[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.
____________________