[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 4]
[Senate]
[Pages 4973-4975]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                   EXTENSION OF UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS

  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I join my colleague from New Jersey in 
discussing jobs, job creation and whether we will have the opportunity 
to vote on two key amendments that will help stimulate our economy--one 
amendment addresses overtime pay and the other would reinstate the 
federal unemployment insurance program.
  Many of my colleagues know that when we took a vote on reinstating 
the unemployment program on February 26, we actually had a majority of 
Members of this body supporting the program. On February 4, a majority 
of Members of the House of Representatives supported a similar 
provision.
  Congress supports this program, and supports an extension. The reason 
we created the State and Federal unemployment programs was to provide 
temporary and partial wage replacement to people who are involuntarily 
unemployed and to help stabilize the economy during recession. That is 
why we created the program.
  Yet, for some reason, we have put that notion aside and somehow think 
the economy is getting better and unemployed workers who have lost 
their jobs, through no fault of their own, somehow should not be able 
to participate in this Federal program.
  My own newspaper, the Spokesman-Review, had an editorial this week 
that basically said: Let us put money in the pockets of those who are 
not to blame for being out of work. Such a move will help businesses 
that rely on consumer spending, help them stay afloat, and was one of 
the chief reasons for creating unemployment benefits in the first 
place.
  What we are doing this morning is continuing to ignore the plight of 
the American workers who have lost their jobs through no fault of their 
own. We are being irresponsible, not allowing Americans to participate 
in a Federal program that was designed to create opportunity for people 
and to allow them to sustain themselves in an economic downturn when 
there are no jobs being created.
  So much has been bandied back and forth about whether we are actually 
recovering from this recession and whether and how many jobs will be 
created. I think it is important to look at the facts to see what 
economic projections have been made in comparison to what has really 
happened.
  My point is not to place blame for what has happened. At this point 
my concern is with the unemployed workers who are struggling to make 
mortgage payments, pay insurance bills, put food on the table.
  Any economist will tell you that sometimes projections are wrong. In 
the case of job creation in the past several years, we have been dead 
wrong about what was going to happen to the U.S. economy. In 2002, the 
Bush's Council of Economic Advisers said: We are going to have job 
loss, but it is not going to be that severe: We are going to lose about 
100,000 jobs. But, in fact, in that year we actually lost 1.5 million 
jobs.
  As a result, the President proposed his policies that were based on 
that projection. I didn't support his policies, but I am not going to 
spend a lot of time this morning critiquing whether or not they were 
sound. Instead, I am asking my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle to not make this a partisan issue. I am asking them to make this 
about the American worker who needs our help utilizing a Federal 
program designed to help out in times just like this.
  So, then in 2003, the President's economic forecast projected that 
the economy would create 1.7 million new jobs. But in reality, there 
was no job growth. In fact, we lost jobs. Instead of growing the 
economy, we lost 406,000 jobs.
  This year, some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are 
saying we don't have to keep the Federal unemployment benefits program 
going because the President has projected that we are going to have a 
record year--that we are going to create 2.6 million jobs. That was the 
actual forecast from the Council of Economic Advisors. I can provide to 
my colleagues the specific page, the specific citation.
  When several members of the President's Cabinet traveled to my state 
of Washington in February, they backed away from the projections. They 
said: We don't think that 2.6 million really is the number of jobs that 
are going to be created this year. We don't really think the forecast 
means what we thought it meant. I can tell you, the unemployed worker 
is not a rounding error; they are real people with real needs they have 
to meet on a day-to-day basis.
  To reach this 2.6 million jobs by the end of the year, the economy 
would need to create between 200,000 to 300,000 jobs per month. That is 
not what is happening at all. That is not what happened in January and 
it is not what happened in February. It is probably not what is going 
to happen in March.
  The real issue is that, while some people are saying the economy is 
better, and gee, things are rosy since the unemployment rate is only 
5.6 percent, they are hiding the fact that the unemployment rate held 
steady last month largely because 392,000 people are no longer counted 
as unemployed. Many economists and many newspapers around the country 
have said the national average would be more like above 7 percent if 
you actually included those people who aren't getting counted.
  Some people question whether the Federal program helps or hurts in 
the end. They say, don't we want these people out looking for jobs? 
Well, I can guarantee they are out looking for jobs. I have had so many 
constituents who have come to my Web site and told

[[Page 4974]]

me their personal stories about how they are trying to find a job, 
often competing with 20 or 30 other people for a job for which they are 
all overqualified because there are not jobs being created. 
Consequently, they are without the opportunity we all would like to see 
in their communities. They have lost a job through no fault of their 
own, they are working hard to find a new opportunity, but jobs are not 
being created.
  What do you do when jobs are not being created? You utilize this 
Federal program that could provide opportunity to people for 13 weeks 
beyond the State program. And this program creates an economic 
stimulus. Even Alan Greenspan recently said he believed we should have 
programs like this one in times of economic downturn. In fact, he 
testified before the House Education and the Workforce Committee before 
we adjourned for our last recess and he said:

       In times like this, I have supported the issue of extension 
     of unemployment insurance.

  He said that is because it is important to stimulate the economy.
  The program we are talking about right now would generate billions of 
dollars of stimulus that would go directly into the economy over the 
next 6 months. In fact, for every dollar spent on unemployment 
insurance, those individuals turn around and spend that money, $2, in 
our local economies. They pay their mortgage payments, their health 
care bills, their tuition for education, for their children to go to 
college. It helps sustain them until economic growth actually returns.
  When the first Bush administration was faced with this dilemma, when 
they had a recession in the 1990s, the first Bush administration said: 
Let's extend the Federal unemployment insurance program. Actually, the 
economy had been creating substantial numbers of new jobs for several 
months when the first Bush administration extended the program. Why? 
Because they knew that it would take time for the economy to recover. 
They knew all of those people were not going to find jobs immediately. 
Even though jobs had been created, the Bush administration extended the 
unemployment benefit program for another 9 months. As we all know, that 
was the right policy decision and many people went back to work over a 
period of time and they had the wherewithal to sustain their families 
in the meantime.
  I say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, it is time to 
get past the obstructionists who are holding this up. A majority of 
Members in both the House and the Senate want this legislation passed. 
They want to help the American worker. 5.6 is not the real number of 
unemployed people in America. It is not a fair representation.
  Even Business Week did a fabulous story presenting the issue of jobs 
in America, ``Where Are The Jobs?'' I urge all my colleagues to read 
through it in detail and see where exactly the jobs are in America. In 
reading it, you will find there has been an increase in productivity. 
There has been an increase in productivity and consequently there have 
been fewer new hires. While corporate CEOs have made more money and the 
stock market has benefited from the efficiencies of business, the 
person who has not benefited is the American worker who has not found a 
job. Unlike the 1990s when there were millions of jobs created at the 
same time that we achieved gains in productivity, now we have 
productivity gains and no jobs are being created. It is going to take 
us longer to recover.
  This Senator believes very much in the economy of the future. I 
believe there are some very strong sectors. As my colleague said 
yesterday, I believe we have to have the right fiscal plan, we have to 
have the right sectors--sectors like biotechnology and nanotechnology, 
software, and aerospace will continue to grow with the American 
economy. I think if we make this investment in unemployment now, we can 
give the American workers the help and the assistance they need during 
this time of job loss.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I am going to speak on the JOBS bill and 
the importance of passing the JOBS bill. In particular, a portion of 
the JOBS bill called Invest In The USA Act, which I authored with 
Senator Boxer last year. I just want to take a couple of minutes to 
respond to the comments of the Senator from Washington about 
unemployment and extending the temporary extension of unemployment 
benefits.
  We have had this debate many times on the Senate floor and it has 
been shown that when the Democrats were in control of the House, the 
Senate, and the White House, the extension of unemployment benefits was 
terminated when the unemployment rate in the country was 6.4 percent, 
almost a full percentage point higher than it is today. Historically, 
the termination criteria remains true.
  In the past, both President Clinton and the Democrat leader of the 
Senate, Tom Daschle, talked about a 5.6 percent unemployment rate and 
what a strong economy the US had at that time. Today, people's mindsets 
are different. People think that our current rate is actually a high 
unemployment rate.
  I believe we need to continue to look for things that will create 
jobs in America. We need to have job training, in fact we have passed a 
bill in the Senate that would improve job training. But we need to stop 
the filibuster of the Workforce Investment Act and allow it to move 
into conference, in order for the benefits to be seen. That bill will 
help train almost 1 million new workers and help them find new jobs in 
United States. The Workforce Investment Act is an important piece of 
legislation.
  There is a large number of jobs going overseas, and on the other side 
there are a lot of jobs that have moved to the United States. That is 
what makes up a global economy. It is a constantly changing global 
economy. Lower paying jobs usually move overseas, while higher paying 
jobs are created in this country. But there is a problem. In the last 
few years, as our economy has changed, not as many jobs have been 
created in this country as there could have been.
  We have a provision called the Invest in USA Act, which recognizes 
that over $500 billion has been accumulated in bank accounts for U.S. 
companies overseas because of the tax rates that would be charged on 
that money if it was brought back to the United States. U.S. companies 
pay up to a 35-percent corporate tax rate to bring that money home.
  This is a list of some of the various developed countries around the 
world. This is their normal corporate tax rate. The United States has 
the highest corporate tax rate when compared to countries in the world. 
This is just one fact that represents the stark contrast of what the 
United States does to its companies compared to what other countries do 
when companies invest in countries outside their own market.
  If a U.S. company goes to China and earns income over there, when it 
brings that money back, it has to pay up to a 35-percent tax rate on 
the money it brings returns to the U.S. If a company from France goes 
to China and makes money over there, and they bring the money back to 
France, it is zero percent. France charges them zero percent; Germany, 
zero percent; Canada, zero percent; Australia, zero percent; and, Great 
Britain, zero percent. These countries have recognized that it is a 
positive thing for the money to come back into their country.
  The Invest in USA Act, which I introduced with Senator Boxer last 
year, passed 75 to 25. Every Republican voted in favor of it and half 
of the Democrat Senators voted in favor of the Invest in USA Act. 
Unfortunately, it was dropped out in the tax debate in what is called a 
conference committee. It is now part of the bigger JOBS bill we have 
before us today. I might add--because of the tariffs the European Union 
will be putting on American companies--it is important to have this 
JOBS bill passed. I believe, of everything in this JOBS bill which is 
important, this is the most important piece.

[[Page 4975]]

  First, I talked about the $500 billion in the overseas markets. Of 
the $500 billion or so in American companies' bank accounts overseas, 
$400 billion conservatively--I think the lowest estimate of any of the 
studies I have seen is that $300 billion comes back--will come from the 
four corners of the world back into to the United States.
  To put this $400 billion number in perspective, from 1996-2002, it 
was clear that the United States was experiencing pretty good economic 
times. There are IPOs--initial public offerings--on the stock market. 
With IPOs, people raise money to be able to invest and pay down debt. 
There are all kinds of various uses for IPOs. During 1996-2002, all of 
the money raised with those IPOs does not equal this $400 billion 
number. With this one simple Act, Congress can bring back more money to 
the United States and create jobs than in all of the initial public 
offerings that were done for the stock market from 1996-2002.
  It is critically important we enact this legislation in order to 
bring jobs back to America. Some critics say it is unfair for the 
companies that are here in America which have paid their 35-percent 
corporate taxes. I am supportive of lowering the corporate tax rates, 
as often companies pass their taxes on to the consumer and are not 
directly responsible for them.
  We need to make American businesses more competitive. One of the ways 
we can do that is to lower the corporate tax rate. But given the fact 
that the rate is where it is, companies have no incentive to bring the 
money back here to the United States.
  For all of those companies that are paying that higher tax rate, if 
they want to share in a better economy, let us bring $400 billion back 
to the United States to invest, pay down the debt, invest in new 
capital improvements, do research and development in the United States, 
and create jobs right here in the United States.
  Various studies have been done regarding this important issue. Alan 
Sinai is probably one of the most respected economists in the United 
States. He certainly is not considered a conservative. Many would say 
he is maybe a little more liberal than conservative. I do not know that 
you can really paint him one way or the other, however he is well 
respected by both sides of the aisle. His estimate is that 660,000 jobs 
would be created by this one Act alone.
  The Joint Tax Committee says that over a 10-year period of time, if 
we enact the Invest in USA Act, it will help reduce the deficit by 
around $4 billion over 10 years. That in and of itself is a very small 
number compared to the over $2 trillion budget we have on an annual 
basis. But the Joint Tax Committee does not count any jobs that are 
produced. They do not count any of the taxes that are paid by those 
jobs that are being produced. Alan Sinai, on the other hand, looked at 
what kind of total impact this bill would have on the U.S. Government. 
In other words, would there be a loss of taxes or a gain of tax 
revenues because of the health in the economy. He has estimated that 
$75 billion in deficit reduction would be possible because of this one 
provision in the JOBS bill.
  The Invest in the USA provision will create 660,000 jobs, and I 
believe that is a conservative estimate. It will bring back $400 
billion in cash for all kinds of positive things for U.S. companies and 
U.S. workers. It will help the taxpayer and help pay down the debt, and 
everybody around here talks about how important it is to ensure the 
deficit is reduced.
  Of all the good things in the JOBS bill that we are talking about 
today, for those who are truly interested in creating jobs in America, 
we need to pass this incredibly important piece of legislation.
  Of the few objections I have heard to this legislation, one is that 
it is not fair to American companies. I believe that issue has been 
addressed. The second is you should not implement a temporary fix, that 
companies and people are content to wait. Instead of paying 35-percent 
corporate tax rate, they are only charged 5\1/4\ percent. Critics say 
you should not do that just for 1 year because then companies will wait 
for the next tax holiday. I agree, doing temporary tax holidays is not 
necessarily a good idea, however, I want to use this as a model to show 
that if we encourage United States companies that have invested 
overseas to bring their money back--if the tax laws in America are 
changed--we can, indeed, create more jobs on American soil in this 
growing global economy.
  There is an clear imbalance. Most of which is not the fault of the 
companies. Lou Dobbs constantly talks about job outsourcing and paints 
United States companies as evil companies. The bottom line is the 
companies are doing what is in their best financial interest. It is the 
Congress that has set up these incentives to go overseas and to keep 
the money overseas.
  What the Invest In The USA Act does, is allow a temporary fix to 
bring the money back in the next 12 months, stimulate the economy, and 
then show the model of how a permanent fix can make America more 
competitive in the global marketplace.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.

                          ____________________