[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.
____________________