TEUC and EB Amendments Act of 2003
Legislative Activity
Stay on top of the latest movement without scrolling through every action
Referred to the Subcommittee on Human Resources.
December 1, 2003
View full timeline
Introduced in House
November 20, 2003
Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.
November 20, 2003
Referred to the Subcommittee on Human Resources.
December 1, 2003
Floor Debate
18 membersWhat members said about H.R. 3554 on the floor
LMS
MF
SJLJM
JPM+13
Floor Debate
18 membersWhat members said about H.R. 3554 on the floor
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.) Mr. Speaker, Christmas has come early for President Bush and…
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)
Mr. Speaker, Christmas has come early for President Bush and his high-dollar friends, but for millions of American families, it looks like the Grinch will be stealing Christmas. The media has widely reported that the President won victory after victory in negotiations over the details of this omnibus appropriations bill. But any Presidential victory comes at a very high cost.
America's working families and those struggling to stay afloat in the swift currents of unemployment will be stuck with the tab. The unemployment rate was essentially unchanged from October to November and almost 9 million Americans still cannot find work, including 6.2 percent of the New Yorkers who were unemployed.
Across the Nation, the number of Americans filing for the first time for unemployment benefits is up. New claims for unemployment have risen in 47 States and territories. One economist described last Friday's unemployment report as ``getting just the Christmas present you want but two sizes too small.'' The President assured the country that his massive tax cuts would create 300,000 jobs a month. But unfortunately for the millions of men and women looking for work, only 57,000 new jobs were created in November. That is the ``two sizes too small.'' The real effects of the administration's tax giveaways were more money to the wealthiest and a staggering Federal deficit.
Only a few days before the Christmas holiday and the beginning of a new year, unemployment benefits for thousands and thousands of Americans will run out. After December 20, thousands more will no longer be eligible for an extension of benefits. Today is our last opportunity before that happens to extend the unemployment benefits, to throw a small life preserver to those still caught in the swift currents of steady unemployment flowing through our murky economy.
Just this morning in the Committee on Rules hearing, the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations agreed that unemployment benefits should be extended. We are spending $87 billion on Iraq, $150 billion this year, and we should be able to extend the unemployment benefits, especially considering that there is a surplus of unemployment funds.
We need to fight with all our might to protect American jobs, particularly the manufacturing jobs. Since January 2001, the United States has lost 2.4 million manufacturing jobs. We should be exporting American products, not our jobs. The Manufacturing Extension Partnership, MEP, is a nationwide network of centers devoted to providing small and medium size manufacturers with assistance, information, and access to business experts. We should be promoting this program, but instead this bill slashes the budget by 63 percent. It is absurd that we are considering cutting this valuable program while thousands of manufacturing jobs are lost every day. MEP has proven its value in boosting productivity in sales and employment. Slashing this program will cost small manufacturers almost $2 billion in sales and cost 28,000 workers their employment.
Despite the strong opposition of both elected bodies of Congress, President Bush was successful in killing legislative protections against limitations on overtime pay. Relaxing the overtime pay rules makes it easier for companies to force workers to put in more than 40 hours a week without additional pay. And under the broad rules proposed by this administration, many nurses will be ineligible for overtime pay, and even manual laborers would be classified as executives, which would end their eligibility for overtime pay.
These new regulations could make at least 8 million workers ineligible for the overtime, the money with which many pay their bills and take care of their families. Millions of them rely on that just to scrape by each month. And protecting the worker's right to overtime pay is such an important issue that people from across my district are asking me to oppose this entire bill because it does not include overtime pay protection.
I need to add that the overtime pay protection passed handsomely both Houses of Congress, and we instructed our conferees to keep it in the bill; but mysteriously it disappeared. A man from Tonawanda said last week to us no worker should lose his overtime pay since it is essential to their lives.
This massive bill is yet another example of the disturbing disregard for
women's health. The President's authority to enforce his global gag rule remains unchallenged. Under the Mexico City Policy, the United States Government uses family-planning dollars to impose itself between women and their doctors. The U.S. muzzles health care workers. Clinics are prohibited from mentioning or counseling women about abortion. Doctors and nurses are forced to forfeit the right to provide complete, accurate medical information and advice to their patients.
Mr. Speaker, for the first time in half a century, the Republican Party controls both Houses of Congress and the executive, despite an authoritarian leadership style, inefficiency, and squabbling have produced a job that is less than half complete. The current fiscal year began over 2 months ago, and only three of the 13 measures that pay for functioning of the Federal Government were law by October 1 of fiscal year 2004. And right now only 6 of the 13 bills are law.
With this special rule, we will end the first session of the 108th Congress in a single day of hurried legislative activity.
Rather than wisely investing the body's time in deliberating the details of each of the seven remaining bills, we will spend 1 hour debating the merits of this massive conglomerate report. When substantive debate among Members is silenced, the millions of Americans that we represent are silenced and disenfranchised. Particularly, that is what happens, when one party of the House is excluded from all deliberations. This is not an attribute of a deliberative democracy.
Mr. Speaker, I hope that during the coming second session that comity and genuine bipartisan collaboration will replace arm-twisting and exclusion. I hope that character, decency, virtue, and respect are more than words on a page. I hope that we all will embrace the right of all Members elected here to fully participate in a truly deliberative process and of all the people to be fully represented in their national legislature. A natural result of the decline of deliberative democracy is the decline in the quality of our laws and the decline of public support for them and the decline of the standard of living in the United States. I urge my colleagues to vote against the previous question.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley).
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\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 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel).
(Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).
(Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)
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, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Washington State (Mr. McDermott).
(Mr. McDermott asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
We are about to adjourn sine die and close the first session of the 108th Congress with no more legislative business until January 20th of next year. And just like last year at this time, we are again callously turning our backs on millions of unemployed Americans whose Federal unemployment benefits are set to expire shortly after Christmas.
It is very interesting how the Republican leadership can find billions of dollars to make their rich friends even richer, but cannot find it in their hearts to help jobless workers through this rough time with money that is already there for them. They can find $87 billion to fund the war in Iraq, but nothing for those here without jobs.
Mr. Speaker, I am going to call for a ``no'' vote to defeat the previous question on this rule so we can try to do something to help the unemployed American workers. If the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment so we can immediately take up legislation to extend the expiring Federal unemployment benefits. And I want to state again: the money is there. It does not have to be borrowed. It has been paid in. It simply requires Federal action to allow the States to expend it.
Mr. Speaker, this legislation will continue the extended unemployment benefits program for the first 6 months of next year. The bill would also increase to 26 weeks the amount of benefits provided under that program, which is up from 13 weeks. This would provide new help to the 1.4 million workers who have already exhausted
their extended benefits and have yet to find work.
This measure is identical to the text of H.R. 3244, the Rangel-Cardin unemployment extension, and also contains the text of H.R. 3554, authored by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott), which would fix a flaw in the current law that prevents those States with exceptionally high long-term unemployment rates from continuing to receive extra benefits.
There is so much talk today about our economy and claims that things are looking good. However, new jobs are not forthcoming at this time and do not appear to be coming anytime soon. Americans continue to be unemployed at alarmingly high rates. The percentage of Americans exhausting their unemployment benefits without finding a job has reached the highest level on record. More than 2 million workers have been unemployed for more than 6 months. Jobs are disappearing every day with no relief in sight. These Americans need relief, and they need it immediately.
If we do not fix this today, over 400,000 jobless Americans will not be eligible for unemployment compensation after the first of the year. More than 2 million more will lose the benefits in the first 6 months of next year. And, Mr. Speaker, the House will probably adjourn sine die today or later this week, so this is the only opportunity we have to help unemployed Americans this year. Let us not abandon them today.
I want to emphasize that voting against the previous question will not stop the omnibus appropriations conference report from coming to the floor today.
Voting ``no'' on the previous question will still allow that bill to be considered. But a ``no'' vote will allow the House to vote on legislation that will help our Nation's unemployed workers.
However, a ``yes'' vote on the previous question you will stop any opportunity for this House to extend desperately needed unemployment assistance to hundreds of thousands of our constituents and their families. Do you really want to go home and tell these people that you failed to do your job and failed to help them in their time of need?
Make no mistake, this vote will give the House the opportunity to vote today to extend Federal unemployment benefits and to give relief to those hardest hit by our Nation's grim employment situation. I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the amendment be printed in the Record immediately before the vote on the previous question.
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. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. FROST asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. Speaker, for months the Republicans who control the Federal…
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. FROST asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. Speaker, for months the Republicans who control the Federal Government have held hostage some of the foremost priorities of the American people. Key national needs like education, veterans' health care, law enforcement have all been relegated to the back burner while Republican leaders fought amongst themselves over how best to privatize Medicare and reward big drug companies.
But today, my Republican friends undoubtedly will come down to the floor and proclaim that this giant $820 billion spending bill finishes their work for the year. In response, millions of Americans still struggling through the aftermath of the last Republican recession will respond ``What about us?''
It is a fair question, Mr. Speaker. What about the 2.4 million American jobs that have been lost since the Republican Party first took over the government 3 years ago? What about the 90,000 Americans who will lose their unemployment insurance eligibility just 3 days after Christmas or the 2.1 million unemployed workers who will lose access to extended insurance over the first 6 months of next year?
In my home State of Texas, over 130,000 people will lose unemployment insurance if this Republican Congress does not act to help them, according to the Joint Economic Committee's analysis of the data from the Labor Department. Republican leaders often try to spin away statistics like this, but the truth is the Bush Presidency has seen this Nation suffer through the longest job slump since the Great Depression, and the picture is still grim for millions of Americans trying to find good jobs to support their families.
While the number of jobs in America has shrunk by 2.4 million, the working-age population in America has grown by 4.5 million. As a result, America's ``jobs deficit'' has shot up to 6.9 million on the Republican watch. That has put American workers in a huge hole and left three unemployed workers for every one job that becomes available.
Despite these facts, Mr. Speaker, Republican leaders are, once again, planning to adjourn for the holidays without extending unemployment insurance, just like they did last year. Mr. Speaker, there is no reason to treat the American people with such callousness. It would be only fair to provide them with the help that they need before Congress goes home for the holidays. Even the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, supports doing it, as he said this morning in the Committee on Rules. After all, the Republican Congress has already done huge favors for their biggest supporters. Over the last 3 years, they have squandered trillions of dollars on tax breaks for the wealthiest few, driving the national deficit above $500 billion on an annual basis and raising the debt tax on all Americans. And today, President Bush will sign the Republican ``wither-on-the-vine'' Medicare bill. This monstrosity spends billions to subsidize HMOs and drug companies, but it actually reduces seniors' choices and it makes it illegal for them to reduce the huge out-of- pocket cost that the Republican bill does not cover. It will not let retirees cover these drug costs with the employer-provided drug coverage that they already have, even though the Republican bill may only cover selected medicines, regardless of what their doctor says they need. And it will not let seniors buy Medigap policies to cover their $3,600 in out-of-pocket expenses either.
Mr. Speaker, that is an outrage, and it comes on top of a $12 billion slush fund for HMOs and $139 billion in windfall profits for big drug companies. So why, Mr. Speaker, will Republicans not spend just a tiny fraction of that to help Americans still suffering from the latest Republican recession? Why will they not use their legislation on the floor today, an $820 billion collection of several different spending bills, to provide desperately-needed relief over the holidays to Americans who still cannot find a job?
After all, the omnibus spending bill provides plenty of assistance to others. For the big drug companies, Republican leaders have dropped drug reimportation language passed by the House and Senate, meaning that drug prices will still be astronomically higher for America's seniors than for people in other countries.
For some of the Bush administration's biggest corporate backers, Republicans have dropped overtime protection for workers, meaning that millions of Americans will get paid less, even as they are forced to work more. And they are spending $13 million on vouchers to subsidize private schools for a few, taking desperately needed resources from the public schools that serve all American children.
Despite all this, Mr. Speaker, there are still many worthwhile parts to this massive spending bill. For instance, Democrats and veterans groups have finally forced Republicans to increase funding for veterans medical care that would still fall short of what they need. And to help communities protect children against abduction, this bill includes $24 million for the national Amber Alert Program that I first introduced earlier this year. It also includes vital resources to address important transportation issues in north Texas.
So why can this Republican Congress not do just one more good deed before the holidays? Mr. Speaker, why not help the 1.4 million workers who cannot find work, who have already exhausted their extended benefits and have yet to find work?
Republican leaders may not care about helping them, but that does not have to stop this Congress from doing the right thing. If Republican Members will join Democrats in opposing the important parliamentary vote known as the previous question, then we can amend the rule and pass commonsense assistance for Americans still unable to find work in this jobless recovery. Otherwise, while Republicans are enjoying their vacations, hundreds of thousands of jobless Americans will spend the holidays preparing to lose the unemployment insurance they need to support their families.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).
(Mr. INSLEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin).
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, this is probably the House's final work day this year, but Republican leaders are, once again, callously turning their backs on the millions of unemployed Americans whose Federal unemployment insurance will expire just days after Christmas. The Republican leadership has found billions of dollars to extend tax breaks for corporations, but they keep refusing to help the jobless Americans who are still suffering from the last Republican recession.
To give Republicans one last chance to do the right thing, I will oppose the previous question on this rule so that we can immediately take up legislation to extend the expiring Federal unemployment benefits.
This commonsense legislation would continue the extended unemployment benefits program through the first 6 months of next year. It would increase to 26 weeks the amounts of benefits provided under the program, up from 13 weeks. It would provide new help to the 1.4 million workers who have already exhausted their extended benefits and have yet to find work.
Mr. Speaker, this legislation is identical to the text of H.R. 3244, the Rangel-Cardin unemployment extension, and it also contains the text of H.R. 3554 by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott) which would fix a flaw in the current law that prevents those States with exceptionally high, long-term unemployment rates from continuing to receive the help their citizens need.
Mr. Speaker, Americans still face a difficult jobs market. Since President Bush took office, the economy has lost 2.4 million jobs. That is the worst jobs record for a President since Herbert Hoover and the Great Depression. The percentage of Americans exhausting their unemployment benefits without finding a job has reached its highest level on record. These Americans need relief and they need it immediately. If we do not extend unemployment benefits, then more than 2 million workers will lose benefits in the first 6 months of next year, including over 130,000 in my State of Texas alone.
I want to stress that this vote is not intended to stop the omnibus conference report from consideration in the House. Voting ``no'' on the previous question will still allow that bill to move forward today. But a ``no'' vote will allow the House to vote on legislation to help provide some much-needed relief to our Nation's unemployed workers, particularly during this holiday season. However, if Members vote ``yes'' on the previous question, they will kill any chance for extending unemployment assistance that is so desperately needed by millions of our constituents and their families.
Let us be clear. This vote will give the House the opportunity to vote today on extended Federal unemployment benefits and on giving relief to those hardest hit to the President's dismal economic record. I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text 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. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. FROST asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. Speaker, marshal law rules like this one are symptomatic of…
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. FROST asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. Speaker, marshal law rules like this one are symptomatic of the failure of this Republican government. Republicans are doing such harm to America, from Medicare and the economy to foreign policy and homeland security, that keeping the public in the dark has become their chief priority.
So today, Republican leaders are yet again waiving the rules of the House. Later today they plan to do it in order to force through their plan to end Medicare as we know it, which is how the chief author of the Republican Medicare bill describes their goal.
But first, Republican leaders want to pass this marshal law rule so that they can rush through a spending bill before Members, the press, and the public have had the chance to find out what is really in it.
Mr. Speaker, they will not even tell us which spending bill they plan to hide from us today. All we know is that it will either spend tens of billions of dollars in taxpayer money, or that it will spend hundreds of billions of dollars in taxpayer money. Either way, it will become law before it has even been read by anyone except for a handful of Republicans at the White House and in the Congress. But since these are the same Republicans who have exploded the budget deficit to nearly $500 billion, raising the debt tax on all Americans, no one has much faith in them anymore.
Mr. Speaker, after nearly a decade of controlling the Congress, the Republican Party's fundamental goal is simply protecting its own power by hiding from the public the damage they are doing to America. Of course, if you look at the Republican record, you can understand why they are so desperate to keep it hidden. In the nearly 3 years since George Bush became President, Republicans have created a whole host of problems for the American people.
On national security, the Bush administration has plunged this Nation into its worst foreign policy crisis since the end of the cold war because they would not trust the American people with the truth about Iraq and because they could not work with our allies around the world. And while U.S. taxpayers are spending hundreds of billions of dollars on Iraq, our homeland defense needs here in the United States remain dangerously unmet.
On domestic policy, of course, Republicans are going for the right wing gold. Later today they will try to finalize Newt Gingrich's dream of forcing Medicare to wither on the vine, shattering Medicare's nearly 40-year-old promise to American citizens. That debate, Mr. Speaker, will be a case study in the public dishonesty that is fundamental to the Republican government.
Over and over again, Republicans will repeat their poll-tested sound bytes. They will save Medicare reform and hope that millions of seniors do not notice the Republicans are forcing them out of traditional Medicare and into HMOs and insurance companies. They will talk about choice and ignore the fact that millions of seniors will lose the ability to choose their own doctors. And they will decry skyrocketing prescription prices and hope no one notices that they are actually protecting drug company profits by making it illegal for Medicare to negotiate lower prices for senior citizens.
Mr. Speaker, Republicans will wax poetic about the generosity of their drug benefit, hiding the fact that premiums and benefits will actually be set by HMOs and insurance companies; and that even under the Republicans rosiest scenario, seniors with average drug bills will still have to pay about $2,500 per year out of their own pockets. Of course, Republicans will not say a thing about the $12 billion slush funds they are setting up for HMOs or insurance companies or the $139 billion in windfall profits they are giving to the big drug companies.
Mr. Speaker, no wonder the Republican Medicare bill does not take effect until after the election. Republican political strategists are desperately hoping that seniors do not discover this truth about this assault on Medicare before they go to the polls in 2004. But
make no mistake, when seniors sit down at their kitchen tables to pay their bills, they are going to do the math, and they are going to see that Republicans have sold them a very expensive and very harmful bill of goods.
Mr. Speaker, the false promise of the Republican Medicare plan will remind a lot of Americans of the false promise of the Republican economic plan. In less than 3 years, the Republicans have taken a historic budget surplus and turned it into a monumental deficit. They have done it through reckless fiscal irresponsibility and through an obsession with spending billions of taxpayer dollars for a small elite of the wealthiest few, people like the Bush campaign fund-raising Pioneers.
As a result, instead of using the budget surplus to help address priorities like skyrocketing prescription prices and strengthening Social Security and Medicare, Republicans have created a fiscal crisis and raised the debt tax on all Americans.
Along the way, nearly 3 million jobs have been lost, giving George W. Bush the worst job performance of any President since The Great Depression. Millions of families no longer share in the prosperity of the nineties. Of course, you would never know the facts if you just listened to Republican rhetoric. But talking points cannot cancel out the truth. And the truth is, Mr. Speaker, that Americans continue to be unemployed at alarmingly high rates. More than 2 million workers have been unable to find a job in this economy for more than 6 months, and many of them will lose their unemployment insurance over the holidays if this Republican Congress does not act this year before we adjourn.
That is why, Mr. Speaker, I intend to oppose the important parliamentary vote known as the previous question. That is the only way to ensure Republicans do not leave town for their own holiday vacations without providing unemployed Americans with the help they so desperately need.
Mr. Speaker, Americans are smarter than Republican leaders give them credit for. They know the difference between rhetoric and reality. So I urge my Republican friends to look past their leader's rhetoric and join me in providing real help to Americans suffering through this economy.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin).
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 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. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks, and include extraneous material.)
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley).
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark).
(Mr. Stark asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).
Mr. Speaker, how much time remains?
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, if the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the rule. My amendment will provide that immediately after the House passes this resolution, it will take up legislation to extend the Federal unemployment insurance that is set to expire for new enrollees just 2 days after Christmas.
This legislation would continue the extended unemployment insurance program through the first 6 months of next year. The bill would also increase to 26 weeks the amount of benefits provided under that program, up from 13 weeks. This would provide new help to the 1.4 million workers who have already exhausted their extended benefits and have yet to find work.
This measure is identical to the text of H.R. 3244, the Rangel-Cardin unemployment extension; and it also contains the text of H.R. 3554, sponsored by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott), which would fix a flaw in current law that penalizes people in States with exceptionally high long-term unemployment rates by preventing them from receiving the unemployment benefits they need.
Here is why it is needed, Mr. Speaker. Americans continue to be unemployed at alarmingly high rates. The percentage of Americans exhausting their unemployment benefits without finding a job has reached its highest level on record. More than 2 million workers have been unemployed for more than 6 months. These Americans need relief, and they need it immediately. If we do not fix this today, over 400,000 jobless Americans will not be eligible for unemployment compensation after the first of the year.
Mr. Speaker, it appears likely that Congress will adjourn sine die within the next few days. This will very likely be the only opportunity we have to help unemployed Americans this year. Let us not abandon them today.
Let me make very clear that a ``no'' vote on the previous question will not stop consideration of this resolution for consideration of the appropriations items, but a ``no'' vote will allow the House to vote on legislation to help provide some much-needed relief to our Nation's unemployed workers, some relief that might be nice during the upcoming holiday season.
Again, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text 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, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished ranking member for yielding me time. I wish that we would donate our time and dedicate ourselves to the wishes of the American people. Hubert Humphrey said that…
Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished ranking member for yielding me time.
I wish that we would donate our time and dedicate ourselves to the wishes of the American people.
Hubert Humphrey said that this Constitution was organized to create a more perfect Union, and the challenge of creating a more perfect Union is a continued agitation and criticism, not because we are disloyal to this country and to the American people, but because we care about a more perfect Union.
In the backdrop of a 4-hour vote before we left for the Thanksgiving work recess, I come to the floor of the House now. We have an omnibus appropriations bill that has barely been before the Members of Congress for any kind of review. For 4 hours a vote was left open, in complete disregard for the rules of this House and what the Madison Papers and our Founding Fathers wanted to establish, a Republic and also a democracy.
Today we come with a martial law that allows us on one day to just put on the floor of the House a huge and large and massive interpretation of the appropriations for 2004. And then we have a situation where issues that clearly the American people are against, such as eliminating overtime opportunities for working men and women are sneaked into the appropriations bill, and then where thousands of petitions from around the country were brought to this government about not allowing large media conglomerates to buy up stations to the disregard of the first amendment. And lo and behold, there is a sneak provision in here that allows that to happen.
Then, of course, there is a provision that affects many seniors who were implementing lower-cost drugs by drug reimportation. Clearly those drugs were safe, because seniors have been doing it for a very long time. That has been sneaked into the bill, meaning that we have eliminated that opportunity so that seniors can again suffer. They suffer first with a Medicare bill that is going to implode and not be in business until 2006 and cost thousands of Texans to lose their benefits, and they will suffer.
Then if we talk about international efforts, I was in Ethiopia this past summer, and one of the things they were begging for is, they appreciated the famine relief, but they wanted to be able to be taught to fish. If you teach someone to fish they may not be hungry tomorrow, but if you give them a fish today, they may be hungry tomorrow. It takes very low dollars for what we call food security, teaching them agricultural skills and new technology.
Then, of course, I have been concerned with the Columbia 7 tragedy, that NASA focus its concepts on safety. In all of the NASA budget, I do not know if there is a line item that boosts the resources for making sure that NASA pays attention to safety issues.
We could have done this, Mr. Speaker, if we had deliberated on this appropriations bill. If we did not have the martial law, if we paid attention to the rules of the House, we might be able to do this. But, unfortunately, it seems we cannot.
So I ask my colleagues to vote against this rule so we can get back to work on behalf of the American people.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the rule on H.R. 2673, the Omnibus appropriations Conference report. While the Omnibus includes a significant amount for agriculture appropriations, the omnibus fails to include the House provisions to prohibit the FDA from spending funds to prevent individuals and pharmacists from importing FDA-approved prescription drugs. In addition, this portion of the bill delays for two years the mandatory country-of-origin labeling for all produce, meat or meat products except for farm-raised fish and wild fish.
In addition, the omnibus permanently limits the ability of the FCC to grant licenses for a commercial TV broadcast station if the granting of that license would result in such party having an aggregate national audience reach exceeding 39 percent (the House and Senate bills barred the FCC from increasing the share of the national market one broadcasting company can own, which currently is 35 percent.
The omnibus also includes provisions that prohibit the implementation of a background check system that does not include a requirement to destroy gun purchase records within 24 hours.
I am rather disturbed Mr. Speaker, by the portion appropriating $139.8 billion for the Department of Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and related agencies. While I am pleased that there is money for Texas Southern University, a predominantly black university in my district for their minority engineering program within the college of Science and Technology, I was rather disturbed that the Democratic members were shut out from receiving individual earmarks for their districts because they voted against the bill when it came to the House floor. This not only goes against fundamental fairness Mr. Speaker, but when you penalize individual members by not giving them much needed money for their districts, you hurt their constituents. This is bad for this institution, and bad for the country. The omnibus also falls $7.8 billion short of the No Child Left Behind Authorization levels and provides $55.7 billion for the Education Department ($12.4 billion for the Title I program.
The omnibus fails to include the House and Senate adopted provisions to block the Department of Labor from issuing rules that would take away the rights of some white-collar workers to overtime pay.
The omnibus also fails to include House provisions that would have limited the Administration's ability to outsource some federal jobs and includes only some limitations to programs funded by the Transportation-Treasury bill.
I urge members to vote against this rule.
Mr. Speaker, several times this week the House has used emergency procedures to pass partisan legislation. Yesterday, the Congress found time to give tax credits to Wal-Mart, but the Republican…
Mr. Speaker, several times this week the House has used emergency procedures to pass partisan legislation.
Yesterday, the Congress found time to give tax credits to Wal-Mart, but the Republican majority refuses to consider what is truly an emergency to millions of families, the fact that they do not have jobs, and millions of these workers are about to run out of unemployment insurance.
Last year, the same thing happened. The Republican Congress left town about Christmastime without extending the temporary program that provides employment benefits, leaving hundreds of thousands of unemployed workers to worry over the holidays about whether they were going to get the unemployment benefits that they had been expecting.
We have heard it has been reported that the majority leader said, ``I see no reason to be extending unemployment compensation since every economic indicator is better than in 1993 when the Democrats ended the Federal unemployment program.'' Mr. Speaker, the esteemed majority leader does not know what he is talking about.
Washington State's unemployment is still among the highest in the Nation. It has grown for two solid years as we felt the brunt of the Bush recession. If the Congress does not extend the Federal program that provides unemployment compensation and fix a technical flaw in the Federal-State extended benefits program, over 83,000 workers in my State will stop, at Christmastime, receiving unemployment benefits.
I know the economy created 100,000 jobs last month, but 150,000 jobs must be created each month to maintain the employment rate because our population continues to grow.
Two days after Christmas, the temporary Federal unemployment benefits program is scheduled to expire, denying benefits to nearly 90,000 workers every single week. The unemployment picture today simply is not much better than it was last year, Mr. Speaker.
According to the Department of Labor, there is still only one job opening for every three unemployed workers. In other words, of the 9 million unemployed American workers, 6 million of them have no chance of finding a job in the current economic climate.
I urge my colleagues to vote against the previous question so that Congress can consider an emergency that faces millions of families, the Nation's unemployment problem.
It is Thanksgiving for heaven's sakes, and we are not even going to provide them a turkey at Thanksgiving or at Christmastime. That is really Scrooge, and it is really hard-hearted.
I urge my colleagues to vote against the previous question.
State of Washington,
Employment Security Department,
Olympia, WA, November 13, 2003.
Hon. Jim McDermott,
House of Representatives, Longworth Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman McDermott: This letter is in response to
your request (dated November 7, 2003) for unemployment
projections and data.
Washington State's Seasonally Adjusted Total Unemployment
Rate (SATUR) remained at 7.5 percent for the month of
September, and this percentage is 116 percent of the same
rate two years ago, keeping the State of Washington in a
period of Extended Benefits (EB). The next issuance of the
SATUR numbers is scheduled for November 21, 2003. Our
forecast for October still shows that the State of Washington
will again be above the required 110 percent of the same
period for either of the past two years, and will remain in
EB status for that period as well. Statistics due out on
December 19, 2003 are indicating that the 110 percent
criteria will not be met, and we would thus be out of EB for
weeks after January 10, 2004.
Tables 1 and 2, enclosed, provide SATUR forecasts through
calendar year 2005. As shown, the State of Washington
Forecast Council estimates that the State of Washington's
SATUR will remain above 6.5 percent through 2005.
Table 3 provides a count of claimants exhausting all
benefits, by entitlement, for the first six months of 2003.
Unemployment statistics are very cyclical and we believe the
exhaustion rates for the first six months of 2004 will be
very similar to those of 2003. Claimants exhausting Regular
UI benefits become eligible for the TEUC program and
claimants exhausting TEUC become eligible for the EB program.
If the TEUC program were not continued, we estimate that
close to 54,000 claimants would be without benefits in the
first six months of 2004. Additionally, if the EB program
were to end in January of 2004 due to the ``look-back''
provision, an additional 28,508 claimants exhausting the TEUC
program would be without benefits.
Table 4 provides a summary of total dollars paid out to
claimants by month ad entitlement, for the first six months
of 2003. Similar to exhaustion rates, we believe that payment
totals will be very similar in 2004. We estimate that we
would pay $282 million out under the TEUC program and close
to $83 million under the EB program.
Also enclosed for your information is an additional fact
sheet on current unemployment insurance data.
Please let me know if you have any additional questions, or
if we can be of further assistance.
Sincerely,
Annette M. Copeland,
Assistant Commissioner.
Show 8 more
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this martial law rule. This rule will allow us to consider a seriously flawed omnibus appropriations bill and nothing else. After today, the House will not come…
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this martial law rule. This rule will allow us to consider a seriously flawed omnibus appropriations bill and nothing else.
After today, the House will not come back to work for legislative business until January 20. The time between now and January 20 that Congress will be out of session might not seen seem that important to some, but for hundreds of thousands of Americans it will be a terrible time indeed; that is because their Federal unemployment assistance is due to expire.
Mr. Speaker, even with the modest job gains made over the past few months, the U.S. economy has 2.4 million fewer jobs today compared to 2\1/2\ years ago. There are more than 2 million workers who have been unemployed for more than 6 months; and to make a bad situation worse, over 400,000 jobless American will not be eligible for unemployment compensation after the first of the year.
Americans continue to be unemployed at alarmingly high rates. Just last week, we saw job numbers that fell well below expectations. And the percentage of Americans exhausting their unemployment benefits without finding a job has reached its highest level on record.
Mr. Speaker, jobless Americans need help and they need it now. But while unemployed Americans continue to struggle to find work, this Republican-controlled Congress is preparing to leave town for the year. Like last year, Members of Congress will be free to go home to their families and constituents. Like last year, Members will have a nice holiday. And just like last year, the Republican-controlled Congress is letting unemployment insurance expire during the Christmas season. For hundreds of thousands of Americans, this Republican Congress will be their Grinch who stole Christmas. And I have little hope that Congress's heart will grow any time soon; that is, unless we act today.
The facts are clear. It is clear we will not be back in session until late January; and it is clear that during that time, hundreds of thousands of jobless Americans will lose their unemployment insurance. We should not turn our backs on these people and their families in our rush to adjourn.
Now, I am sure that there is a bipartisan consensus to extend unemployment benefits. I am sure that if we brought up a bill to do that, a majority would support it; and if not, we could just hold the vote open for 3 hours or 4 hours until a majority appeared. That seems to be the new precedent around here. But the leadership does not want it. And in today's House of Representatives, what the leadership wants, the leadership gets. To heck with democracy.
Unemployed Americans deserve better than this.
Mr. Speaker, since this may be our last opportunity to speak this year, let me conclude with a few words about the process that has dominated during this session.
I have worked in this House for 20 years, both as a staffer and as a Member. Never have I seen so much disregard for the rules, the traditions, and the well-being of this House. We have seen huge pieces of legislation come to this floor for consideration without allowing Members the time to read what they are voting on. We have seen conference reports appear without a conference committee ever having met. We have seen conference committees that meet, but shut Democrats out. We have seen conference reports come to the floor, like the one that we are going to deal with today, that undo the work of the both the full House and Senate. These bills drop provisions that were supported by both bodies and add things that we never voted on. And we have seen rollcall votes held open for hours and hours until the leadership gets the result they want by any means necessary.
I am honored to hold the seat on the Committee on Rules that my old boss, Joe Moakley, had; and it saddens me that the Committee on Rules has become a place not to manage debate, but to stifle it. It has been used as a weapon against Members of both parties. I have been approached many times by Republican colleagues expressing their sympathy and their outrage with the action of their Republican leadership, and I appreciate their kind words. But I say to my friends on the other side, I do not need your sympathy. I need your vote.
Until Members on the other side stand up to their leadership, stand up for democracy in this House, stand up for the precedents and the traditions of this body, things will get worse, not better. This House is broken. And I urge my colleagues to think long and hard during this holiday season about how we can fix it.
Vote no on the previous question.
Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 458 and ask for its immediate consideration. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30…
Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 458 and ask for its immediate consideration.
Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 458 is a rule that waives clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to same-day consideration against certain resolutions reported from the Committee on Rules. Specifically, this rule waives the requirement for a two-thirds majority vote in the House to consider a rule on the same day it has been reported by the Committee on Rules.
This rule's waiver applies to any special rule reported on the legislative day of November 21, 2003, providing for the consideration or disposition of any of the following:
A, a bill or joint resolution making further continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2004 or any amendments thereto; or
B, a bill or joint resolution making general appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2004, any amendment thereto or any conference reported thereon.
I urge my colleagues in the House to join me in approving H. Res. 458. Its passage will help expedite the consideration of either another continuing resolution, if that becomes needed, or even conference reports on the last few remaining fiscal year 2004 appropriations bills, including the Foreign Operations bill, Transportation-Treasury bill, the Agriculture bill, the VA-HUD bill, the Commerce-Justice bill, the District of Columbia bill, and the Labor-HHS bill.
I believe that we are in the waning days of this year's legislative session with only a relatively small number of must-do legislative items still left to finish. Approving this same-day waiver rule will help provide for prompt consideration of these important funding bills.
Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Rules approved this rule last night, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting its passage.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume just to observe the lesson I just learned from the gentleman from Michigan. When President Clinton ran for President, he said we had the worst economy in 50 years, and just a few months later, he turned everything around. Things were so wonderful that he could stop unemployment compensation. I had not realized he had done it so quickly.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the previous question and ``yes'' on the rule, so we can hopefully have an appropriation bill later this evening or this weekend we can vote on and finish things up.
The text of the amendment previously referred to by Mr. Frost, is as follows:
Previous Question for H. Res. 458--Rule on waiving 2/3rds for C/R and
Appropriations Measures
At the end of the resolution add the following new section:
Sec. 2. ``Immediately after disposition of this resolution,
it shall be in order without intervention of any point of
order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 3568) to
provide extended unemployment benefits to displaced workers,
and to make other improvements in the unemployment insurance
system. The bill shall be considered as read for amendment.
The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the
bills to final passage without intervening motion except: (1)
one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the
Chairman and ranking Minority Member of the Committee on the
Ways and Means; and (2) one motion to recommit with or
without instructions.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I am here today to echo the sentiment of my Democratic colleagues about where our priorities are. As Congress comes to a close for 2003, I want to emphasize the needs of the middle…
Mr. Speaker, I am here today to echo the sentiment of my Democratic colleagues about where our priorities are. As Congress comes to a close for 2003, I want to emphasize the needs of the middle class, of the unemployed and of the families struggling to make ends meet.
I am here to vote ``no'' on the Previous Question on both the Martial Law Rule and the Rule for the Omnibus Appropriations bill. I am doing this to allow the House to consider legislation that would continue to extend unemployment benefits through the first six months of next year.
By voting no, we can consider H.R. 3568, a bill that would also increase to 26 weeks the amount of benefits provided under that program--up from 13 weeks--and help the 1.4 million workers who have already exhausted their extended benefits.
Already this year, the Bush Administration has cut education spending, giving the rich more tax breaks, and taken away the child tax credit for the middle class. We need to be taking steps to change this selfish economic policy and focus on creating jobs and incentives to employ more people and assist those during the transition.
Right now we know that job creation will need to be far greater, more sustained and more robust to start to undo the damage of the recession created by the Bush Administration. Already, President Bush is on track to have the worst job creation record of any modern President. With a current unemployment rate of 5.9 percent, it is a 44 percent increase than the rate when President Bush took office in January 2001. This means 2.7 million more Americans are without a job because of our irresponsible economic practices.
Extending unemployment benefits is one of the first steps to correcting the administration's poor economic planning. Economists have estimated that each dollar of unemployment benefits leads to $1.75 in economic growth.
Last year, the Republicans went home for the holidays and left 800,000 jobless Americans fearing for their terminated benefits. This year, we have two million Americans out of work for over six months, and benefits will expire for 90,000 workers every week unless we do something about this now.
This is something we must do for our constituents who are struggling to make ends meet because of circumstances that are out of their control. From my own district in Houston, I have received over 150 pleading requests to not adjourn without passing the unemployment benefit extension. This Administration needs to come up with economic policies that will create jobs, and in the interim they must provide support to unemployed workers by immediately extending Federal unemployment benefits. We need to take better care of our working families and make this a priority.
The text of the material previously referred to by Ms. Slaughter is as follows:
Previous Question for H. Res. 465--Rule on waiving 2/3rds for Omnibus/
C/R and/or Appropriations Measures
At the end of the resolution add the following new section:
Sec. 2. Immediately after disposition of this resolution,
it shall be in order without intervention of any point of
order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 3568) to
provide extended unemployment benefits to displaced workers,
and to make other improvements in the unemployment insurance
system. The bill shall be considered as read for amendment.
The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the
bill to final passage without intervening motion except: (1)
one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the
Chairman and ranking Minority Member of the Committee on Ways
and Means; and (2) one motion to recommit with or without
instructions.
Mr. Speaker, let me thank my friend from Texas for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, this rule will allow us to consider an additional continuing resolution which will allow us to go home over the…
Mr. Speaker, let me thank my friend from Texas for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, this rule will allow us to consider an additional continuing resolution which will allow us to go home over the holidays, and at this time, there is no indication from the majority that they are prepared to bring up an extension of the unemployment insurance benefits for thousands of our fellow citizens who will be running out of unemployment insurance benefits during that period of time. So, Mr. Speaker, I would hope that we would not approve the previous question so that we could bring up this unemployment insurance extension.
Let me just remind my colleagues that 1 year ago we were in a similar position, and the majority did not bring up an extension of the unemployment insurance benefits, and at Christmastime, we had to tell hundreds of thousands of Americans that they ran the risk of losing the Federal benefits that they needed during this recession. We are faced with the situation again.
Two days after Christmas, the current Federal 13-week unextended benefit program is scheduled to expire. If we do not do anything about it, 80- to 90,000 people in this Nation, every week, will exhaust their State extended benefits and will not be entitled to any Federal extended benefits; 1.4 million Americans during that 6-month period, until June of next year, are anticipated would be without benefits.
The exhaustion rate, those who have exhausted their State unemployment benefits without finding employment has reached the highest level on record, the highest level on record, 43 percent. Two million workers have been unemployed for more than 6 months, nearly triple the amount compared to the beginning of 2001. We have 2.4 million fewer jobs today compared to 2\1/2\ years ago.
Mr. Speaker, the majority leader recently said, I see no reason to be extending unemployment compensation since every economic indicator is better off than in 1993 when the Democrats ended the Federal unemployment program. Mr. Speaker, nothing could be further from what the record shows, and I could go through a list of the economic indicators from the last downturn in our economy and this time, but this one I think really puts it all in proper perspective.
The current amount of jobs that were created before we terminated the Federal unemployment benefits in the 1990s was 2.9 million additional jobs. What we are looking at now is 2.4 million less jobs in this recession. The majority leader refers to some slight job growth that we had, and we hope that continues, because, currently, if someone's looking for a job, there are three people looking for every job that is available today. These are people who cannot find employment, but the loss of employment in our economy in the last couple of years is 2.4 million jobs. The jobs are not there. People want work. They cannot find work. That is why we have the Federal unemployment benefit program.
There is $20 billion in the fund today to fund this program. The money is there. The money is there for this purpose. We should extend it before we go home. So I hope we will use this opportunity because, quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, I do not see any other opportunities coming along. This may be our last chance by using this vehicle so that we can consider legislation that would extend the Federal unemployment benefits for some additional weeks, and by the way, we should also take care of those who have already exhausted all their benefits.
The economy just is not there yet. We all hope we will get there. We usually do this on a bipartisan basis. Let us get together and help our uninsured.
Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 465 and ask for its immediate consideration. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30…
Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 465 and ask for its immediate consideration.
Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 465 is a rule that waives clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to same-day consideration against certain resolutions reported from the Committee on Rules. Specifically, this rule waives the requirement for two-thirds majority vote by the House to consider a rule on the same-day that it has been reported by the Committee on Rules.
This rule's waiver applies to any special rule reported by the Committee on Rules on or before the legislative day of January 31, 2004, providing for the consideration of disposition of any of the following:
First, a bill or joint resolution making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2004, or any amendment thereto, or any conference report thereon; or, second, a bill or joint resolution making general appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2004, any amendment thereto, or any conference report thereon.
Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Rules reported this same-day rule on November 21 in order to provide some flexibility to the House leadership in terms of bringing the consolidated appropriations bill to the floor. On November 25, the text of the conference report on H.R. 2673, the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2004, was printed in the Congressional Record for review by House Members. While the rule before the House today permits consideration of a number of appropriations options, the purpose of processing of this rule today is to expedite the consideration of the remaining fiscal year 2004 appropriations bills in the House. Once this rule is adopted, the House will be able to consider a consolidated appropriations rule and the underlying conference report without delay.
This consolidated bill includes the Foreign Operations bill, the Transportation-Treasury bill, the Agriculture bill, the VA-HUD bill, the Commerce-Justice bill, the District of Columbia bill, and the Labor-HHS bill. I commend the hard work of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and the Committee on Appropriations for their efforts in crafting this important funding bill. As I stated, the provisions of the consolidated appropriations bill were printed in the Congressional Record almost 2 weeks ago, and the passage of the same-day rule will provide for prompt consideration of these important funding bills this afternoon.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the passage of this rule.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to support the previous question and the rule, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.
Mr. Speaker, Congress has one last opportunity to provide unemployment benefits for Americans who have lost their jobs and been unable to find new jobs. It is quite astounding. We at this point have…
Mr. Speaker, Congress has one last opportunity to provide unemployment benefits for Americans who have lost their jobs and been unable to find new jobs.
It is quite astounding. We at this point have what is called a jobless recovery. In my State, tens of thousands of people are unable to find employment with their benefits exhausted or near exhaustion. Across America it is millions.
I know budgets are tight around here. I know that Congress can afford to borrow money to pay Iraqis for no-show jobs, but the President says we cannot afford to spend down the $20 billion balance in the Unemployment Trust Fund, taxes paid by employers and employees, for just such a situation. So we cannot afford that. We cannot afford to spend that. We can borrow money to send to Iraq, but we cannot spend down the trust fund for unemployed Americans.
Is he saying it is their fault they are unemployed? Is he saying he does not care they are unemployed? Is he saying he does not care they might lose their home; they cannot feed their kids; they cannot afford essentials; they cannot even buy gas for the car to go out and look for work; that they are having their phones shut off?
I am getting those kinds of calls. We have the highest unemployment rate in the United States in Oregon. It is chronic. And there are a lot of people who want to work and cannot find jobs. The least this Nation could do would be to help them with a modest extension of unemployment benefits.
Now, this is not the first time this has happened. Last year, Congress skipped out of town, the President did not raise any concern, and unemployment benefits expired for millions of Americans. This year, we are confronted with the same situation. Two days after Christmas, Merry Christmas, 90,000 workers will lose their extended unemployment benefits and have no income, and yet they cannot find a job. And it will be 90,000 workers a week. In 6 months, 2.2 million Americans will have lost everything, probably their homes, maybe their families, because this kind of breaks up families.
This is, of course, a family-friendly Republican majority and White House, but they just do not seem to care about these people wanting and needing jobs. Their jobs are being exported and have disappeared in the jobless recovery, or whatever. They cannot find work. In my State, it will be 43,000 people by February who will lose benefits.
Now, there is $20 billion, that is 20,000 million dollars, in the Unemployment Trust Fund. We do not even have to borrow the money to give Americans a little bit of help to stay in their homes and keep their families together. We do
not have to borrow it because they pay the taxes, their employers pay the taxes. All the President has to do is say, I think that is a good idea, and the Republican majority will jump to it. We could do it right here, now, on the floor, by voting ``no'' and bringing that bill up today.
Mr. Speaker, last night while I was enjoying sumptuous airline fare on the red-eye to come out here to vote on this, the lady sitting next to me was reading a book called ``Nickel and Dimed.'' It is…
Mr. Speaker, last night while I was enjoying sumptuous airline fare on the red-eye to come out here to vote on this, the lady sitting next to me was reading a book called ``Nickel and Dimed.'' It is a book about people who are struggling; who are employed, but who are struggling to keep their souls and their families together in today's economically challenged times. And nobody, nobody who has read this book would vote for this rule.
The reason is that we can quote all the rosy statistics that we can, but the fact of the matter is if we leave this floor and go out to the food banks in our districts, in every district in America, the food banks are jammed, the lines are long, people are still having problems feeding their children.
As I was talking to a business owner the other day in Seattle, he says, I hear these statistics, but I do not see the customers. The fact of the matter is, we still have people in pain, and this rule keeps them in that economically devastated condition.
There are two reasons it does this: one, it guts the effort we had on a bipartisan basis in the Senate and at least a little bit here on this floor when, in a democratic process, we voted with the majority to stop the President of the United States from stealing people's time with their families by gutting overtime protection.
Over 8 million Americans are going to lose the right to overtime, and, more importantly, lose the right to control their own time with their families if this rule passes. That is wrong. It is a violation of the democratic spirit for us to vote to stop the President from taking family time away from their families, with people going into a dark room and stripping that protection out. It is wrong, and we should fix it right here.
But second is the unemployment. We have heard that we have had some modestly encouraging news, that there has been some jobs created in the recent past, and that is great. But the fact of the matter is, there have been 2.4 million jobs lost during this administration's tenure. And the way I figure it, if we look at the jobs that have been created, we have only got about 2.3 million jobs to go to get our nose above dead even.
Now, the majority's approach to this is we sort of have the U.S. economy with 2.4 million jobs lost kind of down in a deep well. The majority is starting to look at that American worker down in that deep well, and we have winched them up about 6 inches off the floor and said, you are on your own now. We have a long ways to go before we can say that we are out of the woods economically.
This bill does not cut the mustard. This bill gives Scrooge a bad name. At least he had an epiphany.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, today the leadership of this House breathes life back into the spirit of Ebeneezer Scrooge and for the second year in a row…
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, today the leadership of this House breathes life back into the spirit of Ebeneezer Scrooge and for the second year in a row ignores the plight of America's unemployed during the holiday season. The majority's failure to extend emergency unemployment benefits for the long-term unemployed is not only unconscionable; it is cold- hearted.
In May, President Bush said, ``My economic plan is summed up in one word: jobs.'' But the truth is, even after 4 straight months of anemic job growth, President Bush is on course to become the first President since Herbert Hoover to preside over a net jobs loss during his 4-year term.
Yes, the economy added 57,000 jobs in November, but here is what they do not say: the economy has to create 150,000 jobs a month just to keep pace with the new folks coming into the employment arena. Overall, there are 8.7 million unemployed Americans today; and nearly one-fourth of them, Mr. Speaker, some 2 million people, have been jobless for more than 26 weeks.
Mr. Speaker, that is the highest percentage of long-term unemployment since July of 1983, 20 years ago; and there are about 4.2 million other workers who want a job, but are not even counted among the unemployed.
The reality is this: if the President and Congressional Republicans refuse to extend Federal temporary unemployment benefits, which are scheduled to be phased out beginning December 21, an estimated 80,000 to 90,000 jobless workers who exhaust their State benefits every week will be completely cut off. That is 80,000 to 90,000 people per week.
That is not only callous; it is unnecessary. We have the funding to extend these benefits. That is right, there is $20 billion in the Federal fund dedicated to unemployment benefits, which is financed by unemployment taxes deducted from workers' paychecks.
Mr. Speaker, I know the President and our Republican colleagues would like nothing more than to pronounce our economy healed and to unfurl the banner reading ``Mission Accomplished,'' but it is plain that millions of Americans continue to be hurt. The least we can do is reach out a helping hand.
Mr. Speaker, we did this last year, and we left 800,000 people on December 31, 2002, falling off the unemployment roles. With the money in the pot to help them, why do we leave this day without addressing this problem? There is no explanation, Mr. Speaker. I predict to you that the President will, 2 weeks from now, say, oh, my goodness, we should have done that.
Show 11 more
Well, Merry Christmas, Mr. Speaker. We are here, and we are going to have a party down at the White House tonight, and everybody is going to be full of happiness and gemitlichkeit, but the workers of…
Well, Merry Christmas, Mr. Speaker. We are here, and we are going to have a party down at the White House tonight, and everybody is going to be full of happiness and gemitlichkeit, but the workers of this country are not going to get anything done by the Republican legislature.
The leadership of the Republican Congress is ignoring the need to extend benefits this year, just like they did last year. We will be back in January; and there will be all this clamor about, oh, we have to do something about unemployment. We know it now. We not only need to extend these benefits, but we need to fix a quirk in the law that keeps people in Washington State from even getting it if we would extend it.
Now, the administration likes to trumpet, oh, the stock market is up and there are a few jobs here and there, but this economic recovery is a mile wide and an inch deep. Two out of every three people will not find a job. That is the statistic out of the Department of Labor in the Bush administration. We know there are no jobs out there. We say, well, try harder. Go work harder. Walk around.
Mr. Speaker, no matter how dedicated you are, how willing you are to accept a job, if there is no chance, it sounds to me like, you know, it is like being on the Titanic and looking down to see how many life boats there are and saying, well, I guess I am not getting into one, but I guess maybe the ship will make it.
Washington State remains one of the hardest hit States in the Nation, despite being a diverse economy that is a model and a microcosm of America. Too many people are falling through the cracks, and the leadership of the Republican Party does not care. They want martial law in here in this Congress. They would be willing to put martial law out on the streets if the unemployed in this country rose up.
For every person we know who is unemployed, there are many more who have been given up, dropped out of sight and out of reach. Washington citizens from all walks of life look to us for leadership, look to us for a helping hand in time of hardship. They deserve it, and for the good of America we cannot turn our backs on our own people.
Now, we can go have that party down at the White House, and there will be bands playing and violins, and lots of drinks and good food; but it is sort of like Old England. It is Scrooge's business. Let us have a party, but we will not worry about the people out on the streets.
Vote against the previous question and make this leadership bring up unemployment.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring the body's attention to another provision in this omnibus appropriations bill. I know there are several that are objectionable, and this one may not get any further…
Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring the body's attention to another provision in this omnibus appropriations bill. I know there are several that are objectionable, and this one may not get any further discussion, but I think it merits it.
There is a provision in this bill that says that all of the records of firearm purchases have to be destroyed within 24 hours.
Now, we know that there have been more than 3,500 firearms purchased by people who should not have purchased them, and that the FBI has been able to retrieve those guns because the records are currently kept for 90 days. They retrieve them if the person that purchased it is a fugitive, is a felon, has a history of serious mental illness, is an illegal alien, any number of reasons that they should not be purchasing guns, lawfully, in the United States. So 3,500 guns have been retrieved because we have kept the records available for 90 days. Now, they have to be destroyed within 24 hours.
Now, the National Rifle Association thinks this is a good thing, but our law enforcement organizations do not. FBI agents will tell us this is very serious, what this bill would do. In fact, the al Qaeda training manual cites the fact that you can go in and buy a gun in the United States, and as long as you have not been a convicted felon in the past, you can buy that and the records will be destroyed. And, in fact, as the Washington Post said in an article last week, that is true, that if a person gets hold of a gun, their records have to be destroyed as a result of this bill. If they are denied, then the records can be pursued. But if they lawfully purchased it, the records are destroyed, which means that we are deliberately tying the hands of law enforcement agencies.
Now, is it not appropriate that we be able to consult the list of violent gang members and terrorists when they try to buy a gun? Absolutely, is the answer. Yet, this bill says, within 24 hours, even if it is a holiday, a weekend, even if it is in some rural area where they do not have the resources to check what they need to be able to check, it has to be destroyed within 24 hours.
Mr. Speaker, we are going to look back and find this provision as one of the most dangerous that this House has passed, and the most irresponsible and irrational. We should not be doing this. It was another one of these things snuck into the conference report. I strongly urge Members, unless we can take this out, this bill should not be supported in its present form.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding me this time, and I rise in opposition to this bill. While Congress dithers in what is probably the waning days of the first session of the 108th…
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding me this time, and I rise in opposition to this bill.
While Congress dithers in what is probably the waning days of the first session of the 108th Congress, it is inexcusable that we are considering adjournment without first passing an extension of unemployment benefits for the millions of American workers who are currently jobless. In my home State of Oregon, the unemployment rate is still 7.6 percent, nearly 2 percentage points higher than the U.S. average. Even that number, though, is misleading, since it only counts the workers who are still looking for work. It does not include those people who have been off work, who no longer receive unemployment benefits.
Mr. Speaker, to me it is inexcusable and unconscionable that the bill offered by our colleague, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), is not being brought to the floor right now. Instead, the Republican leadership has chosen to force a vote on a 2-day CR because they are unable to fund the government by passing appropriation bills on time and in regular order.
Let me tell you just a little bit about these people who are looking for work, Mr. Speaker. These are people who are out of work through no fault of their own. They go out every single day and look for a job. One gentleman said to me that it is like playing musical chairs. He says, I go in, I think I have this wonderful resume, I meet all of the criteria, and I go in and there are 200 people that all have the same qualifications to meet that job. So he said it is a little bit like playing musical chairs with 200 people in the room and only one chair.
One woman told me she had to sell her home. She has been looking for work every day. She has sold her home and is living off the profits of her home. She does not know what she is going to do when those run out.
Another gentleman said, I have been trying to reeducate myself, so every day I am out looking for work. He said, I just feel like if I can just hold on for a little longer that job is going to be there.
Let us tide over the 90,000 Americans per week who will lose their unemployment benefits by the end of this year. Congress can and should pass an extension that will allow workers who are seeking employment to provide for their most basic needs as the holidays approach. Let us get on with this. Let us extend those unemployment benefits.
Mr. Speaker, unemployed Americans are about to get their annual Christmas gift from the Republican majority, and that is the end of their unemployment benefits. This is not the first time this…
Mr. Speaker, unemployed Americans are about to get their annual Christmas gift from the Republican majority, and that is the end of their unemployment benefits.
This is not the first time this happened. Last year, Congress went home without extending unemployment benefits for those who, through no fault of their own, cannot find a job and have exhausted their benefits.
Now they say, well, we just cannot afford it. They can afford hundreds of billions of dollars of other things in this bill, foreign aid other things, much of it borrowed, but they cannot find the money for unemployed Americans. Well, that is actually a lie because there is $20 billion in the unemployment trust fund.
They do not even have to borrow the money to help unemployed Americans like they are going to borrow to help many of the special interests. All they have to do is agree to spend some of the taxes paid and on deposit to help unemployed Americans, paid by workers, paid by employers. That is why that money is there.
Every week, 400 Oregonians exhaust their benefits in this jobless recovery. Nationwide, tens of thousands of Americans are losing their unemployment benefits. They cannot find work through no fault of their own. They want to work. They want to work, but they cannot find a job. Their job has exported to China or to Mexico or from my district, some of them even to Canada. They cannot find a decent paying job. And now what is the Republican majority going to do? They are going to go home without extending unemployment benefits for these people. Many will lose the benefits Christmas week or New Year's week or in the month following. They may not be able to make the payments on their house. They are not going to be able to help their kids get the things they need to go to school, to feed their family, to pay their electric bills. These are basics.
We cannot find that money. We have the money. It is sitting in the bank. All we have to do is agree to spend it.
We have to stop pretending that everything is good with the economy, that America's just booming ahead again. We have what is called ``a jobless recovery'' in this country, and those are real people who do not have jobs. They are real people in my district. And Congress could do something real for them today. It is just choosing not to. It will help the special interests but not working Americans.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member and the dean of our Texas delegation for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, martial law rules, it is interesting to note, always come up in the later part of…
Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member and the dean of our Texas delegation for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, martial law rules, it is interesting to note, always come up in the later part of the session because we always want to get finished. We did a martial law on Medicare so we could pass a 600-page document without having to digest it. Now we have a continuing resolution martial law.
But I really want to talk about the prescription drug provision in Medicare, because that is what will come up later. Our Houston Chronicle wrote an interesting editorial today which talks about the ``scribbled prescription'' in the bill that we are going to consider as an ``intended cure could be worse than Medicare disease.'' It talks about the provisions of this bill we are going to consider tonight is stingy because it does not begin until 2006; and that there is such a donut hole in the middle that people will lose, if they have $300 a month in prescription drugs, because they will fall into that donut hole. So it is stingy.
The critics point out that providing a drug component to Medicare encourages businesses to dump their retirees. I had a constituent call me the other day from a utility company who said he was worried his retiree benefits for prescription drugs would be cut. And I said unless you have a collective bargaining agreement, that could happen.
A concern I have, as they quote in the Chronicle editorial, is that the ``AARP, the most powerful senior citizen organization, has endorsed'' this proposal. Again, I am quoting the Houston Chronicle, ``But, as the plan before Congress offers such limited help for seniors with high prescription costs, it's no wonder so many people believe AARP's decision was motivated more by its own political dealmaking than concern for its 35 million members' best interests.'' And that is a direct quote.
Mr. Speaker, when I first came to Congress, a prescription drug bill was the goal, to pass something; but this bill actually goes in the wrong direction. It prohibits Medicare from negotiating for lower prices. HMOs do it, the Veterans Administration does it, companies do it; and yet now we are prohibiting Medicare from doing it by law. That ought to outrage our seniors, including those 35 million AARP members.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, this morning's news talks about the elections in Russia. At the same time it speaks about elections, it talks about the steady…
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, this morning's news talks about the elections in Russia. At the same time it speaks about elections, it talks about the steady erosion of democratic freedoms embodied in these elections, and it says there is mounting national and international criticism of those elections because of the denial of democracy as defined by free societies, which is because of the heavy hand of the Putin majority.
We are blind if we do not see analogous denials of democracy American-style wrapped up in this omnibus bill. Is it democracy when, for the first time, we hold open votes unconscionably long, pressure Members, it has been alleged illegally, with threats or
bribes until you win what the vote shows you had already lost? We have done that at least a half a dozen times, ranging from 25 minutes to 3 hours.
Is it democracy when you reverse the votes of the House, as we have done on the overtime provision?
Is it democracy when we have one-party conferences, locking out the other party?
Is it democracy when there are in this bill, a major bill, provisions for which there have been no votes at all? Like the D.C. voucher provision, there was no vote in the Senate because they had no votes. The ultimate abuse is they removed the few routine accountability provisions that by voice vote did get in the bill for D.C. vouchers. One was that teachers have to have a college degree.
Is it democracy when you lard the bill with Republican pork, defunding the No Child Left Behind bill while your own school districts are screaming because they have had to cut their own school funding?
I must say, if we pass this bill, it will be an appropriate way to end this session, because this entire session has been a monument, as this bill is, to the denial of democracy.
In this session, Mr. Speaker, we have crossed the line. We have crossed the line between the kind of contentiousness that has gone on for 200 years in this House to one-party rule in the people's House. The way to begin to remedy this, and we must remedy this now, we must not carry this procedure, this way of conducting business, into the next year; the way to remedy this outrage is to vote against this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding me this time. I would hope that we will defeat the previous question so that we can bring up the unemployment compensation extension. Last…
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding me this time. I would hope that we will defeat the previous question so that we can bring up the unemployment compensation extension.
Last year, Congress left town without extending unemployment benefits, but at least we came back and did it retroactively.
Now, some are saying that our unemployment is not as bad or not bad enough for us to extend the Federal unemployment benefits. They are saying it is time for the extended benefit program to end.
But let us look at the facts. Never before has Congress allowed the termination of this program when the unemployment rate is higher than when the program started; at least up until now. Congress has never terminated the program with the unemployment benefits when the economy still has 2.4 million fewer jobs today than when the recession began. Congress has never stopped the extension of the program where the long- term unemployment rates have tripled. Yet, there has been no offer to give any help. Congress has never allowed the extended benefit program to expire when the exhaustion rate for regular unemployment benefits is the highest since we have been keeping these records. Yet, we are talking about leaving town without extending unemployment benefits. Congress has never refused to extend unemployment benefits when there is $20 billion in the Federal Unemployment Trust Account, enough money to pay for extended benefits without going into debt, yet we are talking about leaving town today without extending the Federal unemployment benefits.
The Washington Post got it right when it compared this to the last recession. It said, ``But in 1993, employment had grown for 22 of the 23 previous months, and the overall number of jobs was above the prerecession level. This time around, employment has grown for only 4 months in a row, following 6 straight months of job losses. Overall, the number of jobs is down 2.4 million since the current downturn started in early 2001.''
Mr. Speaker, it would be wrong for us to leave town without helping those people who do not have jobs through no fault of their own. Unemployment compensation is not a luxury. We need to do it now.
Mr. Speaker, this is not a happy moment. This is not a happy moment. We are forced to come up here and ask that the previous question be defeated so that we can give to people who are unemployed, who…
Mr. Speaker, this is not a happy moment. This is not a happy moment. We are forced to come up here and ask that the previous question be defeated so that we can give to people who are unemployed, who need unemployment comp, who are looking for work, an additional 13 weeks. And all we get from the Republican side is reserving the balance of their time.
There are 9 million unemployed in this country; and here is what is going to happen: December 20, if you are laid off, or I should say if you are drawing benefits, you can continue to receive your extended benefits. But, if you exhaust your benefits on December 21, you are out in the cold. That is the holiday message from the majority in this House. It is unconscionable. All kinds of excuses.
The gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) has said, Every indicator is better than in 1993. But the job picture is entirely worse. Job creation is entirely, dramatically less.
Then I heard: Leave it to the Senate. They are not going to act.
Where are my colleagues from Michigan on the Republican side? Because of a bipartisan action in Lansing, people who needed it could draw up to 65 weeks; and now, someone laid off on December 21, or I should say who is exhausting their benefits, is out in the cold. Not one more week.
We should not have to be coming here, Mr. Speaker. Times are tough. I talked to building trade leaders an hour ago. Unemployment is going up in the building trades in Michigan and in lots of other places, and there is nothing but a cold shoulder from the leadership of this House. And I say to the Speaker, whom it is now being said about, that he can patrol this floor and get the votes, where is your leadership?
We should not have to be here today, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), myself and others. This should be a bipartisan effort, and I hope in the next 24, no, it is not 24, it is 5 or 6 hours, that you, on the Republican side, will keep faith with the American people, those who are working and those who are not working through no fault of their own. Do not reserve your time. Come here with a bill.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak today to object to consideration of the Omnibus Appropriations bill. I am specifically concerned with provisions in this legislation that would result in the removal of…
Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak today to object to consideration of the Omnibus Appropriations bill. I am specifically concerned with provisions in this legislation that would result in the removal of overtime pay protection for many American workers.
A few months ago, this House voted to instruct conferees to remove unfair provisions on overtime pay. Despite the will of a majority of Members, those provisions still remain in this bill. This does not reflect the true position of the House of Representatives.
Mr. Speaker, I am speaking on what has been called ``the Harkin amendment.'' This amendment to the FY2004 Labor-HHS appropriations bill would have prohibited the Department of Labor from issuing regulations that would disqualify overtime protection to workers protected under current law.
The opponents of overtime pay protection would require employees to work more than 40 hours weekly without being paid time and a half for their work. The Department of Labor claims that only 644,000 current workers will lose overtime pay benefits under the provisions of this legislation.
In sharp contrast, the Economic Policy Institute reports that over eight million eligible workers are earning overtime, and will be adversely affected by these regulations. This figure includes 5.5 million workers paid hourly and 2.5 million salaried employees. We all know that we live in a time of scarce resources and few job opportunities. Therefore, this drastic pay cut, especially during the holiday season, is fundamentally unfair and wrong for American workers.
Over 1.4 million Americans are also faced with the expiration of their unemployment benefits at the end of this month. We cannot in good conscience go home to celebrate the holidays with our families while unemployed Americans face a grim future and a bleak holiday season.
Mr. Speaker, I urge the Members of this body to take action today that will give hope to American workers, and protect the wages they earn and extend the benefits they deserve.
Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 473 and ask for its immediate consideration. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30…
Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 473 and ask for its immediate consideration.
Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), pending which I yield myself
such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 473 is a rule waiving all points of order against the conference report to accompany H.R. 2673, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2004, and against its consideration. The rule provides that the conference report shall be considered as read.
The Consolidated Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2004 fully complies with the fiscal parameters of the budget resolution and contains $328.1 billion in discretionary spending and $820 billion in total spending including mandatory funds.
Mr. Speaker, the bill also includes an across-the-board reduction of .59 percent in all programs, projects and activities, except for Defense and Military Construction funds.
The Committee on Appropriations is to be commended for moving with dispatch to make this conference report available so that the House can complete its work on funding measures before the conclusion of the First Session. Accordingly, Mr. Speaker I urge my colleagues to support both the rule and the underlying conference report.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
This is a rule that provides for the consideration of the consolidated spending bill. It is something that we must do in this Congress to fund the government. That is what this rule is all about. I urge support of that.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. In 1971, when I was 14 years old, in the spring of that year, one day my father came home from work from the shipyard at which he had…
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. In 1971, when I was 14 years old, in the spring of that year, one day my father came home from work from the shipyard at which he had worked for nearly 40 years and he brought home with him that day a layoff notice from the shipyard because we were no longer making enough money building the ships. That was a summer where he applied for a lot of jobs. He had to make, as I recall, a weekly visit to the unemployment office to pick up his check; and his benefits ran out in the fall of 1971.
I was not quite old enough to understand what that meant, but I was old enough to remember the stress and anxiety my mother and father felt that fall; and I was also old enough to remember that somehow or another there was some good news that came that fall because the unemployment checks that my dad was picking up once a week were going to keep going for a while, to get us through the holiday season that year in 1971. He hung in there. He eventually got a part-time job and worked every day for the rest of his life, until he died in 1985 at the age of 75 years old. Government reached out and helped us that holiday season 32 years ago.
Mr. Speaker, I know there are 1.3 million American families who feel today like we felt that day 32 years ago, not knowing whether the money was going to be there for us to have any kind of holiday at all, much less the money to pay our rent for the next month, to pay for our heat for the next month to survive on into the next year.
There was money around here to pay for a solar heating experiment for a Hooters restaurant down South, there was plenty of money, necessary money in my opinion, to rebuild the wreckage of postwar Baghdad, there is certainly enough money for the 1.3 million American families who have already exhausted their unemployment benefits.
Defeat the previous question. Let us bring this issue to the floor.
Bill Text
Latest available legislative text
[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3554 Introduced in House (IH)]
108th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 3554
To amend the Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation Act and the
Federal-State Extended Unemployment Compensation Act to temporarily
allow States to disregard the look-back requirement of these Acts for
purposes of determining unemployment insurance eligibility.
_______________________________________________________________________
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
November 20, 2003
Mr. McDermott (for himself, Mr. Wu, Mr. DeFazio, Mr. Inslee, Ms.
Kilpatrick, and Mr. Larsen of Washington) introduced the following
bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means
_______________________________________________________________________
A BILL
To amend the Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation Act and the
Federal-State Extended Unemployment Compensation Act to temporarily
allow States to disregard the look-back requirement of these Acts for
purposes of determining unemployment insurance eligibility.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``TEUC and EB Amendments Act of
2003''.
SEC. 2. ALTERNATIVE TRIGGERS RELATING TO TEUC SECOND TIER BENEFITS AND
EXTENDED UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS.
(a) Provisions Relating to TEUC.--Section 203(c)(2)(B) of the
Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 2002 (Public Law
107-147; 26 U.S.C. 3304 note) is amended to read as follows:
``(B) such a period would then be in effect for
such State under such Act if--
``(i) section 203(d) of such Act were
applied as if it had been amended by striking
`5' each place it appears and inserting `4';
and
``(ii) with respect to weeks of
unemployment beginning on or after the date of
enactment of this clause--
``(I) paragraph (1)(A) of such
section 203(d) did not apply; and
``(II) clause (ii) of section
203(f)(1)(A) of such Act did not
apply.''.
(b) Provisions Relating to Extended Benefits.--For purposes of
conforming with the provisions of the Federal-State Extended
Unemployment Compensation Act of 1970 (26 U.S.C. 3304 note), a State
may, for weeks of unemployment beginning on after the date of the
enactment of this Act and on or before December 31, 2004, waive the
application of subparagraph (A) of section 203(d)(1) of such Act,
clause (ii) of section 203(f)(1)(A) of such Act, or both.
<all>