[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 2 (Wednesday, January 8, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H66-H74]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF S. 23, EXTENSION OF TEMPORARY EXTENDED
UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION ACT OF 2002
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 14 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 14
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order without intervention of any point of order
to consider in the House the bill (S. 23) to provide for a 5-
month extension of the Temporary Extended Unemployment
Compensation Act of 2002 and for a transition period for
individuals receiving compensation when the program under
such Act ends. The bill shall be considered as read for
amendment. The previous question shall be considered as
ordered on the bill to final passage without intervening
motion except: (1) one hour of debate on the bill equally
divided and controlled by Representative Thomas of California
and Representative Rangel of New York; and (2) one motion to
recommit.
Sec. 2. The allocations referred to in section
3(a)(4)(B)(i) of House Resolution 5 may be submitted by
Representative Nussle of Iowa.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) is
recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms.
Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
During consideration of this resolution all time yielded is for the
purpose of debate only.
The rule provides for 1 hour of debate and waives all points of order
against consideration of the bill. As we begin the 108th Congress I
would like to point out that we intend to continue the courtesy that we
began when the Republicans became the majority. This rule allows us to
continue in the tradition of extending the minority party an
opportunity to offer a motion to recommit.
Mr. Speaker, the resolution before us today allows us to debate and
consider a most important measure, S-23, which provides for a 5-month
extension of the Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of
2002. Last Congress we passed the Job Creation and Worker Assistance
Act of 2002, which became Public Law 107-147. This economic stimulus
bill includes a temporary extension of unemployment compensation and
provides for the temporary extended unemployment compensation program.
{time} 1030
This program provided up to 13 additional weeks of federally funded
benefits for unemployed workers in all States. Benefits were payable to
qualified workers through December 28, 2002. Though several attempts
were made, and language extending this program was passed by the House,
the 107th Congress unfortunately adjourned without having passed an
extension.
[[Page H67]]
Today, we have the opportunity to consider legislation that would
immediately provide for a 5-month extension of unemployed benefits,
through May 2003, with a 3-month phaseout. This also allows for newly
eligible workers by the end of May 2003 to receive extended
unemployment benefits through August of this year.
Mr. Speaker, 1.9 million new recipients would be aided by this
extension, as well as nearly 800,000 continuing recipients who have
been affected by the December 28 ``cliff.'' This comes to a total of
2.7 million workers and their families who would benefit from the
legislation that will hopefully pass today.
This measure is similar to the language that was championed by
Senators Clinton and Nickles at the end of the last Congress.
Yesterday, the Senate passed this legislation by unanimous consent.
Today, the House has the opportunity to pass and to send this measure
to President Bush for his signature. By moving expeditiously, we could
ensure that unemployed workers do not suffer from a significant delay
in the receipt of their checks. I hope that we can mirror the Senate's
actions on this bill with a strong, bipartisan vote. I believe that it
would be a strong indication of this new Congress's commitment to
American workers and their families. Furthermore, extending
unemployment benefits and providing unemployed workers with additional
purchasing power would be yet another way to help stimulate the economy
which, in turn, would help us to keep unemployment down.
Mr. Speaker, before I yield to the gentlewoman from New York, I would
like to offer a brief explanation of the second part of this
resolution. Section 2 of this resolution provides that allocations
referred to in section 3(a) of House Resolution 5 may be submitted by
the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle). This is merely a technical
clarification of the rules package we adopted yesterday, which
contained a provision to allow the chairman of the Committee on the
Budget to have printed in the Congressional Record 302(a) allocations.
This is necessary so that the House might complete its obligation to
fund this through the current year FY 03 fiscal year.
As everyone knows, the Committee on Rules is currently the only
committee up and running, so my good friend, the gentleman from Iowa
(Mr. Nussle), has technically not been appointed the chairman of the
Committee on the Budget yet. This provision merely lets him carry out
his duties as if he already were the committee chairman.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this rule
and the underlying legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for
yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
(Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend
her remarks.)
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am going to read a letter from a
constituent of mine in Rochester, New York, whom we will call Mary.
``Dear Louise: I am a 52-year-old mother with a handicapped child at
home and a daughter in graduate school. I am writing because I am tired
of freezing. Our thermostat is set at 55 and the electric company is
still sending us threatening letters every month. We pay as much as we
can, but without extended unemployment benefits, my son will have to go
to an institution. I have 42 job rejections and I have a B.A. in
sociology. It's very hard for me to worry about home security issues
and terrorism when I am cold. Maybe I can make it through the winter
with extended benefits.''
Another received over the holidays:
``Dear Louise: My husband was laid off in January. We have taken out
two loans against our house in addition to our mortgage to survive and
we have a 2-year-old child who is getting almost nothing under the
Christmas tree.''
There are more where that came from, Mr. Speaker. Another wrote me,
``I am 34 years old. A year ago today I was making $76,000 a year as a
software engineer at Xerox, and today I cannot find a job. I have a
newborn baby girl, and I am going to run out of my benefits next week.
I consistently made $60,000 a year for the past 5 years and paid taxes
accordingly.''
None of these people will be helped by this legislation today. None
of them.
Mr. Speaker, last month I asked some unemployed workers in my
district to sign a petition that calls on Congress to make the
extension of Federal unemployment benefits a priority. During the last
2 weeks alone, more than 300 constituents have signed on to the
petition. They are losing their homes. They have sold their cars. They
cannot support their families, their children; and these are not people
who sit back and passively collect checks to avoid working. They have
been pounding the pavement in an economy that is shutting them out.
Indeed, Mr. Speaker, I have been told that it is almost impossible at
this time to get even a part-time job or a temporary job in Rochester.
These are people who have worked all of their lives and paid into the
unemployment insurance fund and now simply are asking to get some back.
Through no fault of their own, they find themselves reeling in an
economic slowdown.
While working, they did all of their part; and the cushion that they
are given now is resonating like a hard thud. The money is sitting
there, Mr. Speaker, in a trust fund that we are failing to fully
utilize. That is bad stewardship. These constituents are not comforted
by an abstract proposal to reduce the tax on corporate dividends or
other so-called stimulus. A victory for them would be to keep their
homes heated and a roof over their heads. To add insult to injury, my
constituents were greeted with this headline 3 days after Christmas
reading nationwide, ``800,000 lose jobless benefits,'' with the kicker
that Congress went home and failed to okay funds.
All during the holidays, Mr. Speaker, we talked about getting back
here and the first thing we wanted to do, there was this great sense
that we would come back to help the people whose benefits expired on
December 28. Unfortunately, that is not the case. If benefits expire
later, this bill will do some help, but this is appalling. I have been
at a loss to explain to my constituents why a majority in this House
let them down. A recent report suggests that without an extension
package, a projected 12,000 unemployed workers in Rochester, in the
Buffalo-Niagra area are scheduled to lose their benefits between
December 28 and March 31. But, as I said before, this measure before us
today will be too little and too late for thousands in my region and
perhaps in others.
The version we are considering today would only allow for a 13-week
extension of benefits for those who are still eligible. It would not
address the needs of the nearly 84,000 unemployed in the State of New
York alone who have already exhausted their benefits.
Mr. Speaker, it seems almost superfluous to note that the 108th
Congress kicks off its legislative program with a rule so closed and
restricted that the minority party was prevented from offering even a
single substitute. I remember the day that this institution was
considered one of the great deliberative bodies, brimming with ideas
and a host of viewpoints befitting a democracy, but no more, Mr.
Speaker. Today, 205 Members of this body and their constituents have
been disenfranchised and shut out. My colleagues, a cold wind is
blowing in this institution, and the needs and voices of our most
vulnerable constituents are feeling the chill.
Mr. Speaker, the Democratic substitute that was blocked by the
Committee on Rules last night would have made a real difference to
thousands. First and foremost, the measure would reestablish the
Federal extended unemployment compensation program and guarantee all
jobless workers at least 26 weeks of extended benefits. The program
would be extended until June 30, 2003. Workers in every State would be
eligible for 26 weeks of extended unemployment benefits after they
exhaust their regular unemployment compensation. This provision would
provide extended unemployment benefits to merely 2\1/2\ million workers
over the first half of 2003, and the unemployment rate becomes more and
more shocking every day.
[[Page H68]]
Moreover, any workers who exhausted their initial 13 weeks of
temporary extended unemployment compensation in 2002 would receive an
additional 13 weeks. Any worker who was cut off on December 28 because
of the termination of the current program would receive the remainder
of their original 13 weeks on a retroactive basis, plus the additional
13 weeks. Finally, any worker who exhausted 26 weeks which they
received because their State hit the requisite unemployment trigger
would receive an additional 7 weeks if their State remained designated
as having high unemployment.
Mr. Speaker, one of the things that literally broke my heart was when
one Member of Congress was quoted as saying, ``We don't want to extend
these benefits; they will not go out and look for work.'' We are
talking about people who are having a very difficult time; in fact,
probably will not be able to find the kind of work commensurate with
their education and their skills. I am very much afraid that my
district, like many others, will lose them to other parts of the
country. It is a tragedy that is happening here today, Mr. Speaker. We
could be doing something good for the unemployed of America; but
instead, we are turning our back on them and saying, have a little
dividend tax relief.
I do want to point out too on the stimulus package, because it is so
important that most people who have stock in the United States have
either a 401(k) program or a mutual fund, they will not see anything
from any kind of tax relief.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, last night the Committee on Rules had an
opportunity to hold a hearing on this unemployment compensation bill.
However, for months our chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr.
Dreier), has been involved in the negotiations as a member of the
leadership of the House and is a person who has taken a lead on this
important issue. I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of the Committee on Rules.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time, and I congratulate him on his fine management on this very
important rule.
I will begin by saying that none of us is enthused by the prospect of
having to extend unemployment benefits. Why? Because we want to focus
on job creation and economic growth; and we know that the people who
are out there who, unfortunately, are suffering, want to have
opportunity, and that is why we are bound and determined to do
everything possible to ensure that they have it. But I see what we are
doing here today, Mr. Speaker, as really part of our national security
responsibility. We all know that on September 11 of 2001 we had the
worst attack and the loss of civilian life in our Nation's history. We
know that the aftermath of that has cost us over $100 billion in direct
appropriations. We also know, Mr. Speaker, that it has created a very,
very large drain on our Nation's economy, and there are people out
there who are hurting.
Last November 14, we passed out of the House of Representatives a
bill to make sure that there would be no interruption in unemployment
benefits that were provided. Unfortunately, the Senate did not bring
that measure up. But they did, however, pass a bill that is identical
to this. A bill that is identical to this measure passed the
Democratic-controlled United States Senate. This is the measure which
was known as the Clinton-Nichols bill. Senator Clinton from New York
who got her start in elective office thanks to my friend, the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Rangel), who encouraged her from the outset, as the
author of this measure that we are going to be voting on today. I
believe that this is a measure which will go a long way towards
mitigating the pain which has come about because of the aftermath of
September 11 and the economic downturn.
So that is why this measure should enjoy broad bipartisan support. As
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) pointed out, we do have, in
fact, in the rules of the House, since this is the second day of the
108th Congress, I underscore again, we have guaranteed the minority the
right to a motion to recommit, so they will have a chance to deal with
this issue if they want to in a different way. But I underscore the
fact that the measure we are going to be voting on today is a
bipartisan measure. It passed unanimously, under unanimous consent in
the Senate.
So in light of the fact that it has passed there and we have this
measure here, we want to make sure that there is no interruption. One
of the reasons that we need to make sure that this is done today is so
that there is not an interruption. We want to pass this bill so that we
can get it to the President's desk, so that he can sign the bill to
ensure that we get this much-needed assistance to those who are
hurting.
Now, a number of my colleagues have today gotten up and talked about
the President's plan that he unveiled yesterday in Chicago to get the
economy moving, and I heard criticism of the opportunity to eliminate
double taxation of dividends. We know, Mr. Speaker, that more than half
of the American people are members of the investor class.
{time} 1045
They have over the past several years been involved in some kind of
investment. Guess what? Most of us who are members of the investor
class have suffered because of the economic downturn. We all know that.
One of the things we need to do is we need to encourage investment. I
believe that the President's proposal that he unveiled yesterday will
go a long way towards doing that. The by-product is that it will create
jobs and opportunity out there for people who are hurting today, those
people who we are going to be assisting with this plan that we have to
extend unemployment benefits.
I yesterday introduced legislation which I believe can help make the
President's plan even better. It gets back to an issue that my friend,
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), and I have worked on for
years. That has to do with the capital gains tax.
A lot of people say, when we talk about a capital gains tax, they
laughingly say, who has capital gains? We have had tremendous losses.
Why would you think about cutting the capital gains tax?
H.R. 44, which I introduced yesterday, will bring about a halving of
the top rate on capital gains from 20 percent to 10 percent, and from
10 percent to 5 percent for those in the 15 percent bracket for those
who prospectively invest. We believe that having a 1-year holding
period will guarantee that.
While some argue that it creates a loss in revenues to the Federal
Treasury, it in fact will not do that. It will create, obviously, that
1-year holding period, so we are going to see revenues increase to the
Treasury, but there would be absolutely no cost regardless of how we
score it in the first year because of the fact that we would have had
that 1-year holding period.
But it encourages people to get into the market, and allows them to
have that top rate go from 20 percent down to 10 percent if they get in
and realize some kind of capital gains during that period of time. It
is during a 2-year window, and I think that is the kind of thing which,
once again, can encourage savings, investment, and productivity.
These are the kinds of things we are working on. So while we are
unfortunately, unfortunately in a position where we have no choice but
to extend unemployment benefits, and we very much want to do that
because we know people are suffering, the key thing for us to do as a
Congress is to make sure that we create incentives for people to invest
and save and produce.
So that is why this is a very fair rule. It is one which I believe
will create a good opportunity for us to deal with the challenges that
are out there. I urge my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans alike,
to support it.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\3/4\ minutes to the 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, those of us that come from urban communities
know of circumstances when someone is grabbed by the police and they
are
[[Page H69]]
interrogated, and they have what is called a ``good cop-bad cop'' rule.
The good cop talks about compassion and sensitivity and why he is our
friend, and why he wants to help us; but the bad cop is the one that is
mean-spirited, the one that is in the back, and the one that ultimately
is going to see that we get hurt.
Our beloved President is the good cop. He is the one that talks about
conservatism, but with compassion. He is the one that says that he does
not know why the Congress did not take care of the 800,000 people who
lost their unemployment compensation after the Christmas holidays.
But, Mr. Speaker, someplace in the House of Representatives lurks the
bad cop. He was the one that would not allow us to vote for workmen's
compensation before we left here for the Christmas holidays. While the
President talks about unemployment compensation and benefits, and while
all of us will be voting for the President's package, the bad cop is
there saying, yes, but do not give benefits to the 1 million people
whose extended benefits have expired, that have worked every day, that
have paid into the unemployment compensation, that are looking for
jobs.
The bad cop says that we cannot afford to help those million people.
Eighty-four thousand New Yorkers who took the hit for 9-11, not for our
city, not for our State, but for the United States of America and for
the free world, they are looking for work. They are looking to listen
to the good cop. They are looking for compassion.
But the bad cop says, no, we will help you later, much later, because
we have to cut taxes on dividends. And if you live long enough and
survive long enough, you will be able to get a job. Where is the
compassion?
But, Mr. Speaker, I am just as hard-nosed as any Republican that is
in this House. I know when one wins the majority, he or she wins the
votes and does what they want to do. The difference between me and the
bad cop is that I thought we had the right to come here and at least
debate our position. If Members do not want the substitute that really
takes care, in a small part, of a million people who are seeking work,
why do they not give us a chance to at least debate it? How does the
bad cop just cut off debate, and then they tell us that we have a
motion to recommit?
So all we are saying is, can we not lose with dignity? Can we not
lose with compassion? Can they not give us a chance, as they have found
$675 billion for the wealthy, to at least let us debate to provide
unemployment compensation benefits for a million people? If they will
not give us the substitute, could they not waive the point of order for
at least the motion to recommit?
No, Mr. Speaker, the bad cop is in charge here, and the compassionate
cop remains in the White House.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, what we are trying to work on today is a bill that was
passed by the Senate last night. Last year, this House passed a bill
very similar to this. We tried to do the very best we could. The
process is that two bodies of Congress, the House and Senate, have to
get together. That is what is happening today.
Yesterday, the Senate acted, or last night. Immediately last night
the Committee on Rules had a meeting. We had a hearing where we talked
directly about this bill. Today it is on the floor. I think we are
doing the timely things. I think we are doing the right things. I do
not think we are delaying this in any manner. It is process, and it is
a process that we intend to follow.
I am proud that we had this on the floor today, and I am also proud
that by presenting this rule and by having this debate perhaps as early
as tonight or tomorrow the President of the United States, George W.
Bush, will have the chance to sign this bill. That is what this is
about. I am proud that we are able to do that today.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), the gentleman who is to be chairman of the
Committee on the Budget.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished friend and
colleague for yielding time to me.
I rise in support of S. 23, which will provide a 5-month extension of
the Federal emergency unemployment insurance benefits. I do so both as
a member of the Committee on the Budget with an interest in the
enforcement of the budget resolution deemed in effect for fiscal year
2003, and as a member of the Committee on Ways and Means, under whose
jurisdiction this legislation has been prepared.
This measure is not inexpensive. The bill carries a $7.25 billion
price tag for fiscal year 2003, and moreover, that price tag fails to
take into account an additional $650 billion in costs that the
Congressional Budget Office will recognize for this bill when it
adjusts its budget projections at the end of this month.
However, for those among the Nation's unemployed, they will find this
to be a lifeline. They will find a lifeline in this legislation that
will help them pay their bills, help them pay their family's bills,
while they continue to look for work.
As the incoming chairman of the committee charged with enforcing the
budget resolution, I must, however, point out that S. 23 will exceed
the budget resolution which the House adopted for fiscal year 2003 in
March of last year. It would specifically exceed the allocation for the
Committee on Ways and Means by $5.69 billion in budget authority for
2003, and by $1.9 billion in budget authority during the period 2003-
2007.
I, however, like the President and most in Congress, recognize the
seriousness of the Nation's continuing challenge regarding the
unemployment rate. We must take into consideration and we must take
that action now to ensure economic security for families of those who
have been unemployed as a result of the continuing economic trauma our
Nation has suffered since the September 11 terrorist attacks.
It is with understandable reluctance that I would ever support
bringing a bill to the floor that exceeds the budget resolution, but I
believe that it may be warranted during periods of economic instability
and insecurity. This is one of them.
As of December 28, 2002, more than 800,000 American workers have had
their eligibility for unemployment insurance benefits terminated.
Although they have not yet found new jobs, S. 23 will prevent these
workers and others who exhaust the benefits prior to May of this year
from having their benefits terminated.
In summary, I support this bill despite its cost because of my
concern for Iowa workers and American workers who may have a hard time
finding jobs during this period of instability and challenging
unemployment rate. More important, I commit to drafting a budget again
this year which will support and help strengthen the economic recovery
and encourage long-term economic growth.
Mr. Speaker, I urge support of S. 23, and I urge support of this
rule.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), a member of the Committee on Rules.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time
to me.
Mr. Speaker, I am fascinated by the comments of my colleagues on the
other side of the aisle who have this new-found compassion for the
plight of the unemployed in our country. There is nothing like spending
a couple of weeks at home with constituents to open one's eyes.
After months of callously ignoring the unemployed American workers,
the Republican majority turned tail and adjourned the 107th Congress
without providing any unemployment compensation for people out of work,
providing nothing. Now, after almost 800,000 Americans lost their
unemployment benefits on December 28, the majority acts like they have
seen the light and that they are fully supportive of helping the
unemployed.
But while we consider a bill to help these 800,000 Americans, there
are 1 million American workers who have already exhausted their
benefits who will not be covered by the bill that we are considering
today. This is wrong. The selective assistance the majority is
attempting to provide does not come soon enough, does not go far
enough, and will not help enough. Congress should provide unemployment
assistance to every worker who needs it. The bill that we are
considering today does not do that.
[[Page H70]]
The gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), on behalf of the minority,
offered a substitute in the Committee on Rules last night, but the
majority, in the now-traditional House spirit of nonbipartisanship,
denied us the opportunity to even consider the substitute. Our
substitute would extend unemployment benefits by 26 weeks instead of 13
weeks for people losing their unemployment compensation during the
first half of this year, and it would provide an additional 13 weeks to
the 1 million jobless Americans who exhausted their benefits last year.
There is no question we need to help the unemployed, but we should not
be providing selective assistance. Unemployed Americans deserve better
than this.
I would say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, if they
do not want to help these people, it is their right to do nothing. They
could vote against the Rangel substitute. But they should not deny us
the opportunity to try to bring this substitute to the floor and debate
our position and have an up-or-down vote. They can vote no if they want
to, but we should all have that opportunity to vote up or down.
They give speeches about democracy in all these countries all around
the world. We need a little democracy here in the United States House
of Representatives. We should not be denied the opportunity to bring
this substitute to the floor. This is supposed to be the people's
House. The people should work their will. We should not be denied this
opportunity. It is outrageous that they are not giving us the
opportunity to help these 1 million workers who have exhausted their
benefits.
I would urge Members to vote no on this rule as a protest to the fact
that we are being denied the right to offer a substitute to help these
people.
{time} 1100
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, speech after speech we hear about how we have been
delayed in this process. I agree. Part of the process is, however, that
the two bodies, the House and the Senate, have a process. What we are
doing today is taking a Senate bill that is even more generous than the
one which the Senate passed last year. We are accepting this because we
believe it is the right thing to do.
Our President, George W. Bush, spoke very clearly and very
passionately about his belief that when the House of Representatives
and the Senate would come back, this was several weeks ago when he
spoke, that he was asking us to make sure that we held the necessary
meetings and committee mark-ups to make sure that this bill did come to
the floor. That is what we are doing today. I am proud of what we are
doing. I offer no apologies for what our party stands for.
We are here on the floor of the House of Representatives as a
majority party with a great bill. It happens to be a better bill now
than what was marked up last year and passed by the United States
Senate. But it is one that we agree on, and it is one that we should be
proud of.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Levin).
(Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, it has been said here that unfortunately the
107th adjourned without passage of a bill like this. I was here with
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and the gentleman from Maryland
(Mr. Hoyer) that day of sine die adjournment. We tried to bring up this
issue. We were thwarted by the Republican majority. We asked that we
bring up the Senate bill. Unanimous consent is all that was needed.
The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) says the President has spoken
passionately. On that day the President was silent. Now there has been
political pressure. Now some of the faces of the unemployed have
appeared in the newspapers and on television. And so now you are ready
to act. The Senate has acted. But, look, I think we can do better and
there is time for us to do even better.
One of my colleagues on the Republican side said there should be no
interruptions to those who are hurting, if I got the words down
correctly. What about the million who have exhausted their extended
benefits and who are hurting? To the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Sessions), 56,000 from your State. The gentleman from Iowa talked about
the unemployed in his State. How about the 8,500-plus who have
exhausted their benefits and who are looking for work who are hurting.
Why do we not act?
Well, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) talks about the budget
process. You are waiving it today up to a point. There is an
unwillingness to waive it to let us bring up coverage of those who have
exhausted their benefits. There is $25 billion in the trust fund for
this purpose. And our proposal would include enough people so that
everybody would be covered within the $25 billion.
Look, I remember so vividly on that day when we adjourned sine die,
we held a press conference, and distributed by the Republicans on the
Committee on Ways and Means ``Debunking Liberal Myths on the
Unemployment Picture.'' That was distributed as we came out of the
press conference. ``Debunking liberal Myths on the Unemployment
Picture.''
Look, I suggest to people who think unemployment is a liberal myth,
talk to the unemployed when you go home tomorrow. Talk to their
families. Find out the trials and the tribulations. I think if you will
do that, you will agree today we could have done even better. We could
have done better.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, at this time I have no further speakers. I
would like to inquire from the gentlewoman from New York (Ms.
Slaughter) as to how many speakers and the time remaining on both
sides.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Sessions) has 13\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentlewoman from New York
(Ms. Slaughter) has 13\3/4\ minutes remaining.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I do have three or four more speakers, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Wynn).
Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose, and strenuously oppose, this bill. It
is fundamentally unfair. We talk in this body about the need for open
and fair debate, but the Republicans have shut off the Democrats' ideas
on this very important subject, how we can help those people who are
unemployed.
Years ago the legendary singer Marvin Gaye had a song out called
``What's Going On.'' Let me talk about what is going on. September 11
and its aftermath are going on, mergers, bankruptcy, failed dot-coms,
closed plants, airline restructuring, corporate downsizing. That is
what is going on in America. And the bottom line is people are
unemployed.
Now, today we could have a debate about two opposing views, the
Democrats and the Republicans. Let us talk about what Democrats would
do versus the Republicans' approach to Americans who are unemployed.
First, those people we call exhaustees, those who have exhausted
their benefits. There are 1 million Americans who have exhausted their
benefits. The Democrats would give them 13 weeks of additional
benefits. The Republican plan before us today gives them zero. That is
unfair.
Let us talk about what we call new entries, that is, the 93,000
people each week who become unemployed, exhaust all of their benefits
at the State level. The Democrats would give them 26 weeks, roughly
6\1/2\ months. The Republicans would only give them 3\1/2\ months, 13
weeks. The Democrat plan is clearly fair. And critically the people who
have been cut off, 800,000 workers were cut off on December 28. The
Democrats would give them a total of 26 weeks. The Republicans say,
well, whatever is left, that is what you get. If you only have 2 weeks
of benefits left, you only get 2 weeks of unemployment benefits. That
is not fair.
Now the Republicans say we do not want to talk about unemployment. We
want to talk about growth and that is why we are proposing to give a
big tax
[[Page H71]]
break to the wealthy in the form of eliminating the tax on dividends
and that will spur growth in jobs. Sounds good, does it not?
The problem is that conservative compassion or compassionate
conservatism is out of sync because their job creation comes sometimes
years after these people are unemployed. They need benefits and help
now. Then if the jobs come, fine. But we ought to be helping Americans
now and the Republicans do not do it. That is tragedy. I will vote down
this rule.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. McDermott).
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York
(Ms. Slaughter) for yielding me time.
The President is intent on going to war. He continues to take us down
a path to war. The papers carry today the story that the stimulus
package is going to be eaten up by the war. You can pour that $700
billion into the economy, and it will not do any good because nobody is
going to invest, which means we are going to continue to have long-term
unemployment.
My State has the highest rate of unemployment. The distinguished
gentleman from California says, well, they are going to get some money
from the stimulus package when they get their capital gains excuse
there.
I am going to tell the 30,000 people in my State that are not covered
by this bill that we will try to get an address where they can go and
get their money for their non-existent tax benefits.
This is a travesty, and what you are doing is you are putting a
little Band-Aid on it today because you have got public pressure. You
will be back. I guarantee you will be back in March. You will be out
here saying, well, amazingly, the economy has not picked up. We do not
know what to do, so we have to give a few more benefits, a few more
nickels and dimes out the door.
If you continue down this path to war and spend the money out of the
Treasury of the United States in a stupid tax giveaway to the wealthy,
70 percent of the people in this country will not get more than a $100
out of it. If you think that is a stimulus to the economy, you do not
understand ordinary people.
So you are wasting $700 billion. You are taking us into a senseless
war, and you will not take care of people who are sitting in your own
districts. And you will not let us debate it. You say, well, we have
the budget, we have the budget, you know, we have to keep the budget in
balance. You gave that up and you are going to give it up.
The President says we are having a wartime budget. So in a wartime
budget you do not have to worry about what is going on. You can just
spend money on all kinds of things but not on the unemployed, even
though the $25 billion is sitting right in the account right now, and
they will not acquire a damn dime.
Announcement By The Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would remind all Members that
remarks in debate should avoid profanity.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, we live in a cold world, and
we are in a cold and somewhat impassioned Chamber.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentlewoman from New York (Ms.
Slaughter) for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, we live in a world that does not seem to care that
people who deserve or get unemployment insurance are, in fact, the
workers of America who have built this Nation. Now we have a bill given
by now the singular government of the United States, Republican
Presidency, Republican Senate, Republican House. There is no two-party
system in this Nation, which means that the railroad train, the train
of no return, will be the legislative call of the day.
How in the world can you argue that we live in a democracy when you
are denying the opposition the right to present their proposal that
will, in fact, save families and save lives?
The Democrats realize that people are unemployed because there is no
work. And the Bill Clinton administration, in the first term he created
11 million jobs in America. Right now the Bush administration has seen
2 million jobs go down the drain. So are you telling me that the 56,000
people in the State of Texas are ne're-do-wells who do not want to
work? No.
They have fallen upon hard times. They are trying to work. Their
mortgage payments are coming. The college tuition payments are coming.
The car payments are coming. And we are leaving them to fall on their
spears.
We have got a war that we do not need that is costing us a trillion
dollars, but yet a lousy $7.2 billion is all we are going to give. We
cannot afford to give 26 full weeks and pay for the million people that
are about to lose their homes right now because they are not included
in this bill that we have to vote for. I never knew or thought as a
child growing up in America that had unemployed parents, saw the
hardship of trying to make ends meet, borrowing from relatives to stay
alive, that we would have a government that would be so uncaring, that
we would stand here and force down this legislative initiative because
we do not like the opposition, because we are in control now.
The only thing I can say is that this is an abomination and Lord have
mercy on all of us as we try to be compassionate for those who are in
need.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Becerra).
Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me
time.
Mr. Speaker, it is somewhat painful to say that we begin the 108th
Congress today with new Members, a new majority in the Senate under
Republican control, a Republican-controlled House, a Republican in the
White House, and the first order of legislative business in the 108th
Congress in the year 2003 is a plan which gags the minority party in
the greatest democracy in the world to discuss something very important
to millions of Americans who are working and about to lose their jobs
or who are trying to work but cannot find a job. It is difficult to
believe that today, January 8 of 2003, that in the House of
Representatives, the people's House, we will not have an opportunity to
discuss how we can provide unemployment benefits, emergency
unemployment benefits to a million Americans who are struggling to find
work.
In my State of California, over 100,000 Americans are out of a job
and are trying to find ways to put food on the table. But in this House
of Representatives, I cannot put a proposal before my colleagues for a
vote, whether it wins or loses, up or down, to decide whether or not
those 1 million Americans, and more than 100,000 of them in my State of
California, cannot see unemployment benefits extended for them as this
proposal would do for some other Americans.
{time} 1115
Why Peter gets it and Paul does not, I do not understand, but that is
the case, and when we look at the sad history of this, we see that a
year ago, less than a year ago, a few months ago, Democrats put a
proposal to do exactly what is on the table now, to extend benefits.
At the end of last year, when we knew that people were losing work,
when we knew that on December 28, close to a million people would run
out of benefits and that we knew more than 80,000 people a week were
becoming unemployed and without unemployment benefits, this Congress
did try to do something, at least the Democratic side of the Congress.
We had a proposal under the leadership of the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Rangel) to provide those extended benefits, but we could not get
it heard in this House for the same reason we cannot have the proposal
heard today. We were gagged. It was bad then but it is shameful today
that we begin a new session on what should be a bipartisan note for
Americans who are looking for work, and we cannot do it.
Yet just yesterday the President proposed close to $700 billion worth
of tax cuts to help mostly wealthy investors, not folks who are out
there working with their hands, but folks who invested money and can
make money because the company happens to earn a little bit more on
their stock. The folks who are willing to use their legs,
[[Page H72]]
their hands, their minds, who are right now out of work, will not get
any assistance, not just one American, not just 1,000 Americans, but
about a million Americans.
I am going to go back to California. If we pass something I will be
able to tell some of my Californians and colleagues there we got them
that extended benefit that they needed to put food on the table, but I
am going, in the same moment, to turn over to the next American in
California and say, sorry, I could not even take a vote to see if I
could extend their benefits. That is not the note we should start on,
but that is the note that this Congress and the House of
Representatives starts on.
I believe we have an opportunity today to change that. We should not
for us, not for politicians but for hardworking Americans who probably
will not even listen to this debate, but this is still their House,
this is the people's House, and we should do the people's work, and to
leave today or tomorrow or this week, as we did back in December,
without concluding the work for our working Americans who are seeking
jobs is unfair, too little too late. Let us do something right. Let us
do it for all Americans, not just for some.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time.
Today, we have had a fabulous debate, an opportunity to have people
from both parties, both sides of the aisle to be able to talk about
this bill that is before us, S. 23. It is a Senate bill. It is an
agreement that was reached in the other body just last night.
Last night, this body, through the leadership of the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Hastert) had the Committee on Rules come into order. We
had a hearing last night. We talked about this important issue. We
deliberated. We heard from both sides. We followed the process. That
process that the Committee on Rules went through is one that this body
has gone through for many years, and we came up with a product.
The product that we chose was exactly the same bill that the Senate
had approved last year but made better, and was done all last night.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman from Texas to
yield for a unanimous consent.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, it is my time and I do not choose to yield
at this time. I am offering to close as is provided for by the rules,
and I will allow the gentlewoman to insert something into the Record if
that is a request.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). Does the gentlewoman have a
request?
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I meant to say at the end of my time that
we will call for a vote on the previous question. If it is defeated, we
have an amendment to the rule, that we would like to offer the Rangel
substitute for 26 weeks of extended benefits. We are concerned that we
were denied an opportunity to put that on the floor, and by voting no
on the previous question we will be able to substitute.
Amendment to H. Res. 14 Offered by Ms. Slaughter
Strike all after the resolved clause and insert:
That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order without intervention of any point of order to consider
in the House the bill (S. 23) to provide for a 5-month
extension of the Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation
Act of 2002 and for a transition period for individuals
receiving compensation when the program under such Act ends.
The bill shall be considered as read for amendment. The
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill
and on any amendment thereto to final passage without
intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate on the bill
equally divided and controlled by Representative Thomas of
California and Representative Rangel of New York; (2) the
amendment specified in section 2, if offered by
Representative Rangel of New York or his designee, which
shall be in order without intervention of any point of order,
shall be considered as read, and shall be separately
debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the
proponent and an opponent; and (3) one motion to recommit
with or without instructions.
Sec. 2. The amendment referred to in the first section of
this resolution is as follows:
H.R.--
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Emergency
Unemployment Compensation Act of 2003''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Extension of the Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation
Act of 2002.
Sec. 3. Entitlement to additional weeks of temporary extended
unemployment compensation.
Sec. 4. Application of revised rate of insured unemployment.
Sec. 5. Additional TEUC extended benefit period trigger.
Sec. 6. Additional weeks of benefits for workers in high unemployment
States.
Sec. 7. Effective date.
SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF THE TEMPORARY EXTENDED UNEMPLOYMENT
COMPENSATION ACT OF 2002.
(a) Six-Month Extension of Program.--Section 208 of the
Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 2002
(Public Law 107-147; 116 Stat. 30) is amended to read as
follows:
``SEC. 208. APPLICABILITY.
``(a) In General.--Subject to subsection (b), an agreement
entered into under this title shall apply to weeks of
unemployment--
``(1) beginning after the date on which such agreement is
entered into; and
``(2) ending before July 1, 2003.
``(b) Transition.--In the case of an individual who is
receiving temporary extended unemployment compensation for
the week which immediately precedes July 1, 2003, temporary
extended unemployment compensation shall continue to be
payable to such individual for any week thereafter from the
account from which such individual received compensation for
the week immediately preceding that termination date. No
compensation shall be payable by reason of the preceding
sentence for any week beginning after December 31, 2003.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall take effect as if included in the enactment of the
Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 2002
(Public Law 107-147; 116 Stat. 21).
SEC. 3. ENTITLEMENT TO ADDITIONAL WEEKS OF TEMPORARY EXTENDED
UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION.
Paragraph (1) of section 203(b) of the Temporary Extended
Unemployment Compensation Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-147;
116 Stat. 21) is amended to read as follows:
``(1) In general.--The amount established in an account
under subsection (a) shall be equal to 26 times the
individual's weekly benefit amount for the benefit year.''.
SEC. 4. APPLICATION OF REVISED RATE OF INSURED UNEMPLOYMENT.
Section 207 of the Temporary Extended Unemployment
Compensation Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-147; 116 Stat. 21)
is amended--
(1) by striking ``In'' and inserting ``(a) General
Definitions.--In''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(b) Adjusted Insured Unemployment Rate.--For purposes of
carrying out section 203(c) with respect to weeks of
unemployment beginning on or after the date of enactment of
the Emergency Unemployment Compensation Act of 2003, the term
`rate of insured unemployment', as used in section 203(d) of
the Federal-State Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of
1970 (26 U.S.C. 3304 note), has the meaning given such term
under section 203(e)(1) of such Act, except that individuals
exhausting their right to regular compensation during the
most recent 3 calendar months for which data are available
before the close of the period for which such rate is being
determined shall be taken into account as if they were
individuals filing claims for regular compensation for each
week during the period for which such rate is being
determined.''.
SEC. 5. ADDITIONAL TEUC EXTENDED BENEFIT PERIOD TRIGGER.
(a) In General.--Section 203(c) of the Temporary Extended
Unemployment Compensation Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-147;
116 Stat. 21) is amended by adding at the end the following
new paragraph:
``(3) Additional extended benefit period trigger.--
``(A) In general.--Effective with respect to compensation
for weeks of unemployment beginning on or after the date of
enactment of the Emergency Unemployment Compensation Act of
2003, an agreement under this title shall provide that, in
addition to any other extended benefit period trigger, for
purposes of beginning or ending any extended benefit period
under this section--
``(i) there is a State `on' indicator for a week if--
``(I) the average rate of total unemployment in such State
(seasonally adjusted) for the period consisting of the most
recent 3 months for which data for all States are published
before the close of such week equals or exceeds 6 percent;
and
``(II) the average rate of total unemployment in such State
(seasonally adjusted) for the 3-month period referred to in
clause (i) equals or exceeds 110 percent of such average rate
for either (or both) of the corresponding 3-month periods
ending in the 2 preceding calendar years; and
``(ii) there is a State `off' indicator for a week if
either the requirements of subclause (I) or (II) of clause
(i) are not satisfied.
[[Page H73]]
``(B) No effect on other determinations.--Notwithstanding
the provisions of any agreement described in subparagraph
(A), any week for which there would otherwise be a State `on'
indicator shall continue to be such a week and shall not be
determined to be a week for which there is a State `off'
indicator.
``(C) Determinations made by the secretary.--For purposes
of this subsection, determinations of the rate of total
unemployment in any State for any period (and of any seasonal
adjustment) shall be made by the Secretary.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 203(c)(1) of the
Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 2002
(Public Law 107-147; 116 Stat. 21) is amended by inserting
``or (3)'' after ``paragraph (2)''.
SEC. 6. ADDITIONAL WEEKS OF BENEFITS FOR WORKERS IN HIGH
UNEMPLOYMENT STATES.
Section 203(c)(1) of the Temporary Extended Unemployment
Compensation Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-147; 116 Stat. 30)
is amended by striking ``an amount equal to the amount
originally established in such account (as determined under
subsection (b)(1))'' and inserting ``7 times the individual's
weekly benefit amount for the benefit year''.
SEC. 7. EFFECTIVE DATE.
(a) In General.--Except as otherwise provided in this Act,
the amendments made by this Act shall apply with respect to
weeks of unemployment beginning on or after the date of
enactment this Act.
(b) Resumption of Benefits.--
(1) Rule applicable to exhaustees.--In the case of any
individual--
(A) to whom any temporary extended unemployment
compensation was payable for any week beginning before
January 1, 2003, and
(B) who exhausted such individual's rights to such
compensation (by reason of the payment of all amounts in such
individual's temporary extended unemployment compensation
account) before January 1, 2003,
such individual's eligibility for any additional weeks of
temporary extended unemployment compensation by reason of the
amendments made by this Act shall apply with respect to weeks
of unemployment beginning on or after the date of enactment
of this Act.
(2) Rule applicable to non-exhaustees.--In the case of any
individual--
(A) to whom any temporary extended unemployment
compensation was payable for any week beginning before
January 1, 2003, and
(B) as to whom the condition described in paragraph (1)(B)
does not apply,
such individual shall, upon appropriate application, be
eligible for temporary extended unemployment compensation (in
accordance with the provisions of the Temporary Extended
Unemployment Compensation Act of 2002, as amended by this
Act) with respect to any weeks of unemployment beginning on
or after December 29, 2002.
(c) Date for Determining Eligibility of Exhaustees for
Augmented Benefits.--In the case of any individual described
in subsection (b)(1), the determination under section 203(c)
as to whether such individual's State is in an extended
benefit period (for purposes of determining eligibility for
augmented benefits under the Temporary Extended Unemployment
Compensation Act of 2002, as amended by this Act) shall be
made--
(1) as of the date of enactment of this Act, and
(2) without regard to whether or not such a determination
was made under the Temporary Extended Unemployment
Compensation Act of 2002, as in effect before the amendments
made by this Act.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yielded to the gentlewoman for the
purpose of allowing something to be placed into the Record. It is my
time and I wish to gain that time back.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentlewoman may
insert her comments into the Record.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the Speaker for allowing the
gentlewoman to insert that into the Record.
So now we are at the point where we have completed part of the
process where we are going to vote on the rule, and in a few minutes, I
assume after a vote on that, then we will have a debate where we will
talk about the substance further of the bill. This has allowed both
parties the time to place forward their ideas, and for anyone to think
that we have not allowed free time or gagged someone to tell them what
they can or cannot discuss is simply ludicrous. That is why we allow
the time on the floor.
I am proud of what the Committee on Rules has done. I am proud of the
debate that we have had today, and I look forward to the President of
the United States having an opportunity, perhaps as early as this
afternoon or tomorrow, to sign this bill to get these benefits to the
people that need it the most. I am proud of what we are doing.
Mr. Speaker, once again, I urge my colleagues to join me in
supporting this rule and the underlying legislation which is so
critical.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this closed rule and to
speak about the need for extending unemployment benefits. I'm happy to
see that our Republican colleagues have finally gotten around to
agreeing with us that the working people of this country need help in
the economic downturn that is plaguing our country. Democrats tried to
pass emergency extensions for unemployed workers across the country
during our November session, but the Republican leadership only wanted
to extend benefits for unemployed workers in Alaska, Oregon, and
Washington.
What did this legislative delay mean for my 9th California district?
It meant that three days after Christmas almost 7,500 in the Oakland
metropolitan area lost their federal extended unemployment benefits. It
meant that these people, who are already struggling in an environment
of high housing costs, are struggling to survive. It meant that in an
economy that is already miserable we had fewer spending consumers.
I applaud the fact that the Republicans have agreed to extend
unemployment benefits, and I will vote for this legislation. But I also
want to insist that we do more. For those people who have exhausted
their benefits, for instance, the President's plan provides no more
help. On the other hand, the Democratic legislation would provide 13
weeks more of benefits for those who have already exhausted their
extended federal benefits, perhaps the people with the greatest need.
President Bush's so-called economic stimulus package spends billions
to fatten the wallets of the wealthy, but our plan focuses aid on
lower- and middle-class workers who need that help immediately.
That's why I urge a ``no'' vote on this closed rule.
Mr. SESSIONS, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Before placing the question, the Chair has a
statement about the length of electronic votes.
Clause 4 of rule XX says that Members shall have at least 15 minutes
to respond on an ordinary record vote or quorum call, but with
cooperation among Members, it is possible to complete a vote in that
time.
The Chair believes that closing votes as soon as possible after the
guaranteed minimum time should be the regular practice. The Chair is
certain that votes can be shortened if Members simply resolve to head
to the chamber as soon as they are notified by the bell and light
signal. The Chair will remind Members when 2 minutes remain on the
clock.
The goal of completing votes in as close to the minimum time as
possible is even more reasonable in the case of 5-minute votes because
every 5-minute vote necessarily follows another electronic vote and is
always preceded by an announcement from the Chair and a distinctive
bell and light signal.
No occupant of the chair would prevent a Member who is in the well of
the Chamber before a result is announced from casting his or her vote,
but each occupant of the chair will have the full support of the
Speaker in striving to close each electronic vote at the earliest
opportunity. Members should not rely on signals relayed from outside
the Chamber to assume that votes will be held open until they arrive in
the Chamber.
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.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. 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.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for an electronic vote, if
ordered, on the question of adopting the resolution.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 224,
nays 196, not voting 13, as follows:
[Roll No. 5]
YEAS--224
Aderholt
Akin
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
[[Page H74]]
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole
Collins
Combest
Cox
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart, L.
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Emerson
English
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Janklow
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
McCotter
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Turner (OH)
Upton
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--196
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Ballance
Becerra
Bell
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Case
Clay
Clyburn
Cooper
Costello
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley (CA)
Doyle
Edwards
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kleczka
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Sandlin
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOT VOTING--13
Cardin
Conyers
Delahunt
Diaz-Balart, M.
Kilpatrick
Kind
Majette
Miller, George
Myrick
Nethercutt
Stenholm
Towns
Weller
Announcement by the Speaker pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson) (during the vote). The Chair
advises Members that approximately 2 minutes remain on the 15-minute
clock.
{time} 1144
Mr. STARK changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. STEARNS and Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut changed their vote from
``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
As stated for:
Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 5 I was unavoidably
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''
Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 5 I
was inadvertently detained. Had I been present, I would have voted
``yea.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________