[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 9]
[House]
[Pages 11231-11237]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 444, BACK TO WORK INCENTIVE ACT OF 
                                  2003

  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on 
Rules, I call up House Resolution 656, and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 656

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 
     444) to amend the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 to 
     establish a Personal Reemployment Accounts grant program to 
     assist Americans in returning to work. The bill shall be 
     considered as read for amendment. In lieu of the amendment in 
     the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on 
     Education and the Workforce now printed in the bill, an 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the 
     text of H.R. 4444 shall be considered as adopted. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, 
     as amended, to final passage without intervening motion 
     except: (1) one hour of debate on the bill, as amended, 
     equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on Education and the 
     Workforce; and (2) one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.
       Sec. 2. (a) In the engrossment of H.R. 444, the Clerk 
     shall--
       (1) await the disposition of H.R. 4409 and H.R. 4410;
       (2) add the respective texts of such bills specified in 
     subparagraph (1) as have passed the House, as new matter at 
     the end of H.R. 444;
       (3) conform the title of H.R. 444 to reflect the addition 
     to the engrossment of the text of such bills specified in 
     subparagraph (1) as have passed the House;
       (4) assign appropriate designations to provisions within 
     the engrossment; and
       (5) conform provisions for short titles within the 
     engrossment.
       (b) Upon the addition to the engrossment of H.R. 444 of the 
     text of each bill specified in subsection (a)(1) that has 
     passed the House, each such bill shall be laid on the table.
       (c) If H.R. 444 is disposed of without reaching the stage 
     of engrossment as contemplated in subsection (a), the bill 
     specified in subsection (a)(1) that first passes the House 
     shall be treated in the manner specified for H.R. 444 in 
     subsections (a) and (b), and only the other bill specified in 
     subsection (a)(1) that has passed the House shall be laid on 
     the table.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shaw). The gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. 
Pryce) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I 
yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. 
Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the 
purpose of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 656 provides for 1 hour of debate in the House, 
equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce. It also 
provides for an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of 
the text of H.R. 444 shall be considered as adopted.
  Section 2 of the resolution provides that in the engrossment of H.R. 
444 the clerk shall add the text of H.R. 4409 and H.R. 4410 as passed 
by the House.
  Finally, the resolution provides one motion to recommit with or 
without instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, 8 years ago, many of us stood in this very Chamber and 
passed one of the most sweeping policy reforms Congress has ever 
undertaken reforming our Nation's welfare system. We took a risk that 
day in 1996 in order to change a failing system that encouraged 
dependency and discouraged self-sufficiency.
  The tangible results are clear. Since 1996, we have seen welfare 
rolls plummet from 14 million to 5 million. Thousands who for years 
found themselves trapped in a cycle of poverty today are holding down 
meaningful jobs, getting promoted, and saving for their child's 
education. It is time to be bold once again.
  For the past several years, the tax policy we have enacted has 
created over 1 million jobs in the past 8 months, over half of those in 
the last 2 months alone. The economy grew more in the last 6 months of 
last year than it had in the previous 2 decades. That is remarkable 
growth, Mr. Speaker. But still more must be done. There are still many 
Americans out of work seeking meaningful jobs and rewarding careers.
  Mr. Speaker, it is clear that when we enact legislation that removes 
the roadblocks to progress, progress is achieved; when we eradicate 
programs which foster dependency, we foster independence; and when we 
create an atmosphere where workers can attain the knowledge and skills 
to build strong and successful careers, then we empower those seeking a 
job with the ability to find one.
  That is precisely what this plan will do by creating personal 
reemployment accounts. These new accounts offer an innovative approach 
to provide unemployed workers with the very tools they need to get back 
onto their feet and into a lifelong career. These accounts are designed 
to provide unemployed Americans additional flexibility, greater choice 
and more control over their employment search and to provide a 
reemployment bonus for those who find a job quickly.
  Under this plan, an individual who is receiving unemployment benefits 
can access a personal reemployment account of up to $3,000. The 
personal reemployment accounts will be administered through the one-
stop career centers. These centers are already offering assistance to 
those seeking employment. At these centers, people can use their 
personal reemployment account for up to 1 year for intensive services 
like unemployment counseling, case management and job training. 
Supportive services like child care, transportation, and housing 
assistance are also available. One-stop career centers are the 
embodiment of compassion for those who have lost their jobs due to no 
fault of their own.
  In the ever-changing, dynamic global economy that we live in, it is 
natural that some businesses are going to downsize, fold up or 
restructure, resulting in the laying off of workers. Most of these 
employees are honest, hard-working people. They want to get back to 
work, they want to earn their paycheck, and they want to support their 
families.
  In addition to extending a helping hand to those seeking a job, this 
plan prevents fraud and waste as well, which is important to the 
program's participants as well as to American taxpayers. Currently, 
individuals out of work are able to take advantage of the one-stop 
career centers for free. Now they will be encouraged to shop wisely, 
paying for those services that they truly need out of the funds in 
their new accounts. This prevents double-dipping and ensures that 
taxpayer dollars are spent wisely, effectively and efficiently.
  But perhaps the best part of this reward-based plan is that 
individuals who access a personal reemployment account and find 
employment within 13 weeks will be able to keep the remaining balance 
as a cash reemployment bonus. They will get 60 percent of the balance 
at the time they are employed and 40 percent 6 months later if they are 
still in the job.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a common-sense, innovative plan that will 
empower Americans to find new jobs. It is a plan that will provide out-
of-work Americans with access to the resources they truly need: job 
training, child care, transportation services, or housing assistance, 
whatever that need might be for that particular individual; and it is a 
plan that reflects the Republican agenda of creating jobs and getting 
Americans back to work. I urge my colleagues to support this rule and 
the underlying legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce) for 
yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I am troubled by recent actions taken by the Committee 
on Rules and the possible consequences for this democratic body. Otto 
van Bismarck said, ``Laws are like sausages. It is better not to see 
them being made.'' Republicans on the Committee on Rules have devised 
and employed new ``sausage-making'' rules over the past several weeks. 
These rules take several

[[Page 11232]]

bills, grind them up, and shove them into a new legislative casing and 
make a new bill.
  H. Res. 638 provided for the consideration of three bills under the 
same closed rule, restricting the amount of time for floor debate and 
deliberation. Once the bills were passed, the rule required the bills 
be ground and repackaged as one bill.
  H. Res. 645 provided for the consideration of five bills, again 
limiting the time for floor debate. Once the bills were considered and 
passed, the text of all five pieces of legislation were ground together 
to make one large bill to send to the other body. I would think that 
the parliamentarians of the House of Representatives would take some 
interest in what is going on here.
  Today we are faced with a new device, a Frankenstein rule. Last 
night, the Republicans cobbled together bad pieces of rules, concocted 
a few other pieces, and then passed everything as one big monster rule.
  The text of H.R. 444 is replaced with the text of H.R. 4444. None of 
the four amendments before the committee is in order, debate on the 
legislation is limited to 1 hour, and, outrageously, the rule appends 
the text of two unrelated bills, bills not considered by the Committee 
on Rules, just simply written in.
  H.R. 4409 is on the suspension calendar, which would reauthorize 
title II of the Higher Education Act of 1965. H.R. 4410 is the Teacher 
Shortage Act of 2004, which would increase the amount of student loans 
which may be forgiven for highly qualified teachers in math, science, 
and special education. Now the merits of these legislative appendages 
have not even been considered by the Committee on Education and the 
Workforce, having held no hearings on it. And last night the Committee 
on Rules did not hear any testimony on either one of them.
  When the rule was passed out, a staffer gave us a copy of the bills. 
We discovered whichever one of those two suspensions passes first will 
be cobbled into this bill we are doing today. The other one, I do not 
know what happens to it. I think it is tabled and forgotten about.
  Mr. Speaker, it is destructive to us because we have no rules to go 
by any more. It does not matter what they want to do. Somewhere in the 
Capitol, people are devising byzantine and awful rules to shove down 
Members' throats.
  This bill today, though, is really only a feel-good bill. There is no 
money authorized for it. It does nothing for the 1.2 million people who 
are unemployed and have lost their benefits.
  Mr. Speaker, 8.2 million Americans are unemployed; and the 
unemployment rate remains the same. According to the Bureau of Labor 
Statistics, since December, 2003, the unemployment rate has been 5.6 or 
5.7; and extended unemployment benefits expired last year. However, the 
unemployment trust fund has $20 billion in it. Congress simply refuses 
to allow the unemployed to tap into that money which is already there. 
Every dollar spent on unemployment benefits immediately creates more 
than $2 in economic growth.
  Instead of using the billions of dollars that are already there 
untouched in the unemployment trust fund, this underlying bill creates 
a pilot program for personal reemployment accounts. The goal is to help 
people get back to work to provide $3,000 for job training, 
transportation and job search expenses. The fact that there is only one 
job for every three seekers is not considered here. The problem is it 
does nothing to create jobs. It trains people for jobs that do not 
exist, jobs which have been outsourced overseas. According to the 
Economic Policy Institute, these PRAs are a response to a problem that 
does not exist. The concept assumes there are plenty of jobs, but the 
unemployed workers are so comfortable getting $250 a week in 
unemployment benefits that they will not go back to work. So the 
problem is the failure of job creation, and these PRAs will be of no 
help. It is insulting to workers to believe they have to be given a 
grant to go look for work.

                              {time}  1045

  As I said before, over 1.5 million Americans exhausted their 
benefits, and they will not be eligible for this pilot program. If a 
person uses this PRA, he or she is no longer eligible to receive the 
benefits of other programs under the Workforce Investment Act, which 
can be worth as much as $10,000. Any money used from PRAs will be money 
used from WIA funds, because additional funds are not authorized for 
this program. Let me say that again. This wonderful program here to put 
people back to work has no money authorized for it.
  Why are we not considering real help for the unemployed? This body 
should be passing legislation to extend unemployment benefits. I urge 
my colleagues to vote against this Frankenstein rule, so the House can 
act to help the millions of unemployed Americans and their families.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes 
to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes).
  Mr. HAYES. Mr. Speaker, I first want to thank the gentlewoman from 
Ohio for yielding me time and then to thank the gentleman from Nevada 
(Mr. Porter) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) for bringing 
forth this very effective effort to help create jobs and grow our 
economy.
  Every day I work to create jobs in the Eighth District of North 
Carolina. This is another in a long list of aggressive actions taken by 
this majority to work with people on both sides of the aisle for 
national security and economic security, which go hand in hand.
  The Workforce Investment Act and the Personal Reemployment Accounts 
again are an effort in a long list of efforts by our majority to put 
people back to work, to create jobs, and to match job seekers with good 
employment opportunities.
  Personal Reemployment Accounts will allow flexibility. They will 
create opportunities for people to get transportation, counseling, 
child care, relocation assets, whatever they need to become employed 
gainfully with good jobs paying good wages as quickly as possible. 
These are several of the reasons that I strongly rise in support of 
this rule and the underlying legislation.
  Unemployment benefits are important, and I support them; but there is 
far more to our effort to create jobs and put people back to work than 
simply unemployment benefits. This is a step in the right direction. It 
gives us additional opportunities to help people get good jobs, to grow 
this economy, and to continue to fight and win the war on terrorism.
  As we look every day at things that we are doing, this is one of the 
best and most effective ways that we can create jobs, strengthen our 
economy and help our people create the careers that they need to 
support their families.
  Again, Mr. Speaker, I thank the leadership for bringing this forward, 
and I ask for strong support for the rule and the bill.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Kildee).
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I also rise in opposition to this closed rule and urge 
Members to defeat the previous question. This rule cuts off meaningful 
debate on real-world solutions to the real-world problems of American 
workers.
  The underlying bill creates an unproven and risky job-training 
voucher program that does not address the main issues facing American 
workers. American workers need help now. Those who exhausted their 
unemployment benefits need Congress and the Bush administration to 
enact an extension of those benefits. The American worker also needs 
new job opportunities.
  Under this administration, 2 million jobs have been lost, 8.2 million 
individuals are unemployed, 1.5 million workers have exhausted their 
unemployment benefits, and wages have barely kept up with inflation. 
This bill does nothing to address these problems.
  The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan) and I filed amendments to respond 
to

[[Page 11233]]

the true needs of American workers. The Committee on Rules blocked both 
of these amendments.
  When I go to the Committee on Rules recently, I am reminded of what 
Dante had engraved above the gates of Hell in his ``Inferno.'' Engraved 
there was: ``Abandon all hope, ye who enter here.'' I have not been 
given an amendment up there, by the present committee and I have been 
here quite a few years.
  The amendment to be offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan) 
would have allowed local communities to hire and train first 
responders. This amendment would have created jobs, while also 
protecting our villages and towns from security threats. My amendment 
would have extended unemployment benefits for those who have exhausted 
their initial 26 weeks.
  Both of these amendments are critically needed if we are to ensure 
that American families can provide for their own financial security. I 
urge Members to defeat the previous question so we can have a full and 
open debate on the Ryan amendment. If the previous question is not 
defeated, I urge opposition to this rule.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 4 minutes 
to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Porter), the author of this very 
important legislation.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule for H.R. 444.
  Mr. Speaker, I am proud of this legislation because it impacts the 
families and children of Nevadans, but also those families across the 
country. But Nevada-specific, right after 9/11, we experienced almost 
100,000 people that were laid off in a short period of time. What we 
have learned since then is with the resilient business community 
working with this Congress and its leadership on getting people back to 
work, we are now back to about 4.3 percent unemployment.
  Nevada is a bellwether for the economy and how strong it is becoming, 
because people are coming back to Nevada in droves. But, more 
importantly, what we learned in that tragic time right after 9/11 is 
that we can no longer do business as usual when it comes to 
unemployment. We need to find a flexible way to approach these families 
to help them get back to work.
  This program provides for flexibility. More importantly, it is 
voluntary. Families can use this for many uses, from transportation for 
getting to the job, maybe even for those families that need a telephone 
to be put in their home. Maybe they need to learn a new language. 
Nevada is one of the fastest growing States in the country. With 5,000, 
6,000 or 7,000 new people a month, it has one of the fastest growing 
Hispanic populations in the country. This program can be used to help 
train and help these families adjust.
  Mr. Speaker, this language, as I said earlier, is voluntary. Each 
State can make a decision. It is a pilot program. States can choose. 
Why not allow these families to use this program?
  I have heard our colleagues across the aisle say that these families 
and individuals do not need more training. I am sorry, I disagree. They 
need a new approach to unemployment, they need additional benefits, and 
they need additional help; and I encourage everyone to support the rule 
and H.R. 444.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Ryan).
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York 
for yielding me time, and I also thank the gentlewoman from the Buckeye 
State for her comments as well.
  I am rising here, Mr. Speaker, to urge a ``no'' vote on the previous 
question. As the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) said, there are 
several amendments here that we wanted to get in to this that were not 
allowed.
  One of the amendments obviously offered by the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Kildee) was to extend unemployment benefits. We have 
thousands of workers in the State of Ohio who have exhausted their 
unemployment benefits and need help. These are people who are locked 
out, these are people who are unemployed, these are people who cannot 
afford to go back to a job that pays $6 an hour. We hear a lot about 
job creation, but the jobs that we are losing are $20 an hour with 
health care benefits. The jobs we are gaining are $6 an hour at Wal-
Mart.
  One of the amendments, the Ryan amendment, would request an 
authorization of such sums as necessary from 2004 to 2009 for on-the-
job training opportunities for medical and safety occupations, police, 
firefighters, rescue personnel, paramedics, medical personnel. This 
money would go to the Governors. The Governors would be able to use 75 
percent of it in a formula based on population, based on the need as 
well, with 20 percent of the money being discretionary, to go for first 
responders.
  This would be an economic stimulus for local communities in many 
places like the State of Ohio that could use this economic stimulus. 
Many of the cities, municipalities, townships, and counties would be 
able to take this money, use it for training and be able to hire more 
and, therefore, provide a direct economic stimulus.
  There is also another debate I think that is going on here, and I 
think it is a debate that the American people need to hear and need to 
participate in. Basically, after 9/11 there were two philosophies. One 
we are exercising now with the war in Iraq, over $200 billion being 
spent over there.
  But there was another philosophy that did not get much hearing. There 
is also another idea that we had here, and that was take some of those 
billions of dollars that we have been spending in Iraq and invest that 
to batten down the hatches in the United States of America. More money 
for first responders, police, fire, Border Patrol; more money into the 
intelligence community; hire people who speak Farsi that can infiltrate 
some of these camps. I think it becomes a choice between hiring police, 
fire and military personnel in Iraq, or hiring police, fire and medical 
personnel here in the United States of America.
  I think this would have been an opportunity for us to provide a 
direct economic stimulus and change course a little bit by investing 
here and protecting the civil defense, the homeland security. I think 
that would have been a better way to go.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes 
to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick), my dear friend 
and colleague from the Committee on Rules.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio for 
yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of not only this rule but the 
underlying bill, because as the economy continues to improve, it is 
important that we as Congress continue to help to provide incentives 
for those Americans who are still looking for work.
  I spend the majority of my time in my district working on economic 
development and job creation. This is the Ninth District of North 
Carolina, and providing worker re-employment accounts is a phenomenal 
tool that the folks in our district and, of course, all across the 
country can use to help them get back to work.
  As we have already heard this morning, these accounts are flexible, 
and that is the key. Flexibility is so important, because the workers 
can use the money for career counseling, for transportation, child 
care, job training, or housing assistance. Wherever the need may be, 
they can use that money. If they find employment within 13 weeks, they 
get to keep the balance of the account as a bonus.
  It is important to the American people to know that we have not lost 
sight of the fact that there are still a lot of them out there looking 
for work and that times have been tough. We have been hit particularly 
hard in my district because of all of the textile jobs lost over the 
last few years. So it is very important, again, for my district, for 
the State of North Carolina, and other areas that are experiencing the 
same problems that we pass this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this rule and 
``yes'' on the underlying bill.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from New York for 
yielding

[[Page 11234]]

me time, and I rise in opposition to this rule.
  Over the last several years, we have lost 2 million jobs in the 
country. Over the last several weeks, we have heard that there are new 
and grave terrorist threats to our trains and a number of individuals 
are free in the country threatening to blow up buildings and do other 
acts of terror.
  The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan) has an excellent idea that 
addresses each of those two problems. His idea is that we authorize 
enough money so that we could train and recruit and hire 100,000 first 
responders to be deployed in our cities and our States and our 
communities across the country. We would be stronger at home against 
the terrorist threat, and we would put 100,000 people to work in the 
process in skilled jobs with good benefits.
  Now, I think this is an excellent idea. But what is wrong about what 
the House is doing today is we are not even going to get to debate this 
idea or discuss it or vote on it. The majority has put forth a plan 
that they say will help the unemployed. I emphatically disagree that it 
will, but it is their right to bring that plan forward. It should be 
our right as the minority to bring our plan forward.
  The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan) has an excellent plan. If you vote 
against the previous question, you will give us the chance to debate 
and vote on the very excellent plan offered by the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Ryan). I would urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question for 
that reason.

                              {time}  1100

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. George Miller).
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman 
for yielding me this time, and I rise in opposition to this closed rule 
to deny a fair and open debate on the real needs of American workers.
  Once again we see the Republican leadership shutting down the ability 
of the House for Members to debate and offer amendments to change the 
course of lives of American workers, to alter the legislation that 
comes before us that is really nothing more than a sham. It is a fig 
leaf to try to present to the American people that somehow the 
Republican majority cares about the unemployment when, in fact, what we 
see is we have 8.2 million people unemployed, we have 1.5 million 
workers who have exhausted their unemployment benefits, people that no 
longer have the economic resources to hold their families together 
because they have been unemployed over 26 weeks. Those people are out 
there.
  Speaker after speaker on the other side of the aisle has gotten up 
and lamented the level of unemployment in their district, and yet they 
refuse, they refuse to allow this Congress to address extending 
unemployment benefits to those people who they admit cannot find jobs 
in their district because of the economy, because of the layoffs, but 
they are going to let those individuals crash to the floor, lose their 
homes, lose their automobiles, make their chances of getting 
unemployment even more difficult because they refuse to bring up a bill 
to extend unemployment benefits. That is what the Republicans are 
offering.
  What are they saying here? They want to offer a bill that says you 
may get up to $3,000. Well, one of the things we just learned in the 
most recent memo from the White House is they plan to cut all of these 
programs in the next budget year, and so this promise is not worth the 
paper that it is written on. It is up to $3,000. You may not get 
$3,000. You may get $1,000. It may not pay for the job searches that 
you are doing or the training that you need. But the Republicans want 
to suggest for those 8 million unemployed out there, for those 1.5 
million workers who have exhausted their benefits, for the 2 million 
people who lost their jobs since President Bush took office, that 
somehow this legislation is going to deal with their problems. This 
legislation in no way deals with their problems.
  The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan) and the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Kildee) went to the Committee on Rules, and of course they were 
shut out. Because the Republicans are afraid of debate on unemployment, 
Republicans are afraid of debate on the homeland security and the 
employment of first responders to deal with the needs of this country. 
So what do they do? Rather than honor the tradition of the 
Constitution, rather than honor the traditions of this institution, 
they just close down the debate: Take this bill or leave it.
  Well, this Congress ought to leave this bill, because it does not do 
anything for the unemployed, and it certainly does not help those 
people who are most desperate in our country, who have found themselves 
long-term unemployed and their benefits have run out. This is the first 
administration in decades that has refused to help those individuals 
who have exhausted their unemployment benefits.
  It is unfortunate that we are in this situation. We should be able to 
consider the Kildee amendment on unemployment benefits, we should be 
able to consider the Ryan amendment to hire first responders to deal 
with the security needs of this Nation, but this Republican majority 
will not allow that. I would urge people to vote against the previous 
question so we would have an opportunity to vote on the Ryan amendment 
and do something for this country, for the unemployed, and for the 
security needs of this country.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Woolsey).
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely important that we improve 
our current unemployment system, but not this way, not taking away from 
it, not with this legislation that falls far short of what we need in 
this country. We can do better. Why are we not? Because we refuse to 
bring the subject to the House Floor to discuss it. That is why I urge 
my colleagues to join me in opposing this closed rule and the 
underlying legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, it is about time we address unemployment, and the Back 
to Work Incentive Act does not do anything but offer a temporary 
solution for a limited pool of unemployed workers, and it is a very 
poor solution to an ongoing problem. Personal reemployment accounts 
will not substitute for the lack of across-the-board investments in the 
Workforce Investment Act and the Unemployment Insurance Act. Improving 
the resources in these programs could help a broader number of workers 
stabilize their lives, could help develop the necessary skills that 
they need to secure new jobs. And I want to remind all of my colleagues 
that if we would invest in our Nation's transportation infrastructure, 
we would be providing jobs that pay a livable wage and we would be 
leaving with our communities infrastructure projects that they 
desperately need.
  Actually, I am also concerned that this bill is an effort to make 
unemployment benefits the sole responsibility of the States and that it 
will eventually lead to the end of Federal unemployment programs. The 
cap on funds through the PRA system also alarms me. While it sounds 
great to give unemployed workers up to $3,000, ``up to,'' those are the 
operative words, this cap is far less than most workers already receive 
with unemployment extensions, leaving them without the funds they need 
when they are in the most desperate situation.
  Vote no on this rule and no on the underlying bill.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished 
gentlewoman from New York for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, it would be nice to come on the floor of the House and 
celebrate legislation that provides a cash sum to alleged unemployed 
individuals, that provides them with transportation dollars and cash 
money for child care and job training, and it really sounds like this 
is Christmas in June. But, frankly, Mr. Speaker, this does not answer 
the question of the chronically unemployed, it does not answer the 
question of those who need extended unemployment, and it certainly does

[[Page 11235]]

not answer the question of people who are frustrated with the idea that 
there are no jobs.
  We realize that, though the economy is percolating, this 
administration has not created jobs; and my complaint is, in a 
community like Houston, Texas, that has suffered under the unfortunate 
and bad circumstances of Enron where I had 2 years ago over 5,000 
employees laid off, who still remain unemployed or under-employed, this 
is not a panacea. It would be very helpful if we would come together in 
a bipartisan manner and begin to look at the real unemployment problems 
of America. That means the constant and ongoing training for 
outsourcing jobs across the waters and, as well, not providing 
definitive unemployment benefits for those who are seeking employment.
  For this job bill to suggest that people do not want to work is an 
absolute insult. Because Americans do want to work. They are producers, 
they are creators, they like to invest their time. What we need to do 
in this body is to really respond to those unemployed Americans by 
extending their unemployment benefits and not providing these cash 
handouts that will only go to a few.
  Let me also say, coming from Houston, how tragic it is to realize 
that even though we thought we swept out the last of the last of Enron, 
what an enormous insult to wake up this morning and find tapes now that 
are suggesting that it was only a game and that it was all about 
Grandma Millie, and that is what the traders were doing.
  Mr. Speaker, I would hope we would spend less time putting forward 
bills that do not help all jobless Americans and begin to sweep out the 
bad apples in corporate America and begin to insist on the creation of 
jobs and also to pay the unemployment benefits of the thousands and 
millions of Americans who get up every morning and really want a job. 
That is what this Congress should be doing, and I would ask my 
colleagues to realize that that is what we need to be doing today.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to my last speaker, 
my colleague, the gentleman from the great Buckeye State of Ohio (Mr. 
Boehner), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Education and 
the Workforce.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the gentlewoman from 
Ohio, for yielding me this time.
  Tomorrow, we will consider a bill that is integral to helping return 
more Americans to work, the Worker Reemployment Accounts Act. As 
President Bush has said, one American without a job is one too many. 
This legislation provides a unique approach to helping displaced 
workers return to good jobs. The bill offers new assistance for 
unemployed workers in the form of personal reemployment accounts which 
would help workers who need it the most return to work more quickly.
  The Worker Reemployment Account Act is one piece of a larger effort 
to solidify the future competitiveness of America's workforce by 
improving education and job training. Later today, we will consider two 
bills aimed at strengthening teacher training and increasing the 
availability of highly qualified teachers in high-demand subject areas. 
These bills, which will be packaged with the Worker Reemployment 
Accounts Act under this rule, represent a comprehensive strategy for 
strengthening education at all levels and improving job training.
  With 1.1 million new jobs created over the last 8 months and 625,000 
net new jobs added just in March and April, it is clear that our 
resurgent economy is moving on the right track. Indeed, almost every 
economic indicator tells us the economy is adding momentum every month, 
and manufacturing jobs have been on the rise for 3 straight months as 
well. The unemployment rate fell to 5.6 percent in April, lower than 
the average unemployment rate during the 1970s, 1980s, and the 1990s.
  Despite these encouraging signs, we need to do more to help displaced 
workers get back on their feet, and it is clear that job training and 
worker education is more important in today's changing economy than 
ever before. We want to give workers a hand up, not just a handout. 
Self-sufficiency and independence from Government is every American 
worker's goal, not dependency and endless reliance on our government. 
We recognize this fact, and personal reemployment accounts represent 
one more way we are helping the unemployed get back on their feet 
through personalized job training and employment services specifically 
tailored to meet that person's own needs.
  The Worker Reemployment Accounts Act is an innovative approach to 
helping workers find good-paying jobs. The bill authorizes funding for 
a pilot project similar to the one proposed by President Bush earlier 
this year that would provide workers with personal reemployment 
accounts up to $3,000 to purchase employment-related services to help 
them find a good job. The bill does not authorize a specific dollar 
amount for the pilot program but simply makes reemployment accounts an 
allowable use of funds under the demonstration programs of the 
Workforce Investment Act. The President requested $50 million for this 
demonstration program, and I am sure Congress would fund it 
appropriately.
  This is an efficient and flexible approach that empowers Americans to 
find good-paying jobs. The funds from these accounts can be used for a 
variety of employment-related services, including job training, career 
counseling, transportation assistance, child care, and housing 
assistance.
  One of the best elements of the plan is that any unspent balance in 
the account can be kept by workers who find work within 13 weeks of 
being laid off. Workers can keep any remaining amount as a reemployment 
bonus.
  The personal reemployment accounts will be administered through the 
One-Stop Career System established under the Workforce Investment Act 
where displaced workers already seek employment assistance. States and 
local workforce boards that want to participate can apply to the Labor 
Secretary for competitive grants to offer reemployment accounts to 
unemployed workers. An individual who receives an amount must be 
receiving unemployment benefits, be identified by the State as likely 
to exhaust his or her benefits, and be eligible for at least 20 weeks 
of unemployment compensation.
  These accounts are a new benefit option that would work in tandem 
with unemployment insurance as an additional vehicle to help workers in 
their efforts to find good-paying jobs. Over the past 2 years, we have 
taken numerous steps to help unemployed workers, and this is another 
way we are responding to the needs of Americans who find themselves 
without work.
  As I stated earlier, the U.S. economy is strong and getting stronger. 
Personal reemployment accounts are yet another important step to help 
these displaced workers find the jobs that they seek. By giving job-
seekers all the resources they need to return to work, we will continue 
this economic resurgence and help every unemployed American secure the 
education and skills necessary to take advantage of today's reenergized 
job market. That is what this debate is all about. Let us not let the 
perfect become the enemy of the good. Let us support the rule and the 
underlying bill.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot of rhetoric today about how the 
economy is on the upswing and how it has improved and how jobs are 
beginning to return. But I can tell my colleagues that people in my 
hometown and communities across America remain unemployed. There are 
8.2 million people out of work in this country, and there is now only 
one job opening for every three unemployed individuals. No matter how 
you spin it, the bill before us today will not do a single thing to 
create more jobs.
  That is why I urge Members to join me in defeating the previous 
question. If the previous question is defeated, I will offer an 
amendment to the rule making in order an amendment that was not 
accepted by the Committee on Rules by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Ryan) to train 100,000 new first responders.

[[Page 11236]]



                              {time}  1115

  That is 100,000 new policemen, firemen, emergency response personnel, 
medical personnel, and scores of other citizens who keep this country 
safe every day and would, of course, create jobs.
  I offered this amendment in the Committee on Rules last night; but as 
is usual practice these days, it was defeated on a straight party-line 
vote.
  Now, this bill is supposed to be about helping the unemployed. Well, 
I can tell my colleagues if they really want to help them, they will do 
everything they can to find ways to create new good-paying jobs. And 
that is what the Ryan amendment will do. So I urge my colleagues to 
vote today in favor of job creation, in favor of protecting our 
communities by voting ``no'' on the previous question.
  Let me be clear, Mr. Speaker. A ``no'' vote will not prevent us from 
considering the bill before us today, but by voting ``yes,'' Members 
will be denying this House a chance to create 100,000 new jobs for 
unemployed Americans.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the amendment 
be printed in the Congressional Record immediately before the vote.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shaw). Is there objection to the request 
of the gentlewoman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to vote ``no'' on the 
previous question.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, today we are discussing real issues that have real 
impacts on real families all across this country, whether in my 
district of Columbus, Ohio, or in any of the other 434 districts my 
colleagues represent in this body. Americans want to work. They want to 
provide for their families and themselves. They want to take 
responsibility for their decisions.
  Mr. Speaker, we all know that most of the time when someone loses his 
or her job it is for reasons beyond their control. As we strive to 
reach the day when all Americans hold down good jobs, the reality is, 
as it always has been, some people will be out of work on any given 
day. So until we reach that day, let us give our friends and neighbors 
who are unemployed the tools and resources they need to make their own 
decisions about how best they can find work which suits them. Whether 
that means using their personal reemployment account for a daycare 
while they are interviewing, or transportation to that interview, or 
for a computer training class, whatever they believe they need, let us 
allow them to have it.
  The key here is flexibility, giving the people the power to make 
choices that best reflect their own situations. The result will be 
getting people back to work at good-paying jobs, to begin rewarding 
lifelong careers.


                 Amendment Offered by Ms. Pryce of Ohio

  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment to the rule to 
fix a technical error.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Ms. Pryce of Ohio: In section 2(a)(1), 
     strike ``4410'' and insert ``4411''.

  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this 
rule, the amendment, and the underlying resolution.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule, and thank my 
friend and colleague from the Rules committee, Ms. Pryce, for yielding 
me this time.
  I support passage of H. Res. 656, which is a closed rule, and urge my 
colleagues in the House to join me in doing so. The Rules Committee 
received a couple of amendments to H.R. 444, but a rule of this nature 
was needed in order to allow the House to work its will on H.R. 444, 
without getting into a number of issues unrelated to the goals of 
helping displaced workers return to good jobs.
  I want to commend Mr. Porter of Nevada for his effort in bringing 
H.R. 444, the underlying legislation, to the House floor. This bill 
provides for the creation of personal reemployment accounts, allotting 
$3,000 to help unemployed individuals find new jobs. This is a new 
approach to reducing unemployment, and it allows individuals to have 
more control over their job search.
  Those unemployed individuals who are eligible for these reemployment 
accounts may use the money toward job training, child care, 
transportation, or other programs that would assist them in returning 
to work.
  Additionally, under H.R. 444, if an individual finds employment 
before the 13th week of benefits, he may keep the left-over money for 
his personal use. Therefore, it creates an additional incentive for 
unemployed individuals to find work quickly.
  This is another part of our plan to help workers find good jobs. This 
Congress understood that by reducing the tax burden and improving 
economic incentives, we could boost economic growth and increase the 
flow of resources into production. That occurred by following the 
implementation of the Republican tax relief plan. By reducing the tax 
burden on small businesses and families, we are creating more economic 
activity which means more jobs for all Americans. Today, we are taking 
another step to help unemployed workers, and this bill will give those 
seeking a job another resource to assist their efforts.
  H.R. 444, is not a ``hand-out'' for our Nation's unemployed; instead, 
it offers them a ``hand-up.'' By giving individuals more control of 
their job search, they have the opportunity to become self-reliant. For 
these reasons, it's very important that we pass H.R. 444 today.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this rule 
so that we may proceed to debate the underlying legislation.
  The material previously referred to by Ms. Slaughter is as follows:

 Previous Question for H. Res. 656 Rule for H.R. 444--the Back to Work 
                         Incentive Act of 2003

       In the resolution, insert after ``and (2)'' the following 
     and renumber ``(2)'' as ``(3)'':
       ``(2) the amendment in the nature of a substitute specified 
     in Section 3 of this resolution if offered by Representative 
     Ryan of Ohio or a designee, which shall be in order without 
     intervention of any point of order, shall be considered as 
     read, and shall be separately debatable for 60 minutes 
     equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an 
     opponent; and (3)''
       At the end of the resolution add the following:
       Sec. 3. The amendment referred to in (2) is as follows:

                         Amendment to H.R. 444

                      Offered by Mr. Ryan of Ohio

                     First responders grant program

       Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
     following:

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``First Responders Grant 
     Program Act''.

     SEC. 2. FIRST RESPONDERS GRANT PROGRAM.

       Subtitle B of title I of the Workforce Investment Act of 
     1998 (29 U.S.C. 2811 et seq.) is amended by inserting after 
     chapter 5 the following new chapter:

              ``CHAPTER 5A--FIRST RESPONDERS GRANT PROGRAM

     ``SEC. 135A. GRANTS TO STATES.

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary shall allot the amount 
     appropriated under section 135D to the States, on the basis 
     of a State's population relative to the population of all 
     States, to be allocated by the Governor pursuant to section 
     135B.
       ``(b) Small State Minimum Allotment.--The Secretary shall 
     ensure that no State shall receive an allotment under this 
     section that is less than \1/2\ of 1 percent of the amount 
     appropriated under section 137(c).

     ``SEC. 135B. WITHIN STATE ALLOCATIONS.

       ``(a) In General.--After reserving from the amounts 
     allocated under section 135A amounts for administrative costs 
     under subsection (d), of the remainder--
       ``(1) 75 percent of such amounts shall be allocated by the 
     Governor to local areas in accordance with subsection (b); 
     and
       ``(2) 20 percent of such amounts shall be reserved by the 
     Governor for allocation to local areas in accordance with 
     subsection (c).
       ``(b) Allocation to Counties.--Of the amounts described in 
     subsection (a)(1), the Governor of a State shall allocate to 
     the counties of such State, on the basis of a county's 
     population relative to the population of all counties within 
     such State, to be used to hire and train first responders 
     pursuant to section 135C.
       ``(c) Governors' Discretionary Allocations.--Of the amounts 
     reserved pursuant to subsection (a)(2), the Governor of a 
     State may allocate amounts to local governments (including 
     county and city governments) determined by the Governor to 
     have the greatest need for such amounts to hire and train 
     first responders pursuant to section 135C.
       ``(d) Administration.--Not more than 5 percent of the 
     amount allotted to a State under section 135A may be used by 
     the Governor for administrative costs in carrying out this 
     chapter.

     ``SEC. 135C. USE OF FUNDS.

       ``Counties (and other local governments where applicable) 
     receiving funds under this chapter may use such funds, 
     consistent with

[[Page 11237]]

     section 134(d)(4)(D)(ii), to hire and train individuals to 
     become first responders, such as firefighters, police and 
     emergency response personnel, and medical personnel, if such 
     individuals--
       ``(1) are likely to exhaust regular unemployment 
     compensation and are in need of job search assistance to make 
     a successful transition to new employment;
       ``(2) are receiving regular unemployment compensation under 
     any Federal or State unemployment program administered by the 
     State; and
       ``(3) are eligible for not less than 20 weeks of regular 
     unemployment compensation.

     ``SEC. 135D. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       ``There is authorized to be appropriated for fiscal years 
     2004 through 2009 such sums as may be necessary to carry out 
     this chapter.''.
       Amend the title so as to read: ``A bill to amend the 
     Workforce Investment Act of 1998 to establish a First 
     Responders Grant Program to ensure adequate funding to 
     increase the number of first responders in the Nation.''

  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, 
and I move the previous question on the amendment and on the 
resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question on the amendment and on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________