Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.) Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.…
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I am troubled by recent actions taken by the Committee on Rules and the possible consequences for this democratic body. Otto van Bismarck said, ``Laws are like sausages. It is better not to see them being made.'' Republicans on the Committee on Rules have devised and employed new ``sausage-making'' rules over the past several weeks. These rules take several bills, grind them up, and shove them into a new legislative casing and make a new bill.
H. Res. 638 provided for the consideration of three bills under the same closed rule, restricting the amount of time for floor debate and deliberation. Once the bills were passed, the rule required the bills be ground and repackaged as one bill.
H. Res. 645 provided for the consideration of five bills, again limiting the time for floor debate. Once the bills were considered and passed, the text of all five pieces of legislation were ground together to make one large bill to send to the other body. I would think that the parliamentarians of the House of Representatives would take some interest in what is going on here.
Today we are faced with a new device, a Frankenstein rule. Last night, the Republicans cobbled together bad pieces of rules, concocted a few other pieces, and then passed everything as one big monster rule.
The text of H.R. 444 is replaced with the text of H.R. 4444. None of the four amendments before the committee is in order, debate on the legislation is limited to 1 hour, and, outrageously, the rule appends the text of two unrelated bills, bills not considered by the Committee on Rules, just simply written in.
H.R. 4409 is on the suspension calendar, which would reauthorize title II of the Higher Education Act of 1965. H.R. 4410 is the Teacher Shortage Act of 2004, which would increase the amount of student loans which may be forgiven for highly qualified teachers in math, science, and special education. Now the merits of these legislative appendages have not even been considered by the Committee on Education and the Workforce, having held no hearings on it. And last night the Committee on Rules did not hear any testimony on either one of them.
When the rule was passed out, a staffer gave us a copy of the bills. We discovered whichever one of those two suspensions passes first will be cobbled into this bill we are doing today. The other one, I do not know what happens to it. I think it is tabled and forgotten about.
Mr. Speaker, it is destructive to us because we have no rules to go by any more. It does not matter what they want to do. Somewhere in the Capitol, people are devising byzantine and awful rules to shove down Members' throats.
This bill today, though, is really only a feel-good bill. There is no money authorized for it. It does nothing for the 1.2 million people who are unemployed and have lost their benefits.
Mr. Speaker, 8.2 million Americans are unemployed; and the unemployment rate remains the same. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, since December, 2003, the unemployment rate has been 5.6 or 5.7; and extended unemployment benefits expired last year. However, the unemployment trust fund has $20 billion in it. Congress simply refuses to allow the unemployed to tap into that money which is already there. Every dollar spent on unemployment benefits immediately creates more than $2 in economic growth.
Instead of using the billions of dollars that are already there untouched in the unemployment trust fund, this underlying bill creates a pilot program for personal reemployment accounts. The goal is to help people get back to work to provide $3,000 for job training, transportation and job search expenses. The fact that there is only one job for every three seekers is not considered here. The problem is it does nothing to create jobs. It trains people for jobs that do not exist, jobs which have been outsourced overseas. According to the Economic Policy Institute, these PRAs are a response to a problem that does not exist. The concept assumes there are plenty of jobs, but the unemployed workers are so comfortable getting $250 a week in unemployment benefits that they will not go back to work. So the problem is the failure of job creation, and these PRAs will be of no help. It is insulting to workers to believe they have to be given a grant to go look for work.
As I said before, over 1.5 million Americans exhausted their benefits, and they will not be eligible for this pilot program. If a person uses this PRA, he or she is no longer eligible to receive the benefits of other programs under the Workforce Investment Act, which can be worth as much as $10,000. Any money used from PRAs will be money used from WIA funds, because additional funds are not authorized for this program. Let me say that again. This wonderful program here to put people back to work has no money authorized for it.
Why are we not considering real help for the unemployed? This body should be passing legislation to extend unemployment benefits. I urge my colleagues to vote against this Frankenstein rule, so the House can act to help the millions of unemployed Americans and their families.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee).
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan).
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot of rhetoric today about how the economy is on the upswing and how it has improved and how jobs are beginning to return. But I can tell my colleagues that people in my hometown and communities across America remain unemployed. There are 8.2 million people out of work in this country, and there is now only one job opening for every three unemployed individuals. No matter how you spin it, the bill before us today will not do a single thing to create more jobs.
That is why I urge Members to join me in defeating the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the rule making in order an amendment that was not accepted by the Committee on Rules by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan) to train 100,000 new first responders.
That is 100,000 new policemen, firemen, emergency response personnel, medical personnel, and scores of other citizens who keep this country safe every day and would, of course, create jobs.
I offered this amendment in the Committee on Rules last night; but as is usual practice these days, it was defeated on a straight party-line vote.
Now, this bill is supposed to be about helping the unemployed. Well, I can tell my colleagues if they really want to help them, they will do everything they can to find ways to create new good-paying jobs. And that is what the Ryan amendment will do. So I urge my colleagues to vote today in favor of job creation, in favor of protecting our communities by voting ``no'' on the previous question.
Let me be clear, Mr. Speaker. A ``no'' vote will not prevent us from considering the bill before us today, but by voting ``yes,'' Members will be denying this House a chance to create 100,000 new jobs for unemployed Americans.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the amendment be printed in the Congressional Record immediately before the vote.
Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.