Protecting Volunteer Firefighters and Emergency Responders Act of 2014 - Motion to Proceed

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Madam President, we have before us a bipartisan piece of legislation designed to provide very limited assistance to millions of Americans who have lost their unemployment compensation benefits. On December 28, the long-term unemployment insurance benefits terminated. At that point it was 1.3 million Americans; today it is 2.3 million Americans, and it is growing.

Since December 28, we have, on a bipartisan basis, been endeavoring to bring to this floor for a final vote a 5-month extension, some of which--in fact, with each passing day more of which--is retroactive rather than prospective. This bill is designed to help people.

In fact, this bill will provide them the benefits they were receiving based upon their work record because the only way you can receive unemployment insurance benefits is to lose a job through no fault of your own and continue to search for a job.

These are working Americans. The benefits we are talking about are roughly $300 a week. What does that do? For some people it helps them keep their home. It pays the rent. For some others it provides food for their families. For others it provides them the ability to have a cell phone that is plugged in, literally, because they need one when they get, they hope, the offer for a job interview or for a job. So contrary to doing nothing to help Americans, this does a great deal for people who have earned these benefits through their toil and effort and their continued efforts to look for jobs.

We have an obligation, a great obligation to increase the growth in this country, and to do it in a way that will allow people to find jobs. In my home State of Rhode Island, there are at least two applicants for every job--in many cases, three applicants. There is a disconnect in many cases between the skills they have had over decades of work and the skills that employers are looking for today. And we have to address that.

But, to prevent this legislation from going through is to deny millions of working Americans the support they need to get through a very difficult period. That is why, on a bipartisan basis, we have come together. We have 5 months fully paid for. This is a fiscally sound piece of legislation which benefits men and women across this country based upon their work record. I don't think there is a more important thing we can do at this moment, and to delay it would be a disservice to the people.

I think something else is important too. When we talk about economic growth, let us recognize this legislation will help growth in the United States. There have been estimates if we had a full-year extension of the unemployment insurance program it would generate 200,000 jobs. Those are significant numbers. That is roughly about 1 month's job growth over the last several years. If we don't do this, then we won't get that growth.

So not only is this a fundamentally sound, fair, and thoughtful thing to do for millions of American families, it is also good for our economy. It does provide the growth my colleagues are talking about when they say we have to grow this economy.

There is much more that we could do. Many of my Republican colleagues, who have come to provide their insights and support, have suggested longer term ways in which we could deal with the unemployment crisis--better training programs, et cetera. Indeed, we have a bipartisan Workforce Investment Act reauthorization that is in the HELP Committee that I hope we can get to the floor quickly because we have to reform our overall job training program in this country. As I go out and talk to businessmen and women in Rhode Island, they say there is a disconnect between the skill set many people have and the skills they need for their workplace.

There is another aspect of this situation. The long-term unemployed numbers in this country today are twice as high as they are typically when we have ended unemployment benefits previously. We have a significant problem and a growing problem of the long-term unemployed.

Again, we will wait for the data to be conclusive and decisive, but my sense is, going back to Rhode Island, many of these individuals are in their middle ages--they are 40 and 50 years old. They have worked for 20 years. They have good work records, but the skills that employers are looking for right now are not immediately those skills that they have. Of course, there are job training options available, but all of these things require support. Again, if you are juggling family responsibilities and trying to get job training, that $300 a week benefit check you have earned through your previous work is very helpful as you prepare yourself for a new job.

This legislation can't be delayed any longer. This is not about some political demonstration or some political messaging point; this is about getting aid and assistance to 2.3 million Americans today. And that number will grow with each passing day. It is about helping people who earned this benefit through their work.

I can't think of anything more important that we can do--and do it in a timely and prompt manner. That is why I hope we can move forward as quickly as possible on a bipartisan basis with fully paid for legislation which is fiscally responsible, which will provide assistance for millions of deserving Americans and in addition provide further stimulus to our economy.

A final point. Why does this provide a stimulus to the economy? Because these types of benefits go to a former worker, someone looking for work, and they go right back in the economy. This is not a sophisticated tax break that will allow someone to put some money aside for a rainy day. This goes right to the families, right to the economy--to the local grocery store, to the local gas station for the repairs of a car, to pay for daycare that is necessary for children--to do those things that will go right back and stimulate further growth in our economy.

For reasons both of fundamental fairness and individual recognition that these people deserve a break in a tough economy and the very real fact that this dramatically benefits our overall economy, I think we have to move.

I am pleased and proud that we have had the support of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle to move forward procedurally. I hope we can finish this debate promptly, move this over to the House, and then begin to work with the House so they recognize the same reality that on a bipartisan basis we have recognized here.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Madam President, I rise today to discuss the underlying legislation, which is so critical. It is an emergency. On December 28, we stopped extending unemployment benefits for at that point 1.3 million Americans. These are individuals who were working and who are looking for work, since that is the only way you can collect these benefits.

Since that time, they have been without the very modest support that emergency unemployment insurance provides. It provides about $300 a week. We are trying, on a bipartisan basis, to move this legislation through this body and get it to the House so these people can get some help and support as they continue to look for work.

This legislation will support a program that is vital to 2.7 million Americans, and it is a bipartisan compromise. This is not something that is being jammed through exclusively at the will of the majority. This has been an effort that began months ago. First we worked with Senator Heller and then other colleagues--Senator Collins, Senator Murkowski, Senator Portman, and Senator Kirk.

We listened to their suggestions and incorporated them so we could move forward on a bipartisan basis as we have done on so many different topics. We would like to have a vote, move it to the House, and have it signed by the President so we can get the relief, support, and assistance to these Americans. Again, I have to emphasize that they are only qualified for this program because they lost their jobs through no fault of their own, and they are continuing to look for work in a very difficult economy.

The one other thing I wanted to mention, which is very important, is we are building on significant changes to the unemployment compensation laws that were passed in 2012. At that time the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee in the House of Representatives, Chairman Dave Camp of Michigan, described these as historic reforms. Our goal, as I said many times during the past few weeks and months, and prior to and since the ending of these benefits on December 28, is to find a path forward to a rather straightforward extension of the benefits. Again, this is a temporary extension. It is a 5-month total window, but with each day more of it is retroactive. The reason we wanted to look for a very straightforward proposal is that, first, it would recognize the important changes and reforms that were made in 2012. Many of the ideas I have seen and heard discussed around here actually were considered thoughtfully in 2012 and incorporated in many cases--not all cases--into the legislation.

The other thing we want to do is make this as administratively feasible as possible to implement by the State agencies. Adding significant changes, such as adding a training component that didn't exist before, not only complicated the implementation, but when you stop and step back, it usually costs money.

One of the underlying premises, particularly from my colleagues who worked with us from the Republican side, is that this whole effort has to be fully funded. This bill is fully offset during this ten year budgetary window. This is paid for, it incorporates the ideas and suggestions from my colleagues on the other side, and it is now time to move for passage.

I recognize there are many issues we could deal with in the Senate. Many of my colleagues from both sides of the aisle have come to us with their issues. But to do that would undercut the ability to, in timely manner,--today or I hope tomorrow, but certainly this week--pass this legislation and move forward.

Millions of Americans are facing a crisis. They are out of work and looking for a job. In my State there are probably two applicants for every job, and in many cases there are probably three or four applicants for every job. We also recognize this is a long-term unemployed population that is different in some respects than previous episodes of unemployment. There are indications and suggestions that they are older on average. They are also facing a situation where the economy has been very difficult for many years.

Many of them are homeowners who can't sell their house because of the market so they can't move to an area where there is work. Many of them, particularly if they are middle-aged, have responsibilities to mothers and fathers who may have health issues, and children they have to support. The overall situation is that these individuals are facing a very difficult challenge.

There is a very thoughtful paper by the former chair of the President's Council of Economic Advisers, Alan Krueger, and his colleagues. They described the difficulty of these unemployed Americans in this economy, particularly for the long-term unemployed.

We have seen periods of significant unemployment. I can recall the 1980s, when unemployment hit 10 percent, but normally there is a relatively fast response once the right fiscal and monetary policies are put in place. Some of that was because of the mobility of the American people back then, contrasted to people who are now tied to their home because they can't sell it, and some of it is due to the relative age of the unemployed back then where the mobility was not as much of a factor as it is today.

We are trying to help these people who have, in many cases, worked for decades and now for the first time find themselves in a very difficult situation.

If you look overall, there are 10.4 million Americans who are out of work but are looking for that job--for that fair shot--so they have a chance to move on and be a part of the American economy. Extending emergency unemployment benefits to these 2.7 million people is just one part of the efforts we have to undertake. No one should be under the impression that this is a solution. No. This is just a response to the incredible need of these very worthwhile Americans who are looking for work.

I do note that this aid is very targeted. I cannot repeat it enough. There is this sort of notion out there that this is sort of a giveaway to people who are undeserving. Well, the benefits are targeted to people who meet very specific criteria and, most importantly, they have to have an adequate work history to be eligible for unemployment insurance in the first place. They have to be workers. We are trying to help workers. They have to have lost their job through no fault of their own--they were laid off. It is not as though they didn't like their job and left, or had problems in the workplace and were not fitting in. These are people who want to work, and they were told they cannot work any longer. They were downsized, they were outsourced--all the 10K euphemisms for saying, "We don't need you anymore.'' Well, they are important people who want to work, and they have to actively look for work in order to qualify for benefits. This is not an open-ended benefit to individuals who have no end in sight. They are either going to find a job or exhaust these benefits.

One of the reforms we did in 2012, frankly, was to shrink the period of time. Previous to 2012, there were 73 weeks of emergency extended benefits. We shrunk that down to 47 weeks. So this notion that this is an unending, indefinite, long-term benefit to people who don't earn it is completely incorrect.

This program has been in effect for a very long time. Indeed, some form of it has been put in place since 2008 when George W. Bush was the President, when we first started seeing the signs of increasing unemployment. This was in conjunction with the near collapse of many financial institutions, in 2007 and 2008. The housing market was literally coming off the tracks. The consequences for the American economy at that time were probably the most severe since the Great Depression. One of the ways we have been dealing with these issues began with President Bush, and continuing now with President Obama, is emergency unemployment compensation benefits for Americans.

I think we have to look at and be conscious of all of the facts and data. We are also at a point where we have to recognize there are two programs. There is a State program, which covers the first 26 weeks, and then there is the emergency Federal unemployment benefits program.

This emergency program, in some respects, is becoming much more critical, because what we find now is that the long-term unemployed are probably twice the number you would typically associate with an economy such as ours at the present moment. We have unemployment rates that range from the high--unfortunately Rhode Island is at 9 percent--to the very low. There are some States because of the commodities--particularly energy commodities--that virtually have no unemployment.

At this point we should not see the kind of long-term unemployed we are seeing. The Federal program--not the State program, which is the first 26 weeks--is going to help these people who are particularly struggling. It is a targeted program--very much targeted--but it has an outsized impact. Not only are the workers who are receiving this very modest weekly stipend of roughly $300 a week able to pay for essentials, but it has a very positive effect on our overall economy.

All of my colleagues are here today saying, listen, not only do we have to help these people, but more importantly, we have to grow this economy. Well, by the way, the legislation we are proposing does both.

These emergency benefits have been repeatedly analyzed by economists, and they have been determined to provide a significantly greater bang for the buck than many other programs being talked about today on the floor that are being suggested as alternatives or complements to what we are talking about. That is why the Congressional Budget Office, in a very modest and conservative analysis, projected that if we fail to extend these emergency benefits through 2014--through the whole year--it would cost our economy 200,000 jobs. So those people who are opposing these benefits are basically saying we are not interested in at least part of these 200,000 jobs.

It is not, as they often say, rocket science. What happens to this money is it goes to a family who desperately needs it immediately to repair the car, to buy groceries, to take care of the necessities of life. So this money is not going to be put aside for a rainy day. It is not going to be exported overseas for a venture some place. It is going to be used locally in the economy--at the grocery store, at the service station, at the dry cleaners, and to pay for the cell phone so a person can stay in touch to see if they get that job and if they are offered a job. That effect of immediately putting money in the economy immediately generates more economic activity. It is the fact that at the local coffee shop a person will come in and get a cup of coffee and maybe be able to afford something else too. That goes to the ability of that local coffee shop to keep some more people on to work the counters. It has a cumulative effect.

The economists have measured it, and it is much more than the dollars we are putting into it. It has a multiplier effect. So what we are doing is not only providing the necessary support for these deserving families; we are providing an injection of economic activity into our economy--precisely what all of my colleagues are saying we have to do. Let's do it. We can do it. We are very close. On a bipartisan basis, we are hopefully hours away, I hope, from getting this done, and then sending it over to the House.

Then, we need to ask our colleagues on the other side of the Capitol to consider not only the bipartisan nature of this bill but also the fact that it not only provides economic stimulus, but it also is fiscally responsible. We have paid for these efforts. That was insisted upon, and we have certainly acceded to that request by so many of our colleagues.

Now, with respect to reforms of the temporary program, and even the permanent State program, as I said before, we made significant reforms in 2012. I was a member of the conference committee, at the request of the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee to participate, particularly in the deliberations about the unemployment insurance compensation program. These 2012 reforms go a long way to make the system better. Can we make more improvements? Of course. Can we shift to a related but an important topic, which is job training, through the Workforce Investment Act? Yes, we can, and we should. But we shouldn't hold this legislation hostage to training improvements and to additional reform.

One of the reforms which we worked to enhance in the bill before us today, which was implemented in 2012, is the Reemployment Service and Reemployment Eligibility Assessment, or the RES and REA. I have to thank Senator Collins, particularly. She was insistent that we provide a way to better link up individuals looking for work and the jobs that are available. This is a mechanism that does this. This is an evidence-based reform that has been successful in getting individuals back to work sooner. It also helps to ensure individuals are receiving the proper benefit. It addresses one of the major concerns we received from the House Ways and Means Committee Republicans with respect to overpayments. Essentially, what it does is it requires--there is one assessment in the program right now--a second assessment at a certain period during the extended benefits. So an individual would have to come in and essentially be counseled. They would also verify the person is searching for work, that the benefits are appropriate, and also give the kind of counseling and assistance and help that is shown by evidence to be effective in linking job seekers to jobs. We are very committed to this improvement. This is one of the improvements we put into the legislation. We have provided the funding for State agencies to take care of it.

So this is something we think is going to be a direct beneficial solution to a legitimate issue raised by so many. How do we connect those who are unemployed today with the jobs that are out there?

I will say something else, too, about this. There has been some suggestion that there are a lot of overpayments in the system and that people are really getting more than they should. Well RESs and REAs play an important program integrity role, not just providing counsel to the individual. They also have to ensure that the people are, in fact, actively seeking work. This legislation is saying these individuals have to physically come to the State agency, not just at the first tier, when they start it, but at the third tier--that is the way we break it up--several weeks into the process of emergency unemployment benefits. Doing that--their physical presence in the office, talking to a counselor--helps the system be more legitimate, and it helps the accountability because the individual State counselor will be able to check on how faithful they are to the program and how consistent their benefits are. That double check is part of the legislation which I think will be effective and efficient. We want both effectiveness and efficiency. As I indicated before, it is fully paid for, so it is not an additional burden to States.

In the 2012 reforms, we also included my work-sharing initiative. This is critical. I have heard from so many companies in Rhode Island that before the 2012 legislation, there were a few States--Rhode Island was one--that were actually doing something very creative. They said that instead of laying a person off totally, if you keep the person employed for a certain number of days and provide their benefits, we will pay for the one or two days they don't work. It is a partial payment. That has been able to allow companies to really keep their core group of workers together. Instead of throwing someone out and saying they are sorry, as well as losing their expertise and losing their skills, they have been able to keep their operation moving. It is a smart way of doing it. It has been very successful in Rhode Island, and it is now a national option. That is because of an initiative from 2012 that was a good reform and a smart, efficient way to use the taxpayers' dollars.

With respect to work search generally, the 2012 reforms

for the first time created a uniform standard for both the State-based program and the temporary emergency program to ensure that States require that in order to be eligible, individuals need to be "able, available, and actively seek[ing] work.'' We also passed a reform to better recover improper payments by requiring States to offset their current State benefits in order to recover overpayments owed to other States and the Federal Government. So program integrity, program efficiency, and program effectiveness were significantly embodied in the 2012 amendments.

We are looking at a program that just 2 years ago has been significantly reformed--in fact, as I said, according to the chairman of the Republican Ways and Means Committee, historically reformed. So this program is one that we can support and we should support.

Back in 2012 we also provided up to 10 demonstration projects in States that could be granted waivers on their State-based unemployment insurance program if they could come up with proposals that would improve the effectiveness of their reemployment efforts. This was an opportunity to give the States flexibility, to test out new ideas. Some of the new ideas my colleagues have shared with me--we should do this or that--the States--at least 10 States--have that opportunity to apply today to do that. I don't think we need to reinvent that opportunity in this legislation since it is on an emergency, short-term basis. That authority sunsets at the end of 2015. But it is very telling, because since 2012, 10 States have had the option, but no States have taken up these proposals. So many of the good ideas my colleagues have suggested haven't passed muster at the State level. One would think if they were that compelling, if they were that efficient, that affordable, that one State, at least, would have taken the option, out of 10 available, to try these proposals.

The 2012 reforms also allowed States to drug screen and test individuals if they were terminated from prior employment for drug use or if they were applying for work for which passing a drug test was a standard eligibility requirement. I mention this because we have persistently heard proposals--particularly from the other side of the Capitol--oh, we have a drug test proposal, et cetera. Guess what. States already have the option to do that now. So it is not a reason to stop today and say we have to fix this problem.

I think this whole issue of drug testing, though, deserves a further comment. It is somewhat of a presumption that people who are applying for these benefits somehow are more susceptible to drug dependency, and that is not accurate. In fact, reflecting back to my previous comments, there are so many people now, particularly the longer term unemployed, who are middle-aged colleagues or slightly younger than I am, who have spent 20 or 35 years working, et cetera. They are not the typical person who one would suspect of that. But when we looked at data from the TANF realm--there were related arguments for testing in TANF--it turns out that individuals who are tested in these TANF programs, which is a welfare program, actually show an average of slightly less drug usage than the average American. So this whole drug issue has to be disabused. But, for the record, there are in the 2012 reforms, opportunities for States if they feel so compelled to exercise some of these options.

So the record demonstrates clearly that we have made extensive reforms. Additionally, as I said, in this legislation, we are requiring a second assessment process which I think is going to be very efficient and very effective.

This raises the final point. We have tried to keep this very simple. Even so, the State administrators came forward with a letter saying: This is going to be very difficult for us. The letter was refuted point by point by the Secretary of Labor, Tom Perez. Secretary Perez was the former director of these programs for the State of Maryland. He knows better than anyone what it takes to make these programs work. He has committed that the Department of Labor not only will--but can--be sure that these programs, as we have written them today, will be fully and effectively implemented.

So I hope my colleagues really come together. I thank my colleagues who already have joined together to get this legislation moving. Time is literally ticking. This is a 5-month bill. This is not a long-term, indefinite bill. The clock is ticking, so that every day more benefits are retroactive than prospective. We want to give people the chance. They have worked for it all of their lives--many of them--and now, in many cases, this is the first time they have really struggled.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source