Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act-Motion to Proceed

PROTECTION OF LAWFUL COMMERCE IN ARMS ACT-MOTION TO PROCEED

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, how much time is allowed for debate on the amendment?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. One hour, evenly divided.

Ms. CANTWELL. Thank you, Mr. President. If I can be notified when I have used 10 minutes.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will be notified.

Ms. CANTWELL. I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, while we are talking about gun liability, I think a more important question for this body to be debating is the liability we are leaving the American workers with when, in fact, this body refuses to pass unemployment benefit extensions at a time when our economy is not recovering at the speed it takes to create new jobs.

As our own newspaper in Washington State, the Seattle Post Intelligencer, said this past week:

Everything is not fine in the job market.

That is what many Americans are saying. That is what many people across the country are starting to debate when they talk about the issue of outsourcing. Everything is not fine in the job market.

The President and his economic advisers issued a report, the Economic Report from the President of the United States, as to the growth we were supposed to expect in our economy in 2004. If my colleagues have a copy of that report and turn to page 98, they will see that the President and his economic advisers, when talking about growth in real GDP over the long term, predict that jobs for this year are going to grow by 2.6 million. That was great economic news to a lot of Americans who have been sitting around since December without Federal unemployment benefits, sending out resume after resume, only to find that they are competing with hundreds of other more qualified Americans for a very few jobs.

What became more frustrating to those unemployed Americans who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own, many as a result of 9/11 and the impact of terrorist activities on our economy, such as in aviation, aerospace, and a general downturn, many of those Americans would rather have the paycheck than the unemployment check. But without jobs being created, they would like to have some assistance in making the mortgage payment, paying the rent, paying for health care, and taking care of their families.

They were stunned when they found out that the President doesn't really stick by the 2.6 million number. Last week, the President and two Cabinet Secretaries, the Secretaries of Treasury and Commerce, ventured to Washington State and refused to meet with unemployed workers there. We have had, for the better part of the last 2 years, an unemployment rate over 7 percent. We are a little bit below that right now, and we are concerned about stimulating the economy and from where job growth is going to come. When these two members of the President's Cabinet came to town and were asked about the President's economic forecast-asked whether they stick by the 2.6 million jobs that will be created, both of those Secretaries said: Those were assumptions based on economic models and the calculations have a margin of error.

The American worker is not a rounding error on a statistician's desk. They are real people who are not getting the economic assistance they deserve.

It is no surprise that other newspapers across the country have also noted this. The Atlanta Journal Constitution said:

But the economic bounce has not yet been strong enough for cautious employers to get beyond squeezing more production from existing workers and taking the crucial step of hiring. This leaves millions of unemployed sinking further into debt and desperation.

That points to what is going on here. The President is backing away from his economic numbers. People realize that job growth is not happening. Yet we refuse to pass an extension of unemployment benefits.

Why is that so important? It is important to many Americans who would rather have that paycheck than an unemployment check, and it can provide a real stimulus because for every dollar in unemployment insurance, it generates $2 of economic stimulus into the local economy.

We continue to see these projections versus reality. The President's economic advisers said in 2002 that we were only going to lose a few jobs. We ended up actually losing 1.4 million jobs. In 2003, they said we were going to grow the economy, 1.7 million. We ended up losing another almost 500,000 jobs. Now in 2004, they say we are going to grow 2.6 million jobs in what is left of this year. So far we have only gained 112,000 jobs.

The economy is moving very slowly. We should not leave people out in the cold. That is exactly what we are doing by not passing Federal benefits on to those unemployed workers when they exhaust their State benefits. In fact, in December, we left out lots of workers: in Illinois, about 17,000 people; Texas, about 23,000; North Carolina, 10,000; Ohio, over 10,000; Pennsylvania, 17,000 people; Georgia, 14,000 people. At the end of December, when the benefit program expired at the State level, these people were no longer eligible for benefits at the Federal level because we curtailed the Federal program.

What that means is that every month more and more people exhaust their State benefits as no jobs are found and thereby are denied Federal benefits. For example, for the first 6 months of this year, over 50,000 additional people from Washington State would be eligible, but won't receive help. On a national level, 2 million people would be eligible to receive Federal benefits.

These numbers represent what happened to people in these States in December of 2003, when the other side of the aisle refused to grant the motion of seeking unanimous consent to pass unemployment benefits for American workers.

Our colleagues in the House of Representatives who heard the message, probably when they went home over the recess and did their town meetings, listened to people across America and found out that this was a pretty big issue. People wanted to know, where am I going to find a job? Where is my spouse going to find a job? People were relying on loans from families just to make mortgage payments.

So the House of Representatives came back from recess and actually passed unemployment benefit extensions because they got the message.

We are still down in our economy. The key question is, How have we as a nation responded to these economic recessions in the past? How have previous administrations, both Democrat and Republican, responded to recessions? We know that in the early 1990s we had a recession. The first Bush administration and the Clinton administration became aggressive about unemployment benefits and had a very expansive program that was in place for a total of 27 months.

During that time, we ended up creating 2.9 million new jobs, a very positive outcome. In this recession and recovery, which began in 2001, we have lost 2.4 million jobs. The difference between this recession and the last is that we have cut off the Federal benefit program. And yet, we haven't yet had a net creation of jobs.

We started to slowly shirk the jobs deficit, with 112,000 jobs in January, but we have curtailed the program before we have seen real results. Why would we do that when we have previous experience, from two different administrations, that shows that continuing the program really does help stimulate the economy?

That is what we want to do. That is why I am not surprised that other people around the country such as the Akron Beacon Journal said:

The recovery has aptly been called jobless. Offer a bridge to a better time, and Congress won't simply aid those struggling to find work. The country as a whole will benefit.

This is not solely about helping individuals who are unemployed. It is a stimulus to the economy. What happens if the 2 million people who will lose Federal benefits over the next 6 months can't make mortgage payments and end up defaulting on their home mortgages. How is that good for the U.S. economy? Or say, for example, individuals can't make health insurance payments and end up costing more in uncompensated health care? How is that good for America?

I was not surprised when I saw in the San Jose Mercury News that the other side of the aisle had been accused of being of little interest or being silent on this issue.

Basically, the San Jose Mercury News said:

Despite a recent uptick in hiring across the country in 2004, they could bring more hardship for million of Americans out of work. A callous Congress is sitting behind as their hope for receiving extended unemployment benefits fades.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. BURNS). The Chair advises the Senator she has used 10 minutes.

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I thank the Chair for that information. I would like to continue until other of my colleagues from different regions of the country, which have been hit with high unemployment, come to the Chamber.

I wish to focus on reality versus rhetoric. We have been promised 2.6 million jobs, but instead, we have seen a loss of 2.3 million. The rhetoric doesn't stand up. If the President is going to deny his own economic report and say we are not going to create 2.6 million jobs, then give American workers a hand-extend unemployment benefits as a lifeline to help stimulate their family incomes and help stimulate our national economy.

I ask the President and the other side of the aisle to take a little bit of time and go back in history. I know not everybody on the other side of the aisle agrees with the policies of a Democratic administration juxtaposed to this administration, but let's look at what the last Bush administration did when we had a downturn of our economy and how President George H. W. Bush handled the situation.

He had a similar problem when he came into office: the 1990s recession. In April of 1992, the President saw that we had tremendous job loss in the millions, but the economy had started to pick up again. The first President Bush saw that the economy had picked up 379,000 jobs. He could have stopped the unemployment benefit program right then and there. He could have said: My job is over; the economy is starting to grow again; I don't have to do anything else about this issue. But the President did not.

The first President Bush extended unemployment benefits for an additional 9 months. He did it for 9 months-and it was a program with more weeks of benefits than the current program. It was 20 weeks instead of the 13 weeks we have for basic unemployment States.

The first President Bush said: Yes, there was a little bit of job growth going on, but the negative impact of the recession means we should not stop Federal unemployment benefits.

What has the second President Bush done? He has been faced with a similar recession. As we saw from the previous chart, we have lost 2.4 million jobs in the last 2 years and this President sees a little uptick in the economic numbers. He sees about 112,000 jobs created in January. And what does he say? That's it; that's it; no more Federal unemployment benefit program. No unemployment benefits. No weeks, no program.

Basically, we have left the American workers out in the cold as it relates to this opportunity to sustain themselves and sustain our economy in great economically challenging times.

I ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to look at this history, to look at what the first Bush administration did under similar circumstances, to look at his results. They were very positive for the U.S. economy and for the U.S. worker. Analyze that juxtaposed to the positions we have taken in this body today, primarily because the other side of the aisle, a dozen times now, has refused us the right to have a vote on this issue. We are going to have that vote, and I hope my colleagues will stand up for the American worker and, most importantly, for the American economy that needs this stimulus.

I see some of my colleagues have joined me in the Chamber. I say to the Senator from Maryland, who has been eloquent on these issues, I don't know how much time the Senator is seeking, but I will be happy to yield to the Senator.

Mr. SARBANES. Is the Senator controlling time?

Ms. CANTWELL. Yes, I am. Mr. President, how much time remains?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 15 minutes 9 seconds remaining.

Ms. CANTWELL. I am happy to yield the Senator 3 minutes.