Emergency Unemployment Compensation Extension Act

Floor Speech

Mr. REID. This is similar to ``Groundhog Day'' because this is a picture we have already seen in the very lucid speech given by my friend from New Hampshire.

She should have gone back through the Congressional Record. We have been through this before.

We are not going to hurt American children, and that is what it does. We have been through this. This is something we have tried to use in the past to pay for things that are very unfair to American children.

The other issue is there have been some efforts made, and good-faith efforts made by the Senator from Ohio, to stop double dipping--people who are on disability and are drawing unemployment insurance. We agree with him. We can take care of that, but it does not save $5.4 or $5.6 billion.

The disability community at this point is outraged that anyone will even suggest this. We can stop the double dipping. We are happy to join with them in doing that, but that savings is a little over $1 billion. We are pleased, and that is part of the proposal we will all have in a little bit.

I received a phone call from a person who has done more for helping people who are disabled than any person in the history of this body, the senior Senator from the State of Iowa. He had been previously engaged and he heard about this. Those of us who know Tom Harkin know what he does to protect the disabled. I know my friend from Ohio has good intentions, but the disability community will never allow this to happen, and they are right.

My friend, the junior Senator from Nevada, as some of us know, has had casts on one leg and now the other leg. He has had some surgery on his ankles. He has had to replace the Achilles tendons in both of his legs. A cast broke, I think it was on his left leg--maybe it was his right leg. I don't remember.

I talked to him this morning and he had to go to the emergency room to get his cast replaced. I am waiting to hear from him. I have explained this proposal in some detail to him and his staff, but he hasn't had an opportunity to speak to his staff since he had to rush to the emergency room--at least that is my understanding--so I am waiting until he gets back.

The proposal Senator Reed has come up with extends unemployment insurance through mid-November. The package does what the Republicans wanted. It is entirely paid for. There are structural changes which they have been demanding, and we have done that. It has reforms that reduce slightly the number of weeks an unemployed person can remain on the unemployment insurance, while all along preserving extending the weeks of high-unemployment States.

The legislation proposed by Senator Jack Reed tightens the rules for unemployment insurance. It would include a proposal, much like that advocated by the Senator from Ohio Mr. Portman, that would prevent people from collecting both unemployment insurance and disability insurance at the same time. That is clear.

Much of this offset is simply an extension of the Murray-Ryan agreement we all voted for--or a lot of us voted for earlier. This provision would extend the sequester on mandatory programs for another year. If Republicans have a complaint about this, don't call and complain to Jack Reed. Call Paul Ryan. This is his. This is his idea--maybe not on this specific issue, but this is his proposal, his idea.

We believe if it is good enough to help other proposals propounded by my Republican friends in the House, it is good enough to help the unemployed.

In this proposal, there has been a desire to address the concerns of the Republicans and Democrats. Is it perfect? Of course not, but Jack Reed has done a remarkably good job, and we believe this is a sound and balanced proposal.

I would also say this takes care of it for the good part of this year. I wish we could have done it until the first of the year. We can't find enough money. I have been waiting here for more than 24 hours for a reasonable proposal by my Republican friends to pay for this. We don't have one yet.

We are not going to strip the rights of people who have health insurance, and we are certainly not going to go after little boys and girls in America who have the child tax credit. There comes a time when we have to move forward.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. REID. Madam President, I first of all appreciate everyone's cooperation here--patience more than cooperation. We are doing our best. I have already said what we are trying to do here, and I will repeat just a part of it.

We have a proposal that is paid for. It is a pay-for that we have used and it is something I think is totally valid. The original idea came from Paul Ryan, but we have used it on another occasion. This has nothing to change that original proposal except to extend it for 1 year. The proposal of my friend from Ohio--an issue he has alerted us to--we think we have taken care of in this amendment. I think it is a fine proposal, but the breadth of what he is trying to do is really unfair and we can't do that. So we are doing our utmost.

We have structural changes in this. It is paid for--a pay-for for almost to the first of the year, as much money as we are able to find. But we have done everything the Republicans have wanted: It is paid for, there are structural changes, and we have taken care of the double dipping of those in the disability community on unemployment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. REID. It is the same time and time again. Things are never quite right. They want to offer amendments. We have been waiting here since Monday for pay-fors. The only pay-for we have heard realistically to take care of this is something everyone knows we disagree with--to take away health care benefits from the American people.

The proposal by my friend from Ohio is not a good proposal. It hurts people who are disabled, and that is the fact. We have stopped dual payments. That is what our amendment does.

This is something we have been going through--the American people have been going through now for years.

My friend worked with the senior Senator from New Hampshire on energy efficiency. Now, if that wasn't quite a show. I had conversations on numerous occasions: Yeah, we have it all taken care of. Republicans are trying to move forward on this.

It went on for weeks and weeks. We never got anything done.

So we are where we are. Democrats don't need a memo to tell them to have a good conscience about people who are disabled, to be compassionate about people who are unemployed. We don't need a memo. We know that people who are long-term unemployed are desperate for help. We are compassionate. We don't need a memo to tell us that.

The American people want to know where we stand. Are we going to extend unemployment benefits for people who have been out of work for a long time? That is the issue before this body. And we have bent over backward, through Jack Reed, to come up with a proposal to pay for this, to get rid of this issue for this year. We have structural changes in this amendment. We have a pay-for which came from Paul Ryan, the Republican Vice Presidential candidate this last election cycle. He is chairman of the Budget Committee. So I think we have done a yeoman's job through Jack Reed, we need to move on, and that is what we are going to do.

If there is a proposal my friend has--and we know his expertise, but the problem with his expertise is it is never quite right. It is almost but not quite right.

So the time is now to fish or cut bait. And they can make all the motions they want to try to complain about ``We didn't offer enough amendments. We need to be more like the Senate used to be.'' Well, I know what the Senate used to be because I was a used-to-be Senator, and it doesn't work the way it used to not because of anything we do wrong but because of the obstruction of President Obama's agenda. Every day it is more obstruction.

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, would the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. REID. Of course.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I ask the distinguished majority leader whether it is the position of his caucus and his position personally that people ought to be able to collect unemployment compensation and disability benefits simultaneously?

Mr. REID. No. And that is why Jack Reed's proposal stops it.

Mr. CORNYN. I would further ask the majority leader, it is my understanding that the amendment of the distinguished Senator from Ohio would discontinue the simultaneous collection of disability and unemployment benefits. But the majority leader objects to that amendment and instead is blocking that amendment and other amendments by the Republican side of the aisle by one which changes the effective date of the bill 1 day. In other words, it is purely a blocker amendment, has zero substance whatsoever, and does nothing to improve the underlying bill.

Mr. REID. Is there a question in all of this?

Mr. CORNYN. Isn't that right?

Mr. REID. Is what right?

Mr. CORNYN. What I just said.

Mr. REID. No, it is not right, because what the amendment of the Senator from Ohio does is hurt people who are disabled. Part of Jack Reed's amendment stops people from drawing both benefits at the same time.

Mr. CORNYN. I would ask the distinguished majority leader one more question.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.

Mr. REID. I would be happy to.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.

Mr. CORNYN. Is the majority leader aware there are 24 Republican amendments on file, almost all of which deal with the underlying bill in an attempt to either improve workforce education and training, provide other reforms to the unemployment compensation system, or otherwise help the economy recover so that people won't have to depend on unemployment insurance and they can get a job? Is the majority leader aware that there are those amendments and those ideas on this side of the aisle?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.

Mr. REID. I don't know the exact number, but there are always a lot of proposed amendments around. What I would say is this: Rather than continually denigrating our economy, our President, and, frankly, I believe, our country, I think we should have some more constructive things around here.

For example, we had today a conversation for 1 1/2 hours with Chairman Bernanke. He is going to be there until the first of next month. It was a very good discussion. He talked about the vibrancy of this economy now. He said, as we have been saying here, it is not as good as it should be, but with a little bit of help, it would be on fire. Now, why isn't it on fire? Because of the obstruction over here.

As the Presiding Officer knows, the new Fed chair, Chairman Yellen, has also said unemployment benefits are a great impetus in helping the economy. For every $1 put into the economy in unemployment benefits, we get $1.50 back.

This bill recognizes that these benefits don't go on forever. That is why we make structural changes. We would be happy anytime to sit down and have a good discussion with the senior Senator from Texas and anyone else to talk about things we can do.

We have had a lot of programs that deal with job retraining. In 1998 when we did that, it wasn't a bad deal. Here it is all these many years later, and of course we need to sit down and talk about ways to improve retraining. This whole country needs that. That is also something Chairman Bernanke said today.

So I repeat, let's start being constructive around here, and instead of talking about how terrible things are, let's talk about how things are improving. We have had 8 million new jobs since Obama has been President. We have a lot of good things that have happened. Has it been perfect? Not even close to perfect.

Mr. McCONNELL. Would the majority leader yield for a question?

Mr. REID. Of course.

Mr. McCONNELL. Is it the majority leader's intent to allow votes on any Republican amendments?

Mr. REID. On what?

Mr. McCONNELL. On the bill we were just discussing.

Mr. REID. This is Thursday. We have been waiting since Monday to get a proposal from the minority, the Republicans, as to what they believe would be a good way to pay for this.

Nothing, other than whack ObamaCare. So the answer is that we are where we are now. We have tried a number of different ways on many different pieces of legislation to say, OK, let's just do germane amendments. No. How about relevant amendments? No. How about having a specific number of amendments and giving the minority more than the majority? No, can't do that either. We want unlimited amendments on everything. As a result of that, we have continued obstruction which has taken place in this body for 5 years. It is time we get back to legislating the way we used to.

Mr. McCONNELL. Is the answer to my question, I would say to the majority leader, no?

Mr. REID. The answer to the Senator's question is no.

Mr. McCONNELL. No.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.

Mr. PORTMAN. Madam President, I wish to make two corrections quickly and then yield to my colleague from Indiana.

One is that the proposal I did offer had nothing to do with ObamaCare, as I thought the majority leader understood, and others do not, including the amendment from the Senator from New Hampshire. So we do have a number of amendments and a number of good ideas. We had a debate.

Second, it is in the President's budget. So if it is such a terrible proposal, I am surprised the President would have proposed it.

Mr. REID. Would my friend yield for a question?

Mr. PORTMAN. Of course.

Mr. REID. Does the Senator also understand that in the President's budget, he calls for revenue, does he not?

Mr. PORTMAN. Yes, he does. He calls for major tax increases.

Mr. REID. And my friend would also acknowledge that when Presidents submit these budgets, don't they propose a budget rather than nitpicking different pieces of the budget one at a time?

Mr. PORTMAN. The Senator is correct. After having put together a budget myself, I would say you have to stand by all those policies. And I think if we were to call on the Office of Management and Budget or the Treasury Department, they would tell you they stand by these proposals. So, yes, it is a package, but they put them in because they think they are good policy.

So my point is that we have some good ideas not related to ObamaCare, since that seems to be an objection by the majority leader, and I hope we can work something out. I do think there is an opportunity for us to do so. But I don't think we can do it unless there is a little bit of give-and-take and some discussion, at least, which we have not been able to have yet.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. REID. If he will just withhold--and he can offer his amendment--I do want to say this. We get nowhere with dueling amendments. We have learned that in the past. Dueling amendments don't do the trick.

The issue is pronounced, it is here before us, and we went a step further. In the past we haven't paid for this. Five times, President Bush signed bills extending unemployment benefits not paid for.

Again, we have done a good job reducing the debt. We have a lot more we can do, but we have reduced it almost $3 trillion already. The issue now before us is are we going to extend benefits for people who have been unemployed for a long time. That is the question. We bent over backward to try to come up with a compromise, a bipartisan piece of legislation. I repeat, it is paid for with a Paul Ryan pay-for. There are structural changes. It is a pretty good deal. I am very disappointed we are at a point now where we have been for 5 years. Nothing is ever quite good enough. They always want more amendments. They always want more amendments.

But the issue is before us. Is this body going to vote to extend unemployment benefits paid for with Paul Ryan's pay-for and with structural changes or are they going to turn their back on people who are desperate?

Mr. COATS. Madam President, may I ask the majority leader to yield for just one question?

Mr. REID. Sure.

Mr. COATS. The majority leader just said this body gets nowhere by offering amendments. Does he mean throughout this year it is worthless, meaningless for Republicans to offer any amendments to any bill to try to make improvements to the bills or to try to make their voice heard or the voice of the people I represent, the people of Indiana, heard on this floor?

Mr. REID. My friend, the Senator from Indiana, is of those Senators who used to be here when the good old times were here. We didn't have ``gotcha'' amendments. Every amendment offered, with rare exception, is a ``gotcha'' amendment. That is not what we do here.

I have been waiting since Monday to get pay-fors as to how we can extend unemployment benefits for people. They come up with stuff that doesn't even pay for 3 months' worth of extensions. Amendments are important, but I think we have to go back to the time when Senator Coats was here the first time and start working together to get things done in this body.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. REID. I was there, just like my friend. Things were different then, they certainly were, because we did not have hundreds of filibusters that would take place. Filibuster was something that was used rarely. In those days would you ever filibuster the Secretary of Defense or all the other Cabinet officers? Of course you would not. That is why action had to be taken.

But what my Republican friends have to realize is that filibuster is not a right, it is a privilege. It has been abused. My friend can lecture me, and I am happy to listen to his many lectures, but I was here. I know how things used to work and what has gone on in the last 5 years would never have taken place in those days.

Mr. McCONNELL. Will the majority leader yield for a question?

Mr. REID. Yes.

Mr. McCONNELL. He brings up the Secretary of Defense frequently. Was the Secretary of Defense defeated or confirmed?

Mr. REID. No, he was only delayed while we had two wars going on in this country.

Mr. McCONNELL. Has a member of the President's Cabinet ever been defeated on a filibuster in the history of the Senate?

Mr. REID. Mr. President, in response to the question of my friend, in fact what has happened--and we find this with the judges--they stall for weeks, months, and sometimes years. When the vote comes it is pretty good, but in the meantime they have done significant damage to this institution and our country by stalling and making it so the President of the United States has a very difficult time doing his job because he doesn't have his people there when he needs them.

Mr. McCONNELL. I ask my friend, the majority leader, then is what he finds offensive the fact that there are debates about these matters? Since none of these members are being defeated, what is the issue? I am having a hard time understanding it. Is it the fact that there is controversy, that there is debate? Since none of them are being defeated, is he also suggesting we have no controversy about anybody sent by the President of the United States?

Mr. REID. Mr. President, of course that is a question that is a great big softball--of course not. We need debate. We need good, strong debate about nominations and everything else. But what we don't need is hours and days and weeks and months of obstruction. That is what we have here.

My friend, the Republican leader, is picturing to everyone within the sound of his voice something that doesn't exist. There has been obstruction that has been carried to an extent that no one ever dreamed would happen in this great Republic.

That is what the objection is. The objection is to obstruction. Was it only a debate when my Republican colleagues decided the DC Circuit--some say the most important court in this country, even, some say, more important than the Supreme Court--when they decided there were vacant seats there and for 5 years held up filling those seats? Is that a debate? No. It is obstruction.

If we turn to the dictionary and look up ``obstruction,'' they would point right over here.

Mr. McCONNELL. Will the majority leader yield for another question?

Since he has conceded that no Cabinet members have been defeated prior to the decision of the majority leader to break the rules of the Senate to change the rules of the Senate, is it not the case that 215 of President Barack Obama's judges have been confirmed and only 2 have been defeated?

Mr. REID. Mr. President, during the time we have been a country, and I don't know exactly long it has been, more than 230 years--I can't come up with it this second--there have been 23 district court nominees filibustered. Twenty of them have been during the 5 years of the Obama administration, and that example is throughout the government.

The American people know what is taking place in this body. They can try to paint over a picture that things are just fine, all we are doing is wanting a little bit of debate. There has been stalling, obstruction that is untoward and never considered. I just can't imagine how my Republican colleagues can justify what they have done. But they do. I accept that.

But we have an issue before this body. Again, they are trying to divert attention and go to how many amendments, what are the rules. The issue before this body is whether the long-term unemployed get an extension of their benefits. As we speak, there are people all over this country who are desperate to be able to get $300 a week to be able to survive for another week, hoping they will find a job. The sad part about that--my friends say we need to do something about making sure these people fill these vacant jobs. There are lots of places people find work. For every job opening there are three people unemployed trying to find a job.

I have answered the question to the best of my ability.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source