Senate Coverage(1-22-04) Omnibus Bill HR2673

In order to keep up with the skullduggery going on in congress please post any comments or observations here.

The Senate will convene at 9:30am to resume consideration of the conference report to accompany HR 2673, the Omnibus Appropriations bill. As provided under a previous order, there will be 4 1/2 hours for debate prior to a second cloture vote on the measure. Roll Call Votes are expected during tomorrow's session.

http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/legislative/a_three_sections_with_teasers/votes.htm

Kennedy: I would like to address one other issue that is related to the workers of this country, and that is the issue of the unemployment compensation. The Federal extension of unemployment benefits expired December 31 and 90,000 workers a week have been running out of benefits. The economy lost 2.4 million jobs since President Bush took office and at the December rate of job growth it would take 200 years to return to prerecession jobs levels. American workers can't wait that long. Nearly 15 million Americans are out of work, including discouraged and underemployed workers, and the number of long-term unemployed remains unacceptably high at 2 million.
Historically, job loss during a recession is about 50 percent temporary and 50 percent permanent. Today, nearly 80 percent of the job loss is permanent. As a result, many of the unemployed will not return to work soon.

Today, there is only one job opening for every three out-of-work Americans. The Republican leadership continues to paint a rosy picture of the economy while ignoring these workers. House majority leader TOM DELAY has said he sees ``no reason'' to extend unemployment benefits and the Bush administration has been silent on the issue. Democratic Senators have asked for unanimous consent to take up and pass a Federal unemployment extension more than a dozen times. Each time the Republicans say no.

The program was enacted in March 2002 and extended in January 2003 and May 2003. It provided 13 weeks of unemployment benefits in most States, and 26 weeks in high unemployment States. Today, due to the criteria used to define high unemployment, only one state qualifies as a high unemployment State, Alaska, despite continuing unemployment in many other States.

The bill would reinstitute and extend the Federal Unemployment Insurance Program for 6 months, and ensure that high unemployment States continue to be covered.

I see my friend and colleague on the other side. I have just mentioned to the Senate we are now at the point where we are losing 90,000 workers a week, those who are losing coverage on unemployment. We still have some 15 million Americans out of work, including the discouraged and underemployed workers. And the number of long-term unemployed remains unacceptably high--nearly 2 million.
Historically, as I mentioned, the job loss during a recession is about 50 percent temporary and 50 percent permanent. Today it is 80 percent permanent.

[Page: S101] GPO's PDF
These are real people with real needs--families, mortgages to pay, food to put on the table. If we are going to have an expanding economy, it should not be done at the expense of one sector of our economy. It should be a tide that raises all the boats. There is no question that Wall Street is doing well. There is no question that a number of our companies are having extraordinary profits.
But we have these two issues, one denying the 8 million Americans the overtime, including veterans. And now we have a proposal to permit the extension of the unemployment compensation for those who have paid into the program and who are in dire need.

I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 2006, a bill to extend unemployment benefits for 6 months, which I introduced yesterday; that the bill be read a third time, passed, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, and any statements appear in the RECORD as though read.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?

Mr. NICKLES. Reserving the right to object, I need to find out what the request is. Unfortunately, I tell my friend and colleague from Massachusetts, the Senate has been in for a day, but I have not read his bill. I understand he introduced it yesterday. He wants to pass it today. Senator Kennedy is a very effective legislator, but I personally have not had a chance to read the bill.

Will the Senator tell me what the essence of his bill is? Is it a program to double unemployment compensation extension to 26 weeks? Or extend the present program to 13 weeks?

Mr. KENNEDY. I say to the Senator, it is essentially the same plan we passed before. The bill will reinstate the insurance program for 6 months, ensure that higher unemployment States continue to be covered--13 weeks; 13 weeks. It is the narrower program.

Mr. NICKLES. I appreciate the clarification.

Mr. President, I object.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, two or three comments. Senator Kennedy is my friend. We debated this issue a couple of times.

In the past many months, I guess for the last year and a half, there has been an effort to turn a 13-week program into a 26-week program. I have objected to that very strongly and will continue to object to it very strongly.

As I understand Senator Kennedy's explanation, this is an extension of the existing Federal unemployment compensation program which is scheduled to expire by the end of March of this year. But I would like to point out a couple of reasons why I object.

I will be happy to work with my friend and colleague from Massachusetts to maybe learn in greater detail of his proposal, but just a couple of editorial comments. No. 1, the unemployment rate is coming down. It is at 5.7 percent. In 1993, at the conclusion of a significant downturn and recession in the economy, the Democrats were in control of the Senate and they had a Temporary Federal Unemployment Compensation Extension Program. The unemployment rates at that time were between 6.6 and 7.7 percent. In other words, they discontinued the program when the unemployment rate was at 6.6. The unemployment rate today is 5.7.

I might mention the title of this program has been Temporary Federal Unemployment Compensation. It was temporary. I note today there are 26 States, over half of States have unemployment rates of less than 5 percent.

To have a national program for every State, which is very expensive, I am not sure is timely.

That is the reason we should have a chance to review this. Without having a chance to find out what the cost of it is, from what I have gathered and learned over the years, I object.

We have already spent, for the information of my colleagues, over the last 36 months I think something like $30 billion. It is not an inexpensive program.

I might note that in the 1990s Congress spent $28.5 billion. That was over 30 months when the unemployment rate was much higher--6.6 to 7.7 percent.

I might also, for the information of my colleagues, note that many States have not spent the $8 billion of Federal funding that we transferred in March of 2002 for unemployment compensation. We transferred $8 billion. According to the Labor Department, there is still $5 billion remaining unspent by the States.

Those are reasons I objected to my friend's unanimous consent request. I appreciate his bringing this to the forefront of the Senate. It may not be the last we have heard of this. But this is a temporary program. I think some people would like for it to be a permanent program. This Senator does not want it to be a permanent program.

For those reasons, I objected to the request. I will be happy to work with my colleague, the Senator from Massachusetts, to see if we can't do something positive to help create an environment which is more conducive to more jobs for more Americans this year. I think we can do that in a variety of ways, one of which would be making the Tax Code more fair for the working environment. I will work with all of our colleagues to see if we can't have a more productive job-creating environment, one part of which would be to pass an energy bill.

We passed a good energy bill. I am not saying that what we had last year, which I guess is still on the calendar, was a perfect energy bill. But I believe there are thousands and thousands of jobs that could be created if we passed a positive energy bill.

I hope our colleagues will look at that and other measures maybe that would help reduce health care costs and other things that would create a more productive environment for job creation in the United States.

I yield the floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, just to respond briefly, as this chart indicates, our economy has lost 2.4 million jobs since the President took office. The job creation has been anemic. The economy created only 1,000 jobs in December. At the December rate of job growth, it would take 200 years to return to the level of jobs we had when President Bush first took office.

The reality is that the estimate of the administration was that we were going to create 300,000 jobs as a result of the tax cut. It is down to 1,000. The reason we have seen the move from 5.9 to 5.7 percent in unemployment is basically that so many people have been disillusioned. They have given up. We put this program in, which I support, at a time when unemployment was 5.7 percent, the exact same percent that it is now. But it is objected to.

It is true the plans are costly, but we know that the fund itself which the workers have paid into has nearly $20 billion. This would cost about $7 billion. That represents funds the workers have paid in for just this kind of rainy day. But no, we are being objected to.

In the early 1990s, Congress extended the unemployment benefit five times. That program did not end until the economy had more jobs than before the recession began.

This is a fair enough test, it seems to me. But when you have 90,000 Americans who have worked--these are Americans who have worked hard, played by the rules, have families, mortgages, and paid into the fund. The fund is in surplus, and we have 90,000 who are losing their coverage. This is a temporary program. It is short term--6 months, about $7 billion, with nearly $20 billion in surplus.

Workers are entitled to this kind of protection. They are entitled to a minimum wage. They work 40 hours a week 52 weeks of the year so they don't have to live in poverty. Most Americans believe that. They understand, for example, when we have the chance to increase the minimum wage that we have been blocked for 7 years. For 7 years, Republicans have blocked it. They block increasing the minimum wage. They block extending unemployment compensation. They initiate rules to eliminate overtime.

This is the record. When we talk about the minimum wage, it is obviously a women's issue because most of the people who receive the minimum wage are women. It is a children's issue because great numbers of those women have children. It is a civil rights issue because many of those who work at minimum wage are men and women of color. And it is a fairness issue.

[Page: S102] GPO's PDF
We can't get the chance to vote on these matters. There is objection. How long did we hear last fall about, we ought to be able to vote on Medicare? Let the people vote up and down. But no, no, we can't with regard to the unemployment compensation. We can't get a vote on increasing the minimum wage. They have refused to permit this institution to have a vote again on the overtime limitations for 8 million people because there is objection. I think that is wrong.

We look forward to another opportunity to come back and address these issues in a way where hopefully we will be able to get a vote.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, it is a pleasure to see my friend from Massachusetts again. He is feeling good. He is energetic, as he always is. He is a very effective legislator and champions the cause with great enthusiasm. I appreciate that.

I will make a couple of editorial comments.

I love the chart. He said if we went at last month's pace of 1,000 jobs being created, it would take 200 years. That was 1,000 jobs last month. Over the last 5 months, 280,000 jobs were created, according to the Department of Labor. He forgot to mention that. But for December, I think he is correct as reported by the Department of Labor.

It is kind of interesting. He also said we have to have a vote on increasing the minimum wage but those Republicans haven't allowed us to do it. He said they haven't allowed us to do it for the last several years.

I remember a period with not necessarily the greatest fondest of memories. But for almost 2 years, the Democrats were in control. Senator Daschle was the majority leader, I believe from about June of 2000 or maybe 2001 until the end of 2002. He was the majority leader of the Senate. Senator Kennedy was the chairman of the committee, and that could have been brought to the floor at any point during that time. The majority leader controlled the floor and the agenda of the Senate. It could have been offered as an amendment by any Member of the Senate, and it wasn't. I just make note of that fact.

It is interesting that it wasn't raised during that timeframe when this body was controlled by my friends on the Democratic side of the aisle. I want to just make note of that.

I don't doubt that we will have the pleasure of debating that issue. I look forward to that debate when that happens. I don't know that we want to make it against the law for anybody to work in the United States for less than $6 an hour. Some people say if they didn't make $6 an hour, they would be unemployed. I don't share that philosophy. But I guess we will have a chance to debate that. That is fine.

I yield the floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, very briefly, we will have an opportunity to debate this further. We were denied an up-and-down vote on the minimum wage just last year when the Republican leadership pulled the State Department bill from the floor rather than let us vote on the minimum wage amendment.

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

However, the word ``customarily'' means that the exemption is also available to employees in such professions who have substantially the same knowledge level as the degreed employees, but who attained such knowledge through a combination of work experience, training in the armed forces, attending a technical school, attending a community college or other intellectual instruction.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.