an additional year. i know in my state of rhode island people are in a very serious situation. they're struggling to stay in their homes, to educate their children, to deal with challenges of every day life. they have worked hard and long all their lives, now they are finding it difficult to find a job. in every situation previously in this country, we have come to their assistance. we have done so by extending unemployment benefits. we have never failed to do that as long as the unemployment rate was above 7.2% or 7.4%. today across the country, it's close to 9% nationally. in my state of rhode island, it's much higher. we have always done it on an emergency basis because it truly is an emergency. we haven't offset it because we

have always determined that it was necessary to get the money to the people who could use it, who needed it desperately, and we should do that again. now i find it difficult to understand how some of my colleagues on the other side would object to an extension of unemployment benefits for a year that are not offset, but at the same time insist that we provide tax cuts for the very richest americans without paying for them. to insist that we add approximately $700 billion to our deficit by extending tax cuts for people who are making over $250,000 a year, many making many, many times that amount of money. yet for an unemployed american desperately seeking work and not finding any, we would insist we would have to not only pay for

it, but we have delayed and delayed and delayed the process of getting them assistance. it's difficult, i think, to justify those two positions. it's also difficult to justify those two positions because what we know is that unemployment compensation benefits give us a much bigger bang for the buck than the extension of tax relief to upper income citizens. in fact, the c.b.o. has raided the effectiveness of various techniques to provide assistance and to stimulate demand in the economy, and they have found that unemployment insurance is far and away the most effective form, much more effective than tax cuts to the wealthiest. they estimate, the c.b.o., that for every dollar of unemployment compensation benefits that we inject in the economy, we get $1.90 of economic activity.

almost a two for one payback. so we are in a situation where there is not only the appropriate policy to pursue, but it's the most effective in order to keep demand to keep the economy moving forward, to keep growth moving forward. now, i am someone who believes in fiscal responsibility. that's why i took in the 1990's difficult votes in order to balance the budget under president clinton, to raise not only our output but also ultimately to balance the budget and have a surplus in 2000, and i opposed the proposals, the tax cuts favored by my republican colleagues in 2000 because i understood that the difficult, the hard-fought fiscal

responsibility could easily be frittered away, because what looked like a surplus in 2000 could be affected by unforeseen events, terrorist attacks, natural disasters, changes in the world economy that we couldn't contemplate, and i knew how difficult it was in 1990 to get our house in order, and so i was very reluctant, in fact opposed to these tax cuts. but something else that i hope everyone realized at the time, and that was just the demographics of t country. in 1993-1994, we took tough votes to build up a surplusbaugh we knew what was coming. we had a demographic wave, the baby boomers, that would qualify for medicare, that would qualify for social security, that would just by the nature of the sheer size of their population in the place put extra demands on our

budget. but despite all that, taxes were cut, wars were pursued, unpaid for. the first time in the history of the country that we engaged in major military operations, and we didn't even make an attempt to pay for it. that's not the definition of fiscal responsibility, and yet many of the same proponents of that policy are urging us today, well, you can't do unemployment compensation insurance unless you pay for it, but, of course, let's extend the bush tax cuts for all americans, including the wealthiest, and in that case add another $700 billion to our deficit over ten years. it just doesn't seem to make any economic sense. this proposal is supported by people who are knowledgeable about the way the economy works. 3 economists, including five recipients of the nobel prize in

economics, five former chairs of the council of economics have said, and let me quote -- quote -- "continuing the about to expire federal emergency unemployment insurance program which provides extra weeks of benefits to the long-term unemployed is sensible economic policy that will not only assist the unemployed but help maintain spending, overall demand and employment at this critical point in the recovery." eliminating these benefits, on the other hand, will cause hardship for the long-term unemployed, scale back spending and weaken the economy since unemployment benefits are one of the most effective means available to support overall demand. unemployment has remained above 9% for 18 months already and will likely remain high for some time to come. making a strong case for continuing the current program for another 12 months. moreover, the special provisions

for extended unemployment insurance during recessions have traditionally been financed by short-term fiscal deficits, short-term fiscal deficits, and this remains a prudent approach. the program will not contribute significantly to long-term deficits because its costs will diminish automatically as the economy recovers and unemployment returns to more normal levels. let me say that again in my own words. our colleagues are suggesting a permanent extension of tax cuts that will cost over ten years years $700 billion, and presumably ten years after that and ten years after that. that is a huge structural change to our revenue. unemployment compensation benefits are cyclical. they rise in difficult times like today, and they fall as the economy recovers, and so we're not talking about a long-term

commitment to a program of deficit enhancement. we're talking about short-term relief for struggling americans. these economists, i think, make the case extraordinarily well, and i would ask unanimous consent that their letter be included as part of the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reed: as i indicated before, their view has been echoed by the congressional budget office. tax cuts in their view are the least effective form of economic stimulus, the most effective is unemployment insurance benefits. on november 16, the department of labor released an independent study that was commissioned during the bush administration. it found that since 2008, the federal unemployment insurance programs have saved 1.6 million jobs in every quarter, averting

1.8 million layoffs per quarter at the height of the downturn and reducing the unemployment rate by 1.2 points. separately, the economic policy institute has found that continuing the programs to the end of 2011 will support the creation of 700,000 full-time equivalent jobs. people who get unemployment insurance benefits tend to take that money and go to the grocery store, buy shoes for children, pay down if they can some of their credit card debt, and maybe in this holiday season buy an extra present for their children. that keeps our economy moving. it keeps the people in the grocery stores working, the people in the department stores working. the manufacturers that are producing these goods working. now, our economy grew at 2% in the third quarter, and in a recent "wall street journal"

article, goldman sachs analyst aleck phillips estimated that if unemployment insurance benefits expired, it would shave .5% from growth, and such a decline would cost hundreds of thousands of jobs. so here is a policy that will expand jobs, maintain jobs, and if we don't pursue it, we will find ourselves contracting employment at the very time that america -- all americans are asking us to do something very clear cut: get jobs, keep jobs, produce jobs, find a way to create them. and this could also engender a downward spiral, because if the jobs contract, that could be the beginning of further contraction, and it could leave us in a worse situation. so not only will families feel

the brunt of this lack of unemployment compensation benefits, it's the small businesses throughout our community, it's the retailers, it's the people that depend upon their neighborhood customers to come in and to -- to buy the goods and services that not only provides them what they need but also provides the cash flow for small business to keep operating. failing to maintain unemployment insurance will mean two million jobless workers will lose their benefits in december, two million americans this december will stop receiving benefits. and several hundred thousand unemployed workers will lose their benefits every month, culminating in up to six million losing benefits by the end of 2011. now it is time to govern, now it is time to act, now it is time to do what we have always done in a situation like this, is pass promptly and timely

extension of unemployment insurance benefits. we have seen over the last year delay after delay. we have seen benefits expire only to be retroactively restored through procedural votes and delays, and one of the ironies here is we get these procedural votes that we can't move forward on the bill, but finally when the bill comes up to a vote, overwhelming support, which suggests to me that the process, the delay has taken primacy over the substance of policy, and that is not worthy, i believe, of our constituents and the crisis they face today in this country. we have, as i said, continuously maintained unemployment dpengs benefits, extended benefits whenever our unemployment rate nationally is about 7.2%.

republican administrations, democratic administrations, republican congresses and democratic congresses have always recognized that it -- at the level of 9% unemployment, extended unemployment benefits were almost automatic, something you had to do, for all the reasons i've cited. the economic effects on the economy, and most fundamentally giving people a chance to just make ends meet until they can find a job. so madam chairman, we are, i think, at a position where we must go forward. acting now is the right thing to do, the responsible thing to do, the wisely economic thing to do. we need to swiftly pass this one-year extension. many of my colleagues join senator baucus, the chairman of the committee, in introducing this legislation, and i would urge at this point that we move

forward and i would at this point make the following request. madam president -- mr. durbin: will the senator yield for a question? mr. reed: i will yield. mr. durbin: i would like to pose a question to the senator from rhode island. i thank you for your time on this issue and your leadership on this issue, and i'm happy to join you. i just want to make sure we put this in the context of the so-called lame-duck session. this is a session when we are debating tax cuts, and the position held by the other side of the aisle is that we should give tax cuts to those making a million dollars a year in income. that's roughly $20,000 a week that people are being paid. and if i understand the difference in the democratic position from the republican position, we think those making a million dollars a year should get roughly $6,000 in tax cuts. they believe that those making a million dollars a year should get $100,000 in tax cuts. i also understand that if the

republican position prevails, it will add $700 billion to the deficit over ten years just to give tax cuts to those making over $250,000 a year, or $70 billion a year. so their position when it comes to tax cuts for the wealthiest in america is we can afford to add $70 billion to the deficit with a tax cut for a millionaire each year, and accept the reality that that is one of the poorest ways to spark growth in our economy. our position is historically when we reach high levels of unemployment -- over 7.2% -- we have extended unemployment benefits. we're now at about 9.6%. and we believe that we should extend unemployment benefits for those who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own. the benefits average about $300 a week for someone to keep their family in food and clothing, pay the utility bills in the winter,

that sort of thing. and we're told by the dprecial budget office -- and we're told by the congressional budget office that unemployment benefits are the best catalyst for sparking growth in the economy. it's money spent immediately by people who need disposable income and turn around and purchase goods and services immediately with it. so $70 billion for tax breaks -- $70 billion in deficit each year for tax breaks for the wealthiest people this america for something that doesn't spark the economy versus some $60 billion for extending the unemployment insurance benefits for one year which will spark growth in the economy. is that the choice that we are facing? mr. reed: i think the senator from illinois has stated it very clearly, very succinctly and very accurately. that, apparently, is the choice. it's a choice i find difficult to understand, for the reasons that you laid out. if we want to respond to the

needs of so many families, working families, this is one of those programs by definition if you qualify for unemployment benefits, you have a job, you just lost it, so these are working families are that are now looking for some support as they search desperately for jobs. and as you point out, too, not just in terms of the individual recipients but the economy overall, the benefit is -- is substantial. it's about $1.90 economic activity for every dollar that we put into the benefit. on the other side of the spectrum, economists have looked at the impact of these tax cuts on the wealthiest americans and find very little growth in economic activity. and, frankly, it makes sense. this is -- this is not economics at m.i.t. or harvard or anyplace else. if you're struggling, $368 a

month is not going to go into your vacation or a -- buying objects of art. it's going into the grocery store, into the -- to all the demands of a family. if you are fortunate enough, through your hard work and through your ingenuity and through your brains to be making over a million dollars a year, your consumption pattern is not going to be altered dramatically by certain of these tax cuts. that's -- that's the conclusion of economists and i think you said it very well. but at this juncture -- i thank the senator from illinois, but i would like to formally, madam president, ask unanimous consent that the finance committee be discharged from further consideration of s. 39 3981, a bill to provide for a temporary extension of unemployment insurance provisions, and that the senate then proceed to its immediate consideration, that the bill be read three times, passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, that any statements relating thereto appear at the appropriate place

in the record as if read. the presiding officer: is there objection? mooa senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. mr. brown: thank you, madam president. i object. the presiding officer: the objection. mr. brown: thank you. i have a paid-for alternative that i'd like to speak upon. mr. reed: if the senator would yield just a moment, let me conclude and recognize the senator so he has his own time to -- the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. reed: thank you. again, i think it's -- it's unfortunate that we cannot move this bill. let me put it very succinctly. we will try again. i hope we can. i hope we will, because the sake of our country, small businesses and families across my state and this nation need this help and assistance. and with that, i would yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. mr. brown: thank you, madam president. i want to thank the gentleman from rhode island, who passionately spoke about his proposal, his bill to deal with

the very important problem that we're facing here in the united states. and i'm not the new person here any more. i have somebody who came in yesterday. but i will say, it's still new to me in that here we are in, what, 6 1/2 hours, you know, the benefits expire and here we are doing it. i mean, god forbid that we actually think ahead and spend a little bit of -- of aforethought in preparing and working together to try to come up with some type of solution before 6 1/2 hours before the benefits expire. i mean, once again, i know i'm not the newest guy anymore, but i'll tell you what, it's not the way to do business in the united states senate. and if it is, it needs to chan change. so here we are. you know, you talk -- you know, the gentleman just spoke about, you know, we need to do this to keep the economy moving. no, we've got to start focusing

on jobs. that's what we have to do to start getting this economy moving. we have to start focusing on the things that are important, the deficit, the spending. we couldn't even pass yesterday, madam president, the 1099 fix, the thing that small businesses and businesses in this country are clamoring for, we can't do one thing -- one thing. and now all of a sudden we're going to do another extension, which i have complete and total sympathy and understanding and i want to help more tha -- i want, more than anybody here i want to help. but to just keep throwing money at a -- that's not paid for at a problem 6 1/2 hours, putting people on the spot, instead of working together, getting together in an office with people who care about these issues and coming up with a solution, it makes no sense to me. thyou know the reason why we're having this high unemployment that you're referring to, like 9%? because there's no uncertainty

in business. there's so much uncertainty -- because there's no certainty in business. there's so much uncertainty right now. estate planners right. nows we have 0%. if you die, folks, it's a good year to die because next year it could be 55% or it could be less. who knows? so there's so much money on the sideline right now, we don't know what to do, that it's not coming in to get the economy moving. we can't do the 1099 fix. we can't do r&d tax credits. we can't work on accelerated depreciation. we haven't brought in any of the repatriating any of the moneys that are offshore. what do we do? we put more ask more and more and more roadblocks to businesses so they don't want to hire to get these people off the unemployment rolls. so here we are with 6 1/2 hours left. you know, people aren't hiring. we spent seven days on food safety. listen, i love to eat like the next guy, but give me a break. okay? we should have spent seven days

working on the one thing that the people in november sent a very powerful message and that is getting our economy moving again, focusing on jobs, jobs, jobs. streamlining the regulatory process and firing away to get this economy moving. but we need to work on food safety. my gosh, it's so important. i'm glad i rushed back from our break to work on food safety. and i know we have some issues in that regard, but don't you think the 1099 fix and don't you think unemployment benefits and all these other things are a little bit more important? and you say, you know, that the -- the gentleman from illinois just said we're here debating tax cuts. no, we're not. we're not debating tax cuts. i've been to every -- i've been to every time we've had a vote here, i've been to every meeting since i've been back here. where are we talking about tax cuts? we haven't had any -- have we had any -- am i missing something? i'm talking to my staff. no, we haven't been talking

about tax cuts. we haven't debated or discussed anything to do with business and getting our business and our economy moving again. and recent job numbers in massachusetts, over 280,000 people are unemployed in my state alone. over 8% of the massachusetts work force. the gentleman from rhode island -- and i know rhode island, i eat in federal hill regularly. i know the unemployment is much higher there. they have very serious problems. one of the reasons they have problems is because we're not focusing on anything to do with businesses and giving them the tools and resources they need to actually hire the people who are on the unemployment rolls. it's like a company of-22 -- it's like a catch-22. there are 15 million people across the country who are unemployed. six million of them having been without work for six months or more. that's roughly five people for every one job opening. madam president, families in massachusetts, rhode island,

illinois, they're all struggli struggling. they sent that very powerful message a couple of weeks ago. they're struggling to make ends meet. and as the gentleman from rhode island said, to buy food, to buy shoes, to buy extra christmas presents. i understand that. but if they had an actual job could actually have the pride of going out and working hard each day and businesses had that certainty of hiring that new employee, they could do that and a lot more. they could actually invest in the future of our country. and we're in the midst of an historic economic crisis. i realize that. and they're unable to find work. i recognize that as well. and the longer they're out of work, the harder it is to actually find work and become employable. and i could go on and on how congress has chosen to spend the time. i remember before we went on -- on break, before the elections, we spent so much wasted time on stuff that did nothing to help the economy. and here we are, i figured when we came back, the message was sent, we got it loud and clear,

big change over in the house, here we are, we're going to get right back to the economy. what do we do? we do food safety. are you kidding me? people deserve better. the people who are unemployed deserve better. and the consequences to our failure to act, and those consequences are the 15 million unemployed workers in our country because they're unable to find that job. and here we are six hours, 6 1/2 hours and the benefits are going to expire. and i do not want to see that happen. let me make it very clear for anyone who's listening or watching or however the press wants to regurgitate my statements, i don't want this to happen. it doesn't need to happen. and as many of my colleagues know, if we fail to act today, 60,000 bay staters will see their unemployment checks evaporate at the end of the week. 800,000 workers will see their checks disappear. that number will increase to 2 million by the end of decemb december. so here we are, we're faced with another important decision.

you know, like every other decision we make here. do we provide the important benefits by burdening future generations, by adding on to that almost $14 trillion national debt? or do we provide the important benefits by raising taxes on businesses who are already struggling? you know, you want to talk abo about, oh, the bush tax cuts. listen, it's tax policy that was proposed by a president, supported by congress and has been the tax policy for the last ten years. and to put a tax increase for anybody in the middle of a two-year recession is going to add to these unemployment numbers and is not -- is going to be an absolute job killer. is there a better way? of course, there's always a better way. especially if we work together, we can always find a better way. as i've tried to work with the senator from oregon and other senators to find solutions for commonsense, you know, solutions to our very serious problems. that's why i'm once again offering an offset to extension of unemployment benefits.

you know, the funny thing is, the proposal -- this is what i find so ironic. i'm going to see where everyone wants to stand. you want to do something today? you know, the senators who are here and listening? we can provide that one-year extension. in fact, i'm offering an offset that was supported by 21 democrats yesterday when we tried to do the 1099 offset bill, which i supported. i was a cosponsor in a bipartisan manner. i supported both. i supported the republican one and the democrat one just hoping, god forbid, we could get one thing done. just one. 21 democrats supported that bi bill. now, here we are, my offer and my proposal is to offset the unemployment insurance with -- i need to take a breath here, i'm sorry -- the offset they supported yesterday would rescind unobligated discretionary funding. it's the same offset we did yesterday. so what's the difference? you know what the difference is?

it's that people are hurting and they need the help in 6 1/2 hours. the 1099 fix, we can address that down the road. but others need it in 6 1/2 hours. so they supported it yesterday. i'm certainly hopeful that they'll support it again today. is it me? well, i'd ask my colleague to join on and be a cosponsor. is it because i'm a republican that we're not going to pass this because it's my idea, i'm the new guy, almost new guy? i get that. but what about looking past party politics, as i've done since the day i got here, to try to find commonsense solutions for people who are hurting. and trust me, there are a lot of people hurting. why doesn't my colleague join with me and support this proposal that 21 other democrats proposed and actually went down in the well and voted on? mine is a truly bipartisan proposal that we should be able to rally around, because i'm confident that we can work together, as the people have

demanded. just only a couple of weeks ago. and as we enter the final weeks of this 111th congress, several -- several, several, civil priorities lay ahead. and i said earlier, and i know i'm getting worked up, but it just incenses me that we're here 6 1/2 hours and we just found out really today -- well, late yesterday, that we were even going to talk about this. we have to provide that certainty to businesses and small mom-and-pop businesses all the way to the biggest corporations. they need to know what's up. they need to know that they can actually rely on us to set policy so they can plan for the future, so they can get those 9%-plus people off of unemployment. you think we're going to just creating more and more government jobs, that's it? just kind of keep printing the money and there's no

consequence? there's plenty of consequence. the consequence is not our grandchildren now. we're the our great-great-grandchildren now as to paying this oblghts back. we still have to ensure that the federal government keeps running. so let me see. we've got the estate tax issue, we've got jus dealing with, lik, tax proposal or policy at all. we're traig to get the regulatory scheme in place so we can give businesses the incentive to maybe bring money back from the offshore accounts that they're holding so they don't invest in other businesses in other countries. we've got this issue. we've got a lot of other things on the table and we've done nothing. we spent seven days on food safety. i love to eat. and i've seen -- i've seen many people around higher many we all love to eevment i want my food savings make no mistake about it. i don't want to belittle that effort. but we need to provide money so

people can actually go out and buy the food that we're trying to make safe. and we can't keep spending and borrowing with no regard to our future. we need to be fiscally responsible and find ways to pay for the initiatives and policies that we think are important. when you talk about the money that, you know, if we don't do this with taxes and these people are going to get this -- hey, listen, it is not the government's money. it is the people's money. okay? it is the people's money. when they have money, they traditionally invest it and they invest in businesses and they continue to get that economic engine going. it's not the government's money. it's also very clear to me that people want to work, and they want us to focus on that one issue, and i don't know why we're avoiding it. i really don't. we're avoiding -- did you know

that we're avoiding that one issue that can get our country back on track? i mean, let's just say, if we took all the recommendations from the debt commission that's been proposed, if we don't do the other things the a not going to be -- it's going to be short-lived, if work at all. creating jobs and supporting policies that improve economic growth have been my priority and will continue to be my focus in the senate. there's mog more important, and i would encourage the administration to immediately -- immediately -- drop everything and focus on the economy. it is the one thing that's our ticket out of the economic mess that we're in right now. but instead we're doing food safety. food safety. i also think that we need to give people that lifeline. in order to get them through the tough times. so make no mistake, i agree that they need help. but i look at it are we going to

do it from the bank account, or are we going to put it on the credit card? bank account? credit card? how about you folks up there? bank crkts credit card? okay? i know what i want to do. i want to use the bank account. let's use money that's already in the system and put it to good use immediately, by 12:00 tonight. let's do it. we can settle this tonight. we can provide those extension benefits tonight. my bipartisan idea will allow that to happen and will prevent millions of americans prosecute losing their benefits, providing this one-year extension will allow us to focus on the many other important priorities that we have and we have to handle before the end of the year. hey, you want to stay through the holidays and everything? hey, i'm here. whatever. you know? my kids are grown up. they do their own thing anyway. i do want to stay here? sure, we'll cy stay here, madam president. we'll go out and celebrate

christmas here. whatever. but we have so many things we need to do and we could do them right now. i'm glad food safety is done, because now we don't have to do it anymore. so what's next? let's see. hmmm ..., i guarantee you -- i bet you -- i know betting is illegal here. but i bet you we don't do anything that has to do with the commitment of i bet you. -- that has to do with the economy. i bet you. so i would encourage my colleagues to join with me and stop using the credit card and burdening additional generations of this tremendous debt that we can't afford. and i ask unanimous consent the finance committee be discharged and the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of h.r. 4915, that after -- that all after the enacting clause be stricken and the substitute amendment at the desk be agreed to, that the bill as amended be read a third time and passed,

the motion to reconsider be laid on the table. the presiding officer: is there objection? a senator: i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. brown: madam president, i yield. the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. reed: well, madam president, my colleague from massachusetts has made a rather vigorous and passionate statement. what i sense, though, is he's quite willing to put $700 billion of tax cuts for the wealthiest americans on the credit card but not extend unemployment benefits, as we have done persistently decade after decade without offsets for people who are struggling without work. so, if we're talking about coming together and avoiding deficit reduction -- rather,

avoiding increased deficits, let's look at this big issue of these tax cuts for the wealthiest americans. let's look at the offsets there, i would suggest. and you'd also suggest, too, in terms of we're not doing anything to deal -- the record, unfortunately, of my colleagues on that side to this issue -- we're talking about the issue of unemployment compensation benefits extension -- has been one of delay and delay and delay. june 17 of this year, we tried to extend these benefits, and it failed on a cloture vote. wouldn't even let us get to the substance of the bill. or amendments, perhaps, which could have paid for them or tried to offset them. then we came back on june 24, a week later, had another vote. of course, again, by 57-41, it was opposed.

now we come to july 20. it finally passed, 60-40. the minimum number of votes. we've asked a majority of the opposing caucus. they're still saying "no." so the snogs that you know, we're somehow blocking -- so the notion is that, you know, we're somehow blocking dealing with economic issues is so far from reality. what we've seen is obstruction -- particularly when it comes to unemployment compensation benefits. and now here we are again. and as i've said, when you look back to republican administrations and democratic administrations, when we've had this level of unemployment, we have always managed to come together and to go ahead and pass these measures.

on a bipartisan basis, not with three cloture votes, but with one perhaps procedural vote and then a substantive one. so i think -- the issue, though, is let's not be selective. okay? if we're really serious about the deficit, well, let's take some positive steps to reduce the deficit. one is not to extend tax cuts to the wealthiest americans, $700 billion over ten years. that's a positive step. and if that's something that is going to be entertained by the other side, i'd encourage that discussion. but as we go forward, we're going to come back again because ultimately, no we've these discussions and again my colleague from massachusetts is one of passion, sincerity, and

just great energy which he's brought to this body. but ultimately we're going to have to go to people in rhode island and massachusetts, several million of them over the next year and say, sorry, you're not getting any unemployment dpengs beneficompensation benef. will we go to the wealthiest sand $and say, oh, by the way, we took care of you folks. you're getting $100,000 in tax cuts? i think we have to deal with the immediate crisis. i think we have to deal with the families that are struggling today. i think we have to do it now. i would be -- i would hope that our leaders could work out a kind of arrangement where we could come to this floor in a scheduled debate, five hours on one side, five on the oh, and take a vote. that has not been the record of unemployment compensation in this congress. so again i object, and i -- t te

issue here of the 95 -- the offset in discretion spending -- i think if you burrow down into that, you'd find that that would be funds from a whole category of programs that could be spent, should be spent to help the economy move forward. but i would, again, urge that we reconvene, that we once again see if we can work our way forward, and come up with a way forward on this unemployment compensation benefits because we've done this before, through these procedural delays that were as a result of voteds by my colleagues on the other side not to tank the bill in a timely manner. we have periods of time where unemployment lapsed and we had to retroactively restore it.

we may have to do that again. so if there is delay and if we are at the 11th hour, i frankly, looking backwards -- and others -- would have preferred an extension of benefits that have gone way past this point, would have gone into next yier. we're talking about a year's extension nowvment i hope we can get that. madam president, we will continue the fight. mr. brown: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. mr. brown: thank you, madam president. once again, make no mistake, i have great respect for the senator from rhod we worked on y religiousal in issues together, fishing and military issues. i have respect for his service. i have to respectfully disagree with his presentation and representation on some. issues. he keeps referring back to them -- tax cuts for the rich. that's graivment we're not dealing with that right now. it's not -- the a not something we're dealing with because we

haven't dealt with anything to do with any tax policy or structure since i've been here. zero. we've not done the estate tax, we've not done any tax policy. we've done nothing. so you want to kind of muck it up and talk about, well, we should do this. shouldn't do that. we've six hours and 15 minutes to deal with this issue. i am i am a he not sure why it took so long to get to this point? whcouldn't we deal with this ovr the last few days instead of food safety? because ther there's no prioritf taking care of people who are hurting and dealing with issues that are affecting our country on a very real and personal basis. we should do it for longer than a year? great. just pay for it. and the reason there have been delays is because people wanted to find a funding source. we could have initially taken it out of the unallocated stimulus dollars that were being used as

personal slush funds for folks and agencies. that was one of the delays i remember being part of that. i offered that amendment. that didn't passments i think i got democrats. yesterday we did a 10 99 fix. 21 democrats supported it. so what's the difference? now we're taking about real people, real lives. real lives of kids. it is not the kids. it's not just about the kids who are here right now. it is about the future generations that are going to have to figure out a way to pay for this insurmountable debt. so i would just reiterate, once again, it's pretty simple: bank account, credit card. that's all i'm saying. happy to help folks. folks up there listening, go home and tell your friends and family, senator tbrown massachusetts just said, bank account, credit card. in makes sense. i want to help. but i also want to streamline,

scl date, weed out any fraud, waste, and abuse, any money that we're not using properly and get it out of the door into businesses and families and get this economy moving again. so here we are. i'm very ceerious to see what's -- i'm very curious to see what's next. i voted for food saivment i gave some input, voted on it, happy to help. it's not going to be implemented in six hours and 15 minutes like the people who need our help right now. madam president, i appreciate you leading us in, and i'm just hopeful we can come together and use some common sense and start to focus on the economy. it is the economy, period. thank you, and i yield the floor.

mrs. murray: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of s. 3987 introduced earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from -- s. 3987, a bill to amend the fair credit reporting act with respect to applicability of identity theft guidelines to creditors. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed to the measure. mrs. murray: i ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table and that any statements relating to the bill appear at this point in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. murray: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: thank you, madam president. i came to the floor this afternoon to speak on behalf of thousands of families in my home state of washington who stand to lose everything they have because a few republican senators continue to put politics ahead of policy.

men and women in my state from seattle to spokane who lost their jobs through no fault of their own. they get up every single day. they scour the want ads, they send out their resumes and desperately try to find work in an economy that continues to struggle. these workers don't want to be where they are today. they would like nothing more than to be back on the job doing what many of them have been doing for years: working hard and adding value to their companies and contributing to their communities and providing for their families. but while they struggle to find work, many of them depend on the unemployment insurance programs we put in place to keep their heads above water. this support has allowed these families to put food on the table, to stay in their homes and to pay for their children's health care. these programs aren't extravagant, but for a lot of our workers today they made all the difference. workers like a woman named judy

curtis. she lives in mill creek, washington. she wrote to my office urging us to do everything we could to reauthorize this program. she is a single mom who worked hard her whole life to support herself and her developmentally disabled son sean. she told me she has been laid off twice since this downturn began and has been looking for a new job every day but without any luck. her unemployment insurance is going to be cut off on january 15 unless we reauthorize it, and she does not know how she and her son are going to make it if that happens. madam president, it is because of stories like hers that i'm so disappointed we are once again throwing families into a state of uncertainty and turmoil by allowing these emergency unemployment programs to expire today. it doesn't make any sense. our economy still has a long way to go on the road to recovery. there are five job seekers for every open position today. the unemployment rate stands at

9.6%, and senate republicans really think that now is a good time to cut families off from the support that they depend on? we just can't allow that to happen. we can't sit opbd sidelines -- on the sidelines while more families are pushed into bankruptcy and lose their health care and their homes are foreclosed on. we can't watch as working families that have already been pushed to the brink by this financial crisis that they didn't create, by the way, are shoved to the edge through no fault of their own. it's wrong and it doesn't make sense. it doesn't make sense to pull billions of dollars out of our economy. it doesn't make sense to remove purchasing power from so many families. and it doesn't make sense to lose the multiplier effect of these funds that keeps millions of workers on the job. and it certainly doesn't make any sense to do this right before the holidays. madam president, i find it very interesting that some of the senators who oppose extending this support for middle-class

families are the very same ones who have no problem extending the bush tax cuts for the richest americans that will cost us almost $1 trillion. they talk about helping the economy, but economists across the board agree that unemployment insurance programs are one of the best ways to provide a much-needed boost. so, for those republicans, it's not about the deficit, it's not about what's best for the economy. it's certainly not about good policy. it's about politics, plain and simple. so, madam president, i'm going to keep fighting to maintain these emergency unemployment compensation benefits through next year. for judy curtis tpaoefpls, for thousands of families like hers across washington state and for millions in america. these programs were not meant to continue indefinitely. but until our economy gets back on track, it would be devastating to cut these families off from this critical lifeline now. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor. and i suggest the absence of a

quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. brown: i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the quorum kawsm. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: i ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 10 minutes as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: thank you, mr. president. i -- i come to the floor this evening to -- to share letters from ohioans from all corners of my state. letters mostly from people who have lost their jobs and depend on something called unemployment insurance. and it's insurance -- insurance is what it is, not welfare, not giveaways, people work in a

business, their employer technically pays for -- into the unemployment fund. obviously it's money that the employee doesn't get his income. you can say it either way, the employee pays or the employer pays. when you lose your job, you get assistance from the unemployment insurance fund. that's why it works so well. when the unemployment rate is above a certain level, relatively high unemployment rate, we have extended -- we have maintained benefits, unemployment insurance benefits for those workers who have lost jobs. we do that for two reasons. we do it, one, because it's right thing to do if someone loses her job whether it's in boulder, in the presiding officer's home state or in galion, ohio, my home state. it's the humanitarian, right thing to do, that worker who has lost her job can at least pay

most of her bills then at least stay in her apartmentor house and -- apartment or husband and pay for the mortgage, rent, and wouldn't be able to without the unemployment monthly payments. john mccain, one of the -- of his chief economic advisers said repeatedly a dollar in unemployment benefits is about the best stimulus for the economy you can have. if you give a tax cut to a millionaire, give $10,000 to a millionaire, they're likely not going to spend. it they spend money on things they want because they have enough to do that so a tax cut doesn't mean much to them, but an unemployment check means that that unemployed worker will spend that money in the community, the local grocery store, buying shoes for her kids or his kids, pay property tax, pay their rent, pay their gas bill, pay their gas in the car to go around looking for jobs.

so the money's recirclecirculatr and over. it's right thing to do for the worker who has lost his job. that's why the presiding officer and i and others in this body have worked so hard to make sure those benefits are out there. it's not welfare. it's insurance in spite of what some conservative politicians like to suggest, that it's people sitting around don't want to work. whether it in sydney, ohio; or portsmouth, ohio who have lost their job, the unemployment compensation is never as much -- to my knowledge, i don't think it's ever as much as the person is making on the job and it's under a formula and that's why they want to go back to work. it's hard-working people -- hardworking people who know that they need to keep looking for a job. roughly for every job, there's

five people seeking a job. i'll start with timothy from farefield, ohio. that's a prosperous community in southwest ohio. so it happens everywhere. it's not just the inner city, it's not just rural rap a rich gentleman, it's not -- appalachia. unemployment -- timothy writes, unemployment extensions end in two weeks and my family worries about what the future will be. the last delay made us unable to pay many bills on time. if another delay happens we'll be put in such a hole that i don't see us getting out of. not to mention it's the holiday season, i don't know what thoal my 4 -- to tell my 4-year-old and 7-year-old. i'm in the manufacturing field. i worked as an engineer, a quality engineer and inspector. this next week will be my first of 20 weeks of unemployment. i searched for employment within

a 50-mile radius of our town. how's he going to afford gas if his unemployment extension runs out? i found zero results. have been applying for retail jobs, janitor jobs. if i get the interview, the answer's the same, you're overqualified. i was told a sporting goods store had over 3,000 applicants. i don't know what we'll do if this extension isn't passed. mr. president, it's -- it's unbelievable that -- that my conservative colleagues are willing to extend -- to -- to give tax cuts to millionaires and billionaires, but are unwilling to maintain unemployment benefits for people like tim mccarver thin tim -- l. not only that, it's the anxiety he feels about his children, about his -- about his house, about his being able to provide

what he needs to provide in the christmas season or any other season. that so many people have to wait until the republicans drop their filibuster in order for us to maintain the benefits is unconscionable. kelly in summit county, please help me get the unemployment extension passed. i'm about to exhaust my benefits in three weeks. i look for employment, but to no avail. my mortgage companies leaves no room for late or missing payments. there will be no christmas this year especially when i get behind on payments. kelly says what so many are saying in letters to our office, that is essential. getting this relatively meager unemployment assistance, not a lot of money, but enough to pay kelly's rent -- to pay for kelly's rent. you know, not christmas presents, not anything elaborate. not a fancy christmas dinner,

just to pay the rent and pay what needs to be paid. richard also from summit county. i'm writing to share the reality of my situation. today i filed my final claim for unemployment. this is the moment that made me lay awake at night. in our moment there will be no thanksgiving and no christmas. when i hear caroles being played, it makes me depressed like never before. i feel the tbifts and celebrations -- gifts and celebrations are made for other people. no more money for my diebt diabs checkups, never have i felt like throwing in the towel before now. i just wish my colleagues would talk to people like richard. i say again, when i hear carols being played and ads for christmas sales, i feel depressed like never before. no more money for my diabetes meds, no more dental checkups,

no more eye drops for glaucoma. unemployment is not going to make them comfortable or rich, but it's going to help richard get through the tough times. instead, to make a political point, my republican colleagues simply say we're not going to maintain unemployment benefits. the last one i will read was from jacqueline in cuyahoga county, cleveland area. i have been an unemployed human resources professional for 18 months. even after having applied for 170 jobs, 170 jobs -- these aren't people that are just sitting around cashing their unemployment checks -- i'm still very active in my job search. i go to at least two networking events or meetings per week. i keep a positive attitude in spite of my situation. yes, i applied for jobs in other fields and professions which use similar and transferable skills. i get no results. i have worked with recruiters and head-hunters and online networks and have appealed to friends and family members to look for opportunities. i have worked full time since i was 16, even through college. at age 45, am educated

professional with so much to offer a professional organization, i want to work for many years. she has worked since she was 16. she is now 45. she has worked twice as long as almost the age of these pages that sit in front of us. she has worked for 39 -- 29 years. you know, she is not -- she is not a deadbeat. she doesn't want to sit around and collect unemployment. she wants a job. as i said, there are five jobs, five people pursuing every job out there on the national average. without unemployment benefits, my family would have lost our home by now. i'm begging you, begging you to fight to extend unemployment benefits until more companies start hiring. please don't let 15 million americans have to worry about feeding their families this winter. please urge your colleagues to pass an unemployment benefit extension before december 1. and december 1 is approaching, mr. president. we still can't get a republican -- our republican colleagues who -- it's been in

conference, but we have been through this. this is i believe the third time, mr. president, in the last year or so where we have begged, cajoled and pleaded and asked, done whatever we can to get our colleagues to say yes, not to filibuster, to get our colleagues to say yes to get the supermajority 60 votes we need to extend unemployment benefits. there is a lot of fear out there. you know, whether it's in denver or cleveland, whether it's in -- whether it's in trinidad or mansfield. there is all kinds of anxiety and fear and anguish out there. we can do something in this body to lessen it for our fellow americans. i ask my colleagues to move forward on maintaining unemployment benefits for the millions of americans for whom the christmas season, the holiday season will not be very happy this year. i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

mr. brown: i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: i ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: thank you, mr. president. over the last few months, our nation has mourned the loss of several lesbian-gay-bisexual and transgender teenagers driven to suicide because of hateful and ignorant bullying and harassing. these tragic circumstances brought families and friends and concerned citizens together through vigils on public squares and communities all over this country and on college campuses throughout the nation. millions of fellow americans have drawn attention together, drawn attention to intolerance and violence that lgbt -- lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender americans face each

day. together we can ensure all lgbt americans that life will get better for them. as a father, i can't bear to imagine the unspeakable pain endured by the parents of those teenagers who tragically took their own lives. no parent should have to bury a child, no child should ever feel so hopeless and so forgotten and so alone and so isolated that suicide seems like his only escape. but the rash of highly publicized suicides of lgbt students not only highlights a national epidemic of bullying that these students face, it also reminds us that we all as adults, as clergy, as educators or as peers of these students, that we all have a role to play in preventing discrimination. bullies target the vulnerable and subject them all too often to cruelty, through taunts in the classroom or on the internet, through chants on the playing field or physical abuse in the neighborhood. prejudice based on religion or race or disability or sexual

orientation or gender or physical or intellectual differences too often translate into physical torment and isolation and abuse against others. lgbt youth in particular are frequently targeted by bullies. public surveys indicate that 80% of lgbt students report regular harassment by fellow students, a rate three times that of their heterosexual peers, three times the rate of their heterosexual peers. 75% of high school students routinely hear home phobic remarks in school, reinforcing stereotypes and prejudices. without a safe space to speak openly with a caring adult or a like-minded peer, victims are left to question their self-worth, put on top of insecurity that all young people regardless of race or gender or sexual orientation feel already.

we have all been through that already. put on that the kind of insecurities that are put on them by bullying tactics by so many people spouting homophobic remarks. too many young gay men and women and boys and girls are forced into secrecy about who they are rather than affirm the person they should proudly be. a brave young ohioan named nicholas sent me a letter detailing an attack by a school yard bully. on september 18, 2009, i was attacked at my school by a student -- i was attacked by a student at my school for being gay. nicholas writes this student beat me in the head with a hammer three times. he chased me down so he could get the last two hits. the student attacked me for being gay. i have no way of using this attack to promote gay rights, to promote equality, but you did and you can do this for me.

i need your help more than anything. no one deserves to go through what i went through. my message to nicholas and to all lgbt americans is this: you're not alone, life will get better. you can find the love and acceptance you deserve, and you will find the love and acceptance you deserve free from fear and hate. you'll realize your full potential every bit as much as anyone else because things are changing in this country. there is no acceptable justification for the violence experienced by nicholas or the physical and emotional mistreatment of lgbt students in our schools and in our communities. that's why the senate must take crucial steps, mr. president, to ensure students -- ensure that schools are safe places for learning, safe places for students and not breeding grounds for bullying. first we must pass the safe schools improvement act which would help schools implement lbgt exclusive programming to combat bullying and harassment. second, we must pass the student

nondiscrimination act which would bar schools which receive public money from implementing programs that discriminate based on sexual orientation or gender identity. legislation alone, of course, will not eradicate or put an end to bullying, but we also know what legislation did for women, for children -- for women, for children, for civil rights. attitudes change over time. legislation helps accelerate that change. that's why those two pieces of legislation matter. they would be major steps toward ensuring safety and equal treatment for all students in our school systems. parents and teachers also have a special responsibility to help lgbt youth confront the adversity they face at school. they, too, should ensure that every student knows she is valued, knows he is valued, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity. lgbt community centers and national organizations like the gay-lesbian and straight educational network are valuable

resources for students, parents and educators. i remember several years ago at an event where a student sat together. they were part of a gay-straight alliance at a high school in western cuyahoga county. ten students at two different tables, five gay students, five straight student, all supporting one another, understanding they accept their differences and they can still care about one another and they can -- they can protect them in many cases from some of the bullying that might have -- might have befallen some of them. to our lgbt students who are either forced to live a lie or face hostility for simply living their lives, know -- all of you should know that there are resources to help you in times of need. the trevor project is the leading national organization focused on crisis and suicide prevention among lesbian and gay and bisexual, transgender and questioning youth. for more information if you're feeling alone, anyone watching

today feeling alone, helpless or in crisis, people can visit the trevor project's website, the trevorproject.org or call the hotline. for anyone who is a suicidal crisis or in need of help, the national suicide prevention line is available 24 hours a day, seven days a week by calling 1-800-273-talk. 1-800-273-talk. to nick -- i don't normally come to the floor, mr. president, and talk about a service like this. i think, though, when people feel alone, people don't always know there is help out for them -- there for them, and when young people need to know that it's getting better, that life will get better for them, it's important to share that information even on the senate floor. to nicholas, history is on your side. it will, in fact, get better. workers fought for the right to

organize, women fought for the right to vote, african-americans fought for equal justice, and now lgbt americans of all backgrounds are fighting for equality. it's up to us to join this fight. it's up to us to be on the side of people whose lives are a little bit more difficult, perhaps, than others' lives. it's that spirit of inclusion, it's the pursuit of the american dream that will, in fact, make it better for these young people and that will make it better for all americans. thank you, mr. president, i yield the floor. i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. brown: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from ohio is recognized. mr. brown: thank you, mr. president. i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the work. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: i ask unanimous consent the banking committee be discharged from further consideration of h.r. 6162 and the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: h.r. 6162, an act to provide research and development

authority for alternative coinage materials to the secretary of the treasury and so forth. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? if not, the committee is discharged. the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. brown: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate, and any statements related to the bill be placed in the record at the appropriate place as if read. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the banking committee be discharged from further consideration of h.r. 6166 and the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: h.r. 6166, an act to provide for the production of palladium bullion coins to provide affordable opportunities for investments in precious metals and for other purposes. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection, the committee is discharged and the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. brown: i ask unanimous consent the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to

reconsider be laid on the table with no intervening action or debate and any statements related to the bill be placed in the record at the appropriate place as if read. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent, the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of s. res. 690, submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. res. 690, commemorating the 175th anniversary of the birth of mark twain. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection, the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. brown: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate and any statements related to the resolution be placed in the record at the appropriate place as if read. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of s. res. 691, submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. res. 691, to permit the collection of clothing, toys, food and house wears during the holiday season for charitable purposes in the

senate buildings. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection, the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. brown: mr. president, i ask unanimoui askunanimous consent n be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, that any statements related to the resolution appear at the appropriate place in the "congressional record" as if read. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: thank you, mr. president. i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. yorkyork:quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call: quorum call: quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call: