[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.
____________________