[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Pages 70-76]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




PROVISION OF A 5-MONTH EXTENSION OF THE TEMPORARY EXTENDED UNEMPLOYMENT 
                        COMPENSATION ACT OF 2002

  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now 
proceed to the consideration of S. 23, an unemployment insurance 
extension bill introduced today by Senators Fitzgerald, Clinton, and 
others; further, that the bill be read the third time and passed, and 
the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, reserving the right to object----
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New York.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be 
one amendment in order which would provide benefits for those who have 
previously exhausted their Federal unemployment benefits--approximately 
1 million Americans and over 150,000 New Yorkers--that there be a time 
limitation on the amendment of 30 minutes for debate, equally divided 
in the usual form, and that no other amendments or motions be in order 
to the bill.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I object.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, a number of 
Senators on both sides of the aisle have been very aggressively working 
on this legislation for, indeed, several months and most intensively 
over the last several days. I believe we have reached a bipartisan 
agreement to allow us to pass the bill today so that the House will 
consider it and in order for it to become public law this week.
  As most of my colleagues in the Senate Chamber know, if this bill is 
not passed by Thursday and signed by the President of the United 
States, there will be tremendous dislocation among the American people. 
With that, I urge that we proceed with the underlying unanimous 
consent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Allen). Is there objection to the initial 
request?
  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I thank 
the majority leader for bringing this very important matter to the 
floor so early in our session. I also thank my colleague from Oklahoma, 
Senator Nickles, for working with me and others over the last week to 
try to reach consensus. While I do not object at all to this final 
bill--in fact, I am a lead Democratic sponsor--I would point out that 
passage of this bill, as important as it is, will leave many, many 
people without any means of support, and I think that we must turn our 
attention to these people who have exhausted their benefits. I look 
forward to working with the majority and minority leader in doing so.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I would 
simply also commend those responsible for bringing the resolution to 
this point. We could have accomplished this in the last Congress, but 
we were unable to complete our work. I remind my colleagues that by 
simply passing this resolution we are leaving out over 1 million people 
who have absolutely no recourse and have no assistance whatsoever 
because their benefits have expired. We are leaving them out. This will 
only address those who are about to see their benefits expire--about 
one-half of the 1 million people who otherwise would be eligible for 
these benefits.
  To simply say we are doing half means that we are doing half the job. 
We are leaving half on the table. We are leaving 1 million people with 
absolutely no recourse in their efforts to try to bring about any 
quality of life in these difficult times.
  So I urge my colleagues to reconsider. We will continue to offer this 
with the hope that we can find some resolution, that we can include all 
2 million unemployed workers, and that we do so as quickly as is 
possible.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, as I 
understand it, if we do not accept the unanimous consent request 
proposed by the Senator from New York, we will leave 1 million 
Americans without unemployment compensation benefits at a time they 
desperately need it. I also understand her amendment simply calls for 
30 minutes of debate and a vote. I think it would be appropriate to 
vote.
  If the majority leader can give us some indication as to when we will 
deal with the issue of these 1 million people who will be without 
benefits, I think it might help us as we try to respond and decide on 
this issue.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I 
will not object, while the Senators who had expressed their concerns 
may be correct, I believe we should commend those who have worked so 
hard to get this bill here, and our majority leader for bringing it up 
today because, while we wait to do some more, if more is needed, we 
will leave all of the unemployed without any new benefits. That is the 
issue. To do it today is to do it the way it is proposed. To debate it, 
or send it back to committee for refinement, means none of them will 
get benefits--not only those who have run out of benefits, but there 
will be no extension and no money.
  I believe it is good that we comment, but it is better that we 
proceed and get the bill done.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, prior to our taking a recess, we begged the 
administration to do something to allow us to pass unemployment 
benefits for the people we knew would be out of unemployment benefits. 
We in Nevada now have thousands of people who need those benefits. I 
heard my friend from New York say there are 150,000 people who need 
them in her State. I believe that is the figure she used. But 
regardless, there are thousands and thousands

[[Page 71]]

of people all over this country, adding up to a million, who need these 
benefits.
  We on this side of the aisle believe we should do everything. I have 
to respectfully say to my friend, the majority leader, and his 
colleagues, the reason they are not going to allow us to vote is we 
would win the vote. We would win if we were allowed to vote to include 
all 2 million people who are desperately in need of these unemployment 
checks. We would win the vote.
  I do not believe we should adjourn today until this matter is 
resolved. We want a vote. The people of America want a vote. The people 
we are leaving out are the ones who are in most need. There is no 
question the people we would help by passing this resolution need the 
help, but the million people are those who are chronically unemployed 
and are in desperate need of help.
  We should not adjourn today until we are allowed to have a vote on 
this most important resolution with the amendment that has been offered 
by the Senator from New York.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, it is 
important that we take care of these individuals who will be left out 
without the amendment by Senator Clinton. The issue is, unemployment 
benefits not only help these individuals who have lost their jobs 
through no fault of their own--whether it is the Boeing Company in a 
downturn or other people impacted by 9/11 who have lost their jobs and 
need these unemployment benefits--but more importantly, unemployment 
benefits are also an economic stimulus. Economists have said every $1 
spent on unemployment insurance generates $2.15 of economic stimulus.
  I can think of no better package for us to support in a bipartisan 
fashion than putting more dollars into our local economies that are 
hurting. I know our State, with one of the highest unemployment rates 
in the country, has an economic forecast that says the next 6 months 
will not get any better. So if not today, I say to my colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle, when will we realize this is an economic 
stimulus package that we must support.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, my understanding is this unemployment 
extension mirrors the unemployment extension we did in the last session 
of Congress. We extended benefits for 13 weeks.
  There are some for which the 26 weeks plus the 13 weeks have expired. 
I assume the million people we are talking about are those people in 
places where there is not high unemployment, who do not qualify for an 
additional 13 weeks above the 13 weeks that have already been extended.
  As you know, under this bill, as under the prior bill, in States 
where there are high rates of unemployment, people do get 26 weeks, the 
13 plus 13. So what you are talking about is a million people, in 
places where there are lower rates of unemployment, not getting an 
additional 13 weeks on top of the 13 weeks they now get on top of the 
26 weeks which the original unemployment act provided.
  So when we talk about people being left out, what we are talking 
about is a change in what the original extension is. I am not too sure 
that is being left out. Those are people who went through their 26 
weeks, went through their 13 weeks, and have still not been able to 
find a job but are not in States with high unemployment.
  So what we are doing is extending last year's unemployment benefits 
to this year. I think that is a fair way to start. It is a way to get 
things done. If you want to change unemployment extension and turn it 
into 26 weeks, we can have that debate. But to suggest we are leaving 
people out, I am not too sure that is really what is factually 
happening in this situation.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, in response to the question by the Senator 
from Rhode Island, it is clear we are not solving the problem today. 
Because of the reality of scheduling, and in part because of what 
happened in the last Congress, we are faced with the reality that if we 
do not act today, there are going to be as many as 750,000 people who 
will have a disruption in benefits as of Thursday. I believe the House 
is going out tomorrow.
  We have a compromise on both sides of the aisle we have been working 
on that was agreed to--worked on by Senators Clinton, Fitzgerald, 
Nickles, Specter, Cantwell, and a range of people.
  I understand what we are doing today, if this is accepted by 
unanimous consent, is taking care of the 750,000 people who will be 
able to continue to receive their benefits. I know there is a lot more 
to do.
  I am not sure it is necessary to go over everything that is in the 
bill. Basically, what the compromise does is extend unemployment 
benefits from December 28--which was while we were all out on 
vacation--up until June 1, 2003, which is an additional 5 months of 
coverage. That is what we would be agreeing to today, well recognizing 
there are other issues in addition to this that we are going to have to 
do as we go forward on this issue.
  The compromise, I should also add, since some of the details were 
brought up, also provides coverage allowing benefits to be phased out 
rather than just shut off immediately when the program ends.
  President Bush has made it very clear that the extension of 
unemployment benefits is a top priority. On both sides of the aisle, we 
have tried to come together. Given the circumstances of having been on 
our recent holiday, I would like to see us respond in a timely manner, 
meaning now, through the unanimous consent request, recognizing there 
is more work to do as we go forward.
  The President, as we speak, or in the last hours, has addressed other 
parts of reemployment. At the end of the day, people want the checks, 
but what they really want are the jobs. There are other ways we will 
continue to address that in the future.
  I urge my colleagues, very soon, to take the regular order--I will 
not call for it at this point--so we can take this first important step 
very significant to the American people, many of whom are not going to 
see their checks unless we act, and act today.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise today in support of extending the 
temporary extended unemployment compensation program.
  In March of last year, Congress enacted the ``Job Creation and Worker 
Assistance Act of 2002.'' This Act created a temporary program to 
provide additional unemployment benefits to workers in every State.
  Specifically, this program provided up to 13 weeks of federally 
funded employment benefits for workers who become unemployed and 
exhaust their regular State unemployment benefits. In addition, the 
program provided up to 13 weeks of additional benefits in high 
unemployment States--that's a maximum of 26 weeks.
  When this extended benefit program was originally enacted last year, 
it was scheduled to expire at the end of 2002.
  Unfortunately, the economy has not performed as well as we all hoped 
and the unemployment rate in many States continued to rise throughout 
last year.
  As my colleagues may recall, the Senate agreed to a unanimous consent 
request last year to extend the deadline. Unfortunately, the 107th 
Congress adjourned before reaching a final agreement on the extension.
  So, we are here again today seeking unanimous consent to extend the 
temporary extended unemployment compensation program.
  This agreement which has been cosponsored by Senators Fitzgerald, 
Specter, Collins, Gregg, Nickles, and Clinton would provide a 5-month 
extension of the program through the end of May. This agreement has 
been reached in consultation with the House Leadership.
  I believe a 5-month extension is an appropriate timeframe to see how 
the

[[Page 72]]

economy will perform this year, as well as give Congress the 
opportunity to consider further economic stimulus legislation.
  Our goal should be make sure that everyone who wants a job gets a 
paycheck, instead of just an unemployment check.
  I also believe it is important to point out that although the program 
expired last week, if we can get this measure through the House and 
onto the President's desk by Thursday, no one will miss a check.
  Unemployment benefits are the bridges that help people get from one 
job to another. These benefits are not huge, but they're certainly 
better than nothing for those who are out of work and desperately 
looking for jobs. People have to put food on the table. They have to 
heat their homes. They have to buy their kids clothes, shoes and school 
supplies. Their needs are immediate, and they need immediate relief.
  While Congress is approving unemployment benefits, we need to do 
everything in our power to create jobs. I don't mean just any jobs, but 
quality opportunities that pay enough income to sustain families and 
build careers. I look forward to working with my colleagues and the 
President on creating jobs. Americans are the world's greatest 
workforce. Folks need and deserve to use their abilities and skills to 
the fullest.
  According to the Department of Labor, more than 780,000 individuals 
were collecting extended benefits in mid-December. If we act now to 
extend this program, workers who qualified before December 28th will be 
able to continue receiving their weekly benefit check without 
interruption.
  I urge my colleagues to support this measure.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues today 
as cosponsor of the measure that will extend unemployment insurance 
benefits. We have a long bipartisan tradition of extending unemployment 
benefits during periods of prolonged joblessness. We have this policy 
because it is the right thing to do for people and for the economy. 
Before I present the case for why extended unemployment benefits are 
needed--a case which by now almost everyone agrees with--I want to 
remind my colleagues why we are at this point today.
  Led by the late Senator Wellstone, several of my colleagues and I, 
began this discussion last September. At that point it appeared clear 
that this economy was still in a weak, `jobless recovery.' Yet, the 
administration failed to understand the basic economic reality, and 
consequently refused to support an extension of benefits. During the 
next 2 months the economy remained weak and more jobs were lost. My 
colleagues and I returned to the Senate floor repeatedly, attempting to 
pass a reasonable extension of unemployment insurance benefits. We 
asked for unanimous consent eight times, each time pointing out the 
weak economy, the lack of job creation, the growing number of Americans 
who had exhausted their benefits, and the upcoming cliff that more 
Americans were facing, should Congress fail to act. All this while the 
President remained silent.
  Finally, at the eleventh hour of the last Congress, on November 14, 
we came to an agreement within the Senate. And I would like to thank 
Senators Clinton, Cantwell and Nickles for their leadership in reaching 
that compromise. That compromise was needed in order to prevent almost 
1 million Americans who should have received benefits from having their 
benefits terminated. But even that compromise, which passed the Senate 
by unanimous consent, failed to elicit the support of the President. 
And without his urging the House failed to act.
  Now finally, today we are passing this compromise again. Actually we 
are passing a slightly improved version which will last for five 
months, providing individuals with the opportunity to begin receiving 
extended benefits until June 1st, and allowing all of those who begin 
to receive their benefits to receive the full 13 weeks, in the event 
that they are unable to find a job. And it is my understanding that if 
the House acts on this tomorrow, and the President signs this measure 
by Thursday, that everyone who should receive a benefit will continue 
to do so.
  However, even with passage of this measure, there is still 
significant work that needs to be done. This legislation, despite the 
valiant efforts of some of my colleagues, fails to provide benefits to 
those who have already exhausted their benefits and are still unable to 
find a job. There are an estimated 1 million Americans who are in such 
a position. They are in such a position because the economy has 
continued to remain weak and is failing to create jobs.
  The latest unemployment report showed unemployment at an 8 year high 
of six percent. We have 2.17 million fewer private sector jobs today 
than when President Bush took office. We lost 48,000 private sector 
jobs last month alone.
  As a result of the lack of jobs, there are over 1.7 million Americans 
who have been unemployed and looking for work for more than 26 weeks. 
There are 150,000 more long-term unemployed than in September and over 
1 million more than when President Bush took office. Over 20 percent of 
those who are unemployed have been so for more than 26 weeks, a greater 
percentage than at any point in the past eight years.
  The premise of the unemployment insurance system is that you give 
people some short-term support, the labor market picks up, and they can 
go back and find a job. Today, they cannot find jobs. In fact, not only 
can they not find them, more people are losing their jobs. So the labor 
market is contracting, not expanding. Extending benefits in this 
situation is the proper economic policy. Fed Chairman Greenspan, before 
the Joint Economic Committee this past November stated: ``I have always 
argued that in periods like that the economic restraints on the 
unemployment insurance system almost surely ought to the eased.''
  This easing ought to include extending benefits to those who have 
already exhausted all of their benefits. I can not understand why 
anyone is objecting to extending benefits to these individuals. It is 
not because we lack the resources to extend benefits. Extending 
benefits to these individuals is projected to cost around $7.5 billion. 
Our unemployment insurance trust funds, specifically designed to meet 
this kind of situation, are in strong financial condition with 
approximately $24 billion. Those moneys have been paid into the trust 
fund over a period of time. The whole system was structured to have 
these trust funds build up in good times, and then to utilize them in 
bad times.
  We will spend much time debating the wisdom of various economic 
stimulus plans over the coming months, but one thing that everyone 
should be able to agree on is the stimulative effects of extending 
unemployment insurance benefits. As the Baltimore Sun wrote in an 
editorial on January 3, 2003, ``Few dispute the clear returns from 
directing short-term relief to those who lose their jobs as a result of 
the fiscal turbulence. Giving money to people who need it to pay their 
bills ensures that it will be spent and multiply as it ripples through 
the economy.''
  In closing, I would like to thank all of those who have worked so 
hard to pass the measure that we passed today. As a result many 
Americans will receive the benefits that they deserve and our economy 
will receive some of the stimulus that it needs. And I will continue to 
work to extend benefits to the 1 million Americans who have exhausted 
their unemployment insurance coverage.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Emergency 
Unemployment Compensation Act. On December 28, 2002, the Federal 
Government played Scrooge to nearly 800,000 Americans. We left town, 
and we left a lot of people holding no money for the new year. Because 
the House of Representatives failed to pass an extension of 
unemployment benefits, 780,000 unemployed Americans--including 10,000 
unemployed Marylanders--had their benefits abruptly cut off just a few 
days after Christmas.
  Yet the story gets even worse. One million Americans have already 
exhausted both Federal and state aid

[[Page 73]]

without finding a new job, and 2 million are expected to run out of 
state benefits in the next five months. We must act now to help these 
working Americans who have been hardest hit by the economic downturn.
  That is why I am proud to cosponsor the Emergency Unemployment 
Compensation Act. This bill will give immediate assistance to those who 
need it most and it will put money back into the economy to keep it 
going. The Emergency Unemployment Compensation Act will help nearly 
2.85 million Americans who are facing the highest unemployment rate 
since the recession during the first Bush Administration. It will 
restore benefits for those who were unfairly cut off in December and it 
will help those who will lose their benefits in the next five months. 
It will provide relief for approximately 30,000 people in my own state 
of Maryland who still have not been able to find a job.
  Extending UI not only helps those who are hardest hit by bad economic 
times, it also helps turn the economy around. A good economic stimulus 
puts money in the hands of the people who will spend it. That is 
precisely what the Emergency Unemployment Compensation Act does. 
Workers who have lost their jobs because of September 11th or the 
economic downturn will spend this money. They will spend it on 
necessities, like rent and food, to keep the economy going. This bill 
will inject $7.25 billion into the economy as an immediate stimulus. I 
believe this will do more to help the people and stimulate the economy 
than the across the board tax cuts for the wealthy.
  I am so pleased that the Senate is ready to pass this bill. But this 
measure doesn't go far enough. As long term unemployment balloons due 
to the weak economy, we can't forget about the 1 million Americans who 
have already exhausted both Federal and state unemployment benefits and 
have still not found a job. These people have no income, and now they 
have no safety net. I urge my colleagues to provide an additional 13 
weeks of extended unemployment benefits for these Americans.
  Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, I rise today to urge the Senate to 
pass the extension of the Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation, 
TEUC, Program.
  In November, the Senate acted unanimously to extend the TEUC program 
through the end of March by passing a bill that I cosponsored along 
with Senators Clinton, Cantwell, Specter, Sarbanes, Kennedy, and 
Durbin. However, the House and Senate were unable to reach a compromise 
that would have allowed President Bush to sign the extension into law. 
This is our last chance to act before there is an interruption in the 
receipt of benefits pursuant to the TEUC program.
  November 2002, the nationwide unemployment level shot up to 6.0 
percent from 5.7 percent in October. The law authorizing the TEUC 
program expired on December 28, 2002. If we do not act now to extend 
this program, as many as 800,000 workers who are receiving temporary 
benefits will not receive their full 13 weeks of extended unemployment 
benefits. 1.6 million workers will exhaust their regular unemployment 
benefits between December 28, 2002 and the end of May 2003 if we fail 
to act. If we act today to extend this important program, we will 
ensure that these workers will receive their next unemployment check.
  The unemployment situation in my home State of Illinois is critical. 
It would be particularly adversely affected if we do not act. In 
November 2002, Illinois had a 6.7-percent unemployment rate, tying 
Mississippi with the third highest unemployment rate in the country 
behind Alaska and Oregon. Illinois' rate was substantially higher than 
the nationwide 6.0-percent unemployment rate. Over the 3-month period 
from September through November 2002, the average unemployment rate in 
Illinois was 6.6 percent, which is significantly higher than the 
national average of 5.8 percent over the same period. In November, 
there were 416,200 unemployed persons in Illinois.
  I have introduced legislation that would extend the provisions of the 
Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 2002 to allow 
individuals receiving benefits to continue collecting them until they 
expire in full. This bill is retroactive, and permits people who 
otherwise would have had their TEUC benefits cut off on December 28 to 
receive the full 13 weeks of TEUC benefits. Furthermore, this 
legislation would make individuals who have exhausted their regular 26 
weeks of unemployment insurance eligible for a 13-week extension, and 
would allow these individuals to apply for such extensions through the 
end of May. Under my bill, even those who enrolled in the TEUC program 
just prior to the expiration of the program would be eligible to 
receive full 13 weeks of extended unemployment benefits.
  This bill is a more generous extension of the TEUC program than the 
extension that the Senate approved last November. It provides for 5-
month extension of the temporary unemployment insurance program, which 
is more than the 3 months of benefits provided by the extension that 
the Senate passed last year. Passing this legislation will help 
millions of families nationwide, easing the burden that these families 
might otherwise experience if their unemployment insurance were to have 
expired on December 28, 2002. It will help unemployed Americans feed 
their families and pay their bills while giving them an additional 5 
months to find new jobs.
  I would like to thank the Senators on both sides of the aisle who 
have helped to negotiate this bipartisan compromise bill that will 
extend unemployment insurance benefits to the millions of Americans who 
need them.
  President Bush has called upon us to quickly pass legislation that 
will extend the TEUC program, a program whose benefits fell off a cliff 
on December 28, 2002. I urge may colleagues in the Senate to support 
this necessary legislation. I also urge the House of Representatives to 
take up and pass this bill in an expeditious manner so that President 
Bush can sign the measure into law by this Thursday and prevent any 
interruption in the receipt of temporary unemployment insurance 
benefits.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I fully appreciate the suggestion made by 
the distinguished Republican leader, the majority leader. Clearly, we 
have to resolve what we can resolve. I know a good deal of effort has 
been put forth in getting us to this point. But that does not 
acknowledge the urgency with which we have to address all of those 
people who are not considered in this resolution.
  The Senator mentioned the fact that our Republican colleagues in the 
House have chosen to recess tomorrow. You do not have the luxury of 
recessing if you are unemployed. You do not have the luxury of 
recessing if there is no other option for you but to seek unemployment 
compensation.
  I hope, as Senator Reid has suggested, that we continue to find a way 
this afternoon to address this second group of people who need help, 
this 750,000 to 1 million people who are not covered in this 
resolution. I think he is right. I don't think we ought to leave until 
we get the job done this afternoon. There is no reason why we can't 
complete our work on both groups today, and I urge my colleagues to 
stay until we get the job done.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I yield to my friend and colleague.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I yield to my friend from Oklahoma.
  Go ahead.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, we have to talk about what is doable. If 
people want to revisit what we did last year, I am happy to do that. We 
passed temporary Federal unemployment compensation extension last March 
or April. We passed that. It was a benefit. It passed overwhelmingly in 
the Congress. It expired on December 28. Several people said we need to 
extend that.

[[Page 74]]

Last year some people wanted to double the program from a 13-week 
Federal program to 26 weeks. This Senator, along with others, objected 
to that. The cost of that program or expansion was about $17- or $18 
billion. I objected to it several times. I will object to it today.
  What I did agree to and what this Senate passed last year was a 
simple extension of present law. We agreed, Senator Clinton and myself, 
Senator Fitzgerald, Senator Specter, Senator Cantwell--by unanimous 
vote, the Senate agreed to a 3-month extension of the present program. 
That passed the Senate. It did not pass the House. The cost of that 
program was about $4.9 billion. The House had passed a program that 
cost a little less than $1 billion. I tried to work out the differences 
between the House and the Senate late in the legislative session. I was 
not successful. Some of us have been working, frankly, for some period 
of time trying to get something done now.
  We have a letter from the Secretary of Labor, Elaine Chao. I ask 
unanimous consent to print this letter in the Record.


                                           Secretary of Labor,

                                  Washington, DC, January 6, 2002.
     Hon. Bill Frist,
     Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,
     Capitol Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Frist: Although the economy is showing some 
     positive signs, we believe that a short extension of 
     Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation (TEUC) benefits 
     is needed to give many unemployed workers continued access to 
     the necessities of life while they look for new jobs. As the 
     108th Congress convenes, we urge you to quickly pass an 
     extension of the TEUC program retroactive to December 28, 
     2002. The only way for states to continue paying TEUC 
     benefits without disruption is if a bill is presented to the 
     President for signature no later than Thursday, January 9, 
     2003.
       If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to have a 
     member of your staff contact Mr. Anthony Bedell, Senior 
     Legislative Officer, Office of Congressional and 
     Intergovernmental Affairs, who will coordinate a departmental 
     response. Mr. Bedell can be reached at (202) 693-4600.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Elaine L. Chao.

  Mr. NICKLES. The essence of the letter says the only way for States 
to continue paying temporary unemployment compensation benefits without 
disruption is if a bill is presented to the President for signature no 
later than Thursday, January 9, the day after tomorrow.
  We had to resolve the differences between the House and the Senate. 
The Senate passed a $4.9 billion bill; the House passed a $1 billion 
bill. We have worked with our colleagues in the House. I think we have 
been successful. I believe we have been successful in getting them to 
accept a straight extension of present law.
  We were originally talking 3 months. After negotiations with the 
House, I consulted with my colleague and friend from New York and said, 
let's make it a 5-month extension. So we extended the program all the 
way through May, and then the phaseout would occur. So there would not 
be a shutoff date as there was December 28, a much better transition. 
It was my understanding that colleagues had agreed upon this 5-month 
extension. The cost of this proposal is estimated to be $7.2, $7.3 
billion on a 2002 scoring base. It might go up if benefits go up on the 
calendar year. It might even be a little bit more than that.
  That is a significant change that I believe we have the House 
concurring with to pass. We will not pass and they will not concur with 
a doubling of the program to 26 weeks. I will not agree with it, and I 
don't believe my House colleagues will, either.
  If we are going to provide unemployment compensation extension 
benefits so it would be a seamless transition, so those people who are 
presently receiving Federal temporary unemployment compensation, if 
they are in this 13-week window, one week or 10, that they could 
continue to receive benefits without missing a week, we need to pass 
it. We need to pass it today. It needs to go to the House, and it needs 
to go to the President by Thursday for his signature. The only way that 
will happen will be by unanimous consent.
  I believe the only bill that will pass will be basically a clean 
extension of present law, and I believe the proposal we have before us 
is deserving of all of our support, just as the bill we passed last 
November, maybe October, we passed by unanimous consent a 3-month 
extension, this is a unanimous consent extension for 5 months with a 
phaseout.
  I urge my colleagues not to object to the majority leader's unanimous 
consent request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Let me just see if we can resolve this issue. We have 
two questions. One is the substantive question about who ought to be 
included in the unemployment compensation package. We believe all of 
those who ought to benefit ought to be provided the coverage in this 
resolution. Our Republican colleagues say that half of those ought to 
benefit. The other question is whether we ought to be able to have a 
procedural vote, whether we ought to have an opportunity to vote on the 
amendment offered by the distinguished Senator from New York.
  I again ask consent that we have the one vote on the amendment 
offered by the Senator from New York and then obviously whatever the 
Senate may decide on that amendment would give us an opportunity to 
come to closure on the resolution itself.
  I see no reason why the Senate should be denied that opportunity on 
an issue this important on the very first day of the session. I ask 
unanimous consent that that amendment be allowed a vote at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I respond to the comments by the Senator 
from South Dakota by saying the Senator from Oklahoma laid out clearly 
why a vote and adoption of such an amendment would be devastating. It 
would be devastating for the million people we want to cover with the 
unanimous consent request we have proposed. The House will not accept 
it. I am not too sure, even if we did pass it here and send it over to 
the House, the House would not accept it. We will be in conference and 
the opportunity for us to pass an unemployment extension by Thursday 
will be lost. I think it is important for us to pass a bill which, I 
remind everybody in the Chamber, passed when the Senator from South 
Dakota was the majority leader and the Senator from Montana was the 
head of the Finance Committee. They passed this unemployment extension.
  All we are saying is, let's continue the unemployment extension that 
you proposed and you passed in the last session of Congress. All of a 
sudden your handiwork is no longer sufficient today. I don't know what 
happened between what you did then and what we did today. I don't know 
what possibly changed the dynamic that would now cause what we are 
proposing to be insufficient, when what you did was sufficient.
  The fact is, this is exactly what you passed under your leadership 
and what we should do today. We should stop playing politics out of the 
box with this very important issue to over 1 million people in this 
country and get the job done.
  Mrs. BOXER. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, the Senator from Pennsylvania has made a 
number of errors in his comment. Let me clarify. We passed the 
resolution that we passed in the last session of Congress over the 
objections of many of those on our side, all of those on our side who 
felt this very amendment should have been included then. We were told 
back then we would revisit this issue immediately upon coming back.
  Well, we are doing that. But we had a clear understanding that there 
would be an occasion for us to have a debate and have the amendment we 
have suggested by the Senator from New York. That is No. 1.
  No. 2, I hope this body will never be dictated to by the House of 
Representatives. We are the Senate of the United States. As the Senate 
of the United States, I don't want the House telling

[[Page 75]]

us what to do. We ought to do what is right. We ought to be the ones to 
dictate what our position is, not the House.
  I would hope we could accommodate the need to address this resolution 
and the need to address the resolution offered by the Senator from New 
York. I will suggest a new approach. I would ask unanimous consent that 
we send two resolutions to the House, the resolution before us and the 
resolution offered by the Senator from New York. I make that request at 
this time.
  Mr. NICKLES. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, what is the present business? Is the 
request by the Senator from Tennessee the pending business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The original unanimous consent request of the 
majority leader is before the body.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I have a 
couple of points. One, the Senator from Pennsylvania says, ``what's 
changed?'' A lot has changed. The unemployment rate is higher than it 
was last March. That is a significant change. Second, the nature of 
unemployment in America regrettably is becoming more long term. 
Economists debate why that is happening; nevertheless, it is a fact. It 
is becoming more long term. Some of it is Rust Belt jobs not being 
replaced. A lot of it is in the service industries, whether in 
technology and financial; but it is becoming more long term.
  These people are having a hard time with the change in the nature of 
our economy and finding jobs. I think, frankly, the request by the 
Senator from New York is more than reasonable, that at least we should 
have an opportunity to vote on that; or we can take up the suggestion 
by the Senator from South Dakota, that we have two different options.
  I might also add that this is stimulative. The Senator from 
Washington pointed out, quite correctly, that economists say for every 
dollar spent on unemployment, $2.15 is recirculated into the economy. 
Essentially, a lot of the discussion at the beginning of this year is 
stimulus--how are we going to stimulate the economy? I think that at 
least helping people who don't have jobs gain a little bit of benefits 
is a good idea because it stimulates the economy. I further add that 
there will be a lot of discussion over the next weeks and months about 
the President's stimulus plan, which includes tremendous tax breaks, 
whether it is dividends or income-tax breaks for these people who have 
jobs and income.
  What about the people who don't have jobs, the people who don't have 
income? If we are going to ``stimulate'' the economy by giving tax 
breaks, the very least we can do is help people who are unemployed in 
an economy whose very nature means there is longer unemployment.
  People who do not have income don't pay income tax. I suggest that we 
find a way to have a vote on the amendment of the Senator from New 
York. Senators can vote against it. If Senators do not want to be 
``dictated'' to by the House, they can vote their conscience and do 
what they think is right. If Senators believe the House trumps this 
body, they can vote against the amendment. They have that option. But 
at the very least, I believe that we, as responsible Senators--I heard 
a couple of great speeches not long ago about defending the 
Constitution of the United States and doing what is right. Clearly, 
doing what is right is helping people who need some help. That is what 
is right. That is why we are here.
  I understand it is a little inconvenient, and I don't denigrate that 
because of the receptions and the parties that are going on here. I 
don't think the Constitution had that in mind when the Framers wrote 
the provisions in that document, the oath of office which we took to 
support and defend our country.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia is recognized.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I hope the leaders will provide some time 
for debate. The majority leader has made a unanimous consent request. 
Senators are reserving the right to object. They have no right to yield 
to other Senators when they are reserving the right to object. Let's 
have an orderly procedure here.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I will reserve the right to object.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas is recognized.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I reserve the right to object, and I 
will not object. I think there is a lot of good debate points being 
raised. But I hope we don't start this session the way we ended much of 
last year, which was getting in great debates about big topics and at 
the end of the day not passing anything. I think that is really where 
we ended, and we fouled up on a lot of bills last year--big bills. 
There were significant bills that we would work for weeks and months on 
and we didn't get them done.
  We have a chance to do something here. I think everybody is agreed 
that there is more that could be done. That would be good, but we don't 
have that agreement. We can start this session off with doing something 
or nothing. I hope at some point in time we can get to the point of 
doing something.
  We have a reasonable proposal that is agreed to by the basic 
principles in this proposal at least. Let's pass that. Let's start this 
session off with getting something that is going to be helpful for 
people. It may not be perfect for everybody, and that is obvious, but 
we can get something done here. It will be significant and it will be 
important and helpful. I hope we can move that forward and get this 
cleared through.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, in my unanimous consent request, I wanted 
to close what has become some debate here and basically say that we 
have an opportunity--and I believe an obligation--to finish up the 
business that we didn't finish in the last Congress, on which we have 
an opportunity to take the next very important step, which will affect 
the lives of 750,000 people after next Thursday, which doesn't have 
anything to do with the House or the Senate. Thursday is the deadline 
for these checks. If they don't go out, it affects 750,000 people. The 
5 months' extension that is being proposed here also affects the lives 
of about 2\1/2\ million other people who will be enrolling over that 
period. Because we worked so hard on both sides of the aisle over so 
many months and weeks--and over the last several days--I didn't 
recognize that we would get to a point now where we would have so many 
reservations of the right to object. We are talking about Thursday, 
checks not going out, a dislocation affecting 750,000 people, an 
additional 2\1/2\ million, if we don't address this today. With that, I 
will call for the regular order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The regular order has been called for. Is 
there objection?
  Mr. DURBIN. I object.
  Mr. BYRD. What is the regular order?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The regular order is a unanimous consent 
request made by the majority leader. The Senator can object.
  Mr. BYRD. Parliamentary inquiry: Is the resolution before the Senate?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The request is to have the measure sent to the 
desk and passed.
  Mr. BYRD. Then the resolution is not before the Senate. There is 
nothing before the Senate that can be amended at this point.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct. A request has been 
made that it be granted so it can be brought for a vote.
  Mr. BYRD. The request is an all-encompassing request. It doesn't give 
the Senate a chance to amend the resolution? That is what I am trying 
to find out.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia is correct.
  The majority leader has asked for regular order. Senators may not 
reserve the right to object when the regular order has been called for. 
They either must object or permit the request to be granted. Is there 
objection?

[[Page 76]]


  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, may I make a further unanimous consent 
request?
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, do I have the floor?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader has the floor.
  Mr. BYRD. He made a request, but he sent something to the desk, 
didn't he?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader has made a unanimous 
consent request and he retains the floor.
  Mr. BYRD. Yes, he does. I understand that. I had hoped to suggest the 
absence of a quorum, but he does retain the floor. I ask unanimous 
consent that I may speak for 1 minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mrs. BOXER. Reserving the right to object, I ask to speak for a 
minute following the Senator----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair believes that objection is heard. Is 
there objection to the majority leader's request?
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard. The majority leader has 
the floor.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I am obviously disappointed with this 
objection for the reasons that I have set out. There are 750,000 people 
and their dependents who depend on these distributions, as well as 
another 2\1/2\ million people. We had been told this had been cleared 
on both sides after a lot of hard work. I am obviously disappointed, 
because this is the first move out for me, after it had been cleared on 
both sides, but I guess that is what I can come to expect. I do hope 
that my colleagues will rethink today's objection and allow us, for the 
reasons I have said, to have this cleared later today.
  Mr. DASCHLE addressed the Chair.
  Mr. FRIST. 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.
  Mr. FRIST. I renew my original request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. DURBIN. Reserving the right to object--and I will not object the 
objection I raised earlier within the caucus has been discussed at 
length and it is clear to me that the Democratic leadership, Senator 
Daschle through the membership, will continue to fight for the million 
people who are not covered by this resolution, but we cannot turn our 
backs on the 2.8 million who need this check on Thursday.
  I will not object to this unanimous consent request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The bill (S. 23) was read the third time and passed.

                          ____________________