Mr. REED. Mr. President, we are seeing over
the last 12 months a slow recovery in our
job market. In the last 6 months, we have
seen that accelerate but not sufficiently
to reduce unemployment to anything comparable
to a full employment economy. This year, so
far, however, we have generated 600,000 jobs
in the private sector. That is in sharp contrast
to January of 2009 when President Obama took
office and when we were losing 700,000 jobs
a month. But despite this improvement in the
job market, we have a long way to go.
It is particularly troubling to be, once again,
anticipating the vote tomorrow on the extension
of unemployment benefits. These benefits lapsed
weeks ago. Meanwhile, millions of Americans
are without access to unemployment funds--the
insurance funds they paid each week out of
their daily wages for the time they hoped
would never come but has come--that they could
rely upon for some support as they look for
work.
In Rhode Island, the unemployment rate is
12 percent--absolutely horrendous. We are
seeing more and more of this unemployment
being long term, not a temporary situation.
Nearly half--45.5 percent--of those unemployed
have been out of work for more than 6 months,
and in those 6 months, the excess savings
one might have, the ability to cut a few corners
to make it week by week, are less and less
effective in simply keeping the lights on
and keeping the family together. Then when
you take away the unemployment compensation,
people are, frankly, becoming desperate.
Yet many on the other side are completely
indifferent to this. They say it is not their
problem. Well, it is their problem. It is
our problem. If we cannot do this, then we
are failing in a basic function which is to
provide support for Americans in crisis, and
that is what we must do. People are looking
for work. The average individual has been
looking for work for 35 weeks. That is almost
a year, or a big part of a year. Yet, in the
midst of this economic down turn--with 14.6
million unemployed Americans--my colleagues
on the other side have forced us to go through
procedural hoops to get a vote on an unemployment
compensation extension.
The Senate has failed on three occasions to
pass this extension. It is not because there
is not a majority of Senators who want to,
but because procedurally, we need 60 votes
to end debate and vote on the measure. We
have let this program lapse for short periods
and now it has been lapsed since June 2, and
that is unacceptable. There is no other word
for it other than obstruction--stopping something
that has been done routinely on a bipartisan
basis in every major job recession in this
country in our lifetime. This should be a
simple bipartisan endeavor.
George W. Bush had a period of time where
we had a recession in the job market and we,
on a bipartisan basis, extended unemployment
insurance. There were no repeated delays,
stretching it out, only 2-month extensions
or 3-month extensions to be considered. It
was done because we had to help Americans
who needed the help and who had contributed
to the fund through their unemployment compensation
insurance. We have never failed to extend
unemployment compensation while the unemployment
rate was at least 7.4 percent. Today, if your
State has 7.4 percent, you are in recovery.
You are in great shape. We have 12 percent
in Rhode Island. If I go around the country,
there are too many States such as Rhode Island,
with 10, 11, 12 percent unemployment. The
national unemployment rate is 9.5 percent.
So this is an historical anomaly. We have
routinely, on a bipartisan basis, extended
unemployment compensation as long as the unemployment
rate has been at least 7.4 percent. But now,
in the midst of a much worse national economic
crisis, most of my colleagues are simply indifferent
to it. I am hopeful tomorrow we will rally
at least two who recognize the need to respond
to the needs of their constituents. We have
extended it for much longer periods of time
than the current period. In the 1970s, under
Presidents Ford and Carter--again, through
two Presidents, one Republican, one Democrat--3
years and 1 month of extended unemployment
benefits. In the 1980s under President Reagan,
yes, we extended unemployment compensation
benefits without paying for it under Ronald
Reagan on a bipartisan basis to help Americans
for 2 years and 10 months. In the 1990s, under
President Bush, George Herbert Walker Bush
and President Clinton, 2 years and 6 months.
So we are hardly at the point where these
benefits have gone on so long that they are
intolerable.
Again, routinely we have done this on a bipartisan
basis, Republican Presidents, Democratic Presidents,
Republican Congresses, Democratic Congresses.
What I would argue has changed is our colleagues
on the other side. Now we are going through
another procedural vote and at the end of
the day, on the final merits, this could pass
by 75, 80, 90 votes, because no one wants
to be accused of not extending unemployment
benefits. But this whole procedural strategy
of delay after delay after delay effectively
has denied millions of people not just the
dollars, which are important, but the small
sense of security that they can rely on these
funds, that there is someplace they can get
help. In Rhode Island, the average weekly
benefit is $360. They can get roughly $360
a week to feed their family, to provide for
the essentials in life. When that is stripped
away, they lose more than just $360; they
lose the sense that there is anything out
there that is going to help.
Robert Bixby, president of the Concord Coalition,
which has been, throughout the years, one
of the most consistent in terms of fiscal
responsibility, put it well when he said:
As a deficit hawk, I wouldn't worry about
extending unemployment benefits. It is not
going to add to the long-term structural deficit,
and it does address a serious need. I just
feel like unemployment benefits wandered onto
the wrong street corner at the wrong time,
and now they are getting mugged.
That is what is going on. They are mugging
a program the American people need. It is
close at hand. It can invoke this notion of
responsible deficit reduction. Where was all
this responsible deficit reduction talk when
they were proposing Medicare Part D, which
is a huge benefit to the pharmaceutical industry--without
any payments, a lot of expensive entitlement,
which adds to the structural deficit, because
year in and year out, when you get to be 65
years old, you qualify for Part D.
Unemployment benefits are countercyclical--people
pay into it, it builds up the trust funds
in the States, and then when you meet a point
at which you need it, it should be there.
It should be there now.
The other point that is important to make
is, for every dollar of unemployment benefits
there is $1.90 of economic activity. This
is a stimulus measure too. At a time when
we are seeing a fragile recovery, we need
to put more muscle behind the recovery. Not
only are we giving people a chance to make
ends meet, when they take their unemployment
compensation and other resources and go into
the marketplace, it provides an increase in
economic activity.
In fact, if we don't have increased economic
activity, there is a danger this recovery
will be very slow--painfully slow--and that
would be unfortunate, because what we measure
in terms of economic recovery is measured
in American families by the opportunities
to send their children to school, the opportunities
to provide more for their families. If that
is inhibited over months and months, then
those who suffer are the American families.
There are other aspects of this. For example,
the Joint Economic Committee estimated that
by the end of 2010--this year--290,000 unemployed
disabled workers--these are people who work
but have a disability--will exhaust their
benefits. If these individuals choose to drop
out of the labor market and go onto the Social
Security disability rolls, go through the
process of being qualified and approved for
disability, over the lifetime, this could
result in $24.2 billion in costs, contrasted
to the $721 million this year that this group
would receive in extended benefits.
It is a simple sort of issue. Do we want to
keep people in the workforce--at least keep
them looking for work with unemployment benefits--or
do we want them to say: I will give up and
declare that I can't work again, and I will
go see if my disability can be covered by
Social Security disability insurance and,
for the rest of my life, I will collect my
Social Security disability, even though I
would really like to work. That is another
aspect of this problem.
We have a challenge tomorrow, when we greet
our new colleague from West Virginia, to stand
and extend unemployment benefits. Once again,
if we look at history, this should have been
done weeks ago on a strong, bipartisan basis,
putting aside the relative politics of the
moment and concentrating on what we should
do for the American people. Tomorrow we will
have a chance to do that, and I hope we do.
