Jack Reed

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside and that I be permitted to call up my amendment No. 2703.

Mr. REED. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be waived.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, this week is the 50th anniversary of the Surgeon General's landmark report on smoking and health. I join with some of my colleagues who have taken the floor this week to commemorate this anniversary. Surgeon General Dr. Luther Terry's report was groundbreaking. For the first time, the government warned that ``smoking is a health hazard of sufficient importance in the United States''. This fundamentally changed how our country thought about smoking and was the basis for many of the successful tobacco control efforts of the past 50 years. Indeed, according to CDC data, in 1965 the year after the Surgeon General's report--approximately 42 percent of American adults smoked cigarettes. By 2011, that rate had dropped by more than half to 19 percent. Hopefully this trend will continue, leading to better health for millions of Americans. Throughout my time in Congress, I have worked on initiatives to discourage our children from becoming smokers, supported measures to ban smoking in schools, and worked to enhance the FDA's ability to regulate the sale and distribution of cigarettes and smokeless tobacco. We have come a long way since I proposed legislation in the late nineties to deny tobacco companies tax deductions for advertising to children. I was an original cosponsor of the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, which became law in 2009 and incorporated the goals in my bill to keep the tobacco industry from targeting children as new customers. This law provides the FDA with the explicit authority to protect the public from deceptive cigarette advertisements, prevent the targeting of minors, and remove certain harmful ingredients from cigarettes. This was an important effort. But we also must continue to address new tobacco-related concerns as they arise. For instance, I was pleased to join several of my colleagues last year in urging the FDA to issue deeming regulations asserting its regulatory authority over e- cigarettes and other tobacco products, and it is my hope that it will do so soon. We have made great strides during the last 50 years in reducing smoking rates and preventing tobacco-related illnesses, but we can and must do more. I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to continue these efforts, which I believe are critically important to our Nation's long-term health.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, first let me thank the Senator from Illinois for his great leadership on the Appropriations Defense Subcommittee and for joining me in Rhode Island to see those great workers at Electric Boat and many other defense industries in Rhode Island. I too want to commend Chairwoman Barbara Mikulski and Chairwoman Patty Murray. We would not be here today without their extraordinary efforts, Herculean efforts by two extraordinary individuals. I also want to thank my colleague from the great State of Alaska, Lisa Murkowski, for her work. She is an extraordinary colleague, collaborator. We have worked together to make this Interior subcommittee bill a very good one. Chairman Ken Calvert of the House, ranking member Jim Moran, both superb participants and collaborators in this effort. Jim is retiring. I want to thank him for his distinguished service to Virginia and to the Nation. I am very pleased in particular in this Interior subcommittee bill that we could make a strong investment in clean water and drinking water through the revolving fund or, as it is known, the SRF fund. This is not only about the environment and public health, it is about jobs. In fact, adopting our provisions in contrast to the House's lower numbers will keep approximately 97,000 more Americans on the job this year. That, I think, is significant. It is not just about the environment, it is also about keeping people at work. We have also ensured that we can staff all of our agencies, including the EPA, so they do not have to face furloughs, so they can have continuity of operations, so they can do their jobs more efficiently and more effectively. For the Department of the Interior, the bill provides solid funding for resource agencies, including the National Park Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, the Bureau of Land Management, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, as well as the U.S. Geological Survey. The bill also includes $306 million for the Land and Water Conservation Fund. With respect to our cultural agencies, we have also been able to restore sequester cuts to the National Endowment for the Arts and Humanities, and we increased funding of the Smithsonian, which will help them complete the National Museum of African American History and Culture for its opening in 2015. One challenge in the Interior bill is the firefighting costs. These are costs that cannot be avoided and they continue to increase. We have fully funded these costs and we have done that by increasing resources significantly. But we have to be aware, if these costs continue to grow, it will be something that is very difficult to sustain. So we have to apply our efforts going forward to see if we can, through suppression efforts, through other efforts, begin to control the cost of firefighting. This is something, particularly for our Western colleagues, that is absolutely essential. We responded to this need completely and thoroughly. I want to also commend my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee for the other aspects of the bill, Senators Harkin, Feinstein, Murray, and Durbin. Their subcommittees produced great results. The Low Income Heating Assistance Program, LIHEAP, the Weatherization Program has been adequately funded, funding for Job Corps, TIGER grant funding, and Chairman Mikulski particularly effectively added $75 million for fisheries disasters, which the Presiding Officer from Massachusetts and myself are very keenly aware of and very appreciative of. Funding for the Securities and Exchange Commission, funding for the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. This is going to help make sure the Dodd-Frank legislation that we passed is actually implemented and the markets are operating efficiently. This is critical to our economic viability and our economic progress. As Senator Durbin mentioned, I am extremely pleased that two Virginia-class submarines were included in this appropriations bill. They are built in Groton. They all begin in Quonset Point, RI, but they are built in Groton finally and often in Newport News. This is a program vital to our national security, vital to employment. About 2,800 people in Rhode Island will benefit from these important programs. I think we have to do more to invest in our people, invest in our economy, infrastructure, et cetera, but this bill goes a very long way. Let me also pay tribute to people who really deserve, as they say, a shoutout. That is the staff members who did this work: Rachael Taylor, Ryan Hunt, Virginia James, Rita Culp, and Tiffany Taylor on my side. Senator Murkowski's extraordinary staff: Leif Fonnesbeck, Brent Wiles, and Emy Lesofski. They did extraordinary work. Before I leave the floor. Let me conclude one point: We will come together this evening on a strong bipartisan basis to pass this appropriations bill. But we still have remaining work to do on the unemployment insurance bill. I hope in the intervening days that we can find a path forward to pass an unemployment insurance bill on a bipartisan basis because if we do not, there are 1.5 million Americans without benefits, 70,000 more a week lose their benefits, and our economy is losing out, because it is approximately $600 million a week that is being sapped from the economy, as estimated by Professor Lawrence Katz at Harvard if we do not act. Now is the time not only to put these appropriations to work, but also to put our UI programs to work, so that not only can we help Americans, but we can also help our economy. I want to thank in this regard, with respect to the UI efforts, Senator Heller and Senator Collins. They are extraordinarily thoughtful Members, who are committed, as I am, to helping their constituents and doing it in a wise and prudent way. With that, let me recognize the chairwoman who has come to the floor and say, thank you, chairwoman, for an extraordinary bit of work. Not surprising coming from a giant like yourself. Thank you.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. I rise to express my extreme disappointment that the Senate has been blocked from moving forward on this critical legislation. There are about 1.5 million Americans who have lost their unemployment insurance since December 28. Every week 70,000 more lose that protection, so my disappointment is severe. But their situation is much more desperate. We had within our power today the ability to move this Senate forward to help our people, to help people who only qualified for the program because they worked and because they are still looking for work in one of the most difficult job markets we have seen in many decades. It is extremely urgent that we act and today we failed to act. We have to continue to move forward. The majority leader has procedurally put us in a position so we can call up this measure again very quickly. We have to continue to work toward a solution. We have to keep the economy moving forward and creating jobs. That was what this was about, giving people some modest support each week. But also, as the CBO estimated, this measure, if extended for the full year, would generate 200,000 additional jobs. That is, on average, about what we have been creating each month. In fact, I will remind my colleagues, last year's unemployment insurance benefits were unpaid for and they generated additional jobs, not only providing benefits to people who needed it and were searching for work but increased economic activity in the country, which put people to work. I hope my colleagues recognize this legislation they filibustered today was the result of significant concessions to many of my Republican colleagues. I worked closely with my Republican colleagues. We worked to find a way through this thicket so we could help Americans who have earned this help. I think it is important to make clear how much we moved to try to accommodate the major objections and considerations of my colleagues on the other side. We first proposed--and I proposed--this as emergency spending, unpaid for. We received from the other side: No, we can't accept that. It has to be paid for. We went ahead, and the in the first proposal we voted on today, we paid for it. We also responded to another significant concern that we not use tax revenues to pay for it, so we avoided tax revenue. Next, we went ahead and we adopted a provision to pay for it, to provide for many months, 11\1/2\ months of benefits, paid for without using revenues. Let me also note that this is the exception to the rule. The White House, in some of their materials, has noted that ``fourteen of the last 17 times in 20 years that it's been extended,'' UI, ``there's been no strings attached,'' no pay-fors--emergency spending. But yet we listened to the thoughtful comments of our colleagues, we worked together closely with them, and we came up with a way to pay for this extension for 11\1/2\ months and not to use tax revenues, even though many on our side--in fact I would be among them--who would say there are egregious loopholes that should be closed regardless of what the revenue is used for but could be used to fund these benefits. Then we have had this procedural back-and-forth. But today Leader Reid offered a series of amendments to the other side, and they objected to that offer. Let me reiterate. We have tried, not only in very good faith but very diligently over the last several days particularly, to try to bring something to this floor that could get the 60 votes necessary to help these struggling Americans. We have incorporated, in fact, in our pay-for, one of the provisions Senator Portman suggested with respect to disability payments--which was controversial in some respects--but it was, again, another attempt to try to look at what my colleagues, on the Republican side as well as the Democratic side, were talking about in terms of how we would responsibly pay for this measure. We have been debating this extension since December. It is time to act, and regrettably we did not act today. We have made concessions to try to move forward. This was not a take-it-or-leave-it. It has been unpaid for 14 times before--and it would have been 15 times now. We have to do this. And still we are telling people who are in very extreme economic situations, who are depending on this modest $300 a week to help them pay their rent, pay their mortgage, put fuel in their car, have a cell phone so they can look for work, get to a job interview--telling them, no, you are still out in the cold, literally, and it is very cold in parts of the country. We can't give up. We are not going to give up. I am very encouraged. After talking to some of my colleagues on the Republican side, they still want to work through this with us. We will accept that opportunity to work together. Let us remember though what is a disappointing moment today for many of us is a dispiriting moment for millions of Americans who do not have the modest support unemployment insurance would provide. We have to work for them, we have to work for our economy, and we can do both. In the weeks ahead and the days ahead we will continue to do that. I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of my brief remarks, Senator Lee be recognized, and then after Senator Lee that Senator Harkin be recognized.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, as the leader indicated, we are working to develop a response to the 1.3 million Americans who on December 28 lost their unemployment extended benefits. Since that time, the number has increased. About 70,000 Americans a week are losing their unemployment insurance benefits. This number is now approaching roughly 1.5 million Americans and will approach a significantly higher number of Americans throughout the year. This is an emergency. These people have worked. They are in a job market where typically there are more than two applicants for every job, and we are seeing a job market that is moving sometimes forward and sometimes sideways. The numbers last Friday were quite disappointing. It could have been the weather or it could be other factors, but it does underscore the need to move very aggressively to address the issue of these unemployed Americans. The average benefit is about $300 to $350 a week. The only reason they qualify for the benefit is they did work and they are still looking for work. One of the ironies of last week's numbers is even though we had very mediocre job creation, the unemployment rate fell. Why? Because people are leaving the workforce. They are giving up. We can't let that happen. One way we keep people looking for work and we keep them able to look for work is to provide this modest benefit each week. So we are looking very hard and we have had a great deal of collaboration and cooperation. I thank Senators Heller, Collins, Portman, Ayotte, Murkowski, and Coats. They voted to keep this process going forward, and I respect and thank them for that. I know, over this last weekend, particularly Senators Heller, Collins, and Portman have been working to try to find a way to move forward. Let me say, though, we on our side have moved very far. Typically these benefits are not paid for. Last year's 12 month extension of unemployment insurance was unpaid for. It was an emergency. It probably created on the order of 100-plus thousand jobs, which would not have taken place without that kind of increase in demand in the economy generated by these payments to individuals looking for work. We heard what our colleagues said, that this has to be paid for. So we went ahead and proposed a pay-for. Again, many of my colleagues in the Democratic caucus in both the House and the Senate would prefer to see these benefits as emergency unpaid for. We have repeatedly done that. We have also changed the duration of the benefits. We eliminated some weeks in the first two tiers so we would be able to afford this benefit and still give people the opportunity to move forward. So we have moved from what we have typically done. Again, if we look back over the years, the exception is paying for these benefits. Many times during the Bush administration, we provided unemployment benefits unpaid for. Now some of my colleagues are asking to pay for them. We have tried to pay for them. We tried to change the duration so we could afford them but still provide help for people. We have done this because we have heard from the other side: One, they have to be paid for; but, two, we can't use revenues. A balanced approach to any public policy solution has to at least consider revenues. But our colleagues have been staunch about saying: We will not entertain at all any revenues to offset this payment. There is a long list of egregious tax provisions which have been highlighted by many of my colleagues--particularly Senator Levin in his work--with respect to corporate tax loopholes which not only should be corrected but could be applied to allow these Americans the opportunity to have some support as they go forward looking for work. But because our colleagues said no revenue, OK, we have looked for ways to pay for this without engaging in rhetoric. So I think we have made a significant step forward. In turn, my colleagues have come back and proposed variations on some of the things we have talked about. They have done it in good faith. They have done it with great ingenuity. Again, I thank them. We haven't yet come to a sort of meeting of the minds, but we are working. Again, let me go back to the original proposal Senator Heller and I made. We said: Let's do this for 3 months without a pay-for. That will give us time to do a lot of the work my colleagues have suggested. They have talked about how training programs have to be changed, how skills have to be matched up with jobs, very intricate programmatic changes. That is not going to be done here on the floor within 24, 48, or 72 hours. I would conclude by again saying: There are now approaching 1.5 million Americans who were abandoned on the 28th of December. Their benefits were cut off. They are in some cases desperate, trying to pay their mortgages, trying to keep their homes, trying to put food on their table. They are trying to put gas in their car, natural gas to heat their homes in the cold weather, and I think we have to respond. Again, I thank my colleagues who have helped. Tomorrow we are going to get closer to a sort of point of reckoning, and I hope we can come together and move forward. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I wish to thank the Senator from Michigan, my chairman of the Armed Services Committee, and I simply wish to make a few comments about this afternoon's proceedings with respect to unemployment insurance. The reason we were here, and we can't lose sight of that, is that 1.3 million Americans, as of December 28, lost their extended unemployment benefits. They are without the modest support of roughly $300 to $350 a week. Every week, 73,000 more Americans lose this support. We are going to see this number grow and grow and grow and grow while we talk and talk and talk and talk. Along with Senator Heller, we proposed a very straightforward mechanism: a 90 day extension and picking up retroactively those who had lost it, unpaid for, so we could work on some of the difficult issues my colleagues have all explored this afternoon. In listening to my colleagues, we made the determination there was a sincere concern and desire on the part of my Republican colleagues particularly that any extension of benefits be paid for. Most frequently, we don't pay for these benefits. We have on occasion, but most times we consider it emergency spending. We go ahead and authorize the payments and we don't offset it. But the concern was raised repeatedly and very strenuously that these benefits should be paid for. Also, there were several proposals to do that. So working closely with my colleagues, we considered the best approach for it was not simply to bring up the Reed-Heller bill, the 90 day extension, but to respond as best we could to these concerns. So the provision we brought up today is fully offset, but it goes beyond 90 days because the simple logic was that going through the travail of finding pay-fors is not something we want to do every 90 days. It is something we should do seriously but for as long as possible. So our provision would be able to carry these benefits through to the middle of November, and it required finding offsets. The other thing we have heard from our Republican colleagues is that we shouldn't use any revenue--no tax provisions. In the Democratic caucus we have seen this extension of extended unemployment insurance benefits come up so many times under Republican Presidents and Democratic Presidents completely unpaid for. But also in terms of seriously and thoughtfully balancing the way we pay for provisions, we have many times suggested, which I think is common sense, let's have a mix of revenue and other provisions--spending provisions. Let's do that; 50-50 or some fair combination. In fact, I think the American people would see that as the most sensible approach to doing the work of government. But once again we yielded to the perceptions and the demands, in some respects, that there be no revenue provisions in this bill. As a result, we had to look for a series of pay-fors that didn't involve revenues. That was a deliberate attempt to reach across and to say: We hear you. You want it fully paid for, you want no spending, and you want provisions that will not involve revenue. So we proposed a major provision--an extension of the mandatory sequestration--that was included in the budget agreement and that had overwhelming support in the Senate--for a bit over an additional year, which gained us, roughly--and these are rough figures--about $17 billion. Then we took one of the provisions that was offered by my colleague Senator Portman, who has been working very assiduously and very thoughtfully on these issues, with respect to the double collection of both SSDI benefits and unemployment compensation benefits and we tried to focus it and make it narrower, and that resulted in $1 billion, giving us sufficient funds to carry this program through--if we voted today, starting as soon as the House passed it--all the way to the middle of November. That is where we are today. We still are open to alternatives to try to deal with this issue. I know many of my colleagues on the Democratic side have a long list of revenue provisions. In fact, Chairman Levin has, through his work, a list of what many would call--many Americans--egregious loopholes that corporations enjoy. But certainly there are other ways to pay for this. But we are still trying to work through this. We are still trying to find a bipartisan approach to deal with the issue of the moment, the crisis of the moment, and that is 1.4 million Americans today--and that number is growing--who worked hard and through no fault of their own lost their job and who are now struggling to get by with a modest $300 or $350 a week. One final point. This is a crisis of the moment. I know some of my colleagues are talking about an issue--the issue of military pensions-- that doesn't become effective, as I understand it, until 2015. There are other ways to deal with it. But that is a fair position to advance at any time, and I have great sympathy for that position. I would hate to see other issues, systematic reform of our training programs--which takes time, effort, and focused attention by committees typically--essentially prevent a response to the immediate crisis of people who are without jobs, who are desperately looking, and now don't have very modest support to pay for their rent, pay for their heat, and provide some support for their families. We are still engaged. We will have a vote Monday. I hope we can succeed on that procedural vote. Regardless, we are going to come back and back, because this number of Americans--growing each week by approximately 70,000--needs our response, not just our comments on the floor of the Senate. I yield back.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. I thank the Senator from Illinois. Let me first address the issue of paying for the benefits. The Senator from Illinois is correct, typically these benefits are considered emergency spending and they are not offset. In fact, the legislation which was passed in the wee hours of January 1, 2013, as I recall, had a 1-year extension of unemployment benefits, unpaid for. It received overwhelming votes--I believe 89 to 8--a huge majority of Republicans and Democrats coming together. So a year ago, this issue of pay-for was not even on the table. And, by the way, I think it probably led to the creation, given CBO's estimates going forward, of roughly 200,000 jobs this year because it was enacted and it wasn't offset. It goes to a second point about sort of the bang for the buck. This is one of the best commonsensical programs we have, because when we give these benefits to individuals and don't take other benefits, other funds out of the economy, it has a multiplier effect, some people estimate $1.50 for every $1 in terms of economic activity. And it makes common sense. These funds go directly from the recipient, not to their savings account or to build up, but right out to buying gasoline, keeping cell phone service on. By the way, if you don't have a car and don't have a cell phone today, you can't find a job, you can't go to the interview, you can't get the call for the interview, you can't apply for the job. It is not 1955 anymore, where you take the bus and hand your clipboard across the barrier to the clerk. You have to have this electronic connection to be in the workforce, as well as mobility. So from the point of view of an economic national perspective: One, we typically have done these as emergency spending; two, you get a big bang for the buck when you do it that way. There is a strong argument that is probably the most sensible approach. With respect to the pay-for the Republican leader suggested, I concur entirely with the Senator from Illinois in that it is robbing Peter to pay Paul. I am sure, not only these folks who are struggling to find a job, but of the 1.3 million people who are currently receiving benefits, I have to assume a significant number--at least some of them--have preexisting conditions. For the first time many of them are able to qualify for health care benefits. And to take this protection away for millions of Americans--you say it is 1.9 million just in Kentucky alone. It is a huge number across the country--would be bad policy, and it would in fact for many families be a crushing blow. Again, I don't think we have to rob Peter to pay Paul. From an economic standpoint, we have typically done this without offsets because we want to have the economic stimulus and the demand creation which comes. But from a basic fairness point of view, we are going to go ahead and give benefits of $300 a week to people who need them. I want to do that. But we are going to pay for it by telling some families: No, you don't get insurance. Or: You have to pay $25,000 a year because your child has asthma. That is not fair. It is not good common sense and it is not good economics. So I concur. To resume: We talked about some of the big issues here and paying for this bill. This is all in the context of deficit reduction, which we have made significant progress on. The Bowles-Simpson report suggested that over 10 years we cut $4 trillion from the deficit, and we achieved roughly about $2.5 trillion of that, most of it coming from cuts to programs--not revenue increases, but cuts. So we have made significant progress on deficit reduction. We have to do more, but we have to do it sensibly and logically. And we have proposals we have brought forward. I must commend my colleagues in the Senate. This was on a bipartisan basis. We passed an immigration reform bill in this body. It has languished in the House. But in that bill alone, scored by CBO, will cut nearly another $1 trillion in the deficit, which will get us to that target or very close to that target. Yet it is languishing in the House. If we can pass it, then this issue of deficit--which has dominated and been very important over the last several years--is something we can practically resolve. And, by the way, as I suggested in my colloquy with Senator Durbin, if we pass this legislation, it will help too in terms of stimulating economic growth, et cetera. There are many things we can do. But, again, I go back to this point. These people are in a desperate situation. As my constituent wrote, 30 years of work, middle-aged, getting retraining, 300 applications, no interviews, looking for anything. It is not just about dollars and a check. It is about dignity. It is about who you are. We have to respond and we have to respond quickly. And we have the opportunity to do this. As we look at a longer term effort, it doesn't foreclose and it shouldn't foreclose considering programmatic changes, considering if we would offset or not. In response to Senator Durbin, I pointed out, typically we don't offset this program but we have at certain times in the past. My preference would be, frankly, to get this bill done and then look at this issue over the longer term without preconditions. So we have to be clear. We can move this and we should move it. Again, this question of offsets seems to be coming up more and more, as was reflected in the comments of the Senator from Illinois. As we initiated this program under President Bush back in 2008--and the unemployment rate was roughly 5.5 percent, much lower than it is today--we did not ask for offsets every time. In fact, it was the exception to the rule. I think now is not the time, particularly in this 90-day proposal which Senator Heller and I have. We have worked through some difficult issues, and I commend Senator Murray and Congressman Ryan particularly for the work on the budget, and I think we can work through this issue. So I again urge that we thoughtfully and very conscientiously and collaboratively work together longer term, but not ignore the crisis today--not leave 1.3 million, and more, Americans dangling, uncertain, desperate, frustrated, losing not only their income but in many respects their identity and their dignity. We can do better than that. Then we have the time--we have the time to work constructively, collaboratively, and cooperatively to come up with principled proposals to extend these benefits for hopefully the whole year. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, it has been 11 days since Federal unemployment insurance expired for 1.3 million Americans, and every day more Americans lose their benefits as their 26 weeks of State benefits expire. I hope my colleagues join Senator Heller and me in our efforts to swiftly pass this 3-month extension. Many of my colleagues have talked about issues with respect to a longer term piece of legislation, the cost of it, should we pay for it, and are there changes necessary in the program to make it more effective and efficient. Those are thoughtful and worthy considerations, but they should not deprive 1.3 million Americans--and that number is growing each day--basic benefits. These are modest benefits--about $300 a week--that allow them to just keep their families together, keep trying to search for a job. I would point out that the only way one qualifies for this benefit is, No. 1, if someone had a job and they lost it through no fault of their own, and they are constant in keeping up the search for work. That is one of the requirements. It is all about work. In this economy, it is all about the fact that there are two or three job seekers for every job. In some parts of the country--in Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Nevada, Arizona, Tennessee, States that have high unemployment--it is not just three to one, in some cases it is more. I mentioned on the floor just 2 days ago an article that appeared in the Washington Post that talked about a new dairy opening, or reopening, in Hagerstown, MD, with 36 jobs. They thought there would be a large demand for the jobs, but there were basically 1,600 applicants for 36 jobs. That is not unique to that town in Maryland. That is, unfortunately, something that is happening all across this country, and it reflects the need to extend these benefits immediately. We have serious issues to work out, but we understand, or we should understand, that to do it carefully and thoughtfully requires time and requires the attention of the experts in the relevant committees. In fact, I can recall coming down here before these benefits expired asking unanimous consent to extend them for 1 year, and one of the responses, one of the objections from my colleagues on the Republican side was we have to do this through the committee. We have to do this thoughtfully and deliberately. We have an opportunity to help people who desperately need help and start that deliberative process, and I hope we do that. Yesterday, we took an important step forward. We procedurally moved forward to start consideration of this legislation. I wish to thank again Senator Heller and all of my colleagues who joined in that vote. That has given us a chance to finish the job, but it is going to be a very difficult job to finish. I think what we can do immediately--and this might be a two-step process--is quickly pass the Reed-Heller legislation--90 days, unfunded. It will immediately put money into the economy. It will immediately help struggling Americans who are looking for work--they have to in order to qualify for these funds--and it will help overall the economy. As the CBO has projected, if we do not fund for the year unemployment insurance, we will lose 200,000 jobs; 200,000 jobs which would be generated by this program will be lost. So we will have a double whammy. We will still have people unemployed searching for work without any assistance and some, in fact, will stop searching. They will give up. Then we will not have the creation of additional jobs because of this money going into the economy, generating further demand, and further demand generating a need to keep people on and hire some more. I hope we can finish the job we started yesterday. It was a very important step forward and a very important step forward not only to help individual families, as I suggested, but to bolster economic demand throughout the economy and that is going to lead to growth. I find it somewhat ironic when I hear some of my colleagues talking about, oh, we truly need to create jobs. That is what we have to do. Yes, we agree. But there have been so many proposals that have been presented both by the administration and by my colleagues that have not been given consideration--creating a national infrastructure bank which will fund, through a quasi-public mechanism, highway construction, bridge renovations, sewer lines, and those things--that have been languishing for months and months and months and months. So we should get on with those things, I agree. But the immediate crisis is helping these 1.3 million Americans, and that number is growing. There is another reason why it is particularly critical to talk about the extended unemployment benefits that are the subject of our debate. We should not end this program now. As this chart indicates, long-term unemployment is much higher today than it has ever been when we terminated these benefits. In April of 1959, when they ended the extended benefits, it was .9 percent--long-term unemployment. In April 1962, .9 percent; .4 percent in March of 1973; .9 percent in 1977; 1.2 percent long-term unemployment in 1985; 1.3 percent in 1994; 1.3 percent in 2003; and today, 2.6 percent of long-term unemployment. We are in a new situation. These could be structural market changes which are making it harder and harder for some people to find employment, even after searching desperately, and that is exactly who this program is designed to help. The State program, the initial 26 weeks, covers people who lose their job and then relatively quickly-- relatively quickly--can find other employment. This program is the one that is designed for those people who, for many reasons, are having difficulty finding a job over many weeks and months. Today we are at twice the level we have ever been when we considered cutting off these benefits. Actually, we have cut off these benefits. It was December 28. For that reason alone, this issue of extended benefits has to be addressed first, I would argue, on an emergency basis. Then let's think long and hard about longer term efforts to address the problem. Many of my colleagues have suggested issues with respect to job training, with respect to incentives for education, and all of them are worthy, but they can't be done in the context of dueling proposals on the floor. They have to be done thoughtfully. If we can quickly adopt the Reed- Heller bill, it will give these long-term unemployed--this record number of long-term unemployed who have been cut off from benefits--it will give them help and give us time. We have heard from countless citizens all across the country, and they come from all walks of life and from every aspect of unemployment. The other day, Senator Klobuchar released a report from the Joint Economic Committee which was extremely well done and which described in detail the recipients. There is no one age group. It spans the gamut. There is no one ethnic concentration. There are some geographic areas that are doing quite well, but there are areas that are doing quite badly that are scattered across the country. Rhode Island and Nevada are, unfortunately, leading the list of states with high unemployment. They are very dissimilar States, thousands of miles apart, different economies entirely, but they are caught up in this same problem of unemployment and particularly long-term unemployment. The people who are unemployed are not sitting around passively. They are out looking every day. In Rhode Island I have met people who have worked for 30 years. They are in their fifties. They had good jobs. They were bookkeepers. They were white-collar professionals. They are trying to take care of an elderly parent, they have responsibilities to children, and they desperately want to work. One constituent who wrote to my office has been out of work since December of 2012. He has applied to over 300 jobs. He has taken additional classes at our local community college in the hopes of becoming a more attractive candidate for employment. Yet he remains out of work. Another constituent who has lost her benefits doesn't have enough money to pay her bills and they have to move in with a sister because she can't pay the rent. That is what is happening. This is not some academic exercise, some rhetorical ideological debate. This is about helping real people who want to work and they can't find a job after desperately looking for one. A third constituent wrote me the following letter: I never thought that I would be among the unemployed, but here I am after over 30 years of experience in my field in higher education administration. I used to make 60K a year and now my unemployment benefits run out in mid March. I have been searching for a job not only in my field, but also doing anything possible using my transferable skills. I have not received an invitation for any interviews at all. . . . So to those who say that extending benefits causes people to stay unemployed longer--they are wrong. When you lose your job, you would do anything to gain employment and regain your dignity. No one wants to subsist on unemployment compensation. Please keep up the fight for extended benefits. It has been a lifeline for me. Thirty years of experience, retraining already undertaken, searching relentlessly for a job. An important point here, too, is it is about the economics, but it is also about an individual's dignity and their identity. I don't care who you are. A job helps define who you are. It gives one a sense of esteem and accomplishment, whether one is mopping floors or directing the operations of the hugest national corporation. For my colleagues to suggest somehow, well, yes, if someone is a CEO of a company, that is very valuable work and that gives them self-esteem, they miss the point. A job well done, whether it is cleaning floors or merging companies, gives the kind of satisfaction and the kind of self-respect that is critical. So this is about money, yes, but it is also about giving people the opportunity as Americans to live out their full potential, to contribute to their family and to the economy. There are 1.3 million Americans and more each day who are facing this same dilemma, and that is why Congress needs to create jobs today and help Americans compete for the jobs of tomorrow. It means taking a multifaceted approach with things such as restoring our manufacturing might by focusing on advanced technologies, ensuring local businesses have access to the capital they need to grow and expand, improving our schools and workforce training programs to ensure we have a highly educated and skilled workforce, and investing in our infrastructure. All of these things have to be done, but it is going to be very difficult to do them in the context of this legislation. That is why again I urge, let us move this bill forward. Let us help these people who are struggling and working very hard and then let us put ourselves on a very fast track to deal with these issues--manufacturing renaissance, job training. We have not reauthorized the Workforce Investment Act since 1998. That is the basic sort of education program for those adults and for people looking to move into the workforce, and the world has changed a lot since 1998. That is the result of some indifference. I would ask why in 1998, with a Republican Congress, and in the last few years of the Clinton administration, from 2000 to 2006, a Republican President, a Republican Congress, we couldn't do those things. It is not a time to assess blame, but it is a time to point out the situation that if we want to get these issues done, let us start moving, but let us not leave these unemployed Americans behind indefinitely without hope.

Mr. REED. I would be happy to.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. REED. I come to the floor this evening to express my hope that the bipartisan effort that brought this 3-month bill to the floor can be sustained as we go forward so that we can swiftly help the 1.3 million long-term unemployed workers who were cut off from these benefits on December 28. As many of my colleagues have discovered from going back to their home States, in many cases these folks are desperate. This benefit was the difference between things we take for granted--having a car to be able to get to a job, having a cell phone so they can get a message saying they have a job interview, paying for heat in the cold weather, putting groceries on the table. For many people, this is truly an emergency. That is why working with Senator Heller, whom I applaud for his vision, collaboration, and for his sense in terms of the difficulties of his constituents and, nationally, many people, and for his effort-- he did a superb job. What we sensed was we needed to provide relief immediately. Longer term, there are issues to address, and my colleagues have been on the floor discussing these issues, but immediately we have 1.3 million Americans, and every day many more who need help go off the rolls. I hope we can move very expeditiously and provide at least this short-term aid. Then, of course, we have very significant issues going forward for the entire-year extension, which I hope ultimately we can resolve. In addition to Senator Heller, I wish to thank all of my colleagues. Particularly, I thank Senators Collins, Murkowski, Portman, Ayotte, and Coats for their support, along with all of our Members of the Democratic caucus who came together. Now we have the challenge of providing this relief and then thinking creatively, constructively, and collaboratively about how we provide this relief at least through the full year. I hope we can extend the program for the next 90 days immediately and quickly, but that other issue is certainly before us. I understand also that my colleagues have raised issues about the structure of the program, about whether this spending--even the short- term spending--should be offset. Again, I go back to the point that we have 1.3 million Americans--and growing each day--who are looking for immediate help, not thoughtful, careful, long-term deliberation. That was the logic behind moving to a 90-day extension, getting it done, and then going forward and dealing with inherently more difficult issues for a full-year program. We already understand that short-term lapse from the 28th until today has already had dramatic impacts on families. This is what I think my colleagues have heard, seen, and read about when they have gone home. Men and women who worked for decades, never thinking they would ever use their unemployment benefits, which they have earned since they started working, are now suddenly facing a weakened job market where there are nearly three people for every one job, where there are issues of skill training for the new jobs that are emerging. These are very difficult challenges. I think what finally led us to at least this point of moving forward was the perception that this program is not subject to some arcane abuse by people in the system; this is for working men and women who, through no fault of their own, lost their jobs, who are desperately looking for jobs, and they are our neighbors and our constituents--many of whom we thought and they thought would never be in this predicament. They have families, elderly parents, and young children. They have responsibilities. They have something else too, which I think we sometimes don't give enough credit for: They want to work. They have spent a life, many of them, working to a position of responsibility where they are using all of their talents. The idea that they are just going to give that up for the only available job, which might be working at a counter at a fast- food restaurant--that is a challenge not only to your pocketbook, but that is a challenge to your person, to who you are--we have to recognize that also. These benefits are usually helpful to people in so many different capacities. As I said, we are trying to deal with a situation where people have been let go through no fault of their own. If someone quits, they don't qualify. If they are fired, they don't qualify. Many of these people are unemployed as a result of the new economy--information technology that makes their job something that can be done away with; mergers, acquisitions, and downsizing that caused the bottom line of a corporation to grow, but they are out of a job. We have to deal with it, and we have to deal with it as we have done so many times before by providing these long-term unemployment benefits. We also have to do it because it is good for our economy. The CBO estimates that if we do not renew UI for the full year 2014, we will lose 200,000 jobs because the weekly benefits, which are rather modest--$300 to $350 a week--go almost immediately from the recipient into the economy. It is the reason some grocery stores can keep two or three extra people on, because the demand is still there. It is the reason some service stations can keep the extra mechanic on, because the demand is still there. If we shut down that demand, we will have 200,000 more people--ironically--who will qualify, at least initially, for State unemployment benefits. This is about our economy. I would like to draw our attention to the report our colleague Senator Amy Klobuchar did as the vice chair of the Joint Economic Committee. It was very thoughtfully done. It is not a surprise given that it was authored in large part by Senator Klobuchar. This report touches on these important issues and notes that ``unemployment insurance (UI) has kept more than 11 million people out of poverty since 2008--including 1.8 million adults and 620,000 children in 2012 alone. People of all demographic and socio-economic backgrounds have been helped by unemployment insurance following a job loss.'' This cuts across the whole spectrum. Again, how does someone get to qualify? They have to work. I would suspect that every one of my colleagues would say this country should be all about work, rewarding work, and if someone loses a job through no fault of their own, give them a chance to get back in the workforce. The reality of this economic downturn has been so pervasive that it has affected virtually every American. And so unemployment insurance has been a key part of the recovery. We all know that economists who have looked at this program suggest there is anywhere from a $1.50 to $1.60 benefit for every $1 we put in the economy. Economically, for the national economy as a whole, this is a very powerful tool to keep economic growth, expansion, and demand moving forward. That is exactly what we need to keep the economy growing. Indeed, one of the aspects of this recession and one of the aspects highlighted very insightfully by the report from the Joint Economic Committee is the long-term rate of unemployment. This might be a new structural phenomenon in our economy, but definitely something is happening out there. I will go back to when I was a kid. Someone is on the third shift because they are the junior person. The recession comes and guess who gets laid off. The third shift. The second shift, the middle people, and the first shift, the most senior people, typically weren't touched. The economy came back, and that third shift got rehired, but those workers with 10, 15 years' experience were pretty safe. Now that is not the case. Now we are seeing first, second, and third shift gone. Now we are seeing, well, this is a great opportunity, with interest rates at in some cases 1 percent--at least for the major financial institutions--to replace a lot of workers with a lot of machines. Let's do that. Let's get value. Let's downsize. Let's make sure we invest in capital. This is the phenomenon we are seeing, and it is causing some of this significant increase in long-term unemployment. In the JEC report, they note: The current long-term unemployment rate of 2.6 percent is twice as high as it was when Congress allowed emergency federal UI programs to expire after the 1990-91 and 2001 recessions. Let me say that in my terms. Previously, we have never taken away these benefits when long-term unemployment has been so high, and these benefits are not directly responsible for long-term unemployment. The 26 weeks of the State benefit programs is for people who lose work and find it relatively quickly. This program, the one we are debating today, is specifically designed for those people who are having a difficult time finding work over a long period of time. We are now at twice as high a level of unemployment as we were in previous recessions when we ended these benefits, which would suggest this is not the time to end these benefits. Let me continue from the JEC report: While employment prospects have improved for many jobless Americans (the national unemployment rate is 7.0 percent--the lowest rate in five years), finding work is challenging for the long-term unemployed. More than one-third of unemployed workers (roughly 4 million Americans) have been searching for work for more than 26 weeks, when state-funded UI benefits typically run out, and 2.8 million unemployed people have been searching for work for more than one year. This is a phenomenon we have to deal with. This program we are discussing today is specifically designed for those long-term unemployed. So if there is one program that is responsive to one of the most salient aspects of this current recession, it is the long-term UI program because long-term unemployment seems to be the most difficult issue to resolve, even as our overall employment numbers continue to grow--not fast enough, but they are growing. I want to also dispel the belief of some of my colleagues that these benefits only flow to one or two distinct constituencies. That this is a targeted program that provides some benefits, but it doesn't apply across the board. That is not the case. This is about every American from virtually every type of education, income, and ethnic background. As the JEC report documents: The 23.9 million Americans who have directly benefited from the EUC program since 2008 include people of all demographic and socioeconomic backgrounds . . . [I]n 2012, more than 60 percent of the recipients were between the ages of 25 and 54. Let me stop. There is a stereotype out there that a lot of these folks are 18 year olds who had a job for a while but decided they would rather go skiing in Utah or snorkeling in the Caribbean, and what better way to do that than just essentially sort of perform so that when the layoffs come you get one--but so what, I am not going to look for work; I'm going to just go. Sixty percent of these people are 25 years old to 54 years old. They are starting the prime or are in the prime of their work career. They have responsibility. They typically have families. They have, probably, if they are in their 50s, been working for 30 years. So this notion this is just a convenient time to take a vacation subsidized by the government is erroneous. Let me continue from the report: The remaining recipients were about evenly split between those younger than 25 and those 55 and older. Again, the 55 and older--and this is very close to home--for these people it is a desperate struggle because they are caught right in the middle. They have a 75-year-old or 80-year-old mother or father; they have 30-year-old children and some younger who are going to school or they need the help. They have been working for 30-plus years. They have reached positions of responsibility in their firm and now, suddenly, for the first time--many is the case--they are without a job. That is not just economic, as I suggested. That also goes deeply to who they are, their value, and how they can help their family if they can't work. What is the effect on the family? How do they come home every day from looking for work without a job and not have it affect the family? This is the reality we are dealing with. That is why, frankly, I have been pleading to at least get this program restored for 90 days. That will give us the time--not on the backs of the unemployed--but give us the time to do the work for a longer extension. Now let me continue: More than half the recipients in 2012 were white, while 22 percent were black, and 19 percent were Hispanic. The vast majority (85 percent) lived in households with more than one adult, and 43 percent lived in households with at least one child. So these are not single transients who move around and are used to being unemployed and could work if they wanted to. These are people with real family responsibilities. People of all levels of education have received EUC benefits. The majority of recipients in 2012 had earned a high school diploma, and almost one-fifth held a 4-year college degree. These are people that have skills. They have at least got the credentials, which, again, 20 or 30 years ago put you into the workplace and probably kept you there, if you were diligent. So I hope my colleagues take time to review this report. It is extremely useful. It shatters some stereotypes and reinforces the point this is about helping working Americans who need help. I think the facts are clearly on the side of continuing this program, and I think the reality is they need the help now. If we can get them that help, then we will have the time to deliberate the very serious questions that my colleagues have raised; and they have raised them constructively and raised them sincerely about the long-term approach of this program. But to continue to trade legislative ideas on the floor while millions of Americans either are losing their benefits or are seeing the end come within days, weeks or months is not the right response. So I urge my colleagues to move forward through these procedural hurdles. Let's get this bill done as Senator Heller and I have proposed it. Let's get it done, and then we have another huge challenge because we want, frankly, and I think the sentiment is across the board--if we are going to do this, let us at least continue it through the year 2014. We are beginning to sense some positive economic shifts. We hope those materialize. We hope they come forward to the point where the unemployment rate, which has fallen--I heard the President today say when he took over we were losing 800,000 jobs a month. It was rocketing up into the stratosphere in some states, 12 percent, 14 percent. In Rhode Island it is still 9 percent. We have seen some progress--not enough in my State, in Nevada, and other States. But we have seen progress, and we hope that progress continues. Indeed, one of the other aspects of this program, if we pass these benefits--and the economists have pointed it out, particularly if we pass them on an emergency basis--it will add more fuel to our economy, not less. It will add more demand. It will, in fact, increase growth at a time when everyone is on the floor talking about the fact that we just have to grow more jobs. Of course we do. But this program is, in a way, the proverbial two-fer. You help people who need help, and you help the economy grow faster--200,000 jobs at least. So I really do think we should move forward as quickly as we can to get this Reed-Heller bill completed, and then we have a lot of careful, thoughtful, collaborative effort to engage in. Because if we want to go forward for a full year, which we do, we have other significant issues--not just the size of the program, but other issues as were brought up by my colleagues, and brought up very fairly, very constructively, and very thoughtfully. So Madam President, my message is: No. 1, I thank my colleagues for giving us the chance to seriously debate this bill, and I urge them to pass it quickly, and then we will set ourselves up for another serious, thoughtful and constructive debate. That is my wish. With that, Madam President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10 a.m. on Wednesday, January 8, 2014; that following the prayer and the pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; that following any leader remarks, the Senate resume consideration of the motion to proceed to S. 1845, the unemployment insurance extension, postcloture, and that all time during adjournment count postcloture on the motion to proceed to S. 1845.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, could the Presiding Officer instruct me when I reach the 4-minute mark?

Mr. REED. I think it is a terrible trade. It is not just about families with children, it is about many of these working adults who, if they have a preexisting condition, lose their coverage. It is not just a question of children. That I think is very sensitive. Without the Affordable Care Act, if you get sick, you can't get coverage. The only way you can get coverage if you are middle-aged is if you are healthy and you don't need it. When you needed it, the insurance companies took it away--before the Affordable Care Act.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise with my colleagues to support this motion to bring this legislation to the floor to begin a debate. There were 1.3 million Americans who were pushed off an economic cliff on December 28 when their extended unemployment benefits ended. They are searching for work. They have to search for work. They are in a market where there are typically two or three applicants for one job. Yesterday I read a story from the Washington Post that talked about the opening of a new dairy plant in Maryland. They were expecting a lot of interest in the 36 jobs: 1,600 applicants. I would wager that many of those applicants never thought in their lives, after being a vice president of sales in a company or a sophisticated manager of the financial aspects of a company, that they would be applying for work in a dairy. Some of them might even be on extended benefits, and that is the only thing keeping them whole. And they are looking for work, 1,600 applicants for 36 jobs. This is not unique to Maryland. It is in my home State of Rhode Island. It is in States all across this country, Nevada, Tennessee, Arizona, States with unemployment numbers above the national average of 7 percent. In my case, it is 9 percent. We have to help these families. And as Senator Durbin pointed out, we have done this on a bipartisan basis until very recently. This is a smart economic program. This program, according to CBO, will create 200,000 jobs next year if we extend it. Those are 200,000 jobs we are going to give away. And the minority leader was talking about how we have to do more to create jobs around here. Well, if we don't pass this measure, CBO has told us we are going to forfeit 200,000 jobs. So from an economic basis in this country, this is smart. But from a human basis, this helps people who have worked--and the only way you qualify for this program is if you worked and then you are let go through no fault of your own. So we have to do that. Colleagues on the other side are talking about: Well, we have to pay for these benefits. This is a selective sort of notion, because, frankly, the last time we extended these benefits in January of 2013, it was not offset and the vote was 89-8. It included tax provisions and other provisions, but we extended these benefits, unpaid for, 89-8. Yet now we have to pay for these benefits. What Senator Heller and I have done is said: Listen, we need to help these people now. Let's do a 90-day extension, provide retroactive relief, and help these 1.3 million--and it will grow, because several million more people will lose their benefits this year. Let's do it, and then let's sit down and work on this program. But let me also remind my colleagues, we have made significant changes to the unemployment insurance program. In early 2012, we had a conference report between the House and the Senate which made changes in unemployment insurance. We reduced the total time from 99 weeks to 73 weeks. We created the work-sharing program, a very innovative program which allows people to collect for part of the week but also stay employed the rest of the week. It is a program which has helped companies all across the country, small companies in particular. We have given States more flexibility on job training. We have given States more flexibility in oversight of their programs. We have made changes. We are willing to listen to thoughtful proposals again. But we can't do it on the backs of 1.3 million Americans who have lost the only benefit they have. If we really want to talk about job training, if we want to talk about cooperation, why haven't we been able to reauthorize the Workforce Investment Act since 1998? We have not made the changes in workforce training that affect this whole country--not just the unemployed but those young people who are trying to move out of high school and junior college into the workforce. We haven't done it. Why? Well, from 1998 until 2007, we had a Republican Congress. Since 2007, we have been struggling very mightily with an economic crisis. And we have made progress. But if we want to start cooperating, let's bring the Workforce Investment Act to the floor. It has passed the committee on a bipartisan basis. Let's bring it to the floor. Let's help people. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. I further ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the committee reported title amendment be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. REED. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 273, S. Res. 318.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Madam President, I further ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Madam President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it adjourn under the previous order.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. REED. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to Calendar No. 270, S. Res. 288.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to S. Res. 329, submitted earlier today.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period of morning business with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.