Performing search for your keyword(s) in 23 footage partner archives, please wait...
Summary
INT BROLL SENATE DEMOCRATS PRESSER ON UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS W/ CHUCK SCHUMER AND JACK REED Tuesday, January 14, 2014 Senate press conference on votes to extend unemployment insurance DC Slug: 1615 SEN UNEMPLOYMENT PRESSER RS15 76 AR: 16x9 Disc #058 SENATOR JACK REED (D-RI): Well, this afternoon we tried first to move forward procedurally on a provision that would have given unemployment insurance benefits for about 11 1/2 months. It was fully paid for. It did not involve tax revenues. Indeed, it represented significant concessions to many of my Republican colleagues in terms of their request that anything we do be paid for and also that we don't use tax provisions to pay for it. Obviously, on our side, there were people who were suggesting that we treat it as we typically do in emergency. We've been told that 17 of the last 20 extensions of UI have been unpaid for. Indeed the last extension, beginning in 2012, and being really last year, 2013, was unpaid for and was voted for by, I'm sure, and I know, a majority of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle. And then again we had a second vote that would have allowed at least a 90-day period for benefits. And those benefits will not be paid for, but it would at least give us the chance to begin and continue to talk about this -- these issues seriously, but at the same time respond to the real problem here. One-point-five million Americans, approximately, have already lost their benefits. Seventy thousand a week are losing benefits. They are in a very difficult situation. I am disappointed. Many of these people are on the verge of desperation. They don't have the modest $300-or-so a week that will allow them to help pay the rent, put gas in the car to go to a job interview, have a cell phone to be able to get the information they need. In fact, you can't even communicate -- you can't get a job today unless you have some type of electronic communication. That's what we should focused on. And regrettably, I think my colleagues took their eye off the -- you know, those Americans who earned these benefits and deserve these benefits. We're not going to stop. We're going to keep working. Again, we've made a significant conscious decision to try to reach out. We had support. And I want to particularly thank Senator Heller who joined me not only introducing the legislation but I think was with us on that final vote for the three-month extension. Also, several others of my colleagues -- Senator Collins, Senator Portman, others that were making valuable suggestions and working. But we have to get this done. There are other opportunities. We're not giving up. There are provisions that are coming up in the next several weeks, and we have tax extenders that have to be dealt with. We have the proverbial doctor fix that have to be dealt with. We have other legislation that's coming before us, and so we're not going to stop. And with that, let me recognize my colleague, who did such a tremendous job, thoughtful, consciously involved, and doing it constantly, Senator Chuck Schumer. SENATOR CHARLES SCHUMER (D-NY): Thank you, Jack. And thank you for your leadership. Jack fuels this issue with a passion, and one of the things I think we'll eventually win is members on both sides of the aisle respect that he is just totally doing this on the merits, because he cares about it so, and does such a good job explaining it. I'd just make two points: Bottom line is, our Republican colleagues don't seem to get it. The world is changing. And helping average people, of whom most of these beneficiaries are, is what the public is demanding. It's more important to the average citizen than deficit reduction, as important as that is, than "Obamacare", as important as that is, and they're just missing the call. In 2006 -- (200)7, with unemployment at 5.6 percent, George Bush proposed this particular structure of unemployment insurance that we have now, and it passed overwhelmingly. So they're missing that. And the second thing is, they're using procedural excuses to avoid voting on this bill. We've tried to meet them. And the idea that on Thursday, their entire claim was they're not being allowed to offer amendments, so we offered them 10 amendments -- that's a lot of amendments on a relatively simple bill -- and they wouldn't accept that. They insisted that they should then have the right to filibuster final passage, not have an up-or-down vote on final passage, after offering their amendments. That's never how this place has worked. And so I'm hopeful that maybe today's debate in a procedural sense will get the two sides together. Last week I think they had an argument. What about amendments? This week they don't have much of a leg to stand on when we say, OK, we'll let you do amendments -- and they'll be tough amendments to vote for -- but then let us have an up-or-down vote on final passage, however those amendments come out. And so I'm hopeful that both on the substantive basis and the procedural basis our colleagues on the other side will smell the coffee and maybe we can come together and get this done over the next month. SEN. REED: Questions? Yes, sir. Q: What is the downside of letting the Republicans have a 60- vote threshold for the final vote? Why not just push it that far and see if you get (cloture ?)? SEN. SCHUMER: (Inaudible.) SEN. REED: Well, I mean, I've -- I'll defer to the -- Senator Schumer, but my comment is, you know, we want to have a vigorous debate, but essentially, as someone described it, they want (sic) their cake and eat it too. They want very -- any amendment they could -- you know, there's a wide range of amendments they could have called up, and then at the end say, well, we don't like the outcome of the amendment process, so we're still not going to let you get to the -- to the final passage. We wanted the certainty, and I think people who are unemployed want certainty that at the end of the day, that we were going to have a vote. And that's why I think it -- their amendments were there. They could have made their points. They could have -- frankly, they could have argued and gotten the 60-point threshold in some amendments, perhaps; I don't know. And then at that point you have a bill that presumably would -- you know, could garner 50 votes, and it might even garner Republican votes. So I think that the issue -- and I'm going to defer to Chuck but, you know, this was an -- not an attempt. We tried to say, here, you want amendments? You've got 10 amendments. SEN. SCHUMER: Yeah. OK, I'd make three points. First, two or three of the people who were offered amendments said they would not vote -- they would not vote for cloture. They would continue to filibuster the bill unless their amendments won. That situation is heads I win, tails you lose: Democrats, let us offer amendments. Let us make you walk on hot coals -- some of those amendments were politically inspired, some were not -- and then we'll never give you a vote on passage. That's never how this place has worked. Never. And so bottom line, the thing that has driven us to some of these measures that they don't like is they're just obstructing. So today we called their bluff. We said, hey, we'll give you amendments. Are you still going to obstruct? And at least up to this point they've answered, yes, we're still going to obstruct. Q: Senator Schumer, Senator Collins has a very different characterization. She said that you guys objected to what she has been working on with Dean Heller, and that if you guys had accepted that singular proposal -- that it was reached and they were very happy -- there would have been more than enough support -- SEN. SCHUMER: Yeah, her proposal, it undoes the budget agreement. How could we accept it? It basically said, to pay for it do sequestration in the next 10 years but exempt defense. I mean, that's unreasonable. Q: OK, so you object to her -- (Cross talk.) SEN. SCHUMER: Of course. Yes. SEN. REED: I think it's important to note -- SEN. SCHUMER: Look, and I think Susan is in good faith here. But to undo the budget agreement when we've had a careful balance between defense and non-defense spending? That was never going to have a chance on our side. SEN. REED: Well, I think it's important to note that that was one of those amendments that could have been offered. SEN. SCHUMER: Yeah, they still could have offered it. SEN. REED: That was one of those amendments that still could have been offered. And we could have had a debate about that. She could have said, this is a -- and I think she would have eloquently and with articulation, as she always does, that this is the way to proceed, and that's the way -- she had every right to do that, but I -- essentially what she wanted to say is, will you take your bill down, put my bill up, and we'll then -- we'll go from there and do amendments. But she would have the right to amend. SEN. SCHUMER: The basic compromise is, we propose and they can amend. Now she's saying, we want to propose and we want to amend, because they wanted their proposal to be the base bill. That's not -- Q: (Off mic) -- really have ever been legitimately close. SEN. REED: You know, I think -- (laughs) -- I think we have been close in that -- and I think first of all, you know, we were close by saying, in the most recent proposal I made, is that we'll offset this. You know? It wasn't this -- this is always -- this is 17 out of 20 times an emergency and we're going to insist it be emergency. Then we said -- you want to talk about close -- we won't try to use tax revenues to offset this very significant expenditure. Which are the two major arguments that we hear constantly from our colleague on the Republican side. Has to be paid for and you can't touch taxes. So we've come that far. And then we find that's not far enough. (Inaudible) -- you know, we've tried to move close. And I think that's what got us into a discussion about ways to do this. And we're still on that discussion. And we're going to continue that discussion. And you can -- we can have a debate about what's the best way to do it and as Chuck pointed out, you know, this would basically add additional cuts to some mandatory programs that are -- that are domestic mandatory programs, adding an additional burden, as someone described, is robbing Peter to pay Peter in many cases. So we have legitimate concerns, but at least we're talking about, how do we pay for this program which is so important? And, you know, and we've restricted ourselves -- we've restricted ourselves to -- at this point -- nonrevenue means of paying for it, even -- (inaudible) -- of it. So I think we've come a long way. And that's what we did. That was not in response to them coming, demanding from us, saying, OK, we won't even talk to you, et cetera, if -- (inaudible) -- SEN. SCHUMER: I'd like to see how they've moved at all in our direction. And I think Susan and Dean are in good faith. How have they moved in our direction, to say undo the budget agreement and just do sequestration on the domestic side to pay for it. You know, Paul. You know darn well that's not even a starter on our side. To say ours should be the base bill. I mean it -- I'd like -- I'd like a serious -- a serious -- (inaudible) -- how they're meeting us part of the way. And I have a feeling that if Susan and Dean were left to their own devices, they and Jack Reed could work something out in a minute. Q: So what do you see as the next step -- SEN. SCHUMER: The next -- Q: -- (inaudible) -- go forward. And when also do you think is the next earliest you'll come back to this legislation? SEN. SCHUMER: OK. To me, the next step is twofold. I think the -- I think that our Republican colleagues realize they're on the wrong side on this issue. And they would have been very happy to let the thing go away last Thursday where they could have made the issue, we can't offer amendments, but that's been taken away from them. So I think that they'll feel that pressure. And I also think there's pressure on both sides of the aisle to come to an agreement procedurally on how we work things in a better way. So I think those two pressures will convene and I think there's a real possibility in the next session -- you know, in the next month that we might be able to come to an agreement because we have, as Jack said, met their -- the two criteria they said at the outset -- which is pay for it without taxes. Q: Senator, what would you say the downside of offering -- or letting them offer amendments -- (inaudible) -- you end with a guarantee an up or down vote at the end of this, since your party has majority control -- SEN. SCHUMER: Well, then you need 51 -- then you should need 51 votes to get on the bill. They're not going with that. Q: You already -- SEN. SCHUMER: No, no. We had 60 votes to get on the bill. Q: (Off mic.) SEN. SCHUMER: If you want to have 51 votes for everything, you have it for everything. Q: Would you be OK with that? SEN. SCHUMER: You know, it's something you'd have to think about. But you certainly can't say 60 to get on the bill and then 51 -- you know, 51 on each amendment, and then 60 to pass the bill, which is their position. Q: Senator, so you're looking at a recess week next week. This unemployment issue is out there. There's -- Senator Reed mentioned the job fix and the extenders as well as -- I know both of you coastal states need flood insurance situations, correct? Practically, is this a good time to be having this recess or is there something that should -- would it be better to be here? SEN. SCHUMER: Well, look, the bottom line is I think we -- when we're -- whether we're at home in our districts working, which I think is really important for unemployment insurance. I'd like everybody to be back talking to their constituencies. But we're talking to each other all the time. I probably talk to 10 or 12 senators a day when I'm on recess, from both sides of the aisle. SEN. REED: The best thing would have been to have 60-plus votes this afternoon and wrap this up tomorrow and provide payments to the 1.5 million Americans who have lost their unemployment insurance. That's the best thing we could have done. SEN. SCHUMER: Thank you, everybody. SEN. REED: Thanks. Negotiations to extend emergency unemployment benefits to out-of-work Americans have fallen victim to a larger Senate debate over the rights of the minority party, making it more and more likely that the Senate will leave town this week without restoring benefits to the 1.3 million people that lost them when they expired on Dec. 28.
Footage Information
Source | ABCNEWS VideoSource |
---|---|
Direct Link: | View details on ABCNEWS VideoSource site |
Title: | SENATE UNEMPLOYMENT PRESSER / HD |
Date: | 01/14/2014 |
Library: | ABC |
Tape Number: | NYU126702 |
Content: | INT BROLL SENATE DEMOCRATS PRESSER ON UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS W/ CHUCK SCHUMER AND JACK REED Tuesday, January 14, 2014 Senate press conference on votes to extend unemployment insurance DC Slug: 1615 SEN UNEMPLOYMENT PRESSER RS15 76 AR: 16x9 Disc #058 SENATOR JACK REED (D-RI): Well, this afternoon we tried first to move forward procedurally on a provision that would have given unemployment insurance benefits for about 11 1/2 months. It was fully paid for. It did not involve tax revenues. Indeed, it represented significant concessions to many of my Republican colleagues in terms of their request that anything we do be paid for and also that we don't use tax provisions to pay for it. Obviously, on our side, there were people who were suggesting that we treat it as we typically do in emergency. We've been told that 17 of the last 20 extensions of UI have been unpaid for. Indeed the last extension, beginning in 2012, and being really last year, 2013, was unpaid for and was voted for by, I'm sure, and I know, a majority of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle. And then again we had a second vote that would have allowed at least a 90-day period for benefits. And those benefits will not be paid for, but it would at least give us the chance to begin and continue to talk about this -- these issues seriously, but at the same time respond to the real problem here. One-point-five million Americans, approximately, have already lost their benefits. Seventy thousand a week are losing benefits. They are in a very difficult situation. I am disappointed. Many of these people are on the verge of desperation. They don't have the modest $300-or-so a week that will allow them to help pay the rent, put gas in the car to go to a job interview, have a cell phone to be able to get the information they need. In fact, you can't even communicate -- you can't get a job today unless you have some type of electronic communication. That's what we should focused on. And regrettably, I think my colleagues took their eye off the -- you know, those Americans who earned these benefits and deserve these benefits. We're not going to stop. We're going to keep working. Again, we've made a significant conscious decision to try to reach out. We had support. And I want to particularly thank Senator Heller who joined me not only introducing the legislation but I think was with us on that final vote for the three-month extension. Also, several others of my colleagues -- Senator Collins, Senator Portman, others that were making valuable suggestions and working. But we have to get this done. There are other opportunities. We're not giving up. There are provisions that are coming up in the next several weeks, and we have tax extenders that have to be dealt with. We have the proverbial doctor fix that have to be dealt with. We have other legislation that's coming before us, and so we're not going to stop. And with that, let me recognize my colleague, who did such a tremendous job, thoughtful, consciously involved, and doing it constantly, Senator Chuck Schumer. SENATOR CHARLES SCHUMER (D-NY): Thank you, Jack. And thank you for your leadership. Jack fuels this issue with a passion, and one of the things I think we'll eventually win is members on both sides of the aisle respect that he is just totally doing this on the merits, because he cares about it so, and does such a good job explaining it. I'd just make two points: Bottom line is, our Republican colleagues don't seem to get it. The world is changing. And helping average people, of whom most of these beneficiaries are, is what the public is demanding. It's more important to the average citizen than deficit reduction, as important as that is, than "Obamacare", as important as that is, and they're just missing the call. In 2006 -- (200)7, with unemployment at 5.6 percent, George Bush proposed this particular structure of unemployment insurance that we have now, and it passed overwhelmingly. So they're missing that. And the second thing is, they're using procedural excuses to avoid voting on this bill. We've tried to meet them. And the idea that on Thursday, their entire claim was they're not being allowed to offer amendments, so we offered them 10 amendments -- that's a lot of amendments on a relatively simple bill -- and they wouldn't accept that. They insisted that they should then have the right to filibuster final passage, not have an up-or-down vote on final passage, after offering their amendments. That's never how this place has worked. And so I'm hopeful that maybe today's debate in a procedural sense will get the two sides together. Last week I think they had an argument. What about amendments? This week they don't have much of a leg to stand on when we say, OK, we'll let you do amendments -- and they'll be tough amendments to vote for -- but then let us have an up-or-down vote on final passage, however those amendments come out. And so I'm hopeful that both on the substantive basis and the procedural basis our colleagues on the other side will smell the coffee and maybe we can come together and get this done over the next month. SEN. REED: Questions? Yes, sir. Q: What is the downside of letting the Republicans have a 60- vote threshold for the final vote? Why not just push it that far and see if you get (cloture ?)? SEN. SCHUMER: (Inaudible.) SEN. REED: Well, I mean, I've -- I'll defer to the -- Senator Schumer, but my comment is, you know, we want to have a vigorous debate, but essentially, as someone described it, they want (sic) their cake and eat it too. They want very -- any amendment they could -- you know, there's a wide range of amendments they could have called up, and then at the end say, well, we don't like the outcome of the amendment process, so we're still not going to let you get to the -- to the final passage. We wanted the certainty, and I think people who are unemployed want certainty that at the end of the day, that we were going to have a vote. And that's why I think it -- their amendments were there. They could have made their points. They could have -- frankly, they could have argued and gotten the 60-point threshold in some amendments, perhaps; I don't know. And then at that point you have a bill that presumably would -- you know, could garner 50 votes, and it might even garner Republican votes. So I think that the issue -- and I'm going to defer to Chuck but, you know, this was an -- not an attempt. We tried to say, here, you want amendments? You've got 10 amendments. SEN. SCHUMER: Yeah. OK, I'd make three points. First, two or three of the people who were offered amendments said they would not vote -- they would not vote for cloture. They would continue to filibuster the bill unless their amendments won. That situation is heads I win, tails you lose: Democrats, let us offer amendments. Let us make you walk on hot coals -- some of those amendments were politically inspired, some were not -- and then we'll never give you a vote on passage. That's never how this place has worked. Never. And so bottom line, the thing that has driven us to some of these measures that they don't like is they're just obstructing. So today we called their bluff. We said, hey, we'll give you amendments. Are you still going to obstruct? And at least up to this point they've answered, yes, we're still going to obstruct. Q: Senator Schumer, Senator Collins has a very different characterization. She said that you guys objected to what she has been working on with Dean Heller, and that if you guys had accepted that singular proposal -- that it was reached and they were very happy -- there would have been more than enough support -- SEN. SCHUMER: Yeah, her proposal, it undoes the budget agreement. How could we accept it? It basically said, to pay for it do sequestration in the next 10 years but exempt defense. I mean, that's unreasonable. Q: OK, so you object to her -- (Cross talk.) SEN. SCHUMER: Of course. Yes. SEN. REED: I think it's important to note -- SEN. SCHUMER: Look, and I think Susan is in good faith here. But to undo the budget agreement when we've had a careful balance between defense and non-defense spending? That was never going to have a chance on our side. SEN. REED: Well, I think it's important to note that that was one of those amendments that could have been offered. SEN. SCHUMER: Yeah, they still could have offered it. SEN. REED: That was one of those amendments that still could have been offered. And we could have had a debate about that. She could have said, this is a -- and I think she would have eloquently and with articulation, as she always does, that this is the way to proceed, and that's the way -- she had every right to do that, but I -- essentially what she wanted to say is, will you take your bill down, put my bill up, and we'll then -- we'll go from there and do amendments. But she would have the right to amend. SEN. SCHUMER: The basic compromise is, we propose and they can amend. Now she's saying, we want to propose and we want to amend, because they wanted their proposal to be the base bill. That's not -- Q: (Off mic) -- really have ever been legitimately close. SEN. REED: You know, I think -- (laughs) -- I think we have been close in that -- and I think first of all, you know, we were close by saying, in the most recent proposal I made, is that we'll offset this. You know? It wasn't this -- this is always -- this is 17 out of 20 times an emergency and we're going to insist it be emergency. Then we said -- you want to talk about close -- we won't try to use tax revenues to offset this very significant expenditure. Which are the two major arguments that we hear constantly from our colleague on the Republican side. Has to be paid for and you can't touch taxes. So we've come that far. And then we find that's not far enough. (Inaudible) -- you know, we've tried to move close. And I think that's what got us into a discussion about ways to do this. And we're still on that discussion. And we're going to continue that discussion. And you can -- we can have a debate about what's the best way to do it and as Chuck pointed out, you know, this would basically add additional cuts to some mandatory programs that are -- that are domestic mandatory programs, adding an additional burden, as someone described, is robbing Peter to pay Peter in many cases. So we have legitimate concerns, but at least we're talking about, how do we pay for this program which is so important? And, you know, and we've restricted ourselves -- we've restricted ourselves to -- at this point -- nonrevenue means of paying for it, even -- (inaudible) -- of it. So I think we've come a long way. And that's what we did. That was not in response to them coming, demanding from us, saying, OK, we won't even talk to you, et cetera, if -- (inaudible) -- SEN. SCHUMER: I'd like to see how they've moved at all in our direction. And I think Susan and Dean are in good faith. How have they moved in our direction, to say undo the budget agreement and just do sequestration on the domestic side to pay for it. You know, Paul. You know darn well that's not even a starter on our side. To say ours should be the base bill. I mean it -- I'd like -- I'd like a serious -- a serious -- (inaudible) -- how they're meeting us part of the way. And I have a feeling that if Susan and Dean were left to their own devices, they and Jack Reed could work something out in a minute. Q: So what do you see as the next step -- SEN. SCHUMER: The next -- Q: -- (inaudible) -- go forward. And when also do you think is the next earliest you'll come back to this legislation? SEN. SCHUMER: OK. To me, the next step is twofold. I think the -- I think that our Republican colleagues realize they're on the wrong side on this issue. And they would have been very happy to let the thing go away last Thursday where they could have made the issue, we can't offer amendments, but that's been taken away from them. So I think that they'll feel that pressure. And I also think there's pressure on both sides of the aisle to come to an agreement procedurally on how we work things in a better way. So I think those two pressures will convene and I think there's a real possibility in the next session -- you know, in the next month that we might be able to come to an agreement because we have, as Jack said, met their -- the two criteria they said at the outset -- which is pay for it without taxes. Q: Senator, what would you say the downside of offering -- or letting them offer amendments -- (inaudible) -- you end with a guarantee an up or down vote at the end of this, since your party has majority control -- SEN. SCHUMER: Well, then you need 51 -- then you should need 51 votes to get on the bill. They're not going with that. Q: You already -- SEN. SCHUMER: No, no. We had 60 votes to get on the bill. Q: (Off mic.) SEN. SCHUMER: If you want to have 51 votes for everything, you have it for everything. Q: Would you be OK with that? SEN. SCHUMER: You know, it's something you'd have to think about. But you certainly can't say 60 to get on the bill and then 51 -- you know, 51 on each amendment, and then 60 to pass the bill, which is their position. Q: Senator, so you're looking at a recess week next week. This unemployment issue is out there. There's -- Senator Reed mentioned the job fix and the extenders as well as -- I know both of you coastal states need flood insurance situations, correct? Practically, is this a good time to be having this recess or is there something that should -- would it be better to be here? SEN. SCHUMER: Well, look, the bottom line is I think we -- when we're -- whether we're at home in our districts working, which I think is really important for unemployment insurance. I'd like everybody to be back talking to their constituencies. But we're talking to each other all the time. I probably talk to 10 or 12 senators a day when I'm on recess, from both sides of the aisle. SEN. REED: The best thing would have been to have 60-plus votes this afternoon and wrap this up tomorrow and provide payments to the 1.5 million Americans who have lost their unemployment insurance. That's the best thing we could have done. SEN. SCHUMER: Thank you, everybody. SEN. REED: Thanks. Negotiations to extend emergency unemployment benefits to out-of-work Americans have fallen victim to a larger Senate debate over the rights of the minority party, making it more and more likely that the Senate will leave town this week without restoring benefits to the 1.3 million people that lost them when they expired on Dec. 28. |
Media Type: | Archived Unity File |