[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Pages 86-87]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                          THE MISSING MILLION

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am happy we were able to get an 
extension of unemployment compensation earlier today so there is a 
seamless flow of checks from December 28 through the period of our new 
legislation. If we had not completed it today, and hopefully in the 
House tomorrow and with the President's signature on Thursday, there 
would have been a lapse of those checks. We could have gone back and 
made up the difference but there still would have been a period of time 
that unemployed people would not get checks. I know there was a lot of 
concern on the other side of the aisle that we were trying to pass this 
too quickly. I am glad they backed down and allowed us to move ahead.
  During the debate that took the form of reserving the right to 
object, there were a number of statements made about what they wanted 
to do. I take the opportunity to clarify the record of what my 
Democratic colleagues were really talking about. A number of colleagues 
have made the statement that the unemployment extension we passed 
earlier today leaves out a million workers.
  Under the regular State unemployment program--and this is under 
longstanding law--workers are entitled to as much as 26 weeks of 
unemployment benefits. Under the temporary federally funded 
unemployment program that Congress passed last March, which we are 
continuing now, those who exhaust their State regular unemployment 
benefits can receive up to 13 weeks of additional benefits. In 
addition, the program we passed last March provided up to 13 weeks of 
yet more benefits in extremely high unemployment States. In those high 
unemployment States, that means a maximum of 26 weeks of Federal 
benefits on top of the usual 26 weeks of State benefits. I repeat, 
workers in every State can collect 39 weeks of benefits--26 weeks 
State, plus 13 weeks Federal. And workers in high unemployment States 
can collect 52 weeks of benefits--26 weeks of State benefits and 13 
weeks Federal, plus an additional 13 weeks for unemployed people in the 
high unemployment States.
  As we discussed, the bill we passed earlier today would allow more 
than 2 million workers to collect extended benefits through May of this 
year. According to some of my Democratic colleagues, that is not 
enough. They want to let workers who have collected 26 weeks of regular 
State benefits plus 13 weeks of federally funded benefits collect an 
additional 13 weeks of benefits, for a total of 52 weeks of benefits 
for everyone, every place, regardless of the unemployment rate of a 
particular State. In other words, the agreement we reached last March 
to provide up to 9 months of benefits in every State, and 12 months of 
benefits in high unemployment States, is no longer good enough as 
indicated by the debate of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
earlier this afternoon. They want 12 months of benefits for everyone in 
every State regardless of whether unemployment is going up or going 
down.
  They claim extending last year's agreement leaves out a million 
workers. I respectfully disagree. Their proposal goes well beyond 
anything Congress has ever done. It provides 12 months of federally 
funded benefits to all workers in every State. While the national 
unemployment rate is higher than it was at this time last year, the 
unemployment rate in 20 States is now lower than it was a year ago.
  Under current law, no one can receive more in federally funded 
benefits than they received in State benefits. In other words, those 
who collect 26 weeks of State benefits could also collect 26 weeks of 
federally funded benefits; but in those States that might have only 20 
weeks of State benefits, then there would only be 20 weeks of federally 
funded benefits under current law. So there is a link between what we 
give in Federal benefits and State benefits. This link is designed to 
give States the

[[Page 87]]

ability to honor their unemployment program.
  Although we have not seen the latest version, the Democratic proposal 
would break this link. By breaking the link, it would pay federally 
funded benefits without regard to the 26 week level of State benefits. 
This represents a very historic and unprecedented expansion of the 
unemployment program.
  While we may need to revisit the issue of unemployment benefits later 
this year, it seems to me that we should carefully review this proposal 
before final action. In the meantime, we have had an opportunity to 
make sure that there is a seamless flow of checks from December 28, 
now, to those 750,000 unemployed people who would otherwise have had a 
lapse in receiving unemployment compensation, plus probably 2.5 million 
people connected with those respective families. And, for people on the 
other side of the aisle who think they have legitimacy and want to 
discuss these additional issues, the institution of the Senate is very 
prone towards hearing any idea that Senators want presented, having an 
environment or a forum for the presentation of that. So we probably 
will be forced to, and maybe ought to, review what the Democrats 
propose today. But we should not do it in an environment as we had 
today. If it had been adopted today, I am sure the House of 
Representatives would not have accepted it and, obviously, if we had 
gone to conference to work out the differences, no bill would have been 
presented to the President of the United States by Thursday--for his 
signature in time, then, to keep a seamless flow of unemployment 
checks.
  So I am glad we were able to work this out. Obviously, as chairman of 
the Senate Finance Committee, I have to be open to discussion of any 
issues dealing with unemployment. I look forward to those discussions 
but in an environment that does not stall the flow of checks for people 
who are deserving of them, and that is those people who would have 
otherwise been cut off on December 28.
  I yield the floor and 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. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I will again suggest the absence of a 
quorum, but I ask the time be evenly charged against each side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I now suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, we are going to have a vote in a short time. 
It is going to be a vote on adjourning the Senate. That is what the 
vote will be.
  But in substance it is more than that. We have had a number of 
Senators here who have requested a vote on adjournment. The reason they 
have done that is because they believe they should be able to have a 
vote on unemployment benefits for the people who are not covered in the 
legislation we just passed. So let there be no mistake, even though 
this procedurally is a vote on adjourning the Senate, the substantive 
aspect of this vote is that people who vote to adjourn the Senate today 
at approximately 5 o'clock will be voting to not allow about 1 million 
people to have unemployment benefits.
  That is what this is about. I have told my friend, my counterpart, 
that there are a number of people who believed a vote was 
inappropriate. There are people who have worked on both sides of the 
aisle not to have a vote today. But there are a number of people who 
believe the vote is important. I want to make sure, before that vote 
occurs at 5 o'clock, that people know what the purpose of the vote is.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, with all due respect to my friend from 
Nevada, the motion to adjourn will have absolutely nothing to do with 
unemployment benefits. It is simply, in the judgment of this Senator, 
an ill-advised attempt to disrupt what is typically a ceremonial day. 
We have Members of the Senate who were sworn in today--some of them 
brand new, some of them for the second and third and fourth and fifth 
terms--who have family in town. They are scattered all about the 
Capitol and off the Capitol with receptions for their friends.
  There is nothing, I would say, that the other side could do today on 
this issue that they could not do on Thursday on this issue. If they 
want to make a point on the subject, certainly that is always possible 
in the Senate, the Senate being the Senate.
  But this is going to be extremely disruptive to the Members and their 
families. I am told by floor staff there is nothing we can do to 
prevent this vote, and so we will have it. But hopefully we will have 
it with enough notice to give our colleagues, who are scattered around 
town with their families and friends, an opportunity to come back and 
cast a completely unnecessary vote, which has nothing to do with 
anything other than whether or not we adjourn tonight.
  Make no mistake about it, this is a meaningless vote. It is simply a 
procedural vote that we normally would not take at the end of the day. 
No effort to describe it otherwise would be sufficient to convince 
anyone that this is anything more than simply a motion to adjourn.
  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. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________