Providing for the Costs of Loan Guarantees for Ukraine

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TEXT

Mr. President, I rise to urge my colleagues to support the bipartisan agreement I have reached with five of our colleagues from across the aisle Senators HELLER, COLLINS, PORTMAN, MURKOWSKI, and KIRK to provide emergency unemployment insurance to 2.7 million Americans. This commonsense, bipartisan agreement is one of the many things the Senate should do to help create jobs and strengthen our Nation's economy so it works for every American, so everyone has a fair shot. So I hope my colleagues will join with us and pass this bill quickly so it can be taken up for a vote in the House.

The individual and economic consequences of a lapse of these unemployment insurance funds are very clear. I have described many times, and my colleagues have come to the floor many times, and indicated the individual cases where people who have worked for years found themselves without a job, through no fault of their own, desperately needing some modest assistance--and these benefits are about $300 to $350 a week--just to keep going, to keep looking for work, to keep trying to be part of the workforce, which they desperately want to do. We have shared these stories. These individual hardships ripple across our entire economy.

Indeed, the Congressional Budget Office and other economists looking at this, not from the individual perspective but from the overall economy, find this is one of the most effective ways to keep the economy moving forward. The CBO has indeed estimated our failure so far to extend benefits through 2014 would cost the economy 200,000 jobs. That is simply as a result of these payments to individuals going right back into the economy. It stimulates other workers who have work and creates demand.

So restoring economic assistance for Americans who have lost their jobs and who are trying to find new ones is not only the right thing to do, but it is also the smart thing to do for our economy. That is why I have been pressing for an extension of these benefits over a longer period of time. But, we have reached a principled compromise--and I have to underscore the word ``compromise''--to do it over a 5-month period, with some retroactive and some, if we move quickly enough, prospective. But it is frustrating to realize that some in Congress don't want to do this. I think that is unfortunate not only because of the effect it has on individual constituents but also because it is going to adversely affect our economy. It is not going to add jobs. In fact, as CBO suggests, it could indeed take away jobs.

Let me take a few moments to address some of the arguments being raised, particularly in the House of Representatives, as to why they can't support this.

Basically, it comes from the notion that: Well, this is too hard to implement. Even if you concede these benefits are absolutely important, they would provide economic stimulus, we just can't implement them.

These concerns were highlighted by a letter from the National Association of State Workforce Agencies. But all of these concerns are addressable. Indeed, the Secretary of Labor, Tom Perez, has addressed these concerns point by point in a recent letter, and he has, importantly, committed to work collaboratively with the States--as has been the case in all of the 12 extensions or expansions of this program since the great recession--to do this.

We have repeatedly extended this program. There have been periods of time where there has been a gap between extensions, and they have had to look backwards, these State administrators. Secretary Perez is committed to do all he can and have all the efforts of the Department so this can be implemented successfully, and I am confident it can and he is confident it can.

But there were four basic assertions that were made that I want to address.

First, NASWA indicated that, well, States are struggling with antiquated computer systems that make it hard to implement changes quickly. Well, the States have received over the past 5 years $345 million to modernize their unemployment insurance systems. That is Federal money going to States so they can fix their computer systems. So this is not exactly an area we have neglected in terms of helping them modernize their computer systems. Complex program changes we have made in the past--I was part of the effort in 2012 to extend unemployment compensation benefits--and we made some significant changes. We reduced the total number of weeks from 99 to 73.

So we are not talking today about some complicated new system; we are simply extending the existing system. We are not changing the tiers. We are not changing any of the calculations they have to make. Indeed, that is one of the reasons why I have been arguing consistently for a straight extension--not altering the number of weeks you qualify for tier 1 or tier 2 or tier 3, but simply taking the system that was in place on December 28, and fund it retroactively to benefit those who have lost their benefits unexpectedly, and then prospectively as far forward as we could go.

Let me also point out that I was making this request before December 28. I would have hoped we could have moved in December or at least early in January to go ahead and extend this program so there would be absolutely no disruption whatsoever to the States or for the recipients. But it has been a difficult and long process to get here. Frankly, without the collaboration and efforts of many of my colleagues, and particularly, as I have indicated, my Republican colleagues--Senators HELLER, COLLINS, PORTMAN, MURKOWSKi, and KIRK--and my Democratic colleagues, including Senator Booker, who is here, we would not be at this point. So I am glad we are here. But we would not have any of these implementation problems had we acted in December.

Second, there was a concern that one provision relating to Federal funding for the administration of the program could be read in an overly broad fashion so that the State agencies would be so confused and it would be so complicated they could not function. So out of an abundance of caution, we have worked to address this. We have revised the legislation we had proposed to clarify the particular provision so it could not be misconstrued.

In so doing, we make it crystal clear that the prohibition on the use of Federal funding is limited solely to eligibility determinations relating to ensuring millionaires do not receive emergency unemployment insurance benefits.

Third--and this is a related issue to the whole millionaire issue--there was some concern it would be difficult to administer this prohibition. Well, in our legislation, we have a pretty straightforward requirement that individuals certify their income in the preceding year was not more than $1 million. This is a simple certification that I think could be accomplished rather efficiently and quickly by the agencies. And the Secretary of Labor has committed to issuing guidance to help States with implementation, as the Department does when any new statutory provision is enacted.

As I said before, the Secretary has assured all of the States that he is going to work to expeditiously and efficiently give them the tools to implement this program as soon as the Congress passes it and the President signs it.

Finally, there was a concern about the retroactivity. That challenge, as I said before, is why I and others pressed so hard to get this done prior to December 28 of last year. But even so, States were able to successfully work with the Department of Labor during previous lapses to provide this aid to unemployed workers. We have had these situations before where there has been a disruption of benefits, and then we have renewed the program several weeks later. And the Department of Labor is confident these challenges can be overcome.

Frankly, all of these administrative challenges for the States seem to me to pale in comparison to the challenges being faced by our constituents, who are in a job market where in some places there are three applicants for every job, in a job market where, if you have worked for 25 years, you are about 50 years old and you are competing with 25- and 30-year-olds who have gotten recent education. Maybe they have more high-tech skills and computer skills than you have in a market that is rapidly becoming more technologically oriented in terms of labor demand.

They are facing severe challenges. These resources are not lavish. The idea that someone would not work because they are getting $300 a week is difficult, I think, to imagine for many people, particularly the people who have records of work for 10, 20, and 30 years. And what they are doing with this money is putting it right back in our economy. Many are trying to hold on to their homes, and we have heard stories about that. They are trying to put gas in the car. People have contacted me indicating that they use it to keep their phones working because without a phone they cannot get the callback for the job interview to go and find a job.

So this is something that I think has to be considered and, in my book, weighs much more heavily than administrative issues, which the Secretary of Labor assures us will be dealt with, can be dealt with, and he will work with the States to make sure it is done effectively.

Let me conclude by thanking our Republican colleagues who have joined with us. They have been extraordinarily thoughtful and collaborative. They have really contributed in an atmosphere of exchanging ideas of thoughtful consideration. It is a model, I think, of how this Senate should work more frequently, and I thank them and commend them. They have done a great service for their constituents and for the economy and the country. Indeed, ultimately, many Americans will benefit through their great contribution.

So I will hope, as we come up to these procedural votes, that we can move forward, and then we could move this expeditiously. Then we would hope the House would respond appropriately, and we can give some hope and give some confidence to people who are struggling to find jobs in this very difficult time.

BREAK IN TEXT

Source