Providing for consideration of the bill (S. 23) to provide for a 5-month extension of the Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 2002 and for a transition period for individuals receiving compensation when the program under such Act ends.

Mr. Speaker, my heart goes out to the gentleman from Pennsylvania who is not allowed to put up an amendment. He is the only one I have ever heard of talk about exhaustees on the other side.

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 would remind the gentleman from California that under the Republican bill, that if you had exhausted your benefits under your bill, you would have gotten absolutely nothing.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

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

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

(Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks, and include extraneous material.)

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my distinguished colleague from the State of Washington, and she had this list, and she said that the Republican bill helped 134,000 members or something in the State. I have my list here, which is the list of all those people we do not help, and the question is why can we not do that? I mean the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Dunn) and I have 31,500 people that this bill does nothing for. They are the people who exhausted their benefits. I know she cares about them. I am absolutely sure she does, and I care about them, but we are told that we cannot do anything about it because the Senate has acted unanimously.

I am sorry, but I have been in legislatures, State legislatures, the House and Senate, and I have been here in the House, and I have been doing this for 30 years, and I have seen things go through legislatures in an hour through both houses, no problem, if you want to do something. Of course if you do not want to do something, then you say, oh, the heavy burdens of the legislative process, the Senate has acted, the House has acted, oh, we cannot get it done, the President must have it on his desk tomorrow at 11 o'clock, that is the time his press conference is, I think, so he can sign it at the press conference tomorrow to put it out.

Now for those 31,000 people in the State of Washington that the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Dunn) and I care about, we are just saying to them we do not have time because the press release is already printed. I am sorry, folks. It might take an extra 3 or 4 hours to get the House and Senate to get it done, but have no fear, 31,000 people, the President has you on his mind,

deeply on his mind. He went to Chicago to make the speech about how big and how heavy his heart was about your problems. He is proposing to put $674 billion into the economy, not to you of course, no, unless you have capital gains that you might benefit a little bit from his bill, but it is really for the rich people on the top. They are going to get 75 percent of it, and then they will think up some way to put you to work. So hold on and we will pass this tax bill and then in April of 2004 when they got this money back, then they are going to invest it and make you a job. So if you can hold your breath for a year for that tax break to take hold, why, things are going to be all right.

And the worst thing about this whole process, why it is an empty promise the President is making, is that in today's newspaper there is an article entitled War's Cost May Dwarf Stimulus Effect, from the Washington Post, January 8. This article says that as long as this country is threatening the whole world with the war in the Middle East that what is going to happen is that we are going to suck all the juice out of the stimulus package by the war.

The gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Dunn) and I represent an air company that makes airplanes. Last year they made 400 and some odd planes. Do my colleagues know what their orders are for this year? Two hundred twenty-one. Now, why are airlines not buying airplanes? Well, it probably has something to do with the fact that people are not flying. They are not getting on planes and flying all over the world like they used to. So this war on terrorism that is scaring the living daylights out of the travelers is knocking the jobs out. We have lost 30,000 jobs at Boeing this last couple of years. And the President says, yes, but we are going to Iraq and we are going to have a war there and that is going to fix it all, and then after that Iraq war everybody will feel comfortable again and we will go back to living the way we have always lived.

Nonsense. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott) was right. We are going to be back here in 3 months with this very same bill or something just like it because you are not going to get a stimulus in 90 days and you certainly would not want to have this linger on into the next election period. You had better have something on the table for them. Maybe you will wait until this time next year to put a little something more on the table, but by then there will be a million more. The long- term unemployment in the State of Washington has risen by 35 percent in the last 2 years, 35 percent. I admit we are the point persons, Washington and Oregon, for the unemployment problem in this country; so we have got it a little worse than the rest of you, but if you think it is not going to affect you, that somehow you are going to slide by this thing, you are wrong, and to say here today that we have not got an extra hour to add an amendment to take care of a million people and then ship it back over to the Senate and say would they please accept the House amendment, I have done it. I am sure I have done it 500 times in the last 30 years, to send an amendment over and it gets accepted and that is the end of it. You know you could do it. You do not want to do it. You do not want to do it. You do not care about those million people. No matter what you say or how you wave your arms and whatever you want to say, the Republican Party does not care about those million unemployed because you have the Presidency, you have the Senate, and you have the House, and if you cannot do it, you have two choices, I guess. You could be stupid and not know how to do it. That is one possibility. I do not think that is true. The alternative is you do not want to do it. You ought to be ashamed of yourself.

[From the Washington Post, Jan. 8, 2003]

War's Cost May Dwarf Stimulus Effect

(By Jonathan Weisman)

Mindful of his pending reelection bid and his father's

political mistakes, President Bush is plowing ahead with an

ambitious 10-year, $674 billion economic stimulus plan even

as U.S. troops pour into the Persian Gulf region preparing

for war.

The president's determination to push more tax cuts as the

nation prepares for war has struck some economists as folly,

since the economic shock of war would likely dwarf the impact

of Bush's stimulus plan. Moreover, no tax policy at the

moment could actually address what many economists believe to

be the greatest drag on the nation's economy: the uncertainty

of war.

``Clearing away the clouds over Iraq would open the paths

for expansion, regardless of what the Bush administration is

proposing,'' said Robert DiClemente, a managing director at

Salomon Smith Barney who has studied the potential impact of

an Iraq war on the U.S. economy.'' That is undoubtedly the

biggest obstacle to expansion right now.''

Bush was explicit about his two-track policymaking

yesterday, beginning his speech in Chicago by addressing the

threats of terrorism, Iraq and North Korea. He then added,

``Even as we confront these dangers, you need to know I know

we have needs here at home, especially the need for a

vigorous and growing economy.''

But it is becoming increasingly difficult to address those

domestic needs without first confronting the problems abroad,

economists said. The goal of the president's plan is to

inject $102 billion into the economy this year, by

accelerating planned income tax cuts, excluding investment

dividends from taxation, boosting the child tax credit and

speeding tax relief to married couples. The elimination of

dividend taxes alone could boost the stock market by 10

percent, according to White House allies.

But all of that could be undone by a war in the oil-rich

Persian Gulf region, especially if the war were protracted

and led to terrorist attacks and the use of weapons of mass

destruction. Last month, Yale University economist William D.

Nordhaus published an analysis that dramatized the

uncertainties the United States faces. The cost to the

Treasury of a war with Iraq could be as low as $100 billion

over the next decade or as high as $1.6 trillion, he

concluded. Most likely, the economy would take a $391 billion

hit in the next two years, Nordhaus predicted, which would

dwarf the cash infusion the president is offering.

``If energy prices spike up, it wouldn't take much to

offset all of this stimulus,'' said William G. Gale, a tax

economist at the Brookings Institution.

A recent analysis by experts convened by the Center for

Strategic and International Studies predicted that any war

would knock down stock prices by as much as 25 percent, more

than undoing the anticipated benefit of the dividend tax

elimination.

Recovery would depend on how a war with Iraq unfolded. If

the war ended swiftly, stocks and the economy as a whole

would recover quickly and grow at a rate faster than they

would if there were no war, thanks to the lifting of

uncertainty, falling oil prices, higher government spending

and rising consumer confidence. In that event, the Bush plan

could end up harming the economy by fueling inflation or

pushing interest rates higher, said Laurence Meyer, a former

Federal Reserve Board governor who convened the CSIS

conference.

But if the war lasted six to 12 weeks, stock prices would

continue to fall, interest rates would rise and economic

growth would slow by 1\3/4\ percent, the CSIS analysis said.

A worst-case scenario--in which the war dragged on for 90 to

180 days, oil supplies were significantly disrupted, and

serious terrorists attacks ensued--would push the economy

back into recession, regardless of economic policymaking.

In that case, the economic response would probably be far

different from the one Bush is proposing now, Meyer said.

That range of potential outcomes makes policymaking at this

point ``treacherous,'' he said.

``The best policy right now is to wait, to see what happens

ahead, and to plan in the background some contingency plans,

just in case we have an adverse outcome,'' Meyer said.

Not everyone is so cautious. DiClemente said the Bush

proposal could provide a buffer for the shocks that would

come from a war. Bruce Bartlett, a conservative economist

with the National Center for Policy Analysis, noted that a

war with Iraq could be long over by the time Congress passed

a stimulus plan. In that case, he said, Bush might as well

get the ball rolling now.

But, for the president's critics, the timing and boldness

of the Bush plan present an irresistible target.

``Whenever the president talks about war, he talks about a

spirit of shared sacrifice,'' Gale said. ``But for rich

people, shared sacrifice appears to be accepting tax cuts,

and for the poor, it seems to be accepting cuts in social

spending. There seems to be a disconnect bordering on the

dishonest.''

Fumed Rep. Charles B. Rangel (N.Y.), the ranking Democrat

on the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee, ``Never in

a time of war have we reduced the tax burden on the most

privileged.''

Even some of Bush's allies in past tax fights expressed

exasperation yesterday, given the gathering clouds of war.

``I understand you can't just put everything on the back

burner and ignore it,'' said Sen. John Breaux (D-La.), a key

ally in the battle over the president's 2001 tax cut. ``But

what you can do is take modest steps, and $670 billion is

more than modest.''

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra).

Mr. Speaker, I would remind the gentleman from Colorado that according to the U.S. Department of Labor, for every job opening, there are 2.7 applicants. So if the problem is immigration, I do not know quite how we are going to fix this. We already have too many people looking for jobs.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).

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

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to hear the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania tell those 44,000 people in Pennsylvania to hold on, hold on.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kleczka).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kleczka).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I think all that needs to be said has been said already, but I would only emphasize the fact that what we are hearing today is what we heard from the Supreme Court of the United States at the time of the election of the President. The Supreme Court said, we do not have time to count the votes. We have to declare a winner here.

In this instance, we are telling a million people out there that we do not have time to do anything about extending their benefits. If they happened to run out of them last year, well, that is just tough luck. I guess they can wait for the economy to pick up, and we wish them well.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal).

(Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to commit.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am.

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion at the desk.

Yes, in its present form.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin).

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

Mr. Speaker, the fact is that you have a calendar which says we will be here until 8 or 9 o'clock tonight, so there is plenty of time to make this small change, and any argument that we do not have time is simply a bogus argument.

Now, the fact is that as my colleague from Maryland has said, this is unfinished business from before. I have tried two different ways and the majority is intent on killing any attempt to modify what they have agreed to with the Senate. Now, I guess from now on we will just wait for the Senate to tell us what we need to do because the House clearly has no power to ever confront the Senate and tell the Senate that they have made not quite the right bill.

This is a historic moment. I do not ever remember being in the House of Representatives any place where they conceded to the Senate that whatever the Senate says is what we have to do.

We could do this by 3 o'clock very easily and cover a million people. Now, for anybody to say that because they have already exhausted, because of that technicality on the 28th of December they should not get any more, I find that incredible that you would say that to somebody who is unemployed, that the law we wrote did not work so you do not get any money. Explain that to your kids when you are sitting there at the dinner table. We do not have any food, kids, because the law that the Congress wrote did not work right so I did not get a check this month. I paid for it, I paid into the benefits, and we do not get them.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to the million worker comment made by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel). I think it is very important for us to know the history of what has already happened in the area of unemployment compensation and why we are going to add some additional assistance for people who come from States like mine.

The Democrats make it sound like we have not helped at all the unemployed, whom we already have helped. We have helped those million unemployed workers. We have helped them consistently through this last year. They make that assertion about the million people being let down, but already we have helped one million people under the Federal expanded benefits that we put into effect last year in March of 2002. They have all already received Federal unemployment benefits that averaged $250 a week generally for 13 weeks. On top of that, generally 26 weeks of regular State benefits which they had received previously, and I think that is very important. In States like Washington State, my State, there have been additional expanded benefits.

So to talk about not helping one million folks who have been unemployed is to move from the truth, Mr. Speaker, and I think it is important to clear that up.

My second point is in addition to the one million folks, we are going to help two million additional people. Plus, we will be extending benefits that ran out on December 28 for 800,000 additional people. Let us not get mixed up in the rhetoric of partisanship here and let us talk about what we can do to help unemployed people who very much want to hold jobs.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English).

Mr. Speaker, I would comment to the gentleman from Michigan that this assistance which we are providing in today's legislation will assist 86,000 new individuals from his State of Michigan.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham).

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

I would remind the gentleman from Ohio that our unemployment compensation assistance provided last year, from his State we assisted 123,000 individuals. And with the passage of today's bill, which is very important to be passed on the floor today, signed by the President tomorrow so there is no gap in assistance from December 28, we will be assisting an additional 61,600 folks from the State of Ohio.

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

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

It is very important for us, Mr. Speaker, to debate, and we will debate over the ensuing months, an economic growth plan that will stimulate the economy and create more jobs. Everybody right now on unemployment wishes that he or she had a job. We are going to have that debate. It is vitally important. Today we are debating what we can do in the interim to assist people who, not by their own choice, are out of a job.

We are talking about a $7 billion piece of legislation today that will assist a huge number of folks who were not covered before by unemployment compensation. We have already spent $19 billion with assistance last year. I think it is vitally important that we continue the debate on this bill so we can get passage of it on the floor today, combined with the piece of legislation passed by the Senate yesterday, and get it to the President tomorrow so we can begin to help people whose unemployment benefits ended on December 28; and we can do this without disruption in the dollars they will receive so they can have some peace of mind as they move through this very, very tough time in their lives.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I am going to remind the gentleman from Washington of what the situation was last fall when we began to debate the extension of unemployment compensation. The leading plan was one that was proposed by

his party on the Senate side. It was a $5 billion plan. It called for a 3-month extension of unemployment benefits. It called for an additional 3-month phaseout. What we have done in the interim, led by people who are from States like Alaska and Oregon and Washington, States where we are very, very concerned about our extremely high level of unemployment, not led by people from Virginia, where the unemployment rate is something like 3.8 percent over the last 3 months, or Georgia, where the unemployment rate is 4.6 percent, low unemployment rates never thought to be even possible to achieve by economists in years past, but we have put together a piece of legislation which considering the state of our economy is a generous piece of legislation. It takes care of an additional 2 million people who were not helped before. It extends benefits for some 800,000 folks nationwide whose benefits were interrupted on December 28, and this is specifically Federal dollars I am talking about. I am not including the State unemployment programs.

We are at the point where we have a 5-month extension that we are providing of unemployment benefits to folks who have been put out of their jobs through no choice of their own plus a 3-month phaseout of these benefits, plus we are helping an additional 800,000 whose benefits are interrupted. So this is a bill that is almost twice as much, certainly almost twice as much as what we were talking about last fall. It is generous, and I think it is a very good bill, and I think the fact that as we pass it today, as it is signed into law by the President tomorrow, that will allow for no interruption in the receipt of Federal unemployment benefits by people in the States. We are also assisting States so that they can use their funds later, not at the beginning.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo).

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

I would remind the gentleman from Washington State that just late last fall, I think in December, senior Members of his own party leadership were talking about what a wonderful bill the unemployment bill was that then was far less generous than what we would like to do today. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), for example, last fall said, ``Tomorrow the House will meet one more time before adjourning for the year. We could simply take up the bipartisan Senate bill which has the 3-month extension and agree to it unanimously. That action would send a positive signal about our willingness to work together to solve our economic problems.''

I submit that this additional 2-month extension, our bill is 5 months, plus a 3-month phaseout that assists 2 million additional people, is far more generous. So I think a dark day is perhaps not the right characterization for what we are doing today.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart).

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

Mr. Speaker, I will remind the gentleman from Wisconsin that 37,000 people would likely be helped by this additional bill; and also remind him that that piece of legislation we looked at very late and very briefly last fall was a provision that was far less expansive than this one. In the time that we have had in order to put together legislation on which the Senate and the House together would agree and the President would sign, we have come up with a larger program that extends unemployment benefits for 5 months with a phaseout of 3 months, and I think a far better piece of legislation, I am sure the gentleman from Wisconsin would agree.

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

Mr. Speaker, in closing, the unemployment rate in my State is 6.6 percent. That is a hugely, incredibly large number of folks who, through no fault of their own, have found themselves without jobs. This is occurring in many States around the Nation.

The attempt we are making today, which is a huge assistance to folks who are out of jobs, a bill that totals $7 billion, that includes 2 million additional people who will be assisted, 2 million people who will be assisted through additional help over the 4 million who we have already helped through our legislation that provided benefits last year, is hugely important.

In my own State, Washington State, many layoffs have been due to the aerospace industry. The adverse impact of the economy on our aerospace industry concerns me, because I have thousands of aerospace workers who live in my district. I do not want to see them without jobs. If they are without jobs, I want to help to stimulate the economy so they will not much longer be without jobs. But the fact is, they are now.

I am very pleased that we are beginning this new session of Congress by heading in the right direction by providing much needed benefits to all Americans who are out of jobs. Under this legislation, unemployed workers who had Federal unemployment benefits that remained after December 28, when, by the way, we had put into place on the floor of the House a 5-week extension which would overlap into this session, so we could take a look and see what additional work we needed to do, which is what we are doing today, these folks will now receive the balance of their benefits. It is very important to those whose benefits were interrupted.

Further, workers who exhaust the regular State unemployment benefits in the coming months will become eligible for up to 13 weeks of Federal benefits in all States and up to 26 weeks in States like mine that have high unemployment, as we do in Washington State. In my State, this will help 56,000 additional people. That is 2.7 million people all over the country who are recipients of unemployment benefits who need help. These are folks who are still looking for jobs.

I think we need to put ourselves in their place. I think we need to feel how they feel when they need to meet a mortgage, to pay for the costs of food and heat in their homes. This is a vitally important piece of legislation that we are discussing today.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this vitally important bill. I know there is debate on what additions we could make to this, but this is a generous bill and it is going to help a lot of people in my State and other States around the Nation. It is going to assist almost 2 million additional people today, in addition to the 4 million we have assisted in the past through other provisions that were passed last year.

I think it is a generous piece of legislation, and I think it is an imperative

as we begin the debate to stimulate this economy and create those jobs that folks right now would like to be holding.

I have great faith in this body. I know that we will do the right thing: that we will pass this piece of legislation today so in coordination with the Senate we may send this to the President, so by tomorrow he can sign this bill, and create no interruption in the Federal benefits received by folks whose benefits were stopped on December 28.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I am going to read a letter from a constituent of mine in Rochester, New York, whom we will call Mary.

``Dear Louise: I am a 52-year-old mother with a handicapped child at home and a daughter in graduate school. I am writing because I am tired of freezing. Our thermostat is set at 55 and the electric company is still sending us threatening letters every month. We pay as much as we can, but without extended unemployment benefits, my son will have to go to an institution. I have 42 job rejections and I have a B.A. in sociology. It's very hard for me to worry about home security issues and terrorism when I am cold. Maybe I can make it through the winter with extended benefits.''

Another received over the holidays:

``Dear Louise: My husband was laid off in January. We have taken out two loans against our house in addition to our mortgage to survive and we have a 2-year-old child who is getting almost nothing under the Christmas tree.''

There are more where that came from, Mr. Speaker. Another wrote me, ``I am 34 years old. A year ago today I was making $76,000 a year as a software engineer at Xerox, and today I cannot find a job. I have a newborn baby girl, and I am going to run out of my benefits next week. I consistently made $60,000 a year for the past 5 years and paid taxes accordingly.''

None of these people will be helped by this legislation today. None of them.

Mr. Speaker, last month I asked some unemployed workers in my district to sign a petition that calls on Congress to make the extension of Federal unemployment benefits a priority. During the last 2 weeks alone, more than 300 constituents have signed on to the petition. They are losing their homes. They have sold their cars. They cannot support their families, their children; and these are not people who sit back and passively collect checks to avoid working. They have been pounding the pavement in an economy that is shutting them out. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, I have been told that it is almost impossible at this time to get even a part-time job or a temporary job in Rochester.

These are people who have worked all of their lives and paid into the unemployment insurance fund and now simply are asking to get some back. Through no fault of their own, they find themselves reeling in an economic slowdown.

While working, they did all of their part; and the cushion that they are given now is resonating like a hard thud. The money is sitting there, Mr. Speaker, in a trust fund that we are failing to fully utilize. That is bad stewardship. These constituents are not comforted by an abstract proposal to reduce the tax on corporate dividends or other so-called stimulus. A victory for them would be to keep their homes heated and a roof over their heads. To add insult to injury, my constituents were greeted with this headline 3 days after Christmas reading nationwide, ``800,000 lose jobless benefits,'' with the kicker that Congress went home and failed to okay funds.

All during the holidays, Mr. Speaker, we talked about getting back here and the first thing we wanted to do, there was this great sense that we would come back to help the people whose benefits expired on December 28. Unfortunately, that is not the case. If benefits expire later, this bill will do some help, but this is appalling. I have been at a loss to explain to my constituents why a majority in this House let them down. A recent report suggests that without an extension package, a projected 12,000 unemployed workers in Rochester, in the Buffalo-Niagra area are scheduled to lose their benefits between December 28 and March 31. But, as I said before, this measure before us today will be too little and too late for thousands in my region and perhaps in others.

The version we are considering today would only allow for a 13-week extension of benefits for those who are still eligible. It would not address the needs of the nearly 84,000 unemployed in the State of New York alone who have already exhausted their benefits.

Mr. Speaker, it seems almost superfluous to note that the 108th Congress kicks off its legislative program with a rule so closed and restricted that the minority party was prevented from offering even a single substitute. I remember the day that this institution was considered one of the great deliberative bodies, brimming with ideas and a host of viewpoints befitting a democracy, but no more, Mr. Speaker. Today, 205 Members of this body and their constituents have been disenfranchised and shut out. My colleagues, a cold wind is blowing in this institution, and the needs and voices of our most vulnerable constituents are feeling the chill.

Mr. Speaker, the Democratic substitute that was blocked by the Committee on Rules last night would have made a real difference to thousands. First and foremost, the measure would reestablish the Federal extended unemployment compensation program and guarantee all jobless workers at least 26 weeks of extended benefits. The program would be extended until June 30, 2003. Workers in every State would be eligible for 26 weeks of extended unemployment benefits after they exhaust their regular unemployment compensation. This provision would provide extended unemployment benefits to merely 2\1/2\ million workers over the first half of 2003, and the unemployment rate becomes more and more shocking every day.

Moreover, any workers who exhausted their initial 13 weeks of temporary extended unemployment compensation in 2002 would receive an additional 13 weeks. Any worker who was cut off on December 28 because of the termination of the current program would receive the remainder of their original 13 weeks on a retroactive basis, plus the additional 13 weeks. Finally, any worker who exhausted 26 weeks which they received because their State hit the requisite unemployment trigger would receive an additional 7 weeks if their State remained designated as having high unemployment.

Mr. Speaker, one of the things that literally broke my heart was when one Member of Congress was quoted as saying, ``We don't want to extend these benefits; they will not go out and look for work.'' We are talking about people who are having a very difficult time; in fact, probably will not be able to find the kind of work commensurate with their education and their skills. I am very much afraid that my district, like many others, will lose them to other parts of the country. It is a tragedy that is happening here today, Mr. Speaker. We could be doing something good for the unemployed of America; but instead, we are turning our back on them and saying, have a little dividend tax relief.

I do want to point out too on the stimulus package, because it is so important that most people who have stock in the United States have either a 401(k) program or a mutual fund, they will not see anything from any kind of tax relief.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\3/4\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), a member of the Committee on Rules.

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.)

I do have three or four more speakers, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Wynn).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra).

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

Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman from Texas to yield for a unanimous consent.

Mr. Speaker, I meant to say at the end of my time that we will call for a vote on the previous question. If it is defeated, we have an amendment to the rule, that we would like to offer the Rangel substitute for 26 weeks of extended benefits. We are concerned that we were denied an opportunity to put that on the floor, and by voting no on the previous question we will be able to substitute.

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

Strike all after the resolved clause and insert:

That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in

order without intervention of any point of order to consider

in the House the bill (S. 23) to provide for a 5-month

extension of the Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation

Act of 2002 and for a transition period for individuals

receiving compensation when the program under such Act ends.

The bill shall be considered as read for amendment. The

previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill

and on any amendment thereto to final passage without

intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate on the bill

equally divided and controlled by Representative Thomas of

California and Representative Rangel of New York; (2) the

amendment specified in section 2, if offered by

Representative Rangel of New York or his designee, which

shall be in order without intervention of any point of order,

shall be considered as read, and shall be separately

debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the

proponent and an opponent; and (3) one motion to recommit

with or without instructions.

Sec. 2. The amendment referred to in the first section of

this resolution is as follows:

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, pursuant to House Resolution 14, I call up the Senate bill (S. 23) to provide for a 5-month extension of the Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 2002 and for a transition period for individuals receiving compensation when the program under such Act ends, and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to remind Members why we are here today. We are here today to vote on an unemployment assistance bill because the House, in trying to respond to the needs of the

unemployed, passed legislation last December. The Senate, in attempting to respond to the needs of the unemployed, passed legislation last December. As we all know, constitutionally for it to go to the President, if the Senate passes legislation different than the House, and similarly if the House passes legislation different than the Senate, the differences in those bills need to be reconciled. They were not reconciled.

The last Congress adjourned without addressing unemployment needs with the understanding that some individuals, through no fault of their own, notwithstanding the fact that they had not received the full benefits entitled to them, would lose unemployment benefits on December 28. That is still technically the case. They have not yet lost those benefits, but if the President does not have a bill to sign by tomorrow, that technicality will in fact be a reality.

We are here today because the Senate modified the proposal that they had passed in the last Congress and they sent it to us yesterday by unanimous consent.

Mr. Speaker, I imagine there are as many different ways to structure unemployment benefits as there are Members of the House; and if we are to debate the different ways in which it can be constructed and if we are to offer votes to try to produce a different result than the Senate, then it is inevitable that what we are trying to avoid will in fact occur.

I, as a Member of this body, do not like being put in the position of making a statement of this type. We are compelled to pass the unemployment provision as it was structured by the Senate because if we do not the President will not have a bill tomorrow.

I had visited with the leadership of the Senate and talked to them about offering amendments so we could really target unemployment to where it is most needed, give those most in need more benefits. They indicated while they may be sympathetic with that view, there was no way given the structure of the Senate's membership and the rules of Senate that that could be done in a day.

What we were able to do was to extend the period that the Senate had passed so instead of getting into this discussion in March, once again we are extending for 5 months the unemployment benefits to May with a phase-out through August. That means that we are going to see a continuation of assistance to the unemployed. It means that the President's commitment to make sure that those who would have lost their benefits on December 28 does not happen, and it means that there are going to be 1.9 million new recipients and 800,000 current recipients that will receive unemployment benefits at a cost of up to $7.2 billion when the House votes on this measure.

We are going to hear people say we could have, would have, should have, and the argument is that they are being denied rights because they cannot offer alternatives. If we do not pass this measure, people will lose their unemployment benefits. That should not happen.

Mr. Speaker, I hope I do not take the floor again in this session of the 108th Congress and say we have to do what the Senate has given us. I only hope we do that because we want to do it. I believe this is the right thing to do. More importantly, it is absolutely essential that we do it and that we do it today rather than argue that somebody is trying to withhold these unemployment benefits from these individuals. All we have to do is say yes, the President will sign, and the unemployment benefits will be available.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Dunn) to control the time.

Mr. Speaker, I have no objection to considering the motion as having been read, but I object to the motion to commit on the basis of its violation of the Budget Act.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a point of order.

Mr. Speaker, I object and make the point of order because this motion, if passed, would cause the allocation to the Committee on Ways and Means to be further exceeded in the first year and over the 5- year period governed by the budget resolution currently deemed in force. The motion therefore violates section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act, and I make a point of order that it violates section 302(f) of the Budget Act.

Mr. Speaker, I would tell the gentleman that that is the

technical effect. However, had the minority offered an amendment which was in the----

Might I make an argument on the point of order, Mr. Speaker?

Yes, sir.

Further on my point of order, Mr. Speaker, the reason I believe a 302(f) budget point of order lies against this measure is that it significantly exceeds in its amount the underlying bill.

The legislation before us was not reported by any committee of the House; rather, it was passed by the Senate, and the Committee on Rules has presented it to us.

So my point of order is not based on the fact that the underlying measure has a waiver from the Committee on Rules; it is that if the minority had offered an amendment equal to or less than the Senate position, it would have been in order and not subject to a point of order. Since it is significantly in excess of the Senate measure, it does in fact violate 302(f) of the Budget Act.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to commit.

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

Mr. Speaker, apparently we have come full circle. I opened this debate

by saying I had the uncomfortable requirement of informing the House and hoped that it would be the last time that we did so, that I was presenting a bill passed by the Senate and that we would be compelled to have to pass the bill that was passed by the Senate.

I did mention at that time that the Senate passed it unanimously. Notwithstanding the difficulties the other body has in coming together to pass legislation, when time is up, they were able to come together and agree that we needed to address a problem, and they passed this legislation.

For my friends on the other side of the aisle to offer this motion to commit versus the previous one, and the reason I said you did not need to read any further is all you have to do is look at the first paragraph that said the House should report it forthwith. That, in fact, means it comes immediately back and it could go to the Senate. They changed the word ``forthwith'' to ``promptly.'' That means it has to go to committee. And for my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, members of the Committee on Ways and Means say all we have to do is get the Committee on Ways and Means together so we can go ahead and hold a meeting, I have to tell you, who are your appointees to the Committee on Ways and Means?

The Committee on Ways and Means has not been constituted. We do not have a functioning committee. And yet they say blithely all we have to do is come together.

I cannot imagine the mental set that says notwithstanding the Senate came together in time of need and worked cooperatively that even at 11:30 to midnight my friends on the other side of the aisle are offering motions to commit which will kill this provision.

This provision allows for those December 28 folks to continue their benefits. In fact, it allows for almost 4 million to continue to receive benefits, an additional 2 million under the time extension, for a total of 6 million Americans to receive their unemployment benefits. If the motion to commit passes, it effectively kills the measure. The Senate's attempt to unify and put politics aside will have been destroyed by my colleagues' willingness to even today play politics.

In December, the House passed a short-term extension, only 5 weeks. We were criticized for making it only 5 weeks. Why? Because we wanted to address the question when we came back.

My friend from Maryland says we ought to address this promptly. You voted against the measure that would have required us to address it promptly. The Senate failed to pass it. So we are in a position of having the President sign a bill tomorrow or not sign a bill tomorrow.

If you vote ``yes'' for the motion to commit, there will be no bill signed tomorrow and people will really lose the unemployment benefits that they have earned, those people that you apparently shed crocodile tears over. If you vote against the motion to commit and for passage of the measure, we will pick up those folks who inadvertently were dropped on December 28; and 6 million people will continue to receive benefits and hopefully we will pass legislation which will in fact spur the economy and provide them with a job instead of unemployment insurance. And I am quite sure my colleagues will be opposed to the proposals to stimulate the economy as well. So those will be future battles.

Today the line is drawn very simply. Vote for the motion to commit and kill the opportunity to help people get their well-deserved unemployment. Vote against the motion to commit, vote for the underlying bill, and the President can have a bill-signing ceremony tomorrow, and we can do what we should have done back in December.

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

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 14 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.

The rule provides for 1 hour of debate and waives all points of order against consideration of the bill. As we begin the 108th Congress I would like to point out that we intend to continue the courtesy that we began when the Republicans became the majority. This rule allows us to continue in the tradition of extending the minority party an opportunity to offer a motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, the resolution before us today allows us to debate and consider a most important measure, S-23, which provides for a 5-month extension of the Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 2002. Last Congress we passed the Job Creation and Worker Assistance Act of 2002, which became Public Law 107-147. This economic stimulus bill includes a temporary extension of unemployment compensation and provides for the temporary extended unemployment compensation program.

This program provided up to 13 additional weeks of federally funded benefits for unemployed workers in all States. Benefits were payable to qualified workers through December 28, 2002. Though several attempts were made, and language extending this program was passed by the House, the 107th Congress unfortunately adjourned without having passed an extension.

Today, we have the opportunity to consider legislation that would immediately provide for a 5-month extension of unemployed benefits, through May 2003, with a 3-month phaseout. This also allows for newly eligible workers by the end of May 2003 to receive extended unemployment benefits through August of this year.

Mr. Speaker, 1.9 million new recipients would be aided by this extension, as well as nearly 800,000 continuing recipients who have been affected by the December 28 ``cliff.'' This comes to a total of 2.7 million workers and their families who would benefit from the legislation that will hopefully pass today.

This measure is similar to the language that was championed by Senators Clinton and Nickles at the end of the last Congress. Yesterday, the Senate passed this legislation by unanimous consent. Today, the House has the opportunity to pass and to send this measure to President Bush for his signature. By moving expeditiously, we could ensure that unemployed workers do not suffer from a significant delay in the receipt of their checks. I hope that we can mirror the Senate's actions on this bill with a strong, bipartisan vote. I believe that it would be a strong indication of this new Congress's commitment to American workers and their families. Furthermore, extending unemployment benefits and providing unemployed workers with additional purchasing power would be yet another way to help stimulate the economy which, in turn, would help us to keep unemployment down.

Mr. Speaker, before I yield to the gentlewoman from New York, I would like to offer a brief explanation of the second part of this resolution. Section 2 of this resolution provides that allocations referred to in section 3(a) of House Resolution 5 may be submitted by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle). This is merely a technical clarification of the rules package we adopted yesterday, which contained a provision to allow the chairman of the Committee on the Budget to have printed in the Congressional Record 302(a) allocations. This is necessary so that the House might complete its obligation to fund this through the current year FY 03 fiscal year.

As everyone knows, the Committee on Rules is currently the only committee up and running, so my good friend, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), has technically not been appointed the chairman of the Committee on the Budget yet. This provision merely lets him carry out his duties as if he already were the committee chairman.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this rule and the underlying legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, last night the Committee on Rules had an opportunity to hold a hearing on this unemployment compensation bill. However, for months our chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), has been involved in the negotiations as a member of the leadership of the House and is a person who has taken a lead on this important issue. I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of the Committee on Rules.

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

Mr. Speaker, what we are trying to work on today is a bill that was passed by the Senate last night. Last year, this House passed a bill very similar to this. We tried to do the very best we could. The process is that two bodies of Congress, the House and Senate, have to get together. That is what is happening today.

Yesterday, the Senate acted, or last night. Immediately last night the Committee on Rules had a meeting. We had a hearing where we talked directly about this bill. Today it is on the floor. I think we are doing the timely things. I think we are doing the right things. I do not think we are delaying this in any manner. It is process, and it is a process that we intend to follow.

I am proud that we had this on the floor today, and I am also proud that by presenting this rule and by having this debate perhaps as early as tonight or tomorrow the President of the United States, George W. Bush, will have the chance to sign this bill. That is what this is about. I am proud that we are able to do that today.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), the gentleman who is to be chairman of the Committee on the Budget.

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

Mr. Speaker, speech after speech we hear about how we have been delayed in this process. I agree. Part of the process is, however, that the two bodies, the House and the Senate, have a process. What we are doing today is taking a Senate bill that is even more generous than the one which the Senate passed last year. We are accepting this because we believe it is the right thing to do.

Our President, George W. Bush, spoke very clearly and very passionately about his belief that when the House of Representatives and the Senate would come back, this was several weeks ago when he spoke, that he was asking us to make sure that we held the necessary meetings and committee mark-ups to make sure that this bill did come to the floor. That is what we are doing today. I am proud of what we are doing. I offer no apologies for what our party stands for.

We are here on the floor of the House of Representatives as a majority party with a great bill. It happens to be a better bill now than what was marked up last year and passed by the United States Senate. But it is one that we agree on, and it is one that we should be proud of.

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

Mr. Speaker, at this time I have no further speakers. I would like to inquire from the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) as to how many speakers and the time remaining on both sides.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time.

Today, we have had a fabulous debate, an opportunity to have people from both parties, both sides of the aisle to be able to talk about this bill that is before us, S. 23. It is a Senate bill. It is an agreement that was reached in the other body just last night.

Last night, this body, through the leadership of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert) had the Committee on Rules come into order. We had a hearing last night. We talked about this important issue. We deliberated. We heard from both sides. We followed the process. That process that the Committee on Rules went through is one that this body has gone through for many years, and we came up with a product.

The product that we chose was exactly the same bill that the Senate had approved last year but made better, and was done all last night.

Mr. Speaker, it is my time and I do not choose to yield at this time. I am offering to close as is provided for by the rules, and I will allow the gentlewoman to insert something into the Record if that is a request.

Mr. Speaker, I yielded to the gentlewoman for the purpose of allowing something to be placed into the Record. It is my time and I wish to gain that time back.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Speaker for allowing the gentlewoman to insert that into the Record.

So now we are at the point where we have completed part of the process where we are going to vote on the rule, and in a few minutes, I assume after a vote on that, then we will have a debate where we will talk about the substance further of the bill. This has allowed both parties the time to place forward their ideas, and for anyone to think that we have not allowed free time or gagged someone to tell them what they can or cannot discuss is simply ludicrous. That is why we allow the time on the floor.

I am proud of what the Committee on Rules has done. I am proud of the debate that we have had today, and I look forward to the President of the United States having an opportunity, perhaps as early as this afternoon or tomorrow, to sign this bill to get these benefits to the people that need it the most. I am proud of what we are doing.

Mr. Speaker, once again, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this rule and the underlying legislation which is so critical.