[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.

                          ____________________