Jerry Weller

Mr. WELLER of Illinois

Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I stand to once again raise my concern and, frankly, disappointment by the decision of the majority party in this House to turn its back on America's best friend in Latin America. Ladies and gentlemen, the oldest democracy in South America is the Republic of Colombia. Colombia is a thriving democracy, a nation of 42 million citizens, the second largest Spanish-speaking nation in the world. And in Latin America, everyone recognizes the Uribe Government, the democratically elected Government of Colombia, as America's most reliable partner and America's best friend. And this House, with the Democratic majority voting almost unanimously, voted to turn its back on Colombia, America's best friend. It is kind of interesting. Look at the progress that has been made in Colombia. President Uribe was elected by the people of Colombia to put an end to a longstanding civil war where narco-trafficking, leftist guerrillas, known as the FARC, ELN and right-wing narco-trafficking paramilitaries known as the Paras, all three of those terrorist groups have attacked the democratically elected government and destabilized the democratically elected government. And President Uribe was elected to put an end to that conflict. And he has made tremendous progress. In fact, thousands upon thousands of paramilitaries have laid down their arms and agreed to honor the peace process and integrate back into society. Unfortunately, the FARC, which has ties to the government of Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, continues to fight. But the government of President Uribe has made tremendous progress pushing the FARC into the far reaches of the country. And today, villages that have never seen the presence of a national government, certainly not in decades, today enjoy the security provided by the government of President Uribe, tremendous progress. In fact, violence has dropped so much, cities such as Medellin, which was once known as one of the most dangerous places on the planet, today is safer than the city of Baltimore. In fact, the murder rate of Baltimore is higher than Medellin, Colombia. So it is safer to walk the streets of Medellin than it is to walk the streets of Baltimore. And we want to commend the Uribe Government, the democratically elected Government of Colombia for the progress they have made. We have an opportunity with the trade promotion agreement to further cement our ties with our best friend, an agreement that is good for American workers. It is good for American manufacturers. It is good for American farmers. Right now Colombian products enter the United States essentially duty-free. Their agricultural products and their manufactured goods come in without any tariffs. But U.S.-made products such as bulldozers that are made in the district I represent, if they are exported to Colombia, they face tariffs of 10 to 12 percent. Some of our agricultural commodities such as corn face tariffs of 45 percent. Clearly, those tariff barriers, those taxes, make U.S. products less competitive with Argentine corn or Asian competition for construction equipment. And I would note since this trade promotion agreement was signed between the United States and Colombia, over $1 billion U.S. in tariffs have been imposed upon American goods, manufactured goods and agricultural products that have been exported to Colombia. And we are waiting to ratify this agreement which would eliminate those tariffs and make U.S. products more competitive. The bottom line is the trade promotion agreement is good for American workers. It is good for American farmers. It is good for American manufacturers. In fact, the agricultural community will tell you that the U.S.-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement is the best agreement in our Nation's history with any other nation when it comes to access to products grown in the United States and exported to Colombia. The bottom line is it is a good agreement. Now my friends on the other side of the aisle, the Democrats, say, well, Colombia hasn't done enough. We need to make them do more. There is still some violence there. And until they eliminated it all, well, gee. Well, the bottom line is that Medellin, which was once the murder capital of the world, is now safer than the city of Baltimore. And some people who oppose this agreement say, well, there has been some labor leaders who have experienced violence. But look at the history they have. But as the Washington Post just pointed out, it is safer to be a labor leader in Colombia than it is to be a regular citizen. In fact, the murder rate of labor leaders is lower than the average murder rate of any other citizen in Colombia. Again, President Uribe has made progress. Let's honor our Nation's best friend in Latin America. Let's honor our most reliable partner. Let's bring to this floor the U.S.-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement. Let's bring it up for a vote, because we know it will pass. Let's get it ratified and move forward so we can grow our economy.

Mr. WELLER of Illinois

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

Mr. WELLER of Illinois. 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. WELLER of Illinois. In its current form I am.

Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, as I would note, the legislation before us, as was so eloquently described by the Republican leader of the House, makes some radical changes. For 27 years, Republicans and Democrats have had in place a work rule requirement for federally funded unemployment benefits. It said, to qualify for up to a year, 12 months, you should work 20 weeks. That seems a fair trade off between work and benefits. And this legislation before us, Mr. Speaker, removes that requirement. Now, my friends on the other side of the aisle refer to that concern as just kind of a straw man, it doesn't really matter. Well, why did they do it? Why is there a need to remove a 20-week work requirement to qualify for 12 months or a full year of unemployment benefits? We've had no hearings in committee. No one has explained why they're making this radical change. It just seems to be omitted from the presentations by the majority side of the aisle. So again we ask why. You know, under this policy that they're putting forward, someone would only need to work 2 weeks in a State like Michigan or Illinois and qualify for a full 1 year or 12 months of federally funded unemployment benefits. That's a radical policy change. And let me just repeat what every Republican has stated: We want to extend unemployment benefits for those workers in hard-hit States who have exhausted their benefits. And we have repeatedly offered to our friends on the other side of the aisle saying we want to get a bill signed into law. Let's set aside election-year politics, let's work together, let's extend benefits for those who have exhausted their benefits another 13, and in some cases, 26 weeks. But we want to work together to get it done, because if we don't, and we just do the usual politics as usual, election-year politics, bring legislation to the floor we know is not going to become law, make speeches, the folks back home are going to be disappointed. As has been noted by many, this Congress today only enjoys a 16- percent approval rating amongst the people of Illinois, the people of America. That is the lowest approval rating of any Congress in recorded history. Why? Because of the election-year politics that are being practiced today. So I'm going to again offer to my good friends on the other side of the aisle, people who I am very fond of, people I enjoy working with, we need to work together because people are hurting. We need to work together to help those in our States who are unemployed and who have exhausted their benefits. And because of election-year politics, unemployed workers in States like Michigan and Illinois, who have exhausted their benefits, have gone without. Why? Because Congress has played election-year politics. So let's work together. I urge a ``no'' vote on this legislation because it's not going to become law. I urge a ``no'' vote so that we work together to solve this challenge and quickly place on the President's desk legislation that will become law that extends unemployment benefits because we support extending unemployment benefits. With that, Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time we have remaining.

Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, several speakers have suggested that there is plenty of funds in Federal unemployment accounts to support these benefits. Today, those trust funds include $35 billion, and the Congressional Budget Office suggests this legislation will spend about $14 billion over the next 2 years. But that's just the start. This program will run from July through March of 2009; that's 9 months. But once started, such programs have always been extended. The average duration of these temporary programs is about 30 months. Do the math. That's more than three times as long as the legislation before us suggests. So this program could very well wind up costing at least three times as much as the score of this bill says. Three times 14 billion is 42 billion; 42 billion is more than the 35 billion in the current unemployment trust funds. The last time Congress created a program like this that drained the Federal unemployment accounts in the 1970s, it had to create a temporary surtax that applies to all workers. That temporary surtax still exists today; it is more than 30 years old. It's important to note, Mr. Speaker, this legislation not only adds to the deficit, but it's going to force a tax increase. With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished Republican leader of the House, Mr. Boehner of Ohio.

Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, as I had noted earlier, this Congress, the Democrat majority in the House today, has the lowest level of popularity, lowest level approval in recorded history, 16 percent. Why? Because of actions like today. This legislation that is before us came out of committee 8 weeks ago. Eight weeks, 2 months, that those who are unemployed have exhausted their benefits and been asking for extended unemployment benefits. We in the Republicans on the Ways and Means Committee said we want to work with our Democrat friends in the majority so we can pass a bill that's bipartisan, provides extend unemployment benefits and, frankly, becomes law. I would note, there's a publication on Capitol Hill called Congress Daily. It shows that today's exercise is frankly just election-year politics, probably one more reason this Democratic majority has the lowest level of approval in recorded history of any Congress. This Democrat leadership today is quoted as saying, It's not what we had hoped. We'll keep trying. But ultimately this is clearly going to only be possible on the supplemental. So, ladies and gentlemen, what we're doing today is an election-year exercise, and unfortunately, we've lost 8 weeks, which means that for 8 weeks, unemployed workers who have exhausted their unemployment benefits have had to painfully wait for the action of this Congress. We want to work together in a bipartisan way. We want to pass legislation that will become law, and as my friend on the other side of the aisle knows, this bill isn't going to become law. With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to one of the newest Members of the House of Representatives, the distinguished Member from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise).

Mr. WELLER of Illinois. I would be happy to yield 1 additional minute to the gentlelady from Virginia.

Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I want to state that I share the Speaker's admiration for Mr. Rangel and Mr. McDermott. I consider Mr. Rangel very intelligent, and I enjoy working with Mr. McDermott as well, but I do disagree with the distinguished Speaker on a point that she made. You know, she was talking about 5.5 percent unemployment, which in my view is too high, but I would note that it seems sometimes the definition of a bad economy is who's in the White House. In 1996, President Clinton stood before us at the State of the Union in January 1996. Unemployment was at 5.6 percent, higher than it is today. President Clinton said the economy was the healthiest it has been in three decades. Well, today unemployment is lower than it was when President Clinton made that statement. So, we all agree the economy needs to be improved, but President Clinton would say it's the healthiest in decades, if he were standing again before us based on his definition of a healthy economy. I would also note, as my good friend from Washington has made the point, that why are we talking about energy. When I talk to the folks back home in Illinois at the local grocery store, at the gas station, and people are commenting about food prices and energy prices, they say that when you have over $4 gasoline, that's bad for the economy. There's people losing jobs because energy costs are so high. As we talk about statistics, and the distinguished Speaker referred to statistics, I would note that the approval rating of the Democrat Congress today is 16 percent. Only 16 percent of the American people think the Democrat majority is doing a good job. Now, historically, that would tell us that today's Congress is the least popular in recorded history. No Congress has had a lower approval rating than the current Democrat majority. Why? Because since the Democratic majority became the majority in 2007, gasoline prices have gone up $1.73. Think about that. The Democrat majority has refused to expand the supply of gasoline, has refused to expand the supply of oil. Why? Because they are locking away, under their policies, domestic sources of oil and gasoline, and continuing to make us more dependent on foreign sources of oil, people like Hugo Chavez in Venezuela and sources in the Mideast that we're dependent upon because of the Democrat majority's policies. Again, there's a reason this Congress is the least popular in recorded history, because gasoline prices have gone up $1.73 since our Democratic friends gained the majority. With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Drake).

Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I would note that the Ways and Means Committee passed a bill on unemployment benefits 8 weeks ago. And for 8 weeks, unemployed workers who've exhausted their unemployment benefits in Michigan and Illinois have gone without unemployment benefits during election-year politics. Mr. Speaker, as we continue debate, this legislation before us, which includes a radical policy change, eliminating the Federal work requirement to qualify for federally funded unemployment benefits, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from the State of Kentucky (Mr. Lewis), a senior member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Well, I would first point out to my friend from Michigan that I represent the State of Illinois. And under the legislation which we offered in committee, my State of Illinois would receive extended unemployment benefits. I would also state that the Republican minority on the committee supported extension of unemployment benefits.

Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Is the gentleman yielding time?

Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, would you share with us how much time remains on each side, please?

Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, as Yogi Berra once said, this is like deja vu all over again. Yesterday after an 8-week delay, the House considered and failed to pass the legislation once again before us today. I continue to support providing extended unemployment benefits to workers who need it most. In fact, every Republican on the Ways and Means Committee supported extending unemployment benefits when this legislation was considered in committee 2 months ago; again, 8 weeks ago. Again, Republicans want to extend unemployment benefits. And we want to help those who are hurting the most. We also recognize that it is time that we pass legislation that can become law. Ladies and gentlemen, that is why I rise in strong opposition to the legislation before us today which does not satisfy the simple standard of helping those who need it most and who have worked a modest number of weeks to earn these benefits. Yesterday, the Democratic leadership brought identical legislation to the floor under a process normally reserved for naming post offices and honoring sports teams. This resulted in a take-it-or-leave-it approach to this very important issue of extending unemployment benefits, and the bill failed to gain enough votes, forcing us to return to the floor again today. Now have our Democratic colleagues budged an inch? Absolutely not. Today we are considering the same legislation which once again fails to include a long-standing and reasonable policy requiring at least 20 weeks of work to qualify for extended unemployment benefits. As several of us on this side of the aisle have noted, without this sensible requirement under H.R. 5749, workers could qualify for as many as 52 weeks of unemployment benefits, a full year, after having worked as little as one or two weeks. But whether someone worked two or 10 weeks or even 19 weeks, the simple fact is that current Federal law includes a straightforward rule that requires a modest minimum amount of work before someone can qualify for months, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 months of unemployment benefits courtesy of our taxpayers. This 20-weeks rule is not too much to ask. It is fair, and it is inexcusable for the other side not to include such a reasonable, long- standing rule. In fact, to not include it, as the bill before us would do, is a radical, and I say that again, radical change, radical departure from current law. My friends in the majority have called this issue a straw man. If it is just a straw man, why did they make the change? Why did they make this radical policy change that breaks 27 years of bipartisan policy which requires 20 weeks of work to qualify for a full year of unemployment benefits. Mr. Speaker, I have a United States Department of Labor document that shows examples of States that would allow 1 year's benefits for only 1 or 2 weeks' work, including a State like Michigan where you would only have to work one week to be able to obtain, under this legislation, 52 weeks worth of benefits. I would like to insert this Department of Labor document into the Record.

Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, as we continue to debate this legislation which makes a radical change, eliminating the Federal work requirement to qualify for federally funded unemployment benefits, I wish to yield 3 minutes to the senior Republican on the House Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Herger of California.

Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order against consideration of this bill.

Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order against consideration of this bill because the bill violates clause 10 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House of Representatives which provides in pertinent part that ``it shall not be in order to consider any bill if the provisions of such measure affecting direct spending and revenues have the net effect of increasing the deficit'' over the 5- or 10-year budget scoring window. This rule is commonly referred to as the pay-as-you-go rule or PAYGO and was enacted by the majority with great fanfare at the beginning of this Congress. In reviewing the estimate prepared by the Congressional Budget Office, I note that they have scored this bill as increasing the deficit by $14 billion over the next 5 years, and nearly $10 billion over the coming decade. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the table prepared by the Congressional Budget Office appear at this point in the Record.

Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Madam Speaker, given this overwhelming evidence that this bill does have the net effect of increasing the deficit over both scoring windows, I must respectfully insist on my point of order that the bill violates the PAYGO rule.

Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Madam Speaker, on that I respectfully appeal the ruling of the Chair.

Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. WELLER of Illinois

Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I rise to oppose the rule and to note that Republicans support an extension of unemployment benefits for those who are suffering, those who need help. I've enjoyed the debate of my friends on the other side of the aisle who point out, they try and blame the minority party for the delay in bringing this legislation to the floor. And I would note that the majority party controls the schedule, and the majority party can pass anything they want in the House. So I would note that the House Ways and Means Committee acted on the particular bill that we have before us 8 weeks ago. Eight weeks ago. Now, some, my good friend from Michigan refers to this debate as being embarrassing. I think it's embarrassing in this legislative process that it's taken 8 weeks, this legislation, to come to the floor of the House to be debated, particularly when people in Michigan and Illinois have exhausted their benefits. And the Republicans in the House Ways and Means Committee voted for a proposal which could become law, which would have provided extended unemployment benefits for those workers in Michigan and Illinois who have exhausted their unemployment benefits. Eight weeks it's taken for this emergency legislation to come to the floor. Eight weeks. I would note that a major concern many of us have in this legislation that's before us is that it takes a radical approach. It eliminates a 27-year policy that was supported by both Democrats and Republicans. The bill that is before us repeals a requirement that you work 20 weeks to get a full year's benefits. In Michigan, under this legislation, you would work 1 week and be able to get 52 weeks of benefits. In my State of Illinois, you can work 2 weeks and get 52 weeks of benefits under this legislation. Now, do taxpayers feel that that is fair? We, as the minority party, the Republicans, we want to extend benefits, unemployment benefits to those who need help. My district, my home State, we have unemployed workers who've exhausted their benefits. We want to ensure that their benefits are extended so that they can receive an additional 13- and 26-weeks' worth of benefits. And we had a proposal in the Ways and Means Committee which would have accomplished that goal. All of the Republicans voted for it, and the President would sign it into law. But instead, we're seeing election year politics today. That's what this is all about. It's 8 weeks. Think about that. For 8 weeks. If you're a Michigan worker and you have been unemployed, you have exhausted your benefits, you have been waiting 8 weeks.

Mr. WELLER of Illinois. You've been waiting 8 weeks because of election-year politics. This legislation could have been brought to the floor immediately, we could have had a bipartisan bill that had become law, but no. Our friends in the majority played election-year politics for 8 weeks. We're finally bringing a bill to the floor that won't become law. Let's pass legislation that will become law. Let's help those who need help.