Benjamin Cardin

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished democratic whip, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel). (Mr. EMANUEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me say to my friend we all, of course, offer our deepest condolences as we did to his family. I am afraid, though, that the bill without the Pomeroy substitute is going to offer no help whatsoever for a decade to people who may find themselves in this same position. One of the principal advantages of the substitute is that not only does it provide immediate help starting in 2004, exempting those estates $3 million, $6 million on a couple, and by the way, those gross estates would not have to file forms. They do not even have to file an information form if their gross value is below $3 million. So I think we would provide immediate help to a significant number, to the overwhelming majority of people who would find themselves in the same position that my colleague's family found itself in. But there is a second reason that I think family farms, which go through a similar situation, would benefit much more from the substitute than the underlying bill, and this is predictability. I dare say that if the bill that the Republicans are bringing forward were to pass, very few individuals who had estates of 3, 4, 5, 6, $7 million would change their estate plan based upon the predictability of Congress to keep this policy in effect for the next decade, so that the relief would eventually come. Predictability is very important in estate planning. The Pomeroy substitute gives us that predictability, a policy that will stand, a policy that exempts 99.6 percent of the estates in our country today. Those individuals would be able to make estate changes in order to deal with the new realities of a law that makes sense. There is a third reason in addition to the fact that we provide immediate relief and it is predictable. The third reason we have heard over and over again, and it is an important reason, and this is affordability, what we can afford as a Nation. Next week we are going to be debating whether we can afford a prescription drug plan for our seniors. We make choices. We set priorities by what we think is important. The Joint Economic Committee on Taxation, not this Member but our objective professionals, tell us that this bill will lose, when fully implemented in the next decade, $850 billion. Our prescription drug plan that will be on the floor next week is $400 billion. Those of us who say can we not find a little bit more money for the millions of seniors who do not have health insurance, can we not throw a few more dollars in that program, we are told we do not have the money. Yet we have the money for relief that affects only a few thousand estates in this country, and that is all it is. It is not the wholesale farm. It is the farms of a very few. In fact, they are wealthy farms that are going to be affected, estates of a very few, very wealthy people in this Nation that are impacted by maintaining an estate tax for the very, very wealthy individuals. And as my friend, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), pointed out, the reason why the underlying bill will never become law and if it becomes law it will never be sustained is that Americans would not tolerate multibillionaires passing their estates tax free and their income not being taxed. It will not be sustained. Vote for the underlying substitute. It will affect policy today. It will take care of the problems we have heard before. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, could I inquire as to the amount of time that remains on both sides?

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the rightful sponsor of the substitute, the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy), be allowed to control the remaining time on this side.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I want to acknowledge the work that both the gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton) and the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy) have done to develop a process in which we could look at the Taxpayer Bill of Rights with our staffs in order to make reasonable changes to protect taxpayers and their relationship with the Internal Revenue Service. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) has been one of the leaders in the Congress of the United States on this issue, and I have worked with him on some of these matters, but the gentleman from North Dakota and the gentleman from New York, in their subcommittee of oversight, have really taken on, I think, the right process to review each of these provisions and to bring forward a group of noncontroversial changes in the Taxpayer Bill of Rights that are important to protect our constituents in their dealing with the Internal Revenue Service. So, Mr. Speaker, I start by saying there is a lot of good provisions. Most of the provisions in the underlying bill are important provisions that we need to act on and that have gone through the vetting process, which I think is appropriate for these types of changes. My concern is the amendment that was added that was not part of the Taxpayer Bill of Rights. I think we will have a chance later in this debate to correct that through an amendment or substitute that will be offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) that will incorporate all the good provisions of the underlying bill, but eliminate the provision that affects TAA. Let me talk for moment, if I might, about that one provision that I hope we will find a way to get out of the underlying legislation so that we can move forward with the Taxpayer Bill of Rights. That provision is a very controversial provision and a provision that I think does irreparable harm to a large number of our constituents who currently or may be without health insurance. We provided in the trade adjustment assistance provision where we could deal with workers who have lost their health benefits and their jobs as a result of foreign trade. That could be a clear example of what has happened to the steel industry in my community, where so many Bethlehem Steel workers lost their health benefits as a result of the financial woes caused by illegally dumped steel here in the United States. My concern with the TAA amendment that has been incorporated in the Taxpayer Bill of Rights is that it removes an important protection for these workers or retirees in getting health insurance that will cover them. In my own State of Maryland, we have taken advantage of the TAA law and the use of the Federal credit by establishing a State pool for these workers and retirees so they can get health benefits. By removing the protection that is in the law, we will be encouraging States to take away protections on preexisting conditions in underwriting. Mr. Speaker, I think it should be the policy of this body to cover all these workers and retirees. We should not be distinguishing between those who, in their most desperate need, have preexisting conditions. The bill is working as passed by the Congress. It is working in Maryland, it is working around the Nation. There is no need now to remove the protections that were included in the TAA legislation. So, Mr. Speaker, I will be urging my colleagues to support the substitute that will preserve the important provisions on the Taxpayer Bill of Rights but will remove this poison pill that could hurt many workers and retirees in communities' around the Nation.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, working families that make between $10,000 and $26,000 a year were left out of the tax bill that was recently signed by the President. These are people who pay taxes, Mr. Speaker. They pay sales taxes, they pay property taxes, they pay excise taxes, they pay FICA taxes. In fact, many of them pay a greater percentage of their income in taxes than the wealthy people who got the benefits of the recently enacted tax bill. To correct this oversight, it will cost a modest amount of money, about 1 percent of what it cost in the recent tax bill. We have a Senate bill that corrects this. It is fully paid for. It passed the other body by a vote of 94-to-2. It is supported by the President of the United States. Why are we not taking this bill up? But for the leadership in this House, the Republican leadership, we could have passed this bill tonight. What this motion says, Mr. Speaker, is that we support the effort of the other body so that we could correct this bill now. This is a vote to help those working families. This is a vote to help the military families. This is a vote to say that we do not want to follow what the Republican leader has said, which is ``This ain't going to happen.'' We want it to happen, and our motion allows it to happen. I urge my fellow Members to support the effort in the other body, support the President in saying that he would sign this legislation. This is our opportunity to do it. Mr. Speaker, I just urge my colleagues not to hold low-wage worker families hostage to the notion that we have to do a lot more that is not going to happen in order for them to get the same type of tax relief that was provided to high-income families in the bill that was signed by the President. This is the right thing for us to do. I urge my colleagues to support the motion to instruct. Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, let me just in response to our friend from California, point out if the gentleman has so much confidence in current law in the results that have just been spelled out, I am curious as to why the bill that passed the House that is now being promoted, why over 40 of our welfare administrators in our various States have said it will cause a fundamental change in their welfare system, it would cause them to shift their local priorities to federally mandated priorities where our own scorekeepers have indicated that there are additional mandates to the States far beyond the dollars made available, far beyond the $2 billion, if in fact $2 billion is made available, our States would be required to conform to new mandates. If we believe that the current law has been so successful, why are we now taking away the ability of States to set their own priorities? Mr. Speaker, I am going to ask my colleagues to do two things. First, I ask my colleagues to support the 3-month extension. It is the responsible thing to do. We need to approve this legislation. Second, I am going to ask, let us all step back for a moment and take a deep breath and take a look at the issues and the families that are affected, listen to our Governors who have the principal responsibility, analyze the GAO report which indicates that most of our States have had to cut back on child care money because of their fiscal problems. In my own State of Maryland, they are taking no new enrollments in child care unless you are on welfare. Think of this message: If you want safe, affordable child care, go on welfare. That is the wrong message. Let us talk together, let us listen to each other and let us come up with a bipartisan bill that we can be proud of, that can pass both this body and the other body and be signed by the President; and, most importantly, will help our States in their efforts not only to get people out of welfare, but to get American families out of poverty. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, first, let me just comment briefly on my friend's, the gentleman from Pennsylvania's (Mr. English), revisionist history. The original welfare reform bill was signed by President Clinton. He held out his final support because it was moving through Congress without the child care provisions that my friend from Pennsylvania is now taking credit for or the health provisions. Let me also point out, if I might, Mr. Speaker, that a lot has happened in the last year. We have had no hearings on this legislation in this Congress. Yet we have extended unemployment insurance. We have seen a deterioration in our economy. We have seen our States strapped with some of the highest budget deficits in their history. And yet on the most important anti-poverty program in our Nation, we have not had one hearing or one opportunity to deal with the bill on this reauthorization act. That is not bipartisanship, and that is not an open process. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this 3-month extension of the funding for the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, or TANF, program. I also support the bill's continuation of funding for a series of programs designed to help people leave welfare for work, including child care assistance and transitional Medicaid coverage. Without this extension, funding for all these vitally important programs would expire at the end of this month. While this bill is important, it is obviously only a stopgap measure, as the chairman has indicated. Unfortunately, this is the fourth short- term extension we have been forced to pass since last fall. Rather than continuously enacting these temporary measures, we should be sitting down to figure out how to craft a good 5-year reauthorization for the TANF program. I appreciate my chairman's hope that this will be the last of our extensions. I can tell my chairman, the best way to make sure that this will be the last of these short-term extensions is for us to get together, Democrats and Republicans, with Members of the other body and the administration, and work out a true bipartisan compromise on a reauthorization that will help America's families. But regrettably, the Republican leadership of this House has precluded such discussions by literally ramming through a TANF reauthorization without any hearings and without any opportunity this year for us to work our will, so once again we are stuck without a long-term commitment to many of our Nation's most important antipoverty programs. My friends on the other side of the aisle may be tempted to blame the other body, but let me tell the Members, I think it has been our actions, not theirs, that have stalled the opportunity to enact a comprehensive 5-year reauthorization bill. President Bush did send to Congress a rigid, Washington-knows-best welfare plan that was criticized by Governors, mayors, welfare administrators, poverty experts, and religious leaders. It focused on make-work instead of real jobs for welfare recipients, and it replaced State flexibility with unfunded mandates. Mr. Speaker, on Monday three dozen religious leaders sent a letter to President Bush echoing these concerns. Let me quote a little from that letter. These were religious leaders, some of whom helped the administration in crafting its policy. ``Poor people are suffering; and our faith-based service providers see it every day in communities across the country . . . We believe that the budget your administration has put forward fails to protect and promote the well-being of our poorest and most vulnerable citizens. The tax cut passed by Congress with your support provides virtually no help for those at the bottom of the economic ladder, while those at the top reap windfalls.'' The letter goes on to say: ``Pro-family commitments to invest in adequate child care, education, and training for our poorest families have fallen short in your administration's proposals. The most effective and bipartisan public policies for reducing poverty have not been adequately supported by your administration.'' This letter from religious leaders concludes by suggesting, ``many are feeling betrayed'' by the disconnect between the President's words and the actions on poverty-related issues. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record a copy of this letter. The letter referred to is as follows: Call to Renewal, Washington, DC, June 9, 2003. Dear Mr. President: We are all leaders in the faith community, whose churches and faith-based organizations are on the front lines of fighting poverty. Many of us have supported your faith-based initiative from the beginning of the administration. Several of us have met with you to discuss the churches' role in overcoming poverty and have offered solid support to our friends, John Dilulio and Jim Towey, who have led your Office of Faith Based and Community Initiatives. But while we have consistently backed faith- based approaches to poverty reduction, we have also insisted they must be accompanied by policies that really do assist low-income families and children as they seek self- sufficiency. Mr. President, it is a critical time for poor people in America. Poor people are suffering; and our faith-based service providers see it every day in communities across the country. The poor are suffering because of a weakening economy. The poor are suffering because of resources being diverted to war and homeland security. And the poor are suffering because of lack of attention in national public policy. We are writing because of our deep moral concern about consistency in your administration's support for effective policies that help alleviate poverty. We believe a lack of focus on the poor in the critical areas of budget priorities and tax policy is creating a crisis for low-income people. We believe the budget your administration has put forward fails to protect and promote the well being of our poorest and most vulnerable citizens. The tax cut just passed by the Congress with your support provides virtually no help for those at the bottom of the economic ladder, while those at the top reap windfalls. The resulting spending cuts, at both federal and state levels, in the critical areas of health care, education, and social services, will fall heaviest on the poor. Budgets are moral documents. You have taken many positive steps with regard to international aid and development, such as the HIV/AIDS initiative, and we would like to see that compassion manifest here at home. In significant social programs, like welfare reform, we have supported the proposals of your administration to strengthen marriage and family as effective antipoverty measures; but the companion pro-family commitments to invest in adequate child care, education, and training for our poorest families have fallen short in your administration's proposals. The most effective and bipartisan public policies for reducing poverty have not been adequately supported by your administration. Over the past several years, we have advocated several policy initiatives in addition to the ``faith-based initiative'' that would help low-income people in this country. These include TANF reauthorization that makes poverty reduction a priority, targeted tax relief for low- income families, and funding for proven programs that would effectively reduce poverty. We believe administration support for such policies would be consistent with your stated commitment of being compassionate toward the poor, especially since you have spoken more about issues of poverty than many of your predecessors. We recall your Notre Dame address two years ago, where you pointed out: ``Government has an important role. It will never be replaced by charities. . . . Yet, government must also do more to take the side of charities and community healers, and support their work. . . . Government must be active enough to fund services for the poor--and humble enough to let good people in local communities provide those services.'' Mr. President, ``the good people'' who provide such services are feeling overwhelmed by increasing need and diminishing resources. And many are feeling betrayed. The lack of a consistent, coherent, and integrated domestic policy that benefits low-income people makes our continued support for your faith-based initiative increasingly untenable. Mr. President, the poor are suffering, and without serious changes in the policies of your administration, they will suffer even more. When you announced the faith-based initiative, you pledged that: ``I want to ensure that faith-based and community groups will always have a place at the table in our deliberations.'' Mr. President, it's time to bring faith- based organizations to the table where policy decisions are being made. We are concerned that the needs of poor people in America seem to have little influence in the critical policy decisions your administration is making. The faith-based- initiative seems to be the only place in your administration where poverty is prioritized, yet we know that faith-based initiatives alone will never be sufficient to solve the problems of poverty. As we have discussed with you the faith- based initiative, we now want to engage your administration in a serious conversation about domestic social policy. Mr. President, it's time to talk. Sincerely, Rev, Jim Wallis, Convener and President, Call to Renewal. David Beckmann, President, Bread for the World. Rev. Peter Borgdorff, Executive Director of Ministries, Christian Reformed Church. Lt. Col. Paul Bollwahn, National Social Services Secretary, The Salvation Army. J. Daryl Byler, Director, Washington Office, Mennonite Central Committee. Bart Campolo, President, Mission Year. Tony Campolo, President, Evangelical Association for Promotion of Education. Rt. Rev. John Bryson Chane, Bishop, Episcopal Diocese of Washington, DC. Rt. Rev. Steven Charleston, President and Dean, Episcopal Divinity School. Dave Donaldson, President, We Care America. Rev. Dr. Robert Edgar, General Secretary, National Council of Churches in the USA. Dr. Robert M. Franklin, Presidential Distinguished Professor, Candler School of Theology, Emory University. Wayne Gordon, President, Christian Community Development Association. Rev. Wes Granberg-Michaelson, General Secretary, Reformed Church in America. Rev. Dr. Richard Hamm, General Minister & President, Christian Church--Disciples of Christ in the US and Canada. Rev. Mark Hanson, Presiding Bishop, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. Bishop Thomas L. Hoyt, Jr., Presiding Bishop, Fourth District, Christian Methodist Episcopal Church, President- elect, National Council of Churches in the USA. David G. Hunt, President, American Baptist Churches USA. Hyepin Im, President, Korean Churches for Community Development. William ``Bud'' Ipema, Vice-President, Council of Leadership Foundations. Rev. Alvin Jackson, National City Christian Church, Moderator, Christian Church-Disciples of Christ in the US and Canada. Rev. Ted Keating, SM, Executive Director, Conference of Major Superiors of Men. Rev. Cliffton Kirkpatrick, Stated Clerk, Presbyterian Church USA. Rt. Rev. Mark MacDonald, Bishop, Episcopal Diocese of Alaska. Bishop Felton Edwin May, Presiding Bishop, Baltimore- Washington Conference, United Methodist Church. Rev. Dr. A. Roy Medley, General Secretary, American Baptist Churches USA. Gordon Murphy, Executive Director, Christian Community Development Association. Rev. Glenn R. Palmberg, President, Evangelical Covenant Church. Bishop Donald A. Ott, Coordinator, United Methodist Council of Bishops Initiative on Children and Poverty. Carole Shinnick, SSND, Executive Director, Leadership Conference of Women Religious. Ron J. Sider, President, Evangelicals for Social Action. Rev. John H. Thomas, General Minister and President, United Church of Christ. Joe Volk, Executive Secretary, Friends Committee on National Legislation. Jim Winkler, General Secretary, General Board of Church and Society, United Methodist Church. Mr. Speaker, let me also point out to my colleagues a book that was recently released by Elizabeth Sawhill as the editor called ``One Percent for Kids. I mention that because the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) and I participated on a panel at Brookings on this particular subject. I want to just emphasize one point that was pointed out in the beginning of this book. At the present time, our Nation is spending 2 percent of its gross domestic product on programs for children. We are spending 2\1/2\ percent of our gross domestic product on servicing the national debt. My chairman mentioned the fact that the TANF reauthorization bill that passed this body would increase the potential for funding for the poverty programs in this country by $2 billion. I might point out that only $1 billion was assured. The second billion was authorization. We are increasing the national debt this year by $400 billion in order to give tax cuts basically to wealthy people. To service that additional debt, it will cost somewhere between $12 billion and $14 billion in next year's budget alone. So, yes, we are very generous on the tax cuts and on saddling taxpayers with interest on the national debt. But when it comes to America's future, when it comes to investing in our children for their future, we seem to have a deaf ear. One percent for kids could really help stimulate our economy and grow our economy. Mr. Speaker, let me make it clear, speaking for my colleagues on this side of the aisle, we are ready today to sit down with our colleagues on the Republican side to work out a TANF reauthorization 5-year bill that will provide predictability, flexibility, and resources to our States to continue the job that they started 6 years ago when we reformed the welfare system in a bipartisan way. Let us continue that effort. Let us make the tools available. Let us not just try to ram through a bill that the experts tell us will not be in the best interests of our children. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), a distinguished member of the Committee on Ways and Means who is a very active member of the Subcommittee on Human Resources. (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I have had a lot of town hall meetings in my district; and I will tell my colleagues what my constituents do not like. That is, they do not like us to charge and spend; and that is exactly what this conference report is going to do. It is going to borrow money in order to give tax breaks. That does not make a lot of sense. By the Republicans' own number, their budget is going to go from a $6 trillion national debt to $12 trillion, doubling the national debt. Every dollar of tax relief has to be borrowed in which we are paying interest. That does not make sense. Mr. Speaker, this is a reckless bill. They advertise they give help to low-income people. That is for 1 year only. They give permanent relief to the well-to-do. That is not fair. That is not what we should be doing as a Nation. This bill is reckless. This bill is not affordable. This bill is going to hurt our economy, not help our economy. What we should be doing is responsibly managing our resources. We should not be borrowing money to give a tax cut. That is wrong.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, if the House does not act today or tomorrow, 80,000 Americans will be denied extended unemployment benefits on June 1. Every week thereafter, another 80,000 laid-off workers will be denied benefits, totaling $2 million over the next 6 months. This is in addition to the one million unemployed workers who have already exhausted their extended benefits. Last week, Democrats tried three times to get a vote on extending unemployment benefits, but each time the Republicans said no. We are now in the longest period of negative job growth since the Great Depression. The unemployed are looking for work, but they cannot find jobs. They need and deserve extension of unemployment benefits. Mr. Speaker, I would hope that you would entertain a request to immediately consider legislation introduced by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) and myself, H.R. 1652, to extend unemployment benefits for millions of Americans who have lost their jobs, not just those who have exhausted their State benefits. This request would simply ensure that the unemployed at least get a vote on the floor before we adjourn. We have the money in the Federal Unemployment Trust Fund to pay for these benefits. That is the least we can do.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. 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. CARDIN. 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. CARDIN. 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. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. CARDIN. 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. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Michaud).

Mr. CARDIN. 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. CARDIN. 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. CARDIN. Yes, in its present form, Mr. Speaker.