[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 175 (Monday, December 8, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H12760-H12766]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
WAIVING POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2673,
CONSOLIDATED APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2004
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the
Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 473 and ask for its
immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 473
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider the conference report to accompany the
bill (H.R. 2673) making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural
Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related
Agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2004, and
for other purposes. All points of order against the
conference report and against its consideration are waived.
The conference report shall be considered as read.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings)
is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. 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
[[Page H12761]]
such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution,
all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 473 is a rule waiving all points of
order against the conference report to accompany H.R. 2673, the
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2004, and against its consideration.
The rule provides that the conference report shall be considered as
read.
The Consolidated Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2004 fully
complies with the fiscal parameters of the budget resolution and
contains $328.1 billion in discretionary spending and $820 billion in
total spending including mandatory funds.
Mr. Speaker, the bill also includes an across-the-board reduction of
.59 percent in all programs, projects and activities, except for
Defense and Military Construction funds.
The Committee on Appropriations is to be commended for moving with
dispatch to make this conference report available so that the House can
complete its work on funding measures before the conclusion of the
First Session. Accordingly, Mr. Speaker I urge my colleagues to support
both the rule and the underlying conference report.
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, for months the Republicans who control the
Federal Government have held hostage some of the foremost priorities of
the American people. Key national needs like education, veterans'
health care, law enforcement have all been relegated to the back burner
while Republican leaders fought amongst themselves over how best to
privatize Medicare and reward big drug companies.
But today, my Republican friends undoubtedly will come down to the
floor and proclaim that this giant $820 billion spending bill finishes
their work for the year. In response, millions of Americans still
struggling through the aftermath of the last Republican recession will
respond ``What about us?''
It is a fair question, Mr. Speaker. What about the 2.4 million
American jobs that have been lost since the Republican Party first took
over the government 3 years ago? What about the 90,000 Americans who
will lose their unemployment insurance eligibility just 3 days after
Christmas or the 2.1 million unemployed workers who will lose access to
extended insurance over the first 6 months of next year?
In my home State of Texas, over 130,000 people will lose unemployment
insurance if this Republican Congress does not act to help them,
according to the Joint Economic Committee's analysis of the data from
the Labor Department. Republican leaders often try to spin away
statistics like this, but the truth is the Bush Presidency has seen
this Nation suffer through the longest job slump since the Great
Depression, and the picture is still grim for millions of Americans
trying to find good jobs to support their families.
While the number of jobs in America has shrunk by 2.4 million, the
working-age population in America has grown by 4.5 million. As a
result, America's ``jobs deficit'' has shot up to 6.9 million on the
Republican watch. That has put American workers in a huge hole and left
three unemployed workers for every one job that becomes available.
Despite these facts, Mr. Speaker, Republican leaders are, once again,
planning to adjourn for the holidays without extending unemployment
insurance, just like they did last year. Mr. Speaker, there is no
reason to treat the American people with such callousness. It would be
only fair to provide them with the help that they need before Congress
goes home for the holidays. Even the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Young), chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, supports doing it,
as he said this morning in the Committee on Rules. After all, the
Republican Congress has already done huge favors for their biggest
supporters. Over the last 3 years, they have squandered trillions of
dollars on tax breaks for the wealthiest few, driving the national
deficit above $500 billion on an annual basis and raising the debt tax
on all Americans. And today, President Bush will sign the Republican
``wither-on-the-vine'' Medicare bill. This monstrosity spends billions
to subsidize HMOs and drug companies, but it actually reduces seniors'
choices and it makes it illegal for them to reduce the huge out-of-
pocket cost that the Republican bill does not cover. It will not let
retirees cover these drug costs with the employer-provided drug
coverage that they already have, even though the Republican bill may
only cover selected medicines, regardless of what their doctor says
they need. And it will not let seniors buy Medigap policies to cover
their $3,600 in out-of-pocket expenses either.
Mr. Speaker, that is an outrage, and it comes on top of a $12 billion
slush fund for HMOs and $139 billion in windfall profits for big drug
companies. So why, Mr. Speaker, will Republicans not spend just a tiny
fraction of that to help Americans still suffering from the latest
Republican recession? Why will they not use their legislation on the
floor today, an $820 billion collection of several different spending
bills, to provide desperately-needed relief over the holidays to
Americans who still cannot find a job?
{time} 1245
After all, the omnibus spending bill provides plenty of assistance to
others. For the big drug companies, Republican leaders have dropped
drug reimportation language passed by the House and Senate, meaning
that drug prices will still be astronomically higher for America's
seniors than for people in other countries.
For some of the Bush administration's biggest corporate backers,
Republicans have dropped overtime protection for workers, meaning that
millions of Americans will get paid less, even as they are forced to
work more. And they are spending $13 million on vouchers to subsidize
private schools for a few, taking desperately needed resources from the
public schools that serve all American children.
Despite all this, Mr. Speaker, there are still many worthwhile parts
to this massive spending bill. For instance, Democrats and veterans
groups have finally forced Republicans to increase funding for veterans
medical care that would still fall short of what they need. And to help
communities protect children against abduction, this bill includes $24
million for the national Amber Alert Program that I first introduced
earlier this year. It also includes vital resources to address
important transportation issues in north Texas.
So why can this Republican Congress not do just one more good deed
before the holidays? Mr. Speaker, why not help the 1.4 million workers
who cannot find work, who have already exhausted their extended
benefits and have yet to find work?
Republican leaders may not care about helping them, but that does not
have to stop this Congress from doing the right thing. If Republican
Members will join Democrats in opposing the important parliamentary
vote known as the previous question, then we can amend the rule and
pass commonsense assistance for Americans still unable to find work in
this jobless recovery. Otherwise, while Republicans are enjoying their
vacations, hundreds of thousands of jobless Americans will spend the
holidays preparing to lose the unemployment insurance they need to
support their families.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from the
District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, this morning's news talks about the elections in Russia.
At the same time it speaks about elections, it talks about the steady
erosion of democratic freedoms embodied in these elections, and it says
there is mounting national and international criticism of those
elections because of the denial of democracy as defined by free
societies, which is because of the heavy hand of the Putin majority.
We are blind if we do not see analogous denials of democracy
American-style wrapped up in this omnibus bill. Is it democracy when,
for the first time, we hold open votes unconscionably long, pressure
Members, it has been alleged illegally, with threats or
[[Page H12762]]
bribes until you win what the vote shows you had already lost? We have
done that at least a half a dozen times, ranging from 25 minutes to 3
hours.
Is it democracy when you reverse the votes of the House, as we have
done on the overtime provision?
Is it democracy when we have one-party conferences, locking out the
other party?
Is it democracy when there are in this bill, a major bill, provisions
for which there have been no votes at all? Like the D.C. voucher
provision, there was no vote in the Senate because they had no votes.
The ultimate abuse is they removed the few routine accountability
provisions that by voice vote did get in the bill for D.C. vouchers.
One was that teachers have to have a college degree.
Is it democracy when you lard the bill with Republican pork,
defunding the No Child Left Behind bill while your own school districts
are screaming because they have had to cut their own school funding?
I must say, if we pass this bill, it will be an appropriate way to
end this session, because this entire session has been a monument, as
this bill is, to the denial of democracy.
In this session, Mr. Speaker, we have crossed the line. We have
crossed the line between the kind of contentiousness that has gone on
for 200 years in this House to one-party rule in the people's House.
The way to begin to remedy this, and we must remedy this now, we must
not carry this procedure, this way of conducting business, into the
next year; the way to remedy this outrage is to vote against this bill.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, today the leadership of this House breathes life back
into the spirit of Ebeneezer Scrooge and for the second year in a row
ignores the plight of America's unemployed during the holiday season.
The majority's failure to extend emergency unemployment benefits for
the long-term unemployed is not only unconscionable; it is cold-
hearted.
In May, President Bush said, ``My economic plan is summed up in one
word: jobs.'' But the truth is, even after 4 straight months of anemic
job growth, President Bush is on course to become the first President
since Herbert Hoover to preside over a net jobs loss during his 4-year
term.
Yes, the economy added 57,000 jobs in November, but here is what they
do not say: the economy has to create 150,000 jobs a month just to keep
pace with the new folks coming into the employment arena. Overall,
there are 8.7 million unemployed Americans today; and nearly one-fourth
of them, Mr. Speaker, some 2 million people, have been jobless for more
than 26 weeks.
Mr. Speaker, that is the highest percentage of long-term unemployment
since July of 1983, 20 years ago; and there are about 4.2 million other
workers who want a job, but are not even counted among the unemployed.
The reality is this: if the President and Congressional Republicans
refuse to extend Federal temporary unemployment benefits, which are
scheduled to be phased out beginning December 21, an estimated 80,000
to 90,000 jobless workers who exhaust their State benefits every week
will be completely cut off. That is 80,000 to 90,000 people per week.
That is not only callous; it is unnecessary. We have the funding to
extend these benefits. That is right, there is $20 billion in the
Federal fund dedicated to unemployment benefits, which is financed by
unemployment taxes deducted from workers' paychecks.
Mr. Speaker, I know the President and our Republican colleagues would
like nothing more than to pronounce our economy healed and to unfurl
the banner reading ``Mission Accomplished,'' but it is plain that
millions of Americans continue to be hurt. The least we can do is reach
out a helping hand.
Mr. Speaker, we did this last year, and we left 800,000 people on
December 31, 2002, falling off the unemployment roles. With the money
in the pot to help them, why do we leave this day without addressing
this problem? There is no explanation, Mr. Speaker. I predict to you
that the President will, 2 weeks from now, say, oh, my goodness, we
should have done that.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished
ranking member for yielding me time.
I wish that we would donate our time and dedicate ourselves to the
wishes of the American people.
Hubert Humphrey said that this Constitution was organized to create a
more perfect Union, and the challenge of creating a more perfect Union
is a continued agitation and criticism, not because we are disloyal to
this country and to the American people, but because we care about a
more perfect Union.
In the backdrop of a 4-hour vote before we left for the Thanksgiving
work recess, I come to the floor of the House now. We have an omnibus
appropriations bill that has barely been before the Members of Congress
for any kind of review. For 4 hours a vote was left open, in complete
disregard for the rules of this House and what the Madison Papers and
our Founding Fathers wanted to establish, a Republic and also a
democracy.
Today we come with a martial law that allows us on one day to just
put on the floor of the House a huge and large and massive
interpretation of the appropriations for 2004. And then we have a
situation where issues that clearly the American people are against,
such as eliminating overtime opportunities for working men and women
are sneaked into the appropriations bill, and then where thousands of
petitions from around the country were brought to this government about
not allowing large media conglomerates to buy up stations to the
disregard of the first amendment. And lo and behold, there is a sneak
provision in here that allows that to happen.
Then, of course, there is a provision that affects many seniors who
were implementing lower-cost drugs by drug reimportation. Clearly those
drugs were safe, because seniors have been doing it for a very long
time. That has been sneaked into the bill, meaning that we have
eliminated that opportunity so that seniors can again suffer. They
suffer first with a Medicare bill that is going to implode and not be
in business until 2006 and cost thousands of Texans to lose their
benefits, and they will suffer.
Then if we talk about international efforts, I was in Ethiopia this
past summer, and one of the things they were begging for is, they
appreciated the famine relief, but they wanted to be able to be taught
to fish. If you teach someone to fish they may not be hungry tomorrow,
but if you give them a fish today, they may be hungry tomorrow. It
takes very low dollars for what we call food security, teaching them
agricultural skills and new technology.
Then, of course, I have been concerned with the Columbia 7 tragedy,
that NASA focus its concepts on safety. In all of the NASA budget, I do
not know if there is a line item that boosts the resources for making
sure that NASA pays attention to safety issues.
We could have done this, Mr. Speaker, if we had deliberated on this
appropriations bill. If we did not have the martial law, if we paid
attention to the rules of the House, we might be able to do this. But,
unfortunately, it seems we cannot.
So I ask my colleagues to vote against this rule so we can get back
to work on behalf of the American people.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the rule on H.R. 2673, the
Omnibus appropriations Conference report. While the Omnibus includes a
significant amount for agriculture appropriations, the omnibus fails to
include the House provisions to prohibit the FDA from spending funds to
prevent individuals and pharmacists from importing FDA-approved
prescription drugs. In addition, this portion of the bill delays for
two years the mandatory country-of-origin labeling for all produce,
meat or meat products except for farm-raised fish and wild fish.
In addition, the omnibus permanently limits the ability of the FCC to
grant licenses for a commercial TV broadcast station if the granting of
that license would result in such party having an aggregate national
audience reach exceeding 39 percent (the House and Senate bills barred
the FCC from increasing the share of the national market one
broadcasting company can own, which currently is 35 percent.
[[Page H12763]]
The omnibus also includes provisions that prohibit the implementation
of a background check system that does not include a requirement to
destroy gun purchase records within 24 hours.
I am rather disturbed Mr. Speaker, by the portion appropriating
$139.8 billion for the Department of Labor, Health and Human Services,
Education, and related agencies. While I am pleased that there is money
for Texas Southern University, a predominantly black university in my
district for their minority engineering program within the college of
Science and Technology, I was rather disturbed that the Democratic
members were shut out from receiving individual earmarks for their
districts because they voted against the bill when it came to the House
floor. This not only goes against fundamental fairness Mr. Speaker, but
when you penalize individual members by not giving them much needed
money for their districts, you hurt their constituents. This is bad for
this institution, and bad for the country. The omnibus also falls $7.8
billion short of the No Child Left Behind Authorization levels and
provides $55.7 billion for the Education Department ($12.4 billion for
the Title I program.
The omnibus fails to include the House and Senate adopted provisions
to block the Department of Labor from issuing rules that would take
away the rights of some white-collar workers to overtime pay.
The omnibus also fails to include House provisions that would have
limited the Administration's ability to outsource some federal jobs and
includes only some limitations to programs funded by the
Transportation-Treasury bill.
I urge members to vote against this rule.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Inslee).
(Mr. INSLEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, last night while I was enjoying sumptuous
airline fare on the red-eye to come out here to vote on this, the lady
sitting next to me was reading a book called ``Nickel and Dimed.'' It
is a book about people who are struggling; who are employed, but who
are struggling to keep their souls and their families together in
today's economically challenged times. And nobody, nobody who has read
this book would vote for this rule.
The reason is that we can quote all the rosy statistics that we can,
but the fact of the matter is if we leave this floor and go out to the
food banks in our districts, in every district in America, the food
banks are jammed, the lines are long, people are still having problems
feeding their children.
As I was talking to a business owner the other day in Seattle, he
says, I hear these statistics, but I do not see the customers. The fact
of the matter is, we still have people in pain, and this rule keeps
them in that economically devastated condition.
There are two reasons it does this: one, it guts the effort we had on
a bipartisan basis in the Senate and at least a little bit here on this
floor when, in a democratic process, we voted with the majority to stop
the President of the United States from stealing people's time with
their families by gutting overtime protection.
Over 8 million Americans are going to lose the right to overtime,
and, more importantly, lose the right to control their own time with
their families if this rule passes. That is wrong. It is a violation of
the democratic spirit for us to vote to stop the President from taking
family time away from their families, with people going into a dark
room and stripping that protection out. It is wrong, and we should fix
it right here.
{time} 1300
But second is the unemployment. We have heard that we have had some
modestly encouraging news, that there has been some jobs created in the
recent past, and that is great. But the fact of the matter is, there
have been 2.4 million jobs lost during this administration's tenure.
And the way I figure it, if we look at the jobs that have been created,
we have only got about 2.3 million jobs to go to get our nose above
dead even.
Now, the majority's approach to this is we sort of have the U.S.
economy with 2.4 million jobs lost kind of down in a deep well. The
majority is starting to look at that American worker down in that deep
well, and we have winched them up about 6 inches off the floor and
said, you are on your own now. We have a long ways to go before we can
say that we are out of the woods economically.
This bill does not cut the mustard. This bill gives Scrooge a bad
name. At least he had an epiphany.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Moran).
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring the body's
attention to another provision in this omnibus appropriations bill. I
know there are several that are objectionable, and this one may not get
any further discussion, but I think it merits it.
There is a provision in this bill that says that all of the records
of firearm purchases have to be destroyed within 24 hours.
Now, we know that there have been more than 3,500 firearms purchased
by people who should not have purchased them, and that the FBI has been
able to retrieve those guns because the records are currently kept for
90 days. They retrieve them if the person that purchased it is a
fugitive, is a felon, has a history of serious mental illness, is an
illegal alien, any number of reasons that they should not be purchasing
guns, lawfully, in the United States. So 3,500 guns have been retrieved
because we have kept the records available for 90 days. Now, they have
to be destroyed within 24 hours.
Now, the National Rifle Association thinks this is a good thing, but
our law enforcement organizations do not. FBI agents will tell us this
is very serious, what this bill would do. In fact, the al Qaeda
training manual cites the fact that you can go in and buy a gun in the
United States, and as long as you have not been a convicted felon in
the past, you can buy that and the records will be destroyed. And, in
fact, as the Washington Post said in an article last week, that is
true, that if a person gets hold of a gun, their records have to be
destroyed as a result of this bill. If they are denied, then the
records can be pursued. But if they lawfully purchased it, the records
are destroyed, which means that we are deliberately tying the hands of
law enforcement agencies.
Now, is it not appropriate that we be able to consult the list of
violent gang members and terrorists when they try to buy a gun?
Absolutely, is the answer. Yet, this bill says, within 24 hours, even
if it is a holiday, a weekend, even if it is in some rural area where
they do not have the resources to check what they need to be able to
check, it has to be destroyed within 24 hours.
Mr. Speaker, we are going to look back and find this provision as one
of the most dangerous that this House has passed, and the most
irresponsible and irrational. We should not be doing this. It was
another one of these things snuck into the conference report. I
strongly urge Members, unless we can take this out, this bill should
not be supported in its present form.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1
minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time. I rise in reluctant opposition to this rule and to this bill.
We, in the House, have specific rules against approving spending that
is not approved in either a House or Senate version and then comes to
the floor in a bill like this, yet we routinely waive the rules and
waive all points of order against this kind of spending. This is to our
shame. I am ashamed that we are doing this today. This bill has about,
at last count I believe about 7,000 earmarks within it for particular
spending items. Under Republican control, we have gone, I believe, in
1994 from about 2,000 earmarks per year to over 10,000, and that is not
the way that we ought to conduct business. I think that it is going to
come back to bite us. It well ought to.
With that, I think that we ought to oppose this rule because it goes
against procedures that we have established in the House, and we ought
to vote against the bill as well.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Cardin).
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for
yielding me this time. I would hope that we will defeat the previous
question so that we can bring up the unemployment compensation
extension.
[[Page H12764]]
Last year, Congress left town without extending unemployment
benefits, but at least we came back and did it retroactively.
Now, some are saying that our unemployment is not as bad or not bad
enough for us to extend the Federal unemployment benefits. They are
saying it is time for the extended benefit program to end.
But let us look at the facts. Never before has Congress allowed the
termination of this program when the unemployment rate is higher than
when the program started; at least up until now. Congress has never
terminated the program with the unemployment benefits when the economy
still has 2.4 million fewer jobs today than when the recession began.
Congress has never stopped the extension of the program where the long-
term unemployment rates have tripled. Yet, there has been no offer to
give any help. Congress has never allowed the extended benefit program
to expire when the exhaustion rate for regular unemployment benefits is
the highest since we have been keeping these records. Yet, we are
talking about leaving town without extending unemployment benefits.
Congress has never refused to extend unemployment benefits when there
is $20 billion in the Federal Unemployment Trust Account, enough money
to pay for extended benefits without going into debt, yet we are
talking about leaving town today without extending the Federal
unemployment benefits.
The Washington Post got it right when it compared this to the last
recession. It said, ``But in 1993, employment had grown for 22 of the
23 previous months, and the overall number of jobs was above the
prerecession level. This time around, employment has grown for only 4
months in a row, following 6 straight months of job losses. Overall,
the number of jobs is down 2.4 million since the current downturn
started in early 2001.''
Mr. Speaker, it would be wrong for us to leave town without helping
those people who do not have jobs through no fault of their own.
Unemployment compensation is not a luxury. We need to do it now.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, this is probably the House's final work day this year,
but Republican leaders are, once again, callously turning their backs
on the millions of unemployed Americans whose Federal unemployment
insurance will expire just days after Christmas. The Republican
leadership has found billions of dollars to extend tax breaks for
corporations, but they keep refusing to help the jobless Americans who
are still suffering from the last Republican recession.
To give Republicans one last chance to do the right thing, I will
oppose the previous question on this rule so that we can immediately
take up legislation to extend the expiring Federal unemployment
benefits.
This commonsense legislation would continue the extended unemployment
benefits program through the first 6 months of next year. It would
increase to 26 weeks the amounts of benefits provided under the
program, up from 13 weeks. It would provide new help to the 1.4 million
workers who have already exhausted their extended benefits and have yet
to find work.
Mr. Speaker, this legislation is identical to the text of H.R. 3244,
the Rangel-Cardin unemployment extension, and it also contains the text
of H.R. 3554 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 the help their citizens need.
Mr. Speaker, Americans still face a difficult jobs market. Since
President Bush took office, the economy has lost 2.4 million jobs. That
is the worst jobs record for a President since Herbert Hoover and the
Great Depression. The percentage of Americans exhausting their
unemployment benefits without finding a job has reached its highest
level on record. These Americans need relief and they need it
immediately. If we do not extend unemployment benefits, then more than
2 million workers will lose benefits in the first 6 months of next
year, including over 130,000 in my State of Texas alone.
I want to stress that this vote is not intended to stop the omnibus
conference report from consideration in the House. Voting ``no'' on the
previous question will still allow that bill to move forward today. 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,
particularly during this holiday season. However, if Members vote
``yes'' on the previous question, they will kill any chance for
extending unemployment assistance that is so desperately needed by
millions of our constituents and their families.
Let us be clear. This vote will give the House the opportunity to
vote today on extended Federal unemployment benefits and on giving
relief to those hardest hit to the President's dismal economic record.
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. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
This is a rule that provides for the consideration of the
consolidated spending bill. It is something that we must do in this
Congress to fund the government. That is what this rule is all about. I
urge support of that.
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to vote
``no'' on the previous question so that this Congress can extend
unemployment benefits to the millions of Americans who cannot find work
in an economy with almost three unemployed workers for every job
opening.
Because of previous inaction, it is now ``zero hour'' for American
families who are set to exhaust their State unemployment benefits. If
we do not extend the Federal unemployment insurance program today,
roughly half a million people who would have been eligible for the
Federal extension program will not be receiving a paycheck or an
unemployment check in January.
These workers form the ranks of America's 2 million long-term
unemployed workers. They have been out of work for at least half a year
and they comprise almost a quarter of the unemployed, a larger share of
those out of work than at any time since July 1983. A recent survey by
the National Employment Law Project noted that over half of the long-
term unemployed had cut back on food purchases for their families,
borrowed money to pay basic bills, and postponed necessary medical
treatment.
We can held these families today. The economic situation in this
country has simply not improved enough to justify the end to the
Federal unemployment extension program. Already, three of every four
Federal unemployment recipients exhaust their benefits without finding
a job.
We must not punish millions of American families simply for losing
their jobs at the wrong time of year, in the wrong month of the
Congressional calendar. Vote ``no'' on the previous question.
Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak today to object
to consideration of the Omnibus Appropriations bill. I am specifically
concerned with provisions in this legislation that would result in the
removal of overtime pay protection for many American workers.
A few months ago, this House voted to instruct conferees to remove
unfair provisions on overtime pay. Despite the will of a majority of
Members, those provisions still remain in this bill. This does not
reflect the true position of the House of Representatives.
Mr. Speaker, I am speaking on what has been called ``the Harkin
amendment.'' This amendment to the FY2004 Labor-HHS appropriations bill
would have prohibited the Department of Labor from issuing regulations
that would disqualify overtime protection to workers protected under
current law.
The opponents of overtime pay protection would require employees to
work more than 40 hours weekly without being paid time and a half for
their work. The Department of Labor claims that only 644,000 current
workers will lose overtime pay benefits under the provisions of this
legislation.
In sharp contrast, the Economic Policy Institute reports that over
eight million eligible workers are earning overtime, and will be
adversely affected by these regulations. This figure includes 5.5
million workers paid hourly and 2.5 million salaried employees. We all
know that we live in a time of scarce resources and few job
opportunities. Therefore, this drastic pay cut, especially during the
holiday season, is fundamentally unfair and wrong for American workers.
[[Page H12765]]
Over 1.4 million Americans are also faced with the expiration of
their unemployment benefits at the end of this month. We cannot in good
conscience go home to celebrate the holidays with our families while
unemployed Americans face a grim future and a bleak holiday season.
Mr. Speaker, I urge the Members of this body to take action today
that will give hope to American workers, and protect the wages they
earn and extend the benefits they deserve.
The amendment previously referred to by Mr. Frost is as follows:
Previous Question for H. Res. 473, Rule for Conference Report on H.R.
2673, Agriculture/Omnibus Appropriations FY04
At the end of the resolution add the following new section:
Sec. 2. ``Immediately after disposition of the conference
report on H.R. 2673, 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.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. 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, 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 214,
nays 189, not voting 31, as follows:
[Roll No. 674]
YEAS--214
Aderholt
Akin
Bachus
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
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole
Collins
Cox
Crane
Crenshaw
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Emerson
English
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
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
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
Tancredo
Tauzin
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--189
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
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Case
Clay
Clyburn
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
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Kleczka
Lampson
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Majette
Maloney
Markey
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
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sandlin
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson
Watt
Weiner
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOT VOTING--31
Burr
Burton (IN)
Carson (OK)
Conyers
Cubin
Doggett
Filner
Fletcher
Gallegly
Gephardt
Hayes
Houghton
Janklow
John
Kucinich
Lantos
Lynch
Meehan
Miller, George
Nadler
Pelosi
Portman
Regula
Rush
Sanders
Sullivan
Sweeney
Taylor (NC)
Waxman
Wexler
Young (AK)
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette) (during the vote). Members
are advised there are 2 minutes remaining in this vote.
{time} 1334
Mr. WYNN changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. SAXTON 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. HAYES. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 674, I was unavoidably
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''
Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 674, I was unavoidably
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, on December 8, 2003, I was unavoidably
detained at a meeting and missed the vote on rollcall No. 674, Ordering
Previous Question on H. Res. 473, the Rule to accompany H.R. 2673, the
Fiscal Year 2004 Agriculture Appropriations Act.
Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''
Stated against:
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 674, due to urgent
constituent support commitments in my Congressional District, I missed
the vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The question is on the
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. FROST. 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 216,
noes 189, not voting 29, as follows:
[[Page H12766]]
[Roll No. 675]
AYES--216
Aderholt
Bachus
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
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole
Collins
Cox
Crane
Crenshaw
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Emerson
English
Everett
Ferguson
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
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
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tauzin
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--189
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
Cardin
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
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Flake
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Kleczka
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Majette
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Mollohan
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sandlin
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson
Watt
Weiner
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOT VOTING--29
Akin
Burr
Burton (IN)
Carson (OK)
Cubin
Doggett
Feeney
Filner
Fletcher
Gallegly
Gephardt
Houghton
Janklow
John
Lantos
Lynch
Meehan
Meeks (NY)
Miller, George
Moore
Nadler
Northup
Pelosi
Rush
Sanders
Taylor (NC)
Waxman
Wexler
Young (AK)
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised there
are 2 minutes remaining in this vote.
{time} 1343
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. 675, due to urgent
constituent support commitments in my congressional district, I missed
the vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
____________________