[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Pages 80-82]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                         UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, first, I congratulate all of my new 
colleagues who were sworn in today, and all of those who won 
reelection--but particularly those who are here for the first time, and 
my good friend from New Jersey who is here for the second time, with a 
hiatus. I congratulate the new leadership on the Republican side, along 
with Majority Leader Frist. We look forward to working together for the 
good of our country.
  Today, I stand here feeling, I guess I would say, boxed in because we 
on this side of the aisle who feel that the unemployment package was 
not adequate are faced with the choice of taking half a loaf or none. 
Of course, when you are in a legislative body, you tend to take that 
half loaf. We will do it today--or we have done it already today. But 
when it comes to people out of work, when it comes to the pain in the 
eyes of fathers and mothers, young men and women who talk about missing 
or losing a job, knocking on doors and not being able to find one, half 
a loaf is not very adequate.
  I find it confounding that the other side did not allow the amendment 
my colleague from New York proffered. We only asked for a half hour of 
debate, so it cannot be that it would take up much time. We certainly 
do not believe that they didn't want to help the unemployed. So the 
only logical answer is dollars. They thought it might be too expensive. 
To me--the main point I want to make this afternoon is this--the 
contrast of our President speaking in Chicago and putting forward a 
$600 billion plan of relief, mostly on the tax side--and the vast 
majority of that plan goes to the very highest income levels. I read 
somewhere that 42 percent goes to 1 percent; 1 percent of the highest 
income get 42 percent of the relief. One percent is 311,000. So there 
is $600 billion to go to tax relief, mainly for the most well off, and 
there is not a billion dollars to include a million people--150,000 New 
Yorkers--to give them the unemployment benefits they now do not have.
  How many Americans would support that? Our job is to juxtapose those 
two issues. I hope the media will do that. These are not two separate 
issues because we have not heard a single reason that we cannot take 
the larger bill. They say our colleagues in the House will object. Then 
let the American people look at them and say to them, if you can afford 
and you are going to support $600 billion in tax relief, largely to 
extremely wealthy, high-income individuals and families, why can't you 
support a billion dollars for the unemployed?
  If the election we just held were on that issue, what do you think 
would have happened? My guess is that the results would have been quite 
different. Frankly, our colleagues in the House and some on the other 
side of the aisle don't like to see this issue contrasted. The tax 
relief--huge amounts of it--is going to the upper income spectrums and 
the stingiest, the parsimonious attitude when it comes to the 
unemployed. It is not that we cannot afford it, because I offer to my 
colleagues, let's do $599 billion of tax relief and do this billion 
dollars. Hardly anyone would notice, except those million people who 
are out of work and desperately looking for work.
  So I hope we will have another opportunity to work this amendment 
forward. I worry that we can make a lot of speeches on the floor of the 
Senate, but, yes, they will say, bring it up as part of the stimulus 
package, we will pass it in the Senate. But it will die in conference, 
and then there is nothing we can do legislatively.
  So while I didn't agree with my colleague from Illinois for objecting 
because we are in such a box--I thought we should not object and try to 
persuade them--I sympathize with his anger and with his frustration 
that we could not spend a half hour to talk about some money for people 
who are out of work, or our colleagues here would have withdrawn the 
bill and hurt the 2.8 million who will benefit, and justifiably so.
  The issue of money for the jobless doesn't change America. 
Unfortunately, it is not the most important issue we face. Getting a 
good education and good health care and more jobs for people is far 
more important than a stopgap measure. Until we are able to do that--so 
far we have not--we have to help those who need help. These are not 
people sitting on their duffs trying to get a check. They are people 
who are knocking on doors every day. When a notice goes out that one 
company is hiring, you see hundreds and even thousands in my city and 
elsewhere throughout my State lined up around the block.
  People desperately want work. The best thing we can do is give them 
jobs by stimulating the economy in a real way. But until we do, it is 
our fundamental and solemn and important responsibility to at least let 
them live a life of dignity, maintain the payment on the home, feed the 
child, put a coat on the spouse's back. That is all we were trying to 
do today. It is unfortunate that we were put in such a box and we were 
told take half a loaf or none. When it comes to unemployment, we should 
not have to deal with half a loaf.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I regret what happened in the Senate 
today. We passed some legislation that will offer some assistance to 
some who are unemployed in this country, but we left 1 million people 
who should have received the help of Members of the Senate, from the 
Congress, and from the President, without the kind of help they need. A 
lot of folks in this country don't have people clogging the hallways of 
the Capitol lobbying on their behalf--certainly not the people who are 
without means, at the lower end of the economic ladder; they have not 
hired people in the hallways of the Capitol to represent their 
interests. They rely on us to do that. There are so many families in 
this country who know things that Members of the Senate do not know. 
They know about a second shift, they know about a second job, they know 
about a second mortgage, and they know about buying a secondhand car. 
They know firsthand that they are the first in this country during an 
economic downturn to be called into an office and be told, by the way, 
you are being laid off, you are losing your job.
  Hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of thousands of Americans have had 
to go home to tell their families that, through no fault of theirs, 
they were given a notice that their job was gone. They are no longer 
employed. It is a devastating thing for families to experience that. In 
most cases, during an economic downturn, the Congress has moved very 
quickly to say, yes, you lost your job, but it wasn't through your 
fault, it wasn't something you did, and we want to help you, we want to 
extend a helping hand during this rough spell in the American economy. 
Congress has always done that--that is, until last year when we tried 
and tried in the Senate to pass legislation to extend that helping hand 
and extend unemployment benefits, and now again today when we made the 
effort once again.
  It is terribly disappointing that today the President is in Chicago 
announcing his tax proposal. At a time when we are experiencing very 
substantial budget deficits, the President is proposing a tax cut of 
$675 billion over the next 10 years. That is $65 billion, $70 billion a 
year for 10 years in tax cuts, and then we are told: But there is not 
enough money really to fund that rather small amount needed to help 
those who are unemployed, who have lost their jobs. I do not understand 
that.
  It is interesting to me, and also a little perplexing, that we are 
told the budget deficits are just a result of the economy; it is just 
because the economy turned sour. A year and three-

[[Page 81]]

quarters ago, we had a debate in the Chamber of the Senate about a new 
fiscal policy. We were told we ought to embrace the idea of very large 
tax cuts for the long term.
  Some of us stood up at these desks and said: Wait a second, it is 
pretty hard to see very far down the road. Shouldn't we worry perhaps 
some unforeseen consequences could run this economy into the ditch and 
cause very serious problems? Not to worry, they said. We have all that 
covered. We have contingency plans. So just pass this big tax cut of 
ours. The Congress did--not with my vote, but they did pass that large 
tax cut.
  Within months, we discovered our economy was in a recession. Months 
later, on September 11, we were attacked by terrorists. And then there 
were corporate scandals almost unprecedented in this country's history. 
The tech bubble burst in the stock market. All of a sudden, very large 
Federal budget surpluses turned into very large Federal budget 
deficits, and now we are in a fix. Now we have competing needs, one of 
which is the item we discussed today: The need during an economic 
downturn to reach out a hand and help those who need help, to help 
those who have lost their job, by extending unemployment benefits.
  Another competing interest and need was announced today by President 
Bush, saying what we really need at a time of unprecedented budget 
deficits--as far as the eye can see--is more tax cuts, $675 billion in 
additional tax cuts.
  Interestingly enough, in terms of priorities, they say no to the 
people who have lost their jobs and need their unemployment extended, 
but they say yes in public policy, in this tax proposal, that we ought 
to tax people who work: Let's tax work and let's exempt investment. 
What kind of a value system is that?
  There are many ways of making money. Some of them are to go to work, 
work hard, and get a paycheck. No one is proposing eliminating the tax 
on the paycheck, are they? So they say: Let's tax work.
  Another way to make money is to collect substantial dividends from 
stockholdings and stock purchases, and the President is saying: Let's 
exempt that; we should not tax that at all.
  I do not understand the value system: Let's tax work but exempt 
investment. Guess what that says. That says to the American people who 
are working--who, in my judgment, are the people who make this economic 
engine work well--we are going to tax you, but the folks who just sit 
back and collect their dividends--incidentally, the folks at the top of 
the income earning ladder--we are going to exempt you. Not with my vote 
we are not. Yet in terms of priorities on the very day the President 
says let's have a $675 billion tax cut, let's keep taxing work and 
exempt from taxation investment, he and our colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle say: We cannot afford that small amount of money to 
extend unemployment benefits to those at the bottom of the economic 
ladder, those who have had to come home with shattered dreams to tell 
their family: I have lost my job. What a devastating situation that is. 
These are people who want to work, who did work and, through no fault 
of their own but through a bad economy, lost their ability to work.
  The best tradition in this country has always been for this Congress, 
during an economic downturn, for sound reasons, including trying to 
provide some stimulus to the economy, to say to those who have lost 
their jobs: We want to help you. It helps this country to help you. We 
are there now to give you some help during a tough time for you and 
your family.
  I regret very much that today we were not able to do that for 1 
million Americans who look to Capitol Hill and this capital city for us 
to make the right decision at the right time.
  Today, regrettably, the majority in the Senate failed. There will be 
another day, and my hope is we will see a different decision, a better 
decision for those folks at the bottom of the economic ladder who want 
to work, who did work but lost their jobs, and for whom no one is 
clogging the hallways of Congress lobbying on their behalf. If this 
were a big economic interest, you can bet this Capitol would be full of 
people, well paid, with dark suits, ready to make the case for their 
economic interest.
  There are a lot of folks out there today who are going to gather 
around their supper table and talk about their lot in life during an 
economic downturn and talk about where they looked for a job today, 
talk about the job they used to have, and talk about the hopes they had 
that we would help them during this tough period. They today will be 
mighty disappointed.
  My hope is in a week or in a month, perhaps we can persuade our 
colleagues that today's decision was the wrong choice for our country 
and certainly the wrong choice for a lot of American families relying 
on the Congress to make the right decision today.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I associate myself with the remarks of 
the Senator from North Dakota who has, once again, eloquently put this 
issue into a much larger context, a context that concerns the economic 
and tax policies of our country.
  Today I have introduced a bill to help those who have exhausted their 
unemployment benefits, the nearly 1 million Americans we have heard 
spoken about from so many of my colleagues from Washington to North 
Dakota to Rhode Island, who have just run out of time and run out of 
money. They were eligible for the programs that each State administers, 
as it should be, because in many of our States we have had an increase 
in unemployment over the last year.
  We now have a 6 to 6.5-percent unemployment rate in many parts of the 
country. In New York City, which is still dealing with the aftermath of 
the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, we have an 8-percent 
unemployment rate. Many of these people who lost their jobs have been 
working all their lives. When something happened--a layoff, a 
bankruptcy, a terrorist attack--and many of them have spent month after 
month looking for work and not finding it. In an economy such as we 
have now, which is not producing jobs, many people for the first time 
ever, especially given what we enjoyed during the 1990s, are finding it 
impossible, not just to find a job that paid what they were used to 
receiving through their job, but paying anything.
  I recently had a number of such New Yorkers to my office in New York 
City shortly before the December 28 cutoff of unemployment benefits. I 
wish they could be here in the Chamber.
  I wish that all of my colleagues could speak with the man who had 
worked on the Windows of the World restaurant at the top of the World 
Trade Center for more than 20 years, a manual laborer but a good 
hearted, decent American who, year after year, showed up, did what he 
was supposed to do, and luckily for him and his family was not at work 
on the morning of September 11, but unluckily for him and his four 
children, he no longer has any work. He has gone from place to place.
  I wish my colleagues could meet the woman from Queens who was widowed 
when her husband died 3 years ago, had worked in the same business for 
many years, and now has lost her job and no longer has unemployment 
benefits. What are we supposed to tell these people?
  We ended welfare as we knew it because we did not want anyone to be 
dependent, to produce generational dependency, and I supported that. 
There is not any better social program than a job. But when we do not 
produce jobs in the economy for decent, hard-working Americans, what do 
we expect to happen?
  Some of the things that are happening: In many States, after being in 
decline for years, welfare rolls are climbing. In many States, 
homelessness is increasing, and it is homelessness of families with 
children. Bankruptcies are growing. Individuals who are chronically 
unemployed are going on Social Security disability in order to have 
some kind of income, one of the fastest growing programs in our 
country.
  When we first started talking about extending unemployment benefits--
I

[[Page 82]]

introduced a bill last July--we did not get to first base. We did not 
even get out of the dugout. We would raise it time and again. My 
wonderful friend, our late colleague, Senator Wellstone from Minnesota, 
used to be at that desk. He would never be in the chair but would be 
pacing about. Before his tragic accident, every day he came to the 
floor asking that we extend unemployment benefits.
  We often harkened back to the situation during the recession of the 
early 1990s when unemployment benefits were extended five times and 
signed into law by the first President Bush, as well as President 
Clinton. Finally, the Senate passed a measure.
  I appreciated greatly working with my colleague, Senator Nickles from 
Oklahoma, to get that done last year. We could not get it through the 
House. We did not have the support of the administration. But today, we 
have done the right thing, at least half the right thing. I am very 
grateful for that. I thank the President for his support. I thank the 
Republican leadership in the House for their support, but I mostly 
thank my colleagues and our new majority leader, Senator Frist, for 
making sure this was the first order of business for this 108th 
Congress.
  What we did today to help the nearly 800,000 Americans who watched 
their unemployment benefits disappear at the stroke of midnight on 
Saturday, December 28, to make sure the program will be there for those 
who are unfortunately coming on to the unemployment rolls was 
important, but it was not enough. We have to do more. We have to 
recognize the people who have exhausted their benefits, who are working 
as hard as they can to get work, who are found throughout our country, 
in every walk of life, doing every kind of job with every sort of 
challenge one could imagine. But what are we going to say to them?
  We have a big task ahead of us to try to get our economy growing 
again, create jobs, move our Nation in the right direction. This new 
problem in the 21st century--new in the wake of the economic boom of 
the 1990s, that we have tens of thousands of Americans who want to work 
but cannot find a job--will have to be addressed.
  Mr. President, I would now like to discuss a bill I am introducing.
  THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York is recognized.
  Mrs. CLINTON. I thank the Chair.
  (The remarks of Mrs. Clinton pertaining to the introduction of S. 87 
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.

                          ____________________