Congressional Record, Volume 156 Issue 109 (Thursday, July 22, 2010)

[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 109 (Thursday, July 22, 2010)]
[House]
[Pages H5938-H5950]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION EXTENSION ACT OF 2010

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1550, I call up
the bill (H.R. 4213) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to
extend certain expiring provisions, and for other purposes, with the
Senate amendment to the House amendment to the Senate amendment
thereto, and I have a motion at the desk.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the Senate
amendment to the House amendment to the Senate amendment.
Senate amendment to House amendment to Senate amendment:

In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted, insert the
following:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Unemployment Compensation
Extension Act of 2010''.

SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE PROVISIONS.

(a) In General.--(1) Section 4007 of the Supplemental
Appropriations Act, 2008 (Public Law 110-252; 26 U.S.C. 3304
note) is amended--

[[Page H5939]]

(A) by striking ``June 2, 2010'' each place it appears and
inserting ``November 30, 2010'';
(B) in the heading for subsection (b)(2), by striking
``june 2, 2010'' and inserting ``november 30, 2010''; and
(C) in subsection (b)(3), by striking ``November 6, 2010''
and inserting ``April 30, 2011''.
(2) Section 2005 of the Assistance for Unemployed Workers
and Struggling Families Act, as contained in Public Law 111-5
(26 U.S.C. 3304 note; 123 Stat. 444), is amended--
(A) by striking ``June 2, 2010'' each place it appears and
inserting ``December 1, 2010''; and
(B) in subsection (c), by striking ``November 6, 2010'' and
inserting ``May 1, 2011''.
(3) Section 5 of the Unemployment Compensation Extension
Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-449; 26 U.S.C. 3304 note) is
amended by striking ``November 6, 2010'' and inserting
``April 30, 2011''.
(b) Funding.--Section 4004(e)(1) of the Supplemental
Appropriations Act, 2008 (Public Law 110-252; 26 U.S.C. 3304
note) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (D), by striking ``and'' at the end;
and
(2) by inserting after subparagraph (E) the following:
``(F) the amendments made by section 2(a)(1) of the
Unemployment Compensation Extension Act of 2010; and''.
(c) Conditions for Receiving Emergency Unemployment
Compensation.--Section 4001(d)(2) of the Supplemental
Appropriations Act, 2008 (Public Law 110-252; 26 U.S.C. 3304
note) is amended, in the matter preceding subparagraph (A),
by inserting before ``shall apply'' the following:
``(including terms and conditions relating to availability
for work, active search for work, and refusal to accept
work)''.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect as if included in the enactment of the
Continuing Extension Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-157).

SEC. 3. COORDINATION OF EMERGENCY UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION
WITH REGULAR COMPENSATION.

(a) Certain Individuals Not Ineligible by Reason of New
Entitlement to Regular Benefits.--Section 4002 of the
Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2008 (Public Law 110-252; 26
U.S.C. 3304 note) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(g) Coordination of Emergency Unemployment Compensation
With Regular Compensation.--
``(1) If--
``(A) an individual has been determined to be entitled to
emergency unemployment compensation with respect to a benefit
year,
``(B) that benefit year has expired,
``(C) that individual has remaining entitlement to
emergency unemployment compensation with respect to that
benefit year, and
``(D) that individual would qualify for a new benefit year
in which the weekly benefit amount of regular compensation is
at least either $100 or 25 percent less than the individual's
weekly benefit amount in the benefit year referred to in
subparagraph (A),

then the State shall determine eligibility for compensation
as provided in paragraph (2).
``(2) For individuals described in paragraph (1), the State
shall determine whether the individual is to be paid
emergency unemployment compensation or regular compensation
for a week of unemployment using one of the following
methods:
``(A) The State shall, if permitted by State law, establish
a new benefit year, but defer the payment of regular
compensation with respect to that new benefit year until
exhaustion of all emergency unemployment compensation payable
with respect to the benefit year referred to in paragraph
(1)(A);
``(B) The State shall, if permitted by State law, defer the
establishment of a new benefit year (which uses all the wages
and employment which would have been used to establish a
benefit year but for the application of this paragraph),
until exhaustion of all emergency unemployment compensation
payable with respect to the benefit year referred to in
paragraph (1)(A);
``(C) The State shall pay, if permitted by State law--
``(i) regular compensation equal to the weekly benefit
amount established under the new benefit year, and
``(ii) emergency unemployment compensation equal to the
difference between that weekly benefit amount and the weekly
benefit amount for the expired benefit year; or
``(D) The State shall determine rights to emergency
unemployment compensation without regard to any rights to
regular compensation if the individual elects to not file a
claim for regular compensation under the new benefit year.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to individuals whose benefit years, as described
in section 4002(g)(1)(B) the Supplemental Appropriations Act,
2008 (Public Law 110-252; 26 U.S.C. 3304 note), as amended by
this section, expire after the date of enactment of this Act.

SEC. 4. REQUIRING STATES TO NOT REDUCE REGULAR COMPENSATION
IN ORDER TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR FUNDS UNDER THE
EMERGENCY UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION PROGRAM.

Section 4001 of the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2008
(Public Law 110-252; 26 U.S.C. 3304 note) is amended by
adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(g) Nonreduction Rule.--An agreement under this section
shall not apply (or shall cease to apply) with respect to a
State upon a determination by the Secretary that the method
governing the computation of regular compensation under the
State law of that State has been modified in a manner such
that--
``(1) the average weekly benefit amount of regular
compensation which will be payable during the period of the
agreement occurring on or after June 2, 2010 (determined
disregarding any additional amounts attributable to the
modification described in section 2002(b)(1) of the
Assistance for Unemployed Workers and Struggling Families
Act, as contained in Public Law 111-5 (26 U.S.C. 3304 note;
123 Stat. 438)), will be less than
``(2) the average weekly benefit amount of regular
compensation which would otherwise have been payable during
such period under the State law, as in effect on June 2,
2010.''.

SEC. 5. BUDGETARY PROVISIONS.

(a) Statutory Paygo.--The budgetary effects of this Act,
for the purpose of complying with the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go
Act of 2010, shall be determined by reference to the latest
statement titled `Budgetary Effects of PAYGO Legislation' for
this Act, jointly submitted for printing in the Congressional
Record by the Chairmen of the House and Senate Budget
Committees, provided that such statement has been submitted
prior to the vote on passage in the House acting first on
this conference report or amendment between the Houses.
(b) Emergency Designations.--Sections 2 and 3--
(1) are designated as an emergency requirement pursuant to
section 4(g) of the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010
(Public Law 111-139; 2 U.S.C. 933(g));
(2) in the House of Representatives, are designated as an
emergency for purposes of pay-as-you-go principles; and
(3) in the Senate, are designated as an emergency
requirement pursuant to section 403(a) of S. Con. Res. 13
(111th Congress), the concurrent resolution on the budget for
fiscal year 2010.

Motion to Concur

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Levin moves that the House concur in the Senate
amendment to the House amendment to the Senate amendment to
H.R. 4213.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Senate amendment to the House amendment
to the Senate amendment to the bill H.R. 4213 contains an emergency
designation for the purposes of pay-as-you-go principles under clause
10(c) of rule XXI; and an emergency designation pursuant to section
4(g)(1) of the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010.
Accordingly, the Chair must put the question of the consideration
under clause 10(c)(3) of rule XXI and under section 4(g)(2) of the
Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010.
The question is, Will the House now consider the motion to concur in
the Senate amendment to the House amendment to the Senate amendment?
The question of consideration was decided in the affirmative.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1550, the
motion shall be debatable for 1 hour, equally divided and controlled by
the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and
Means.
The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) and the gentleman from
Louisiana (Mr. Boustany) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I shall consume.
Mr. Speaker and colleagues, this action should have occurred 2 months
ago. This House acted to extend unemployment insurance on May 28. For 6
weeks Republicans in the Senate blocked unemployment insurance. They
stood not on the side but in the way of millions of Americans. During
those 6 weeks, over 2.5 million unemployed Americans exhausted their
benefits, and they struggled to stay afloat while continuing to look
for work in this difficult economy.
Americans like this person from Grand Rapids, Michigan, who wrote me,
and I quote, ``I worked 22 years in automotive, 60 to 70 hours a week,
supported my family, paid my taxes, and worked in my community. Every
single day I send my resume out, to no avail. I have lost my home, one
vehicle, and my sense of the ability to take care of my family.''
Or this individual from Madison Heights, Michigan. ``My family is not
living large; we are surviving. Cutting unemployment insurance will
take us out of survival mode and put us into homeless mode. After
working 20-plus years, this is the first time that we have asked for
unemployment.''
And to add insult to injury, after their filibuster was broken,
Senate Republicans insisted on running out the clock and delaying the
full 30 hours before they would let a final vote occur in the other
body. Thirty hours for nothing. No excuse of theirs worked for working
Americans out of work, out of work through no fault of their own and
looking for work.

[[Page H5940]]

We have acted to extend unemployment insurance in Republican
Congresses under Republican Presidents. So today we put this sad
chapter behind us, and now we move forward to continue our efforts to
support job creation and to continue to dig out of the jobs ditch
inherited by this administration and by this Congress.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, my State of Louisiana has faced four hurricanes, a
recession, and now an oil spill. And every one of us in this body has
faced and looked into the eyes of those who lost their homes and lost
their jobs. And every one of us in this body feels deep compassion for
those who are in those dire straits. And we all want to help.
Republicans want to help those looking for work, we want to help those
who are struggling with this current economic slowdown, but we also
agree with the American people that new spending must be paid for.

{time} 1220

This latest unemployment insurance extender bill fails to do what the
American people want us to do. Instead, the Democratic approach adds
another $34 billion to the already staggering $13 trillion national
debt. And that's not because we have a shortage of ineffective,
inefficient, wasteful spending that we could cut to offset what's
needed to pay for this. We want to do this, but we want to do what the
American people want us to do--and that is to pay for it.
Republicans have repeatedly called for the cutting of unspent
stimulus spending to offset this new stream of spending. The majority
leader himself, Mr. Hoyer, said on June 13, there is ``spending
fatigue'' across this country and that ``if we have dollars not yet
expended in the recovery act'' that they should be redirected for new
spending such as this.
Mr. Speaker, 18 months ago the administration told the American
people that their trillion-dollar stimulus plan would create millions
of jobs and keep unemployment below 8 percent. Instead, 2 million jobs
more have been lost and unemployment surged to nearly 10 percent.
Overall, 47 out of 50 States have lost jobs since the Democrats'
February 2009 stimulus bill, including my home State of Louisiana.
Instead of supporting this economy and getting Americans back to
work, jobs have been lost, our debt continues to spiral out of control,
and the only solution we have here, without an ability to amend,
without an ability to offer some alternative approach, is to add
another $34 billion in new spending without offsetting it. New spending
is unnecessary, and Republicans have been calling for this wasted
stimulus money to be put to better use by supporting the long-term
unemployed. I suggest the best way to create jobs is to stop destroying
good-paying jobs that already exist. And let me explain what I mean by
that.
This is the single most important issue in my home State of
Louisiana. The people of Louisiana are facing job loss. In addition to
a failed economic policy, a failed stimulus, President Obama's ill-
conceived and unwarranted and--in the words of a Federal judge--
arbitrary and capricious ban on offshore drilling is galvanizing
residents across the gulf coast like I've never seen before. And the
long term implications of this, Mr. Speaker, are real. Real lives are
affected by this.
Because of this policy, tens of thousands of good-paying jobs along
the gulf coast are immediately at risk, and it doesn't have to be this
way. But unfortunately, the elites in this administration and the
President himself refuse to understand this.
Six weeks ago, the Louisiana delegation--the entire delegation,
Democrats and Republicans, House and Senate--requested a meeting with
the President in writing. And we have not even gotten a response back.
Frankly, Mr. Speaker, that's just unacceptable, and it's irresponsible.
Already three gulf rigs have left American waters heading to other
parts of the world, and the trend is going to continue at an
accelerated rate. And once a rig is gone, it could be years before it
returns--if it ever returns at all. Each one of these deepwater rigs
employs 1,400 workers. You take 1,400 workers and multiply it by six,
and those are the immediate support workers. These are jobs that are
being lost.
And smaller companies that cannot afford to move are simply losing
their workers. People are losing their jobs, costing thousands of jobs.
I met recently with about 35 companies. These are all small companies
affected by this. And there was an African American couple. He got
started doing janitorial work. And he worked very hard for years to do
this, saved his money and started a small business, an oil service
company that he was so proud of. The American dream, by God. He started
this company and grew it to 20 workers. And he had accelerating work
until this ban on drilling, and now he has no work, and he's seeing his
life savings go down the drain. Why? Because of an ill-founded,
government-imposed moratorium that makes no sense.
These are rig workers and energy engineers, they're plumbers, they're
electricians, they're dock workers. They work in the maritime industry.
And yet this is the kind of policy we're getting. This ban hurts
everybody. We stand united on the gulf coast to support good-paying
jobs.
This stimulus has failed, and it's time to direct these funds into
more beneficial areas to help those who are chronically unemployed.
The last time this House acted, Mr. Camp, the ranking member of our
Ways and Means Committee, offered a motion to extend these benefits
while paying for the spending by using unspent funds from the failed
stimulus bill. The House could immediately act on that same type of
provision today with the Senate following suit to get these benefits to
the long-term unemployed in a way that helps the economy, job
creation--instead of hampering job creation even more.
That is what we should be doing and what would most help the
unemployed get benefits that they need today and the jobs that they
need tomorrow.
The American people want President Obama and this Congress to spur
entrepreneurship and American competitiveness and to create good-paying
jobs. Instead, the President and this Congress continue on a path of
increasing uncertainty leading to high unemployment and runaway
spending. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LEVIN. It is now my very distinct pleasure and privilege to yield
1 minute to the most distinguished Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I thank
him for bringing this important legislation to the floor today. And
indeed, there is some good news in it, but there is some not-so-good
news in it as well.
I listened very attentively to the previous speaker talk about why
these unemployment benefits had to be paid for, and I was struck by the
inconsistency in his remarks and that of the Republicans in the United
States Senate and in the House of Representatives. It's important to
note that while they demand that these benefits be paid for--$34
billion in unemployment benefits going to those who have played by the
rules, worked hard, who are unemployed through no fault of their own,
$34 billion, which injected into the economy will indeed create jobs--
while they have said that $700 billion of tax cuts for the wealthiest
people in America shouldn't be paid for. ``Inconsistent'' is the
politest word I can use to describe that.
Thirty-four billion dollars for those who have lost their jobs
through no fault of their own.
Last week the Economic Policy Institute released a report making it
clear that not only do unemployment benefits protect those who have
lost their jobs through no fault of their own, but would lead to more
jobs, higher wages, and a stronger economy for all Americans.
And why is that so? That is so because these benefits are given to
people who need them. The money will be spent immediately on
necessities injecting demand into the economy, creating jobs. In fact,
the Economic Policy Institute figured that would be 1.4 million jobs
relating to the unemployment benefits that are out there now.
The Congressional Budget Office which is independent and nonpartisan
has confirmed that extending unemployment benefits is the most
efficient way for the government to generate economic growth.

[[Page H5941]]

Now, I know why the gentleman may want to change the subject to other
things. He mentions Katrina. We all supported Katrina. Did anybody talk
about paying for that emergency? No. It was an emergency. We have a
compact with the American people in the time of a natural disaster--
even though that disaster was exacerbated by cronyism in the Bush
administration.
But let's not go there. Let's just stay on this subject. And the
subject at hand is when this bill was introduced today, this
resolution, I'm sure you all heard that it was an amendment to an
amendment. Well, the Senate amendment that we are voting on, the
amendment that they put in took out the jobs initiatives. And those
initiatives were paid for. Build America Bonds. That was part of the
original bill, to build the infrastructure of America, the highways and
infrastructure of America in a new green way creating new green jobs
and new green technologies. And the Build America jobs that went beyond
those investments; FMAP to stabilize our State economies.
Thirty States have written their budgets already on the basis of this
funding being in the legislation and paid for--not increasing the
deficit. We passed it in December. The Senate only now is sending it
back to us because the Republicans have objected to that, and the
amendment to the amendment eliminates that stability for States.

{time} 1230

Summer jobs, well, it's too late for summer jobs, so youth jobs. In
December, we passed the bill for summer jobs for America's youth. The
amendment to the amendment takes out those youths. And they were paid
for, because on the one hand they say everything has to be paid for.
Well, when it's paid for, then are they just plain opposed to summer
jobs for youths? Are they opposed to Build America Bonds to grow our
economy and meet the needs of our country infrastructurewise?
The Housing Trust Fund, very, very important initiative.
Concurrent receipt: I don't think there's any doubt that every person
in this Congress supports our veterans. One issue that is a high
priority for America's veterans when we meet with them on a regular
basis is the issue of concurrent receipt. You may not be familiar with
that term, but it's a disability tax on our veterans, and with so many
veterans returning home with disabilities from Iraq and Afghanistan
this is very, very important. It was in the bill. It was paid for.
Again, money given to people who need it for necessities who would
spend it, inject demand into the economy and create jobs. So the
amendment to the amendment that the Senate Republicans would finally
let pass in the Senate removed concurrent receipt, paid for, for our
veterans.
The list goes on and on, a list of paid-for initiatives that benefit
our veterans, grow our economy, create jobs, help our workers, help our
young people, stabilize our States, all paid for. The Republican
Senators said ``no,'' and they held up this particular amendment to the
amendment for over 6 weeks because they said it had to be paid for.
At the very same time, they were saying we must pay for $34 billion
for benefits for the unemployed but we don't have to pay for the $700
billion for the wealthiest people in America to have tax cuts. Those
same tax cuts, during the 8 years of the Bush administration, did not
create jobs; they increased the deficit. And the Republicans have said
they want to go back to the exact agenda of the Bush administration.
They look with increased fondness on the Bush administration.
Well, let me say this here today. The good news about this is finally
our unemployed will get their benefits. It will be retroactive. It's
really sad that it has to come to this. Nonpaid-for tax cuts for the
rich; paid-for benefits for our workers.
But it's important to note, contrary to what you might hear from some
in this Chamber, that in the first 8 months of the Obama
administration, more jobs were created--well, by the time we finish
August, more jobs will have been created than in the 8 years of the
Bush administration. While they increased the deficit by trillions of
dollars, while we lost jobs, where they took us to a brink of financial
crisis of our financial industry, where they took us deep into
recession, where they took us deep into deficit, they want to return to
the exact same agenda.
We are not going back and our step forward into the future, one step
into the future is being taken today when we say to American workers,
You have played by the rules. You have worked hard. You have lost your
job through no fault of your own. You have these benefits, but we must
do more to create jobs, to create more jobs.
I urge our colleagues today to understand how important this is, the
distinction between those who support our workers. Respect the contract
that we have with them so that when the economy ebbs and flows and the
cycle of employment and unemployment is not in their favor, that we
will be there for them. And being there for them is not just about
them. It's also about the entire economy, the entire economy. The
economy cannot flourish and be entrepreneurial unless it knows that
there's a safety net in case the economy comes down.
The Republicans are saying ``no'' to that. They've said ``no'' over
and over again, and they're saying ``no'' today unless it is paid for,
again, while they still say, We want tax cuts for the wealthiest, $700
billion worth, 20 times more than this bill for unemployment insurance.
But don't forget what they took out of the bill and don't forget that
that includes concurrent receipt for our veterans.
I urge our colleagues to proudly vote for this legislation.
I commend my colleague Mr. Levin for his hard work on this and other
legislation, and I know, because it's absolutely essential, that at
some point we will get a jobs bill that will come back from the Senate.
We agree that it should be paid for. We've sent it over to them paid
for, and that they will recognize that we need to create jobs, good-
paying jobs that take us into the future and, most of all, that we're
not going back to the failed economic policies of the Bush
administration.
I urge a strong ``aye'' vote on both sides of the aisle.
Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Speaker, this is the eighth time this unemployment
benefit insurance is extended. I think that, in and of itself, speaks
for the failure of the economic policies.
Secondly, a massive tax increase in the face of economic uncertainty
is only going to hurt economic growth and job creation, and on our side
of the aisle, we'll work to find the offset to avoiding these tax
increases on the American people.
And finally, I just want to point out that private sector growth in
the year 2010, the rate of private sector growth has actually been
slower than what we saw in the Great Depression.
I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Linder), the ranking member on one of the subcommittees of Ways and
Means.
Mr. LINDER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, we are here today to consider legislation paying another
$34 billion in unemployment benefits. The other side says that these
unemployment benefits stretching to almost 2 years are needed and must
be added to the $13 trillion debt, even as they claim their trillion
dollar stimulus plan has been a success at creating millions of jobs.
It makes you wonder if they are looking at the same jobs data as the
rest of us.
Eighteen months ago, this administration said the stimulus would
create 3.7 million jobs. It hasn't. Through June of 2010, the United
States lost 2.6 million more private sector jobs, leaving millions of
Americans to ask: Where are the jobs?
The administration also promised that the stimulus would keep
unemployment below 8 percent. It hasn't. Instead, unemployment reached
10 percent and remains stuck near that level today, and that ignores
millions of missing unemployed left out of the official statistics.
The administration also said that the administration would create
mostly private sector jobs. It didn't. Managing all that spending
helped government jobs grow by 201,000 since the stimulus was passed,
which has made Washington, DC, the Nation's strongest job market.
Meanwhile, in the rest of the country, 47 out of 50 States have lost

[[Page H5942]]

jobs since the Democrats' February 2009 stimulus.
While the job situation seems to have finally stopped getting worse,
things are not getting much better. The trickle of private sector job
creation in 2010 is so anemic that, at the current rate, it would take
until 2017 to recover the jobs lost during the recession. That's longer
than it took to recover the jobs lost during the Depression of the
1930s. Another estimate finds it will take until 2021 to get
unemployment back to prerecession levels. Who knew that the
administration's recovery summer would last a decade or more.
The fact is the only thing the Democrat stimulus has succeeded in
creating is an enormous mountain of debt which is already hurting job
creation. The bill before us will only make that worse.

{time} 1240

Unemployed workers want real jobs with real companies in a real
economy, not 2 years of unemployment benefits. But all this Congress
offers is more debt and ultimately more pink slips. It is hardly what
the unemployed need.
I urge Members to oppose this bill and insist that any further
spending is actually paid for. If the Speaker is right that
unemployment benefits are the most stimulative thing we can do, then it
will help the economy to cut other less-effective stimulus spending and
use it to pay for benefits like these.
That is the sort of budgeting, if we were inclined to pass a budget,
that we should have been doing all along and is the only hope for
turning this economy around and actually creating jobs that all
Americans want and the unemployed need most of all.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. McDermott), our subcommittee chair.
(Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, when most of our Republican colleagues
vote ``no'' against extending unemployment benefits for Americans
today, these people who have lost their jobs through no fault of their
own, they will say they are doing it out of concern for the deficit.
But, in reality, they are simply trying to make the President fail at
any cost.
We have precedent here for that. Back in the 1990s, when Newt
Gingrich ruled this place, they thought the American people were
stupid, but it didn't work then and it won't work now.
In December 1995, Newt Gingrich thought he could win the Presidency
for the Republican Party by shutting down the government and proving
that Bill Clinton was ineffective.
You all remember that. Instead, the American people caught on to this
foolishness and overwhelmingly reelected Bill Clinton to office in
1996.
Now they have got the same play book again; they are running it
again. The Republican leadership in Congress has decided that the way
for the Republicans to get the White House back is by denying
unemployment benefits to workers who have lost their jobs through no
fault of their own. Show them that this government doesn't work. For
over 6 weeks they have held displaced workers as hostages.
Now, you would think they would have learned from Gingrich back in
1995. It doesn't work. He only held the country hostage for a few days,
and then he gave it up because people need to look at what the Senate
Republicans are doing in the other body to see exactly what they are
doing again today.
Even after the Senate broke the Republican filibuster on restoring
unemployment benefits 2 days ago, the Republicans insisted on running
out every minute of time left on the clock before allowing a final vote
on this bill.
They wanted to dangle those workers out there for yet one more day.
They wanted them to sit at home and wonder is it going to happen. How
am I going to feed my kids? Can I pay for my house? For families who
are without income and rely on unemployment benefits to make ends meet,
every day counts.
Republicans clearly couldn't care less, and they forced these
unemployed workers to twist in the wind for one more day. This is a
slap in the face to millions of Americans who are struggling to find
work and rely on unemployment benefits as a lifeline.
This effort to undermine the effectiveness of President Obama by
denying unemployment benefits to workers, and by denying the President
the power to create jobs, will ultimately fail. Republicans have done
nothing more than help ensure that Mr. Obama will be elected a second
time.
Good move, guys. The American people will remember and despite what
the Republicans think, the voters are not stupid. They don't want the
ghost of Newt Gingrich running this country, and they don't want to
return to the failed economic policies of President Bush.
They know that they want this government to help people when they
need help, and they know that they didn't lose their job because they
did something wrong. Greed on Wall Street got them. They are suffering
because of that greed which we dealt with a couple of days ago, but
they need a check to pay the rent and pay for food.
Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Speaker, just to briefly respond to the previous
speaker, we want to look forward. We don't want to look back. We don't
want a cynical look to the past; we want a positive vision to the
future for the American people, which means we want to go along and
promote growth in the economy and do an extension of unemployment
benefits in a responsible way by paying for it, eliminating wasteful
spending in the stimulus package as the offset.
I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms.
Ginny Brown-Waite), a member of the House Ways and Means Committee.
Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the 15 percent of my constituents
who have lost their jobs, but I also rise in support of the 85 percent
who are struggling to hold onto their jobs.
Deficits do matter. Debt matters. What we have seen in the threat of
default in Greece and what that did to the world economy and our own
economy is similar to what we may be entering into. Given our
tremendous reliance on borrowing, a similar loss of confidence in the
United States would be devastating.
The administration may have its cheerleaders and spinmasters out in
front telling all the cameras how swell everybody is going to be
despite the work ahead; but businesses, those very entities that
actually do the hiring, the innovating and the investing, aren't
buying. They don't have a political motivation behind their analysis.
It's simply reality as they see it. Small businesses are not confident
about where this country is headed and neither are their customers.
Presidents can actually have a huge influence on consumer confidence;
but every time this President gives a speech threatening American
entrepreneurs, he makes things worse. As for debt, I understand the
very childish playground temptation to point fingers and names and say,
well, you borrowed too; but I also understand that businesses and
consumers don't care about that because it doesn't fix the problem.
All we ask is that the unemployment, something we all agree on, be
paid for using funds already obligated for the economic recovery. We
and the American people point out--and not so subtly at times--that the
way you are using the stimulus money is simply a waste of time, effort,
and certainly money.
Borrowing more when it pushes us ever closer to the edge, just to
continue spending money on self-serving stimulus road signs, is
certainly unacceptable to them and is unacceptable to me.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. BOUSTANY. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 20 seconds.
Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. I am sorry that the other side
refuses to compromise, but that's where we are today. Americans want us
to pay for this bill and not borrow another $34 billion.

General Leave

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and
include extraneous material on my motion.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Michigan?

[[Page H5943]]

There was no objection.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel).
I also ask unanimous consent that Mr. McDermott, the subcommittee
chair, be allowed to control the balance of the time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Michigan?
There was no objection.
(Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. RANGEL. Thank you, Chairman Levin, for giving me this
opportunity, and again to Congressman McDermott for working so hard to
try to protect those people who have lost their opportunity to take
care of their families because they have lost their jobs.

{time} 1250

I think we're hearing too much about Republican and Democrat today.
We certainly are hearing too much about oil drilling and other issues.
But as we go home, as Members of Congress, I don't think people come up
and say I'm a Democrat and I need help or I'm a Republican and I need
help; they say I need a job. I'm willing to do anything. I'm losing my
dignity and my self-esteem. My daughter was in college, and I had to
tell her that she won't be able to go back. I keep ignoring my
creditors' calls because I lost my job. There were so many dreams and
aspirations that I had for me and my family, so many hopes that I
thought in this great country I could fulfill. I thought it because I
thought I was on the road to economic success. I knew I was doing
better than my parents, and I had hoped so dearly that my kids would be
able to say they would do better than me. Those that have finished
school can't find jobs, can't afford homes. Families have consolidated,
they have limited resources.
The greatest thing about this wonderful country is that you don't
have to be successful if you really trust and hope that you can be
successful. It's not like other countries where you're stuck where you
were born and you can't aspire to do better. But we are reaching that
point where Americans have lost faith in our financial centers. They've
lost faith in terms of insurance health providers. God knows they've
lost faith in the Congress. But when they start losing faith in
themselves, that's when our country is in trouble. When they start
believing that they cannot make it, that they're losing their dignity,
that they're unable to put food on the table, provide shelter for their
families, provide hope for their kids, America is losing something that
we may not be able to recover, notwithstanding what happens from our
economy.
How can people talk about deficits and pay-fors when a person is just
asking for a little help? What difference does it make if we're able to
take the $30 billion--it's not spending, it's an investment. It's an
investment not in foreigners, not in protecting democracy, it's an
investment in people who love and want to work. I think, Mr. Speaker,
we ought to give them an opportunity, because in taking care of their
needs, they take care of our small businesses too.
Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Speaker, yes, it is an investment, but it is one we
can pay for. And that's the sad state that we're in today because we
are being refused the ability to even offer those kinds of amendments.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to my friend, a member of the Ways and
Means Committee, the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Heller).
Mr. HELLER. I appreciate the gentleman's yielding time. And the
answer to his statement is, it's absolutely correct, this can be paid
for.
I come from a State, the State of Nevada, that has 14.2 percent
unemployment, and these are very, very tough times. During the rules
hearing, I submitted legislation that would actually pay for this piece
of legislation. We can pay for it. It's not that the majority can't pay
for it, it's that they don't want to pay for it. In fact, if you take a
look at November 2009, facing the Unemployment Insurance Extension
bill, back then in 2009 it was fully paid for, and the administration
itself came out and supported a bill that was paid for. And at the
time, unemployment was higher than it is today nationwide. Don't tell
me the administration doesn't think this ought to be paid for. If they
wanted to pay for it at 9.8 percent, why don't they want to pay for it
today?
I want to speak a little bit about the failed stimulus bill because I
think some general questions were pointed my way during earlier debate,
and that is whether or not the stimulus bill has actually worked. We've
lost 2 million jobs in this country since the stimulus bill was passed.
Forty-seven of 50 States have lost jobs since this Democratic-crafted
stimulus bill. And it's no wonder that in recent polls more Americans
think that Elvis is alive than this stimulus bill has worked. That's
failure.
Nevada's unemployment, Clark County unemployment has gone up 40
percent. That's indisputable, and that's failure. Take Clark County
alone; there are those who say the stimulus is working in Las Vegas;
yet just last month almost 3,500 people filed for unemployment
benefits. Take since the stimulus down in Las Vegas, nearly 40,000
people have lost their jobs in Las Vegas. Tell me the stimulus is
working in Las Vegas. Take Nevada as a whole. Just last month 4,100
people filed for unemployment claims. Take the State since the
stimulus: Since the stimulus, almost 50,000 people have lost their jobs
in Las Vegas. Tell me that the stimulus has worked in my district. I
will debate anybody on this, and I'll wait for my phone to ring.
I will just talk a little bit about the fact that in Nevada our
unemployment level is 50 percent higher than the national average. If
we had the national average in the State of Nevada, there would be
60,000 fewer unemployed Nevadans right now. However, there is one place
in America where the stimulus has worked, and I'll give the other side
credit for this, and that's Washington, D.C. Government jobs have grown
by 201,000; 201,000 jobs have been created in Washington, D.C., since
the stimulus was passed.
Some have alleged or believe there are no unobligated stimulus funds,
and I don't agree with that. We can use unobligated stimulus funds. Go
to www.recovery.gov, the administration's own Web site. Take a look at
their Web site. They will show you that half of the stimulus funds at
this point have not been spent. Can't we take $34 billion of more than
$300 billion that's in unused stimulus funds to pay for this
unemployment extension? That would be the right thing to do. I think
that our children and grandchildren's future are worth a dime on the
dollar; some apparently don't.
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Neal).
Mr. NEAL. I thank Mr. McDermott.
I stand in full support of this emergency legislation that will
restore the safety net to millions of American families. Those families
have been waiting for this relief since June. Their faith in us has
been tested, but today we are going to extend the help that they need.
I have spoken many times on this floor of the legendary mayor of
Boston, James Michael Curley, a great orator. Curley spoke with great
empathy about the forgotten man, and that's whom we're talking about
today, the forgotten man and the forgotten woman, those individuals who
have worked hard and played by the rules and have every reason to
believe that America ought to provide them assistance in this difficult
time.
He also would suggest that, in simplicity, the great ally of our
civilization was a full stomach. We need to be reminded of that grim
economic statistic for those who are outside the mainstream.
Let me also remind our friends here on the other side, in record
time, in October of 2008, this Congress came to the aid of Wall Street.
It didn't take us long to embrace the Troubled Asset Relief Program of
George Bush to keep standing many of those institutions that helped
create the problem that we currently find ourselves in.
There are millions of people, those who have served in Vietnam, those
who have served in Afghanistan, and those who have served in Iraq and
other theaters around the world, who are struggling in this economy.
America is about building a community, a place where no one wants to be
abandoned and no one wants to be left behind.

[[Page H5944]]

The great bounty of God's work has been to ensure that people in
America, regardless of their political differences, have enough to eat
and shelter. This opportunity to extend unemployment benefits for the
American people ought to meet this moment, and I urge adoption of this
measure.
Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Speaker, in addition to what Mr. Hoyer said about
using the unused stimulus funds, Mr. Obey has hailed amendments to the
Supplemental Appropriations bill made on July 1 that were paid for by
repeatedly cutting unspent projects in the stimulus law. And in the
other body, the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Mr. Baucus,
has suggested the same. And that's what we're saying here. There is a
better way to do this, a fiscally responsible way to not only take care
of the forgotten man and woman today, but to prevent even more from
being forgotten in the future.

{time} 1300

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Louisiana (Mr. Scalise). Mr. Scalise and I have worked together on
American competitiveness, trying to achieve energy independence to meet
our national security needs and to grow jobs.
Mr. SCALISE. I thank my colleague from Louisiana for yielding time.
Mr. Speaker, a year and a half ago, the liberals running Congress
passed the stimulus bill, claiming they needed to add another $787
billion to the national debt in order to keep unemployment below 8
percent. Of course, now, a year and a half later, unemployment is
approaching 10 percent.
Their first plan failed miserably, so regarding unemployment, they
are coming with a plan to add another $34 billion to the national debt
that they don't want to work with us on to at least pay for by using
some of that failed stimulus plan. In fact, they are still trying to
defend the stimulus plan that most Americans recognize only grew the
size of government and which did nothing to help stimulate the economy.
The sad irony of this is that millions of American people are
unemployed as a direct result of the policies of this administration.
A very real example is occurring right now in south Louisiana. Just
yesterday, there was a rally in south Louisiana where over 10,000
people showed up to oppose this arbitrary and capricious ban by
President Obama on drilling in the gulf.
They try to hide behind safety and pit it as safety versus jobs. In
fact, the President's own safety commission he appointed after the
explosion of the Deepwater Horizon said that the moratorium is a bad
idea. They went on to say that this moratorium will decrease safety in
the gulf. That's right. This is the moratorium that the President,
himself, imposed, which is costing our State thousands of jobs and
thousands more people to be on unemployment, people who would much
rather have jobs than the unemployment checks that President Obama is
offering them. Their jobs have been taken away from them by the
President, yet not for scientific reasons but for political reasons,
because the President's own scientists say the moratorium is a bad idea
and will decrease safety.
In fact, as my colleague from Louisiana pointed out, our entire
delegation has been trying for 6 weeks now to meet with the President
to discuss this ill-conceived idea, and he refuses to meet with us.
Though, you still have hundreds of people each week being added to the
unemployment rolls because of the President's policy.
What the President needs to do is actually work with us to create
jobs instead of continuing to push policies that are running people
onto the unemployment rolls, putting more jobs overseas and putting our
country at greater risk of energy dependence. Our energy supply hasn't
decreased, but now you are going to actually have more oil imported
from these Middle Eastern countries that don't like us. By the way, 70
percent of all oil spills come from tankers importing oil.
Now the President has just made our country more dependent on that
imported oil with the addition of his ban on drilling. That is creating
more unemployment in our State. These policies are wrecking our
economy.
What we need is to create jobs. Part of that means you put good
policies in place that help create jobs so that people don't continue
to go on the unemployment rolls because of the Obama policies. That is
what we need to do is to get a different agenda. The American people
are saying, Where are the jobs? All they get is more deficit spending
from this administration.
They just don't get it.
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I can't help but respond to the change of
subject from the gentleman from Louisiana.
I guess fishermen aren't worth anything. Fishermen are worthless. All
that sea stuff that comes up and that they sell all over the place,
they don't care about that. All they want to do is drill for oil. The
President is careful and prudent and says let's look at this drilling
before we go on with it because we have just proven that the oil
companies are reckless. They have proven it for 79 days in the gulf,
and if you can't learn from that and realize what it is doing to
crabbers and to shrimp fishermen and to oystermen, then you have missed
the point.
I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, people all over Illinois and all
over America are waiting with bated breath, and they are waiting to pay
utility bills, to pay house notes, to make mortgage payments, to catch
up on their rent, to pay college tuition, and to buy food for their
children.
They are also waiting to say, ``Thank you, Nancy Pelosi.'' They want
to say, ``Thank you, Harry Reid.'' They are waiting to say, ``Thank
you, United States Congress.'' They want to say, ``Thank you, Barack
Obama, because the action that you just took this day means to us that
you are working for us. You have reinforced our confidence in our
government. You have said to us that we do matter.'' I know that the
people of Illinois will be saying, ``Thank you, our government.''
I urge passage.
Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Speaker, I have to respond to my friend from the
State of Washington.
I would say that I would not have the audacity to speak for the
people of Washington, because I haven't had the chance to actually get
to know them. I can tell the gentleman that I do know the fishermen,
the oystermen, the shrimpers, and those who run boats down in my State
of Louisiana.
If they were here on the House floor today, they would say, ``Please
do not kick us when we're down. Lift this ban on drilling because, if
not, it is going to kill our economy.'' These are the same fishermen
and oystermen and shrimpers who are losing their jobs.
That's why we need sensible policies, Mr. Speaker. We are all for
extending the unemployment benefit insurance, but we know we can do it
in a responsible way--by paying for it with unspent stimulus money.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Mrs. Davis).
Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Speaker, with almost half of the
unemployed out of work for more than 6 months, I am extremely
disappointed that partisan bickering has delayed this important relief
to American families.
I want to share with you what one of my constituents wrote to me.
He said, ``I've worked all my life and supported myself and didn't
ask for any special treatment. There is pride that comes from work . .
. No one is more ready and willing to work than me . . . but there just
isn't any.''
Since the lapsing of unemployment benefits, millions have lost the
benefits which are keeping their families in their homes and food on
their tables, but what we and people may not know or really appreciate
is that this also includes tens of thousands of former servicemembers
and reservists who have returned home to find themselves without work.
How, I ask you, Mr. Speaker, does prohibiting them from being able to
pay their electric and grocery bills help our economy recover?
I urge my colleagues to join me in strong support of this extension.
Mr. BOUSTANY. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Lee).
Ms. LEE of California. Let me thank the gentleman for yielding and
for his steady and undying support for people

[[Page H5945]]

who really have had a very tough time and who have not had any
opportunities for many years now.
Thank you, Mr. McDermott, for your leadership.
Mr. Speaker, I've been listening to the debate here about jobs. We,
too, are asking, Where are the jobs?
From what I remember, there were very few Republican votes for the
many job creation bills which Democrats have passed. So, if you are not
going to support a real jobs initiative, I can't understand, for the
life of me, why in the world you won't support just the basics for
people, just a bit of help for those who have no jobs and for those who
you won't help get jobs.
Support for unemployment compensation speaks, really, to who we are
as a country. This is a moral and an ethical issue of which those who
really care about the least of these should support. People have lost
their jobs for a variety of reasons--primarily, yes, due to the
economic policies of the previous administration. We know many people
who have lost their jobs due to their not being able to find work in
this new economy. People have lost their jobs because their communities
have been shut down as a result of the foreclosure crisis. They have
lost their homes. They have lost their jobs. They have no health care.
What in the world is going on in our country?
Some of us really get it in terms of the economic policies and what
we need to do, but until we make the case in a way that Republicans get
it, the least we could do is just help people pay their rent and, for
those who still have mortgages, help pay their mortgages and, for those
who don't have enough food, basically buy food for their kids.
We can't even get the Republicans to support a youth jobs initiative.
My goodness. You know, we have over 40 percent minority youth--African
American and Latino youth--who are unemployed. These young people need
jobs. They need jobs not only to develop their work skills and work
experience, but they have to help their families put food on the table
and pay the rent.

{time} 1310

So for goodness sakes, just help these people survive and weather
these storms right now, because they need something to get through
this. Otherwise, we're going to see a country that we all don't want to
see, one that we don't recognize, one that does not care about the
common good. And this is about the common good. We all have a duty and
responsibility to make sure everyone at least is able to survive
through these very terrible times.
Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Hensarling), who serves on the President's Fiscal
Responsibility Commission.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, indeed, this is the difference between
the two parties here today. As I've listened carefully to the debate, I
haven't heard anybody say we shouldn't be extending unemployment
benefits.
What I have heard is that one side wants to borrow 43 cents on the
dollar, mainly from the Chinese, and send the bill to our children and
grandchildren. Those are my friends on the Democratic side of the
aisle.
On this side of the aisle, we're saying, you know, all the trillions
of stimulus money, the $1.2 trillion, when you add in the interest
factor, those unspent funds, maybe some of the unspent TARP funds,
these programs that have helped continue to mire us in almost double-
digit unemployment, maybe we could use some of those funds instead and
not add to the single largest debt in America's history that's only
getting worse under their watch, Mr. Speaker. That's the primary
difference here today. And we must show that we are a fiscally
responsible Congress today to create jobs.
Ultimately, the people in America don't want more unemployment
checks. They want more paychecks. And it's the policies of this
President, the policies of this Congress, brought about by the Federal
takeover of health care, brought about by this huge permanent Wall
Street bailout bill, where the ink is barely dry, the threatened cap-
and-tax bill, and the massive debt that we're drowning in.
Under the President's own budget, we will be paying almost $1
trillion a year in interest alone on the national debt. I mean, that's
the kind of policies that our distinguished Democratic majority leader
at one time likened to fiscal child abuse. And so I haven't heard that
rhetoric recently, but I hope he still believes it because that's what
we're engaging in.
So I do not understand why my friends on the other side of the aisle
refuse to pay for this. I certainly hear the phrase ``pay-as-you-go''
frequently. I just don't see it practiced.
And, indeed, I do serve as one of the Republican appointees on the
President's Fiscal Responsibility Commission, many of whom consider
that title to be an oxymoron. We will debate that later.
But the chairman, Erskine Bowles, former chief of staff, Democratic
chairman, former chief of staff to President Bill Clinton, has said
that our debt is a cancer that can destroy us from within. This isn't
Republican verbiage. This is Democrat verbiage.
So why do the Democrats refuse to pay for this? Why do they continue
to engage in what the majority leader once termed fiscal child abuse?
Again, that's where the debate is. The debate is, Are you going to
pay for the unemployment insurance, or are you going to take the burden
and put it on our children and grandchildren yet again? That is
unconscionable, unsustainable, and it ought to be immoral.
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the majority leader of the House of
Representatives.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, the timeliness of my opportunity to speak is
sometimes good, and I think this is one of them.
Mr. Hensarling just spoke. I have great respect for Mr. Hensarling.
He works hard. He focuses. He's philosophically well-grounded, and he
follows his philosophy. I disagree with his philosophy, his fiscal
premises. And his fiscal premises that were part of the last
administration's approach to the finances of this country increased our
deficit by 87 percent, from $5 trillion, essentially, a little over $5
trillion, to a little over $10 trillion. They didn't quite double it,
but 87 percent more debt under the Bush administration.
That I called fiscal child abuse. Why? Because it was not done at a
time of fiscal crisis with large unemployment. That unemployment was
caused by the policies of the last administration.
Why do I say that? Because under the Clinton administration, we
created 21 million jobs in the private sector, just a little short of
21 million jobs, 22.8 overall, when you include public employment.
And during the Bush administration, how did it relate to that 20.1
million new jobs in the private sector? One million. How did it relate
per month to job production? 216,000 under the Clinton administration,
and 11,000 per month under the Bush administrations. That's what their
economic policies wrought. Their economic policies of cutting deeply,
not $40 billion or $34 billion borrowed money, but trillions, with an
``s,'' of borrowed money to fund tax cuts which they did not pay for.
They weren't continuations of the Tax Code, as Jon Kyl, the second-
ranking Republican leader in the Senate, now argues ought not to be
paid for; $687 billion, that we just ought to continue that for the
wealthiest in our country, not the little children who are worried
about whether their parents are going to be able to afford the mortgage
or afford to put bread on the table. That's what we're talking about in
this bill for literally millions of people who have run out of support.
Now, will they run out of support in this moral country? They will
not ultimately run out of support; they'll be put on welfare and food
stamps. And they won't be available for the insurance to which their
employer and they participated in, providing for the contingency that
we ran the economy into the ditch, the worst economy in three-quarters
of a century, wrought by the Bush economic policies, to which Mr.
Sessions, the chairman of their campaign committee, says that they want
to return to the exact agenda.
I'm so pleased I had the opportunity to come and respond to my friend
from Texas. It does demonstrate the difference between our two parties.
Absolutely.
Jon Kyl, who says, we ought to borrow $686 billion from the Chinese
to

[[Page H5946]]

give to the wealthiest in America, and Democrats, who say we want to
borrow $34 billion to give to the children of America whose families
are in need--yes, that is the difference, if my friend from Texas wants
to make that the difference.
This is about saying that we have an emergency. And historically,
from Ronald Reagan to today, Ronald Reagan, Bush the first and Bush the
second, what did you do when you were in charge? You borrowed at times
of economic trouble to give unemployment insurance.

{time} 1320

We are doing the same thing. Why did we do that? Because we perceived
it to be an emergency. An emergency that people in the richest Nation
on the face of the earth were about to run out of the ability to keep
their homes, buy their food, clothe their children. A moral and great
country thinks that's an emergency. That's what this vote is all about.
This vote is also about, as the gentleman from Texas has said,
expressing our values. I agree with that. And I'm going to express my
values, and I urge the Members of this House to express their values
this day on this vote, as millions of people have lost their
unemployment insurance because we could not get 60 votes in the Senate.
Had almost every Democrat saying we need to help now. People are
running out of ability to support themselves now. We paid insurance for
now. So I urge my colleagues to vote for this legislation.
A few months ago, we passed unemployment insurance through this House
by unanimous consent. The election wasn't as proximate then as it is
today. The deficit is way too high, and we need to get a handle on it.
And I just made a speech, and I have been criticized by some on my side
of the aisle and some others for saying that we needed to put
everything on the table. I reiterate that today. We need to put
everything on the table. No sacred cows.
I have three children, three grandchildren, as all of you will get
tired of hearing, and one great granddaughter. And I owe it to her
personally, as a Member of this House, to say ladies and gentlemen of
this House and of our country, we have a moral responsibility to get a
handle on this deficit.
A reporter just asked me as I was walking down the aisle, did I agree
with Mr. Bernanke's comment that we ought to pay if we extended the tax
cuts? And I said to him this: At a time of fiscal crisis, when our
economy is struggling to get back from the ditch it was in when this
administration took over--how much of a ditch? During the last year of
the Clinton administration, we added 1.9 million new jobs, I tell my
friend from Texas. Last year, Clinton administration, 1.9 million new
jobs in America. And it was a slowdown period.
During the last year of the Bush administration, after the economic
policies that were pursued from 2001 and 2002 and 2003 and through
2009, even though we took the Congress we couldn't do anything because
the President would veto legislation, and did in fact veto legislation,
3.8 million Americans lost their jobs. That's a difference of 1.9
million new jobs in the last year of Clinton to 3.8 million lost jobs
in the last year of Bush, or a 5.7 million jobs turnaround. Is there
any wonder why there is a lot of pain in America and families are in
great distress and they're angry and they have angst? And we share
that.
Today does not solve the problem. But today reaches out to those
folks in distress and say in the short-term, on an emergency basis we
are going to continue to give you help so you can support your families
in this, the wealthiest Nation on the face of the earth. You worked
hard. You paid in. And through no fault of your own, you lost your job.
Maybe because of the fault of Wall Street that my friend believes we
were too harsh on, we are imposing rules on so they can play by the
rules and not squander and take risks that put Wall Street profits
before Main Street stability. Yes, and also we're not going to
apologize to the BP oil company and say we're sorry that we expect you
to be accountable for the negligence that caused millions of people to
be in economic distress. We're not going to say sorry. Some people want
to say sorry that the President of the United States suggested, hey,
you need to help those people.
Maybe helping people is a difference between our two parties. I don't
necessarily think that. I don't want to say that. But if that's the
difference, today is a day when 435 of us can stand up and vote ``aye''
to help millions of Americans in deep distress through no fault of
their own.
I urge my colleagues to stand up and let people know that you are on
their side.
Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Speaker, I remind my friend, the distinguished
majority leader of the House, that in the 1990s, during the Clinton
administration, there was a great bipartisan effort that led to those
balanced budgets because there was a Republican majority.
Mr. HOYER. Will my friend yield on that point?
Mr. BOUSTANY. I will yield.
Mr. HOYER. It's a good point. I ask my friend--that is true--why
couldn't you do it when you had the House, the Senate, and the
Presidency?
Mr. BOUSTANY. I will reclaim my time, and I will remind the majority
leader that we have the opportunity to go forward now and not cast
blame on the past. So I would say that President Obama actually got it
right in a statement of administration policy on November 2009
regarding unemployment benefit extensions, which was fully paid for.
And here is what he said. I quote, ``Fiscal responsibility is central
to the medium-term recovery of the economy and the creation of jobs.
The administration therefore supports the fiscally responsible approach
to expanding unemployment benefits embodied in the bill.''
All we're saying is there is a better way to do this, and that is to
pay for this extension.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).
Mr. ELLISON. I thank the gentleman for giving me a moment to speak.
Mr. Speaker, my friends from the party opposite refer to deficit and
debts. Well, you know, debts are important. The deficit is important.
The national debt, all these things are critical. But I guess my
question is, you know, when the Republican Caucus voted to give the
most wealthy and most privileged members of American society a $700
billion-plus tax cut that they didn't pay for, they weren't that
concerned about fiscal responsibility. Why no fiscal responsibility for
the two wars? Ten billion dollars a month for Iraq, no fiscal
responsibility for that. When the prescription drug handout was given
to Big Pharma, $400 billion, no fiscal responsibility then.
But when the poor, hardworking people of America find themselves
without work and come and say, you know what, still looking for work,
haven't found one, and need some help from my fellow Americans, it's
like, ``No, no, no, no. We cannot help you because we got to worry
about the deficit.'' Why so much concern, so much heartfelt angst about
what the wealthiest, most privileged Americans need but nothing but a
cold heart and a closed purse for people who are in an emergency
situation?
Mr. Speaker, I ask what about the debts of the people who are
unemployed? What about them having to go to family and borrow money?
What about them being captured by the payday lenders and the rent-to-
owners and these kind of people, folks who take advantage of poor
people when they don't have any money and they don't have any
unemployment insurance benefits? What about their personal debt? The
American people should respond.
I don't want to say that the party opposite is heartless, but this
looks heartless. It looks that way. And I don't want my friends in the
party opposite to look like they just don't care about poor people. So
I urge everyone in this caucus to support and vote for this measure. It
is important, it is the right time.
I will just say, finally, the fact is that for every dollar spent on
unemployment benefits, $1.60 goes into the economy, which means we
begin to pull ourselves out of this situation and deal with this
deficit.
Mr. BOUSTANY. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).

[[Page H5947]]

Ms. KAPTUR. I thank the kind chairman, Mr. McDermott, for yielding me
the 2 minutes.
Sometimes when they say gentlewoman, I don't feel so gentle on the
subject of unemployment. And in fact, I rise in strong support of this
bill, which is long overdue because of the delays in the other Chamber.
And I want to thank Chairman McDermott for his extraordinary leadership
and our Speaker for bringing this bill forward.
All the economic studies show that in fact direct consumer spending
that results from the expenditure of unemployment checks on basics--
paying for food, paying your mortgage so you don't lose your home,
making your car payment on that old jalopy you use to go to work--that,
in fact, this creates the largest bang inside our economy to move it up
than any investment we can make other than in infrastructure
investment, where we are employing people building bridges, building
roads, some of the things that people on the other side of the aisle
are making fun of.
It's no fun to go over a bridge that collapses. We saw that in
Minnesota. These are issues that in a great Nation you take care of. In
Ohio, we need unemployment compensation right now. We're one of the
platforms that manufactures and grows jobs immediately to hold this
country up. And our people, 100,000 of them, still remain out of work
and utterly dependent on these benefits. They will be affected directly
by the extension of these benefits. Indeed, Ohio has a total of between
600,000 and a million people who are unemployed, working in part-time
jobs, or they have fallen out of the workforce through no fault of
their own.
The Obama administration will have created more jobs by the end of
August than the Bush administration did in the whole 8 years that it
sat in office and did nothing except create more war and more
unemployment and more outsourcing of jobs. I find my colleagues on the
other side of the aisle out of touch--I can't even explain them. We
don't live in the same world.
I respect people who go to work every day. I respect those who get
injured on the job. I respect those farmers who are out in the fields
right now harvesting crops. I respect those who work for them. I
respect the people who work in our auto plants. I respect the people
working in hundred-degree weather up on bridges around my district
right now trying to fix things up and hold things together until a
better day comes.
So the least we can do is return to them the money they already paid
in, that their employers already paid in, that they already earned.
They earned it. I say to the gentleman I support this bill a thousand
percent. Ohioans are waiting for their unemployment checks. But most of
all, they want to go back to work.

{time} 1330

Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Hensarling).
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to speak yet again on
this subject, but to hear the last three speakers, clearly there
appears to be a confusion on the other side of the aisle between
unemployment checks and paychecks.
I mean, what we've heard the Speaker say--I wish I had her exact
quote in front of me--that essentially by putting out more unemployment
checks, that this is one of the best ways to create paychecks. I've
never heard such circular logic in my life.
Now, clearly we need an extension of unemployment. I mean, I must
admit I find it somewhat ironic that the President of the United States
brings up three unemployed workers. To the best of my knowledge,
they've been unemployed during his Presidency. What a testament to his
policies and the policies of this institution.
Again, between a national takeover of our health care where employees
don't know how much their health care costs are going to be. They're
not creating new jobs. Threatened cap-and-trade. Nobody knows what
their energy costs are going to be. No new job creation.
We have this financial regulatory bill. Nobody knows what the cost of
capital is going to be, particularly with a bureau that has the ability
to ban and ration credit for small businesses. You've got private
business sitting on almost $2 trillion that could be employed for
paychecks but instead, once again, due to the policies of my friends on
the other side of the aisle, we're having that debate on unemployment
checks instead.
And let me make sure that people aren't drowning on all of this straw
that's in the House Chamber today from all the straw men. Here's the
debate. In the words of the Democratic majority leader, Are we going to
engage in fiscal child abuse and borrow the money principally from the
Chinese to pay for this, or are we not? That's the question. That is
the only question before the House right now. Are we going to borrow
the money from our children and grandchildren, send them the bill, or
are we going to pay for it today and quit using it on failed stimulus
plans? That's the debate. The American people are not confused. And
again, they want paychecks, not unemployment checks.
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
This is about whether we're going to pay for this or not. Consider
that this is the eighth time this Congress is going to extend these
benefits. The eighth time. That's an indication that the current
economic policy of this administration and this Congress is a failure.
I mentioned earlier the fact of the matter is we have a choice. We
can do this in a fiscally responsible way, or we can choose to run up
additional debt on our children and grandchildren to the tune of $34
billion between now and November.
Again, I think the President, President Obama, got it right in the
statement of administration policy in November 2009 when the
unemployment benefit extension was actually paid for. Again, I'm going
to quote what he said: ``Fiscal responsibility is central to the
medium-term of the economy and the creation of jobs. The administration
therefore supports the fiscally responsible approach to expanding
unemployment benefits embodied in the bill.''
Now, if fiscal responsibility helps the economy and job creation,
then the fiscal irresponsibility of this bill before us will hurt the
economy and job creation.
And I think the American people have spoken. They want us to do this,
but they want us to pay for it. Let's do the right thing and actually
pay for the spending we approve and help our economy grow, help job
creation. As the administration said, a fiscally responsible approach
is what's needed.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, as we close this debate and finally put
this on the back burner until November when we have to come back and
look at it again perhaps--we'll see--one of the speakers on the other
side talked about confusion. My view is that the confusion here is
between whether we're going to send unemployment checks or we're going
to tell people, Go hungry. That's the confusion.
People say, Well, it's about paying for it. I will remind my
colleagues on the other side Mr. Bush was President for 8 years, and
when we did unemployment, we did it on an emergency basis. We never
paid for it one time and you guys, the Republicans--I'm not supposed to
address them directly--they didn't pay for it, Mr. Speaker. They were
in charge and their President was in charge, but they called it an
emergency.
Now under Mr. Obama, it's not an emergency.
Suddenly we're going to tie up people's minds and try and confuse
them. But the fact is that for 6 weeks we have said to workers in this
country, We are not going to extend benefits.
Now, we have never, in the history of this country, when unemployment
was at 7.2 or above, failed to extend benefits until the Republicans
got a serious case of fiscal--well, I'm not going to say exactly what I
think--but fiscal disease has overtaken their mind. And they've
suddenly caught this thing--it must be in the air around here or
somewhere down around the Ohio River between Cincinnati and Kentucky.
They've got leadership that said, You know, we can infect everybody
with this fiscal fear. We'll just sacrifice a

[[Page H5948]]

few million. It's only 2\1/2\ million people who are going to lose
their benefits. So it's not very many. There's 300 million in America.
We can throw away 2\1/2\ million. That's easy. They won't vote. They're
too stupid to know who's doing it to them.
That's the kind of message you're sending when you're saying you
won't give unemployment benefits.
This is so easily understood by the American people. This is not
climate change. This is not all the complicated stuff. Some people
around here think the American people have a very short memory span,
but they don't on stuff where it's right down to the bone.
And you will remember this day as the day when finally the
Republicans came to their senses. They finally said, You know, this
ain't going to work. It really ain't going to work. We're not going to
admit it. We're going to say we were doing it on principle.
But there is no principle at the table when the mother opens the
cupboard and there is nothing in it. Or when the lights aren't turned
on because you haven't paid the utility bills. Or when the water is
turned off because you haven't paid your water bill. What does a mother
say the principle is? Now kids, get in the bathtub, but there is no
water. Clean yourself up, right?
What kind of nonsense is this? Do you think this money is going for
people to buy iPads or iPhones or i4Phones or whatever? This is going
for the necessities of life. And you're saying to the ordinary people
of this country, Well, we have a principle, under the Democrats, we
have to pay for it. Now not under the Democrats.
And I can hardly wait until we get the proposals over from the Senate
to extend the tax breaks and watch you guys do a double flip. You will
get a ``10'' in Olympic terms for your ability to do a double flip and
say, Well, now we don't have to pay for it. And watch, they're going to
send over the estate tax. They are going to send over a bailout for the
people at the very top. And you're going to say, We don't have to pay
for them. Oh, no. No, no. They're very rich. No, no, no, no, no, we
can't pay for that. No, no. But they're going to make us pay for the
people who are in the most dire distress in this society.
It's really shameful, and I'm going to watch with pleasure as you
vote ``no'' as you vote yourself out of here.
I urge my colleagues to vote for this bill, and I yield back the
balance of my time.

Announcement By the Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to address their
remarks to the Chair.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I strongly, resolutely, and
steadfastly support this bill to extend critical unemployment benefits
for our citizens through the end of November. This bill will provide
vital assistance to over 137,600 Illinoisans, and to the 2.5 million
Americans, who lost their benefits between June 2nd and July 17th. This
bill helps address a national emergency resulting from one of the worst
economic recessions in our country's history.
Unemployment insurance is not a theoretical concept to these
citizens. Unemployment is a very real lifeline. It allows mothers and
fathers to buy food for their children. It allows people to help keep a
roof over their families' heads. I have received so many tearful calls
from my constituents who call to beg for my help. They are disheartened
by their continued unemployment despite active and prolonged efforts to
find a job. They are embarrassed that they cannot support their
families, and they are frightened that their children will suffer from
their inability to feed, clothe, or provide housing. When they learn
that their government allowed these lifeline benefits to expire and
failed to reinstate them for almost 8 weeks, they are shocked. They
worked and paid taxes for years with an understanding that government
would help them in a time of need. Yet, this assistance was not there.
I think it is unfortunate that Republicans have delayed this critical
financial assistance for so long. To add insult to injury, while
proclaiming that our government could not afford $33 billion to help
our citizens who are suffering during an economic emergency, the
Republican leadership confidently asserted the position that we want
the government to spend $650 billion for tax cuts for the wealthy. This
is approximately 20 times the cost of this critical unemployment
assistance. This is the same leadership that had no difficulty spending
a trillion dollars for two wars and giving tax breaks to the wealthiest
of the wealthy.
The extension of the aid for 99 weeks is an important first step in
helping our citizens who are struggling to find employment. I promise
to continue to work with the Democratic leadership to push for ways to
help those remain unemployed beyond the 99 weeks. Long-term
unemployment is an unfortunate reality for Chicago and for my
constituents.
Passing this bill today tells our citizens that we are working for
them. Further, passing this bill today reinforces their confidence in
their government--confidence that they will help care for them in the
lean times. For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote for its
passage.
Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Senate
amendments to H.R. 4213, the Unemployment Compensation Extension Act of
2010, which will extend unemployment benefits to millions of Americans
that are in dire need of support. Without this legislation these
families will lose the only lifeline that they can count on in this
historic economic crisis.
Mr. Speaker, while I am glad that this bill is finally close to the
President's desk, I deeply regret the weeks of partisan politics by
Republicans, especially those in the Senate, which have obstructed this
legislation and delayed benefits to struggling families across the
country. Since Republicans allowed benefits to begin expiring in May,
over 250 million individuals nationwide and 429,000 in California have
lost benefits that help them feed their families, pay their bills, and
sleep with a roof over their heads.
Republicans claim to oppose these benefits because of their cost.
But, let us not forget that Republicans never bothered to find offsets
for the Bush tax cuts. They never felt the need to pay for the Iraq and
Afghanistan wars. Only when unemployment benefits are on the table do
Republicans suddenly discover an interest in fiscal responsibility.
Republicans want to withhold relief from millions of Americans who,
through no fault of their own, have lost their jobs in this economic
crisis. But this vote offers a final opportunity to put partisan
politics aside and work together for the American people.
Mr. Speaker, Congress has taken bold action to energize the economy
during this historic economic crisis and lay the groundwork for long-
term, stable growth. To be sure, these actions are working: to date,
the Recovery Act alone has saved or created over 682,000 jobs
nationwide. However, rebuilding our economy takes time and, despite the
success of Democrats' job-creating legislation, many individuals and
families across the country still need our help. We cannot abandon the
families that have been left jobless because of the previous
Administration's economic mismanagement. This important measure will
retroactively extend unemployment assistance to individuals whose
benefits started to phase out in May and will guarantee that benefits
are available through November.
Mr. Speaker, this should not be a partisan issue. This is an American
issue. Millions of Americans need our help and this is our opportunity
to provide it. Let us help the people all across the country who have
been hit hard by this recession, people who, through no fault of their
own, are struggling to stay in their homes and feed their kids.
Moreover, in addition to providing relief to those in need, this bill
is an important step in our economic rebuilding process. Unemployment
benefits create economic demand that stimulates the economy and puts
people back to work. This is a fast-acting and cost-effective way to
energize the economy: every $1 spent on unemployment benefits leads to
$1.90 in economic activity. This bill responds to both our immediate
obligation to help the American people in a time of great need and the
long-term goal of consistent growth and prosperity.
Mr. Speaker, this bill is an obvious ``aye'' vote. The resistance it
has seen in the past few weeks is shocking. I strongly urge my
colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 4213.
Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the
Unemployment Compensation Extension Act. This legislation will extend
unemployment insurance (UI) benefits, which expired seven long weeks
ago, to millions of Americans families who rely on this assistance to
make ends meet during these difficult economic times.
I regret that due to Republican objections, delays and stalling
tactics, Unemployment Compensation was allowed to lapse for so long. My
colleagues in the House of Representatives and I have already passed
this legislation three times since May. Unfortunately, the bill was
allowed to languish in the Senate while millions of Americans were
forced to do without this critical lifeline.
With unemployment in Los Angeles County hovering at 12.2 percent, I
continue to hear from my constituents how important these benefits are
to them as they look for new employment during these difficult economic
times.
One constituent, a college graduate who lives in Los Angeles, wrote
to inform me that he has been searching for a job for 18 months without
success. He has long since run out of savings and without unemployment
benefits

[[Page H5949]]

cannot pay his rent. Another constituent, a mother of three children,
was recently laid off and is relying on unemployment benefits to pay
her mortgage payments and keep a roof over her family's head.
It is for hardworking Americans like these, making good faith efforts
to secure employment and trying desperately to find some stability in
these uncertain times, that I vote for this important measure.
While we act today to protect the unemployed and their families, I
believe we must redouble our efforts to create job opportunities and
get Americans back to work.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of H.R. 4213, the
``Unemployment Compensation Extension Act of 2010.'' After weeks of
needless delay, this legislation will ensure that the estimated $2.5
million Americans who lost their coverage will again have access to the
lifeline provided by unemployment insurance and again be able to pay
their bills and put food on their table. During this unfortunate
period, my friends on the other side of the aisle have repeatedly told
out of work Americans that the human dignity they seek is a luxury we
cannot afford. Let me be clear: There is nothing luxurious about barely
getting by--having to decide between your mortgage, your health, or
your family's well being.
The opposition to this legislation has been disingenuous, cruel and
out of touch. Many of the unemployed people in my district spent years
working hard, paying their bills, and contributing to their
communities. Through no fault of their own, they found themselves out
of work.
Beyond voting for this bill, my Republican friends ought to take
responsibility for their role in precipitating this economic disaster.
It was they who pushed policies that promoted unfettered free trade,
tax cuts for the rich, and the casino culture on Wall Street. The least
they could do is vote with the Majority to minimize some of the pain
they caused.
For the sake of human decency for our fellow citizens, I encourage my
colleagues to support the bill.
Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, three weeks ago we were here talking about
this. Two months ago we were here talking about this. And even if this
bill becomes law, in four months we will likely be back again talking
about this. The specific subject is extended unemployment benefits.
But the real issue, and what is driving the need for a record 99
weeks of unemployment benefits, is this Administration's woeful record
when it comes to creating jobs that provide paychecks, instead of
unemployment checks.
In February 2009, the President signed into law the Democrats'
trillion-dollar ``stimulus'' plan. That was the plan Democrats promised
would create 3.7 million jobs, keep unemployment under 8 percent, and
stimulate strong private sector job growth.
None of that happened.
Instead, over 2 million more jobs were lost and unemployment spiked
to 10 percent, though the number of government jobs has grown somewhat.
So here we are again--extending unemployment benefits because
stimulus failed to create the millions of jobs Democrats promised.
But instead of doing this responsibly, this bill will simply add
another $34 billion to our $13 trillion mountain of debt.
We can do better than this.
Both Republicans and Democrats support helping the long-term
unemployed. And both Republicans and Democrats want to responsibly pay
for these benefits.
That would be far better than adding to the unchecked growth in our
debt that is already costing us jobs, and that threatens to overwhelm
our economy in debt and higher taxes for decades to come.
The fact is, we can both provide this help and pay for it by cutting
less effective stimulus spending.
The last time we debated unemployment benefits, I offered a motion to
pay for that spending. That is what the Heller substitute to this bill
would have done if it was made in order today. Even the Democrat
Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Senator Baucus, has also
proposed cutting stimulus to pay for certain extenders.
The American people know it isn't right to add these costs to our
already overdrawn national credit card. They want to help those in
need. But they also know someone has to pay when government spends
money. That assistance must not put our fiscal house as a Nation in
even worse shape--and we are already in terrible shape.
I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to reject this bill
today and instead work together to quickly pass a bill to extend
Federal unemployment benefits while responsibly paying for it.
That is what we should have been doing all along, which would have
prevented the lapse in benefits millions have already experienced.
Democrat Leaders rejected that obvious compromise, leading to needless
additional suffering in recent weeks by millions of unemployed workers
who want a job. But it is not too late to fix this, and to do so
responsibly, so that we do right by the unemployed, as well as future
generations.
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the over
150,000 residents in the State of Texas who have lost their
unemployment benefits since June 2nd. Nationally, over 2.5 million
Americans have lost their eligibility for unemployment insurance, at a
time when our country is suffering through the most difficult economic
slump it has witnessed since the Great Depression.
Unemployment insurance helps our country in two crucial ways:
First, unemployment insurance assists those hurt most by this
recession.
Second, unemployment insurance is a major job creator.
Nearly 15 million Americans are out of work. Of these 15 million, 46
percent have been out of work for more than six months. In recent
months, there have been at least five unemployed workers for every job
opening.
These are proud, working Americans who have already been victimized
by the state of our Nation's economy. Why are we victimizing them again
by denying them this crucial lifeline?
Unemployment insurance is also one of the most stimulative measures
the Federal Government can take to help the economy. The Congressional
Budget Office has found that for every dollar spent on unemployment
benefits, $1.90 of economic growth is generated.
In a recent study by the non-partisan Economic Policy Institute, the
expansion of unemployment benefits since 2007 has supported 1.7 million
full-time equivalent positions. These jobs have raised GDP by $244.8
billion, a 1.7 percent boost.
In sharp contrast to extending tax cuts for the wealthiest in our
country, unemployed Americans will spend their benefits immediately to
pay their rent, buy groceries and other necessary goods, thereby
creating jobs throughout the economy.
This is not simply smart policy. This is a moral issue. We will be
helping our friends and neighbors during their time of need.
I call upon my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote in favor
of the Restoration of Emergency Unemployment Compensation Act.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, it is a huge relief for millions of
Americans who remain out of work through no fault of their own that the
Senate has overcome the Republican filibuster to extend unemployment
insurance benefits.
It is an insult to the American people to suggest that those who are
unemployed are sitting back and not looking for work while taking
unemployment compensation. In fact, in order to qualify for
unemployment benefits, one must be diligently looking for a job.
Extending these benefits is not only the right thing to do for these
families, but it is also important for our economic recovery. If these
individuals and families are unable to purchase groceries or pay their
rent or mortgages, then the entire community suffers.
Washington Republicans say they are opposed to these emergency
benefits because they claim to be concerned about the deficit. However,
they recently announced that they wanted to extend the Bush tax cuts
for the wealthy and add over $700 billion to the deficit--a sum that
would be paid by our children and grandchildren.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this much-needed
legislation so that we can continue to help American families make ends
meet during these difficult economic times.
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4213, the
Restoration of Emergency Unemployment Act of 2010. This legislation
extends unemployment benefits to millions of Americans in need through
November and retroactively restores benefits to those that recently
lost theirs due to Congressional inaction. Unemployment in Ohio is at
10.5 percent. It is the number one request when I talk to my
constituents at home.
Even with passage of this important legislation, many of my
constituents in the greater Cleveland area will continue to suffer.
Many will be ineligible for the benefits provided by this bill because
they have exhausted the emergency temporary assistance granted by
Congress. Still others are at a greater disadvantage than most;
according to the latest unemployment statistics from the Department of
Labor, members of the African-American and Latino communities continue
to experience disproportionately high long-term unemployment rates at
15.4 percent and 12.4 percent, respectively. While Congress endeavors
to provide direct help to those needing it the most, we must also focus
on creating jobs.
Our domestic manufacturing sector has been decimated under the weight
of the economy, bad trade agreements like NAFTA and CAFTA, and policy
neglect. We cannot have a strong American economy without a strong
industrial manufacturing sector. We need a coordinated Federal policy
that puts the manufacturing sector back in its rightful place as an

[[Page H5950]]

engine of the American economy. In recognition of that need, I authored
H. Res. 444, which says that the steel, automotive, aerospace and
shipping industries are vital to America's national and economic
security.
Extending unemployment benefits alone will not address the needs of
all Americans currently looking for work across various employment
sectors, but it can serve to shore up our local communities and our
economy. I urge passage of H.R. 4213, the Restoration of Emergency
Unemployment Act of 2010.
Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4213, the
Restoration of Emergency Unemployment Compensation Act of 2010.
Unemployment levels are high across the country, and in my state of
Illinois unemployment has remained well above 10 percent for over a
year. Millions of Americans are actively looking for work, and for
these families, unemployment insurance (UI) is a necessary to assist
with their medical bills, mortgages, and basic needs so they can
continue looking for employment every week.
While I share the concerns of my colleagues regarding spending that
is not paid for, canceling these benefits now will only hurt these
families and our economy. We have a responsibility to support people
out of work and in great need. Moving forward, we may not be able to
provide as much assistance to people and the states as many would like,
and we may not in the short-term be able to fully offset the cost of
all Federal spending. But working together, we can continue to chart a
course that builds on our economic recovery and helps those in great
need while beginning to address long-term economic challenges.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 4213.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 1550, the previous question is ordered.
The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Michigan
(Mr. Levin).
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this 15-
minute vote on the motion to concur will be followed by a 5-minute vote
on the motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 5341, if ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 272,
nays 152, not voting 9, as follows:

[Roll No. 463]

YEAS--272

Ackerman
Adler (NJ)
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boccieri
Bono Mack
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Cao
Capito
Capps
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castle
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Childers
Chu
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Dahlkemper
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Deutch
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Driehaus
Edwards (MD)
Edwards (TX)
Ehlers
Ellison
Ellsworth
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Foster
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gerlach
Giffords
Gonzalez
Gordon (TN)
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Halvorson
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Heller
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kilroy
Kind
Kirkpatrick (AZ)
Kissell
Klein (FL)
Kosmas
Kratovil
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
LaTourette
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney
Manzullo
Markey (MA)
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCotter
McDermott
McGovern
McMahon
McNerney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (NY)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Nadler (NY)
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Perriello
Peters
Peterson
Petri
Pingree (ME)
Platts
Polis (CO)
Pomeroy
Posey
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reichert
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Rogers (MI)
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schauer
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Space
Speier
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Taylor
Teague
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Turner
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Whitfield
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NAYS--152

Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Baird
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Berry
Biggert
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bright
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Carter
Cassidy
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cooper
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Djou
Dreier
Duncan
Emerson
Flake
Fleming
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Guthrie
Hall (TX)
Harper
Hastings (WA)
Hensarling
Herger
Hill
Hunter
Inglis
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson, Sam
Jordan (OH)
King (IA)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Lamborn
Lance
Latham
Latta
Lee (NY)
Lewis (CA)
Linder
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Marchant
Markey (CO)
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Minnick
Moran (KS)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Nye
Olson
Paul
Paulsen
Pence
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Price (GA)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rehberg
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rooney
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schmidt
Schock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Stearns
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Walden
Westmoreland
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf

NOT VOTING--9

Capuano
Doyle
Fallin
Hodes
Hoekstra
King (NY)
Ortiz
Tiahrt
Wamp

{time} 1413

Messrs. CARTER, BROWN of South Carolina, and Ms. MARKEY of Colorado
changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the motion was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________