Floor Statements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes, sir.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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