chamber, there is nothing more important than to deal with this in a timely way. I hope the Republicans will take the advice of the leader that he gave at the end of his remarks, produce for us their pay-for, if that is the course that they want to follow, for us to pay for those unemployment benefits for the coming year. We are waiting for their response. In the meantime, I hope that some will come forward and join us in what has traditionally been a bipartisan effort to help those in America seeking work.

I yield the floor.

Source