[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 7]
[Senate]
[Pages 8381-8382]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                   EXTENSION OF UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS

  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, there are several other points I would 
like to make. I know some people are thinking, why not do this for a 
shorter program. Why not expand the program for maybe another 60 days. 
The point is, where are we going to be in 60 days? Even if, say, we get 
a report on Friday that says there are 300,000 jobs being created and 
the next month there are 300,000 jobs being created, you still have at 
that point 1.4 million Americans looking for work; that is, people who 
have completely exhausted their State benefits.
  My constituents are making all sorts of choices. They are putting up 
their homes for sale. They are moving in with relatives. They are 
selling family possessions to pay mortgage payments. They are trying to 
hold on so this economy recovers. And they are hoping the next several 
months will bring good economic news, as I hope it does. I hope the 
next several months brings good economic news. But even if we have good 
economic news, we are not going to have the return of 1.4 million 
people or 2 million people back to work in the next several months. The 
question is, do we want to meet our obligation under the Federal 
program and help them.
  In the 1990s we had a very similar situation. We had an economic 
downturn and the first Bush administration basically had to come up 
with a program for unemployment benefits. They actually had already had 
the program in place for more than a year and had good economic news. I 
think more than 600,000 jobs had been created. The administration still 
supported another 9-month extension to unemployment benefits.
  Actually, they supported that 9-month extension, even with a richer 
program than what we are suggesting today. We are suggesting that the 
program ought to go for 13 weeks of Federal program and 13 weeks for 
very high unemployment States. At that point, the program was 20 weeks. 
So in the 1990s, the Bush administration decided, even though it had 
seen more than a half million in job growth--I think they had several 
million in job loss--even though they had seen the economy pick up, 
they made the decision that so many people had been impacted, laid off, 
and could not find work, that it was important to give them access to 
the Federal program. So they expanded the program for another 9 months.
  Now, I know this administration is now, as I said, through various 
members of its Cabinet, backing away from

[[Page 8382]]

its economic numbers for the year, but it is also saying they would 
support an unemployment benefit package that would come out of the 
House and Senate. I say to the administration, obviously, we are not 
getting this bill done in the timely fashion that would benefit most 
Americans. Maybe they can come and help in this effort because the 
preceding Bush administration did a great job supporting the package, 
even though jobs were starting to be created, to stem the tide of job 
loss and negative impact on the economy, and still the economy started 
to pick up again. So we should do the same.
  I think the administration should take some time, as it is riding 
around Ohio--and some of these middle America States have been hard hit 
with unemployment benefits--and listen to the people who have lost 
jobs. They will tell them this program is important to them, as I just 
outlined from several newspaper editorials that have been in the Dayton 
paper, specifically. I am sure there are editorials from other places 
throughout the Midwest as well. I know we had editorials from more than 
a dozen newspapers wondering why we were not moving forward on this 
legislation.
  So the point is, we have a case study in the 1990s--and a good one--
that this administration should follow. This administration should look 
at the success of that program, how jobs were being created, and still 
they expanded unemployment benefits because they knew it would take 
several months to put that many Americans back to work. That is what we 
are talking about today. We are talking about a jobs proposal that 
really is what we are going to do to incentivize or disincentivize 
corporations from moving overseas or doing business overseas. That is 
what the FCI/ETI bill is primarily about.
  While we are debating what is good to massage the intention of 
corporations in America, we should be talking about what we are doing 
to support the American workers who lost their jobs through no fault of 
their own. Why try to mastermind and guess about corporate intentions 
and incentive in the tax policy but then leave American workers who 
have a program that is designed to help them out in the cold without an 
opportunity?
  We have fought this battle a couple of times now. We fought it last 
year when the benefits expired and got it reinstated. We fought it when 
people actually lapsed off of benefits and we had to get them to 
understand that when we came back into session, the benefits were going 
to be restored. But now many Americans have lost hope. It has been 
since January 1 these people have been without benefits. Given that 
information, Americans have tried to make the best they can out of a 
tough situation. They have made those tough choices, and if you read 
the stories on my Web site, or talk to constituents, you will see very 
heartbreaking stories of people who have struggled to make ends meet 
and would rather work.
  I think it is very important that Congress act to move forward on 
this legislation. I know my colleagues would like to get the FSC/ETI 
bill done. I know they would like to say they passed something that 
dealt with jobs. Let's be honest. There haven't been a lot of jobs 
created in the last 3 years. We are at a net negative jobs. We are at a 
net negative 2 million jobs lost in America. So let's not kid 
ourselves. Job creation will come back. It will come back slowly. It 
will start to pick up, but that pickup is not going to be at the pace 
to give people relief in America and relief that is due to them.
  Mr. President, while I am not making a unanimous consent request, I 
hope that my colleagues understand how important this is, and that 
tomorrow we will find time to vote on this amendment. Not to vote on 
this amendment, again, is to say it is more important to deal with 
corporations and their tax incentives and tax breaks than it is to deal 
with the American workers who have lost their jobs. I don't want to 
send that message to these high-unemployment States, to those 
individuals who thought they supported this concept of a Federal 
program, and then tell them we have almost $15 billion in a Federal 
fund that was paid into by their employers, but now they are not going 
to be able to access any of it. I would rather tell them this body 
decided to do the right thing; that while we are waiting for the 
private sector to return to a strong economic engine, we are going to 
do the right thing and give people access to the Federal dollars from 
the program they have already paid into; that we are going to help the 
American workers in their time of greatest need; that our body, this 
institution, and the other side, the House of Representatives, believe 
the American workers deserve to have support.
  I hope tomorrow we can work out a time agreement so this amendment 
can be voted on, so we can move forward on not only getting the 
underlying bill done but getting this legislation moved, since both 
bodies have supported it and a majority of Members have supported the 
legislation.
  I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant 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.

                          ____________________