Benjamin Cardin

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Mr. CARDIN. 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. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. CARDIN. 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. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Corrine Brown).

Mr. CARDIN. 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. CARDIN. 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. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to control the time of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel).

Mr. CARDIN. 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. CARDIN. 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. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. 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. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, if I might, let me raise three points as to why this amendment should be made in order. The first, the bill deals with transportation safety. Over 70,000 people in the aviation industry alone have lost their jobs in the last 2 years. They are covered by the underlying amendment, and there are many more in the transportation industries that have lost their jobs; and without the unemployment insurance benefits that are provided for with the amendment that I have offered, it will jeopardize safety here in our country. Secondly, Mr. Chairman, if I might, during the consideration of the rule, I know the Chair may not have been on the floor, so I want to make sure I quote this accurately. During the consideration of the rule on the floor, the floor manager on behalf of the majority stated very clearly that the rule allowed any amendment by any Member. Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment, and I am a Member. Mr. Chairman, let me point out the third reason. We have shown resourcefulness in this body as the people's House, the body that is closest to the people, to let democratic procedures go forward to determine urgent issues. The underlying amendment deals with the extension of Federal unemployment insurance benefits that are due to expire at the end of this month. This House, as I said before I was interrupted, this body has shown resourcefulness in the rulings of the Chair, resourcefulness within the actions of our Members to deal with legislation in a timely way when there is an urgent issue. We are the people's House. As I pointed out, 1 million people have lost their unemployment insurance. They have exhausted it. Two million people will exhaust their State unemployment insurance benefits within the next 6 months. This underlying bill simply extends the Federal unemployment insurance benefit program for 6 months. It allows for those who have exhausted benefits to be able to receive their benefits, another million people, and makes it easier for us to deal with those who are seeking part-time employment. I would urge the Chair to exercise the discretion of the Chair, with only 6 days remaining before the expiration of this program, to permit this amendment to be in order, considering the statements of the floor managers, considering so many people that are in the transportation industry that are affected by being unemployed.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, this rule brings to the floor a bill to reauthorize the National Transportation Safety Board, which is perfectly fine, but I must tell my colleagues that it is in no danger. It is funded through the end of this fiscal year, so there is no rush to reauthorize this program. On the other hand, unemployment insurance will expire at the end of this month. We only have 6 legislative days left before millions of Americans will no longer qualify for Federal unemployment insurance benefits. For that reason I urge my colleagues to reject the previous question so that we can bring up today the extension of Federal unemployment insurance. Mr. Speaker, extended benefits for unemployed workers have been less generous during this economic downturn compared to the last recession. Republicans have been very reluctant to extend unemployment insurance benefits to unemployed workers. During the last recession, in the 1990s, Congress kept an extended benefit program in place for 27 months and generally guaranteed benefits for 20 to 26 weeks. Today's program is scheduled to expire after only 15 months and providing only 13 weeks of benefits. The economy has lost twice as many private sector jobs as we lost in the 1990s, with 2.7 million private sector jobs having been lost in the last 2 years. That is a 2.3 percent decline in private employment. In the 1990s, we lost 1.5 percent. There are now 3.4 people unemployed for every job opening in this Nation, and there is no sign of recovery. The U.S. economy has lost more than 500,000 jobs in the last 3 months alone. The current downturn represents the longest period in negative job growth since the Great Depression. The funds are there for the extension of Federal unemployment insurance benefits, with $21 billion in the Federal Unemployment Trust Accounts, funds expressly for this purpose, to deal with a recession. And there is no better immediate stimulus to the economy to create economic activity than to extend unemployment insurance benefits. For every dollar we expend in Federal unemployment insurance benefits, the Department of Labor indicates we will generate $2.15 in additional economic activities in each of our communities. So for all of these reasons, Mr. Speaker, the urgency is to bring up the unemployment insurance extension bill. That is what we should be doing today. We have a chance to do it. I urge my colleagues to vote against the previous question so that the Federal unemployment insurance benefits can be extended.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I respectively move to appeal the ruling of the Chair.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, let me thank my friend for his generosity considering I am on the other side of the issue on this rule. I very much appreciate him yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule. The rule does deny any amendments. There are amendments that need to be considered by this body if we are going to protect workers. It is interesting, Mr. Speaker, that this bill comes to us as the workers' protection legislation, yet it does not afford adequate protection to our workers. But what concerns me the most, Mr. Speaker, is over the last 2 years our economy has lost 2.7 million private sector jobs. This is twice the amount of job loss as compared to the last recession, and yet we provide only one half of the amount of extended unemployment benefits to dislocated workers and their families. It is for that reason, Mr. Speaker, that at the end of our debate we will be asking the House to reject the previous question so that we can offer an amendment that will provide for the extension of Federal unemployment insurance benefits. This is urgent. The current Federal unemployment insurance benefit program is scheduled to terminate at the end of this month. Even though we know that one million workers, one million workers have already exhausted their Federal unemployment insurance benefits, the legislation that we have filed would give them an additional 13 weeks. Mr. Speaker, we know that in the next 6 months 2 million workers will exhaust their State unemployment insurance benefits. Now, the legislation that we have currently extended will only provide unemployment insurance benefits for those who are on the program. No new enrollees. Two million Americans will be affected during the next 6 months. We had $21 billion in the Federal unemployment insurance funds to pay for those benefits, so it is paid for. The Committee on Rules allowed for provisions within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means in the underlying legislation that we will be considering if this rule is approved, yet the legislation was not considered by the Committee on Ways and Means. So, therefore, Mr. Speaker, I think it is very appropriate that this body permit us to consider during the debate of this legislation, which is aimed at protecting workers, the extension of Federal unemployment insurance benefits. It is going to be one of the last opportunities that we will have to consider this before the Federal unemployment insurance benefit program has exhausted and those that are unemployed are going to be without. So, Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question and, if necessary, defeat the rule so that we have an opportunity to take up the extension of the Federal unemployment insurance benefits that affect millions of our workers.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, let me try to explain the problem with the advice sections of the bill that is on the floor. What my colleagues have done in this legislation is remove the prohibited transaction on giving advice by the agent that is selling the product to the employee. What does that mean? That means an employer can hire an investment company that will be responsible for the investment options that the participant must participate in, and the actual person giving the advice to the participant makes a commission based upon what product that individual sells. Under current law, that is a prohibited transaction and is not allowed. Under the legislation that has been reported to the floor, that is now permitted without any protection basically in the bill at all. I regret that I cannot support this legislation. Let me just take my colleagues back to the last Congress where I thought we tried to work in a bipartisan way to deal with the problems of Enron and WorldCom, and we made some progress, but then somehow when the legislation got reported to the floor, all that cooperation, all that bipartisan working together was lost when the Committee on Rules reported out a bill that contained many provisions that were never agreed upon in trying to resolve the issues before us. We are now faced with legislation that opens up a huge loophole that could magnify the problems we had in Enron and WorldCom by giving congressional sanction to individuals who are more interested in getting a commission from the participant in the plan than giving sound advice as to what will work with that individual's need. Do we need to pass legislation? Absolutely. But this is not the right bill. Fortunately, there will be a Democratic substitute, Mr. Speaker, that will address the legitimate concerns that are out there, and I regret that we have not been able to work together to develop the type of legislation that is needed to deal with the Enron-type scandals. We should have done that. We should have worked together, but for reasons unknown to me, the majority has decided to go this route, which I think could very well cause more harm than benefit to the beneficiaries. I urge my colleagues to support the Democratic substitute and, if that is not accepted, to reject the underlying bill.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding me this time. Make no mistake about it, this bill is extreme and reckless. Mr. Speaker, $550 billion-plus, every dollar must be borrowed. The Republican budget, by its own numbers, doubles the national debt from $6 trillion to $12 trillion over the next 10 years. Two-thirds of the relief on the capital gains and on the dividend exclusion goes to those people who have incomes over $200,000. Yet, not one dime for the unemployed. Yes, we have an urgent need. We have an urgent need to act to extend unemployment insurance benefits that expire at the end of this month. That is immediate, fiscally responsible. We have the money in our trust account, and it will help create jobs. Two million Americans in the next 6 months will exhaust their State unemployment insurance benefits and will get no relief. This bill is extreme, it is reckless, and it is wrong.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, this week in the Committee on Ways and Means we attempted to offer this amendment to extend unemployment insurance benefits for those people who are going to lose their benefits at the end of this month. That bill will spend $550 billion but does not provide one penny for those people who are going to lose their unemployment insurance benefits at the end of this month. Every prior recession we have extended Federal unemployment benefits for far longer than we have in this recession even though this recession is deeper than the prior recessions. Mr. Speaker, in the next 6 months if we do not extend Federal unemployment insurance, 2 million of our fellow citizens are going to exhaust their State benefits. We have already seen 1 million of our citizens exhaust their extended benefits. What this motion simply does is we should be extending Federal unemployment insurance by 26 weeks and for those who have exhausted their benefits under the Federal system, an additional 13 weeks. Mr. Speaker, the money is in the Federal unemployment trust account to pay for this; $21 billion is there. The money is there just for that reason, for a recession. We should do it. For those who are interested in helping stimulate the economy, the study by the Department of Labor found that every dollar of unemployment benefits generated $2.15 of economic activity. It is the right policy to do. It will help our economy. We have done it in the past on a bipartisan basis. We are going to use every opportunity we can. We have to do this before the end of this month. I urge my colleagues to support the motion to recommit so that we can move forward to help the unemployed in our community. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

Mr. CARDIN

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

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

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me first point out to my distinguished chairman that business people have no limit in the Tax Code as to what they can take on their travel expenses, and yet we are telling our National Guard that there is going to be a limit as to how much they can take on their taxes for travel expenses. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott), a distinguished member of our committee.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's comments, but the differences here in substance between what we will be voting on and what the other body has voted on is that the Senate provided unlimited exclusions for death benefits payable to our military, and the legislation before us is less generous. The House bill provides less generous eligibility rules for capital gains relief, and the Senate bill provided unlimited deductions for travel expenses of our National Guard members and Reservists, yet the legislation before us imposes a $1,500 cap on those deductions. I do not know the logic of us limiting the reasonable expenses of our National Guard members, particularly when they have been called upon in this most recent conflict. It seems to me that those changes in every case work against our military, and I am surprised that we are not ratifying the Senate's bill. But the most important difference is that the Senate included a provision to stop tax avoidance by those who have renounced their citizenship in this country, and the legislation before us today does not include that provision. I would suggest that is probably the major reason why we are acting on yet another version of this bill, which is extremely important for us to pass. I agree with the chairman on that point, but it seems to me that we are now faced with the option of providing less benefits than we should to our military and losing an opportunity to close a major loophole in our Tax Code for those who renounce their citizenship, still taking advantage of U.S. tax law. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I must admit I am somewhat baffled by the comments of my distinguished chairman. If it is in the interest of this body to enact legislation quickly, then we should just take the Senate bill and ratify the Senate bill and send it to the President, and we can get it signed. It seems to me that is the easiest way for us to work this out for our military.