[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.
____________________