More than a million out-of-work Americans could finally have their unemployment benefits restored after months of congressional deadlock, thanks to a bipartisan group of senators who have agreed a deal that will, if passed, extend emergency assistance measures first introduced after the banking crash.

The federal insurance program aimed at long-term unemployed workers whose state assistance has expired was itself left to lapse in December, after Congress failed to agree to extend it during broader budget negotiations.

Efforts to find a temporary solution to fund the programme have floundered ever since, leaving a group of 1.3m – and growing – job-seekers without financial support despite continued high US unemployment rates.

A deal struck on Thursday between Democratic senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island and Republican Dean Heller of Nevada – the latter’s state has an unemployment rate among the worst in the nation – offers a five-month extension and the prospect of payments backdated to December.

By securing support from Democratic leaders and three other Republicans – Rob Portman of Ohio, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Susan Collins of Maine – the deal looks likely to clear the 60-vote threshold in the Senate needed to avoid filibuster by more conservative opponents.

It still faces an uphill battle in the House of Representatives, but a vote on the deal will force Republicans in that chamber to take a public stance on an issue that has become of growing concern to both parties ahead of November’s mid-term elections.

Reed called for public pressure on Congress to help push the deal over the line, but described it as a “bipartisan breakthrough”.

“Still need your help,” he said in a tweet. “Please let your lawmakers know you support the Reed-Heller bipartisan compromise.”

He added: “There are many good people looking for work and I’m glad we’re finally able to reach bipartisan consensus.”

The Reed-Heller proposal includes plans to tighten rules on who can apply for the benefits, which are designed to appease Republicans.

But the deal may still prove controversial among Democrats, as it proposes to pay for the increase by relaxing separate rules on how much of a contribution companies have to make into their private pension schemes.



This so-called “pay-for” has been used previously by Congress to fund compromise deals, but has drawn criticism for making private pension plans more vulnerable, and reflects the difficulty of passing any legislation in Congress that requires higher government spending.