[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 61 (Wednesday, May 5, 2004)]
[Senate]
[Page S4898]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
EXTENSION OF UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, there are several other points I would
like to make. I know some people are thinking, why not do this for a
shorter program. Why not expand the program for maybe another 60 days.
The point is, where are we going to be in 60 days? Even if, say, we get
a report on Friday that says there are 300,000 jobs being created and
the next month there are 300,000 jobs being created, you still have at
that point 1.4 million Americans looking for work; that is, people who
have completely exhausted their State benefits.
My constituents are making all sorts of choices. They are putting up
their homes for sale. They are moving in with relatives. They are
selling family possessions to pay mortgage payments. They are trying to
hold on so this economy recovers. And they are hoping the next several
months will bring good economic news, as I hope it does. I hope the
next several months brings good economic news. But even if we have good
economic news, we are not going to have the return of 1.4 million
people or 2 million people back to work in the next several months. The
question is, do we want to meet our obligation under the Federal
program and help them.
In the 1990s we had a very similar situation. We had an economic
downturn and the first Bush administration basically had to come up
with a program for unemployment benefits. They actually had already had
the program in place for more than a year and had good economic news. I
think more than 600,000 jobs had been created. The administration still
supported another 9-month extension to unemployment benefits.
Actually, they supported that 9-month extension, even with a richer
program than what we are suggesting today. We are suggesting that the
program ought to go for 13 weeks of Federal program and 13 weeks for
very high unemployment States. At that point, the program was 20 weeks.
So in the 1990s, the Bush administration decided, even though it had
seen more than a half million in job growth--I think they had several
million in job loss--even though they had seen the economy pick up,
they made the decision that so many people had been impacted, laid off,
and could not find work, that it was important to give them access to
the Federal program. So they expanded the program for another 9 months.
Now, I know this administration is now, as I said, through various
members of its Cabinet, backing away from its economic numbers for the
year, but it is also saying they would support an unemployment benefit
package that would come out of the House and Senate. I say to the
administration, obviously, we are not getting this bill done in the
timely fashion that would benefit most Americans. Maybe they can come
and help in this effort because the preceding Bush administration did a
great job supporting the package, even though jobs were starting to be
created, to stem the tide of job loss and negative impact on the
economy, and still the economy started to pick up again. So we should
do the same.
I think the administration should take some time, as it is riding
around Ohio--and some of these middle America States have been hard hit
with unemployment benefits--and listen to the people who have lost
jobs. They will tell them this program is important to them, as I just
outlined from several newspaper editorials that have been in the Dayton
paper, specifically. I am sure there are editorials from other places
throughout the Midwest as well. I know we had editorials from more than
a dozen newspapers wondering why we were not moving forward on this
legislation.
So the point is, we have a case study in the 1990s--and a good one--
that this administration should follow. This administration should look
at the success of that program, how jobs were being created, and still
they expanded unemployment benefits because they knew it would take
several months to put that many Americans back to work. That is what we
are talking about today. We are talking about a jobs proposal that
really is what we are going to do to incentivize or disincentivize
corporations from moving overseas or doing business overseas. That is
what the FCI/ETI bill is primarily about.
While we are debating what is good to massage the intention of
corporations in America, we should be talking about what we are doing
to support the American workers who lost their jobs through no fault of
their own. Why try to mastermind and guess about corporate intentions
and incentive in the tax policy but then leave American workers who
have a program that is designed to help them out in the cold without an
opportunity?
We have fought this battle a couple of times now. We fought it last
year when the benefits expired and got it reinstated. We fought it when
people actually lapsed off of benefits and we had to get them to
understand that when we came back into session, the benefits were going
to be restored. But now many Americans have lost hope. It has been
since January 1 these people have been without benefits. Given that
information, Americans have tried to make the best they can out of a
tough situation. They have made those tough choices, and if you read
the stories on my Web site, or talk to constituents, you will see very
heartbreaking stories of people who have struggled to make ends meet
and would rather work.
I think it is very important that Congress act to move forward on
this legislation. I know my colleagues would like to get the FSC/ETI
bill done. I know they would like to say they passed something that
dealt with jobs. Let's be honest. There haven't been a lot of jobs
created in the last 3 years. We are at a net negative jobs. We are at a
net negative 2 million jobs lost in America. So let's not kid
ourselves. Job creation will come back. It will come back slowly. It
will start to pick up, but that pickup is not going to be at the pace
to give people relief in America and relief that is due to them.
Mr. President, while I am not making a unanimous consent request, I
hope that my colleagues understand how important this is, and that
tomorrow we will find time to vote on this amendment. Not to vote on
this amendment, again, is to say it is more important to deal with
corporations and their tax incentives and tax breaks than it is to deal
with the American workers who have lost their jobs. I don't want to
send that message to these high-unemployment States, to those
individuals who thought they supported this concept of a Federal
program, and then tell them we have almost $15 billion in a Federal
fund that was paid into by their employers, but now they are not going
to be able to access any of it. I would rather tell them this body
decided to do the right thing; that while we are waiting for the
private sector to return to a strong economic engine, we are going to
do the right thing and give people access to the Federal dollars from
the program they have already paid into; that we are going to help the
American workers in their time of greatest need; that our body, this
institution, and the other side, the House of Representatives, believe
the American workers deserve to have support.
I hope tomorrow we can work out a time agreement so this amendment
can be voted on, so we can move forward on not only getting the
underlying bill done but getting this legislation moved, since both
bodies have supported it and a majority of Members have supported the
legislation.
I yield the floor and 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. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________