[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 7]
[Senate]
[Pages 8917-8924]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




               JUMPSTART OUR BUSINESS STRENGTH (JOBS) ACT

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of S. 1637, which the clerk will report.
  The journal clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 1637) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
     to comply with the World Trade Organization findings on the 
     FSC/ETI benefit in a manner that preserves jobs and 
     production activities in the United States, to reform and 
     simplify the international taxation rules of the United 
     States, and for other purposes.

  Pending:

       Cantwell/Voinovich Amendment No. 3114, to extend the 
     Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 2002.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the time until 12 
p.m. shall be equally divided between the two leaders or their 
designees.
  The Senator from Nevada is recognized.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I assume each side would approximately have 
25 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, 26.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, we will allocate that time with 10 minutes 
to the manager of the bill. There will be 5 minutes for Senator 
Cantwell, 5 minutes for Senator Voinovich, and 5 minutes to Senator 
Sarbanes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada, Mr. Ensign, is 
recognized.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I rise to briefly talk about the 
underlying bill and the vote we are going to have on cloture, but 
mostly to discuss the Cantwell amendment related to the temporary 
extension of unemployment benefits.
  Mr. President, we had a vote on a similar amendment earlier this 
year, but the amendment before us today was redrafted to reflect 
changes in high unemployment states. First I want to talk about whether 
we should extend unemployment benefits--a temporary extension of the 
Federal program--based on the current unemployment situation. Then I 
want to talk about some of the details of Senator Cantwell's amendment 
and the changes that are in her amendment.
  The employment picture in this country is looking up by all measures. 
In the past, employment was looking up according to the household 
survey, which is the survey that measures employment, including those 
who are self-employed, people who contract with the Government, and 
those on payrolls.
  But, there are two surveys of employment. The payroll survey does not 
include people who are self-employed. It does not include small 
contractors who contract with the Government, and there are a lot of 
those people today. So the household survey is a more accurate survey 
of overall employment in this country.
  In the past, the household survey and the payroll survey have 
paralleled each other. There really has not been a difference, so 
people mainly paid attention to one survey, the payroll survey.

[[Page 8918]]

  In the past couple of years, we had a recession that was followed by 
a recovery. It has been called a jobless recovery. But, recessions 
always have a peak of jobless claims during periods of higher 
unemployment after recessions.
  This is a chart of the last several recessions, and we can see the 
gray areas are the recessions. These dark lines are a measure of the 
unemployment rate. We can see after the recessions, either right at the 
end of the recessions or just after the recessions, we can see the peak 
in unemployment. This indicates there is always a lag in people being 
hired after recessions have ended. As the economy starts growing, 
people are still a bit unsettled in their businesses--Should we rehire 
people?--and so that peak of unemployment lags after recessions.
  We have passed that peak. We had the recession. The recession 
occurred at the end of the year 2000 and going into the year 2001. We 
had this recession followed by a slow recovery. And then we had 
September 11 hit, which just decimated the economy in many areas, 
especially the tourist economy, as in my home State of Nevada. It was 
almost a double dip of a recession. The first dip starting at the end 
of 2000 and the second dip after September 11, 2001. So we did some 
things in the Senate to try to overcome that situation. Working with 
the President, we passed two different tax bills. Those tax bills have 
had a positive effect on the economy. The economy is recovering. It is 
still in a growth phase, and it is now moving into the hiring phase of 
the recovery. As you can tell from recent job numbers people are 
starting to say: You know what, we really do feel good about what is 
going on. And they are hiring additional employees.
  One of the criticisms has been in the decline of manufacturing jobs. 
In the past these jobs were declining, and we were losing manufacturing 
jobs in the United States.
  This chart shows manufacturing activity. We can see it down in 1991, 
it is coming up in 2000, and then, going into 2001, it takes a 
nosedive. Then in 2001, it came back up a little bit and took another 
nosedive. We can see in the year 2003 manufacturing jobs have increased 
by a very nice rate. So the manufacturing activity in the United States 
is coming back. That is a good sign, and we all welcome that.
  The Cantwell amendment would extend temporary unemployment benefits 
through November, but this is not just a clean extension. The amendment 
also changes the ``high unemployment'' definition to make more States 
qualify for additional unemployment benefits. In other words, if her 
original amendment that we voted on a couple of months ago was enacted 
today, the only State that would qualify as a high unemployment State 
would be Alaska.
  She redrafted her amendment to where it eliminates what is called a 
look-back provision, and that look-back provision is what helps 
determine whether States are high unemployment States. It compares 
their current unemployment rate to the rates in the previous 2 years.
  The amazing thing about that look-back provision is that states with 
relatively low unemployment could qualify as a high unemployment state 
under this amendment. According to preliminary analyses of the Cantwell 
amendment the State of Idaho qualified as a high unemployment state 
with about a 4.5-percent unemployment rate. That is very low. My State 
is 4.4 percent, and it is hard to find employees. When the unemployment 
rate gets that low, it is hard to find employees. Under the Cantwell 
amendment, the State of Idaho could potentially qualify as a high 
unemployment State.
  Last Friday, the statistics were revealed for last month, the month 
of April. The unemployment rate dropped to 5.6 percent, and 288,000 
jobs, according to the payroll survey, were created. In March, 335,000 
jobs were created. Just since the beginning of 2004, almost 900,000 
jobs, according to the payroll survey--the one the other side has been 
talking about--almost 900,000 jobs have been added to the payrolls in 
the United States. It is the eighth consecutive month of job gains, 
according to the payroll survey. In that 8-month period, we have had 
1.1 million jobs created.
  The other thing we have to look at are jobless claims, in other words 
how many people actually applying for unemployment compensation. The 
initial jobless claims declined by 25,000 last week, and that was the 
lowest level since before the 2000 Presidential election.
  Also, something that has been talked about on this floor is the 
number of long-term unemployed, people who have been on the 
unemployment rolls for a long time or have exhausted their benefits. 
That number dropped by 200,000. Not only are the unemployment numbers 
improving, but so is productivity.
  I talked before about payroll versus household. I want to emphasize 
that because the payroll survey is now showing jobs being created.
  By the way, this chart shows the 1.1 million jobs by month, and this 
is the payroll survey. Comparing the payroll with the household survey, 
in the past we can see how these two surveys parallel each other. But 
in the years 2000, 2001 and beyond--this is the period we were in the 
last couple of years--these actually diverge because there were more 
jobs added to the household survey than the payroll survey. The payroll 
survey is now starting to catch up.
  Why would this occur? Why would the household survey, which measures 
self-employed people, be different than the payroll survey? The 
difference comes about because our economy is changing. During times of 
recession--and this is not unusual for people who cannot find jobs--
they start their own companies. They become entrepreneurs, and 
sometimes it ends up being the best thing that ever happened to them 
because they start their own company and end up being more successful 
than they could ever have been working for somebody else. Senator 
Bennett referred to his successes in starting businesses earlier today 
on the Senate floor.
  In the last few years, more people than ever have started their own 
companies. As a matter of fact, 430,000 people now make their full-time 
living on e-Bay. That is just within the last couple of years. Those 
people are not measured in the payroll survey; they are only measured 
in the household survey.
  The other side says those who are self-employed do not have jobs. As 
a matter of fact, the other side says there have been 3 million jobs 
lost since President Bush took office. That number is according to the 
payroll survey. The household survey shows 2 million jobs have been 
added because a lot of those people are now self-employed.
  Before my tenure in the U.S. Senate, I was a veterinarian. I was 
self-employed. My job did not count, according to the other side of the 
aisle. They say that the household survey does not count. If you are 
self-employed, you know you are working; you think you have a job; you 
think that should count. It is an insult to those self-employed people 
not to count them in a survey of jobs. If we are really talking about 
jobs, we should have the most accurate reflection of jobs.
  Even giving the other side of the aisle just the payroll survey, the 
payroll survey is improving. It is improving dramatically. Almost 
900,000 jobs since the beginning of the year have been added to the 
payrolls of the United States, which begs the question: why should we 
extend the temporary extension of unemployment benefits program again?
  When the Democrats controlled the White House, the House and the 
Senate, after the early 1990s recession, the unemployment rate was at 
6.6 percent. At that time they said unemployment was low enough to end 
the program. We have not heard the other side address that issue. I 
have made this argument on the Senate floor many times this year, and 
we have not heard the other side address that. They controlled all 
three of those bodies and yet they saw the fact that 6.6 percent was 
low enough to end the program.
  Fast-forward to today, the Republicans control the White House, the 
Senate, and the House, and now the Democrats say that, even though the 
unemployment rate is almost a full percentage point lower than when the

[[Page 8919]]

Democrats ended the program, now the unemployment is too high and we 
need to keep the temporary unemployment program going today.
  I think that is disingenuous. It is saying while we were in control, 
6.6 percent was low enough to end the program, but now the Republicans 
are in control, 5.6 percent is too high and we ought to keep the 
program going. They put out the statement from Alan Greenspan, who said 
we should keep the program going. Well, Alan Greenspan has also said 
that the biggest threat to our economic long-term growth is the 
deficit. The amendment that was offered by Senator Cantwell costs 
almost a billion dollars a month. It is a 9-month extension, and it is 
an $9.5 billion price tag. That adds $9.5 billion to the deficit. We 
have already spent $32 billion on this program the last couple of 
years, which added $32 billion to the deficit. It comes right out of 
deficit spending.
  I believe it is time to end the program. The States have money we 
gave them. We gave them $8 billion to address the problem of high 
unemployment in their States. Many States, including the State of 
Washington, have not used this money. Out of the $144 million the State 
of Washington received out of the $8 billion, they have only used about 
$1 million. So if the State of Washington cared about their unemployed, 
one would think they would use that money, but they have chosen not to 
use it. So I think we have fulfilled our obligation during the 
recession and post-recession when unemployment was high, but it is time 
to start worrying about the deficit. For those who talk about being 
deficit hawks, it is time to vote against this program.
  Now I do not know whether this was done purposely or not, but in 
drafting this bill, the author of the amendment drafted it in such a 
way that it is retroactive to the first of the year. So that means if 
one is working today, but they were unemployed at the beginning of the 
year and would have qualified for TEUC at the beginning of the year, 
they actually would get a check from the Federal Government. I do not 
think that is the purpose of this program. The purpose of this program 
was to help those who really could not get a job.
  The other reason I do not believe this program should be extended is, 
during times of economic growth, if one is having trouble getting a job 
it may mean that they have to move. Well, we are in times of economic 
growth, but the more comfortable we make it for people on unemployment 
insurance--in other words, when they are getting these unemployment 
benefits--the more comfortable we make it to stay on unemployment, the 
less incentive there is to go out and do what it takes to get a job. It 
is called personal responsibility.
  I believe we are during that time of economic growth--I think all of 
the statistics show that--and it is time that we end this program and 
we vote down the Cantwell amendment. The Cantwell amendment violates 
the budget. We know that. That is why there is a budget point of order 
that is going to be raised against the Cantwell amendment. The vote we 
will have will be to waive the Budget Act so that we will deficit 
spend.
  If we want to make sure those jobs are out there for the people who 
are unemployed today, we have to have a strong economy. Alan Greenspan 
says the biggest threat to our economy is the size of the deficit. Let 
us do something about the size of the deficit by voting down this $8 
billion program.
  I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of our time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask to be recognized for the time I have 
under the unanimous consent agreement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 10 minutes.
  Mr. BAUCUS. The ancient Theban poet Pindar wrote: ``The test of any 
man lies in action.''
  That was a very provocative, very prescient, and very wise statement. 
The test of any man, or woman, lies in action.
  Today that test will be for the Senate. Today we will test whether 
the Senate can act to create and keep good manufacturing jobs in 
America. Today we will test whether the Senate can act to end European 
tariffs that hobble American businesses, and today we will test whether 
the Senate can act to extend vital benefits to the nearly 1.5 million 
jobless Americans who have exhausted their unemployment benefits.
  The coming cloture vote is the defining test for the JOBS bill. If 
the Senate cannot vote today to complete action on this bill, then the 
majority leader will move on to other business. Yes, in a perfect world 
every Senator would have the opportunity to offer and debate every 
amendment. In a perfect world, every amendment would get a vote. In a 
perfect world, every Senator would get home for family dinner at 6. But 
by the standards of the modern Senate, I believe the Senate has given 
this bill fair consideration.
  Over the course of 5 separate weeks, we have considered 28 amendments 
and adopted 17 of them. I think that is a respectable record. The 
coming cloture vote is now the test of whether we can pass the JOBS 
bill. The coming cloture vote is also a test of whether Senators on 
this side of the aisle can take yes for an answer. We on this side 
demanded a vote on Senator Harkin's overtime amendment, and the Senate 
did consider that amendment. The Senate adopted that amendment. We 
demanded a vote on Senator Dodd's offshoring amendment, and the Senate 
did consider that amendment and the Senate adopted that amendment as 
well. We demanded a vote on Senator Wyden's trade adjustment assistance 
amendment, and the Senate did consider that amendment but regrettably 
did not adopt it. However, Senators Wyden, Coleman, and I intend to 
bring that effort back to the Senate on another day. And we demanded a 
vote on Senator Cantwell's unemployment insurance amendment. Under the 
unanimous consent agreement governing this bill, in order to get a vote 
on the unemployment insurance amendment the Senate needs to invoke 
cloture.
  If we invoke cloture, the Senate will consider that amendment, and I 
hope the Senate will also adopt it.
  I believe that invoking cloture to get a vote on the Cantwell 
amendment is now a fair deal for Democrats, and I think we should take 
it. We should say, yes, for an answer. We should vote to invoke cloture 
so that we may vote on unemployment benefits.
  After the cloture vote, the vote to waive the budget for Senator 
Cantwell's amendment will be a test for the entire Senate. Our vote on 
the Cantwell amendment is a test as to whether we can respond to the 
record number of jobless workers who have exhausted their benefits. 
America's free and open market economy has yielded unparalleled growth 
and vitality. Part of the genius of our economy is that we allow the 
private sector the freedom to adjust rapidly to changing circumstances. 
It helps our country grow. That freedom and vitality comes also with 
disruption and pain for workers who lose their jobs in hard economic 
times like those we have had in the last 4 years.
  When, nearly 70 years ago, Congress created the unemployment 
insurance program, our society struck a deal. American workers agreed 
to participate in open and volatile markets, and the Government agreed 
to cushion the blow when markets turned rough. Unemployment insurance 
is the result of a vital social compact.
  In past recessions, Congress has acted to extend those benefits, and 
the evidence is that in this recession more workers are remaining 
unemployed much longer than in previous recessions.
  The share of the unemployed who have been unemployed for more than 6 
months has hit its highest level in more than 20 years. Federal 
Chairman Alan Greenspan said recently ``an exceptionally high number'' 
of unemployed are losing their unemployment benefits, and he supported 
resuming temporary Federal benefits, saying:

       I think it's a good idea largely because of the size of the 
     degree of exhaustions.

  Thus, the coming vote on the Cantwell amendment will test whether the 
Senate can respond to this human

[[Page 8920]]

need, keep our social compact, and extend these needed unemployment 
benefits. Finally, this coming cloture vote will be a test of whether 
the Senate can work.
  This bill began as a venture of Democrats and Republicans working 
together in the Finance Committee. Its major provision, the heart of 
the provision--tax cuts for American manufacturing--is really a 
Democratic priority. Democrats sought all along to create and keep good 
manufacturing jobs here in America. This bill advanced in the Finance 
Committee as a cooperative venture. The chairman of the Finance 
Committee and I, working together, included many of the provisions of 
the bill in response to the request of Senators on this side of the 
aisle--on both sides of the aisle, but especially on this side of the 
aisle. This bill reflects an open, democratic process.
  Once we came to the Senate floor, we tried to ensure the Senate 
consider the maximum number of amendments. Now the Senate has 
considered 28 amendments and adopted 17 amendments. Even after the 
Senate invokes cloture, the Senate may still consider germane 
amendments and there are going to be several of them, and I believe the 
Senate will be able to take them up and deal with them postcloture.
  The time for talk is coming to a close. Soon will be a time for 
action. The coming vote will be a test of whether the Senate can act. 
Let us act to advance this bill to create good manufacturing jobs here 
in America. Let us act to extend unemployment benefits to jobless 
workers who need them. Let us act to show we can at least work together 
in the spirit of that great poet Pindar, again, who said, ``The test of 
any man lies in action.''
  I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, what is the parliamentary situation 
right now?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 5 minutes.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise in very strong support of the 
pending amendment offered by my very able colleague from Washington, 
Senator Cantwell, and by my able colleague from Ohio, Senator 
Voinovich. I commend both of them for their work on this issue. I 
particularly want to underscore the determination and the perseverance 
Senator Cantwell of Washington has shown in pressing this issue 
forward.
  This amendment, simply put, seeks to reinstate the Temporary Extended 
Unemployment Insurance Benefits Program which lapsed at the end of 
2003. Long-term unemployment, the very problem this program of 
temporarily extending unemployment insurance benefits is intended to 
deal with, is at near record levels. There are 1.8 million long-term 
unemployed workers in America today. That is, they have been unemployed 
for more than 26 weeks, the period that is traditionally covered by 
unemployment insurance benefits.
  Some of my colleagues have argued we do not need to pass this 
amendment because jobs are beginning to pick up. They assert we have an 
unemployment rate lag, after the end of a recession.
  We have not even recovered the jobs we have lost, as we now move out 
of this recession. This administration is the first administration 
since the Hoover administration not to produce a net gain of jobs in 
the course of its tenure. Long-term unemployed workers today constitute 
22 percent of all unemployed workers. That level is near a 20-year 
high. It has been above 20 percent for the last 19 months--in other 
words, of the unemployed, this large a portion have been long-term 
unemployed. That is the longest such stretch since the Department of 
Labor began keeping such statistics in 1948.
  It has been 37 months since the recession began. The economy has 1.6 
million fewer jobs today than it did 37 months ago. In no other 
recession since the Great Depression has the economy failed to recreate 
all the jobs it lost after 37 months. We are still down 1.6 million 
fewer jobs than when the recession began 37 months ago. In every other 
recession other than the Great Depression, the economy had recreated 
all the jobs that had been lost within 31 months. I stress this to make 
the point that the job market has not strengthened adequately in order 
to take care of these people. Job growth is far too slow.
  It is not as though the level of benefits that is being sought is 
historically excessive. In previous recessions we have passed 
extensions beyond what is contained in this amendment. When we had a 
recession from July of 1990 to March of 1991, we extended unemployment 
benefits until April of 1994. At the program's peak, benefits were 
available for 26 to 33 extra weeks. It was in the previous Bush 
administration that this took place.
  It is not as though providing these benefits is not supported by 
prominent economists. Federal Reserve Chairman Greenspan testified 
before the Joint Economic Committee on April 21, only a few weeks ago, 
that re-instating the extended unemployment insurance program is ``a 
good idea. I think it is a good idea, largely because of the size of 
the degree of exhaustions.''
  We built up this unemployment insurance trust fund to fund these 
benefits. The money is in there, paid for, for this very purpose. I 
urge my colleagues to support this amendment from my able colleagues 
from Washington and Ohio.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? If no one yields time, it 
will be charged equally to both sides.
  The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I ask the Senator from Oklahoma if he wishes to speak. 
There are several speakers on this side. As I understand it, on the 
other side of the aisle, the time is divided between 10 and 15. If the 
Senator from Oklahoma has 15 minutes, now will be an appropriate time 
for him to speak.
  Mr. NICKLES. We have 10.
  Mr. BAUCUS. You have 9 minutes left. Now would be an appropriate 
time. We have a lot of speakers here--not a lot, three more.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I am happy to speak, but I don't believe 
the Senator from Washington has made her speech. Usually I would 
respond to her.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Maybe you can set a precedent here.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. I rise in opposition to the amendment of my friend 
Senator Cantwell for a lot of reasons. This is not a simple extension, 
as Senator Ensign earlier said. This is an expansion. Yet despite the 
fact we have good economic news, despite the fact we had a report last 
month, 288,000 new jobs, before that, 300,000--700,000 jobs in the last 
2 months--we want to not only extend temporary Federal unemployment 
compensation, we want an expansion.
  Change the definition. I started looking at the amendment. I thought 
it was not very well drafted. It does a number of things. It is 
retroactive back to January. It expands benefits, and then it goes 
retroactive.
  Let us say somebody is unemployed in January and February, but they 
get a good job in March. They would qualify for 8 weeks or maybe 10 
weeks of benefits. Are we going to write them a check even though they 
have had a job for the last month or so? We have never done that.
  What would that be if you were in the State of Massachusetts? It 
would be as much as $760 a week. For 10 weeks, that is $7,600--a lump 
sum, even though you may have a job that is paying over $80,000 a year.
  That doesn't make sense. But it would be legal. It would actually 
happen, and it would cost Federal taxpayers probably in excess of $1 
billion if that happened. That makes no sense whatsoever. But that is 
in the amendment.
  The amendment also, as Senator Ensign explained, basically says for 
the high unemployment States we are going to change things so more 
States will qualify for high unemployment benefits. In other words, we 
are going to expand this program. Why? Because most of the States don't 
qualify for it because States that do qualify for the high unemployment 
Federal benefit have to have increasing unemployment. And, frankly, we 
don't have

[[Page 8921]]

that. We have decreasing unemployment, including the State of 
Washington, in which I believe the unemployment rate is 6.1 percent. 
You have declining unemployment in almost every State. The trend is 
down. The trend is for more employment. We should be grateful for that.
  Some people evidently want this program to be a permanent Federal 
program. But it is a Federal temporary program that has expired.
  I am looking at the statistics we have used in the past. We 
discontinued this program for a couple of years when we had it in the 
early 1990s. We discontinued that program when the unemployment rate 
was 6.6 percent. Now the rate is down to 5.6 percent. We were well 
below the rates when we discontinued this program in 1994.
  When we had a Federal temporary program in the early 1980s, we 
discontinued the program when the rate was 7.4 percent. In the mid-
1970s--1975-1977--we discontinued the program when it was 6.8 percent. 
Now the rate is 5.6 percent, and we are saying let's discontinue it. 
Some people say let's continue it for everybody. It makes no sense 
let's not only extend it, but let's expand it. That is in this 
amendment.
  Finally, this amendment is not paid for. I am amused by the number of 
people who say, Yes, we want deficit reduction. We want pay-go, and 51 
Senators voted for pay-go. Senator Feingold had an amendment to the 
Budget Resolution. I didn't support it. This is going to make it tough 
on taxes and people do not pay enough attention to it on spending. I 
hear all these people: No, we want pay-go.
  We had an amendment last week on trade adjustment assistance. Of the 
51 Members who supported the pay-go amendment to the Budget Resolution 
on the floor, only 3 voted to sustain the pay-go point of order I made 
on the floor--only 3--and 48 Members reversed themselves. In other 
words, they said we don't want pay-go when it comes to creating or 
expanding a new program like trade adjustment assistance.
  Senator Grassley had a bill last week, the Family Opportunity Act. It 
passed. A pay-go point of order could have been applied to this. A pay-
go point of order will be applied, and I am going to make that pay-go 
point of order on this amendment.
  I have tried to get cost estimates on this amendment. OMB estimates 
Senator Cantwell's amendment costs $9.5 billion, and CBO estimates $9 
billion. I don't have a letter from them because it is hard to compute 
how much this retroactive provision is going to cost. But I think it is 
fair to say it is a $9 billion program that is not paid for.
  At the appropriate point, I will be making a budget pay-go point of 
order that this amendment, if it became law, would increase the deficit 
over the next 10 years by $9 billion. I urge my colleagues to vote 
against it.
  The economic news is good news. There are almost 1 million new jobs 
this year. I think there are almost 900,000 new jobs in 2004 alone. 
There has been some positive, good news on the employment front. The 
unemployment rate is down.
  When I was in the manufacturing business, if the unemployment rate 
was around 5 percent, it was almost full employment. I could hardly 
find people to work. Now the unemployment rate is 5.6 percent. It is 
going down. That is good news.
  We don't need to reach back and extend the program that has already 
been going, I believe, for about 36 months at a cost of $32 billion. I 
think it would be a mistake.
  At the appropriate point, I will be making a budget point of order 
and urge my colleagues to vote to sustain that point of order.
  I reserve the remainder of our time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Washington.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 5 minutes.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Let me start off by correcting a few things my colleagues have said 
on the floor. This is a debate about 1.5 million people who have lost 
their jobs and have not been able to find work and have been without 
benefits.
  To be clear, the unemployment program at the Federal level does not 
exist today. It was terminated as of the 31st of December. This isn't a 
continuation of a program that has been in place for the last several 
months. It has not been in place.
  As it relates to the Clinton administration and the economic numbers, 
say we cut the program off in better economic times and worse economic 
times, the whole point of this debate is the fact the economy and job 
creation has not taken place at the level that would have employed the 
number of people who have lost their jobs starting with over 2.6 
million people. While we have had some job growth, we have not totally 
recovered. While the Clinton administration cut off the program at a 
time of higher unemployment, they actually had net job growth. That is 
why they terminated the program. We are not in that same situation.
  In fact, it is no wonder Alan Greenspan basically, before a House 
committee, came to the same conclusion and said if you have a large 
number of exhaustees it makes sense to go ahead and use the program to 
take care of those exhaustees.
  So here is one of our chief economists saying, Yes, the Clinton 
administration did something different, and they did it differently 
because they had job creation and net job growth going on. We do not 
have net job growth going on.
  My colleague mentioned Alan Greenspan and the deficit and what we 
need to do to take care of the deficit moving forward. Alan Greenspan, 
who is also very concerned about the deficit, said exactly this. The 
number of exhaustees alone will tell you it is time for us to go ahead 
and take this program and take care of those 1.5 million exhaustees 
because of their large number.
  Let us talk about where we are going to spend money. I think that is 
the reason we are in this debate. Some of my colleagues said it is 
about the deficit. Let us take this bill, for example. Let's take the 
underlying bill and talk about what we are spending money on. The 
Congressional Budget Office estimates the cost of my amendment at $5.8 
billion. If the Senator from Oklahoma can get a larger number----
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
  Ms. CANTWELL. I only have 5 minutes. I will be happy to yield after I 
finish speaking, if I have time.
  Mr. NICKLES. I don't think the Senator is correct.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Ms. CANTWELL. The issue is this underlying bill has a lot of tax 
credits and programs to help corporate America. Many of them I support. 
But I think it is important for my colleagues to realize what is in 
this bill.
  As opposed to the cost of taking care of the unemployment in America, 
there is $9 billion in here for the oil and gas industry; $2.2 billion 
for the clean coal industry; $2.8 billion for synthetic fuel. Actually, 
this particular program is under investigation by two different 
agencies. There are $2 billion for green bonds, which I say and 
Taxpayers for Common Sense say could still inadvertently go to a 
Hooters Restaurant. These two programs alone would pay for the 
unemployment benefit program.
  We basically went ahead and authorized these in this legislation. I 
don't know where we found the money for those programs. Yet, we are 
taking money out of the unemployment insurance trust fund, a fund that 
is supposed to be paid into by employees, and somehow saying, out of 
the $13 billion that is there, we do not have enough money for working 
families who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own, but, 
yes, we have money--$2.8 billion--for synthetic fuels, even though we 
are investigating whether the money should be spent there, and we have 
$2 billion for green bonds that could end up going to a Hooters 
Restaurant. Where are the priorities of my colleagues? Where are the 
priorities in passing this kind of legislation when we know that 
American men and women need our help and support?

[[Page 8922]]

  Like my colleagues, I know this economy will get better. I have 
actually helped create jobs in the private sector. It will recover. But 
that is not the debate. The debate is, we have terminated a program in 
December and we now have data and information that shows the economy 
has not picked up to the degree in the last several months to take care 
of that huge number of unemployed who have exhausted their benefits. 
While everyone is talking about whether the economy is better, 
executive salaries are up, corporate profits are up, but total jobs 
lost is the issue. We are in a better economic situation, but we are 
leaving the American worker behind.
  I ask unanimous consent for an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I yield 1 of my minutes to the Senator from Washington.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, take last month's number. Say we had an 
average of 300,000 jobs created each month for the next 6 months. At 
the end of this program in October we would still be at a deficit. Even 
with 300,000 jobs created, we would still have over 112,000 people who 
had not gotten a job.
  So the question is, What are we going to do for a stimulus in the 
meantime as we are going through this job creation exercise in America? 
Are we going to say these are the only programs we support, programs 
for the oil and gas industry, for synthetic fuels, for green bonds, for 
bourbon distributors, for horse racing, for archery manufacturers? 
Those are the things we will support and we will not support the 
American workers?
  I ask my colleagues to think about our priorities and support the 
Cantwell-Voinovich amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. I clarify something for my colleague's amendment on 
cost. Her proposal in February was estimated by CBO to be $5.4 billion, 
but that proposal expired in June. This one expires in November. This 
one is retroactive. The one in February was not. So we have many more 
months, and we also have the retroactive provision. We have estimates 
that this proposal will cost $9 billion. It is not paid for. I will 
make a budget point of order.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. REID. How much time do we have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 5 minutes 45 seconds.
  Mr. REID. Senator Voinovich is not here, so if the Senator from 
Washington wants to use the time, she may.
  Ms. CANTWELL. I am happy to respond to the issues raised.
  One point is important to make. I am happy to modify my amendment if 
this would help clarify. This is not retroactive for someone who has 
gotten a job. If you got a job in March and you would have qualified 
for January and February unemployment, you do not get unemployment 
benefits. This only takes care of individuals who have lost their job 
and have not found a job.
  I am happy to modify the amendment. That is not the intent of the 
amendment. The intent is only to take care of people who are still 
unemployed.
  Mr. NICKLES. The intention of the Senator from Washington may be that 
it is not retroactive, but your amendment is retroactive. With the 
amendment before the Senate, an individual could be out of work in 
January and February, get a job in March, and receive payments. Read 
the amendment. It is there. It is retroactive. It may not have been the 
Senator's intention, but it is the fact.
  The amendment is unnecessary even if it is prospective, but it is 
not. As written, it is retroactive. This is the middle of May. By the 
time this would get through conference, it would be in June, July, or 
later. Yet this amendment says, let's go back to January. So if someone 
gets a job in between then, they would be entitled to receive payments. 
It is grossly irresponsible and all the more reason our colleagues 
should not support the amendment.
  Ms. CANTWELL. As I said, that is not the intent of the legislation. 
To make the Senator from Oklahoma comfortable, I am happy to consider 
whatever language he wants to clarify that point. This is not about 
someone who has gotten a job in the last 7 months; it is about the fact 
that we terminated this program in December and the fact that there are 
1.5 million Americans who are without benefits. They are, basically, 
defaulting on mortgages, going into bankruptcy, not being able to take 
care of their own health insurance or the health care insurance of 
their family.
  It is about giving them access to a fund that was created for these 
very economic times and giving them support during these economic 
times. It is stimulus that, as I said, is just as worthy as the other 
programs--I would say more worthy than a lot of the programs in the 
underlying bill.
  I am happy to correct this perception by the Senator from Oklahoma 
and clarify it in any way so we can get this particular issue off the 
table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 3 minutes 40 seconds remaining.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I will not use all that time.
  I compliment Senator Cantwell. She has been dogged in her effort to 
bring up this amendment. I remember it was not too long ago when we 
were working, the chairman of the committee, Senator Grassley, and 
others in the leadership, to try to sequence amendments, to figure out 
how we would process this bill.
  The Senator from Washington said she wanted to offer her amendment 
and we told her, absolutely she could. We were trying to work out some 
other amendments and asked if she could delay in pressing her amendment 
even though she had the right to offer it, and she said she would. She 
has been very good in, first, pushing to get her amendment passed and, 
second, working with Senators to try to figure out the very best 
circumstances under which her amendment could be brought up and passed.
  It has been somewhat difficult because Senators on this side of the 
aisle have been standing up for her rights. This Senator, certainly, 
and the minority leader, Senator Daschle, are standing up very strongly 
for her rights. Senator Kennedy from Massachusetts also assisted her 
and worked with her to help get this amendment up.
  There have been some Senators on the other side of the aisle who did 
not want to vote at all on Senator Cantwell's amendment, but she has 
persevered. She has done a great job representing people who are out of 
work and unemployed, especially for her State of Washington. That is 
why we are here today. Were it not for the perseverance of the Senator 
from Washington, it is problematic whether we would be at this point. 
We will have a vote first on cloture and then a vote on her amendment. 
I thank the Senator for that.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. REID. Is all time used on the side of the majority?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority has 48 seconds.
  Mr. REID. If the majority yields back their time, we will yield back 
ours.
  Mr. GREGG. I yield back.
  Mr. REID. We yield back.

                             Cloture Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Chair lays 
before the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will 
report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:


                             cloture motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     hereby move to bring to a close debate on Calendar No. 381, 
     S. 1637, a bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to 
     comply with the World Trade Organization rulings on the FSC/
     ETI benefit in a manner that preserves jobs and production 
     activities in the United States, to reform and simplify the 
     international taxation rules of the United States, and for 
     other purposes.
         Bill Frist, Charles E. Grassley, Jon Kyl, Jim Bunning, 
           Lindsey Graham, Mike Enzi, Trent Lott, Mitch McConnell, 
           Craig Thomas, Orrin G. Hatch, Gordon Smith, Rick 
           Santorum, Robert F. Bennett, John Ensign, Olympia J. 
           Snowe, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Don Nickles.


[[Page 8923]]


  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on S. 
1637, the Jumpstart Our Business Strength (JOBS) Act, shall be brought 
to a close? The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. The clerk 
will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Bayh) and the 
Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 90, nays 8, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 87 Leg.]

                                YEAS--90

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham (SC)
     Grassley
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Nickles
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Talent
     Thomas
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wyden

                                NAYS--8

     Corzine
     Feingold
     Graham (FL)
     Gregg
     Hollings
     Lautenberg
     McCain
     Sununu

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Bayh
     Kerry
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 90, the nays are 8. 
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in the 
affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LEAHY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 3114

  Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that prior to the next vote there 
be 2 minutes equally divided between proponents and opponents of the 
Cantwell amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the 
Cantwell-Voinovich amendment because it is the right thing to do for 
America's workers and the right thing to do for our economy. Although I 
am pleased that we are finally voting on this critical amendment, it 
saddens me that we are still talking about this issue. As many in this 
Chamber may remember, I worked with my colleagues, Senator Fitzgerald 
and Senator Nickles, to craft an unemployment insurance extension as 
the first legislation passed by the 108th Congress. That was back in 
January of 2003. Now, I find myself feeling like its Groundhog Day.
  A year and 5 months have gone by and times are still tough for the 
8.2 million Americans who are out of work. Little over a month ago, on 
March 30, tens of thousands of Americans lost their unemployment 
benefits because the Government's temporary extension of unemployment 
insurance expired. Every week, 85,000 workers have been running out of 
benefits and 1.5 million have lost their benefits since January. Since 
President Bush took office, our country has lost over 2 million jobs.
  I represent a State with one of the highest unemployment rates in the 
country. In March, New York State's unemployment rate was 6.5 percent. 
In New York City alone, unemployment has hovered around 8 percent since 
September 11, 2001. And, according to the Department of Labor, if New 
York City were a State, it would have the highest unemployment rate in 
the entire country. Almost 130,000 New Yorkers exhausted their 
unemployment insurance benefits between December of last year and 
today, none of whom qualified for Federal benefits.
  Action to help New Yorkers--and all Americans--who are out of work is 
long overdue. That is why I am proud to cosponsor the Cantwell-
Voinovich amendment. This amendment is virtually identical to a bill 
that I introduced with Senator Gordon Smith in November of last year. 
The Cantwell-Voinovich legislation will do what my bill with Senator 
Smith would have done: it will reinstate the Federal unemployment 
insurance program and probably every unemployed worker with an 
additional 13 weeks of benefits.
  Ignoring the unemployed will not make them go away. In fact, today, 
despite Congress's inaction on this issue, long-term unemployment is at 
the highest level in recorded history. More than 2 million Americans 
have been our of work for 6 months or more, a higher percentage than 
ever before. According to the Children's Defense Fund, this represents 
an increase of 245 percent in the past 2 years alone. And if the past 
is any indication of the future, many of these jobs will never return. 
In past recessions, 50 percent of job loss is temporary, the other half 
is permanent. Economists estimate that today nearly 80 percent of job 
loss is permanent.
  Permanent job loss isn't just a theoretical term. It is a father with 
a mortgage, a mother with car payments, and a young person with a 
college loan. We must never lose sight of that simple fact. While 
everyone wants to collect a paycheck, unemployment checks provide 
certainty in an economy that is anything but certain.
  For months, administration officials have claimed that their tax 
package will grow the economy and create jobs. But the only thing it is 
certain to grow is our Nation's mounting debt. The last time their 
economic policies were enacted, Americans lost 2 million jobs. We 
cannot wait to see how this debate plays out while 10 million 
unemployed Americans struggle. They paid into this system--some for 
decades--and now, when they need those benefits the most, we should 
provide them.
  It is long past time that we take care of unemployed workers in this 
country. We simply cannot keep repeating the past and let down American 
workers in these vulnerable and uncertain times. After all, Groundhog 
Day was officially February 2. And like more than 600,000 unemployed 
New Yorkers, I am ready to put it behind me.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, this next amendment is the Cantwell-
Voinovich amendment which will say when it comes to our economy and 
producing jobs, the priority of the Senate ought to be taking care of 
those individuals who lost their jobs and lost their benefits.
  This amendment is crystal clear. It only applies to people who have 
lost their benefits and are unemployed as of the enactment of this 
legislation, which means it only covers people who have lost their jobs 
and are unemployed. It is about whether we are going to say 1.5 million 
Americans are more a priority than simply passing this legislation with 
all the tax credits, all the incentives for various corporations in 
America, but leaving American workers out in the cold.
  Thirteen billion dollars of the unemployment insurance trust fund 
should be enough security to give back to workers who have paid into 
this account and through no fault of their own are unemployed. So while 
this institution today is going to make decisions----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Ms. CANTWELL. I ask unanimous consent for an additional 30 seconds.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. NICKLES. I ask unanimous consent that both sides have 1 
additional minute.

[[Page 8924]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. CANTWELL. So the question is whether we are going to continue to 
make a priority these kinds of tax credits in this legislation and 
leave the American workers out in the cold. I urge my colleagues, let 
us do both. Let us help those who have been left behind and continue to 
try to create a more positive economy.
  I urge people to support the Cantwell-Voinovich amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. ENSIGN. How much time is remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 2 minutes.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I will take 1 minute and then the Senator 
from Oklahoma will take 1 minute.
  Mr. President, a couple of quick facts. First, when the Democrats 
were in control in the early 1990s, following the recession, we had 
this same program. They were in control of the White House, the House 
and the Senate. The unemployment rate was at 6.6 percent and they voted 
to stop the program, again, when the unemployment rate was at 6.6 
percent. Today the unemployment rate is one point lower at 5.6 percent 
and, yet, now they want to extend the program. This, at the cost of $9 
billion. If one is a deficit hawk and they are worried about the 
deficit, they should vote against the Cantwell amendment.
  This amendment is also retroactive. In other words, if a person has a 
job now, qualified for TEUC after it expired, then this would apply to 
them. They would get a check from the Government for the time after 
January they were unemployed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to vote for this 
budget point of order that I am going to raise because this amendment 
is retroactive. This amendment costs 67 percent more than the last 
time. It costs $9 billion and it is not paid for. I am going to make a 
pay-go point of order. We did this last week and most of the people who 
say they support pay-go voted to waive pay-go. We are going to give 
them another opportunity to sustain pay-go and make sure this amendment 
does not pass because it would increase the deficit by $9 billion.
  The pending amendment offered by the Senator from Washington, Ms. 
Cantwell, increases mandatory spending and if adopted would cause an 
increase in the deficit in excess of levels permitted in the most 
recently adopted budget resolution. Therefore, I raise a point of order 
against the amendment pursuant to section 505 of the H. Con. Res. 95, 
the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2004.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I move to waive the relevant section of 
the Budget Act and ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) 
is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 59, nays 40, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 88 Leg.]

                                YEAS--59

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Clinton
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Daschle
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham (FL)
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     McCain
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Talent
     Voinovich
     Wyden

                                NAYS--40

     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Bennett
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chambliss
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham (SC)
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     McConnell
     Miller
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Thomas
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Kerry
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  On this vote, the yeas are 59, the nays are 40. Three-fifths of the 
Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted in the affirmative, the 
motion is rejected. The point of order is sustained, and the amendment 
falls.
  Mr. REID. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following two 
amendments be in order subject to the following time limit beginning at 
2:15; that the time be equally divided and controlled in the usual 
form: Senator McCain for 60 minutes, and Senator Hollings for 80 
minutes. This has been cleared by both managers. I also ask unanimous 
consent that no other amendments be in order prior to the vote.
  I don't have the number of the amendments, but they have been filed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.

                          ____________________