mr. speaker , i rise in opposition to the structured rule that has been reported out of the committee on rules for this debate . 
the party-line vote of 220-204 that we saw in the 108th congress on the debate of the then h.r. 1261 should evidence the need for the most open debate over the issues . 
the need for debate arises from disagreement . 
as representatives of the united states congress , we all have a duty to fully debate the issues on behalf of our constituents . 
a restricted rule precludes that opportunity . 
nevertheless , i am pleased that the amendments of my colleagues from massachusetts , new york , and virginia respectively have been ruled in order . 
passage of these three important amendments will bring h.r. 27 one step closer to providing more jobs and better opportunities for american workers to receive training for these jobs . 
without them and many other suggestions that have been made by our colleagues , this bill fails as to both initiatives . 
in the short term , extending unemployment benefits , coupled with the assistance that unemployed workers can receive through one-stop service centers , will provide workers with the means to achieve high paying jobs . 
we must address the needs of our unemployed now and in a manner that respects the rights of individuals regardless of their faith , while they are struggling to pay their mortgages and to put food on the table for their families . 
the base bill will fail to address these concerns and squander resources better used to provide immediate help to our unemployed workers . 
mr. speaker , i urge my colleagues to reject a restrictive rule or to support the amendments offered by mr. tierney , ms. velazquez , and mr. scott . 
