On the recordJune 12, 2008
I think the more we discuss this, the clearer the issue becomes, including the last statement that we heard. There's no disagreement about the need for growth policies. But to say that, and use it as an excuse not to provide extended unemployment benefits is really indefensible. You can't say to people who have been out of work for 26 weeks, who are there through no fault of their own, and who must be looking for work, that because of the absence of growth policies they should, essentially, be out in the cold. That's close to a cold-blooded approach to this issue. And, if you mention States like Iowa, look, in some States, if there's a surplus, people who are out of work, in most cases, if they're looking for work, and they must, will find other work. But it makes no sense to take the position of the administration, and that's what the gentleman from California, essentially, was reflecting, where they say that historically, the unemployment rate has had to be at a certain level in order for Unemployment Compensation to be extended. And there was, they say, an exception after September 11, 2001. It's really hard to fathom who people would use 2001, September 11, as an excuse not to extend benefits. The unemployment rate when President Bush signed the extension was 5.7. It's now 5.5. And essentially, what you're saying is we're going to deny benefits to well over a million, with 3 million more likely to come, because of a difference of 2/10 of 1 percent.
Source
govinfo.gov




