[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 132 (Wednesday, October 9, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10139-S10141]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST--S. 3009

  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 619, S. 3009, a 
bill to provide for the extension of unemployment compensation; that 
the bill be read the third time and passed; and that the motion to 
reconsider be laid upon the table, without intervening action or 
debate.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection? The Senator 
from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, reserving the right to object, I had a 
colloquy with the Senator from Minnesota when he propounded this 
request a couple days ago, and I asked the question if this was a 
simple extension. I believe he said it was almost.
  I have read the bill and have found it is not a simple extension. I 
ask my colleague, has the bill changed? Is this a simple extension, a 
13-week extension of unemployment compensation for all States?
  Mr. KENNEDY. If I can respond, this is not the Thomas bill which was 
extended the last time. This is the historic and the traditional 
legislation that was passed three or four times in the early 1990s. 
This is not the more restricted Thomas bill.
  We are going back to the legislation that provides genuine 
protections for unemployed workers. This legislation will affect close 
to 3 million workers who otherwise will see their unemployment 
insurance expire by the end of this year and the early months of next 
year.
  The bill does not do all we believe ought to be done for part-time 
workers who are contributing into the unemployment insurance fund, or 
lower-income workers, all of whom are participating and paying into the 
insurance fund.
  What we want to do with this legislation is say: We have a $27 
billion surplus. The workers have paid into the fund. We need $14 
billion of that so people can pay their mortgages, pay their health 
insurance, and pay their bills. That is what this bill is, and that is 
what will happen when we pass it.
  This bill has basically been supported by a strong editorial in the 
Washington Post.
  Mr. NICKLES. If the Senator will yield, I am trying to figure out 
what his bill will do.
  Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator had this request, and I hoped he would have 
had a chance to look at and review it, because he is going to hear 
about it every single day as long as the Senate is in.
  Mr. NICKLES. That's fine.
  Mr. KENNEDY. If there is some way we can help clarify it, we are glad 
to do it. Last week when I was in the Chamber, along with the Senator 
from Minnesota, the Senator from New York, and the Senator from 
Illinois, who were fighting for it, we heard asked: Is this the same 
bill, or how is this different? We are glad to take the time, but the 
time is going on. We will be glad to sit down with the Senator later on 
today and go over every bit of it and hopefully get the extension of 
it. We are troubled. We are troubled by the fact that even though the 
first President Bush effectively opposed it on two occasions, he did 
support it on the third, and had Republican support on the third 
occasion. We hope the good light that is shone--and the common sense 
and wisdom--on those Republicans and the President when he supported it 
the third time will be shed on the Republican Senators and the Senator 
will help us get this supported.
  Mr. NICKLES. If my colleague will yield for a question, I guess by 
the length of the Senator's answer, it is not a clean extension. I am 
reading on page 4 of the Senator's bill a section entitled ``Adjusted 
Insured Unemployment Rate.''
  Correct me if I am wrong, but this definition basically says people 
who have exhausted unemployment compensation in the most recent 3 
calendar months, even if they subsequently get a job, are still counted 
as unemployed; is not that correct?
  Mr. KENNEDY. If the Senator would--only if they have been exhausted.
  Mr. NICKLES. So the Senator's bill permits individuals who have 
exhausted their unemployment compensation, and then may have 
subsequently found a job, to be counted in the unemployment figures, 
according to this Adjusted Insured Unemployment Rate calculation on 
page 4?
  Mr. KENNEDY. We are effectively using the trigger that had been used 
before, which gives the focus and attention on those who are both 
unemployed and those who have States which have a higher incidence of 
unemployment, and in those States, those figures would be added to the 
valuation of the unemployed workers in an attempt to get a true reading 
on the numbers of the unemployed.
  Mr. NICKLES. If the Senator will yield further, it says:

     . . . except that individuals exhausting their right to 
     regular compensation during the most recent 3 calendar months 
     for which data are available before the close of the period 
     for which such rate is being determined shall be taken into 
     account as if they were individuals filing claims for regular 
     compensation for each week during the period for which such 
     rate is being determined.

  In other words, one could exhaust their unemployment compensation, 
and may or may not find another job in the following 3 months--they are 
still going to be counted as unemployed according to this definition, 
which is really yielding a higher figure. I find that totally 
unacceptable. Maybe it was done in the 1990s, but that does not make it 
right. Surely we would want accurate unemployment compensation 
statistics used in determining how many weeks would be available for 
additional extended benefits. We want to do it right, and I am sure my 
colleagues from Massachusetts and Minnesota want to as well. This 
section is not doing it right. This section alone does not make the 
bill a clean extension.

  I will be happy to work with my colleagues, but this is not 
acceptable. So I want to point that out.
  I want to make another point while I am considering whether I will 
object to this. This one section is not acceptable. Also, I am finding, 
after reading the proposal of my colleagues, instead of having a 13-
week extension, it is a 26-week extension for all States. That is very 
expensive. I might ask my friend from Massachusetts, what is the 
estimated cost of this proposal?
  Mr. KENNEDY. To answer the question, this counts people who are 
unemployed and who have no benefits. Right now if someone is getting 
extended benefits, they are not counted. We count those people. That is 
the principal difference. That was the difference in the early 1990s as 
well, and that is what the Thomas bill did not do. That is what we do. 
We think there is a sound reason for being able to do it.
  Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. KENNEDY. I will yield, but first I will be glad to continue with 
my friend if he is interested in trying to get the legislation passed. 
We have not heard what the Senator is for. We know what he is against. 
He is against this bill. If the Senator is saying he is for an 
extension on it, we are more than glad to try and work and see if 
something can be achieved, if that is what the position is. If the 
Senator's position is in opposition and continues to be in opposition, 
then we are going to continue to press him. If his position is, yes, I 
will support--would the Senator support the extension of the Thomas 
bill?
  Mr. NICKLES. If the Senator will yield, and I asked a question first. 
I

[[Page S10140]]

asked the Senator how much this would cost.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Fourteen billion dollars.
  Mr. NICKLES. Fourteen?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Yes. Now, if I could ask the Senator a question. Will he 
support the Thomas bill?
  Mr. NICKLES. I have not asked unanimous consent. We have an estimate 
from CBO, that their estimate is $17.1 billion. I realize this bill did 
not come through committee. I realize this bill did not have a hearing. 
I realize this bill has not been vetted. I realize it was just 
introduced last week and the Senator is trying to pass it by unanimous 
consent. I have just had a chance to start reading the bill, and the 
more I read it, I find out it is not 13 weeks, it is 26 weeks. I find 
out it has an Adjusted Insured Unemployment Rate provision, which says 
we could potentially count some people under this definition who are 
working. So this bill is not acceptable.
  To answer my colleague, I may be willing to work with the Senator to 
find a bill that is acceptable. Certainly, if we did something more 
along the lines of a 13-week/6-month extension for all States, without 
jimmying the figures, without using Adjusted Insured Unemployment 
Rates, without establishing new triggers--since this bill uses 
different triggers from current law that allows more States to qualify 
for additional extended benefits--if we treat States the same, 
basically do 13 weeks for 6 months, I might be willing to do that. I 
might be willing to shop that with colleagues in the House, and the 
White House. I believe I heard last week or earlier this week, this is 
almost a straight extension. The more I read, I find out this is not a 
straight extension. This is a bill that costs--just as a comparison, 
the straight six-month extension costs about $7.3 billion. Quickly 
estimated by CBO, this bill costs $17.1 billion. There is a big 
difference.

  Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I guess the time is moving on. As I understand it, the 
Senator has indicated he would not even support the Thomas proposal 
extension. Am I right?
  Mr. NICKLES. No, I have not stated that.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I am trying to find out if we have any good faith in 
terms of trying to work something out. If the Senator is opposed to 
that and opposed to this, he is opposed to everything. If he could say, 
I am for the Thomas proposal, but I am troubled by some of these 
triggers--although I think they are rational--we are glad to sit down 
with him.
  Can the Senator think about that through the day and let us know?
  Mr. NICKLES. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. KENNEDY. There are others who want to speak.
  Mr. DURBIN. I was on the floor last week, and the Senator from 
Oklahoma came in and took a look at this bill, which is only a few 
pages, and he said: I really need some time to read this.
  I have watched the Senator from Oklahoma, and he reads very quickly. 
I cannot understand why, a week later, the Senator still needs to read 
this.
  Mr. NICKLES. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. DURBIN. At this point, I suggest to the Senator from Oklahoma, I 
think he has read it. I think he understands it. Certainly President 
Bush's father understood it when three times in a recession he said we 
cannot leave these unemployed families in this terrible, perilous 
situation. We have to extend unemployment benefits. It is a very basic 
concept, supported by Republican and Democratic Presidents alike, as 
well as economists and business leaders in my State.
  When I say to them, what can we do about this economy, they say give 
some spending power to these poor people who are out of work. That is 
pretty fundamental.
  I want to give the Senator from Oklahoma all the time he needs, but a 
week has passed. Is another week going to have to pass, or are we going 
to be able to come to a resolution and help these families, including 
over 100,000 people in my State of Illinois?
  We have the fifth highest unemployment rate in the Nation. I think 
this Congress can do something. It should do something. I want to give 
the Senator from Oklahoma his opportunity, but I think a week is enough 
to read a seven-page bill.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I say to my colleague, we want to work with him.
  Mr. NICKLES. Can we have regular order in the Senate.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. We have time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Corzine). The regular order is a unanimous 
consent request has been made. Is there objection?
  Mr. NICKLES. I reserve the right to object.
  Mr. KENNEDY. The regular order is the Senator objects or does not 
object. That is the regular order, so we are going on the regular 
order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is right. Is 
there objection?
  Mr. NICKLES. Reserving the right to object.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Regular order. It either goes through or there is an 
objection.
  Mr. NICKLES. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the regular order, the Senator may not 
reserve the right to object. He must either object or permit the 
request to be granted.
  Mr. NICKLES. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
  Mr. NICKLES addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts retains the 
floor.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry. He made a 
unanimous consent request. I objected. I sought recognition. He gave up 
the floor.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I do not lose the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the precedent, the Senator who made the 
unanimous consent request retains the floor, whether it is granted or 
not.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am sincerely sorry we have not been 
able to work this out. Senators Wellstone and Durbin have indicated the 
steps we are going to take to try to get the unemployment insurance. 
This is no mystery. It is a seven-page bill. There were efforts or 
suggestions about how we might be able to do this. We are certainly 
open to try to do it.
  What is unacceptable is not helping the number of Americans and 
people who are hurting.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under a previous order, the Senator from 
Nevada is recognized at 10 a.m.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, if the Senator from Oklahoma wishes to 
speak, I have no problem, under your time, which comes later, and I 
still maintain my 15 minutes.
  If the Senator from Massachusetts wishes to complete his remarks, I 
am happy to yield.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I will ask that my remaining remarks be included.
  Mr. REID. The Senator from Massachusetts is welcome to a few minutes 
of my time. I will use my 15 minutes when the Senator from Oklahoma 
finishes.
  Mr. NICKLES. Did my colleague from Massachusetts finish his comments?
  Mr. KENNEDY. I had additional comments, but the Senator has been 
seeking recognition to explain his objection. I am happy to hear that.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I appreciate the gracious remarks of my 
colleague from Nevada. On the bill presented to the Senate last week, 
it has not been marked up in the committee, has not been reported out 
of committee.
  We have a preliminary analysis by the Congressional Budget Office, 
and the cost estimate is $17.1 billion in Fiscal Year 2003. On the 
floor last week, it was estimated by proponents, the Senator from 
Minnesota, the cost was $10 to $12 to $13 billion. In other words, they 
did not know. They are trying to pass it so quickly, they did not know 
how much it would cost. It has not been studied.
  This proposal is reportedly an extension of unemployment benefits, 
extending provisions that expire at the end of December. It was being 
portrayed as a 6 month extension. But when I looked at the details, I 
found we are using completely different triggers, among other 
differences.
  What does that mean for someone who does not follow this debate? It 
means more States qualify for more Federal benefits. There is currently 
an

[[Page S10141]]

unemployment compensation program of up to 26 weeks financed by the 
State, then a Federally-funded Temporary Extended Unemployment 
Compensation of up to an additional 13 weeks, and finally up to another 
13 weeks for high unemployment states. By changing the trigger under 
this new proposal, we are saying more stages are eligible for extended 
benefits. We are saying benefits would be available in all states not 
just for 13 weeks but for 26 weeks, with some States even for an 
additional 7 weeks. This is getting expensive. This new plan is $10 
billion more than a straight extension.
  Someone said we did this in 1990. That may not be the right way to do 
it. I am willing to work with my colleagues to provide assistance for 
those people in the States that really need help, but we ought to be 
very accurate in our language and not try to push something through too 
quickly. We ought to be responsible. We have enormous deficits now. We 
should try to do this in a fiscally responsible manner, so the bill can 
be signed. I will work with my colleagues from Massachusetts, from 
Minnesota, and others to see if we can come up with a bill that is 
affordable and has bipartisan support.
  At this stage, you have to have almost unanimous support. I will work 
with my colleagues to see if we can come up with it. The bill before 
the Senate, S. 3009, in my opinion, should not be passed. Maybe we can 
come up with a straight 13-week extension as we have done previously in 
the Senate. I will work with my colleagues and the Senator from Nevada 
to see if we can get something done. A straight extension would cost an 
estimated $7.3 billion instead of $17.1 billion. That is a possible.
  This bill that would cost $17 billion and would rewrite unemployment 
figures--I don't think that makes sense. Maybe we can work together and 
find something that is acceptable. I appreciate the cooperation of my 
colleagues.
  I ask unanimous consent to have a preliminary CBO cost estimate 
printed.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                    U.S. Congress,


                                  Congressional Budget Office,

                                  Washington, DC, October 2, 2002.
     Hon. Kent Conrad,
     Chairman, Committee on the Budget,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: In response to a number of requests for 
     information on the budgetary impact of S. 3009, the Emergency 
     Unemployment Compensation Act of 2002, the Congressional 
     Budget Office has prepared an estimate of the cost of that 
     bill, as introduced on September 26, 2002.
       S. 3009 would increase the number of weeks of Temporary 
     Emergency Unemployment Compensation (TEUC) available to 
     unemployed workers who exhaust their regular unemployment 
     benefits. Under current law, up to 13 weeks of TEUC benefits 
     are available in all states, with an additional 13 weeks 
     available in states with a high unemployment rate. The TEUC 
     program is scheduled to end on January 1, 2003, with no 
     benefits paid after that date. S. 3009 would increase the 
     number of weeks of TEUC benefits paid in all states to 26, 
     with an additional seven weeks available in states with high 
     unemployment. In addition, the bill would allow eligible 
     unemployed workers to begin to collect TEUC until July 1, 
     2003. Those receiving benefits by that date would be able to 
     collect benefits until October 14, 2003.
       As shown in the following table, CBO estimates that 
     enactment of S. 3009 would increase direct spending by $17.1 
     billion in fiscal year 2003. The effect over 10 years would 
     be smaller--$15.5 billion--because the increase in spending 
     on emergency benefits would eliminate anticipated transfers 
     over the 2009-2012 period from the federal accounts in the 
     unemployment trust fund to the state benefit accounts.
       Revenues would increase by about $4.8 billion over the 10-
     year period. CBO estimates that state employment tax 
     revenues, which are counted as federal receipts in the 
     unemployment trust fund, would rise both to pay for the 
     increase in regular unemployment compensation that would 
     result from enacting the bill, and to make up for the 
     reduction in revenues that states would otherwise have 
     received in the form of intergovernmental transfers. These 
     estimates assume that the bill will be enacted in October 
     2002.

                                ESTIMATED BUDGETARY IMPACT OF S. 3009, THE EMERGENCY UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION ACT OF 2002
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--
                                           -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               2003       2004       2005       2006       2007       2008       2009       2010       2011       2012
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated Budget Authority................     17,100        400          0          0          0          0       -495       -505       -515       -525
Estimated Outlays.........................     17,100        400          0          0          0          0       -495       -505       -515       -525
Estiamted Revenues........................          0        230        330        330        270        230        250        560      1,080      1,540
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

       If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
     pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Christina 
     Hawley Sadoti.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Barry B. Anderson
                                   (For Dan L. Crippen, Director).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, we have a list of speakers who will begin 
the debate this morning. Senator Reed of Rhode Island was given 45 
minutes under the order by the Chair. I ask unanimous consent to 
substitute Senator Leahy to speak for up to 30 minutes in exchange for 
Senator Reed's time. We will work Senator Reed in later.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, how much time does the majority retain?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Eleven and one-half minutes.
  Mr. REID. We have a number of Republicans here. They are ready to go. 
Why don't we let them go? If we decide to use that time, we will use it 
later. I ask unanimous consent that we proceed in that fashion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Missouri.

                          ____________________