[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Pages 700-701]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                         UNEMPLOYMENT EXTENSION

  Mr. REED. Madam President, I commend Senator Daschle, the majority 
leader, for his leadership on this very important measure to extend 
unemployment benefits. I am pleased this has received the unanimous 
support of this entire Senate. It is an outstanding issue that needs to 
be addressed today. There are millions of Americans who are exhausting 
benefits as we speak. Looking forward, the prospect is that more and 
more Americans will exhaust their benefits. The benefit extension is 
just simple justice for these Americans and will also provide real 
stimulus for our economy.
  The reality is, if you have been laid off from work and you are 
depending upon unemployment checks, you are not typically putting that 
check under your mattress. You are going out and buying food, buying 
clothes for your children, paying your rent, doing those things that 
will put resources directly and immediately into the economy. That is 
the whole point of any stimulus proposal, to put resources directly and 
immediately into the economy.
  That is why I have to take exception to the comments of some of our 
colleagues who talk about the fact that we have not done anything to 
stimulate the economy, to help secure the jobs of those who are still 
working.
  Frankly, we can tell a lot about people from what they support and 
what they reject. If Members support the permanency of the estate tax, 
they should know that is not at all stimulative. It occurs 10 years 
from now, long after we have worked through this economic cycle one way 
or the other. It provides no immediate stimulus. It provides no 
immediate incentive for behavior because the estate tax comes with 
death--not a conscious decision by most people. So it has no 
stimulative effect. That is what they are proposing to help the 
Americans who are working today. It will not help people today. It will 
help a very few, and 10 years from now.
  Now, they reject proposals such as Senator Daschle's proposal to 
provide a rebate for working Americans who did not pay income tax. It 
was quite disturbing to me that the insinuation was that these people 
are not part of our economy; they did not pay income taxes, why should 
they get any rebates?
  What those Members misperceive and misunderstand is the huge 
contributions that these millions of poor, working Americans make, in a 
range of endeavors, that immensely help our economy. They work very 
hard and, at the same time, payroll taxes are some of the most 
regressive taxes that Americans pay. As a result, these individuals 
should get some relief. Again, most likely those resources would go 
directly and immediately back into the economy.
  So the arguments by the other side--their claims that nothing has 
been done to help Americans who are working today--are not consistent 
with the proposals they make and the proposals to which they object.
  If you look in the President's budget, you'll find another indication 
of the insensitivity, I would say, to the issue of Americans struggling 
to keep their jobs and struggling to find jobs--a significant reduction 
in job training funds. These moneys are necessary to put people back 
into the workplace, to give individuals the skills they need to enhance 
their jobs or even keep their jobs in a tough, competitive climate.
  So the rhetoric about doing nothing to stimulate the economy is just 
that. Senator Daschle made proposals that would stimulate this economy 
without long-run detrimental effects to our fiscal discipline.
  That stimulus package, that I would argue is the only real stimulus 
package, was rejected by the other side. So we are left to do something 
that is absolutely necessary, necessary both on the grounds of 
providing justice for Americans and also on the grounds of providing 
some limited stimulus for our economy.
  There are nearly 5 million workers who are out of the job market but 
want to work. Many have left the job market because they have been 
discouraged, which factors into the slightly lower unemployment rate 
last month. The unemployment rate went down not because there are more 
jobs. In fact, we lost jobs. The unemployment rate went down as people 
left the labor force, many discouraged by the lack of employment 
opportunities. For those people and for others, these unemployment 
benefits are important.
  In January, more than 2.5 million people had been unemployed for 15 
weeks or longer, and nearly half of those people had been unemployed 
for more than 6 months. We have in the past responded to that dilemma, 
that crisis, by extending unemployment benefits. I am pleased today 
this body has taken action to do that.
  Even if the economy begins to recover, this problem will stay with 
us. At the end of the recessions of the last several decades, 
unemployment, particularly long-term unemployment, continued to linger. 
On average, long-term unemployment rates grew for 9 months after the 
official end of the recession. So even if today--and I think

[[Page 701]]

we are unsure of this--even if today we are seeing some change in 
economic conditions, we will still see continued unemployment problems 
and we will still have to respond to it.
  Indeed, this effort should be bipartisan because, not only in this 
Senate but throughout the country, I believe most people recognize the 
right thing to do and the smart thing to do is to give unemployed 
individuals a chance to get benefits until they get the opportunity to 
work again. Alan Greenspan, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, has 
pointed it out. His words:

       I have always been in favor of extending unemployment 
     benefits during periods of rising unemployment. Clearly you 
     cannot argue that somebody who runs past the 26-week level is 
     slow for not looking for a job or not actively seeking to get 
     re-employed. There are just no jobs out there.

  Those are Chairman Greenspan's words. We have to respond to that, 
recognize that, and I am pleased that the majority leader today took 
that action and received the support of this Senate.
  About a week ago Senator Collins and I wrote to Senator Daschle and 
to Senator Lott and urged them to move on this measure if we could not 
find a compromise on the stimulus package. Again, I am pleased today 
this measure is moving forward. It does make sense. It is good policy 
with respect to people who need help. It is good for the economy. These 
resources will go back immediately and directly into our economy, 
helping to spur, we hope, consumer demand and help us out of this 
recession.
  I commend the majority leader. I am pleased we are able at least to 
accomplish this today. I hope we can return to the stimulus debate 
again, but a debate about real stimulus proposals, not a debate about 
the warmed over tax proposals of last spring, the second phase of the 
tax cuts, the second phase of those tax cuts that contributed and will 
contribute more to the deficit in the years ahead.
  Instead of those warmed over proposals, let's look at things that 
will help Americans and the American economy directly, immediately, in 
this quarter, not 10 years from now. Let's do those things.
  I hope when we return to this debate we will be conscious of trying 
to stimulate the economy and not simply trying to rehash old tax 
proposals.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. BENNETT. I understand my friend from Michigan has a comment he 
wishes to make. I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to yield to 
him for 2 minutes, and then I retain my right to the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. I very much thank my friend from Utah.

                          ____________________