[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 10]
[House]
[Pages 13734-13747]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




            UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION EXTENSION ACT OF 2010

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

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

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

     SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE PROVISIONS.

       (a) In General.--(1) Section 4007 of the Supplemental 
     Appropriations Act, 2008 (Public Law 110-252; 26 U.S.C. 3304 
     note) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``June 2, 2010'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``November 30, 2010'';
       (B) in the heading for subsection (b)(2), by striking 
     ``june 2, 2010'' and inserting ``november 30, 2010''; and
       (C) in subsection (b)(3), by striking ``November 6, 2010'' 
     and inserting ``April 30, 2011''.
       (2) Section 2005 of the Assistance for Unemployed Workers 
     and Struggling Families Act, as contained in Public Law 111-5 
     (26 U.S.C. 3304 note; 123 Stat. 444), is amended--
       (A) by striking ``June 2, 2010'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``December 1, 2010''; and
       (B) in subsection (c), by striking ``November 6, 2010'' and 
     inserting ``May 1, 2011''.
       (3) Section 5 of the Unemployment Compensation Extension 
     Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-449; 26 U.S.C. 3304 note) is 
     amended by striking ``November 6, 2010'' and inserting 
     ``April 30, 2011''.
       (b) Funding.--Section 4004(e)(1) of the Supplemental 
     Appropriations Act, 2008 (Public Law 110-252; 26 U.S.C. 3304 
     note) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (D), by striking ``and'' at the end; 
     and
       (2) by inserting after subparagraph (E) the following:
       ``(F) the amendments made by section 2(a)(1) of the 
     Unemployment Compensation Extension Act of 2010; and''.
       (c) Conditions for Receiving Emergency Unemployment 
     Compensation.--Section 4001(d)(2) of the Supplemental 
     Appropriations Act, 2008 (Public Law 110-252; 26 U.S.C. 3304 
     note) is amended, in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), 
     by inserting before ``shall apply'' the following: 
     ``(including terms and conditions relating to availability 
     for work, active search for work, and refusal to accept 
     work)''.
       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect as if included in the enactment of the 
     Continuing Extension Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-157).

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

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

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

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

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

     SEC. 5. BUDGETARY PROVISIONS.

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

[[Page 13735]]

     S. Con. Res. 13 (111th Congress), the concurrent resolution 
     on the budget for fiscal year 2010.


                            Motion to Concur

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

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

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

                              {time}  1220

  This latest unemployment insurance extender bill fails to do what the 
American people want us to do. Instead, the Democratic approach adds 
another $34 billion to the already staggering $13 trillion national 
debt. And that's not because we have a shortage of ineffective, 
inefficient, wasteful spending that we could cut to offset what's 
needed to pay for this. We want to do this, but we want to do what the 
American people want us to do--and that is to pay for it.
  Republicans have repeatedly called for the cutting of unspent 
stimulus spending to offset this new stream of spending. The majority 
leader himself, Mr. Hoyer, said on June 13, there is ``spending 
fatigue'' across this country and that ``if we have dollars not yet 
expended in the recovery act'' that they should be redirected for new 
spending such as this.
  Mr. Speaker, 18 months ago the administration told the American 
people that their trillion-dollar stimulus plan would create millions 
of jobs and keep unemployment below 8 percent. Instead, 2 million jobs 
more have been lost and unemployment surged to nearly 10 percent. 
Overall, 47 out of 50 States have lost jobs since the Democrats' 
February 2009 stimulus bill, including my home State of Louisiana.
  Instead of supporting this economy and getting Americans back to 
work, jobs have been lost, our debt continues to spiral out of control, 
and the only solution we have here, without an ability to amend, 
without an ability to offer some alternative approach, is to add 
another $34 billion in new spending without offsetting it. New spending 
is unnecessary, and Republicans have been calling for this wasted 
stimulus money to be put to better use by supporting the long-term 
unemployed. I suggest the best way to create jobs is to stop destroying 
good-paying jobs that already exist. And let me explain what I mean by 
that.
  This is the single most important issue in my home State of 
Louisiana. The people of Louisiana are facing job loss. In addition to 
a failed economic policy, a failed stimulus, President Obama's ill-
conceived and unwarranted and--in the words of a Federal judge--
arbitrary and capricious ban on offshore drilling is galvanizing 
residents across the gulf coast like I've never seen before. And the 
long term implications of this, Mr. Speaker, are real. Real lives are 
affected by this.
  Because of this policy, tens of thousands of good-paying jobs along 
the gulf coast are immediately at risk, and it doesn't have to be this 
way. But unfortunately, the elites in this administration and the 
President himself refuse to understand this.
  Six weeks ago, the Louisiana delegation--the entire delegation, 
Democrats and Republicans, House and Senate--requested a meeting with 
the President in writing. And we have not even gotten a response back. 
Frankly, Mr. Speaker, that's just unacceptable, and it's irresponsible.
  Already three gulf rigs have left American waters heading to other 
parts of the world, and the trend is going to continue at an 
accelerated rate. And once a rig is gone, it could be years before it 
returns--if it ever returns at all. Each one of these deepwater rigs 
employs 1,400 workers. You take 1,400 workers and multiply it by six, 
and those are the immediate support workers. These are jobs that are 
being lost.
  And smaller companies that cannot afford to move are simply losing 
their workers. People are losing their jobs, costing thousands of jobs.
  I met recently with about 35 companies. These are all small companies 
affected by this. And there was an African American couple. He got 
started doing janitorial work. And he worked very hard for years to do 
this, saved his money and started a small business, an oil service 
company that he was so proud of. The American dream, by God. He started 
this company and grew it to 20 workers. And he had accelerating work 
until this ban on drilling, and now he has no work, and he's seeing his 
life savings go down the drain. Why? Because of an ill-founded, 
government-imposed moratorium that makes no sense.

[[Page 13736]]

  These are rig workers and energy engineers, they're plumbers, they're 
electricians, they're dock workers. They work in the maritime industry. 
And yet this is the kind of policy we're getting. This ban hurts 
everybody. We stand united on the gulf coast to support good-paying 
jobs.
  This stimulus has failed, and it's time to direct these funds into 
more beneficial areas to help those who are chronically unemployed.
  The last time this House acted, Mr. Camp, the ranking member of our 
Ways and Means Committee, offered a motion to extend these benefits 
while paying for the spending by using unspent funds from the failed 
stimulus bill. The House could immediately act on that same type of 
provision today with the Senate following suit to get these benefits to 
the long-term unemployed in a way that helps the economy, job 
creation--instead of hampering job creation even more.
  That is what we should be doing and what would most help the 
unemployed get benefits that they need today and the jobs that they 
need tomorrow.
  The American people want President Obama and this Congress to spur 
entrepreneurship and American competitiveness and to create good-paying 
jobs. Instead, the President and this Congress continue on a path of 
increasing uncertainty leading to high unemployment and runaway 
spending. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEVIN. It is now my very distinct pleasure and privilege to yield 
1 minute to the most distinguished Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I thank 
him for bringing this important legislation to the floor today. And 
indeed, there is some good news in it, but there is some not-so-good 
news in it as well.
  I listened very attentively to the previous speaker talk about why 
these unemployment benefits had to be paid for, and I was struck by the 
inconsistency in his remarks and that of the Republicans in the United 
States Senate and in the House of Representatives. It's important to 
note that while they demand that these benefits be paid for--$34 
billion in unemployment benefits going to those who have played by the 
rules, worked hard, who are unemployed through no fault of their own, 
$34 billion, which injected into the economy will indeed create jobs--
while they have said that $700 billion of tax cuts for the wealthiest 
people in America shouldn't be paid for. ``Inconsistent'' is the 
politest word I can use to describe that.
  Thirty-four billion dollars for those who have lost their jobs 
through no fault of their own.
  Last week the Economic Policy Institute released a report making it 
clear that not only do unemployment benefits protect those who have 
lost their jobs through no fault of their own, but would lead to more 
jobs, higher wages, and a stronger economy for all Americans.
  And why is that so? That is so because these benefits are given to 
people who need them. The money will be spent immediately on 
necessities injecting demand into the economy, creating jobs. In fact, 
the Economic Policy Institute figured that would be 1.4 million jobs 
relating to the unemployment benefits that are out there now.
  The Congressional Budget Office which is independent and nonpartisan 
has confirmed that extending unemployment benefits is the most 
efficient way for the government to generate economic growth.
  Now, I know why the gentleman may want to change the subject to other 
things. He mentions Katrina. We all supported Katrina. Did anybody talk 
about paying for that emergency? No. It was an emergency. We have a 
compact with the American people in the time of a natural disaster--
even though that disaster was exacerbated by cronyism in the Bush 
administration.
  But let's not go there. Let's just stay on this subject. And the 
subject at hand is when this bill was introduced today, this 
resolution, I'm sure you all heard that it was an amendment to an 
amendment. Well, the Senate amendment that we are voting on, the 
amendment that they put in took out the jobs initiatives. And those 
initiatives were paid for. Build America Bonds. That was part of the 
original bill, to build the infrastructure of America, the highways and 
infrastructure of America in a new green way creating new green jobs 
and new green technologies. And the Build America jobs that went beyond 
those investments; FMAP to stabilize our State economies.
  Thirty States have written their budgets already on the basis of this 
funding being in the legislation and paid for--not increasing the 
deficit. We passed it in December. The Senate only now is sending it 
back to us because the Republicans have objected to that, and the 
amendment to the amendment eliminates that stability for States.

                              {time}  1230

  Summer jobs, well, it's too late for summer jobs, so youth jobs. In 
December, we passed the bill for summer jobs for America's youth. The 
amendment to the amendment takes out those youths. And they were paid 
for, because on the one hand they say everything has to be paid for. 
Well, when it's paid for, then are they just plain opposed to summer 
jobs for youths? Are they opposed to Build America Bonds to grow our 
economy and meet the needs of our country infrastructurewise?
  The Housing Trust Fund, very, very important initiative.
  Concurrent receipt: I don't think there's any doubt that every person 
in this Congress supports our veterans. One issue that is a high 
priority for America's veterans when we meet with them on a regular 
basis is the issue of concurrent receipt. You may not be familiar with 
that term, but it's a disability tax on our veterans, and with so many 
veterans returning home with disabilities from Iraq and Afghanistan 
this is very, very important. It was in the bill. It was paid for. 
Again, money given to people who need it for necessities who would 
spend it, inject demand into the economy and create jobs. So the 
amendment to the amendment that the Senate Republicans would finally 
let pass in the Senate removed concurrent receipt, paid for, for our 
veterans.
  The list goes on and on, a list of paid-for initiatives that benefit 
our veterans, grow our economy, create jobs, help our workers, help our 
young people, stabilize our States, all paid for. The Republican 
Senators said ``no,'' and they held up this particular amendment to the 
amendment for over 6 weeks because they said it had to be paid for.
  At the very same time, they were saying we must pay for $34 billion 
for benefits for the unemployed but we don't have to pay for the $700 
billion for the wealthiest people in America to have tax cuts. Those 
same tax cuts, during the 8 years of the Bush administration, did not 
create jobs; they increased the deficit. And the Republicans have said 
they want to go back to the exact agenda of the Bush administration. 
They look with increased fondness on the Bush administration.
  Well, let me say this here today. The good news about this is finally 
our unemployed will get their benefits. It will be retroactive. It's 
really sad that it has to come to this. Nonpaid-for tax cuts for the 
rich; paid-for benefits for our workers.
  But it's important to note, contrary to what you might hear from some 
in this Chamber, that in the first 8 months of the Obama 
administration, more jobs were created--well, by the time we finish 
August, more jobs will have been created than in the 8 years of the 
Bush administration. While they increased the deficit by trillions of 
dollars, while we lost jobs, where they took us to a brink of financial 
crisis of our financial industry, where they took us deep into 
recession, where they took us deep into deficit, they want to return to 
the exact same agenda.
  We are not going back and our step forward into the future, one step 
into the future is being taken today when we say to American workers, 
You have played by the rules. You have worked hard. You have lost your 
job through no fault of your own. You have these

[[Page 13737]]

benefits, but we must do more to create jobs, to create more jobs.
  I urge our colleagues today to understand how important this is, the 
distinction between those who support our workers. Respect the contract 
that we have with them so that when the economy ebbs and flows and the 
cycle of employment and unemployment is not in their favor, that we 
will be there for them. And being there for them is not just about 
them. It's also about the entire economy, the entire economy. The 
economy cannot flourish and be entrepreneurial unless it knows that 
there's a safety net in case the economy comes down.
  The Republicans are saying ``no'' to that. They've said ``no'' over 
and over again, and they're saying ``no'' today unless it is paid for, 
again, while they still say, We want tax cuts for the wealthiest, $700 
billion worth, 20 times more than this bill for unemployment insurance.
  But don't forget what they took out of the bill and don't forget that 
that includes concurrent receipt for our veterans.
  I urge our colleagues to proudly vote for this legislation.
  I commend my colleague Mr. Levin for his hard work on this and other 
legislation, and I know, because it's absolutely essential, that at 
some point we will get a jobs bill that will come back from the Senate. 
We agree that it should be paid for. We've sent it over to them paid 
for, and that they will recognize that we need to create jobs, good-
paying jobs that take us into the future and, most of all, that we're 
not going back to the failed economic policies of the Bush 
administration.
  I urge a strong ``aye'' vote on both sides of the aisle.
  Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Speaker, this is the eighth time this unemployment 
benefit insurance is extended. I think that, in and of itself, speaks 
for the failure of the economic policies.
  Secondly, a massive tax increase in the face of economic uncertainty 
is only going to hurt economic growth and job creation, and on our side 
of the aisle, we'll work to find the offset to avoiding these tax 
increases on the American people.
  And finally, I just want to point out that private sector growth in 
the year 2010, the rate of private sector growth has actually been 
slower than what we saw in the Great Depression.
  I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Linder), the ranking member on one of the subcommittees of Ways and 
Means.
  Mr. LINDER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, we are here today to consider legislation paying another 
$34 billion in unemployment benefits. The other side says that these 
unemployment benefits stretching to almost 2 years are needed and must 
be added to the $13 trillion debt, even as they claim their trillion 
dollar stimulus plan has been a success at creating millions of jobs. 
It makes you wonder if they are looking at the same jobs data as the 
rest of us.
  Eighteen months ago, this administration said the stimulus would 
create 3.7 million jobs. It hasn't. Through June of 2010, the United 
States lost 2.6 million more private sector jobs, leaving millions of 
Americans to ask: Where are the jobs?
  The administration also promised that the stimulus would keep 
unemployment below 8 percent. It hasn't. Instead, unemployment reached 
10 percent and remains stuck near that level today, and that ignores 
millions of missing unemployed left out of the official statistics.
  The administration also said that the administration would create 
mostly private sector jobs. It didn't. Managing all that spending 
helped government jobs grow by 201,000 since the stimulus was passed, 
which has made Washington, DC, the Nation's strongest job market. 
Meanwhile, in the rest of the country, 47 out of 50 States have lost 
jobs since the Democrats' February 2009 stimulus.
  While the job situation seems to have finally stopped getting worse, 
things are not getting much better. The trickle of private sector job 
creation in 2010 is so anemic that, at the current rate, it would take 
until 2017 to recover the jobs lost during the recession. That's longer 
than it took to recover the jobs lost during the Depression of the 
1930s. Another estimate finds it will take until 2021 to get 
unemployment back to prerecession levels. Who knew that the 
administration's recovery summer would last a decade or more.
  The fact is the only thing the Democrat stimulus has succeeded in 
creating is an enormous mountain of debt which is already hurting job 
creation. The bill before us will only make that worse.

                              {time}  1240

  Unemployed workers want real jobs with real companies in a real 
economy, not 2 years of unemployment benefits. But all this Congress 
offers is more debt and ultimately more pink slips. It is hardly what 
the unemployed need.
  I urge Members to oppose this bill and insist that any further 
spending is actually paid for. If the Speaker is right that 
unemployment benefits are the most stimulative thing we can do, then it 
will help the economy to cut other less-effective stimulus spending and 
use it to pay for benefits like these.
  That is the sort of budgeting, if we were inclined to pass a budget, 
that we should have been doing all along and is the only hope for 
turning this economy around and actually creating jobs that all 
Americans want and the unemployed need most of all.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. McDermott), our subcommittee chair.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, when most of our Republican colleagues 
vote ``no'' against extending unemployment benefits for Americans 
today, these people who have lost their jobs through no fault of their 
own, they will say they are doing it out of concern for the deficit. 
But, in reality, they are simply trying to make the President fail at 
any cost.
  We have precedent here for that. Back in the 1990s, when Newt 
Gingrich ruled this place, they thought the American people were 
stupid, but it didn't work then and it won't work now.
  In December 1995, Newt Gingrich thought he could win the Presidency 
for the Republican Party by shutting down the government and proving 
that Bill Clinton was ineffective.
  You all remember that. Instead, the American people caught on to this 
foolishness and overwhelmingly reelected Bill Clinton to office in 
1996.
  Now they have got the same play book again; they are running it 
again. The Republican leadership in Congress has decided that the way 
for the Republicans to get the White House back is by denying 
unemployment benefits to workers who have lost their jobs through no 
fault of their own. Show them that this government doesn't work. For 
over 6 weeks they have held displaced workers as hostages.
  Now, you would think they would have learned from Gingrich back in 
1995. It doesn't work. He only held the country hostage for a few days, 
and then he gave it up because people need to look at what the Senate 
Republicans are doing in the other body to see exactly what they are 
doing again today.
  Even after the Senate broke the Republican filibuster on restoring 
unemployment benefits 2 days ago, the Republicans insisted on running 
out every minute of time left on the clock before allowing a final vote 
on this bill.
  They wanted to dangle those workers out there for yet one more day. 
They wanted them to sit at home and wonder is it going to happen. How 
am I going to feed my kids? Can I pay for my house? For families who 
are without income and rely on unemployment benefits to make ends meet, 
every day counts.
  Republicans clearly couldn't care less, and they forced these 
unemployed workers to twist in the wind for one more day. This is a 
slap in the face to millions of Americans who are struggling to find 
work and rely on unemployment benefits as a lifeline.
  This effort to undermine the effectiveness of President Obama by 
denying unemployment benefits to workers, and by denying the President 
the power to create jobs, will ultimately

[[Page 13738]]

fail. Republicans have done nothing more than help ensure that Mr. 
Obama will be elected a second time.
  Good move, guys. The American people will remember and despite what 
the Republicans think, the voters are not stupid. They don't want the 
ghost of Newt Gingrich running this country, and they don't want to 
return to the failed economic policies of President Bush.
  They know that they want this government to help people when they 
need help, and they know that they didn't lose their job because they 
did something wrong. Greed on Wall Street got them. They are suffering 
because of that greed which we dealt with a couple of days ago, but 
they need a check to pay the rent and pay for food.
  Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Speaker, just to briefly respond to the previous 
speaker, we want to look forward. We don't want to look back. We don't 
want a cynical look to the past; we want a positive vision to the 
future for the American people, which means we want to go along and 
promote growth in the economy and do an extension of unemployment 
benefits in a responsible way by paying for it, eliminating wasteful 
spending in the stimulus package as the offset.
  I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. 
Ginny Brown-Waite), a member of the House Ways and Means Committee.
  Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the 15 percent of my constituents 
who have lost their jobs, but I also rise in support of the 85 percent 
who are struggling to hold onto their jobs.
  Deficits do matter. Debt matters. What we have seen in the threat of 
default in Greece and what that did to the world economy and our own 
economy is similar to what we may be entering into. Given our 
tremendous reliance on borrowing, a similar loss of confidence in the 
United States would be devastating.
  The administration may have its cheerleaders and spinmasters out in 
front telling all the cameras how swell everybody is going to be 
despite the work ahead; but businesses, those very entities that 
actually do the hiring, the innovating and the investing, aren't 
buying. They don't have a political motivation behind their analysis. 
It's simply reality as they see it. Small businesses are not confident 
about where this country is headed and neither are their customers.
  Presidents can actually have a huge influence on consumer confidence; 
but every time this President gives a speech threatening American 
entrepreneurs, he makes things worse. As for debt, I understand the 
very childish playground temptation to point fingers and names and say, 
well, you borrowed too; but I also understand that businesses and 
consumers don't care about that because it doesn't fix the problem.
  All we ask is that the unemployment, something we all agree on, be 
paid for using funds already obligated for the economic recovery. We 
and the American people point out--and not so subtly at times--that the 
way you are using the stimulus money is simply a waste of time, effort, 
and certainly money.
  Borrowing more when it pushes us ever closer to the edge, just to 
continue spending money on self-serving stimulus road signs, is 
certainly unacceptable to them and is unacceptable to me.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. BOUSTANY. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 20 seconds.
  Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. I am sorry that the other side 
refuses to compromise, but that's where we are today. Americans want us 
to pay for this bill and not borrow another $34 billion.


                             General Leave

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and 
include extraneous material on my motion.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Michigan?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel).
  I also ask unanimous consent that Mr. McDermott, the subcommittee 
chair, be allowed to control the balance of the time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Michigan?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. RANGEL. Thank you, Chairman Levin, for giving me this 
opportunity, and again to Congressman McDermott for working so hard to 
try to protect those people who have lost their opportunity to take 
care of their families because they have lost their jobs.

                              {time}  1250

  I think we're hearing too much about Republican and Democrat today. 
We certainly are hearing too much about oil drilling and other issues. 
But as we go home, as Members of Congress, I don't think people come up 
and say I'm a Democrat and I need help or I'm a Republican and I need 
help; they say I need a job. I'm willing to do anything. I'm losing my 
dignity and my self-esteem. My daughter was in college, and I had to 
tell her that she won't be able to go back. I keep ignoring my 
creditors' calls because I lost my job. There were so many dreams and 
aspirations that I had for me and my family, so many hopes that I 
thought in this great country I could fulfill. I thought it because I 
thought I was on the road to economic success. I knew I was doing 
better than my parents, and I had hoped so dearly that my kids would be 
able to say they would do better than me. Those that have finished 
school can't find jobs, can't afford homes. Families have consolidated, 
they have limited resources.
  The greatest thing about this wonderful country is that you don't 
have to be successful if you really trust and hope that you can be 
successful. It's not like other countries where you're stuck where you 
were born and you can't aspire to do better. But we are reaching that 
point where Americans have lost faith in our financial centers. They've 
lost faith in terms of insurance health providers. God knows they've 
lost faith in the Congress. But when they start losing faith in 
themselves, that's when our country is in trouble. When they start 
believing that they cannot make it, that they're losing their dignity, 
that they're unable to put food on the table, provide shelter for their 
families, provide hope for their kids, America is losing something that 
we may not be able to recover, notwithstanding what happens from our 
economy.
  How can people talk about deficits and pay-fors when a person is just 
asking for a little help? What difference does it make if we're able to 
take the $30 billion--it's not spending, it's an investment. It's an 
investment not in foreigners, not in protecting democracy, it's an 
investment in people who love and want to work. I think, Mr. Speaker, 
we ought to give them an opportunity, because in taking care of their 
needs, they take care of our small businesses too.
  Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Speaker, yes, it is an investment, but it is one we 
can pay for. And that's the sad state that we're in today because we 
are being refused the ability to even offer those kinds of amendments.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to my friend, a member of the Ways and 
Means Committee, the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Heller).
  Mr. HELLER. I appreciate the gentleman's yielding time. And the 
answer to his statement is, it's absolutely correct, this can be paid 
for.
  I come from a State, the State of Nevada, that has 14.2 percent 
unemployment, and these are very, very tough times. During the rules 
hearing, I submitted legislation that would actually pay for this piece 
of legislation. We can pay for it. It's not that the majority can't pay 
for it, it's that they don't want to pay for it. In fact, if you take a 
look at November 2009, facing the Unemployment Insurance Extension 
bill, back then in 2009 it was fully paid for, and the administration 
itself came out and supported a bill that was paid for. And at the 
time, unemployment was

[[Page 13739]]

higher than it is today nationwide. Don't tell me the administration 
doesn't think this ought to be paid for. If they wanted to pay for it 
at 9.8 percent, why don't they want to pay for it today?
  I want to speak a little bit about the failed stimulus bill because I 
think some general questions were pointed my way during earlier debate, 
and that is whether or not the stimulus bill has actually worked. We've 
lost 2 million jobs in this country since the stimulus bill was passed. 
Forty-seven of 50 States have lost jobs since this Democratic-crafted 
stimulus bill. And it's no wonder that in recent polls more Americans 
think that Elvis is alive than this stimulus bill has worked. That's 
failure.
  Nevada's unemployment, Clark County unemployment has gone up 40 
percent. That's indisputable, and that's failure. Take Clark County 
alone; there are those who say the stimulus is working in Las Vegas; 
yet just last month almost 3,500 people filed for unemployment 
benefits. Take since the stimulus down in Las Vegas, nearly 40,000 
people have lost their jobs in Las Vegas. Tell me the stimulus is 
working in Las Vegas. Take Nevada as a whole. Just last month 4,100 
people filed for unemployment claims. Take the State since the 
stimulus: Since the stimulus, almost 50,000 people have lost their jobs 
in Las Vegas. Tell me that the stimulus has worked in my district. I 
will debate anybody on this, and I'll wait for my phone to ring.
  I will just talk a little bit about the fact that in Nevada our 
unemployment level is 50 percent higher than the national average. If 
we had the national average in the State of Nevada, there would be 
60,000 fewer unemployed Nevadans right now. However, there is one place 
in America where the stimulus has worked, and I'll give the other side 
credit for this, and that's Washington, D.C. Government jobs have grown 
by 201,000; 201,000 jobs have been created in Washington, D.C., since 
the stimulus was passed.
  Some have alleged or believe there are no unobligated stimulus funds, 
and I don't agree with that. We can use unobligated stimulus funds. Go 
to www.recovery.gov, the administration's own Web site. Take a look at 
their Web site. They will show you that half of the stimulus funds at 
this point have not been spent. Can't we take $34 billion of more than 
$300 billion that's in unused stimulus funds to pay for this 
unemployment extension? That would be the right thing to do. I think 
that our children and grandchildren's future are worth a dime on the 
dollar; some apparently don't.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Neal).
  Mr. NEAL. I thank Mr. McDermott.
  I stand in full support of this emergency legislation that will 
restore the safety net to millions of American families. Those families 
have been waiting for this relief since June. Their faith in us has 
been tested, but today we are going to extend the help that they need.
  I have spoken many times on this floor of the legendary mayor of 
Boston, James Michael Curley, a great orator. Curley spoke with great 
empathy about the forgotten man, and that's whom we're talking about 
today, the forgotten man and the forgotten woman, those individuals who 
have worked hard and played by the rules and have every reason to 
believe that America ought to provide them assistance in this difficult 
time.
  He also would suggest that, in simplicity, the great ally of our 
civilization was a full stomach. We need to be reminded of that grim 
economic statistic for those who are outside the mainstream.
  Let me also remind our friends here on the other side, in record 
time, in October of 2008, this Congress came to the aid of Wall Street. 
It didn't take us long to embrace the Troubled Asset Relief Program of 
George Bush to keep standing many of those institutions that helped 
create the problem that we currently find ourselves in.
  There are millions of people, those who have served in Vietnam, those 
who have served in Afghanistan, and those who have served in Iraq and 
other theaters around the world, who are struggling in this economy. 
America is about building a community, a place where no one wants to be 
abandoned and no one wants to be left behind.
  The great bounty of God's work has been to ensure that people in 
America, regardless of their political differences, have enough to eat 
and shelter. This opportunity to extend unemployment benefits for the 
American people ought to meet this moment, and I urge adoption of this 
measure.
  Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Speaker, in addition to what Mr. Hoyer said about 
using the unused stimulus funds, Mr. Obey has hailed amendments to the 
Supplemental Appropriations bill made on July 1 that were paid for by 
repeatedly cutting unspent projects in the stimulus law. And in the 
other body, the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Mr. Baucus, 
has suggested the same. And that's what we're saying here. There is a 
better way to do this, a fiscally responsible way to not only take care 
of the forgotten man and woman today, but to prevent even more from 
being forgotten in the future.

                              {time}  1300

  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Scalise). Mr. Scalise and I have worked together on 
American competitiveness, trying to achieve energy independence to meet 
our national security needs and to grow jobs.
  Mr. SCALISE. I thank my colleague from Louisiana for yielding time.
  Mr. Speaker, a year and a half ago, the liberals running Congress 
passed the stimulus bill, claiming they needed to add another $787 
billion to the national debt in order to keep unemployment below 8 
percent. Of course, now, a year and a half later, unemployment is 
approaching 10 percent.
  Their first plan failed miserably, so regarding unemployment, they 
are coming with a plan to add another $34 billion to the national debt 
that they don't want to work with us on to at least pay for by using 
some of that failed stimulus plan. In fact, they are still trying to 
defend the stimulus plan that most Americans recognize only grew the 
size of government and which did nothing to help stimulate the economy. 
The sad irony of this is that millions of American people are 
unemployed as a direct result of the policies of this administration.
  A very real example is occurring right now in south Louisiana. Just 
yesterday, there was a rally in south Louisiana where over 10,000 
people showed up to oppose this arbitrary and capricious ban by 
President Obama on drilling in the gulf.
  They try to hide behind safety and pit it as safety versus jobs. In 
fact, the President's own safety commission he appointed after the 
explosion of the Deepwater Horizon said that the moratorium is a bad 
idea. They went on to say that this moratorium will decrease safety in 
the gulf. That's right. This is the moratorium that the President, 
himself, imposed, which is costing our State thousands of jobs and 
thousands more people to be on unemployment, people who would much 
rather have jobs than the unemployment checks that President Obama is 
offering them. Their jobs have been taken away from them by the 
President, yet not for scientific reasons but for political reasons, 
because the President's own scientists say the moratorium is a bad idea 
and will decrease safety.
  In fact, as my colleague from Louisiana pointed out, our entire 
delegation has been trying for 6 weeks now to meet with the President 
to discuss this ill-conceived idea, and he refuses to meet with us. 
Though, you still have hundreds of people each week being added to the 
unemployment rolls because of the President's policy.
  What the President needs to do is actually work with us to create 
jobs instead of continuing to push policies that are running people 
onto the unemployment rolls, putting more jobs overseas and putting our 
country at greater risk of energy dependence. Our energy supply hasn't 
decreased, but now you are going to actually have more oil imported 
from these Middle Eastern countries that don't like us. By the way, 70 
percent of all oil spills come from tankers importing oil.

[[Page 13740]]

  Now the President has just made our country more dependent on that 
imported oil with the addition of his ban on drilling. That is creating 
more unemployment in our State. These policies are wrecking our 
economy.
  What we need is to create jobs. Part of that means you put good 
policies in place that help create jobs so that people don't continue 
to go on the unemployment rolls because of the Obama policies. That is 
what we need to do is to get a different agenda. The American people 
are saying, Where are the jobs? All they get is more deficit spending 
from this administration.
  They just don't get it.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I can't help but respond to the change of 
subject from the gentleman from Louisiana.
  I guess fishermen aren't worth anything. Fishermen are worthless. All 
that sea stuff that comes up and that they sell all over the place, 
they don't care about that. All they want to do is drill for oil. The 
President is careful and prudent and says let's look at this drilling 
before we go on with it because we have just proven that the oil 
companies are reckless. They have proven it for 79 days in the gulf, 
and if you can't learn from that and realize what it is doing to 
crabbers and to shrimp fishermen and to oystermen, then you have missed 
the point.
  I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, people all over Illinois and all 
over America are waiting with bated breath, and they are waiting to pay 
utility bills, to pay house notes, to make mortgage payments, to catch 
up on their rent, to pay college tuition, and to buy food for their 
children.
  They are also waiting to say, ``Thank you, Nancy Pelosi.'' They want 
to say, ``Thank you, Harry Reid.'' They are waiting to say, ``Thank 
you, United States Congress.'' They want to say, ``Thank you, Barack 
Obama, because the action that you just took this day means to us that 
you are working for us. You have reinforced our confidence in our 
government. You have said to us that we do matter.'' I know that the 
people of Illinois will be saying, ``Thank you, our government.''
  I urge passage.
  Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Speaker, I have to respond to my friend from the 
State of Washington.
  I would say that I would not have the audacity to speak for the 
people of Washington, because I haven't had the chance to actually get 
to know them. I can tell the gentleman that I do know the fishermen, 
the oystermen, the shrimpers, and those who run boats down in my State 
of Louisiana.
  If they were here on the House floor today, they would say, ``Please 
do not kick us when we're down. Lift this ban on drilling because, if 
not, it is going to kill our economy.'' These are the same fishermen 
and oystermen and shrimpers who are losing their jobs.
  That's why we need sensible policies, Mr. Speaker. We are all for 
extending the unemployment benefit insurance, but we know we can do it 
in a responsible way--by paying for it with unspent stimulus money.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Mrs. Davis).
  Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Speaker, with almost half of the 
unemployed out of work for more than 6 months, I am extremely 
disappointed that partisan bickering has delayed this important relief 
to American families.
  I want to share with you what one of my constituents wrote to me.
  He said, ``I've worked all my life and supported myself and didn't 
ask for any special treatment. There is pride that comes from work . . 
. No one is more ready and willing to work than me . . . but there just 
isn't any.''
  Since the lapsing of unemployment benefits, millions have lost the 
benefits which are keeping their families in their homes and food on 
their tables, but what we and people may not know or really appreciate 
is that this also includes tens of thousands of former servicemembers 
and reservists who have returned home to find themselves without work.
  How, I ask you, Mr. Speaker, does prohibiting them from being able to 
pay their electric and grocery bills help our economy recover?
  I urge my colleagues to join me in strong support of this extension.
  Mr. BOUSTANY. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lee).
  Ms. LEE of California. Let me thank the gentleman for yielding and 
for his steady and undying support for people who really have had a 
very tough time and who have not had any opportunities for many years 
now.
  Thank you, Mr. McDermott, for your leadership.
  Mr. Speaker, I've been listening to the debate here about jobs. We, 
too, are asking, Where are the jobs?
  From what I remember, there were very few Republican votes for the 
many job creation bills which Democrats have passed. So, if you are not 
going to support a real jobs initiative, I can't understand, for the 
life of me, why in the world you won't support just the basics for 
people, just a bit of help for those who have no jobs and for those who 
you won't help get jobs.
  Support for unemployment compensation speaks, really, to who we are 
as a country. This is a moral and an ethical issue of which those who 
really care about the least of these should support. People have lost 
their jobs for a variety of reasons--primarily, yes, due to the 
economic policies of the previous administration. We know many people 
who have lost their jobs due to their not being able to find work in 
this new economy. People have lost their jobs because their communities 
have been shut down as a result of the foreclosure crisis. They have 
lost their homes. They have lost their jobs. They have no health care.
  What in the world is going on in our country?
  Some of us really get it in terms of the economic policies and what 
we need to do, but until we make the case in a way that Republicans get 
it, the least we could do is just help people pay their rent and, for 
those who still have mortgages, help pay their mortgages and, for those 
who don't have enough food, basically buy food for their kids.
  We can't even get the Republicans to support a youth jobs initiative. 
My goodness. You know, we have over 40 percent minority youth--African 
American and Latino youth--who are unemployed. These young people need 
jobs. They need jobs not only to develop their work skills and work 
experience, but they have to help their families put food on the table 
and pay the rent.

                              {time}  1310

  So for goodness sakes, just help these people survive and weather 
these storms right now, because they need something to get through 
this. Otherwise, we're going to see a country that we all don't want to 
see, one that we don't recognize, one that does not care about the 
common good. And this is about the common good. We all have a duty and 
responsibility to make sure everyone at least is able to survive 
through these very terrible times.
  Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Hensarling), who serves on the President's Fiscal 
Responsibility Commission.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, indeed, this is the difference between 
the two parties here today. As I've listened carefully to the debate, I 
haven't heard anybody say we shouldn't be extending unemployment 
benefits.
  What I have heard is that one side wants to borrow 43 cents on the 
dollar, mainly from the Chinese, and send the bill to our children and 
grandchildren. Those are my friends on the Democratic side of the 
aisle.
  On this side of the aisle, we're saying, you know, all the trillions 
of stimulus money, the $1.2 trillion, when you add in the interest 
factor, those unspent funds, maybe some of the unspent TARP funds, 
these programs that have helped continue to mire us in almost double-
digit unemployment, maybe we could use some of those funds instead and 
not add to the single

[[Page 13741]]

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

                              {time}  1320

  We are doing the same thing. Why did we do that? Because we perceived 
it to be an emergency. An emergency that people in the richest Nation 
on the face of the earth were about to run out of the ability to keep 
their homes, buy their food, clothe their children. A moral and great 
country thinks that's an emergency. That's what this vote is all about.
  This vote is also about, as the gentleman from Texas has said, 
expressing our values. I agree with that. And I'm going to express my 
values, and I urge the Members of this House to express their values 
this day on this vote, as millions of people have lost their 
unemployment insurance because we could not get 60 votes in the Senate. 
Had almost every Democrat saying we need to help now. People are 
running out of ability to support themselves now. We paid insurance for 
now. So I urge my colleagues to vote for this legislation.
  A few months ago, we passed unemployment insurance through this House 
by unanimous consent. The election wasn't as proximate then as it is 
today. The deficit is way too high, and we need to get a handle on it. 
And I just made a speech, and I have been criticized by some on my side 
of the aisle and some others for saying that we needed to put 
everything on the table. I reiterate that today. We need to put 
everything on the table. No sacred cows.
  I have three children, three grandchildren, as all of you will get 
tired of hearing, and one great granddaughter. And I owe it to her 
personally, as a Member of this House, to say ladies and gentlemen of 
this House and of our country, we have a moral responsibility to get a 
handle on this deficit.
  A reporter just asked me as I was walking down the aisle, did I agree 
with Mr. Bernanke's comment that we ought to pay if we extended the tax 
cuts? And I said to him this: At a time of fiscal crisis, when our 
economy is struggling to get back from the ditch it was in when this 
administration took over--how much of a ditch? During the last year of 
the Clinton administration, we added 1.9 million new jobs, I tell my 
friend from Texas. Last year, Clinton administration, 1.9 million new 
jobs in America. And it was a slowdown period.
  During the last year of the Bush administration, after the economic 
policies that were pursued from 2001 and 2002 and 2003 and through 
2009, even though we took the Congress we couldn't do anything because 
the President would veto legislation, and did in fact veto legislation, 
3.8 million Americans lost their jobs. That's a difference of 1.9 
million new jobs in the last year

[[Page 13742]]

of Clinton to 3.8 million lost jobs in the last year of Bush, or a 5.7 
million jobs turnaround. Is there any wonder why there is a lot of pain 
in America and families are in great distress and they're angry and 
they have angst? And we share that.
  Today does not solve the problem. But today reaches out to those 
folks in distress and say in the short-term, on an emergency basis we 
are going to continue to give you help so you can support your families 
in this, the wealthiest Nation on the face of the earth. You worked 
hard. You paid in. And through no fault of your own, you lost your job.
  Maybe because of the fault of Wall Street that my friend believes we 
were too harsh on, we are imposing rules on so they can play by the 
rules and not squander and take risks that put Wall Street profits 
before Main Street stability. Yes, and also we're not going to 
apologize to the BP oil company and say we're sorry that we expect you 
to be accountable for the negligence that caused millions of people to 
be in economic distress. We're not going to say sorry. Some people want 
to say sorry that the President of the United States suggested, hey, 
you need to help those people.
  Maybe helping people is a difference between our two parties. I don't 
necessarily think that. I don't want to say that. But if that's the 
difference, today is a day when 435 of us can stand up and vote ``aye'' 
to help millions of Americans in deep distress through no fault of 
their own.
  I urge my colleagues to stand up and let people know that you are on 
their side.
  Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Speaker, I remind my friend, the distinguished 
majority leader of the House, that in the 1990s, during the Clinton 
administration, there was a great bipartisan effort that led to those 
balanced budgets because there was a Republican majority.
  Mr. HOYER. Will my friend yield on that point?
  Mr. BOUSTANY. I will yield.
  Mr. HOYER. It's a good point. I ask my friend--that is true--why 
couldn't you do it when you had the House, the Senate, and the 
Presidency?
  Mr. BOUSTANY. I will reclaim my time, and I will remind the majority 
leader that we have the opportunity to go forward now and not cast 
blame on the past. So I would say that President Obama actually got it 
right in a statement of administration policy on November 2009 
regarding unemployment benefit extensions, which was fully paid for. 
And here is what he said. I quote, ``Fiscal responsibility is central 
to the medium-term recovery of the economy and the creation of jobs. 
The administration therefore supports the fiscally responsible approach 
to expanding unemployment benefits embodied in the bill.''
  All we're saying is there is a better way to do this, and that is to 
pay for this extension.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).
  Mr. ELLISON. I thank the gentleman for giving me a moment to speak.
  Mr. Speaker, my friends from the party opposite refer to deficit and 
debts. Well, you know, debts are important. The deficit is important. 
The national debt, all these things are critical. But I guess my 
question is, you know, when the Republican Caucus voted to give the 
most wealthy and most privileged members of American society a $700 
billion-plus tax cut that they didn't pay for, they weren't that 
concerned about fiscal responsibility. Why no fiscal responsibility for 
the two wars? Ten billion dollars a month for Iraq, no fiscal 
responsibility for that. When the prescription drug handout was given 
to Big Pharma, $400 billion, no fiscal responsibility then.
  But when the poor, hardworking people of America find themselves 
without work and come and say, you know what, still looking for work, 
haven't found one, and need some help from my fellow Americans, it's 
like, ``No, no, no, no. We cannot help you because we got to worry 
about the deficit.'' Why so much concern, so much heartfelt angst about 
what the wealthiest, most privileged Americans need but nothing but a 
cold heart and a closed purse for people who are in an emergency 
situation?
  Mr. Speaker, I ask what about the debts of the people who are 
unemployed? What about them having to go to family and borrow money? 
What about them being captured by the payday lenders and the rent-to-
owners and these kind of people, folks who take advantage of poor 
people when they don't have any money and they don't have any 
unemployment insurance benefits? What about their personal debt? The 
American people should respond.
  I don't want to say that the party opposite is heartless, but this 
looks heartless. It looks that way. And I don't want my friends in the 
party opposite to look like they just don't care about poor people. So 
I urge everyone in this caucus to support and vote for this measure. It 
is important, it is the right time.
  I will just say, finally, the fact is that for every dollar spent on 
unemployment benefits, $1.60 goes into the economy, which means we 
begin to pull ourselves out of this situation and deal with this 
deficit.
  Mr. BOUSTANY. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
  Ms. KAPTUR. I thank the kind chairman, Mr. McDermott, for yielding me 
the 2 minutes.
  Sometimes when they say gentlewoman, I don't feel so gentle on the 
subject of unemployment. And in fact, I rise in strong support of this 
bill, which is long overdue because of the delays in the other Chamber. 
And I want to thank Chairman McDermott for his extraordinary leadership 
and our Speaker for bringing this bill forward.
  All the economic studies show that in fact direct consumer spending 
that results from the expenditure of unemployment checks on basics--
paying for food, paying your mortgage so you don't lose your home, 
making your car payment on that old jalopy you use to go to work--that, 
in fact, this creates the largest bang inside our economy to move it up 
than any investment we can make other than in infrastructure 
investment, where we are employing people building bridges, building 
roads, some of the things that people on the other side of the aisle 
are making fun of.
  It's no fun to go over a bridge that collapses. We saw that in 
Minnesota. These are issues that in a great Nation you take care of. In 
Ohio, we need unemployment compensation right now. We're one of the 
platforms that manufactures and grows jobs immediately to hold this 
country up. And our people, 100,000 of them, still remain out of work 
and utterly dependent on these benefits. They will be affected directly 
by the extension of these benefits. Indeed, Ohio has a total of between 
600,000 and a million people who are unemployed, working in part-time 
jobs, or they have fallen out of the workforce through no fault of 
their own.
  The Obama administration will have created more jobs by the end of 
August than the Bush administration did in the whole 8 years that it 
sat in office and did nothing except create more war and more 
unemployment and more outsourcing of jobs. I find my colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle out of touch--I can't even explain them. We 
don't live in the same world.
  I respect people who go to work every day. I respect those who get 
injured on the job. I respect those farmers who are out in the fields 
right now harvesting crops. I respect those who work for them. I 
respect the people who work in our auto plants. I respect the people 
working in hundred-degree weather up on bridges around my district 
right now trying to fix things up and hold things together until a 
better day comes.
  So the least we can do is return to them the money they already paid 
in, that their employers already paid in, that they already earned. 
They earned it. I say to the gentleman I support this bill a thousand 
percent. Ohioans are waiting for their unemployment checks. But most of 
all, they want to go back to work.

[[Page 13743]]



                              {time}  1330

  Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Hensarling).
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to speak yet again on 
this subject, but to hear the last three speakers, clearly there 
appears to be a confusion on the other side of the aisle between 
unemployment checks and paychecks.
  I mean, what we've heard the Speaker say--I wish I had her exact 
quote in front of me--that essentially by putting out more unemployment 
checks, that this is one of the best ways to create paychecks. I've 
never heard such circular logic in my life.
  Now, clearly we need an extension of unemployment. I mean, I must 
admit I find it somewhat ironic that the President of the United States 
brings up three unemployed workers. To the best of my knowledge, 
they've been unemployed during his Presidency. What a testament to his 
policies and the policies of this institution.
  Again, between a national takeover of our health care where employees 
don't know how much their health care costs are going to be. They're 
not creating new jobs. Threatened cap-and-trade. Nobody knows what 
their energy costs are going to be. No new job creation.
  We have this financial regulatory bill. Nobody knows what the cost of 
capital is going to be, particularly with a bureau that has the ability 
to ban and ration credit for small businesses. You've got private 
business sitting on almost $2 trillion that could be employed for 
paychecks but instead, once again, due to the policies of my friends on 
the other side of the aisle, we're having that debate on unemployment 
checks instead.
  And let me make sure that people aren't drowning on all of this straw 
that's in the House Chamber today from all the straw men. Here's the 
debate. In the words of the Democratic majority leader, Are we going to 
engage in fiscal child abuse and borrow the money principally from the 
Chinese to pay for this, or are we not? That's the question. That is 
the only question before the House right now. Are we going to borrow 
the money from our children and grandchildren, send them the bill, or 
are we going to pay for it today and quit using it on failed stimulus 
plans? That's the debate. The American people are not confused. And 
again, they want paychecks, not unemployment checks.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and 
I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  This is about whether we're going to pay for this or not. Consider 
that this is the eighth time this Congress is going to extend these 
benefits. The eighth time. That's an indication that the current 
economic policy of this administration and this Congress is a failure.
  I mentioned earlier the fact of the matter is we have a choice. We 
can do this in a fiscally responsible way, or we can choose to run up 
additional debt on our children and grandchildren to the tune of $34 
billion between now and November.
  Again, I think the President, President Obama, got it right in the 
statement of administration policy in November 2009 when the 
unemployment benefit extension was actually paid for. Again, I'm going 
to quote what he said: ``Fiscal responsibility is central to the 
medium-term of the economy and the creation of jobs. The administration 
therefore supports the fiscally responsible approach to expanding 
unemployment benefits embodied in the bill.''
  Now, if fiscal responsibility helps the economy and job creation, 
then the fiscal irresponsibility of this bill before us will hurt the 
economy and job creation.
  And I think the American people have spoken. They want us to do this, 
but they want us to pay for it. Let's do the right thing and actually 
pay for the spending we approve and help our economy grow, help job 
creation. As the administration said, a fiscally responsible approach 
is what's needed.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, as we close this debate and finally put 
this on the back burner until November when we have to come back and 
look at it again perhaps--we'll see--one of the speakers on the other 
side talked about confusion. My view is that the confusion here is 
between whether we're going to send unemployment checks or we're going 
to tell people, Go hungry. That's the confusion.
  People say, Well, it's about paying for it. I will remind my 
colleagues on the other side Mr. Bush was President for 8 years, and 
when we did unemployment, we did it on an emergency basis. We never 
paid for it one time and you guys, the Republicans--I'm not supposed to 
address them directly--they didn't pay for it, Mr. Speaker. They were 
in charge and their President was in charge, but they called it an 
emergency.
  Now under Mr. Obama, it's not an emergency.
  Suddenly we're going to tie up people's minds and try and confuse 
them. But the fact is that for 6 weeks we have said to workers in this 
country, We are not going to extend benefits.
  Now, we have never, in the history of this country, when unemployment 
was at 7.2 or above, failed to extend benefits until the Republicans 
got a serious case of fiscal--well, I'm not going to say exactly what I 
think--but fiscal disease has overtaken their mind. And they've 
suddenly caught this thing--it must be in the air around here or 
somewhere down around the Ohio River between Cincinnati and Kentucky. 
They've got leadership that said, You know, we can infect everybody 
with this fiscal fear. We'll just sacrifice a few million. It's only 
2\1/2\ million people who are going to lose their benefits. So it's not 
very many. There's 300 million in America. We can throw away 2\1/2\ 
million. That's easy. They won't vote. They're too stupid to know who's 
doing it to them.
  That's the kind of message you're sending when you're saying you 
won't give unemployment benefits.
  This is so easily understood by the American people. This is not 
climate change. This is not all the complicated stuff. Some people 
around here think the American people have a very short memory span, 
but they don't on stuff where it's right down to the bone.
  And you will remember this day as the day when finally the 
Republicans came to their senses. They finally said, You know, this 
ain't going to work. It really ain't going to work. We're not going to 
admit it. We're going to say we were doing it on principle.
  But there is no principle at the table when the mother opens the 
cupboard and there is nothing in it. Or when the lights aren't turned 
on because you haven't paid the utility bills. Or when the water is 
turned off because you haven't paid your water bill. What does a mother 
say the principle is? Now kids, get in the bathtub, but there is no 
water. Clean yourself up, right?
  What kind of nonsense is this? Do you think this money is going for 
people to buy iPads or iPhones or i4Phones or whatever? This is going 
for the necessities of life. And you're saying to the ordinary people 
of this country, Well, we have a principle, under the Democrats, we 
have to pay for it. Now not under the Democrats.
  And I can hardly wait until we get the proposals over from the Senate 
to extend the tax breaks and watch you guys do a double flip. You will 
get a ``10'' in Olympic terms for your ability to do a double flip and 
say, Well, now we don't have to pay for it. And watch, they're going to 
send over the estate tax. They are going to send over a bailout for the 
people at the very top. And you're going to say, We don't have to pay 
for them. Oh, no. No, no. They're very rich. No, no, no, no, no, we 
can't pay for that. No, no. But they're going to make us pay for the 
people who are in the most dire distress in this society.
  It's really shameful, and I'm going to watch with pleasure as you 
vote ``no'' as you vote yourself out of here.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for this bill, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.

[[Page 13744]]




                Announcement By the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to address their 
remarks to the Chair.
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I strongly, resolutely, and 
steadfastly support this bill to extend critical unemployment benefits 
for our citizens through the end of November. This bill will provide 
vital assistance to over 137,600 Illinoisans, and to the 2.5 million 
Americans, who lost their benefits between June 2nd and July 17th. This 
bill helps address a national emergency resulting from one of the worst 
economic recessions in our country's history.
  Unemployment insurance is not a theoretical concept to these 
citizens. Unemployment is a very real lifeline. It allows mothers and 
fathers to buy food for their children. It allows people to help keep a 
roof over their families' heads. I have received so many tearful calls 
from my constituents who call to beg for my help. They are disheartened 
by their continued unemployment despite active and prolonged efforts to 
find a job. They are embarrassed that they cannot support their 
families, and they are frightened that their children will suffer from 
their inability to feed, clothe, or provide housing. When they learn 
that their government allowed these lifeline benefits to expire and 
failed to reinstate them for almost 8 weeks, they are shocked. They 
worked and paid taxes for years with an understanding that government 
would help them in a time of need. Yet, this assistance was not there.
  I think it is unfortunate that Republicans have delayed this critical 
financial assistance for so long. To add insult to injury, while 
proclaiming that our government could not afford $33 billion to help 
our citizens who are suffering during an economic emergency, the 
Republican leadership confidently asserted the position that we want 
the government to spend $650 billion for tax cuts for the wealthy. This 
is approximately 20 times the cost of this critical unemployment 
assistance. This is the same leadership that had no difficulty spending 
a trillion dollars for two wars and giving tax breaks to the wealthiest 
of the wealthy.
  The extension of the aid for 99 weeks is an important first step in 
helping our citizens who are struggling to find employment. I promise 
to continue to work with the Democratic leadership to push for ways to 
help those remain unemployed beyond the 99 weeks. Long-term 
unemployment is an unfortunate reality for Chicago and for my 
constituents.
  Passing this bill today tells our citizens that we are working for 
them. Further, passing this bill today reinforces their confidence in 
their government--confidence that they will help care for them in the 
lean times. For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote for its 
passage.
  Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Senate 
amendments to H.R. 4213, the Unemployment Compensation Extension Act of 
2010, which will extend unemployment benefits to millions of Americans 
that are in dire need of support. Without this legislation these 
families will lose the only lifeline that they can count on in this 
historic economic crisis.
  Mr. Speaker, while I am glad that this bill is finally close to the 
President's desk, I deeply regret the weeks of partisan politics by 
Republicans, especially those in the Senate, which have obstructed this 
legislation and delayed benefits to struggling families across the 
country. Since Republicans allowed benefits to begin expiring in May, 
over 250 million individuals nationwide and 429,000 in California have 
lost benefits that help them feed their families, pay their bills, and 
sleep with a roof over their heads.
  Republicans claim to oppose these benefits because of their cost. 
But, let us not forget that Republicans never bothered to find offsets 
for the Bush tax cuts. They never felt the need to pay for the Iraq and 
Afghanistan wars. Only when unemployment benefits are on the table do 
Republicans suddenly discover an interest in fiscal responsibility. 
Republicans want to withhold relief from millions of Americans who, 
through no fault of their own, have lost their jobs in this economic 
crisis. But this vote offers a final opportunity to put partisan 
politics aside and work together for the American people.
  Mr. Speaker, Congress has taken bold action to energize the economy 
during this historic economic crisis and lay the groundwork for long-
term, stable growth. To be sure, these actions are working: to date, 
the Recovery Act alone has saved or created over 682,000 jobs 
nationwide. However, rebuilding our economy takes time and, despite the 
success of Democrats' job-creating legislation, many individuals and 
families across the country still need our help. We cannot abandon the 
families that have been left jobless because of the previous 
Administration's economic mismanagement. This important measure will 
retroactively extend unemployment assistance to individuals whose 
benefits started to phase out in May and will guarantee that benefits 
are available through November.
  Mr. Speaker, this should not be a partisan issue. This is an American 
issue. Millions of Americans need our help and this is our opportunity 
to provide it. Let us help the people all across the country who have 
been hit hard by this recession, people who, through no fault of their 
own, are struggling to stay in their homes and feed their kids.
  Moreover, in addition to providing relief to those in need, this bill 
is an important step in our economic rebuilding process. Unemployment 
benefits create economic demand that stimulates the economy and puts 
people back to work. This is a fast-acting and cost-effective way to 
energize the economy: every $1 spent on unemployment benefits leads to 
$1.90 in economic activity. This bill responds to both our immediate 
obligation to help the American people in a time of great need and the 
long-term goal of consistent growth and prosperity.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill is an obvious ``aye'' vote. The resistance it 
has seen in the past few weeks is shocking. I strongly urge my 
colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 4213.
  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the 
Unemployment Compensation Extension Act. This legislation will extend 
unemployment insurance (UI) benefits, which expired seven long weeks 
ago, to millions of Americans families who rely on this assistance to 
make ends meet during these difficult economic times.
  I regret that due to Republican objections, delays and stalling 
tactics, Unemployment Compensation was allowed to lapse for so long. My 
colleagues in the House of Representatives and I have already passed 
this legislation three times since May. Unfortunately, the bill was 
allowed to languish in the Senate while millions of Americans were 
forced to do without this critical lifeline.
  With unemployment in Los Angeles County hovering at 12.2 percent, I 
continue to hear from my constituents how important these benefits are 
to them as they look for new employment during these difficult economic 
times.
  One constituent, a college graduate who lives in Los Angeles, wrote 
to inform me that he has been searching for a job for 18 months without 
success. He has long since run out of savings and without unemployment 
benefits cannot pay his rent. Another constituent, a mother of three 
children, was recently laid off and is relying on unemployment benefits 
to pay her mortgage payments and keep a roof over her family's head.
  It is for hardworking Americans like these, making good faith efforts 
to secure employment and trying desperately to find some stability in 
these uncertain times, that I vote for this important measure.
  While we act today to protect the unemployed and their families, I 
believe we must redouble our efforts to create job opportunities and 
get Americans back to work.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of H.R. 4213, the 
``Unemployment Compensation Extension Act of 2010.'' After weeks of 
needless delay, this legislation will ensure that the estimated $2.5 
million Americans who lost their coverage will again have access to the 
lifeline provided by unemployment insurance and again be able to pay 
their bills and put food on their table. During this unfortunate 
period, my friends on the other side of the aisle have repeatedly told 
out of work Americans that the human dignity they seek is a luxury we 
cannot afford. Let me be clear: There is nothing luxurious about barely 
getting by--having to decide between your mortgage, your health, or 
your family's well being.
  The opposition to this legislation has been disingenuous, cruel and 
out of touch. Many of the unemployed people in my district spent years 
working hard, paying their bills, and contributing to their 
communities. Through no fault of their own, they found themselves out 
of work.
  Beyond voting for this bill, my Republican friends ought to take 
responsibility for their role in precipitating this economic disaster. 
It was they who pushed policies that promoted unfettered free trade, 
tax cuts for the rich, and the casino culture on Wall Street. The least 
they could do is vote with the Majority to minimize some of the pain 
they caused.
  For the sake of human decency for our fellow citizens, I encourage my 
colleagues to support the bill.
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, three weeks ago we were here talking about 
this. Two months ago we were here talking about this. And even if this 
bill becomes law, in four months we will likely be back again talking 
about this. The specific subject is extended unemployment benefits.
  But the real issue, and what is driving the need for a record 99 
weeks of unemployment

[[Page 13745]]

benefits, is this Administration's woeful record when it comes to 
creating jobs that provide paychecks, instead of unemployment checks.
  In February 2009, the President signed into law the Democrats' 
trillion-dollar ``stimulus'' plan. That was the plan Democrats promised 
would create 3.7 million jobs, keep unemployment under 8 percent, and 
stimulate strong private sector job growth.
  None of that happened.
  Instead, over 2 million more jobs were lost and unemployment spiked 
to 10 percent, though the number of government jobs has grown somewhat.
  So here we are again--extending unemployment benefits because 
stimulus failed to create the millions of jobs Democrats promised.
  But instead of doing this responsibly, this bill will simply add 
another $34 billion to our $13 trillion mountain of debt.
  We can do better than this.
  Both Republicans and Democrats support helping the long-term 
unemployed. And both Republicans and Democrats want to responsibly pay 
for these benefits.
  That would be far better than adding to the unchecked growth in our 
debt that is already costing us jobs, and that threatens to overwhelm 
our economy in debt and higher taxes for decades to come.
  The fact is, we can both provide this help and pay for it by cutting 
less effective stimulus spending.
  The last time we debated unemployment benefits, I offered a motion to 
pay for that spending. That is what the Heller substitute to this bill 
would have done if it was made in order today. Even the Democrat 
Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Senator Baucus, has also 
proposed cutting stimulus to pay for certain extenders.
  The American people know it isn't right to add these costs to our 
already overdrawn national credit card. They want to help those in 
need. But they also know someone has to pay when government spends 
money. That assistance must not put our fiscal house as a Nation in 
even worse shape--and we are already in terrible shape.
  I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to reject this bill 
today and instead work together to quickly pass a bill to extend 
Federal unemployment benefits while responsibly paying for it.
  That is what we should have been doing all along, which would have 
prevented the lapse in benefits millions have already experienced. 
Democrat Leaders rejected that obvious compromise, leading to needless 
additional suffering in recent weeks by millions of unemployed workers 
who want a job. But it is not too late to fix this, and to do so 
responsibly, so that we do right by the unemployed, as well as future 
generations.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the over 
150,000 residents in the State of Texas who have lost their 
unemployment benefits since June 2nd. Nationally, over 2.5 million 
Americans have lost their eligibility for unemployment insurance, at a 
time when our country is suffering through the most difficult economic 
slump it has witnessed since the Great Depression.
  Unemployment insurance helps our country in two crucial ways:
  First, unemployment insurance assists those hurt most by this 
recession.
  Second, unemployment insurance is a major job creator.
  Nearly 15 million Americans are out of work. Of these 15 million, 46 
percent have been out of work for more than six months. In recent 
months, there have been at least five unemployed workers for every job 
opening.
  These are proud, working Americans who have already been victimized 
by the state of our Nation's economy. Why are we victimizing them again 
by denying them this crucial lifeline?
  Unemployment insurance is also one of the most stimulative measures 
the Federal Government can take to help the economy. The Congressional 
Budget Office has found that for every dollar spent on unemployment 
benefits, $1.90 of economic growth is generated.
  In a recent study by the non-partisan Economic Policy Institute, the 
expansion of unemployment benefits since 2007 has supported 1.7 million 
full-time equivalent positions. These jobs have raised GDP by $244.8 
billion, a 1.7 percent boost.
  In sharp contrast to extending tax cuts for the wealthiest in our 
country, unemployed Americans will spend their benefits immediately to 
pay their rent, buy groceries and other necessary goods, thereby 
creating jobs throughout the economy.
  This is not simply smart policy. This is a moral issue. We will be 
helping our friends and neighbors during their time of need.
  I call upon my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote in favor 
of the Restoration of Emergency Unemployment Compensation Act.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, it is a huge relief for millions of 
Americans who remain out of work through no fault of their own that the 
Senate has overcome the Republican filibuster to extend unemployment 
insurance benefits.
  It is an insult to the American people to suggest that those who are 
unemployed are sitting back and not looking for work while taking 
unemployment compensation. In fact, in order to qualify for 
unemployment benefits, one must be diligently looking for a job. 
Extending these benefits is not only the right thing to do for these 
families, but it is also important for our economic recovery. If these 
individuals and families are unable to purchase groceries or pay their 
rent or mortgages, then the entire community suffers.
  Washington Republicans say they are opposed to these emergency 
benefits because they claim to be concerned about the deficit. However, 
they recently announced that they wanted to extend the Bush tax cuts 
for the wealthy and add over $700 billion to the deficit--a sum that 
would be paid by our children and grandchildren.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this much-needed 
legislation so that we can continue to help American families make ends 
meet during these difficult economic times.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4213, the 
Restoration of Emergency Unemployment Act of 2010. This legislation 
extends unemployment benefits to millions of Americans in need through 
November and retroactively restores benefits to those that recently 
lost theirs due to Congressional inaction. Unemployment in Ohio is at 
10.5 percent. It is the number one request when I talk to my 
constituents at home.
  Even with passage of this important legislation, many of my 
constituents in the greater Cleveland area will continue to suffer. 
Many will be ineligible for the benefits provided by this bill because 
they have exhausted the emergency temporary assistance granted by 
Congress. Still others are at a greater disadvantage than most; 
according to the latest unemployment statistics from the Department of 
Labor, members of the African-American and Latino communities continue 
to experience disproportionately high long-term unemployment rates at 
15.4 percent and 12.4 percent, respectively. While Congress endeavors 
to provide direct help to those needing it the most, we must also focus 
on creating jobs.
  Our domestic manufacturing sector has been decimated under the weight 
of the economy, bad trade agreements like NAFTA and CAFTA, and policy 
neglect. We cannot have a strong American economy without a strong 
industrial manufacturing sector. We need a coordinated Federal policy 
that puts the manufacturing sector back in its rightful place as an 
engine of the American economy. In recognition of that need, I authored 
H. Res. 444, which says that the steel, automotive, aerospace and 
shipping industries are vital to America's national and economic 
security.
  Extending unemployment benefits alone will not address the needs of 
all Americans currently looking for work across various employment 
sectors, but it can serve to shore up our local communities and our 
economy. I urge passage of H.R. 4213, the Restoration of Emergency 
Unemployment Act of 2010.
  Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4213, the 
Restoration of Emergency Unemployment Compensation Act of 2010.
  Unemployment levels are high across the country, and in my state of 
Illinois unemployment has remained well above 10 percent for over a 
year. Millions of Americans are actively looking for work, and for 
these families, unemployment insurance (UI) is a necessary to assist 
with their medical bills, mortgages, and basic needs so they can 
continue looking for employment every week.
  While I share the concerns of my colleagues regarding spending that 
is not paid for, canceling these benefits now will only hurt these 
families and our economy. We have a responsibility to support people 
out of work and in great need. Moving forward, we may not be able to 
provide as much assistance to people and the states as many would like, 
and we may not in the short-term be able to fully offset the cost of 
all Federal spending. But working together, we can continue to chart a 
course that builds on our economic recovery and helps those in great 
need while beginning to address long-term economic challenges.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 4213.
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, the House took action to help nearly 2.5 
million Americans with the very basic needs of putting food on the 
table and paying the bills by extending unemployment insurance. After 
weeks of Republican efforts to withhold these benefits, we are sending 
a lifeline to families while sending

[[Page 13746]]

a jolt to our economy because most of the aid will be spent quickly on 
food, rent, and other necessities.
  The Emergency Unemployment Compensation, EUC, Program began to phase 
out at the end of May. This means individuals exhausting their 26 weeks 
of regular unemployment benefits since that time, or exhausting any of 
the tiers of Federal EUC benefits, are not eligible for emergency 
unemployment benefits. H.R. 4213 retroactively restores those benefits 
and continues the EUC program through November.
  Those in the Minority who are opposed to helping our middle class 
families often claim that providing unemployment insurance discourages 
Americans from seeking work. This couldn't be further from the truth. 
The Joint Economic Committee, which I chair, has just released its 2010 
Annual Report. One of the findings is that extending unemployment 
benefits does not discourage job seekers from looking for work. The JEC 
report finds that unemployment benefits actually serve to keep some 
workers attached to the labor force who might otherwise shift to other 
more costly government programs.
  By the end of the year, if no further action is taken, some 290,000 
unemployed disabled workers will exhaust their unemployment benefits, 
and two-thirds of these workers will leave the labor force and move 
onto the Social Security Disability Insurance program. Shifting these 
workers from the labor market and onto the SSDI rolls would be a $24.2 
billion lifetime cost. Compare that with the $721.3 million cost of 
extending unemployment benefits for these workers.
  These numbers demonstrate that extending unemployment benefits is not 
only morally right, it is the fiscally responsible thing to do.
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I strongly, resolutely, and 
steadfastly support this bill to extend critical unemployment benefits 
for our citizens through the end of November. This bill will provide 
vital assistance to over 137,600 Illinoisans, and to the 2.5 million 
Americans, who lost their benefits between June 2nd and July 17th. This 
bill helps address a national emergency resulting from one of the worst 
economic recessions in our country's history.
  Unemployment insurance is not a theoretical concept to these 
citizens. Unemployment is a very real lifeline. It allows mothers and 
fathers to buy food for their children. It allows people to help keep a 
roof over their families' heads. I have received so many tearful calls 
from my constituents who call to beg for my help. They are disheartened 
by their continued unemployment despite active and prolonged efforts to 
find a job. They are embarrassed that they cannot support their 
families, and they are frightened that their children will suffer from 
their inability to feed, clothe, or provide housing. When they learn 
that their government allowed these lifeline benefits to expire and 
failed to reinstate them for almost 8 weeks, they are shocked. They 
worked and paid taxes for years with an understanding that government 
would help them in a time of need. Yet, this assistance was not there.
  I think it is unfortunate that Republicans have delayed this critical 
financial assistance for so long. To add insult to injury, while 
proclaiming that our government could not afford $33 billion to help 
our citizens who are suffering during an economic emergency, the 
Republican leadership confidently asserted the position that we want 
the government to lose over $650 billion for the wealthy. This is 
approximately 20 times the cost of this critical unemployment 
assistance. This is the same leadership that had no difficulty spending 
a trillion dollars for two wars and giving tax breaks to the wealthiest 
of the wealthy.
  The extension of the aid for 99 weeks is an important first step in 
helping our citizens who are struggling to find employment. I promise 
to continue to work with the Democratic leadership to push for ways to 
help those who remain unemployed beyond the 99 weeks. Long-term 
unemployment is an unfortunate reality for Chicago and for my 
constituents.
  Passing this bill today tells our citizens that we are working for 
them. Further, passing this bill today reinforces their confidence in 
their government--confidence that they will help care for them in the 
lean times. For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote for its 
passage.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 1550, the previous question is ordered.
  The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Levin).
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this 15-
minute vote on the motion to concur will be followed by a 5-minute vote 
on the motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 5341, if ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 272, 
nays 152, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 463]

                               YEAS--272

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

                               NAYS--152

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baird
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bright
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cooper
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Djou
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Emerson
     Flake
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Guthrie
     Hall (TX)
     Harper
     Hastings (WA)
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hill
     Hunter
     Inglis
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan (OH)
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latham
     Latta
     Lee (NY)
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Marchant
     Markey (CO)

[[Page 13747]]


     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Minnick
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Nye
     Olson
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pence
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rehberg
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rooney
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Walden
     Westmoreland
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf

                             NOT VOTING--9

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

                              {time}  1413

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

                          ____________________