[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Pages 76-79]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                        UNEMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, let me thank the distinguished Senator 
from Illinois for not objecting to this resolution. He and my 
colleagues feel very strongly, as is evidenced by the debate this 
afternoon. We will not give up, we will not relent, we will not allow 
those million Americans who have no coverage not getting the 
consideration they deserve in the Senate. We will continue to offer 
amendments.
  I put my colleagues on notice: On this legislation and on any other 
occasion that we have the opportunity to avail ourselves of an 
amendment, we will do so, because this deserves a vote. It deserves 
debate. It deserves passage. It is shameful we are leaving out these 
million people today. There is absolutely no excuse, especially when 
the President of the United States today is in Chicago talking about 
more tax cuts for those at the very top. That is wrong.
  It is an illustration of the extraordinary difference in philosophy 
about how we stimulate the economy. This is not only good for the 
economy, it is good for 1 million people left out as a result of the 
actions today.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. On the Democratic side we have a number of Senators who 
have asked for a specific time. I ask unanimous consent on our side, 
and on an alternating basis if, in fact, there are Republicans who wish 
to speak, that Senator Boxer first be recognized for 5 minutes, Senator 
Schumer for 5 minutes, Senator Stabenow for 5 minutes, Senator Dorgan 
for 5 minutes, Senator Reid of Rhode Island for 5 minutes, Senator 
Murray for 5 minutes. That is a total, I believe, of 35 minutes, 
leaving 55 minutes for other Senators on this side of the aisle who 
wish to speak. The normal procedure is to alternate back and forth on 
the time evenly divided between now and 5 p.m.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank my assistant Democratic leader for 
the time.
  During the brief debate we had before we voted to extend these 
unemployment benefits, the Senator from Pennsylvania asked, What is 
wrong with you people? What has changed, that you really want to 
protect now these 1 million people, when several months ago you did not 
speak as loudly for their inclusion?
  I state for the record what has happened in this period of time. As 
we go out and about our States, as I think we all did during this 
break, we find high anxiety among the people--high anxiety because of 
this economy. We are seeing more foreclosures than ever. Two million 
jobs have been lost in the private sector. On top of that we are seeing 
budget deficits that we have not seen in many years.
  My friend who is now presiding, my esteemed colleague, understands 
this anxiety. We have teamed up to work on giving a jump-start to the 
high-tech sector with a bill on wireless fidelity, which I believe is 
going to really help this economy. He understands that.
  We have a sense of urgency about that bill because we know we can 
turn things around. In my State we have a horrible situation in the 
northern areas because of what I would call a depression, really, in 
the high-tech sector. Some of it was to be expected; we went through 
this huge period of growth. We have some settling down there. But 
nonetheless, it is a problem. We have thousands of people in northern 
California who are suffering through no fault of their own. These 
people, who are intelligent, educated, and excellent workers, are out 
on the street. They are running out of benefits, and some of them have 
run out already. That is why we on this side of the aisle believe those 
million people should not be left out of the equation.
  I have a State of 35 million people. In terms of its economy, it 
would be the sixth largest economy in the world. The fact is, the good 
people in that State need help. Why we on this side of the aisle were 
so upset and why we kept objecting or reserving the right to object is 
we wanted to make sure the people's voices were heard. That is what the 
Senate ought to be, a place where the voice of the people is heard.
  We have a situation where our States are worse off. They cannot come 
in and help because they are financially strapped because of the 
recession. So people are turning to us. Today we took care of some 
people. I am very proud we did that, but we have left out in the cold a 
million people. I will not be satisfied, speaking as one Senator, until 
we have taken care of all those who are in need.
  The Senator from Pennsylvania also made a comment that just some of 
the States have problems. This is not true. These million people reside 
in all of the States. In my own State, the pockets of real trouble are 
in the north of the

[[Page 77]]

State right now; the south of the State is doing better. But 
individuals all over this country need help.
  In summary, I say the Democrats are back. We are ready to go to work. 
We will stay. We will stay late into the night. But we are going to 
offer, all through this day and all through the coming days, a 
unanimous consent request saying we need to take care of those million 
people, those long-term unemployed people whose checks have already run 
out, who do not know where they are going to get the money to pay the 
rent, who don't know if they will get evicted, who don't know if they 
can take care of their children.
  There is a new term of art that has come about. It is called ``food 
insecurity.'' Food insecurity--that is a delicate way of saying people 
are hungry.
  We are seeing food insecurity. We are seeing housing insecurity. We 
are seeing joblessness. Can we turn it around? Of course we could turn 
it around.
  I have seen the President's plan. In my personal opinion, having 
looked at where the benefits go, it is a bonanza to the wealthiest in 
the country, and it is a bust for the middle class. It is a budget 
deficit disaster. But he has a plan out there. It is a huge plan, and 
we are going to work to make it better, to get the benefits to those 
who need them. But if you want to talk about stimulus, talk about the 
million people who have no money to put bread on the table.
  In closing, let's help those million people. I intend to stay here 
all this week and next and into future weeks to make sure we do.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Chafee). The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I have been here throughout this debate. I 
have not been involved in this issue prior to this point, as many have. 
But it has been an interesting and rather surprising sequence of events 
here on this first day, this sort of ceremonial day, in which we get 
into this kind of head-to-head arrangement. It is surprising.
  I do understand why this issue was brought to the floor. That is 
because there is a time element. We heard a letter from the Secretary 
of Labor indicating that in order to get a continuation of the 
unemployment benefits of those who are still eligible, we have to do it 
by Thursday. So I think that is a pretty compelling issue. In order to 
get that done, we obviously also have to do something that has been 
agreed to, apparently, by the House as well.
  So it is surprising to me that we have this effort made within the 
Senate, and also with House leadership, to try to do something within 
this time that is imperative we do, yet we come to the floor and 
apparently the very people who helped make the agreement now are 
proposing an amendment which would kill the bill. Certainly it would 
not make it available in the time that is necessary.
  There is no reason for anybody to argue with the fact that there are 
those out there who need some additional help. This bill is not a total 
remedy. I think everyone admits that. We have to come back and do some 
other things. But this was argued last year. We could not get it done. 
We should have gotten it done last year and didn't. Now we have an 
opportunity to do something today to get it to the President, to get it 
through the House before they adjourn--apparently today.
  It really sounds as if the process is such that it is pretty 
compelling that we do what seems to be available, and that is to pass a 
bill which would extend unemployment benefits to, apparently, up to 2 
million people whose benefits otherwise would expire at the end of this 
week. If there are others who are eligible who still need some help--
and there obviously are--then we can do that. We can come back and do 
that. But to sacrifice what we can do today to argue about something 
that we do not agree on yet and can do tomorrow does not seem to make 
good sense.
  I hate to think it is a political issue, bringing up now the 
President's economic package. It really is not a part of this debate. 
The President has said all along that he wants to have the unemployment 
relief extended. So it is a puzzle to me. I hope we can now move 
forward. We have passed the bill. I say that is the greatest thing we 
could have done today. Certainly we needed to do that. We can come back 
and take a look at these other issues and everyone can get their 
opportunity to express their political issues and, I think, seek to 
separate us from the other side. I hate to think that is the case, but 
it seems to be. And it is too bad.
  The notion that some of us do not want to do anything is not 
accurate. How we do it is what we are talking about. We have been 
through it before.
  I am glad we are able to move forward. I think we ought to get in our 
minds a way to work on the issues that remain to be worked on and do 
that in the appropriate time. But I am reluctant to think we want to 
continue to confront one another today and to talk about all the bad 
things we can think of. That is not quite what is involved with this 
first session of the Senate.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, there is no question that today is a day 
for family, a day for congratulations. I congratulate all my colleagues 
who were just sworn in. I know it is a very exciting day. I remember 
being in this position 2 years ago. It is a very special day.
  But in addition to celebrating family in the Senate today, we are 
very concerned about those families who find themselves in the 
difficult position of having no income coming in because of 
unemployment, through no cause of their own.
  They want to work. But because of the changing economy, the structure 
of the economy, or because of a variety of other reasons, they have 
found themselves unemployed. Certainly in Michigan we find that the 
changing economic structure has occurred for many people. Many of us 
have been asking that we remember them. We asked during the holidays 
that we remember those whose unemployment benefits would be ending 
during the holidays and that we take action before we left last year. 
That did not happen. We are back today.
  I commend the new leadership for their willingness to come forward 
with this issue of unemployment compensation. However, what we have 
seen today is a willingness to only do half the job. How can we say to 
a million people, and to their families, on a day when we celebrate 
families, that they don't count? We are told that the House of 
Representatives would not support solving this problem completely or 
addressing it completely--that they would only support addressing half 
of it.
  We have said let us support solving the problem. And we did in fact 
pass a resolution to move forward solving half the problem.
  But our leader, Senator Daschle, also proposed that we add a separate 
resolution to complete the job to help those 1 million individuals who 
also find themselves in a situation of needing to extend their 
unemployment benefits. Yet we were told no again. We have been told no 
so many times on this floor as it relates to helping unemployed 
workers. It is very regrettable that today, one more time, we were told 
no. I think, more specifically, families were told no. Those who have 
lost their jobs were told no. One million people were told no.
  We celebrate today people coming into new commissions, new jobs, and 
with great pride, as they should. We know the ability to work and to be 
able to provide an income and care for your family is one of the basics 
of our society and our economy. We know that there are Americans today 
who find themselves in a difficult situation of searching for work, of 
being unemployed, and asking that their Government support their 
families as they move forward to find new employment so that they can 
care for their families in the way they would like to provide for them. 
Unfortunately, I believe today a tone was set by choosing not to 
address this problem completely at a time when we are seeing, 
unfortunately, one more time, an economic plan rolled out to help those 
who have been helped so many times who are at

[[Page 78]]

the very top of the income bracket in our country.
  As a member of the Budget Committee, I have heard many economists, 
including Alan Greenspan, say that by extending unemployment benefits--
and by putting dollars into people's pockets so they can pay their 
bills, buy the shoes for their children, and be able to continue 
providing groceries for their families and paying other bills which 
they have--we actually stimulate the economy. We create demand. When 
there is money in people's pockets, they are spending it. We know 
someone who is unemployed is going to be spending it because they have 
to. The money coming in is not being saved. It is being spent on 
clothes, food, the electric bills, the car payment, the mortgage 
payment, and so on.
  We know that is a short-term economic stimulus--certainly at a time 
when we are debating economic stimulus.
  What we have been asking for today is something that is not only fair 
and right to address--all of those who find themselves in a situation 
of being unemployed, not leave 1 million people out of the solution--
but we are also asking, as we talk about economic stimulus, that we in 
fact provide the kind of stimulus that puts money back into the economy 
and helping those who need to spend it to care for their families, to 
pay their bills, to be able to remain independent in their homes, and 
to be able to know that they are a part of the economic equation, and 
when we talk economic stimulus, that they are not left out.
  While I am pleased we were able to pass the resolution, I am very 
disappointed that this very first time we were not able to address or 
even bring forward in a separate resolution the ability to address 1 
million people today who are looking to us, at a time of celebration, 
and asking us to remember them; to ask on their behalf so they, too, 
can have the ability to care for their families. I hope we will, as 
quickly as possible, finish the job.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I first ask unanimous consent that Senator 
Schumer be placed as the next Democrat to be recognized in the order of 
recognition.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REED. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. President, let me remind not only my colleagues, but the American 
people, why we are forced today, at the eleventh hour, to make a very 
cruel choice between helping some Americans and abandoning other 
Americans. It is because all through last fall, the Republican House of 
Representatives refused to take up and vote upon unemployment benefits 
in a meaningful way that would lead to successful passage. The 
President did not involve himself on this issue until the unemployment 
rate reached 6 percent. He fired his economic team, and they discovered 
there really were Americans who desperately need help.
  Today we were forced to make those choices that you see sometimes in 
the movies about who gets to stay in the life boat. It was a completely 
unnecessary choice.
  The Senator from Oklahoma talked about one proposal costing $4 
billion and another proposal costing $1 billion. The House wanted $1 
billion.
  There is a surplus today in the unemployment insurance trust fund of 
$24 billion. There is absolutely no fiscal reason we could not provide 
these benefits to 1 million Americans who have exhausted their 
unemployment benefits. We heard from colleagues on the other side of 
the aisle that they are categorically opposed to giving any extension 
of benefits beyond a certain time. This not only defies logic and 
defies the fiscal status of the trust fund but also defies history.
  In the early 1990s, this Government extended unemployment 
compensation a total of five times--three times under President George 
Herbert Walker Bush because unemployment continued to rise for the 15th 
month after the so-called end of the recession. There are cases in 
which individuals were able to collect unemployment benefits for a 
total of 52 weeks because they qualified for these extensions.
  Why is this so important? Because people are desperate. They had good 
jobs. They lost those jobs. They are looking for comparable work. They 
cannot find it. The record of this economy under this President is 
dismal. Family incomes have fallen for the first time in 8 years. 
Poverty is increasing. Families at all income levels are losing their 
health insurance left and right. Gross domestic product is growing, but 
it is growing too feebly to generate the jobs these people need.
  Since the President took office, 2.2 million private payroll jobs 
have been lost. We are losing jobs. We are not gaining jobs. We are 
asking them to find jobs; we are setting them on a task that is 
extraordinarily difficult.
  So what can we do in the interim?
  We can at least give them unemployment compensation, extended, if 
necessary. It is the fair thing to do. It is the wise thing to do. The 
President, in his economic speech in Chicago, talked about some special 
$3,000 benefit for those people who are unemployed. Let's do the 
mathematics. That $3,000 represents probably a fraction of the 
unemployment insurance someone would collect if we voted for these 
benefits. That is not a good deal for the people of America--a $3,000, 
one-time payment, some type of scheme in which they can use it either 
to pay their household costs or go to training versus receiving, on a 
regular basis, unemployment compensation as they look for work.
  The reality, as my colleague from Montana pointed out, is that 
unemployment is different today than it was even 10 years ago in the 
recession of the early 1990s. It is different because the economy has 
changed.
  The State which the Presiding Officer and I represent used to be a 
manufacturing center, not just to the United States but to the world. 
That is changing. As I go about our State talking to people, the 
unemployed are 50-year-old, former mid-level management people who used 
to work for a company. They did not get fired. They did not get laid 
off. The company went away, went out of business, moved its operations 
to Mexico, moved its operations to Singapore. And then you ask this 
person, with a mortgage, college tuitions--and the health care benefits 
which they used to get at work are now his responsibility or her 
responsibility--to go look for a job with comparable pay? They are not 
hiring people like that. They are looking for the 35-year-old, with a 
computer degree, who will work cheaper, who does not have those 
responsibilities of a family, of a mortgage.
  That is the reality out there. That is what we are fighting about 
today, not the number ``1 million,'' but a million Americans, 
struggling to find work, trying to find work. They need help. And we 
turn our back on them today. I heard my colleague, the Senator from 
Oklahoma, say he would never bring up extension of these benefits to 
people who have exhausted their benefits already. I heard the majority 
leader sort of talk about: Well, we want to deal with this issue, but 
let's get this issue done first.
  The message is pretty clear to me and should be clear to the American 
public: We are walking away today from a million people. We should not 
do that.
  This seems to me to be so clear and so obvious that I am, in fact, 
amazed and shocked at what we did. The money is there. This is a 
benefit for people who are looking for work. Once they find work, the 
benefit expires. We are talking about stimulating the economy. What is 
more stimulating than giving people money to pay for their household 
goods as they look for work?
  I am more than disappointed. But we were forced today, because of the 
inattention of the administration and the House, at the last minute, to 
choose between denying benefits to all unemployed Americans or 
abandoning about a million--a cruel, unnecessary choice. We can do 
better. We should do better.
  I yield the floor.

[[Page 79]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If nobody yields time, time will be charged 
equally to both sides.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, 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. 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. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent that the time 
be equally charged to both sides during the quorum call I am about to 
suggest.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, 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. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for up 
to 10 minutes as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________