[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 1]
[House]
[Pages 172-180]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF S. 23, EXTENSION OF TEMPORARY EXTENDED 
                 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION ACT OF 2002

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 14 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                               H. Res. 14

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order without intervention of any point of order 
     to consider in the House the bill (S. 23) to provide for a 5-
     month extension of the Temporary Extended Unemployment 
     Compensation Act of 2002 and for a transition period for 
     individuals receiving compensation when the program under 
     such Act ends. The bill shall be considered as read for 
     amendment. The previous question shall be considered as 
     ordered on the bill to final passage without intervening 
     motion except: (1) one hour of debate on the bill equally 
     divided and controlled by Representative Thomas of California 
     and Representative Rangel of New York; and (2) one motion to 
     recommit.
       Sec. 2. The allocations referred to in section 
     3(a)(4)(B)(i) of House Resolution 5 may be submitted by 
     Representative Nussle of Iowa.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. 
Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
During consideration of this resolution all time yielded is for the 
purpose of debate only.
  The rule provides for 1 hour of debate and waives all points of order 
against consideration of the bill. As we begin the 108th Congress I 
would like to point out that we intend to continue the courtesy that we 
began when the Republicans became the majority. This rule allows us to 
continue in the tradition of extending the minority party an 
opportunity to offer a motion to recommit.
  Mr. Speaker, the resolution before us today allows us to debate and 
consider a most important measure, S-23, which provides for a 5-month 
extension of the Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 
2002. Last Congress we passed the Job Creation and Worker Assistance 
Act of 2002, which became Public Law 107-147. This economic stimulus 
bill includes a temporary extension of unemployment compensation and 
provides for the temporary extended unemployment compensation program.

                              {time}  1030

  This program provided up to 13 additional weeks of federally funded 
benefits for unemployed workers in all States. Benefits were payable to 
qualified workers through December 28, 2002. Though several attempts 
were made, and language extending this program was passed by the House, 
the 107th Congress unfortunately adjourned without having passed an 
extension.
  Today, we have the opportunity to consider legislation that would 
immediately provide for a 5-month extension of unemployed benefits, 
through May 2003, with a 3-month phaseout. This also allows for newly 
eligible workers by the end of May 2003 to receive extended 
unemployment benefits through August of this year.
  Mr. Speaker, 1.9 million new recipients would be aided by this 
extension, as well as nearly 800,000 continuing recipients who have 
been affected by the December 28 ``cliff.'' This comes to a total of 
2.7 million workers and their families who would benefit from the 
legislation that will hopefully pass today.
  This measure is similar to the language that was championed by 
Senators Clinton and Nickles at the end of the last Congress. 
Yesterday, the Senate passed this legislation by unanimous consent. 
Today, the House has the opportunity to pass and to send this measure 
to President Bush for his signature. By moving expeditiously, we could 
ensure that unemployed workers do not suffer from a significant delay 
in the receipt of their checks. I hope that we can mirror the Senate's 
actions on this bill with a strong, bipartisan vote. I believe that it 
would be a strong indication of this new Congress's commitment to 
American workers and their families. Furthermore, extending 
unemployment benefits and providing unemployed workers with additional 
purchasing power would be yet another way to help stimulate the economy 
which, in turn, would help us to keep unemployment down.
  Mr. Speaker, before I yield to the gentlewoman from New York, I would 
like to offer a brief explanation of the second part of this 
resolution. Section 2 of this resolution provides that allocations 
referred to in section 3(a) of House Resolution 5 may be submitted by 
the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle). This is merely a technical 
clarification of the rules package we

[[Page 173]]

adopted yesterday, which contained a provision to allow the chairman of 
the Committee on the Budget to have printed in the Congressional Record 
302(a) allocations. This is necessary so that the House might complete 
its obligation to fund this through the current year FY 03 fiscal year.
  As everyone knows, the Committee on Rules is currently the only 
committee up and running, so my good friend, the gentleman from Iowa 
(Mr. Nussle), has technically not been appointed the chairman of the 
Committee on the Budget yet. This provision merely lets him carry out 
his duties as if he already were the committee chairman.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this rule 
and the underlying legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for 
yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I am going to read a letter from a constituent of mine 
in Rochester, New York, whom we will call Mary.
  ``Dear Louise: I am a 52-year-old mother with a handicapped child at 
home and a daughter in graduate school. I am writing because I am tired 
of freezing. Our thermostat is set at 55 and the electric company is 
still sending us threatening letters every month. We pay as much as we 
can, but without extended unemployment benefits, my son will have to go 
to an institution. I have 42 job rejections and I have a B.A. in 
sociology. It's very hard for me to worry about home security issues 
and terrorism when I am cold. Maybe I can make it through the winter 
with extended benefits.''
  Another received over the holidays:
  ``Dear Louise: My husband was laid off in January. We have taken out 
two loans against our house in addition to our mortgage to survive and 
we have a 2-year-old child who is getting almost nothing under the 
Christmas tree.''
  There are more where that came from, Mr. Speaker. Another wrote me, 
``I am 34 years old. A year ago today I was making $76,000 a year as a 
software engineer at Xerox, and today I cannot find a job. I have a 
newborn baby girl, and I am going to run out of my benefits next week. 
I consistently made $60,000 a year for the past 5 years and paid taxes 
accordingly.''
  None of these people will be helped by this legislation today. None 
of them.
  Mr. Speaker, last month I asked some unemployed workers in my 
district to sign a petition that calls on Congress to make the 
extension of Federal unemployment benefits a priority. During the last 
2 weeks alone, more than 300 constituents have signed on to the 
petition. They are losing their homes. They have sold their cars. They 
cannot support their families, their children; and these are not people 
who sit back and passively collect checks to avoid working. They have 
been pounding the pavement in an economy that is shutting them out. 
Indeed, Mr. Speaker, I have been told that it is almost impossible at 
this time to get even a part-time job or a temporary job in Rochester.
  These are people who have worked all of their lives and paid into the 
unemployment insurance fund and now simply are asking to get some back. 
Through no fault of their own, they find themselves reeling in an 
economic slowdown.
  While working, they did all of their part; and the cushion that they 
are given now is resonating like a hard thud. The money is sitting 
there, Mr. Speaker, in a trust fund that we are failing to fully 
utilize. That is bad stewardship. These constituents are not comforted 
by an abstract proposal to reduce the tax on corporate dividends or 
other so-called stimulus. A victory for them would be to keep their 
homes heated and a roof over their heads. To add insult to injury, my 
constituents were greeted with this headline 3 days after Christmas 
reading nationwide, ``800,000 lose jobless benefits,'' with the kicker 
that Congress went home and failed to okay funds.
  All during the holidays, Mr. Speaker, we talked about getting back 
here and the first thing we wanted to do, there was this great sense 
that we would come back to help the people whose benefits expired on 
December 28. Unfortunately, that is not the case. If benefits expire 
later, this bill will do some help, but this is appalling. I have been 
at a loss to explain to my constituents why a majority in this House 
let them down. A recent report suggests that without an extension 
package, a projected 12,000 unemployed workers in Rochester, in the 
Buffalo-Niagra area are scheduled to lose their benefits between 
December 28 and March 31. But, as I said before, this measure before us 
today will be too little and too late for thousands in my region and 
perhaps in others.
  The version we are considering today would only allow for a 13-week 
extension of benefits for those who are still eligible. It would not 
address the needs of the nearly 84,000 unemployed in the State of New 
York alone who have already exhausted their benefits.
  Mr. Speaker, it seems almost superfluous to note that the 108th 
Congress kicks off its legislative program with a rule so closed and 
restricted that the minority party was prevented from offering even a 
single substitute. I remember the day that this institution was 
considered one of the great deliberative bodies, brimming with ideas 
and a host of viewpoints befitting a democracy, but no more, Mr. 
Speaker. Today, 205 Members of this body and their constituents have 
been disenfranchised and shut out. My colleagues, a cold wind is 
blowing in this institution, and the needs and voices of our most 
vulnerable constituents are feeling the chill.
  Mr. Speaker, the Democratic substitute that was blocked by the 
Committee on Rules last night would have made a real difference to 
thousands. First and foremost, the measure would reestablish the 
Federal extended unemployment compensation program and guarantee all 
jobless workers at least 26 weeks of extended benefits. The program 
would be extended until June 30, 2003. Workers in every State would be 
eligible for 26 weeks of extended unemployment benefits after they 
exhaust their regular unemployment compensation. This provision would 
provide extended unemployment benefits to merely 2\1/2\ million workers 
over the first half of 2003, and the unemployment rate becomes more and 
more shocking every day.
  Moreover, any workers who exhausted their initial 13 weeks of 
temporary extended unemployment compensation in 2002 would receive an 
additional 13 weeks. Any worker who was cut off on December 28 because 
of the termination of the current program would receive the remainder 
of their original 13 weeks on a retroactive basis, plus the additional 
13 weeks. Finally, any worker who exhausted 26 weeks which they 
received because their State hit the requisite unemployment trigger 
would receive an additional 7 weeks if their State remained designated 
as having high unemployment.
  Mr. Speaker, one of the things that literally broke my heart was when 
one Member of Congress was quoted as saying, ``We don't want to extend 
these benefits; they will not go out and look for work.'' We are 
talking about people who are having a very difficult time; in fact, 
probably will not be able to find the kind of work commensurate with 
their education and their skills. I am very much afraid that my 
district, like many others, will lose them to other parts of the 
country. It is a tragedy that is happening here today, Mr. Speaker. We 
could be doing something good for the unemployed of America; but 
instead, we are turning our back on them and saying, have a little 
dividend tax relief.
  I do want to point out too on the stimulus package, because it is so 
important that most people who have stock in the United States have 
either a 401(k) program or a mutual fund, they will not see anything 
from any kind of tax relief.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, last night the Committee on Rules had an

[[Page 174]]

opportunity to hold a hearing on this unemployment compensation bill. 
However, for months our chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Dreier), has been involved in the negotiations as a member of the 
leadership of the House and is a person who has taken a lead on this 
important issue. I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and I congratulate him on his fine management on this very 
important rule.
  I will begin by saying that none of us is enthused by the prospect of 
having to extend unemployment benefits. Why? Because we want to focus 
on job creation and economic growth; and we know that the people who 
are out there who, unfortunately, are suffering, want to have 
opportunity, and that is why we are bound and determined to do 
everything possible to ensure that they have it. But I see what we are 
doing here today, Mr. Speaker, as really part of our national security 
responsibility. We all know that on September 11 of 2001 we had the 
worst attack and the loss of civilian life in our Nation's history. We 
know that the aftermath of that has cost us over $100 billion in direct 
appropriations. We also know, Mr. Speaker, that it has created a very, 
very large drain on our Nation's economy, and there are people out 
there who are hurting.
  Last November 14, we passed out of the House of Representatives a 
bill to make sure that there would be no interruption in unemployment 
benefits that were provided. Unfortunately, the Senate did not bring 
that measure up. But they did, however, pass a bill that is identical 
to this. A bill that is identical to this measure passed the 
Democratic-controlled United States Senate. This is the measure which 
was known as the Clinton-Nichols bill. Senator Clinton from New York 
who got her start in elective office thanks to my friend, the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Rangel), who encouraged her from the outset, as the 
author of this measure that we are going to be voting on today. I 
believe that this is a measure which will go a long way towards 
mitigating the pain which has come about because of the aftermath of 
September 11 and the economic downturn.
  So that is why this measure should enjoy broad bipartisan support. As 
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) pointed out, we do have, in 
fact, in the rules of the House, since this is the second day of the 
108th Congress, I underscore again, we have guaranteed the minority the 
right to a motion to recommit, so they will have a chance to deal with 
this issue if they want to in a different way. But I underscore the 
fact that the measure we are going to be voting on today is a 
bipartisan measure. It passed unanimously, under unanimous consent in 
the Senate.
  So in light of the fact that it has passed there and we have this 
measure here, we want to make sure that there is no interruption. One 
of the reasons that we need to make sure that this is done today is so 
that there is not an interruption. We want to pass this bill so that we 
can get it to the President's desk, so that he can sign the bill to 
ensure that we get this much-needed assistance to those who are 
hurting.
  Now, a number of my colleagues have today gotten up and talked about 
the President's plan that he unveiled yesterday in Chicago to get the 
economy moving, and I heard criticism of the opportunity to eliminate 
double taxation of dividends. We know, Mr. Speaker, that more than half 
of the American people are members of the investor class.

                              {time}  1045

  They have over the past several years been involved in some kind of 
investment. Guess what? Most of us who are members of the investor 
class have suffered because of the economic downturn. We all know that.
  One of the things we need to do is we need to encourage investment. I 
believe that the President's proposal that he unveiled yesterday will 
go a long way towards doing that. The by-product is that it will create 
jobs and opportunity out there for people who are hurting today, those 
people who we are going to be assisting with this plan that we have to 
extend unemployment benefits.
  I yesterday introduced legislation which I believe can help make the 
President's plan even better. It gets back to an issue that my friend, 
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), and I have worked on for 
years. That has to do with the capital gains tax.
  A lot of people say, when we talk about a capital gains tax, they 
laughingly say, who has capital gains? We have had tremendous losses. 
Why would you think about cutting the capital gains tax?
  H.R. 44, which I introduced yesterday, will bring about a halving of 
the top rate on capital gains from 20 percent to 10 percent, and from 
10 percent to 5 percent for those in the 15 percent bracket for those 
who prospectively invest. We believe that having a 1-year holding 
period will guarantee that.
  While some argue that it creates a loss in revenues to the Federal 
Treasury, it in fact will not do that. It will create, obviously, that 
1-year holding period, so we are going to see revenues increase to the 
Treasury, but there would be absolutely no cost regardless of how we 
score it in the first year because of the fact that we would have had 
that 1-year holding period.
  But it encourages people to get into the market, and allows them to 
have that top rate go from 20 percent down to 10 percent if they get in 
and realize some kind of capital gains during that period of time. It 
is during a 2-year window, and I think that is the kind of thing which, 
once again, can encourage savings, investment, and productivity.
  These are the kinds of things we are working on. So while we are 
unfortunately, unfortunately in a position where we have no choice but 
to extend unemployment benefits, and we very much want to do that 
because we know people are suffering, the key thing for us to do as a 
Congress is to make sure that we create incentives for people to invest 
and save and produce.
  So that is why this is a very fair rule. It is one which I believe 
will create a good opportunity for us to deal with the challenges that 
are out there. I urge my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans alike, 
to support it.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\3/4\ minutes to the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Rangel), the ranking member of the Committee on Ways 
and Means.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, those of us that come from urban communities 
know of circumstances when someone is grabbed by the police and they 
are interrogated, and they have what is called a ``good cop-bad cop'' 
rule. The good cop talks about compassion and sensitivity and why he is 
our friend, and why he wants to help us; but the bad cop is the one 
that is mean-spirited, the one that is in the back, and the one that 
ultimately is going to see that we get hurt.
  Our beloved President is the good cop. He is the one that talks about 
conservatism, but with compassion. He is the one that says that he does 
not know why the Congress did not take care of the 800,000 people who 
lost their unemployment compensation after the Christmas holidays.
  But, Mr. Speaker, someplace in the House of Representatives lurks the 
bad cop. He was the one that would not allow us to vote for workmen's 
compensation before we left here for the Christmas holidays. While the 
President talks about unemployment compensation and benefits, and while 
all of us will be voting for the President's package, the bad cop is 
there saying, yes, but do not give benefits to the 1 million people 
whose extended benefits have expired, that have worked every day, that 
have paid into the unemployment compensation, that are looking for 
jobs.
  The bad cop says that we cannot afford to help those million people. 
Eighty-four thousand New Yorkers who took the hit for 9-11, not for our 
city, not for our State, but for the United States of America and for 
the free world, they are looking for work. They are looking to listen 
to the good cop. They are looking for compassion.

[[Page 175]]

  But the bad cop says, no, we will help you later, much later, because 
we have to cut taxes on dividends. And if you live long enough and 
survive long enough, you will be able to get a job. Where is the 
compassion?
  But, Mr. Speaker, I am just as hard-nosed as any Republican that is 
in this House. I know when one wins the majority, he or she wins the 
votes and does what they want to do. The difference between me and the 
bad cop is that I thought we had the right to come here and at least 
debate our position. If Members do not want the substitute that really 
takes care, in a small part, of a million people who are seeking work, 
why do they not give us a chance to at least debate it? How does the 
bad cop just cut off debate, and then they tell us that we have a 
motion to recommit?
  So all we are saying is, can we not lose with dignity? Can we not 
lose with compassion? Can they not give us a chance, as they have found 
$675 billion for the wealthy, to at least let us debate to provide 
unemployment compensation benefits for a million people? If they will 
not give us the substitute, could they not waive the point of order for 
at least the motion to recommit?
  No, Mr. Speaker, the bad cop is in charge here, and the compassionate 
cop remains in the White House.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, what we are trying to work on today is a bill that was 
passed by the Senate last night. Last year, this House passed a bill 
very similar to this. We tried to do the very best we could. The 
process is that two bodies of Congress, the House and Senate, have to 
get together. That is what is happening today.
  Yesterday, the Senate acted, or last night. Immediately last night 
the Committee on Rules had a meeting. We had a hearing where we talked 
directly about this bill. Today it is on the floor. I think we are 
doing the timely things. I think we are doing the right things. I do 
not think we are delaying this in any manner. It is process, and it is 
a process that we intend to follow.
  I am proud that we had this on the floor today, and I am also proud 
that by presenting this rule and by having this debate perhaps as early 
as tonight or tomorrow the President of the United States, George W. 
Bush, will have the chance to sign this bill. That is what this is 
about. I am proud that we are able to do that today.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), the gentleman who is to be chairman of the 
Committee on the Budget.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished friend and 
colleague for yielding time to me.
  I rise in support of S. 23, which will provide a 5-month extension of 
the Federal emergency unemployment insurance benefits. I do so both as 
a member of the Committee on the Budget with an interest in the 
enforcement of the budget resolution deemed in effect for fiscal year 
2003, and as a member of the Committee on Ways and Means, under whose 
jurisdiction this legislation has been prepared.
  This measure is not inexpensive. The bill carries a $7.25 billion 
price tag for fiscal year 2003, and moreover, that price tag fails to 
take into account an additional $650 billion in costs that the 
Congressional Budget Office will recognize for this bill when it 
adjusts its budget projections at the end of this month.
  However, for those among the Nation's unemployed, they will find this 
to be a lifeline. They will find a lifeline in this legislation that 
will help them pay their bills, help them pay their family's bills, 
while they continue to look for work.
  As the incoming chairman of the committee charged with enforcing the 
budget resolution, I must, however, point out that S. 23 will exceed 
the budget resolution which the House adopted for fiscal year 2003 in 
March of last year. It would specifically exceed the allocation for the 
Committee on Ways and Means by $5.69 billion in budget authority for 
2003, and by $1.9 billion in budget authority during the period 2003-
2007.
  I, however, like the President and most in Congress, recognize the 
seriousness of the Nation's continuing challenge regarding the 
unemployment rate. We must take into consideration and we must take 
that action now to ensure economic security for families of those who 
have been unemployed as a result of the continuing economic trauma our 
Nation has suffered since the September 11 terrorist attacks.
  It is with understandable reluctance that I would ever support 
bringing a bill to the floor that exceeds the budget resolution, but I 
believe that it may be warranted during periods of economic instability 
and insecurity. This is one of them.
  As of December 28, 2002, more than 800,000 American workers have had 
their eligibility for unemployment insurance benefits terminated. 
Although they have not yet found new jobs, S. 23 will prevent these 
workers and others who exhaust the benefits prior to May of this year 
from having their benefits terminated.
  In summary, I support this bill despite its cost because of my 
concern for Iowa workers and American workers who may have a hard time 
finding jobs during this period of instability and challenging 
unemployment rate. More important, I commit to drafting a budget again 
this year which will support and help strengthen the economic recovery 
and encourage long-term economic growth.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge support of S. 23, and I urge support of this 
rule.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), a member of the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time 
to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I am fascinated by the comments of my colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle who have this new-found compassion for the 
plight of the unemployed in our country. There is nothing like spending 
a couple of weeks at home with constituents to open one's eyes.
  After months of callously ignoring the unemployed American workers, 
the Republican majority turned tail and adjourned the 107th Congress 
without providing any unemployment compensation for people out of work, 
providing nothing. Now, after almost 800,000 Americans lost their 
unemployment benefits on December 28, the majority acts like they have 
seen the light and that they are fully supportive of helping the 
unemployed.
  But while we consider a bill to help these 800,000 Americans, there 
are 1 million American workers who have already exhausted their 
benefits who will not be covered by the bill that we are considering 
today. This is wrong. The selective assistance the majority is 
attempting to provide does not come soon enough, does not go far 
enough, and will not help enough. Congress should provide unemployment 
assistance to every worker who needs it. The bill that we are 
considering today does not do that.
  The gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), on behalf of the minority, 
offered a substitute in the Committee on Rules last night, but the 
majority, in the now-traditional House spirit of nonbipartisanship, 
denied us the opportunity to even consider the substitute. Our 
substitute would extend unemployment benefits by 26 weeks instead of 13 
weeks for people losing their unemployment compensation during the 
first half of this year, and it would provide an additional 13 weeks to 
the 1 million jobless Americans who exhausted their benefits last year. 
There is no question we need to help the unemployed, but we should not 
be providing selective assistance. Unemployed Americans deserve better 
than this.
  I would say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, if they 
do not want to help these people, it is their right to do nothing. They 
could vote against the Rangel substitute. But they should not deny us 
the opportunity to try to bring this substitute to the floor and debate 
our position and have an up-or-down vote. They can vote no if they want 
to, but we should all have that opportunity to vote up or down.

[[Page 176]]

  They give speeches about democracy in all these countries all around 
the world. We need a little democracy here in the United States House 
of Representatives. We should not be denied the opportunity to bring 
this substitute to the floor. This is supposed to be the people's 
House. The people should work their will. We should not be denied this 
opportunity. It is outrageous that they are not giving us the 
opportunity to help these 1 million workers who have exhausted their 
benefits.
  I would urge Members to vote no on this rule as a protest to the fact 
that we are being denied the right to offer a substitute to help these 
people.

                              {time}  1100

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, speech after speech we hear about how we have been 
delayed in this process. I agree. Part of the process is, however, that 
the two bodies, the House and the Senate, have a process. What we are 
doing today is taking a Senate bill that is even more generous than the 
one which the Senate passed last year. We are accepting this because we 
believe it is the right thing to do.
  Our President, George W. Bush, spoke very clearly and very 
passionately about his belief that when the House of Representatives 
and the Senate would come back, this was several weeks ago when he 
spoke, that he was asking us to make sure that we held the necessary 
meetings and committee mark-ups to make sure that this bill did come to 
the floor. That is what we are doing today. I am proud of what we are 
doing. I offer no apologies for what our party stands for.
  We are here on the floor of the House of Representatives as a 
majority party with a great bill. It happens to be a better bill now 
than what was marked up last year and passed by the United States 
Senate. But it is one that we agree on, and it is one that we should be 
proud of.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Levin).
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, it has been said here that unfortunately the 
107th adjourned without passage of a bill like this. I was here with 
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and the gentleman from Maryland 
(Mr. Hoyer) that day of sine die adjournment. We tried to bring up this 
issue. We were thwarted by the Republican majority. We asked that we 
bring up the Senate bill. Unanimous consent is all that was needed.
  The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) says the President has spoken 
passionately. On that day the President was silent. Now there has been 
political pressure. Now some of the faces of the unemployed have 
appeared in the newspapers and on television. And so now you are ready 
to act. The Senate has acted. But, look, I think we can do better and 
there is time for us to do even better.
  One of my colleagues on the Republican side said there should be no 
interruptions to those who are hurting, if I got the words down 
correctly. What about the million who have exhausted their extended 
benefits and who are hurting? To the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Sessions), 56,000 from your State. The gentleman from Iowa talked about 
the unemployed in his State. How about the 8,500-plus who have 
exhausted their benefits and who are looking for work who are hurting. 
Why do we not act?
  Well, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) talks about the budget 
process. You are waiving it today up to a point. There is an 
unwillingness to waive it to let us bring up coverage of those who have 
exhausted their benefits. There is $25 billion in the trust fund for 
this purpose. And our proposal would include enough people so that 
everybody would be covered within the $25 billion.
  Look, I remember so vividly on that day when we adjourned sine die, 
we held a press conference, and distributed by the Republicans on the 
Committee on Ways and Means ``Debunking Liberal Myths on the 
Unemployment Picture.'' That was distributed as we came out of the 
press conference. ``Debunking liberal Myths on the Unemployment 
Picture.''
  Look, I suggest to people who think unemployment is a liberal myth, 
talk to the unemployed when you go home tomorrow. Talk to their 
families. Find out the trials and the tribulations. I think if you will 
do that, you will agree today we could have done even better. We could 
have done better.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, at this time I have no further speakers. I 
would like to inquire from the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. 
Slaughter) as to how many speakers and the time remaining on both 
sides.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Sessions) has 13\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentlewoman from New York 
(Ms. Slaughter) has 13\3/4\ minutes remaining.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I do have three or four more speakers, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Wynn).
  Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose, and strenuously oppose, this bill. It 
is fundamentally unfair. We talk in this body about the need for open 
and fair debate, but the Republicans have shut off the Democrats' ideas 
on this very important subject, how we can help those people who are 
unemployed.
  Years ago the legendary singer Marvin Gaye had a song out called 
``What's Going On.'' Let me talk about what is going on. September 11 
and its aftermath are going on, mergers, bankruptcy, failed dot-coms, 
closed plants, airline restructuring, corporate downsizing. That is 
what is going on in America. And the bottom line is people are 
unemployed.
  Now, today we could have a debate about two opposing views, the 
Democrats and the Republicans. Let us talk about what Democrats would 
do versus the Republicans' approach to Americans who are unemployed.
  First, those people we call exhaustees, those who have exhausted 
their benefits. There are 1 million Americans who have exhausted their 
benefits. The Democrats would give them 13 weeks of additional 
benefits. The Republican plan before us today gives them zero. That is 
unfair.
  Let us talk about what we call new entries, that is, the 93,000 
people each week who become unemployed, exhaust all of their benefits 
at the State level. The Democrats would give them 26 weeks, roughly 
6\1/2\ months. The Republicans would only give them 3\1/2\ months, 13 
weeks. The Democrat plan is clearly fair. And critically the people who 
have been cut off, 800,000 workers were cut off on December 28. The 
Democrats would give them a total of 26 weeks. The Republicans say, 
well, whatever is left, that is what you get. If you only have 2 weeks 
of benefits left, you only get 2 weeks of unemployment benefits. That 
is not fair.
  Now the Republicans say we do not want to talk about unemployment. We 
want to talk about growth and that is why we are proposing to give a 
big tax break to the wealthy in the form of eliminating the tax on 
dividends and that will spur growth in jobs. Sounds good, does it not?
  The problem is that conservative compassion or compassionate 
conservatism is out of sync because their job creation comes sometimes 
years after these people are unemployed. They need benefits and help 
now. Then if the jobs come, fine. But we ought to be helping Americans 
now and the Republicans do not do it. That is tragedy. I will vote down 
this rule.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. McDermott).
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York 
(Ms. Slaughter) for yielding me time.
  The President is intent on going to war. He continues to take us down 
a path to war. The papers carry today the story that the stimulus 
package is going to be eaten up by the war. You

[[Page 177]]

can pour that $700 billion into the economy, and it will not do any 
good because nobody is going to invest, which means we are going to 
continue to have long-term unemployment.
  My State has the highest rate of unemployment. The distinguished 
gentleman from California says, well, they are going to get some money 
from the stimulus package when they get their capital gains excuse 
there.
  I am going to tell the 30,000 people in my State that are not covered 
by this bill that we will try to get an address where they can go and 
get their money for their non-existent tax benefits.
  This is a travesty, and what you are doing is you are putting a 
little Band-Aid on it today because you have got public pressure. You 
will be back. I guarantee you will be back in March. You will be out 
here saying, well, amazingly, the economy has not picked up. We do not 
know what to do, so we have to give a few more benefits, a few more 
nickels and dimes out the door.
  If you continue down this path to war and spend the money out of the 
Treasury of the United States in a stupid tax giveaway to the wealthy, 
70 percent of the people in this country will not get more than a $100 
out of it. If you think that is a stimulus to the economy, you do not 
understand ordinary people.
  So you are wasting $700 billion. You are taking us into a senseless 
war, and you will not take care of people who are sitting in your own 
districts. And you will not let us debate it. You say, well, we have 
the budget, we have the budget, you know, we have to keep the budget in 
balance. You gave that up and you are going to give it up.
  The President says we are having a wartime budget. So in a wartime 
budget you do not have to worry about what is going on. You can just 
spend money on all kinds of things but not on the unemployed, even 
though the $25 billion is sitting right in the account right now, and 
they will not acquire a damn dime.


                Announcement By The Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would remind all Members that 
remarks in debate should avoid profanity.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, we live in a cold world, and 
we are in a cold and somewhat impassioned Chamber.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentlewoman from New York (Ms. 
Slaughter) for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, we live in a world that does not seem to care that 
people who deserve or get unemployment insurance are, in fact, the 
workers of America who have built this Nation. Now we have a bill given 
by now the singular government of the United States, Republican 
Presidency, Republican Senate, Republican House. There is no two-party 
system in this Nation, which means that the railroad train, the train 
of no return, will be the legislative call of the day.
  How in the world can you argue that we live in a democracy when you 
are denying the opposition the right to present their proposal that 
will, in fact, save families and save lives?
  The Democrats realize that people are unemployed because there is no 
work. And the Bill Clinton administration, in the first term he created 
11 million jobs in America. Right now the Bush administration has seen 
2 million jobs go down the drain. So are you telling me that the 56,000 
people in the State of Texas are ne're-do-wells who do not want to 
work? No.
  They have fallen upon hard times. They are trying to work. Their 
mortgage payments are coming. The college tuition payments are coming. 
The car payments are coming. And we are leaving them to fall on their 
spears.
  We have got a war that we do not need that is costing us a trillion 
dollars, but yet a lousy $7.2 billion is all we are going to give. We 
cannot afford to give 26 full weeks and pay for the million people that 
are about to lose their homes right now because they are not included 
in this bill that we have to vote for. I never knew or thought as a 
child growing up in America that had unemployed parents, saw the 
hardship of trying to make ends meet, borrowing from relatives to stay 
alive, that we would have a government that would be so uncaring, that 
we would stand here and force down this legislative initiative because 
we do not like the opposition, because we are in control now.
  The only thing I can say is that this is an abomination and Lord have 
mercy on all of us as we try to be compassionate for those who are in 
need.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Becerra).
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, it is somewhat painful to say that we begin the 108th 
Congress today with new Members, a new majority in the Senate under 
Republican control, a Republican-controlled House, a Republican in the 
White House, and the first order of legislative business in the 108th 
Congress in the year 2003 is a plan which gags the minority party in 
the greatest democracy in the world to discuss something very important 
to millions of Americans who are working and about to lose their jobs 
or who are trying to work but cannot find a job. It is difficult to 
believe that today, January 8 of 2003, that in the House of 
Representatives, the people's House, we will not have an opportunity to 
discuss how we can provide unemployment benefits, emergency 
unemployment benefits to a million Americans who are struggling to find 
work.
  In my State of California, over 100,000 Americans are out of a job 
and are trying to find ways to put food on the table. But in this House 
of Representatives, I cannot put a proposal before my colleagues for a 
vote, whether it wins or loses, up or down, to decide whether or not 
those 1 million Americans, and more than 100,000 of them in my State of 
California, cannot see unemployment benefits extended for them as this 
proposal would do for some other Americans.

                              {time}  1115

  Why Peter gets it and Paul does not, I do not understand, but that is 
the case, and when we look at the sad history of this, we see that a 
year ago, less than a year ago, a few months ago, Democrats put a 
proposal to do exactly what is on the table now, to extend benefits.
  At the end of last year, when we knew that people were losing work, 
when we knew that on December 28, close to a million people would run 
out of benefits and that we knew more than 80,000 people a week were 
becoming unemployed and without unemployment benefits, this Congress 
did try to do something, at least the Democratic side of the Congress.
  We had a proposal under the leadership of the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Rangel) to provide those extended benefits, but we could not get 
it heard in this House for the same reason we cannot have the proposal 
heard today. We were gagged. It was bad then but it is shameful today 
that we begin a new session on what should be a bipartisan note for 
Americans who are looking for work, and we cannot do it.
  Yet just yesterday the President proposed close to $700 billion worth 
of tax cuts to help mostly wealthy investors, not folks who are out 
there working with their hands, but folks who invested money and can 
make money because the company happens to earn a little bit more on 
their stock. The folks who are willing to use their legs, their hands, 
their minds, who are right now out of work, will not get any 
assistance, not just one American, not just 1,000 Americans, but about 
a million Americans.
  I am going to go back to California. If we pass something I will be 
able to tell some of my Californians and colleagues there we got them 
that extended benefit that they needed to put food on the table, but I 
am going, in the same moment, to turn over to the next American in 
California and say, sorry, I could not even take a vote to see if I 
could extend their benefits. That is not the note we should start on, 
but that is the note that this Congress and the House of 
Representatives starts on.
  I believe we have an opportunity today to change that. We should not

[[Page 178]]

for us, not for politicians but for hardworking Americans who probably 
will not even listen to this debate, but this is still their House, 
this is the people's House, and we should do the people's work, and to 
leave today or tomorrow or this week, as we did back in December, 
without concluding the work for our working Americans who are seeking 
jobs is unfair, too little too late. Let us do something right. Let us 
do it for all Americans, not just for some.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time.
  Today, we have had a fabulous debate, an opportunity to have people 
from both parties, both sides of the aisle to be able to talk about 
this bill that is before us, S. 23. It is a Senate bill. It is an 
agreement that was reached in the other body just last night.
  Last night, this body, through the leadership of the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Hastert) had the Committee on Rules come into order. We 
had a hearing last night. We talked about this important issue. We 
deliberated. We heard from both sides. We followed the process. That 
process that the Committee on Rules went through is one that this body 
has gone through for many years, and we came up with a product.
  The product that we chose was exactly the same bill that the Senate 
had approved last year but made better, and was done all last night.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman from Texas to 
yield for a unanimous consent.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, it is my time and I do not choose to yield 
at this time. I am offering to close as is provided for by the rules, 
and I will allow the gentlewoman to insert something into the Record if 
that is a request.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). Does the gentlewoman have a 
request?
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I meant to say at the end of my time that 
we will call for a vote on the previous question. If it is defeated, we 
have an amendment to the rule, that we would like to offer the Rangel 
substitute for 26 weeks of extended benefits. We are concerned that we 
were denied an opportunity to put that on the floor, and by voting no 
on the previous question we will be able to substitute.

            Amendment to H. Res. 14 Offered by Ms. Slaughter

       Strike all after the resolved clause and insert:
       That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order without intervention of any point of order to consider 
     in the House the bill (S. 23) to provide for a 5-month 
     extension of the Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation 
     Act of 2002 and for a transition period for individuals 
     receiving compensation when the program under such Act ends. 
     The bill shall be considered as read for amendment. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill 
     and on any amendment thereto to final passage without 
     intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate on the bill 
     equally divided and controlled by Representative Thomas of 
     California and Representative Rangel of New York; (2) the 
     amendment specified in section 2, if offered by 
     Representative Rangel of New York or his designee, which 
     shall be in order without intervention of any point of order, 
     shall be considered as read, and shall be separately 
     debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the 
     proponent and an opponent; and (3) one motion to recommit 
     with or without instructions.
       Sec. 2. The amendment referred to in the first section of 
     this resolution is as follows:

                                 H.R.--

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Emergency 
     Unemployment Compensation Act of 2003''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Extension of the Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation 
              Act of 2002.
Sec. 3. Entitlement to additional weeks of temporary extended 
              unemployment compensation.
Sec. 4. Application of revised rate of insured unemployment.
Sec. 5. Additional TEUC extended benefit period trigger.
Sec. 6. Additional weeks of benefits for workers in high unemployment 
              States.
Sec. 7. Effective date.

     SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF THE TEMPORARY EXTENDED UNEMPLOYMENT 
                   COMPENSATION ACT OF 2002.

       (a) Six-Month Extension of Program.--Section 208 of the 
     Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 2002 
     (Public Law 107-147; 116 Stat. 30) is amended to read as 
     follows:

     ``SEC. 208. APPLICABILITY.

       ``(a) In General.--Subject to subsection (b), an agreement 
     entered into under this title shall apply to weeks of 
     unemployment--
       ``(1) beginning after the date on which such agreement is 
     entered into; and
       ``(2) ending before July 1, 2003.
       ``(b) Transition.--In the case of an individual who is 
     receiving temporary extended unemployment compensation for 
     the week which immediately precedes July 1, 2003, temporary 
     extended unemployment compensation shall continue to be 
     payable to such individual for any week thereafter from the 
     account from which such individual received compensation for 
     the week immediately preceding that termination date. No 
     compensation shall be payable by reason of the preceding 
     sentence for any week beginning after December 31, 2003.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall take effect as if included in the enactment of the 
     Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 2002 
     (Public Law 107-147; 116 Stat. 21).

     SEC. 3. ENTITLEMENT TO ADDITIONAL WEEKS OF TEMPORARY EXTENDED 
                   UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION.

       Paragraph (1) of section 203(b) of the Temporary Extended 
     Unemployment Compensation Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-147; 
     116 Stat. 21) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(1) In general.--The amount established in an account 
     under subsection (a) shall be equal to 26 times the 
     individual's weekly benefit amount for the benefit year.''.

     SEC. 4. APPLICATION OF REVISED RATE OF INSURED UNEMPLOYMENT.

       Section 207 of the Temporary Extended Unemployment 
     Compensation Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-147; 116 Stat. 21) 
     is amended--
       (1) by striking ``In'' and inserting ``(a) General 
     Definitions.--In''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(b) Adjusted Insured Unemployment Rate.--For purposes of 
     carrying out section 203(c) with respect to weeks of 
     unemployment beginning on or after the date of enactment of 
     the Emergency Unemployment Compensation Act of 2003, the term 
     `rate of insured unemployment', as used in section 203(d) of 
     the Federal-State Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 
     1970 (26 U.S.C. 3304 note), has the meaning given such term 
     under section 203(e)(1) of such Act, except that individuals 
     exhausting their right to regular compensation during the 
     most recent 3 calendar months for which data are available 
     before the close of the period for which such rate is being 
     determined shall be taken into account as if they were 
     individuals filing claims for regular compensation for each 
     week during the period for which such rate is being 
     determined.''.

     SEC. 5. ADDITIONAL TEUC EXTENDED BENEFIT PERIOD TRIGGER.

       (a) In General.--Section 203(c) of the Temporary Extended 
     Unemployment Compensation Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-147; 
     116 Stat. 21) is amended by adding at the end the following 
     new paragraph:
       ``(3) Additional extended benefit period trigger.--
       ``(A) In general.--Effective with respect to compensation 
     for weeks of unemployment beginning on or after the date of 
     enactment of the Emergency Unemployment Compensation Act of 
     2003, an agreement under this title shall provide that, in 
     addition to any other extended benefit period trigger, for 
     purposes of beginning or ending any extended benefit period 
     under this section--
       ``(i) there is a State `on' indicator for a week if--

       ``(I) the average rate of total unemployment in such State 
     (seasonally adjusted) for the period consisting of the most 
     recent 3 months for which data for all States are published 
     before the close of such week equals or exceeds 6 percent; 
     and
       ``(II) the average rate of total unemployment in such State 
     (seasonally adjusted) for the 3-month period referred to in 
     clause (i) equals or exceeds 110 percent of such average rate 
     for either (or both) of the corresponding 3-month periods 
     ending in the 2 preceding calendar years; and

       ``(ii) there is a State `off' indicator for a week if 
     either the requirements of subclause (I) or (II) of clause 
     (i) are not satisfied.
       ``(B) No effect on other determinations.--Notwithstanding 
     the provisions of any agreement described in subparagraph 
     (A), any week for which there would otherwise be a State `on' 
     indicator shall continue to be such a week and shall not be 
     determined to be a week for which there is a State `off' 
     indicator.
       ``(C) Determinations made by the secretary.--For purposes 
     of this subsection, determinations of the rate of total 
     unemployment in any State for any period (and of any seasonal 
     adjustment) shall be made by the Secretary.''.

[[Page 179]]

       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 203(c)(1) of the 
     Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 2002 
     (Public Law 107-147; 116 Stat. 21) is amended by inserting 
     ``or (3)'' after ``paragraph (2)''.

     SEC. 6. ADDITIONAL WEEKS OF BENEFITS FOR WORKERS IN HIGH 
                   UNEMPLOYMENT STATES.

       Section 203(c)(1) of the Temporary Extended Unemployment 
     Compensation Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-147; 116 Stat. 30) 
     is amended by striking ``an amount equal to the amount 
     originally established in such account (as determined under 
     subsection (b)(1))'' and inserting ``7 times the individual's 
     weekly benefit amount for the benefit year''.

     SEC. 7. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       (a) In General.--Except as otherwise provided in this Act, 
     the amendments made by this Act shall apply with respect to 
     weeks of unemployment beginning on or after the date of 
     enactment this Act.
       (b) Resumption of Benefits.--
       (1) Rule applicable to exhaustees.--In the case of any 
     individual--
       (A) to whom any temporary extended unemployment 
     compensation was payable for any week beginning before 
     January 1, 2003, and
       (B) who exhausted such individual's rights to such 
     compensation (by reason of the payment of all amounts in such 
     individual's temporary extended unemployment compensation 
     account) before January 1, 2003,
     such individual's eligibility for any additional weeks of 
     temporary extended unemployment compensation by reason of the 
     amendments made by this Act shall apply with respect to weeks 
     of unemployment beginning on or after the date of enactment 
     of this Act.
       (2) Rule applicable to non-exhaustees.--In the case of any 
     individual--
       (A) to whom any temporary extended unemployment 
     compensation was payable for any week beginning before 
     January 1, 2003, and
       (B) as to whom the condition described in paragraph (1)(B) 
     does not apply,

     such individual shall, upon appropriate application, be 
     eligible for temporary extended unemployment compensation (in 
     accordance with the provisions of the Temporary Extended 
     Unemployment Compensation Act of 2002, as amended by this 
     Act) with respect to any weeks of unemployment beginning on 
     or after December 29, 2002.
       (c) Date for Determining Eligibility of Exhaustees for 
     Augmented Benefits.--In the case of any individual described 
     in subsection (b)(1), the determination under section 203(c) 
     as to whether such individual's State is in an extended 
     benefit period (for purposes of determining eligibility for 
     augmented benefits under the Temporary Extended Unemployment 
     Compensation Act of 2002, as amended by this Act) shall be 
     made--
       (1) as of the date of enactment of this Act, and
       (2) without regard to whether or not such a determination 
     was made under the Temporary Extended Unemployment 
     Compensation Act of 2002, as in effect before the amendments 
     made by this Act.

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yielded to the gentlewoman for the 
purpose of allowing something to be placed into the Record. It is my 
time and I wish to gain that time back.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentlewoman may 
insert her comments into the Record.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the Speaker for allowing the 
gentlewoman to insert that into the Record.
  So now we are at the point where we have completed part of the 
process where we are going to vote on the rule, and in a few minutes, I 
assume after a vote on that, then we will have a debate where we will 
talk about the substance further of the bill. This has allowed both 
parties the time to place forward their ideas, and for anyone to think 
that we have not allowed free time or gagged someone to tell them what 
they can or cannot discuss is simply ludicrous. That is why we allow 
the time on the floor.
  I am proud of what the Committee on Rules has done. I am proud of the 
debate that we have had today, and I look forward to the President of 
the United States having an opportunity, perhaps as early as this 
afternoon or tomorrow, to sign this bill to get these benefits to the 
people that need it the most. I am proud of what we are doing.
  Mr. Speaker, once again, I urge my colleagues to join me in 
supporting this rule and the underlying legislation which is so 
critical.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this closed rule and to 
speak about the need for extending unemployment benefits. I'm happy to 
see that our Republican colleagues have finally gotten around to 
agreeing with us that the working people of this country need help in 
the economic downturn that is plaguing our country. Democrats tried to 
pass emergency extensions for unemployed workers across the country 
during our November session, but the Republican leadership only wanted 
to extend benefits for unemployed workers in Alaska, Oregon, and 
Washington.
  What did this legislative delay mean for my 9th California district? 
It meant that three days after Christmas almost 7,500 in the Oakland 
metropolitan area lost their federal extended unemployment benefits. It 
meant that these people, who are already struggling in an environment 
of high housing costs, are struggling to survive. It meant that in an 
economy that is already miserable we had fewer spending consumers.
  I applaud the fact that the Republicans have agreed to extend 
unemployment benefits, and I will vote for this legislation. But I also 
want to insist that we do more. For those people who have exhausted 
their benefits, for instance, the President's plan provides no more 
help. On the other hand, the Democratic legislation would provide 13 
weeks more of benefits for those who have already exhausted their 
extended federal benefits, perhaps the people with the greatest need.
  President Bush's so-called economic stimulus package spends billions 
to fatten the wallets of the wealthy, but our plan focuses aid on 
lower- and middle-class workers who need that help immediately.
  That's why I urge a ``no'' vote on this closed rule.
  Mr. SESSIONS, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Before placing the question, the Chair has a 
statement about the length of electronic votes.
  Clause 4 of rule XX says that Members shall have at least 15 minutes 
to respond on an ordinary record vote or quorum call, but with 
cooperation among Members, it is possible to complete a vote in that 
time.
  The Chair believes that closing votes as soon as possible after the 
guaranteed minimum time should be the regular practice. The Chair is 
certain that votes can be shortened if Members simply resolve to head 
to the chamber as soon as they are notified by the bell and light 
signal. The Chair will remind Members when 2 minutes remain on the 
clock.
  The goal of completing votes in as close to the minimum time as 
possible is even more reasonable in the case of 5-minute votes because 
every 5-minute vote necessarily follows another electronic vote and is 
always preceded by an announcement from the Chair and a distinctive 
bell and light signal.
  No occupant of the chair would prevent a Member who is in the well of 
the Chamber before a result is announced from casting his or her vote, 
but each occupant of the chair will have the full support of the 
Speaker in striving to close each electronic vote at the earliest 
opportunity. Members should not rely on signals relayed from outside 
the Chamber to assume that votes will be held open until they arrive in 
the Chamber.
  The question is on ordering the previous question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair 
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for an electronic vote, if 
ordered, on the question of adopting the resolution.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 224, 
nays 196, not voting 13, as follows:

                              [Roll No. 5]

                               YEAS--224

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono

[[Page 180]]


     Boozman
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burr
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole
     Collins
     Combest
     Cox
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Janklow
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--196

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Ballance
     Becerra
     Bell
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Case
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley (CA)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Turner (TX)
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Cardin
     Conyers
     Delahunt
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Majette
     Miller, George
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Stenholm
     Towns
     Weller


                Announcement by the Speaker pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson) (during the vote). The Chair 
advises Members that approximately 2 minutes remain on the 15-minute 
clock.

                              {time}  1144

  Mr. STARK changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. STEARNS and Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut changed their vote from 
``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 5 I was unavoidably 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''
  Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 5 I 
was inadvertently detained. Had I been present, I would have voted 
``yea.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________