coming up. a senate panel looks at u.s. policy toward refugees from hong kong. judiciary subcommittee hearing on border security and immigration is live at 2:00 p.m. here on c-span3. online or listen with the free, c-span radio app. the food and drug administration meets in open session to approve moderna's vaccine for covid-19. live coverage, thursday, at 9:00 a.m. eastern on c-span3. stream live and on demand at c-span.org or listen on the free, c-span radio app. >> elise gould is senior economist at the economic policy

institute, studying jobs, poverty, wages. she joins us now as we focus on the pandemic's impact on the u.s. workforce. elise first put us on the map in terms of how many u.s. jobs have been lost during the pandemic and how many we have been able to claw back in recent months. >> so, we saw, in march and april, was that we lost 22 million jobs. huge devastation in the labor market. over the last few months, we have gained back more than half of those. but we still remain in a deficit of about 9.8 million jobs. and what's particularly troubling is that the growth in jobs has slowed, every month since late summer. so, that -- filling that hole has been showlower and slower. and last month, we just saw an added 245,000 jobs. so, at that rate, we could be years away from a full recovery. >> you talk about filling that hole. for those who are stuck in that hole right now, that unemployment hole, what sort of extra benefits are actually

still available from what was originally passed by congress and signed by the president, way back in march? >> well, what was extremely valuable to these workers was the pandemic unemployment insurance program. so, there was a suite of programs that were passed. the first one, pandemic unemployment assistance. that expanded eligibility. so, it allowed many workers who, previously, had been locked out of the unemployment insurance system, to get access. and those are self-employed workers thinking about gig workers. also, many workers who had to quit their jobs because their kids' school went virtual and they could no longer go to work. and so, those expanded definitions came under the pandemic unemployment assistance program. and that is still in effect for just until the end of this month, actually, december 26th. the second program was the extended benefits. pandemic emergency unemployment compensation. and that extended benefits so once you exhausted your regular, state benefits, you could get an additional 13 weeks. the third program, which is

already gone away at the end of july, which was the pandemic unemployment compensation. that was the extra $600 that was provided to people to make them whole, to be able to get them through and allow them to safely stay at home. so that $600 has now gone by the wayside. and unfortunately, week after week, people have exhausted those programs so even though they are set to end for everybody, december 26th. week after week, people are exhausting those benefits. >> when we hit that cliff on december 26th, how many people is it estimated would be affected by those two programs ending? >> yeah. about 12 million people would lose benefits, on that day. they would no longer receive checks, next year, without that, without extending that. so, it is devastating. 12 million. i mean, these are huge numbers. the kind of pain that is being felt across the country is massive. >> talking to elise gould this morning. senior economist at the economic policy institute.

talking about the unemployment situation in this country. here is how our phone lines are split up. if you are unemployed. if you have recently returned to work, 202-748-8001. all others can call in at 202-748-8002. elise, as folks are calling in, can you talk about this bipartisan proposal that congress is working its way through right now? has some momentum on capitol hill. congress trying to pass this ahead of adjourning, before the -- the christmas break. before the end of this congress. before those programs, that you talk about, end on december 26th. what's in this bipartisan, $908 billion proposal for unemployed americans? >> it's a great question and, certainly, it's a moving target. but as of the latest reports that i've seen, it does have some very important components. so, the unemployment insurance programs that i mentioned, that are set to expire. those will be -- those will have

additional 16 weeks in those programs, which will be vital for those unemployed americans across the country. it will, also, add an extra $300 payment. remember, many state unemployment programs don't provide full replacement. in fact, they might provide less than half of income replacement. so, that extra $300 -- it'd be great if it was $600 but that extra $300 is really going to provide a lifeline for families. notably, what's missing is additional state and local aid, that is absolutely vital as well. state and local governments are on the front lines of this crisis. and they have to balance their budgets, and they're facing huge revenue sho revenue shortfalls. even over the last few months, as the private sector has slowly increased, and i stress slowly increased, we've actually seen more losses in state and local jobs and we are going to see more of that, if the federal government doesn't step up. >> so, let's explain to viewers, right now, where we stand on

this proposal. as you can see on the screen, that $908 billion, bipartisan bill, has now been split in two parts. $748 billion part that includes unemployment insurance, small business relief, the ppp program, education, and vaccine distribution help. that's one bill. a separate bill is $160 billion that would provide money for state and local governments, what you were just talking about, ms. gould. as well as providing liability protections. that second bill seems to be the more controversial piece. there's been some talk that congress could move that first bill, perhaps, on its own if they can't get enough support behind both pieces. the bipartisan group wants both pieces to move. but, that's where we stand, right now. we'll see what happens in the coming days on capitol hill. but, one thing i did not mention in there and that we have talked about with viewers quite a bit, is another round of direct stimulus checks. president trump has called for a new round of stimulus.

perhaps, as much as $1,200. where -- what do we know about that making it into one of these two pieces of legislation on capitol hill? >> at this point, i have not seen that in any of the agreements that have come out. so, that doesn't look like that's going to be making it into this bill. and you're absolutely right. there were two parts. it doesn't seem like, to me, from what my sources are saying, is that that state and local aid is going to move forward because of the other provisions that were added on to that. and notably, there is other things missing from there. the really important, paid leave provisions, they're not included in here, either. which, you know, we're in the middle of a pandemic. this, if ever, and we always need workers to be able to have paid leave. to be able to stay home when they're sick, not spread illness to their co-workers, their customers. and to not extend that provision is, also, a huge mistake. >> in that $748 billion bill, the one that seems to have a little bit more support. just to run through some of the numbers what we are talking about, what's included in there.

$82 billion for schools. $13 billion in emergency-food assistance. $25 billion in rental assistance. $35 billion for healthcare providers. $ $13 billion for farmers, ranchers, growers, fishermen. the build would, also, have an extension of the eviction moratorium until january 31st, at which point, lawmakers are hoping the $25 billion in rental assistance would alleviate pressure on renters. you are looking at "the washington post" story breaking it down, this morning. but that's in that first that bigger package members are trying to move this week. if you want to talk about the unemployment situation in this country and let us know about what's happening in your part of the country and -- and with you, personally, phone lines are open for you to do so. we're with elise gould of the economic policy institute, this morning. and sherman is up first out covington, georgia. on that line for those who are unemployed. sherman, good morning. >> caller: i guess -- yeah, good morning, and thanks for having me. i guess, my question is that

which portion of the unemployment is run by federal? and which part is run by the state? because i know we was approved for some federal funds. but our governor refused refuse portion of it that was supposed to be donated by the state. and i guess is that -- where is that money or where does that money goes to? >> thanks for the question. can you pick that up? >> sure. there was additional money that was provided by executive order that required a match from states. i don't know exactly what has happened in your state. i'm sorry i can't speak to that exact question. the bill that's on the table right now would provide that $300 -- from the federal government and would require an additional supplementals. those eligible workers would be able to access that money as soon as this bill passes, if it does. >> greg, crossville, tennessee,

good morning. >> caller: good morning. i just want to say -- hello, am i on? >> you're on. what do you want to say? >> caller: okay. i just want to say that i've been watching this, i've been unemployed for about eight months now due to this. i've got an underlying condition that causes me to be a high risk for corona. and i've been watching this and nancy pelosi and the democrats will not let up on the fact that they want all of these other things put into this bill that they don't talk about. why won't they pass a bill that just takes care of the coronavirus people and deal with the other stuff different, not attach all this stuff onto it? i just want to hear what your thoughts are? >> that's an example of something that you think is unnecessary -- >> caller: the first bill we fixed the kennedy center. maybe it needed fixing. i don't know.

i've never been to the kennedy center. but this one, they got something about marijuana research or something on that line. i don't know what that is. there are just things -- and bailing out these states. i don't want to pay for california. i live in tennessee. we don't make the money they make in california. we -- our unemployment here is very low. i'm living on unemployment. i don't want to pay to fix california. they're leaving by the droves in california, the people that live there don't want to fix it. they want to leave. >> elise gould? >> it's a great question. i'm not sure of additional riders. i think you're right, we need to stay focused on getting the relief to people so that they can continue to pay their rent and put food on the table and that we feed the relief of the state and local governments and that we feed the recovery itself.

there is going to be continued, massive job losses early next year if we don't pass a relief measure. i think this is really dire, that we address these issues now. i'm not sure what other attachments he's talking about. but i do think that we need to keep an eye on what is most important here and providing that relief as soon as possible. >> this bill that this bipartisan group of lawmakers is pushing forward, $908 billion, it could eventually just be the $748 billion component. should note that the c.a.r.e.s. act was in the area of $2.1 trillion back in march. democrats passed their own h.e.r.o.s. act over the summer to the tune of $3.4 trillion. what was in that $3.4 trillion package for unemployment and some of these other issues? how much more generous would that bill have been? >> yeah, it's a great point, right? we think about what is the scale

of the problem? it seems like the policymakers are picking a number out of a hat and that number is not going to do as much work as they need it to do. we need to do something. but on the order of something like two or three trillion is much of what's needed. what that bill had was more extensions to the unemployment insurance program, that $600 that is so vital. remember, $600 is allowing people to make ends meet. but it's also feeding the economy. and it does that because when people provide for their needs, they are spending money. they're consumer spending money in the economy. when they spend money in the economy, they are buying goods, they're buying services, and so then you need people to provide those services and to produce those goods. and that feeds employment. that's the multiplier effect and particularly when we think about who is unemployed in this country, disproportionately low-wage workers who are going to spend that money and that

money is going to circulate in the economy. in the h.e.r.o.s. act you saw substantial aid to state and local governments. that was important. and extensions of all the other components. what we need in this country when we think about going into a recession, we need automatic stabilizers so we're not fraught every time with having to pass this legislation. we need to make sure that these things are in place so that they automatically turn on when you see this kind of label market devastation and we don't have to have an end date that is set on this date, the end of the calendar year, the end of july. we need to be looking at the economic conditions and make sure we keep it turned on. the pandemic has lasted a lot longer than people have thought. i think in many ways, when we were passing that legislation, now the numbers with continuing to skyrocket, we need to make sure it's safe for people to continue staying home as much as they can and provide the protection for those workers who need to continue going to work at this time. >> coming back to that

$748 billion package, the one that seems to have the most moment right now, a question from edward in new jersey. is this bill going to cover workers that maxed out their 39 weeks of unemployment? >> my understanding -- and i would say don't quote me own this but i'm here and i'm being quoted -- my understanding is that we will add those additional 16 weeks. it will get you back on. if you had exhausted your benefits, you can get back on and you'll be good until -- much into april and hopefully by then, a lot of the vaccine will be distributed. i think that's the hope. and that that will provide really needed relief. so that's my understanding of the bill as it's written now. it's creating a new program that will provide the additional 16 weeks so the people who will be or have already exhausted their programs. >> on the line for those recently returned to work, steve, anaheim, california. steve, what kind of work do you

do? >> i do whatever i can to stay alive at my age. but mostly, i do graphic design. i agree with your guest that there needs to be more important for those people that are, you know, trying to get back into the workforce. but out here, we've already got $400 million worth of fraud. it's a mess out here as far as the unemployment. but you're going to see this fraud here and there. but even though that happens, we still should have some kind of support for these people that have no fault of their own being forced to stay home. she's absolutely right, if you want to stop this spread, that's what you have to do. that's about all i really got to say today, john. >> can i ask you, before you go, you said there needs to be more, more needs to be done. democrats in congress were originally holding the line on $3.4 trillion h.e.r.o.s. act.

they came down to $2 trillion. it seemed like they're going to be somewhere in the area between 750 and $900 billion. do you think democrats should have done more to hold the line on a larger bill? >> well, they tried to hold the line, but, you know, politics gets in the way of everything. and we don't really know -- or i don't know what the hearings or the meetings were in the senate because that's not televised. we don't know what kind of negotiations are going on. the first time they do is run to a mic and scream that this one party is unfair or whatever. people are suffering. they need to stop it and start thinking about the people who are hurting out there. >> steve, thanks for the call elise gould? >> that's right. when we think about people who are unemployed, the numbers of people who have been long-term unemployed, the share of the

unemployed, you're over a third of those that are unemployed, have been unemployed for more than 27 weeks. 27 weeks or more, more than six months. this is desperate for those people and many of them have been exhausting over the last few weeks. they've been exhausting their benefits. how are they supposed to make ends meet? how are they supposed to continue putting food on the table and covering their rent? even in this bill, the eviction moratorium only goes until january 31st. what happens then? i think it's desperate and i agree with the caller that we need to provide relief at the scale of the problem. >> is $25 billion in rental assistance at the scale of the problem? lawmakers hoping that eviction moratorium will be long enough for that rental assistance to kick in and perhaps help the folks who might be facing

reconviction. >> it's a start. i'm not a housing expert, so i shouldn't speak too strongly about that. it's important. i would like to see that moratorium extended so we can get through the winter. it's desperate times. we're in the winter. the case loads are rising. we have a pandemic. it's devastating for anyone to get evicted at any time. it's inhumane to think about doing that at any time and to be doing it now is absolutely the wrong move. we need to be protecting people. >> you talk about going into the winter. can you compare the economic situation that joe biden will be inheriting when he becomes president on january 20th to the economic situation that other incoming presidents have faced in the modern era? >> right. when we saw the last incoming president come in four years ago, he was facing an economy that was growing. the economy was adding solidly

jobs every month. and continued on that path -- pretty much continued on auto pilot for much of the last three, four years from the growth we had seen before coming out of the great recession. now, the incoming president is inheriting a very troubling economy. there are estimated 26 million people who have been hurt by the labor market. they became unemployed, they had their hours or pay cut, they've left the labor force. they don't see any opportunities and there aren't any opportunities. there are far more unemployed workers out there, even when we use the official definition of unemployed workers than there are job openings. hiring seems to be softening a bit. there's more trouble on the horizon. i think it's -- it is really a devastating situation that the next president is inheriting. >> in terms of the negotiation happening right now, i wonder whether you would agree with tony who says, it's idiotcy to

focus on the numbers. we need to focus on the needs to be met, the price, and then pay for it. that's tony from twitter. >> absolutely. we need to think about what needs to be done. don't just pick a number and they this is the right number. let's fully fund the areas to make sure we can provide the relief to people and we can feed this recovery. we know what happened in the after math of the great recession. why was that recovery so long? why did it take so long to reach those prerecession levels? we didn't spend enough. the losses that we've seen is particularly devastating when we look back at the great recession, it actually, it wasn't until the aftermath that we saw the job losses and it took years longer for us to return to those pre-recession employment levels, particularly

those cuts that were forced at the state and local government. we're moving in the wrong direction. >> this is jerry out of kansas. good morning. >> caller: good morning. how are you doing? >> doing well. >> you're on with elise gould? >> i'm not employed. i haven't been since 2011, since i was disabled. but i want to hit on one thing you mentioned the probability of a stimulus bill coming out for those that -- that they want to do for the $1,200.01. i don't like that idea, the way they did it the last time. there's some of us like me, i have to live on disability so i have to learn to budget my money as it is. just to give me $1,200 just because somebody else is

hurting, i don't think that's right. i have to balance what i already have and i think that $1,200 that some of us are getting, there's a chance of it again, needs to be held back for those that are hurting. the one gentleman asked if the democrats were trying to add to the bill and he was having a hard time trying to distinguish some of those things. one of those things that was -- that they were trying to add was extra money for those that are illegally in the country. and that is one thing that i would not like to see gone through. if you're legally in this country and you're legally working in this country, i have no problem with that whatsoever. but if you're illegally in this country, no, you don't deserve to get the taxpayer's money. even if you're paying taxes, you're still illegally in this

country. >> can i ask you on the direct stimulus payments that you were talking about, you said it needs to go to the people who really need it. how would you identify those people because when they did this the last time, after the c.a.r.e.s. act was passed in march, they did it by how much you -- money you made in the past year, up to a certain amount. you got the full stimulus check and it tapered off. for individuals it was $75,000 a year, i believe, $150,000 for those filing jointly. how would you tailor it to get it to the people who need it the most? >> well, they know who is drawing disability, who is not. they know who is drawing social security and who is not. so they could easily separate that from those that are actually working a job and getting that -- and sending taxes to the government that way. they could separate them in that fashion. they could separate the people that are like me, who are

drawing a disability and getting a set income and not losing that, there's the extremely low chance that we're going to lose that. otherwise we would have to cancel out all social security in order to lose that. we would have to just disable the whole system. >> i'm going to let elise jump in now. >> absolutely. what you're saying it's more efficient to make sure the people who need the money are getting the money. that's how the unemployment insurance system works. if you're unemployed, you apply and hopefully your state is up and running quickly and you get the benefits in your pocket and expanding that program will directly go to people who have been unemployed in this crisis and they need that money. and so that is a very well-targeted program to hit those people in need. >> you make the argument that expanding unemployment assistance is a better way to help people and blanket stimulus checks up to a certain amount that you made in your tax

filings last year? >> that's right. because it's going directly to the people who were economically harmed. you could have some middle income families who have been able to keep their jobs. and giving them money, while it could help, perhaps, feed the economy, you don't know if they're going to be spending that money. because their income hasn't dropped. you want to do what's most efficient to be able to provide that relief and also you know the people who are getting the money, they're going to have to spend that money to get their needs met, to pay for -- as i said, to pay for their housing, to pay for food, to pay for their health care. all of the things that they need to pay for. they need that money desperately for. it gets it to them and also recovery. >> 15, 20 minutes left with elise gould this morning. you can see her work at epi.org. you can also follow her on twitter at elise l. gould if you want to follow her as well.

we'll hear from richard in colorado from the line of those who are unemployed. good morning. >> caller: good morning. >> go ahead. >> caller: i've been unemployed since march. pandemic relief runs out, actually, next week. thank goodness for the governor here in colorado for recently adding $375. when people call in, mr. mcconnell is the one making the rules. when you haven't seen banks like, and i have paperwork from my country, which i've tried to get away from. if they would have done pandemic relief right to begin with, which was set pretty well, we

would have had better thanksgiving gravy and better christmas. now, i've been writing a song about this because there's more people unemployed, more people having more problems. and, you know -- and small businesses going under. it's like they've been robbed. >> elise gould. >> the devastation didn't need to happen and when we think of the losses people have had, we have to think of the health consequences and the devastating deaths and difficulties that many people have had in this country. but absolutely, the economic devastation has been felt across the country and has effected millions of people. >> to nick in -- linda is up

first. good morning. >> caller: good morning. i'm an essential worker and i have been employed but some of the places that we've been working for have closed down because of this. so income from those businesses is going down. but my thought is that, how long do people think that free money is going to keep coming to them? i have a business and it has an overhead. i have to pay expenses. if there's nothing left, i don't get to get a salary. so i'm not understanding how people can think that free money is going to keep coming forever. it's not going to happen. everything runs out. so i just kind of like to have an idea of what kind of budget the united states has out there that supports every person and, number two, there are people who got the $600 unemployment, and they did not want to go back to work. many of them were called back to work and they didn't want to go.

the employs were getting more money from unemployment. my idea is to put everybody back to work and start feeding the pot in washington which is not a lot compared to the people that just want to suck off the government. why don't we move towards that? >> elise gould? >> that's a good question. what is happening with the unemployment insurance system and whether or not the benefits are too generous, it's clear that the benefits have not been too generous, even $600 for most people did not even make them whole. it's not like they were making more money in the unemployment insurance system than they would have been working. but it's impossible to ignore the fact that we're in the middle of a pandemic. many people don't want to go back to work because they're concerned about their health, other families members that they may come in contact with or

multigenerational households. you could be putting your parents or grandparents at risk and those kinds of consequences have meaningful and devastates consequences. that's really important that we are able to allow people to stay home. schools were closed across the country. some have reopened. some have reshuttered and that has meant that parents have to be home to take care of their kids. they can't go to work because they have to be cared for. and so that's really important as well, that we're able to pay people to stay home during this pandemic. hopefully as things open up, that money will not only be used as relief, but used to stimulate the economy and we'll get on the other side of this. calendar have been nice if we had taken this more seriously early on and that we had completely shuttered and we had not seen the kinds of case loads and the kinds of deaths that we have experienced in this country over the last several months. >> and now to nick in

westchester, pennsylvania. good morning. >> good morning. thanks for having me on. i wanted to talk briefly about two things. i'm currently a grad student. but i know so many people at colleges and universities that, you know, their university closed or it's all online and stuff like that which a lot of them still have rents that they have to pay and they don't necessarily need to be living next to the university. and there's no reason for them to, you know, have a space to rent. but a lot of them couldn't get out of their rental agreements and such -- their leases. and, you know, i really think that earlier on, you should have maybe considered actually canceling rent and canceling mortgages and then another thing that i wanted to mention was, i know myself as a dependent technically, i never got a stimulus check. what about people like me? not like i necessarily needed it as much as someone else that i might know, but i very much think that it's more easy to

just give it to every single american than try to maneuver it like this. >> yeah, you make some really great points. i think that you're bringing up the demographic issue here. i think it's important to bring it into the conversation also who has been hurt more in terms of health consequences and also economic consequences. black and hispanic workers in this country have been devastated by being essential workers and more likely to bring that illness home. also, more job loss, more likely to be living on the edge and don't have the kinds of liquid savings to be able to weather this storm. the topic of today's hearing is something that all americans should be concerned about. that is the chinese communist party's continued encroachment on the fundamental rights of the people of hong kong. in 1984, china and great britain