[House Hearing, 110 Congress] [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office] MODERNIZING UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE TO REDUCE BARRIERS FOR JOBLESS WORKERS ====================================================================== HEARING before the SUBCOMMITTEE ON INCOME SECURITY AND FAMILY SUPPORT of the COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION __________ SEPTEMBER 19, 2007 __________ Serial No. 110-59 __________ Printed for the use of the Committee on Ways and Means U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 45-995 PDF WASHINGTON : 2009 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402-0001 COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS CHARLES B. RANGEL, New York, Chairman FORTNEY PETE STARK, California JIM MCCRERY, Louisiana SANDER M. LEVIN, Michigan WALLY HERGER, California JIM MCDERMOTT, Washington DAVE CAMP, Michigan JOHN LEWIS, Georgia JIM RAMSTAD, Minnesota RICHARD E. NEAL, Massachusetts SAM JOHNSON, Texas MICHAEL R. MCNULTY, New York PHIL ENGLISH, Pennsylvania JOHN S. TANNER, Tennessee JERRY WELLER, Illinois XAVIER BECERRA, California KENNY HULSHOF, Missouri LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas RON LEWIS, Kentucky EARL POMEROY, North Dakota KEVIN BRADY, Texas STEPHANIE TUBBS JONES, Ohio THOMAS M. REYNOLDS, New York MIKE THOMPSON, California PAUL RYAN, Wisconsin JOHN B. LARSON, Connecticut ERIC CANTOR, Virginia RAHM EMANUEL, Illinois JOHN LINDER, Georgia EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon DEVIN NUNES, California RON KIND, Wisconsin PAT TIBERI, Ohio BILL PASCRELL, JR., New Jersey JON PORTER, Nevada SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland KENDRICK MEEK, Florida ALLYSON Y. SCHWARTZ, Pennsylvania ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama Janice Mays, Chief Counsel and Staff Director Brett Loper, Minority Staff Director ______ SUBCOMMITTEE ON INCOME SECURITY AND FAMILY SUPPORT JIM MCDERMOTT, Washington, Chairman FORTNEY PETE STARK, California JERRY WELLER, Illinois ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama WALLY HERGER, California JOHN LEWIS, Georgia DAVE CAMP, Michigan MICHAEL R. MCNULTY, New York JON PORTER, Nevada SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada PHIL ENGLISH, Pennsylvania CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland KENDRICK MEEK, Florida Pursuant to clause 2(e)(4) of Rule XI of the Rules of the House, public hearing records of the Committee on Ways and Means are also published in electronic form. The printed hearing record remains the official version. Electronic submissions are used to prepare both printed and electronic versions of the hearing record, the process of converting between various electronic formats may introduce unintentional errors or omissions. Such occurrences are inherent in the current publication process and should diminish as the process is further refined. C O N T E N T S __________ Page Advisory of September 12, 2007, announcing the hearing........... 2 WITNESSES Cynthia Fagnoni, Managing Director, Education, Workforce and Income Security, government Accountability Office.............. 13 Amy Chasanov, former staff Member, Advisory Council on Unemployment Compensation...................................... 35 Lynette Hammond, Deputy Secretary of Commerce and Trade, Commonwealth of Virginia....................................... 52 Vicky Lovell, Ph. D., Director of Employment and Work/Life Programs, Institute for Women's Policy Research................ 60 Jeffrey Kling, Ph. D., Senior Fellow and Deputy Director, Economic Studies, The Brookings Institution.................... 71 SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD Douglas J. Holmes, statement..................................... 85 Idaho Department of Labor, statement............................. 92 On Point Tech, statement......................................... 94 UWC--Strategic Services on Unemployment.......................... 94 HEARING ON MODERNIZING UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE TO REDUCE BARRIERS FOR JOBLESS WORKERS ---------- WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 19, 2007 U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Ways and Means, Subcommittee on Income Security and Family Support, Washington, DC. The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 1:00 p.m., in room B-318, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Jim McDermott (Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding. [The advisory announcing the hearing follows:] ADVISORY FROM THE COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS SUBCOMMITTEE ON INCOME SECURITY AND FAMILY SUPPORT CONTACT: (202) 225-1025 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE September 12, 2007 McDermott Announces Hearing on Modernizing Unemployment Insurance to Reduce Barriers for Jobless Workers Congressman Jim McDermott (D-WA), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Income Security and Family Support of the Committee on Ways and Means, today announced that the Subcommittee will hold a hearing on reducing gaps and disparities in access to unemployment insurance, especially for low-wage and part-time workers. The hearing will take place on Wednesday, September 19, at 1:00 p.m. in room B-318 Rayburn House Office Building. In view of the limited time available to hear witnesses, oral testimony at this hearing will be from invited witnesses only. However, any individual or organization not scheduled for an oral appearance may submit a written statement for consideration by the Committee and for inclusion in the printed record of the hearing. BACKGROUND: The Unemployment Insurance (UI) system, established in 1935, provides temporary and partial wage replacement for unemployed workers. Since the establishment of the program, there has been a significant rise in the number of women in the workforce, an increase in low-wage and part-time employment, and a decline in manufacturing employment. Past reports from the Advisory Council on Unemployment Compensation and from the government Accountability Office (GAO) have highlighted certain features in many States' UI programs that prevent them from more adequately responding to these long-term employment trends. For example, an estimated 31 States do not consider any wages earned by a dislocated worker from either their last completed calendar quarter of employment or from the quarter in which they file for benefits-- excluding up to 6 months of earnings. Not counting a worker's most recent earnings makes it more difficult for some low-wage workers to achieve minimum earnings levels for UI eligibility. Other barriers to coverage include restrictions on UI receipt for former part-time workers seeking reemployment in a part-time job and for those leaving employment for compelling family reasons. Subcommittee Chairman McDermott has introduced legislation, the Unemployment Insurance Modernization Act (H.R. 2233), to provide up to $7 billion from the Federal unemployment insurance trust funds to encourage, assist and reward States for removing such barriers for jobless workers. In announcing the hearing, Chairman McDermott stated, ``Too many workers, especially those in low-wage and part-time employment, are excluded from the Unemployment Insurance system. Women in particular are hampered by policies that were crafted five, six and seven decades ago. We should actively encourage States to make further progress in covering all unemployed workers who have worked hard and who have had taxes paid into the system on their behalf.'' FOCUS OF THE HEARING: The hearing will focus on policies designed to modernize the Unemployment Insurance system and reduce barriers to coverage for low- wage and part-time workers. DETAILS FOR SUBMISSION OF WRITTEN COMMENTS: Please Note: Any person(s) and/or organization(s) wishing to submit for the hearing record must follow the appropriate link on the hearing page of the Committee website and complete the informational forms. From the Committee homepage, http//waysandmeans.house.gov., select ``110th Congress'' from the menu entitled, ``Hearing Archives'' http// waysandmeans.house.gov/Hearings.asp?congress=18. Select the hearing for which you would like to submit, and click on the link entitled, ``Click here to provide a submission for the record.'' Once you have followed the online instructions, completing all informational forms and clicking ``submit'' on the final page, an email will be sent to the address which you supply confirming your interest in providing a submission for the record. You MUST REPLY to the email and ATTACH your submission as a Word or WordPerfect document, in compliance with the formatting requirements listed below, by close of business October 3, 2007. Finally, please note that due to the change in House mail policy, the U.S. Capitol Police will refuse sealed-package deliveries to all House Office Buildings. For questions, or if you encounter technical problems, please call (202) 225-1721. FORMATTING REQUIREMENTS: The Committee relies on electronic submissions for printing the official hearing record. As always, submissions will be included in the record according to the discretion of the Committee. The Committee will not alter the content of your submission, but we reserve the right to format it according to our guidelines. Any submission provided to the Committee by a witness, any supplementary materials submitted for the printed record, and any written comments in response to a request for written comments must conform to the guidelines listed below. Any submission or supplementary item not in compliance with these guidelines will not be printed, but will be maintained in the Committee files for review and use by the Committee. 1. All submissions and supplementary materials must be provided in Word or WordPerfect format and MUST NOT exceed a total of 10 pages, including attachments. Witnesses and submitters are advised that the Committee relies on electronic submissions for printing the official hearing record. 2. Copies of whole documents submitted as exhibit material will not be accepted for printing. Instead, exhibit material should be referenced and quoted or paraphrased. All exhibit material not meeting these specifications will be maintained in the Committee files for review and use by the Committee. 3. All submissions must include a list of all clients, persons, and/or organizations on whose behalf the witness appears. A supplemental sheet must accompany each submission listing the name, company, address, telephone and fax numbers of each witness. Note: All Committee advisories and news releases are available on the World Wide Web at http:waysandmeans.house.gov. The Committee seeks to make its facilities accessible to persons with disabilities. If you are in need of special accommodations, please call 202-225-1721 or 202-226-3411 TTD/TTY in advance of the event (four business days notice is requested). Questions with regard to special accommodation needs in general (including availability of Committee materials in alternative formats) may be directed to the Committee as noted above.Chairman MCDERMOTT. The Committee will come to order. We are here today to discuss the importance of a strong and equitable insurance system. Now that economists are openly expressing concerns about the impact of the declining housing market on employment, this discussion may be sort of relevant. More relevant, actually, but the truth is that unemployment insurance is always important. It prevents temporary periods of joblessness from forcing families into poverty. It helps workers stay connected to the workforce, and it mitigates the impact that unemployment has on the economy, both legally and nationally. The UI system was created over 7 years ago after the worst economic crisis in U.S. history. It was established, really, to ensure that Americans would have some help in weathering economic setbacks. It was created because great Americans like Franklin Delano Roosevelt vowed Americans would stand together and protect one another and live in a nation that really understood the power of ``we'' versus ``me.'' Today as we look at America and how it has changed over the years and how we can adjust the UI program to continue its role in protecting Americans against economic hardship, as we examine the unemployment insurance system, it is disturbing to see a long-term trend of fewer jobless workers receiving UI benefits. Barely over one-third of all unemployed workers receive unemployment compensation. The rate of receiving that benefit is even lower, much lower for low-wage workers. I put this chart up there for everyone so you can look at what happens to the low-wage workers. They are almost 2\1/2\ times more likely to be unemployed, and they are about one- third as likely to get the unemployment benefits. So, we are really talking about what happens to low-wage workers here. The very workers who are least able to cope financially with a spell of joblessness are also the least likely to get unemployment benefits. As GAO will testify today, and as highlighted by the chart in front of you, low-wage workers are almost 2\1/2\ times more likely to be unemployed, and one-third are likely to receive unemployment benefits. Now, part-time workers also have greater difficulty in accessing UI benefits, as do individuals who leave work for compelling family reasons such as avoiding domestic violence, taking care of a sick child, or following a spouse to a different part of the country. These barriers to unemployment insurance fall particularly hard on women who are more likely to work in part-time and/or low-wage jobs. Now the legislation we have introduced, the Unemployment Insurance Modernization Act, is to encourage and reward States for implementing a few basic reforms to help low-wage, part- time and other workers gain access to the UI system. For example, the bill calls on States to count a worker's most recent earnings, and to count them when calculating eligibility for unemployment benefits by implementing a so- called ``alternative'' base period. Not counting a worker's most recent wages makes it more difficult for some low-wage workers to achieve the minimum earning levels for UI eligibility. Under this bill, up to $7 billion would be disbursed from the Federal unemployment trusts to the States implementing provisions related to the alternative base period as well as to making UI more accessible to part-time workers, making the system more family friendly and supporting long-term training. Those States that have already put in place an alternative base work period would be eligible for an immediate distribution. For example, Illinois recently enacted an alternative base period and would therefore automatically receive $100 million under this bill. The State would potentially receive another $200 million depending on the implementation of additional reforms. Now, in addition to the $7 billion conditional transfer to the States, the legislation also set out an automatic $500 million to help States with the administrative cost of UI, which the Federal Government has really failed to adequately address in recent years. Admittedly, this legislation will not single-handedly eliminate disparities in UI coverage for low- wage and part-time workers, but it will take a meaningful step in the right direction without a single Federal mandate and without raising the Federal debt by one penny. The bill accomplishes this task simply by extending the current law unemployment tax that has been on the books for over 30 years. It costs employers $14 per year, per employee. The FUTA tax was last extended by the Republican Congress in 1997, and President Bush has proposed that it be extended this year in his current budget. My bill differs in only one way from the past extension and President Bush's budget proposal. Under my legislation, States were eligible to receive every dime of revenue raised from the extension of the FUTA test. Well, I have one more page here I would like to tell you about. There are certainly some policies that we can examine to help dislocated workers, but we really have to start by having a more effective unemployment insurance system. We have had this for generations and it is time for some very common sense reforms. I remember making them when I was in the State legislature when we were squeezing down on the system. It used to be you could work in the summer, get some unemployment benefits, and live all through the college year on your unemployment benefits. Those kinds of things are no longer happening, but there are some common sense things that ought to happen now. Chairman MCDERMOTT. I yield to my Subcommittee Ranking Member, Mr. Weller. Mr. WELLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank you for convening today's hearing. Before I make my opening statement, I want to extend a congratulations to you. You and I have spoken a little bit, but this is the first formal meeting of our Subcommittee since you were given a great honor in Africa, and I do want to congratulate you on your knighthood granted to you by the King of Losoto. As one who has known a long time of your personal interest in developing countries, particularly Africa, it is nice to see it recognized. You and I may disagree on policy. I enjoy working with you as my Chairman and having the opportunity to work together. I know your family is very proud of you, as are your friends. Today is one area in which we do disagree. I noted when the Subcommittee put out a press release announcing this hearing, it suggested that it was about, quote, ``modernizing unemployment benefits,'' and apparently it appears my Democratic colleagues think modernizing means increasing taxes, in this case by $7 billion over the next 5 years. I would note almost every other major Democratic initiative this year, from energy to food to children's health policy, includes tax increases. So, the majority party's position has been a consistent one so far this year. Another apparent feature of modernization means more of the same of our Washington-knows-best attitude. On the legislation we will discuss today, only States that choose to provide benefits to certain, quote, ``federally approved categories of unemployed workers'' would get a share of the $7 billion in tax increases back. That is despite the fact that those taxes are collected in each and every State and amount to lost wages for American workers. This naturally creates State winners and losers, with the Federal Government deciding who wins and who loses. As several of our witnesses today will note, many States have already decided to broaden eligibility for unemployment benefits in the ways promoted by the Chairman's bill. This suggests that as the economy has changed, States have adapted. Many, like my home State of Illinois, adopted newer technology that allows them to count more recent wages in determining worker eligibility for benefits. Others provide benefits to part-time workers or certain individuals who have quit their jobs, but when States have done so, they knew they needed to increase payroll taxes in the long run to cover increased benefits costs. The Chairman's bill masks those true costs behind the shield of incentive payments today, quote, ``incentive payments,'' which is really a promise to raise State payroll taxes tomorrow to cover higher long-run costs. It is not too late for us to take a different and decidedly more pro-worker and more pro-work direction. As we will hear today, we can and should do a much better job helping laid-off workers get back on the job. Mr. Chairman, you were on to something when you proposed the creation of a new wage insurance program to assist laid-off workers who return to work at lower wages. It is my understanding that this idea is not unanimously endorsed on your side of the aisle, but it seems to me at the very least we should encourage States to test whether this enhanced safety net can help workers. That is the principal legislation I have introduced in H.R. 1513, the Unemployment Compensation Improvement Act. Recent research confirms that, especially for older workers, helping them get back to work quickly can be key to recovering their former level of earnings. In contrast of tax increases that are proposed today, my legislation is cost-neutral and does not raise taxes, and I believe it is worth testing out. In my view, the real test of a modern unemployment benefit system is not how many people we can sign up for unemployment benefits. Instead, the real test is how many people we help get back on the job quickly and at good wages, especially since unemployment benefits average only about half of what workers earn in wages. That should leave workers, firms, and the economy all far better off by getting them back to work at good wages. I look forward to the hearing today, and I look forward to hearing the witnesses' testimony. Chairman MCDERMOTT. Thank you. [The information follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45995A.001 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45995A.002 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45995A.003 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45995A.004 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45995A.005 Chairman MCDERMOTT. I want the other Members to know if they have statements they want introduced in the record, they simply need to submit them. We are going to have votes in about, we think, 35 or 40 minutes. I am going to stay pretty tight to the 5-minute rule here. In the past, I had been somewhat loose and let people go on at some length, but we are not going to do that today. It is because we want to get you all in before the time runs out, and then we can maybe expand on what you have to say. Your full testimony will be put into the record. Ms. Fagnoni. STATEMENT OF CYNTHIA FAGNONI, MANAGING DIRECTOR, EDUCATION, WORKFORCE AND INCOME SECURITY, GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE Ms. FAGNONI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am happy to be here this afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, to talk about the extent to which low-wage and part-time workers receive unemployment insurance benefits. The UI program is a Federal-State partnership designed to partially replace lost earnings of individuals who become unemployed through no fault of their own and to stabilize the economy during economic downturns. Unemployment insurance has been a key component in ensuring the financial security of America's workforce for over 70 years. Since the UI program was established in 1935, the nature of both work and unemployment has changed in fundamental ways. There have been increases in the share of low-wage jobs, the incidents of temporary and contingent work, the number of women in the workforce and two-earner families and the average duration of unemployment. Given these changes, questions arise about the types of workers who are most likely to receive benefits. My remarks today will focus on, first, the overall trend in UI receipt; second, the likelihood that low-wage workers will be unemployed and receive UI benefits, especially when compared to higher wage workers; and third, the likelihood that unemployed part- time workers will receive UI benefits. My testimony today is based primarily on our September 2007 report as well as work we did in 2000. Regarding the first issue, the UI recipiency rate declined gradually from 1950 through the mid-1980s. While about 50 percent of the unemployed filed for UI in the fifties, about 29 percent did so in 1984. Since the mid-1980s, the UI recipiency rate has shown a modest increase and was about 35 percent in about 2005. Several factors are considered significant in the decline of UI receipt, including the decrease in the number of workers employed in manufacturing jobs, the decline of union membership in the workforce, and population shifts of workers from northeastern to southern States where unemployed workers are less likely to apply for UI benefits. Turning now to our second area, low-wage workers, we found that they were less likely to receive UI benefits than higher wage workers. Between 1992 and 1995, low-wage workers were about half as likely to receive UI benefits than higher wage workers. For the years 1998 to 2003, they were about one-third more likely. Moreover, the gap between the two groups has not narrowed over time. That is, UI receipt has gone down by about the same for both groups of workers over the years. Low levels of UI receipt among low-wage workers can be explained by a variety of factors, including States' eligibility criteria and how they vary. In determining eligibility, many States only consider wages earned in four of the last five completed quarters. As a result, the worker's most recent work history is not used in making eligibility determinations. For low-wage workers with sporadic work histories, excluding recent earnings may make it more difficult for them to reach the minimum earning level necessary for eligibility. Also, to be eligible for UI, workers must have had good cause for leaving work. Certain temporary family crises, such as having a sick child, may cost some low-wage workers to quit their jobs. However, many States do not recognize serious illness or disability of a family member as a good cause for leaving employment. In those cases where low-wage workers do have an earnings history that allows them to qualify for UI benefits, other factors could still result in a lower likelihood of their receiving UI benefits. In general, UI receipt is associated with higher earnings before unemployment, longer job tenure and more education. Earnings and job tenure are associated with longer job searches and possibly the decision to rely on UI benefits during that search. Greater levels of education may be associated with greater awareness of the UI program and success in navigating the system. Prior UI receipt also may play a role. Receiving UI benefits in one period of unemployment increases the likelihood of using UI again, we found in prior studies. With respect to the third issue, part-time workers, we found they were significantly less likely to collect UI than those who were full-time regardless of whether they were low- wage or higher-wage. State eligibility criteria are a factor here as well. About two-thirds of States do not consider workers to be eligible for UI if they are only available for part-time work and, like low- wage workers, some part-time workers may have difficulty meeting the requirement that they have a certain level of earnings within a given time period in order to be eligible. Mr. Chairman, this concludes my remarks, looks like right on time. I would be happy to answer any questions you or Members of the Subcommittee may have. Thank you. [The prepared statement of Ms. Fagnoni follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45995A.006 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45995A.007 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45995A.008 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45995A.009 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45995A.010 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45995A.011 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45995A.012 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45995A.013 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45995A.014 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45995A.015 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45995A.016 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45995A.017 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45995A.018 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45995A.019 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45995A.020 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45995A.021 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45995A.022 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45995A.023 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45995A.024 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45995A.025 Chairman MCDERMOTT. Ms. Chasanov. STATEMENT OF AMY CHASANOV, FORMER STAFF MEMBER, ADVISORY COUNCIL ON UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION Ms. CHASANOV. Chairman McDermott and distinguished members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate being invited here today, and I welcome the chance to testify about this bill. It is a legislative proposal that encourages States to strengthen their unemployment insurance programs and rewards those States that have already chosen to do so. My name is Amy Chasanov, and from 1993 to 1995 I served as a staff member to the Advisory Council on Unemployment Compensation. I want to emphasize at the start that the Council was bipartisan, with members appointed by the President, the House, and the Senate. The Council's 11 members represented various groups of stakeholders that included business, labor, State government, and the public. The Council had a broad mandate, looking at all aspects of the unemployment insurance system. During its relatively short lifespan, it held nine nationwide public hearings, visited numerous State offices and also sponsored significant legal and economic research in the area. The Council met on 13 separate occasions, held intense deliberations, and published three annual reports which discussed its findings, and presented 50 recommendations to improve the UI program. My testimony today focuses on the Council's findings and recommendations that relate to the proposed legislation. At the outset, I should highlight that the Council either directly or indirectly endorsed all of the features of the House's UI Modernization Act that is being discussed today. Before getting to those recommendations, let me mention two overarching issues, one of which Chairman McDermott already raised. The first is that there have been dramatic changes in the workforce since 1935. We have moved from a workforce that was made up primarily of married, full-time male workers to one where part-time and contingent and women workers now make up the majority. The Council noted repeatedly that the States' UI programs have not always kept up with these important changes in the workforce. I would also like to mention that the Council focused much of its time on the Federal-State relationship in the UI program, which is unique, and about the appropriate division of responsibility between the States and the Federal Government. The Council believed that some national interests transcended State interests, and in those cases it was appropriate to establish Federal minimum standards. In particular, two of those national standards were minimum eligibility and benefit levels and also ensuring macro-economic stabilization. The bill today represents a carrot and, honestly, the Council had more of a stick approach mandating Federal minimum standards. Whatever approach is considered, however, the outcome is undoubtedly similar. Let me now turn to the Council's specific recommendations. First, the Council was deeply disturbed that 3 to 6 months of a worker's most recent earnings were disregarded when determining monetary eligibility in most States, and that low- wage, part-time and temporary workers were particularly harmed. The Council recommended that all States adopt an alternative base period that considers the four most recently completed calendar quarters of work. Second, the Council believed that workers who met States' monetary eligibility requirements should not be disqualified simply because they were looking for part-time as opposed to full-time work. Third, the Council recommended that the FUTA tax revenues per worker increase, not decrease, over time. They proposed a revenue-neutral adjustment that will increase the Federal taxable wage base from $7,000 to $9,000 and eliminate the 0.2 percent surtax at that time. They also recommended annual increases in the Federal wage base. I do not believe based on the Council's discussions that they would ever allow the FUTA surtax to expire without a simultaneous increase in the Federal taxable wage base. Fourth, the Council recommended extending UI benefits for individuals who are long-term unemployed when they are participating in education and training services and activities that enhance their reemployment prospects. Finally, although it was not a formal recommendation, the Council expressed concern over many States disqualifying workers from benefits if they quit their jobs due to domestic violence or to personal or compelling family reasons. I encourage you to look at my written testimony which discusses the Council's reports in much more detail and also discusses two additional recommendations which are not part of the bill but should be considered. It was a pleasure to talk to you today about the Council's work. [The prepared statement of Ms. Chasanov follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45995A.026 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45995A.027 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45995A.028 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45995A.029 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45995A.030 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45995A.031 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45995A.032 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45995A.033 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45995A.034 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45995A.035 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45995A.036 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45995A.037 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45995A.038 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45995A.039 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45995A.040 Chairman MCDERMOTT. Ms. Hammond, who is the deputy secretary of commerce and trade in the Commonwealth of Virginia. STATEMENT OF LYNETTE HAMMOND, DEPUTY SECRETARY OF COMMERCE AND TRADE, COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA Ms. HAMMOND. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and Members of the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Income Security and Family Support. I am pleased to be here today to testify in support of H.R. 2233, the Unemployment Insurance Modernization Act. Governor Kaine supports this measure and the incentives it provides for States to address the compelling needs of our citizens who become unemployed through no fault of their own. The Governor also requests that the Subcommittee consider restoring adequate funding to administer the unemployment compensation and job services program. Much has changed since 1935 when the unemployment insurance safety net was first established. Information technology means that States no longer have to wait months to make sure they have an employee's wage records. Families are more likely to depend on the wages of more than one worker. Workers are more likely to not only change jobs but change locations during their careers. In Virginia we have seen that changes in the global economy have eliminated whole classes of jobs, leaving workers stranded with outdated skills and crippled one-industry towns. Virginia has been comparatively fortunate in recent years. Our economy is robust, our unemployment rate is one of the lowest in the Nation, and our State has been recognized for 2 years in a row as the most business-friendly in the Nation by Forbes.com. Still, our statewide statistics mask large pockets of high unemployment. Local unemployment rates in Virginia range from 1.8 percent in Arlington to 8.7 percent in Martinsville. Southside and southwest Virginia are still reeling from the loss of furniture and textile industry jobs that were the mainstays of their economy. In other areas of the State, growth and change present their own challenges. In Northern Virginia, for example, a tight labor market makes it more difficult for employers to find workers. In these areas, as demand on the unemployment insurance system decreases, the demands on the job service system increase to help place workers in jobs. Also in Virginia, at Fort Belvoir and Fort Lee, we are preparing for a large influx of military personnel, including military spouses who need jobs, have increased family responsibilities, and who must move frequently as their spouse is assigned to different duty stations. Despite these challenges, during this decade we have seen the Federal commitment to the Federal-State partnership erode between the year 2000 when the unemployment was 2.3 percent in Virginia, and 2006 with 3 percent unemployment. Federal funding for Virginia's unemployment insurance system fell from 35.5 million to 34.4 million in unadjusted dollars. Congressman McDermott's bill would temporarily help to remedy Virginia's difficult financial situation caused by persistent Federal underfunding of the State system. Moreover, the legislation would provide significant incentives for States to change their benefit eligibility requirement to recognize the changes in our economy. example, Virginia has implemented the alternative base period, and did so in 2003, recognizing that information technology allows claimants to use their most recent wages when determining eligibility. Since the enactment of the alternative base period, Virginia has paid $13.3 million in unemployment benefits to low-wage claimants who would not have qualified otherwise. This $3.3 million average yearly cost also undergirds what the State's basic principle is, that unemployment compensation should strengthen attachment to the workforce. In order for claimants to qualify, they have to already demonstrate attachment to the workforce. For weekly benefits, they have to show they have been searching for work and are following through on any job leads provided by the job service. We feel these requirements help services and services help claimants find new jobs sooner and help keep them in the workforce. This is especially important for new entrants and lower-wage workers, and those are the ones that are most likely to be disqualified by the standard base period. We found during consideration of the Virginia legislation that those disqualified by the standard base period also tend to be young, low-income females with dependents, and these are the very people the State is working to help move toward independence in our TANF and food stamp programs. In conclusion, Governor Kaine supports H.R. 2233 to encourage States to modernize their UI programs. While it is premature to speculate what the general assembly might do, we have found that (or projected that) providing unemployment compensation to all trailing spouses, for example, would cost about $3 million per year and providing benefits to part-time workers seeking part-time jobs would cost about $8.1 million a year. This totals $11.1 million a year, and with those changes, Virginia would qualify for $128.2 million Reed Act distribution and $64.1 million that the State would qualify for having enacted the base period. However, we also recognize the State is in the process now, because of persistent underfunding, of contracting the services that we can provide to the unemployed, not expanding them. So, providing adequate administrative funding would also be an incentive to States to upgrade the systems. Thank you. [The prepared statement of Ms. Hammond follows:] Statement of Lynette Hammond, Deputy Secretary of Commerce and Trade, Commonwealth of Virginia Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, Members of the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Income Security and Family Support: My name is Lynette Hammond and I am Deputy Secretary of Commerce and Trade for the Commonwealth of Virginia. I am pleased to be here today to testify in support of HR 2233, the Unemployment Insurance Modernization Act. Governor Kaine supports this measure and the incentives it provides for states to address the compelling needs of our citizens who become unemployed through no fault of their own. The Governor also requests that the Subcommittee consider restoring adequate funding to administer the unemployment compensation and job services programs. As you know, the unemployment insurance program was created as part of the Social Security Act of 1935. At that time, Congress had the foresight to fashion a unique federal-state partnership that has been a major strength of the program for more than 70 years. The unemployment compensation system has also endured because the Congress established the program as a social insurance program rather than a means-tested program, recognizing that everyone who is attached to the workforce may need a safety net should they find themselves unemployed through no fault of their own. Under this federal-state partnership, the federal government establishes broad standards that all states must meet, provides program oversight, collects an excise tax from employers to fund state program administration and various U.S. Department of Labor activities, and provides grants to the states to administer the program. States establish their own eligibility and qualification requirements in conformity with applicable federal standards, assess a payroll tax on employers to fund benefits to workers who become unemployed through no fault of their own. The unemployment insurance program has served our country well for more than seven decades. Its success is due in no small measure to the federal-state partnership that was established by the Social Security Act--a partnership that avoided both the inflexibility of a ``one size fits all'' national federal program and the economic chaos that could have ensued if the states had enacted a multitude of laws without any common policy underpinnings or legislative framework. However, as the years have gone by our economy and workforce have changed significantly. While these changes do not warrant discarding a program that has worked so well for many years, they do necessitate a re-examination of the goals, objectives, and program funding to ensure that the evolving needs of our dynamic economy and workforce will be met in the 21st century. Much has changed since 1935 when the Unemployment Insurance safety net was first established. The vast capabilities of information technology mean that states no longer have to wait months to be sure they have an employee's wage records. Families are more likely to depend on the wages of more than one worker, placing more stress on workers as they try to balance work and family needs. Workers are more likely not only to change jobs, but to change locations during their careers. Changes in the global economy have eliminated whole classes of jobs, leaving workers stranded with outdated skills in crippled one- industry towns. But the basic principles underlying the unemployment insurance safety net haven't changed--that workers deserve a buffer against economic dislocation. The need for a counter-cyclical stimulus when a community loses a major employer is still valid, and Virginia continues to see that need in rural areas as manufacturing jobs leave the country. I sincerely hope the notion is not outdated that if you work hard, pay taxes, and support your family, you won't be cast adrift if you lose your job through no fault of your own. Virginia has been comparatively fortunate in recent years. Our economy is robust, our unemployment rate is one of the nation's lowest, and our state has been recognized for two years in a row as the most business friendly in the nation by Forbes.com. Still, the statewide statistics mask large pockets of high unemployment. Local unemployment rates in Virginia ranged from 1.8 percent in Arlington to 8.7 percent Martinsville. In Southwest and Southside Virginia, the unemployment rate is often double the statewide rate. These regions are still reeling from the loss of furniture and textile industry jobs that were mainstays of the economy. In other areas of the state, growth and change present their own challenges. In Northern Virginia, the tight labor market makes it difficult for employers to find workers. In these areas, as the demand on the unemployment insurance system decreases, the demand for job matching and employer assistance increases. At Fort Belvoir and Fort Lee, we are preparing for a large influx of military personnel, including military spouses who need jobs, have increased family responsibilities, and who also must move frequently as their spouse is assigned to different duty stations. As service members muster out of the military at Virginia bases, we must provide services and benefits to help them transition back to civilian life. Despite these challenges, during this decade we've seen the federal commitment to its federal-state partnership continuously erode. Between 2000, when the unemployment rate was 2.3 percent and 2006 with 3 percent unemployment, federal funding for Virginia's unemployment insurance system fell from $35.5 million to $34.4 million in unadjusted dollars. Congressman McDermott's bill would temporarily help to remedy Virginia's difficult financial situation caused by persistent federal under-funding of state unemployment compensation administration. Moreover, the legislation would provide significant incentives for states to change their benefit eligibility requirements to recognize the changes in our economy that have occurred over the past seven decades. For example, Virginia implemented the alternative base period in 2003, recognizing that information technology allows the agency to use a claimant's most recent wages when determining eligibility. In 1935, wage reporting involved manual record-keeping and mailing time. At that time, it was practical to use the first four of the last five completed calendar quarters because more recent wage data was not available. Now with automated systems, using the most recent wages is not difficult. Nearly all employers report wages electronically and they are entered onto the state's wage records electronically. Since the enactment of the alternative base period, Virginia has paid $13.3 million in unemployment insurance benefits to low-wage claimants who would not have qualified otherwise. The $3.3 million, or 45 cents per employee average yearly cost of the alternative base period also under girds the state's basic principle that unemployment compensation should strengthen attachment to the workforce. In order to qualify for compensation, claimants must demonstrate sufficient wages to show attachment to the workforce. To be eligible for weekly benefits in Virginia, a claimant must show that they have been searching for work. They must also register with the Job Service and follow up on any job leads. These requirements and services help claimants find new jobs sooner and keep them in the workforce. It sends the message that their work matters. This is especially important for new entrants in the workforce and lower wage workers--those most likely to be disqualified by the standard base period. We found during consideration of the bill, that those disqualified by the standard base period also tended to be young females with dependents. These were the very people that the state was working to help move towards independence in our TANF and food stamp programs. Clearly, we did not want to send the message to these claimants that low pay means their work doesn't count. The measure passed 35 to 5 in the Senate and unanimously in the House. The average annual cost has been slightly less than projected. Based on our experience, if Congressman McDermott's bill gives incentives to other states to adopt the alternative base period, they are likely to find the money well spent. HR 2233 will also provide incentives to states to allow unemployment compensation for good cause shown. Virginia already provides eligibility for many of these cases through its administrative adjudication process. Examples of ``good cause shown'' in case decisions include leaving a job to escape family violence, and leaving a job to care for dependents. However, Virginia's statute specifically excludes from good cause leaving a job to accompany a spouse who finds work in a new location--trailing spouses. In 2004, the Virginia General Assembly considered legislation to allow benefits for military spouses in cases where the service man or woman is transferred to a new duty station. Arguments against the bill at the time were that unemployment compensation eligibility would be a disincentive to hiring military spouses, and that it would subject employers to separations that are beyond their control. In response, the bill was amended to provide that benefit costs be assigned to the state's pool instead of the most recent employer. Members also expressed concern that Virginia would be paying benefits to military spouses from states that did not similarly treat their own military spouses moving to new duty stations. In response, the authorizing committee amended to bill to provide benefits only when the spouse moved to a state that provided similar benefits. The Warner administration recognized that Virginia's military spouses have been making tremendous sacrifices. Their wages are essential to keeping the family afloat, especially when the servicemember is assigned to duty overseas. Moreover, members of the military have the only job in the state where a worker can be prosecuted if he or she refuses to transfer. Clearly, the spouses of Virginia's military men and women do not consider it optional to move to a new duty station when the orders come. The legislation to provide benefits to military trailing spouses did not pass the General Assembly. After a hard-fought and narrow approval by the House of Delegates, the sponsor pulled the bill in response to questions about the cost projections. Had the McDermott bills incentives been available, the outcome might well have been different. As it is, we risk telling military spouses--mostly low- income women--that accompanying your spouse to a new duty station is not good cause for leaving a job. In conclusion, Governor Kaine supports HR 2233 to encourage states to modernize their Unemployment Insurance programs. While it is premature to speculate what the Virginia General Assembly might enact if the bill were to become law, preliminary projections indicate the following: Extending unemployment compensation to all trailing spouses is projected to cost approximately $3 million per year. The National Employment Law Project estimates that paying benefits to separated part-time workers seeking part time employment would cost $8.1 million per year. By making these changes, totaling $11.1 million, Virginia would qualify for a $128.2 million Reed Act distribution in addition to the $64.1 million the Commonwealth would receive for having enacted the alternative base period. These enhanced benefits would go primarily to low income workers--workers who've lost their job through no fault of their own. However, the General Assembly also knows that under the current federal funding, the unemployment compensation and job service systems are being forced to contract, not expand the assistance we can provide to the unemployed. Remedying the persistent under funding of the state's Unemployment Insurance and Job Services program will also go far as incentives for states to modernize their systems and benefits. Thank you for your time. Chairman MCDERMOTT. We will now turn to Vickie Lovell, who is the director of employment and Work/Life programs, Institute for Women's Policy Research. I want to enter into the record a letter from 60 organizations that--organizations that are in support of this piece of legislation because of what it does for women. [The information follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45995A.041 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45995A.042 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45995A.043 STATEMENT OF VICKY LOVELL, Ph.D., DIRECTOR OF EMPLOYMENT AND WORK/LIFE PROGRAMS, INSTITUTE FOR WOMEN'S POLICY RESEARCH Dr. LOVELL. Thank you, Chairman McDermott, Ranking Member Weller, and Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for providing me with the opportunity to present research from IWPR and others on the need to modernize the UI system to better meet its original objective for working women. H.R. 2233 addresses two key facts about women. First, women are disproportionately represented in our low-wage workforce; and second, women continue to be our primary family care givers. These two facts put women in a different position than men on average in terms of both employment and unemployment. Most of our low-wage workers are women, and nearly one- third of working women earn a poverty-level wage or less. Women are more likely than men to be low earners because pay in some jobs that are considered to be women's work is depressed by the fact that women are doing the work. Take child care, for instance. In other instances where men and women do the same job, women continue to be paid less than men. For example, in dishwashing, women receive 87 cents for every dollar earned by men. We have just heard that although low-wage workers are more likely than higher wage workers to suffer unemployment, they are significantly less likely to receive unemployment insurance benefits. Thus, unemployed women are at greater risk of not receiving support from UI when they are unemployed than is the case for men. Women's UI recipiency rate is more than 10 percent lower than men's, and in some States, the gender gap in UI recipiency rates is much higher, up to 44 percent. Adoption of an alternative base period would help address this, because ABP helps low-wage workers qualify for benefits in a timely fashion. We have heard about adoption of the ABP in Virginia, and my written testimony discusses this issue in some detail so I would like to make one point about the ABP now. Arguments against the alternative base rate often assume that workers are in complete control of their job tenure. That is, that the worker who meets an employer's job performance expectations can hold a job indefinitely. From this perspective, workers with relatively short job tenure are seen as having weak job attachment. The realities of today's labor market, however, include higher job instability even when the economy is strong. In some industries, high turnover is a fairly commonplace occurrence, in part because of the way jobs are structured and scheduled. In this context, frequent movement into and out of jobs does not necessarily reflect workers' desires but may instead be an artifact of the types of jobs made available by employers. With fewer opportunities for long-term employment, a gap in a worker's earnings record should not be interpreted as a lack of labor force attachment, and UI benefits should not be denied or postponed on that account. Two other reforms address women's work caring for families. The first is coverage of part-time workers. In many States UI claimants looking for part-time work are not eligible for UI even if they have historically worked part-time and would qualify for UI based on that work history, or if they have family obligations that preclude full-time work. Here again, our 21st century economy is creating jobs that are often excluded from UI coverage regardless of workers' intent. More than one in every six workers is on a part-time schedule, and contrary to common misperception, these are not only young workers who are still in school; 12 percent of part- time workers are on part-time schedules involuntarily. They would rather work full-time but can't find a full-time job. Thirty-five percent of part-time workers are women in their prime working ages of 25 to 54 years, and a quarter of them cite child care problems and other family or other personal responsibilities as the reason for working a reduced schedule. When workers looking for a part-time job are denied UI benefits, women are the primary losers because 67 percent, or two-thirds, of all part-timers are women. H.R. 2233 would also encourage States to provide UI benefits to workers whose jobs end because of compelling family situations or domestic violence. These changes would provide benefits to workers caring for a seriously ill or disabled family member or moving with a relocating spouse. Again, these are modest UI reforms that would disproportionately benefit women, and this is why the Committee has received a letter of support from women's organizations for this bill. While job loss in these situations is described as a voluntary quit, in a very real sense it is not voluntary. It is a worker's only option, given the obligations at home or in the face of sexual violence. I encourage the Subcommittee to incorporate sexual assaults and stalking into this language to ensure that all victims of domestic violence, as defined by the Violence Against Women Act, are supported by UI. In addition, the requirement for reasonable and confidential documentation of domestic violence should be carefully defined to avoid imposing onerous burdens on women whose safety is in jeopardy due to domestic violence. I would also like to see job termination that is caused by a lack of child care included in the list of compelling family reasons. This would address situations in which child care arrangements suddenly fall apart or workers cannot accept a shift change because child care is not available. Our UI system has been amended many times at both the Federal and State levels in order to expand coverage, reflect changing norms, respond to fiscal realities and stay aligned with the changing economy. One of my favorite examples of this was in the forties when many States made women ineligible for unemployment insurance if they were fired from their jobs because they became pregnant or got married. The UI system is one that should be updated periodically to continue to be effective as the workforce and economy evolve. H.R. 2233 will help return the UI system to its former coverage levels, improve income stability for many families, and move this important program in the direction of greater equity and improved adequacy. Even if the Subcommittee chooses to explore wage insurance policies, there will continue to be a role for our existing UI approach to provide a known, effective safety net for all workers. Chairman MCDERMOTT. Thank you very much for your testimony. [The prepared statement of Dr.Lovell follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45995A.044 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45995A.045 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45995A.046 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45995A.047 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45995A.048 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45995A.049 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45995A.050 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45995A.051 Chairman MCDERMOTT. We will now go to Jeffrey Kling who is a senior fellow and deputy director of economic studies at the Brookings Institution. Dr. Kling. STATEMENT OF JEFFREY KLING, Ph.D., SENIOR FELLOW AND DEPUTY DIRECTOR, ECONOMIC STUDIES, THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION Dr. KLING. Chairman McDermott, Representative Weller, Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify. I fully support the efforts of this Committee to modernize UI. Improving coverage for low-wage and part-time workers, making UI more family friendly and improving skills are all worthwhile, but I also believe that there are higher priorities for modernization than those addressed in the Unemployment Insurance Modernization Act. So, the main themes of my remarks are these: The modern UI system should focus more on the larger longer term consequences of job loss. This reorientation will ultimately require a much more ambitious set of UI reforms. The current agenda should include measures that lay the ground work for these fundamental reforms. In looking toward the future of a modern system, we have to have clear goals, and in 1936 the Federal Government powerfully articulated what I believe to be the key goal of unemployment insurance. That is, ``to lighten the burden which now so often falls with crushing force upon the unemployed worker and his family.'' Seventy years later the nature of this crushing force has changed. Maintaining living standards immediately after job loss, the original focus of UI, is no longer the major difficulty associated with unemployment. In the 21st century economy, the situation has changed in at least three key ways. First, job loss is now more likely to be permanent and associated with large drops of wages for the long term and not just short-term income loss. Second, the unemployment duration has increased. Third, people have greater ability to borrow to tide over periods of short unemployment. These three facts, more permanent job loss with large wage losses, longer unemployment durations, and greater ability to borrow, suggest a shift in resources toward larger, longer-term consequences of unemployment should be the priority of efforts to modernize the UI system. The most effective way to target long-term loss is to implement a wage loss insurance system similar to that recently proposed in the Worker Empowerment Act introduced by Chairman McDermott, where a fraction of the difference in wages between an old and new job is paid for a period of years. A wage loss insurance system can better target the largest losses while simultaneously providing more benefits to workers in the lower half of the income distribution. It would also be valuable to improve the mechanisms that trigger extended benefits for those with longer unemployment spells. These benefits could be triggered more frequently and the durations could be modulated to last for shorter and longer amounts of time. Smaller, shorter term consequences of unemployment can be managed in ways other than through UI benefits. Increasing the number of waiting weeks before UI benefits begin or establishing personal accounts from which one could borrow and repay from future earnings are two possible mechanisms for redirecting UI resources toward larger, longer term losses. These approaches would also promote reemployment by removing the incentive to stay unemployed that is created by UI benefit receipt. My analysis of studies of the responsiveness of unemployment spells to UI benefits suggests that unemployment durations would decline by 10 to 15 percent if UI benefits were fully replaced at some point by personal accounts. These accounts, if implemented along with loans, could ensure the maintenance of living standards during the first 6 months after a job loss that would be at a level equal to that under the current UI system. Once mechanisms for supporting living standards are in place, the key issue is then how to target assistance to those with the largest long-term losses. I have found that only one-third of unemployment insurance benefit payments currently go to those who have lower wages over the 10 years after job loss, and I think we can do better than that. I have submitted written testimony which makes three additional points about modernizing UI. The payroll tax base for UI should be broader, with lower tax rates. Compensation insured by UI should include the value of major employer benefits. A system of temporary earnings replacement accounts and wage loss insurance is feasible for the future, and its components merit demonstration and evaluation. Even if the focus of the UI Modernization Act remains on broadening eligibility and other issues currently envisioned, additional provisions could be added to begin to explore the fundamental modernization I have described today. It would be extremely beneficial to facilitate experimentation by States interested in focusing on larger longer term losses, payroll tax-base broadening, incorporation of employer-provided benefits, or other priority areas for modernization. Just 2 percent of funds in the UI Modernization Act would provide $140 million of investment in testing new ideas that could provide valuable guidance for the major decisions that we will encounter when thinking about fundamental modernization in the future. I would be happy to talk more about any of these issues. Thank you. Chairman MCDERMOTT. Almost perfect. [The statement of Dr. Kling follows:] Statement of Jeffrey Kling, Ph. D., Senior Fellow and Deputy Director, Economic Studies, The Brookings Institution Chairman McDermott, Representative Weller, and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify at this hearing on Unemployment Insurance (UI) modernization. I fully support the efforts of this committee to modernize UI. Improving coverage for low- wage and part-time workers, making UI more family friendly, and improving skills are all worthy endeavors. But I also believe that there are higher priorities for modernization than those addressed in the Unemployment Insurance Modernization Act. The main themes of my remarks are these: The modern UI system should focus more on the larger, longer-term consequences of job loss. This reorientation will ultimately require a much more ambitious set of UI reforms. The current agenda should include measures that lay the groundwork for these more fundamental reforms. Focusing on larger, longer-term consequences of unemployment In looking toward the future of a modern system, we must have clear goals. In 1936, the federal government powerfully articulated what I believe to be the key goal of unemployment insurance: ``to lighten the burden which now so often falls with crushing force upon the unemployed worker and his family.'' \[1]\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \[1]\ Advisory Commission on Unemployment Compensation. Unemployment Insurance in the United States: Benefits, Financing, Coverage. Washington, DC, 1995. (Quoting a statement by the U.S. Social Security Board in 1936.) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Seventy years later, the nature of this crushing force has changed. Maintaining living standards immediately after job loss, the original focus of UI, is no longer the major difficulty associated with unemployment. In the twenty-first century economy, the situation has changed in at least three key ways. First, job loss is now more likely to be permanent, and associated with drops in long-term wages, not just short-term income loss. Second, unemployment duration has increased. Third, people have greater ability to borrow to tide over short periods of unemployment. These three facts--more permanent job loss with large wage losses, longer unemployment durations, and greater ability to borrow--suggest a shift in resources toward larger, longer term consequences of unemployment should be the top priority of efforts to modernize the UI system. The most effective way to target long-term losses is to implement a wage-loss insurance system similar to that recently proposed by H.R. 2202, the Worker Empowerment Act, introduced by Chairman McDermott, where a fraction of the difference in wages between an old and new job is paid for a period of years. A wage-loss insurance system can better target the largest losses while simultaneously providing more benefits to the lower half of the income distribution. It would also be valuable to improve the mechanisms that trigger extended benefit payments for those with longer term unemployment spells. These benefits could be triggered more frequently, and the durations could be modulated to last for shorter or longer amounts of time. Smaller, shorter term consequences of unemployment could be managed in ways other than with UI benefits. Increasing the number of waiting weeks before UI benefits begin or establishing personal accounts from which one could borrow and repay from future earnings are two possible mechanisms for directing UI resources toward larger, longer term losses. These approaches would also promote re-employment by removing the incentive to stay unemployed that is created by UI benefit receipt. My analysis of studies of the responsiveness of unemployment spells to UI benefits suggest that unemployment durations would decline by 10 to 15 percent if UI benefits were fully replaced at some point by personal accounts. These accounts, along with forgivable loans, could ensure the maintenance of living standards during the first 6 months after job loss at a level equal to that under the current UI system. \[2]\ Once mechanisms for supporting living standards are in place, the key issue is how to target insurance to those with the largest long-term losses. I have found that only one-third of unemployment insurance benefit payments currently go to those who subsequently have lower wages over the 10 years after job loss. We can do better than that. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \[2]\ Kling, Jeffrey R. ``Fundamentally Restructuring Unemployment Insurance: Wage-loss Insurance and Temporary Earnings Replacement Accounts.'' Hamilton Project Discussion Paper 2006-05, September 2006. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- I have submitted written testimony which makes three additional points about modernizing UI: The payroll tax base for UI should be broader. Compensation insured by UI should include the value of major employer benefits. A system of temporary earnings replacement accounts and wage-loss insurance is feasible for the future, and its components merit demonstration and evaluation. Even if the focus of the UI Modernization Act remains on broadening eligibility and other issues currently envisioned, additional provisions could be added to begin to explore the fundamental modernization I have described today. It would be extremely beneficial to facilitate experimentation by states interested in focusing on larger, longer term losses, payroll tax base broadening, incorporation of employer-provided benefits, or other priority areas for modernization. Just 2 percent of funds in the UI Modernization Act would provide $140 million of investment in testing new ideas now that could provide valuable guidance for major decisions about fundamental modernization in the future. I would welcome further discussion on any of these issues. Thank you. Additional testimony submitted for the record UI is the primary form of insurance for job lossin our country. The basic structure of our UI system has remained essentially the same since it was established 70 years ago. Our economy, however, has changed a great deal over this time, creating a need for modernization. \[3]\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \[3]\ For an overview, see Stone, Chad, Robert Greenstein, and Martha Coven, ``Addressing Longstanding Gaps in Unemployment Insurance Coverage.'' Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (August 7, 2007). http//www.cbpp.org/7-20-07ui.pdf --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Today more job losses are permanent and more unemployment spells are long ones. For instance, looking at similar points in the business cycle 1961 and 2002, the percentage of UI recipients exhausting their benefits (often after 26 weeks of unemployment) increased from 30 percent to 43 percent. \[4]\ Perhaps most importantly, many workers can find new jobs only at reduced wages. In 2002 over one-fourth of job losers had earnings losses of 25 percent or more eighteen months after the job loss. \[5]\ It is the devastation of permanent income declines after job loss is that is the crushing force of unemployment in today's economy. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \[4]\ http:workforcesecurity.doleta.gov/unemploy/hb394.as (accessed September 17, 2007) \[5]\ Kling (2006). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Meanwhile, financial innovations ranging from credit cards to home equity loans have made it possible for many individuals to borrow funds to maintain living standards in the weeks immediately after job loss. For example, the first credit cards were issued in 1951. By 1983, over one-third of lower-income households (and about two-thirds of UI recipients) had at least one credit card; by 2001, over one-half of lower income households (and about three-quarters of UI recipients) had a credit card.[6] Since it is increasingly feasible to borrow during unemployment, larger UI payments could be targeted to those who will have difficulty in repaying, rather than spending UI resources on those who have an unemployment spell and go on to have higher income than prior to job loss. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \[6]\ The percentage of households in the lowest third of the income distribution with a head younger than 60 where someone in the household has a credit card was 34 percent in 1983 and 54 percent in 2001. The percentage of households receiving unemployment insurance or worker's compensation with a head younger than 60 where someone in the household has a credit card was 65 percent in 1983 and 76 percent in 2001. (Karen Dynan, personal communication, September 17, 2007). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Broadening the payroll tax base for UI In 1937, the maximum amount of taxable earnings for Social Security and for UI both was $3000. Today the taxable earnings base for Social Security is $97,500, while the taxable base for UI is $7000. The narrow earnings base for UI translates into high tax rates for low earners. \[7]\ The UI tax rate is over 2.5 percent for the bottom quarter of the wage distribution and less than 1 percent for the top quarter of the wage distribution. Shifting from the current earnings base to the Social Security earnings base could collect the same amount of revenue while allowing tax rates to fall. The tax rate on the bottom quarter of the wage distribution could be cut approximately in half, making the tax much less regressive. The UI taxable wage base has not increased since 1983; it is one of the features most in need of modernization and would be relatively simple to address. Leadership by the federal government would likely motivate states to make adjustments as well. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \[7]\ Anderson, Patricia M., and Bruce D. Meyer. Unemployment insurance tax burdens and benefits: Funding family leave and reforming the payroll tax. National Tax Journal 59:1 (2006), 77--95. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Regarding UI taxes, note that my recommendations for modernizing the UI system are not at all contingent upon whether the temporary FUTA surtax is extended. In past hearings before this Committee I have observed the testimony from witnesses degenerate into discussion of a change in tax revenue. However, an order of magnitude more is being spent on the underlying program itself, and opportunities to engage in public discourse about the fundamental structure of the unemployment insurance system have been missed. Even if large-scale changes are not feasible at this moment in time, there are things we can and should do now to set the stage for making informed choices about fundamental modernization in the future. Compensation insured by UI should include the value of major employer benefits In 1950, pension and health plans were about 3 percent of total compensation; in 2006, employer contributions to pension and health plans had increased to 15 percent of total compensation. \[8]\ When an individual loses a job however, these contributions are lost. Moreover, UI benefits are based on earnings, and do not incorporate the value of these employer contributions. Partly as a result, the loss of health insurance can be a particularly difficult aspect of unemployment. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \[8]\ Gary Burtless, personal communication, September 15, 2007. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The rising importance of fringe benefits over time has not been incorporated into the UI system, and their incorporation would be a valuable addition to a modernized system. Employers could include pension contributions and the per-employee costs of employer provided health benefits in quarterly reports of compensation. States could then either collect more revenue and increase outlays based on the total compensation (which would be higher than earnings alone) or adjust their tax rates and outlays to reach desired targets. Temporary earnings replacement accounts and wage-loss insurance In recent work I have discussed issues involved with a fundamental shift toward insurance for persistent, long-term effects of job loss, based on the core principle that smaller, short-term needs can be met through savings, borrowing, and repayment, so that the funds for insurance can be targeted to assist those facing larger, longer term losses. \[9]\ This is not a change that I recommend making immediately, but it outlines a direction for modernization that suggests key issues that merit exploration, experimentation, and demonstration. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \[9]\ This section draws upon Kling (2006). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- In the remainder of this section, I outline what would be involved in creating a future system where two-thirds of the financial resources currently used for UI would be shifted to wage-loss insurance to augment the hourly wages of individuals who find new jobs at wages lower than their previous jobs. Temporary Earnings Replacement Accounts (TERAs) would provide the same amount of cash as under UI to be withdrawn during unemployment. Unemployment would be reduced by removing subsidies for temporary layoffs and by creating stronger incentives to return to work. The proposed system would provide a significantly greater share of net program benefits to workers in the lower half of the income distribution when compared to the current system of UI benefits alone. By targeting system resources to those whose hourly wages are lower on their new jobs after an involuntary job loss, significant hardship would be reduced. To compare current UI with this proposed modernization in the context of a concrete example, consider an aircraft assembly employee in California who was making $14 per hour and working 40 hours per week before her plant closed and she was laid off. If she were to apply for UI under the existing system, the state would check to see that she worked for an employer covered by UI, that her earnings in the past year were above a threshold, that her employment was terminated involuntarily, and that she is available now to work. When verified as eligible, she would receive benefits replacing half of her income--in this case, $280 per week. Benefits are financed by a payroll tax on the wages paid to employees at all covered firms, with the firm's tax rate depending in part on the amount of UI benefits paid to former employees of the firm. Payroll taxes from firms are paid to the government, and the government pays UI benefits to eligible individuals. The workings of the proposal are illustrated by continuing with this example, first taking the viewpoint of the individual, then the firm, and then the government. From the individual's viewpoint, during the course of her 10 years of employment at the firm, the worker voluntarily contributed $2,000 to her TERA. (The default on initial employment was a payroll deduction of 1 percent of pretax earnings contributed to her TERA, and she did not opt out of this contribution schedule.) The account was maintained by the government, and her investments were in government bonds. Funds in the account were excluded from asset tests for food stamps, Medicaid, and other government programs, so they did not reduce any potential eligibility for assistance from these programs. After being laid off from her aircraft assembly job, she could apply to receive the same amount of income as under UI--$280 per week, replacing half of her previous earnings. This amount is treated as taxable income as it would have been under current UI. The eligibility criteria would also be the same as under UI. The difference is that the funds would come from a combination of previously accumulated savings in the TERA and borrowing against future employment income. Say that she remains unemployed for 10 weeks, receiving $2,800. She thus draws down the $2,000 in her TERA and borrows an additional $800, leaving her TERA balance at negative $800. She then takes a new job that pays $10 per hour. Her new firm deducts 5 percent of her earnings from her paycheck until she has repaid the $800 (plus interest). The proposal's other main component involves wage-loss insurance. To be eligible for wage-loss insurance payments, a period of unemployment between the involuntary job loss and the next job would not be required, but all other requirements for initial UI eligibility, such as requirements regarding earnings history and nature of the job loss, would still need to be met. In addition, wage-loss insurance would be available only to those with at least 1 year of tenure with their previous employer; obviously, individuals would need to have taken a new job with a different employer. The amount of the wage-loss insurance per hour worked on the new job would be based on an insured wage rate--either the wage on the previous job or the fixed amount of $15 per hour, whichever is lower--and calculated as 25 percent of the difference between the insured wage rate and the hourly rate on the new job. The insured wage for each individual would be adjusted each quarter for price inflation, as would the level (initially at $15) of the fixed maximum potential insured wage for future claimants and other parameters of the system based on dollar values. In this example, the aircraft assembly worker experiences a $4 per hour reduction in wages ($14 per hour at the previous job, $10 per hour at the new one). Assuming no inflation, her wage-loss insurance payments are 25 percent of this $4 reduction--in other words, the wage- loss insurance payment amounts to $1 per hour. These payments are initially deposited directly in her TERA. They would be used first to repay her incurred $800 loan, which would take about 14 weeks of work at the new job. She would then receive the wage-loss insurance payments for 6 years, which is a period based on total hours of work in her 2 years prior to job loss (3 hours of insurance coverage for each hour worked, excluding hours worked in the first year on the job). After her TERA balance reached a maximum threshold ($5,000), additional payments from wage-loss insurance would be sent to her by check. Assuming her wage rate did not change, her income drop would be reduced from 28 percent (based on labor earnings falling from $14 to $10 per hour) to 21 percent (including the $1 per hour insurance payment) over the 6 years she receives payments. If her wage in the new job did rise or fall, the wage-loss insurance payments would be adjusted as well, so that the wage-loss insurance payments in each calendar quarter would be based on the average hourly wage since job loss through that quarter. The amounts of transfer payments would vary with individual circumstances. Generally speaking, transfer payments to individuals would be smaller under this proposal than they would be under traditional UI for those experiencing unemployment spells followed by employment at wages the same or higher than at the time of layoff. Transfer payments would be the same to minimum wage workers and those who never return to work following a period of unemployment, and transfer payments would be larger after permanent job loss for those working at a new job with a lower hourly wage. Four special conditions that don't apply to our hypothetical aircraft assembly worker are worth noting here. First, those with very low wages on their previous job would receive supplemental assistance if they needed to borrow funds from their TERA. The members of this group are unlikely to benefit much from wage-loss insurance because the wages of their previous jobs were already so low, limiting their potential wage losses at new jobs, given minimum wage laws. The coinsurance rate for this supplemental assistance would run on a sliding scale, such that someone earning $5.15 per hour would not have to repay any borrowing from the TERA--but also would not receive any wage-loss insurance payments. Such a worker would be in exactly the same position under current UI and under the proposed system. Second, if our hypothetical worker reached retirement age and filed for Social Security benefits, any positive balance remaining in her TERA would be transferred to an Individual Retirement Account (IRA) for her. If her earnings had been too low to repay any loans from her TERA at the point she would begin collecting Social Security, then TERA repayment insurance would pay off the remaining balance. Third, if she had opted out of making payroll contributions to her TERA, instead of accepting the default option of making such contributions, her withdrawals during unemployment would have been entirely a loan from her TERA, which she would repay with interest through deductions from paychecks at her new job. Fourth, if she held two or more jobs with separate employers, each job would be separately insured. Withdrawal amounts would be based on earnings at the specific job that was lost, and the insured wage for wage-loss insurance would be set based on earnings and hours on the lost job. A new job started a week before being laid off from one's main job and a job started a week after a layoff would be treated the same way for the purposes of wage-loss insurance eligibility and payments, with calculation of the post--job loss hourly wage beginning in the calendar quarter after job loss. From the firm's viewpoint, the aircraft-manufacturing firm laying off the individual in the example would submit three types of payments to the government over time. Initially, the firm would send payroll deductions for voluntary saving to the TERA; these deductions reflect contributions made by workers who do not opt out of the default saving mechanism for the TERAs. Taxes based on the firm's payroll, as under the current UI, would support the administration of the system and finance two types of payments: repayment insurance to pay off loans for individuals who retire but who had earnings too low to fully repay their TERA withdrawals, and low-wage coinsurance to reduce potential TERA repayments for those with low hourly wages. Regarding the flow of funds for wage-loss insurance, firms would reimburse the government for wage-loss insurance claims of former employees, and the government would pay the employees. Firms would also be required to purchase insurance on the private market to cover wage- loss insurance claims in the event that the firm became insolvent, and the insurer would then make payments to the government in the event of firm insolvency. In total, firms would make payments to the government for wage-loss insurance, repayment insurance, assistance on TERA repayments for those with low wages, and other costs of the proposed system that would be approximately the same as the current UI system. In terms of funds currently paid in UI benefits, nearly two-thirds of the money would be reallocated to wage-loss insurance, about 30 percent would go to repayment insurance, and 6 percent would be used for supplemental assistance for TERA withdrawals by those with wages near the minimum wage. Thus, revenue from new payments for wage-loss insurance reimbursement would combine with reduced revenue from the payroll tax so that a change to the proposed system would be revenue neutral. The UI taxable earnings base would be increased from the current caps (e.g., 27 states had caps on taxable earnings of $10,000 or less in 2005) to the Social Security earnings base (which was $90,000 for 2005, and which increases annually with the national wage index). The reduced revenue needs from the UI payroll tax combined with the broader tax base would allow average payroll tax rates to be substantially reduced. UI tax rates would continue to vary by firm as under traditional UI (according to previous use of TERAs by former employees, as opposed to previous payments of UI benefits to former employees). These rates would be more tightly linked to firm layoff histories through the combination of lower average tax rates and a lowering of the minimum rates that states require firms to pay. Since firm-varying rates would be less constrained by the floors and ceilings that characterize the current system, firms that lay off workers would see higher UI payroll taxes in the future. A firm that hired a previously unemployed worker would carry out mandatory payroll deductions for repayment of loans when that employee's TERA withdrawals had resulted in negative TERA balances. Such deductions would appear on pay stubs as pretax deductions, similar to health insurance, retirement plans, and dependent care expense accounts. From the government's viewpoint, UI is run under current law by the states under the oversight of the federal government, and this pattern would remain in place under this proposal. States would continue to be responsible for verifying a person's eligibility for unemployment benefits. States would also determine how much each unemployed person could withdraw from his or her TERA per week. States would continue to collect payroll taxes, which would be used for TERA repayment insurance and low-wage coinsurance. The flows of funds to the government from firms and insurers and from the government to individuals would involve individuals making TERA withdrawals and receive wage-loss insurance payments. It is sometimes proposed that a minimum size should be set for the level of payments because, for example, very small wage losses could lead to very small payments. However, once an employee has borrowed from a TERA and the wage-loss insurance program has been established, the administrative cost of making these payments would be very low. Once a claim has been approved, benefit amount determination and deposits can essentially be automatic, based on employer reports of earnings and hours for each quarter. The federal government would manage the TERAs in this system. The government can take advantage of economies of scale to keep costs low, and it can avoid TERA transfers when individuals change employers or move across state lines. The interest rate on government bonds would be the rate of interest required for repayment of borrowed funds. Funds in the TERAs would be invested and earn a rate of return on positive balances. The automatic default investment would be in government bonds. Such a safe default investment seems appropriate given that job loss is an unpredictable event and the savings may be needed at any time. For positive TERA balances, workers could opt into a portfolio with a mixture of stocks and bonds, where the portfolio composition varied depending on the retirement age of individual, modeled on the federal Thrift Savings Plan's life-cycle funds. Changes from bonds to life-cycle funds would be allowed once per calendar quarter. The federal government would also have the power to authorize extending the standard 26-week period in which the unemployed person can make withdrawals from a TERA, just as the federal government now can extend eligibility for unemployment benefits when the economy is in or near a recession. During the extended period, individuals could continue to make withdrawals and borrow from their TERAs. Firms would not have their future payroll tax rates increased because of withdrawals during the extended period. federal unemployment taxes would contribute to the repayment insurance that would cover borrowed funds that were not repaid. The transition to a system of TERAs and wage-loss insurance would phase in naturally. In the first year of the program, firms would be charged the full amount of withdrawals by their former employees from TERAs because the former employees would initially have no savings and the system would need funds to loan out from TERAs. Wage-loss insurance payments would not be paid in the first year, however, so total outlays by firms would not increase. In the second year of the program, some workers would begin to qualify for wage-loss insurance and firms would begin to make wage-loss insurance reimbursement payments to the government. The parameters of the system could be set so that the combined cost to firms for TERA withdrawals and wage-loss insurance payments would be no larger than the firms' costs under the current UI system. The proposal could be adopted by one or more states, while other states could opt to remain with the existing system. Coverage for compensation after involuntary job loss would be determined by the location of the employing establishment at the time of job loss, just as under the traditional UI system. Individuals who worked in a state adopting this proposal would be covered under it even if they relocated to a state that had not adopted this proposal. Chairman MCDERMOTT. Since I don't know when this thing is going to be going off, and we are going to have to go over and vote, I am going to give the first chance to ask questions to Mr. Weller. Mr. WELLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and recognizing we may be under time constraints for all of the members to have an opportunity to ask questions, I will try and wrap this up before the vote break and direct my questions to Dr. Kling. Dr. Kling, essentially your message in your testimony was it is important to promote workers in getting back to work quickly as opposed to collecting more unemployment benefits. Can you go more into greater detail on why you feel that is the approach we should be looking at as we work to do a better job at unemployment benefits? Dr. KLING. Sure. Unemployment insurance is an insurance system. So, fundamentally what we want to do is have a way of providing insurance when there is a loss. The best way to prevent there being a loss is to have people who are going back to work quickly, in a good job, and if they are doing that, then there is no loss. So, that is the number one priority. Then when that doesn't work out, either because the labor market isn't rewarding the skills that somebody has at the level that it used to, or if it is taking a long time in order to find a new job, then providing some benefits in that case is sort of what the insurance part is for. The primary way of avoiding the need to do that in the first place is really to get people back to work. Mr. WELLER. What does the worker benefit? What is his benefit if he is in a program designed to give him the opportunity to go back into the workplace? Dr. KLING. Are you asking about how can the system provide additional assistance to workers in terms of, say, providing more job search assistance? Mr. WELLER. I also know you have several initiatives that you drew attention to in your testimony. If you would like to discuss those, because those are new ideas. Dr. KLING. Sure. Mr. WELLER. Perhaps your wage insurance proposal, your accounts proposal. Dr. KLING. Right. The way to shift assistance toward the larger, longer term losses really has two components in what I outlined. One is to make sure that there is enough cash availability at the time when there is job loss. So, you can do that through accounts that have the savings element or an ability to borrow. That is a way of making sure that people are able to make their mortgage payments and buy their groceries and do things that they need to do. So, once those needs are being taken care of, then the real challenge is how to target assistance toward people who have the largest losses. In order to do that, wage insurance is a very nice targeting mechanism because it really does give assistance to people who have demonstrated they have had a large loss and have had it for a long time. In order to make this work, another thing that is helpful is really to think about what are the incentives that people have when they are looking for a job. Right now, there is an incentive that is built into the UI system that if you stay unemployed longer, then you are receiving more benefits. Shifting more toward an account system changes those incentives. So, when you are unemployed, then you are either drawing on your own savings or you are doing some borrowing, and that gets people to think about a way of engaging in job searches that are probably getting people toward the choices that will lead to both having a good job and getting there quickly. So, I think that one of the key things is really to figure out how to structure a wage loss insurance system that is viable in the long run, and having some demonstrations about that either allowing States to experiment with that---- Mr. WELLER. So, you would support giving clear authority to the States to experiment with wage insurance or account programs such as you have suggested. Do you think that is a good idea? Dr. KLING. I think that is an excellent idea. One of the things we are really lacking right now is an experience base in UI about how we would do these things. States have been very good in the past about doing that kind of experimentation and then letting us really see what works and what doesn't. Chairman MCDERMOTT. Ms. Berkley. Ms. BERKLEY. Thank you. Given the time, can I submit my opening statement? Chairman MCDERMOTT. Of course. I want to get you and Mr. English in. [The information follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45995A.052 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45995A.053 Ms. BERKLEY. Our Nevada Department of Employment training and Rehab, when we spoke to them about this proposal, officially they are neutral on the McDermott bill but they think it would--they express strong support for Federal proposals that would provide Federal funding so that they could modernize our State programs, and receipt of Federal incentive funds would greatly assist Nevada in implementing modernization to its unemployment insurance program. Having said that, Nevada, since we don't meet any of the criteria right now under your bill, Mr. McDermott, I am kind of curious. I don't care who answers this, but as we know, in order to qualify for the first third of the funding offered in the proposals, we have--the States have to meet the alternative base period and look at the applicant's last quarter wages. In Nevada, that doesn't exist right now. Nothing else exists in the proposal, although it would give us great incentive. Here is my question. Nevada, it has a biannual session that lasts for 120 days. Our 2007 session is long over, and we are not meeting again until January of 2007. We are also in the middle of a modernization of the computer system and everything because we are still doing paper. That is going to take 4 to 6 years. Given that problem, given the circumstances, do you think Nevada is going to be at a terrible disadvantage of receiving Federal funds under this proposal? Chairman MCDERMOTT. Having served in the State legislature, maybe the Governor could call a short special session of 1 week to bring in the members and pass some changes. Ms. BERKLEY. Having served with our Governor here in the Congress, that would be a remote possibility, Mr. Chairman. Short of a special session, that is not ever going to happen. Chairman MCDERMOTT. One of the things you have to say is they can come in compliance anytime in the next 5 years. So, it is not a ``one time, and that is it, they lose it.'' Ms. BERKLEY. For a State like Nevada that doesn't already provide benefits to individuals who lost full-time jobs but are now looking for part-time employment or that bases coverage on the first of four of the last five completed quarters, how large of a difference in coverage would this represent, Mr. Chairman. Chairman MCDERMOTT. It would be about a half a million people. If every State cut the option, it would be about a half a million people in the country that would be covered. Ms. BERKLEY. Dr. Kling, having come from a family that was low-wage earners, the idea that they would have any money to save in order to be part of an insurance program, that is also as likely as having a special session of the legislature. It is a great idea but---- Dr. KLING. Let me add that--in particular, what I had written down in the written part of the testimony is that for the very lowest wage workers, there would be essentially something that works like current UI, where because there is really no way for someone who is earning minimum wage to have a wage loss, the program can't really be beneficial to them. Ms. BERKLEY. I am not talking about minimum wage workers. I am talking about two people working in a family, who have a few kids and a mortgage and everything else. Things are tight out there right now. They don't have extra money. A third of the people don't even have health insurance. They are sure not going to put money into a rainy day fund. They are not going to make the mortgage if they do that. Chairman MCDERMOTT. Mr. English. Mr. ENGLISH. Thank you. I want to thank the Chairman for opening up this issue. There have been, for many years, proposals out there to extend unemployment benefits to part-time workers. Ms. Fagnoni, one of the issues that has always been raised, given the design of the unemployment insurance system in which people are being taxed on their job, in effect to give them job security in the form of the potential for unemployment benefits if they are laid off from full-time work; is there not a problem that when you extend these benefits to part-time workers, you will create the potential for full-time jobs to subsidize part-time work? How do you design a system that avoids that form? Ms. FAGNONI. We haven't done any work directly on that. I would say that with part-time work--in any of these proposals, one would need to consider how to balance the goals of wanting to support those people who find themselves out of a job and who have, to some extent, paid into the system, or their employers have for them, and trying to look at what one would call the individual equity to how much somebody had put into the system. Of course, there are experience ratings to try to take care of who pays in the most and who takes out the most. It is clear, though, that the nature of the workforce has changed and there are more part-time jobs now than there were at the beginning when UI was first developed, as well as other kinds of work changes. I think it is a legitimate discussion to have to think about those---- Mr. ENGLISH. It is indeed. You anticipated my next question. What issues would be raised in adjusting experience rating if you were to move toward providing these benefits to part- time work? After all, there is the potential for employers to design jobs that in effect take advantage of the subsidy. So, how would you change experience rating in order to anticipate this problem? Ms. FAGNONI. You are correct in that with any kind of changes, one would want to take a careful look. In the interest of helping one group of people, one doesn't want to run the risk of creating unintended effects, if you will, including not just subsidies, but also perhaps in order to avoid the kind of experience rating that would result in a certain kind of worker being less likely to be employed. So, one would need to carefully consider--I certainly agree with the idea of demonstrations. We can often learn a lot from what States do to test different things and think about all of those interactions. Mr. ENGLISH. Ms. Chasanov, in the last report of the Advisory Board, there was a significant amount of time devoted to the question of State solvency. There were many States that in effect had been utilizing Federal subsidies pretty aggressively, and the Advisory Board had recommended raising the solvency standards for States to participate in the Federal system. I didn't notice any reference to that in your testimony. Do you believe currently there is a need to strengthen the solvency of the Federal system by increasing the standard set for the States to participate? Ms. CHASANOV. At the time the Advisory Council was convened in the early nineties, they were certainly looking at a different set of post-recessionary trust fund balances as they looked across the States. So many of the States were in much worse shape than they are at this point. My testimony today has been focused on this bill, but I would say that the Council thought that the macro-economic stabilization role of unemployment insurance was critical. What often happened and what we had seen in the research that we had done was that, as State trust fund solvency began to decline, that ended up either increasing employer tax rates at the wrong time in the middle of a recession or ended up crunching down on eligibility or benefits for workers. So, the main purpose of those solvency standards was to help forward-fund the system, and that was a goal that was throughout the Council's report. Mr. ENGLISH. Is that not a relevant goal now? Ms. CHASANOV. I certainly believe that that is one of many things that could be improved in the unemployment insurance system today. Mr. ENGLISH. I notice you testified with regard to extended benefits, but I am out of time so I will certainly bounce this back. I do believe it is very important as we move forward on reform that we consider carefully how to reform and protect the extended benefits program. I thank you, Mr. Chair. Chairman MCDERMOTT. Ms. Hammond, you had some comment relevant to that discussion that Mr. English was having? Ms. HAMMOND. I wanted to point out as far as the experience rating is concerned, in Virginia when we have problems that are not the employer's fault--it is not the employer's fault that her spouse found a job and she has to move with him. It is not the employer's fault that, for example, somebody has to leave for compelling family circumstances. In those cases, what Virginia does is to noncharge those benefits to the individual employer and charge them to a statewide pool so it spreads the cost over a larger pool and doesn't make that single employer responsible. Chairman MCDERMOTT. We thank you all for your help today and we appreciate your written testimony. I am sorry that we are--I have to cut short but we have to go over to vote. So, thank you all very much for coming. [Whereupon, at 1:55 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] [Submissions for the Record follow:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45995A.054 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45995A.055 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45995A.056 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45995A.057 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45995A.058 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45995A.059 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45995A.060 Statement of Idaho Department of Labor Idaho comments on the special transfers in fiscal years 2008 through 2012 for Modernization based on modifications of law. Tying conditions to Reed Act distributions seems akin to blackmail, the federal government needs to recognize that states should be entitled to these funds without prejudice. Currently, the federal government does not return even 50 percent of the FUTA money collected from the respective state's employers. All the combinations and permutations of this bill make it difficult to nail down the exact cost to the fund. Collectively we estimate (not knowing the IT/IS costs) the impact to the fund may be offset by the estimated disbursements of $25M over five years. Our concern is the impact after 2012 since our tax formula already puts the fund in a soft position. With these disbursements ($25M to $30M) it may be able to handle it. However, following the final disbursement in 2012 it is likely we will continue to live with the changes without further disbursements to offset the law changes and fall into a deficit financial hole we could never get out of. (2) The State law of a State meets the requirements of this paragraph if such State law- (A) uses a base period that includes the most recently completed calendar quarter before the start of the benefit year for purposes of determining eligibility for unemployment compensation; We are not in favor of allowing an alternate base period unless the claimant is first not eligible using a ``regular'' base period. Currently, employers file wage lists once a quarter with a due date of the last day of the month following the end of a quarter. Wages for the most recently completed quarter are not known until the due date plus the time it takes accounting to process the wage lists. It takes accounting 6 to 8 weeks to punch the wages lists. If we adopt this change accounting will have to change their process to punch wage lists in a shorter time frame. We may also need to adopt rules to encourage (or mandate) electronic filing so wages are available as soon as the report is filed. The first month of each quarter, when reports are not yet due for the most recently completed quarter would require staff to contact employers for wage information before a monetary determination is made. This would be an administrative burden on the department, drive up costs and become a huge inconvenience for employers if needed for every claim filed. or (B) provides that, in the case of an individual who would not otherwise be eligible for unemployment compensation under the State law because of the use of a base period that does not include the most recently completed calendar quarter before the start of the benefit year, eligibility shall be determined using a base period that includes such calendar quarter. We find this much more palatable than ``A'', and we are not opposed to this concept. This option has the same problems as ``A'', but reduces the administrative burden since fewer claimants would be eligible for the alternate base year. However, this would place an additional burden on tax collection staff and the employer community. Additionally, there would be costs associated with programming our legacy system as well as training of staff for administration. (3) The State law of a State meets the requirements of this paragraph if such State law includes provisions to carry out at least 2 of the following subparagraphs: (A) An individual shall not be denied regular unemployment compensation under any State law provisions relating to availability for work, active search for work, or refusal to accept work, solely because such individual is seeking only part-time (and not full-time) work, except that the State law provisions carrying out this subparagraph may exclude an individual if a majority of the weeks of work in such individual's base period do not include part-time work. We are not opposed to extending coverage to part-time workers as long as the work was in covered employment and there are rules in place to stipulate they must seek work that provides a potential for a minimum number of hours, comparable to work used to figure base period eligibility, to be worked each week. Idaho currently has very low criteria for base period wage qualification. We are concerned about higher administrative costs as proper administration would require employers to report hours as well as wages on their quarterly reports. The department would also have to integrate hours worked into our current systems used for claims processing. There would also be an impact to the trust fund; potentially significant impacts since many workers have more than one part-time job. Additionally there is the argument that if we allow part time work seekers to accept only part time work to supplement their income, shouldn't we also allow people working full time to receive unemployment insurance to supplement their income? (B) An individual shall not be disqualified from regular unemployment compensation for separating from employment if that separation is for compelling family reasons. For purposes of this subparagraph, the term `compelling family reasons' includes at least the following: (i) Domestic violence (verified by such reasonable and confidential documentation as the State law may require) which causes the individual reasonably to believe that such individual's continued employment would jeopardize the safety of the individual or of any member of the individual's immediate family. We are opposed to broadening the eligibility due to purely personal reasons. This goes against the basic concept of UI being a program to assist workers who are unemployed through no fault of their own due to actions of the employer. UI is not an entitlement program. Enactment of this concept would set the stage for UI to become another employer funded welfare program. This expansion goes too far in defining eligibility and blurs the line between entitlement and the insurance concept. It begins to move UI to more of a social program rather than unemployment insurance based on job attachment/reemployment. (ii) The illness or disability of a member of the individual's immediate family. This proposal also extends coverage beyond the ``covered'' claimant to allow benefits when a person that is fully able and available to work chooses not to in order to care for an ill family member. This would add additional fact finding when adjudicating claims and potentially impact timeliness. Additionally, we believe it would be an extremely hard sell to the employer community as well as have a negative impact on tax rates in the long run. While funding would not come directly out of the individual employer's account in the short run, in the long run (they would be relieved of chargeability), it would ultimately have to be socialized--potentially negatively impacting the tax rates for every employer. (iii) The need for the individual to accompany such individual's spouse---- (I) to a place from which it is impractical for such individual to commute; and (II) due to a change in location of the spouse's employment. We are in favor of allowing benefits only to the spouse of military personnel who must quit their job to follow the spouse. (C) Weekly unemployment compensation is payable under this subparagraph to any individual who is unemployed (as determined under the State unemployment compensation law), has exhausted all rights to regular and (if applicable) extended unemployment compensation under the State law, and is enrolled and making satisfactory progress in a State-approved training program or in a job training program authorized under the Workforce Investment Act of 1998. Such program shall prepare individuals who have been separated from a declining occupation, or who have been involuntarily and indefinitely separated from employment as a result of a permanent reduction of operations at the individual's place of employment, for entry into a high-demand occupation. The amount of unemployment compensation payable under this subparagraph to an individual for a week of unemployment shall be equal to the individual's average weekly benefit amount (including dependents' allowances) for the most recent benefit year, and the total amount of unemployment compensation payable under this subparagraph to any individual shall be equal to at least 26 times the individual's average weekly benefit amount (including dependents' allowances) for the most recent benefit year. We are opposed to providing initial additional weeks of benefits beyond what the claimants initially qualify for. This is a disincentive for them to seek and accept work. This would reward workers who have not demonstrated a firm attachment to the labor market. There are already programs in place (WIA & Trade) to assist these types of workers. We do not have the UI resources to perform the type of case management this would require. Statement of On Point Tech Having spent most of my adult lifetime involved with the Nation's Unemployment Insurance (UI) program, I want to take this opportunity to commend you on your sponsorship of the Unemployment Insurance Modernization Act [HR2233]. The passage of this legislation will remediate several of the most troublesome shortcomings of the UI program, which are brought about by developments that could not have been envisioned at the time of the passage of the initial legislation in 1935. These are critically important issues given the changes that have taken place in the composition of the labor force, the transient nature of employment, and the proliferation of part-time employment that now characterize our economy. The $7 billion in new funding that you propose will enable the states to improve their programs dramatically, particularly in light of the flat and diminished funding that the UI program has suffered during the past several years. However, I fee obligated to call your attention to the need to strengthen the fraud detection and management component of the UI program nationwide. U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) Report GAO-07-635T shows UI fraud to be $3.9 billion in FY2004, $3.3 billion in FY2005, and $3.4 billion in FY2006. As new classes of recipients are brought into the system and the amount of automation deployed increases, the amount of fraud should increase significantly. Modernized UI Benefits systems lean more heavily on new processes like taking claims over the Internet. The number of staff actually observing claims for signals of fraud taking place drops off, almost to the point of non-existence. Over the years, almost all major fraud incidents uncovered involved diligent UI staffers processing claims by hand who notices patterns in the claims data that were unusual and unexpected. This ``eyes and hands'' approach disappears with automated systems and must be replaced by automated fraud detection software. (Disclosure: My firm, On Point Technology, Inc., is the major provider of fraud detection and overpayment recapture software to the UI community.) The above mentioned GAO report data comes from the U.S. Department of Labor's Employment and Training Administration's Benefit Accuracy Measurement (BAM) program which samples and reviews individual UI claims and reports on the improper payments found. The type of fraud disclosed is what we refer to as individual fraud. In other words, individual fraud occurs when one person misreports information on their personal claim in order to qualify for benefits. What is not being reported by these figures is organized fraud. Organized fraud is when dozens or hundreds of UI claims are filed with the direct intent to embezzle funds from the UI program. These may be cases of group identity theft or fictitious employer schemes where UI employer accounts are established and taxes paid, where the only intent is filing claims against the fictitious accounts. (A $50,000 investment paying IU taxes for 100 fake employees can return over $1 million in fraud profits. The same scheme can be repeated concurrently in multiple states with the same 100 Social Security Numbers.) The individual claims appear to be properly processed and paid. Only by a macro or pattern level examination can this fraud be readily found. Multiple schemes from $3 million to $12 million have been found. The State of California is currently prosecuting a scheme perpetrated by one extended family that was reported in a conference to be in excess of $80 million. (Since it is still under investigation, public information has not been released.) Be it $3.4 billion in individual fraud or an unknown amount of organized fraud, expanding the UI program and modernizing the claim and payment process will certainly increase the volume of fraud. I urge you and the Committee to consider the multi-year or permanent funding for controlling UI fraud and improper payments. I am available to expand on the thoughts contained in this letter and would appreciate very much the opportunity to meet with your Committee staff to share both my concerns and remedies. Thank you very much for the opportunity to communicate with you on this very important national issue. Statement of UWC--Strategic Services on Unemployment & Workers' Compensation Chairman McDermott, Ranking Member Weller, and Members of the Subcommittee on Income Security and Family Support, thank you for the opportunity to submit comments with respect to proposals to reduce barriers to unemployment insurance for jobless workers. I am Douglas J. Holmes, President of UWC--Strategic Services on Unemployment & Workers' Compensation (UWC). UWC counts as as a broad range of large and small businesses, trade associations, service companies from the Unemployment Insurance (UI) industry, third party administrators, unemployment tax professionals, and state workforce agencies. UWC fully supports efforts to maintain a sound unemployment insurance system and to assure that individuals who become unemployed through no fault of their own are able to apply for, and if otherwise eligible, receive unemployment compensation as temporary support during periods of unemployment. The UI system was designed to provide temporary cash support to individuals who become unemployed after a period of employment sufficient to meet workforce attachment requirements. Although UI provides a social safety net, it is an insurance program financed by employers through payment of state unemployment and federal unemployment taxes. It was never intended to be the universal source of cash payments for individuals that have no or insufficient attachment to the workforce to qualify for unemployment compensation benefits under the applicable state law, nor should it be. It is axiomatic that an individual must first be employed in order to be unemployed. In addressing the issue of ``barriers'' to unemployment insurance it is important to first define the population that is not benefiting from unemployment compensation payments. A close examination of the actual workings of the unemployment insurance system reveal that the number of individuals who ``should'' receive unemployment compensation payments but do not because of state law restrictions is very small. The ``Recipiency Rate'' methodology is not a valid statistical measure of those who should be paid unemployment compensation who are not Measurements such as the ``recipiency rate'' that are used as a basis for arguments that there are large numbers of individuals who ``should'' receive unemployment compensation but do not, fail to take into consideration that many individuals who are counted as ``unemployed'' for purposes of the Total Unemployment Number should not be included among those that could or should be paid unemployment compensation. For example, the total number of unemployed used in the calculation of the recipiency rate includes 1) individuals who were discharged for just cause from their jobs, 2) those who quit work without just cause, 3) those who have refused suitable work, 4) new entrants to the workforce that have no employment history, 5) reentrants to the workforce whose work history is not recent enough to be counted for UI benefit eligibility, 6) individuals unemployed due to a labor dispute other than a lock-out, 7) individuals receiving severance or separation pay, 8) those who have exhausted unemployment compensation benefits, 9) individuals who have chosen for whatever reason not to claim unemployment compensation, 10) self-employed individuals, and 11) undocumented aliens. None of these individuals are typically eligible to be paid weekly unemployment compensation, yet the calculation of the ``recipiency rate'' which compares the insured unemployment number with the total unemployment number seems to imply that all of these individuals should be paid benefits. A study of the ``recipiency rate'' methodology conducted for the New Hampshire Employment Security Economic and Labor Market Information Bureau in 1999 details the shortcomings of the ``recipiency rate'' methodology. There are many individuals who may not be working who are not and should not be eligible for unemployment compensation. In addition, it should be noted that there are some individuals who are paid unemployment compensation who are not counted in the total unemployment rate, including individuals who file for partial unemployment benefits ( i.e. they had some earnings with respect to a week of unemployment compensation that they claimed). This group typically includes low wage and part-time workers who are receiving partial unemployment compensation benefits. The actual percentage of individuals who may be eligible for unemployment compensation who are not paid unemployment compensation is more appropriately estimated by a review of the percentage of ``job losers''. The percentage of ``job losers'' who are paid unemployment compensation has historically fluctuated with economic cycles in the 80 percent to 90 percent range. The enactment of the new minimum wage legislation significantly reduces the number of individuals with lesser workforce attachments who may not qualify for unemployment compensation. The recent enactment of federal and state minimum wage legislation has the effect of significantly reducing the number of individuals working 20 hours or more per week on average who may not qualify monetarily to establish a benefit year. An individual earning $7.00 per hour working 20 hours per week for 29 weeks during a four quarter base period meets the minimum wage requirements for unemployment benefit eligibility in all states. Many states have minimum wage requirements that are much lower; as low as $130 a year in Hawaii. Thirty-four states have minimum wage requirements for a year of $2400 or less. The effect of new federal requirements to pay unemployment compensation to a new group of individuals would be to reduce benefits to existing claimants and/or increase state unemployment taxes paid by employers. The effect of federal mandates with respect to the use of alternative base periods, relaxed work search requirements, payments of unemployment compensation to those who choose to quit work during periods of domestic violence, payment of unemployment compensation to those whose separation from employment results from the illness or disability of a member of the individual's family, or payment to those whose separation from employment results from a need to accompany a spouse, will be to reduce unemployment compensation benefits that would otherwise be paid to claimants with greater workforce attachments and/ or increase state unemployment compensation tax rates. This is true because unemployment compensation benefit coverage and benefit payments are determined under state law and each state is responsible to enact legislation that assures that there is sufficient dedicated funding in the state's unemployment compensation benefit account to pay unemployment compensation benefits. Many states have enacted these provisions already without federal requirements as the result of state level negotiations between employers, legislators, governors, and representatives of organized labor and worker advocacy groups. As a practical matter, state laws balance the interests of all of these groups in determining benefit eligibility and unemployment tax rates. Responsibility and accountability for these decisions has been maintained at the state level for decades and should remain with the states. The costs of program and system changes related to conversion to an alternative base period system are significant As Unemployment Insurance Director in Ohio in 1988, I was directly responsible for conversion of Ohio's benefit system to provide for the alternative base period. In order to pay for the cost of the state law change implementation, Ohio applied for and received funding from the USDOL. Federal funds were provided by USDOL but the amount provided did not fully cover the costs of the conversion. Issues in implementation included 1) policies procedures and forms to be used in obtaining the most recent quarterly wage data from employers, 2) the use of claimant affidavits in lieu of employer quarterly reports to assure timeliness of benefit application determinations, 3) revised charging of employer accounts to reflect the alternative base period, 4) policies and procedures needed to address transitional claims, and 5) system design, programming, system capacity, staff training, testing, and interstate coordination. An analysis and projection of costs to states and employers of implementation of alternative base periods is needed before determining the amount of administrative funds needed to assist states choosing to adopt alternative base period legislation. The increase in unemployment compensation benefits resulting from an alternative base period varies by state, depending on a number of factors, including the composition of the state workforce and the overall benefit eligibility provisions already in place. The additional cost in states with low minimum qualifying requirements would be more limited than states with higher minimum qualifying requirements because fewer individuals are disqualified in the first place. Studies of the increase in benefit costs associated with alternative base periods have estimated the increase in unemployment compensation benefit pay-out as a result of the alternative base period provision in the range of 1.1 percent to 6 percent annually. An analysis of the increased unemployment compensation benefit costs resulting from the implementation of alternative base periods is needed in determining the impact on state trust funds and employer taxes on a state by state basis. Without such an analysis a state considering whether to enact an alternative base period would not be able to properly assess the cost/benefit with respect to any special Reed Act distribution funding that might be available. The focus of efforts to assist low wage and part-time workers should be to identify and remove barriers to employment. Individuals with minimal workforce attachment, particularly those with families to support, will not significantly benefit from unemployment compensation benefits. An individual working 20 hours a week and paid $7.00 an hour, if monetarily eligible, would typically qualify to be paid unemployment compensation of $70.00 per week, which may be reduced by partial earnings from part-time work during the week. This level of support is insufficient to assist in removing barriers to employment. Other governmental and privately funded support programs for low wage workers, particularly those providing support for workers with families, are much more significant and targeted in removing barriers to employment. Such individuals are typically eligible to receive services under the Workforce Investment Act (WIA), the Food Stamp Act, and the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program. Services under these programs include cash support payments for workforce participation, payment of travel expenses to employment, education and training, assessment services, treatment for substance abuse, English as a second language instruction, job readiness training, and subsidized child care. Many of these individuals may also benefit from the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and the Workforce Opportunity Tax Credit (WOTC). A review of the array of programs designed to serve low wage and part-time workers, particularly those with families is needed to properly evaluate any gaps in the social safety net that should be addressed. The cost to states and employers of the new federal requirements with respect to alternative base periods and other benefit provisions should be determined before enacting new federal requirements. It has been proposed that if states already have enacted alternative base period provisions or enact new alternative base provisions and other benefit provisions, that states will receive a pre-designated share of a $7 billion special distribution into the qualifying state unemployment trust fund account and will receive a pre-designated share of $100 million per year in additional administrative funding. There is no relationship between these distributions and appropriations and the increased administrative cost and increase in benefit costs associated with the new federal requirements. As a result, some states will receive a windfall in additional funding while others will be shortchanged or receive no supplemental funding if they elect not to enact the required provisions. It should be noted that four of the five states with the highest minimum qualifying wage requirements are also alternative base period states. A special distribution to these states would have no impact on reducing the number of low wage or part time workers and effectively reward states that have made it more difficult for low wage workers to qualify for benefits. This is inconsistent with the UI Federal/State partnership designed to properly share responsibility for funding of administration and benefit costs between states and the federal government. It sets up a series of winner and loser states and exacerbates the existing imbalance in administrative funding. In addition, it should be noted that state UI administration is already under funded by at least an estimated $300 million per year. An additional $100 million per year is insufficient to properly fund the UI system in the first place, let alone to fund the additional administrative costs of implementing alternative base periods or other federally required provisions. There are currently no projections on a state by state basis of the long term costs of alternative base period benefit increases and the other benefit provisions included in the new federal requirements to compare against the one-time special distributions. Without these projections, the cost of these proposals to states and employers as compared to the one-time distribution can not be determined. Also, to the extent that the $7 billion one-time distribution is greater than the costs associated with the new federal requirements, the federal unemployment trust fund accounts will be unduly depleted, putting the fund at risk of insolvency in the event of new legislated extended unemployment compensation that may be enacted during a future recession. States with the lowest percentage of the distribution that do not currently have alternative base periods would bear a higher burden of implementation. Conclusion An updated evaluation of the number of individuals with workforce attachment who are not paid unemployment compensation is needed. The evaluation should include a breakdown of the individuals who are not working and are not receiving unemployment compensation by causation to determine the numbers of individuals who have become unemployed through no fault of their own, who are otherwise eligible, and are not being paid unemployment compensation benefits through the federal/state UI system. The review should also address the array of other programs, including TANF, WIA, Foodstamps, Medicaid, EITC and WOTC under which many individuals who have minimal workforce attachment or are working in low wage or part-time jobs. Careful analysis of the costs to states and employers of implementation and benefit increases due to alternative base periods and other benefit provisions on a state by state basis is needed to determine the appropriate federal funding to be provided. Without such an analysis, states and employers will be short changed in funding and federal unemployment trust fund accounts will be unduly depleted.