Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to announce the introduction of a resolution in support of Title IX.

In 1972, about 30,000 women played college sports. Today, that number has increased by more than 500 percent.

In 1972, about 200,000 girls participated in high school athletics. Today, that number has increased by more than 800 percent.

Mr. Speaker, it is no coincidence that women and girls have more opportunity today than they did 30 years ago. It is not because they have more interest than they used to, and it is not because they have more ability than they used to. These increased opportunities are attributable to one law: Title IX.

Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 is the Federal law that prohibits sex discrimination in education. It states: ``No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.'' In essence, Title IX requires schools and colleges receiving Federal funds to give women and girls equal athletic opportunities, including athletic scholarships, equipment, coaching, and facilities, among other benefits.

Unfortunately, Title IX has come under assault. Those who favor changing Title IX argue mistakenly that it has led to the disappearance of athletic opportunities for male athletes. While both sides of the debate over Title IX athletics policies agree that they should allow for gender parity and overall fairness in sports,

the real question that begs to be answered is, ``What constitutes fairness?''

For those who want to alter Title IX and how it has been implemented, fairness means that male athletes should have a monopoly over opportunities and resources for their programs, regardless of how under-funded or nonexistent similar programs for female athletes may be.

For these challengers to Title IX, it is fair that while more women than men attend college, only 42 percent of all college athletes are women.

For them, it is fair that females currently receive 1.1 million fewer (41 percent) opportunities at the high school level and 58,000 fewer (38 percent) opportunities at the college level than do their male counterparts.

This ill-conceived notion of fairness that opponents of Title IX put forth justifies the fact that men currently receive $133 million (36 percent) more than women in athletic scholarships. Division 1-A colleges and universities allocate on average 71 percent of their scholarship money for men's athletics, and their recruiting dollars for male athletes double those spent on female athletes.

Not only do these opponents of Title IX feel that this is fair, but they oppose any efforts to salvage the progress that has been made. It bothers me deeply that opponents of Title IX say that male athletes are treated unfairly. Although 30 years of progress since Title IX have seen sports participation for males and females grow, female athletes are still not treated equitably.

This resolution expresses the sense of the House of Representatives that changes to Title IX athletics policies contradict the spirit of athletic equality and gender parity and should not be implemented. Title IX has been the dam that holds back gender discrimination in educational programs for 30 years, allowing millions of young women the opportunity to pursue goals of which their predecessors could only dream.

I am standing here to defend the integrity of this landmark civil rights law because it is the right thing to do, but I also rise in honor of my dear friend and beloved colleague, Patsy Mink. In 1972, Patsy helped to enact Title IX. I know that she would be standing right beside me were she alive today. She struggled for 30 years to protect educational equity for men and women, and it is in memory of the legacy she left behind that we must not give up on the fight to preserve equality for women.

Opponents of Title IX are trying to redefine what America sees as fair. As a consistent defender of gender equality and the protection of equal rights for all of our citizens, I am outraged by this particular brand of fairness. Patsy would have been outraged as well, and she would not have tolerated it. I hope all of my colleagues will join me, with our Republican and Democratic friends who support this legislation, as we all fight to preserve the integrity of this landmark law. Please cosponsor this resolution for the sake of Patsy Mink, for the sake of our Nation's girls, and for the sake of equality.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for yielding me this time. I very much want to rise and join my colleagues in opposition to this rule and to the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, why would Members of Congress want to turn doctors into criminals and treat medical researchers like outlaws? With all the grave issues facing America that continue to go unaddressed by this body, our broken health care system, a lack of education funding, fears of Social Security insolvency and a soaring economy, why are we spending time criminalizing promising medical research and threatening to send doctors to jail for 10 years?

This bill does not regulate the way that Federal funds are spent on medical research. It makes medical research or treatments using therapeutic cloning a Federal crime. The role of our government is to provide research achievements and to provide incubators for medical and scientific breakthroughs. It is not our job to criminalize good doctors or to force leaders in medical research to abandon promising techniques.

According to the National Institutes of Health, which advises us on a daily basis, therapeutic cloning could provide treatments for Parkinson's disease, chronic heart failure, in-stage kidney disease, liver failure, rheumatoid arthritis, osteoporosis, severe burns, spinal cord injuries, multiple sclerosis, Alzheimer's disease, diabetes, lupus, heart damage, cancer, paralyzed limbs, and Lou Gehrig's disease. There is even the hope this research could lead to entire transplantable organs.

Forty Nobel laureates, millions of patients, former First Lady Nancy Reagan, and former President Gerald Ford advocate human cloning. In fact, just last month, Mrs. Reagan wrote to Senator Hatch, the Chair of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, supporting therapeutic cloning.

Despite the arrogant amendment that only this Committee on Rules would ever give to anyone, because it is the height of arrogance, this bill tells us that they want to ban cloning, therapeutic cloning, not just here but all over the world. My, what a reach we do have.

The promising research that we are trying to stop today will be driven overseas where therapeutic cloning is not only legal but is government funded. Other countries will become the world leaders in these treatments.

As a scientist, and I am, I am profoundly concerned about what I hear as very bad science on this floor. Sick Americans would not benefit from the American miracles if they occurred in another country because the legislation prohibits improving lifesaving medical technology if the treatment is developed by therapeutic cloning. If scientists overseas develop a cure for Parkinson's disease using stem cells from therapeutic cloning, suffering Americans would be banned by their government from taking advantage of that cure here in the United States. Imagine that. We want to criminalize almost everybody.

Once again, Mr. Speaker, the majority weakens this noble institution and the deliberative process. It is a shame and a blight on Congress that we would even bring a bill of this magnitude, affecting the life and health of millions of Americans, without this bill even going through the committee procedure.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to remember the much- beloved New York artist, Al Hirschfeld, who brought the vibrant world of Broadway alive for 75 years--longer than most of us live.

This singular talent drew the actors, composers, choreographers, directors who made it all work--the talented people who are responsible for what we collectively call ``the theater,'' but what we also recognize is one of the unique contributions of American culture. For a mild-mannered and gentle soul, he was a veritable force of nature.

Hirschfeld's curvy, single line drawings that appeared to be so spare, so simple, held within them all the awe with which he--and we the audience--felt for this original and talented artistic community-- and he did it over the generations. His work, his memory, and the theatre he loved will live on, and we will appreciate it more because of a prolific ability to share his vision of it with us.

I urge all my colleagues to support the resolution that remembers and commemorates Al Hirschfeld--a giant in the business of making magic happen before your very eyes, on the New York stage.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, in 1996 a sweeping welfare reform initiative was enacted and authorized for 5 years. Temporary assistance to needy families replaced guaranteed welfare checks with a new work requirement, placed a lifetime limit on the benefits recipients could receive, and removed most legal immigrants from eligibility for welfare.

The program was up for reauthorization last year. The reauthorization legislation passed the House with a rule that allowed only one substitute amendment. The bill was reported out of the Senate Finance Committee, but was never considered by the full Senate.

We are here today to consider the rule for the Personal Responsibility, Work and Family Protection Act of 2003. Mr. Speaker, the underlying bill impacts millions of vulnerable Americans, yet the process for consideration of the bill has muzzled meaningful debate and barred serious consideration of alternatives and amendments.

In the 108th Congress, not a single committee with jurisdiction over this legislation has considered H.R. 4. Five committees had jurisdiction over the legislation: Ways and Means, Education and the Workforce, Energy and Commerce, Agriculture and Financial Services. There are over 50 new Members of Congress, not here in the 107th Congress when we began the process, and none of them have had the opportunity to consider and vote on the legislation in committee.

The Republican leadership rushed welfare reauthorization to the House floor. Instead of allowing the Congress and these committees to examine, debate and discuss this important piece of legislation, the majority has opted to bar the full House from considering 22 amendments and to allow us to consider only two substitute amendments.

Because the committee process was skipped, my Democratic colleagues and I asked for an open rule so that, at the very least, the full House could consider the many issues brought up in the dozens of amendments filed with the Committee on Rules. There are too many issues that deserve full discussion and debate. The two substitute amendments that are in order under the rule cannot fully address these issues.

The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) offered a very important amendment. It called for a temporary suspension of time limits on TANF benefits to individuals that reside in a metropolitan statistical area where the unemployment rate exceeds 7 percent. But the Committee on Rules, along partisan lines, ruled it out of order.

And the rule voted out of committee on party lines allows for only 2 hours to debate this reform bill. No committees have looked at the bill, and the full House only has 2 hours to debate it. The rule does not give Members the opportunity to address fully the inadequacies of this legislation, the grave changes to the program and the growing needs of Americans living in poverty. The rule bars any meaningful debate and prohibits consideration of important amendments affecting the elderly, parents and children.

Mr. Speaker, too many people are drowning in a sea of poverty. Welfare-to-Work should not merely toss the poorest Americans a life preserver to help them float along, with their heads barely above the poverty level.

The Catholic Family Center in Rochester, New York, provides an example of how the 1996 welfare reforms are failing. The center is doing a great job getting the women in their program off welfare and into work, but the average starting salary of the women is $6.82 an hour, far less than the $17.66 that a Rochester-area single parent with two preschoolers must earn to provide the basic necessities.

H.R. 4 does nothing to close the gap and does not give these hard- working parents who are trying hard to work and care for their families the chance to succeed. We need to do more for our most vulnerable friends and neighbors.

I can tell you that in my district the need for assistance is growing. In Monroe County, New York, applications for welfare assistance were up 17 percent in the year 2001. Requests for emergency housing placements rose by 25 percent from 2000 to 2001. And a program helping the homeless reported that 20,000 more homeless men, women and children were served in the fall of 2001 than during the same period of the year 2000.

The underlying bill fails to meet this growing need and fails to address the most fundamental goal of welfare reform, moving recipients into real jobs and out of poverty. While caseloads have fallen over 50 percent nationally since 1996, a good thing, the poverty rate has decreased only 13 percent over the same period.

If scores of those who have moved off the welfare rolls during a period of economic expansion remain dependent on food stamps, WIC and other public assistance, what are they going to do now that the economy is in recession and the States are in financial crisis? Are recipients going to be forced to try to work and raise their children without the education, training or child care that is necessary to move to real independence? In fact, in the State of New York, almost half the families that move off welfare are still living in poverty. This is not success. Governors, mayors, State legislators, welfare directors and poverty experts all say the same thing, that the bill is a step in the wrong direction.

We all know that education is key to moving out of poverty, yet this legislation eliminates vocational education from the list of activities that count as a work-related activity. What message does this send to Americans who seek a career in the building trades?

The bill even hurts poor children. Access to quality child care is an essential part of helping families to get off welfare and improving the odds that children arrive at kindergarten ready to learn. The Congressional Budget Office has reported that the new work requirement, increasing by 33 percent the amount of time that recipients participate in work activities, will require $8 billion to $11 billion in new child care funding over 5 years. However, the bill only provides $2 billion. What are the financially strapped States supposed to do about a $9 billion gap in child care funding? Where are these children going to go while their parents work 33 percent more hours?

This welfare reauthorization bill also demands more from States without providing any increased funding. It is estimated that unfunded mandates in this bill will cost my State more than $1 billion over 5 years. Nationwide, the estimated cost of unfunded mandates is $11 billion. You can see my State is impacted tremendously.

How can we shift this huge financial burden onto New York and the other States, especially now that the economy is in recession and States across the country are facing huge budget shortfalls? How do these unfunded mandates lift people out of poverty and help them get a job and give them hope?

Mr. Speaker, there is a better way, one that maintains State flexibility, one that focuses on real work and one that seeks to help families escape poverty. My Democratic colleagues and I support strong work requirements that will move people into real jobs. We believe that States should have the flexibility to determine the best mix of services and activities to move them towards self-sufficiency.

We want to provide welfare recipients with access to vocational training so they can find some good jobs. And we support providing the necessary resources particularly for quality child care to help families leave welfare for work. This measure utterly fails to do that.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to share some wisdom with you from the people of the 28th District of New York. In an editorial, published last fall in the Buffalo News, wrote the following about welfare reauthorization:

The goal of welfare reform should not simply be to trim the

welfare rolls. It should be to break the cycle of poverty

that puts people on welfare in the first place. Reduced

government expenses are a nice benefit, but reducing poverty

is the key to long-term success for the program and for the

people who have relied upon it. Education and training offer

far better chances not only to land jobs but to keep them.

Increased child care assistance is a necessary adjunct in

breaking the multigenerational cycle of welfare entitlement,

as well as a humanitarian move that should come naturally to

a rich nation that nonetheless is home to impoverished

children.

That was from the Buffalo News, September 15, 2002. I urge my colleagues to voted against this rule.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, in response to my good friend from Ohio, the author of this bill, I cannot imagine any legislature in the country saying we are not going to put this through the committee system this year because we talked about it last year.

Times have changed tremendously since last year. Unemployment rolls have risen, people are being thrown out of work on a daily basis. In my district, I am told that even temporary jobs are almost impossible to find. But that is only one portion of it. Many, many parts of this bill needed to be debated again this year in light of the new realities.

I agree with my colleagues who spoke before me: It is a shame and it is a blot on this Congress that we would bring a bill of this magnitude, affecting the lives of so many Americans, without going through a single one of the five committees that had jurisdiction over it.

I hope this is not a symbol of things to come. If it is, then the legislature has declared itself to be unnecessary. I cannot imagine much that will come up here this year that we probably did not discuss in years past.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to announce the introduction of the Environmental Health Research Act of 2003.

Arctic polar bears show high concentrations of certain synthetic compounds in their tissues. Whales in the world's oceans carry PCBs and other contaminants at concentrations that cause developmental defects in humans.

U.S. streams and groundwater show widespread contamination with chemicals, dioxins, and antibiotics. Alligators in Florida's lakes suffer from reproductive problems that appear to be associated with chronic chemical contamination. New studies have made a persuasive case that contaminants were in part or wholly responsible for the loss of the lake trout and herring in the Great Lakes many decades ago.

Rates of infertility, the incidence of testicular cancer in young men, Parkinson's disease, autism, endometriosis, childhood diabetes, and asthma have risen dramatically since 1970.

Is there a connection between all of these events? There is reason to believe there might be, but the truth is we simply don't know enough to conclude one way or the other.

There is mounting evidence from the scientific community that exposure to certain environmental toxins, even at low doses, may cause adverse effects on development, growth, reproduction, metabolism, and other hormone-dependent processes in humans. Research interest is growing dramatically as our fear also grows that the pesticides, medicinal drugs, plant hormones, and industrial compounds that we confront every day may be causing many of our health ailments.

In its Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals released two weeks ago, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) found disturbing exposure levels in individuals. The report calls for further research into this area to find out whether or not the levels CDC measured in its study lead to health problems.

Today, I am proud to introduce the Environmental Health Research Act. This bill would authorize the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences to provide grants to either public or non-profit private groups to develop and operate six centers that would conduct research into women's environmental health, and to establish a comprehensive research program on the impact and occurrence of hormone disrupting chemicals as they affect human, ecological, and wildlife health.

This bill is enormously important, and long overdue. To date, federal research on hormone disruption and environmental toxins has been scattershot and underfunded. The research program authorized through this legislation will enable NIEHS to gather solid data about the dangers posed by some chemicals and the mechanisms through which they act. With this information in hand, we can make sensible, informed decisions and policies about our own and our children's health and well-being.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Hormone Disruption Research Act. We owe it to future generations to pursue this scientific research, which has implications for every one of us.

Mr. Speaker, I was unable to be present for rollcall vote 31. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall vote 31.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. I rise again to congratulate the University of Portland's Women's Soccer Team and to voice my concern about changing the regulations of Title IX.

I come from an ``if it ain't broke, don't fix it'' school, and Title IX sure ain't broke.

Let me say something about if we just educate women. We are very much concerned about the health of young people in the United States and the sedentary lives that they live. It certainly would make a lot of difference if we give all women the opportunity to develop themselves athletically so they can pass that on to their children. Remember, if we want to have all those boys for the Georgia football games, we sure better have mothers who know how to bring them up right.

Senator Birch Bayh sponsored Title IX in 1972 because women in the United States were not getting an equal chance to participate in athletics and other educational opportunities. And since Title IX was enacted, both women's and men's participation in athletics has increased. But equality of opportunity still does not exist for our girls.

On an average, men participate at higher rates than women and they get 35 percent more scholarship dollars than women, and their total operating budgets are always double, at least, those of women's sports. And yet the critics of Title IX argue that the male athletes are suffering because of Title IX.

Mr. Speaker, Title IX ain't broke, but I will tell you what is. Some college football teams with rosters exceeding 100 athletes get to stay at four-star resorts before every home game. That is broke. Women do not get to do that. Athletic departments deciding that they would rather eliminate a wrestling program than to trim down the men's multimillion-dollar basketball budget, and then they blame the loss of the wrestling team on the women. That is not only broke, that is lame.

The Commission on Athletic Opportunity mistakenly complaining that Title IX invokes a quota system and then in their recommendations they suggest a real numerical quota. That is broke and it is downright un- American.

I urge my colleagues to support the spirit of Title IX and Patsy Mink that so pervades this House. She fought so valiantly for it and for most of her life really was so concerned that something might happen to it. Keep it as it is and keep it as it has been for the last 30 years so that women and girls today, including the women who have graduated from the University of Portland, who now have a women's professional soccer team to look forward to, will not lose the opportunities that they have earned; and never take that away from them.

Certainly in 1972 we seemed to discover here and in State legislatures that we have women constituents too. It would really behoove us not to forget that.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.

Mr. Speaker, it amazes me how glibly we talk about the fact that this is just another continuing resolution, we are going to do something later. When immediately after September 11, 2001, we sprang into action here, passing legislation giving the world and certainly the people of the United States that the Congress was not afraid to meet its obligations, but certainly one of the most important obligations we have is to fund the Federal Government.

Instead, we have dithered and dillied and dallied around discussing continuing resolutions. The Senate passes an omnibus bill. We will go to conference with them. We may do another CR. We just do not know. Are we going to do two budgets simultaneously? I really think it is outrageous that so little attention has been paid in the country to what has been going on here. Frankly, it distresses me that while all this is going on, we are back home in our districts when I think we should be here working.

We made promises after September 11, couple of days later, we are going to fortify our Army at home. The President and most Members of Congress went to New York to Ground Zero promising enormous amounts of help and to do something about the borders of the United States.

Mr. Speaker, the borders of the United States are in disarray. I represent part of the northern border area. We are concerned all the time with the people who come across the border into Vermont and to Maine. INS told me shortly after September 11 that there were 11 million persons in the United States illegally. They did not know who they were, where they were or what they were up to.

We have a mammoth task before us, and certainly getting the Federal budget straightened out and money back to the first responders is critical.

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

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

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

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

Another received over the holidays:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Strike all after the resolved clause and insert:

That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in

order without intervention of any point of order to consider

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

extension of the Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation

Act of 2002 and for a transition period for individuals

receiving compensation when the program under such Act ends.

The bill shall be considered as read for amendment. The

previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill

and on any amendment thereto to final passage without

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

equally divided and controlled by Representative Thomas of

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

amendment specified in section 2, if offered by

Representative Rangel of New York or his designee, which

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

shall be considered as read, and shall be separately

debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the

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

with or without instructions.

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

this resolution is as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moore).

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

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time I have remaining?

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes, the remainder of my time, to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor).

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to commit.

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

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