[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 14 (Thursday, February 14, 2002)]
[House]
[Pages H468-H477]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF SENATE AMENDMENTS TO H.R. 622, HOPE FOR
CHILDREN ACT
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the
Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 347 and ask for its
immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 347
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 622)
to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to expand the
adoption credit, and for other purposes, with Senate
amendments thereto, and to consider in the House, without
intervention of any point of order, a single motion offered
by the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means or his
designee that the House concur in each of the Senate
amendments with the respective amendment printed in the
report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this
resolution. The Senate amendments and the motion shall be
considered as read. The motion shall be debatable for one
hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and
ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the
motion to final adoption without intervening motion or demand
for division of the question.
{time} 1030
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The gentleman from Washington
(Mr. Hastings) is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate
only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Frost), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During
consideration of this resolution, all time is yielded for the purpose
of debate only.
(Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 347
provides for a single motion offered by the chairman of the Committee
on Ways and Means or his designee that the House concur in each of the
Senate amendments with the amendment printed in the report of the
Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution.
The resolution waives all points of order against consideration of
the motion to concur in the Senate amendments with an amendment. It
provides 1 hour of debate in the House, equally divided and controlled
by the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
Finally, the resolution provides that the previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the motion to final adoption without
intervening motion or demand for division of the question.
Mr. Speaker, the amendment to be included in the motion provided for
in this resolution would amend the Internal Revenue Code to: One,
provide for supplemental stimulus payments; and, two, accelerate the 25
percent individual income tax rate. It also sets forth provisions
specifically applicable to business, including: One, a special
depreciation allowance for certain property acquired after September
10, 2001, and before September 11, 2004; two, a temporary increase in
section 179 expensing; and, three, an increased carryback period for
certain losses.
The amendment extends various expiring provisions including: One, the
credits for qualified electrical vehicles, work opportunity credit, and
the welfare-to-work credit; and, two, provisions concerning a taxable
income limit on percentage depletion for oil and natural gas produced
from marginal properties, parity in the application of certain limits
to mental health benefits, and the availability of medical savings
accounts. The amendment also reauthorizes Temporary Assistance for
Needy Families supplemental grants for population increases for fiscal
year 2002, and provides special allowances for a designated ``New York
Liberty Zone'' for the area damaged in the 9-11-2001 terrorist attacks.
Mr. Speaker, the amendment further provides a program of temporary
extended unemployment compensation, establishes a displaced worker
insurance credit, and amends the Workforce Investment Act of 1998, with
respect to national emergency grants, to authorize grants for
employment and training assistance and temporary health care coverage
assistance to workers affected
[[Page H469]]
by major economic dislocations. Finally, the amendment provides for
temporary State health care assistance.
Mr. Speaker, as my colleagues know, this is our third effort to pass
a much-needed stimulus package. Regrettably, the other body has failed
thus far to act with equal dispatch on this important legislation.
Today we will attempt once again to move forward with a carefully
crafted, balanced package of measures designed to stimulate economic
recovery and to provide assistance to those affected by the recent
economic downturn. It is our hope that the other body will respond in
an affirmative fashion to this initiative and that we can quickly move
this important legislation to the President's desk as soon as possible.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support both this
resolution and the motion to be offered by the gentleman from
California (Mr. Thomas).
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to strongly oppose this rule because
Republican leaders are using this rule to block immediate assistance
for the millions of Americans who cannot find work in this recession.
Those are the facts, Mr. Speaker, plain and simple. They are not hard
to understand, and, unfortunately, they are not surprising, because
Republican leaders have consistently used their power to block
bipartisan compromise on economic security.
Mr. Speaker, we want a simple straight up or down vote on a 13-week
extension of unemployment benefits. The Republicans, on the other hand,
want a 13-week extension, plus a junked-up stimulus package, a package
they know has no chance of being passed by the United States Senate. So
their cynical action has the effect of denying people the 13 weeks of
unemployment benefits. This is not very complicated.
Last Sunday morning I was sitting around at home and I was watching
one of my favorite Sunday interview shows, Fox News Sunday, and the
Republican leader of the other body was on that show. He was asked a
question. He was asked, ``Well, Senator, what about the fact that we
are going to have a budget deficit again, that we are going to have a
budget deficit of $70 billion, $80 billion or $90 billion this year?''
His response was, ``Don't worry about that budget deficit. We are
never going to pass a stimulus package, so we won't have a budget
deficit.''
Now, the package that the other side has brought forward, again, has
a $70 billion cost, contribution to the deficit, in fiscal year 2002, a
$70 billion cost in fiscal 2003, a $175 billion cost over the next 5
years. They know it is not going anywhere.
What we are asking is a straight up or down vote on something that
has already passed the Senate, a 13-week extension of unemployment
benefits. They have refused to give us that straight up or down vote,
and we will resist the rule because of that.
The gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) has asked for the
opportunity to offer the measure that passed the Senate. They denied
that in the Committee on Rules. We will present that on the floor again
this morning. Today, unfortunately, we have done everything we can.
We can stop politics as usual, we as a body, if we want to. We can
pass a noncontroversial bipartisan bill to help the millions of
Americans who are suffering through this recession. Make no mistake,
these hard-working people need help now.
Remember, this recession started last March, nearly 1 full year ago,
and a bad economy only got worse after September 11. Since that day,
more than 1 million Americans have seen their unemployment assistance
expire, and another 2 million workers will exhaust their benefits over
the next 6 months. Today, almost 8 million Americans are unemployed and
looking for work.
These are people who work hard and play by the rules. But now,
through no fault of their own, they are out of work. They have got
bills to pay and children to feed. They need a helping hand just to get
through until they can find another job to support their families.
Now, Mr. Speaker, in the Committee on Rules last night, the chairman
of the Committee on Ways and Means, the gentleman from California (Mr.
Thomas), testified that Republican leaders in the House are trying to
help laid-off workers. They have tried before, he said, and they will
keep on trying.
Well, as much as one might admire such persistence, Mr. Speaker,
Americans who lose their jobs need more than ``trying.'' ``Trying''
will not pay their rent. It will not buy you groceries. And it will not
pay for your health care or prescription drugs. The truth is, what
Republican leaders call ``trying'' is nothing more than partisan
gamesmanship and politics as usual.
Mr. Speaker, Republicans can stop trying today, and instead can act
to help laid-off workers. That is what the United States Senate did
last week when it acted unanimously to provide 13 additional weeks of
unemployment benefits to Americans who have lost their jobs in this
recession, and that is what the Congress has done during the past five
recessions.
Mr. Speaker, of course House Democrats would like to do much, much
more than the simple measure passed by the Senate. We have tried
repeatedly to expand eligibility for unemployment insurance and to
ensure that you do not lose your health care when you lose your job. We
have proposed fiscally responsible tax relief to stimulate the economy
and give a boost to small business.
Democrats have reached out to find bipartisan consensus on these
ideas. In fact, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dooley) came to the
Committee on Rules last night with a substitute motion that would have
combined business depreciation relief with the extension of
unemployment benefits, but Republican leaders refused to budge. They
would rather play election-year politics than work together to restore
the economy.
Mr. Speaker, we can stop that today. We can fill the most pressing
need created by the recession. We can pass extended unemployment
assistance so the President can sign it into law tomorrow, but for that
to happen, Republicans will have to put politics aside for just a few
hours this morning. They will have to stop using out-of-work Americans
as pawns for their partisan games. They will have to stop holding laid-
off workers hostage to the amendment the gentleman from California (Mr.
Thomas) is offering today, a warmed-over version of the same old
Republican plan that has failed twice before in the United States
Senate.
Mr. Speaker, that Republican plan is not bipartisan. It will not do
much to help the laid-off workers or provide economic stimulus. And
because it will put Americans further in debt, it threatens Social
Security and Medicare and is just plain dangerous to the economy over
the long term.
But Republicans have the majority in the House. They can bring it up
any time they want. Today, however, by attaching it to the bill passed
by the Senate, Republican leaders are blocking immediate help for those
Americans hardest hit by the recession.
Mr. Speaker, the choice we face this morning could not be more
simple: Out-of-work Americans have been waiting months for assistance.
If you defeat this rule, we can act today to give them the helping hand
they need. But if you pass this rule and block the noncontroversial
bipartisan Senate bill, you will force laid-off workers to keep on
waiting.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to show a little heart on this
Valentine's Day. Do not hold laid-off workers hostage. Defeat the rule
and provide them with the help they need now.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would remind all Members to avoid
improper references to Senators, such as quoting remarks of Senators in
the media.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2
minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman).
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe that my friend from Texas thinks we
should not try, that we should not try, to help those who are currently
unemployed because of the events of September 11,
[[Page H470]]
because of the recession, and we should not try to help people get a
job.
People want a paycheck. Yes, we got to help those who are currently
displaced by the horrible events of September 11 and the worsening
economy that resulted, but ultimately we are going to get these people
back to work. That is what they want, that is what they deserve, that
is where they are going to get the dignity they want and the financial
security they want.
On September 11 our economy got a whole lot worse. It was already
struggling. Americans are now looking at this body for help. Not
politics. They are looking for help, and we are going to try, and we
are going to try and try and try.
This is the third time that we have brought to the floor a balanced
package that helps those who are displaced. In fact, it helps those who
are displaced who have lost their jobs a lot more than the clean
unemployment insurance legislation that the gentleman just proposed. It
does more than extend for 13 weeks. It does more to take care of their
health care.
We are going to hear more about this later, but what we are proposing
is something much more generous for those who have been unemployed, but
also, very importantly, to get those folks back to work. A million
people have lost their jobs.
So we are going to try. We are going to try and try again. Maybe the
third time is a charm. Maybe Valentine's Day will bring something
special. Maybe we can show a little heart today and help people, not
just with their unemployment, but for them to get back to work.
It does two things. First it helps get the consumer back in the
business. It helps give people some more money back in their own
pockets to get this economy going. The economists we have talked to,
and we have talked to dozens of them, all agree. We need to get the
consumer back into the business of buying and getting this economy
going from the bottom up. It does that.
It helps those who did not get tax relief last year because they do
not pay Federal income taxes. Who can use it more than those people?
They are going to get out there and spend that money. We want to help
them to do it. It also helps those who are middle-income American
families by accelerating the tax relief we passed last spring.
Second, it incentivizes businesses to go out and create jobs. Now,
when I am home talking to my small-business people, they are very
excited about what is in this package. They want to see an immediate
expensing of 30 percent of anything that they buy. That is going to
help create jobs. Small businesses are going to benefit directly by
this.
This is not about politics; this is about jobs. This is a balanced
package. I urge my colleagues to help everybody, those who are
unemployed, but also help those people who are currently employed whose
jobs are at risk, to ensure that we can get people back to work and to
do so quickly.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Hastings), a member of the Committee on Rules.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from
Texas, the ranking member, for yielding time.
Two hundred billion dollars and 10 years later, I predict for you
that this measure that we are going to vote on in this bad rule will
not have given one child hope. I cannot imagine how much cynicism it
took to name this the ``Hope for Children Act.''
Last night House Members diligently studied, debated and approved new
campaign finance laws for America, and the Committee on Rules, the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) and I and others, met at 11:30 at
night and reported out a rule that the majority of Members did not see
then and have not seen now. It is a bill that Members are being asked
to vote on this morning before they or their staffs have even had a
chance to read the text of the bill.
{time} 1045
Yesterday afternoon, the talk was that the House was going to vote on
an extension of unemployment benefits. That is what the Senate did.
This is a plan that is both bipartisan and bicameral that we could
pass. In addition, economists and labor experts alike have pointed out
that the extension of unemployment benefits is a true economic
stimulus.
However, the bill that Members are being asked to vote on today is
not just an extension of unemployment benefits; that is something, as I
said, that the Senate passed. Instead, the majority has taken an issue
as important as the extension of unemployment benefits and wrapped it
up in a blanket of tax cuts to those who need them least. This bill is
a third example of how the majority insists on playing politics with
American lives. It is Lent season that began on yesterday. Maybe you
all ought to give up the stimulus package for Lent, because it is not
going to pass the Senate, and everybody over there and over here knows
that.
At a time when our country's unemployment level is the highest it has
been in more than a decade and workers who lost their job in the wake
of September 11 will exhaust their 26 weeks of unemployment and
insurance benefits beginning mid-March, it is shameful that Congress
has not acted. The fact of the matter is, if this bill is approved, it
will never go to President Bush's desk. Unemployment benefits will not
be extended. On the contrary, the bill will return to the other body
where it will meet its death and all of us know that.
My grandmother used to let me listen to a program on the radio called
``Let's Pretend'' and that is exactly what we are doing here. I do not
know when it is that we stopped pretending. The gentlewoman from
Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart) on that side and myself introduced H.R. 2946
that provides for human needs, dealing with education for health care
coverage and providing a quality education for these children that this
bill is supposed to give some hope to. Our bill extends unemployment
and health care benefits, while also providing job training.
Mr. Speaker, we talk about jobs. Evidently that $500 tax cut did not
get to K-Mart and Toys-R-Us to be spent by us, because they seem not to
be doing business so well.
We have opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to help Americans fulfill their
human needs. Defeat this rule.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\
minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas).
Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Had we had an opportunity to try to amend this bill that this rule
provides for, I would have offered an amendment to lift the income tax
on the unemployment compensation that many people have been receiving
and, nevertheless, have to pay tax on it. Because of a quirk in the law
of 1986, those unemployment benefits, the ones which we are discussing
here today, are taxable.
My amendment to this rule would have provided for repealing the tax
and make it retroactive through the year 2001. Why? Because in 2001, we
began to see a creep-up of unemployment compensation claims as a result
of the layoffs that were occurring. And that became exacerbated on
September 11 and, what followed, because even more people, by the
exigencies of what happened there, applied for unemployment
compensation.
So what I plan to do is to entice all of my colleagues to get on a
bill that we have introduced to reduce and to eliminate the taxes on
unemployment compensation. This has an additional double benefit. If we
remove the income taxes from the unemployment compensation benefits
back to 2001, it constitutes a tax cut. That is an absolute tax cut in
the image of what the President needs to stimulate the economy, because
it will be cash remaining in people's pockets, especially those who are
unemployed and are on unemployment compensation. Secondly, it is the
fair and right thing to do. Why should we see a situation in which a
person receives an unemployment compensation check and then has to pay
tax on it?
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the ranking member of the
Committee on Ways and Means.
(Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I have been in this august body with great
[[Page H471]]
pride for over 3 decades. I have seen some pretty political things
happen on this floor on both sides of the aisle, but this has to be one
of the most mean things that I have seen since I have been here.
The reason for that is that we are holding hostage millions of
Americans that we promised early on that we were going to help. How
many of my colleagues remember when we voted to give $15 billion to
bail out the airline industry? How dramatically the minority leader and
the Speaker got on the floor and promised that we would provide health
benefits and unemployment compensation to those people who, through no
fault of their own, have lost their jobs and lost their health
benefits. All of a sudden, this was folded into a stimulus package. We
did not say that we had to pass obscene tax cuts to help these people.
We said that standing alone, these were hard-working Americans that
deserved help from their country during time of war and time of
recession.
So each time we address this question, we have to find out how many
billions of dollars of tax cuts we are prepared to absorb. What are we
willing to do in order to bring these people along?
The chairman of the committee says he is going to keep doing it this
way until they finally get it. Well, what is it that the other body has
to get? Whether they are right, whether they are wrong, whether they
are incompetent, the fact is, they have said that they have thrown up
their hands in complete surrender as it relates to a stimulus package
and sent over here with a unanimous vote the mere benefit of extending
unemployment compensation for 13 weeks. Should they be proud of that? I
think not. Should we be proud to accept that? I think not.
But worse than just going home and saying, that is all we could do is
extend this, there are two things that are worse than that. One would
be to do nothing. To say, because it was not enough, we in the Congress
felt that we should do nothing. Because we did not provide for health
benefits, we should do nothing. That would be worse.
But the second worse thing, the second painful thing is to be
hypocritical enough to allow these wretched souls to believe that we
are doing something to help them, knowing that this bill has been
stacked to leave the House to face defeat because the Senate cannot and
will not even take it up. Who knows this? Mr. Speaker, 435 Members of
this House of Representatives know today that the Senate will not, and
they would claim politically and parliamentarily, cannot take it up.
To give false hopes to these people is one of the meanest things that
I have ever seen happen. And who are these people? Are they illegal
aliens? Are they people who are not citizens? Are they threats to our
national security? Are they terrorists? Are they people that get our
vital patriotic juices up so that we are against them? Oh, no. These
are people that work every day, that have families, rent to pay,
electricity to pay, mortgage payments, tuition. These are families that
are breaking up all over America because of the burden of not being
able to have the dignity of having a job.
Are we doing enough for them to give them unemployment benefits? Of
course not. These people do not want handouts. They want a hand up.
They want a job. But just because genius minds on the Republican side
decide that the best way to give them a job is to give them refunds of
tax benefits that they have paid; the best way to give them jobs is to
make permanent the tax system sometime in 2011; the best way to give
them jobs is to come up with a new health delivery system that destroys
the employer-employee relationship.
Wonderful ideas, but what about the guy and the lady that has a
family, that has lost their home, that has lost their hope, that has
lost their reason for being and they are waiting for us just to help
out a little bit. Are we going to give them sophisticated and complex
reasons why we cannot help? What a rough day to be a Member of this
House.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3
minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), the chairman of
the Committee on Ways and Means.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
I always enjoy my colleague's description of legislation. It is
difficult to recognize it when he finishes. I find interesting the fact
that we are now reduced to simply saying that 13 weeks of unemployment
insurance is the proper response to a Nation in need, not just those
who are currently finding themselves, through no fault of their own,
unemployed, but a business sector that does create jobs looking for
help.
What the gentleman from New York did not tell us was that there are
provisions in this bill to provide $13.7 billion to people who do not
pay income taxes and perhaps not even payroll taxes. This was a help as
a stimulus to individuals who will clearly consume every dollar that
they have been provided. The President supported this; we support it.
It seems now our friends on the other side of the aisle have decided
that is not necessarily a good idea. Oh, it may be a good idea, but it
is not worth fighting for. The Senate has defined what it is that we
can do. Unemployment insurance is all that we can do.
Well, I will tell my colleagues, on this side of the aisle we find
that unacceptable. We provide unemployment insurance in this package in
a way in which where, when States have more than 4 percent of
unemployment, they do not just get the 13 weeks that the gentleman from
New York is pleading for; they get 13 weeks after 13 weeks after 13
weeks, that is, a continued renewed 13 weeks if the State continues to
have high unemployment. In other words, it takes unemployment insurance
out of the political football category. We sent unemployment payments
to the Senate in October of last year. We are now receiving their
response in February. Who is at fault? We are. We can devise a system
that takes unemployment insurance out of the political football
business. If this is to become law, then a State in need for the rest
of calendar year 2002 will automatically trigger the ability to receive
100 percent-funded Federal unemployment benefits.
But it seems to me also that the gentleman from New York failed to
mention that we have what is called the ``liberty zone package'' here.
The people from New York took a hit for all Americans. In this is a
provision to help rebuild Lower Manhattan. I guess because the Senate
said they did not want to do it, we should set that aside.
What we are really hearing from the other side is that what we ought
to do is the lowest common denominator. That is not acceptable.
Business needs some help, low-income individuals need some help. Those
who are unemployed need some help. This package does it. Why do we not,
instead of talking about how little we can do, look at this package as
the appropriate response and tell the Senate what the Senate did was
not good enough.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
I have listened very patiently to my colleague and friend from
California. What my colleague from California is urging is the old-
fashioned game of chicken. Let us all play chicken with the Senate
while people who are out of work do not get the 13 weeks of extended
benefits. It is time for those kinds of games to stop.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Bentsen).
(Mr. BENTSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
{time} 1100
Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Speaker, this bill has two problems. The first
problem is that the majority has written a brand-new stimulus bill
costing at least $150 billion over 10 years and brought it to the floor
on the day that we are recessing for the President's Day holiday or
work week. The Senate is, if they have not left already will be leaving
soon, and so what happens is even if the House is to adopt this, the
Senate is not going to take it up for at least another week and a half
or longer. People who have been unemployed since last spring of 2001
are going to get nothing.
Now, we can argue over what should be in a stimulus package and what
should not be in there; but the fact is we could very easily extend
unemployment compensation for 13 weeks today, and it would be done for
the time being until we get back. But the other side
[[Page H472]]
does not want to do that because they want to continue the debate and
the bickering that goes on, and I think that is a mistake.
The second problem is that no one is recognizing the fact that in the
last year we have lost $4 trillion in surplus value in this country and
we are now eating into the Social Security surplus. And here is another
$150 billion. There are some good ideas in here. I like some of the
ideas. But at some point somebody is going to have to pay for it. The
taxpayers are going to have to pay for it. My children will have to pay
for it, your children. We are just adding on to the debt again. Last
year we were debating how quickly we could pay down the national debt.
Now we are talking about adding another $150 billion in debt and
digging into Social Security.
In the long run that is not going to do anything. And so much of the
stimulus package does not even occur until the out-years. The economy
will be well out of a recession, I hope, by 2003, 2004. But this
package is cutting into the surplus or what used to be the surplus all
through those years.
I think we have two problems here. Let us pass an unemployment
compensation extension today that can go to the President's desk today
so we can help the people today, and we will come back after the
President's Day work week and we can continue to go back and figure out
how we do a bill and how we protect the taxpayers from a mounting
public debt because of the loss of a surplus.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Dunn).
Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, this is the third time we have had to pass
this stimulus bill. The gentleman from Texas claims that we are
creating a log jam in our process in order to defeat the items in this
bill. I think on the other hand it is the Senate that is creating the
log jam. The Senate did not have the courage to pass more than 13 weeks
of unemployment to this body. How many times are we going to have to
pass this bill before we can get the Senate to wake up and break that
log jam?
The Senate sent a bill back to us with 13 weeks of unemployment. No
potential extension for States like my State, second highest
unemployment in this Nation, Washington State. The bill that they sent
over had no health care coverage. That is a huge problem. I have a
problem, 7.1 percent unemployment in the State of Washington, and the
Senate sends over to us a bill that gives those folks 13 weeks of
unemployment insurance but no coverage for health care or for anything
else.
I want to talk about this bill, Mr. Speaker. This bill contains a $37
billion amount that would be used for retraining of folks who lost
their jobs since last March 15, and includes over $13 billion for
health coverage alone. And we do not do this coverage just for COBRA
people, for people who worked for big companies who get off that job
and can buy their own COBRA insurance. We also cover the people who
work for small businesses, under 20 people, that do not have access to
COBRA. That is very important. Our bill is much broader, much deeper.
Let us talk about these rich people whose marginal tax rate is being
reduced. These marginal people are 660,000 entrepreneurs in my State of
Washington alone. These rich people who are in the 27 percent rate
bracket that we want to bring down immediately to 25, they are that
single school teacher who is earning $30,000 a year who cannot even
afford to live in the community where her school exists and has to
drive miles every day. This is the rich person that our opposition
talks about, Mr. Speaker, that we are trying to help. You bet we are
trying to help that person. We are trying to help that person in many
different ways.
The reality is that the Senate has delayed this bill. For the third
time we will send this bill back over to the Senate. We have a
President who is willing to sign this bill, a bill that contains rebate
checks for low-income working folks who did not get checks last year, a
bill that includes accelerated depreciation so small businesses and
businesses of every size can catch up and make purchases for their
company and buy those computers which would help stimulate that portion
of our economy. I would like to put death tax permanence in this bill,
but we are keeping this bill clear so we can move it through as fast as
possible.
Mr. Speaker, I urge the Senate to get off their chairs, to stand up
for the people at home, the people who are going to lose their jobs in
my district because of Boeing, the folks who are losing their jobs all
over this country. See the wisdom of this bill and the delicate balance
we have defined and pass this bill out as we pass it today.
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). Members are reminded to not
urge action on the part of the other body.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), who represents a number of unemployed people
who used to work for Enron.
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished
gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I believe what is recognized by the unemployment
assistance provided by the other body is that we are in a crisis. We
are in a recession. We helped the airlines; but yet with 12,000 and
thousands of employees being laid off we did not help those employees.
As the months and weeks got longer and longer, we saw more and more
companies across the Nation laying off hard-working Americans.
More than 1 million jobless workers have had their unemployment
benefits expire since September 11. And, Mr. Speaker, 2 million will
likely exhaust their regular unemployment again in the first half of
2002, inability to pay mortgages and car notes and tuition payments
and, most of all, health care.
What we are saying today, Mr. Speaker, if we are truly sincere about
the thousands of ex-Enron employees that are laid off and all other
employees across this Nation who are telling us that they will have no
unemployment insurance, no ability to pay their health care in the next
couple of months, let us pass a stand-alone bill.
I had last night, Mr. Speaker, an amendment that would have extended
the unemployment benefits for a year. It was not tied to the
unemployment percentages in your State. And the reason is if you are
unemployed and your State happens to have a 4.10, 4.1, 4.2 unemployment
rate, and it is higher than the baseline, you are still hurting. You
still need the time. You still are unemployed. Yes, we want jobs. And I
would like to join my colleagues on the other side of the aisle in
establishing a premise upon which we can secure more jobs. But these
are hard-working Americans who were laid off. They had jobs. They want
jobs but they need to survive now.
Let us vote up or down on the unemployment stimulus package that
deals with unemployment only, and let us make sure we get that passed.
I would have wanted this amendment to be in, but it did not happen. And
let us avoid exploding and taking away from the Social Security Trust
Fund. Let us do it right and work together. I ask my colleagues to
defeat the previous question in the rule so we can work on behalf of
the workers of the United States of America.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).
(Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule and of
the underlying economic security and worker assistance act.
It is Valentine's Day, Mr. Speaker; but there is obviously not a lot
of love in this room. And there should be. One million Americans have
fallen into unemployment this year. While Congress focuses on issues
that 1 or 2 percent of the American people think are urgent, a million
American families are struggling under the weight of this recession. It
is our hope on this side of the aisle, Mr. Speaker, that the third time
is the charm. But I want to speak specifically to several comments made
by the gentleman from Texas in a passionate and typically eloquent way.
He accused this measure offered by the majority of being cynical. And
I do not know, Mr. Speaker, I am new to this town, but it seems to me
that what is more cynical: Trying to help
[[Page H473]]
people that are unemployed by helping not only the wage earner but also
the wage payer, or is it more cynical to offer a stimulus bill that
does nothing for the people that you want folks to be hired back by?
And we have been accused of blocking today, Mr. Speaker. Again, I am
new to Washington and I am from south of Highway 40, but it seems to me
this is the third time we have passed a stimulus bill with benefits for
the unemployed in it and it has been blocked, Mr. Speaker, somewhere
else. And only in Washington, D.C. would you be accused of having tried
thrice to accomplish something and now you are blocking it.
Should we do more? We have been accused by the gentleman from Texas.
Well, we are. We are offering not just 13 weeks but we are triggering
additional unemployment benefits and vouchers to pay 60 percent of the
cost of health insurance coverage. And this business of using laid-off
workers as pawns, who uses the hurting family as a pawn, the one who
labors to meet their need for assistance today and a job tomorrow, or
the person content with accepting uncompromising obstruction that does
nothing to help the plight of the unemployed today?
I urge passage of the rule and this measure.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Kansas (Mr. Moore).
Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, the laid-off workers of America are waiting
and waiting and waiting. They are waiting for help they need and have
been promised time and time again. But it looks as if they will once
again be held hostage by the majority leadership's decision to attach
their economic agenda to a worker-relief bill.
In October we were promised, and displaced workers were promised, an
assistance package as soon as Congress passed a bill to help the
airline industry. Airlines got help; displaced workers did not. Broken
promise.
In December we were promised, and displaced workers were promised,
they would receive help. It did not happen. Broken promise. Even the
President wants this Congress to pass a stand-alone worker-relief bill
instead of continuing to play stimulus politics. I have here a chart
that shows part of a letter from the President of the United States to
me on December 11 on which he called on Congress to send him a stand-
alone worker-relief bill regardless of the success or failure of any
other elements of the economic stimulus measures now pending.
The last week the Senate passed worker-relief legislation; but
instead of fulfilling the promise to displaced workers, House is still
trying to get a so-called stimulus package and displaced workers are
the victims once again. Broken promise.
Who are these displaced workers? These are people who just need
assistance. They lost their jobs through no fault of their own because
of the recession or because of September 11. They were taxpayers
before, and they will be taxpayers again just as soon as they find a
job. But they need to be able to survive until they find that next job.
300,000 workers ran out of unemployment benefits in December. More ran
out in January, and each month more will run out until we pass this
package and give assistance to these people again.
Today we have the opportunity to expend for 13 weeks unemployed
benefits. The President has asked for a stand-alone package. The Senate
has passed it. Laid-offer workers deserve it. Let us give them a
helping hand. Let us vote against this rule. Promises made, promises
broken. The American people are watching and the clock is ticking.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may
consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the
distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding me time.
I am very impressed with the letter that my colleague, the gentleman
from Kansas (Mr. Moore), just placed before us. And I would commend it
to my colleagues. He is absolutely right. The President said that by
the end of the year he did want a package that would address the
unemployment issue. But notice the next line in there. The President
also insisted on having a health benefits package.
Guess what? The measure we are going to be voting on right here will
help meet the demand that the President has put forward. It seems to me
that we need to realize that if we were to wait on the other body for
every action that we have taken, we would not have passed Trade
Promotion Authority. We would not have passed an energy bill to help us
attain domestic energy self-sufficiency. We would not have passed the
faith-based legislation. We would not, as I was reminded last night,
have passed the very important bipartisan election reform measure that
came out of this institution.
It seems to me that we need to realize that the important thing for
us to do right now is to focus not only on this very important issue of
providing benefits to those who are suffering, those who are hurting,
unemployment benefits and health benefits; but also we needs to focus
on what it is that will address this issue. And that is what the
gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) and the members of his committee
have done, and that is job creation and economic growth.
We know full well that the President wants that because he
understands that the only way that you are going to effectively deal
with those who are hurting today is to create an opportunity for a job
for them. And so tying the two together is something that is absolutely
essential if we are going to address this in a long-run way. So I urge
my colleagues to vote for this rule and vote for the package that will
allow us to provide unemployment benefits and health benefits for the
American people along with the very important job-creation vehicle
necessary.
{time} 1115
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I would inquire about the time remaining.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Frost) has 8\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from Washington (Mr.
Hastings) has 12\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Doggett).
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, last night the Republican leadership here
in the House kept us until almost 3:00 in the morning in order to try
to kill campaign finance reform, and this morning, a few hours later,
they offer us this bill--proof positive of how desperate our Nation is
for approval of campaign finance reform.
Today, of course, is Valentine's Day, but here in the House almost
every day is Valentine's Day for special interest allies of this
Republican leadership. They live and die by the motto, ``friends help
friends get tax breaks whenever they can.''
Indeed, before the dust had settled over Ground Zero on September 11,
within hours, the same folks that are promoting this bill were wrapping
their old tax-break rhetoric in red, white and blue and claiming it was
necessary in the war on terrorism.
Only a few days later they were working to repeal the alternative
minimum tax to ensure that the appeal of President Bush for sacrifice
in this Nation would be met by our largest corporations being willing
to sacrifice by accepting a tax rebate check. Who do my colleagues
suppose was leading that effort in the special interests? None other
than Enron.
Cannot my colleagues imagine that call to Houston, ``Kenny Boy, can
you accept a mere $254 million of taxes that Enron paid and could not
avoid over the last 14 years as your share of sacrifice?'' Is that
enough sacrifice for Enron? And this morning, the same folks that were
doing that, after a little public scrutiny of their proposed $254
million gift for Enron, decided they could not repeal it. So they
determined instead to repeal all the elements of the same tax, and they
are willing to hold the unemployed workers of America, including
unemployed workers at Enron, hostage so that Ken Lay, who still has six
or seven houses to live in, and his company and other companies can
share the sacrifice demanded in these difficult times by paying no
taxes at all.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2
minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller).
(Mr. WELLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
[[Page H474]]
Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and the
underlying bill. It is interesting to listen to my friends on the
Democratic side of the aisle make up excuse after excuse why we should
do nothing about getting this economy moving again. We have to remember
why we are here. Our Nation is at war against terrorism. We are
building our homeland security, and we are in an economic recession,
and winning the war against terrorism requires getting our economy
moving again.
Almost a million Americans have lost their jobs since the terror
attack on September 11, tens of thousands in the area that I represent
around Chicago, and we know that terrorists directly attacked our
economy.
We have to work in this Congress to help those who are unemployed.
The plan that the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) has brought
before us is more generous than what we passed before. It is more
generous than what the Senate sent over last week, and I would note
that no one falls through the cracks under this plan, and this plan
also provides the opportunity to give confidence back to investors and
consumers who lost it after the terror attacks.
Twice this House has acted to get this economy moving again. We must
give workers the opportunity to go back to work, and that is why we
need to pass this legislation again today.
Investment drove this economy in the past decade, creating hundreds
of thousands of new jobs. The stimulus and economic security package
that is before us today rewards investment and the creation of jobs.
This plan includes the 30 percent expensing, accelerated depreciation
as well as giving small business the opportunity to expense more, up to
$40,000, and when my colleagues think about it, what this means to
workers is that when a business or employer buys a computer or buys a
pickup truck, there is a manufacturing worker somewhere who made that
product. There is also someone who is going to install it. There is
someone who is going to service it, and, of course, someone who is
going to operate that piece of equipment, and accelerated expensing and
accelerated depreciation will help. It also helps homeland security,
making it easier to afford safety and security equipment.
The bottom line is we need to get the economy moving again. Let us
give American workers the opportunity to go back to work. Let us pass
this bipartisan economic stimulus and economic security plan.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
That is very peculiar logic on the other side. The Senate has sent us
a 13-week extension. If the other side does not want the 13-week
extension, let us have a vote as the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Rangel) has asked on the 13-week extension, and they can vote no. Let
them vote no, but they do not have the courage to do that. Instead they
are denying us a vote on the 13-week extension in the guise of we have
got something much better.
Well, something much better is not going to happen, and we can argue
about whether it is better, but if they do not want the 13 weeks today,
then let us have a vote on that, and let them vote no against the 13
weeks extension.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr.
George Miller).
(Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to
revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, the bill that is before
us today is almost savage in its insensitivity to the plight of
American families who have lost their jobs through no fault of their
own, the plight of the American worker who lost their job before
September 11 and found job-hunting much more difficult after September
11, the people who have lost their job since September 11 and do not
qualify for any unemployment benefits because of all of the loopholes
that have been riddled in this system. It is savage in its
insensitivity to what these families are going through.
I have had an opportunity to meet with unemployed workers in Los
Angeles and Indiana and New Jersey, people who have worked for 15 or 20
years, and their job disappeared through no fault of their own because
of terrorism, because of an economic downturn, and now they find
themselves without any resources. Unemployment is running out, 11,000
people a day. While my colleagues are on recess, 120,000 people will
lose their unemployment benefits. More people exhausted their
unemployment benefits in December than any time since 1973.
What does this Congress do? What does the Republican leadership do?
It insists, it insists upon playing ping-pong back and forth with the
future and the lives and the well-being of these American families.
Thirteen weeks of unemployment insurance for those people running out
of unemployment who have exhausted their benefit is available today,
but the Republican leadership is going to play ping-pong. We are going
to send it back to the Senate and go home. Happy Valentine's Day.
Listen to the unemployed. Maybe my colleagues do not spend much time
with them. Listen to the people who talk about invading their 401(k)s,
their IRAs to try to save the mortgage, to try to say save their
automobiles so they can continue to look for work. Listen to these
individuals who are lining up never before in their life in food
pantries so they can feed their families. Listen to the people who are
working at the margins in the hospitality industry. They have no
savings. They have no rainy day fund. They have no place to go, no
credit. They were working at the margins. When that unemployment check
stops, if even they are qualified, the music stops for them and their
families.
Listen to the young truck driver out there who is working for Sunkist
when it went bankrupt, laid them off, 15 years. He finally bought a
house in Los Angeles. Now he was scrambling, begging his extended
family, his friends to meet the mortgage payment. He invaded his
retirement to make the mortgage payment. All he did was lose much of
his retirement value down the road. No insensitivity at all on my
colleagues' part for these families, for these workers, for these
employees who have been thrust into this system where they get no
benefits. No, my colleagues are going to send the bill to the Senate
and go home, to go home and turn their back on the American worker.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2
minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English).
Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I actually had a written statement to
present, but I have been listening to this debate, and frankly I am
outraged.
As I listened to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller)
accuse us of turning our backs on the worker, I look at their side of
the aisle and have seen how many times since last fall they have voted
down or tried to vote down an economic stimulus package. As for the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) and his concern that there is not
going to be a vote on that defenestrated piece of legislation that was
sent over here from the Senate, let me help him with this.
The Senate will not even allow a vote on our stimulus package. They
have been bottling this up now for months and months. Fifty bills held
up in the Senate and they will not let them free, and frankly, it is on
their heads what is happening to American workers, and I say this
because in one region of my district alone the manufacturing sector has
been hemorrhaging, a total of more than 4,000 jobs in less than 18
months. These job losses have dealt a $100 million blow to our region's
economy, and the picture throughout my district looks like the rest of
western Pennsylvania and more and more like the rest of the country.
During a single week in December, the number of workers receiving
unemployment benefits who could not find new jobs rose by over 300,000
to over 4 million, the biggest 1-week jump in 27 years, and meanwhile,
the Senate and some of our friends on the other side of the aisle are
playing the usual political game.
Every day we fail to sign the economic stimulus package into law that
the President asked us to pass months ago, it is another day where a
worker or a dozen workers or a hundred workers are laid off or a
business closes its doors. The statistics do not tell the whole story.
American workers need help. They need help now. We have neighbors in
need. We should act. Pass
[[Page H475]]
this legislation, get it done, get it to the President's desk as he has
requested and as American workers need.
announcement by the speaker pro tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would again remind all Members to
refrain from urging action or inaction by the Senate or characterizing
Senate action or inaction.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, let me inquire about the time remaining.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) has 3
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) has
8\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, we reserve the balance of our time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2
minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Hastings) for yielding me the time.
Mr. Speaker, what we are trying to accomplish today with the passage
of this third stimulus package is to create jobs and help the
unemployed. I have just recently read in our local Capitol Hill
newspaper that Members from the majority party in the other body want
stimulus. They are breaking with their party leadership in asking for
stimulus legislation to pass because in their home States they have a
lot of people who are losing their jobs. So what we are trying to
accomplish today is to give one more chance at it, to give one more
crack at it to try and do whatever we can to get Americans back to
work, to help grow the economy.
Let us take a look at what is in this piece of legislation. We hear
about all these impugned motives. We hear about all these bad
consequences. What we are trying to accomplish is to pass the kinds of
legislation that when they have passed in the past have grown the
economy and gotten people back to work. We want to make it easier for
employers to keep people employed. We want to make it easier for
employers to invest in their businesses, to invest in their employees
and hire people back to work. On top of it, for those people who have
lost their jobs, we want to help them with their unemployment insurance
and with health insurance.
The Senate failed to respond on these issues. I am sorry the other
body, excuse me, Mr. Speaker, the other body failed to address the
issue of getting people back to work and in helping dislocated workers
pay for their health insurance or they are out of work.
What we are trying to accomplish here is a recognition of a fact that
in recessions, unemployment lags on even well after recovery has taken
place. In my home State of Wisconsin, we have an unemployment rate that
is much higher than the national average. We have lost almost 50,000
jobs just in manufacturing in the State of Wisconsin. We are in trouble
in the State of Wisconsin, and we know that even though the Nation's
economy may recover, we are still going to have a lot of layoffs, so
that is why not just extending unemployment by 13 weeks, but allowing
for those States that are still in trouble to extend it another 13
weeks beyond that.
Mr. Speaker, this is the right thing to do for our constituents. It
is the right thing to do for the economy. It is common sense, and it is
an appeal to the Members of the other body who want bipartisan success
to get people back to work.
{time} 1130
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The Chair would remind Members
that the Senate and the other body are one and the same.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth).
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Washington
State for yielding me this time.
This debate has been very interesting indeed. In fact, one of my
friends from Texas came down, and, talking about Valentine's Day,
offered his own rhetorical version of a Saint Valentine's Day massacre
of the facts as they exist.
You see, my friends, not once, not twice, but on three occasions now
we have brought a package that the President requested. My friend from
Kansas had the letter. The President asked not only for unemployment
benefits but for health benefits.
We cannot control what others on this Hill may do, nor is that our
mission. Our responsibility is to produce today the best legislation we
can that provides unemployment benefits, with a trigger, in case tough
times continue, as the President stipulated, which expands health
benefits to get the help to the people my friend from California spoke
so eloquently about, and deals with the very people my very good friend
from Texas talked about when he engaged in Enronomics.
And, oh, by the way, with all the talk of campaign finances, perhaps
it would do good for everyone to listen. From opensecrets.org, my good
friend from Texas, who engaged in the rhetorical bloodbath about Enron,
has taken in the past few cycles $4,850 from Enron. Those are the
facts. And perhaps with his former profession, this is the undeniable
evidence and the rest of the story.
As our second President, John Adams said, facts are stubborn things.
How ironic it is that those who engage in the rhetorical wailing and
gnashing of teeth will do everything, throw up any obstruction, make
any excuse, offer any argument, . . . to try to deny the unemployed
help.
Support the rule.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I demand that the words of the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Hayworth) be taken down.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the words.
{time} 1145
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, if any of the words that I offered
rendered some offense to anyone in this Chamber, I apologize and ask
unanimous consent that they be stricken from the Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). Without objection, the
gentleman's words ``arguments that they are, in fact, personally
involved in, and up to their necks in'' will be stricken.
There was no objection.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Hinchey).
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HINCHEY. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, this is not really an insult of me or to
the House, but to the 11,000 workers added to the rolls every day who
are going without unemployment insurance and whose needs are being
deliberately neglected by this House, and who will not receive any
assistance as a result of the gamesmanship happening here today.
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, there is nobody on this side of the aisle
who believes that the extension of a mere 13 weeks of unemployment
insurance benefit is a comprehensive response to the present recession,
but we do understand that it is an important part of any response, and
we do understand, as my colleagues do, it is the only thing that we can
do practically at this moment. We have a bill here in this House which
extends 13 weeks of unemployment insurance benefits. We could pass that
bill now.
But, Mr. Speaker, the majority side of the aisle will not put that
bill on the floor. Instead, Members want to debate tax policy. We are
happy to debate tax policy with the other side of the aisle. The other
side of the aisle wants to pass a bill that will make it so that
profitable corporations in America have no tax liability. They will pay
no taxes to the Federal Treasury. Instead, that tax liability under the
Republican proposal would inevitably be passed on to middle-income
working people.
If my colleagues want to debate those kinds of issues, bring that
bill to the floor. We are happy to debate it, but for God's sake, let
us do the one thing we can do today to help the people that need help.
Every day 11,000 Americans exhaust their unemployment insurance
benefits. We are leaving town today. The Speaker set the schedule. We
are going on recess for 12 days. During that period of time, another
130,000 Americans will lose their unemployment insurance benefits. What
are those Members
[[Page H476]]
saying to them? Nothing. The other side of the aisle is turning their
back on them. Let us do the one thing that we can do now that has
practical benefit: Pass the unemployment insurance extender.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to
the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I am very impressed with the sudden
interest in the economy for the liberal Democratic Party. This is
really great. I just wonder, did they not know somehow there was a
recession going on in October? Did they not know in December? I mean,
what were they thinking when we had these opportunities to get America
back to work? I know that the other side of the aisle has a lot of
constituents who they think would rather have a government support
check rather than a job opportunity.
The America I know would rather be working. The America that I know
wants to help those who are unemployed when they need assistance. But
the America I know would prefer to be working.
Mr. Speaker, back in October we had a great bill that was passed by
this House, but like the energy bill, like the faith-based initiative,
like bioterrorism insurance, like so many other things that were passed
to the Members across the aisle in the other body, and it was killed in
the name of partisanship because there seem to be some folks in
Washington who would rather have a bad economy if that helps their
particular party in the polls.
I am sad that workers and American people's lives are being played
with in such a callous, political manner. This is the difference
between two parties, two visions. One wants to get the economy going so
there are jobs, like my friend Mark, who worked for International Paper
for 18 years. His father had worked for them for 28 years. He got laid
off in the downsizing back in July. Fortunately for him, his wife has a
job at a bakery. He is working with her right now. They are getting by,
but he wants to get back to work. His corporation says this bill would
help them.
Or like my friend Bill, who is a small electrical contractor
employing six to eight people in Savannah, Georgia. He wants to keep
those six to eight people on his payroll working, but they have got to
have work out there, jobs to go to. This would give them that
opportunity.
This is about real people and real jobs, people who do not have
business cards, people who do not give to PACs or necessarily belong
and hang out with big unions, and people who do not come to Washington,
D.C., and do not consider themselves Republicans or Democrats. They
just want to work.
Mr. Speaker, our bill which we passed in October would have given
them jobs, would have done it in December. Now we have got our third
opportunity. Do not strike out. Do not swing unsuccessfully three
times. Let us get this thing done.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question.
If the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the
rule that will allow us to vote on a clean 13-week extension of
unemployment benefits.
Mr. Speaker, we will be leaving for the district work period today
and will be away for the next week. We need to fix the unemployment
situation for the millions of Americans whose benefits have expired or
will expire in the next few months.
This is not the time to bring to the floor a whole new stimulus
package that the other body will not consider this week. Let us act now
and help those who are unemployed in our Nation. Vote ``no'' on the
previous question, and help our unemployed workers now.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my
amendment just prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I tend to be an optimistic person, and I believe that
three times is a charm. We have been in a recession, we found out after
the fact, since last March. It seems to me if we are going to get out
of a recession in a comprehensive way, we need a comprehensive plan. We
cannot be putting Band-Aids on every aspect of our economy.
What has not been said at all in this debate today, notwithstanding
the fact that the other side has said that the stimulus package is
dead, there were two members of the majority party in the other body
that were chairmen, and they said maybe we ought to relook at a
stimulus package. I am optimistic that the third time is a charm in
this case, and I urge the Members to vote for the previous question and
the rule and the underlying bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and move the
previous question on the resolution.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Frost is as follows:
Strike all after the resolved clause and insert:
That upon the adoption of this resolution the bill (H.R.
622) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to expand the
adoption credit, and for other purposes, be, and the same is
hereby, taken from the Speaker's table to the end that the
Senate amendments thereto be, and the same are hereby, agreed
to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair will reduce to 5 minutes
the minimum time for electronic voting, if ordered, on the question of
adoption of the resolution.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 216,
nays 207, not voting 11, as follows:
[Roll No. 36]
YEAS--216
Aderholt
Akin
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilirakis
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boozman
Brown (SC)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Coble
Collins
Combest
Cooksey
Cox
Crane
Crenshaw
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Everett
Ferguson
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Graham
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Grucci
Gutknecht
Hansen
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kerns
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
Mica
Miller, Dan
Miller, Gary
Miller, Jeff
Moran (KS)
Morella
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reynolds
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schaffer
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sununu
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Upton
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins (OK)
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
[[Page H477]]
NAYS--207
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barcia
Barrett
Becerra
Bentsen
Berkley
Berry
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank
Frost
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hill
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Luther
Lynch
Maloney (CT)
Markey
Mascara
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Mink
Mollohan
Moore
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Phelps
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott
Serrano
Sherman
Shows
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson (CA)
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOT VOTING--11
Berman
Brady (TX)
Cubin
Maloney (NY)
Moran (VA)
Payne
Riley
Roukema
Stump
Traficant
Weldon (PA)
{time} 1218
Ms. McCOLLUM changed her vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. LATHAM changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The question is on the
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5 minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 213,
noes 206, not voting 15, as follows:
[Roll No. 37]
AYES--213
Aderholt
Akin
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilirakis
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boozman
Brown (SC)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Coble
Collins
Combest
Cooksey
Cox
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Everett
Ferguson
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Graham
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Grucci
Gutknecht
Hansen
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kerns
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
Mica
Miller, Dan
Miller, Gary
Miller, Jeff
Moran (KS)
Morella
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reynolds
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schaffer
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sununu
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tauzin
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Upton
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins (OK)
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--206
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barcia
Barrett
Becerra
Bentsen
Berkley
Berry
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Condit
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank
Frost
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hill
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Luther
Lynch
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Mascara
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Mink
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Phelps
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott
Serrano
Sherman
Shows
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOT VOTING--15
Berman
Brady (TX)
Buyer
Conyers
Lewis (CA)
McCollum
Payne
Riley
Roukema
Stump
Taylor (NC)
Traficant
Watson (CA)
Weldon (PA)
Whitfield
{time} 1229
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________