[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 77 (Thursday, May 22, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H4613-H4625]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




              UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION AMENDMENTS OF 2003

  Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 248, I call up 
the bill (H.R. 2185) to extend the Temporary Extended Unemployment 
Compensation Act of 2002, and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of H.R. 2185 is as follows:

                               H.R. 2185

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Unemployment Compensation 
     Amendments of 2003''.

     SEC. 2. 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), as amended by Public Law 108-1 (117 Stat. 3), 
     is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(2), by striking ``before June 1'' and 
     inserting ``on or before December 31'';
       (2) in subsection (b)(1), by striking ``May 31, 2003'' and 
     inserting ``December 31, 2003'';
       (3) in subsection (b)(2)--
       (A) in the heading, by striking ``may 31, 2003'' and 
     inserting ``december 31, 2003''; and
       (B) by striking ``May 31, 2003'' and inserting ``December 
     31, 2003''; and
       (4) in subsection (b)(3), by striking ``August 30, 2003'' 
     and inserting ``March 31, 2004''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments 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. Pursuant to House Resolution 248, the 
gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Dunn) and the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Rangel) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Dunn).
  Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, today we consider H.R. 2185 to extend unemployment 
benefits for millions of displaced workers. I want to thank the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) for his leadership in bringing 
this bill to the floor today. This bill will extend the current 
unemployment insurance program until December 2003 with a phase-out 
until March 2004.
  My legislation will allow dislocated workers to receive 13 weeks of 
benefits in all States and an additional 13 weeks for workers who live 
in States with high unemployment rates such as Alaska, Connecticut, 
Massachusetts, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Washington. The bill will help 
approximately 2.4 million displaced workers nationwide.
  In my home State of Washington, the unemployment rate has again 
increased from 7.1 percent to 7.3 percent, making it the third highest 
unemployment rate in the Nation. Mass layoffs continue to have an 
adverse impact on our State's economy, especially in the aerospace 
industry. I represent more than 25,000 Boeing workers, many of whom 
have already lost their jobs.
  As we work on a jobs and growth package to provide an immediate boost 
to our economy, we must also give displaced workers the peace of mind 
in knowing that they have a little time to find a job. So what does 
H.R. 2185 do? It achieves the following: it extends unemployment 
benefits until December 31, 2003, with a phase-out until March 31, 
2004; it extends unemployment benefits for 13 weeks in all States for 
displaced workers; it extends unemployment benefits for an additional 
13 weeks for a total of 26 weeks in high unemployment States.
  This bill will cost $6.5 billion over 10 years, and it will help 
about 2.4 million workers nationwide. I think it is important that 
people realize that the Congress has done a lot to help unemployed 
workers. We feel this is the time to continue generosity and to help 
some of these folks who are trying to get jobs.
  The existing unemployment extension expires at the end of this month 
with a phase-out until August. Congress has now extended unemployment 
benefits three different times: first in March 2002, 13 weeks for all 
States and 26 weeks for high unemployment States; secondly, in January 
2003, 13 weeks for all States and 26 weeks for high unemployment 
States; and, lastly, in April 2003 an additional 26 weeks for airline 
and related industry workers.
  We are extending the safety net for workers struggling to find a job 
while stimulating our economic growth by reducing taxes for individuals 
and encouraging business expansion. By extending unemployment benefits 
for an additional 13 weeks in all States, we can help the 2.4 million 
workers, and in my State, 60,000 workers, who need this kind of help.
  Our unemployment system has worked well for many years, and it serves 
people during economic downturns. We are constantly reviewing the 
unemployment program to ensure that it helps those who have lost their 
jobs through no fault of their own. It is a temporary program, and now 
is the time to extend these benefits in a temporary way to help those 
folks who need to be helped.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to control the time 
of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel).
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Maryland?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, let me assure the House that on the Democratic side of 
the aisle, we are pleased that we have legislation before us that 
extends the Federal unemployment compensation for an additional 7 
months. We think that is the right way to move. However, we are 
extremely disappointed that the legislation does not include any 
additional help for those who have already exhausted their unemployment 
insurance benefits.
  We are very disappointed that over a million people who currently are 
unemployed, who cannot find employment, will not be able to get any 
benefits under this legislation. Few States will be able to go beyond 
the 13 weeks of additional Federal unemployment insurance benefits 
because of the trigger mechanism. We believe that the legislation 
before us should include 26 weeks of unemployment insurance benefits 
for all those workers who exhaust their State unemployment insurance 
funds.
  Let me point out that in prior recessions we have done exactly that. 
The gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Dunn) points out what we have 
done, but it falls far short of what we did in the recession in the 
early 1990s. Despite the fact that this recession is much deeper than 
the prior recession, we have lost 2.7 million jobs, twice as many jobs 
as in the early 1990s, and 70 percent more people have exhausted their 
unemployment insurance benefits in this recession than in the recession 
in the early 1990s. In the early 1990s, we extended benefits for 27 
months. Yet in

[[Page H4614]]

this recession, we have only extended benefits for 15 months. In the 
prior recession, we extended Federal unemployment benefits initially 
for 26 weeks, then reduced it to 20 weeks; yet the legislation before 
us maintains only 13 weeks of benefits for those who are unemployed.
  We have accumulated $21 billion in the Federal unemployment trust 
funds just for this purpose. The legislation before us is scored at 
about $6.5 billion. If we would extend the benefits to all of those who 
have exhausted benefits and provide 26 weeks of Federal unemployment 
insurance, it would cost perhaps another $3.5 billion, so $10 billion, 
about half the money that is in the fund exactly for this purpose.
  Lastly, let me point out that providing unemployment insurance 
benefits for those who are unemployed and cannot find employment 
through no fault of their own would be the best way to stimulate our 
economy. A little later this evening we will be talking about a tax 
bill, supposedly to create jobs. If we really want to help our economy, 
let us give the money to those people who have to spend it because they 
have no other source of income.
  The rule before us denies the opportunity of Members to offer 
amendments. That is regrettable. We should have had that opportunity. 
Speaking for my side of the aisle, the Democrats will use every 
opportunity we can to try to correct this legislation to deal with the 
1 million people who are being left out by the underlying bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. English), a very valuable member of the Committee on 
Ways and Means.
  Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I must say having been in western 
Pennsylvania, when you have been reading the headlines, looking at the 
economic statistics, things are indeed bleak out there. We are in a 
recession even if many within the Washington beltway do not fully 
recognize it, and that is why I rise today to applaud the Committee on 
Ways and Means, the gentlewoman from Washington, and the House 
leadership for recognizing the needs of the unemployed in this 
recession.
  While we work, apparently in the face of partisan opposition, to 
enact a balanced and robust economic growth package, we also need to 
provide immediate help for these displaced workers. These are people 
who would rather have a job; but in lieu of a job during an economic 
slowdown, they need these benefits. Today's legislation will maintain a 
safety net for our Nation's displaced workers by providing up to 26 
weeks of benefits for those who exhaust their State benefits. This type 
of measure is absolutely critical to move now so we make sure that no 
families fall between the cracks.
  However, as we do it, I think we also need to recognize as a House 
that maybe the time has come to reassess parts of the safety net, look 
for ways of extending it, and that is why I have introduced the Safety 
Net Extension Act, a bill that would not only extend temporary 
assistance for the unemployed, but also enact some permanent reforms to 
the unemployment system. It would provide relief for those workers who 
are paying taxes on their unemployment benefits, many of whom are in my 
district. My bill would look to also reauthorization trade adjustment 
assistance, and I view this package as being of a piece.
  Tonight we have an opportunity to move forward and extend the 
unemployment benefits for workers who have been laid off, making sure 
that they do not fall between the cracks. But in the long haul, I would 
hope that we in the House would come together on a bipartisan basis and 
look for ways of enriching those benefits and at the same time pass a 
real stimulus package that will get the economy back on a growth path.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would point out to the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. English) that under the bill, 78,000 people from Pennsylvania will 
be denied any additional benefits.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Andrews).
  (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, tomorrow morning 1 million Americans will 
arise and have no jobs. They will go to the front doorstep and pick up 
the newspaper and look at the want ads.

                              {time}  1945

  The want ads will be filled with solicitations for jobs if you are a 
nuclear engineer or if you are ready to work for minimum wage with no 
benefits. And then they will go to their mailbox and even though they 
have no job, they will still have their mortgage bill and their car 
insurance bill and their utility bill and all the other expenses they 
need to support their families. And they will go out for their daily 
trek to try to find work and they will find that for every 3\1/2\ 
people in America looking for a job, there is one job. It is a measure 
of decency and equity how we treat these 1 million Americans.
  Before we adjourn for the recess in the wee small hours of the 
morning, the majority will no doubt pass significant relief for the 
owners of the companies that laid off these million people. How tragic 
it is that we will not even get the opportunity to address the real 
needs of the 1 million Americans who will wake up tomorrow with no job, 
no prospects and no unemployment benefits. Let us measure the decency 
of this House and the capacity for compassion in this country by 
extending unemployment benefits for all the people of the country who 
need them, not simply those covered by this bill. Of course we will 
support this bill to help those who are helped, but it is a tragedy 
that we are leaving behind 1 million Americans who need work.
  Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I want to remind the gentleman from New Jersey that, under this bill, 
124,250 of his constituents will receive unemployment coverage.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. DUNN. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Also in this bill, 51,000 of my constituents will not 
receive the extension, either.
  Ms. DUNN. Because they have already received Federal benefits in the 
past.
  Mr. ANDREWS. If the gentlewoman will yield, and they have exhausted 
those benefits and have no benefits now.
  Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Weller), a very trusted and good member of our committee.
  (Mr. WELLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WELLER. Ladies and gentlemen of the House, I rise in strong 
support of H.R. 2185. It is simple legislation that helps people, a 
simple, straightforward 7-month extension of the current Federal 
Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation program. It is going to 
benefit 2.5 million unemployed, many in Illinois and many in the 
district that I represent.
  I would note that 2.5 million unemployed workers will receive extra 
help through this extension on top of the 5 million workers who have 
already received Federal extended benefits in 2002-2003. For those who 
measure their compassion by how much money you spend, I would note that 
this proposal before us provides about $7 billion in additional 
extended unemployment benefits on top of the $16 billion that we 
provided the States earlier this year.
  This is important legislation. My State in Illinois has 6.6 percent 
unemployment. My district, my home county, has 12.8 percent 
unemployment. The manufacturing sector in the district that I represent 
is hurting. Many of those laid off are employed or used to be employed 
in the manufacturing sector. This legislation extending unemployment 
benefits combined with the economic growth and jobs plan that we will 
be adopting, which deserves bipartisan support, would be a boost for 
the manufacturing sector as well as the economy in my State of 
Illinois.
  I urge support of this 7-month extension of unemployment benefits. I 
urge support for the jobs and growth plan later on this evening.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, let me just point out to my friend from 
Illinois that 53,000 of his constituents will

[[Page H4615]]

not be able to get benefits because of being excluded from this 
legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Davis).
  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, this bill tonight, while a welcome 
step, will leave by the end of the year 2 million Americans without the 
safety net that they have contributed to when they were employed as far 
as the unemployment compensation tax, as a part of benefits.
  1.4 million Federal workers have already exhausted their State and 
Federal benefits. 685,000 workers will exhaust their benefits and be 
left stranded under this bill, 58,000 in my home State of Florida.
  There is a simple reason for this. This Congress is refusing to do 
what Democrats and Republicans came to do in the early 1990s during the 
recession and that is to add an additional 13 weeks of coverage after 
13 weeks have expired from the Federal Government on top of 26 weeks of 
the State. There is no defense on the other side of the aisle as to why 
we should not repeat what Democrats and Republicans did in the 1990s to 
preserve the safety net.
  Who is being affected out there tonight by this? There are more than 
three unemployed workers looking for every job opening in the country 
today. 341,000 people lost their jobs in April. The unemployment rate 
is 6 percent. There are 8.8 million people out of work right now. One 
out of every five unemployed workers have been out for 6 months right 
now. The unemployment compensation trust fund today has $20 billion in 
it that is designed to be used exactly for the benefits the Republicans 
are refusing to provide tonight to these people who are looking for 
work.
  And who are these people? The average unemployed worker has been 
looking on 29 different occasions trying to find a job, 29 potential 
job openings. People over 45 on the average have applied for 42 
different jobs without success. Two-thirds of unemployed workers have 
had to cut back on basic necessities for their families. One in four 
unemployed workers have lost their home. Six in ten unemployed workers 
have spent almost all their savings.
  Is this what you want to be proud of tonight? Is this what we are not 
capable of addressing tonight? Let us pass this bill but only after we 
adopt the benefits that were provided in the 1990s.
  Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Delaware (Mr. Castle), a former Governor and current valued Member.
  Mr. CASTLE. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I also rise in strong support of H.R. 2185, the 
Unemployment Compensation Amendments. I am proud to be an original 
cosponsor of this important measure, and I thank Chairman Thomas and 
the House leadership for bringing this to the floor.
  Sadly, we have watched many Americans become unemployed and struggle 
to find work in today's economy. Today, Congress is taking a much-
needed step in extending unemployment compensation for our Nation's 
workers. Figures show the U.S. unemployment rate is at 6 percent, and 
nearly 9 million people are unemployed. This legislation provides a 
safety net for men and women who have lost their jobs through no fault 
of their own.
  We must assist workers during these times of hardship so they can 
successfully make the transition back to the workforce. The legislation 
before us helps accomplish this goal and coupled with existing job 
training and networking programs we can return Americans to the 
workforce. I urge my colleagues to join together in supporting this 
important legislation.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones), a distinguished member of the 
Committee on Ways and Means.
  (Mrs. JONES of Ohio asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend her remarks.)
  Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Thank God, Mr. Speaker. They finally woke up and 
decided that we needed to extend unemployment benefits. But they fell 
short. In fact, they have let so many people fall off the cliff, I 
wonder, where is the safety net?
  In Ohio, as a result of the proposal for unemployment benefits that 
is being presented, 36,500 people will not get unemployment benefits. 
Right now in Ohio, since this President took office, 167,000 people 
have lost their job. In the city of Cleveland, 57,000 people have lost 
their job.
  If you do not believe me about unemployment, let me go to somebody 
that everybody thinks is really great and ought to be heard. Let me 
tell you what Mr. Greenspan said about unemployment. He says:
  ``Unemployment insurance is essentially restrictive because it's been 
our perception that we don't want to create incentives for people not 
to take jobs. But when you're in a period of job weakness, where it is 
not a choice on the part of people whether they're employed or 
unemployed, then obviously you want to be temporarily generous.'' We 
ought to be temporarily generous.
  ``And I think that's what we have done in the past and it has worked 
well.''
  He goes on to say this:
  ``I do, however, argue that we must be careful about creating 
permanent, temporary extensions, if I might put it that way. And I was 
suggesting to your colleagues that should you be going forward in an 
extension that it is far more important to have a short extension and 
if necessary just repeat it later.'' But I think this is important. 
``And I think that because it is stringent in normal periods, that one 
should recognize that people who lose jobs not because they did 
anything and can't find new ones, you have a different form of problem, 
which means that you have to allow the unemployment system to be much 
broader and, indeed, that's what we need to do.''
  So I say, pay no attention to me, listen to Mr. Greenspan where he 
says, but when you get into a period where jobs are failing, the 
arguments that people are worried about incentives should not apply.
  Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I think, to put the comments of Mr. Greenspan in context, because he 
made them at the meeting of the Joint Economic Committee yesterday, 
where I was present, he said:
  ``I have always been of the opinion, and stated before this committee 
previously, that our unemployment insurance system seems to work rather 
well. It is not overly generous, which would induce the type of 
increased levels of structural unemployment which we see in other 
countries which have these types of things, these types of structures. 
But unemployment insurance is essentially restrictive because it's been 
our perception that we don't want to create incentives for people not 
to take jobs. But when you're in a period of job weakness where it is 
not a choice on the part of the people whether they're unemployed or 
unemployed, then obviously you want to be temporarily generous.''
  And he says, ``If you go forward with additional extensions, I would 
be careful to keep the extensions relatively short and renew them again 
if necessary.''
  That is exactly what we are doing.
  He says, ``Because we're not quite clear at this stage what the path 
of short-term economic activity is. A number of major economic 
forecasters have forecasts for the third quarter, which is just about 
in front of us, of 4 percent growth at an annual rate. And that is a 
relatively long list.''
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
LoBiondo).
  Mr. LoBIONDO. I thank the gentlewoman from Washington for yielding me 
this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in very strong support of H.R. 2185 which will 
provide an additional 13 weeks of unemployment benefits to workers 
whose State jobless benefits will expire at the end of this month. I 
believe that we need to make sure that unemployed workers can continue 
to look for work with a degree of security that they can pay their 
bills. This legislation is the right way to accomplish this goal. I 
supported an extension of unemployment benefits in January and at that 
time signaled my belief that we should extend benefits throughout all 
of 2003 to give the economy time to recover and Congress a chance to 
pass a strong jobs and growth package. Tonight, we will pass that 
package, and we will also make unemployed workers eligible for 
unemployment benefits through the end of the year.
  I would like to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), the

[[Page H4616]]

chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means; I would like to thank the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Quinn), a colleague whom I have worked 
with closely to help working men and women; and I would like for all of 
my colleagues to think about, as we prepare to go back to our districts 
to answer to the folks that we represent next week, that we think about 
people in the real world, people who are around that kitchen table who 
know that they have a problem on their hands. This gives us an 
opportunity to say that we have listened, we have recognized the 
problem, and we are willing to do something about it. People will argue 
maybe that this is not perfect, but it is a good step that everyone 
should support, and we should look for additional ways to help working 
men and women get through these troubled times.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, let me point out to my friend from New 
Jersey that 51,000 people in his State are not going to get benefits 
because of leaving out the extra weeks.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
McDermott), a distinguished member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, welcome back to the rubber-stamp 
Congress. This bill is a statement by the President of the United 
States that he does not care about 1 million people. He sent the 
message to his junta here, and they run a bill out last night, drop it 
in, never had one single hearing on it, will not give us a chance to 
amend it.
  If you gave us an amendment to cover those 1 million people, it would 
pass. The people on your side would be afraid to go home, having given 
the stiff arm to people who are off benefits. But we have to rubber-
stamp everything George Bush does. ``I approve of everything George 
Bush does. I will leave a million people off the unemployment rolls 
deliberately.'' Deliberately. It is not an accident. It is not as 
though it just happened to us.
  I got this from the White House. I suppose everyone else has theirs. 
You are going to use that again tonight on another bill, the tax bill. 
I have figured out what the President is thinking. He figured out, 
``Well, I'm leaving a million people off and then I'm going to give 
this huge tax cut and I'm going to create a million jobs. And all those 
people who have been left out, they're going to have a job.''

                              {time}  2000

  Of course they are going to have to wait until tax time next year or 
sometime. I do not know when all that is going to start.
  This is nonsense. You did absolutely the minimum you could do and 
keep a straight face and put out your press release that you did 
something for unemployment. How you could deliberately construct one 
when you have 70 percent more people running out of benefits now than 
Bush, Sr., did 10 years ago.
  At least he said 27 weeks. He was expansive. His son is about as 
tightfisted as we are ever going to see towards working people. Not to 
the military. Not to nuclear defense and all that kind of stuff, but to 
working people he is just saying, hey, folks, I am sorry you do not 
qualify or your State did not trigger but tell the kids to kind of suck 
it up. Pull their belt a little bit tighter because the rubber stamp 
Congress of George Bush is out here tonight. They are waiting at home 
to see what you do.
  If you had been out of work and you cannot pay your rent and you 
cannot buy for your kids and you are one of those million, you say to 
your kids, I am sorry but the President does not care. He has got $20 
billion in a fund down there, but he will not give us anything.
  How is that going to look in the next election? You ought to be 
thinking about that. I guarantee that before we leave here you will be 
back here extending these benefits again.
  Your idea that people are staying at home from work to live off these 
fancy benefits is simply nonsense. Nobody who has lost a job stays at 
home when there is a job available. There are not enough jobs.
  Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I certainly agree with the gentleman from Washington in 
that anybody who cannot find a job wants to, which is why we are going 
to pass tonight the Jobs and Growth Reconciliation Tax Act of 2003.
  I do want to also remind the gentleman from Washington that the 
Congress has been watching over the concerns of States like Washington 
that have been the recipient of many unemployed people, and we have not 
done nothing. The debate tonight makes it sound like the Federal 
Government has done nothing.
  In the State of Washington specifically, we have followed up 30 weeks 
of State benefits that the residents of our State are eligible for with 
26 weeks of federally funded benefits that we passed in March, 2002, 
and extended again another 26 weeks in January of 2003, and then we 
matched the State for 9 total weeks of Federal- and State-funded 
benefits. We added on 7 weeks of State benefits for aerospace and 
timber workers who are in training programs. If we total that all up, 
it comes to 65 weeks for all dislocated workers, 98 weeks for aerospace 
workers and 72 weeks for timber workers.
  I think the extension that we are going to do today, which for the 
State of Washington would provide 60,000 new people with unemployment 
benefits, is the right thing to do. With luck, if we play our cards 
right and the economy responds in the way we hope it will, we will not 
need to extend unemployment benefits, but if we need to, we will be 
there and do it, as Alan Greenspan says, on a temporary basis.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from the State of 
Oregon (Mr. Walden) who talks from experience since he is from the 
State with the highest unemployment.
  Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, we are proud of a lot of things in 
the great State of Oregon. Having the highest unemployment rate at 8 
percent is not among them.
  It is astounding to me to hear some of the Members on the other side 
of the aisle talk about unemployment insurance being a great economic 
producer. You are the people who have taken the jobs away from the 
people in Wallowa County: unemployment rate, 15.1 percent. It is your 
policies, yes, it is your policies who took away the jobs in Crook 
County: unemployment rate, 11.5 percent; Grant County, 14 percent.
  I will tell you the policies. Did you vote for the Healthy Forests 
Restoration Act of 2003 the day before yesterday? Did you? Did you? Did 
you? No. Maybe you voted for it. Did you?
  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, what was the unemployment 
rate there 5 years ago or 6 years ago?
  Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, worse. Worse. It has been double-
digit rates. I am happy to show the numbers. I will get them.
  Some of these counties were approaching 20 percent unemployment 
because they are surrounded by Federal forests. Yes, it is hard to 
believe. Yes, you can laugh. Folks in Wallowa County are not laughing. 
We have been on 65 weeks of unemployment, 65 weeks, the highest 
unemployment in the country. If we want to create jobs in rural 
America, and that is what I represent, 72,000 square miles. My 
colleagues know my district. It is all of eastern Oregon. These are 
hard-working people. They are Republicans and Democrats. It is not a 
partisan thing to be unemployed. They want real jobs.
  I am going to vote to extend this. You bet I am. This district, and I 
have only represented it for 4 years, did not enjoy the roaring 1990s 
of the major metropolitan areas. We are a resource-based district. 
Agriculture and timber. Our forests burn. Our watersheds are destroyed. 
Trees rot because they cannot go in and cut down the dead trees after a 
fire. We are trying to change that. I want healthy watersheds. I want 
healthy forests. They are America's forests. And I want these men and 
women back to work.
  So I plead with my colleagues as we extend unemployment, which we 
must, and I have supported it every time, including the aerospace 
extension, to extend the benefits, but I plead with my colleagues, 
these people want jobs. Help us change the policies. When they voted no 
this week on healthy forests, they voted to take away their jobs again. 
Please work with us. It is more than just a safety net.

[[Page H4617]]

  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I think the gentleman makes a good point, and 
he says work with us. The gentleman recalls that you would not allow us 
amendments to that bill so that many Democrats would have felt very 
comfortable voting for that bill. So you did not work with us.
  Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Reclaiming, first, I am not on the Committee on 
Rules.
  Mr. HOYER. I understand that. I did not mean the gentleman 
personally.
  Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Second, let me suggest that the gentleman's 
side was given an opportunity to craft a bill to create a majority vote 
on this floor. The gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) and 
the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), whom I have worked with on 
other issues and will again, put forward a proposal of their free will 
in writing. They were given that opportunity. Many of you voted for 
that. I think it is insufficient. It did not prevail. It did not 
achieve a majority.
  But it goes beyond healthy forests. The rules and the regulations and 
the laws, I remember when George McGovern left this body and opened a 
bed and breakfast. He wrote a column, and he said, ``I wish I had done 
this before I served in the Congress, because I had no idea what these 
rules and regulations and laws do to small business.''
  I have been in small business 16 years. The bill we are going to vote 
on tonight to increase the ability to expense and deduct will produce 
jobs because companies will have the ability to invest in equipment 
they need. Somebody has to make that equipment, and they will. So let 
us get America back to work, and let us extend benefits as we need to 
extend them, and I will continue to vote to do that as I am going to do 
tonight.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Let me just point out to my friend from Oregon that the Bush 
Administration has the worst job record of any administration since 
World War II, losing 69,000 jobs, whereas the Clinton Administration 
has the best, creating over half a million jobs.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman 
from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), Democratic whip.
  Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.
  Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that the job 
losses occurred in my district under the Clinton Administration. I 
would suggest that and I bet I could prove that. The gentleman's 
numbers are about States in total, not looking at rural communities 
like the ones I represent.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, there is no doubt, 
however, that George W. Bush has the worst job creation or, better put, 
the worst job loss record of any President. I would tell the gentleman 
from Oregon I do not recall his statement, but I recall the statements 
of many of his colleagues that stood on this floor in 2001 and said, if 
we vote for this $1 trillion package, we are going to create jobs, the 
economy is going to boom, and, guess what, we can do it within the 
framework of this $5.6 trillion surplus which is now, of course, as the 
gentleman knows well, a $2.7 trillion deficit, an $8 trillion 
turnaround which is going to dampen the economy of Oregon and our 
entire country.
  Mr. Speaker, what a difference a week makes. I ask the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Walden) to listen to this.
  Last week, my colleagues may recall, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
DeLay), House majority leader, last week said in on this floor in 
regard to the much-needed extension of unemployment insurance benefits, 
what they bring here under great pressure from Democrats, and that is 
the only reason it is here, and I am going to vote for it, the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) said this:
  ``I think it is a stretch to say that we are at a crisis point, that 
we have to move quickly and not deliberatively on this issue.''
  I am sure the people in eastern Oregon thought we had better move 
quickly, and the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden) agrees with that. 
Our Republicans friends finally have recognized that last week's 
noncrisis, which is what their leader said, is this week's emergency 
for millions of American families; and I share the gentleman from 
Oregon's (Mr. Walden) view on the need of those unemployed.
  The Republicans have finally peeked out from under their tax-cut 
blinders just long enough to see the harsh reality on Main Street 
America today, that our Nation has the highest unemployment rate in 9 
years, that there are nearly 9 million unemployed Americans, that our 
economy has lost 2.7 million private sector jobs since President Bush 
was inaugurated, and that 4 million jobless Americans will have their 
temporary unemployment benefits completely cut off on May 31 unless 
this Congress acts immediately.
  We asked that they act last week. We asked that they act the week 
before that. They have not done so. But their political analysts have 
told them, do not go home without at least positively affecting some of 
these people. Even as they prepare to shower the most affluent citizens 
in America with enormous budget-busting, debt-exploding tax cuts, the 
self-proclaimed compassionate conservatives demonstrate again that they 
only have so much compassion in their hearts, two-thirds to be exact 
tonight, because 1 million people are going to be left on the cutting 
room floor.
  This GOP bill is most notable for its half measures. It will provide 
only 13 weeks of additional benefits to workers who have exhausted 
their State benefits, rather than 26 weeks that we sought. And for the 
1 million unemployed Americans who have already exhausted both their 
State and Federal unemployment benefits, this bill would provide zero; 
nada; nothing; sorry, we cannot help.
  I challenge my Republican colleagues to go home and tell the jobless 
constituents in eastern Oregon or anyplace else who have exhausted 
their State and Federal benefits that they refuse to extend them when 
they have the opportunity tonight now. Do it. Do the right thing.
  Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the amount of time that 
remains for both sides, please?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Dunn) 
has 12 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) 
has 13\3/4\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal), a member of the Committee on 
Ways and Means.
  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Cardin) for yielding me this time.
  I say to the gentleman from Oregon here, I think there is a 
fundamental difference in the philosophy of these two parties, and it 
is highlighted once again this evening. We care about the entire 
American family. What we mean by community is a place where nobody is 
to be abandoned and nobody is to be left behind.
  But let me give my colleagues a quote to follow up on what the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) said, where the majority leader 
offered another callous comment about the unemployed. But let me offer 
a comment from another prominent member of the Republican leadership as 
he said, as he often is, worked up about this or that, hey, this is not 
a welfare program.
  Talk about callousness? Talk about indifference? We are going to vote 
in the wee hours of this morning to give a massive tax cut to people 
who, to their everlasting credit, have not even asked for it. Those are 
members of the American family. It has sent shudders through Wall 
Street what they are about to do. And every one of the Members on this 
side of the aisle will march in, head down, and do what they are told 
once again.
  There are millions of Americans who are struggling today, millions of 
them. And I want to vote to help the people in Oregon. They deserve it, 
just like the people on the East Coast. Do my colleagues know what we 
call that in our democracy? The national principle. We come to the 
assistance of parts of this country who need it.
  Let me give the Members some economic facts, and they are pretty 
bleak. U.S. unemployment, a 9-year high. It was 4.1 percent when the 
President

[[Page H4618]]

took office. Now it is 6 percent. The number of discouraged workers, 
and I suspect a lot of them live in the gentleman from Oregon's 
congressional district, who are not even looking for a job any longer 
are at a 20-year high, 2.3 million jobs lost since 2001. One point 
seven million jobs have been lost since the $1.3 trillion 2001 tax cuts 
took effect.
  Do we have in this institution amnesia? We were told this was a jobs 
bill last year, and I am telling the Members watch, 2 o'clock in the 
morning, head down, they will all vote for it again. And do the Members 
know what? Not one of them even asked a question. That is the 
embarrassing part about it. Seventy-three thousand jobs lost per month.
  Mr. Speaker, vote for the Democratic alternative on the motion to 
recommit. Give those people in Oregon an opportunity. Call them members 
of the American family.
  Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Cunningham).
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I looked up and I heard these figures 
come out that this many people are going to be left out of this bill. I 
looked up at who is supporting it and where the figures are coming 
from. It is called the Center on Budget Priorities, an extreme far-
left-wing organization that is supported by Democrat Socialists of 
America, lodged a progressive caucus on its website, supports increased 
taxes, increased social spending, bigger wasteful government, supports 
union over small business, and I could go on. So I think the numbers 
are a little bit misfit.
  In the year 2000, this country was going through a recession. The tax 
relief that was passed according to Alan Greenspan and the economists 
who testified before the committees said that the tax relief shallowed 
that recession. It was growing at about 4.5 percent, which is slow, but 
it was increasing. And then we had 9/11. New York City alone, $200 
billion in reconstruction and construction.

                              {time}  2015

  That does not include $83 billion in lost revenue and the jobs that 
went with it. In all of your districts, think about the hotel business, 
the tourism. Hotels in San Diego were at 10 percent occupancy. Tourism 
went down. The airlines got hurt. Look what happened to the stock 
market. Then we had Enron; then we had WorldCom.
  We produced 58 bills that the other body did not pass to stimulate 
the economy. That was under Democratic leadership in the other body. 
Some of those bills restored confidence for people that lost thousands, 
in some cases millions, of dollars in their retirement accounts, and 
that would have helped stimulate the economy as well. But that was held 
up.
  Mr. Speaker, it was said that this is the worst jobs President there 
ever was. Let me remind Members of some of the facts.
  First of all, on the 1993 tax bill, the Democrats will say that no 
Republican voted for it. Let me tell you why. The same issues that 
Democrats demagogue on every single day, veterans, Democrats cut COLAs 
in 1993. You cut the COLAs for our military; that was on food stamps. 
You increased the tax on Social Security, and in that bill every dime 
was taken out of the Social Security trust fund.
  Guess what? You even had a gas tax that went into the general fund. 
We changed that when we took the majority and put it into a 
transportation fund. That is where we came up with ISTEA for 
infrastructure control. We did away with your 1993 highest tax increase 
in the history of the United States. Then I remember the lady in the 
red dress and the gentleman from Missouri said we need middle-class tax 
cuts. Well, you increased the tax on the middle-class.
  We decreased those taxes. And not a single Clinton budget, not even 
the Blue Dog budget, which had some very good points in it during that 
time frame, ever passed the House, ever. Not a Clinton budget passed.
  Republicans brought the Clinton budget to the House floor to force 
the Democrats to vote on it, it was so bad. Do you know how many 
Democrats voted for it? Three, the same amount that voted for the First 
Lady's health care package.
  When you say that President Clinton was responsible for the surplus, 
it just ain't so.
  Now, let us get down to the issue that is before us that people left 
out. I have been here for 12 years; and this year is the worst partisan 
attack, from our side as well, and a lot of it in reaction.
  I will bet every single Member here, except for those in leadership, 
would rather sit down and work together, and we can; and we can help 
the people with this bill, instead of the partisan attacks.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, let me tell my friend from California that if he checks 
with the Department of Labor he will find that 150,000 people in his 
State are not going to be covered under this bill who are unemployed.
  Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Woolsey).
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Well, it is about time the Republican leadership does something about 
the unemployed and something for the unemployed; but what they offer is 
too little, too late, and it does not cover those who have used up 
their benefits but are still not working.
  I would like to remind the gentlewoman from Washington State that 
unemployed workers cannot find jobs when there are not any. I would 
like to respond to the gentleman from Oregon, referring to ``our 
policies,'' meaning the Democrats. Our policies, indeed. When Bill 
Clinton was our President, our economy was strong. Not like today, when 
just 3 weeks ago the Labor Department reported that new applications 
for unemployment insurance hit 455,000 for the week ending April 19, 
and that number does not even count families who have exhausted their 
benefits and are not working.
  Just listen to one of my constituents. He says, ``I have a master's 
degree and I have not been able to find work. I also deal with a 
chronic illness. I find myself applying for food stamps and soon will 
be unable to pay any bills. I am not sure I will have a roof over my 
head very soon. A lot of people are having a very difficult time. 
Please, Congresswoman, try to make unemployment extensions a top 
priority.''
  That is why I support the Rangel bill, H.R. 1652, the Unemployment 
Benefits Extension Act, which would provide 26 weeks of extended 
benefits through November 2003. This bill will provide real benefits to 
all of those workers who are in between jobs, not only those who are 
newly unemployed.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation, and I 
urge the Republican leadership to take up H.R. 1652 so that we can have 
real unemployment relief.
  Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, some of these speakers on the other side have talked 
about folks who have been covered in the past by Federal unemployment 
insurance, but they do not make that point. They make it sound as 
though they never have been covered.
  I think it is important to reiterate that the Congress in March of 
2002 extended to folks 13 weeks of Federal unemployment and 26 weeks 
for high unemployment States; extended it once again in January 2003, 
13 weeks for all States and 26 weeks for high unemployment States; 
extended it again in April 2003, an additional 26 weeks for airline and 
related industry workers; and that many States also have provided for 
unemployment benefits.
  Some States have additional benefits to help those who have exhausted 
their Federal benefits. For example, States have the option to provide 
13 weeks of extended benefits at a 50/50 State and Federal cost share. 
This is after the 26 weeks of State and 13/13 weeks of Federal 
benefits, where we matched the States.
  Additional Federal funds have been given to States to provide for 
unemployment benefits in any way they wish. They are done under the 
Reid Act. In March 2002, Congress allocated $8 billion to States under 
the Reid Act. States have the flexibility to use this money to pay for 
an additional unemployment benefit if they choose to do so. At this 
time States still have $6 billion of unused funds under the Reid Act. 
Congress also provided, as I said

[[Page H4619]]

before, targeted additional benefits to airline and related industry 
sectors.
  So I think it is very, very misleading to make it sound like this is 
the first time we have thought of people who are unemployed. We have 
kept very close watch over these folks, because we feel their pain and 
we want to make sure they are provided with the help they need to go 
out and get jobs.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from the high-
unemployment State of Connecticut (Mr. Shays).
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I find this debate interesting, because we are debating 
a bill we all, or most all, are going to be supporting, so it is kind 
of like this is a good bill, we are going to vote for it, but we want 
it better or want it differently.
  It is a good bill. It is a good bill for my State; 75,359 people have 
benefited. We are going to help 37,450 more, for a total of 112,809. In 
terms of dollars spent, we have provided $259,231,629. We are going to 
add $142 million, for $401 million. This is an effort to reach out.
  My colleague from Buffalo, New York, has helped push this, along with 
the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Dunn) and others. We listened to 
our Democratic colleagues who said we need to move forward with the 
bill. It seems to me they should be taking credit for some of what we 
are doing.
  Now, I support this legislation because I think it is important to 
our workers who are out of work; but I also support our tax cut, 
because I think that is ultimately how we are going to benefit these 
folks who need a job.
  We are going to increase the child tax credit to $1,000, and then 
phase it out for the wealthy. It only is going for the families that 
need it. If you have three kids, you get to subtract $3,000 from the 
bottom line of your taxes. If you are married, you are not going to be 
paying a penalty anymore.
  But my colleagues on the other side of the aisle voted against this. 
We are going to reduce the marginal rates to help working families. We 
are going to treat dividends like capital gains, and also reduce the 
capital gains rate.
  We are going to get this economy moving again, frankly, with or 
without the support of our Democratic colleagues. We are going to 
provide the unemployment compensation we need, we are going to provide 
the tax cuts that we need, and we are going to get this economy moving 
again.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, let me say to my friend from Connecticut that the 
suggestion we are making to cover those who are unemployed costs less 
than 1 percent of the tax bill we are taking up later.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Bell).
  Mr. BELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to talk about the need for follow-through 
and about what got us to this point. For many weeks now, those of us 
here on the Democratic side of the aisle have been talking about jobs, 
the need for an economic stimulus plan that would lead to true job 
creation, the need to extend unemployment benefits for those who simply 
cannot find work in this lousy economy.

                              {time}  2030

  If Members come from a place like Houston, Texas, like I do, in a 
State that is facing 6.7 percent unemployment, the highest unemployment 
we have seen in 10 years, and a city like Houston, where more than 
2,000 people are losing their jobs each and every month, we realize 
that people are desperate and that they need a helping hand. But for 
weeks what we continued to hear from the other side of the aisle was, 
no, that there would be no further extensions.
  Well, now that has suddenly changed; and we welcome that change. I 
know that there will be a lot of chest thumping on the other side of 
the aisle tonight, that they have now passed an unemployment benefit 
extension, and many of us will join with them in that vote.
  The problem is follow-through. Because if you are going to finally be 
brought kicking and screaming to the realization that people need a 
helping hand, then at least be willing to give them the hand that they 
need, not a plan that leaves 1 million unemployed people out in the 
cold, but provides for another 13-week extension for those individuals; 
not just another 13-week extension for the others, but a 26-week 
extension that would provide a real window of opportunity for those 
individuals to find work.
  If they are finally going to listen to us and recognize the need to 
extend unemployment insurance benefits, then they should have been 
willing to follow through and accept our proposal. I am glad they were 
willing to go part of the way, but given the economic situation we face 
in this country, they should have been willing to go the rest of the 
way.
  Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
time to me, and I thank my colleagues from the Committee on Ways and 
Means for allowing me to speak.
  I rise in support of the effort to give out-of-work Americans more 
time to find a job before their benefits run out. In December of 2000, 
my hometown of Houston had one of the lowest unemployment rates in the 
Nation, 3.5 percent. The national average then was 4.2. Today we have 
unemployment of 6.7 percent in Houston. That is almost double what it 
was in December of 2000. Texas has lost 112,000 jobs since January of 
2001. The country as a whole has lost over 2.5 million jobs since then.
  Texans want to work, earn a living, and make homes for their 
families, but no one can survive for long on an unemployment check. 
People do not lose their jobs just to collect the unemployment check. 
It is almost laughable. It is only making the best of a terrible 
situation.
  One hundred thirty-three thousand Texans are likely to run out of 
their regular unemployment without finding new work. We need to help 
these workers, and I am glad we are doing so today. But many will be 
left out, even as we act today. By the end of this month, there will be 
an estimated 69,000 Texans who have run out of their extended benefits 
and remain unemployed in this slow economy, even if we act today. 
Another 39,000 Texas workers will run out of benefits this summer. None 
of these numbers take into account the underemployed and the long-term 
unemployed.
  Mr. Speaker, while I commend the leadership of both parties in 
bringing this legislation to the floor today, we need to realize it is 
only a Band-Aid. Texans and American workers need an extension of 
unemployment benefits, but they would rather have a job. But workers 
see Congress exporting good jobs and building up a massive Federal debt 
that slows down the economy and will have to be paid for by our 
children.
  I urge support of the legislation, but it is a half a loaf, at best.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Maine (Mr. Michaud).
  Mr. MICHAUD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  I am pleased that the House has taken up the extension of the 
unemployment benefits tonight. The unemployment in my congressional 
district is a glaring 30 percent in the Millinocket and East 
Millinocket labor market area, 13 percent in the Calais labor market 
area, 12 percent in the Jonesport labor market area, and the list goes 
on and on. Mill after mill are either shutting machines down or closing 
their doors completely.
  As far as the Statewide unemployment, it is in the single digits. But 
as far as the northern part of the State, as I mentioned, it is over 30 
percent in some of the labor market areas. It is not as if you could 
drive an hour away or so to go to where there is low unemployment. You 
have to drive about 6 hours away.
  The aid we deliver tonight is desperately needed, but, Mr. Speaker, 
we can do so much more. We should be voting on a bill like H.R. 1652, 
the Rangel bill, of which I am a cosponsor. The bill would extend 
benefits by 26 weeks and give an additional 13 weeks for unemployed 
workers who have exhausted their benefits.
  This would help the 2,700 workers in Maine who have exhausted their 
benefits and who would be left behind, because this bill would not 
consider them tonight. These are people who are left stranded by the 
economic downturn,

[[Page H4620]]

jobless through no fault of their own, and are desperately looking for 
work but cannot find the work.
  For those who do not know, I have worked in a mill, paper mill, over 
30 years in northern Maine. I know what it is like to lose your job. 
These neighbors, they are neighbors of mine, they are family, and they 
are friends. They do not want a handout, but, with no other recourse, 
they do need a helping hand.
  Until we get this economy moving again and providing new jobs, 
instead of the 2 million jobs that we have lost over the couple of 
years, they will need this help desperately. But we can do much better 
for my constituents and people across this country, so I urge that we 
amend this bill to increase the unemployment compensation.
  Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to 
the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Corrine Brown).
  Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, this administration should 
be referred to as the administration of hard knocks. It is simply 
amazing that George W. Bush, who has been in office for only 2 years 
after being selected by the Supreme Court, has led this country into 
one of the worst economic downturns in our Nation's history; 2 years, 
selected by the Supreme Court, and he has led this country into one of 
the worst economic downturns in the Nation's history. We have lost over 
2 million jobs in the last 2 years and as many as 500,000 jobs in the 
last 3 months alone.
  The only answer the Republicans have to our economic problems is tax 
cuts, tax cuts, and more tax cuts. This is supposed to be the People's 
House, not a House that just represents the country club buddies of the 
Republican Party.
  On this weekend before Memorial Day we have an unemployment package 
before the House, and once again the Republican Party is playing 
politics with the American people. They again block the Democratic 
proposal, which would have given workers an additional 13 weeks to find 
a job in these difficult markets.
  Watch out, Republicans. They can fool some of the people some of the 
time, but they cannot fool all of the people all of the time. The 1 
million people left out in the cold are paying attention and will 
remember them on Election Day.
  Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the very valued member of 
the House of Representatives, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Quinn).
  Mr. QUINN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from 
Washington for yielding time to me. I also want to thank the 
gentlewoman for her work on this unemployment extension.
  Many times I find myself at odds with the Republican Party, my party, 
when it comes to unemployment benefits for the working families across 
this country. But tonight we are not trying to fool any of the people 
any of the time. Tonight we are being very straightforward. Tonight 
what we are trying to do is to make sure that the working men and women 
and families of this country understand that the Republican Party 
understands their needs.
  I am happy to support this bill tonight, as I think most Members on 
both sides of the aisle will. I want to thank our leadership of the 
Republican Party for taking this up and allowing many of us who feel 
that we need to have a voice for working families in the country make 
that voice heard.
  I want to make certain that our Members understand that it is an 
opportunity for us to help working families. I am proud to say that we 
are going to do that very straightforwardly in a very clean bill, 
unattached to anything else, up or down, yes or no.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, we would give the gentleman a chance to help the 103,000 
people who are currently not covered by the bill in New York.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Emanuel).
  Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, in Illinois we have unemployment now of 6.7 
percent; 17,000 workers have lost their job in the last 6 months; 2.5 
million Americans have lost their jobs in the last 2 years; and 2 
million of those jobs are manufacturing jobs.
  One gentleman brought up the statistics and said that the statistics, 
and we are talking about the 1 million people who are left out, they 
were put out by the Center for Budget Priorities. In fact, the 
Department of Labor also recognized that 1 million people would not be 
covered by this unemployment insurance.
  The fact is, I believe people on both sides are going to support this 
because people on both sides believe that people are hurt and need 
support. But this is an itsy-bitsy unemployment insurance program, when 
we can cover another 1 million people. That is how some people refer to 
the $350 billion tax cut. In my view, this is an itsy-bitsy 
unemployment tax cut.
  We can do more because we are able to do more. We should not make 
that choice, that if you are unemployed you cannot get unemployment 
insurance. I believe that is the value we want to put in place. 
Although a number of us will support this, we can do better than the 
economic plan envisioned here.
  Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson), from one of those high unemployment 
States.
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend 
the Committee on Ways and Means and the gentlewoman from Washington 
(Ms. Dunn) for her leadership on this issue.
  I come from western Pennsylvania, which has been struggling with high 
unemployment. We have had many plant closings, a very difficult time. I 
believe this committee and this Congress has been meeting these issues 
head on and appropriately.
  Why do we have the high unemployment? I hear today we are laying 
blame. If we are laying blame, I mention where I think the blame lies. 
September 11 shook the economy of this country. Why did we have 9/11? 
We had two embassies blown up. What did we do about the terror? 
Nothing. We had a barracks blown up, and several hundred of the Marines 
killed. What did we do about the terror? Nothing. We had the side of a 
ship blown up. What did we do about that terror? Nothing. We had an 
attempt to blow up the towers in New York before 9/11. What did we do? 
Blow up a baby milk factory.
  We have an energy issue in this country that the last administration 
ignored. Every time we have had energy spikes in this country, our 
economy has gone down. Because we do not have adequate energy supply in 
this country, and when we do not have ample supply of all energies, we 
have spikes in prices.
  We have been unwilling to have an energy policy. We have moved to 
all-natural gas for power generation. This very day we have gas prices 
that are going to hurt this economy in the year ahead because they are 
the highest they have ever been, and our storage is the lowest.
  Yes, a lack of fighting terror years ago in the last administration, 
lack of an energy policy in the last administration, is the reason. 
Unemployment does not happen in a year. Those things happen over years 
of not taking care of business.
  I just wanted to share my thoughts of where the blame ought to be.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The gentleman 
from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) is recognized for 45 seconds.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, as I said at the beginning of this debate, 
we welcome the opportunity of having an unemployment compensation bill 
on the floor. It is important that we enact legislation tonight that 
will help those people who are unemployed.
  I can assure Members the Democrats want to join in that effort. We 
will offer an opportunity under the Rules so we can extend those 
benefits to all the people that are being trapped that are entitled to 
unemployment through their employment paying into the fund, so we do 
not leave 1 million people behind.
  We would urge Members to support our motion, which will allow the 7-
month extension for those who have exhausted the State benefits and 
also include those who have exhausted their 13 weeks.
  Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would like to do a comparison between the bill that we are talking

[[Page H4621]]

about on the floor tonight and the bill that the Democrats have often 
brought up as being a better bill.
  The Democrat plan is not targeted. It guarantees 26 weeks of 
benefits, regardless of local economic conditions in a State. Our bill 
is targeted. It provides immediately 13 weeks of Federal assistance to 
those who need it now, and it targets additional benefits to States 
that have high unemployment rates.
  The Democrat plan is too long in duration. That plan would extend the 
program through October, 2004. We might be out of this recession by 
October of 2004. Our goal is to create jobs. We are enacting tax relief 
for all Americans that will give our economy an immediate boost and 
create new jobs.
  Our bill continues the unemployment benefits through December, 2003, 
with a phase-out through March, 2004. That means Congress can come 
back, as we have consistently done in the past, and review the economic 
conditions at that time and decide if we need to extend unemployment 
benefits.

                              {time}  2045

  Also, in the growth bill, in addition to these unemployment extension 
benefits, we will provide $20 billion of Federal assistance to States 
in the jobs and growth package. This is a good solid unemployment 
package. It should pass.
  Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2185, the 
``Unemployed Compensation Amendments of 2003.'' I am proud to be an 
original sponsor of a measure so important to my home State of 
Connecticut.
  Despite the fact that this Congress has passed several extensions for 
unemployment benefits, there are still millions of displaced workers 
who, of no fault of their own, are unable to find employment. This 
Congress--led by my colleague Jennifer Dunn--recognizes this and has 
put forth a bill that will once again provide a lift to those who are 
still feeling the impact of September 11 on the economy.
  Nowhere is this bill more important than in my home State of 
Connecticut. Unemployment benefit claims in Connecticut are up 7 
percent from this month last year.
  Thousands of Connecticut's working men and women need more 
assistance. For these reasons, it is imperative for Congress to act now 
and extend the unemployment insurance program to help those who are 
still looking for jobs.
  H.R. 2185 will go a long way toward helping Connecticut's economy 
recover and ensure our workers economic security as they seek to rejoin 
the workforce.
  On behalf of those more than 112,000 working men and women in 
Connecticut who will benefit from an unemployment extension, I ask that 
all Members of Congress support this bill.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, Oregon's highest unemployment rate in 
the Nation gives me more than 139,800 reasons to be concerned. This 
extension is one of the most important things we can do to help people 
in my State. It is ironic that the bill to extend these benefits is 
being debated on the same day as we are poised to pass a massive tax 
cut. The contrast between the economic effect of the two pieces of 
legislation and the people they benefit are stark. Each new dollar in 
the unemployment benefits program quickly boosts the economy by $1.73, 
while the cut in dividend taxes enriches the economy by only 9 cents 
per dollar. Republican leadership priorities are made clear when it 
takes an extraordinary effort to extend $6.5 billion in benefits for 
those struggling to find work, while approving $350 billion--sure to be 
a trillion dollars if the authors of the tax cut have their way--in tax 
cuts that, in large part, benefit the wealthiest and worsen our ever 
spiraling national deficit.
  After fighting for this extension for months I'm pleased we will pass 
this legislation before benefits expire this weekend, but it is once 
again, too little too late. What about the thousands of Oregonians who 
have had their benefits lapse? They will not be eligible for any 
benefits under this legislation. The Democratic substitute, which will 
not be allowed under the restrictive rule for debate today, would have 
assisted these workers. Our amendment would also have helped states 
improve coverage of low-wage earners and part-time workers, who pay 
unemployment taxes but often fail to qualify for benefits upon losing 
their jobs. Unfortunately, we will not even be able to debate this 
proposal today, instead forced to vote for half a solution. I hope we 
can reach the point where the House appreciates that unemployment 
benefits are too critical to be political cannon fodder. Unemployed 
Oregonians struggling to provide for their families deserve better.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support H.R. 2185, the 
Unemployment Compensation Amendment of 2003, but I must also highlight 
that this bill is an inadequate response to the plight of those without 
jobs.
  Although the economic policies of the Bush administration and the 
Republican Congress have led to the loss of 2.7 million jobs, my 
Republican colleagues continue to do the absolute minimum to help those 
out-of-work Americans. H.R. 2185 reauthorizes 13 weeks of emergency 
benefits for individuals who have exhausted their regular unemployment 
benefits, but it ignores many others who are unemployed.
  This legislation does not help the 1.1 million Americans who have 
already exhausted their emergency unemployment benefits and still 
cannot find work. With three unemployed workers for every job opening 
in America, the prospect of these long term unemployed workers finding 
a job are gloomy at best. They need help, but they're left out in the 
cold under this bill.
  Another inadequacy of H.R. 2185 is that it only provides 13 weeks of 
additional emergency unemployment benefits after beneficiaries have 
exhausted their 26 weeks of regular unemployment benefits. A 13-week 
emergency unemployment benefit extension is simply inadequate because 
the number of workers who have been unemployed for more than 6 months 
has more than tripled over the last three years--up from 596,000 in 
April 2000 to 1.9 million in April 2003.
  Finally, the Republican legislation fails to modernize the 
Unemployment Insurance program and adjust the definition of a high 
unemployment State, so that beneficiaries in States marred in deep 
recessions can access an additional 7 weeks of emergency unemployment 
benefits. Those 7 weeks of emergency unemployment benefits would be in 
addition to the current 13 weeks those unemployed workers can receive 
under current law. Because of the Republican bill's failure to change 
this definition, only 5 to 6 States qualify as high unemployment States 
and some funds designated for emergency benefits to high unemployment 
States are currently sitting unused in a federal trust fund.
  If the Republicans really wanted to help hard-working average 
Americans, they could have begun by passing the Democratic alternative 
plan. Our plan really helps those who are without jobs. The Democratic 
plan adds 26 weeks of emergency unemployment benefits for individuals 
who exhaust their regular unemployment benefits and provides an 
additional 13 weeks for those workers who have already exhausted their 
emergency unemployment benefits. In addition, the Democratic plan 
modernizes the Unemployment Insurance program by lowering the rate of 
unemployment a state must have before it is designated a high 
unemployment State. This change would allow unemployed workers in 15 
States get the additional 7 weeks of emergency unemployment benefits.
  I will support this legislation today because it does help many 
unemployed Americans. But, Congress needs to do more to help all 
unemployed Americans survive this recession.
  Mr. QUINN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady from Washington Ms. 
Dunn for her work on this vital legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 2185. I applaud 
the efforts of Chairman Thomas and Majority Whip Blunt for making good 
on their commitment to address this issue and ensure that unemployed 
Americans will be able to get through the Memorial Day holiday without 
having to worry about their benefits expiring on May 31.
  H.R. 2185 would extend the Federal unemployment compensation program 
through the end of this year--relieving Congress of having to continue 
to revisit this issue while the economy begins to rebound.
  This extension will provide relief for about 2.5 million unemployed 
workers.
  It allows for 13 weeks of federally funded benefits--as well as an 
additional 13 weeks for residents of high unemployment States.
  This relief will be a tremendous boost to Americans still actively 
seeking employment.
  Again, I thank my colleagues for their hard work on this issue.
  Mr. BACA. Mr. Speaker, since January 2001, 2.7 million people have 
been put out of work and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
are doing nothing to change it. H.R. 2185 is an unemployment package 
that will not help our Nation's economy or our Nation's unemployed.
  In just the last 3 months, nearly one half million people have lost 
their jobs. Our unemployment rate is at an astounding 6 percent. That 
is the highest unemployment rate we have experienced in 10 years. And 
in response to this, all the Republicans can do is extend unemployment 
benefits for merely 13 weeks. 13 weeks. This is intolerable.
  We need legislation that is going to stimulate growth and create 
jobs. We need to invest in research and technology to try to get this 
economy moving. We need to find realistic solutions that help the 
working and unemployed people of this Nation--not merely the wealthiest 
5 percent.

[[Page H4622]]

  We need to help the people that have been out of work for more than 6 
months or more because this job market simply has nothing to offer. By 
the end of this month, it is estimated that well over 1 million people 
will have exhausted both State and Federal unemployment benefits 
without finding jobs.
  As Democrats, we want to start passing legislation that creates jobs. 
We want to make sure that the unemployed have benefits. We want to make 
sure that people can feed their families and clothe their children. But 
the Republicans simply will not let us do it. Under our plan, we would 
strengthen unemployment benefits offering a permanent solution not 
merely temporary aid. Research shows that each dollar dedicated to 
strengthening unemployment benefits would boost the economy by one 
dollar and seventy-three cents. But the Republicans have closed their 
door on this plan and will never let it reach the House floor. This is 
a tragedy.
  I am tired of temporary solutions. We need to fix this problem and 
make sure that the hard working people of this Nation get the help that 
they need.
  Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise is support of H.R. 
2185, Extend Temporary Unemployment Benefits Act. This bill guarantees 
at least 13 weeks of unemployment benefits for jobless workers who are 
about to exhaust their original 26 weeks of benefits. Extending 
unemployment insurance is not only compassionate; it makes good 
economic sense because it stimulates the economy. For every dollar of 
unemployment insurance given to individuals, $1.73 is generated in the 
economy, the greatest of any spending initiative or tax cut.
  Over the past 2\1/2\ years, more than 2.6 million Americans have lost 
their jobs, and the total number of unemployed, 8.8 million, is the 
highest in a decade. In New York State, we have seen 175,000 people 
lose their jobs over this same period of time. Without this extension, 
many of these workers would lose their insurance in the next few 
months.
  Today's legislation is a step in the right direction. While it helps 
those who have not exhausted their benefits, it is my hope we continue 
to finds ways to help those whose benefits have completely expired and 
are facing difficult times. Families need real help, not empty 
promises.
  I look forward to President Bush signing this legislation into law.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 2185, 
the ``Unemployment Compensation Amendments.'' I am proud to be an 
original cosponsor of this important measure and I thank Chairman 
Thomas and the House leadership for bringing this to the floor.
  Sadly, we have watched many Americans become unemployed and struggle 
to find wok in today's economy. Today, Congress is taking a much needed 
step in extending unemployment compensation for our Nation's workers. 
Figures show the U.S. unemployment rate is at 6 percent and nearly 9 
million people are unemployed. This legislation provides a safety net 
for men and women who have lost their jobs through no fault of their 
own.
  We must assist workers during these times of hardship so they can 
successfully make the transition back to the workforce. The legislation 
before us helps accomplish this goal and coupled with existing job 
training and networking programs we can return Americans to the 
workforce. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important 
legislation.
  Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2185, 
legislation that will allow unemployed workers to receive 13 weeks of 
additional Federal unemployment benefits. This legislation also 
provides an additional 13 weeks for workers who live in States with 
high unemployment rates. Congress previously passed an extension of 
benefits in December, and I urge my colleagues to once again support 
this important legislation.
  Approximately 300,000 unemployed workers will exhaust their benefits 
each month without this extension. While I think we all agree that 
unemployment compensation should be a temporary benefit, I do not 
believe that our economy is currently strong enough to phase out the 
extension we passed in December. With the unemployment rate at 6 
percent and an estimated 2 million unemployed workers predicted to 
exhaust their benefits between June and November, families need this 
benefit to simply make ends meet and keep their homes.
  Many of my own constituents in central Illinois, despite their hard 
work and persistence, cannot find suitable work. In Illinois, over 
100,000 unemployed workers are likely to exhaust their benefits over 
the next 6 months. This legislation will help to sustain these families 
until they can once again become self-sufficient. Additionally, it will 
provide even more benefits to unemployed workers in States in a worse 
position than Illinois, such as Washington and Oregon.
  It is important that we pass this legislation today and avoid a 
possible disruption in benefits. While Congress is doing its part to 
ensure that our economy improves, we should not ignore those who are 
struggling. Once again, I urge my colleagues to support this important 
legislation.
  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, today I come before you to talk 
about how much unemployed Americans across the country will be affected 
when the Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 2002, 
TEUC, runs out at the end of this month. We all know how severely the 
current economic downturn has impacted not only our districts, but our 
States overall. In my own State of California, the unemployment rate 
was 6.7 percent in 2002, while the Nation's unemployment rate for the 
same time period was 5.8 percent. California had 1.2 million unemployed 
residents in 2002, leaving it tied for 46th place with the worst 
unemployment ranking among the 50 States and the District of Columbia. 
As of March 2003, the State's unemployment rate had risen to 6.8 
percent, which remains higher than the national average of 5.8 percent.
  With our country's ongoing economic uncertainty, it is incumbent upon 
us to provide all methods of support to citizens who are searching for 
work nationwide.
  With upward of 2.7 million private sector jobs lost during the past 2 
years in contrast to 1.3 million private sector jobs disappearing in 
the early 1990s, we must clearly provide all available resources to 
unemployed Americans.
  If we do not act quickly, some 80,000 Americans who are out of work 
will be unable to receive extended unemployment benefits each week 
unless we act and extend the current Temporary Extended Unemployment 
Compensation Program. If we delay further action, as of June 1 up to 2 
million unemployed workers could be denied extended benefits over the 
next 6 months. This is on top of the 1 million out-of-work Americans 
who have already exhausted their Federal extended benefits.
  Given that our economy was declared to be in recession as of March 
2001, and with the additional decline caused by the events of September 
11, more people are losing their jobs, and experience difficulty 
finding other work in order to sustain their families and themselves. 
We are facing new, unprecedented economic challenges, and the 
assistance we offer to those who are unemployed must meet their needs. 
An extended benefits program was made available to the unemployed for 
27 months during the recession of the early 1990s, and unemployed 
workers received from 20 to 26 weeks' worth of benefits. Now, the 
extended benefits program is scheduled to expire after only 15 months, 
and it offers only 13 weeks of benefits in a select number of States. 
We spent $28.5 billion to help unemployed workers a decade ago, as 
opposed to spending $16 billion on extended benefits for the unemployed 
today.

  The statistics we face regarding unemployment today are grim. The 
Department of Labor's Job Openings and Labor Turnover report indicates 
that there are now more than three unemployed workers for every job 
opening. Many individuals and families rely solely on unemployment 
benefits to support themselves. With the average length of unemployment 
now stretching out to 19.6 weeks, we are facing a 20-year high in terms 
of the numbers of Americans who are seeking employment. At this time, 
the percentage of people who have exhausted their standard unemployment 
benefits stands at 43 percent over the past several months, which is a 
record high. Compounding that fact, the number of long-term unemployed 
individuals out of work for more than 6 months has tripled over the 
last 3 years from 596,000 in 2000 to 1.9 million as of last month.
  We are facing sobering statistics in a difficult economic climate, 
and tough choices must be made. As we move forward in making decisions, 
let us be mindful of the women, men and children who are in greatest 
need at this time.
  Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). All time for 
debate has expired.
  The bill is considered read for amendment.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 248, the previous question is ordered on 
the bill.
  The question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


                Motion To Recommit Offered By Mr. Cardin

  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. CARDIN. Yes, in its present form, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:


[[Page H4623]]


  Mr. CARDIN moves to recommit the bill, H.R. 2185, to the Committee on 
Ways and Means with instructions that the Committee report the same 
back to the House forthwith with the following amendment:
  At the end of the bill, add the following:

     SEC. 3. ENTITLEMENT TO ADDITIONAL WEEKS OF TEMPORARY EXTENDED 
                   UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION.

       (a) Weeks of TEUC Amounts.--Paragraph (1) of section 203(b) 
     of the Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 
     2002 (Public Law 107-147; 116 Stat. 28) 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.''.
       (b) Weeks of TEUC-X Amounts.--Section 203(c)(1) of the 
     Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 2002 
     (Public Law 107-147; 116 Stat. 28) 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''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section--
       (1) shall take effect as if included in the enactment of 
     the Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 2002; 
     but
       (2) shall apply only with respect to weeks of unemployment 
     beginning on or after the date of enactment this Act.

  Mr. CARDIN (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent 
the motion be considered as read and printed in the Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Maryland?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated during the debate on the 
bill, the bill before us does extend unemployment insurance benefits 
for 7 months. I agree with the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Dunn) 
that a 7-month extension of the unemployment insurance benefits at this 
time is the appropriate length of time for us to extend unemployment 
insurance benefits.
  We hope that during this period of time our economy will rebound; and 
if not, then we will have to revisit it again, but the length of time 
is the right period, and we have no objection to that.
  Our objection is that we are not covering all the people who need to 
be helped. As I pointed out, in the recession in the 1990s when the 
loss of employment was less severe than the loss of employment in this 
recession, with the number of people who exhausted their Federal 
unemployment insurance benefits was less than under the current 
recession, we extended benefits for 26 weeks. We have the money in the 
unemployment insurance trust fund in order to do this. We have the 
money in the account, $21 billion. This will add a little over $3 
billion.
  Mr. Speaker, the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Ways and 
Means just filed the conference report on the Growth Tax Bill that I 
assume we will be taking up later this evening. That conference report 
will incur $350 billion of additional outlays. The amendment I have 
before you is less than 1 percent, less than 1 percent of the 
conference report on the tax bill. It affects 1 million people; 1 
million people are affected by this motion. The adoption of this motion 
to recommit will not delay this bill 1 minute. We will still vote on it 
and pass it tonight. It is our opportunity to speak to what is the 
right policy, the right policy for those people who are unemployed; the 
right policy for what we have done in previous recessions; the right 
policy to help our economy, because we know these people need the money 
and will spend the money.
  It is the right policy. I urge my colleagues to take advantage of 
this opportunity so that we cannot only take care of the 2 million 
people who are estimated to exhaust their State unemployment insurance 
benefits during the next 6 to 7 months, but we can help the 1 million 
people who are looking for jobs and cannot find jobs.
  We have heard from these people in our communities. For every three 
people that are seeking a job, there is only one job available in the 
community, through no fault of their own. The least we can do is try to 
help them, and we can tonight by your vote on this motion to recommit. 
I urge my colleagues to support the motion.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to 
recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) 
is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to compliment the 
gentlemen from Maryland (Mr. Cardin). He has written a motion to 
recommit that is real.
  We have seen many, many of these motions to recommit, and I am forced 
to point out the language that prefaces the specifics is not really 
genuine because they use the word ``promptly'' which kills the bill; 
and therefore, anything that they say they want simply is not so. And I 
rise to compliment him because in my usual examining of motions to 
recommit, he has got ``forthwith.'' That is real. That means if we 
decide to do this, it comes back immediately and the bill is changed. 
That is usually what the motion to recommit is about.
  That is one of the reasons that Republicans, when we became the 
majority, decided to make sure that the minority would always have, 
would always have the right to recommit, not at the pleasure of the 
majority as was the case when we were in the minority, but guaranteed 
so that they could offer their alternative; and what we have seen all 
too often is a political stunt.
  This is not a political stunt because it is clear with the language 
``forthwith'' that they would like to have what this motion to recommit 
does. The gentleman said that we will soon be considering a growth 
plan, and I appreciate his use of that term because we hope that is 
exactly what it does. Of course, it is kind of a piker in terms of 
growth compared to what is offered in the motion to recommit.
  It turns out that under the Democrat's plan, although it is not quite 
perpetual motion it comes darn close, someone can work for 20 weeks and 
then they can get 26 weeks of regular State unemployment. Then they can 
get another 26 weeks of temporary extended that will be provided to 
every State under the motion. Seven additional weeks in a high-
unemployment State and then 13 additional permanents. That is 72 weeks. 
That is 17 months for 20 weeks' work.
  If this motion to recommit passes, the growth plan that we will soon 
be considering, notwithstanding the fact that there may be a job, will 
create a real temptation for many people to take a look at this growth 
plan for unemployment that the Democrats offer and say 20 weeks of work 
for 17 months of unemployment is a really, really good deal.
  We believe that we have to have a structure that deals with the 
underlying problem. We believe the bill that we have presented does. It 
is possible to create a structure which is, in fact, virtually self-
defeating. I believe this motion to recommit comes awfully close. And I 
would ask my colleagues to oppose the motion to recommit. Vote for the 
underlying bill. Move that bill off the floor so that prior to this 
break everyone knows we wanted to make sure that we had a continuous, 
uninterrupted opportunity so that those who are seeking employment can 
have assistance to do so.
  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 recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  This is a 15-minute vote to be followed by a 5-minute vote on 
passage.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 205, 
nays 222, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 222]

                               YEAS--205

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Ballance

[[Page H4624]]


     Becerra
     Bell
     Berkley
     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
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley (OR)
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     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
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner (TX)
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NAYS--222

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burr
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole
     Collins
     Cox
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     English
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Janklow
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     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
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Berman
     Bonilla
     Combest
     Doolittle
     Emerson
     Gephardt
     Jones (NC)


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington) (during the 
vote). There are two minutes remaining to vote.

                              {time}  2113

  Messrs. BEAUPREZ, HEFLEY, McINNIS, and SMITH of Michigan changed 
their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. BAIRD changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. QUINN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 409, 
noes 19, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 223]

                               AYES--409

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Ballance
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Becerra
     Bell
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     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
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley (CA)
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     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
     Herger
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley (OR)
     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.
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     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
     McDermott
     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
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Nethercutt
     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

[[Page H4625]]


     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
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Towns
     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)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NOES--19

     Bartlett (MD)
     Burgess
     Crane
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Feeney
     Flake
     Franks (AZ)
     Garrett (NJ)
     Hensarling
     Hostettler
     Johnson, Sam
     King (IA)
     Miller (FL)
     Musgrave
     Paul
     Shadegg
     Smith (MI)
     Tancredo

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Bonilla
     Combest
     Doolittle
     Emerson
     Gephardt
     Lewis (CA)


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington) (during the 
vote). Members are advised that 2 minutes remain in this vote.

                              {time}  2120

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________