[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 2 (Wednesday, January 8, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H75-H92]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                              {time}  1145
 EXTENSION OF TEMPORARY EXTENDED UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION ACT OF 2002

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 14, I call up 
the Senate 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, and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the Senate bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). Pursuant to House Resolution 
14, the Senate bill is considered read for amendment.
  The text of S. 23 is as follows:

                                 S. 23

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF THE TEMPORARY EXTENDED UNEMPLOYMENT 
                   COMPENSATION ACT OF 2002.

       (a) In General.--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.--Except as provided in 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 June 1, 2003.
       ``(b) Transition for Amount Remaining in Account.--
       ``(1) In general.--Subject to paragraphs (2) and (3), in 
     the case of an individual who has amounts remaining in an 
     account established under section 203 as of May 31, 2003, 
     temporary extended unemployment compensation shall continue 
     to be payable to such individual from such amounts for any 
     week beginning after such date for which the individual meets 
     the eligibility requirements of this title.
       ``(2) No augmentation after may 31, 2003.--If the account 
     of an individual is exhausted after May 31, 2003, then 
     section 203(c) shall not apply and such account shall not be 
     augmented under such section, regardless of whether such 
     individual's State is in an extended benefit period (as 
     determined under paragraph (2) of such section).
       ``(3) Limitation.--No compensation shall be payable by 
     reason of paragraph (1) for any week beginning after August 
     30, 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).

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) 
and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) each will control 30 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas).
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to remind Members why we are here today. We are 
here today to vote on an unemployment assistance bill because the 
House, in trying to respond to the needs of the

[[Page H76]]

unemployed, passed legislation last December. The Senate, in attempting 
to respond to the needs of the unemployed, passed legislation last 
December. As we all know, constitutionally for it to go to the 
President, if the Senate passes legislation different than the House, 
and similarly if the House passes legislation different than the 
Senate, the differences in those bills need to be reconciled. They were 
not reconciled.
  The last Congress adjourned without addressing unemployment needs 
with the understanding that some individuals, through no fault of their 
own, notwithstanding the fact that they had not received the full 
benefits entitled to them, would lose unemployment benefits on December 
28. That is still technically the case. They have not yet lost those 
benefits, but if the President does not have a bill to sign by 
tomorrow, that technicality will in fact be a reality.
  We are here today because the Senate modified the proposal that they 
had passed in the last Congress and they sent it to us yesterday by 
unanimous consent.
  Mr. Speaker, I imagine there are as many different ways to structure 
unemployment benefits as there are Members of the House; and if we are 
to debate the different ways in which it can be constructed and if we 
are to offer votes to try to produce a different result than the 
Senate, then it is inevitable that what we are trying to avoid will in 
fact occur.
  I, as a Member of this body, do not like being put in the position of 
making a statement of this type. We are compelled to pass the 
unemployment provision as it was structured by the Senate because if we 
do not the President will not have a bill tomorrow.
  I had visited with the leadership of the Senate and talked to them 
about offering amendments so we could really target unemployment to 
where it is most needed, give those most in need more benefits. They 
indicated while they may be sympathetic with that view, there was no 
way given the structure of the Senate's membership and the rules of 
Senate that that could be done in a day.
  What we were able to do was to extend the period that the Senate had 
passed so instead of getting into this discussion in March, once again 
we are extending for 5 months the unemployment benefits to May with a 
phase-out through August. That means that we are going to see a 
continuation of assistance to the unemployed. It means that the 
President's commitment to make sure that those who would have lost 
their benefits on December 28 does not happen, and it means that there 
are going to be 1.9 million new recipients and 800,000 current 
recipients that will receive unemployment benefits at a cost of up to 
$7.2 billion when the House votes on this measure.
  We are going to hear people say we could have, would have, should 
have, and the argument is that they are being denied rights because 
they cannot offer alternatives. If we do not pass this measure, people 
will lose their unemployment benefits. That should not happen.
  Mr. Speaker, I hope I do not take the floor again in this session of 
the 108th Congress and say we have to do what the Senate has given us. 
I only hope we do that because we want to do it. I believe this is the 
right thing to do. More importantly, it is absolutely essential that we 
do it and that we do it today rather than argue that somebody is trying 
to withhold these unemployment benefits from these individuals. All we 
have to do is say yes, the President will sign, and the unemployment 
benefits will be available.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to yield the balance of my time 
to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Dunn) to control the time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, news release, news release, news release. The chairman 
of the Committee on Ways and Means has said that the Republican-
controlled Senate and the Republican-controlled House cannot legislate, 
that they cannot provide for the one million Americans who are seeking 
jobs but whose unemployment compensation has expired. Who is going to 
deliver this message to the empowered Republican President who has now 
told the American people that he controls the agenda? And now we find 
out that the chairman of the awesome and powerful and influential 
Committee on Ways and Means cannot legislate in the people's House.
  Well, I do not believe it. My colleagues do not believe it, and the 
only reason I am commenting on it is because I do not want the American 
people to believe it. We have a million people out there. They do not 
have dividends or savings; all they have is heart and are looking for 
work. They are Americans that will be called on to fight the wars. They 
have lost their jobs, lost health benefits, but they have not lost 
their dignity.
  But we will have people to believe that somewhere down the line they 
will not have to pay taxes on their dividends and jobs will be created 
for them. The other side of the aisle says we would like to help them 
because of compassionate conservatism, but we just cannot do it.
  We have majorities in the House and the Senate, but the House has to 
do what the Senate did; the Senate has to do what the House would do. 
Do not do this to these people. They should just say they do not want 
to do it because they do not believe in it. They did not do it before 
the Christmas holidays, and they are just giving a little interest 
today.
  Mr. Speaker, so I do not know how the other side of the aisle is 
going to explain it back home, but I know one thing, and that is we 
have 84,000 New Yorkers. They took the hit for this Nation. They are 
looking for work. I will go back and tell them that we discussed it 
with the Republicans, and they said that Democrats and Republicans will 
not be able even to debate coverage for the 84,000 people who are 
without work who paid into the fund. I will tell them that we cannot 
even vote on it because we do not want to complicate it for the 
Republican-controlled Senate.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to yield the balance of my time 
to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott) for the purposes of 
control.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to the million worker comment 
made by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel). I think it is very 
important for us to know the history of what has already happened in 
the area of unemployment compensation and why we are going to add some 
additional assistance for people who come from States like mine.
  The Democrats make it sound like we have not helped at all the 
unemployed, whom we already have helped. We have helped those million 
unemployed workers. We have helped them consistently through this last 
year. They make that assertion about the million people being let down, 
but already we have helped one million people under the Federal 
expanded benefits that we put into effect last year in March of 2002. 
They have all already received Federal unemployment benefits that 
averaged $250 a week generally for 13 weeks. On top of that, generally 
26 weeks of regular State benefits which they had received previously, 
and I think that is very important. In States like Washington State, my 
State, there have been additional expanded benefits.
  So to talk about not helping one million folks who have been 
unemployed is to move from the truth, Mr. Speaker, and I think it is 
important to clear that up.
  My second point is in addition to the one million folks, we are going 
to help two million additional people. Plus, we will be extending 
benefits that ran out on December 28 for 800,000 additional people. Let 
us not get mixed up in the rhetoric of partisanship here and let us 
talk about what we can do to help unemployed people who very much want 
to hold jobs.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. English).
  Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Washington

[[Page H77]]

(Ms. Dunn) for all of her work on the issue of unemployment benefits 
because I know this has been a big focus of her efforts in this body 
for the last few months.
  Mr. Speaker, last year Republican leadership in the House advanced a 
program of extended unemployment insurance which has assisted some four 
million Americans. Today we will be extending that critical program to 
help the millions of Americans who continue to face unemployment 
through no fault of their own.

                              {time}  1200

  These working families have borne the brunt of hard economic times 
and will continue to do so until our economy gets back on a growth path 
and begins to generate new jobs. We in Congress have a fundamental 
responsibility to help cushion the effects of economic displacement by 
providing a set of extended unemployment benefits for those who exhaust 
their regular State compensation. Under today's legislation, these 
workers who exhaust their 26 weeks of State benefits will be able to 
collect up to 13 more weeks of benefits; and in a couple of other 
States with very high unemployment, 13 more on top of that.
  This program not only benefits working families but it also acts as 
an economic stabilizer for communities like the many that we have in 
western Pennsylvania that have been particularly hard hit by this 
downturn and its effect on the manufacturing sector, places like Erie, 
Warren, Meadville. These are communities where this program is going to 
be enormously beneficial to those who depend on jobs that are tied to 
the local economy.
  Nonetheless, many Americans will continue to face difficulties as 
this economy recovers. For this reason I will be introducing 
legislation that reforms the trigger mechanism on extended benefits and 
that allows unemployed workers to receive up to 26 weeks of additional 
assistance. State unemployment numbers can mask big regional 
differences. I believe that a change in the trigger mechanism will 
allow us to more effectively respond to uneven economic recovery across 
the country within States.
  I support the legislation before us. I believe that we need to 
continue to work to provide more relief for the unemployed where and 
when it is needed; and above all since these are workers who want a 
job, not just unemployment insurance, we need to pass a stimulus 
package that gets the economy back on a growth path.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, my heart goes out to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania who is not allowed to put up an amendment. He is the only 
one I have ever heard of talk about exhaustees on the other side.
  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, I just want to speak further to clarify this 
issue that the gentlewoman from Washington has spoken about. There are 
a million people who exhausted their 13 weeks of extended benefits. 
There are 31,500 of them in your State. To the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania, 44,000 are in your State. In 1991, we provided 26 weeks 
of extended benefits. We did not need to change the trigger to do that.
  We Democrats here today wanted to provide to those people an 
additional 13 weeks if they were still out of work. You keep talking 
about those who are out of work, who are hurting, who are looking for 
work. How about the million who have been out of work beyond the 39 
weeks who are looking for work? Why do we not act today as we did 10 
years ago? Why not? What is the obstacle? Is it because the Senate 
would have to act? All right. They would have to act. They are going to 
be in session. The Republicans control both Houses and the White House. 
This is a vivid example of those who have control not being willing to 
exercise it.
  I understand covering one's tracks politically. We should have acted 
in December, and you failed to do it. But for the unemployed, it is not 
a question of covering tracks politically. It is covering the expenses 
day to day for food, for housing, and for health care if possible. 
There is no excuse for the refusal of the Republicans to let us bring 
extended benefits for the million of exhaustees up today. Zero excuse.
  Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I would comment to the gentleman from Michigan 
that this assistance which we are providing in today's legislation will 
assist 86,000 new individuals from his State of Michigan.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Cunningham).
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, the issue is to get people back to work 
and for those that cannot find work, it is to help them out. The other 
side of the aisle opposed that.
  One of the problems we have had in the past, in the Senate, we have 
had gridlock. James Carville wrote in a memo to the then-leader Daschle 
that he recommended two things: one, that the Senate not have a budget; 
two, that they gridlock all House bills.
  The House passed an unemployment bill. It takes 60 votes in the 
Senate, unlike the House with a simple majority. Yes, we control the 
House and the Senate. We could pass the bill right here today. But in 
the Senate, the same Senate Democrats gridlock legislation, that would 
go forward in a bipartisan way.
  We need to pull together on both sides of the aisle to make sure that 
the people that do not have work, work. But even more important, 
instead of handing out dollars to individuals, we need to create the 
jobs, whether it is tax relief which the President has offered. Not 
only long-term, instead of just handing out money and having Davis-
Bacon and unions reap the benefits of it, it creates jobs across the 
board and allows those same people, instead of having to receive 
benefits, will have a good job.
  The gentlewoman from Washington has stated clearly that they have 
received both State and Federal moneys. That runs out, and we have got 
to come together today to make sure that that happens. Put aside the 
partisanship, and let us pass this bill.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I would remind the gentleman from 
California that under the Republican bill, that if you had exhausted 
your benefits under your bill, you would have gotten absolutely 
nothing.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Kucinich).
  Mr. KUCINICH. There has been talk in recent months that if there is 
to be an economic recovery in our future, it will be a so-called 
``jobless recovery.'' I would submit that for the 8.5 million Americans 
who are currently unemployed, an economic recovery that does not 
provide jobs is no recovery at all. The Economic Policy Institute has 
reported that using even optimistic projections of the gross domestic 
product, the unemployment rate is expected to remain at 6 percent for 
all of 2003. An analysis projecting less optimistic growth numbers 
suggests the unemployment rate will climb to 6.4 percent by the last 
quarter of this year.
  However, there is one factor that impacts the severity of the current 
downturn for American workers more than any other. That is, 
significantly more workers have exhausted their Federal benefits since 
the Federal extension of benefit program began in March than ran out of 
Federal benefits over a comparable number of months in the recession of 
the early nineties. Under the Federal extension program of the early 
nineties, each worker was eligible for 20 to 26 weeks of benefits some 
10 months after the program was enacted. Under the program which just 
expired at the end of December, most workers were eligible for a 
maximum of 13 weeks of benefits. As a result, by the end of December, 
an estimated 2.2 million workers had exhausted all of their Federal 
benefits. And without congressional assistance, the new year brings 
these 2.2 million unemployed a job market that is stripped bare. It is 
a job market with 1.5 million fewer jobs than in March of 2001.
  It is for this reason that it is critical that the Federal 
unemployment insurance system be extended now. However, the majority 
plan and the Democratic proposal, which was disallowed, offer two very 
different levels of compensation to American families. The majority 
plan would provide for 13 weeks of extended benefits over the next 5 
months to the estimated 90,000 workers a week who will exhaust their 
State benefits without finding work. The Democratic plan would have 
offered 26 weeks.

[[Page H78]]

  I want to say that there is a difference in the economic benefit to 
families. We need to make sure that families have some of this 
uncertainty lifted from them. It is not enough to just say, well, 
another 13 weeks. This country has the money for a longer extension. 
Families should not have to wonder if they are going to have the 
ability to pay their mortgage or to buy clothes or to put food on the 
table. We have an obligation to the unemployed, and that is why I am 
supporting our Democratic proposal.
  Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would remind the gentleman from Ohio that our unemployment 
compensation assistance provided last year, from his State we assisted 
123,000 individuals. And with the passage of today's bill, which is 
very important to be passed on the floor today, signed by the President 
tomorrow so there is no gap in assistance from December 28, we will be 
assisting an additional 61,600 folks from the State of Ohio.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah).
  (Mr. FATTAH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Speaker, I rise to make the point that it is not the 
assistance that we are providing, that this is assistance that the 
American public has paid for through their unemployment contributions 
to the fund. I just share the concerns of the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Rangel), the ranking member.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Moran).
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, the principal thing that people 
are talking about, particularly the President of this country, is a 
$600 billion economic stimulus plan. Yet here we are at the same time 
debating whether we should help a million families whose breadwinner 
has been out of work, who has been searching for work, whether we 
should provide them 38 percent of the income that they had been getting 
from their job to put food on the table for their families.
  And if we do not extend this, what happens to those families? Think 
about the faces behind the statistics. They stop payment on their 
mortgage. They have to pull their kids out of college. All kinds of 
suffering we cannot imagine. Yet we can put up $600 billion in tax cuts 
instead of providing five percent of that amount for people who would 
spend that money immediately.
  Any economic stimulus needs to be fast acting, it needs to be 
fiscally responsible, and it needs to be fair. What could be fairer 
than providing the unemployment insurance for those people who have 
exhausted their benefits? All we asked for was an opportunity to vote 
on whether or not we could and should do that. We were denied that 
opportunity to vote.
  We are going to vote for extending unemployment insurance for the 
part of the people who will be helped by this, but it is not the 
population that needs it the most. That is what we should be doing 
today, providing economic stimulus to the people who need it the most, 
who have been hard working, who are suffering because we have the 
highest unemployment rate we have had for 9 years, who cannot find a 
job. So let us let them keep being able to feed their families, keep 
their homes until they find that job, until the economy recovers.
  Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  It is very important for us, Mr. Speaker, to debate, and we will 
debate over the ensuing months, an economic growth plan that will 
stimulate the economy and create more jobs. Everybody right now on 
unemployment wishes that he or she had a job. We are going to have that 
debate. It is vitally important. Today we are debating what we can do 
in the interim to assist people who, not by their own choice, are out 
of a job.
  We are talking about a $7 billion piece of legislation today that 
will assist a huge number of folks who were not covered before by 
unemployment compensation. We have already spent $19 billion with 
assistance last year. I think it is vitally important that we continue 
the debate on this bill so we can get passage of it on the floor today, 
combined with the piece of legislation passed by the Senate yesterday, 
and get it to the President tomorrow so we can begin to help people 
whose unemployment benefits ended on December 28; and we can do this 
without disruption in the dollars they will receive so they can have 
some peace of mind as they move through this very, very tough time in 
their lives.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to 
the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott).

                              {time}  1215

  Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, there is nothing more critical 
right now than responding to the very critical needs of our unemployed. 
We have almost a million people in this country who are unemployed, and 
for us to sit here and dally and not move forthright and push for the 
strongest measure we can, the people of this country are crying out for 
help. There are families to feed, there are bills to be paid, and we 
know we were derelict in our responsibilities not to do this last year, 
and it will be a shame if we do not move forcefully. Not just 13 weeks, 
we need 26 weeks of help at least, mainly because every economic 
adviser, every economic indicator, points out clearly that this 
economic downturn is going to last well into the next year.
  Thirteen weeks is not enough. Furthermore, if we do it for 26 weeks, 
it will pump an immediate $18 billion into the economy where people 
would be able to spend it, where the need is greatest, and not only 
will it do the good of helping those with their unemployment benefits, 
but by doing this, pumping the $18 billion in, it will create badly 
needed jobs. The greatest need right now is not to dally, and with all 
due respect to the present administration, I say 13 weeks is not 
enough. We need 26 weeks. The people of this country are crying out for 
help, and they are looking to us in the Congress to speak with a loud 
voice for them.
  I urge this House to move forthrightly, do the right thing. Let us 
not go home this week without passing the most significant resourceful 
bill we can that will help those in the greatest need.
  Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I retain the balance of my time.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  (Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks, and include extraneous material.)
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I listened to my distinguished colleague 
from the State of Washington, and she had this list, and she said that 
the Republican bill helped 134,000 members or something in the State. I 
have my list here, which is the list of all those people we do not 
help, and the question is why can we not do that? I mean the 
gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Dunn) and I have 31,500 people that 
this bill does nothing for. They are the people who exhausted their 
benefits. I know she cares about them. I am absolutely sure she does, 
and I care about them, but we are told that we cannot do anything about 
it because the Senate has acted unanimously.
  I am sorry, but I have been in legislatures, State legislatures, the 
House and Senate, and I have been here in the House, and I have been 
doing this for 30 years, and I have seen things go through legislatures 
in an hour through both houses, no problem, if you want to do 
something. Of course if you do not want to do something, then you say, 
oh, the heavy burdens of the legislative process, the Senate has acted, 
the House has acted, oh, we cannot get it done, the President must have 
it on his desk tomorrow at 11 o'clock, that is the time his press 
conference is, I think, so he can sign it at the press conference 
tomorrow to put it out.
  Now for those 31,000 people in the State of Washington that the 
gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Dunn) and I care about, we are just 
saying to them we do not have time because the press release is already 
printed. I am sorry, folks. It might take an extra 3 or 4 hours to get 
the House and Senate to get it done, but have no fear, 31,000 people, 
the President has you on his mind,

[[Page H79]]

deeply on his mind. He went to Chicago to make the speech about how big 
and how heavy his heart was about your problems. He is proposing to put 
$674 billion into the economy, not to you of course, no, unless you 
have capital gains that you might benefit a little bit from his bill, 
but it is really for the rich people on the top. They are going to get 
75 percent of it, and then they will think up some way to put you to 
work. So hold on and we will pass this tax bill and then in April of 
2004 when they got this money back, then they are going to invest it 
and make you a job. So if you can hold your breath for a year for that 
tax break to take hold, why, things are going to be all right.
  And the worst thing about this whole process, why it is an empty 
promise the President is making, is that in today's newspaper there is 
an article entitled War's Cost May Dwarf Stimulus Effect, from the 
Washington Post, January 8. This article says that as long as this 
country is threatening the whole world with the war in the Middle East 
that what is going to happen is that we are going to suck all the juice 
out of the stimulus package by the war.
  The gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Dunn) and I represent an air 
company that makes airplanes. Last year they made 400 and some odd 
planes. Do my colleagues know what their orders are for this year? Two 
hundred twenty-one. Now, why are airlines not buying airplanes? Well, 
it probably has something to do with the fact that people are not 
flying. They are not getting on planes and flying all over the world 
like they used to. So this war on terrorism that is scaring the living 
daylights out of the travelers is knocking the jobs out. We have lost 
30,000 jobs at Boeing this last couple of years. And the President 
says, yes, but we are going to Iraq and we are going to have a war 
there and that is going to fix it all, and then after that Iraq war 
everybody will feel comfortable again and we will go back to living the 
way we have always lived.
  Nonsense. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott) was right. We are 
going to be back here in 3 months with this very same bill or something 
just like it because you are not going to get a stimulus in 90 days and 
you certainly would not want to have this linger on into the next 
election period. You had better have something on the table for them. 
Maybe you will wait until this time next year to put a little something 
more on the table, but by then there will be a million more. The long-
term unemployment in the State of Washington has risen by 35 percent in 
the last 2 years, 35 percent. I admit we are the point persons, 
Washington and Oregon, for the unemployment problem in this country; so 
we have got it a little worse than the rest of you, but if you think it 
is not going to affect you, that somehow you are going to slide by this 
thing, you are wrong, and to say here today that we have not got an 
extra hour to add an amendment to take care of a million people and 
then ship it back over to the Senate and say would they please accept 
the House amendment, I have done it. I am sure I have done it 500 times 
in the last 30 years, to send an amendment over and it gets accepted 
and that is the end of it. You know you could do it. You do not want to 
do it. You do not want to do it. You do not care about those million 
people. No matter what you say or how you wave your arms and whatever 
you want to say, the Republican Party does not care about those million 
unemployed because you have the Presidency, you have the Senate, and 
you have the House, and if you cannot do it, you have two choices, I 
guess. You could be stupid and not know how to do it. That is one 
possibility. I do not think that is true. The alternative is you do not 
want to do it. You ought to be ashamed of yourself.

                [From the Washington Post, Jan. 8, 2003]

                  War's Cost May Dwarf Stimulus Effect

                         (By Jonathan Weisman)

       Mindful of his pending reelection bid and his father's 
     political mistakes, President Bush is plowing ahead with an 
     ambitious 10-year, $674 billion economic stimulus plan even 
     as U.S. troops pour into the Persian Gulf region preparing 
     for war.
       The president's determination to push more tax cuts as the 
     nation prepares for war has struck some economists as folly, 
     since the economic shock of war would likely dwarf the impact 
     of Bush's stimulus plan. Moreover, no tax policy at the 
     moment could actually address what many economists believe to 
     be the greatest drag on the nation's economy: the uncertainty 
     of war.
       ``Clearing away the clouds over Iraq would open the paths 
     for expansion, regardless of what the Bush administration is 
     proposing,'' said Robert DiClemente, a managing director at 
     Salomon Smith Barney who has studied the potential impact of 
     an Iraq war on the U.S. economy.'' That is undoubtedly the 
     biggest obstacle to expansion right now.''
       Bush was explicit about his two-track policymaking 
     yesterday, beginning his speech in Chicago by addressing the 
     threats of terrorism, Iraq and North Korea. He then added, 
     ``Even as we confront these dangers, you need to know I know 
     we have needs here at home, especially the need for a 
     vigorous and growing economy.''
       But it is becoming increasingly difficult to address those 
     domestic needs without first confronting the problems abroad, 
     economists said. The goal of the president's plan is to 
     inject $102 billion into the economy this year, by 
     accelerating planned income tax cuts, excluding investment 
     dividends from taxation, boosting the child tax credit and 
     speeding tax relief to married couples. The elimination of 
     dividend taxes alone could boost the stock market by 10 
     percent, according to White House allies.
       But all of that could be undone by a war in the oil-rich 
     Persian Gulf region, especially if the war were protracted 
     and led to terrorist attacks and the use of weapons of mass 
     destruction. Last month, Yale University economist William D. 
     Nordhaus published an analysis that dramatized the 
     uncertainties the United States faces. The cost to the 
     Treasury of a war with Iraq could be as low as $100 billion 
     over the next decade or as high as $1.6 trillion, he 
     concluded. Most likely, the economy would take a $391 billion 
     hit in the next two years, Nordhaus predicted, which would 
     dwarf the cash infusion the president is offering.
       ``If energy prices spike up, it wouldn't take much to 
     offset all of this stimulus,'' said William G. Gale, a tax 
     economist at the Brookings Institution.
       A recent analysis by experts convened by the Center for 
     Strategic and International Studies predicted that any war 
     would knock down stock prices by as much as 25 percent, more 
     than undoing the anticipated benefit of the dividend tax 
     elimination.
       Recovery would depend on how a war with Iraq unfolded. If 
     the war ended swiftly, stocks and the economy as a whole 
     would recover quickly and grow at a rate faster than they 
     would if there were no war, thanks to the lifting of 
     uncertainty, falling oil prices, higher government spending 
     and rising consumer confidence. In that event, the Bush plan 
     could end up harming the economy by fueling inflation or 
     pushing interest rates higher, said Laurence Meyer, a former 
     Federal Reserve Board governor who convened the CSIS 
     conference.
       But if the war lasted six to 12 weeks, stock prices would 
     continue to fall, interest rates would rise and economic 
     growth would slow by 1\3/4\ percent, the CSIS analysis said. 
     A worst-case scenario--in which the war dragged on for 90 to 
     180 days, oil supplies were significantly disrupted, and 
     serious terrorists attacks ensued--would push the economy 
     back into recession, regardless of economic policymaking.
       In that case, the economic response would probably be far 
     different from the one Bush is proposing now, Meyer said. 
     That range of potential outcomes makes policymaking at this 
     point ``treacherous,'' he said.
       ``The best policy right now is to wait, to see what happens 
     ahead, and to plan in the background some contingency plans, 
     just in case we have an adverse outcome,'' Meyer said.
       Not everyone is so cautious. DiClemente said the Bush 
     proposal could provide a buffer for the shocks that would 
     come from a war. Bruce Bartlett, a conservative economist 
     with the National Center for Policy Analysis, noted that a 
     war with Iraq could be long over by the time Congress passed 
     a stimulus plan. In that case, he said, Bush might as well 
     get the ball rolling now.
       But, for the president's critics, the timing and boldness 
     of the Bush plan present an irresistible target.
       ``Whenever the president talks about war, he talks about a 
     spirit of shared sacrifice,'' Gale said. ``But for rich 
     people, shared sacrifice appears to be accepting tax cuts, 
     and for the poor, it seems to be accepting cuts in social 
     spending. There seems to be a disconnect bordering on the 
     dishonest.''
       Fumed Rep. Charles B. Rangel (N.Y.), the ranking Democrat 
     on the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee, ``Never in 
     a time of war have we reduced the tax burden on the most 
     privileged.''
       Even some of Bush's allies in past tax fights expressed 
     exasperation yesterday, given the gathering clouds of war.
       ``I understand you can't just put everything on the back 
     burner and ignore it,'' said Sen. John Breaux (D-La.), a key 
     ally in the battle over the president's 2001 tax cut. ``But 
     what you can do is take modest steps, and $670 billion is 
     more than modest.''

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I am going to remind the gentleman from Washington of 
what the situation was last fall when we began to debate the extension 
of unemployment compensation. The leading plan was one that was 
proposed by

[[Page H80]]

his party on the Senate side. It was a $5 billion plan. It called for a 
3-month extension of unemployment benefits. It called for an additional 
3-month phaseout. What we have done in the interim, led by people who 
are from States like Alaska and Oregon and Washington, States where we 
are very, very concerned about our extremely high level of 
unemployment, not led by people from Virginia, where the unemployment 
rate is something like 3.8 percent over the last 3 months, or Georgia, 
where the unemployment rate is 4.6 percent, low unemployment rates 
never thought to be even possible to achieve by economists in years 
past, but we have put together a piece of legislation which considering 
the state of our economy is a generous piece of legislation. It takes 
care of an additional 2 million people who were not helped before. It 
extends benefits for some 800,000 folks nationwide whose benefits were 
interrupted on December 28, and this is specifically Federal dollars I 
am talking about. I am not including the State unemployment programs.
  We are at the point where we have a 5-month extension that we are 
providing of unemployment benefits to folks who have been put out of 
their jobs through no choice of their own plus a 3-month phaseout of 
these benefits, plus we are helping an additional 800,000 whose 
benefits are interrupted. So this is a bill that is almost twice as 
much, certainly almost twice as much as what we were talking about last 
fall. It is generous, and I think it is a very good bill, and I think 
the fact that as we pass it today, as it is signed into law by the 
President tomorrow, that will allow for no interruption in the receipt 
of Federal unemployment benefits by people in the States. We are also 
assisting States so that they can use their funds later, not at the 
beginning.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico 
(Mrs. Wilson).
  Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the 
gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Dunn) for her leadership on this 
issue.
  The recovery is not as strong as any of us would like, and there are 
people who are out of jobs through no fault of their own. While our 
first priority has to be to get this economy back on a strong positive 
note, get the recovery to be stronger so that people have jobs and have 
paychecks, all of us know that we need to help people over the hump 
from their last job to their next job because they are desperate and 
because they do not have the kinds of options that they may have had in 
better economic times. That is why we are here. That is why we are 
doing this. All of us have constituents who ran out of benefits on 
December 28, and we need to act quickly so that those benefits will not 
be interrupted and they will be able to make the payments on their 
house, pay the rent, put food on the table.
  The gentleman from the State of Washington (Mr. McDermott) said what 
this really means, this vote really means, is that we just do not care. 
And he said it is a shame we do not care. I think it is a shame that a 
Member of this body would make that kind of accusation. We are here 
because we care and because we understand that there are real people 
and real lives at stake. This Congress will pass today, with the 
unanimous support of the United States Senate and I think with a broad 
bipartisan support here in the House, benefits extensions that will 
take us through June so that we can work on recovering this economy and 
get people back to paychecks but in the meantime make sure they can pay 
for the food to put on their table and take care of their families.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Becerra).
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  I guess if we look at what was proposed by the Republican majority 
today versus what was proposed last year, this is generous because this 
proposal that we have before us provides 13 weeks of unemployment 
compensation for about a million Americans. Last year the Republicans 
proposed a 5-week extension not for every American in every State but 
in only three States. Three States last year would have received 
unemployment benefit compensation for some of its workers.

                              {time}  1230

  Today, we are hearing more. That is absolutely correct.
  What has changed between that proposal, which was puny, to today's, 
which is a more realistic proposal? Well, we had 800,000 Americans cut 
off from all of their benefits on December 28; and every week since 
then about 90,000 Americans, in addition, have been losing their 
unemployment benefits. And between now and June, we are going to see 
about another 2.5 million Americans run out of unemployment benefits.
  So yes, it is more generous; but it does not take into account all of 
the millions of Americans who are going to be left out. And that is why 
we are saying, if nothing else, let us just have an up-or-down vote.
  Why is it that Americans who probably will never get a chance to see 
this debate will not know that the Republican majority of this House 
used the rules of the House to deny just a vote on whether we could 
extend the benefits to those other Americans who are going to be left 
out by this bill? If we lose, we lose. But give Americans a chance to 
know that we tried to help them as well. If we lose, so be it. Let us 
go back home and tell them that we could not get a majority of Members 
of Congress to support extending benefits to more than a million 
Americans who have run out of their benefits, who are seeking work and 
trying to put food on the table for their kids. Why can we not do this? 
We do this all the time. We put together amendments, as the gentleman 
from Washington said, in minutes. It would not even take that, because 
we have the language before us that we would need to extend those 
benefits to the more than 1 million Americans.
  I have to go home now to California and tell more than 109,000 
Americans that we did not extend benefits to them, while some of their 
coworkers who are out of work did get it. It makes no sense. What can I 
tell them? Well, you lost your job a little earlier than did your 
colleague who is getting benefits. That makes no sense. Everyone is 
working hard.
  By the way, if we are talking about stimulus, instead of the 
President spending $700 billion-or-so over 15 years to give investors 
money to try to stimulate the economy, give it to those who are out of 
work who otherwise would be spending their money if they were working 
to put food on the table, buy the necessities, pay the rent, pay the 
mortgage. That would stimulate the economy instead of having them run 
out of those things that are essential to the economy. We can do it, 
there is no reason why we cannot, and the American public should know 
that we can.
  Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Tancredo).
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my colleagues for their 
diligent work in bringing this piece of legislation to the floor. It is 
certainly an admirable goal that we seek to achieve here today, trying 
to bring some relief to the people who find themselves unemployed in 
this economy, and I intend to support the legislation.
  I must, however, say that there is a bit of irony here that I wanted 
to bring to the attention of the body, and that is that we are debating 
what we should do to help people who are unemployed. Again, 
appropriate. But we have steadfastly refused as a body and, as a matter 
of fact, as a government, to debate one other aspect of this, and that 
is the fact that many people are unemployed today in the United States 
because there are people here from other countries, here illegally, I 
should say, who have taken jobs. It is not just those jobs that we hear 
about all the time from people who say, well, there are jobs Americans 
will not take. I assure my colleagues, we can go to any factory town in 
America, we can go to any of the States that are identified in this 
bill that have significant unemployment, and we can find out whether or 
not people are willing to accept jobs that ``others will not take.''
  I assure my colleagues, American citizens are willing to do so, 
citizens who are willing to take jobs that are being taken by people 
with H1B visas, people who are willing to take jobs from people who are 
here, as I say, illegally, and are working in menial jobs

[[Page H81]]

with low wages. There are still many American citizens willing to take 
jobs that are being taken by between 8 million and 13 million people 
who are here illegally; and we refuse to debate that point while we 
come here today, of course, to do again, what I say is the right thing 
to do, and I will support it. But it is just an irony that I wanted to 
bring to the attention of the body. There is an aspect of this that we 
steadfastly, both sides, both parties, refuse to debate, and that is a 
shame.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I would remind the gentleman from 
Colorado that according to the U.S. Department of Labor, for every job 
opening, there are 2.7 applicants. So if the problem is immigration, I 
do not know quite how we are going to fix this. We already have too 
many people looking for jobs.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
Inslee).
  (Mr. INSLEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, it was bad enough when the Republicans 
adjourned Congress and went home for the holidays without doing the 
work of taking care of those who were unemployed through no fault of 
their own, hard-working Americans; but it is worse, it is a darker 
dereliction of duty to today bring a bill to the floor and refuse to 
allow an honest debate by America's representatives to truly cover the 
unemployed. That is a darker dereliction of duty, and it is darker 
because while the Republican Party says that there is no money in the 
Treasury to cover $2 billion to $4 billion to take care of people who 
are out of work, the day before that, the President said, but we have 
$400 billion to give out to the wealthiest Americans. It is a dark day 
for democracy.
  Mr. Speaker, yesterday we had all of these new Members of Congress 
who came here and they stood right here and they looked right up at 
their grandparents and their kids and they waved and they were really 
proud, rightfully so, to be Members of the people's House, because they 
knew that they were in a place that the entire world looks to for the 
practice of democracy. But on the first day of business, they are here 
for the shutdown of democracy. They are here where the Republican Party 
is basically saying to Americans, you poor peasants, take it or leave 
it. We are putting a bill out here, and you can take it or leave it. We 
are not going to allow an improved bill even to be voted on. That is a 
callous dereliction of the oath of office to democracy.
  Now, I rarely get exercised about procedural issues. I do not think 
Americans could give two hoots normally about what happens procedurally 
here in the House and we spend too much time arguing about it is. But 
when we bring a substantive bill to the floor and tell people who are 
out of work who cannot make their house payments, who cannot make their 
kids' tuition payments, that you are going to give them a take-it-or-
leave-it proposal and if they do not like it, they can just walk out of 
here and sulk, that is simply wrong. It is wrong for democracy. I am 
not going to go down without raising my voice.
  Mr. Speaker, up here we have Hamarabi, a bust of him for creating a 
great legal code, and now his country is ruled by a tyrant, Saddam 
Hussein.
  Things can go backwards in democracy. This is a step backwards in the 
democratic process.
  Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would remind the gentleman from Washington State that just late 
last fall, I think in December, senior Members of his own party 
leadership were talking about what a wonderful bill the unemployment 
bill was that then was far less generous than what we would like to do 
today. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), for example, last 
fall said, ``Tomorrow the House will meet one more time before 
adjourning for the year. We could simply take up the bipartisan Senate 
bill which has the 3-month extension and agree to it unanimously. That 
action would send a positive signal about our willingness to work 
together to solve our economic problems.''
  I submit that this additional 2-month extension, our bill is 5 
months, plus a 3-month phaseout that assists 2 million additional 
people, is far more generous. So I think a dark day is perhaps not the 
right characterization for what we are doing today.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania 
(Ms. Hart).
  Ms. HART. Mr. Speaker, I stand before my colleagues today supportive, 
clearly, of extending unemployment benefits. I represent parts of six 
counties in western Pennsylvania; and we have seen the unemployment 
rate rise, as others have in this body. But to call what we are doing 
today a dereliction of duty seems to me to be silly and extreme, and 
completely inaccurate.
  A dereliction of duty would be to today avoid passing what the Senate 
has passed unanimously to extend unemployment benefits to those who are 
in danger of losing them. If, in fact, we pass this bill today, it will 
go directly to the President, the President can sign the bill, and that 
will prevent the interruption of benefits for those who will have those 
benefits interrupted if we are derelict in our duty.
  Being derelict in our duty would be to not pass this bill today to 
fight what the Senate has unanimously approved, the Senators, who were 
elected as we were, by the people of the 50 States, sent here to do the 
best we can for them. This House has agreed that we should, without 
hesitation, pass an unemployment extension for those who are still in 
need.
  It only makes sense for us today to unanimously, as a body, support 
those who right now cannot support their families. It is our duty to do 
so.
  My colleagues who have spoken prior to me have explained the generous 
benefit that is available in this bill. Clearly, the Senators debated 
it yesterday, with our families here, on the day of swearing in. All I 
heard yesterday from the folks who came here from my district was, that 
is a great thing for you to do. Please do it and do it forthwith. Get 
it done. The people need the help.
  Mr. Speaker, a unanimous approval by the House today will show the 
American people that we are here to do business together, Republicans 
and Democrats, to make sure that we will not be derelict in the duty of 
making sure the American people get the benefits they need, and then 
continue working on the economy to make sure that those people will 
have a job once these benefits expire in several months.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I am glad to hear the gentlewoman from 
Pennsylvania tell those 44,000 people in Pennsylvania to hold on, hold 
on.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Davis).
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, as I look at this bill, it is too 
little and, for many, almost too late. Almost too late for them to 
avoid absolute disaster. As a matter of fact, I pulled out one of my 
old records the other day and was listening to it, and it said, every 
morning about this time, when I get to the breakfast table, my wife is 
there crying, get a job, get a job, that I could not find. Then the 
other part says, I read the paper through and through trying to see if 
there is any work for me to do; and, of course, in many instances, the 
individuals come up short.
  The real deal is that if one represents a district like mine, over 
the last 30 years, we have lost more than 120,000 good-paying 
manufacturing jobs that are gone, that do not exist. Unemployment in 
many of the communities that I represent is 20 to 25 percent. So if we 
want to stimulate the economy, what do we do? Put some money in the 
pockets of those individuals so that they can go to the grocery store 
and buy a loaf of bread, so that they can get a gallon of milk, so that 
they can have something to plow back into the economy, to keep it 
moving, to keep it turning. Do not go to the top; stimulate the bottom. 
Then we can really stimulate the economy.
  I would hope that 27 weeks would be the very minimum that we could do 
for some of the people who have been out of work even for 26 months. I 
am not sure that some have not been out for 26 years. We can do better 
than what we are proposing.
  Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Crowley).
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of extending the Federal 
unemployment benefits. Everyone has heard

[[Page H82]]

about the impact of the current recession on all of our constituents. 
The country, and especially my City of New York, continues to suffer 
from recession in part due to the terrorist attacks of 9-11 on our fair 
city, but in greater part, I believe, due to the economic policies of 
this White House, highlighted by the President's so-called economic 
stimulus plan.
  The effects of this Bush recession have been devastating for far too 
many once-hard-working men and women, effects such as an economy that 
has shed 69,000 jobs a month and 2,000 jobs a day. New York State alone 
has lost over 502,000 jobs and workers. New York City has lost 281,000 
jobs. New Yorkers want to work and provide for their families with 
good-paying jobs, but until America adopts responsible economic 
policies, these jobs will not be forthcoming.
  For an economy to lose 69,000 jobs a month and 2,000 jobs a day since 
Mr. Bush has become President, the only answer is a jobs package and 
not a gift to the wealthy. This economy needs a shot in the arm and not 
a kick in the pants, which the Bush White House has given to the 
American people.
  Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1245

  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Kleczka).
  Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I sat here and listened in amazement as my 
Republican colleagues came crying crocodile tears for the poor 
unemployed who lost their benefits as of December 28. As I recall, back 
before we adjourned in November the Senate sent an identical bill over 
here, but the Republican House leadership chose not to take it up and 
instead went home; so the House Republicans created this situation 
which now they decry as the poor unemployed workers, something that 
they actually caused.
  But the problem even after we pass this bill is that they are 
forgetting about in excess of 1 million people whose benefits have 
expired that we could extend for another 13 weeks, knowing full well 
that the money is there. If this country has $674 billion in additional 
tax cuts for people other than these unemployed, surely we have a 
couple of billion for the million unemployed workers and their families 
who get no money today.
  So we are saying that the bill before us is incomplete. Add the rest 
of the people who are hurting and we have done a better job. Yes, we 
can do that in 2 seconds. The Senate will adopt it unanimously, and the 
President can sign it tomorrow.
  Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I will remind the gentleman from Wisconsin that 37,000 
people would likely be helped by this additional bill; and also remind 
him that that piece of legislation we looked at very late and very 
briefly last fall was a provision that was far less expansive than this 
one. In the time that we have had in order to put together legislation 
on which the Senate and the House together would agree and the 
President would sign, we have come up with a larger program that 
extends unemployment benefits for 5 months with a phaseout of 3 months, 
and I think a far better piece of legislation, I am sure the gentleman 
from Wisconsin would agree.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Kleczka).
  Mr. KLECZKA. The gentlewoman from Washington is correct, Mr. Speaker, 
37,000 people from Wisconsin will benefit under the bill, 37,000 that 
they cut off because we went home. However, let us worry about the 
other 22,000 who have been let go. I represent the City of Milwaukee, 
and I bet the bulk of those people come from the City of Milwaukee and 
have no income today.
  So yes, I am with them on the 37,000, but why are they shafting the 
22,000 who get nothing under this bill?
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Inslee).
  (Mr. INSLEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to something my 
friend, the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Dunn), said about the 
basic improvement in this bill, or improvement in the Republicans' 
position since last year.
  I think she is correct in what happened, that when the Republicans 
had a penurious proposal last year and then went home without adopting 
one, and caught heck when they went home, they improved their position. 
This is a better bill, I want to agree with her on that.
  But there is another group that is being abused by this failure 
today, not just the unemployed. It is the unrepresented. Because when 
we bring a bill to the floor where two or three people get into a room 
and decide what the bill is going to be, and bring it out to this floor 
and tell the American people that that is their only solution, that is 
a form of tyranny. It is a step down the road to a government that does 
not respect democracy.
  Unfortunately, it is the first time it is happening, and it is going 
to happen over and over and over again during this Congress. That is 
why I am here today raising my voice against it, saying that we cannot 
have a democracy if we bring a bill to the floor and do not have an 
alternative for the American people to consider. It is the wrong thing 
to do.
  Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, in closing, the unemployment rate in my State is 6.6 
percent. That is a hugely, incredibly large number of folks who, 
through no fault of their own, have found themselves without jobs. This 
is occurring in many States around the Nation.
  The attempt we are making today, which is a huge assistance to folks 
who are out of jobs, a bill that totals $7 billion, that includes 2 
million additional people who will be assisted, 2 million people who 
will be assisted through additional help over the 4 million who we have 
already helped through our legislation that provided benefits last 
year, is hugely important.
  In my own State, Washington State, many layoffs have been due to the 
aerospace industry. The adverse impact of the economy on our aerospace 
industry concerns me, because I have thousands of aerospace workers who 
live in my district. I do not want to see them without jobs. If they 
are without jobs, I want to help to stimulate the economy so they will 
not much longer be without jobs. But the fact is, they are now.
  I am very pleased that we are beginning this new session of Congress 
by heading in the right direction by providing much needed benefits to 
all Americans who are out of jobs. Under this legislation, unemployed 
workers who had Federal unemployment benefits that remained after 
December 28, when, by the way, we had put into place on the floor of 
the House a 5-week extension which would overlap into this session, so 
we could take a look and see what additional work we needed to do, 
which is what we are doing today, these folks will now receive the 
balance of their benefits. It is very important to those whose benefits 
were interrupted.
  Further, workers who exhaust the regular State unemployment benefits 
in the coming months will become eligible for up to 13 weeks of Federal 
benefits in all States and up to 26 weeks in States like mine that have 
high unemployment, as we do in Washington State. In my State, this will 
help 56,000 additional people. That is 2.7 million people all over the 
country who are recipients of unemployment benefits who need help. 
These are folks who are still looking for jobs.
  I think we need to put ourselves in their place. I think we need to 
feel how they feel when they need to meet a mortgage, to pay for the 
costs of food and heat in their homes. This is a vitally important 
piece of legislation that we are discussing today.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this vitally important 
bill. I know there is debate on what additions we could make to this, 
but this is a generous bill and it is going to help a lot of people in 
my State and other States around the Nation. It is going to assist 
almost 2 million additional people today, in addition to the 4 million 
we have assisted in the past through other provisions that were passed 
last year.
  I think it is a generous piece of legislation, and I think it is an 
imperative

[[Page H83]]

as we begin the debate to stimulate this economy and create those jobs 
that folks right now would like to be holding.
  I have great faith in this body. I know that we will do the right 
thing: that we will pass this piece of legislation today so in 
coordination with the Senate we may send this to the President, so by 
tomorrow he can sign this bill, and create no interruption in the 
Federal benefits received by folks whose benefits were stopped on 
December 28.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I think all that needs to be said has been said already, 
but I would only emphasize the fact that what we are hearing today is 
what we heard from the Supreme Court of the United States at the time 
of the election of the President. The Supreme Court said, we do not 
have time to count the votes. We have to declare a winner here.
  In this instance, we are telling a million people out there that we 
do not have time to do anything about extending their benefits. If they 
happened to run out of them last year, well, that is just tough luck. I 
guess they can wait for the economy to pick up, and we wish them well.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Neal).
  (Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to 
this ``day late and dollar short'' Republican bill.
  I fear that a lot of desperate families back in Springfield, North 
Hampton, and Milford, MA, are watching this debate today with confusion 
and anxiety. Well over 2,000 families of displaced workers in my 
district lost their unemployment compensation on December 28. Those 
desperate families,who thought losing their job in an economic slump 
was plenty to deal with, encountered even more pain with the loss of 
their financial life-line during the holidays.
  Almost a million families around the country today, who are 
struggling to get back into the workplace, will not see their benefits 
resume if this bill is enacted.
  In a successful effort to provide fewer benefits to fewer workers, 
the leaders of this House scuttled any chances for meaningful relief 
back in December when we knew this crisis was upon us.
  What we are asking for in our substitute is not unusual. Congress has 
previously acted to temporarily extend unemployment benefits during 
periods of economic recession of high employment. And, unfortunately, 
the Nation reached an 8-year high for unemployment in November, 2002.
  While the majority has recently decided that extending these benefits 
is the right thing to do, this bill is literally too little and too 
late. I urge my colleagues to support the substitute providing more 
financial security to more displaced workers. Every penny we provide to 
the families of laid-off workers goes right back into the economy. 
Support this economic stimulus proposal.
  Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, I regret that Congress did not pass an 
extension of unemployment benefits last year. Last November, the other 
body passed a bill that cost $5 billion and would have provided 13 
weeks of additional UI benefits to jobless Americans. The House passed 
a paltry bill that cost $900 million that would have extended benefits 
only through the end of January.
  I'm delighted that this bill is closer to the one that was proposed 
by the Democrats in the other body last year. The bill we are 
considering today costs $7.6 billion and it extends unemployment 
benefits through the end of May. It gives an additional 13 weeks of 
unemployment benefits to jobless Americans who have exhausted their 26 
weeks of unemployment benefits. I am pleased that the bill is 
retroactive to December 28, so that those who had their benefits cut 
off on this date would receive the remainder of the 13 weeks owed to 
them.
  Even though the bill is an improvement over last year's attempt, it 
is not enough. The bill excludes from coverage one million Americans 
who have exhausted their unemployment benefits and who have not found a 
job. These people will not be eligible for the extended benefits 
proposed under this bill, and they need our help. But this bill slams 
the door shut on their need for extended benefits.
  This action should come as no surprise. The majority has consistently 
voted to exclude segments of the unemployed from receiving jobless 
benefits. Although the majority has changed the scope of coverage of 
the bill, it has not had a change of heart. At a time when we need 
national unity, the majority party continues to pit Americans against 
their fellow Americans. The economic policies of this Administration 
and the majority party of this chamber pits the well-off against the 
not-so-well off, working Americans against the jobless, and the jobless 
with benefits against those without.
  While I support the passage of S. 23, I encourage my colleagues to 
support the motion to instruct offered by the gentleman from 
Washington, Mr. McDermott. We can do more to assist those 1 million 
unemployed Americans who need our help, and we should take this 
opportunity to do so.
  Mr. CASE. Mr. Speaker, I reluctantly rise today in support of S. 23, 
a bill to extend unemployment benefits for thousands of Americans.
  Every day, too many American workers are exhausting their 
unemployment benefits and must use their retirement savings or make 
other sacrifices just to cover basic living expenses. More than 800,000 
people have already exhausted their 13 weeks of extended unemployment 
insurance benefits that were provided in the economic stimulus 
legislation enacted in March, which means they have no federal 
assistance as they search for new jobs.
  In my home State of Hawaii, over 23,540 workers are currently 
unemployed, and 3,100 workers who have exhausted their extended 
unemployment benefits in 2002 remain unemployed. Over 1,800 workers in 
Hawaii could lose their benefits because the State of Hawaii must cut 
off extended unemployment benefits unless we continue the Temporary 
Extended Unemployment Compensation (TEUC) program.
  I am pleased that the 108th Congress is passing legislation to 
retroactively extend unemployment compensation to laid-off workers who 
have exhausted their normal benefits. Congress has an obligation to 
make sure individuals who believed they would receive 13 weeks of 
extended benefits are not arbitrarily denied these benefits because the 
TEUC program expired on December 28.
  When I was elected by the people of Hawaii, I quickly committed 
myself to helping working family struggling to survive this recession. 
I decided to join with my Democratic colleagues to introduce 
legislation to extend unemployment benefits for those who were going to 
lose their benefits because Congress failed to extend the TEUC program.
  I wish the House could pass the Democratic proposal because it would 
give every worker 26 weeks of extended unemployment benefits, up from 
13 weeks under the current program. During the last recession in the 
early 1990s, Congress provided 26 weeks of extended benefits, and 
struggling families need this type of temporary assistance once again. 
The Democratic proposal would help the 1 million American workers who 
have already exhausted their extended unemployment benefits.
  Nevertheless, I reluctantly support S. 23. Unemployed American 
workers need our help. We must immediately pass this legislation and 
then develop a comprehensive economic program to help unemployed 
workers and stimulate our struggling economy.
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, although with great hesitancy, 
I rise today in support of this overdue legislation to extend 
unemployment benefits. I had greatly hoped that Congress would have 
passed this extension prior to adjournment of the 107th Congress. I 
also am very disappointed that the bill before us today does not extend 
26 weeks of extended benefits to all unemployed workers. However, I 
will vote in favor of S. 23 because we must expedite the extension of 
unemployment benefits.
  As we all well know, and as I hope the American people are aware, 
last year, before the 107th Congress adjourned, and fully cognizant 
that the expiration deadline of the Temporary Extended Unemployment 
Compensation, TEUC, program was fast approaching, the majority refused 
to act on a good compromise bill that the Senate had passed 
unanimously. As a result, the TEUC program expired on December 28, 
2002, and with it so did federal unemployment benefits for more than 
800,000 jobless Americans. In New Mexico, that delay meant 2,200 
families lost their benefits.
  S. 23 is certainly a step in the right direction. It is imperative 
that we extend these benefits as the sluggish economy struggles to 
regain the vibrancy and growth it experienced under the previous 
administration. The unemployment rate has climbed from 4.2 percent when 
President Bush was inaugurated to 6.0 percent today. Additionally, 
there are now 8 million unemployed Americans.
  However, while the bill before us is a good start, I vow to continue 
fighting for passage of the comprehensive unemployment Federal benefits 
bill offered by Representatives Rangel, Cardin, and Levin, that would 
guarantee at least 26 weeks of extended benefits and

[[Page H84]]

would expand access to unemployment benefits for workers who are low-
wage earners or work part time. I am greatly disappointed that the rule 
stipulating the guidelines for debate over this legislation precluded 
us from debating Mr. Rangel's substitute.
  It is worth noting, that during the recession of the early 1990s the 
first President Bush signed into law the unemployment benefit 
extensions. It is estimated, however, that 800,000 more workers than 
during the 90s are expecting to exhaust their benefits this year. As 
such, it is clear to me that there is a need to extend the benefits 
beyond the 13 weeks provided by this bill.
  Nevertheless, I will vote in support of S. 23, but do so with the 
hope that the leadership of the House and Senate will take up 
additional legislation to further extend unemployment benefits during 
this slow economic growth period.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise to reluctantly support this bill. 
Today the House must once again come together to provide relief to 
America's unemployed. The president says that the economy is improving, 
but those words are cold comfort to those who have not only lost their 
jobs but also their unemployment benefits in recent weeks. These folks 
have been left with no job or assistance and are struggling to provide 
for their families this winter.
  Unfortunately, this bill only extends unemployment benefits for 
workers who had not yet exhausted their 13 weeks before the program 
expired in December, doing nothing for those who exhausted their 
benefits yet still have not been able to find work.
  But Mr. Speaker, the inability to find work is hardly due to a lack 
of trying. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 
there are approximately 1\1/2\ million fewer jobs today than there were 
in March of 2001. And roughly 1 million workers have used up their 
unemployment insurance without finding a new job--more than 15,000 in 
Connecticut alone.
  That is why, with America experiencing the lowest job growth in 58 
years, we should not only be extending unemployment insurance, but also 
giving the unemployed opportunities to purchase health insurance. And 
we should guarantee an additional 26 weeks of benefits for everyone--
whether they have exhausted their previous benefits or not.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill is the least we can do. Too many families were 
left out in the cold this holiday season due to the Republican's 
refusal to address this issue and a president who only voiced his 
support for an extension of benefits well after Congress had left town. 
Mr. Speaker, this bill is not enough, but it is better than nothing, 
which until now is all this majority has supported.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of S. 23, 
which will finally provide for a 5-month extension of the Temporary 
Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 2002.
  I say ``finally'' because this legislation is long overdue. We all 
knew for months that on December 28th, in the middle of the holiday 
season, an estimated one million people out of work would be cut off 
from receiving unemployment benefits. Yet neither House Republicans nor 
the President took action to help suffering Americans provide for 
themselves or for their families.
  Mr. Speaker, our economy continues to weaken. The latest figures show 
that unemployment claims in my district, which includes part of Miami-
Dade County, reached a record high of 80,554 during October 2002. In 
only one year, unemployment claims were up an overwhelming 30%.
  The unemployment rate in Miami-Dade County, a major international 
trading and tourist hub of the Americas, has climbed to an outrageous 
8.0%, considerably higher than the national average. In Broward County, 
which is also a part of my district, the unemployment rate has reached 
a national rate of 6.0%.
  Last week alone, there were more than 13,000 new jobless applicants 
filing for unemployment benefits. It is no wonder that Americans are 
enraged. The House has waited until today, 11 days after the 
expiration, to provide benefits to jobless Americans.
  When a building is on fire, does a fire rescue team wait 11 days to 
put the fire out? When a patient is seriously ill, does a hospital wait 
11 days to attend to this patient? In a crisis situation, we act 
immediately. The House has waited too long, putting Americans in fear.
  My district and the country are in an unemployment crisis. Everyday, 
more and more of my constituents join the hundreds of thousands of 
Americans in my colleagues' districts in the unemployment line.
  Mr. Speaker, it is important that we help displaced American workers 
today. It is terrible that we have waited so long to do so.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the bill before us 
today which will provide as much as 26 weeks of additional unemployment 
benefits to laid off workers across America in ``high unemployment 
states'' and will ensure that those workers who still had benefits 
remaining on the December 28 cutoff date will receive all of their 13 
weeks.
  The Unemployment Insurance Benefits Extension Act, much like the 
provisions in the American Worker Temporary Relief Act that I 
introduced yesterday, will allow approximately 800,000 Americans, 
including nearly 6,000 workers in my state of Kansas, to once again 
begin receiving benefits. Like my bill, it also allows workers who may 
in the months ahead exhaust their regular 26 weeks of State 
unemployment benefits to become eligible for up to 13 weeks of extended 
benefits.
  Unfortunately, this bill does nothing for those in my state and other 
states who have exhausted their 13 week extension and do not live in a 
state meeting the definition of a ``high unemployment state.''
  This legislation is an important step in helping our workers through 
these tough economic times. Many have suffered from the lingering 
effects of a recession and the economic impact of the September 11th 
attacks.
  Mr. Speaker, we must remember, however, that this is short term aid. 
The best and most responsible approach Congress can take is to adopt 
policies designed to get our economy growing again. We can all agree 
that America's workers would rather earn a paycheck than receive an 
unemployment benefit.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill and approve this new 
extension in order to avoid a disruption in benefits to our nation's 
unemployed workers.
  Mr. RUSH. Mr. Speaker, today, we are considering one of the most 
important legislative initiatives that we, as members of the House of 
Representatives, can enact this year the extension of unemployment 
benefits for the millions of this nation's workers who have lost their 
jobs in the current economic downturn. I am pleased to join with the 
overwhelming majority of my colleagues in the House in approving this 
bill, which will extend unemployment benefits for the more than 800,000 
American workers lost their benefits on December 28, 2002 for an 
additional 13 weeks.
  As the economy has stagnated and the job growth that characterized 
the economic boom of the 1990s has dissipated, the American economy has 
lost nearly one and one-half million jobs. In November of last year, 
the national unemployment rate reached an eight-year high of 6 percent.
  Mr. Speaker, last month, the Democratic staff of the House Government 
Reform Committee, completed a study of the current state of 
unemployment in Chicago, Illinois. The study verified what we who live 
in Chicago already know--that unemployment in the Chicago metropolitan 
area, at 6.3 percent, is higher than both the statewide and national 
average. The Committee's study illustrated that of the 377,000 
unemployed workers identified by the Bureau of Labor Statistics in 
Illinois, the vast majority of those individuals--263,000--are in the 
Chicago metropolitan area.
  Many of these workers have exhausted their basic unemployment 
benefits in their search for new employment and were relying on the 
extended benefits provided under the law that expired on December 28, 
2002. Without the passage of this most critical legislation, more than 
65,000 workers in the Chicago area would have lost an estimated $236 
million in unemployment benefits.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the Congress has adopted this 
extension of unemployment benefits, but much more needs to be done. 
Unemployment nationwide is higher now than it was when Congress first 
passed the extended unemployment benefits in March of last year; the 
economic and fiscal condition of the nation is weaker. We need a 
strong, sound and fiscally responsible economic stimulus package that 
will create real jobs to support real families and provide real 
permanent relief to laid off workers and states.
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 23, 
legislation to extend Temporary Unemployment Benefits. Millions of 
American workers are in trouble today, including many of my 
constituents, and it is high time we did something about it.
  Back in March 2002, Congress created the Temporary Emergency 
Unemployment Benefits Compensation (TEUC) program to provide 13 weeks 
of federally funded unemployment insurance to qualified workers who had 
exhausted their state unemployment benefits, and an additional 13 weeks 
to some in ``high unemployment'' states. The TEUC program was a great 
idea, but we underestimated the economic trouble that we were in. At 
that time, the unemployment rate in my home state of Texas was 5.6% and 
that quickly rose to 6.9% by June of 2002. By November 2002, the latest 
month for which the Texas Workforce Commission has data, the official 
unemployment rate still stood at 6.0%, meaning that over 640,000 Texas 
workers are out of work.
  So, we can see that the problem is not over. The need for an 
unemployment compensation extension is still very urgent. However, the 
TEUC program expired, three days after Christmas, on December 28, 2002. 
Congress was fully aware of the unemployment problem

[[Page H85]]

when we were here in November and December, but the House leadership 
would not agree to the Senate compromise legislation, which was partly 
the work of the Republican Whip in the Senate. So, it is with great 
relief that I have the opportunity to vote in favor of the Senate 
compromise today.
  While I am relieved that we are delivering relief to the people that 
need it most--those who are out of work and are trying their best to 
find it--I do not believe that we are doing enough. The legislation 
before us today only restores TEUC benefits for those who lost their 
eligibility on or after December 28, 2002. I am an original cosponsor 
of the Rangel-Cardin alternative, H.R. 17, which would restore these 
unemployed workers' benefits while they continue to look for work. H.R. 
17 should be under consideration today by the House of Representatives, 
but the Republican leadership has denied us the opportunity to even let 
it come to vote.
  Now I agree that partisan conflicts over how much unemployment 
assistance to provide during one of the longest economic slowdowns in 
recent history should not prevent us from doing something, today. So I 
strongly urge my colleagues, on both sides of the aisle, to support 
this legislation and send it to the president so that some unemployed 
workers can get something soon. After that, I also urge all of my 
colleagues to look at what we have done today and compare that to H.R. 
17. If you do that, I think you will realize how much more needs to be 
done. Let us pass S. 23 today, and pass more relief as soon as 
possible.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I am saddened that the first major 
action of Congress will begin with a flawed process. One can only hope 
that this is not a sign of things to come with the Republican 
leadership at the helm of both chambers. Over 20,000 workers in Oregon 
alone were affected by the failure of Congress to pass this extension 
last session. These people deserve our best, not the lowest common 
denominator of benefits that the Republican leadership has decided it 
has to offer. Furthermore, the Republican leadership is not even 
allowing debate to occur on more reasonable options, instead choosing 
to limit the democratic process. The Democratic alternative provides 
for 26 weeks of extended unemployment benefits, helping nearly 2.5 
million Americans over the next six months, while the Republican 
proposal only offers 13 weeks. While I am grateful for my jobless 
constituents that an extension will now be implemented, it is too 
little and too late.
  Extending unemployment insurance is the fastest way to help the 
people that need it most, since it provides targeted and effective 
economic stimulus. These critical benefits increase consumer spending 
in the hardest-hit areas and sustain and strengthen economic recovery. 
It makes more sense to invest in expanded unemployment benefits now to 
help millions of Americans, than exploding the budget deficit with 
President Bush's economic stimulus plan which will cost almost $850 
billion, including debt service, and whose own economists say will 
create less than 200,000 jobs.
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the measure passed by 
the Senate yesterday that would provide an extension of federal 
unemployment insurance benefits to jobless workers.
  I am pleased that Congress is finally extending unemployment benefits 
to the 800,000 Americans and 2,800 Rhode Islanders whose federal 
benefits were cut off on December 28, 2002. However, I would be remiss 
if I did not remind the House Republican Leadership that even with 
passage of this legislation, Congress would still leave out over 1 
million workers nationwide, including thousands of Rhode Islanders, who 
have already exhausted their benefits and are still unable to find a 
job.
  Many Rhode Islanders, and Americans across the nation, are still 
struggling to find employment. The national unemployment rate reached 6 
percent in November last year, its highest point in eight years, and 
Rhode Island's unemployment rate currently stands above 5 percent. 
Congress must provide all unemployed workers the resources they need to 
put food on the table and pay the bills while they weather this 
economic downturn.
  While I intend to support the underlying legislation, I would point 
out that passage of this bill, as important as it is, will leave too 
many people without any means of support, and I would strongly urge my 
colleagues to turn their attention to the unemployed workers who have 
already exhausted their extended benefits. In addition, I am very 
disappointed that the Republican Leadership has denied our colleagues 
the opportunity to debate and vote on a Democratic alternative, which 
would provide 26 weeks of additional benefits to struggling workers. We 
must not turn our backs on those who are most vulnerable during these 
trying times.
  Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, the House is finally acting to provide 
relief to some of the unemployed. This bill will be retroactive to 
December 28th, so those who had their benefits cut off will receive the 
remainder of the 13 weeks of benefits that is due to them. The relief 
will continue until June. It will also allow those who begin to receive 
their benefits to receive the full 13 weeks in the event that they are 
unable to find a job. That is good. However, this bill is not complete. 
This legislation fails to provide benefits to those who have already 
exhausted their benefits and are still unable to find a job. Why is the 
leadership forgetting those that need the benefits the most?
  In Wisconsin, 22,200 people exhausted their unemployment benefits and 
remained unemployed at the end of December. This bill leaves these 
people and their families without help. Over one million people across 
our country have absolutely no recourse and have no assistance 
whatsoever because their benefits have expired. We are leaving them out 
in the cold when they need help the most.
  These unemployment benefits don't just help the unemployed; they also 
help our economy as recipients will pay for immediate needs such as 
housing, utilities and food. Economists have said that every dollar 
spent on unemployment generates $2.15 in economic stimulus. Offering 
assistance to those whose benefits have already expired would help 
these families and our economy. They are paying for basic necessities 
with their benefits. They are trying to keep their heads above water. 
Unfortunately, this bill is offering to help some of the unemployed, 
but not the thousands of Wisconsin families who have been without a 
paycheck for ten months or more.
  I am glad we are providing the relief included in this bill, but we 
have to do more. We must help those who continue to look for work in 
our weak economy. And we should do it today.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, there has been talk in recent months that 
if there is to be an economic recovery in our future, it will be a so-
called ``jobless recovery''. I would submit that for the 8.5 million 
Americans who are currently unemployed, an economic recovery that does 
not provide jobs is no recovery at all.
  The Economic Policy (EPI) has reported that using even optimistic 
projections of GDP growth, the unemployment rate is expected to remain 
at 6 percent for all of 2003. An analysis projecting less optimistic 
growth numbers suggest the unemployment rate will climb to 6.4 percent 
by the last quarter of this year. However, there is one factor that 
impacts the severity of the current downturn for American workers more 
than any other. That is, significantly more workers have exhausted 
their federal benefits since the federal extension of benefit program 
began in March than ran out of federal benefits over a comparable 
number of months in the recession of the early nineties.
  Under the federal extension program of the early 90s, each worker was 
eligible for 20 to 26 weeks of benefits some ten months after the 
program was enacted. Under the program which just expired at the end of 
last December, most workers were eligible for a maximum of 13 weeks of 
benefits. As a result, by the end of December, an estimated 2.2 million 
workers had exhausted all of their federal benefits. And without 
Congressional assistance, the New year brings these 2.2 million 
unemployed a job market that is stripped bare. It is a job market with 
1.5 million fewer jobs today than in March of 2001.
  For this reason it is critical that the federal unemployment 
insurance system be extended now. However, the Republican plan, and 
Democratic proposal which was disallowed, offer two very different 
levels of compensation to American families.
  The Republican plan would provide 13 weeks of extended benefits over 
the next five months to the estimated 90,000 workers a week who will 
exhaust their state benefits without finding work. The Democratic plan 
would have offered 26 weeks. The Republican plan will also provide the 
remainder of 13 weeks of benefits to the nearly 800,000 workers who 
were cut off from federal unemployment benefits on December 28th when 
the program was allowed to expire. The Democratic plan offered workers 
those 13 weeks and adds 13 more for a total of 26 weeks.
  In an even starker comparison, even in the face of economic data 
suggesting the current economic conditions are no better, and maybe 
even worse than when the current program began in March, The Republican 
proposal mysteriously provides no extension of benefits to the 1 
million workers who exhausted their federal benefits by December and 
remain jobless.
  The Democratic proposal gave those workers an extra 13 weeks of job-
hunting cushioned by unemployment insurance. Indeed, the Democratic 
plan did not selectively pick and choose which group of unemployed 
workers id deemed worthy of coverage. For in a so-called ``jobless 
recovery'' millions of Americans will remain jobless. But under the 
Republican's so-called unemployment plan, 1 million

[[Page H86]]

Americans will also be without unemployment insurance.
  In covering these 1 million Americans, the Democratic proposal did 
not ignore the over $24 million sitting unused in the Federal 
Unemployment Trust Fund. Instead it honors the basic purpose of the 
trust funds: to build large resources when work is plentiful in order 
to provide relief to the unemployed when they need it most. The 
Republican proposal ``writes off'' 1 million people. Contrary to the 
thinking behind the Republican proposal, there is no reason 1 million 
unemployed workers should be denied unemployment compensation when they 
need it the most. The Democratic plan suggest the time for them to 
receive it is now. So do I. Vote for the Motion to Recommit.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, each day Americans are losing 
their jobs across the country and in all sectors of the economy. My 
state of Texas and city of Houston have suffered job losses. I have 
heard from many constituents whose have been laid off and from those 
whose unemployment benefits expired shortly after Christmas on December 
28.
  The Republican plan passed by the Senate yesterday does not go far 
enough. The Republican plan does not help those workers who have 
already exhausted their benefits. I am appalled. I support the 
Democratic alternative plan offered by Congressman Charles Rangel.
  The Rangel/Cardin bill would extend unemployment insurance benefits 
an additional 13 weeks to those in need. The Republican plan does not; 
these workers would not receive any additional assistance. About one 
million workers have exhausted their 13 weeks of extended benefits 
under the Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation (TEUC) program 
and still remain unemployed.
  Every week about 90,000 workers run out of regular, state provided 
unemployment benefits before finding a job. During the last recession, 
Congress initially provided these workers with 26 weeks of extended 
benefits. The Democratic plan would provide these workers with at least 
26 weeks of extended benefits, which would help nearly 2.5 million 
Americans over the next six months. The Republican plan would generally 
provide 13 weeks of extended benefits over the next five months (only 
three states currently qualify under a trigger to provide 26 weeks).
  The Republican proposal would allow these workers to receive the 
remainder of their initial 13 weeks of extended benefits (not clear if 
benefits are retroactive). The Democratic bill would provide these 
workers with the remainder of their first 13 weeks (retroactively), and 
an additional 13 weeks, for a total 26 weeks of extended benefits.
  We need to help those people whose unemployment benefits expired on 
December 28. I have heard from many of my constituents in the 18th 
Congressional District in Houston who have exhausted their unemployment 
benefits. I agree with one of my constituents who said that we should 
``Leave no jobless worker behind.''
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this legislation 
to reinstate the extended unemployment benefits program. These are bad 
economic times we are living in and few places have it tougher than my 
home state of Washington which had a 6.6 percent unemployment rate in 
November. I know from my constituents that these extra weeks of 
benefits are a vital lifeline which I wish we had extended back in 
December. While I am relieved that we finally are passing this bill, I 
wish that we had the chance to vote on an unemployment package that 
more fully meets the needs of those Americans who are out of work.
  While I am grateful that this bill contains a provision that provides 
an additional 13 weeks of extended benefits for states with 
exceptionally high jobless rates--which includes Washington State and 
two others--it is a mistake that the eligibility requirements are so 
stringent that the jobless in 47 states cannot receive them. These 
additional benefits will result in 26 weeks of extended benefits for 
those of my constituents who have been unable to find new employment. 
But I do not understand why those unfortunate people living in other 
states who find themselves in a similar dire situation are limited to 
only 13 weeks of extended benefits because the unemployment rate is 
lower in their home state. Being out of work is devastating for people 
and their families wherever they live and Congress should pass a bill 
reflecting that reality.
  The extended benefits authorized by this legislation expire at the 
end of May. It is doubtful that the economy will have improved 
significantly by then. Therefore, we will need to re-visit this issue 
before these benefits expire. I hope at that time we will pass 
legislation that better meets the tremendous needs of those Americans 
who are having a hard time finding new jobs. Compassion demands that 
action.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I don't have to lecture my colleagues on 
the difficult economic problems facing the country, state and local 
governments, and far too many of our constituents who have lost jobs or 
are losing benefits and support services due to budget pressures. We're 
all much too familiar with those facts.
  But, I was elected to be a voice for those who need help. And, Mr. 
Speaker, there are 18,000 Oregonians who need help and this bill isn't 
going to provide it. I'm grateful that this bill will provide extended 
benefits for some 20,000 unemployed Oregonians who were at some stage 
of the Temporary Emergency Unemployment Compensation (TEUC) program 
that expired on December 28, 2002, and the 35,000 Oregonians that are 
expected to lose work between now and the end of May when this 
extension expires. However, the bill turns a cold shoulder on the 
18,000 long-term unemployed Oregonians who have already exhausted 26 
weeks of TEUC.
  The unemployment rate in Oregon has hovered between 7 and 8 percent 
for more than a year. Several counties have double digit unemployment 
rates, and new layoff are announced weekly. The workers of the Pacific 
Northwest need help. And we should give it to them.
  The Congressional Budget Office projects the national unemployment 
rate will remain at about six percent until the second half of 2003. 
The Oregon rate is expected to be higher than the national average.
  Unemployment insurance provides targeted and effective economic 
stimulus. These critical benefits increase consumer spending in the 
hardest hit areas and sustain and strengthen economic recovery. 
Fortunately, the federal unemployment insurance trust funds contain 
large reserves that can be used to strengthen TEUC without additional 
unemployment insurance taxes.
  I sat here today and listened to the debate on this legislation and 
heard member after member on the other side of the aisle say how 
important this legislation is and how much workers need this 
assistance, but we just can't afford to provide additional benefits for 
the long-term unemployed. That's not true, and it's unconscionable that 
we're not providing additional benefits for those who, through no fault 
of their own, have found themselves on the wrong side of this 
``economic recovery,'' and haven't been able to find work.
  Somehow, we could afford to give members of Congress a generous 3.4 
percent cost-of-living adjustment, but could only give senior citizens 
a paltry 1.4 percent increase. Somehow, there was money to throw all 
sorts of favors to corporate special interests at the end of the 
session, and there's money for more tax breaks for those earning more 
than $373,000 a year. Somehow, there was money to give President Bush's 
political appointee's bonuses at the end of the year, but we can't use 
the huge surpluses in the unemployment trust funds to give a hand to 
the 800,000 long-term unemployed who are trying to hang on to their 
homes, pay the heating bill, keep food on the table, and keep their 
families together. There's something very wrong with the priorities 
here.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). All time for debate has 
expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 14, the Senate bill is considered as 
read for amendment and the previous question is ordered.
  The question is on the third reading of the Senate bill.
  The Senate bill was ordered to be read a third time, and was read the 
third time.


               Motion to Commit Offered by Mr. Mc Dermott

  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to commit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion.
  The clerk read as follows:

       Mr. McDermott moves to commit the bill S. 23 to the 
     Committee on Ways and Means with instructions that the 
     Committee report the same back to the House forthwith with 
     the following amendment:

       Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
     following:

     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.

[[Page H87]]

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.
       ``(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. McDERMOTT (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent that the motion to commit be considered as read and printed in 
the Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Washington?
  There was no objection.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I have no objection to considering the 
motion as having been read, but I object to the motion to commit on the 
basis of its violation of the Budget Act.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman make a point of order?
  Mr. THOMAS. Yes, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a point of order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman may state his point of order.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I object and make the point of order because 
this motion, if passed, would cause the allocation to the Committee on 
Ways and Means to be further exceeded in the first year and over the 5-
year period governed by the budget resolution currently deemed in 
force. The motion therefore violates section 302(f) of the 
Congressional Budget Act, and I make a point of order that it violates 
section 302(f) of the Budget Act.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there any other Member who wishes to be 
heard on the point of order?
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, if I understand the 
objection, it is based upon the fact that, as I understand it, the bill 
before us has a waiver on the Budget Act from the Committee on Rules, 
but that because there is no waiver of the Budget Act provided in the 
rules, the minority will not have a chance to offer a similar type of a 
motion to recommit.
  I would ask the chairman, is that the basis that we were not 
protected in the rule, whereas the underlying bill did not get a waiver 
in the rule?
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I would tell the gentleman that that is the

[[Page H88]]

technical effect. However, had the minority offered an amendment which 
was in the----
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Will the gentleman suspend? Members will not 
engage in colloquy on a point of order. The Chair will hear argument on 
the point of order from each Member in turn.
  Mr. THOMAS. Might I make an argument on the point of order, Mr. 
Speaker?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) may 
complete his argument first.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, may I yield on my reservation or argument?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. There is no yielding on a point of order.
  Mr. CARDIN. Let me just complete my argument, and then I would 
welcome the chairman's response.
  Mr. Speaker, I think that there needs to be some discretion here as 
far as fairness in the rules. I know that yesterday we adopted the 
rules of the House. It seems to me that the minority needs to be 
protected to be able to offer a motion to recommit.
  I understand the chairman's point, but it would seem to me that the 
rules should permit the minority to offer a motion to recommit if we 
are going to have an open and full debate in the House.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Are there other Members who wish to be heard 
on the point of order?
  Mr. THOMAS. Yes, sir.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) 
is recognized.
  Mr. THOMAS. Further on my point of order, Mr. Speaker, the reason I 
believe a 302(f) budget point of order lies against this measure is 
that it significantly exceeds in its amount the underlying bill.
  The legislation before us was not reported by any committee of the 
House; rather, it was passed by the Senate, and the Committee on Rules 
has presented it to us.
  So my point of order is not based on the fact that the underlying 
measure has a waiver from the Committee on Rules; it is that if the 
minority had offered an amendment equal to or less than the Senate 
position, it would have been in order and not subject to a point of 
order. Since it is significantly in excess of the Senate measure, it 
does in fact violate 302(f) of the Budget Act.

                              {time}  1300

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). Are there other Members who 
wish to be heard on the point of order?
  The Chair is prepared to rule.
  The gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) makes a point of order 
that the amendment proposed by the instructions in the motion to commit 
offered by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott) violates 
section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
  Section 302(f) of the Budget Act precludes consideration of an 
amendment providing new budget authority if the adoption of the 
amendment and enactment of the bill, as amended, would cause the 
pertinent allocation of new budget authority under section 302(a) of 
the act to be exceeded.
  The Chair is persuasively guided by an estimate of the gentleman from 
Iowa (Mr. Nussle) that an amendment providing any net increase in new 
budget authority for fiscal year 2003, or the period of fiscal years 
2003 through 2007, over that provided by the bill would exacerbate the 
breach of the applicable section 302(a) allocations of the Committee on 
Ways and Means.
  As such, the motion to commit violates section 302(f) of the Budget 
Act. The point of order is sustained, and the motion is not in order.


               Motion to Commit Offered by Mr. McDermott

  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Yes, in its present form.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to commit.
  The Clerk read as follows:
       Mr. McDermott moves to commit the bill S. 23 to the 
     Committee on Ways and Means with instructions that the 
     Committee report the same back to the House promptly with the 
     following amendment:
       Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
     following:

     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 H89]]

       ``(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. THOMAS (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent 
that the motion be considered as read and printed in the Record since 
the appropriate part has already been read.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Washington is recognized 
for 5 minutes in support of his motion.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Cardin).
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I think that we need to pass legislation today, so I 
support legislation. I think it is important that we deal with the 
people who lost their benefits in December because we failed to extend 
the law. I think it is important that we pass legislation that will 
provide the additional weeks of benefits for those who exhaust their 
regular unemployment insurance, and the underlying legislation does 
that and it is worthy of support.
  The problem is, as we have heard during the course of this debate, 
that the legislation does not go far enough. There will be a million 
people during the next several months who will exhaust their extended 
benefits, and the gentleman's motion to commit urges us to deal with 
that group of unemployed who have lost their unemployment insurance 
benefits through no fault of their own; and if we do not take action 
immediately, these individuals will not have any unemployment insurance 
benefits.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, the motion before us will not delay the issue. I 
know I will hear that from my friends. The conference could be 
appointed today. It could act today. This is not a controversial issue. 
This is unfinished business from the last Congress. The funds are 
there. The funds are in the Federal unemployment trust account to pay 
for these benefits.
  In 1990, the last recession we had, we extended benefits for 26 
additional weeks. This tells us to do at least as well for the 
unemployed today as we did in the 1990s so we can get this done. We can 
get it done quickly, and we can get it done before we adjourn this 
week, and that is the essence of the gentleman's motion. So I support 
the underlying bill, but we need to do better now on the unfinished 
business of the last Congress.
  Then, Mr. Speaker, let me urge my chairman who is on the floor that 
we look at reforming the unemployment insurance and we do it quickly, 
that we deal with the part-time employees who pay into the unemployment 
insurance funds and do not get unemployment benefits. And we deal with 
the people, many of whom left the welfare system for work only to find 
that their jobs have been lost and we deal with the most recent quarter 
of their earnings so they can qualify for unemployment insurance. As we 
look at a stimulus package, let us also look at increasing the benefits 
for those people who are unemployed. That would certainly stimulate our 
economy and is far less costly than the tax legislation that the 
President brought forward yesterday.
  So I would urge my colleagues to support the gentleman from 
Washington's motion to commit. It urges us to do more. It allows us to 
move forward with the underlying bill but to do more; and we can get it 
done today, make no mistake about it. The conference report could be 
back to us before we leave this evening. There is no question about 
that in anyone's mind. We know exactly what needs to be done, and I 
would urge my colleagues to support the motion to commit.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the fact is that you have a calendar which says we will 
be here until 8 or 9 o'clock tonight, so there is plenty of time to 
make this small change, and any argument that we do not have time is 
simply a bogus argument.
  Now, the fact is that as my colleague from Maryland has said, this is 
unfinished business from before. I have tried two different ways and 
the majority is intent on killing any attempt to modify what they have 
agreed to with the Senate. Now, I guess from now on we will just wait 
for the Senate to tell us what we need to do because the House clearly 
has no power to ever confront the Senate and tell the Senate that they 
have made not quite the right bill.
  This is a historic moment. I do not ever remember being in the House 
of Representatives any place where they conceded to the Senate that 
whatever the Senate says is what we have to do.
  We could do this by 3 o'clock very easily and cover a million people. 
Now, for anybody to say that because they have already exhausted, 
because of that technicality on the 28th of December they should not 
get any more, I find that incredible that you would say that to 
somebody who is unemployed, that the law we wrote did not work so you 
do not get any money. Explain that to your kids when you are sitting 
there at the dinner table. We do not have any food, kids, because the 
law that the Congress wrote did not work right so I did not get a check 
this month. I paid for it, I paid into the benefits, and we do not get 
them.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to 
commit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California is recognized 
for 5 minutes in opposition to the motion.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, apparently we have come full circle. I opened this 
debate

[[Page H90]]

by saying I had the uncomfortable requirement of informing the House 
and hoped that it would be the last time that we did so, that I was 
presenting a bill passed by the Senate and that we would be compelled 
to have to pass the bill that was passed by the Senate.
  I did mention at that time that the Senate passed it unanimously. 
Notwithstanding the difficulties the other body has in coming together 
to pass legislation, when time is up, they were able to come together 
and agree that we needed to address a problem, and they passed this 
legislation.
  For my friends on the other side of the aisle to offer this motion to 
commit versus the previous one, and the reason I said you did not need 
to read any further is all you have to do is look at the first 
paragraph that said the House should report it forthwith. That, in 
fact, means it comes immediately back and it could go to the Senate. 
They changed the word ``forthwith'' to ``promptly.'' That means it has 
to go to committee. And for my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle, members of the Committee on Ways and Means say all we have to do 
is get the Committee on Ways and Means together so we can go ahead and 
hold a meeting, I have to tell you, who are your appointees to the 
Committee on Ways and Means?
  The Committee on Ways and Means has not been constituted. We do not 
have a functioning committee. And yet they say blithely all we have to 
do is come together.
  I cannot imagine the mental set that says notwithstanding the Senate 
came together in time of need and worked cooperatively that even at 
11:30 to midnight my friends on the other side of the aisle are 
offering motions to commit which will kill this provision.
  This provision allows for those December 28 folks to continue their 
benefits. In fact, it allows for almost 4 million to continue to 
receive benefits, an additional 2 million under the time extension, for 
a total of 6 million Americans to receive their unemployment benefits. 
If the motion to commit passes, it effectively kills the measure. The 
Senate's attempt to unify and put politics aside will have been 
destroyed by my colleagues' willingness to even today play politics.
  In December, the House passed a short-term extension, only 5 weeks. 
We were criticized for making it only 5 weeks. Why? Because we wanted 
to address the question when we came back.
  My friend from Maryland says we ought to address this promptly. You 
voted against the measure that would have required us to address it 
promptly. The Senate failed to pass it. So we are in a position of 
having the President sign a bill tomorrow or not sign a bill tomorrow.
  If you vote ``yes'' for the motion to commit, there will be no bill 
signed tomorrow and people will really lose the unemployment benefits 
that they have earned, those people that you apparently shed crocodile 
tears over. If you vote against the motion to commit and for passage of 
the measure, we will pick up those folks who inadvertently were dropped 
on December 28; and 6 million people will continue to receive benefits 
and hopefully we will pass legislation which will in fact spur the 
economy and provide them with a job instead of unemployment insurance. 
And I am quite sure my colleagues will be opposed to the proposals to 
stimulate the economy as well. So those will be future battles.
  Today the line is drawn very simply. Vote for the motion to commit 
and kill the opportunity to help people get their well-deserved 
unemployment. Vote against the motion to commit, vote for the 
underlying bill, and the President can have a bill-signing ceremony 
tomorrow, and we can do what we should have done back in December.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to commit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to commit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair 
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote, if 
ordered, on the question of passage.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 202, 
nays 224, not voting 7, as follows:

                              [Roll No. 6]

                               YEAS--202

     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
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Case
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     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
     Houghton
     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
     Majette
     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)
     Miller, George
     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
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     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

                               NAYS--224

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     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
     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.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     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
     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
     Myrick
     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
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)

[[Page H91]]


     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Burton (IN)
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Nethercutt
     Towns
     Vitter
     Wolf


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson) (during the vote). The Chair 
advises Members that approximately 2 minutes remain in this 15-minute 
vote.

                              {time}  1333

  Messrs. LARSON of Connecticut, CRAMER, SMITH of Washington, CARSON of 
Oklahoma, GORDON, and HALL changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  Messrs. JOHNSON of Illinois, BOEHLERT, and OXLEY changed their vote 
from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the motion to commit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 6 I inadvertently pressed 
the ``yea'' button. I meant to vote ``nay'' on the McDermott motion to 
commit.


                Announcement by the Speaker pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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 the 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 a 5-minute vote, 
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 the passage of the Senate bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 416, 
nays 4, not voting 13, as follows:

                              [Roll No. 7]

                               YEAS--416

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Ballance
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Becerra
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burr
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Carter
     Case
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cole
     Collins
     Combest
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley (CA)
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gephardt
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harman
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Janklow
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Lynch
     Majette
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Mica
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrock
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Turner (OH)
     Turner (TX)
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NAYS--4

     Flake
     Garrett (NJ)
     Miller (FL)
     Paul

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Akin
     Bachus
     Bell
     Delahunt
     Gallegly
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Larson (CT)
     McDermott
     Nethercutt
     Tauzin
     Towns
     Wolf


                Announcement by the Speaker pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised that 
approximately 2 minutes remain in this 5-minute vote.

                              {time}  1341

  So the Senate bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, I was pushing the button when time went 
off. I understand it, but had I been present, I would like to have been 
recorded as voting ``yea.''
  Mr. BELL. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and unable to 
record my vote on rollcall vote No. 7, the Unemployment Insurance 
Benefits Extension Act. Had I been able to record my vote, I would have 
voted ``yea ''

[[Page H92]]

  Mr. AKIN. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 7 I am not recorded. I would 
have voted ``yea.''
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 7, apparently 
the card did not register a ``yes'' vote. Let the Record show had the 
machine recorded the vote, I would have voted in the affirmative.

                          ____________________