[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Pages 695-699]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                         HOPE FOR CHILDREN ACT

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of H.R. 622, which the clerk will report.
  The senior assistant bill clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 622) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 to expand the adoption credit, and for other purposes.

  Pending:
       Daschle/Baucus amendment No. 2698, in the nature of a 
     substitute.
       Reid (for Baucus) amendment No. 2721 (to amendment No. 
     2698), to provide emergency agriculture assistance.
       Hatch/Bennett amendment No. 2724 (to the language proposed 
     to be stricken by amendment No. 2698), to amend the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 to allow the carryback of certain net 
     operating losses for 7 years.
       Domenici amendment No. 2723 (to the language proposed to be 
     stricken by amendment No. 2698), to provide for a payroll tax 
     holiday.
       Allard/Hatch/Allen amendment No. 2722 (to the language 
     proposed to be stricken by amendment No. 2698), to amend the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to permanently extend the 
     research credit and to increase the rates of the alternative 
     incremental credit.
       Smith of New Hampshire amendment No. 2732 (to the language 
     proposed to be stricken

[[Page 696]]

     by amendment No. 2698), to provide a waiver of the early 
     withdrawal penalty for distributions from qualified 
     retirement plans to individuals called to active duty during 
     the national emergency declared by the President on September 
     14, 2001.
       Smith of New Hampshire amendment No. 2733 (to the language 
     proposed to be stricken by amendment No. 2698), to prohibit a 
     State from imposing a discriminatory tax on income earned 
     within such State by nonresidents of such State.
       Smith of New Hampshire amendment No. 2734 (to the language 
     proposed to be stricken by amendment No. 2698), to provide 
     that tips received for certain services shall not be subject 
     to income or employment taxes.
       Smith of New Hampshire amendment No. 2735 (to the language 
     proposed to be stricken by amendment No. 2698), to allow a 
     deduction for real property taxes whether or not the taxpayer 
     itemizes other deductions.
       Sessions amendment No. 2736 (to the language proposed to be 
     stricken by amendment No. 2698), to amend the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 to provide tax incentives for economic 
     recovery and provide for the payment of emergency extended 
     unemployment compensation.
       Grassley (for McCain) amendment No. 2700 (to the language 
     proposed to be stricken by amendment No. 2698), to amend the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide a special rule for 
     members of the uniformed services and Foreign Service in 
     determining the exclusion of gain from the sale of a 
     principal residence.
       Kyl amendment No. 2758 (to the language proposed to be 
     stricken by amendment No. 2698), to remove the sunset on the 
     repeal of the estate tax.
       Reid modified amendment No. 2764 (to amendment No. 2698), 
     to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide a 
     refundable credit for recreational travel, and to modify the 
     business expense limits.
       Reid (for Durbin) amendment No. 2766 (to amendment No. 
     2698), to provide enhanced unemployment compensation 
     benefits.
       Lincoln amendment No. 2767 (to amendment No. 2698), to 
     delay until at lease June 30, 2002, any changes in medicaid 
     regulations that modify the medicaid upper payment limit for 
     non-State Government-owned or operated hospitals.
       Thomas amendment No. 2728 (to the language proposed to be 
     stricken by amendment No. 2698), to amend the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 to modify the qualified small issue bond 
     provisions.
       Craig amendment No. 2770 (to the language proposed to be 
     stricken by amendment No. 2698), to amend the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 to expand the availability of Archer 
     medical savings accounts.
       Grassley amendment No. 2773 (to the language proposed to be 
     stricken by amendment No. 2698), to provide tax incentives 
     for economic recovery and assistance to displaced workers.
       Sessions (for Kyl) amendment No. 2807 (to amendment No. 
     2721), to remove the sunset on the repeal of the estate tax.
       Dorgan amendment No. 2808 (to amendment No. 2764), to 
     preserve the continued viability of the United States travel 
     industry.


                             Cloture Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Chair lays 
before the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will 
state.
  The senior assistant bill clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     hereby move to bring to a close the debate on the Daschle and 
     others substitute amendment No. 2698 for Calendar No. 71, 
     H.R. 622, the adoption credit bill:
         Max Baucus, Mark Dayton, Richard J. Durbin, Harry Reid, 
           Tim Johnson, John F. Kerry, Daniel K. Inouye, Patrick 
           J. Leahy, Patty Murray, Byron L. Dorgan, Jack Reed, 
           Deborah Ann Stabenow, Tom R. Carper, Maria Cantwell, 
           John B. Breaux, Jean Carnahan, and Herb Kohl.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the 
Daschle and others substitute amendment No. 2698 for Calendar No. 71, 
H.R. 622, the adoption credit bill, shall be brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are required under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Jeffords) is 
necessarily absent.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. 
Thompson), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), the Senator from New 
Mexico (Mr. Domenici), and the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Helms) 
are necessarily absent.
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 56, nays 39, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 13 Leg.]

                                YEAS--56

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Cantwell
     Carnahan
     Carper
     Cleland
     Clinton
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Daschle
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Miller
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Torricelli
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--39

     Allard
     Allen
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cochran
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thurmond

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Domenici
     Helms
     Jeffords
     McCain
     Thompson
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Clinton). On this vote, the yeas are 56, 
the nays are 39. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not 
having voted in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. CRAIG. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                             Cloture Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Chair directs 
the clerk to report the motion to invoke cloture.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the pending 
     Grassley amendment:
         Charles E. Grassley, Bob Smith, Craig Thomas, Pat 
           Roberts, Jeff Sessions, Ben Nighthorse Campbell, George 
           Allen, Larry E. Craig, Jim Bunning, Robert Bennett, Jon 
           Kyl, John Ensign, Michael D. Crapo, Frank Murkowski, 
           Olympia J. Snowe, Don Nickles.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate 
that debate on amendment No. 2773 offered by the Senator from Iowa to 
the bill, H.R. 622, shall be brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule and the clerk will 
call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Jeffords) is 
necessarily absent.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. 
Thompson), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), the Senator from 
North Carolina (Mr. Helms), and the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. 
Domenici) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 48, nays 47, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 14 Leg.]

                                YEAS--48

     Allard
     Allen
     Bennett
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Cleland
     Cochran
     Collins
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lott
     Lugar
     McConnell
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Nelson (NE)
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thurmond
     Voinovich
     Warner

                                NAYS--47

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carnahan
     Carper
     Chafee
     Clinton
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Daschle

[[Page 697]]


     Dayton
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Shelby
     Stabenow
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Domenici
     Helms
     Jeffords
     McCain
     Thompson
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this question, the yeas are 48, the nays 
are 47. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having 
voted in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, it is unfortunate we were unable to 
move the economic stimulus legislation forward, but I hope at the very 
least we could recognize, as we have in past recessions, that at some 
point one has to acknowledge the pain, the uncertainty, the financial 
difficulty that so many families are facing. In 1992, we extended 
unemployment benefits for up to 59 weeks. In 1982, we extended them for 
up to 49 weeks. In 1974, we extended them for up to 65 weeks. I ask 
unanimous consent that we extend them for at least 13 weeks now.
  I have been discussing the matter with our Republican colleagues, and 
they have had the opportunity to view the language. Let me make one 
other clarification. This is a simple extension of current law. There 
is no other extraneous matter, and there is no other issue I would 
suggest at this point be included in the extension. So for all 
Senators, this is simply an extension of current law as we now have it 
enacted.


                           Amendment No. 2819

 (Purpose: To provide for a program of temporary extended unemployment 
                             compensation)

  Mr. DASCHLE. I send an amendment to the desk regarding 13 weeks' 
extension of unemployment benefits. I ask unanimous consent that the 
amendment be agreed to, that the bill, as amended, be read a third 
time, passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table 
without intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, reserving the right to object, and I do 
not object, I believe what Senator Daschle is offering is something 
that this Senate should support in a bipartisan fashion. I ask 
unanimous consent to add to Senator Daschle's request an amendment to 
the same bill relative to unemployment insurance benefits, which had 57 
votes and 3 absentees who are present today, a sufficient number that 
it be included in this unanimous consent request. It is an effort to 
improve and increase unemployment insurance benefits by $25 a week to 
try to keep up with the cost of inflation but, more importantly, to 
cover temporarily displaced workers as well as expand coverage to low-
wage and recent hires. This money is all Federal money going to the 
States. Governors have entire discretion as to whether or not they want 
to enhance the unemployment insurance benefits.
  I ask unanimous consent to amend the request of the Senator from 
South Dakota, our majority leader, to include this amendment, which I 
now send to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. DODD. Madam President, reserving the right to object.
  Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. I hope our colleagues on the other side give the Senator 
from Illinois an opportunity to raise this issue. This is a very modest 
request to include this amendment as part of the package. The other 
measures of the bill obviously are going to have to be addressed some 
other way, but I cannot imagine anyone in this Chamber, regardless of 
party, who would deny people who have lost jobs under the circumstance 
of this past number of months would want to turn down what the Senator 
from Illinois is suggesting. This is basic stuff for people who are 
hurting, and I urge my colleagues on the other side, whatever 
differences we may have on other issues, please do not disagree with 
us.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, reserving the right to object, we 
debated this before. If my colleague from South Dakota wants to, we 
have a couple of amendments on our side we did not get a vote on that I 
believe we would have a majority vote on as well.
  Now I oppose the amendment of my colleague from Illinois because he 
is expanding a program that we have never done before. The majority 
leader mentioned all the times we have expanded unemployment 
compensation in the past. We have never done that for temporary 
workers. That is a brand new expansion that doubles the cost. That 
increases the cost from about $8 billion to $16 billion. So with great 
respect, I object to the unanimous consent request of my colleague from 
Illinois.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
  The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. SARBANES. Madam President, reserving the right to object, I think 
the proposal the Senator from Illinois offered should be commended. It 
has been objected to. I certainly hope, the amendment having been 
objected to, that the proposal being put forward by the majority leader 
would not be objected to, which is a simple extension for an additional 
13 weeks of unemployment insurance under the current arrangement, as I 
understand it.
  I ask the majority leader, is that correct?
  Mr. DASCHLE. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. SARBANES. This is far overdue already. There are people now out 
of work who are hurting. The unemployment insurance for many of them 
has already run out. For others, it will soon run out. This is not an 
effort, as the Senator from Oklahoma indicated, to broaden the program 
in terms of its beneficiaries or its benefits. It is simply to extend 
it in order to take care of people who are in real and desperate need.
  So I very much hope the request of the majority leader will be 
honored and we will at least be able to move on that aspect of this 
problem. I withdraw my reservation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Reserving the right to object, and I do not intend to 
object, but I do object to the fact we are standing in the Senate 
today, and we are taking care of one group of people --and we need to 
and I support it--in extending unemployment benefits, but there are 
millions of others who are sitting in their offices watching us working 
who are afraid that tomorrow may be their day and we are not doing 
anything to help them keep their jobs. We may be giving them 
unemployment checks, but we are doing absolutely nothing for the 
millions and millions of people in America who watch us on television 
as their neighbors get laid off, who watch what is going on around the 
country with layoffs, who think they may be next. We have done nothing 
to help them keep their jobs. We have done nothing in this bill. We 
will do nothing to help those who have been laid off, who are going to 
get unemployment checks, to get a paycheck again. That has been the 
fight all along.
  The President from day 1 said we need to extend benefits. We have 
been unanimously supportive of extending unemployment benefits for 
another 13 weeks. The problem has been, and consistently is, what are 
we going to do about the people who want a paycheck, not an 
unemployment check? What are we going to do about the people who are in 
jobs right now who are worried about losing their jobs? What are we 
going to do to help those businesses survive? What are we going to do 
about helping those individuals who are afraid of what might happen, 
not what has already happened? That is the problem with what has 
happened in the Senate. We have provided no security for the 90-plus 
percent of Americans who have jobs that they will be able to

[[Page 698]]

keep their jobs. That is the real unfortunate situation.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, could I have 30 seconds?
  Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I will first, again, propound the 
unanimous consent request, and then I will yield to the Senator from 
Minnesota.
  I ask unanimous consent that all pending amendments be withdrawn. So 
I propound the unanimous consent request once more.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Texas.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, reserving the right to object, I, 
too, want to say this is too little too late. The Senator from Maryland 
is right. We would like to have done more. We would like to have helped 
all the people of this country. We could have had a stimulus package if 
we had had a compromise. We could have had a stimulus package that 
would have stabilized our economy, that would have preserved jobs. We 
could have given tax relief to people so they could have spent their 
own money that they earned.
  So I hope this modest proposal that would extend the benefits for 13 
weeks is not the end. I hope it is the beginning.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Reserving the right to object, Madam President, I 
heard my colleague from Pennsylvania speak; I heard my colleague from 
Texas speak. My colleague from Pennsylvania was talking about the 
problem being this or that and we need to make sure people are able to 
go back to work.
  Obviously, political truth can be elusive and there can be different 
definitions of what we need to do. Most of the people I have talked to 
in coffee shops in Minnesota cannot figure out how $1 billion for this 
multinational and $1 billion for that multinational and $13 billion of 
tax breaks helps them. But that is almost beside the point.
  The real problem is this. We can put aside all of our differences, 
because we have different views about what needs to be done, and we can 
say: Let's help people right now. Right now. No more rhetoric. No more 
speeches.
  People are flat on their backs, through no fault of their own. Can we 
not just at least have a straight extension of unemployment insurance? 
That is all this vote is on now. The majority leader is asking for 
unanimous consent for that alone. That is it. Let's end the speeches 
and end the rhetoric and just support him.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, as I stated on the floor earlier 
this week, I support a 13 week extension of unemployment insurance. I 
do so as an issue of basic fairness to help and protect those who have 
been hurt by the economic downturn. Unemployed workers need assistance 
now.
  There are people in my State of California, and indeed across the 
country, who need an extension not because they have not been looking 
for a job, but because the downturn in the economy has made jobs 
difficult to keep, and even more difficult to find.
  As I stated earlier this week, there are over a million people 
unemployed in California, and since September 11, unemployment benefits 
have run out for 190,000 Californians.
  Because an average of 40 percent of Californians who go on 
unemployment exhaust their regular unemployment benefits, over 360,000 
people in California alone could be helped by receiving this 13-week 
extension.
  These are the people who would be immediately helped by an extension 
of unemployment benefits.
  Throughout the United States, workers are running out of unemployment 
benefits while competing for less and less open jobs. In New York, 
there are 515,000 people without jobs, and over 90,000 of them have 
exhausted their unemployment benefits since September 11. The same is 
true for 86,000 Texans, 47,000 Floridians, and 52,000 people from 
Illinois. In Pennsylvania, over 300,000 people are unemployed, and 
almost 47,000 of them have exhausted their unemployment benefits.
  Extending unemployment coverage will benefit more than 600,000 people 
nationwide, and help revive an economy that needs a boost to get back 
on its feet.
  Since the program's inception in 1934, Unemployment Insurance has 
served time and again to act as a stabilizing device--providing direct 
economic assistance to people who are likely to spend any additional 
money in providing basic needs for themselves and their families.
  The need is no different now. As an issue of basic fairness, I 
strongly believe that the Senate should act to extend UI benefits by 13 
weeks.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, there is good news today for working 
men and women across the Nation.
  For months, we have fought to extend unemployment benefits for the 
millions of workers who need them in this troubled economy. Today, 
after weeks of debate, our opponents in the Senate finally relented. 
They joined us to pass a 13-week extension for all laid-off workers who 
have exhausted their benefits.
  Since the beginning of the recession more than 2 million workers have 
exhausted their unemployment benefits. Extending benefits will help 
these workers, including nearly sixty thousand workers in Massachusetts 
who have lost their jobs, and are still looking for new employment. 
They have been refinancing their homes, and in some cases, even selling 
them, just to make ends meet.
  The battle is not over. We still need to get approval from the House 
of Representatives. And then it is up to President Bush to honor the 
commitment he made in his State of the Union speech to make this 
achievement a reality for our workers.
  Unfinished business remains. Outdated unemployment rules exclude 
hundreds of thousands of workers who have been laid-off through no 
fault of their own. Laid-off part-time and low-wage workers have paid 
into the system, but often fail to receive the benefits they need. 
Recent data suggest that only 18 percent of unemployed low-wage workers 
were collecting benefits. For months, we have fought to expand coverage 
to benefit more than 600,000 additional unemployed part-time and low-
wage workers. We will not give up that fight.
  We have also fought to increase weekly unemployment benefits by the 
greater of $25 a week, or 15 percent. Currently, unemployment benefits 
do not replace enough lost wages to keep workers out of poverty. In 
2000, average unemployment benefits replaced only 33 percent of 
workers' lost income, a major reduction from the 46 percent of workers' 
wages replaced by jobless benefits during the recessions of the 1970's 
and 1980's. During an economic crisis, unemployed workers have few 
opportunities to rejoin a declining workforce. They depend on 
unemployment benefits. We will continue to work for a benefit increase 
to ensure that laid-off workers are not impoverished during periods of 
unemployment.
  Benefit levels are too low for laid-off workers to afford the health 
care they need. Health premiums can cost nearly $600 a month for a 
family--most of an unemployment check. That is why only about one in 
five laid-off workers today continue their coverage, even if they are 
eligible. For months, we have fought to pass an economic recovery plan 
that would cover 75 percent of the health care premium for those who 
are eligible to continue their coverage, but can't afford the cost.
  Some workers are not eligible for any continuing health plan. Our 
plan would have allowed states to cover these vulnerable workers. Taken 
together, our plan would have ensured that men and women who lose their 
jobs don't have to worry about losing their health insurance as well. 
We cannot let our workers down when it comes to health care. America 
deserves better.
  We have also fought to provide fiscal relief to the states, which 
face serious budget shortfalls, yet must meet yearly balanced budget 
requirements. We have been working to increase Medicaid payments, so 
that states don't have to cut back on coverage, just as more workers 
need help. This is the top priority for Republican and Democratic 
Governors. We should provide our States relief now.
  The American people have strongly supported our efforts to give 
workers

[[Page 699]]

the support and assistance they deserve. But some of our colleagues in 
Congress have stalled our efforts to help these courageous workers. 
Democrats have proposed an effective and balanced plan to stimulate the 
faltering economy, but throughout the past few months, our opponents 
have used procedural maneuvers to block the measure. When House and 
Senate negotiators tried to reach a compromise, our opponents delayed 
it at every turn.
  They were unwilling to support any recovery package unless it 
contained tens of billions of dollars for new tax breaks for wealthy 
individuals and corporations, including $250 million in tax breaks for 
Enron. It makes no sense to hold laid-off workers hostage to such 
irresponsible and costly tax breaks.
  Our opponents consistently offered plans that fail the nation's 
workers. They offered a plan to extend unemployment benefits, but only 
to laid-off workers in a few states. They offered a plan to use 
National Emergency Grants for unemployment insurance, health care and 
job training--guaranteeing that few funds would actually go to 
unemployment insurance. They offered a plan to provide Reed Act 
distributions that would primarily be used for state tax cuts and could 
go into state unemployment trust funds, instead of offering new or 
extended benefits.
  Today, we will vote to extend unemployment benefits for 13 weeks, 
something we have done in every recession. Today, we will celebrate our 
long-fought for victory. Tomorrow, we will continue the fight for 
America's workers.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Madam President, over the past nearly 5 months, the 
entire Nation has been inspired by the grit, bravery and selflessness 
of the workers at the World Trade Center site who have labored around 
the clock on the rescue and recovery efforts. The courageous images of 
firefighters, police officers, emergency medical personnel, 
construction workers and clergy have inspired workers throughout the 
country.
  There are many other images of New York, however, that have not been 
shown on the news, but that are also the heart-wrenching results of the 
terrible September 11 attack and a weak economy.
  These images that our Nation has not seen, but that everyone here 
knows all too well, are the faces of hundreds of New Yorkers who have 
found themselves without a job. These are the workers whose jobs were 
literally destroyed, jobs when the Twin Towers collapsed: The janitors, 
the doormen, the waiters and waitresses, the secretaries, and 
messengers.
  Or, the workers who did not work in lower Manhattan, but who have 
felt the ripple effect of the so-called frozen zone primarily the hotel 
workers and small businesses owners.
  In New York State, we have 71 percent more workers on Unemployment 
Insurance than we did one year ago. In New York City, we are 
experiencing unemployment rates that we haven't seen in years. In 
December, the unemployment rate continued to spike up to 7.4 percent--
2.4 percent above the national average for the same period. New York 
City is expected to lose 150,000 jobs in the aftermath of September 11 
and we are not expected to rebound until 2004.
  What is happening to our unemployed who are waiting for the economy 
to rebound? Well, let me tell you--in the last quarter alone, over 
65,000 unemployed workers exhausted their UI benefits.
  Over the past two weeks, I have received hundreds of calls and pleas 
from my constituents in New York--some are being evicted from their 
homes, others are uncertain how they will continue to put food on their 
tables, and all are desperate to go back to work.
  Senator Daschle has put forward a proposal to extend unemployment for 
an additional 13 weeks. This proposal is not only the right thing to do 
for our thousands of workers who are without a job, but it is the right 
thing to do for the economy. In fact, some experts argue that extending 
unemployment insurance is more likely than any other policy to 
stimulate the economy.
  We may not agree on a comprehensive package to stimulate the economy, 
but I think we all agree that we must do the right thing for the 
workers of this country by extending unemployment insurance.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 2819) was agreed to.
  The bill (H.R. 622), as amended, was passed.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I hope the House will take the matter 
up immediately, perhaps as early as this afternoon, and get it to the 
President. As has been noted, the President has indicated already he 
supports the extension. I think it is now up to the House to do their 
part so that these people will be a little more confident they can be 
given some assistance now. Too many of them have already run out of 
benefits to which they are entitled. We have to act now.
  For those who have lamented the fact we could not reach a compromise, 
56 Senators went on record today looking for that compromise. We only 
fell four short. There were a couple of absentees. So there is no doubt 
that there is a growing percentage, an overwhelming majority, in my 
view, who want to move forward. I would have only hoped some of those 
who lamented this could have supported cloture so we could have had the 
ticket to conference. We were denied that. But I have said on the floor 
before, and I will say it again, I am open to any overtures, any 
suggestions, on how we might do it, that will allow the 60 votes 
required to move forward. Anytime I can be assured that a 60-vote 
margin can be achieved, we will bring this bill back up. It is 
unfortunate we could not do more than this, but I am very pleased and 
grateful to colleagues on both sides of the aisle for their willingness 
to support this.


                           Amendment No. 2820

  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the title 
amendment with respect to H.R. 622 be considered and agreed to, and the 
motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       Amend the title as to read:
       ``A bill to provide for temporary unemployment 
     compensation.''

                          ____________________