[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 170 (Friday, November 21, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H12181-H12186]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    WAIVING REQUIREMENT OF CLAUSE 6(A) OF RULE XIII WITH RESPECT TO 
                  CONSIDERATION OF CERTAIN RESOLUTIONS

  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 458 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 458

       Resolved, That the requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII 
     for a two-thirds vote to consider a report from the Committee 
     on Rules on the same day it is presented to the House is 
     waived with respect to any resolution reported on the 
     legislative day of November 21, 2003, providing for 
     consideration or disposition of any of the following 
     measures:
       (1) A bill or joint resolution making further continuing 
     appropriations for the fiscal year 2004, or any amendment 
     thereto.
       (2) A bill or joint resolution making general 
     appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2004, 
     any amendment thereto, or any conference report thereon.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder) is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), pending 
which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration 
of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 458 is a rule that waives clause 6(a) of rule 
XIII with respect to same-day consideration against certain resolutions 
reported from the Committee on Rules. Specifically, this rule waives 
the requirement for a two-thirds majority vote in the House to consider 
a rule on the same day it has been reported by the Committee on Rules.
  This rule's waiver applies to any special rule reported on the 
legislative day of November 21, 2003, providing for the consideration 
or disposition of any of the following:
  A, a bill or joint resolution making further continuing 
appropriations for fiscal year 2004 or any amendments thereto; or
  B, a bill or joint resolution making general appropriations for the 
fiscal year ending September 30, 2004, any amendment thereto or any 
conference reported thereon.
  I urge my colleagues in the House to join me in approving H. Res. 
458. Its passage will help expedite the consideration of either another 
continuing resolution, if that becomes needed, or even conference 
reports on the last few remaining fiscal year 2004 appropriations 
bills, including the Foreign Operations bill, Transportation-Treasury 
bill, the Agriculture bill, the VA-HUD bill, the Commerce-Justice bill, 
the District of Columbia bill, and the Labor-HHS bill.
  I believe that we are in the waning days of this year's legislative 
session with only a relatively small number of must-do legislative 
items still left to finish. Approving this same-day waiver rule will 
help provide for prompt consideration of these important funding bills.
  Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Rules approved this rule last night, 
and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting its passage.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. FROST asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, marshal law rules like this one are 
symptomatic of the failure of this Republican government. Republicans 
are doing such harm to America, from Medicare and the economy to 
foreign policy and homeland security, that keeping the public in the 
dark has become their chief priority.
  So today, Republican leaders are yet again waiving the rules of the 
House. Later today they plan to do it in order to force through their 
plan to end Medicare as we know it, which is how the chief author of 
the Republican Medicare bill describes their goal.
  But first, Republican leaders want to pass this marshal law rule so 
that they can rush through a spending bill before Members, the press, 
and the public have had the chance to find out what is really in it.
  Mr. Speaker, they will not even tell us which spending bill they plan 
to hide from us today. All we know is that it will either spend tens of 
billions of dollars in taxpayer money, or that it will spend hundreds 
of billions of dollars in taxpayer money. Either way, it will become 
law before it has even been read by anyone except for a handful of 
Republicans at the White House and in the Congress. But since these are 
the same Republicans who have exploded the budget deficit to nearly 
$500 billion, raising the debt tax on all Americans, no one has much 
faith in them anymore.
  Mr. Speaker, after nearly a decade of controlling the Congress, the 
Republican Party's fundamental goal is simply protecting its own power 
by hiding from the public the damage they are doing to America. Of 
course, if you look at the Republican record, you can understand why 
they are so desperate to keep it hidden. In the nearly 3 years since 
George Bush became President, Republicans have created a whole host of 
problems for the American people.
  On national security, the Bush administration has plunged this Nation 
into its worst foreign policy crisis since the end of the cold war 
because they would not trust the American people with the truth about 
Iraq and because they could not work with our allies around the world. 
And while U.S. taxpayers are spending hundreds of billions of dollars 
on Iraq, our homeland defense needs here in the United States remain 
dangerously unmet.
  On domestic policy, of course, Republicans are going for the right 
wing gold. Later today they will try to finalize Newt Gingrich's dream 
of forcing Medicare to wither on the vine, shattering Medicare's nearly 
40-year-old promise to American citizens. That debate, Mr. Speaker, 
will be a case study in the public dishonesty that is fundamental to 
the Republican government.
  Over and over again, Republicans will repeat their poll-tested sound 
bytes. They will save Medicare reform and hope that millions of seniors 
do not notice the Republicans are forcing them out of traditional 
Medicare and into HMOs and insurance companies. They will talk about 
choice and ignore the fact that millions of seniors will lose the 
ability to choose their own doctors. And they will decry skyrocketing 
prescription prices and hope no one notices that they are actually 
protecting drug company profits by making it illegal for Medicare to 
negotiate lower prices for senior citizens.
  Mr. Speaker, Republicans will wax poetic about the generosity of 
their drug benefit, hiding the fact that premiums and benefits will 
actually be set by HMOs and insurance companies; and that even under 
the Republicans rosiest scenario, seniors with average drug bills will 
still have to pay about $2,500 per year out of their own pockets. Of 
course, Republicans will not say a thing about the $12 billion slush 
funds they are setting up for HMOs or insurance companies or the $139 
billion in windfall profits they are giving to the big drug companies.
  Mr. Speaker, no wonder the Republican Medicare bill does not take 
effect until after the election. Republican political strategists are 
desperately hoping that seniors do not discover this truth about this 
assault on Medicare before they go to the polls in 2004. But

[[Page H12182]]

make no mistake, when seniors sit down at their kitchen tables to pay 
their bills, they are going to do the math, and they are going to see 
that Republicans have sold them a very expensive and very harmful bill 
of goods.
  Mr. Speaker, the false promise of the Republican Medicare plan will 
remind a lot of Americans of the false promise of the Republican 
economic plan. In less than 3 years, the Republicans have taken a 
historic budget surplus and turned it into a monumental deficit. They 
have done it through reckless fiscal irresponsibility and through an 
obsession with spending billions of taxpayer dollars for a small elite 
of the wealthiest few, people like the Bush campaign fund-raising 
Pioneers.
  As a result, instead of using the budget surplus to help address 
priorities like skyrocketing prescription prices and strengthening 
Social Security and Medicare, Republicans have created a fiscal crisis 
and raised the debt tax on all Americans.
  Along the way, nearly 3 million jobs have been lost, giving George W. 
Bush the worst job performance of any President since The Great 
Depression. Millions of families no longer share in the prosperity of 
the nineties. Of course, you would never know the facts if you just 
listened to Republican rhetoric. But talking points cannot cancel out 
the truth. And the truth is, Mr. Speaker, that Americans continue to be 
unemployed at alarmingly high rates. More than 2 million workers have 
been unable to find a job in this economy for more than 6 months, and 
many of them will lose their unemployment insurance over the holidays 
if this Republican Congress does not act this year before we adjourn.

                              {time}  1645

  That is why, Mr. Speaker, I intend to oppose the important 
parliamentary vote known as the previous question. That is the only way 
to ensure Republicans do not leave town for their own holiday vacations 
without providing unemployed Americans with the help they so 
desperately need.
  Mr. Speaker, Americans are smarter than Republican leaders give them 
credit for. They know the difference between rhetoric and reality. So I 
urge my Republican friends to look past their leader's rhetoric and 
join me in providing real help to Americans suffering through this 
economy.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Cardin).
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, let me thank my friend from Texas for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, this rule will allow us to consider an additional 
continuing resolution which will allow us to go home over the holidays, 
and at this time, there is no indication from the majority that they 
are prepared to bring up an extension of the unemployment insurance 
benefits for thousands of our fellow citizens who will be running out 
of unemployment insurance benefits during that period of time. So, Mr. 
Speaker, I would hope that we would not approve the previous question 
so that we could bring up this unemployment insurance extension.
  Let me just remind my colleagues that 1 year ago we were in a similar 
position, and the majority did not bring up an extension of the 
unemployment insurance benefits, and at Christmastime, we had to tell 
hundreds of thousands of Americans that they ran the risk of losing the 
Federal benefits that they needed during this recession. We are faced 
with the situation again.
  Two days after Christmas, the current Federal 13-week unextended 
benefit program is scheduled to expire. If we do not do anything about 
it, 80- to 90,000 people in this Nation, every week, will exhaust their 
State extended benefits and will not be entitled to any Federal 
extended benefits; 1.4 million Americans during that 6-month period, 
until June of next year, are anticipated would be without benefits.
  The exhaustion rate, those who have exhausted their State 
unemployment benefits without finding employment has reached the 
highest level on record, the highest level on record, 43 percent. Two 
million workers have been unemployed for more than 6 months, nearly 
triple the amount compared to the beginning of 2001. We have 2.4 
million fewer jobs today compared to 2\1/2\ years ago.
  Mr. Speaker, the majority leader recently said, I see no reason to be 
extending unemployment compensation since every economic indicator is 
better off than in 1993 when the Democrats ended the Federal 
unemployment program. Mr. Speaker, nothing could be further from what 
the record shows, and I could go through a list of the economic 
indicators from the last downturn in our economy and this time, but 
this one I think really puts it all in proper perspective.
  The current amount of jobs that were created before we terminated the 
Federal unemployment benefits in the 1990s was 2.9 million additional 
jobs. What we are looking at now is 2.4 million less jobs in this 
recession. The majority leader refers to some slight job growth that we 
had, and we hope that continues, because, currently, if someone's 
looking for a job, there are three people looking for every job that is 
available today. These are people who cannot find employment, but the 
loss of employment in our economy in the last couple of years is 2.4 
million jobs. The jobs are not there. People want work. They cannot 
find work. That is why we have the Federal unemployment benefit 
program.
  There is $20 billion in the fund today to fund this program. The 
money is there. The money is there for this purpose. We should extend 
it before we go home. So I hope we will use this opportunity because, 
quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, I do not see any other opportunities coming 
along. This may be our last chance by using this vehicle so that we can 
consider legislation that would extend the Federal unemployment 
benefits for some additional weeks, and by the way, we should also take 
care of those who have already exhausted all their benefits.
  The economy just is not there yet. We all hope we will get there. We 
usually do this on a bipartisan basis. Let us get together and help our 
uninsured.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Levin).
  (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I join the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Cardin), and I want to say to the Republicans, do not think this is a 
procedural vote on the previous question. This is a vote of substance. 
This is a vote questioning whether my colleagues will agree to bring up 
an unemployment compensation extension program.
  As the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) said, the majority leader 
stated, ``I see no reason to be extending unemployment compensation 
since every economic indicator is better than in 1993 when the 
Democrats ended the Federal unemployment program.'' He could not be 
further from the truth.
  If we do not act, 90,000 a week who are out of work, exhausting their 
benefits, will be out in the cold; 90,000 a week, 350,000 more or less 
a month, and they will join the 1.4 million long-term unemployed in 
this country, and the percentage of unemployed workers who have 
exhausted their benefits, contrary to what the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. DeLay) has said, will reach an all-time high, almost 44 percent, 
and even with this modest increase in jobs the last couple of months, 
the U.S. economy still has 2.4 million fewer jobs today than 2\1/2\ 
years ago.
  I want to refer to Michigan. The unemployment figures just came out: 
7.6 is the unemployment rate, a 3-year high, an 11-year high, actually, 
and higher than when the temporary unemployment program was set up.
  So this is not a test on procedure. This is a test whether my 
colleagues will stand with those who are unemployed, looking for work 
or turn a cold shoulder to them. There is nothing compassionate about 
this kind of action, conservatism or anything else.
  So I urge all my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, to vote no on 
the previous question and stand up for those millions of Americans, 
millions who are looking for work, who cannot find it, who want not 
charity but unemployment compensation that they worked for. Vote no on 
the previous question.

[[Page H12183]]

  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
just to observe the lesson I just learned from the gentleman from 
Michigan. When President Clinton ran for President, he said we had the 
worst economy in 50 years, and just a few months later, he turned 
everything around. Things were so wonderful that he could stop 
unemployment compensation. I had not realized he had done it so 
quickly.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. McDermott).
  (Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks, and include extraneous material.)
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, several times this week the House has 
used emergency procedures to pass partisan legislation.
  Yesterday, the Congress found time to give tax credits to Wal-Mart, 
but the Republican majority refuses to consider what is truly an 
emergency to millions of families, the fact that they do not have jobs, 
and millions of these workers are about to run out of unemployment 
insurance.
  Last year, the same thing happened. The Republican Congress left town 
about Christmastime without extending the temporary program that 
provides employment benefits, leaving hundreds of thousands of 
unemployed workers to worry over the holidays about whether they were 
going to get the unemployment benefits that they had been expecting.
  We have heard it has been reported that the majority leader said, ``I 
see no reason to be extending unemployment compensation since every 
economic indicator is better than in 1993 when the Democrats ended the 
Federal unemployment program.'' Mr. Speaker, the esteemed majority 
leader does not know what he is talking about.
  Washington State's unemployment is still among the highest in the 
Nation. It has grown for two solid years as we felt the brunt of the 
Bush recession. If the Congress does not extend the Federal program 
that provides unemployment compensation and fix a technical flaw in the 
Federal-State extended benefits program, over 83,000 workers in my 
State will stop, at Christmastime, receiving unemployment benefits.
  I know the economy created 100,000 jobs last month, but 150,000 jobs 
must be created each month to maintain the employment rate because our 
population continues to grow.
  Two days after Christmas, the temporary Federal unemployment benefits 
program is scheduled to expire, denying benefits to nearly 90,000 
workers every single week. The unemployment picture today simply is not 
much better than it was last year, Mr. Speaker.
  According to the Department of Labor, there is still only one job 
opening for every three unemployed workers. In other words, of the 9 
million unemployed American workers, 6 million of them have no chance 
of finding a job in the current economic climate.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against the previous question so that 
Congress can consider an emergency that faces millions of families, the 
Nation's unemployment problem.
  It is Thanksgiving for heaven's sakes, and we are not even going to 
provide them a turkey at Thanksgiving or at Christmastime. That is 
really Scrooge, and it is really hard-hearted.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against the previous question.
                                              State of Washington,


                               Employment Security Department,

                                   Olympia, WA, November 13, 2003.
     Hon. Jim McDermott,
     House of Representatives, Longworth Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman McDermott: This letter is in response to 
     your request (dated November 7, 2003) for unemployment 
     projections and data.
       Washington State's Seasonally Adjusted Total Unemployment 
     Rate (SATUR) remained at 7.5 percent for the month of 
     September, and this percentage is 116 percent of the same 
     rate two years ago, keeping the State of Washington in a 
     period of Extended Benefits (EB). The next issuance of the 
     SATUR numbers is scheduled for November 21, 2003. Our 
     forecast for October still shows that the State of Washington 
     will again be above the required 110 percent of the same 
     period for either of the past two years, and will remain in 
     EB status for that period as well. Statistics due out on 
     December 19, 2003 are indicating that the 110 percent 
     criteria will not be met, and we would thus be out of EB for 
     weeks after January 10, 2004.
       Tables 1 and 2, enclosed, provide SATUR forecasts through 
     calendar year 2005. As shown, the State of Washington 
     Forecast Council estimates that the State of Washington's 
     SATUR will remain above 6.5 percent through 2005.
       Table 3 provides a count of claimants exhausting all 
     benefits, by entitlement, for the first six months of 2003. 
     Unemployment statistics are very cyclical and we believe the 
     exhaustion rates for the first six months of 2004 will be 
     very similar to those of 2003. Claimants exhausting Regular 
     UI benefits become eligible for the TEUC program and 
     claimants exhausting TEUC become eligible for the EB program. 
     If the TEUC program were not continued, we estimate that 
     close to 54,000 claimants would be without benefits in the 
     first six months of 2004. Additionally, if the EB program 
     were to end in January of 2004 due to the ``look-back'' 
     provision, an additional 28,508 claimants exhausting the TEUC 
     program would be without benefits.
       Table 4 provides a summary of total dollars paid out to 
     claimants by month ad entitlement, for the first six months 
     of 2003. Similar to exhaustion rates, we believe that payment 
     totals will be very similar in 2004. We estimate that we 
     would pay $282 million out under the TEUC program and close 
     to $83 million under the EB program.
       Also enclosed for your information is an additional fact 
     sheet on current unemployment insurance data.
       Please let me know if you have any additional questions, or 
     if we can be of further assistance.
           Sincerely,
                                              Annette M. Copeland,
                                           Assistant Commissioner.

  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, Congress has one last opportunity to 
provide unemployment benefits for Americans who have lost their jobs 
and been unable to find new jobs.
  It is quite astounding. We at this point have what is called a 
jobless recovery. In my State, tens of thousands of people are unable 
to find employment with their benefits exhausted or near exhaustion. 
Across America it is millions.
  I know budgets are tight around here. I know that Congress can afford 
to borrow money to pay Iraqis for no-show jobs, but the President says 
we cannot afford to spend down the $20 billion balance in the 
Unemployment Trust Fund, taxes paid by employers and employees, for 
just such a situation. So we cannot afford that. We cannot afford to 
spend that. We can borrow money to send to Iraq, but we cannot spend 
down the trust fund for unemployed Americans.

                              {time}  1700

  Is he saying it is their fault they are unemployed? Is he saying he 
does not care they are unemployed? Is he saying he does not care they 
might lose their home; they cannot feed their kids; they cannot afford 
essentials; they cannot even buy gas for the car to go out and look for 
work; that they are having their phones shut off?
  I am getting those kinds of calls. We have the highest unemployment 
rate in the United States in Oregon. It is chronic. And there are a lot 
of people who want to work and cannot find jobs. The least this Nation 
could do would be to help them with a modest extension of unemployment 
benefits.
  Now, this is not the first time this has happened. Last year, 
Congress skipped out of town, the President did not raise any concern, 
and unemployment benefits expired for millions of Americans. This year, 
we are confronted with the same situation. Two days after Christmas, 
Merry Christmas, 90,000 workers will lose their extended unemployment 
benefits and have no income, and yet they cannot find a job. And it 
will be 90,000 workers a week. In 6 months, 2.2 million Americans will 
have lost everything, probably their homes, maybe their families, 
because this kind of breaks up families.
  This is, of course, a family-friendly Republican majority and White 
House, but they just do not seem to care about these people wanting and 
needing jobs. Their jobs are being exported and have disappeared in the 
jobless recovery, or whatever. They cannot find work. In my State, it 
will be 43,000 people by February who will lose benefits.
  Now, there is $20 billion, that is 20,000 million dollars, in the 
Unemployment Trust Fund. We do not even have to borrow the money to 
give Americans a little bit of help to stay in their homes and keep 
their families together. We do

[[Page H12184]]

not have to borrow it because they pay the taxes, their employers pay 
the taxes. All the President has to do is say, I think that is a good 
idea, and the Republican majority will jump to it. We could do it right 
here, now, on the floor, by voting ``no'' and bringing that bill up 
today.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Oregon (Ms. Hooley).
  Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding 
me this time, and I rise in opposition to this bill.
  While Congress dithers in what is probably the waning days of the 
first session of the 108th Congress, it is inexcusable that we are 
considering adjournment without first passing an extension of 
unemployment benefits for the millions of American workers who are 
currently jobless. In my home State of Oregon, the unemployment rate is 
still 7.6 percent, nearly 2 percentage points higher than the U.S. 
average. Even that number, though, is misleading, since it only counts 
the workers who are still looking for work. It does not include those 
people who have been off work, who no longer receive unemployment 
benefits.
  Mr. Speaker, to me it is inexcusable and unconscionable that the bill 
offered by our colleague, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), is 
not being brought to the floor right now. Instead, the Republican 
leadership has chosen to force a vote on a 2-day CR because they are 
unable to fund the government by passing appropriation bills on time 
and in regular order.
  Let me tell you just a little bit about these people who are looking 
for work, Mr. Speaker. These are people who are out of work through no 
fault of their own. They go out every single day and look for a job. 
One gentleman said to me that it is like playing musical chairs. He 
says, I go in, I think I have this wonderful resume, I meet all of the 
criteria, and I go in and there are 200 people that all have the same 
qualifications to meet that job. So he said it is a little bit like 
playing musical chairs with 200 people in the room and only one chair.
  One woman told me she had to sell her home. She has been looking for 
work every day. She has sold her home and is living off the profits of 
her home. She does not know what she is going to do when those run out.
  Another gentleman said, I have been trying to reeducate myself, so 
every day I am out looking for work. He said, I just feel like if I can 
just hold on for a little longer that job is going to be there.
  Let us tide over the 90,000 Americans per week who will lose their 
unemployment benefits by the end of this year. Congress can and should 
pass an extension that will allow workers who are seeking employment to 
provide for their most basic needs as the holidays approach. Let us get 
on with this. Let us extend those unemployment benefits.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Stark).
  (Mr. Stark asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I insert for the Record at this point a 
letter addressed to the chairman of the Committee on Rules that 
outlines some of the bases for our request for more time to evaluate 
the bill.
                                               Committee on Rules,


                                     House of Representatives,

                                    Washington, DC, Nov. 19, 2003.
     Hon. David Dreier,
     Chairman, House Committee on Rules, The Capitol, Washington, 
         DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: For the second time this week we are 
     forced to write to you to protest the fact that the 
     Republican majority will bring to the House floor a 
     conference report on a major legislative proposal of enormous 
     impact on every single American and is more than likely to do 
     so without giving the Members of the House the opportunity to 
     know what is in the bill. We are referring, of course, to the 
     conference agreement on Medicare which we understand will be 
     filed at some point today, this evening, or perhaps sometime 
     in the wee hours of the morning.
       Given our experience with the modus operandi of the 
     Republican House Leadership, we believe we can safely assume 
     that once that conference agreement has been filed the Rules 
     Committee will convene in short order to report a rule. We 
     must protest in the strongest possible terms. To bring this 
     legislation to the Rules Committee in the middle of the night 
     or at seven o'clock in the morning is a gross distortion and 
     perversion of the legislative process and any sense of 
     fairness to the Members of this institution and to the 
     American people. Further, bringing this legislation to the 
     floor while the ink is still drying on the paper, would 
     renege on the promise made by the Speaker of the House in 
     response to a letter signed by 41 Members of the Republican 
     Conference who requested that the text of the Conference 
     Report, its joint explanatory statement, and the CBO cost 
     estimate be made available for three days before its 
     consideration.
       That letter reads: ``We write to request if the Conferees 
     on the Medicare Prescription Drug and Modernization Act of 
     2003 report to the House a Conference Report, copies of the 
     text of the Conference Report, the text of the explanatory 
     statement, and the text of the Congressional Budget Office 
     cost estimate for the Conference report be made available to 
     all Members at least three calendar days after filing 
     (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays, unless the 
     House is in session on those days) and prior to consideration 
     of the Conference Report or to any measure reported from the 
     Committee on Rules providing for the consideration of the 
     Conference Report.
       ``The general public will evaluate not only what Congress 
     does regarding Medicare and prescription drugs, but the way 
     in which it does it. A bill proposing such substantive 
     changes to the Medicare system and costing an estimated $400 
     billion over the next decade deserves the careful and 
     thoughtful consideration of all Members.''
       As has been publicly reported, at a meeting of the 
     Republican Conference on October 30 Speaker Hastert assured 
     these members that they would indeed have three days to 
     review the bill as they had requested. From the November 3, 
     2003 edition of Roll Call: ``So last Thursday, at a GOP 
     Conference meeting that was called exclusively to update 
     Members on the Medicare talks, Hastert assured his troops 
     that they would now get regular briefings on the Medicare 
     bill and would have at least three days to look over the 
     conference report before having to vote on it, according to 
     several Members who attended. . . `The Speaker wants to make 
     sure that Members are comfortable making this historic 
     change' to Medicare, said Hastert spokesman John Feehery.''
       On November 7, Congress Daily reported on the Speaker's 
     promise: ``. . . time is required for those outside the room 
     to look over what everyone agrees are the most sweeping 
     changes being made to Medicare in a generation. `The thing 
     I'm happiest about is we get three days with the language,' 
     said Rep. Charlie Norwood, R-GA, referring to a promise made 
     by House Speaker Hastert.'' Clearly, this was a promise that 
     Members of the Republican Conference felt would be kept.
       On November 12, at a symposium on the modern day Speaker of 
     the House, Speaker Hastert outlined his own set of principles 
     that guide him in his work: ``When you are Speaker, people 
     expect you to keep your word, and they will not quickly 
     forgive you if you cannot deliver. I've learned that keeping 
     your word is the most important part of this job. You are 
     better off not saying anything than making a promise that you 
     cannot keep. And you have to keep both the big promises and 
     the small promises.''
       We believe the Speaker to be a man of honor and a man who 
     lives up to the high-minded principles he outlined in his 
     speech. Yet, yesterday it was reported in Congress Daily that 
     the Majority Leader--who had previously said that Members 
     would have three full days to look over the agreement--said 
     that the clock had started running on Sunday.
       Mr. Chairman, on Sunday there was an announcement that an 
     agreement had been reached and a summary of the agreement was 
     posted on the Web; but as of today, no finalized text of the 
     bill, the joint explanatory statement of managers, or the CBO 
     cost estimate have been released to Members of the House.
       If the Rules Committee convenes at some point today or 
     early tomorrow morning to pave the way for the consideration 
     of this conference report, the Republican Leadership will 
     have shown that political expediency, rather than the wishes 
     of its own Members and the promise of the Speaker of the 
     House, is what drives its agenda. Perhaps your Leadership can 
     mollify these Members who wrote to the Speaker making a 
     reasonable and rational request. Perhaps Members of the 
     Republican Conference will agree to vote for a rule without 
     ever knowing what is really in this bill. But we would 
     consider that to be a sad turn of events, Mr. Chairman, and 
     we would urge you to object to this process if for no other 
     reason than to protect the prerogatives of Members of 
     Congress to have the opportunity to understand what they are 
     voting for or against.
       Mr. Chairman, once again House Democratic conferees were 
     deliberately excluded from negotiations on major legislation. 
     Chairman Thomas stated on more than one occasion when asked 
     about the Medicare conference that there was no reason to 
     include anyone who did not want to reach an agreement. We 
     believe what he really meant to say was there was no reason 
     to include anyone in the negotiations who would not agree 
     with him or the other Republican conferees. This attitude 
     seems to pervade the manner in which this institution is 
     being run and the fact that an agreement of this magnitude 
     few people have seen will be rushed to

[[Page H12185]]

     the floor for a vote only adds to this perception. May we 
     remind you that perception often become reality?
       We are perfectly aware that our protests will most likely 
     fall on deaf ears. But, for the sake of this institution and 
     the United States, we urge you to ensure that the Republican 
     Leadership keeps the promise made by the Speaker of the 
     House.
       We look forward to a response at your earliest convenience.
           Sincerely,
     Martin Frost.
     Jim McGovern.
     Louise M. Slaughter.
     Alcee L. Hastings.

  Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to point out on the Medicare bill, getting 
back to that, that by not having time to review it and perhaps correct 
some of the technicalities, whether one thinks this is a good benefit 
or not, I am sure that many of my colleagues on the right take the same 
view as I do about privacy, and particularly privacy of our personal 
financial records.
  I am sure that most of them are unaware that private contractors will 
now be able to willy nilly get tax returns from anybody who may be 
required to pay a higher premium under the income-adjusted premiums. 
This means that for the first time in the history of the Internal 
Revenue Code, we are making available personal tax information to 
private enterprise operators at will, and I am not sure my colleagues 
want to do that.
  I hope our friends on the right will think about it and think about 
what unscrupulous folks might do with private personal tax information, 
which has been one of the bedrock principles of privacy in this 
country. And I would like to think that the Republicans would not 
support that. But they do not know what is in this bill. The chairman 
does not know what is in the bill. And I would submit that the members 
of the Committee on Rules do not know what is in the bill.
  To vote in that kind of ignorance is an affront to the principles, if 
you have any, which you might stand for.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Green).
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member and the 
dean of our Texas delegation for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, martial law rules, it is interesting to note, always 
come up in the later part of the session because we always want to get 
finished. We did a martial law on Medicare so we could pass a 600-page 
document without having to digest it. Now we have a continuing 
resolution martial law.
  But I really want to talk about the prescription drug provision in 
Medicare, because that is what will come up later. Our Houston 
Chronicle wrote an interesting editorial today which talks about the 
``scribbled prescription'' in the bill that we are going to consider as 
an ``intended cure could be worse than Medicare disease.'' It talks 
about the provisions of this bill we are going to consider tonight is 
stingy because it does not begin until 2006; and that there is such a 
donut hole in the middle that people will lose, if they have $300 a 
month in prescription drugs, because they will fall into that donut 
hole. So it is stingy.
  The critics point out that providing a drug component to Medicare 
encourages businesses to dump their retirees. I had a constituent call 
me the other day from a utility company who said he was worried his 
retiree benefits for prescription drugs would be cut. And I said unless 
you have a collective bargaining agreement, that could happen.
  A concern I have, as they quote in the Chronicle editorial, is that 
the ``AARP, the most powerful senior citizen organization, has 
endorsed'' this proposal. Again, I am quoting the Houston Chronicle, 
``But, as the plan before Congress offers such limited help for seniors 
with high prescription costs, it's no wonder so many people believe 
AARP's decision was motivated more by its own political dealmaking than 
concern for its 35 million members' best interests.'' And that is a 
direct quote.
  Mr. Speaker, when I first came to Congress, a prescription drug bill 
was the goal, to pass something; but this bill actually goes in the 
wrong direction. It prohibits Medicare from negotiating for lower 
prices. HMOs do it, the Veterans Administration does it, companies do 
it; and yet now we are prohibiting Medicare from doing it by law. That 
ought to outrage our seniors, including those 35 million AARP members.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). The gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Frost) has 5 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Georgia 
(Mr. Linder) has 28 minutes remaining,
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, if the previous question is defeated, I will offer an 
amendment to the rule. My amendment will provide that immediately after 
the House passes this resolution, it will take up legislation to extend 
the Federal unemployment insurance that is set to expire for new 
enrollees just 2 days after Christmas.
  This legislation would continue the extended unemployment insurance 
program through the first 6 months of next year. The bill would also 
increase to 26 weeks the amount of benefits provided under that 
program, up from 13 weeks. This would provide new help to the 1.4 
million workers who have already exhausted their extended benefits and 
have yet to find work.
  This measure is identical to the text of H.R. 3244, the Rangel-Cardin 
unemployment extension; and it also contains the text of H.R. 3554, 
sponsored by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott), which would 
fix a flaw in current law that penalizes people in States with 
exceptionally high long-term unemployment rates by preventing them from 
receiving the unemployment benefits they need.
  Here is why it is needed, Mr. Speaker. Americans continue to be 
unemployed at alarmingly high rates. The percentage of Americans 
exhausting their unemployment benefits without finding a job has 
reached its highest level on record. More than 2 million workers have 
been unemployed for more than 6 months. These Americans need relief, 
and they need it immediately. If we do not fix this today, over 400,000 
jobless Americans will not be eligible for unemployment compensation 
after the first of the year.
  Mr. Speaker, it appears likely that Congress will adjourn sine die 
within the next few days. This will very likely be the only opportunity 
we have to help unemployed Americans this year. Let us not abandon them 
today.
  Let me make very clear that a ``no'' vote on the previous question 
will not stop consideration of this resolution for consideration of the 
appropriations items, but a ``no'' vote will allow the House to vote on 
legislation to help provide some much-needed relief to our Nation's 
unemployed workers, some relief that might be nice during the upcoming 
holiday season.
  Again, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the amendment 
be printed in the Record immediately before the vote on the previous 
question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
and I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the previous question and 
``yes'' on the rule, so we can hopefully have an appropriation bill 
later this evening or this weekend we can vote on and finish things up.
  The text of the amendment previously referred to by Mr. Frost, is as 
follows:

 Previous Question for H. Res. 458--Rule on waiving 2/3rds for C/R and 
                        Appropriations Measures

       At the end of the resolution add the following new section:
       Sec. 2. ``Immediately after disposition of this resolution, 
     it shall be in order without intervention of any point of 
     order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 3568) to 
     provide extended unemployment benefits to displaced workers, 
     and to make other improvements in the unemployment insurance 
     system. The bill shall be considered as read for amendment. 
     The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
     bills to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) 
     one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the 
     Chairman and ranking Minority Member of the Committee on the 
     Ways and Means; and (2) one motion to recommit with or 
     without instructions.


[[Page H12186]]


  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this motion will be postponed.

                          ____________________