Republicans Offer Their Own Unemployment-Insurance Plan

The five-month extension could endanger a separate Democratic bill.

OAKLAND, CA - JULY 11: A protester holds a sign during a demonstration against unemployment benefit cuts on July 11, 2012 in Oakland, California. Dozens of protesters with the group Union of Unemployed Workers staged a demonstration to protest cuts in unemployment benefits.
National Journal
Sarah Mimms
Add to Briefcase
Sarah Mimms
March 6, 2014, 2:41 p.m.

Sen­ate Re­pub­lic­ans re­leased their own le­gis­la­tion to ex­tend un­em­ploy­ment-in­sur­ance be­ne­fits Thursday even­ing, un­der­cut­ting a sep­ar­ate ef­fort offered by Sen. Jack Reed that has the sup­port of Demo­crat­ic lead­er­ship.

The Re­pub­lic­an plan would ex­tend the be­ne­fits, which kick in after an in­di­vidu­al has been un­em­ployed for at least 26 weeks, for five months in­clud­ing ret­ro­act­ive be­ne­fits. If passed im­me­di­ately by both cham­bers, the new be­ne­fits would ex­pire again for all be­ne­fi­ciar­ies in late May while Con­gress works to find a longer-term solu­tion. In oth­er words, those who hit the 26-week quota be­fore the ex­ten­sion is made law would get far less than five months of be­ne­fits.

Sig­ni­fic­antly, the pro­pos­al would re­quire be­ne­fi­ciar­ies to ac­cept any of­fer of “suit­able work” or any po­s­i­tion re­com­men­ded to them by a state em­ploy­ment agency.

The new pro­pos­al is co­sponsored by the very Re­pub­lic­an sen­at­ors that Demo­crats have been lob­by­ing to sup­port their own bill, po­ten­tially put­ting Reed’s six-month ex­ten­sion on ice. They are Sens. Dean Heller of Nevada, Susan Collins of Maine, Rob Port­man of Ohio, Dan Coats of Illinois, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Kelly Ayotte of New Hamp­shire, and Mark Kirk of Illinois. Heller, in par­tic­u­lar, has been work­ing with Reed and oth­er Sen­ate Demo­crats for months to re­in­state the be­ne­fits.

A Sen­ate Demo­crat­ic aide with know­ledge of the talks ex­pressed frus­tra­tion Wed­nes­day that Port­man was not ne­go­ti­at­ing “in good faith” and had be­gun pulling Re­pub­lic­an sup­port­ers away from the Demo­crat­ic solu­tion to­ward a pro­pos­al of his own.

“Since the be­gin­ning of the de­bate, I’ve stood ready to work in a bi­par­tis­an man­ner for a solu­tion for the long-term un­em­ployed,” Port­man said in a state­ment ac­com­pa­ny­ing the text of the bill. “I’m hope­ful my col­leagues on both sides will get be­hind this pro­pos­al so we can start work­ing on real, per­man­ent solu­tions for the Amer­ic­an people.”

Murkowski, who has voted in fa­vor of pre­vi­ous at­tempts to re­store the be­ne­fits, took an even harder line. She has been strongly crit­ic­al of Reed’s new plan, which would pay for the ex­ten­sion us­ing sav­ings from the farm bill, which Re­pub­lic­ans be­lieve will nev­er ma­ter­i­al­ize.

“If the Sen­ate does not and will not al­low this bill to come up for a vote — in­stead push­ing a party-line meas­ure paid for by budget gim­micks — it should be clear that they are more in­ter­ested in cable TV talk­ing points than help­ing Amer­ic­ans in need,” she said.

The Re­pub­lic­an plan would pay for the five-month ex­ten­sion by ex­tend­ing cus­toms user fees through 2024, pre­vent­ing be­ne­fi­ciar­ies from also re­ceiv­ing So­cial Se­cur­ity dis­ab­il­ity in­sur­ance, and ex­tend­ing pen­sion smooth­ing (which would al­low em­ploy­ers to con­trib­ute less to their em­ploy­ees’ pen­sion plans). Not­ably, Re­pub­lic­ans re­jec­ted the lat­ter off­set earli­er in the ne­go­ti­ations.

The bill would also re­form the over­all pro­gram, re­quir­ing state and fed­er­al agen­cies in­volved to identi­fy why an ap­plic­ant is un­em­ployed and “identi­fy steps” that per­son should take “to im­prove em­ploy­ment pro­spects.” It would also pre­vent “mil­lion­aires and bil­lion­aires” from re­ceiv­ing the be­ne­fits, ac­cord­ing to a re­lease.

Also on Thursday, House Demo­crats made a stronger push for an ex­ten­sion in a let­ter to House Speak­er John Boehner signed by 161 of their mem­bers. The let­ter cites a re­port from the Cen­ter on Budget and Policy Pri­or­it­ies es­tim­at­ing that 200,000 vet­er­ans have now lost their un­em­ploy­ment-in­sur­ance be­ne­fits.

What We're Following See More »
APPEALS COURT RULED TRUMP EXCEEDED HIS AUTHORITY
Supreme Court Takes Up Trump Travel Ban
9 hours ago
THE LATEST

The Supreme Court announced "that it would consider a challenge to President Trump’s latest effort to limit travel from countries said to pose a threat to the nation’s security." The case concerns Trump's most recent attempt to make good on a campaign promise "tainted by religious animus" and only questionably justified by national security concerns. The decision to take the case, called Trump v. Hawaii, comes almost exactly a year after Trump issued the first travel ban. The ban under consideration affects Iran, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Chad and North Korea.

Source:
FACES STIFF OPPOSITION FROM BOTH PARTIES
Trump Proposes 95 Percent Cut To Office of Drug Control Budget
11 hours ago
THE LATEST

Trump wants to move the two grants, the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas grant and the Drug Free Communities Act, to the Justice and Health and Human Services departments, respectively. This would result in a $300 million plus reduction in funding, about 95 percent of the cost of the Office of National Drug Control Policy. "'I’m baffled at the idea of cutting the office or reducing it significantly and taking away its programs in the middle of an epidemic,'" said Regina LaBelle, who served as ONDCP chief of staff during the Obama administration. This is the second time the Trump Administration has proposed gutting the agency.

Source:
HOPES A DEAL CAN GET DONE
Schumer Meeting with Trump for Last-Ditch Meeting
12 hours ago
THE LATEST
BY SCALISE
House Told to “Stay Flexible”
14 hours ago
THE DETAILS
ALREADY PASSED CR, MCCARTHY SAYS
House Is Heading Home
14 hours ago
THE LATEST
×
×

Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.

Login