[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 8 (Wednesday, February 6, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S391-S395]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
HOPE FOR CHILDREN ACT
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
resume consideration of H.R. 622, which the clerk will report.
The senior assistant bill 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.
Reid (for Baucus) amendment No. 2721 (to amendment No.
2698), to provide emergency agriculture assistance.
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.
Smith of New Hampshire amendment No. 2732 (to the language
proposed to be stricken by amendment No. 2698), to provide a
waiver of the early withdrawal penalty for distributions from
qualified retirement plans to individuals called to active
duty during the national emergency declared by the President
on September 14, 2001.
Smith of New Hampshire amendment No. 2733 (to the language
proposed to be stricken by amendment No. 2698), to prohibit a
State from imposing a discriminatory tax on income earned
within such State by nonresidents of such State.
Smith of New Hampshire amendment No. 2734 (to the language
proposed to be stricken by amendment No. 2698), to provide
that tips received for certain services shall not be subject
to income or employment taxes.
Smith of New Hampshire amendment No. 2735 (to the language
proposed to be stricken by amendment No. 2698), to allow a
deduction for real property taxes whether or not the taxpayer
itemizes other deductions.
Sessions amendment No. 2736 (to the language proposed to be
stricken by amendment No. 2698), to amend the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 to provide tax incentives for economic
recovery and provide for the payment of emergency extended
unemployment compensation.
Grassley (for McCain) amendment No. 2700 (to the language
proposed to be stricken by amendment No. 2698), to amend the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide a special rule for
members of the uniformed services
[[Page S392]]
and Foreign Service in determining the exclusion of gain from
the sale of a principal residence.
Kyl amendment No. 2758 (to the language proposed to be
stricken by amendment No. 2698), to remove the sunset on the
repeal of the estate tax.
Reid modified amendment No. 2764 (to amendment No. 2698),
to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide a
refundable credit for recreational travel, and to modify the
business expense limits.
Reid (for Durbin) amendment No. 2766 (to amendment No.
2698), to provide enhanced unemployment compensation
benefits.
Lincoln amendment No. 2767 (to amendment No. 2698), to
delay until at lease June 30, 2002, any changes in medicaid
regulations that modify the medicaid upper payment limit for
non-State Government-owned or operated hospitals.
Thomas amendment No. 2728 (to the language proposed to be
stricken by amendment No. 2698), to amend the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 to modify the qualified small issue bond
provisions.
Craig amendment No. 2770 (to the language proposed to be
stricken by amendment No. 2698), to amend the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 to expand the availability of Archer
medical savings accounts.
Grassley amendment No. 2773 (to the language proposed to be
stricken by amendment No. 2698), to provide tax incentives
for economic recovery and assistance to displaced workers.
Sessions (for Kyl) amendment No. 2807 (to amendment No.
2721), to remove the sunset on the repeal of the estate tax.
Dorgan amendment No. 2808 (to amendment No. 2764), to
preserve the continued viability of the United States travel
industry.
Cloture Motion
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Chair lays
before the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will
state.
The senior assistant bill clerk read as follows:
Cloture Motion
We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
hereby move to bring to a close the debate on the Daschle and
others substitute amendment No. 2698 for Calendar No. 71,
H.R. 622, the adoption credit bill:
Max Baucus, Mark Dayton, Richard J. Durbin, Harry Reid,
Tim Johnson, John F. Kerry, Daniel K. Inouye, Patrick
J. Leahy, Patty Murray, Byron L. Dorgan, Jack Reed,
Deborah Ann Stabenow, Tom R. Carper, Maria Cantwell,
John B. Breaux, Jean Carnahan, and Herb Kohl.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum
call has been waived.
The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the
Daschle and others substitute amendment No. 2698 for Calendar No. 71,
H.R. 622, the adoption credit bill, shall be brought to a close?
The yeas and nays are required under the rule.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Jeffords) is
necessarily absent.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Tennessee (Mr.
Thompson), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), the Senator from New
Mexico (Mr. Domenici), and the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Helms)
are necessarily absent.
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 56, nays 39, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 13 Leg.]
YEAS--56
Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Breaux
Cantwell
Carnahan
Carper
Cleland
Clinton
Collins
Conrad
Corzine
Daschle
Dayton
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Feingold
Feinstein
Graham
Harkin
Hollings
Hutchinson
Inouye
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Mikulski
Miller
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Torricelli
Voinovich
Warner
Wellstone
Wyden
NAYS--39
Allard
Allen
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Chafee
Cochran
Craig
Crapo
DeWine
Ensign
Enzi
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gramm
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Roberts
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Stevens
Thomas
Thurmond
NOT VOTING--5
Domenici
Helms
Jeffords
McCain
Thompson
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Clinton). On this vote, the yeas are 56,
the nays are 39. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not
having voted in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
Mr. REID. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. CRAIG. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Cloture Motion
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Chair directs
the clerk to report the motion to invoke cloture.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
Cloture Motion
We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the pending
Grassley amendment:
Charles E. Grassley, Bob Smith, Craig Thomas, Pat
Roberts, Jeff Sessions, Ben Nighthorse Campbell, George
Allen, Larry E. Craig, Jim Bunning, Robert Bennett, Jon
Kyl, John Ensign, Michael D. Crapo, Frank Murkowski,
Olympia J. Snowe, Don Nickles.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate
that debate on amendment No. 2773 offered by the Senator from Iowa to
the bill, H.R. 622, shall be brought to a close?
The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule and the clerk will
call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Jeffords) is
necessarily absent.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Tennessee (Mr.
Thompson), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), the Senator from
North Carolina (Mr. Helms), and the Senator from New Mexico (Mr.
Domenici) are necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 48, nays 47, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 14 Leg.]
YEAS--48
Allard
Allen
Bennett
Bond
Breaux
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Campbell
Cleland
Cochran
Collins
Craig
Crapo
DeWine
Ensign
Enzi
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gramm
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Kyl
Landrieu
Lott
Lugar
McConnell
Miller
Murkowski
Nelson (NE)
Nickles
Roberts
Santorum
Sessions
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thurmond
Voinovich
Warner
NAYS--47
Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Byrd
Cantwell
Carnahan
Carper
Chafee
Clinton
Conrad
Corzine
Daschle
Dayton
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Feingold
Feinstein
Graham
Harkin
Hollings
Inouye
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Shelby
Stabenow
Torricelli
Wellstone
Wyden
NOT VOTING--5
Domenici
Helms
Jeffords
McCain
Thompson
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this question, the yeas are 48, the nays
are 47. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having
voted in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, it is unfortunate we were unable to
move the economic stimulus legislation forward, but I hope at the very
least we could recognize, as we have in past recessions, that at some
point one has to acknowledge the pain, the uncertainty, the financial
difficulty that so many families are facing. In 1992, we extended
unemployment benefits for up to 59 weeks. In 1982, we extended them for
up to 49 weeks. In 1974, we extended them for up to 65 weeks. I ask
unanimous consent that we extend them for at least 13 weeks now.
I have been discussing the matter with our Republican colleagues, and
they have had the opportunity to view the language. Let me make one
other clarification. This is a simple extension of current law. There
is no other
[[Page S393]]
extraneous matter, and there is no other issue I would suggest at this
point be included in the extension. So for all Senators, this is simply
an extension of current law as we now have it enacted.
Amendment No. 2819
(Purpose: To provide for a program of temporary extended unemployment
compensation)
Mr. DASCHLE. I send an amendment to the desk regarding 13 weeks'
extension of unemployment benefits. I ask unanimous consent that the
amendment be agreed to, that the bill, as amended, be read a third
time, passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table
without intervening action or debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, reserving the right to object, and I do
not object, I believe what Senator Daschle is offering is something
that this Senate should support in a bipartisan fashion. I ask
unanimous consent to add to Senator Daschle's request an amendment to
the same bill relative to unemployment insurance benefits, which had 57
votes and 3 absentees who are present today, a sufficient number that
it be included in this unanimous consent request. It is an effort to
improve and increase unemployment insurance benefits by $25 a week to
try to keep up with the cost of inflation but, more importantly, to
cover temporarily displaced workers as well as expand coverage to low-
wage and recent hires. This money is all Federal money going to the
States. Governors have entire discretion as to whether or not they want
to enhance the unemployment insurance benefits.
I ask unanimous consent to amend the request of the Senator from
South Dakota, our majority leader, to include this amendment, which I
now send to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. DODD. Madam President, reserving the right to object.
Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. DODD. I hope our colleagues on the other side give the Senator
from Illinois an opportunity to raise this issue. This is a very modest
request to include this amendment as part of the package. The other
measures of the bill obviously are going to have to be addressed some
other way, but I cannot imagine anyone in this Chamber, regardless of
party, who would deny people who have lost jobs under the circumstance
of this past number of months would want to turn down what the Senator
from Illinois is suggesting. This is basic stuff for people who are
hurting, and I urge my colleagues on the other side, whatever
differences we may have on other issues, please do not disagree with
us.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, reserving the right to object, we
debated this before. If my colleague from South Dakota wants to, we
have a couple of amendments on our side we did not get a vote on that I
believe we would have a majority vote on as well.
Now I oppose the amendment of my colleague from Illinois because he
is expanding a program that we have never done before. The majority
leader mentioned all the times we have expanded unemployment
compensation in the past. We have never done that for temporary
workers. That is a brand new expansion that doubles the cost. That
increases the cost from about $8 billion to $16 billion. So with great
respect, I object to the unanimous consent request of my colleague from
Illinois.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
The Senator from Maryland.
Mr. SARBANES. Madam President, reserving the right to object, I think
the proposal the Senator from Illinois offered should be commended. It
has been objected to. I certainly hope, the amendment having been
objected to, that the proposal being put forward by the majority leader
would not be objected to, which is a simple extension for an additional
13 weeks of unemployment insurance under the current arrangement, as I
understand it.
I ask the majority leader, is that correct?
Mr. DASCHLE. The Senator is correct.
Mr. SARBANES. This is far overdue already. There are people now out
of work who are hurting. The unemployment insurance for many of them
has already run out. For others, it will soon run out. This is not an
effort, as the Senator from Oklahoma indicated, to broaden the program
in terms of its beneficiaries or its benefits. It is simply to extend
it in order to take care of people who are in real and desperate need.
So I very much hope the request of the majority leader will be
honored and we will at least be able to move on that aspect of this
problem. I withdraw my reservation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SANTORUM. Reserving the right to object, and I do not intend to
object, but I do object to the fact we are standing in the Senate
today, and we are taking care of one group of people --and we need to
and I support it--in extending unemployment benefits, but there are
millions of others who are sitting in their offices watching us working
who are afraid that tomorrow may be their day and we are not doing
anything to help them keep their jobs. We may be giving them
unemployment checks, but we are doing absolutely nothing for the
millions and millions of people in America who watch us on television
as their neighbors get laid off, who watch what is going on around the
country with layoffs, who think they may be next. We have done nothing
to help them keep their jobs. We have done nothing in this bill. We
will do nothing to help those who have been laid off, who are going to
get unemployment checks, to get a paycheck again. That has been the
fight all along.
The President from day 1 said we need to extend benefits. We have
been unanimously supportive of extending unemployment benefits for
another 13 weeks. The problem has been, and consistently is, what are
we going to do about the people who want a paycheck, not an
unemployment check? What are we going to do about the people who are in
jobs right now who are worried about losing their jobs? What are we
going to do to help those businesses survive? What are we going to do
about helping those individuals who are afraid of what might happen,
not what has already happened? That is the problem with what has
happened in the Senate. We have provided no security for the 90-plus
percent of Americans who have jobs that they will be able to keep their
jobs. That is the real unfortunate situation.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, could I have 30 seconds?
Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I will first, again, propound the
unanimous consent request, and then I will yield to the Senator from
Minnesota.
I ask unanimous consent that all pending amendments be withdrawn. So
I propound the unanimous consent request once more.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Senator from Texas.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, reserving the right to object, I,
too, want to say this is too little to late. The Senator from Maryland
is right. We would like to have done more. We would like to have helped
all the people of this country. We could have had a stimulus package if
we had had a compromise. We could have had a stimulus package that
would have stabilized our economy, that would have preserved jobs. We
could have given tax relief to people so they could have spent their
own money that they earned.
So I hope this modest proposal that would extend the benefits for 13
weeks is not the end. I hope it is the beginning.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Reserving the right to object, Madam President, I
heard my colleague from Pennsylvania speak; I heard my colleague from
Texas speak. My colleague from Pennsylvania was talking about the
problem being this or that and we need to make sure people are able to
go back to work.
Obviously, political truth can be elusive and there can be different
definitions of what we need to do. Most of the people I have talked to
in coffee shops in Minnesota cannot figure out how $1 billion for this
multinational and $1 billion for that multinational
[[Page S394]]
and $13 billion of tax breaks helps them. But that is almost beside the
point.
The real problem is this. We can put aside all of our differences,
because we have different views about what needs to be done, and we can
say: Let's help people right now. Right now. No more rhetoric. No more
speeches.
People are flat on their backs, through no fault of their own. Can we
not just at least have a straight extension of unemployment insurance?
That is all this vote is on now. The majority leader is asking for
unanimous consent for that alone. That is it. Let's end the speeches
and end the rhetoric and just support him.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, as I stated on the floor earlier
this week, I support a 13 week extension of unemployment Insurance. I
do so as an issue of basic fairness to help and protect those who have
been hurt by the economic downturn. Unemployed workers need assistance
now.
There are people in my State of California, and indeed across the
country, who need an extension not because they have not been looking
for a job, but because the downturn in the economy has made jobs
difficult to keep, and even more difficult to find.
As I stated earlier this week, there are over a million people
unemployed in California, and since September 11, unemployment benefits
have run out for 190,000 Californians.
Because an average of 40 percent of Californians who go on
unemployment exhaust their regular unemployment benefits, over 360,000
people in California alone could be helped by receiving this 13-week
extension.
These are the people who would be immediately helped by an extension
of unemployment benefits.
Throughout the United States, workers are running out of unemployment
benefits while competing for less and less open jobs. In New York,
there are 515,000 people without jobs, and over 90,000 of them have
exhausted their unemployment benefits since September 11. The same is
true for 86,000 Texans, 47,000 Floridians, and 52,000 people from
Illinois. In Pennsylvania, over 300,000 people are unemployed, and
almost 47,000 of them have exhausted their unemployment benefits.
Extending unemployment coverage will benefit more than 600,000 people
nationwide, and help revive an economy that needs a boost to get back
on its feet.
Since the program's inception in 1934, Unemployment Insurance has
served time and again to act as a stabilizing device--providing direct
economic assistance to people who are likely to spend any additional
money in providing basic needs for themselves and their families.
The need is no different now. As an issue of basic fairness, I
strongly believe that the Senate should act to extend UI benefits by 13
weeks.
Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, there is good news today for working
men and women across the Nation.
For months, we have fought to extend unemployment benefits for the
millions of workers who need them in this troubled economy. Today,
after weeks of debate, our opponents in the Senate finally relented.
They joined us to pass a 13-week extension for all laid-off workers who
have exhausted their benefits.
Since the beginning of the recession more than 2 million workers have
exhausted their unemployment benefits. Extending benefits will help
these workers, including nearly sixty thousand workers in Massachusetts
who have lost their jobs, and are still looking for new employment.
They have been refinancing their homes, and in some cases, even selling
them, just to make ends meet.
The battle is not over. We still need to get approval from the House
of Representatives. And then it is up to President Bush to honor the
commitment he made in his State of the Union speech to make this
achievement a reality for our workers.
Unfinished business remains. Outdated unemployment rules exclude
hundreds of thousands of workers who have been laid-off through no
fault of their own. Laid-off part-time and low-wage workers have paid
into the system, but often fail to receive the benefits they need.
Recent data suggest that only 18 percent of unemployed low-wage workers
were collecting benefits. For months, we have fought to expand coverage
to benefit more than 600,000 additional unemployed part-time and low-
wage workers. We will not give up that fight.
We have also fought to increase weekly unemployment benefits by the
greater of $25 a week, or 15 percent. Currently, unemployment benefits
do not replace enough lost wages to keep workers out of poverty. In
2000, average unemployment benefits replaced only 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. We will continue to work for a benefit increase
to ensure that laid-off workers are not impoverished during periods of
unemployment.
Benefit levels are too low for laid-off workers to afford the health
care they need. Health premiums can cost nearly $600 a month for a
family--most of an unemployment check. That is why only about one in
five laid-off workers today continue their coverage, even if they are
eligible. For months, we have fought to pass an economic recovery plan
that would cover 75 percent of the health care premium for those who
are eligible to continue their coverage, but can't afford the cost.
Some workers are not eligible for any continuing health plan. Our
plan would have allowed states to cover these vulnerable workers. Taken
together, our plan would have ensured that men and women who lose their
jobs don't have to worry about losing their health insurance as well.
We cannot let our workers down when it comes to health care. America
deserves better.
We have also fought to provide fiscal relief to the states, which
face serious budget shortfalls, yet must meet yearly balanced budget
requirements. We have been working to increase Medicaid payments, so
that states don't have to cut back on coverage, just as more workers
need help. This is the top priority for Republican and Democratic
Governors. We should provide our States relief now.
The American people have strongly supported 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 throughout the past few
months, 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 consistently offered plans that fail 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. 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.
Today, we will vote to extend unemployment benefits for 13 weeks,
something we have done in every recession. Today, we will celebrate our
long-fought for victory. Tomorrow, we will continue the fight for
America's workers.
Mrs. CLINTON. Madam President, over the past nearly 5 months, the
entire Nation has been inspired by the grit, bravery and selflessness
of the workers at the World Trade Center site who have labored around
the clock on the rescue and recovery efforts. The courageous images of
firefighters, police officers, emergency medical personnel,
construction workers and clergy have inspired workers throughout the
country.
There are many other images of New York, however, that have not been
shown on the news, but that are also
[[Page S395]]
the heart-wrenching results of the terrible September 11 attack and a
weak economy.
These images that our Nation has not seen, but that everyone here
knows all too well, are the faces of hundreds of New Yorkers who have
found themselves without a job. These are the workers whose jobs were
literally destroyed, jobs when the Twin Towers collapsed: The janitors,
the doormen, the waiters and waitresses, the secretaries, and
messengers.
Or, the workers who did not work in lower Manhattan, but who have
felt the ripple effect of the so-called frozen zone primarily the hotel
workers and small businesses owners.
In New York State, we have 71 percent more workers on Unemployment
Insurance than we did one year ago. In New York City, we are
experiencing unemployment rates that we haven't seen in years. In
December, the unemployment rate continued to spike up to 7.4 percent--
2.4 percent above the national average for the same period. New York
City is expected to lose 150,000 jobs in the aftermath of September 11
and we are not expected to rebound until 2004.
What is happening to our unemployed who are waiting for the economy
to rebound? Well, let me tell you--in the last quarter alone, over
65,000 unemployed workers exhausted their UI benefits.
Over the past two weeks, I have received hundreds of calls and pleas
from my constituents in New York--some are being evicted from their
homes, others are uncertain how they will continue to put food on their
tables, and all are desperate to go back to work.
Senator Daschle has put forward a proposal to extend unemployment for
an additional 13 weeks. This proposal is not only the right thing to do
for our thousands of workers who are without a job, but it is the right
thing to do for the economy. In fact, some experts argue that extending
unemployment insurance is more likely than any other policy to
stimulate the economy.
We may not agree on a comprehensive package to stimulate the economy,
but I think we all agree that we must do the right thing for the
workers of this country by extending unemployment insurance.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment (No. 2819) was agreed to.
The bill (H.R. 622), as amended, was passed.
Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I hope the House will take the matter
up immediately, perhaps as early as this afternoon, and get it to the
President. As has been noted, the President has indicated already he
supports the extension. I think it is now up to the House to do their
part so that these people will be a little more confident they can be
given some assistance now. Too many of them have already run out of
benefits to which they are entitled. We have to act now.
For those who have lamented the fact we could not reach a compromise,
56 Senators went on record today looking for that compromise. We only
fell four short. There were a couple of absentees. So there is no doubt
that there is a growing percentage, an overwhelming majority, in my
view, who want to move forward. I would have only hoped some of those
who lamented this could have supported cloture so we could have had the
ticket to conference. We were denied that. But I have said on the floor
before, and I will say it again, I am open to any overtures, any
suggestions, on how we might do it, that will allow the 60 votes
required to move forward. Anytime I can be assured that a 60-vote
margin can be achieved, we will bring this bill back up. It is
unfortunate we could not do more than this, but I am very pleased and
grateful to colleagues on both sides of the aisle for their willingness
to support this.
Amendment No. 2820
Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the title
amendment with respect to H.R. 622 be considered and agreed to, and the
motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
Amend the title as to read:
``A bill to provide for temporary unemployment
compensation.''
____________________