Making Further Continuing Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2003 (Continued)

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, first, I think all 100 Senators would agree, both from the standpoint of our needs for the future as well as what we have done in the past, that we all recognize the legitimacy of the Federal Government stepping in to compensate with Federal unemployment help when State programs have run out. There is no dispute about that.
There is a dispute over when and how much, and the plan we are being offered now would be a plan that has been put in place at other times but under much higher rates of unemployment.

I hope we do not have higher rates of unemployment, but sometime down the road we will, hopefully not now during this period of time, and it seems to me we ought to keep reserve to do what we have other times in the past when we have had higher rates of unemployment than we have right now, as opposed to triggering in programs that do much more for the unemployed than we normally do at 6-percent unemployment, let's say, as opposed to 7-percent unemployment.

If we were to go the route that is being proposed, then we would be doing more than we normally do at this rate of unemployment we have now. Surely, the people who are proposing what they are proposing today, as all of us would probably do if there is a higher rate of unemployment, would expect the Congress to respond to that. It is not a question of should we respond; it is a question of a measured response and when it triggers in.

I am not condemning people who say we ought to do more today beyond what States do, but they are responding in a way that we would normally respond when the unemployment situation would be much more negative than it is right now.
I think it is wrong for my colleagues to speak about this recession being different than other recessions, for two reasons. No. 1, the definition of a recession is two quarters of negative growth. We had three quarters of negative growth but that negative growth ended September 30, 2001. So we have had five quarters now of growth, about 2A? percent average.

Economists are predicting the quarter we are in now for 2003 would be about 3-percent growth, so I do not think it is fair to say we are in recession unless we have a Senator who is making his own definition of a recession—and he has that right—but I think we should be comparing apples with apples and not apples with oranges.

The second point I make is even if we were just coming out of a recession instead of being five quarters out of a recession—an official recession as defined by economists—I think we all need to remember that historically unemployment as a statistic is a lagging indicator. So one would expect other indicators of an improving economy to improve before the unemployment figure improved. Consequently, this has to be taken into consideration as help is given to unemployed people.

It is quite obvious that a number of my Democratic colleagues seem to think we can never spend enough on unemployment. So I want to review where we are so the record is straight.

Under the regular State unemployment program, workers are entitled to as much as 26 weeks of unemployment benefits.

Under the temporary federally funded unemployment program enacted last March, those who exhaust their regular State benefits can receive up to 13 weeks of additional Federal benefits. In addition, workers in high unemployment States can receive yet another additional 13 weeks. That is a maximum of 26 weeks of Federal benefits.

So to some, it works out this way: Workers in every State can collect up to 39 weeks of benefits, 26 of those being State and 13 Federal. Workers in higher unemployment States can collect up to a whole year of unemployment benefits, which means 26 weeks State, 26 weeks Federal.

Last year, this temporary program was estimated to cost $11 billion. We are still responding, as we should in a bipartisan way, to this unemployment statistic still being relatively high but not as high as it has historically been. Earlier this month, in addition to what we did last March, Congress voted to extend these Federal benefits through May of 2003. This extension is estimated to cost $7 billion more. That happens to be a total of $18 billion in federally funded unemployment benefits. According to some of my Democratic colleagues, that still seems not to be enough.

Through this amendment, I think they are trying to spend an additional $6 billion. The amendment they offered today would change the current law to provide 26 weeks of federally funded benefits in every State, and 33 weeks in high unemployment States. The last time Congress provided 33 weeks of benefits, the unemployment rate was well over 7 percent. That is why I made the point. If we do this, what are we going to do if unemployment gets up to 7 percent, which I do not think anybody expects it to but suppose it did? The current unemployment rate is 6 percent.

Now there is something even more troubling. What I have said until now has been done by Congress in the past during certain times of high unemployment. More disturbing to me, this amendment changes current law to provide a uniform duration of benefits. Most States vary the duration of benefits based on the worker's actual employment history. Variable duration recognizes the insurance principles inherent in unemployment compensation by providing a shorter duration for workers who had a limited amount of work prior to qualifying for the benefits. These workers have paid less unemployment taxes and they have less attachment to the workforce.

Congress has never provided extended benefits without regard to the duration of State benefits. That is a very dramatic departure that this amendment holds for the future. A uniform duration means some workers will be able to collect more Federal benefits than they would State benefits. Moreover, a uniform duration means some workers will actually be able to collect benefits for a longer period of time than they actually worked.

Current law requires a minimum of 20 weeks of work to qualify for Federal benefit. Yet this amendment provides up to 33 weeks of benefits. These 33 weeks of Federal benefits could be paid in addition to as much as 39 weeks of State benefits. That happens to be a total of 72 weeks of benefits for someone who maybe only worked 20 weeks. This amendment represents the single largest expansion of Federal unemployment benefits in the entire history.

That brings me to an issue of how, if this were a legitimate approach to unemployment compensation, this ought to be handled by committees of appropriate jurisdiction, not be offered on the floor of the Senate to an appropriations bill. I am speaking because that appropriate committee is the Senate Finance Committee. We have jurisdiction over unemployment compensation. A departure in Federal responsibility is very important to consider as a committee—its impact, its costs. More important, if we are going to have this sort of an impact that is so different from what States have historically had, it ought to be considered by the committee of appropriate jurisdiction. We are dealing with something that is other than just simple extension of unemployment compensation.

Now, we may need to revisit this issue later this year, depending upon how the economy performs. But when we do that, we need to do it in a way that we take into full consideration that this amendment represents an unprecedented and, at least at this point with 6 percent unemployment compared to more than 7A?percent unemployment when it has been used in the past, an unjustified expansion of the unemployment program.

I urge my colleagues not to vote for this amendment. I yield the floor.