[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.
____________________