[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 174 (Tuesday, November 25, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S15955-S15956]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST--S. 1839

  Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, I rise to echo the comments of the 
Senator from Michigan. I think it critically important that Congress 
not adjourn for the year without addressing unemployment benefits for 
Americans who, unfortunately, have been out of work for some time now.
  The Senator from Michigan is very conscious of the fact that his 
State, with 7.6 percent unemployment, has not seen much economic relief 
in this jobless recovery. I can tell him that the State of Washington 
has seen very little relief, as we are at 7 percent unemployment rate. 
The States around us--Oregon is at 7.6 percent unemployment; Alaska is 
at 7.3 percent unemployment--also continue to suffer.
  The Pacific Northwest has been very hard hit by the downturn in our 
economy. While some people would like to say that is part of the 
process, I would argue that losing jobs in the aerospace industry after 
9/11--35,000 jobs just at Boeing alone--is no fault of individual 
workers.
  I guarantee you, individual workers in my State would rather have a 
paycheck than an unemployment check. But if they are not getting an 
unemployment check, if they do not have the ability to take care of 
mortgage payments and other bills, it affects our overall economy. That 
is why for a long period of time, not only have people believed that 
those who pay into unemployment benefits should get a package for 
taking care of them during downturns in our economy but they also think 
unemployment benefits are a great stimulus for an economy that is 
sagging.
  My colleagues on the other side of the aisle continue to refuse to 
bring up an extension of unemployment benefits. That means by that 
December 31 of this year, some 90,000 unemployed people per week will 
exhaust their regular benefits. That means in the first 6 months of 
2004 there may be as many as 2 million people affected by this loss of 
benefits.
  This issue is so important to me because we were in this same 
situation last year. This side of the aisle said, given that this 
country has lost so many jobs, we must do something to take care of 
laid off workers. We must extend the Federal unemployment benefits 
program. We were successful in convincing the Senate, with Senator 
Nickles' help, to pass a bill out of the Senate extending unemployment 
benefits, but the Republicans in the House refused to take up the 
measure and people in my State were without unemployment benefits at 
the end of the year.
  If somehow my colleagues think that people didn't make very tough 
decisions because we left them without any guarantee that the program 
would continue, they did. I had constituents who took money out of 
their pension plans--at a 30 percent penalty--at the end of December to 
live on because they thought their benefits had been exhausted. They 
were forced to trade off long-term security for short-term economic 
need, only because the Federal Government did not stand up and do its 
job.
  We had a similar situation in the 1990s in which we had high 
unemployment. What did we do to act responsibly? For 30 months, the 
Federal program offered to unemployed Americans a richer benefit than 
we are offering today--20 weeks in the 1990s, compared to 13 weeks 
today. Well, guess what was different in the 1990s. During that time 
period, 2.9 million net jobs were created. Since this recession 
started, we've lost 2.4 million jobs.
  The 1990s recession covered both a Republican administration--the 
first Bush administration--and a Democratic administration. Both those 
administrations committed--for 30 months, and with a richer Federal 
program of 20 weeks--to take care of Americans until this economy 
recovered. As the economy recovered and 2.9 million new jobs were 
added, then we ended the program.
  How do our actions today compare to that recession? Well, we have 
only had 22 months of this program, so it has not lasted as long as the 
previous program of Federal unemployment benefits. It has been 8 months 
shorter. The benefits are less, only 13 weeks instead of 20. So it is 
not as rich a program.
  The bottom line is what has happened to our jobs during the time 
period. In this time period, instead of adding 2.9 million jobs, we 
have actually lost 2.4 million jobs. So if the argument is that it's 
time to stop the Federal extension program when new jobs have been 
created and Americans are going back to work, then obviously 22 months 
has not been enough. People are not going back to work. We have lost 
2.4 million jobs. If somebody thinks it is time to cut off this 
program, they are dead wrong. To do this, going into the holiday 
season, is just like giving American workers a lump of coal in their 
stocking. It's like saying, no, thank you, for the hard work you have 
provided to American companies in the past and for paying into the 
unemployment insurance system.
  It is totally irresponsible for us, as a legislative body, to pass 
all of these tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, do all of these 
programs for special interests, give subsidies, and then leave American 
workers without the benefit program that was designed to help them in 
economic downturns.
  This is not a Republican or Democrat issue. We have had a Republican 
administration and a Democratic administration--the first Bush 
administration and the Clinton administration--who said this is a great 
policy, but somehow this policy is now falling on deaf ears. During the 
1990s, when we ran this program for 30 months at richer benefits, we 
had an improvement in the unemployment rate of 1.2 percent before we 
ended the program. It was yet another sign, in addition to the 2.9 
million net jobs added that it was time to end the program.
  As I said earlier, we have lost 2.4 million jobs during this time 
period and the unemployment rate has improved less than 1 percent--only 
.4 percent. So we do not have the data, we do not have the evidence 
that things are getting better. And yet somehow now, even though we 
cannot demonstrate that things are really getting better for workers, 
some people on the other side of the aisle want to hedge their bets and 
say, too bad for you. And they want to say this at the end of the year 
the holiday season, when people are making some of their most important 
financial decisions and expenditures.
  I think it is outrageous. It is outrageous that this body is so cold 
hearted to the hard-working men and women of America. Let's remember 
how we got into this situation. Through no fault of their own, and in 
particular for New York and Washington State, resulting from the 
unfortunate circumstances of 9/11 and downturns of specific industries 
as a result of that--laid-off workers are being left high and dry.
  Somehow we want to put American workers out in the cold just because 
a very tragic event happened to us at the national level? We do not 
want to say to those companies and to those individuals, we understand 
the hard economic times they have fallen on? That is what the Federal 
unemployment extension program is about.
  There are additional reasons we are crazy not to extend this program. 
One is that we have yet to see the economic results we want. 
Unemployment insurance is an economic stimulus. For every dollar spent 
on unemployment benefits, it generates $2.15 of economic stimulus. I 
argue that one of the best economic stimulus programs we have had in 
the last 22 months has likely been Federal unemployment benefits. These 
benefits have allowed millions of Americans to make their house 
payments, to pay their medical bills, to

[[Page S15956]]

pay for the various essentials they need to do to exist. And that is 
what they are basically doing. They are just getting by. They are just 
getting by until new jobs are created.
  I say to the administration: Where are all of these new jobs? The 
bottom line is still 2.4 million jobs lost. If the administration wants 
to curtail this economic program, at least stand up and be as 
responsive as the last two administrations were and create the new 
jobs. In that recession, 2.9 million jobs were created and so, of 
course, Americans could go back to work and, of course, they could get 
off the Federal program.
  We have a big challenge before us. And although this bill does not 
directly address this, we must recognize that parts of our economy are 
retooling. Parts of our economy are demanding a more creative approach 
to jobs that are lost as industries are transitioning. It will take 
almost 2 years to regain the jobs we have lost. Why not prop up our 
economy by adding needed stimulus? Why not give American workers a 
return on a program they paid into, and why not honor them by admitting 
they would rather have job creation than unemployment checks and get 
about going back to stimulating our economy with real job creation?
  None of that is happening. We are all now about ready to adjourn to 
some date uncertain. I do not know if it is January or a sooner time, 
but America was listening last year. At the holiday season, as December 
31 rolled around, Americans were furious that this program was being 
curtailed. People made very serious decisions. Why make them live 
through those circumstances again and then come back in January or 
February? After we have all made it clear this was a program that was 
much needed, why not do the responsible thing now and pass these 
unemployment benefits.
  I ask unanimous consent that the Finance Committee be discharged from 
further consideration of S. 1839 and that the Senate then proceed to 
the immediate consideration of that legislation; that the Cantwell 
amendment, which is at the desk, be considered and agreed, and the 
motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that the bill, as 
amended, be read three times, passed, and the motion to reconsider be 
laid upon the table without intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Crapo). On behalf of the leadership, in my 
capacity as the Senator from the State of Idaho, I object.
  The objection is heard.
  Ms. CANTWELL. I do not know how many more objections we are going to 
hear before we give American workers their right to unemployment 
benefits. We need to own up to the fact that this body cannot pass tax 
cuts for the wealthiest, incentivize other programs, and then not take 
care of our obligation to workers in America--all of whom would, in the 
end, certainly rather have a paycheck.

  I hope this body will come to its senses, address this very important 
issue, and not leave any Americans at the end of the year without the 
resources to pay their bills and without helping them be an effective 
part of our economy.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________