[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 62 (Thursday, May 6, 2004)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4986-S4987]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   EXTENSION OF UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS

  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I am rising this evening in support of 
S.

[[Page S4987]]

1637. This is legislation, sponsored by Senator Cantwell and myself, to 
extend the Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation Program for 
another 6 months. The TEUC Program provides additional unemployment 
compensation benefits to individuals who have exhausted their initial 
eligibility without finding new employment. It covers those individuals 
who may find themselves out of a job, once it takes effect.
  This program is absolutely critical to thousands of people in the 
United States of America, many of them who live in my home State of 
Ohio. The Congressional Budget Office recently reported that for the 
past 2 years, the exhaustion rate for unemployment benefits has been 
higher than at any time in recent history. During calendar year 2003, 
43 percent of UI recipients exhausted their entitlement to regular 
benefits.
  This is best depicted by this chart that I have here this evening. 
The bottom line shows the unemployment from a period of 1972 up to 
2004. The top line shows the exhaustion rate of benefits. You can see 
during this period of time we had exhaustion in benefits, then it goes 
down, then we come out to the 2003-2004 area and you can see that means 
these people have been unemployed for a much longer period than is 
traditional in a recessionary period.
  Many of those out there today are still in great need. They need 
these unemployment benefits in order to keep going, paying their 
mortgages, and giving them some time so they can gain new skills for 
the jobs that we hope are going to be available to them.
  In my own State of Ohio, over 31,000 individuals have exhausted their 
unemployment benefits since the Temporary Extended Unemployment 
Compensation Program ended in late December. Without additional 
assistance, these families face severe financial difficulties until 
they are able to regain employment.
  Many of my colleagues believe the recent declines in overall 
unemployment and the continuing decline in initial unemployment claims 
indicate there is no further need for a TEUC. Nothing could be further 
from the truth. As CBO's recent report indicates, long-term 
unemployment has actually continued to increase, even though short-term 
unemployment has been declining.
  Part of the problem we face is that many of our assumptions regarding 
recessions, economic recovery, and job creation are more suited for the 
1950s than the 21st century. Traditional economic analysis tells us 
companies lay off workers during a recession and rehire them to the 
same jobs during a recovery. Workers may have collected unemployment 
during a limited period of time, but they have not lost a job and 
usually return to their former workplace with no need to seek new 
employment.
  Unfortunately, the current recession has not followed this pattern. 
Instead of existing companies laying off employees and later rehiring 
them, many corporations have permanently eliminated positions or even 
gone out of business. This has particularly been hurtful in the 
State of Ohio, where manufacturing has been hit by international 
competition, litigation costs, and high energy costs. We have lost some 
17.5 percent of our manufacturing jobs in the State of Ohio.

  Companies like Rubbermaid, in Wayne County, Worchester, OH, one of 
the most successful companies that Ohio has ever had, a company that 
was written up in Fortune magazine, just closed down--1,200 jobs, in 
Worchester, OH, a small Ohio city in a small county, Wayne County. 
Thankfully, new companies and new types of jobs are emerging to replace 
those that are lost; however, many of the workers who were displaced 
during the recession have difficulty qualifying for these new jobs. 
Usually they have to retrain and it is not uncommon they have to 
relocate. Quite often, middle-aged factory workers find themselves 
competing with younger, better educated workers for jobs in the 
technology sector.
  Also, many times jobs are lost in older urban communities, but the 
replacement technology or service sector jobs are created in distant 
suburban areas that require long commutes or changing residences. 
Families who are dependent on two incomes may find it difficult to 
locate employment for both wage earners at the same location. 
Consequently, either the husband or the wife may be unemployed for much 
longer than in previous recessions.
  This is precisely the situation we are facing in Ohio. We have lost 
manufacturing jobs in older communities such as Youngstown and 
Cleveland and southeast Ohio. Most of these job losses reflect plant 
closings or permanent downsizing. These jobs are gone and they are not 
coming back. They are gone. They are finished.
  Meanwhile, some areas of the State are picking up service sector jobs 
and have unemployment rates as low as 3.9 percent. Unfortunately, 
expanded financial service jobs in suburban Columbus are not much help 
to an unemployed tool and die maker in Toledo, OH. It is all very well 
to talk about the bright new economy that will generate plentiful 
employment at high wages for the knowledge workers of the future. 
However, we still have a responsibility to assist the semiskilled 
manual laborers being displaced by the demise of the old manufacturing 
economy. Many of these workers can and will retrain. Some will, however 
reluctantly, relocate. All of them will require time to make these 
changes.
  Recently, Chairman Greenspan has recognized the need to extend 
temporary unemployment benefits. Secretary Snow has recognized the need 
to extend temporary unemployment benefits. Our President recognizes 
that we need to extend temporary unemployment benefits. It is time for 
Congress to extend these benefits.
  The program was designed specifically to give long-term unemployed 
individuals the time they need to readjust to changing economic 
realities. The recent report from the CBO clearly indicates the 
continued need for this program. Consequently, I call upon my 
colleagues to offer a helping hand to workers from that old economy, 
while we welcome the rise of the new economy. We can afford to help 
with this transition, and it is the right thing to do.
  I know there are many of my colleagues from States that do not have 
the problem we have in my State, and they don't understand the urgency 
of the passage of this legislation. I think we owe it to these people, 
to these families. Some of them live in my neighborhood in the city of 
Cleveland. I have lived in the same house since I was mayor of the city 
of Cleveland, since 1972. I live in a middle-class neighborhood. I have 
a neighbor across the street who has been unemployed and his benefits 
have been exhausted. He needs help. I see these people in the grocery 
store and they talk to me about it.

  I think some of our colleagues who are opposed come from States where 
things are fine, things are wonderful. But I think part of the 
responsibility we have as Senators in the United States of America is 
to look after the needs of the entire country. If I were in a position 
where things were wonderful in my State and they weren't good in some 
other State and they needed some help in unemployment, then I would be 
supportive of that because I think it is the proper thing for us to do.
  The other thing about this program that a lot of my colleagues do not 
understand is that, even though this money is coming from the Federal 
Treasury, the money ultimately is repaid back to the Treasury from the 
unemployment compensation fund that is supported by a tax on our 
businesses in our State. This happened when we had the last recession 
in the State of Ohio.
  I am urging my colleagues to open their eyes to the pleas and the 
needs of so many of our fellow Americans who need that extra help at 
this time for themselves and for their families.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The 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.

                          ____________________