Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2003

SAFE, ACCOUNTABLE, FLEXIBLE, AND EFFICIENT TRANSPORTATION EQUITY ACT OF 2003

Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, I rise today to talk about the 2.4 million jobs that have been lost in this country. As we discuss investment in infrastructure, we need to keep in mind that investment in human infrastructure is just as appropriate. There are families out there who are continuing to struggle to put food on the table, make sure they can take care of their mortgage payment, and make sure they can take care of individual hospital and insurance needs. I ask my colleagues to put themselves in the position of working men and women who have lost their jobs and now have no means to take care of their family needs.

We have been before this body dozens of times now in the last several months asking for an extension of unemployment benefits because the economy has not truly recovered-certainly has not recovered from the 2.4 million jobs that have been lost. Yet dozens of times my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have objected. They have objected to this extension because they say we are in fine economic shape.

I will bet you that families trying to figure out how they meet those mortgage payments would disagree with the kind of shape my colleagues think the economy is in.

In fact, in December, 90,000 people per week started exhausting their unemployment benefits and had no Federal program to pick them up. That is ½ million people who have gone without aid since the program stopped accepting new applicants. Put yourself in that position and understand that if unemployment benefits are not extended-and the economy grows at a very slow pace-by the end of the year, 2 million people will be cut off from this program. For people without a paycheck or an unemployment check, that means their families will continue to be forced to make very tough decisions.

A recent poll showed that over one-half of the unemployed adults found they had to postpone medical treatment or cut back on food. One in four has had to actually move out of their house because of the cuts in unemployment extension programs. More than one-third have had trouble paying gas or electric bills. I am sure in my State the number would be more than one-third, given our high energy rates. My amendment reinstates the Federal Insurance Unemployment Benefit Program and provides 13 additional weeks of benefits to all States, carrying us through June.

My colleagues ask, Why should we do this? The economy is recovering. If we look at the facts and figures and compared them to the last time we had a recession, this point where we are in our economy is still very disappointing. Last Friday, economists came out, for example, with a report on our job growth and said it was "well below market expectations," and confirmed that jobs in the markets in the United States are still weak. While the economy created about 110,000 jobs last month-and that is a step in the right direction-it is a pretty small step in the direction we need to go.

My State of Washington, obviously, has faced a lot of downturn because of Boeing, because of high tech, and because many workers throughout the State have been laid off as subsidiaries to those large corporations and interests.

I hear colleagues on the other side of the aisle saying once the economy starts to recover, that is when we need to cut off unemployment benefits because people can still find jobs. The point is during the 1990s, we had an extension of unemployment benefits to take care of the downturn we were facing in the economy, both started by the first Bush administration and then by the Clinton administration, to help take care of unemployment problems.

During that time period in the early 1990s recession, we were offering unemployment benefits for a 27-month period of time. During that 27-month period of time, we actually saw an increase in 2.9 million jobs. The program worked well as the economy continued to rebound and add more jobs. In the 1990s, under two administrations, a Republican and a Democrat, we said, let's extend unemployment benefits for 27 months. The net result was 2.9 million jobs were created and we curtailed the benefit program.

We have had this recession and downturn and we have only been going for 22 months of this program. We have only been giving people who have been affected by this downturn in our economy 22 months of unemployment extension. During that same period we have actually seen a net loss of 2.4 million jobs.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle say when the economy picks up, we should curtail this program. What they should really ask is how many jobs have we created during this time period, and are Americans finding jobs? If they are not finding jobs, how can we cut them off from unemployment benefits that are actually a stimulus to the economy in helping to pay the mortgage payments, covering health insurance, keeping families in their home, and not deterring us from economic growth? Every dollar spent on unemployment insurance generates an additional $2 into local economies.

Let's look at it a little differently during this time period of unemployment benefits. The line on this chart during 2002 continues to go down into the red. This is where we are thinking about cutting off unemployment benefits. Yet we have had no job growth. Juxtaposed to what we did in the 1990s, we continued to increase the unemployment benefits as the economy grew and we did a better match of keeping Americans with some paycheck or unemployment check, thereby keeping our economy at a more steady rate.

I say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, it is time to stop denying working Americans who have lost their jobs, through no fault of their own, from some sort of help and assistance when they can actually find no jobs.

I will point out a few of my constituents who have written to me. One from Camano Island said he cashed out every dime of his 401 saving plan, with significant penalties, and does not know how he will make his mortgage payment, does not know what he is going to do, as the benefits are expiring. Another constituent from Everett, WA, in the manufacturing area, applied for over 200 jobs and received 4 interviews in the last year. They are trying to find opportunities but they do not exist. Another technology worker from Seattle has 25 years' experience and has been laid off since 2001 and is unable to find a job. Another worker from Seattle was working at a print company and over 500 people were laid off in 2 years as their company was sold overseas to a multinational company. In his individual situation he has tried to cover both the health insurance for himself and his wife. Unfortunately, he had some very severe health problems and had to get a kidney from his wife and ended up with some severe health problems and he does not know how he will address those problems in the future because of these benefits being curtailed and his inability to cover health insurance.

Many people in my State ask what we are going to do about these unemployment benefits and whether we are going to remember the working men and women in our State who have continued to deal with this issue.

There are many constituents who ask, what will it take to get the other side of the aisle to own up to the responsibility that there are not jobs being created at a fast enough pace to put Americans back to work. Our past bipartisan efforts by two administrations, a Republican and a Democratic, did far better in addressing this issue than we are doing today.

I ask my colleagues to support a temporary emergency employment compensation program through June. It is the only responsible thing to do, to recognize that men and women of this country would rather have a job than an unemployment check. Without a check and without opportunities for jobs, we are doing neither them nor our economy any service. We need to do the responsible thing and put them back to work. That is why I am asking my colleagues to do the fair thing and expand this program through June with 13 weeks going to each State. Until then, we will not have the necessary tools to help Americans. Let's help them with the unemployment benefits and put them back to work.

I ask unanimous consent we lay aside the pending amendment and consider this amendment.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to laying aside the pending amendment?

Mr. INHOFE. Reserving the right to object, could you repeat this unanimous consent request?

Ms. CANTWELL. I move the pending amendment be set aside and that this amendment be considered.

Mr. INHOFE. I object.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.

Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, let me be clear to my colleagues what just happened in the Senate. That is, that for about the dozenth time now, the Senate is not going to consider unemployment benefit extensions. We are not going to consider whether working men and women in this country who have been unemployed, through no fault of their own, but a general downturn in the economy, many who have been impacted by September 11, many who have been impacted by the recession hit by many companies that have been impacted by September 11, are not going to get our help in the extension of this program, that if these same men and women happened to have been unemployed in the 1990s, their plight would have been different. They would have gotten help from the administration. They would have gotten help from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle.

So what we have done today is continue to say to unemployed Americans, while the economy is just barely beginning to produce jobs, we expect you now to move out of your house, deal with not being able to cover health insurance, not being able to meet your family obligations, while we continue to struggle to find jobs in this country.

I think it is irresponsible. I think my colleagues should make sure we have a vote on this amendment. We will continue, on this side of the aisle, to offer this amendment until we get a vote on it.

I yield the floor.