Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2185) to extend the Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 2002.
Legislative Activity
Stay on top of the latest movement without scrolling through every action
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
May 22, 2003 • 4:12 PM
View full timeline
Introduced in House
May 21, 2003
The House Committee on Rules reported an original measure, H. Rept. 108-123, by Mr. Diaz-Balart, L..
May 21, 2003
Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 2185 with 1 hour of general debate. Previous question shall be considered as ordered without intervening motions except motion to recommit with or without instructions. Bill is closed to amendments.
May 21, 2003 • 11:46 PM
Placed on the House Calendar, Calendar No. 47.
May 21, 2003
Considered as privileged matter. (consideration: CR H4564-4571)
May 22, 2003 • 2:54 PM
DEBATE - The House proceeded with one hour of debate on H. Res. 248.
May 22, 2003 • 2:55 PM
On ordering the previous question Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: 217 - 203 (Roll no. 213). (text: CR H4564)
May 22, 2003 • 4:05 PM
Passed/agreed to in House: On agreeing to the resolution Agreed to by recorded vote: 216 - 201 (Roll no. 214).
May 22, 2003 • 4:12 PM
On agreeing to the resolution Agreed to by recorded vote: 216 - 201 (Roll no. 214).
May 22, 2003 • 4:12 PM
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
May 22, 2003 • 4:12 PM
Voting History
2 votes recorded • Roll call available
Floor Debate
22 membersWhat members said about H.Res. 248 on the floor
JD
BLC
JPMLD
GW+17
Floor Debate
22 membersWhat members said about H.Res. 248 on the floor
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 248, I call up the bill (H.R. 2185) to extend the Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 2002, and ask for its immediate consideration. Mr.…
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 248, I call up the bill (H.R. 2185) to extend the Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 2002, and ask for its immediate consideration.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, today we consider H.R. 2185 to extend unemployment benefits for millions of displaced workers. I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) for his leadership in bringing this bill to the floor today. This bill will extend the current unemployment insurance program until December 2003 with a phase-out until March 2004.
My legislation will allow dislocated workers to receive 13 weeks of benefits in all States and an additional 13 weeks for workers who live in States with high unemployment rates such as Alaska, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Washington. The bill will help approximately 2.4 million displaced workers nationwide.
In my home State of Washington, the unemployment rate has again increased from 7.1 percent to 7.3 percent, making it the third highest unemployment rate in the Nation. Mass layoffs continue to have an adverse impact on our State's economy, especially in the aerospace industry. I represent more than 25,000 Boeing workers, many of whom have already lost their jobs.
As we work on a jobs and growth package to provide an immediate boost to our economy, we must also give displaced workers the peace of mind in knowing that they have a little time to find a job. So what does H.R. 2185 do? It achieves the following: it extends unemployment benefits until December 31, 2003, with a phase-out until March 31, 2004; it extends unemployment benefits for 13 weeks in all States for displaced workers; it extends unemployment benefits for an additional 13 weeks for a total of 26 weeks in high unemployment States.
This bill will cost $6.5 billion over 10 years, and it will help about 2.4 million workers nationwide. I think it is important that people realize that the Congress has done a lot to help unemployed workers. We feel this is the time to continue generosity and to help some of these folks who are trying to get jobs.
The existing unemployment extension expires at the end of this month with a phase-out until August. Congress has now extended unemployment benefits three different times: first in March 2002, 13 weeks for all States and 26 weeks for high unemployment States; secondly, in January 2003, 13 weeks for all States and 26 weeks for high unemployment States; and, lastly, in April 2003 an additional 26 weeks for airline and related industry workers.
We are extending the safety net for workers struggling to find a job while stimulating our economic growth by reducing taxes for individuals and encouraging business expansion. By extending unemployment benefits for an additional 13 weeks in all States, we can help the 2.4 million workers, and in my State, 60,000 workers, who need this kind of help.
Our unemployment system has worked well for many years, and it serves people during economic downturns. We are constantly reviewing the unemployment program to ensure that it helps those who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own. It is a temporary program, and now is the time to extend these benefits in a temporary way to help those folks who need to be helped.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English), a very valuable member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I want to remind the gentleman from New Jersey that, under this bill, 124,250 of his constituents will receive unemployment coverage.
I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
Because they have already received Federal benefits in the past.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller), a very trusted and good member of our committee.
(Mr. WELLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), a former Governor and current valued Member.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I think, to put the comments of Mr. Greenspan in context, because he made them at the meeting of the Joint Economic Committee yesterday, where I was present, he said:
``I have always been of the opinion, and stated before this committee previously, that our unemployment insurance system seems to work rather well. It is not overly generous, which would induce the type of increased levels of structural unemployment which we see in other countries which have these types of things, these types of structures. But unemployment insurance is essentially restrictive because it's been our perception that we don't want to create incentives for people not to take jobs. But when you're in a period of job weakness where it is not a choice on the part of the people whether they're unemployed or unemployed, then obviously you want to be temporarily generous.''
And he says, ``If you go forward with additional extensions, I would be careful to keep the extensions relatively short and renew them again if necessary.''
That is exactly what we are doing.
He says, ``Because we're not quite clear at this stage what the path of short-term economic activity is. A number of major economic forecasters have forecasts for the third quarter, which is just about in front of us, of 4 percent growth at an annual rate. And that is a relatively long list.''
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo).
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I certainly agree with the gentleman from Washington in that anybody who cannot find a job wants to, which is why we are going to pass tonight the Jobs and Growth Reconciliation Tax Act of 2003.
I do want to also remind the gentleman from Washington that the Congress has been watching over the concerns of States like Washington that have been the recipient of many unemployed people, and we have not done nothing. The debate tonight makes it sound like the Federal Government has done nothing.
In the State of Washington specifically, we have followed up 30 weeks of State benefits that the residents of our State are eligible for with 26 weeks of federally funded benefits that we passed in March, 2002, and extended again another 26 weeks in January of 2003, and then we matched the State for 9 total weeks of Federal- and State-funded benefits. We added on 7 weeks of State benefits for aerospace and timber workers who are in training programs. If we total that all up, it comes to 65 weeks for all dislocated workers, 98 weeks for aerospace workers and 72 weeks for timber workers.
I think the extension that we are going to do today, which for the State of Washington would provide 60,000 new people with unemployment benefits, is the right thing to do. With luck, if we play our cards right and the economy responds in the way we hope it will, we will not need to extend unemployment benefits, but if we need to, we will be there and do it, as Alan Greenspan says, on a temporary basis.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from the State of Oregon (Mr. Walden) who talks from experience since he is from the State with the highest unemployment.
Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the amount of time that remains for both sides, please?
Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham).
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, some of these speakers on the other side have talked about folks who have been covered in the past by Federal unemployment insurance, but they do not make that point. They make it sound as though they never have been covered.
I think it is important to reiterate that the Congress in March of 2002 extended to folks 13 weeks of Federal unemployment and 26 weeks for high unemployment States; extended it once again in January 2003, 13 weeks for all States and 26 weeks for high unemployment States; extended it again in April 2003, an additional 26 weeks for airline and related industry workers; and that many States also have provided for unemployment benefits.
Some States have additional benefits to help those who have exhausted their Federal benefits. For example, States have the option to provide 13 weeks of extended benefits at a 50/50 State and Federal cost share. This is after the 26 weeks of State and 13/13 weeks of Federal benefits, where we matched the States.
Additional Federal funds have been given to States to provide for unemployment benefits in any way they wish. They are done under the Reid Act. In March 2002, Congress allocated $8 billion to States under the Reid Act. States have the flexibility to use this money to pay for an additional unemployment benefit if they choose to do so. At this time States still have $6 billion of unused funds under the Reid Act. Congress also provided, as I said
before, targeted additional benefits to airline and related industry sectors.
So I think it is very, very misleading to make it sound like this is the first time we have thought of people who are unemployed. We have kept very close watch over these folks, because we feel their pain and we want to make sure they are provided with the help they need to go out and get jobs.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from the high- unemployment State of Connecticut (Mr. Shays).
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the very valued member of the House of Representatives, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Quinn).
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson), from one of those high unemployment States.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I would like to do a comparison between the bill that we are talking
about on the floor tonight and the bill that the Democrats have often brought up as being a better bill.
The Democrat plan is not targeted. It guarantees 26 weeks of benefits, regardless of local economic conditions in a State. Our bill is targeted. It provides immediately 13 weeks of Federal assistance to those who need it now, and it targets additional benefits to States that have high unemployment rates.
The Democrat plan is too long in duration. That plan would extend the program through October, 2004. We might be out of this recession by October of 2004. Our goal is to create jobs. We are enacting tax relief for all Americans that will give our economy an immediate boost and create new jobs.
Our bill continues the unemployment benefits through December, 2003, with a phase-out through March, 2004. That means Congress can come back, as we have consistently done in the past, and review the economic conditions at that time and decide if we need to extend unemployment benefits.
Also, in the growth bill, in addition to these unemployment extension benefits, we will provide $20 billion of Federal assistance to States in the jobs and growth package. This is a good solid unemployment package. It should pass.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to control the time of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel). Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, let me assure the House that…
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to control the time of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel).
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, let me assure the House that on the Democratic side of the aisle, we are pleased that we have legislation before us that extends the Federal unemployment compensation for an additional 7 months. We think that is the right way to move. However, we are extremely disappointed that the legislation does not include any additional help for those who have already exhausted their unemployment insurance benefits.
We are very disappointed that over a million people who currently are unemployed, who cannot find employment, will not be able to get any benefits under this legislation. Few States will be able to go beyond the 13 weeks of additional Federal unemployment insurance benefits because of the trigger mechanism. We believe that the legislation before us should include 26 weeks of unemployment insurance benefits for all those workers who exhaust their State unemployment insurance funds.
Let me point out that in prior recessions we have done exactly that. The gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Dunn) points out what we have done, but it falls far short of what we did in the recession in the early 1990s. Despite the fact that this recession is much deeper than the prior recession, we have lost 2.7 million jobs, twice as many jobs as in the early 1990s, and 70 percent more people have exhausted their unemployment insurance benefits in this recession than in the recession in the early 1990s. In the early 1990s, we extended benefits for 27 months. Yet in
this recession, we have only extended benefits for 15 months. In the prior recession, we extended Federal unemployment benefits initially for 26 weeks, then reduced it to 20 weeks; yet the legislation before us maintains only 13 weeks of benefits for those who are unemployed.
We have accumulated $21 billion in the Federal unemployment trust funds just for this purpose. The legislation before us is scored at about $6.5 billion. If we would extend the benefits to all of those who have exhausted benefits and provide 26 weeks of Federal unemployment insurance, it would cost perhaps another $3.5 billion, so $10 billion, about half the money that is in the fund exactly for this purpose.
Lastly, let me point out that providing unemployment insurance benefits for those who are unemployed and cannot find employment through no fault of their own would be the best way to stimulate our economy. A little later this evening we will be talking about a tax bill, supposedly to create jobs. If we really want to help our economy, let us give the money to those people who have to spend it because they have no other source of income.
The rule before us denies the opportunity of Members to offer amendments. That is regrettable. We should have had that opportunity. Speaking for my side of the aisle, the Democrats will use every opportunity we can to try to correct this legislation to deal with the 1 million people who are being left out by the underlying bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would point out to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English) that under the bill, 78,000 people from Pennsylvania will be denied any additional benefits.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. Speaker, let me just point out to my friend from Illinois that 53,000 of his constituents will
not be able to get benefits because of being excluded from this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis).
Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones), a distinguished member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
(Mrs. JONES of Ohio asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)
Mr. Speaker, let me point out to my friend from New Jersey that 51,000 people in his State are not going to get benefits because of leaving out the extra weeks.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott), a distinguished member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Let me just point out to my friend from Oregon that the Bush Administration has the worst job record of any administration since World War II, losing 69,000 jobs, whereas the Clinton Administration has the best, creating over half a million jobs.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), Democratic whip.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, let me tell my friend from California that if he checks with the Department of Labor he will find that 150,000 people in his State are not going to be covered under this bill who are unemployed.
Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, let me say to my friend from Connecticut that the suggestion we are making to cover those who are unemployed costs less than 1 percent of the tax bill we are taking up later.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bell).
Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).
Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Michaud).
Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Corrine Brown).
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, we would give the gentleman a chance to help the 103,000 people who are currently not covered by the bill in New York.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Emanuel).
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, as I said at the beginning of this debate, we welcome the opportunity of having an unemployment compensation bill on the floor. It is important that we enact legislation tonight that will help those people who are unemployed.
I can assure Members the Democrats want to join in that effort. We will offer an opportunity under the Rules so we can extend those benefits to all the people that are being trapped that are entitled to unemployment through their employment paying into the fund, so we do not leave 1 million people behind.
We would urge Members to support our motion, which will allow the 7- month extension for those who have exhausted the State benefits and also include those who have exhausted their 13 weeks.
Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
Yes, in its present form, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated during the debate on the bill, the bill before us does extend unemployment insurance benefits for 7 months. I agree with the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Dunn) that a 7-month extension of the unemployment insurance benefits at this time is the appropriate length of time for us to extend unemployment insurance benefits.
We hope that during this period of time our economy will rebound; and if not, then we will have to revisit it again, but the length of time is the right period, and we have no objection to that.
Our objection is that we are not covering all the people who need to be helped. As I pointed out, in the recession in the 1990s when the loss of employment was less severe than the loss of employment in this recession, with the number of people who exhausted their Federal unemployment insurance benefits was less than under the current recession, we extended benefits for 26 weeks. We have the money in the unemployment insurance trust fund in order to do this. We have the money in the account, $21 billion. This will add a little over $3 billion.
Mr. Speaker, the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means just filed the conference report on the Growth Tax Bill that I assume we will be taking up later this evening. That conference report will incur $350 billion of additional outlays. The amendment I have before you is less than 1 percent, less than 1 percent of the conference report on the tax bill. It affects 1 million people; 1 million people are affected by this motion. The adoption of this motion to recommit will not delay this bill 1 minute. We will still vote on it and pass it tonight. It is our opportunity to speak to what is the right policy, the right policy for those people who are unemployed; the right policy for what we have done in previous recessions; the right policy to help our economy, because we know these people need the money and will spend the money.
It is the right policy. I urge my colleagues to take advantage of this opportunity so that we cannot only take care of the 2 million people who are estimated to exhaust their State unemployment insurance benefits during the next 6 to 7 months, but we can help the 1 million people who are looking for jobs and cannot find jobs.
We have heard from these people in our communities. For every three people that are seeking a job, there is only one job available in the community, through no fault of their own. The least we can do is try to help them, and we can tonight by your vote on this motion to recommit. I urge my colleagues to support the motion.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule. Once again, the Republican leadership is turning its back on working Americans. Last night, President Bush told…
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule. Once again, the Republican leadership is turning its back on working Americans. Last night, President Bush told over 7,500 wealthy Republican donors that this is a strong and compassionate country.
Mr. Speaker, this economy is anything but strong, and this leadership is anything but compassionate. I am sure the people in that crowd, the crowd that raised $22 million for the Republican Party, cheered and clapped their hands every time somebody mentioned the Republican tax bill, or, as some have called it, the ``No Millionaire Left Behind Bill.'' But what about the rest of the country? What about the people struggling to find work? They do not have as much to cheer about.
Let us look at the facts: over 2.7 million jobs have been lost since President Bush took office in 2001; long-term unemployment is at a 30- year high; the average length of unemployment is the highest since 1984; the economy has lost 500,000 jobs in the last 3 months; there are currently three unemployed workers competing for every available job.
Mr. Speaker, people are out of work, and they need help. The Republican leadership's solution is to be dragged, kicking and screaming, into doing the absolute minimum. Their proposal will continue to leave over 1 million unemployed workers in the cold.
We have seen this rerun before. The Republican leadership voluntarily let unemployment insurance expire last December, forcing millions of Americans to worry about how they would provide for their families during and after the holidays. Two weeks later they proposed a plan that denied 1 million people unemployment insurance.
That is compassionate? These unemployed Americans are not deadbeats. They are our neighbors, friends, and relatives. They do not want a handout, they want a job, but they need help while they search for a job.
It is well established that unemployment insurance provides a better stimulus than dividend tax cuts. In fact, we will see a $1.73 return for every dollar invested in unemployed Americans. As an investment tool, expanding unemployment insurance is good policy, but it is also the morally right thing to do. Unemployment insurance is a safety net for American workers who lose their jobs through no fault of their own, and we have a moral responsibility to not let these workers down.
Now, before this current economic crisis, no Congress had ever extended unemployment insurance without including workers who already exhausted their Federal unemployment. But for the second time this year, the Republican leadership lets these workers down by cutting out the unemployed who have already exhausted their coverage.
This leadership should be ashamed of themselves for this disingenuous and insufficient bill. But they are not.
The unemployed deserve better until the job market improves, and the ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means has a bill to do just that. His bill would provide unemployment insurance for workers who are currently unemployed and are exhausting their coverage, and I support that plan.
But the Republican leadership has once again tossed aside the democratic process by denying the House the right to debate and vote on the proposed substitute offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel). At the end of this debate, I will move the previous question; and if defeated, I will offer an amendment to make the Rangel substitute in order.
The only reason I can think of to deny the Rangel substitute is that the
Republican leadership is terrified that it might actually pass. It is the same reason we were not allowed to vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cooper) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen) on worker rights at the Pentagon.
Instead of fostering the free and open debate that the American people deserve on these issues, we are once again forced into this unfair, closed procedure. In the long run the democratic process will suffer, but today it is the unemployed workers of America who are hurt by the actions of this leadership.
I urge my colleagues to join me in defeating the previous question, and, if that effort fails, voting ``no'' on the rule.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I remind the gentleman that his proposal still leaves 1 million American workers out in the cold.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, again I remind those watching that under their bill, 1 million American workers will be left in the cold with no benefits.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy).
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin).
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).
(Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott).
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis).
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I would say to the gentleman that what we want is help for unemployed workers, and your plan leaves a million workers out in the cold, and that is not the least bit compassionate.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren).
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I would just respond that under this limited bill over 150,000 workers in California will be left out in the cold and close to 60,000 workers in Florida will not get their benefits.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), our ranking member on the Committee on Appropriations.
Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?
Mr. Speaker, may I inquire if the gentleman has any further speakers, because I am the final speaker on my side.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I will be calling for a vote on the previous question. And if the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the rule. My amendment will make in order the Rangel substitute amendment which is identical to the text of H.R. 1652, the Unemployment Benefits Extension Act.
H.R. 1652 will extend Federal unemployment benefits by 26 weeks and will also give an additional 13 weeks to those unemployed workers whose benefits have been exhausted. The Republican bill only extends benefits by 13 weeks and does nothing for workers whose benefits have run out.
Mr. Speaker, unemployment rates continue to rise. They increased to 6 percent in April, the third month in a row that the economy has lost jobs. For every one available job, there are three Americans looking for work.
Out-of-work Americans need relief, and they need it immediately. Current Federal unemployment benefits run out at the end of this month, less than 2 weeks away. Without an extension, 2.1 million Americans will lose their unemployment benefits. Since the current recession began in 2001, 2.7 million jobs have disappeared in this country. In the last 3 months alone over half a million private sector jobs have vanished. The number of unemployed people is at the highest point in a decade; and, sadly, there is no indication that the economic situation in our Nation will provide relief anytime soon.
Republicans in the House have voted against extending these critical benefits four times in the last 2 weeks, and I am glad they are finally bringing up this legislation today. But I am very disappointed that they will not let the House vote on the Rangel substitute, which will bring relief to far more people in need.
Under the Republican bill, 1 million people will be left behind, and that is unconscionable. Why will they not let us bring the Rangel substitute up? What are they afraid of? We are just about to pass a massive tax bill later today. If we took a tiny percentage of the money from that bill, we could help millions of unemployed American workers go through this very difficult time. But, no, we are going to instead give massive tax cuts to the very richest in this country.
Let me make very clear that a ``no'' vote on the previous question will not stop the consideration of the legislation to extend Federal unemployment benefits, but a ``no'' vote will allow this House to vote on the Rangel substitute, which will provide more benefits to more unemployed Americans. However, a ``yes'' vote on the previous question will prevent the House voting on a more generous and more far-reaching extension of Federal unemployment benefits to our unemployed workers. I would urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question.
This is an important issue. We should have an open debate. We should be able to consider and vote up or down on the Rangel substitute. The fact that we are being denied that opportunity is wrong, it is unconscionable, and I would urge my colleagues again to vote ``no'' on the previous question.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the amendment and a description of the amendment be printed in the Record immediately before the vote on the previous question.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 248 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 248 and ask for its immediate consideration.
Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), 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. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 248 is a closed rule, providing for the consideration of H.R. 2185, an extension of the Federal Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation Program. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate, evenly divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
The rule also provides one motion to recommit, with or without instructions. This is a fair rule and one that will expedite the debate of this important extension so that we can provide needed economic security to the unemployed.
H.R. 2185 will provide for a 13-week extension of benefits for the unemployed. This legislation once again provides a total of 26 weeks of benefits to those in designated ``high unemployment'' States.
The extension of benefits under the Federal Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation Program is set to have expired at the end of this month. I am pleased to bring this rule to the floor as this House responds to those who are without work. With passage of this bill, we ensure there is no break in essential benefits to families across the country.
H.R. 2185 provides over $7 billion in extended Federal unemployment benefits in addition to the $16 billion that this Congress has previously approved for both State and Federal unemployment. With the original legislation in March of 2002 and the first extension in January of this year, Congress has succeeded in assuring those families in need will have the funds precisely to put food on the table and pay for child care so that they can focus on becoming employed once again. In fact, this extension will help 2.5 million people in addition to the 5 million that have been helped through previous extensions.
I would like to highlight the previous work by this body to not only provide Federal unemployment benefits but also $8 billion to the individual States for use in their individual unemployment programs.
I would like to thank the gentleman from California (Chairman Thomas) for his leadership and the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Dunn) for sponsoring this important legislation. H.R. 2185 is important legislation, important to the continued economic health of families in all of the 50 States.
Mr. Speaker, hopefully this should be a bipartisan effort to provide benefits to the unemployed, and this rule allows this Chamber to consider it and consider it today. Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support both the rule and the underlying legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I just want to reiterate and make clear that the legislation before us that we are bringing to the floor with this rule will provide for a 13-week extension of unemployment benefits in the Nation, and the legislation once again provides a total of 26 weeks of benefits to those in designated high-unemployment States.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, it is wonderful to see the imagination on the other side of the aisle. In case somebody is watching this debate or listening to it, I would like to get us back to what we are debating.
H.R. 2185 will provide for a 13-week extension of benefits for the unemployed in the United States, and the legislation once again provides a total of 26 weeks of benefits to those in designated high- unemployment States.
I recall the debate we had last week when the ``theme du jour'' was that these unemployment benefits were going to expire before the end of May. Well, we are acting today so that they will not expire, and there will be another 13 weeks of benefits, plus 26 weeks in the high- unemployment States that are designated as such.
So that is what is before us today. It is an important piece of legislation. That is why I will continue to urge my colleagues to support both the rule and the underlying legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserving the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to my colleague and friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica).
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of the Committee on Rules.
(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, simply to reiterate what we are about today, we are extending unemployment benefits for 13 weeks throughout the Nation and for 26 weeks in the States that are classified as high-unemployment States. We have also provided previously $8 billion to the individual States for use in their individual unemployment programs, and almost $6 billion of those $8 billion that the Federal Government has provided to the States are still available to the States for use for their unemployment programs.
It is important to realize what we are talking about today with this legislation; this is not theory. We have legislation before us, we are bringing to the floor legislation to help 2.5 million unemployed people in this country. And we think that is an important piece of legislation, and we think that it should be passed. And that is why we seek to bring it forward with this rule. And that is why we urge support for this rule and then for the subsequent underlying legislation, to get that aid, that continued aid to 2.5 million people in this country.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I will close.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, today we are extending the unemployment benefits for 2\1/2\ million Americans, and in doing so this Congress is appropriating $7 billion for that purpose. Again, it is 2\1/2\ million Americans who are unemployed that this legislation will help. That is in addition to the $16 billion that we have appropriated before for that purpose.
This is important legislation. It is to help people who need help, and I feel proud to have brought forward this rule. I urge support for the rule and that then we get to the underlying legislation and that we pass the underlying legislation to get extended unemployment benefits to 2\1/2\ million people in this country.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.
Mr. Speaker, we are proud of a lot of things in the great State of Oregon. Having the highest unemployment rate at 8 percent is not among them. It is astounding to me to hear some of the Members on…
Mr. Speaker, we are proud of a lot of things in the great State of Oregon. Having the highest unemployment rate at 8 percent is not among them.
It is astounding to me to hear some of the Members on the other side of the aisle talk about unemployment insurance being a great economic producer. You are the people who have taken the jobs away from the people in Wallowa County: unemployment rate, 15.1 percent. It is your policies, yes, it is your policies who took away the jobs in Crook County: unemployment rate, 11.5 percent; Grant County, 14 percent.
I will tell you the policies. Did you vote for the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 the day before yesterday? Did you? Did you? Did you? No. Maybe you voted for it. Did you?
I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. Speaker, worse. Worse. It has been double- digit rates. I am happy to show the numbers. I will get them.
Some of these counties were approaching 20 percent unemployment because they are surrounded by Federal forests. Yes, it is hard to believe. Yes, you can laugh. Folks in Wallowa County are not laughing. We have been on 65 weeks of unemployment, 65 weeks, the highest unemployment in the country. If we want to create jobs in rural America, and that is what I represent, 72,000 square miles. My colleagues know my district. It is all of eastern Oregon. These are hard-working people. They are Republicans and Democrats. It is not a partisan thing to be unemployed. They want real jobs.
I am going to vote to extend this. You bet I am. This district, and I have only represented it for 4 years, did not enjoy the roaring 1990s of the major metropolitan areas. We are a resource-based district. Agriculture and timber. Our forests burn. Our watersheds are destroyed. Trees rot because they cannot go in and cut down the dead trees after a fire. We are trying to change that. I want healthy watersheds. I want healthy forests. They are America's forests. And I want these men and women back to work.
So I plead with my colleagues as we extend unemployment, which we must, and I have supported it every time, including the aerospace extension, to extend the benefits, but I plead with my colleagues, these people want jobs. Help us change the policies. When they voted no this week on healthy forests, they voted to take away their jobs again. Please work with us. It is more than just a safety net.
I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
Reclaiming, first, I am not on the Committee on Rules.
Second, let me suggest that the gentleman's side was given an opportunity to craft a bill to create a majority vote on this floor. The gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) and the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), whom I have worked with on other issues and will again, put forward a proposal of their free will in writing. They were given that opportunity. Many of you voted for that. I think it is insufficient. It did not prevail. It did not achieve a majority.
But it goes beyond healthy forests. The rules and the regulations and the laws, I remember when George McGovern left this body and opened a bed and breakfast. He wrote a column, and he said, ``I wish I had done this before I served in the Congress, because I had no idea what these rules and regulations and laws do to small business.''
I have been in small business 16 years. The bill we are going to vote on tonight to increase the ability to expense and deduct will produce jobs because companies will have the ability to invest in equipment they need. Somebody has to make that equipment, and they will. So let us get America back to work, and let us extend benefits as we need to extend them, and I will continue to vote to do that as I am going to do tonight.
Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that the job losses occurred in my district under the Clinton Administration. I would suggest that and I bet I could prove that. The gentleman's numbers are about States in total, not looking at rural communities like the ones I represent.
Show 8 more
Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. Speaker, I think the gentleman makes a good point, and he says work with us. The gentleman recalls that you would not allow us amendments to that bill so…
Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Speaker, I think the gentleman makes a good point, and he says work with us. The gentleman recalls that you would not allow us amendments to that bill so that many Democrats would have felt very comfortable voting for that bill. So you did not work with us.
I understand that. I did not mean the gentleman personally.
I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.
Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, there is no doubt, however, that George W. Bush has the worst job creation or, better put, the worst job loss record of any President. I would tell the gentleman from Oregon I do not recall his statement, but I recall the statements of many of his colleagues that stood on this floor in 2001 and said, if we vote for this $1 trillion package, we are going to create jobs, the economy is going to boom, and, guess what, we can do it within the framework of this $5.6 trillion surplus which is now, of course, as the gentleman knows well, a $2.7 trillion deficit, an $8 trillion turnaround which is going to dampen the economy of Oregon and our entire country.
Mr. Speaker, what a difference a week makes. I ask the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden) to listen to this.
Last week, my colleagues may recall, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), House majority leader, last week said in on this floor in regard to the much-needed extension of unemployment insurance benefits, what they bring here under great pressure from Democrats, and that is the only reason it is here, and I am going to vote for it, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) said this:
``I think it is a stretch to say that we are at a crisis point, that we have to move quickly and not deliberatively on this issue.''
I am sure the people in eastern Oregon thought we had better move quickly, and the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden) agrees with that. Our Republicans friends finally have recognized that last week's noncrisis, which is what their leader said, is this week's emergency for millions of American families; and I share the gentleman from Oregon's (Mr. Walden) view on the need of those unemployed.
The Republicans have finally peeked out from under their tax-cut blinders just long enough to see the harsh reality on Main Street America today, that our Nation has the highest unemployment rate in 9 years, that there are nearly 9 million unemployed Americans, that our economy has lost 2.7 million private sector jobs since President Bush was inaugurated, and that 4 million jobless Americans will have their temporary unemployment benefits completely cut off on May 31 unless this Congress acts immediately.
We asked that they act last week. We asked that they act the week before that. They have not done so. But their political analysts have told them, do not go home without at least positively affecting some of these people. Even as they prepare to shower the most affluent citizens in America with enormous budget-busting, debt-exploding tax cuts, the self-proclaimed compassionate conservatives demonstrate again that they only have so much compassion in their hearts, two-thirds to be exact tonight, because 1 million people are going to be left on the cutting room floor.
This GOP bill is most notable for its half measures. It will provide only 13 weeks of additional benefits to workers who have exhausted their State benefits, rather than 26 weeks that we sought. And for the 1 million unemployed Americans who have already exhausted both their State and Federal unemployment benefits, this bill would provide zero; nada; nothing; sorry, we cannot help.
I challenge my Republican colleagues to go home and tell the jobless constituents in eastern Oregon or anyplace else who have exhausted their State and Federal benefits that they refuse to extend them when they have the opportunity tonight now. Do it. Do the right thing.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. I apologize for my voice, which I am unfortunately losing. But before I lose my voice, I think it is important that someone respond to the…
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. I apologize for my voice, which I am unfortunately losing. But before I lose my voice, I think it is important that someone respond to the rhetoric we have heard from the other side of the aisle.
Once again, the other side of the aisle offers the American people their solution for the economy. That is unlimited unemployment benefits. I think Republicans are compassionate people, and we are taking care of those who have lost their jobs. The other side of the aisle, their solution has been increased taxation, increased regulation, increased litigation. Unfortunately, from the other side of the aisle, my friends and colleagues, they do not have a clue, a clue as to how we create jobs in business.
I have $20 here. If I send this $20 to Washington, I do not have $20 to spend, I do not have $20 to invest.
It takes capital. I do not think they have a clue as to basic free enterprise or business investment tenets. People have to have money in their pockets. They want to put more money in Washington. They want them to rely on the government for unemployment benefits. If you want to stimulate business, well, first of all, most of them should go out and try to start a business. When you have increased taxation and you send more money to Washington, you have fewer people to invest in that business. A basic tenet. When you send more money to Washington, you have less money to spend, and it hurts the poor the most because they have the least amount of money, and you cannot start a business. When you have increased regulation, which they have spent 30 and 40 years piling regulations on the business man and woman, it is impossible to start a business.
Would you start a business? I cannot tell you how happy I am to be out of a business because of government regulation, taxation, and then finally litigation, the protectors of litigation. So we become the most lawsuit-happy land in the world. And we drive businesses overseas because of taxation, because of regulation, and because of litigation.
Would you want to get into business in the United States of America today with the opportunity to be sued at every corner? Small business people, the largest employer in this country, by far the largest employer, they are backing off of providing health insurance benefits. We have more people without health insurance benefits. Why? Because the other side blocks litigation reform and they have gone crazy with lawsuits. And a few people are benefiting and the rest of us are paying. People who can least afford it are not having health care coverage; small business operators are unable to provide health care coverage.
So that is their plan, increased taxation, increased litigation, increased government regulation. And then finally, here they offer their grand plan, unlimited unemployment extension. No one has come up to me and said, I want unlimited unemployment benefits from the Federal Government. I want a job. I want an opportunity to share in the American Dream. I want health care coverage. I do not want more suits, more money to go to Washington, less control of my life, less control of my money.
I have heard it, and I think we have all heard it. The song and dance from the other side just does not work, will not work. Even the former Soviet Union tried a full government plan. It did not work. So now we have a choice. We will have a tax and economic package before us that puts more money in the hands of the American people. It gives them an opportunity. It gives people an opportunity for a job, not just for an extension of unemployment benefits.
The Republicans are compassionate. They have provided for both an extension of unemployment benefits but also for hope and opportunity and for an America we all want for the future.
Mr. Speaker, today I come before you to talk about how much unemployed Americans across the country will be affected when the Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 2002, TEUC, runs out…
Mr. Speaker, today I come before you to talk about how much unemployed Americans across the country will be affected when the Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 2002, TEUC, runs out at the end of this month. We all know how severely the current economic downturn has impacted not only our districts, but our States overall. In my own State of California, the unemployment rate was 6.7 percent in 2002, while the Nation's unemployment rate for the same time period was 5.8 percent. California had 1.2 million unemployed residents in 2002, leaving it tied for 46th place with the worst unemployment ranking among the 50 States and the District of Columbia. As of March 2003, the State's unemployment rate had risen to 6.8 percent, which remains higher than the national average of 5.8 percent.
With our country's ongoing economic uncertainty, it is incumbent upon us to provide all methods of support to citizens who are searching for work nationwide.
With upward of 2.7 million private sector jobs lost during the past 2 years in contrast to 1.3 million private sector jobs disappearing in the early 1990s, we must clearly provide all available resources to unemployed Americans.
If we do not act quickly, some 80,000 Americans who are out of work will be unable to receive extended unemployment benefits each week unless we act and extend the current Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation Program. If we delay further action, as of June 1 up to 2 million unemployed workers could be denied extended benefits over the next 6 months. This is on top of the 1 million out-of-work Americans who have already exhausted their Federal extended benefits.
Given that our economy was declared to be in recession as of March 2001, and with the additional decline caused by the events of September 11, more people are losing their jobs, and experience difficulty finding other work in order to sustain their families and themselves. We are facing new, unprecedented economic challenges, and the assistance we offer to those who are unemployed must meet their needs. An extended benefits program was made available to the unemployed for 27 months during the recession of the early 1990s, and unemployed workers received from 20 to 26 weeks' worth of benefits. Now, the extended benefits program is scheduled to expire after only 15 months, and it offers only 13 weeks of benefits in a select number of States. We spent $28.5 billion to help unemployed workers a decade ago, as opposed to spending $16 billion on extended benefits for the unemployed today.
The statistics we face regarding unemployment today are grim. The Department of Labor's Job Openings and Labor Turnover report indicates that there are now more than three unemployed workers for every job opening. Many individuals and families rely solely on unemployment benefits to support themselves. With the average length of unemployment now stretching out to 19.6 weeks, we are facing a 20-year high in terms of the numbers of Americans who are seeking employment. At this time, the percentage of people who have exhausted their standard unemployment benefits stands at 43 percent over the past several months, which is a record high. Compounding that fact, the number of long-term unemployed individuals out of work for more than 6 months has tripled over the last 3 years from 596,000 in 2000 to 1.9 million as of last month.
We are facing sobering statistics in a difficult economic climate, and tough choices must be made. As we move forward in making decisions, let us be mindful of the women, men and children who are in greatest need at this time.
Mr. Speaker, I looked up and I heard these figures come out that this many people are going to be left out of this bill. I looked up at who is supporting it and where the figures are coming from. It…
Mr. Speaker, I looked up and I heard these figures come out that this many people are going to be left out of this bill. I looked up at who is supporting it and where the figures are coming from. It is called the Center on Budget Priorities, an extreme far- left-wing organization that is supported by Democrat Socialists of America, lodged a progressive caucus on its website, supports increased taxes, increased social spending, bigger wasteful government, supports union over small business, and I could go on. So I think the numbers are a little bit misfit.
In the year 2000, this country was going through a recession. The tax relief that was passed according to Alan Greenspan and the economists who testified before the committees said that the tax relief shallowed that recession. It was growing at about 4.5 percent, which is slow, but it was increasing. And then we had 9/11. New York City alone, $200 billion in reconstruction and construction.
That does not include $83 billion in lost revenue and the jobs that went with it. In all of your districts, think about the hotel business, the tourism. Hotels in San Diego were at 10 percent occupancy. Tourism went down. The airlines got hurt. Look what happened to the stock market. Then we had Enron; then we had WorldCom.
We produced 58 bills that the other body did not pass to stimulate the economy. That was under Democratic leadership in the other body. Some of those bills restored confidence for people that lost thousands, in some cases millions, of dollars in their retirement accounts, and that would have helped stimulate the economy as well. But that was held up.
Mr. Speaker, it was said that this is the worst jobs President there ever was. Let me remind Members of some of the facts.
First of all, on the 1993 tax bill, the Democrats will say that no Republican voted for it. Let me tell you why. The same issues that Democrats demagogue on every single day, veterans, Democrats cut COLAs in 1993. You cut the COLAs for our military; that was on food stamps. You increased the tax on Social Security, and in that bill every dime was taken out of the Social Security trust fund.
Guess what? You even had a gas tax that went into the general fund. We changed that when we took the majority and put it into a transportation fund. That is where we came up with ISTEA for infrastructure control. We did away with your 1993 highest tax increase in the history of the United States. Then I remember the lady in the red dress and the gentleman from Missouri said we need middle-class tax cuts. Well, you increased the tax on the middle-class.
We decreased those taxes. And not a single Clinton budget, not even the Blue Dog budget, which had some very good points in it during that time frame, ever passed the House, ever. Not a Clinton budget passed.
Republicans brought the Clinton budget to the House floor to force the Democrats to vote on it, it was so bad. Do you know how many Democrats voted for it? Three, the same amount that voted for the First Lady's health care package.
When you say that President Clinton was responsible for the surplus, it just ain't so.
Now, let us get down to the issue that is before us that people left out. I have been here for 12 years; and this year is the worst partisan attack, from our side as well, and a lot of it in reaction.
I will bet every single Member here, except for those in leadership, would rather sit down and work together, and we can; and we can help the people with this bill, instead of the partisan attacks.
Mr. Speaker, sometimes when a President flies somewhere, part of his trip is charged to his party's political committee because the trip is partly governmental and partly political. The expenses for…
Mr. Speaker, sometimes when a President flies somewhere, part of his trip is charged to his party's political committee because the trip is partly governmental and partly political.
The expenses for running the House for the next hour ought to be charged to the Republican Congressional Campaign Committee, because the purpose of this rule and of other rules we have seen so far is incumbent protection for the Republican Party.
What they have done is to shut down democracy within the House. It is democratic in the sense that you get elected to get here, but then it becomes authoritarian. There will be no free speech, there will be no chance to consider tough issues. Why? Not simply because we do not have enough time. We do not work very much around here. We do this to protect Republican incumbents from having to vote on difficult issues.
The purpose of the Committee on Rules is to make sure that Republicans can follow an extremely conservative leadership and do things that would be unpopular and then pretend that they had no choice. How does that happen? They vote for rules which prevent them from voting on these issues. They then go in a great act of fakery to their constituents and say, Gee, I would have been with you, but I did not get a chance to vote on that issue, having themselves voted on the procedure which kept the issue off the floor. We cannot vote on important issues in the defense bill; we cannot vote on an alternative unemployment compensation.
It is a conscious and deliberate pattern, and it is particularly to accommodate that extraordinary breed known as the ``moderate Republican.'' They specialize in razzle-dazzle. They specialize in being loyal executors of extreme right-wing policies, but in a way that allows them to go home and disclaim any responsibility for what they were doing. It would not be plausible to claim they were drunk for an entire session. That is usually the way people explain that sort of thing.
So what they do is to vote for rules, procedures that keep controversial issues off the floor, so they can then go and mislead their constituents by saying that they would have supported their position, but they did not have a chance to do it.
It is a self-inflicted constraint. It is the reverse Houdini. Houdini used to have people tie him in knots, and he would go before the people and untie the knots. What moderate Republicans do is the reverse Houdini. The moderate Republicans tie themselves in knots, and then they go before the voters and say, Gee, I'm sorry I couldn't help you, but I was all tied up in knots.
Let us vote against this rule and put an end to the most fundamental, political and intellectual dishonesty.
Mr. Speaker, I just have to express my dismay at the anti-American diatribe we have just heard. I am sorry to hear this defeatist attitude about the American economy. The American economy continues to be a vibrant one overall, and to have it so thoroughly denigrated and to be told that no one ought to want to go into business in America is a shockingly anti-American approach.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support H.R. 2185, the Unemployment Compensation Amendment of 2003, but I must also highlight that this bill is an inadequate response to the plight of those without…
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support H.R. 2185, the Unemployment Compensation Amendment of 2003, but I must also highlight that this bill is an inadequate response to the plight of those without jobs.
Although the economic policies of the Bush administration and the Republican Congress have led to the loss of 2.7 million jobs, my Republican colleagues continue to do the absolute minimum to help those out-of-work Americans. H.R. 2185 reauthorizes 13 weeks of emergency benefits for individuals who have exhausted their regular unemployment benefits, but it ignores many others who are unemployed.
This legislation does not help the 1.1 million Americans who have already exhausted their emergency unemployment benefits and still cannot find work. With three unemployed workers for every job opening in America, the prospect of these long term unemployed workers finding a job are gloomy at best. They need help, but they're left out in the cold under this bill.
Another inadequacy of H.R. 2185 is that it only provides 13 weeks of additional emergency unemployment benefits after beneficiaries have exhausted their 26 weeks of regular unemployment benefits. A 13-week emergency unemployment benefit extension is simply inadequate because the number of workers who have been unemployed for more than 6 months has more than tripled over the last three years--up from 596,000 in April 2000 to 1.9 million in April 2003.
Finally, the Republican legislation fails to modernize the Unemployment Insurance program and adjust the definition of a high unemployment State, so that beneficiaries in States marred in deep recessions can access an additional 7 weeks of emergency unemployment benefits. Those 7 weeks of emergency unemployment benefits would be in addition to the current 13 weeks those unemployed workers can receive under current law. Because of the Republican bill's failure to change this definition, only 5 to 6 States qualify as high unemployment States and some funds designated for emergency benefits to high unemployment States are currently sitting unused in a federal trust fund.
If the Republicans really wanted to help hard-working average Americans, they could have begun by passing the Democratic alternative plan. Our plan really helps those who are without jobs. The Democratic plan adds 26 weeks of emergency unemployment benefits for individuals who exhaust their regular unemployment benefits and provides an additional 13 weeks for those workers who have already exhausted their emergency unemployment benefits. In addition, the Democratic plan modernizes the Unemployment Insurance program by lowering the rate of unemployment a state must have before it is designated a high unemployment State. This change would allow unemployed workers in 15 States get the additional 7 weeks of emergency unemployment benefits.
I will support this legislation today because it does help many unemployed Americans. But, Congress needs to do more to help all unemployed Americans survive this recession.
A few minutes ago, Mr. Speaker, I came out and talked about this being a rubber stamp Congress. We now have a perfect example. We brought up in the Committee on Ways and Means at least three or four…
A few minutes ago, Mr. Speaker, I came out and talked about this being a rubber stamp Congress. We now have a perfect example.
We brought up in the Committee on Ways and Means at least three or four times, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) did, the issue of unemployment. The chairman said, whoa, we cannot do anything about that. We cannot do anything about that. The person who sponsors the bill today voted no against it in the committee again and again and again.
Then we come out here on the floor and they say, oh, no, we cannot vote for unemployment.
Then they must have done a poll and the poll must have come back real bad, because we have a bill here that we are going to vote on what about 90 percent of the people in this House will have never even seen. They will not know what it says here. It was filed on May 21. Would that be yesterday?
This has not had any hearings, no testimony from anybody to come in and talk about this issue, and we run it out here and we put it under martial law and we run it through the House. If that is not a rubber stamp for the White House, I do not know what is.
They have Mr. Rove down there. He gins up all kinds of destruction in Colorado and Texas. He also runs what happens on this floor. The junta up in the leadership office, that junta says, Mr. Thomas, you cannot handle this. We will send it straight to Rules. You are not smart enough to get a bill out or handle any kind of discussion about what is going on.
It is an absolute destruction of the process. They ought to allow us to have amendments to fix this. We heard from the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) that there are problems. There are one million people who are not covered by this.
Even Mr. Greenspan says that probably people who are not getting jobs now are not doing it because they like being on unemployment. They cannot find work. Why would we leave $20 billion in the unemployment fund put there by these very people? Why would we not give it to them during this period? It is because the rubber stamp at the White House has come out, boom, this is what we are doing. And our leadership on the other side, they get all in line and say, folks, this is what we are doing.
Here, the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Dunn), put this bill in. They put it in last night. They have a Committee on Rules meeting at 11 o'clock after they have a $22 million fundraiser. They all troop back in and say, great, now let us get things ready for tomorrow. This is what we get. Maybe we will be here tomorrow doing more rubber stamp stuff. We are going to do unemployment and this tax bill so they can go home and say they have handled unemployment.
I come from a State with the highest unemployment in the country. When that happened before, we had people who were defeated who voted against it, so they remembered. Now we must come with this bill, so rubber stamp it. ``Get ready, guys. Bring your rubber stamps from the office when you come over.''
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to compliment the gentlemen from Maryland (Mr. Cardin). He has written a motion to recommit that is…
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.
Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to compliment the gentlemen from Maryland (Mr. Cardin). He has written a motion to recommit that is real.
We have seen many, many of these motions to recommit, and I am forced to point out the language that prefaces the specifics is not really genuine because they use the word ``promptly'' which kills the bill; and therefore, anything that they say they want simply is not so. And I rise to compliment him because in my usual examining of motions to recommit, he has got ``forthwith.'' That is real. That means if we decide to do this, it comes back immediately and the bill is changed. That is usually what the motion to recommit is about.
That is one of the reasons that Republicans, when we became the majority, decided to make sure that the minority would always have, would always have the right to recommit, not at the pleasure of the majority as was the case when we were in the minority, but guaranteed so that they could offer their alternative; and what we have seen all too often is a political stunt.
This is not a political stunt because it is clear with the language ``forthwith'' that they would like to have what this motion to recommit does. The gentleman said that we will soon be considering a growth plan, and I appreciate his use of that term because we hope that is exactly what it does. Of course, it is kind of a piker in terms of growth compared to what is offered in the motion to recommit.
It turns out that under the Democrat's plan, although it is not quite perpetual motion it comes darn close, someone can work for 20 weeks and then they can get 26 weeks of regular State unemployment. Then they can get another 26 weeks of temporary extended that will be provided to every State under the motion. Seven additional weeks in a high- unemployment State and then 13 additional permanents. That is 72 weeks. That is 17 months for 20 weeks' work.
If this motion to recommit passes, the growth plan that we will soon be considering, notwithstanding the fact that there may be a job, will create a real temptation for many people to take a look at this growth plan for unemployment that the Democrats offer and say 20 weeks of work for 17 months of unemployment is a really, really good deal.
We believe that we have to have a structure that deals with the underlying problem. We believe the bill that we have presented does. It is possible to create a structure which is, in fact, virtually self- defeating. I believe this motion to recommit comes awfully close. And I would ask my colleagues to oppose the motion to recommit. Vote for the underlying bill. Move that bill off the floor so that prior to this break everyone knows we wanted to make sure that we had a continuous, uninterrupted opportunity so that those who are seeking employment can have assistance to do so.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Show 11 more
Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, last week Democrats tried to get a vote on extending unemployment benefits three times on the floor of this House. Each time the…
Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, last week Democrats tried to get a vote on extending unemployment benefits three times on the floor of this House. Each time the Republican majority said no. So we are happy that the Republican leadership has finally agreed to consider this very important issue. However, we are concerned that the bill being brought to the floor today will exclude more than 1 million unemployed workers.
The legislation filed with the Committee on Rules last night extends unemployment benefits only for those exhausting their regular unemployment compensation. It does nothing for those who have exhausted their Federal unemployment, 13 weeks.
This is certainly an important step in the right direction. However, the Republican bill does not provide any assistance for those workers who have already run out of their 13 weeks of extended benefits. More than 1 million Americans now fall into this category.
Given that we are in the longest period of negative job growth since the Great Depression, I cannot understand why we would want to deny unemployment benefits to Americans suffering from long-term unemployment.
As my friend from North Dakota pointed out, for every person who is unemployed, there are three people looking for a job, for every job available. These individuals are looking for jobs that simply cannot be found.
We recently had a report that came back that showed there are 70 percent more workers who have exhausted their Federal benefits during this recession than during the 1990s; yet in the 1990s we extended the number of weeks beyond what we are extending in this legislation.
Without unemployment compensation, how are these families going to pay their rent or mortgage? Last month, Mr. Speaker, one of these long- term unemployed workers came and testified before the Committee on Ways and Means. His name was Joe Bergmann. Over the last year and a half, Joe has sent out 2,000 resumes, searched 32 job sites on the Internet, and has taken extra training classes; but he still is unable to find a job. Joe has worked his entire adult life, but is now having a hard time in an economy that has lost 2.7 million jobs.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject the previous question so that we can extend unemployment benefits for every worker that has lost their job during this very difficult economy. It is the right thing to do, to extend the benefits to all who need the help.
We have the money in the Federal unemployment trust funds; $21 billion is in those funds. It will adequately cover not only the extension of the 13 weeks, but the extra benefits for those who have exhausted their Federal unemployment compensation benefits.
We have the money. By defeating the previous question, we can have the right legislative solution. We can do it before we adjourn.
I urge my colleagues to reject the previous question.
Mr. Speaker, welcome back to the rubber-stamp Congress. This bill is a statement by the President of the United States that he does not care about 1 million people. He sent the message to his junta…
Mr. Speaker, welcome back to the rubber-stamp Congress. This bill is a statement by the President of the United States that he does not care about 1 million people. He sent the message to his junta here, and they run a bill out last night, drop it in, never had one single hearing on it, will not give us a chance to amend it.
If you gave us an amendment to cover those 1 million people, it would pass. The people on your side would be afraid to go home, having given the stiff arm to people who are off benefits. But we have to rubber- stamp everything George Bush does. ``I approve of everything George Bush does. I will leave a million people off the unemployment rolls deliberately.'' Deliberately. It is not an accident. It is not as though it just happened to us.
I got this from the White House. I suppose everyone else has theirs. You are going to use that again tonight on another bill, the tax bill. I have figured out what the President is thinking. He figured out, ``Well, I'm leaving a million people off and then I'm going to give this huge tax cut and I'm going to create a million jobs. And all those people who have been left out, they're going to have a job.''
Of course they are going to have to wait until tax time next year or sometime. I do not know when all that is going to start.
This is nonsense. You did absolutely the minimum you could do and keep a straight face and put out your press release that you did something for unemployment. How you could deliberately construct one when you have 70 percent more people running out of benefits now than Bush, Sr., did 10 years ago.
At least he said 27 weeks. He was expansive. His son is about as tightfisted as we are ever going to see towards working people. Not to the military. Not to nuclear defense and all that kind of stuff, but to working people he is just saying, hey, folks, I am sorry you do not qualify or your State did not trigger but tell the kids to kind of suck it up. Pull their belt a little bit tighter because the rubber stamp Congress of George Bush is out here tonight. They are waiting at home to see what you do.
If you had been out of work and you cannot pay your rent and you cannot buy for your kids and you are one of those million, you say to your kids, I am sorry but the President does not care. He has got $20 billion in a fund down there, but he will not give us anything.
How is that going to look in the next election? You ought to be thinking about that. I guarantee that before we leave here you will be back here extending these benefits again.
Your idea that people are staying at home from work to live off these fancy benefits is simply nonsense. Nobody who has lost a job stays at home when there is a job available. There are not enough jobs.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule. I will admit that my number one economic priority is not the extension of unemployment benefits. My number one economic priority is to create jobs…
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule.
I will admit that my number one economic priority is not the extension of unemployment benefits. My number one economic priority is to create jobs and to put into place the kinds of mechanisms that we can to encourage job creation and economic growth.
My very good friend from Santa Clara County who just talked about what she described as a depression in the Silicon Valley and I will be offering an amendment later this afternoon which will, I believe, play a role in creating the kind of jobs in the Silicon Valley which are so important to improving the quality of life not only for people in that part of our country, but throughout the rest of the Nation.
I also believe that as we look at the jobs and economic growth package which we are going to be considering, it is geared towards job creation and economic growth. Now, having said that, I will acknowledge Chairman Greenspan is absolutely right when he says that there are a lot of people out there who through no fault of their own have been victimized by this downturn which, by the way, began during the last two quarters of 2000.
Now my friend, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren), just described the job loss since President Bush took office; but virtually every economist has acknowledged that the downturn began during the last two quarters. We also know, and I do not need to remind my colleagues again, that we have suffered greatly over the past couple of years through the tragedy of September 11, and we are just emerging from a war with Iraq, and we are still in the midst of this very costly war on terrorism.
We are working together in a bipartisan way to deal with these issues; but quite frankly, they have played a role in creating the economic downturn. And that is why we as Republicans are proud to step up to the plate and deal with the extension of unemployment benefits.
I know that there are parts of States as have been described by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren) that are suffering more than other parts of States and the overall level is not as high as it is in other States that will, in fact, end up receiving a 26-week extension. But I believe that our dealing with this question before we get to the expiration is the right thing for us to do. Let us move ahead. This will be a problem that we will continue to address as we face it. But I hope and pray that passage of the Dreier-Lofgren amendment this afternoon, that passage of the jobs and growth package that we have will deal with the challenges that we have. And so I encourage my colleagues to provide support for this measure.
Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. Speaker, what was the unemployment rate there 5 years ago or 6 years ago? Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) for yielding me this…
Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Speaker, what was the unemployment rate there 5 years ago or 6 years ago?
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) for yielding me this time.
I say to the gentleman from Oregon here, I think there is a fundamental difference in the philosophy of these two parties, and it is highlighted once again this evening. We care about the entire American family. What we mean by community is a place where nobody is to be abandoned and nobody is to be left behind.
But let me give my colleagues a quote to follow up on what the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) said, where the majority leader offered another callous comment about the unemployed. But let me offer a comment from another prominent member of the Republican leadership as he said, as he often is, worked up about this or that, hey, this is not a welfare program.
Talk about callousness? Talk about indifference? We are going to vote in the wee hours of this morning to give a massive tax cut to people who, to their everlasting credit, have not even asked for it. Those are members of the American family. It has sent shudders through Wall Street what they are about to do. And every one of the Members on this side of the aisle will march in, head down, and do what they are told once again.
There are millions of Americans who are struggling today, millions of them. And I want to vote to help the people in Oregon. They deserve it, just like the people on the East Coast. Do my colleagues know what we call that in our democracy? The national principle. We come to the assistance of parts of this country who need it.
Let me give the Members some economic facts, and they are pretty bleak. U.S. unemployment, a 9-year high. It was 4.1 percent when the President
took office. Now it is 6 percent. The number of discouraged workers, and I suspect a lot of them live in the gentleman from Oregon's congressional district, who are not even looking for a job any longer are at a 20-year high, 2.3 million jobs lost since 2001. One point seven million jobs have been lost since the $1.3 trillion 2001 tax cuts took effect.
Do we have in this institution amnesia? We were told this was a jobs bill last year, and I am telling the Members watch, 2 o'clock in the morning, head down, they will all vote for it again. And do the Members know what? Not one of them even asked a question. That is the embarrassing part about it. Seventy-three thousand jobs lost per month.
Mr. Speaker, vote for the Democratic alternative on the motion to recommit. Give those people in Oregon an opportunity. Call them members of the American family.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from Washington for yielding time to me. I also want to thank the gentlewoman for her work on this unemployment extension. Many times I find myself at…
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from Washington for yielding time to me. I also want to thank the gentlewoman for her work on this unemployment extension.
Many times I find myself at odds with the Republican Party, my party, when it comes to unemployment benefits for the working families across this country. But tonight we are not trying to fool any of the people any of the time. Tonight we are being very straightforward. Tonight what we are trying to do is to make sure that the working men and women and families of this country understand that the Republican Party understands their needs.
I am happy to support this bill tonight, as I think most Members on both sides of the aisle will. I want to thank our leadership of the Republican Party for taking this up and allowing many of us who feel that we need to have a voice for working families in the country make that voice heard.
I want to make certain that our Members understand that it is an opportunity for us to help working families. I am proud to say that we are going to do that very straightforwardly in a very clean bill, unattached to anything else, up or down, yes or no.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady from Washington Ms. Dunn for her work on this vital legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 2185. I applaud the efforts of Chairman Thomas and Majority Whip Blunt for making good on their commitment to address this issue and ensure that unemployed Americans will be able to get through the Memorial Day holiday without having to worry about their benefits expiring on May 31.
H.R. 2185 would extend the Federal unemployment compensation program through the end of this year--relieving Congress of having to continue to revisit this issue while the economy begins to rebound.
This extension will provide relief for about 2.5 million unemployed workers.
It allows for 13 weeks of federally funded benefits--as well as an additional 13 weeks for residents of high unemployment States.
This relief will be a tremendous boost to Americans still actively seeking employment.
Again, I thank my colleagues for their hard work on this issue.
Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
Mr. Speaker, this is quite a day in the life of Congress. We are going to pass a $350 billion tax cut, 75 percent of which goes to the wealthiest 5 percent of the households in this country. We are…
Mr. Speaker, this is quite a day in the life of Congress. We are going to pass a $350 billion tax cut, 75 percent of which goes to the wealthiest 5 percent of the households in this country. We are going to authorize the Federal Government to borrow almost an additional $1 trillion. The day of the big tax cut is the day we vote the largest extension of borrowing authority to this country, in light of the red ink we will run, ever enacted.
So, in the middle of all of this, it appeared certain that nothing would be done to address the fate of our unemployed workers. Only in the last few hours has this plan emerged; and we are glad it has, as far as it goes. Certainly something needed to be done, because the economic performance of the country has been abysmal: 2.7 million private sector jobs lost over the last 2 years, an extraordinary decrease; 3.4 unemployed workers for every single job opening.
Now, under this circumstance, people try to find work, but they cannot find work, so their unemployment benefits run out.
I am going to ask for a ``no'' vote on this rule, however, because the proposal brought before us has a fatal flaw. It only extends benefits if your benefits have not lapsed. If you were unfortunate enough to lose your job, been on the job market, pounding the shoe leather, sending out resumes, looking everywhere for employment, but have not found employment before your unemployment benefits lapsed, guess what? You will not get any extension, you will not get any relief, under the measure brought before the House.
Now, we have an amendment to offer to cure this fatal flaw of the majority proposal so that people whose benefits have lapsed also get some help. Lord knows they need it. But we are not allowed to offer that amendment.
What could be more ridiculous? We will extend benefits if you have not lapsed yet; but if you have lapsed, you get no help whatsoever. Well, you think, that must have been inadvertent somehow. Let us fix that.
They will not let us fix that with an amendment. That is why the rule is unfair. That is why the response is inadequate. Vote ``no'' on the rule.
I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I also rise in strong support of H.R. 2185, the Unemployment Compensation Amendments. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this…
I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I also rise in strong support of H.R. 2185, the Unemployment Compensation Amendments. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this important measure, and I thank Chairman Thomas and the House leadership for bringing this to the floor.
Sadly, we have watched many Americans become unemployed and struggle to find work in today's economy. Today, Congress is taking a much- needed step in extending unemployment compensation for our Nation's workers. Figures show the U.S. unemployment rate is at 6 percent, and nearly 9 million people are unemployed. This legislation provides a safety net for men and women who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own.
We must assist workers during these times of hardship so they can successfully make the transition back to the workforce. The legislation before us helps accomplish this goal and coupled with existing job training and networking programs we can return Americans to the workforce. I urge my colleagues to join together in supporting this important legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 2185, the ``Unemployment Compensation Amendments.'' I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this important measure and I thank Chairman Thomas and the House leadership for bringing this to the floor.
Sadly, we have watched many Americans become unemployed and struggle to find wok in today's economy. Today, Congress is taking a much needed step in extending unemployment compensation for our Nation's workers. Figures show the U.S. unemployment rate is at 6 percent and nearly 9 million people are unemployed. This legislation provides a safety net for men and women who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own.
We must assist workers during these times of hardship so they can successfully make the transition back to the workforce. The legislation before us helps accomplish this goal and coupled with existing job training and networking programs we can return Americans to the workforce. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this rule. The underlying bill does very little for those working Americans whose benefits have run out. In my home town of Chicago unemployment is up to 6.7 percent. My…
Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this rule.
The underlying bill does very little for those working Americans whose benefits have run out. In my home town of Chicago unemployment is up to 6.7 percent. My State of Illinois has lost 17,400 jobs in the last month alone. We have lost in this economy 2.75 million jobs, 2 million manufacturing jobs. Two weeks from today, on June 6, the new unemployment figures will come out; and we will get close to, as indications are now, losing 3 million jobs. Since the first economic package that the President has passed, 2.5 million Americans have lost their jobs, 5 million Americans have lost their health care. Nearly a trillion dollars' worth of corporate assets have been foreclosed on, and 2 million Americans have gone out of the middle class to poverty.
That has been the net result of the economic program put together. And as Ronald Reagan used to say, ``Facts are a stubborn thing.''
USA Today reported just the other day that they have the lowest amount of job-wanted ads since 1964. The only two things that seem to be growing in the President's growth package is the deficit and unemployment.
We have gone from a surplus to a slump. Now to the earlier speaker who took a $20 bill out of his pocket and my colleague, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mika), that $20 is the same amount of money our government and our taxpayers are paying individual workers in Iraq and Iraqis. That is what we are paying them. We are offering them $20 as a form of employment to get the economy in Iraq moving. We have an agenda for Iraq. It is investing in 20,000 schools, 25,000 units of housing, text books for schools, 4 million children get early childhood education in Iraq.
We have an economic plan for Iraq, and we have an economic plan for America; and it does not just count on stimulating only the stock market. We have to stimulate the job market as well as the stock market. And our economic plan does exactly that. It does not force Americans into an either/or choice. And there will be people who will be left out, unlike the tax cut that leaves no millionaire behind.
Mr. Speaker, this bill tonight, while a welcome step, will leave by the end of the year 2 million Americans without the safety net that they have contributed to when they were employed as far as the…
Mr. Speaker, this bill tonight, while a welcome step, will leave by the end of the year 2 million Americans without the safety net that they have contributed to when they were employed as far as the unemployment compensation tax, as a part of benefits.
1.4 million Federal workers have already exhausted their State and Federal benefits. 685,000 workers will exhaust their benefits and be left stranded under this bill, 58,000 in my home State of Florida.
There is a simple reason for this. This Congress is refusing to do what Democrats and Republicans came to do in the early 1990s during the recession and that is to add an additional 13 weeks of coverage after 13 weeks have expired from the Federal Government on top of 26 weeks of the State. There is no defense on the other side of the aisle as to why we should not repeat what Democrats and Republicans did in the 1990s to preserve the safety net.
Who is being affected out there tonight by this? There are more than three unemployed workers looking for every job opening in the country today. 341,000 people lost their jobs in April. The unemployment rate is 6 percent. There are 8.8 million people out of work right now. One out of every five unemployed workers have been out for 6 months right now. The unemployment compensation trust fund today has $20 billion in it that is designed to be used exactly for the benefits the Republicans are refusing to provide tonight to these people who are looking for work.
And who are these people? The average unemployed worker has been looking on 29 different occasions trying to find a job, 29 potential job openings. People over 45 on the average have applied for 42 different jobs without success. Two-thirds of unemployed workers have had to cut back on basic necessities for their families. One in four unemployed workers have lost their home. Six in ten unemployed workers have spent almost all their savings.
Is this what you want to be proud of tonight? Is this what we are not capable of addressing tonight? Let us pass this bill but only after we adopt the benefits that were provided in the 1990s.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. I am pleased that the House has taken up the extension of the unemployment benefits tonight. The unemployment in my congressional district…
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me.
I am pleased that the House has taken up the extension of the unemployment benefits tonight. The unemployment in my congressional district is a glaring 30 percent in the Millinocket and East Millinocket labor market area, 13 percent in the Calais labor market area, 12 percent in the Jonesport labor market area, and the list goes on and on. Mill after mill are either shutting machines down or closing their doors completely.
As far as the Statewide unemployment, it is in the single digits. But as far as the northern part of the State, as I mentioned, it is over 30 percent in some of the labor market areas. It is not as if you could drive an hour away or so to go to where there is low unemployment. You have to drive about 6 hours away.
The aid we deliver tonight is desperately needed, but, Mr. Speaker, we can do so much more. We should be voting on a bill like H.R. 1652, the Rangel bill, of which I am a cosponsor. The bill would extend benefits by 26 weeks and give an additional 13 weeks for unemployed workers who have exhausted their benefits.
This would help the 2,700 workers in Maine who have exhausted their benefits and who would be left behind, because this bill would not consider them tonight. These are people who are left stranded by the economic downturn,
jobless through no fault of their own, and are desperately looking for work but cannot find the work.
For those who do not know, I have worked in a mill, paper mill, over 30 years in northern Maine. I know what it is like to lose your job. These neighbors, they are neighbors of mine, they are family, and they are friends. They do not want a handout, but, with no other recourse, they do need a helping hand.
Until we get this economy moving again and providing new jobs, instead of the 2 million jobs that we have lost over the couple of years, they will need this help desperately. But we can do much better for my constituents and people across this country, so I urge that we amend this bill to increase the unemployment compensation.
Mr. Speaker, I must say having been in western Pennsylvania, when you have been reading the headlines, looking at the economic statistics, things are indeed bleak out there. We are in a recession…
Mr. Speaker, I must say having been in western Pennsylvania, when you have been reading the headlines, looking at the economic statistics, things are indeed bleak out there. We are in a recession even if many within the Washington beltway do not fully recognize it, and that is why I rise today to applaud the Committee on Ways and Means, the gentlewoman from Washington, and the House leadership for recognizing the needs of the unemployed in this recession.
While we work, apparently in the face of partisan opposition, to enact a balanced and robust economic growth package, we also need to provide immediate help for these displaced workers. These are people who would rather have a job; but in lieu of a job during an economic slowdown, they need these benefits. Today's legislation will maintain a safety net for our Nation's displaced workers by providing up to 26 weeks of benefits for those who exhaust their State benefits. This type of measure is absolutely critical to move now so we make sure that no families fall between the cracks.
However, as we do it, I think we also need to recognize as a House that maybe the time has come to reassess parts of the safety net, look for ways of extending it, and that is why I have introduced the Safety Net Extension Act, a bill that would not only extend temporary assistance for the unemployed, but also enact some permanent reforms to the unemployment system. It would provide relief for those workers who are paying taxes on their unemployment benefits, many of whom are in my district. My bill would look to also reauthorization trade adjustment assistance, and I view this package as being of a piece.
Tonight we have an opportunity to move forward and extend the unemployment benefits for workers who have been laid off, making sure that they do not fall between the cracks. But in the long haul, I would hope that we in the House would come together on a bipartisan basis and look for ways of enriching those benefits and at the same time pass a real stimulus package that will get the economy back on a growth path.
Bill Text
2 versions available
[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 248 Engrossed in House (EH)]
<DOC>
H. Res. 248
In the House of Representatives, U.S.,
May 22, 2003.
Resolved, 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
(H.R. 2185) to extend the Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of
2002. 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 on the bill equally divided and controlled
by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means;
and (2) one motion to recommit.
Attest:
Clerk.