[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Pages 543-545]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                   THE UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION ACT

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me also speak to the Unemployment 
Compensation Act we passed. Last week, Congress passed important 
legislation to help nearly 4 million Americans whose eligibility for 
unemployment insurance benefits expired on the 28th of December.
  Three million of these Americans are now entitled to an additional 13 
weeks of extended unemployment benefits through the first half of 2003. 
Another 780,000 will receive the remainder of the original 13 weeks 
that they were entitled to under the temporary extended unemployment 
compensation program. This is good news. I, as most of my colleagues, I 
am sure, announced in my State that this was good news for unemployed 
workers and we needed to

[[Page 544]]

thank the President and thank all who helped to get that done.
  The bad news, though, is that this legislation did not help an 
estimated 1 million Americans who have exhausted their unemployment 
insurance benefits and are no longer eligible for assistance. The 
fundamental problem in the United States, in my State of New Mexico as 
well as other States, is that jobs are being lost and, unfortunately, 
no new net jobs are being created. The economy is not getting better. 
It is getting worse.
  Americans are caught in a downward economic spiral economically that 
began 2 years ago. It shows no signs of improvement.
  The problem with the legislation we passed this last week is that it 
simply ignored these million people who do not have jobs today and who 
likely will not have jobs anytime soon. These are people who have 
played by the rules, who, through no fault of their own, find 
themselves without a job. Many of them are trying to get the skills 
necessary to be able to take another job, but we have cut off any 
benefit to them.
  I believe we need to help these people in a tangible way. Providing 
extended unemployment benefits in a time of crisis is the least we can 
do. Unemployment insurance offers, at most, a subsistence level of 
existence. No one gets rich on unemployment insurance. It seems to me 
we should be able to offer some financial security to our friends and 
neighbors when they need it most.
  In my home State, I have seen this issue most directly in those who 
have become unemployed in my home county of Grant County where the 
copper mine and smelter have essentially shut down. The workers in that 
mine and smelter have found themselves unemployed. The unfortunate 
reality is that many of those people lost their jobs before March of 
this last year. Accordingly, they have run through the 39 weeks of 
unemployment compensation they could receive, and we have failed to add 
to that and provide any additional assistance to them.
  Back in the early 1990s, we passed a series of bills over a 2-year 
period specifically designed to help people who had no chance of 
obtaining jobs until that economy improved. Most Americans during that 
period--this was 10 years ago, when former President Bush was in the 
White House--were entitled to at least 52 weeks of unemployment 
insurance coverage. Some Americans in high employment States were 
entitled to even more.
  I don't understand why we are not willing to step up and do that same 
thing again in this current economic circumstance. In fact, the 
economic circumstance we find ourselves in today is at least as bad as 
what we faced in the early 1990s.
  We could be using this as an opportunity to retool and make our 
country stronger economically. Instead, we are pretending the problem 
does not exist and pretending that these workers will somehow or other 
fend for themselves. The policy makes no sense to me. I don't think it 
is good strategy. It is not good economics.
  I add my voice to that of other colleagues who spoke last week who 
argued that we need to do more for those who are out of work. I hope if 
the economy continues to suffer as it currently is, we will revisit 
this issue and provide these extended unemployment benefits out to 52 
weeks for unemployed Americans.
  Offering extended benefits to Americans who have exhausted their 
unemployment benefits is a step in making this country stronger. I urge 
that course on my colleagues.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Chambliss). Without objection, the clerk 
will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 10 minutes as in morning 
business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, reports indicate that the Bush 
administration intends to submit a brief in the Supreme Court opposing 
the University of Michigan's use of affirmative action in its 
admissions policy. This still sends the absolute wrong message about 
the administration's commitment to civil rights and equal educational 
opportunity for all Americans. Today is Martin Luther King's birthday, 
and he would be the first to condemn the shameful hypocrisy of the 
administration on race.
  Affirmative action is critical to providing educational opportunities 
for qualified minority students. Much of the progress that we have made 
in this country in reducing the income and employment gaps between 
minorities and whites is the direct result of affirmative action 
programs that have provided minority students with access to colleges 
and universities.
  We know that the struggle for equality is not over. Even with 
affirmative action, there are significant racial disparities in higher 
education between minority students and white students. Currently, 
African-Americans enroll in higher education at 85 percent the rate of 
white students. Latinos enroll in higher education at only 80 percent 
the rate of white students. As a country, we need to work to close that 
gap, as the administration now proposes, not widen it.
  By providing educational opportunities to talented minority students, 
affirmative action programs help benefit all of our society. We all 
benefit when students are allowed to fulfill their true potential. We 
all benefit from lower poverty rates, and higher income and employment 
rates. Students benefit from the interaction and learning that takes 
place among students from different racial and ethnic backgrounds.
  Opponents of affirmative action rely on myths that are refuted by 
numerous studies and even by common sense. They argue that affirmative 
action is unfair to qualified white students. But as the Michigan 
admissions programs demonstrate, affirmative action programs do not 
involve special quotas or set-asides for minority students. A student's 
racial and ethnic background is one among many factors that are 
considered in determining admission. In addition to a student's grades, 
test scores and recommendations, universities consider such factors as 
whether student's parents are alumni, a student's socio-economic 
background, their geographic background and whether they have special 
artistic, athletic or other talents to contribute. Given the range of 
factors considered in college admissions, the true unfairness would 
come from saying race and ethnicity are the only factors that could not 
be considered.
  Opponents also argue that affirmative action helps unqualified 
students. The University of Michigan's affirmative action program 
admits only qualified students. The success of minorities graduating 
from selective schools as measured by their graduation rate, their 
performance in professional and graduate school, and their success in 
future careers and as community leaders is well documented in a recent 
study by William Bowen and Derek Bok in their book ``Shape of the 
River.'' Most of the African-American and Latino students accepted 
under affirmative action come from lower-income backgrounds than white 
students. They are more likely to have gone to segregated and poorly-
funded schools, and much less likely to have parents who had attended 
college. Yet despite these disadvantages, their success was comparable 
to their white counterparts.
  The administration suggests that it supports the idea of racial and 
ethnic diversity, but that it doesn't believe that one should use what 
it calls ``racial preferences'' to achieve this. This, however, is a 
cop-out that evades the key question posed by the Michigan case: that 
is, whether racial and ethnic diversity is a compelling governmental 
interest. Not whether it is a merely good thing, but whether, given the 
central importance of integrated schools to our society, it is a 
constitutionally compelling interest.
  Moreover, any suggestion that all universities can enroll a diverse 
student simply by relying on race-neutral

[[Page 545]]

programs, such as percentage plans is simply wrong. As a recent report 
by the U.S. Civil Rights Commission makes clear, percentage plans have 
failed to markedly affect enrollment of minorities at flagship state 
universities. In addition, these programs do not even purport to reach 
graduate or professional schools or private colleges, all of which 
would be affected by the Supreme Court's ruling.
  In failing to support the University of Michigan's program, the 
Administration is undermining the central promise of the Fourteenth 
Amendment's equal protection clause. The equal protection clause was 
founded on the notion of providing equality of opportunity to all 
Americans, particularly those who had been disadvantaged by our 
country's history of discrimination. We have done tremendous work in 
this country to improve educational opportunities from elementary 
school through higher education, and to reduce racial inequities, but 
our work to fulfill the promise of the equal protection clause, and the 
core values that underlie our democracy is not done. I had hope that 
the administration would join those of us who seek to continue that 
struggle and I am tremendously disappointed in the decision they have 
made today.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, may I inquire, are we in a period for morning 
business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.

                          ____________________