MR. REED: Madam President, I rise in opposition to the Ensign amendment. This amendment would fund the unemployment compensation trust fund by taking unobligated money from the recovery package. It is ironic that one of the major tools we are using to maintain employment and grow it is the recovery package. In Rhode Island, our State used about $200 million, which is a significant sum in their budget, to ensure they didn't have to lay off workers, which would have increased the demand on unemployment, and that they could maintain services. All of this is a result of the recovery package.
We are beginning to see the momentum pick up. For example, with respect to weatherization, Rhode Island initially received some funds, but then the bulk of the funds would be received based upon submission of their plan. The plan is underway. The State will see roughly $20 million over the next several months to get people to work doing weatherization. Not only does this help the environment, it also provides employment, particularly for those most hard hit, the construction industry.
To take this money now and put it in the trust fund is counterintuitive and counterproductive. On those grounds alone, we have to seriously look at this amendment.
The other issue that should be mentioned, among several, is that CBO has indicated that this approach of moving funds in the underlying bill has no effect on their baseline. It is an intergovernmental transfer that the underlying legislation is proposing.
So this issue, again, is more of a comment, perhaps, on the recovery package than trying to effectively stem unemployment and to provide funds for those who are unemployed.
The issue of unemployment is probably the most significant one we face in the country, particularly in my home State. We know joblessness is rising. It is 12.4 percent in Rhode Island. Rhode Island and 18 other States have had to borrow $12 billion to keep their State unemployment trust funds solvent. Rhode Island has borrowed more than $80 million itself to cover unemployment costs, and over the next few months, they will draw on a line of credit of about $40 million to keep paying these benefits, which are absolutely critical to families who have lost their jobs. If we don't, today, transfer these funds, as suggested in the underlying legislation, Rhode Island and many other States would be looking at a real crisis in which they would fail to be able to respond to this need for unemployment compensation.
On the merits of where the money comes from--i.e., the Recovery Act, which is the biggest tool we have that is trying to keep people working and employ more people--it doesn't make sense. And not making this transfer, as suggested by the underlying legislation, would imperil the State's ability to provide unemployment compensation in a labor market that is still very weak. We have to do more, and we also have to be more innovative in our approach to unemployment.
One of the things my State has done with its own resources is a work-share program. Rhode Island and 17 other States are using their resources to provide WorkShare, an effective program. Essentially, it allows an employer to cut back on the number of hours a worker is engaged, and that worker would qualify for what is basically a partial unemployment check,--not the full check, so it doesn't put that much of a drain on the trust fund. Part of the conditions in Rhode Island is that the employer must maintain the benefits the workers enjoy. So it is really a win-win-win. First, people do not lose their health care because they must maintain the benefits. Second, they are still employed, so there is continuity of workers on the factory floor or in the office. Third, the pressure on the State trust fund is lessened.
One of the things that is particularly appropriate to mention when it comes to this program is that it provides a big bang for the buck. Mark Zandi, an economist who is well renowned, has indicated that for every dollar of funds we put in through the unemployment system, we get $1.69 back. That makes sense. People who are getting these funds are using them right away. They are going into the economy with their other funds to buy food, to buy the necessities of life they need. This has a stimulus effect on the economy. That is another reason we have to move very aggressively.
But I would like to broaden this concept of WorkShare, which has been so effective in Rhode Island, to ensure we have a system that would provide some Federal support to those States that are engaged in work share programs. Again, it is not only a very efficient program, it is very popular with industry and business in Rhode Island.
I had the occasion to visit a Hope Global plant, and they have engaged in WorkShare. In fact, the number of companies in the State engaged in WorkShare has gone up dramatically, given the economic recession.
At this company, I listened to a woman who worked there with her husband, and they benefitted from this program. She said, point blank: Without it, we would have lost our health care and we would have lost our home.
So we can do more when it comes to flexibility and innovation with respect to unemployment. This also includes passing legislation immediately to extend unemployment insurance. Over half a million workers will exhaust their benefits by the end of September, and 1.5 million will run out of coverage by the end of the year. This is an extraordinary number of Americans, and we need to provide them the support of the unemployment system, particularly high unemployment States like Rhode Island.
Also, as I indicated before, this is a way in which we cannot only moderate the crisis of unemployment for families but also to stimulate our economy. In fact, in that sense, it complements the Recovery Act. To take away funds from the Recovery Act to place into the unemployment trust fund would blunt the overall macroeconomic stimulus that we need to get this economy moving again.
The unemployment levels today are unacceptable, particularly in my State of Rhode Island. It is the No. 1 concern. Related to unemployment, for many people in my State, is the concomitant loss of their health care. So we have to move aggressively on health care reform also. But we have to act, and we can act, and we should act. I urge my colleagues to reject the Ensign amendment.
I yield the floor.
