[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 175 (Monday, December 8, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H12754-H12760]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[[Page H12754]]
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 465 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 465
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 or before
the legislative day of January 31, 2004, providing for
consideration or disposition of any of the following
measures:
(1) A bill or joint resolution making continuing
appropriations for the fiscal year 2004, any amendment
thereto, or any conference report thereon.
(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 (Mr. Thornberry). 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 gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter),
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. 465 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 two-thirds majority vote by the House to consider a
rule on the same-day that it has been reported by the Committee on
Rules.
This rule's waiver applies to any special rule reported by the
Committee on Rules on or before the legislative day of January 31,
2004, providing for the consideration of disposition of any of the
following:
First, a bill or joint resolution making further continuing
appropriations for the fiscal year 2004, or any amendment thereto, or
any conference report thereon; or, second, a bill or joint resolution
making general appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30,
2004, any amendment thereto, or any conference report thereon.
Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Rules reported this same-day rule on
November 21 in order to provide some flexibility to the House
leadership in terms of bringing the consolidated appropriations bill to
the floor. On November 25, the text of the conference report on H.R.
2673, the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2004, was printed in the
Congressional Record for review by House Members. While the rule before
the House today permits consideration of a number of appropriations
options, the purpose of processing of this rule today is to expedite
the consideration of the remaining fiscal year 2004 appropriations
bills in the House. Once this rule is adopted, the House will be able
to consider a consolidated appropriations rule and the underlying
conference report without delay.
This consolidated bill includes the Foreign Operations bill, the
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 commend the hard work of the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Young) and the Committee on Appropriations for their efforts in
crafting this important funding bill. As I stated, the provisions of
the consolidated appropriations bill were printed in the Congressional
Record almost 2 weeks ago, and the passage of the same-day rule will
provide for prompt consideration of these important funding bills this
afternoon.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the
passage of this rule.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
(Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend
her remarks.)
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, Christmas has come early for President
Bush and his high-dollar friends, but for millions of American
families, it looks like the Grinch will be stealing Christmas. The
media has widely reported that the President won victory after victory
in negotiations over the details of this omnibus appropriations bill.
But any Presidential victory comes at a very high cost.
America's working families and those struggling to stay afloat in the
swift currents of unemployment will be stuck with the tab. The
unemployment rate was essentially unchanged from October to November
and almost 9 million Americans still cannot find work, including 6.2
percent of the New Yorkers who were unemployed.
Across the Nation, the number of Americans filing for the first time
for unemployment benefits is up. New claims for unemployment have risen
in 47 States and territories. One economist described last Friday's
unemployment report as ``getting just the Christmas present you want
but two sizes too small.'' The President assured the country that his
massive tax cuts would create 300,000 jobs a month. But unfortunately
for the millions of men and women looking for work, only 57,000 new
jobs were created in November. That is the ``two sizes too small.'' The
real effects of the administration's tax giveaways were more money to
the wealthiest and a staggering Federal deficit.
Only a few days before the Christmas holiday and the beginning of a
new year, unemployment benefits for thousands and thousands of
Americans will run out. After December 20, thousands more will no
longer be eligible for an extension of benefits. Today is our last
opportunity before that happens to extend the unemployment benefits, to
throw a small life preserver to those still caught in the swift
currents of steady unemployment flowing through our murky economy.
Just this morning in the Committee on Rules hearing, the chairman of
the Committee on Appropriations agreed that unemployment benefits
should be extended. We are spending $87 billion on Iraq, $150 billion
this year, and we should be able to extend the unemployment benefits,
especially considering that there is a surplus of unemployment funds.
We need to fight with all our might to protect American jobs,
particularly the manufacturing jobs. Since January 2001, the United
States has lost 2.4 million manufacturing jobs. We should be exporting
American products, not our jobs. The Manufacturing Extension
Partnership, MEP, is a nationwide network of centers devoted to
providing small and medium size manufacturers with assistance,
information, and access to business experts. We should be promoting
this program, but instead this bill slashes the budget by 63 percent.
It is absurd that we are considering cutting this valuable program
while thousands of manufacturing jobs are lost every day. MEP has
proven its value in boosting productivity in sales and employment.
Slashing this program will cost small manufacturers almost $2 billion
in sales and cost 28,000 workers their employment.
Despite the strong opposition of both elected bodies of Congress,
President Bush was successful in killing legislative protections
against limitations on overtime pay. Relaxing the overtime pay rules
makes it easier for companies to force workers to put in more than 40
hours a week without additional pay. And under the broad rules proposed
by this administration, many nurses will be ineligible for overtime
pay, and even manual laborers would be classified as executives, which
would end their eligibility for overtime pay.
These new regulations could make at least 8 million workers
ineligible for the overtime, the money with which many pay their bills
and take care of their families. Millions of them rely on that just to
scrape by each month. And protecting the worker's right to overtime pay
is such an important issue that people from across my district are
asking me to oppose this entire bill because it does not include
overtime pay protection.
I need to add that the overtime pay protection passed handsomely both
Houses of Congress, and we instructed our conferees to keep it in the
bill; but mysteriously it disappeared. A man from Tonawanda said last
week to us no worker should lose his overtime pay since it is essential
to their lives.
This massive bill is yet another example of the disturbing disregard
for
[[Page H12755]]
women's health. The President's authority to enforce his global gag
rule remains unchallenged. Under the Mexico City Policy, the United
States Government uses family-planning dollars to impose itself between
women and their doctors. The U.S. muzzles health care workers. Clinics
are prohibited from mentioning or counseling women about abortion.
Doctors and nurses are forced to forfeit the right to provide complete,
accurate medical information and advice to their patients.
Mr. Speaker, for the first time in half a century, the Republican
Party controls both Houses of Congress and the executive, despite an
authoritarian leadership style, inefficiency, and squabbling have
produced a job that is less than half complete. The current fiscal year
began over 2 months ago, and only three of the 13 measures that pay for
functioning of the Federal Government were law by October 1 of fiscal
year 2004. And right now only 6 of the 13 bills are law.
With this special rule, we will end the first session of the 108th
Congress in a single day of hurried legislative activity.
{time} 1130
Rather than wisely investing the body's time in deliberating the
details of each of the seven remaining bills, we will spend 1 hour
debating the merits of this massive conglomerate report. When
substantive debate among Members is silenced, the millions of Americans
that we represent are silenced and disenfranchised. Particularly, that
is what happens, when one party of the House is excluded from all
deliberations. This is not an attribute of a deliberative democracy.
Mr. Speaker, I hope that during the coming second session that comity
and genuine bipartisan collaboration will replace arm-twisting and
exclusion. I hope that character, decency, virtue, and respect are more
than words on a page. I hope that we all will embrace the right of all
Members elected here to fully participate in a truly deliberative
process and of all the people to be fully represented in their national
legislature. A natural result of the decline of deliberative democracy
is the decline in the quality of our laws and the decline of public
support for them and the decline of the standard of living in the
United States. I urge my colleagues to vote against the previous
question.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this martial law
rule. This rule will allow us to consider a seriously flawed omnibus
appropriations bill and nothing else.
After today, the House will not come back to work for legislative
business until January 20. The time between now and January 20 that
Congress will be out of session might not seen seem that important to
some, but for hundreds of thousands of Americans it will be a terrible
time indeed; that is because their Federal unemployment assistance is
due to expire.
Mr. Speaker, even with the modest job gains made over the past few
months, the U.S. economy has 2.4 million fewer jobs today compared to
2\1/2\ years ago. There are more than 2 million workers who have been
unemployed for more than 6 months; and to make a bad situation worse,
over 400,000 jobless American will not be eligible for unemployment
compensation after the first of the year.
Americans continue to be unemployed at alarmingly high rates. Just
last week, we saw job numbers that fell well below expectations. And
the percentage of Americans exhausting their unemployment benefits
without finding a job has reached its highest level on record.
Mr. Speaker, jobless Americans need help and they need it now. But
while unemployed Americans continue to struggle to find work, this
Republican-controlled Congress is preparing to leave town for the year.
Like last year, Members of Congress will be free to go home to their
families and constituents. Like last year, Members will have a nice
holiday. And just like last year, the Republican-controlled Congress is
letting unemployment insurance expire during the Christmas season. For
hundreds of thousands of Americans, this Republican Congress will be
their Grinch who stole Christmas. And I have little hope that
Congress's heart will grow any time soon; that is, unless we act today.
The facts are clear. It is clear we will not be back in session until
late January; and it is clear that during that time, hundreds of
thousands of jobless Americans will lose their unemployment insurance.
We should not turn our backs on these people and their families in our
rush to adjourn.
Now, I am sure that there is a bipartisan consensus to extend
unemployment benefits. I am sure that if we brought up a bill to do
that, a majority would support it; and if not, we could just hold the
vote open for 3 hours or 4 hours until a majority appeared. That seems
to be the new precedent around here. But the leadership does not want
it. And in today's House of Representatives, what the leadership wants,
the leadership gets. To heck with democracy.
Unemployed Americans deserve better than this.
Mr. Speaker, since this may be our last opportunity to speak this
year, let me conclude with a few words about the process that has
dominated during this session.
I have worked in this House for 20 years, both as a staffer and as a
Member. Never have I seen so much disregard for the rules, the
traditions, and the well-being of this House. We have seen huge pieces
of legislation come to this floor for consideration without allowing
Members the time to read what they are voting on. We have seen
conference reports appear without a conference committee ever having
met. We have seen conference committees that meet, but shut Democrats
out. We have seen conference reports come to the floor, like the one
that we are going to deal with today, that undo the work of the both
the full House and Senate. These bills drop provisions that were
supported by both bodies and add things that we never voted on. And we
have seen rollcall votes held open for hours and hours until the
leadership gets the result they want by any means necessary.
I am honored to hold the seat on the Committee on Rules that my old
boss, Joe Moakley, had; and it saddens me that the Committee on Rules
has become a place not to manage debate, but to stifle it. It has been
used as a weapon against Members of both parties. I have been
approached many times by Republican colleagues expressing their
sympathy and their outrage with the action of their Republican
leadership, and I appreciate their kind words. But I say to my friends
on the other side, I do not need your sympathy. I need your vote.
Until Members on the other side stand up to their leadership, stand
up for democracy in this House, stand up for the precedents and the
traditions of this body, things will get worse, not better. This House
is broken. And I urge my colleagues to think long and hard during this
holiday season about how we can fix it.
Vote no on the previous question.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from Oregon (Ms. Hooley).
Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the
martial law rule.
In Oregon, the recession much earlier than the rest of the country.
My State has had the dubious distinction of having the highest rate of
unemployment in the country for much of the last 3 years. During that
time, Oregon has lost 57,000 jobs, a lot of jobs from a State like
mine.
Unemployment benefits are intended as a safety net to carry people
from one job to the next. They do not provide 100 percent of a person's
previous salary, and they require sacrifice to make it work, but the
benefits are absolutely vital for families to make ends meet. And not
only do those benefits provide a level of security to families,
unemployment benefits are also a stimulus to our local economies. When
you take spending power from people, businesses hurt. Each dollar spent
on unemployment benefits results in boosting the economy by $1.73. But
unless Congress takes action today, almost 40,000 Oregonians will lose
their unemployment benefits in the first half
[[Page H12756]]
of next year. Benefits that are needed to pay their rent, pay their
mortgage, pay for food, pay utility bills.
Eleven thousand Oregonians exhausted their benefits last month and
that number is going to continue to grow unless Congress acts today.
The Federal Government Unemployment Trust Funds have a balance of
roughly $20 billion, more than enough to continue and improve the
extended benefits program. These funds were paid into that unemployment
compensation system just for the purpose of helping dislocated workers
during difficult economic times. This is money that is there. This is
the only thing that money can be used for. It does not add to the debt.
This is something we need to do.
I urge my colleagues in joining me to defeat the previous question on
the martial law rule for the omnibus spending bill so we can bring up
an unemployment extension bill.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ 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, this is not a happy moment. This is not a
happy moment. We are forced to come up here and ask that the previous
question be defeated so that we can give to people who are unemployed,
who need unemployment comp, who are looking for work, an additional 13
weeks. And all we get from the Republican side is reserving the balance
of their time.
There are 9 million unemployed in this country; and here is what is
going to happen: December 20, if you are laid off, or I should say if
you are drawing benefits, you can continue to receive your extended
benefits. But, if you exhaust your benefits on December 21, you are out
in the cold. That is the holiday message from the majority in this
House. It is unconscionable. All kinds of excuses.
The gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) has said, Every indicator is
better than in 1993. But the job picture is entirely worse. Job
creation is entirely, dramatically less.
Then I heard: Leave it to the Senate. They are not going to act.
Where are my colleagues from Michigan on the Republican side? Because
of a bipartisan action in Lansing, people who needed it could draw up
to 65 weeks; and now, someone laid off on December 21, or I should say
who is exhausting their benefits, is out in the cold. Not one more
week.
We should not have to be coming here, Mr. Speaker. Times are tough. I
talked to building trade leaders an hour ago. Unemployment is going up
in the building trades in Michigan and in lots of other places, and
there is nothing but a cold shoulder from the leadership of this House.
And I say to the Speaker, whom it is now being said about, that he can
patrol this floor and get the votes, where is your leadership?
We should not have to be here today, the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Rangel), myself and others. This should be a bipartisan effort, and I
hope in the next 24, no, it is not 24, it is 5 or 6 hours, that you, on
the Republican side, will keep faith with the American people, those
who are working and those who are not working through no fault of their
own. Do not reserve your time. Come here with a bill.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, unemployed Americans are about to get their
annual Christmas gift from the Republican majority, and that is the end
of their unemployment benefits.
This is not the first time this happened. Last year, Congress went
home without extending unemployment benefits for those who, through no
fault of their own, cannot find a job and have exhausted their
benefits.
Now they say, well, we just cannot afford it. They can afford
hundreds of billions of dollars of other things in this bill, foreign
aid other things, much of it borrowed, but they cannot find the money
for unemployed Americans. Well, that is actually a lie because there is
$20 billion in the unemployment trust fund.
They do not even have to borrow the money to help unemployed
Americans like they are going to borrow to help many of the special
interests. All they have to do is agree to spend some of the taxes paid
and on deposit to help unemployed Americans, paid by workers, paid by
employers. That is why that money is there.
Every week, 400 Oregonians exhaust their benefits in this jobless
recovery. Nationwide, tens of thousands of Americans are losing their
unemployment benefits. They cannot find work through no fault of their
own. They want to work. They want to work, but they cannot find a job.
Their job has exported to China or to Mexico or from my district, some
of them even to Canada. They cannot find a decent paying job. And now
what is the Republican majority going to do? They are going to go home
without extending unemployment benefits for these people. Many will
lose the benefits Christmas week or New Year's week or in the month
following. They may not be able to make the payments on their house.
They are not going to be able to help their kids get the things they
need to go to school, to feed their family, to pay their electric
bills. These are basics.
We cannot find that money. We have the money. It is sitting in the
bank. All we have to do is agree to spend it.
We have to stop pretending that everything is good with the economy,
that America's just booming ahead again. We have what is called ``a
jobless recovery'' in this country, and those are real people who do
not have jobs. They are real people in my district. And Congress could
do something real for them today. It is just choosing not to. It will
help the special interests but not working Americans.
{time} 1145
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Rangel).
(Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. RANGEL. My colleagues, I do not know why the majority is
reserving their time. Some pretty rough accusations have been made
against them as a party. It would just seem to me that there should be
enough sensitivity if not to respond to us then at least to respond to
those 9 million people who are without work and without hope for the
future.
I can understand the majority in trying to eliminate all taxes for
corporations and the rich. I can understand them trying to dismantle
the Social Security System and the Medicare system. These are things
they have dedicated themselves to doing and can be described as being
Republican and Democratic positions. But how can someone out of work be
the victim of partisanship? How can they determine whether they are
Republican or Democrat? How can they benefit when a kid has to be
withdrawn from school because of their parents' failure to pay their
tuition, or their mortgage is forced to be foreclosed on?
It seems to me that at this time of the year we can at least join
ranks to take care of those people who want to work each and every day.
If we can spend $1 billion a week rebuilding Baghdad, we should at
least give some token of appreciation for those people who have worked
hard to build this Nation, to make her as strong as she is by giving to
them out of their own trust funds that this Congress established to
protect them; that we have the compassion, no, not the compassion, we
have the responsibility to respond to their needs.
Sometimes I am so proud to be a Member of this body, but it is
becoming increasingly more difficult to go to town hall meetings and to
not ask why we tolerate the Republicans doing these things. Why does
this institution, this great institution that we inherited, allow such
pain and suffering to go to the least among us? It is wrong.
We should vote ``no'' on the previous question, and I hope we hear
sometime this morning from the majority.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Woolsey).
(Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
[[Page H12757]]
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I too am in opposition to this martial law
rule because it fails to bring attention to the hardworking families
that are struggling every day in this Nation to meet their needs and to
take care of their children. The economy is letting them down. The
economy continues to suffer. The job market is weak. These families are
why we must absolutely extend the unemployment benefits and why we must
do it now. Not later, but now.
Mr. Speaker, families must have the means to be healthy, they must be
safe when their jobs are no longer secure, and that is why we must
extend these unemployment benefits before we adjourn Congress this
year, before we leave here for our holidays. We are highly paid. We are
employed. Yet we are going to leave and enjoy our holidays, and it will
be absolutely irresponsible if we do not extend the unemployment
benefits.
If it is not irresponsible, Mr. Speaker, it is certainly hardhearted,
because we need 26 weeks' more extension for those who have already
lost their jobs or who are going to lose their jobs or for those who
have unemployment benefits that have lapsed. If we do not give
unemployed workers the help they need today, an estimated 500,000 or
900,000, over half a million of the Nation's jobless, will be without
benefits by the time we return from our holidays in January; holidays
that we have been able to enjoy because we are highly paid and we are
employed, until at least November of every other year.
Why are we not taking care of those who do not have the benefits that
we have? I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the extension of
benefits and vote against the martial law rule.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. 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, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me
this time. In 1971, when I was 14 years old, in the spring of that
year, one day my father came home from work from the shipyard at which
he had worked for nearly 40 years and he brought home with him that day
a layoff notice from the shipyard because we were no longer making
enough money building the ships. That was a summer where he applied for
a lot of jobs. He had to make, as I recall, a weekly visit to the
unemployment office to pick up his check; and his benefits ran out in
the fall of 1971.
I was not quite old enough to understand what that meant, but I was
old enough to remember the stress and anxiety my mother and father felt
that fall; and I was also old enough to remember that somehow or
another there was some good news that came that fall because the
unemployment checks that my dad was picking up once a week were going
to keep going for a while, to get us through the holiday season that
year in 1971. He hung in there. He eventually got a part-time job and
worked every day for the rest of his life, until he died in 1985 at the
age of 75 years old. Government reached out and helped us that holiday
season 32 years ago.
Mr. Speaker, I know there are 1.3 million American families who feel
today like we felt that day 32 years ago, not knowing whether the money
was going to be there for us to have any kind of holiday at all, much
less the money to pay our rent for the next month, to pay for our heat
for the next month to survive on into the next year.
There was money around here to pay for a solar heating experiment for
a Hooters restaurant down South, there was plenty of money, necessary
money in my opinion, to rebuild the wreckage of postwar Baghdad, there
is certainly enough money for the 1.3 million American families who
have already exhausted their unemployment benefits.
Defeat the previous question. Let us bring this issue to the floor.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Washington State (Mr. McDermott).
(Mr. McDermott asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. McDERMOTT. Well, Merry Christmas, Mr. Speaker. We are here, and
we are going to have a party down at the White House tonight, and
everybody is going to be full of happiness and gemitlichkeit, but the
workers of this country are not going to get anything done by the
Republican legislature.
The leadership of the Republican Congress is ignoring the need to
extend benefits this year, just like they did last year. We will be
back in January; and there will be all this clamor about, oh, we have
to do something about unemployment. We know it now. We not only need to
extend these benefits, but we need to fix a quirk in the law that keeps
people in Washington State from even getting it if we would extend it.
Now, the administration likes to trumpet, oh, the stock market is up
and there are a few jobs here and there, but this economic recovery is
a mile wide and an inch deep. Two out of every three people will not
find a job. That is the statistic out of the Department of Labor in the
Bush administration. We know there are no jobs out there. We say, well,
try harder. Go work harder. Walk around.
Mr. Speaker, no matter how dedicated you are, how willing you are to
accept a job, if there is no chance, it sounds to me like, you know, it
is like being on the Titanic and looking down to see how many life
boats there are and saying, well, I guess I am not getting into one,
but I guess maybe the ship will make it.
Washington State remains one of the hardest hit States in the Nation,
despite being a diverse economy that is a model and a microcosm of
America. Too many people are falling through the cracks, and the
leadership of the Republican Party does not care. They want martial law
in here in this Congress. They would be willing to put martial law out
on the streets if the unemployed in this country rose up.
For every person we know who is unemployed, there are many more who
have been given up, dropped out of sight and out of reach. Washington
citizens from all walks of life look to us for leadership, look to us
for a helping hand in time of hardship. They deserve it, and for the
good of America we cannot turn our backs on our own people.
Now, we can go have that party down at the White House, and there
will be bands playing and violins, and lots of drinks and good food;
but it is sort of like Old England. It is Scrooge's business. Let us
have a party, but we will not worry about the people out on the
streets.
Vote against the previous question and make this leadership bring up
unemployment.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
We are about to adjourn sine die and close the first session of the
108th Congress with no more legislative business until January 20th of
next year. And just like last year at this time, we are again callously
turning our backs on millions of unemployed Americans whose Federal
unemployment benefits are set to expire shortly after Christmas.
It is very interesting how the Republican leadership can find
billions of dollars to make their rich friends even richer, but cannot
find it in their hearts to help jobless workers through this rough time
with money that is already there for them. They can find $87 billion to
fund the war in Iraq, but nothing for those here without jobs.
Mr. Speaker, I am going to call for a ``no'' vote to defeat the
previous question on this rule so we can try to do something to help
the unemployed American workers. If the previous question is defeated,
I will offer an amendment so we can immediately take up legislation to
extend the expiring Federal unemployment benefits. And I want to state
again: the money is there. It does not have to be borrowed. It has been
paid in. It simply requires Federal action to allow the States to
expend it.
Mr. Speaker, this legislation will continue the extended unemployment
benefits program for the first 6 months of next year. The bill would
also increase to 26 weeks the amount of benefits provided under that
program, which is up from 13 weeks. This would provide new help to the
1.4 million workers who have already exhausted
[[Page H12758]]
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 also contains the text of H.R. 3554,
authored by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott), which would
fix a flaw in the current law that prevents those States with
exceptionally high long-term unemployment rates from continuing to
receive extra benefits.
There is so much talk today about our economy and claims that things
are looking good. However, new jobs are not forthcoming at this time
and do not appear to be coming anytime soon. Americans continue to be
unemployed at alarmingly high rates. The percentage of Americans
exhausting their unemployment benefits without finding a job has
reached the highest level on record. More than 2 million workers have
been unemployed for more than 6 months. Jobs are disappearing every day
with no relief in sight. 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.
More than 2 million more will lose the benefits in the first 6 months
of next year. And, Mr. Speaker, the House will probably adjourn sine
die today or later this week, so this is the only opportunity we have
to help unemployed Americans this year. Let us not abandon them today.
I want to emphasize that voting against the previous question will
not stop the omnibus appropriations conference report from coming to
the floor today.
Voting ``no'' on the previous question will still allow that bill to
be considered. But a ``no'' vote will allow the House to vote on
legislation that will help our Nation's unemployed workers.
However, a ``yes'' vote on the previous question you will stop any
opportunity for this House to extend desperately needed unemployment
assistance to hundreds of thousands of our constituents and their
families. Do you really want to go home and tell these people that you
failed to do your job and failed to help them in their time of need?
Make no mistake, this vote will give the House the opportunity to
vote today to extend Federal unemployment benefits and to give relief
to those hardest hit by our Nation's grim employment situation. 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
gentlewoman from New York?
There was no objection.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I am here today to echo the
sentiment of my Democratic colleagues about where our priorities are.
As Congress comes to a close for 2003, I want to emphasize the needs of
the middle class, of the unemployed and of the families struggling to
make ends meet.
I am here to vote ``no'' on the Previous Question on both the Martial
Law Rule and the Rule for the Omnibus Appropriations bill. I am doing
this to allow the House to consider legislation that would continue to
extend unemployment benefits through the first six months of next year.
By voting no, we can consider H.R. 3568, a bill that would also
increase to 26 weeks the amount of benefits provided under that
program--up from 13 weeks--and help the 1.4 million workers who have
already exhausted their extended benefits.
Already this year, the Bush Administration has cut education
spending, giving the rich more tax breaks, and taken away the child tax
credit for the middle class. We need to be taking steps to change this
selfish economic policy and focus on creating jobs and incentives to
employ more people and assist those during the transition.
Right now we know that job creation will need to be far greater, more
sustained and more robust to start to undo the damage of the recession
created by the Bush Administration. Already, President Bush is on track
to have the worst job creation record of any modern President. With a
current unemployment rate of 5.9 percent, it is a 44 percent increase
than the rate when President Bush took office in January 2001. This
means 2.7 million more Americans are without a job because of our
irresponsible economic practices.
Extending unemployment benefits is one of the first steps to
correcting the administration's poor economic planning. Economists have
estimated that each dollar of unemployment benefits leads to $1.75 in
economic growth.
Last year, the Republicans went home for the holidays and left
800,000 jobless Americans fearing for their terminated benefits. This
year, we have two million Americans out of work for over six months,
and benefits will expire for 90,000 workers every week unless we do
something about this now.
This is something we must do for our constituents who are struggling
to make ends meet because of circumstances that are out of their
control. From my own district in Houston, I have received over 150
pleading requests to not adjourn without passing the unemployment
benefit extension. This Administration needs to come up with economic
policies that will create jobs, and in the interim they must provide
support to unemployed workers by immediately extending Federal
unemployment benefits. We need to take better care of our working
families and make this a priority.
{time} 1200
The text of the material previously referred to by Ms. Slaughter is
as follows:
Previous Question for H. Res. 465--Rule on waiving 2/3rds for Omnibus/
C/R and/or 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
bill 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 Ways
and Means; and (2) one motion to recommit with or without
instructions.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to support the previous
question and the rule, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move
the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). 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.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. 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.
Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair will reduce to 5 minutes
the minimum time for electronic voting, if ordered, on the question of
adoption of the resolution.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 211,
nays 179, not voting 44, as follows:
[Roll No. 672]
YEAS--211
Akin
Baker
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole
Collins
Cox
Crane
Crenshaw
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Emerson
English
Everett
Feeney
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Goode
Gordon
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
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
McCotter
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
Mica
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neugebauer
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
Rehberg
Renzi
[[Page H12759]]
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
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 (FL)
NAYS--179
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Ballance
Becerra
Bell
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Capps
Carson (IN)
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
Dooley (CA)
Doyle
Edwards
Emanuel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gonzalez
Green (TX)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall
Harman
Hill
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Kleczka
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Majette
Maloney
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Sandlin
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Towns
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Watson
Watt
Weiner
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOT VOTING--44
Aderholt
Bachus
Burr
Burton (IN)
Cantor
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (OK)
Cubin
Deal (GA)
Doggett
Engel
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Fletcher
Gallegly
Gephardt
Goodlatte
Hastings (FL)
Hinchey
Janklow
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Lantos
Larson (CT)
Lynch
Markey
Meehan
Miller (FL)
Miller, George
Nadler
Rangel
Regula
Royce
Rush
Scott (GA)
Sessions
Tierney
Waters
Waxman
Wexler
Young (AK)
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry)(during the vote). Members
are reminded that 2 minutes remain in this vote.
{time} 1221
Messrs. WYNN, PASCRELL and CRAMER changed their vote from ``yea'' to
``nay.''
Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 672, I was unavoidably
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''
Stated against:
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 672, due to urgent
constituent support commitments in my congressional district, I missed
the vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 672,
I missed due to unavoidable circumstances. Had I been present, I would
have voted ``nay.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 212,
noes 182, not voting 40, as follows:
[Roll No. 673]
AYES--212
Aderholt
Akin
Baker
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Calvert
Cannon
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole
Collins
Cox
Crane
Crenshaw
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
English
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Goode
Goss
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
McCotter
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neugebauer
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
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 (FL)
NOES--182
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Ballance
Becerra
Bell
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
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
Dooley (CA)
Doyle
Edwards
Emanuel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Hill
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Kleczka
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Majette
Maloney
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Sandlin
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Towns
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Watson
Watt
Weiner
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOT VOTING--40
Bachus
Burr
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Camp
Cantor
Cardin
Carson (OK)
Cubin
[[Page H12760]]
Deal (GA)
Doggett
Emerson
Engel
Filner
Fletcher
Gallegly
Gephardt
Goodlatte
Hastings (FL)
Herger
Hinchey
Janklow
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Lantos
Larson (CT)
Lynch
Markey
Meehan
Miller, George
Nadler
Rangel
Regula
Rush
Scott (GA)
Tierney
Waters
Waxman
Wexler
Young (AK)
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are reminded that
2 minutes remain in this vote.
{time} 1230
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated against:
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 673, due to urgent
constituent support commitments in my congressional district, I missed
the vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
____________________