Don Nickles

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Regular order.

Mr. NICKLES. Regular order.

Mr. NICKLES. Regular order.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. NICKLES. I wish to ask her a question before she asks unanimous consent. Just to clarify the record, to be correct, I believe she stated her proposal is a 13-week extension. Is her proposal S. 3009?

Mr. NICKLES. Just to clarify, I believe that is not a 13-week extension; it is a 26-week extension. Also, just for your information, the House may soon try to pass legislation that would eliminate this cliff as of December 31. So I want the Senator to know that efforts are being made by some in the House to pass legislation that would address the unemployment compensation issue, and extend welfare authorization, among other things. I wanted to make sure you are aware that the bill you are trying to pass by unanimous consent, S. 3009, is not a 13-week extension, but it is a 26-week extension and costs $17.1 billion. A simple 13-week extension costs less than half of that. I wanted to make those few facts known before I object to the Senator's request.

Mr. NICKLES. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. NICKLES. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. NICKLES. I want to make a statement. Too many times it happens-- the Senator yields to me to ask a question, not to make a speech--many times in the debate people have yielded the floor as if they control the floor. The Presiding Officer controls the floor. The Senator can yield for a question but not yield for a speech. I did not hear a question the last time. I do not want to get too technical, but we ought to adhere to normal Senate rules. Now my question: The Senator is trying to pass a bill. I stated that the bill is a 26-week extension, not a 13-week extension. I keep hearing people say it is a 13-week extension. That is not factually correct. It is a 26-week extension. If you just entered into the program, am I not correct, you can exhaust your 26 weeks of State benefits and qualify for 26 weeks of 100 percent Federal benefits? It is a 26-week extension which doubles the cost of the program. It is a $17 billion program. Am I not correct--I want to be factually correct. If I am wrong, I am happy to be corrected. But am I not correct it is really a 26-week extension for anybody entering into the program? So people could qualify for 26 weeks of State benefits and 26 weeks of Federal benefits if the Senator's bill should pass?

Mr. NICKLES. I want an answer to my question.

Mr. NICKLES. Will the Senator yield further for a question?

Mr. NICKLES. I believe the bill offers 26 additional weeks for anybody who just came into the system.

Mr. NICKLES. Will the Senator yield for an additional question?

Mr. NICKLES. Will the Senator yield for an additional question?

Mr. NICKLES. The proposal before us still has the adjusted insured unemployment rate to where it includes the following paragraph: Except that individuals exhausting their right to regular compensation during the most recent three calendar months for which data is available before the close of the period for which such rate is being determined shall be taken into account as if they were individuals filing claims for regular compensation for each week during the period for which the rate is being determined. Basically that means if someone even completes the system and gets a job, they still are counted as unemployed; is that still in this legislation?

Mr. NICKLES. So the answer to my question is that language is still in the bill?

Mr. NICKLES. Will the Senator yield again? So that language is still in there. I will tell my colleague, I will never agree to this language passing. I will also tell my colleague, if she is politicizing this, talking about the first Bush recession and the second Bush recession, the first compensation package did not have the same triggers. I did not agree with the first. I do not like the language that somebody who gets a job is still counted as unemployed for these rates. I would never agree to it. I did not know it was in the first program ten or so years ago, and it will not be in the next one if I am still standing around here. I also ask my colleague, are not the triggers different under this proposal than the compensation packages that passed in the early nineties?

Mr. NICKLES. There are different triggers. More States would qualify for greater benefits; is that not correct?

Mr. NICKLES. Will the Senator yield? (Ms. CANTWELL assumed the chair.)

Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, reserving the right to object, the UC request, as I read it, says it is a 13-week extension. The bill before us is a 26-week extension. A 13-week extension, I believe, costs $7.3 billion; a 26-week extension cost--by CBO--is $17.1 billion. That is the proposal before us, and, therefore, I object.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I object.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, I thank my colleague and friend from New York for working with us. I think we have worked out an acceptable compromise. Senator Fitzgerald and Senator Specter were very much interested in passing this bill so we were happy to accommodate them. In contrast to the previous legislation, which was a significant expansion over current law, of which efforts had been made to pass by unanimous consent earlier today, this is an extension of current law. It is a lot less expensive. This is an extension for 3 months. We also did something else I think is important. We eliminated the cliff. In other words, current law would say by January 1 the 13-week Federal program would be terminated. This says, no, there is a phaseout. So there is not a cliff. At the end of March, if people are already into the system, they can complete their 13-week program. So I think it is responsible. Also, for the benefit of my colleagues--and some have reservations about this program because, legitimately, they are wondering whether, if you continue to pay out unemployment benefits, they will stay unemployed. And I happen to appreciate many of those concerns. Now we will not be wrapped up with this beginning in January. So this will give Congress a chance and hopefully offer some assistance to those people who really need it and also offer Congress a chance to get off to a good start without wrestling and debating this issue. I have debated this issue more than I want to debate it. And I appreciate our colleagues on both sides willing to compromise. The House passed a 1-month extension. This is a 3-month extension eliminating the cliff. I think it is a more orderly and more well- thought-out program that makes sense. So I will not object to its passage and appreciate our colleagues from New York and Washington, as well as Illinois and Pennsylvania, for their cooperation in making this happen. I yield the floor.

Mr. NICKLES. Thank you. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Helms) is necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Helms) and the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Craig) are necessarily absent.