[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 9]
[Senate]
[Pages 12652-12654]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                    UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE EXTENSION

  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise in this period of morning 
business to raise a continuing and serious problem that we believe most 
acutely in New York but which I know is shared in other parts of our 
Nation.
  Last month, the Nation joined New Yorkers in our reflection and 
sorrow as the workers at ground zero removed the final debris from the 
16-acre World Trade Center site.
  While this event, which was accomplished ahead of schedule and below 
budget by the most dedicated workforce that I think you could find 
anywhere in the world--unionized building trades and construction 
workers who worked on that pile for 12- to 15-hour days, 7 case days a 
week, for months, and, therefore, because of their heroic efforts we 
moved one step closer to the beginning of the rebuilding process--there 
are many workers who have not been able to begin rebuilding their lives 
simply because there are not enough jobs right now.
  Many of us will remember a photograph shortly after September 11 that 
the press ran showing hundreds of people standing in lines at a job 
fair that was held in the city, people who had lost their jobs, both 
directly because of the attack on the World Trade Center and indirectly 
because of the ripple effect through the economy.
  There were workers--and I have met with scores and scores of them--
whose jobs were literally destroyed when the Twin Towers collapsed. 
They were the janitors. They were the doormen. They were the waiters 
and waitresses. They were the secretaries and the messengers. They went 
to work every day in that huge complex of offices. There were those who 
served the small businesses that took care of the workers in those 
buildings. And, of course, then there were those throughout the city 
who may not have worked at ground zero but who lost their jobs because 
of the aftermath on the entire economy because of the terrorist 
attacks.
  We all know that thousands of hard-working Americans have been thrown 
out of work because of the combination of the jobless recovery and the 
terrorist attacks.
  Prior to September 11, our economy was beginning to slow down. Our 
national unemployment rate rose from 4.5 percent a year ago to 4.9 
percent in September and to 5.9 percent today. But I think that somehow 
does not even tell the whole story because what we have seen occurring 
since September 11 is this so-called jobless recovery.
  The Wall Street Journal just ran an article about it stating that 
employment has now shown 13 consecutive months of decline through 
April. That exceeds the 11 straight months of loss in the 1990-91 
recession, the only recent comparable period, about a decade ago.
  I ask unanimous consent that article be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                     [From the Wall Street Journal]

     Unemployment Hit 5.9% in June; Revisions Show Grim Job Picture

                              (By Greg Ip)

       Washington--With weak stock prices and corporate scandals 
     damping companies' hiring plans, the recovery is starting for 
     workers to look as bad as, if not worse than, the ``jobless 
     recovery'' of 1991-92.

[[Page 12653]]

       The number of nonagricultural jobs rose just 36,000 in June 
     from May, and the unemployment rate edged up to 5.9% from 
     5.8%, the Labor Department said Friday. Government 
     statisticians once again revised down prior months' levels of 
     employment, revealing a job market far weaker than previously 
     thought.
       ``The economy is on the road to recovery [though] the 
     recovery is a bit anemic,'' said Labor Secretary Elaine Chao. 
     ``The labor market lags behind changes in real economic 
     activity.''
       While the Labor Department regularly revises its payroll 
     estimates, those revisions have been strikingly negative this 
     year, with every month's report being revised downward--often 
     sharply. The agency originally said payrolls rose 66,000 in 
     February, but now it says they fell 165,000. An originally 
     reported gain of 58,000 jobs in March is now a loss of 5,000, 
     and a gain of 43,000 in April is a loss of 21,000. May's 
     gains were revised down to 24,000 from 41,000.
       A ``benchmark'' revision a month ago also reduced 
     employment throughout last year. Employment in November 2001 
     was 340,000 below original estimates.
       As a result, employment now shows 13 consecutive monthly 
     declines through April. That exceeds the 11 straight losses 
     in 1990-1991, though those declines were steeper. Back then, 
     job losses continued intermittently through 1991 and into 
     early 1992. A similarly tough spell could be in store for 
     workers now, with the recovery so far subpar and employers 
     more determined than usual to boost output per employee 
     rather than the number of employees.
       Lois Orr, acting commissioner of the Bureau of Labor 
     Statistics, said recent revisions haven't been statistically 
     significant, but she couldn't explain why they have been 
     overwhelmingly negative. Data compiled by the Federal Reserve 
     Bank of Philadelphia show that in 1991, as the economy 
     emerged from recession, early payroll revisions were 
     alternately positive and negative, though benchmark revisions 
     years later sharply lowered employment levels.
       While job creation was stagnant last month, there were 
     still signs in the jobs report that the economy is continuing 
     to grow. The average work week rose to 34.3 hours from 34.2 
     hours, and in manufacturing it jumped to 41.1 from 40.9 
     hours. When firms see an increase in business but aren't sure 
     if it will last, they often boost the hours of current 
     employees before hiring new ones, because it is easier to cut 
     back hours later than to sack workers.
       Temporary employment, another way for firms to raise output 
     without adding to permanent payrolls, edged up by 9,000. 
     Manufacturing payrolls fell 23,000, though that was one of 
     the smallest declines in two years. In services, losses in 
     retail trade were offset by gains in health care and 
     government.
       ``Businesses are hesitant to expand, due to concerns about 
     the stock market and heightened uncertainty over the 
     geopolitical outlook,'' Bank Credit Analyst, a financial-
     markets research firm, said in a report Friday. ``The attack 
     on accounting standards and concerns about re-regulation are 
     additional factors keeping corporate executives from 
     expanding.''
       Long-distance phone company WorldCom Inc. announced 17,000 
     layoffs two weeks ago when it disclosed it had understated 
     operating expenses by $3.8 billion. Electronic Data Systems 
     Corp., a major supplier to WorldCom whose accounting has also 
     come under scrutiny by investors, said last week it would lay 
     off about 2,000 employees in response to sluggish demand for 
     its computer services.
       The weak job market doesn't mean a shrinking economy 
     because firms are squeezing increased production out of their 
     current employees.
       Merrill Lynch estimates that productivity, or output per 
     hour worked, expanded at more than a 3% annual rate in the 
     second quarter, down from the first quarter's remarkable 
     8.4%, but still robust.

  Mrs. CLINTON. So here we are with a national unemployment rate of 5.9 
percent, and the situation in New York is even worse. In our State, it 
is 6.1 percent unemployment, and in New York City, 8 percent 
unemployment.
  We did the right thing a few months ago when we passed unemployment 
insurance and disaster unemployment assistance for 13 weeks. Those are 
both very important programs.
  The disaster unemployment assistance, which comes through FEMA, goes 
directly to those workers who actually lost their jobs because of the 
physical destruction of September 11. Unemployment insurance, as we 
know, is triggered when there is a lack of jobs for whatever reason. 
And, of course, more people are out of work in New York and throughout 
our Nation because of the impact of September 11.
  Unfortunately, these extensions, which provided a very needed safety 
net for thousands of workers, are about to expire for many of those 
workers. Nationally, 686,000 individuals will have exhausted their 
benefits with no job to enter.
  On Monday, I participated in an announcement of a study that was 
commissioned by a group called the 9/11 United Services, which is a 
coordinating group that tried to bring all the charities together. A 
very accomplished corporate executive was asked to come in and serve as 
the temporary chairman. He immediately said: We don't have any data. We 
don't know what the facts are.
  He commissioned a study by McKenzie and Company to try to figure out 
what the economic challenges are that we are confronting. Their survey, 
which was announced on Monday, showed that approximately 45,000 workers 
in New York City whose jobs were affected continue to suffer an income 
loss of more than 25 percent. Approximately 28,000 are still 
unemployed. In other words, we got down to about 45,000, and of those 
45,000, about 17,000 did get a job, although it cut their income 
considerably, and 28,000 are still unemployed.
  It is clear, despite the very best efforts of private charities and 
very extraordinarily generous people, we just cannot make up the losses 
of income and joblessness that we are still confronting.
  The New York State Department of Labor confirmed these figures from 
the McKenzie study, but, in fact, theirs are even more dire, and they 
are the official figures. They show that 105,000 people were on 
unemployment insurance as a direct result of the World Trade Center 
attacks. We have an increasing number who are running out of time. 
Nearly 7,000 of the 24,000 are still unemployed, looking for jobs, and 
have exhausted all their benefits. There is no job in sight.
  The disaster unemployment assistance expired, dropping 1,100 people 
who still have not found a job, who have not been placed anywhere else 
because their companies, if they are still in New York--as many, 
thankfully, are--have downsized, have moved, and have not been able to 
provide all the jobs that were once there.
  I have provided these statistics just to give you some insight. But, 
of course, the personal stories are what are most wrenching and what I 
encounter every time I am in the city, or my caseworkers and staff, as 
they field phone calls, e-mails, and letters from people who worked at 
jobs for 18 years, 25 years, who put two children through college, and 
now have nothing to fall back on, who are on the brink of being evicted 
from the apartment they have lived in for decades, or are about to be 
foreclosed on in the homes they have struggled to buy.
  I know that it is sometimes difficult to think about these faceless 
people out there, but we have tried very hard to do the right thing in 
the wake of the World Trade Center. We certainly tried to provide the 
resources that businesses needed to get back on their feet.
  This body and the President and the House were extremely generous to 
provide the public funds that we needed to begin the rebuilding 
process, to clean up the debris, to do what we needed to get back on 
the right track in Lower Manhattan. But I just do not want to see our 
workers--people who were gainfully employed, doing the right thing--
forgotten.
  Certainly, I have a great deal of sympathy for people in other parts 
of the country who are really caught up in this so-called jobless 
recovery as well.
  I am introducing two pieces of legislation, along with Senators 
Schumer and Kennedy, to extend both unemployment insurance and disaster 
unemployment assistance for an additional 13 weeks. It is our hope that 
the jobs will start coming back into the economy.
  In fact, experts certainly agree that extending unemployment 
insurance is more likely than anything else we can do to get money into 
the economy that people will have to start spending because they do not 
have any choice.
  Over the last five recessions, every $1 spent on unemployment 
benefits generated a $2.15 increase in the gross domestic product. I 
went back and looked. What did we do the last time we were in any kind 
of comparable period?

[[Page 12654]]

  Mr. President, the period of 1990-91 was the most recent time in 
which to compare this. In the early 1990s, benefits were extended four 
times, for it became clear, in the absence of that safety net, that 
lifeline, we would have even greater problems with which to deal.
  What are we going to do with people who get foreclosed on and 
evicted? Not everybody has a family to go to and crowd on to a sofa bed 
or into a spare room. We are going to have increases in homelessness. 
We are going to have all kinds of problems that at least we can try to 
forestall and, hopefully, eliminate.
  These benefits would be extended for just an additional 13 weeks--
half the time they were extended back in the early 1990s.
  Clearly, I think we need systemic changes to the unemployment 
insurance system. I think it is kind of an odd position for us all to 
be in: Coming back, asking to extend it whenever it is needed, that we 
have to have new congressional action. There ought to be some ways 
where we can also be more sensitive to different parts of the country.
  I know there are parts of the country--there are parts of my State--
that are below the national average in unemployment. But there are 
concentrated pockets that we don't, frankly, want to spread and have 
more expensive problems to deal with, which is one of the additional 
reasons I hope the Senate will support this action.
  I am very appreciative of all of the support that New York and New 
Yorkers have received over the last many months. This has been 
obviously a traumatic and terrible time for many families. Certainly 
nothing we can say or do will bring back a loved one or even bring back 
a job that was there for 20, 25 years. But we do have to continue to 
try to send out this lifeline, the help that is needed, so people can 
try to get themselves back on their feet and that we don't claim more 
victims because of the horrific attack on September 11.
  Mrs. CLINTON. 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. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REED. I ask unanimous consent the time be equally charged to both 
sides during the course of the quorum calls.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________