[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 5 (Tuesday, January 29, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S195-S202]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     HOPE FOR CHILDREN ACT--Resumed

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 622) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 to expand the adoption credit, and for other purposes.

  Pending:

       Daschle/Baucus amendment No. 2698, in the nature of a 
     substitute.
       Durbin amendment No. 2714 (to amendment No. 2698), to 
     provide enhanced unemployment compensation benefits.
       Nickles (for Bond) amendment No. 2717, to amend the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide for a temporary 
     increase in expressing under section 179 of such code.
       Reid (for Baucus/Torricelli/Bayh) amendment No. 2718 (to 
     amendment No. 2698), to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 to provide for a special depreciation allowance for 
     certain property acquired after December 31, 2001, and before 
     January 1, 2004.
       Reid (for Harkin) amendment No. 2719 (to amendment No. 
     2698), to provide for a temporary increase in the Federal 
     medical assistance percentage for the medicaid program for 
     fiscal year 2002.
       Allen amendment No. 2702 (to the language proposed to be 
     stricken by amendment No. 2698), to exclude from gross income 
     certain terrorist attack zone compensation of civilian 
     uniformed personnel.
       Reid (for Baucus) amendment No. 2721 (to amendment No. 
     2698), to provide emergency agriculture assistance.
       Bunning/Inhofe modified amendment No. 2699 (to the language 
     proposed to be stricken by amendment No. 2698), to provide 
     that the exclusion from gross income for foster care payments 
     shall also apply to payments by qualified placement agencies.
       Hatch/Bennett amendment No. 2724 (to the language proposed 
     to be stricken by amendment No. 2698), to amend the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 to allow the carryback of certain net 
     operating losses for 7 years.
       Domenici amendment No. 2723 (to the language proposed to be 
     stricken by amendment No. 2698), to provide for a payroll tax 
     holiday.
       Allard/Hatch/Allen amendment No. 2722 (to the language 
     proposed to be stricken by amendment No. 2698), to amend the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to permanently extend the 
     research credit and to increase the rates of the alternative 
     incremental credit.


                           Amendment No. 2714

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there shall be 30 
minutes of debate on the pending Durbin amendment No. 2714, to be 
equally divided in the usual form.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, this is an amendment to the economic 
stimulus bill, and it relates to unemployment compensation. There are 
many arguments that I will make about the justice and fairness of this 
amendment, but that is not where I am going to start. I want to start 
with the economics of this amendment.
  This is an economic stimulus bill. It is not designed first and 
foremost to be a bill for restoring justice to unemployment 
compensation, although I think this amendment achieves that. The first 
thing it is supposed to do is help the economy move forward. If there 
is a problem in America's economy today that is easily defined, it is 
the fact that we have an overcapacity and overproduction of goods and 
services and limited demand. As a result, businesses across America 
have said: People are not buying as much as they used to, so we are 
going to cut back on production. We are going to lay off workers.
  That has had a ripple effect in the wrong direction. It has created a 
recession, which has created unemployment, which has lessened business 
activity. First and foremost, whatever we do in an economic stimulus 
package should attack this problem. First and foremost, it should 
stimulate demand and spending for goods and services. And in 
stimulating that demand, I believe it will increase the demand for 
production, and it will increase employment in production industries 
and start this economy back on the road again.
  Here is something that should be kept in mind. For every dollar we 
put into the economy, we get an impact. We don't know what the impact 
might be until we see who receives the dollar. If you happen to be a 
person of great wealth who, frankly, doesn't take each dollar you 
receive and put it into a purchase, then what they call the multiplier 
effect might not even be a dollar for a dollar. That dollar may go into 
a savings account or into an investment. It won't go into the actual 
demand for goods and services that creates the jobs I mentioned.
  We know dollars given to unemployed people are dollars that are spent 
and respent in a hurry. In fact, the Labor Department has come out with 
a study that says for every dollar in unemployment benefit we put into 
the economy, it increases the gross domestic product, the sum total of 
goods and services in America, by $2.15. These funds are spent and 
turned over several times in the economy. So if we want to really get 
the engine roaring when it comes to demand, give the money to the 
people who are struggling on a daily basis. They will spend it in a 
hurry. They need to spend it on the obvious necessities of life.
  First and foremost, this is an economic stimulus amendment.
  Let me speak to the justice and fairness of this amendment. It is a 
sad reality that only 33 percent of the people who are unemployed 
receive unemployment insurance. This was not always the case. In fact, 
not too long ago, 75 percent of unemployed people received unemployment 
insurance. That was in 1975, 27 years ago. Now it is down to 33 
percent. Why the difference? Why is it if you were unemployed in 1975, 
you were much more likely, more than twice as likely to receive 
unemployment insurance? Because the nature of employment has changed in 
America. It is no longer the full-time employee, the 40-hour-a-week 
employee, who is unemployed. More and more, it is the part-time 
employee. It is the mother with children, taking a job and only working 
4 days a week and who doesn't get any benefits on the job, who finally 
loses that job and then, unemployed, turns to a system which says: No, 
the door is closed. We don't have unemployment insurance for part-time 
workers.

  My amendment seeks to do two things: first, to increase unemployment 
insurance benefits by providing an additional 15 percent or $25, which 
isn't a huge sum, but it can be helpful to people who are unemployed. 
Sadly, the unemployment insurance payments to individual workers across 
America have been falling behind. Take Illinois, for example. The 
average benefit is only $1,005 a month. The average rent for a two-
bedroom apartment is $776 a month. A family couldn't even pay the rent 
on that money, never mind food, clothes, utilities, and all other 
family expenses.
  Since 1990, we have seen the percentage of lost income replaced by 
unemployment benefits falling 5 percent. The decline has had a serious 
impact

[[Page S196]]

on a lot of families. Benefits vary by State, but the maximum benefits 
are as low as $190 a week. Think about keeping a family together with 
an unemployment payment of $190 a week. What we are trying to do is to 
give a slight increase, a deserved increase in unemployment insurance 
benefits.
  Secondly, we expand coverage. As I mentioned, take a look at 
unemployed Americans today compared to 25 years ago. You will find more 
and more unemployed part-time workers. Because of the calculation of 
unemployment insurance benefits, they ignore the 6 months before a 
person loses the job. So many people who have only had a job for a 
short period of time qualify for nothing. So you have fewer and fewer 
people with this coverage.
  We have to supplement this current unemployment insurance program to 
provide coverage for welfare-to-work people, women and others who 
played by the rules and paid into the system. These workers finance the 
UI fund during many good times, and surely we ought to help them in the 
bad times.
  Women comprise 70 percent of the part-time workforce, 65 percent of 
service sector workers. They work in the industries hardest hit by the 
economic downturn. Last year, only 23 percent of unemployed women in 
America qualified for unemployment insurance benefits.
  Remember what we are telling women. We are saying to women: We really 
would like you to stay home with the kids more. That is kind of our 
message. Yet many women find they can't keep their family together 
unless they give a helping hand. Some of them are single mothers. They 
take a part-time job, maybe the best they can get, maybe all they want, 
so they can spend more time with the kids. Then they lose their job. 
Then they get no help from unemployment insurance because they were 
part-time workers.
  This amendment extends unemployment insurance benefits to cover those 
part-time workers, particularly helping those women who are a 
disproportionate share of workers affected by it.
  According to the GAO, low-wage workers are half as likely to receive 
benefits than other unemployed workers, even though they are twice as 
likely to be unemployed. So those are the things we do. We increase the 
benefits under unemployment insurance. We expand the eligibility so 
that temporary and part-time workers will at least get a helping hand.
  The $15 billion that we estimate this will cost will come entirely 
out of the unemployment insurance funds in Washington. There is no 
burden placed on employers or States. It is money collected. It is 
temporary. It is a kind of helping hand which will stimulate the 
economy, No. 1, and, No. 2, do the right and fair thing for workers 
across America.
  What does it mean in a few States? Let me give an example. In 
Illinois, it means that 590,000 unemployed Illinoisans, because of this 
amendment, will get a helping hand.
  Let me pick another State. Let's try Iowa: 157,000 workers in Iowa, 
under the Durbin amendment, will receive benefits or increased benefits 
that they otherwise would not have received. Take a look at the part-
time workers in the State of Iowa: 11,000 people, unemployed part-time 
workers in that State will now receive some benefit from unemployment 
insurance. In my State of Illinois, it is 54,000, a larger State.
  I can go through the list, and I am going to put it on the table when 
we vote. Look at the real numbers of real people who are suffering in 
your States because of being unemployed and falling through the cracks. 
This Durbin Amendment tries to close the cracks. I thank Senator 
Wellstone of Minnesota, Senator Dayton as well, and Senator Landrieu 
and those who have cosponsored this amendment. I will stop now because 
I want to give some of them an opportunity to speak.
  I will yield to the Senator from Iowa or anyone who is going to 
speak.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Does the Senator from Minnesota want some time?
  Mr. DURBIN. The Senator can wait for the Senator from Iowa. We will 
save some time for important closing remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. First of all, I need to know how much time our side 
has.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Fifteen minutes.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I will yield myself such time as I 
might consume. If anybody on my side would like to have some time, I 
will be glad to share some time with them.
  First, I have a philosophical comment based on the history of 
unemployment compensation legislation. We have set some national 
policy, but the details of our unemployment compensation regime 
historically--and I think I would be referring to six or seven decades 
of American history--have been left to the States to fill in the 
details. That is because we were then and still are a Nation that is 
very geographically vast and a country where our population is very 
heterogeneous--more so now than 70 years ago--to a point where Members 
of Congress and Presidents have felt it would be wrong to pour one mold 
in Washington, DC, that we would call an unemployment compensation 
insurance mold and have our country, which varies from one State to 
another--and the needs of one State to another, consequently, vary--
that it would be wrong to pour that mold in Washington and force every 
State to treat unemployed workers exactly the same way.
  All knowledge doesn't repose here in Washington, DC. There is a great 
deal of knowledge--maybe more so--with the State legislators than in 
Washington, DC. Consequently, we have left it to the wisdom of a lot of 
States to do, in a sense, their own thing with the broad Federal 
policy--how to treat and compensate the safety net of unemployment 
insurance. Now we have this approach, which I would not characterize as 
federalizing unemployment compensation, but obviously it federalizes to 
a much greater extent than we have right now the unemployment 
compensation legislation.
  Again, we are going to say--if we adopt this--that there is more 
wisdom in Washington, DC, and in the Congress of the U.S. than in the 
New York legislature or the Illinois legislature as to how unemployed 
people in those States ought to be treated or compensated, et cetera. I 
oppose this amendment on that philosophical ground. But to be more 
specific, as an example of the wisdom that the Senator from Illinois is 
saying through his amendment that he knows better how part-time workers 
ought to be treated than the State legislatures do. Several States do 
allow part-time workers to be covered. My State of Iowa is one of those 
States that has decided to cover part-time workers.
  So the legislature of my State, a very small State of 3 million 
people, with a low unemployment rate of 3 and a half percent right 
now--you might think, what is there about the Iowa legislature that 
they would cover part-time workers and some other larger State might 
not. Why did we leave it to the people of my State, the elected 
legislators, to make that determination? Why is not important. The fact 
is they did it. They did it because Congress, over several decades, has 
said we are going to leave that decision to the State legislatures.

  Why do we think that we have all the answers here in Washington, DC? 
So it is fair to say that part-time workers are already eligible for 
unemployment benefits because there are no States that disqualify 
unemployed workers merely because they work part time. The issue is 
whether part-time workers should be allowed to collect unemployment 
benefits while refusing to accept a full-time job. If a job is 
available, why should any worker collect unemployment instead of going 
back to work? Part-time workers--in other words, if there is a job 
available--should not be on unemployment compensation. Unemployment 
compensation is not an incentive to keep you out of the workforce. It 
is historically--and rightfully so--to tide you over from a period of 
being disconnected with one job until you get back to that job, or 
until you have an opportunity to take a job someplace else.
  Part-time workers are not entitled to benefits simply because their 
employer paid unemployment taxes. Employers pay unemployment taxes on 
numerous categories of workers who are not entitled to benefits, for 
that matter. Such categories would include corporate officers, full-
time students, professional athletes, workers who quit their jobs, 
workers who are not seeking work,

[[Page S197]]

workers who are not available for work, and workers who even refuse 
suitable work. There are a number of States that allow workers to limit 
their job search to part-time employment and still collect unemployment 
compensation. If that is what that State decides it wants to do, let 
that State do it accordingly.
  However, this is voluntary State decision. The Federal Government has 
never dictated such eligibility standards to the States. There is no 
need for Congress to preempt State decisions on this matter. Expanding 
eligibility on the basis of part-time work would create new 
administrative burdens on the respective States. The States would have 
to decide what hours of the day and what days of the week are suitable 
for part-time work. As an example, if a worker loses his Monday, 
Tuesday, Wednesday, noon to 3 p.m. cashier job, can that person still 
collect unemployment benefits if he refuses to accept a Thursday, 
Friday, Saturday 3 p.m. to 6 p.m. cashier job?
  So State unemployment agencies, right now, lack the resources that it 
takes to investigate contested claims, like I just described, and 
others that are too numerous to describe at this point. Thus, it is for 
that administrative body to make accurate determinations so that you 
have the enforcement of the unemployment compensation laws done in a 
fair way. That is why it is wrong, it seems to me, to establish this 
policy, as if Congress knows what is best for the 50 States and knows 
that it can be enforced in a certain way, or let the individual State 
legislatures make the determination on how they want to expand their 
unemployment compensation laws, and at the same time they will know 
whether or not they have the administrative capability of enforcing the 
law the way the State legislature put it.
  Case law for part-time workers is going to take years to develop. It 
is not going to take years in Iowa because we have that decision made 
and there is a lot of case law there right now. Most part-time workers 
live with other workers. Thirty-five percent are married with a working 
spouse. Thirty percent of these part-time workers are children with 
working parents. Most of the time when workers live with another 
worker, they will have less incentive to seek new employment--a factor 
that should be taken into consideration when you start to cover a new 
class of people at the Federal level without letting the States make 
that determination. One of the premises of unemployment compensation 
for anybody is that you be actively seeking a job, that you are out 
there going door to door to put in your application, asking if there 
are any vacancies, and to try to benefit yourself during a process in 
which you are being helped by the unemployment compensation regime to 
make sure that you have basic necessities while you are trying to make 
this determination. It is not meant to pay people who are not actively 
seeking jobs.

  So there ought to be some relationship between those and the extent 
to which we include part-time workers. Without the State making that 
determination, there might not be that continued relationship that is a 
basic philosophical underpinning of our unemployment compensation laws.
  It seems to me that if we allow this disincentive in accepting new 
employment, this will lead to longer and more frequent spells of 
unemployment, more Government spending, and, in the process, reduced 
economic growth because economic growth is directly related to the 
productivity of the workers.
  Moreover, the provision we are discussing will allow full-time 
workers to switch to part-time status for unemployment purposes. This 
will result in even more unemployment and further loss of economic 
output.
  At this point, I am going to yield the floor for colleagues, but I 
have only spoken to one part of the Durbin amendment, that part dealing 
with covering part-time workers. There are other parts to it, but I 
think my underlying philosophical objection will apply to all parts: 
that all knowledge on unemployment compensation does not rest in the 
Congress of the United States. We have had this seven-decade tradition 
of leaving it to the States to fill in the details.
  This amendment departs from that tradition. Why should we depart from 
that tradition? We are departing during a time of 5.8-percent 
unemployment. We did not depart to this extent when we had 10- and 12-
percent unemployment, or at least on all these parts that the Senator 
from Illinois will try to change. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from 
Minnesota.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota is recognized.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, I cannot do this in a minute, but I 
will try.
  My colleague from Iowa is grasping at straws. This is not about 
States rights; it is about workers' rights. This is about helping in 
Minnesota 217,218 workers. This is about helping working poor part-time 
workers.
  My phone is not ringing off the hook. In fact, we talked to people 
back home at the State level. Our State governments are not telling us 
do not give us additional help on unemployment insurance. There is no 
additional expenditure for the States. States are asking for the help. 
This is a matter of workers' rights. This is a matter of helping part-
time workers, the working poor people, who then consume more which 
helps the economy. It is win-win-win.
  I doubt whether Senators are getting a lot of pressure from the 
working families in their States, much less State officials, saying: 
Please, do not help us with unemployment insurance with people flat on 
their backs through no fault of their own.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Four minutes forty-five seconds.
  Mr. DURBIN. I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Louisiana.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana is recognized.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, I rise to support the Durbin 
amendment, and I will follow up on what the Senator from Minnesota said 
in two other ways. No. 1, this amendment is truly a stimulative 
amendment. Every dollar that will be paid out at no expense to our 
States will help thousands of people who are unemployed and 
underemployed by giving them a chance to collect some income while they 
look for other work and get back into the workforce. Every single 
dollar is basically going to be circulated back into our economy.
  This amendment, as much as it is for unemployed workers, is for 
grocery stores, for restaurants, and for drugstores. It is for 
businesses, small businesses in Louisiana, in Illinois, in Minnesota, 
and in Iowa where the businesspeople are struggling. Why? Because no 
one is walking into their restaurants to buy the meal or to buy the 
item.
  When we give, through unemployment benefits, dollars for our 
constituents, what will they do with them? They are not going to put it 
in their savings account. They most certainly are not going to buy 
stock. They are going to spend the money at the local restaurant, at 
the local drugstore, and at the local cleaners. That is why this effort 
helps us get our economy back. When consumers spend more money, then 
those business owners will hire another person or two and more people 
will get back to work.
  No. 2, extending these benefits only helps our States. We are picking 
up the tab for it. Does it cost something? Yes. Is it somewhat 
expensive? Yes. But we can most certainly afford to help our States at 
this time since the loss is not due to anything they have done but due 
to the terrorist attacks and other factors that have affected our 
economy. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

  I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, how much time do we have remaining on 
this side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Four minutes eighteen seconds.
  Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, I thank my colleague, Senator Grassley, 
for his statement. I will make a couple of points and echo some of the 
things he said.

[[Page S198]]

  One point my colleague did not mention was how much this is going to 
cost. I have heard some people say this will cost $8 billion. I have 
heard other estimates that it will cost $10 billion.
  I ask my colleague from Illinois, is that $15 billion in addition to 
the underlying amendment or $15 billion total? He is indicating it is 
in addition. Am I correct, in addition?
  I do not know, and I will ask my colleague from Illinois if we have a 
CBO estimate on the cost of the amendment. I have not seen it.
  Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield for a moment? I was wrong; it is 
$15 billion total, not in addition to the underlying amendment.
  Mr. NICKLES. If my memory serves me correctly, the Daschle amendment 
has an unemployment extension of 13 weeks, and that is about $8 
billion, I believe. The cost of this is $15 billion. This amendment 
costs a lot of money, as can be expected, because when we hear people 
say it is going to benefit thousands of our constituents, from where is 
the money coming? It is coming from the Federal Government.
  This is primarily a State program. We have to decide: Are we going to 
have the Federal Government take over State management of this program? 
That is what we are doing with this amendment.

  This amendment determines what quarter or what eligibility period. In 
the past, States have always determined that. So we are going to tell 
every Governor: You are going to have to use the last quarter. We have 
not done that in the past. We are going to tell them: This is the 
quarter to use to determine eligibility and, incidentally, States, you 
could have provided assistance to temporary workers if you so chose, 
but now we are telling you you have to provide that assistance.
  How do we define ``temporary''? My daughter is a senior at Oklahoma 
State University. She works X number of hours a week. That is 
temporary. It is not 40 hours a week; it is less than 40 hours. Is she 
eligible? I think she would be. She might be very displeased with my 
vote in just a moment.
  This amendment costs a lot of money. A temporary worker is going to 
be eligible to receive the same weekly benefits as a full-time worker. 
Weekly benefits in New York are a whole lot more than in Oklahoma or a 
whole lot more than in North Dakota.
  In some States, unemployment benefits are as low as $105 and some are 
$400. I believe New York is closer to $400, and I believe some States 
are only over $100. Yet we are going to tell those States not only that 
they have to increase their benefit by at least 15 percent and/or $25, 
whichever is greater but, yes, now it applies to temporary employees. 
Do those temporary employees work 10 hours a week, 20 hours a week, 4 
hours a week? How far are we going to go in micromanaging who is 
eligible?
  We are going to take a program primarily financed by the States--
States have always determined eligibility; States have always 
determined benefits--and we are going to adjust those figures and say 
Uncle Sam is going to pick it all up and it is going to cost $15 
billion.
  I have serious reservations about that. I do not know that my 
daughter who is working part time to go to school should be qualifying 
for unemployment compensation. I do not think that is right. If the 
Federal Government assists her if she gets a student loan to go to 
school, that is one way. I do not think the unemployment system is the 
way we should be financing full-time students through part-time work. I 
think she would be eligible under this proposal. I do not think that is 
right.
  I do not think it is right for us to use the guise of a so-called 
stimulus package and say let's just expand the program greatly beyond 
what most States have done. Most States do not pay unemployment 
compensation for part-time workers. They decided that. They have a 
State legislature. They meet on this issue. They know how much it 
costs, and yet we are going to do it very quickly and there are 
probably not three Senators who know how much this will cost.
  We are going to tell the States they have to do it.
  I think it is a serious mistake. I urge my colleagues to vote no on 
the amendment.
  To alert my colleagues, I am going to make a budget point of order 
after the conclusion of the debate.
  I reserve the remainder of our time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. How much time is remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Two and a half minutes.
  Mr. DURBIN. How much time is remaining on the other side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is no time remaining.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from 
Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I will be brief.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, since September 11, our Nation's 
workers have come together in the face of new challenges. Today, more 
than 8 million of these workers are unemployed and the unemployment 
rate is 5.8 percent and expected to climb to 6.5 percent. We need an 
effective economic recovery package to bring the unemployment rate down 
and help laid-off workers across the Nation.
  We see more layoffs every day. United Airlines has laid off nearly 
20,000 people since October. Lucent Technologies in North Andover, MA, 
recently laid off 1,700 workers. Toys R Us has just announced they were 
closing more than 60 stores and laying off 1,900 employees.
  Some say the recession's end is near and recovery is around the 
corner. Even if those predictions come true, the consequences will 
linger for working families.
  The unemployment rate will continue to rise. Laid-off workers will 
still have great difficulty finding new jobs, and other workers may 
still be facing layoffs.
  More than 58,000 laid-off Massachusetts workers have exhausted their 
benefits in the last twelve months. This includes workers like 
Christina Young of Billerica, MA. Christina was laid off at the end of 
June and, since then she has been looking for a new job. She recently 
learned that she is pregnant. Christina's unemployment benefits, her 
husband's income and their savings were keeping them afloat, paying the 
mortgage, the expensive winter heating bills, their bills for health 
care and groceries. But Christina's unemployment benefits have run out, 
and now she can't afford her pre-natal care.
  Selma Burgert of Malden, MA was laid off by Polaroid in May and her 
unemployment benefits ran out last month. She has been looking for work 
for months. But every time she applies for a job, she finds herself 
competing with two hundred to three hundred other applicants. She is 
fortunate to have savings to get by. Selma knows many people who aren't 
as fortunate, and have had to sell their homes or cut down on the food 
they provide for their families.
  In communities throughout Massachusetts and the Nation, workers like 
Christina and Selma are running out of unemployment benefits while 
competing for the dwindling number of open jobs. How long are we going 
to wait before we help them? The time to do it is now. The amendment we 
are debating will make a big difference for these workers.
  The American people strongly support our efforts to give workers the 
support and assistance they deserve. But some of our colleagues in 
Congress have stalled our efforts to help these courageous workers. 
Democrats have proposed an effective and balanced plan to stimulate the 
faltering economy, but our opponents have used procedural maneuvers to 
block the measure. When House and Senate negotiators tried to reach a 
compromise, our opponents delayed it at every turn.

  They were unwilling to support any recovery package unless it 
contained tens of billions of dollars for new tax breaks for wealthy 
individuals and corporations, including $250 million in tax breaks for 
Enron. It makes no sense to hold laid-off workers hostage to such 
irresponsible and costly tax breaks.
  Our opponents have consistently offered plans that failed the 
nation's workers. They offered a plan to extend unemployment benefits, 
but only to laid-off workers in a few states. They offered a plan to 
use National Emergency Grants for unemployment insurance, health care 
and job training, guaranteeing that few funds would actually go to 
unemployment insurance.

[[Page S199]]

 They offered a plan to provide Reed Act distributions that would 
primarily be used for State tax cuts and could go into State 
unemployment trust funds, instead of offering new or extended benefits.
  Our amendment demonstrates our commitment to helping workers.
  It updates the unemployment insurance system to meet the urgent needs 
of the economy. By improving unemployment insurance, our amendment both 
stimulates the economy and helps the families who need help the most. 
Every dollar invested in unemployment insurance boosts the economy by 
$2.15. Unemployment insurance also helps to prevent the loss of even 
more jobs during a recession.
  The amendment makes three important changes. First, it extends 
unemployment benefits for 13 weeks for laid-off workers across the 
nation. Second, it expands the coverage to include laid-off part-time 
and low-wage workers who do not currently receive benefits. Third, it 
increases meager unemployment benefit levels. These changes will help 
nearly four-fifths of laid-off workers who currently are not receiving 
benefits.
  Even during good times, about a third of those receiving unemployment 
insurance exhaust their benefits. During recessions, the number rises.
  That's why Congress has provided federally-funded extended benefits 
repeatedly during recessions in the past.
  Today, more than two million laid-off workers have already exhausted 
their benefits. How much longer are we going to wait before we help 
those workers? The time to help them is now.
  Although part-time and low-wage workers are least likely to have 
savings and other safety-nets to help them, few are eligible for 
unemployment benefits. Laid-off part-time and low-wage workers have 
paid into the system, but they often fail to receive the benefits they 
need. Recent data suggest that only 18 percent of unemployed low-wage 
workers were collecting benefits. Expanding coverage will benefit more 
than 600,000 additional unemployed part-time and low-wage workers. The 
time to do it is now.
  It is also time to increase weekly unemployment benefits by the 
greater of $25 a week, or 15 percent.
  This increase in benefits, an average of $150 a month, will be an 
immediate stimulus to the economy. Unemployed households will spend it 
to pay the rent or a medical bill, buy groceries, keep the family car 
running, or hire a babysitter during job interviews.
  Currently, unemployment benefits do not replace enough lost wages to 
keep workers out of poverty. In 2000, the national average unemployment 
benefit only replaced 33 percent of workers' lost income, a major 
reduction from the 46 percent of workers' wages replaced by jobless 
benefits during the recessions of the 1970's and 1980's. During an 
economic crisis, unemployed workers have few opportunities to rejoin a 
declining workforce. They depend on unemployment benefits. Adding $150 
a month to unemployment benefits will stimulate the economy and help 
these laid-off workers support their families while they look for a new 
job.
  More than three hundred thousand laid-off workers in Massachusetts 
would benefit from this amendment. At least thirteen million laid-off 
workers would benefit nationwide.
  The American public is ready for honest action that genuinely helps 
these deserving workers. We passed an airline security bill, without 
providing any help for workers. We adjourned for the recess without 
providing any help for workers. We owe it to the millions of Americans 
who have lost their jobs to act now to provide the support they need 
and deserve.
  In conclusion, Madam President, at the time of September 11, I think 
most of us believed there was a new spirit and a new atmosphere in this 
country. We have tried to respond to those who lost loved ones. We have 
seen generosity in reaching out to families all over this country. 
There is a new spirit in America for people who are hurting and are in 
need.
  What we are talking about today are men and women who have lost their 
jobs, often as a result of the terrorist acts. There are other 
incidents where they might not be directly related, but by and large it 
is as a result of the terrorist attack. In this Senate, we hear Members 
nickel and dime American workers who work hard, play by the rules, put 
in a good day's work, and as a result of economic conditions have lost 
their jobs.
  There is $38 billion that has been paid into a fund that otherwise 
would have gone to workers' salaries. That fund is out there, and we 
are using $15 billion. We used it four times in the 1990s, with seldom 
less than 90 votes--or 80 votes in the Senate. We are reaching out to 
part-time workers and low-income workers. They, too, have paid into 
that fund. The money is there for this kind of circumstance. It is 
there for the Federal Government to act.
  Why? Because in many of these States there is an economic pinching. 
They cannot afford to take the kind of economic action, and that is why 
this program was developed. Now is the time to take the action. Let us 
not nickel and dime America's workers who have suffered as a result of 
the kinds of attacks we saw on this country. That is what this is 
about. Are we going to stand up for those men and women who want to 
work and should be able to work? This is what the Durbin amendment is 
about, and I look forward to supporting it.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, how much time is remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Thirty seconds.
  Mr. DURBIN. This is not a State rights issue. It is all Federal 
money. The Governor of Oklahoma can decline the money. They do not have 
to help the 78,000 unemployed workers in Oklahoma who would be 
benefited by this. They can exert their State rights. They would be 
fools to do it because they know these people need a helping hand in 
Iowa, in Oklahoma, and in Illinois.
  I really am saddened to hear the stereotype that unemployed people 
are lazy. Could any of us live on $1,000 a month? That is what these 
people are struggling to get by with. To give them $25 a week is the 
breaking point for too many Senators. Way too much, $25 a week? This is 
not even nickels and dimes.
  These are women trying to keep their families together. These are 
mothers and fathers down on their luck. And this Senate cannot spare 
$25 a week? That is what this vote is all about. I hope the Members of 
the Senate will support the people who want to get back to work but 
need a helping hand and support the Durbin amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, I raise a point of order under section 
302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act against the pending amendment 
No. 2714 for exceeding the spending allocations of the Senate Committee 
on Finance.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, pursuant to section 904 of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive the applicable 
section of that act for the purposes of the pending amendment, and I 
ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Akaka), the 
Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer), and the Senator from Connecticut 
(Mr. Dodd) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Ensign), 
the Senator from New Hampshire (Mr. Gregg), the Senator from Montana 
(Mr. Burns), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe), and the Senator 
from Tennessee (Mr. Thompson) are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that if present and voting the Senator from 
Montana (Mr. Burns) and the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe) would 
each vote ``no.''
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 57, nays 35, as follows:

                       [Rollcall Vote No. 6 Leg.]

                                YEAS--57

     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Breaux
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Cantwell
     Carnahan
     Carper
     Cleland
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad

[[Page S200]]


     Corzine
     Daschle
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     McCain
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Torricelli
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--35

     Allard
     Allen
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Chafee
     Craig
     Crapo
     Domenici
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     McConnell
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thurmond

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Akaka
     Boxer
     Burns
     Dodd
     Ensign
     Gregg
     Inhofe
     Thompson
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Carnahan). On this vote, the yeas are 57, 
the nays are 35. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not 
having voted in the affirmative, the motion is rejected. The point of 
order is sustained, and the amendment falls.
  The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, just as a note to all Senators, we expect 
to have another vote very soon.
  I would be happy to yield to my friend from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator from Nevada. I would like to announce 
to the Senate that 57 votes were cast on this last amendment. Three 
members on the Democratic side were absent because of business they had 
to attend. It is my intention to reoffer this amendment later in the 
debate on this economic stimulus package.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I also want to extend my appreciation to 
the minority. We could have, through procedural means, gotten another 
vote on this anyway. But rather than go through all of that and waste 
the time of the Senate, we were told the Senator from Illinois could 
reoffer his amendment. I very much appreciate that.


                           Amendment No. 2717

  I ask unanimous consent that there be 15 minutes for debate prior to 
a vote in relation to the Bond amendment No. 2717 with the time divided 
as follows: 10 minutes for Senator Bond, and 5 minutes for those who 
oppose the Bond amendment; and, at that time there be a vote in 
relation to that amendment with no amendments in order prior to that.
  Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, reserving the right to object, I 
understand there are a couple more people on our side who wish to 
debate the issue. The chairman of the Finance Committee just suggested 
30 minutes on each side. I know the Senator is also trying to work this 
around the two lunches. If he could modify his request and have 30 
minutes on each side, that would be great.
  Mr. REID. I suggest to my friend that maybe we ought to have 20 
minutes on your side and 10 minutes on our side. In that way, we could 
be finished at a reasonable time for the conferences, which are kind of 
important today.
  Mr. NICKLES. I will not object to that.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I amend my unanimous consent request to 
allow the Bond proponents to have 20 minutes and the opposition to have 
10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, I thank my friend and colleague. I say 
to my colleagues who said they wanted to speak on the amendment, we 
will now have a vote on the Bond-Collins amendment at 12:35. If they 
still wish to speak, they need to be coming to the Chamber shortly. I 
thank my friend from Nevada.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I yield myself 5 minutes from the time 
allotted on the amendment on this side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
  Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
Senator from Kansas, Mr. Brownback, be added as a cosponsor to this 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I am very pleased to join the Senator 
from Missouri in strong support of this amendment to help our small 
businesses. Over 95 percent of the businesses in this Nation qualify as 
small businesses. They are the businesses that are creating the vast 
majority of new jobs. Small businesses are the engine of our economy 
and the backbone of virtually every community in our country. Yet the 
economic stimulus package put forth by the majority leader does 
virtually nothing to stimulate this essential part of our economy. The 
Bond-Collins amendment would rectify this omission by allowing small 
businesses to expense up to $40,000 worth of new equipment that they 
placed in service this year, or will next year. That would give a real 
boost to the economy, and it would encourage those small companies that 
have put investment plans on hold, in the wake of the attacks on our 
Nation and the economic downturn, to proceed with their investment 
plans. That, in turn, would stimulate the production of more equipment 
and the creation of new jobs.
  Let me give you an example from my home State of Maine of the 
positive impact that this amendment would have.
  Terry Skillin, of Skillins Greenhouses, is a fourth-generation Maine 
family business, founded in 1885. Skillins employs between 70 and 120 
employees, depending on the season, for its landscaping, greenhouse, 
and floral business.
  Terry Skillins told me that his company is looking to expand but to 
do so takes money. From tractors to conveyor belts to machines that 
build flowerpots automatically, the equipment that he needs to buy is 
expensive. Terry said that raising the small business expense limit to 
$40,000 would help enormously, by allowing him to go ahead with a 
planned expansion.
  Terry said something else that I think is very important and that we 
need to remember. He said it is critical that the increased expensing 
be available not only for the remainder of this year but for next year 
as well. He told me that it often takes more than one year for a small 
business to carry out an expansion plan, and that if the increased 
expensing were available for two years, his ability to grow Skillins 
Greenhouses over the entire period would be far greater.
  I think we should heed Terry's advice and help small businesses so 
they can drive our economy back to prosperity.
  It seems to me that, if we are striving to reach a consensus on the 
economic recovery package, as I believe we must do, we should include 
an amendment that is specifically targeted to helping our small 
businesses pull through this difficult time. Our amendment has been 
endorsed by the Nation's largest small business group, the National 
Federation of Independent Businesses. The NFIB represents 600,000 
members nationwide and is key-voting this amendment.
  Finally, I note that the idea of an expansion in the small business 
expensing provision has been common to many of the economic recovery 
plans that we have debated. It was part of both plans passed by the 
House of Representatives. It was included in the Centrist Coalition 
plan that six Members--three Members on each side of the aisle--
negotiated this past December. It was also included in the Democrats' 
plan, which was supported by the Senate Finance Committee. 
Unfortunately, however, it is not in the plan before us.
  The Bond-Collins amendment would seek to remedy that omission by 
providing the boost to small businesses. I am convinced that if we give 
tax incentive to small businesses, they will help to pull us through 
these difficult economic times. Again, it is small businesses that 
create the vast majority of new jobs in this country, and we need to 
give them the incentives they need to help boost our economy.
  I yield the remainder of my 5 minutes, reserving time for our side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I have spoken to the chairman of the 
Finance Committee. Senator Nickles indicated there were people from the 
other side who wanted to speak for maybe more

[[Page S201]]

than the 20 minutes. We have 10 minutes. At this date we don't find 
anyone in opposition to the amendment. So if you need more time, we 
will be happy to give you some of ours.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. Madam President, seeing no one ready to speak from the 
other side, I will yield myself such time as I may consume. I urge my 
colleagues who want to speak on the amendment to hurry up and get down 
here. We have lots of work to do, and we are going to be able to finish 
debate on this amendment fairly expeditiously. Anybody who wants to say 
anything about it, we invite them to come.
  As my colleague and strong ally, the Senator from Maine, has said, 
this amendment is very important to help small businesses in their 
recovery. We know the entire economy took a severe hit on September 11, 
on top of a recession that has really taken its toll on many small 
businesses. How we get out of this recession is to encourage small 
businesses to lead us out.
  Small businesses are the dynamic engine that drives the economy. They 
provide 75 percent of all new jobs. They are the ones that grow when 
the rest of the economy is stagnant. There is no better vehicle than a 
stimulus package to include a provision to encourage small businesses 
to purchase more equipment. This amendment provides a direct stimulus 
to that small business sector by allowing them to write off new 
equipment purchases immediately.
  If you have ever run a small business, as I have, you know the 
thought of having to set up a depreciation schedule for a tractor or a 
piece of equipment and figure out how to depreciate it over several 
years is a daunting task. If you are a small business person, you don't 
want to have to have an accounting department. It is usually you and 
the frog in your pocket who are running the business. If you are an 
individual proprietor or even if you have several employees, you don't 
want to go through the time and expense of hiring somebody to set up a 
depreciation schedule. So direct expenses would allow small businesses 
to avoid the complexity of depreciation rules as well as the 
unrealistic recovery period for most assets.

  For example, under current law, if you buy a computer, it has to be 
depreciated over 5 years. People who are very active users of computers 
tell me that the useful life is 2 to 3 years at best. Something new and 
something better has come out, but you are still depreciating the old 
equipment. You haven't been able to write it off on your taxes.
  This amendment has several important advantages, especially in light 
of the current economic conditions. By allowing more equipment 
purchased to be deducted currently, right now, the year they are put in 
service, it will provide much-needed capital for small business. With 
that freed up capital, a business can invest in new equipment which 
will benefit the small enterprise, but in turn it will stimulate other 
industries that are producing and selling the equipment they are going 
to put in service.
  Moreover, new equipment will contribute to continued productivity 
growth in the business community which Federal Reserve Chairman 
Greenspan has repeatedly stressed is essential to the long-term 
vitality and health of our economy.
  That is what allows us to hire more people and pay better wages--to 
increase productivity. A healthy and growing business keeps its 
employees working, and we hope it will lead to new employees being 
added to the payroll.
  Finally, the amendment will simplify the tax law for countless small 
businesses. Greater expensing means less equipment subject to onerous 
depreciation. Under this amendment, a business would be able to claim 
the full $40,000 in expensing if it purchased and put in service no 
more than $325,000 of property during the year. That is to make sure it 
applies primarily to small business.
  In short, this amendment's equipment expensing changes are a win-win 
for small business consumers, employees of small businesses, equipment 
manufacturers, and our national economy.
  Some have contended that maybe we ought to think about this only for 
1 year. We need to give small businesses not only an initial boost, but 
we need to keep the support coming to sustain the recovery. If we use 
the last recession of 1991 as an example, it took 21 months before the 
unemployment rates started to drop consistently. That is nearly 2 years 
for small businesses and others to hire the people back who were laid 
off in the recession. Small businesses represent 99 percent of all 
employers. They provide about 75 percent of the net new jobs. And with 
people unemployed, we need to get those producers of the new jobs, the 
small businesses, into business.
  Based on this unemployment data, limiting the amendment or any other 
small business stimulus to 1 year would not suffice. We need to keep 
the small business stimulus going for at least 2 years to ensure the 
recovery in the small business sector and the jobs market is sustained.
  Madam President, I ask my colleagues to support the amendment and 
urge them, if they want to support the amendment Senator Collins and 
many other Senators and I have supported, to come to the Chamber. If 
they have arguments against it, we will be interested in hearing those 
as well.
  I yield such time as he may require to the distinguished minority 
whip.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, I wish to compliment my colleagues, 
Senators Collins and Bond, for their leadership and persistence in 
saying, let's get something in this bill to help create jobs. Both 
Senators Bond and Collins have spoken of the growth in small business 
and the need for small business to be able to grow. This particular 
provision will create jobs. I compliment them.
  I don't see much in the underlying proposal that will create jobs. 
This one will create jobs because small business will be able to 
expense more items up to $40,000. For a person who has a small business 
that may have a few employees, that is a big deal. I used to have a 
janitor's service. It was my wife and myself and a few other people. If 
you allow me to expense everything, I don't have to amortize all the 
equipment I am purchasing because, frankly, it is less than $40,000.
  You get to expense it. You get to write it off when you write the 
check. Instead of spreading it out over several years, instead of 
taking 3, 5, 8 years to recoup your investments, you can recoup it in 
the year that you made the investment. That is a big deal for small 
business. Most of the jobs that will be created this year will be in 
small business. It is not going to be General Motors or in the big 
corporations, it is going to be in small business. You are saying, 
let's expense up to $40,000, an improvement from $24,000.
  It is an excellent amendment. It will help small business. By helping 
small business, we will be able to create more jobs.
  I thank both of my colleagues for their leadership. I believe this 
amendment is going to pass. I compliment them for that. This is one of 
the few things we have seen that will actually stimulate the economy. 
We have seen a lot of proposals. Let's write more checks, let's give 
people money who didn't pay taxes, expand unemployment compensation, 
pay people more not for working. This is a proposal that says, let's 
create an environment that will create jobs so people won't need 
unemployment compensation, so they won't be asking more from the 
Government. They will be getting a job.
  I thank my colleagues for their excellent proposal. I urge all my 
colleagues to support it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Oklahoma for 
his kind comments. The Senator from Oklahoma brought up a very 
important point. It is very burdensome recordkeeping for small 
businesses to have to deal with depreciation schedules and sometimes 
very unrealistic recovery periods.
  For example, most computers are required to be depreciated over a 5-
year period, but we all know from our experience that the usual life of 
a computer is 2 to 3 years. The Senator from Oklahoma has raised an 
important point. Not only will this put more cash into the pockets of 
small businesses and

[[Page S202]]

allow them to go ahead with investments that have been put on hold 
because of this tax incentive, but it will also relieve them from some 
very burdensome recordkeeping requirements. That simplification is 
another advantage of the Bond-Collins amendment.
  I thank my colleague from Missouri who does such a great job as the 
ranking minority member of the Senate Small Business Committee. It has 
been a great pleasure to work with him on this amendment. I believe 
this is the one provision we have debated that will make a real 
difference to those entrepreneurs throughout our country, to those 
small mom-and-pop firms that are creating good jobs in communities 
throughout our country. So I hope we will have a strong show of support 
for this amendment.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. BOND. Madam President, I gather there are no more people seeking 
to speak on this amendment. Rather than wait, we can vote. But first, I 
thank my colleague from Oklahoma, Senator Nickles, a real champion of 
making the economy grow by putting people back to work, and Senator 
Collins has been one of our great allies. Anytime I have a small 
business provision, she wants to be a champion of it because she knows 
small businesses are driving the Maine economy, as well as in the rest 
of the country.
  We are prepared to yield back all time on this side. I ask for the 
yeas and nays on this amendment.
  Mr. DAYTON. We yield back all our time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back. Is there a 
sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second. The question is on agreeing to the 
amendment.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Akaka), the 
Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer), and the Senator from Connecticut 
(Mr. Dodd) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Ensign), 
the Senator from New Hampshire (Mr. Gregg), the Senator from Oklahoma 
(Mr. Inhofe), the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Thompson), and the 
Senator from Montana (Mr. Burns) are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that if present and voting the Senator from 
Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe) and the Senator from Montana (Mr. Burns) would 
each vote ``yea.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 90, nays 2, as follows:

                       [Rollcall Vote No. 7 Leg.]

                                YEAS--90

     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Cantwell
     Carnahan
     Carper
     Cleland
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Nickles
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--2

     Chafee
     Feingold
       

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Akaka
     Boxer
     Burns
     Dodd
     Ensign
     Gregg
     Inhofe
     Thompson
  The amendment (No. 2717) was agreed to.
  Mr. REID. I move to reconsider the vote and I move to lay that motion 
on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

                          ____________________