[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 137 (Thursday, October 17, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10619-S10620]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              THE ECONOMY

  Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I begin by thanking our colleague from 
Massachusetts for his impassioned advocacy of this important issue. It 
is a cause that both the Chair and I support wholeheartedly. The 
Senator from Massachusetts has been a tireless advocate of raising the 
minimum wage for many years. It is my privilege to join with him. This 
is an issue whose time has come. It needs to be done, and we need a 
sense of urgency for those on the other side of the aisle and this 
administration. I thank my colleague once again.
  Mr. President, let me share some thoughts about the importance of 
extending coverage for the unemployed in our country. Given the 
weakness of our economy, I think this is a critically important issue 
that will help millions of our fellow citizens who are suffering 
unemployment through no fault of their own. It is also an important 
component of a coherent economic strategy to get America working again.
  As you and others know all too well, the economy is weak, people are 
out of work, we need leadership to get the economy moving, people back 
to employment, and to help those who have suffered unemployment, 
putting money back into people's pockets to put it back into the 
economy to create jobs and growth. Extending unemployment benefits is 
an important part of that strategy, an idea whose time has come, a lot 
like raising the minimum wage.
  The economy is not doing well. Unemployment has risen. Long-term 
unemployment in September was 1.6 million working men and women. 
Household income for the typical family has fallen for the first time 
in a decade. Home foreclosures have reached a 30-year high. Poverty 
rates across America rose last year. Regrettably, the economy seems 
unlikely to reverse its sluggish course anytime soon. Manufacturing has 
slowed. Retail sales are weak. Capital investment has declined. Foreign 
demand for American goods and services is stalled.
  As a result, job creation actually declined last year. Many Americans 
are hard hit, and others are worried they will be next. Mr. President, 
1.1 million Americans had exhausted their unemployment benefits as of 
August. This figure is expected to double to 2.2 million hard-working 
Americans as soon as December--regrettably, just in time for the 
Christmas season.
  In my own home State of Indiana, we have not been unaffected. Twenty-
one thousand hard-working Hoosiers have exhausted unemployment benefits 
as of August. This figure will more than double to 45,000 by December. 
There is no State in the Union that is unaffected by this unfortunate 
state of affairs. These Americans need a helping hand. I want to 
emphasize that it is not only the compassionate thing to do, but it is 
the economically sensible thing to do as well, because not only are we 
helping individuals who are in need, we are also helping the economy 
get back on its feet and thereby helping all Americans, be they 
employed or unemployed.
  We need stimulus for job growth and economic expansion. These 
benefits will be used for consumer spending. Economists have long 
recognized that helping those who are unemployed leads directly to 
added demand in the economy. Labor Department statistics, in fact, 
indicate that there is a significant multiplier effect. For every $1 
that goes into unemployment benefits, a full $2.15 is added to the 
gross domestic product. By any definition, $1 into $2.15 of increase to 
the gross domestic product is a good investment for the American 
people.
  Consumers are stressed right now. They have high levels of debt. They 
have tapped into their home equity at rates that could be 
unsustainable. The tax cut of last year has run its course. There are 
other reasons to believe consumers may be cutting back on their 
purchases. Adding about $17 billion to consumption through extending 
unemployment benefits will help the consumers maintain their course, 
allowing the economy to hang in there until capital investment comes 
back and demand from abroad picks up.
  What is more, we can afford this at this time. It is fiscally 
sustainable and responsible. There is more than $27 billion currently 
in the unemployment trust fund, more than sufficient to cover the costs 
extending unemployment benefits, as I and others are proposing. So this 
will not mean an increase in the annual deficit or in America's debt. 
We can do what is right for individuals, what is right for the economy, 
and do so in a fiscally responsible way.
  I ask that we adopt this measure. It will extend unemployment 
benefits eligibility by 13 additional weeks for every State across the 
Union. It will add an additional 7 weeks for those States with the 
highest rates of unemployment and adjust the trigger mechanism to 
expand eligibility to make sure that the reality of unemployment across 
the Nation is reflected in the law.
  Also, I ask for a new sense of urgency from this administration when 
it comes to promoting economic growth. The last time I was privileged 
to speak to my colleagues on the floor it was to call for support of 
the President's initiative and resolution with regard to Iraq. We 
generated substantial bipartisan support for that resolution. I ask the 
administration and our colleagues on the other side of the aisle to 
bring that same sense of urgency and bipartisan cooperation to the 
cause of improving our domestic economy. After all, in the long run it 
is the foundation upon which our national security is built.

  There is precedent for these steps. The President's own father took 
these steps back in the early 1990s, expanding unemployment eligibility 
by the same number of weeks, including the same mechanism for 
determining eligibility. That proposal at that time passed by 94 to 2. 
It was the right thing to do to get the economy moving in the early 
1990s. It is the right thing today. It received overwhelming bipartisan 
support at that time. It will receive, if we can get a vote, 
overwhelming bipartisan support today. It was advocated by the first 
President Bush. It is a cause this President Bush should also embrace 
to promote economic growth.
  I ask we move forward with this initiative and that the President 
demonstrate he is truly the compassionate conservative that he 
campaigned to be.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to the 
immediate consideration of Calendar No. 619, S. 3009, a bill to provide 
for a 13-week

[[Page S10620]]

extension of unemployment compensation; that the bill be read three 
times, passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table 
without intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. NICKLES. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I think some people are playing political 
games. I understand some people are interested in passing a unanimous 
consent agreement on unemployment compensation. I heard the request. It 
was to provide a 13-week extension of unemployment compensation. That 
is not what this bill does. I don't know how many times I have to say 
it on the floor. The bill provides for a 26-week extension, not a 13-
week, a 26-week extension. There is a big difference.
  I believe I heard the sponsors say it changes the trigger--it does 
change the trigger. It is not a clean extension because it changes the 
trigger so that more States are eligible for long-term extension. This 
bill has a 26-week Federal unemployment compensation extension on top 
of the State 26 weeks, and an additional 7 weeks for those States that 
have the highest unemployment compensation. That would be a total of 52 
weeks--59 weeks, in some States; 52 weeks for all States, 59 weeks for 
some States.
  It also has a section that says we should not count people who might 
be employed. It is a crummy bill. I have stated again my willingness to 
try to work with colleagues to pass a clean extension which would cost 
about $7 billion instead of $17 billion.
  While we are here, there are a couple of bills I would like to pass. 
So I am going to be asking unanimous consent, I tell my colleagues on 
the Democrat side--it is my intention to propose a couple of unanimous 
consent requests as well.
  One will be to permanently eliminate the tax on Social Security. This 
is a tax that passed in 1993. It was part of President Clinton's tax 
package. It passed by one vote in the Senate, and passed by one vote in 
the House. It is still the law of the land. We still tax senior 
citizens' Social Security benefits.

  I have heard a lot of people say they wanted to eliminate it. The 
House passed a bill to eliminate it in 2000. Unfortunately, we have not 
been able to do that. Senator Tim Hutchinson from Arkansas has 
introduced legislation this Congress to do that. It has several 
cosponsors.
  So, Mr. President, I want to notify my friends and colleagues on the 
Democratic side of the aisle that I intend to propound a unanimous 
consent request so they have a chance to respond as I have been 
responding on several requests.
  I am going to propound a unanimous consent request to make part of 
the tax bill we passed in 2001 dealing with marriage penalty relief 
permanent. Unfortunately, much of the tax bill that we passed in 2001 
is temporary. That bill helped lessen the burden, since we found 
ourselves in a recession and part of that was marriage penalty relief. 
That provision sunsets. It stops in the year 2009 or 2010. We should 
make that permanent. The House has passed legislation, H.R. 4019. They 
passed it with an overwhelming vote, by a vote of 271 to 142. They 
passed it on June 13. Unfortunately, the Senate has not found time to 
take that legislation up. All we have to do is pass that House bill, it 
goes straight to the President, and he will sign it so it can become 
law. So I am going to propound a unanimous consent request to pass that 
bill.
  I see my friend, the assistant Democrat leader. I will now make both 
of these requests.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that H.R. 4019, a bill to 
provide that the marriage penalty relief provisions of the Economic 
Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 shall be made 
permanent, be discharged from the Senate Committee on Finance and the 
Senate proceed to its immediate consideration, the bill be read a third 
time, passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid on the table and any 
statements thereupon be printed in the Record at the appropriate place.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. REID. On behalf of a number of Senators, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  SEVERAL SENATORS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma retains the floor.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate 
proceed to immediate consideration of Calendar No. 308, H.R. 3529, that 
all after the enacting clause be stricken, the text of S. 237, a bill 
by Senator Hutchinson, a bill to repeal the 1993 income tax increase on 
Social Security benefits, be printed in lieu thereof, the bill be read 
a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the 
table, any statements thereupon be printed in the Record at the 
appropriate place.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is objection?
  Mr. REID. On behalf of a number of Senators, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  SEVERAL SENATORS addressed the Chair.
  Mr. NICKLES. I thank my friend and colleague from Nevada. I told him 
that two people can play these games. I would very much like to see the 
marriage penalty relief package that we passed in 2001 be made 
permanent. I would also like to see us repeal that portion at least, if 
not--I would like to see us, frankly, repeal the entire--President 
Clinton's tax package of 1993, but certainly repeal the tax on Social 
Security benefits. We tried to do that. Objection was heard.

  The Senate has over and over again found itself, unable in the last 
year and a half, to pass permanent tax relief for American citizens, 
not for marriage penalty relief, and not even for seniors who are 
paying high taxes on their Social Security benefits. I find that 
regrettable.
  Maybe there will be a change in the makeup of the Senate in a couple 
of weeks and legislation such as the two I just requested consent to 
pass--maybe we can pass those under regular order. I hope that will be 
the case.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.

                          ____________________