Unemployment Compensation Amendments of 2003

Mr. President, today we are discussing legislation to raise the statutory limit on the Federal debt, the ceiling on how much the Treasury Department can borrow. It is a very important matter.

The Federal debt is like the family credit card. Sooner or later you have to pay down the debts that you have already incurred. If you don't, your credit rating will suffer. The way the Government raises the debt limit is also like a family who just keeps calling the bank every time they hit the credit limit and asks the bank over and over again for an increase in their credit limit without regard to anything else. Rather than pay down their debt, they just keep on asking for a higher debt limit.

When the credit card bill comes, it is a time to reassess the family's budget. It is a time to review the debts and to control the future spending. The fiscally responsible approach is that of the typical Montana family who, rather than just ask for an increase in their credit limit, sits down at the kitchen table and reassesses their budget. And so should we.

Let's put this in perspective. This debt limit increase is one big bill. This bill calls for an increase of almost $1 trillion. I have a chart behind me that shows the increase of the debt limit. This bill calls for an increase of $984 billion in the debt ceiling, nearly $1 trillion. This will be the largest debt limit increase in history. This will be an increase of about $3,400 in debt for every man, woman, and child in America. That is signified by the column on the right, which is the debt limit increase being asked for here.

That is just the increase. The debt subject to limit is already more than $22,000 per person. This $3,400 increase would come on top of that. Before this bill, the largest increase was in 1990, under the first Bush administration. Then the Government increased the debt limit by $915 billion.

Since 1990, the Government has increased the debt limit five times. The average of those five increases was about $450 billion. So $984 billion is a very large number. It is out of line with the most recent precedents. It is too large a number for us to make now.

As this debt limit increases, it is just the tip of the iceberg. The budget resolution lays out the fiscal course on which we are headed. Page 4 of the budget resolution says in black and white: If we follow the budget resolution, the debt will grow to $12,040,000,000,000 in 2013. That is page 4 of the budget resolution Congress passed. That would be $39,000 in debt for every man, woman, and child in the country in 2013, 10 years from now. Following the budget resolution, of course, would leave a legacy of nearly $40,000 in debt for every American child coming into the world about the time the baby boomers arrive.

I come from a State where the average income per person is about $22,000. So these are large numbers. This large debt means that the Federal Government has to spend the first dollars it receives to pay interest on past debts. Before the Government can spend a cent on national defense, education, it would have to set aside $157 billion a year on net interest on the debt. More

than 11 cents on every on-budget tax dollar has to go directly to pay net interest before the Government can spend on any current needs.

That is a debt tax that every taxpayer has to pay. It is a debt tax that robs this generation and future generations of the ability to make their own fiscal choices.

The time has come for us to reassess our budget. This is a time to look to see where we are and how we got here. Not long ago our country was paying down the debt. When the Government ran budget surpluses in the late 1990s and the beginning of this decade, it reduced the Government's demand on the credit markets.

From 1998 to 2001, the Government reduced debt held by the public by $448 billion. That is demonstrated by the chart behind me to my immediate left. It shows from 2000 to 2003, about 33.1 percent was the debt ratio to GDP; that is, we were paying down the debt. That is that steep declining solid red line with the debt being paid down.

When the Government returned to budget deficits at 2002, it began, once again, to mount up debt held by the public. In 2002, the Government ran a deficit of $158 billion. The deficit this current year will be much higher.

In January 2001, the Congressional Budget Office projected surpluses of $5.6 trillion for the next decade. That was 2001. Now CBO projects that the President's budget will result in deficits of $2.1 trillion for the same period. Thus, CBO's projections of the decade to come have changed by almost $8 trillion in just 2 years. Imagine, an $8 trillion difference in just 2 years--from a $5.6 trillion surplus to a $2.1 trillion deficit.

These are times of great uncertainty for budget projections. The recent budget projections have continued this trend. In its May budget review, CBO made a new larger deficit projection for fiscal year 2003. According to that new review, the most recent, CBO now expects that the Government will end 2003 with a deficit of over $300 billion. That is compared with its March baseline of $246 billion. So the budget resolution projection of $12 trillion debt limit for 2013 may understate the debt we will pass along to future generations. That is certainly clear if we stay on the present course. And all these deficit figures are for the total budget deficit before netting out the surpluses contributed by Social Security.

Since the Social Security reforms of 1983, Social Security has been running surpluses. I will never forget Alan Greenspan headed that commission; Senators Dole and Moynihan were on it. They came up with good suggestions for the Congress to pass, and we did. Consequently, since the recommendations, Social Security has been running surpluses. The goal of doing so was to increase national savings in anticipation of the retirement of the baby boom generation starting in the next decades. Senator Moynihan would constantly remind us of that date. If we had balanced the rest of the budget, we would have increased national savings.

But the rest of the budget has not been in surplus. It is not in surplus now. So these trust fund surpluses have masked the size of Government deficits.

The Government's deficits are thus much larger than they appear. As the baby boom generation begins to retire, Social Security's annual surpluses will eventually turn into deficits. Moreover, CBO projects deficits for the rest of the Government will continue as far as the eye can see. So the true larger size of the Government's budget deficits will become all too apparent in the next decade.

This debt limit bill is very much related to our budget deficits and the coming budget pressure from the retirement of the baby boom generation. Think of our children and our grandchildren trying to make ends meet in their lives. When this generation piles up debt, it is imposing a tax on them. It is raising their taxes. We have a moral obligation, I believe, to act as good stewards of what we have been given, whether it is in the environment or the economy. We have an obligation to leave things for our children and grandchildren in at least as good shape as we found them.

This is a great country of which we can be proud. We have weathered many storms in the past--economic and otherwise.

We live in times of great uncertainty and great challenges. A good steward would not tempt the fate. A good steward would ensure that we do not add to the challenges our children will have to face.

In too many spheres, there has been too much seeking after rewards for this generation, for now. Rather, we should exercise responsibility. We should ensure that we act as guardians of future generations. After all, we are not all going to be here forever.

It is time to reassess. It is time to change course. First, we need to stop making the deficits and the debt worse. We need to put the brakes on the size of spending increases and tax cuts.

This debate is very much related to the one just concluded on the tax bill. We need to limit the size of future tax cuts. And wherever possible, we need to pay for tax cuts, as we did with the CARE act and the military tax bill. Stop the gimmicks. Be honest about long-term costs.

Second, we need to extend and strengthen our budget process constraints. The pay-as-you-go rule and the appropriations caps contributed to the fiscal responsibility of the 1990s. We need to follow the rules.

Third, the debt limit itself should provide a much needed brake on fiscal irresponsibility. We should not increase the debt limit by the large amount that the House of Representatives proposes. Rather, we should force the Government to reassess its fiscal situation again later this year--not next year as the House contemplates--when we will have a clearer picture of how the economy and budget are faring.

Returning to the analogy of the family credit card, the credit limit on the credit card is a check on future spending. Similarly, with the debt limit, a smaller increase now will ensure that we in Congress address the Government's fiscal policy again later this year.

So this is an important debate. It may not be a glamorous issue, but it is a very important one. We have a weighty responsibility. This is an issue that the Senate should debate. Certainly, we should not hide behind the rules to avoid votes, as the House of Representatives has done. Certainly, we should not flee from the issues, and to a recess, without full consideration of this issue.

We will address it best if we do not simply approve this bill without amendment. Rather, we need to debate and understand why we are here. We need to scale back this too large amount. If the Senate doesn't reduce the size of the debt increase, I will oppose it. And we should add procedures to ensure greater fiscal responsibility in the future.

Only by taking these steps will we be meeting our responsibility. I urge my colleagues to join me in that effort.

At the appropriate time, I will offer an amendment to reduce the increase in the debt limit.

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, this amendment is simple. This amendment would reduce the amount by which we are raising the debt limit to $350 billion. That is $634 billion less than the underlying bill.

The legislation the House sent to us would raise the debt limit by $984 billion. That would be the largest debt limit increase in history. The previous record was $915 billion in 1990, under President George Herbert Walker Bush.

The average of the five debt ceiling increases since 1990 has been $450 billion. Plainly, the debt limit increase in the bill before us is out of proportion with recent precedent.

We should not raise the debt limit by so much. We should increase it by an amount significantly smaller than $984 billion.

It is very easy to explain why we have a smaller increase. It is because we are living in uncertain times, unpredictable times. I have sort of a pet theory that increases in technology, particularly communications technology, which makes our society much more complex and uncertain--not only for the U.S. but for the world--and we are experiencing the effects of actions in the world, from terrorism and SARS--make it difficult for the U.S. to rely on the best of projections.

The best of projections indicate that the fiscal condition of the country is unhealthy for both the current year and future years. This is especially troubling because the baby boom generation will begin to retire in a few short years. Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid expenditures will soar, putting enormous strains on the Federal budget.

And new projections of even the short run keep showing conditions worsening, even when only a short time has elapsed since the previous estimate. Most recently, the CBO increased its forecast of the current year deficit by more than $55 billion. That is over just 2 months. If you project that out, that means in a year--6 times 55--that is about a $330 billion difference.

Under these circumstances, Congress should reexamine the fiscal situation later this year. To ensure that this occurs, the size of the debt limit increase must be significantly smaller than $984 billion. We cannot wait until next year--late next year or in the summer of next year as contemplated by the underlying proposal--to examine and reexamine our budgetary problems. A $984 billion debt limit increase is just not responsible.

I made the credit card analogy a couple of times. I will say it once again. A $984 billion debt limit increase is like a family that wants the credit card bill to come only once a year. If the credit card bill came only once a year, the family might well not talk about the family budget quite so often. As a result, they would probably not maintain as good control of the budget as they would with a monthly statement. There is reason the bank sends bills more frequently, sends statements out monthly. It ensures more frequent review of the debt limit. That is all my amendment would require. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. President, I want to make clear that I have not heard one substantive reason against this, not one. Rather, the argument against this is the House is gone. We all know the House has gone because they do not want to vote on this issue. They planned to have the Senate bring the debt limit up at this time. The House planned to leave before the debt limit came up. They planned that so they do not have to vote on the issue. The other side plans to vote down all amendments so they do not have to go back to the House. It is a gimmick. It is a game.

There is not one word of substance as to why we should not have a smaller

debt ceiling rather than a full year. I think it is time to call it as it is and explain what has happened here. What I explained is what is happening.

Mr. President, I yield back my time. I believe the yeas and nays have already been ordered.

These are important amendments. I believe Senators should listen to debate.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 248, I call up the bill (H.R. 2185) to extend the Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 2002, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, today we consider H.R. 2185 to extend unemployment benefits for millions of displaced workers. I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) for his leadership in bringing this bill to the floor today. This bill will extend the current unemployment insurance program until December 2003 with a phase-out until March 2004.

My legislation will allow dislocated workers to receive 13 weeks of benefits in all States and an additional 13 weeks for workers who live in States with high unemployment rates such as Alaska, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Washington. The bill will help approximately 2.4 million displaced workers nationwide.

In my home State of Washington, the unemployment rate has again increased from 7.1 percent to 7.3 percent, making it the third highest unemployment rate in the Nation. Mass layoffs continue to have an adverse impact on our State's economy, especially in the aerospace industry. I represent more than 25,000 Boeing workers, many of whom have already lost their jobs.

As we work on a jobs and growth package to provide an immediate boost to our economy, we must also give displaced workers the peace of mind in knowing that they have a little time to find a job. So what does H.R. 2185 do? It achieves the following: it extends unemployment benefits until December 31, 2003, with a phase-out until March 31, 2004; it extends unemployment benefits for 13 weeks in all States for displaced workers; it extends unemployment benefits for an additional 13 weeks for a total of 26 weeks in high unemployment States.

This bill will cost $6.5 billion over 10 years, and it will help about 2.4 million workers nationwide. I think it is important that people realize that the Congress has done a lot to help unemployed workers. We feel this is the time to continue generosity and to help some of these folks who are trying to get jobs.

The existing unemployment extension expires at the end of this month with a phase-out until August. Congress has now extended unemployment benefits three different times: first in March 2002, 13 weeks for all States and 26 weeks for high unemployment States; secondly, in January 2003, 13 weeks for all States and 26 weeks for high unemployment States; and, lastly, in April 2003 an additional 26 weeks for airline and related industry workers.

We are extending the safety net for workers struggling to find a job while stimulating our economic growth by reducing taxes for individuals and encouraging business expansion. By extending unemployment benefits for an additional 13 weeks in all States, we can help the 2.4 million workers, and in my State, 60,000 workers, who need this kind of help.

Our unemployment system has worked well for many years, and it serves people during economic downturns. We are constantly reviewing the unemployment program to ensure that it helps those who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own. It is a temporary program, and now is the time to extend these benefits in a temporary way to help those folks who need to be helped.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English), a very valuable member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I want to remind the gentleman from New Jersey that, under this bill, 124,250 of his constituents will receive unemployment coverage.

I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Because they have already received Federal benefits in the past.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller), a very trusted and good member of our committee.

(Mr. WELLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), a former Governor and current valued Member.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I think, to put the comments of Mr. Greenspan in context, because he made them at the meeting of the Joint Economic Committee yesterday, where I was present, he said:

``I have always been of the opinion, and stated before this committee previously, that our unemployment insurance system seems to work rather well. It is not overly generous, which would induce the type of increased levels of structural unemployment which we see in other countries which have these types of things, these types of structures. But unemployment insurance is essentially restrictive because it's been our perception that we don't want to create incentives for people not to take jobs. But when you're in a period of job weakness where it is not a choice on the part of the people whether they're unemployed or unemployed, then obviously you want to be temporarily generous.''

And he says, ``If you go forward with additional extensions, I would be careful to keep the extensions relatively short and renew them again if necessary.''

That is exactly what we are doing.

He says, ``Because we're not quite clear at this stage what the path of short-term economic activity is. A number of major economic forecasters have forecasts for the third quarter, which is just about in front of us, of 4 percent growth at an annual rate. And that is a relatively long list.''

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I certainly agree with the gentleman from Washington in that anybody who cannot find a job wants to, which is why we are going to pass tonight the Jobs and Growth Reconciliation Tax Act of 2003.

I do want to also remind the gentleman from Washington that the Congress has been watching over the concerns of States like Washington that have been the recipient of many unemployed people, and we have not done nothing. The debate tonight makes it sound like the Federal Government has done nothing.

In the State of Washington specifically, we have followed up 30 weeks of State benefits that the residents of our State are eligible for with 26 weeks of federally funded benefits that we passed in March, 2002, and extended again another 26 weeks in January of 2003, and then we matched the State for 9 total weeks of Federal- and State-funded benefits. We added on 7 weeks of State benefits for aerospace and timber workers who are in training programs. If we total that all up, it comes to 65 weeks for all dislocated workers, 98 weeks for aerospace workers and 72 weeks for timber workers.

I think the extension that we are going to do today, which for the State of Washington would provide 60,000 new people with unemployment benefits, is the right thing to do. With luck, if we play our cards right and the economy responds in the way we hope it will, we will not need to extend unemployment benefits, but if we need to, we will be there and do it, as Alan Greenspan says, on a temporary basis.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from the State of Oregon (Mr. Walden) who talks from experience since he is from the State with the highest unemployment.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the amount of time that remains for both sides, please?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, some of these speakers on the other side have talked about folks who have been covered in the past by Federal unemployment insurance, but they do not make that point. They make it sound as though they never have been covered.

I think it is important to reiterate that the Congress in March of 2002 extended to folks 13 weeks of Federal unemployment and 26 weeks for high unemployment States; extended it once again in January 2003, 13 weeks for all States and 26 weeks for high unemployment States; extended it again in April 2003, an additional 26 weeks for airline and related industry workers; and that many States also have provided for unemployment benefits.

Some States have additional benefits to help those who have exhausted their Federal benefits. For example, States have the option to provide 13 weeks of extended benefits at a 50/50 State and Federal cost share. This is after the 26 weeks of State and 13/13 weeks of Federal benefits, where we matched the States.

Additional Federal funds have been given to States to provide for unemployment benefits in any way they wish. They are done under the Reid Act. In March 2002, Congress allocated $8 billion to States under the Reid Act. States have the flexibility to use this money to pay for an additional unemployment benefit if they choose to do so. At this time States still have $6 billion of unused funds under the Reid Act. Congress also provided, as I said

before, targeted additional benefits to airline and related industry sectors.

So I think it is very, very misleading to make it sound like this is the first time we have thought of people who are unemployed. We have kept very close watch over these folks, because we feel their pain and we want to make sure they are provided with the help they need to go out and get jobs.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from the high- unemployment State of Connecticut (Mr. Shays).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the very valued member of the House of Representatives, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Quinn).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson), from one of those high unemployment States.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I would like to do a comparison between the bill that we are talking

about on the floor tonight and the bill that the Democrats have often brought up as being a better bill.

The Democrat plan is not targeted. It guarantees 26 weeks of benefits, regardless of local economic conditions in a State. Our bill is targeted. It provides immediately 13 weeks of Federal assistance to those who need it now, and it targets additional benefits to States that have high unemployment rates.

The Democrat plan is too long in duration. That plan would extend the program through October, 2004. We might be out of this recession by October of 2004. Our goal is to create jobs. We are enacting tax relief for all Americans that will give our economy an immediate boost and create new jobs.

Our bill continues the unemployment benefits through December, 2003, with a phase-out through March, 2004. That means Congress can come back, as we have consistently done in the past, and review the economic conditions at that time and decide if we need to extend unemployment benefits.

Also, in the growth bill, in addition to these unemployment extension benefits, we will provide $20 billion of Federal assistance to States in the jobs and growth package. This is a good solid unemployment package. It should pass.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to control the time of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, let me assure the House that on the Democratic side of the aisle, we are pleased that we have legislation before us that extends the Federal unemployment compensation for an additional 7 months. We think that is the right way to move. However, we are extremely disappointed that the legislation does not include any additional help for those who have already exhausted their unemployment insurance benefits.

We are very disappointed that over a million people who currently are unemployed, who cannot find employment, will not be able to get any benefits under this legislation. Few States will be able to go beyond the 13 weeks of additional Federal unemployment insurance benefits because of the trigger mechanism. We believe that the legislation before us should include 26 weeks of unemployment insurance benefits for all those workers who exhaust their State unemployment insurance funds.

Let me point out that in prior recessions we have done exactly that. The gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Dunn) points out what we have done, but it falls far short of what we did in the recession in the early 1990s. Despite the fact that this recession is much deeper than the prior recession, we have lost 2.7 million jobs, twice as many jobs as in the early 1990s, and 70 percent more people have exhausted their unemployment insurance benefits in this recession than in the recession in the early 1990s. In the early 1990s, we extended benefits for 27 months. Yet in

this recession, we have only extended benefits for 15 months. In the prior recession, we extended Federal unemployment benefits initially for 26 weeks, then reduced it to 20 weeks; yet the legislation before us maintains only 13 weeks of benefits for those who are unemployed.

We have accumulated $21 billion in the Federal unemployment trust funds just for this purpose. The legislation before us is scored at about $6.5 billion. If we would extend the benefits to all of those who have exhausted benefits and provide 26 weeks of Federal unemployment insurance, it would cost perhaps another $3.5 billion, so $10 billion, about half the money that is in the fund exactly for this purpose.

Lastly, let me point out that providing unemployment insurance benefits for those who are unemployed and cannot find employment through no fault of their own would be the best way to stimulate our economy. A little later this evening we will be talking about a tax bill, supposedly to create jobs. If we really want to help our economy, let us give the money to those people who have to spend it because they have no other source of income.

The rule before us denies the opportunity of Members to offer amendments. That is regrettable. We should have had that opportunity. Speaking for my side of the aisle, the Democrats will use every opportunity we can to try to correct this legislation to deal with the 1 million people who are being left out by the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I would point out to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English) that under the bill, 78,000 people from Pennsylvania will be denied any additional benefits.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, let me just point out to my friend from Illinois that 53,000 of his constituents will

not be able to get benefits because of being excluded from this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis).

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones), a distinguished member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

(Mrs. JONES of Ohio asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, let me point out to my friend from New Jersey that 51,000 people in his State are not going to get benefits because of leaving out the extra weeks.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott), a distinguished member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Let me just point out to my friend from Oregon that the Bush Administration has the worst job record of any administration since World War II, losing 69,000 jobs, whereas the Clinton Administration has the best, creating over half a million jobs.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), Democratic whip.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, let me tell my friend from California that if he checks with the Department of Labor he will find that 150,000 people in his State are not going to be covered under this bill who are unemployed.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, let me say to my friend from Connecticut that the suggestion we are making to cover those who are unemployed costs less than 1 percent of the tax bill we are taking up later.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bell).

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Michaud).

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Corrine Brown).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, we would give the gentleman a chance to help the 103,000 people who are currently not covered by the bill in New York.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Emanuel).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, as I said at the beginning of this debate, we welcome the opportunity of having an unemployment compensation bill on the floor. It is important that we enact legislation tonight that will help those people who are unemployed.

I can assure Members the Democrats want to join in that effort. We will offer an opportunity under the Rules so we can extend those benefits to all the people that are being trapped that are entitled to unemployment through their employment paying into the fund, so we do not leave 1 million people behind.

We would urge Members to support our motion, which will allow the 7- month extension for those who have exhausted the State benefits and also include those who have exhausted their 13 weeks.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Yes, in its present form, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated during the debate on the bill, the bill before us does extend unemployment insurance benefits for 7 months. I agree with the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Dunn) that a 7-month extension of the unemployment insurance benefits at this time is the appropriate length of time for us to extend unemployment insurance benefits.

We hope that during this period of time our economy will rebound; and if not, then we will have to revisit it again, but the length of time is the right period, and we have no objection to that.

Our objection is that we are not covering all the people who need to be helped. As I pointed out, in the recession in the 1990s when the loss of employment was less severe than the loss of employment in this recession, with the number of people who exhausted their Federal unemployment insurance benefits was less than under the current recession, we extended benefits for 26 weeks. We have the money in the unemployment insurance trust fund in order to do this. We have the money in the account, $21 billion. This will add a little over $3 billion.

Mr. Speaker, the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means just filed the conference report on the Growth Tax Bill that I assume we will be taking up later this evening. That conference report will incur $350 billion of additional outlays. The amendment I have before you is less than 1 percent, less than 1 percent of the conference report on the tax bill. It affects 1 million people; 1 million people are affected by this motion. The adoption of this motion to recommit will not delay this bill 1 minute. We will still vote on it and pass it tonight. It is our opportunity to speak to what is the right policy, the right policy for those people who are unemployed; the right policy for what we have done in previous recessions; the right policy to help our economy, because we know these people need the money and will spend the money.

It is the right policy. I urge my colleagues to take advantage of this opportunity so that we cannot only take care of the 2 million people who are estimated to exhaust their State unemployment insurance benefits during the next 6 to 7 months, but we can help the 1 million people who are looking for jobs and cannot find jobs.

We have heard from these people in our communities. For every three people that are seeking a job, there is only one job available in the community, through no fault of their own. The least we can do is try to help them, and we can tonight by your vote on this motion to recommit. I urge my colleagues to support the motion.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule. Once again, the Republican leadership is turning its back on working Americans. Last night, President Bush told over 7,500 wealthy Republican donors that this is a strong and compassionate country.

Mr. Speaker, this economy is anything but strong, and this leadership is anything but compassionate. I am sure the people in that crowd, the crowd that raised $22 million for the Republican Party, cheered and clapped their hands every time somebody mentioned the Republican tax bill, or, as some have called it, the ``No Millionaire Left Behind Bill.'' But what about the rest of the country? What about the people struggling to find work? They do not have as much to cheer about.

Let us look at the facts: over 2.7 million jobs have been lost since President Bush took office in 2001; long-term unemployment is at a 30- year high; the average length of unemployment is the highest since 1984; the economy has lost 500,000 jobs in the last 3 months; there are currently three unemployed workers competing for every available job.

Mr. Speaker, people are out of work, and they need help. The Republican leadership's solution is to be dragged, kicking and screaming, into doing the absolute minimum. Their proposal will continue to leave over 1 million unemployed workers in the cold.

We have seen this rerun before. The Republican leadership voluntarily let unemployment insurance expire last December, forcing millions of Americans to worry about how they would provide for their families during and after the holidays. Two weeks later they proposed a plan that denied 1 million people unemployment insurance.

That is compassionate? These unemployed Americans are not deadbeats. They are our neighbors, friends, and relatives. They do not want a handout, they want a job, but they need help while they search for a job.

It is well established that unemployment insurance provides a better stimulus than dividend tax cuts. In fact, we will see a $1.73 return for every dollar invested in unemployed Americans. As an investment tool, expanding unemployment insurance is good policy, but it is also the morally right thing to do. Unemployment insurance is a safety net for American workers who lose their jobs through no fault of their own, and we have a moral responsibility to not let these workers down.

Now, before this current economic crisis, no Congress had ever extended unemployment insurance without including workers who already exhausted their Federal unemployment. But for the second time this year, the Republican leadership lets these workers down by cutting out the unemployed who have already exhausted their coverage.

This leadership should be ashamed of themselves for this disingenuous and insufficient bill. But they are not.

The unemployed deserve better until the job market improves, and the ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means has a bill to do just that. His bill would provide unemployment insurance for workers who are currently unemployed and are exhausting their coverage, and I support that plan.

But the Republican leadership has once again tossed aside the democratic process by denying the House the right to debate and vote on the proposed substitute offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel). At the end of this debate, I will move the previous question; and if defeated, I will offer an amendment to make the Rangel substitute in order.

The only reason I can think of to deny the Rangel substitute is that the

Republican leadership is terrified that it might actually pass. It is the same reason we were not allowed to vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cooper) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen) on worker rights at the Pentagon.

Instead of fostering the free and open debate that the American people deserve on these issues, we are once again forced into this unfair, closed procedure. In the long run the democratic process will suffer, but today it is the unemployed workers of America who are hurt by the actions of this leadership.

I urge my colleagues to join me in defeating the previous question, and, if that effort fails, voting ``no'' on the rule.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I remind the gentleman that his proposal still leaves 1 million American workers out in the cold.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, again I remind those watching that under their bill, 1 million American workers will be left in the cold with no benefits.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).

(Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I would say to the gentleman that what we want is help for unemployed workers, and your plan leaves a million workers out in the cold, and that is not the least bit compassionate.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I would just respond that under this limited bill over 150,000 workers in California will be left out in the cold and close to 60,000 workers in Florida will not get their benefits.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), our ranking member on the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire if the gentleman has any further speakers, because I am the final speaker on my side.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I will be calling for a vote on the previous question. And if the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the rule. My amendment will make in order the Rangel substitute amendment which is identical to the text of H.R. 1652, the Unemployment Benefits Extension Act.

H.R. 1652 will extend Federal unemployment benefits by 26 weeks and will also give an additional 13 weeks to those unemployed workers whose benefits have been exhausted. The Republican bill only extends benefits by 13 weeks and does nothing for workers whose benefits have run out.

Mr. Speaker, unemployment rates continue to rise. They increased to 6 percent in April, the third month in a row that the economy has lost jobs. For every one available job, there are three Americans looking for work.

Out-of-work Americans need relief, and they need it immediately. Current Federal unemployment benefits run out at the end of this month, less than 2 weeks away. Without an extension, 2.1 million Americans will lose their unemployment benefits. Since the current recession began in 2001, 2.7 million jobs have disappeared in this country. In the last 3 months alone over half a million private sector jobs have vanished. The number of unemployed people is at the highest point in a decade; and, sadly, there is no indication that the economic situation in our Nation will provide relief anytime soon.

Republicans in the House have voted against extending these critical benefits four times in the last 2 weeks, and I am glad they are finally bringing up this legislation today. But I am very disappointed that they will not let the House vote on the Rangel substitute, which will bring relief to far more people in need.

Under the Republican bill, 1 million people will be left behind, and that is unconscionable. Why will they not let us bring the Rangel substitute up? What are they afraid of? We are just about to pass a massive tax bill later today. If we took a tiny percentage of the money from that bill, we could help millions of unemployed American workers go through this very difficult time. But, no, we are going to instead give massive tax cuts to the very richest in this country.

Let me make very clear that a ``no'' vote on the previous question will not stop the consideration of the legislation to extend Federal unemployment benefits, but a ``no'' vote will allow this House to vote on the Rangel substitute, which will provide more benefits to more unemployed Americans. However, a ``yes'' vote on the previous question will prevent the House voting on a more generous and more far-reaching extension of Federal unemployment benefits to our unemployed workers. I would urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question.

This is an important issue. We should have an open debate. We should be able to consider and vote up or down on the Rangel substitute. The fact that we are being denied that opportunity is wrong, it is unconscionable, and I would urge my colleagues again to vote ``no'' on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the amendment and a description of the amendment be printed in the Record immediately before the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. President, the Senate is considering legislation to raise the statutory debt limit by $1 trillion.

This increase is the largest in the history of the Republic-- surpassing by a whopping $100 billion the record that was set by the first President Bush in 1990. What's more, it would be the second increase in the debt ceiling since this President took office in January 2001.

The Treasury Secretary recently wrote to the Congress stating that the current statutory debt ceiling would only be adequate to ensure the operations of Government through the end of May. The administration has tried to excuse the need to raise the level of borrowing authority. Among its scapegoats, the administration blames economic weakness. It blames the September 11 attacks. It blames the corporate accounting scandals of last summer.

That scapegoating may help this administration to explain how it lost $5.6 trillion of budget surpluses in less than 2 years, but it doesn't explain why they need to increase the national debt by an additional $1 trillion. It doesn't explain why this administration is pushing for new tax cuts when we don't even have the money to pay for tax cuts that have already been enacted into law.

To quote President Ronald Reagan, ``the American people deserve a President who has the courage to give answers instead of mak[ing] excuses.''

So far, only $202 billion of the $1.35 trillion tax cut package signed into law in 2001 has gone into effect. That means $1.15 trillion in tax cuts are set to phase in over the next 8 years. In addition, the President is pushing for $1.5 trillion in new tax cuts. That is a total of $2.65 trillion in tax cuts that would have to be paid for in the coming years under the President's policies.

But there is no money to pay for them. The cupboard is bare. The vault is empty. There is nothing left under the mattress. The moths are flying out of the wallet of the U.S. Government.

The Congressional Budget Office reported a $248 billion deficit for the first 6 months of the current fiscal year. That deficit is expected to increase to nearly $400 billion before the end of the fiscal year. That is $400 billion--$110 billion higher than the record set in 1992 during the first Bush administration.

We will have to borrow the money not only to pay for new tax cuts, but to pay 85 percent of the tax cuts already enacted into law and scheduled to become effective in the coming years.

That is why the administration is pushing the Congress to increase the statutory debt limit by $1 trillion--so that we can borrow the money to pay for these tax cuts.

The ship is sinking and this administration is drilling more holes in the bottom of the boat. Administration officials are already beginning to jump ship. Paul O'Neill left the Treasury Department last December, along with the President's economic adviser, Larry Lindsey. White House economist Glenn Hubbard left last February. And now Mitch Daniels is fleeing the budgetary quagmire he helped to create.

The Republican-passed budget, which assumes the President's budget proposals are enacted into law, estimates that the statutory debt limit will increase from its current level of $6.4 trillion to $12 trillion by 2013. This legislation to increase the debt ceiling by $1 trillion is just the beginning of an administration effort currently underway to double the size of the national debt by $6 trillion in just 10 years.

And that rise in the debt limit does not include the total costs of the war in Iraq. It does not include necessary investments that must be made to protect the Nation from terrorists. Nor does it include an adequate prescription drug benefit, or a host of other urgent investments that need to be made in education, health care, veterans services, and other essential infrastructure.

Most alarmingly, that debt limit increase does not include the costs of providing for the soon-to-be-retiring baby boomers, and the resulting financial pressures on the Social Security Program.

According to the latest Social Security Trustees Report, Social Security trust fund expenditures will exceed revenues beginning in 2018, when there will be an estimated 65 million Social Security beneficiaries. The President's budget said ``These high and perpetual deficits make it obvious that Social Security and Medicare are in deep trouble.'' Yet there is nothing in the President's budget or the Republican-passed budget resolution that sets aside a single dime to deal with the impending Social Security funding crisis.

When this President took office, he told the American people that every dollar of the Social Security surplus would be saved. But taking into account the President's proposed $1.5 trillion in new tax cuts, we will not only spend every dollar of the $2.2 trillion Social Security surplus through 2011, but we also will have to borrow more than $1.7 trillion to cover the President's spending and tax cut proposals.

It took the entire history of the Nation to accumulate $5.6 trillion in debt by fiscal year 2001. Under the President's budget proposals, as incorporated in the fiscal year 2004 budget resolution, this debt would grow by over 100 percent in just 10 years. The United States fought World War II, the Korean war, and the Vietnam war, and even then our national debt grew only by $865 billion, from $43 billion in 1940 to $908 billion in 1980. Under President Bush's budget proposals, it will grow by almost seven times that amount in just 10 years.

A national debt of that size amounts to $41,370.54 for every man, woman, and child in this country. That is more money than is annually earned by over half of the households in this Nation. That is enough money to put a down payment on half a dozen houses in West Virginia, to pay for a 4-year college education at West Virginia University, with money left over, or to pay eight times over for the annual health care insurance of a family of four.

Like a carney at a circus sideshow, the Bush administration is asking the American people to step up to a barrel, and slap down $41,340 to win a $1,083 tax cut prize. The American people are being lured into the tent by big promises and folksy talking. In his January 28 State of the Union address, the President said, ``We will not pass on our problems to other Congresses, other Presidents, and other generations.''

What will happen when the carney pulls back the curtain and the American people realize that they have been swindled? We hear much rhetoric about providing the American people with tax relief. Yet nothing is said about debt relief for the American public, which will be borne by generations to come long after the tax refund checks have been cashed.

So when the administration tells the American people that this debt increase was brought on by factors beyond its control, the American public should also realize that the administration, with eyes wide open, has chosen to strap this crushing debt burden to their backs. No matter how fair and equitable this administration claims its tax cut proposals to be, the tax refund checks will do nothing to save Social Security, and to cover the costs of the debt burden that American families will be paying for decades to come.