Extending Unemployment Compensation

Floor Speech

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, pending before the Senate is the question of whether we are going to extend unemployment compensation to the unemployed across our Nation. It is an issue which recurs in the Senate with some frequency, and it baffles me why we continue to argue over this question. We have 8 million people actively unemployed and another 6 million long-term unemployed people. We know many of them have lost their jobs because of this recession through no fault of their own.

If my colleagues have taken the time, as I have, to meet with these people, they know they are in desperate straits. There are approximately 4 or 5 unemployed people in America for every available job. When I sit down and listen to the stories of how they are applying online for job after job after job--a great week for them is if one or two potential employers even follow through with an e-mail of inquiry about their background. It is a frustrating, fearful existence, and it is one that is made no easier by the actions of the Senate.

We have been lurching from month to month, creating uncertainty as to whether we are going to send these people a check to live on--a basic unemployment benefit check of some $300 a week. Consider how any of us could survive, and even some with families, with that meager amount of money. The argument is made on the other side of the aisle by many that when you give people $300 a week--$1,200 a month--it just makes them lazy and they stop looking for jobs. I wonder how many in this Chamber could live on $300 a week for everything--rent, utilities, maybe a mortgage payment, school clothing, kids' shoes, food--the basics. And don't forget that most of these people, when they lost their jobs, also lost their health insurance. So they live not only in fear of not finding a job but in fear that tomorrow morning a diagnosis or an accident can devastate everything they have ever saved for in their lives. Yet every 4 or 5 weeks we go through this drill on the floor of the Senate about whether we are going to help these people.

Some on the other side of the aisle say this is all about the deficit. We have to get serious about this deficit, and here is our opportunity: unemployment benefits for those unemployed across America. This is where we will make our stand for fiscal sanity. Where were they when the last President asked us for a bank bailout of $800 billion? How many on that side of the aisle were saying to President Bush: I am sorry, we can't bail out banks because we have a deficit. I don't remember hearing that argument. When it came to bank bailouts, the other side of the aisle, by and large--not all of them but by and large--voted for hundreds of billions of dollars for banks in distress. But when it comes to unemployment compensation to help families in distress, then we have to really consider this deficit.

I am troubled by this. We know that when natural disasters strike our
States, we rally to the victims. We rally to their needs and we say: Take care of the immediate challenge. We will deal with the budgetary issues at the appropriate time, but let's take care of the emergency. Yet when it comes to unemployment compensation and health insurance for the unemployed, many on the other side of the aisle don't consider that an emergency. It would be an emergency if they had to live on $300 a week and it was cut off. It would be an emergency if they had no health insurance. Why do we do this? I think we are a better Nation. We should be a better Senate than to turn our backs on people truly in need, and that is what is going on here.

We have to urge our colleagues to come forward with amendments, if that is what they want, offer the amendments and debate them, which is their right in the Senate.

But then let's get on with it. Let's have a final vote. Let's give some security and peace of mind to the people who have lost their unemployment benefits because of the objections of one Senator. That is right. One Senator stood and objected and 21,000 Americans lost their unemployment benefits last week; 21,000 will lose them this week, and in my State 16,000 a week are falling off unemployment, 16,000 people who will not receive that $300 check.

What are they going to do? Well, I think we should respond to this need immediately, and we ought to take into consideration the fact that when it comes to this recession, there are some positive things, some good news, not nearly enough of it. Too many people still unemployed.

The unemployment figures, though very slightly better, show at least we are moving on the positive side of the ledger. We need to do so much more. Every single Senator on the other side of the aisle who is voting against unemployment benefits also voted against President Barrack Obama's efforts to put money into our economy and bring us out of this recession. It is starting to work. I hope it works soon.

We know what this devastation did to us. We lost some $17 trillion in value across America because of this recession. That is more than 1 year's gross domestic product, the sum total value of all the goods and services produced in America in 1 year. We lost that in this recession. Many of us felt it personally in our savings accounts and retirement accounts. A lot of people felt it as their businesses strained and some failed. Others felt it when they lost their jobs and had no place to turn--$17 trillion dragged out of this economy.

The President came in and said: Let's put a stimulus bill in, a bill for reinvestment in America. First, let's give a tax cut, the largest tax cut to working families that we have seen in recent times. Then let's provide a safety net for those who lost the jobs and State and local governments still struggling and, finally, let's invest in some projects that we will build for America's future: school construction and highways and airports and a variety of things.

I went to Spring Valley, IL, over the break. It is a small town. But they were celebrating because $4 1/2 million from the President's stimulus package was going to make it to Spring Valley, IL, to build sewer lines which they have needed for decades.

As we had a press conference in this tiny town, where a weekly newspaper and radio station showed up, there were people lining the streets in front of their homes saying: Thank you. Our homes have been flooded out every time we have had a serious rainfall in this town. Now we are going to have storm sewers here, and local people are going to work to build them. The jobs are not going to be exported. The jobs are going to be right here in America, good-paying jobs.

So those investments are going to pay off for Spring Valley, for Illinois, and for this Nation for a long time to come. When it came right down to it, only a handful of Republican Senators would even help us pass that important measure.

After this, we are going to have the financial regulatory reform bill. It is going to be a fight because, you see, the very banks and financial institutions which dragged us into this recession are fighting tooth and nail to stop the reform and regulation we need to avoid a repeat of this crisis.

Shame on us if, at the end of the day, we do not put enough oversight and regulation into law to protect Americans from another recession such as this one. A lot of mistakes were made. Some were made by government, but a lot were made by the private sector which, in their excitement and greed, got involved in some policies which were indefensible.

We have read now--there are more and more books coming out analyzing this situation--that many financial institutions took advantage of the opportunities presented to them. They took advantage of a lot of people.

One of the important parts of financial regulation is to make sure we are going to have a cop on the beat, a consumer protection agency. Oh, the business interests are howling over this. The banks are howling over this notion that we would have an agency that literally looks out for the consumers of America. Have you ever been through a real estate closing with a stack of papers about this tall and they turn the corner of each of the pages and say: Keep signing. About 20 minutes from now, we are going to hand you a check and that home will be yours.

About halfway through you pause and you say: What am I signing?

Oh, standard forms. The government requires it. Just a lot of paperwork. Keep rolling.

Off you go. Buried in one of those papers may be language that could destroy you financially. I am not making this up, because prepayment penalties on mortgages trapped a lot of people into these exploding subprime mortgages and they could not get out. They lost their homes, they lost their savings, they lost everything, and they filed for bankruptcy because of one sentence in one form in a stack of papers pushed at you at a real estate closing.

Is it too much to ask that we have one agency of government, one agency that keeps an eye out for those tricks and traps which lure people in and can destroy them financially? How many of us have taken the time with our monthly credit card statement to flip it over and read the back page, that faint print, tiny line after tiny line that is almost impossible, even for someone who went to law school, to understand?

Virtually none of us do that. How many of us take a careful look at those letters you get from the credit card companies which kind of announce maybe the interest rate is going up?

Well, the fact is, even those with good education, even with business backgrounds, we might struggle to understand what all this means. The terms keep changing. Is it not appropriate we have at least one agency of government that steps back and says: This should not be allowed. This violates public policy.

The Consumer Product Safety Commission makes sure the toaster you bought at the store is not going to catch fire in your kitchen. The Food and Drug Administration makes sure the food you buy at the store is safe to eat. They make sure the pills you bought through the pharmacy are going to be safe and effective. Is it too much to ask that we have one agency, one watchdog oversight agency, that takes a look at all the financial information that is thrown at American families and businesses every single day?

My old friend, Dale Bumpers, former Senator from Arkansas, had a saying that applies here. They say, of the financial institutions and consumer protection, they hate this like the devil hates Holy water.

The notion that there would be one agency looking out for consumers and families across America when it comes to financial instruments, credit card applications and mortgages, that, to me, is very basic. I am working on several amendments with my colleagues on financial regulatory reform that Senator KAY HAGAN from North Carolina and I are interested in. She is going to take the lead on an issue she worked on in North Carolina in the legislature; that is, these payday loans, title loans, same day loans. These are awful.

The States that try to regulate them find that no matter how they write the law, within a matter of days, these organizations and companies find a way to scoot around it, to charge people outrageous interest rates for small loans which most of them default on because it is impossible to pay back. They roll over and roll over and finally they cannot pay them. Then they face foreclosures and the kind of seizures of property that many of us are aware of. That, to me, is an outrage.

Years ago, Senator Talent, a Republican from Missouri, heard from the Pentagon that these payday loan operations, those fly-by-night loan operations, were undermining our military because they were parking themselves outside military installations and making these loans. When our men and women in uniform got dragged into them, they became financially insolvent to the point where some had to leave the military, they were so broke.

So we made it a matter of policy across the United States that these predatory lenders could not lend money to military families. We said: As a matter of law and national security, we were going to stop their business with military families. But we did not protect the rest of America, and we should.

Senator Hagan has an amendment to deal with that. Senator Sanders of Vermont is going to address the issue of what is a fair interest rate in America. Should there be a limit? I think there should. I do believe there should be. I have my own bill. He has his. Between us, we hope one of them will pass, to establish that at least there is a limit to how much you can be charged in interest on a loan you take out.

This is a critically important bill that is going to come up soon. Senator Dodd, of Connecticut, has done a great job. He is the chairman of the Banking Committee. He will be bringing this bill to the floor. So far we have had no Republican support. There have been some indications in the media recently that they are now interested in the bill. We welcome them if they want to come on board and help us pass it.

But if they do not, if they want to stand for these financial institutions, to just say no when it comes to reform and regulation, then that is a debate worth engaging in.

I yield the floor.

Source