    [House Hearing, 112 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

            IMPROVING EFFORTS TO HELP UNEMPLOYED AMERICANS FIND JOBS

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   before the

                          COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS
                         U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                          ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                               FEBRUARY 10, 2011

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 112-HR1

                                   __________

             Printed for the use of the Committee on Ways and Means

                      U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
    65-329                    WASHINGTON : 2011
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
    http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202�09512�091800, or 866�09512�091800 (toll-free). E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.

                          COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS

                        GEOFF DAVIS, Kentucky, Chairman

    ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska               LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas
    ERIK PAULSEN, Minnesota              JIM MCDERMOTT, Washington
    RICK BERG, North Dakota              JOHN LEWIS, Georgia
    TOM PRICE, Georgia                   JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York
    DIANE BLACK, Tennessee
    CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, JR., Louisiana

                           Jon Traub, Staff Director

                      JANICE MAYS, Minority Staff Director

                                C O N T E N T S

                                   __________
                                                                       Page

    Advisory of February 3, 2011 announcing the hearing..............     2

                                   WITNESSES

    Kristen Cox, Executive Director, Utah Workforce Services.........     6
    Tom Pauken, Chairman, Texas Workforce Commission.................    12
    Heather Boushey, Ph.D., Senior Economist, Center for American
      Progress.......................................................    19
    Douglas J. Holmes, President, UWC-Strategic Services on
      Unemployment and Workers'Compensation..........................    40

                           SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD

    Yvonne Goersch...................................................    62
    Joyce Fields.....................................................    62
    Jennifer Snyder..................................................    64
    Lori Parker......................................................    64
    Martin G. Thomas, Active Member of the American 99er's Union.....    65
    Elizabeth Steere.................................................    66
    Rochelle Sevier..................................................    67
    Ellen Turner.....................................................    67
    Paul Pittman.....................................................    67
    Tracy Santee.....................................................    68
    Janice Nichols...................................................    69
    James Bufton.....................................................    69
    Scott Carlson....................................................    70
    William Milner...................................................    70

            IMPROVING EFFORTS TO HELP UNEMPLOYED AMERICANS FIND JOBS

                                  ----------

                          THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 2011

                         U.S. House of Representatives,
                                   Committee on Ways and Means,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The committee met, pursuant to call, at 3:48 p.m., in Room
    B-318, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Geoff Davis
    [chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.
        [The advisory announcing the hearing follows:]

    HEARING ADVISORY FROM THE COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS

        Davis Announces Hearing on Improving Efforts to Help Unemployed
                              Americans Find Jobs

    February 03, 2011

        Congressman Geoff Davis (R-KY), Chairman of the Subcommittee on
    Human Resources of the Committee on Ways and Means, today announced
    that the Subcommittee will hold a hearing on improving efforts to help
    unemployed Americans find jobs. The hearing will take place on
    Thursday, February 10, 2011, in Room B-318 Rayburn House Office
    Building, immediately after a brief Subcommittee organizational meeting
    beginning at 2:00 P.M.

        In view of the limited time available to hear witnesses, oral
    testimony at this hearing will be from invited witnesses only.
    Witnesses will include public and private sector experts on
    unemployment benefits and employment security policies designed to
    promote reemployment. 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:

        In December 2010 (currently the most recent official data; data for
    January 2011 will be released on February 4, 2011), there were 14.5
    million unemployed individuals in the United States; the U.S.
    unemployment rate was above 9 percent for the 20th consecutive month, a
    record dating back to the beginning of official data in 1948; and the
    average duration of unemployment was more than 34 weeks, slightly below
    the all-time high set earlier last year.

        To assist unemployed individuals, the federal-state unemployment
    compensation program created by the Social Security Act of 1935 offers
    weekly payments while unemployed individuals search for work. According
    to the U.S. Department of Labor, in order to be eligible for benefits,
    jobless workers must have a history of attachment to the workforce and
    must be able and available for work. Nearly $160 billion in total
    unemployment benefits were paid in fiscal year 2010, counting both
    state and federal benefits, stretching to a combined maximum of up to
    99 weeks per individual in high unemployment states. An additional
    nearly six billion dollars in federal administrative funds were spent
    last year to process unemployment benefits and operate public
    employment offices designed to connect the unemployed with new jobs.

        In announcing the hearing, Chairman Davis said, ``This hearing
    starts with the basic question, `Are we doing everything we can to help
    the unemployed find jobs?' In 2010, about 50 million people were hired
    into new positions. But in this recession, unemployed workers have been
    at the back of the pack when it comes to getting hired. Instead, the
    number of unemployed and the length of unemployment durations have
    grown to record levels, despite billions of dollars spent on benefits
    and services designed to help them find new work. This hearing will
    provide an opportunity to review that issue, and ask what we can do to
    make this system work better.''

    FOCUS OF THE HEARING:

        The hearing will focus on current policies and programs designed to
    help unemployed individuals return to work and how they can be
    improved.

    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
    ``Hearings.'' 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,
    submit all requested information. ATTACH your submission as a Word
    document, in compliance with the formatting requirements listed below,
    by the close of business on Thursday, February 24, 2011. 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 or (202) 225-3625.

    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 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.

        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.

        Note: All Committee advisories and news releases are available on
    the World Wide Web at http://www.waysandmeans.house.gov/.

        Chairman DAVIS. Good afternoon and welcome.
        Today's hearing is about how we can better help unemployed
    workers return to work. Clearly, we have our work cut out for
    us.
        As the chart that is on the screen shows, our colleagues'
    2009 stimulus plan promised to drive unemployment under 7
    percent by now. Instead, unemployment has now remained at or
    above 9 percent for a record 21 months. The stimulus advocates
    promised 137.5 million jobs by now. Instead, the current number
    is about 7 million fewer. That has left almost 14 million
    workers unemployed, plus record numbers on the sideline of our
    economy. A full 6.2 million are long-term unemployed, and the
    average duration of unemployment is a record 37 weeks. That is
    almost double the record level before this recession.
        To help the unemployed reconnect with work, our Nation
    operates ``employment security'' programs like unemployment
    insurance and employment security offices where laid-off
    workers go to connect with jobs. Last year, we spent a stunning
    $165 billion on those benefits and services. But judging by the
    staggering figures I just mentioned, those benefits and
    services are not succeeding in reconnecting unemployed people
    with jobs at the rates necessary. We need to ask why and
    provide oversight at the subcommittee.
        We know that every year, according to the Department of
    Labor, some 50 million people get hired into new jobs, so
    someone is finding work. But what this chart shows is how the
    unemployed have increasingly been left behind.
        The red line shows the share of the unemployed who stay
    unemployed. That has risen to all-time highs. The blue line
    shows the share of the unemployed who return to work. That
    ``success'' rate has fallen to record lows. In fact, this is
    the only recession in 20 years when the unemployed are more
    likely to drop out of the workforce than to find a job.
        This tells us our employment security programs are simply
    not working as intended and in time. Instead of helping the
    unemployed become one of the 50 million new hires every year,
    the unemployed are increasing being left behind. Today's
    hearing is to ask questions and hear perspectives on what we
    can do to turn that around.
        Vice President Biden recently said that the unemployed
    should just ``hang in there'' and wait until jobs return. But,
    at the current pace, it could be 2020 before the U.S. returns
    to full employment. That is a long time to ``hang in there.''
        Fortunately, we don't have to wait that long to hear some
    good ideas from our witnesses and our members. Joining us is a
    distinguished panel of experts to review what can be done and
    in some States is being done to help unemployed workers find
    and take new jobs.
        As we will hear, those policies range from promoting more
    job searches, to better engaging people who need extra
    training, to simply focusing current benefits where the need is
    greatest.
        We also need to remember unemployment benefits are not free
    and are supported by payroll taxes that are already going up
    dramatically. Improving our success in helping more unemployed
    people find jobs will help keep future job-destroying tax hikes
    to a minimum. That is a key goal as well.
        We look forward to all of our witnesses' testimony. Without
    objection, each member will have an opportunity to submit a
    written statement and have it included in the record at this
    point.
        Mr. Doggett, would you care to make an opening statement?
        Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
        You have appropriately raised the right question in this
    first hearing: How do we improve efforts of those who are
    unemployed to find jobs? In that endeavor, I pledge my personal
    and sincere interest in working with you and other Members of
    the Committee in seeking meaningful answers and in working
    together to help unemployed Americans prepare for and find
    work.
        After reviewing the written testimony that has been
    submitted for this hearing, I can see that we have different
    perspectives on the nature of the problem that we face and the
    best way to resolve it. I believe that the problem is
    unemployment, not the unemployed. Too many Americans remain
    unemployed because of a lack of work, not for their lack of
    wanting to work. With the average unemployment benefits
    nationally barely at 70 percent of the poverty line for a
    family of four, there is little incentive to sit home rather
    than to seek meaningful work at a living wage.
        I don't believe in the blame-the-victim approach. After
    all, it is not the unemployed who gambled our economic future
    away on Wall Street, or took huge pay packages as companies
    crumbled, or failed to oversee our financial markets. And yet
    it is their families who are really struggling and paying the
    price for the wrongs of others.
        As a chart that I brought shows, we have about 14 million
    unemployed workers but fewer than 4 million job openings. That
    is why we hear one report after another of employers who post
    jobs being flooded with applicants. For example, I know when
    Delta Airlines in the fall announced that it had 1,000 flight
    attendant openings, it received about 85,000 job applicants. If
    every job opening in America were filled this afternoon, about
    11 million Americans would still not have a job.
        While today's unemployment claims report provides a hopeful
    sign with first-time claims dropping to the lowest level in
    2\1/2\ years, the Congressional Budget Office estimated today
    in the Budget Committee that unemployment will remain above 9
    percent this year and above 8 percent by the end of next year.
    CBO also projects that only 2\1/2\ million jobs will be created
    this year, leaving millions dependent on the unemployment
    insurance system.
        While our first priority must be pursuing the policies that
    encourage job creation, this subcommittee's immediate
    responsibilities focus more on what to do in the meantime for
    the many Americans who, through no fault of their own, have
    lost a job and have not been able to find new employment. In
    this endeavor, our States are the laboratories of democracy. We
    look to them for new ways to resolve this challenge.
    Unfortunately, not all of these experiences are successful.
        With my home State of Texas, there have been some
    successes, and there is also an example of what happens when
    ideological constraints and political imperatives produce
    decisions that harm both employers and employees. Texas
    employers will be paying more because our Governor insisted on
    some unemployed receiving less. The Governor rejected $555
    million in Federal support for the unemployed in 2009, and
    Texas is now raising additional taxes on employers and
    incurring more public debt as a result of that.
        I believe that our leadership has been, number one,
    unexcelled in the country in damning the Economic Recovery Act,
    but without the billions that has been accepted in Texas, we
    would have a more gargantuan budget hole than the $27 billion
    in which our State is now enveloped. Nor would the Texas Back
    to Work Program, about which we will hear more from
    Commissioner Pauken, have been more than a shadow of itself but
    for the Federal funding received by Texas through the Recovery
    Act.
        During the last 2 years, over $6 billion in federally
    funded unemployment benefits were provided to laid-off workers
    in Texas. Texas has been receiving over $4 in Federal
    unemployment funds for every dollar in Federal unemployment
    taxes paid in the State. Last year, Democrats worked to pass
    legislation to extend funds for the Texas Back to Work Program
    and made several efforts to extend unemployment benefits for
    those across the country. Unfortunately, Senate Republicans
    blocked action on that.
        I expected that the focus after all of the criticism about
    where are the jobs would be on job creation. Unfortunately,
    thus far in the broader House we have focused on health
    insurance reform, criticizing the United Nations, and
    encouraging special interest financing of Presidential
    campaigns. I hope the broader House will move to focus on job
    creation now as our subcommittee continues to work on
    unemployment.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Doggett.
        Before we move on to our testimony, I want to remind our
    witnesses to limit their oral statement to 5 minutes.
        Without objection, all of the written testimony will be
    made part of the permanent record.
        On our distinguished panel this afternoon, we will be
    hearing first from Kristen Cox, Executive Director of Workforce
    Services from the State of Utah; Tom Pauken, Chairman of the
    Texas Workforce Commission; Heather Boushey, Senior Economist,
    Center for American Progress; and Douglas Holmes, President,
    UWC-Strategic Services on Unemployment and Workers'
    Compensation.
        Ms. Cox, you may proceed with your testimony.
        Ms. COX. As a favor, because I am blind, will you let me
    know when I have 1 minute remaining?
        Chairman DAVIS. Yes. We will give you a 1-minute warning.

             STATEMENT OF KRISTEN COX, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
                        UTAH WORKFORCE SERVICES

        Ms. COX. Thank you.
        While Utah began the recession with one of the lowest total
    unemployment rates in the country, the rate has steadily risen
    to 7.5 percent. Utah's economy has expanded, and we are
    averaging 3.5 percent growth. That is 3\1/2\ times the national
    average. We have one of the lowest duration rates in the
    country of 16.7 percent. We have seen job growth at 1.5
    percent, and our unemployment rate is just about 7.5, in the
    bottom third. So that environment we think has yielded some
    good results for our UI claimants and UI trust fund, as well as
    getting people back to work.
        I will go into four strategies that we think are essential
    to pay attention to if you really want to look at reemployment.
    But a key thing for me to point out is that any reemployment
    initiative to date from my perspective is by State initiative
    and not by Federal design. The Federal funding streams and the
    programs don't necessarily sustain internal policies that allow
    for reemployment. They happen at the Federal level through
    grants, maybe haphazard initiatives, but nothing that is
    sustainable.
        So States who want to take the initiative, we have to do a
    lot of work to blend different funding streams together to make
    that happen. I will point to some things that we think would be
    helpful for us on the State end.
        Four things that we think we should pay attention to on the
    ground: Number one is claimant expectations and requirements;
    number two is employer incentives; number three is around
    program integration and system design; and, four, around
    resources and flexibility.
        I have lots of detail, but I will try to give you one or
    two examples in each of those.
        Let me first talk about customer expectations. And,
    Representative Doggett, we certainly understand that most
    people on UI want to go back to work, but we want to reinforce
    at every level of their experience that going back to work is a
    full-time job. So from the very beginning of them entering the
    system, they are required to register with our labor exchange.
    We require mandatory workshop participation with our Workforce
    Investment Act dollars.
        So if we see an industry that is growing, for example, in
    trucking, we had an area in our State that was growing, we will
    bring UI claimants in to match and do jobs fairs with those
    employers who are willing to hire. If UI claimants are not
    willing to come in, they jeopardize their UI benefits. In fact,
    we have found over this last year 20 percent of our UI
    claimants did not want to participate in those type of job
    fairs, and they lost their benefits. So we know most people
    want to participate and do a good job, but those who are not
    willing to do that, we don't think should stay in their
    benefits.
        So those are a few things on customer claimants. We could
    get into much more detail, but setting that expectation from
    your marketing to what they see on their screens when they
    check their benefits is essential, and we have been able to
    integrate that not just in our UI but in our Workforce
    Investment Act site as well.
        Number two, employer incentives. Two pieces on that. Like
    Texas, we have done a Back to Work Program, a similar model. It
    is a way we can reinvest and help employers find incentives to
    hire UI claimants. We give them $2,000 over 4 months if they
    hire a UI claimant and they sustain that employment. It has
    been fairly successful. We may make some changes and tweaks as
    we move forward. But employers have a lot of candidates to
    chose from, as we all know, but we want to make sure our UI
    claimants are front and center, and there are ways to
    incentivize that. Back to Work is one. There are many other
    options in that model.
        We also have a penalties and interest account. All States
    do. It is part of money that we collect from unemployment
    insurance. We have reinvested those funds to help businesses
    expand, retain jobs, and bring new businesses into the State of
    Utah.
        Again, job creation is essential if we are going to put
    people into employment. That is a funding stream we have
    flexibility over, one of the very few, and we are able to
    reinvest that to help businesses stay competitive in Utah.
        Chairman DAVIS. Excuse me, you have 1 minute remaining.
        Ms. COX. Oh, my goodness.
        Let me skip the third thing. The third thing was great.
        I am going to go to the fourth. The thing we really need is
    resource flexibility. We are working against trying to
    integrate WIA funds, Wagner-Peyser funds, UI funds. The UI
    program does not have any waiver authority for States to be
    innovative or progressive. We don't really have a lot of venues
    to do that. So we are left with trying to pull a lot of complex
    pieces together on our own. If we could get waiver authority or
    you guys could grant Department of Labor waiver authority, you
    would start seeing much more innovation coming out of States in
    terms of reemployment.
        The second piece of that, States have UI admin dollars. It
    is Title III money under Section 303 of the Social Security
    act. In Utah, we have been very efficient in our resources. We
    have extra money. We would like to reinvest that into
    reemployment versus just admin, and we don't have the ability
    to do that. We don't think we need more money. We just want
    more flexibility with our current money.
        There are other things that you can do as well with the
    Workforce Reinvestment Act, some of the Wagner-Peyser so you
    could create a true seamless system. But really, from my
    perspective, we feel like we put the money up to the Federal
    Government, it has blown up in a thousand pieces, and down at
    the State level we are trying to put it back together again to
    give a seamless reemployment environment for people.
        A final thing, there needs to be shared responsibility.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Kristen Cox follows:]

             Prepared Statement of Kristen Cox, Executive Director,
                     Utah Department of Workforce Services

    UTAH DEPARTMENT OF WORKFORCE SERVICES RE-EMPLOYMENT STRATEGIES FOR
            HELPING UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE CLAIMANTS RETURN TO WORK

    Principle
        Effective re-employment of Unemployment Insurance (UI) claimants is
    fundamental to maintaining the economic well-being of individuals, the
    state, and the nation. Providing re-employment support for UI claimants
    should be an integrated UI, Wagner-Peyser, and WIA service delivery
    effort in partnership with public and private entities.

    DWS One-Stop Programs and Services
        Utah's one-stop employment centers provide a comprehensive array of
    services, including job placement, job development, assessment, and job
    training. DWS also provides UI to unemployed workers and supportive
    services for working families in poverty, people with disabilities, and
    the elderly. The result is a seamless service delivery system to
    enhance access to programs and services, which improves economic
    opportunities for DWS customers.

    Utah's Current Economic Situation
          While Utah began the recession with one of the lowest
    total unemployment rates in the country, the rate has steadily risen to
    7.5%; however, Utah's UI rate still ranks in the lower third of the
    country.
          Utah's economy has expanded 3.5% annually over the past
    five years--faster than any other state except North Dakota. This is
    3\1/2\ times faster than the United States as a whole.
          Total employment in the United States has shrunk over the
    past five years; however, Utah's employment has increased 1.5%
    annually--the fourth best in the nation.
          Utah household incomes have surged 5% annually--the top
    in the country and twice as fast as the national average.
          U.S. News has compiled a list of the 10 cities where job-
    seekers would have the best luck finding a job. Rankings are based on
    the combination of low unemployment rates and an abundance of job
    openings, relative to the number of job-seekers. The U.S. News ranking
    lists Salt Lake City as number 2, with Washington, D.C. ranked as
    number 1.

    Key Strategies
        Utah is focusing on four critical strategies for providing pathways
    for re-employment:

        (1) Providing Meaningful UI Claimant Requirements: UI claimants
    must be provided with meaningful expectations that focus claimants on
    returning to the workforce as their top priority.

          In Utah, UI claimants are required to register for work
    with the department's online job board within five business days of
    their initial claim or they are denied benefits.
          Starting in February this year, Utah has doubled the
    minimum work search requirements to four job contacts per week.
    Returning to work should be a full-time job. Not all states require
    this type of activity.
          Utah's UI Worker Profiling and Re-employment Services
    (WPRS) involvement has increased 500% to over 500 claimants per week.
    This process requires a mandatory online UI eligibility review and an
    online orientation and self-assessment for those claimants profiled to
    most likely exhaust benefits.

              Current data suggests higher exhaustion rates
            among veterans, older workers (55-64), those who have less than
            high school completion, and those with higher wage replacement
            rates (weekly benefits divided by weekly base period earnings).
              Data on the current recession also indicates that
            the duration and exhaustion rates of UI have remained much
            higher than previous recessions, highlighting the importance of
            providing meaningful resources and programs to claimants
            throughout the life of their claim.
              The department is currently looking into optional
            online workshops as a cost effective alternative to traditional
            staff assisted workshops.

          DWS has also worked with employers to identify
    occupations in which employment opportunities exist and for which a
    pool of occupationally qualified UI claimants is available. An example
    of this focused re-employment effort is bringing trucking companies
    together with UI claimants who are trained truck drivers. Suitable
    claimants are selected and invited to participate in these targeted job
    fairs. Claimants who receive the job fair notification and fail to
    participate are found no longer eligible for UI benefits.
          Utah has initiated several pilot projects, including
    mandatory workshop attendance, to facilitate job preparation
    activities. Preliminary feedback from claimants is very positive.
    Current workshop data shows:

              51 percent of UI claimants who were required to
            attend, did attend
              13 percent went back to work
              16 percent were deferred due to a seasonal layoff
              20 percent who did not attend a workshop had
            their UI claim terminated

        (2) Providing Employer Incentives: Effective targeted employer
    incentives are critical to not only incentivizing employers to hire new
    workers, but also to retain existing work from potentially being
    outsourced.

          DWS has implemented a ``Back to Work'' initiative to
    provide Utah employers with an opportunity to re-employ up to 2,500 UI
    claimants and receive a wage subsidy of up to $2,000 per participant
    for each employee hired.

              ARRA TANF Contingency funds and TANF funds have
            been used to cover this temporary subsidy, and UI Reed Act
            funds are being used for the administrative costs.
              Approximately 1,000 UI claimants and youth are
            currently enrolled.

          DWS has reinvested UI penalty and interest funds to
    assist companies with their training of new and incumbent workers.

              The training curricula may be delivered in-house
            or hosted by an external education institution to support both
            existing and new companies in Utah. Funding is conditional on
            documented outcomes.
              The projects that have been approved so far are
            expected to help bring 1,720 new jobs to Utah, over $1 billion
            in new and retained state wages, $69.4 million in new state
            revenue, and over $100 million in capital investment to the
            state.

          DWS has reinvested the remaining penalty and interest
    funds to provide incentives to support local employers with workforce
    development. Generally, there must be an equal financial commitment on
    the part of the employer.

              The approved projects are expected to support the
            UI trust fund because people become re-employed more quickly.
            During the first few months of this new initiative, nearly 400
            jobs were created or retained.

                    Sec.   Rural areas could see $5 million in direct and
                    countable investments. The additional pending projects,
                    if approved and implemented, could help bring another
                    710 new jobs to Utah which could result in $27 million
                    in wages over the next 20 years. The average cost for
                    creating or retaining a job is approximately $600--a
                    significant return on investment.

        (3) Increasing Program and Funding Integration

          Using a $1.3 million federal Re-employment and
    Eligibility Assessment (REA) grant, DWS has implemented an REA program.
    This program focuses on providing re-employment support to 10,000
    claimants who are most likely to exhaust their UI benefits. The REA
    program is similar to the current Worker Profiling system, with the
    addition of a mandatory staff assisted interview to provide counseling,
    more in-depth assessments, and the development of a work plan.

              The grant provides for collecting data on a
            similar ``control group'' of claimants to measure what impact
            this early intervention has on the long-term duration of a
            claimant's collecting benefits.
              Initial data outcomes will be available this
            summer. However, preliminary results indicate that
            approximately 25% of the claimants fail to attend their
            appointment with their employment counselor and are thus denied
            future benefits.

                    Sec.   About $440,000 of ARRA Stimulus funding was
                    devoted to integrating our current job match system
                    with our UI benefits system. Investing in ongoing
                    automated technology tools is critical to the ongoing
                    future employment needs of employers and claimants--
                    long after staff assisted funding is no longer
                    available.
                    Sec.   The integrated systems gather more accurate and
                    complete data from job seekers (UI claimants) and
                    eliminate redundant data collection.
                    Sec.   New AutoCoder software assigns ONET codes to job
                    seekers and employer job orders, and these assigned
                    ONET codes are transferred to our labor market
                    information (LMI) team. The LMI team provides
                    individually relevant job market information to
                    claimants on their personalized My UI Account web page.

          DWS has effectively used ARRA Re-employment Services and
    Wagner-Peyser funding to increase staffing for Employee Connection
    Teams in Utah's Employment Centers, thereby providing more one-on-one
    re-employment assistance to UI claimants.

        (4) Supporting Increased Flexibility of Resources: Separate federal
    funding sources and associated program boundaries can present obstacles
    to integrated service delivery. Federal law and Department of Labor
    regulations place clear limitations on how UI, Wagner-Peyser, and WIA
    funds can be spent. While the intent of the limitations is to ensure
    effective and appropriate program administration, the effect can be to
    make cross-program integration difficult.

          WIA Title I funds may not be spent on employment
    generating activities, economic development, and other activities,
    unless they are directly related to training for eligible individuals.
    Providing less restrictive regulations for WIA statewide activity funds
    could provide greater flexibility in getting individuals re-employed.
    Other program issues to consider include:

              More flexibility in moving customer training
            funds between Youth and Adult/Dislocated Worker programs to
            facilitate re-allocating funds where there is the most need.
              Real-time access to federal data about customers.
            This could reduce administrative costs, support a more
            streamlined process for the customer, and ensure more accurate
            delivery of services. For example, access to Social Security
            information (SSN verification and benefit payments) is
            available to states for public assistance programs such as
            TANF, SNAP, and Medicaid. However, it is not currently
            available to support other programs such as WIA and WOTC.

          Expanding the scope of the UI program to achieve claimant
    re-employment would be an efficient use of funds and would help
    claimants become re-employed as quickly as possible.

              Although state workforce agencies across the
            nation are organized differently, each has an established
            relationship with UI claimants. This relationship is founded on
            the administrative principles of accountability and
            enforceability. Allowing UI to broaden its involvement into
            supporting claimant re-employment is a natural extension to its
            existing role of assuring UI claimants are actively seeking
            work.
              Section 303(a)(8), SSA, provides that, as a
            condition of receiving a Title III grant, the state may expend
            its Title III grant ``solely . . . for the proper and efficient
            administration'' of the state's unemployment compensation law.
              Broadening the definition of the ``proper and
            efficient administration'' of UI would help support the goal of
            cross-program integration among UI, Wagner-Peyser, and WIA and
            provide program administrators greater flexibility and
            resources to accomplish effective re-employment initiatives.
              It would not be our intent to allow a state that
            is struggling to maintain its core UI operational
            responsibilities to inappropriately divert UI administrative
            grant funds to expanded activities and further erode their UI
            program. However, perhaps some flexibility could be granted
            through law, rule, or administrative policy changes or through
            a waiver process. This could take into account some minimum UI
            performance levels to allow using funds that directly benefit
            UI claimant re-employment. For example, the ``Utah Back to
            Work'' wage subsidy program referred to earlier required
            extensive marketing to claimants and employers. Even though the
            program was established to help claimants become re-employed
            earlier and help safeguard the UI trust fund, UI administrative
            grant funds could not be used to notify claimants about the
            program.
              WIA, TANF, and SNAP programs offer waivers and
            more flexibility. If unemployment is one of our largest issues,
            why not give states more flexible options to help re-employ job
            seekers?

          DOL has recently shown good leadership with its focus on
    re-employment, its wage subsidy grants, and state consortium
    initiatives. It is time to connect benefits and employment into a
    seamless service delivery strategy without creating funding barriers.
          Utah has implemented multiple initiatives to help UI
    claimants become re-employed sooner. A few of these initiatives have
    been recognized at the national level. The U.S. Department of Labor
    awarded DWS the 2010 UI Innovation Award for our electronic
    correspondence system and the American Institute of Full Employment
    awarded DWS the 2010 Best Practices Award for our on-line worker
    profiling re-employment service program. These initiatives have helped
    Utah enjoy one of the lowest average UI duration rates in the country--
    16.6 weeks, despite having a fairly high wage replacement rate. While
    we have made significant progress, our goal is to continually strive to
    improve services for employers and job seekers.

    Summary of Recommendations
          Establish clear expectations for claimants that re-
    employment is a priority and requires a full-time commitment.
          Provide employers with wage, training, and tax incentives
    that provide economic benefits for employers to expand or retain their
    workforce.
          Increase program and funding integration that supports
    effective meshing of UI claimants with employers' workforce needs.
    Expansion of the Worker Profiling and Re-employment Services and REA
    grants are good examples of integrated funding between UI claimants and
    re-employment services.

        Increase flexibility of resources to make cross-program integration
    more efficient without creating funding barriers or jeopardizing
    program accountability.

        Chairman DAVIS. Your time has expired. Thank you.
        Now I have the pleasure of recognizing our fellow colleague
    on the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Texas, Mr.
    Brady, who would like to offer an introduction for his fellow
    Texan, Mr. Pauken.
        Mr. BRADY. Thank you for letting me crash the party,
    Chairman Davis, and Ranking Member Doggett. I am grateful to
    introduce my friend and a true Texas patriot to the
    subcommittee today.
        Chairman of the Texas Workforce Commission Tom Pauken is an
    Army veteran with a distinguished record of service to his
    country and our State. His career in the public and private
    sectors has given him valuable insight on improving efforts to
    help unemployed Americans find jobs. As a small business owner
    and the vice president of a venture capital company, Tom knows
    what it takes to meet a payroll and create jobs. He knows the
    challenges businesses are facing in this economy and the
    hardships job seekers experience when they look for work or try
    and learn new skills.
        His public service has also prepared him well for the
    current position. While serving in the Reagan administration as
    director of action, Tom founded the Vietnam Veterans Leadership
    Program that created a nationwide network to assist unemployed
    and underemployed Vietnam veterans find good jobs with a
    future.
        Since taking over as chairman in our State, he has used his
    experience to create the Texas Veterans Leadership Program.
    This is staffed and managed by veterans of Afghanistan and Iraq
    and seeks to help Texas veterans transition into civilian life
    by providing employment and training services, resources, and
    referral.
        Tom has led the way in implementing the new Texas Back to
    Work Program which encourages employers to hire job seekers who
    have been laid off through no fault of their own. We couldn't
    have a better leader than Tom heading up our State's workforce
    development agency. Despite the difficult recession, Texas
    remained a national leader in job creation, netting 231,000 new
    jobs last year.
        Tom Pauken has been a successful and innovative leader in
    the military and business and the Federal Government and State
    government; and I am certain his insights, Mr. Chairman, will
    be of value to the committee. I am honored to introduce him.
        Chairman DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Brady.
        Mr. Pauken, you may proceed.

                   STATEMENT OF TOM PAUKEN, CHAIRMAN,
                       TEXAS WORKFORCE COMMISSION

        Mr. PAUKEN. Thank you, Chairman Davis and distinguished
    subcommittee minority leader, Congressman Doggett, and thanks
    for those kind words, Congressman Brady.
        Congressman Doggett and I have a slightly different
    perspective on the Texas model. In the last decade, as you
    know, Congressman, we have created in Texas over 640,000 jobs
    in the private sector. That is at a time when every other large
    labor market State of the 10 largest labor market States have
    lost jobs. In fact, during that decade, the country has lost
    3.2 million private sector jobs. And I think it is the business
    climate that has attracted people from other States.
        But what I worry about, quite frankly, is I think we are in
    a period of structural unemployment, and we need to get beyond
    partisanship and figure out ways to bring jobs home to America
    and put people back to work. And I will address that in a
    moment as I did in my written testimony.
        But, first, I would like to address the Texas Back to Work
    Program. It was an initiative primarily funded by State funds,
    a modest amount. And what it was designed to do was link
    employers with people of modest means who lost their jobs
    through no fault of their own, making up to $15 an hour by
    providing incentives to the companies to hire people off the
    unemployment roles. We have hired to date 11,000. That is a
    pretty good number, and hopefully we will do a lot more.
        Most of it has been State supported. We did have some
    discretionary Federal funding; and, as Kristen said earlier, we
    would very much like to see some discretion at the Federal
    level to be able to continue that program and for other States,
    if they choose to move in that direction, to help put people
    back to work.
        I think it is a win/win situation for Texas employers and
    for those people who are unemployed and are getting back to
    work.
        Secondly, I have a modest suggestion for those who are on
    extended benefits. It is really a series of options. Really,
    the concept, we call it Train While They Claim. Those people
    who are on Federal and extended benefits, they would have three
    options:
        Number one, if they don't have their high school degree,
    let them get their GED, study for that. Existing funds are
    available. Just put them at the first of the line, those who
    are unemployed.
        Option B, if they don't fit into that category, allow
    people to go to postsecondary or career or community colleges
    in order to get vocational and technical training to upgrade
    their skills and be available for the workforce. Again, similar
    to what we do with Federal displaced workers, you simply allow
    these people who are unemployed to go to the front of the line.
        Third, those people who don't do A or B would be required
    to do community service with their local communities, many of
    which are laying off people, or with fine nonprofits such as
    Habitat for Humanity in order to pay for those extended
    benefits. And if they choose not to do A, B, or C, then they
    would no longer be receiving unemployment benefits. This is an
    approach that would make sense, help people, and get people
    back to work.
        Finally, I would simply say in an overview, particularly
    since you are on the Ways and Means Committee, in my judgment,
    we have got to change the way we tax businesses. We have the
    most onerous business tax system in the world, with a 35
    percent tax rate, a 6.2 percent employer portion of the payroll
    tax. I believe very strongly it should be pulled out at its
    roots and replaced with a revenue neutral 8 percent business
    consumption tax which would be border adjusted. All goods and
    services coming into the U.S. would have to pay that tax. All
    exports, companies exporting would get a credit against their
    business consumption tax.
        It levels the playing field with our trading competitors.
    And, currently, we are at an approximately 18 to 19 percent
    disadvantage with our trading competitors around the world. It
    would also bring jobs home. It would restore and begin to
    build--rebuild our manufacturing base. We have lost one-third
    of our U.S. manufacturing base over the last decade. That is
    5\1/2\ million good American jobs which have been shipped
    overseas, outsourced, or simply gone away. That is why I
    believe we are in a structural unemployment situation and in
    the most serious national recession since the time of the Great
    Depression.
        Bold action is called for. I think this is an approach. We
    can do all of the things at the margin. I think they are very
    important. But, ultimately, I think we have to bring jobs home
    to America.
        Finally, I beg to disagree with Congressman Doggett, but,
    quite frankly, we were willing to come up with a program in
    order to get that Federal funding, to do what Congress asked,
    but simply allow our State law to revert to the preexisting law
    once the Federal funds were fully expended. I think this was,
    quite frankly, an overreach of the Federal Government in trying
    to federalize or mandate what States had to do with respect to
    unemployment benefits.
        We stand ready to work with the Congress in order to get
    that money back for Texas, which is our money, and we are a
    donor State. We only get 35 cents on a dollar.
        [The prepared statement of Tom Pauken follows:]

                  Prepared Statement of Tom Pauken, Chairman,
                           Texas Workforce Commission

        Thank you Chairman Davis, Ranking Member Doggett and distinguished
    Members of the Subcommittee for allowing me to submit this written
    testimony.
        Texas has an important story to tell and because I believe our
    experience can help policymakers here and in other states address the
    problem of unemployment.
        Texas has weathered the current recession better than any other
    large state. While we have not been immune to its effects, consider
    these numbers:
        Between December 2000 and December 2010, Texas created 640,600
    private sector jobs, according to recent Labor Department reports. That
    is an 8% increase over the last decade. During that same period of
    time, every other of the ten largest labor market states lost private
    sector jobs, and the nation as a whole lost more than 3.2 million such
    jobs.
        There are many reasons why Texas has fared better than other states
    during the downturn. Governor Perry and the Texas Legislature have
    instituted polices of fiscal restraint and lower taxes that have made
    Texas the number one place for business in our nation. And thanks to
    our state legislature, the Texas Workforce Commission has administered
    a new program called Texas Back to Work designed to encourage employers
    to hire Texans who are unemployed and who have lost their jobs through
    no fault of their own. More than 10,000 unemployed Texans have been
    hired as a result of the program and this initiative received the
    Department of Labor's best practices award this past fall.
        The program provides an incentive of up to $2,000 for hiring
    qualified UI claimants with the goal of rapid reintegration into the
    workplace. Employers train, develop and oversee new employees with the
    purpose of retaining the new hire after an initial 4 month period in
    order to receive the full incentive.
        The program has been a win-win for employers, job seekers, and the
    taxpayers of Texas.
        Of the participants in the program, two thirds have successfully
    completed, with 89% of them continuing to show wages in the following
    quarter. Program wide, 75% of participants whether they complete or not
    show wages in the following quarter.
        More importantly, this program helps Texas businesses with the
    critical task of maintaining an up-to-date labor force, while also
    helping unemployed Texans get off the rolls of UI claimants and obtain
    what they truly seek--a job, not benefits.
        Texas Back to Work was funded with seed money provided by our
    legislature and we later extended the program with federal funds. I
    have included a detailed summary of the Texas Back to Work program as
    part of this testimony. Please refer to Attachment 1 for more details
    on the success of the program.
        We believe other states would benefit from following Texas'
    example, and I would recommend that Congress pass legislation allowing
    all states the option of using federal and state emergency and extended
    benefit funds to pursue this cost-effective measure for job-creation. I
    have included draft language for your consideration to allow states the
    flexibility to use emergency and extended benefit funds for job subsidy
    programs. Please refer to Attachment 2. Now is the time to be
    proactive, before we find ourselves in January of next year, with
    extended benefits expiring and wondering how much more impact we could
    have had.
        There are additional changes we believe could make the current
    system more effective.
        I recommend that, as a condition for receiving extended
    unemployment benefits, recipients would have an option to ``Train While
    They Claim''. Those without a high school diploma could choose to study
    for their GED. UI claimants in that category would be entitled to first
    priority for participation in existing federally funded Adult Basic
    Education programs.
        Those with a high school degree, but lacking specific vocational
    training, would be able to receive job skills training. Again, this
    would not require an increase in federal funding, but simply give
    claimants top priority to participate in existing federally funded
    training programs.
        Alternatively, those who don't choose to get a GED or receive
    additional skills training would be required to gain additional on-the-
    job experience or training by volunteering for community service work
    for public institutions or approved non-profits like Habitat for
    Humanity. Those who refuse to participate in one of these three options
    would no longer be entitled to receive extended unemployment benefits.
        I also want to bring your attention to an unprecedented overreach
    of federal authority over state unemployment statutes which was part of
    the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Texas was denied
    $550 million allocated to us by the Act--funds that would have been
    used to pay unemployed workers in our state. That federal legislation
    mandated that, in order to receive those funds, not only was the Texas
    Legislature required to make changes to our laws that would have
    expanded the number of people eligible to receive unemployment
    benefits, but our legislature was prohibited from including a sunset
    provision that would have allowed these changes to expire once the
    federal funds had been completely exhausted for their intended purpose.
        No other federal legislation that I am aware of continues to have
    strings attached to it after the funding is gone. Such legislation is a
    first step in the Federal Government taking over all state unemployment
    laws in the country. These provisions need to be repealed.
        I would ask the distinguished members here today to initiate
    legislation that would amend ARRA and allow Texas to receive the money
    that has already been set aside for us. Texas is not asking for money
    that is not ours to begin with. Texas is a donor state in the Federal
    Unemployment Insurance system. For every dollar we contribute, we
    receive only 35 cents back.
        Finally, I would be remiss if I did not emphasize that the key to
    creating jobs is to grow the private sector. Government programs, no
    matter how innovative, cannot bring about the kind of fundamental
    change that is needed to put America back to work.
        We currently have a corporate tax system that rewards American
    businesses for taking on debt--which is deductible--while punitively
    taxing employment, savings, and capital investment--the engines of
    economic growth and job creation in the private sector. This is an
    incentive to export prosperity and export American jobs overseas--which
    is precisely what has happened over the past decade.
        The best way to address this problem is to change the way we tax
    businesses. Let's replace our onerous corporate tax system with a
    revenue-neutral, 8% business-consumption tax that would be border-
    adjusted.
        This new approach to taxing business would raise just as much in
    revenues, if not more, than the current system of taxation. All goods
    and services coming into the U.S. would pay the 8% tax while all
    exports would receive a comparable tax credit as an offset to its
    company's business consumption tax. This would reduce the outsourcing
    of American jobs, encourage long-term investment in U.S. businesses,
    rebuild our manufacturing base, reduce our trade deficits and put
    business owners back in charge of the American economy. This is a real
    economic stimulus plan to get Americans back to work.

                                  Attachment 1

        The Texas Back to Work Program offers a fixed subsidy of $2000 to
    private sector employers who hire claimants of UI making less than $15/
    hour in their job before being laid off. The program provides a tiered
    payment plan so that employers do not get the full subsidy unless the
    claimant remains employed with the employer for 4 months at 30 hours
    per week or more.
        Claimants are offered jobs that qualify as ``suitable employment''
    consistent with UI regulations. They may or may not know that the
    employer is receiving a subsidy. The job must be full time at better
    than minimum wage. The employer is to treat the TBTW hire as he would
    any other new employee to the business. Wages paid and hours worked are
    verified before payment is made.
        TWC has done extensive publicizing of the TBTW program including
    through the Governor's Small Business Conferences. In addition, TWC
    created a TBTW certificate that it provides TBTW-eligible claimants so
    that they can use it in the application process to educate employers
    about the program and to show that they are TBTW-eligible as an
    inducement to the employer.
        These efforts have proven very effective because after a slow start
    Texas Back to Work has placed 10,332 claimants in a little over a year
    and continues to make roughly 250 placements per week. This includes
    claimants at all points in the claim process including those:

              Receiving state UI benefits (first 26 weeks);
              Receiving extended federal benefits; or
              Those who have exhausted all benefits and had not
            returned to work yet.

    TBTW by the Numbers:
              Texas Back to Work Placements--10,332 claimants
            placed
              # Employers Served--2757
              Percent Completed Subsidized Period--65.5%
              Avg. Wages before Lay Off--Using November Analysis
            (7558 claims) $20,663
              Avg. Wages with Subsidized Job--Again, using
            November's Analysis $18,866.87 (91.31% wage replacement rate--
            for point of reference, 91% used to be considered very good
            wage replacement under WIA DW). Considering that many of the UI
            claimants served have been unemployed for extended periods, we
            believe this a very good outcome.
              Percent of TBTW participants with wages in 1st
            Quarter after Subsidy Completed--

                    Overall--75%
                    Successful Completers--89%

               (Preliminary analysis indicates that nearly 87% of the 89%
            were still employed with the same employer.)

                                  Attachment 2

        The following amendments are proposed to create a wage subsidy
    option for the States out of funding from the Emergency Unemployment
    Compensation Benefits Program and the Extended Benefits Program. The
    creation of this option would allow States the alternative of providing
    up to thirteen weeks of wage subsidy, for the benefit of the claimant,
    to employers for the reemployment of individuals who qualify for
    further extended benefits. Funding for this subsidized option would not
    exceed the individual's weekly benefit amount and would not be
    permitted in any case where it would displace an employee.
        The language of the proposed amendments are underlined and
    contained within the statutory provisions in order to provide context.
        Because the claimants would be participating in subsidized
    reemployment under this program, it is anticipated that the claimants
    would be treated in the same manner as participants in the Texas Back
    to Work program.

                 TITLE IV--EMERGENCY UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION
                            FEDERAL-STATE AGREEMENTS
                          << 26 USCA Sec. 3304 NOTE >>

        SEC. 4001. (a) IN GENERAL.--Any State which desires to do so may
    enter into and participate in an agreement under this title with the
    Secretary of Labor (in this title referred to as the ``Secretary'').
    Any State which is a party to an agreement under this title may, upon
    providing 30 days' written notice to the Secretary, terminate such
    agreement.
        (b) PROVISIONS OF AGREEMENT.--Any agreement under subsection (a)
    shall provide that the State agency of the State will make payments of
    emergency unemployment compensation to individuals who--

              (1) have exhausted all rights to regular compensation under
            the State law or under Federal law with respect to a benefit
            year (excluding any benefit year that ended before May 1,
            2007);
              (2) have no rights to regular compensation or extended
            compensation with respect to a week under such law or any other
            State unemployment compensation law or to compensation under
            any other Federal law (except as provided under subsection
            (e)); and
              (3) are not receiving compensation with respect to such week
            under the unemployment compensation law of Canada.

        (c) EXHAUSTION OF BENEFITS.--For purposes of subsection (b)(1), an
    individual shall be deemed to have exhausted such individual's rights
    to regular compensation under a State law when--

              (1) no payments of regular compensation can be made under
            such law because such individual has received all regular
            compensation available to such individual based on employment
            or wages during such individual's base period; or
              (2) such individual's rights to such compensation have been
            terminated by reason of the expiration of the benefit year with
            respect to which such rights existed.

        (d) WEEKLY BENEFIT AMOUNT, ETC.--For purposes of any agreement
    under this title--

              (1) the amount of emergency unemployment compensation which
            shall be payable to any individual for any week of total
            unemployment shall be equal to the amount of the regular
            compensation (including dependents' allowances) payable to such
            individual during such individual's benefit year under the
            State law for a week of total unemployment;
              (2) the terms and conditions of the State law which apply to
            claims for regular compensation and to the payment thereof
            shall apply to claims for emergency unemployment compensation
            and the payment thereof, except--

                      (A) that an individual shall not be eligible for
                    emergency unemployment compensation under this title
                    unless, in the base period with respect to which the
                    individual exhausted all rights to regular compensation
                    under the State law, the individual had 20 weeks of
                    full-time insured employment or the equivalent in
                    insured wages, as determined under the provisions of
                    the State law implementing section 202(a)(5) of the
                    Federal-State Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of
                    1970 (26 U.S.C. 3304 note); and
                      (B) where otherwise inconsistent with the provisions
                    of this title or with the regulations or operating
                    instructions of the Secretary promulgated to carry out
                    this title; and

              (3) the maximum amount of emergency unemployment compensation
            payable to any individual for whom an emergency unemployment
            compensation account is established under Section 4002 shall
            not exceed the amount established in such account for such
            individual.; and
              (4) in the alternative, a State may provide a wage subsidy
            from the individual's emergency unemployment compensation
            account in an amount per week no greater than the weekly
            benefit amount, for the benefit of the individual eligible for
            emergency unemployment compensation benefits, to an employer
            who provides reemployment of the individual for up to thirteen
            weeks. The subsidized reemployment shall not displace an
            employee.

        (e) ELECTION BY STATES.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
    Federal law (and if State law permits), the Governor of a State that is
    in an extended benefit period may provide for the payment of emergency
    unemployment compensation prior to extended compensation to individuals
    who otherwise meet the requirements of this section.
        (f) UNAUTHORIZED ALIENS INELIGIBLE.--A State shall require as a
    condition of eligibility for emergency unemployment compensation under
    this Act that each alien who receives such compensation must be legally
    authorized to work in the United States, as defined for purposes of the
    Federal Unemployment Tax Act (26 U.S.C. 3301 et seq.). In determining
    whether an alien meets the requirements of this subsection, a State
    must follow the procedures provided in section 1137(d) of the Social
    Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1320b-7(d)).

       PAYMENTS TO STATES HAVING AGREEMENTS FOR THE PAYMENT OF EMERGENCY
                           UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION
                          << 26 USCA Sec. 3304 NOTE >>

        SEC. 4003. (a) GENERAL RULE.--There shall be paid to each State
    that has entered into an agreement under this title an amount equal to
    100 percent of the emergency unemployment compensation paid to
    individuals and the emergency unemployment compensation wage subsidies
    paid for reemployment of individuals by the State pursuant to such
    agreement.
        (b) TREATMENT OF REIMBURSABLE COMPENSATION.--No payment shall be
    made to any State under this section in respect of any compensation to
    the extent the State is entitled to reimbursement in respect of such
    compensation under the provisions of any Federal law other than this
    title or chapter 85 of Title 5, United States Code. A State shall not
    be entitled to any reimbursement under such chapter 85 in respect of
    any compensation to the extent the State is entitled to reimbursement
    under this title in respect of such compensation.
        (c) DETERMINATION OF AMOUNT.--Sums payable to any State by reason
    of such State having an agreement under this title shall be payable,
    either in advance or by way of reimbursement (as may be determined by
    the Secretary), in such amounts as the Secretary estimates the State
    will be entitled to receive under this title for each calendar month,
    reduced or increased, as the case may be, by any amount by which the
    Secretary finds that the Secretary's estimates for any prior calendar
    month were greater or less than the amounts which should have been paid
    to the State. Such estimates may be made on the basis of such
    statistical, sampling, or other method as may be agreed upon by the
    Secretary and the State agency of the State involved.

                          << 26 USCA Sec. 3304 NOTE >>

          Federal-State Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 1970
    ``Sec. 202 [Payment of extended compensation].
        ``(a) [State law requirements] (1) For purposes of section
    3304(a)(11) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 [(formerly I.R.C.
    1954) subsec. (a)(11) of this section] a State law shall provide that
    payment of extended compensation shall be made, for any week of
    unemployment which begins in the individual's eligibility period, to
    individuals who have exhausted all rights to regular compensation under
    the State law and who have no rights to regular compensation with
    respect to such week under such law or any other State unemployment
    compensation law or to compensation under any other Federal law and are
    not receiving compensation with respect to such week under the
    unemployment compensation law of Canada. For purposes of the preceding
    sentence, an individual shall have exhausted his rights to regular
    compensation under a State law (A) when no payments of regular
    compensation can be made under such law because such individual has
    received all regular compensation available to him based on employment
    or wages during his base period, or (B) when his rights to such
    compensation having terminated by reason of the expiration of the
    benefit year with respect to which such rights existed. In the
    alternative, a State may provide a wage subsidy from the individual's
    extended compensation account in an amount per week no greater than the
    weekly benefit amount, for the benefit of the individual eligible for
    extended compensation, to an employer who provides reemployment of the
    individual for up to thirteen weeks. The subsidized reemployment shall
    not displace an employee.

        ``(2) Except where inconsistent with the provisions of this title
    [this note], the terms and conditions of the State law which apply to
    claims for regular compensation and to the payment thereof shall apply
    to claims for extended compensation and to the payment thereof.

                          << 26 USCA Sec. 3304 NOTE >>

    ``Sec. 204 [Payments to States].
        (a) [Amount payable] (1) There shall be paid to each State an
    amount equal to one-half of the sum of--

              ``(A) the sharable extended compensation, and
              ``(B) the sharable regular compensation,

     paid to individuals and the extended compensation wage subsidies paid
    for reemployment of individuals under the State law.

        ``(2) No payment shall be made to any State under this subsection
    in respect of compensation (A) for which the State is entitled to
    reimbursement under the provisions of any Federal law other than this
    Act, (B) paid for the first week in an individual's eligibility period
    for which extended compensation or sharable regular compensation is
    paid, if the State law of such State provides for payment (at any time
    or under any circumstances) of regular compensation to an individual
    for his first week of otherwise compensable unemployment, (C) paid for
    any week with respect to which such benefits are not payable by reason
    of section 233(d) of the Trade Act of 1974 [19 U.S.C.A. 2293(d)], or
    (D) paid to an individual with respect to a week of unemployment to the
    extent that such amount exceeds the amount of such compensation which
    would be paid to such individual if such State had a benefit structure
    which provided that the amount of compensation otherwise payable to any
    individual for any week shall be rounded (if not a full dollar amount)
    to the nearest lower full dollar amount.
        ``(3) The amount which, but for this paragraph, would be payable
    under this subsection to any State in respect of any compensation paid
    to an individual whose base period wages include wages for services to
    which section 3306(c)(7) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 [26
    U.S.C.A. Sec. 3306(c)(7)] applies shall be reduced by an amount which
    bears the same ratio to the amount which, but for this paragraph, would
    be payable under this subsection to such State in respect of such
    compensation as the amount of the base period wages attributable to
    such services bears to the total amount of the base period wages.

        Chairman DAVIS. Your time has expired, Mr. Pauken. Thank
    you.
        Dr. Boushey.

     STATEMENT OF HEATHER BOUSHEY, PH.D., SENIOR ECONOMIST, CENTER
                   FOR AMERICAN PROGRESS ACTION FUND

        Ms. BOUSHEY. Thank you, Chairman Davis, Ranking Member
    Doggett and Members of the Subcommittee for inviting me here to
    testify today. My name is Heather Boushey, and I am a Senior
    Economist with the American Progress Action Fund.
        So until we fill the demand gap, we will continue to have
    high unemployment, which in turn will drag down economic
    growth. Today's high unemployment was caused by the
    mismanagement of the economy in the 2000s, a financial sector
    only in service of its own profits, rather than fostering
    productive investments, and a housing bubble.
        The policies that will create jobs now are those that will
    make investments that not only boost employment in the short
    term but will lay the foundations for long-term economic
    growth.
        On the one hand, our economy has grown for six straight
    quarters now. Much of this growth that we have seen has been
    due to the Recovery Act and other policies aimed at addressing
    the fallout from the financial crisis. Yet we continue to have
    a large gap between what our economy currently produces and
    what it would be producing if workers and the economy's
    productive assets were to be used at full employment.
        Even though corporate America is flush with cash and
    profits have soared, investment is at its lowest level in more
    than five decades. The National Federation of Independent
    Businesses continues to report month after month that its
    members see a lack of sales as their key concern. When
    businesses don't see sales, they don't hire.
        Thus, while this recession ended in June of 2009, for
    everyday Americans, this has not been a recovery. There
    continue to be nearly five workers seeking a job for every job
    opening available, compared to just over one worker for every
    job available in early 2000 before the financial crisis began.
        While some groups have been hit harder than others, today's
    unemployment is not a structural problem. In May of 2007, the
    unemployment rate was 4\1/2\ percent. Yet just over a year and
    a half later, the private sector was shedding over 700,000 jobs
    per month. For the unemployment problem that we are facing
    today to be structural, there must be some new set of
    technological advances that made 1 in 10 workers
    instantaneously obsolete.
        I agree with the previous speaker that there is a long-term
    problem, the decline in manufacturing, but there is no evidence
    that that is our problem, the enormous problem of unemployment
    is solely due to that.
        Further, job losses in this recession have been widespread
    and not only concentrated in the sectors hardest hit by the
    bursting of the housing bubble.
        Funds spent on benefits and services designed to help the
    unemployed find new work have mitigated, not exacerbated, the
    problem. Unemployment benefits have been good for the economy,
    and a growing body of empirical work shows they have not been
    hindering workers from finding new employment.
        To boost employment, Congress should focus on three
    specific policy goals:

               First, we continue to need to focus on boosting
            aggregate demand through investments in infrastructure
            and making sure that the unemployment insurance system
            and other automatic stabilizers remain in working
            order. The American Society of Civilian Engineers
            estimates that we will need to spend at least $2.2
            trillion over the next 5 years just to repair our
            crumbling infrastructure. This doesn't even include
            things like high-speed rail, mass transit, and
            renewable energy investments to free ourselves from
            foreign oil and address climate change. Infrastructure
            has traditionally been a bipartisan issue and one that
            hopefully this Congress can build a bridge across the
            aisle to address.
               Second, if someone has a job, we should be helping
            them keep it by helping States and localities limit
            future layoffs and thinking about innovative ways to
            help firms keep workers on their payrolls. Simply put,
            right now, all across America, schools are laying off
            teachers, public universities are trimming their
            staffs, and community colleges are cutting back. These
            cutbacks constitute not just lost jobs now, but they
            will also eventually worsen educational outcomes for
            tens of millions of students across the country,
            consequences that will have long-term negative effects
            on the economy.
               Third, we should be helping the unemployed beat the
            odds and find a new job. The TANF emergency fund led to
            partnerships with the business community to create
            nearly a quarter of a million new jobs. It was
            implemented in States with both Democratic and
            Republican Governors with much success. Texas, for
            example, created nearly 40,000 jobs with this program.
            It has expired as of last September, and it should be
            reinstated.

        We could also do more to promote successful vocational
    programs that integrate vocation and employment-oriented goals
    and academic educational programs. However, yesterday, the
    House Appropriations Committee announced that it wants to cut
    job training programs by 50 percent. This will certainly not
    help us.
        We continue to live in one of the richest nations on the
    planet. We continue to have the resources to solve the problems
    that we as a Nation choose to solve. And yet here we seem to
    have lost some of our can-do conviction that the economy can
    indeed improve and we can create good jobs for all who need
    them. I hope that this Congress will continue to use its power
    to invest in America and create jobs.
        [The prepared statement of Heather Boushey follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5329A.001

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5329A.002

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5329A.003

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5329A.004

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5329A.005

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5329A.006

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5329A.007

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5329A.008

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5329A.009

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5329A.010

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5329A.011

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5329A.012

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5329A.013

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5329A.014

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5329A.015

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5329A.016

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5329A.017

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5329A.018

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5329A.019

        Chairman DAVIS. Thank you for your time with us, Dr.
    Boushey.
        Mr. Holmes.

       STATEMENT OF DOUGLAS J. HOLMES, PRESIDENT, UWC-STRATEGIC
           SERVICES ON UNEMPLOYMENT AND WORKERS' COMPENSATION

        Mr. HOLMES. Thank you.
        Chairman Davis, Ranking Member Doggett, Members of the
    Subcommittee, I am Doug Holmes, President of UWC-Strategic
    Services on Unemployment and Workers' Compensation. We are a
    national organization representing business, particularly in
    research and policy related to unemployment and workers'
    compensation.
        Thanks to you, Mr. Chairman, for your leadership in
    scheduling this hearing so early in the session to enable a
    fresh analysis on the heels of recent unemployment data from
    the Department of Labor and the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
        As the economy turns a corner to recovery, new strategies
    are needed to address lingering high unemployment rates and
    continuing large numbers of long-term unemployed claimants. The
    new year calls for new solutions to match the problems at hand.
    The following observations will help frame the discussion.
        First, the unemployment rate remains too high. Job openings
    are lagging the recovery. The number of mass layoffs has
    fallen. The number of initial applications for State
    unemployment compensation is declining, and the 4-week moving
    average of 415,500 initial claims is getting close to the
    400,000 mark that is generally indicative of nonrecessionary
    periods. Total unemployment rates vary considerably State by
    State. We have 10 States that have unemployment rates of less
    than 7 percent, and we have 10 States with 10 percent or above.
        Employers who plan to hire new employees are still
    uncertain, however; and in addressing how to help Americans
    find jobs really three steps should be taken:

               First, encourage job creation by avoiding increases
            in the cost of hiring and employment; second, encourage
            unemployed workers to seek and accept work that is
            available in the marketplace; and, third, improve the
            efficiency of the system to match unemployed workers
            with jobs that are available in the marketplace.

        This three-pronged approach removes barriers to job
    creation and encourages the more active and efficient matching
    of workers seeking work and employers filling employment needs.
        First prong, reduce the cost of hiring and employment.
    State unemployment insurance taxes as a percent of total wages
    increased on average from 2009 to 2010 by 34 percent, with
    larger increases expected for 2011 and 2012. Special State
    taxes paid by employers to repay Federal interest on loans are
    also increasing. Thirty-one States and jurisdictions have
    outstanding loans of $42.4 billion; and $1.3 billion in
    interest is due this year on September 30, with more than $1.6
    billion continuing to be due on an annual basis.
        FUTA taxes are increasing. Employers in Indiana, Michigan,
    and South Carolina have already been required to pay increased
    FUTA taxes for 2009 and/or 2010; and employers in 21 additional
    States will be subject to an increased FUTA tax for 2011. The
    increased tax is projected to cost employers approximately $2
    billion for 2011 and $4 billion for 2012. Congress should, in
    response to this first issue, provide a waiver of the interest
    on loans to States to pay unemployment compensation for 2011
    and 2012 and also waive the FUTA offset credit penalties for
    2011 and 2012.
        Second prong of the three-pronged strategy: encourage
    unemployed workers to seek and accept work. In a recent survey
    of State unemployment insurance agencies, 39 States reported
    broad exceptions to the general work search requirements, and
    one State reported that it had no work search requirement at
    all. The exceptions have in many cases consumed the rule.
    Individuals in many States may be able to apply online, submit
    claims for unemployment compensation online with electronic
    self-attestation of their work search activities, and have
    benefits directly deposited into their bank accounts. The
    entire application and weekly claims payment process may be
    completed with very little contact by the claimant with a one
    stop or employment services office.
        Work search requirements for Federal programs and standards
    for State work search requirements should be enacted to send
    the appropriate signal to claimants that active work search
    efforts are expected and required.
        The Federal extended benefit program should also be
    reformed to identify areas where emergency and extended
    benefits might be curtailed to save some important dollars in
    target money appropriately.
        Finally, the third prong is to implement initiatives and
    provide services that are most effective in assisting
    unemployed workers in returning to work. Such programs have
    been described. Utah and Texas are good examples of this.
        Thank you very much.
        [The prepared statement of Douglas J. Holmes follows:]

       Prepared Statement of Douglas J. Holmes President, UWC-Strategic
                Services on Unemployment & Workers' Compensation

        Chairman Davis, Ranking Member Doggett, and Members of the
    Subcommittee on Human Resources, thank you for the opportunity to
    testify on the topic of improving efforts to help unemployed Americans
    find jobs.
        I am Douglas J. Holmes, President of UWC-Strategic Services on
    Unemployment & Workers' Compensation (UWC). UWC counts as members a
    broad range of large and small businesses, trade associations, service
    companies from the Unemployment Insurance (UI) industry, third party
    administrators, and unemployment tax professionals. The organization
    traces its roots back to 1933 at the time when unemployment insurance
    was first being considered for enactment.
        Thanks, Mr. Chairman, for your leadership in scheduling this
    hearing early in the Congressional session to enable a fresh analysis
    of the economy on the heels of recent unemployment and jobs information
    released last week by the U.S. Department of Labor and the Bureau of
    Labor Statistics. As the economy turns the corner to recovery, new
    strategies are needed to address lingering high unemployment rates and
    continuing large numbers of long term unemployed claimants. The new
    year calls for new solutions to match the problems at hand.
        The following observations and data may help frame the discussion.
        The Unemployment Rate remains too high. In a December 2010 Issues
    paper prepared by James M. Borbely, an economist in the Division of
    Labor Force Statistics, Office of Employment and Unemployment
    Statistics, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), Mr. Borbely provides
    a revealing comparison of the impact of the 2007-2009 recession and the
    previous four recessions with respect to the proportion of the labor
    force that is unemployed.
        For the first 8 months of all five recessions, the unemployment
    rate followed a similar upward trend, increasing by about 1 percentage
    point. During the 2007-09 recession and the two long recessions of the
    1970s and 1980s, the unemployment rate increased by an additional 3
    percentage points or so during the next 8 months of the downturn.
    However, after 16 months, the similarity disappears as the unemployment
    rate in the 2007-09 recession continued to trend upward for several
    months. The 2007-09 recession ended in June of 2009, the trough of the
    high unemployment rate following the recession was 10.1 percent in
    October of 2009. It has now been 16 months since the trough of high
    unemployment yet the unemployment rate remains much higher than at this
    time during any other of the post recession periods since the 1970s.
        Job openings are lagging the recovery. The number of job openings
    reported by the Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey Highlights
    published by BLS on January 11, 2011 shows that job openings declined
    to their lowest point one month after the end of the recession in July
    of 2009 and employment levels declined through December of 2009. Since
    that low point job openings and employment have trended up, but the
    number of hires only increased by 9 percent from June of 2009 to
    November of 2010. Hires totaled 4.2 million in November.
        The number of mass lay-offs has fallen. The number of mass layoffs
    reported by BLS for December 2010 decreased from the prior month and
    reached its lowest level since April 2008. The number of mass lay-offs
    fell from 2009 to 2010 for temporary help services, school and employee
    bus transportation, motion picture and video production, professional
    employer organizations, automobile manufacturing, and discount
    department stores.
        The number of initial applications for state unemployment
    compensation is declining. The number of initial state applications has
    dropped from 682,176 at the end of January of 2009 to 490,000 in 2010
    and now to 415,000.
        Despite the reduction in the number of initial applications, the
    number of ongoing federal and state unemployment compensation weekly
    claims remains much higher than at this point after any of the previous
    recessions. The series of federal measures taken to enact emergency
    unemployment compensation, additional compensation, relaxation of the
    triggers for extended benefits, and incentives to states to expand
    benefits enacted in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA)
    have resulted in a much larger number of unemployment claims being
    filed and unemployment compensation paid than any of the prior four
    recessionary periods. We now have 14 million unemployed individuals,
    and of those claiming unemployment compensation the average duration of
    claims is more than 34 weeks.
        Total unemployment rates vary considerably state by state. The
    industrial mix and volatility of the local economies in the states
    varies considerably. Ten states; Hawaii, Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska, New
    Hampshire, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Vermont, Virginia and Wyoming, have
    three month total average unemployment rates of less than 7.0%. Ten
    states; California, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, Nevada,
    Oregon, Rhode Island, and South Carolina have unemployment rates of
    10.0% or above.
        Employer plans to hire new employees are still uncertain. The
    results of the monthly January economic survey conducted by the
    National Foundation of Independent Business (NFIB) showed that 11
    percent of business owners reported increasing employment at their
    firms by an average of 2.8 workers while 15 percent reported reducing
    total employment an average of 2.9 workers per firm. Improved
    confidence on the part of small business owners is critical to new job
    creation.
        In addressing how to help Americans find jobs, three steps should
    be taken; (1) encourage job creation by avoiding increases in the cost
    of hiring and employment, (2) encourage unemployed workers to seek and
    accept work; and (3) improve the efficiency of the system to match
    unemployed workers with jobs available in the market place.
    REDUCE THE COST OF HIRING AND EMPLOYMENT
        It is generally recognized by economists that increasing taxes
    during a period of nascent economic recovery is counterproductive.
    Congress as recently as December reduced the social security payroll
    tax to help spur the economy. Despite widespread recognition that now
    is not a good time, there are a number of automatic tax increase
    provisions in federal and state law that have begun to increase state
    and federal unemployment taxes paid by employers. These increases come
    at the very point in the economic cycle that such increases impair
    employers' ability to hire employees.
        State unemployment taxes are dramatically increasing. State UI
    taxes as a percent of total wages increased on average from 2009 to
    2010 by 34% with larger increases expected for 2011 and 2012 as states
    and employers in many hard hit states struggle to restore solvency to
    state unemployment trust funds that have been savaged by the recession
    and historically high unemployment claims loads.
        Special state taxes paid by employers to repay federal interest on
    loans are increasing. States with outstanding loans with the Federal
    Government through Title XII of the Social Security Act, effective
    January 1, 2011 are required to pay interest on the loans as a
    condition of receiving administrative funding for the UI program and as
    a condition of employers in the state receiving the normal state offset
    against the Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA).
        The first statutorily required payment is due on or before
    September 30, 2011. As of February 3, 2011, thirty-one states and
    jurisdictions had outstanding loans of $42.4 billion. States and/or
    employers in the following states will be impacted with interest
    charges; Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut,
    Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas,
    Kentucky, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada, New
    Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania,
    Rhode Island, South Carolina, Vermont, Virgin Islands, Virginia, and
    Wisconsin.
        Interest due to be paid on these loans is estimated on an annual
    basis to exceed $1.6 billion with the amount to be paid by September
    30th of approximately $1.3 billion. Much of this cost will be paid by
    employers through increases in existing or new special state payroll
    taxes. The additional tax on payroll will add to the already
    dramatically increasing state unemployment taxes and discourage the
    creation of jobs in 2011 and 2012.
        FUTA taxes are increasing. Employers are required to pay automatic
    increases in the Federal Unemployment Tax in states with outstanding
    federal loans. Employers in Indiana, Michigan and South Carolina have
    already been required to pay increased FUTA taxes for 2009 and/or 2010,
    and employers in twenty-one additional states, including Alabama,
    Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois,
    Kentucky, Minnesota, Missouri, North Carolina, New Jersey, Nevada, New
    York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Virginia, Virgin Islands, and
    Wisconsin will be subject to an increased FUTA tax for 2011. The
    increased tax is projected to cost employers approximately $2-3 billion
    annually for 2011 and 2012.
        It is no wonder that employers are hesitant to take on the
    additional cost of hiring additional employees given the increases in
    unemployment insurance related payroll taxes and uncertainties as to
    the cost of doing business. A coordinated effort on the part of the
    states and the Federal Government is essential in response to the
    skyrocketing taxes.
    Provide short term relief from Federal Unemployment Tax Penalties
        Congress should (1) provide a waiver of the interest on loans to
    states to pay unemployment compensation for 2011 and 2012, and (2)
    waive FUTA offset credit penalties for 2011 and 2012.
        These steps will reduce the cost of hiring that would otherwise
    automatically increase without action by Congress.

    ENCOURAGE UNEMPLOYED WORKERS TO SEEK AND ACCEPT WORK
        The number of unemployed workers being hired is not large enough to
    significantly reduce the total unemployment rate or the number of long
    term unemployed workers. This suggests a solution that stresses not
    only the creation of new jobs but unemployed workers must be more
    actively engaged in searching for and accepting work that is available
    in the labor market and/or choose the training needed to obtain the
    skills and abilities that are in demand in the new economy.
        Some of the federal funds projected to be spent on additional weeks
    of emergency or extended unemployment compensation at this point in the
    recovery may actually produce a disincentive for active job search. The
    addition of 13 weeks of federal extended benefits is generally
    recognized by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) as having the
    effect of increasing the duration of state unemployment compensation on
    average by more than two weeks.
        There are record numbers of long term unemployed, many of whom are
    being paid emergency unemployment compensation and extended benefits.
    The U.S. DOL report for the week of January 15, 2011, shows 3,653,080
    individuals were paid EUC and 898,381 were paid regular extended
    benefits.
        In a recent survey of state unemployment insurance agencies
    conducted for UWC by the National Foundation for Unemployment
    Compensation and Workers' Compensation, 39 states reported exceptions
    to the general work search requirements and one state reported that it
    had no work search requirement as a condition of eligibility for
    unemployment compensation.
        Exceptions to work search requirements ranged from a general
    exception when the state unemployment rate exceeded 8.5% to situations
    where individuals are attached to prior employment and expect to return
    to work, seek work through hiring halls or temporary services, are in
    approved training, or are between terms of employment for a seasonal
    employer.
        The advent of claims systems designed to enable easier claims
    processing and faster payment, unfortunately, has resulted in a lower
    degree of verification of individuals actively seeking work as a
    condition of weekly payment. Although millions of individuals are
    filing tens of millions of weekly claims, there are very few
    individuals who anticipate that their claims will be denied for failure
    to seek work. Individuals in many states may be able to apply on line,
    submit claims for unemployment compensation on line with electronic
    self-attestation of their work search activities, and have benefits
    directly deposited into their bank accounts. The entire application and
    weekly claims and payment process may be completed with very little
    contact by the claimant with a one-stop or employment services office.

    Increase Job Search Requirements and Reform Federal Extended Benefit
            and Emergency Programs
        Work search requirements for federal programs and standards for
    state work search requirements should be enacted to send the
    appropriate signal to claimants that active work search efforts are
    expected and required as a condition of receiving unemployment
    compensation. Work search efforts should be recorded and verifiable.
        The federal extended benefit program should be reformed. The
    circumstances under which federal extended benefits are triggered
    ``on'' and ``off,'' the circumstances under which a federal
    ``emergency'' program might be needed, and the conditions of receiving
    extended weeks of unemployment compensation should be reformed to more
    effectively target funding and respond to the needs of individuals in
    finding jobs.

    Improve the Integrity of the UI Program
        Creating a culture of personal responsibility and accountability is
    extremely important in assuring that funds available for unemployment
    compensation are properly paid and individuals for whom the program is
    dedicated properly receive benefits. According to CBO total state and
    local unemployment compensation payments jumped to $120 billion in
    2009, $159 billion in 2010 and payments are estimated to be $129
    billion for 2011. With overpayment rates currently of approximately
    10%, the amounts available for collection have increased to $12-16
    billion per year.
        In 2010, Congress recognized the need to provide new tools to
    identify and collect the growing amount of overpayments by enacting the
    Claims Resolution Act of 2010 (HR 4783). The new law provides new
    reporting requirements to capture the new hire date of individuals as
    part of the National New Hire system. This data will enable states to
    better identify specific weeks for which individuals are being paid
    wages while claiming unemployment compensation, reduce fraud and
    increase recovery. The new law also included provisions to enable the
    offsetting of income tax refunds with outstanding unemployment
    compensation overpayments.
        These new tools are projected to save $2.4 billion over ten years,
    but the improved savings will only be realized if administrative
    funding is provided to properly implement these new tools and other
    integrity measures. Additional administrative funds for integrity
    functions are needed not only to be able to combat fraud and to recover
    overpayments but also as a tool to send a signal to claimants of the
    need for personal accountability in claiming unemployment compensation
    and actively seeking work as a condition of being paid unemployment
    compensation.

    IMPLEMENT INTIATIVES AND PROVIDE SERVICES THAT ARE MOST EFFECTIVE IN
            ASSISTING UNEMPLOYED WORKERS IN RETURNING TO WORK
        It has been well established that effective job search reduces the
    number of weeks that individuals remain on unemployment compensation
    and serves to more quickly fill the staffing needs of employers. The
    use of web based job search systems and public/private partnerships has
    demonstrated that greater efficiency and effectiveness in job search
    can be a win/win by reducing the duration of unemployment compensation,
    and returning unemployed workers to the workforce more quickly.
        The population of long term unemployed workers is not monolithic.
    Long term unemployed claimants are broadly representative of the
    workforce and different strategies are needed for the variety of
    individuals and their barriers to employment.
        The Reemployment & Eligibility Assessment Program (REA) is
    currently provided with a small amount of federal funding to promote
    rapid reemployment of UI claimants, reduce overpayments and cost-
    savings for the UI trust fund. The REA combines in-person interviews
    with assessment of individual claimant skills and abilities, labor
    market information and the development of a work-search plan. The REA
    program has been demonstrated in many states to reduce the duration of
    unemployment for individuals participating in the program and should be
    expanded as a priority to additional claimants.

    Implement Effective Reemployment Initiatives
        An analysis of the makeup of the 4.4 million long term unemployed
    claimants and those who are likely to exhaust unemployment compensation
    who are currently claiming state unemployment compensation is needed at
    the state and one-stop local area level to determine the most effective
    ways to assist them in returning to work.
        Once there is a determination of the size of the population to be
    served and an evaluation of resources needed, assessments of workers
    should form the basis on which to determine whether the individuals are
    in need of additional job search, training, and/or support services.
        The publicly funded workforce system in place today is limited in
    its capacity, and an effective plan must combine public as well as
    privately funded services, and an emphasis on active work search,
    reemployment services, targeted training and incentives to create jobs.
        The leveraging of public funding across program areas as well as
    private funding driven by employers who are making hiring decisions can
    be extremely effective in developing the training and support needed to
    return unemployed workers to work.
        UWC supports the continued use of reemployment rate measures by the
    U.S. Department of Labor as part of the evaluation of the UI system.
    The goal of employment security should be employment, and performance
    measures should reflect this priority.
    Promote Targeted Employment Based Training
        The assessment and referral to training and placement of unemployed
    workers can be effective in enabling workers to find new work. Employer
    based programs, such as customized training, on the job training, and
    programs such as Georgia Works that permit individuals to work as
    employees or trainees in anticipation of long-term employment are the
    most effective in moving unemployed workers into training which is
    likely to lead to employment.
        Active participation by employers is the key to successful training
    as employers ultimately make the hiring decisions. Targeted initiatives
    in the areas of health services, manufacturing, and other growth areas
    make sense in the current economy as a way to meet employer needs and
    to reduce unemployment.
        Individuals qualifying for unemployment compensation benefits
    typically have work experience and training from prior work that
    enables them to find similar work. However, particularly during a long
    term recession such as we have experienced, a larger number of
    individuals become structurally unemployed and may find themselves with
    skills that are no longer in demand in the labor market.
        These individuals may require services well beyond the temporary
    partial wage replacement provided by the UI program and job search
    services, and are best served in partnership with private and public
    programs. Trade Adjustment Assistance and the Workforce Investment Act
    provide a broader array of support services, assessment, testing,
    skills training, and referral services.

    Keep the Role of the UI program Focused on Returning Unemployed
            Claimants to Work.
        A long list of social safety net programs and services has been
    established since unemployment insurance was enacted in 1935. The list
    includes TANF, TAA, WIA, SNAP, Medicaid, Medicare, heating assistance,
    subsidized housing, subsidized child care, subsidized health care, and
    earned income tax credits. Many of these programs include a cash
    assistance component.
        Unemployment Insurance is the primary social safety net program
    targeted in providing economic security for individuals who rely
    principally on their employment and wages for support. The role of the
    program is to provide short term support for individuals as they search
    for work after becoming unemployed through no fault of their own. The
    program is not designed or funded to provide support payments over
    extended periods of time. The goal of the system must be the efficient
    and effective return of claimants to work.
        In developing plans to assist long term unemployed workers in
    returning to work, the UI program should be used in conjunction with
    workforce programs dedicated to provide job search, reemployment and
    training services that may be funded from other sources but are aligned
    to provide economic security and effective workforce services to the
    benefit of the individual, employers, and economic development.

    CONCLUSION
        Assisting more than 4.4 million unemployed claimants in finding
    employment is a tremendous challenge that calls for the effective use
    of federal and state resources across a range of social service
    programs as well as the active participation of employers and
    individual unemployed workers. In developing strategies to assist
    unemployed workers there must first be job creation to provide
    employment opportunities.
        Now is not the time to increase payroll taxes and Congress should
    act to provide relief from Title XII interest and FUTA tax penalties in
    2011 and 2012 to encourage job creation in the private sector.
        Federal extended benefit and emergency programs should be reformed
    to better target benefits while increasing the emphasis on work search
    and reemployment services.
        States should be properly funded to work with unemployed workers
    and employers to improve initiatives and services designed to return
    unemployed claimants to work. The REA program, job search services,
    assessment and referral techniques, and improved integrity should
    receive priority funding with the expectation that there will be a
    quantifiable reduction in the duration of unemployment compensation and
    an increase in the number of unemployed claimants referred and hired.
        Training initiatives should be closely coordinated with employers
    in developing customized training, OJTs, apprenticeships and other
    employer based training that leads to employment.
        Training and services provided for unemployed claimants should also
    be coordinated with providers in the private sector and with other
    workforce programs aligned to put claimants back to work.

        Chairman DAVIS. Your time has expired. Thank you.
        We will turn to questions now. I will begin the questioning
    with Mr. Holmes.
        I know that you reviewed the administration's unemployment
    tax increase proposal regarding the moratorium and the pickup
    in 2014, and I have seen your testimony that supports short-
    term relief of State and Federal tax hikes associated with
    Federal UI loans to the States. If relief is provided to States
    now, should it be paid, in your opinion, paid for by raising
    taxes higher in future years or by cutting spending?
        Mr. HOLMES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I really think that the time to examine spending levels in
    extended benefits and EUC has come in light of the change in
    the circumstances in the economy. I think we should note that
    the Federal unemployment tax that funds the EUC account which
    funds extended benefits is in deficit and is borrowing right
    now. So for each additional dollar that is paid in extended
    benefits or EUC, we add another dollar to the Federal deficit.
    I think we should look at the spending side first before we
    move to looking at any tax.
        Chairman DAVIS. Where would you look in terms of any
    spending?
        Mr. HOLMES. I think as we look at the data State by State
    and look to what are the labor markets in States that are
    growing, where there are opportunities for work, those are
    States where you could curtail some of the additional weeks of
    extended benefits and maybe move some of that money over to
    other activities that would push people into work or encourage
    them to work. But I think those would be the places to look.
        Chairman DAVIS. Following on that point, under today's
    rules, people in States with an unemployment rate of 6\1/2\
    percent are guaranteed 86 weeks of benefits. Meanwhile, people
    in States like Nevada, with unemployment rates twice that
    level, qualify for only 13 more weeks of benefits, a total of
    99 weeks. From a cost standpoint, only 19 percent of emergency
    extended benefit payments are targeted to the high unemployment
    States, with the remaining 81 percent provided without regard
    to the State unemployment rate. Do you feel it makes sense to
    pay benefits this way or should they be better targeted to
    where unemployment is the highest?
        Mr. HOLMES. I very much agree we should be targeting to
    where the unemployment is higher, because that is where the
    need presents itself more acutely. I would say a targeting
    approach makes better sense.
        Chairman DAVIS. What do you think would be gained by that
    from a standpoint of taxes and job creation?
        Mr. HOLMES. When you look at the entire package of
    initiatives, first of all, it enables the relief from tax that
    I talked about, which enables businesses to make the decision
    to hire more people, which reduces unemployment compensation.
    And, also, it targets more effectively--whether it is work
    search or training, you can target dollars more effectively to
    move people into jobs that are available in the economy.
        Chairman DAVIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Holmes.
        I am trying to lead from the front with the example of
    brevity equals elegance due to the challenges that we have had.
        Mr. DOGGETT.
        Mr. DOGGETT. Thank you. I will follow your excellent
    leadership in that regard.
        Mr. Holmes, do you feel that cutting job training funds
    will be helpful to the efforts of getting the unemployed back
    to work?
        Mr. HOLMES. I think that the question of training again is
    a matter of targeting the training to employment. So the
    question really should be how are we----
        Mr. DOGGETT. Do you think we can cut the overall level of
    job training funds and still come out ahead with regard to
    unemployment?
        Mr. HOLMES. Again, I think it is how you target the funds
    that are available.
        Mr. DOGGETT. Ms. Cox, how do you feel about cutting job
    training funds?
        Ms. COX. Well, two things on that piece. First, when you
    talk job training funds, when you talk cutting, I would say
    first it is flexibility right now. States have to deal with
    formulas set up by the Feds of where we can allocate those
    resources between youth, dislocated workers, and adults.
        So I have already very little funds in that area, almost 7
    million, and almost half of that is for youth. I have got kids,
    would love my kids to work. But when we are talking about
    dislocated workers, my first preference would be that we have
    that ability to switch funds between youth, dislocated workers,
    and adults.
        Mr. DOGGETT. So you don't want to see your total amount of
    funds cut, you want flexibility in how they are used?
        Ms. COX. I would say we are already struggling with
    training dollars. But I always think there are efficiencies.
    Right now, when I look at the bureaucracy in terms of system
    design, I do think there is some waste. I don't think we would
    want to cut training dollars, but I think we would want to look
    at system design and cut where the waste is and try to leave
    the resources for training there as much as you can. But I
    would certainly not be opposed to reducing bureaucracy.
        Mr. DOGGETT. If you can identify any specific areas of
    waste after your testimony to supplement that, I think we would
    all like to have it.
        Ms. COX. Sure. We have some ideas.
        Mr. DOGGETT. We all want to ferret out waste.
        [The information follows:]
         Mrs. Kristen Cox, Executive Director, Utah Workforce Services
        While the Workforce Investment Act provides critical services for
    America's workforce, its effectiveness can be hampered by overly
    restrictive requirements or outdated business processes. It is
    designed--like most mandates--through a focus on policy and oversight
    rather than on effective system design.
        Integrating policy with efficient business process design and a
    focus on outcomes would eliminate waste and provide more value to the
    customer while maintaining funds for job training and related
    activities. What follows are a few recommendations to eliminate waste
    and improve the system. These, and other similar recommendations Utah
    is considering internally, take into account wasteful activities such
    as unnecessary hand-offs and time spent on approvals, reworks, and
    duplication--just to name a few.

    National Emergency Grants
        Allow states to retain more resources to respond to emergency lay-
    offs as compared to the current National Emergency Grant process.
    Today, it can take months for a state's NEG request to be approved--
    preventing states from responding to layoffs when the need is greatest.

    Data Validation
        The level of effort required to provide data validation is not
    worth the limited benefit. Data validation of 800 cases does provide
    limited case trend information, but a smaller case sample--100, for
    example, would provide basically the same information. Over a two month
    period, a total of six to eight staff are dedicated to a process that
    produces limited results or outcomes. For data validation to have this
    kind of impact for a small state like Utah implies that the national
    implications are significant. The effort required from DOL for data
    validation far exceeds the dozens of other programs administered by the
    Department of Workforce Services.

    Flexibility between Funding Streams
        Current funding formulas require states to spend an allocated
    dollar amount within a specific training category, i.e., youth,
    dislocated worker, and adult. If there is a greater need in one
    category than another, we are unable to transfer funds between the
    youth category and the adult/dislocated worker categories. There have
    been instances when funds have gone unspent in one category and could
    have been used in another. States should be given the flexibility to
    use funds based on local economic need.

    Verification of Social Security Numbers and Information
        DOL has not taken the lead in coordinating the electronic
    verification of social security information. Manually providing the
    data incurs a great deal of waste in time and effort. States currently
    obtain social security information in an electronic format for other
    programs such as TANF and SNAP, but DOL training programs are behind
    the times in allowing the electronic verification of social security
    information.

    Consolidation of the Trade Adjustment Act with WIA Training Programs
        Training programs authorized under TAA ultimately benefit the same
    individuals served under WIA. Case in point: regardless of whether a
    worker lost his/her job because of work going out of the country or
    because of downsizing, the result is the same--a lost job. Allowing a
    state to integrate the funding and reduce duplicative administrative
    functions would improve efficiency and create equity among customer
    groups currently being served under different programs.
        Many other areas could be improved such as the grant process,
    reporting, and state plan requirements. With the right focus and design
    thinking, WIA could become a much leaner and efficient program and
    significantly impact America's competitiveness.

        Mr. DOGGETT. Dr. Boushey, I think there is some merit to
    the approach that Commissioner Pauken has described in the
    Texas Back to Work Program, but I have some concerns going
    forward about financing it by taking money from extended
    unemployment benefits. I wonder if you might respond with your
    opinion on that.
        Ms. BOUSHEY. I think there are a couple of issues.
        First off, the money that goes out for the unemployment
    insurance system is supposed to help folks who are unemployed
    while they job search. And so certainly we both want them to be
    job searching, but we need to make sure that the solvency and
    that those funds are still being used for the unemployment
    insurance system. We have already heard up here today that
    there are a number of problems with the system. Most of the
    States are solvent. It doesn't seem to make a lot of sense to
    take moneys from a system that already is having trouble to put
    it towards something else.
        I think that is connected to the conversation that the
    House is also having about whether or not you want to cut those
    job training programs. It doesn't make sense to cut those
    training programs in half. You are sort of robbing Peter to pay
    Paul, if you will.
        But I also think that there are a couple of things. While
    training programs are certainly important and we need to get
    folks into them, we need to make sure that we are training
    people for both jobs that exist and that we are recognizing the
    demand problem in front of us.
        One of the things about the labor market right now is it is
    not the case that every worker that is unemployed needs to get
    their high school diploma or needs vocational training. When
    you look at the long-term unemployed, for example, unemployed
    managers make up 1 in 10 of the unemployed. Forty-six percent
    have been searching for a new job for at least 6 months. But
    among construction workers, only 1 in 14 of the total
    unemployed, only 36 percent have been searching for a job for
    at least 6 months. So it is not the case. Those folks who are
    disproportionately long-term unemployed are in fact in
    managerial occupations and other occupations where a GED or
    vocational training may not be appropriate.
        I think your point that you made at the very beginning, the
    problem isn't the unemployed, it is unemployment. We need to
    focus on demand as a key part of this issue.
        Mr. DOGGETT. I know we won't confront each other about
    these points, but specifically on the issue of the half a
    billion dollars of unemployment funds Texas did not take,
    didn't your office as well as the legislative budget board
    determine that for almost the next decade there would be no
    additional burden on the State of Texas by taking those funds.
        Mr. PAUKEN. Congressman Doggett, we were prepared to--in
    fact I came up to Washington last year, met with some members
    of the Texas delegation to devise a program whereby we would
    get the $550 million, do what the Congress mandated. But at the
    time when the Federal money had run out, been fully exhausted,
    then we would be permitted to have a sunset provision. It is a
    simple two paragraph amendment; and, unfortunately, it got
    rejected.
        And so the reality is that--I just think this is a matter,
    a philosophical matter. I think it is a move to federalize
    State unemployment laws; and the idea that a State is under a
    Federal law, even after the Federal funds have run out, I think
    is an overreach on the part of the Federal Government.
        Mr. DOGGETT. We will just agree to disagree.
        Chairman DAVIS. The gentleman's time has expired.
        The gentleman from Minnesota, Mr. Paulsen.
        Mr. PAULSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Chairman, as you noted in your opening statement--I was
    trying to ask a question of Ms. Cox and Mr. Pauken----
        You noted in your opening statement there seems to have
    been a breakdown in recent years with our employment security
    systems becoming less successful at helping unemployed people
    find and take jobs. And in Minnesota, as a way to match
    employers with the unemployed, we have Minnesotaworks.net where
    we have over 71,000 resumes that are posted for nearly 32,000
    jobs. It seems like a good start, but there is certainly more
    we can do to bridge the gap or repair the system, I would
    think. And see if you agree with that.
        But, for example, should we hold States more financially
    accountable for helping unemployed workers find jobs? Do we
    have systems in place that do that today and do they work?
        Ms. COX. Well, from my perspective--DOL recently I think
    has acknowledged that the reemployment of UI claimants is
    important, but there is not a real meaningful measure in place
    that drives States to reemploy individuals. As I said earlier,
    it is more by State design than it is by Federal design. UI
    can't do it alone.
        So in your example with the job matching program, we have
    used Workforce Investment Act dollars, Wagner-Peyser dollars to
    build better technology to help match unemployed workers with
    jobs that actually exist in Utah. But that is because we have
    been able to pull funds across because they are all under my
    department and we have a singular philosophy. That is not
    always the case.
        At the end of the day, it is much easier to define process
    and point to what people would do. I think the harder
    discussion is to say, what is the outcome and how do we measure
    it? And I think that measurement is something that you would
    have to look at across systems. Either you collapse the funding
    or you have a common measure across Wagner-Peyser, WIA, and UI
    so they are all responsible and play a role in the re-
    employment of UI claimants.
        Because it really is at this point some States do it and
    some States don't based on the philosophical direction of the
    State. In my perspective, re-employing UI claimants is
    critical. I talked earlier with a colleague today the program
    shouldn't be the unemployment insurance program. It should be
    the insurance employment program. That should be our focus
    across all workforce development agencies.
        Mr. PAULSEN. Mr. Pauken, would you agree?
        Mr. PAUKEN. I would agree with her sentiments; and, in
    Texas, we do have a measurement for accountability, a 10-week
    measurement.
        Mr. PAULSEN. Let me just follow up with you, too, because I
    think you described in your testimony the Texas Back to Work
    program in which Texas provides employer subsidies.
        Mr. PAUKEN. I call it an incentive.
        Mr. PAULSEN. Minnesota actually had a very similar wage
    program in the 1980s. And you mentioned this program saves
    taxpayers' money, counting all of the benefits paid and taxes
    not collected while someone is unemployed compared to when they
    have a job. So could Texas use even $1 of the Federal extended
    benefit funds for Texas Back to Work subsidies or incentives to
    get someone hired who might otherwise continue to collect
    Federal subsidies?
        Mr. PAUKEN. We can't now, but I would like to see us have
    the discretion to be able to do that. It is a win-win situation
    because we have seen that we are hiring not only people who are
    on the Texas benefits but then they go on to the Federal
    benefits and even people who exhaust their Federal benefits.
    And we have seen--it is $2,000 over 4 months, and it is for
    employees of modest means, people making $15 or less, and that
    is a pool of 250,000 in Texas, and we are at 11. We will easily
    be at 25 if we get additional State funding. And if we had more
    discretion--and that is what we are really seeking.
        I have been out of government since the Reagan
    administration days, and so much seems to be mandated from the
    Federal Government. Let the flowers bloom at the State and
    local level. This is working, and it is helping the people who
    are unemployed and helping the employers who want to provide,
    get people back to work and get some on-the-job training.
        Mr. PAULSEN. So you would say it is a smart use of Federal
    taxpayer dollars to insist that they are spent on unemployment
    benefits instead of helping someone take a job if possible?
    More flexibility?
        Mr. PAUKEN. Absolutely. That is what we are asking for. It
    is more flexibility. And I think States can choose to go that
    direction if they choose to.
        But the idea of everything being in these little boxes and
    you are limited as to what you can do I think is the wrong way
    to go. I think we need to devolve power to the States and local
    communities in this area as well as in other areas.
        Chairman DAVIS. Thank you very much.
        Mr. McDermott.
        Mr. MCDERMOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Earlier this week, the Republicans had on the calendar a
    bill to extend TAA for another 4 months or so, Trade Assistance
    Adjustment. They pulled the bill. Does it make any difference
    to any of you?
        Mr. PAUKEN. Can I comment on that?
        The real answer, Congressman, is the opening comments some
    people made, the comments about the excesses of the Wall Street
    crowd. But if you have got a tax system that rewards, if you
    will, debt because debt is deductible, while punitively taxing
    savings capital investment employment, what you are doing is
    you are shipping jobs overseas. And the best way to deal with
    that issue is not sort of picking winners and losers in the
    little marginal fix here and there but change the way we tax
    business to level the playing field with our trading
    competitors.
        And I am glad to see Senator Fritz Hollings has come out
    for this, Congressman Paul Ryan has, Senator DeMint, Pat
    Choate, who was in our State who ran with Ross Perot as his
    vice presidential running mate as an independent. So I think
    there is a broad cross section. I think that is the way to
    address this issue, rather than the idea of always trying to
    come up with something where the government is going to do this
    or that.
        Mr. MCDERMOTT. Your solution for the unemployed is hold
    your breath until we pass a VAT in the United States Congress?
        Mr. PAUKEN. Not at all. My solution is the only way we are
    going to grow out of this, as the Kennedy administration saw
    and as the Reagan administration saw, is to grow the private
    sector. And since the Obama stimulus----
        Let me make one comment. Since the stimulus program began
    in February of 2009, while we have added approximately 400,00
    public-sector government jobs, we have lost another 2.7 million
    jobs from February, 2009, through May of 2010.
        What is being done isn't working. We really need to have a
    bold approach to change the way we tax business, and I mean
    this is beginning to emerge across the board. I mean, Leo
    Henry, who was an economic adviser to John Edwards, has been
    talking about this. Michael Lynn. This is an approach we need
    to take.
        Mr. MCDERMOTT. Reclaiming my time. You have given enough of
    your pitch.
        Ms. BOUSHEY. Can I respond to your question?
        Both on two things. You know, one, on the trade adjustment
    assistance dollars, I mean, that is certainly an important
    source of funding for those workers who have been displaced by
    trade; and we certainly, especially in these high unemployment
    times, need to get those moneys out to them.
        There is actually some very new interesting economic
    research that is doing a really nice job of documenting the
    impacts on both employment and wages from trade and looking at
    especially communities that have high imports from China and
    how this is affecting them. I think there is even more and more
    evidence this is important, we need to be doing more things to
    both address the kinds of things that you are talking about to
    make sure that we are not exporting jobs overseas but also to
    deal with the aftershocks of it for the policies that we have
    already implemented.
        But then I do need to take sort of a point of information.
    We have seen growth in the private sector in terms of job gains
    over the past year. So it is not the case that since the
    Recovery Act we have seen the--we saw that the nadir of job
    losses were the month that Obama took office and then we saw
    job losses get smaller and smaller and they have been growing
    and the private sector have been adding jobs. And we know the
    economic growth that we have seen is in no small part
    attributable to what this Congress did, the dramatic actions
    that they took 2 years ago to help provide the economy.
        Ms. COX. But one thing on the TAA that--I am not going to
    get in this high-policy discussion. Mine is just on-the-ground
    practical. The folks who get the TAA benefits tend to get a
    richer package than folks that are dislocated through WIA
    provisions. And this is again going to collapsing the
    bureaucracy and just creating more flexibility so that we can
    serve folks who need help.
        And my preference would be--I guess the question I pose is,
    why do we have a separate TAA benefit package for one set of
    workers as compared to workers where they still lose their
    jobs, they weren't outsourced, but they get kind of a lower
    benefit package?
        So that is just a policy question I think that is worth
    consideration of why we offer kind of two strategies at the end
    of the day for people who don't have a job. How do you blend
    those I think is an important question just in terms of trying
    to operationalize this and administer this on the ground. It
    becomes challenging.
        Mr. MCDERMOTT. I think there ought to be a training benefit
    for everybody.
        Mr. Holmes.
        Mr. HOLMES. The only comments I would add is the kinds of
    services that are provided in TAA that may not be as readily
    available in the WIA system are the kinds of training that
    might be needed for longer-term unemployed. So I think I would
    share Ms. Cox's view and we should take a look at how to
    address those issues and not just with those that are impacted
    by trade but also more generally with the population that is
    long-term unemployed.
        Mr. MCDERMOTT. Thank you.
        Chairman DAVIS. The gentleman's time has expired.
        The gentleman from North Dakota, Mr. Berg.
        Mr. BERG. Thank you.
        A couple of questions. First, kind of a quick comment.
        Dr. Boushey, I don't think I would be here today if we
    increased jobs since the stimulus passed. Clearly, one of the
    hopes was that it would be a job creating by putting this money
    in and that we would never exceed 8 percent unemployment.
    Clearly, it has been a different path; and, of course, no one
    could predict the future at that time. So I am not here to say
    anything other than the fact that there is a couple of million
    more jobs out there, people looking for work.
        I want to thank Ms. Cox for your presentation. I was very
    impressed with it. Utah has expanded an economy over 3\1/2\
    percent over the last 5 years. Very impressive. Second only to
    North Dakota. I like that. I had to repeat that.
        You know, it seems to me coming from the State that--and I
    have heard this--how do we get States to get more waivers? And
    it seems like that, you know, we did a welfare reform years
    ago, and States applied for waivers. They received waivers. It
    was like the Federal Government or the Congress said we want to
    hear your ideas. If I understand, we are all revenue neutral.
    So we weren't saying we are going to pay you more money, just
    we want to hear your creative ideas.
        I guess what I am asking is, should we provide the States
    more flexibility with waivers, or is there a way we could
    streamline that process to bring those good ideas more quickly
    to action at the State level?
        Ms. COX. Yes and yes. And I say that because, one, waivers
    is the way to really encourage laboratories of innovation at
    the State level. It is true how TANF came about because of that
    type of innovation.
        I struggle with the waiver process because it can become
    unto itself a cottage industry in the way business is done and
    you don't end up getting the staff you change but just plain--
    this ongoing role of having to change regulations to get simple
    things done.
        So I would say if we could get DOL waiver authority so that
    we could put ideas forward, it would be great, with the
    expectation that there is very clear turnaround times--and this
    isn't DOL. This has been some of our experience with other
    Federal bureaucracies. There is a clear turnaround time of when
    those waivers have to be approved. There is clear criteria so
    we are not playing the back-and-forth game for 7 months and it
    is a simplified streamline process. I think it is plausible and
    very doable, but those expectations I think have to be built
    into any waiver initiatives.
        Mr. BERG. So maybe setting three or four guiding principles
    that these are the waivers, these are areas we are hoping to
    accomplish. Let States come up with them. And what kind of a
    turnaround time?
        Ms. COX. I like about 2 days. But knowing that is not very
    realistic, 8 months.
        Mr. BERG. Would that count the weekend or not?
        Ms. COX. We will give them the weekend off.
        But I think I may have some extreme views. We have sat on
    some waivers--and I will be bold. We have got some really good
    folks at the Department of Labor, but some of our NEG grant
    applications have taken--this is national emergency grants,
    ``emergency'' being the operative term--4 to 6 months to get
    approved and turned around. They are busy. This isn't a
    pointing finger game. But that doesn't work when you are on the
    ground and you need people, you have got people at your
    doorstep who need help.
        So I think it is a collaborative effort with the DOL with
    what the resources are. But I would like to see a 30-day
    turnaround time. That sounds extreme, but you have got to be
    bold or bureaucracy can creep.
        Mr. BERG. Thank you. I yield back.
        Chairman DAVIS. I would like to recognize my friend from
    Georgia, Mr. Lewis.
        Mr. LEWIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for
    holding this hearing.
        Mr. Holmes, several media outlets, including CNN's
    money.com, have reported the long-term unemployed workers are
    now faced with hiring discrimination from some employers who
    have placed a restriction on their job posting that says,
    ``unemployed candidates will not be considered or perspective
    candidates must be currently employed.''
        What would you say to an unemployed worker who is facing
    this kind of discrimination? Something is not fair there.
    Something is not right there. If you are unemployed, it is sort
    of saying don't apply. But if you are employed, it is okay for
    you to apply. What would you say to an unemployed worker?
        Mr. HOLMES. Well, I haven't seen those reports. I would say
    that is inappropriate for any employer to post that, and I
    think for the unemployed person, I think that they should be
    searching for work and looking for work and that is how you get
    from unemployed into employment.
        I think it is more a question of an inappropriate notice if
    in fact that is what has been put up on the part of the
    employer.
        Mr. LEWIS. It is my understanding that CNN has been running
    this for some time, and I would like to believe--CNN is based
    in my district, and I would like to believe they are pretty
    reliable.
        Anyone else want to respond?
        Mr. PAUKEN. Yes. The Texas Back to Work program
    discriminates in favor of people who are unemployed. In order
    to be able to participate in the program, you have to have lost
    your job through no fault of your own beyond unemployment
    compensation in Texas or extended benefits or even if extended
    benefits have been exhausted.
        So that is an initiative which has got support from
    business and labor organizations in our State. And I think we
    would just like to be able to have the kind of discretion and
    flexibility that has been discussed in order to use some of the
    Federal funds supposedly to encourage job creation to expand
    that program.
        Mr. LEWIS. Well, I have an article here that appeared in
    Money from last year. And looking for work, unemployed, need
    not apply.
        Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit it for the record.
        Chairman DAVIS. Without objection.
        [The information follows:]

                            The Honorable John Lewis

    LOOKING FOR WORK? UNEMPLOYED NEED NOT APPLY
    CNNMoney.com
    By Chris Isidore, Senior Writer
    June 16, 2010: 4:25 AM ET
    http://money.cnn.com/2010/06/16/news/economy/unemployed_need_not_apply/

        NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com)--The last thing someone who is unemployed
    needs to be told is that they shouldn't even apply for the limited
    number of job openings that are available. But some companies and
    recruiters are doing just that.
        Employment experts say they believe companies are increasingly
    interested only in applicants who already have a job.
        ``I think it is more prevalent than it used to be,'' said Rich
    Thompson, vice president of learning and performance for Adecco Group
    North America, the world's largest staffing firm. ``I don't have hard
    numbers, but three out of the last four conversations I've had about
    openings, this requirement was brought up.''
        Some job postings include restrictions such as ``unemployed
    candidates will not be considered'' or ``must be currently employed.''
    Those explicit limitations have occasionally been removed from listings
    when an employer or recruiter is questioned by the media though.
        That's what happened with numerous listings for grocery store
    managers throughout the Southeast posted by a South Carolina recruiter,
    Latro Consulting.
        After CNNMoney called seeking comments on the listings last week,
    the restriction against unemployed candidates being considered came
    down. Latro Consulting refused to comment when contacted.
        Sony Ericsson, a global phone manufacturer that was hiring for a
    new Georgia facility, also removed a similar restriction after local
    reporters wrote about it. According to reports, a Sony Ericsson
    spokesperson said that a mistake had been made.
        But even if companies don't spell out in a job listing that they
    won't consider someone who currently doesn't have a job, experts said
    that unemployed applicants are typically ruled out right off the bat.
        ``Most executive recruiters won't look at a candidate unless they
    have a job, even if they don't like to admit to it,'' said Lisa
    Chenofsky Singer, a human resources consultant from Millburn, NJ,
    specializing in media and publishing jobs.
        She said when she proposes candidates for openings, the first
    question she is often asked by a recruiter is if they currently have a
    job. If the answer is no, she's typically told the unemployed candidate
    won't be interviewed.
        ``They think you must have been laid off for performance issues,''
    she said, adding that this is a ``myth'' in a time of high
    unemployment.
        It is not against the law for companies to exclude the unemployed
    when trying to fill positions, but Judy Conti, a lobbyist for the
    National Employment Law Project, said the practice is a bad one.
        ``Making that kind of automatic cut is senseless; you could be
    missing out on the best person of all,'' she said. ``There are millions
    of people who are unemployed through no fault of their own. If an
    employer feels that the best qualified are the ones already working,
    they have no appreciation of the crisis we're in right now.''
        Conti added that firms that hire unemployed job seekers could also
    benefit from a recently-passed tax break that essentially exempts them
    from paying the 6.2% of the new hire's wages in Social Security taxes
    for the rest of this year.
        Thompson said he also thinks ruling out the unemployed is a bad
    idea. But he said that part of the problem is that recruiters and human
    resource departments are being overwhelmed with applications for any
    job opening that is posted. So they're looking for any short-cuts to
    get the list of applicants to consider down to a more manageable size.
        ``It's a tough process to determine which unemployed applicants
    were laid off even though they brought value to their company and which
    ones had performance issues,'' he said. ``I understand the notion. But
    there's the top x percent of unemployed candidates who are very viable
    and very valuable. You just have to do the work to find them.''

        Mr. LEWIS. Dr. Boushey, I have heard over and over again
    that the Recovery Act, it didn't help. That it didn't matter.
    Before the Recovery Act was signed into law on February 17,
    2009, we were losing about 750,000 jobs per month. Since the
    Act was signed, we have been creating jobs, more jobs. We are
    not there yet. But we are on our way little by little. It takes
    a little time to turn around a big ship. Could you respond?
        Ms. BOUSHEY. Certainly.
        I mean, it takes a little time to turn around a big ship,
    as you said. It is also the case that we have seen job growth
    coming back in the private sector. We are not seeing it come
    back fast enough.
        We knew the day that the Recovery Act was signed that it
    was big and it was bold, but there were many economists who
    said this isn't going to build a full bridge across that chasm,
    which is the massive unemployment that we are seeing. We have
    seen a lot of the dollars out there have been spent. It has
    created a lot of great programs. We have heard a lot today
    about this Texas program, which, of course, used TANF emergency
    funds to fund this--getting folks into these public-private
    partnership job training programs.
        So some of the things we are talking about today are the
    impact of that. But it is going to take some time.
        And I think I would urge us to just note that we still have
    an output gap in our economy. Even though we took this big
    step, it wasn't big enough relative to the big hole that we
    created.
        Mr. PAUKEN. Could I just respond? Just say one correction.
        Primary funding for that Texas Back to Work program was
    State funding. We did use some Federal funding, but the primary
    source was State funding.
        And I would simply suggest that since the stimulus program
    began, through May of 2010, it has been a loss of an additional
    2.7 million private sector jobs; and I don't know how you can
    call that a success.
        Mr. LEWIS. Mr. Chairman, I have a chart here. I wish
    everyone could see it: Change in Private Employment December,
    2007, to January, 2011.
        Chairman DAVIS. If the gentleman would like to put that
    into the record.
        Mr. LEWIS. Yes.
        [The information follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5329A.020

        Chairman DAVIS. Thank you. The gentleman's time has
    expired.
        Mr. Smith from Nebraska.
        Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman; and, to the panel, I
    appreciate the discussion that we are able to have here today.
        Mr. Holmes, if you could reflect a little bit on some of
    this information here, and I have a question. Obviously, you
    are probably well aware of the numbers, that 4 million folks
    are currently collecting Federal extended unemployment
    insurance benefits. And since June of 2008, the Federal
    Government has spent a record $180 billion for these benefits
    and covering benefits in some States for up to 99 weeks. So
    this number is in comparison to the $23 billion following the
    2001 recession. Where is the money coming from, in your
    opinion.
        Mr. HOLMES. Thank you, Representative Smith.
        The money is coming from a series of--with respect to
    extended benefits, the money is coming from the EUC account,
    the Expended Unemployment Compensation account. That account is
    in deficit. I think the last I looked the two FUTA funded
    accounts were about $30 to $40 billion in deficit. That money
    is being provided then as a transfer from the general revenue
    into that account; and, in essence, it is adding to the Federal
    debt. Every additional dollar that is being spent now in
    extended benefits is adding to the national debt. So we are
    borrowing to pay for extended benefits right now.
        Mr. SMITH. But it is general funds conceivably from one
    State to another, given the varying conditions. We don't all
    get to enjoy the North Dakota status.
        Mr. HOLMES. Right.
        Let me just be clear about this. There are really two
    programs here. There is the emergency unemployment compensation
    that was part of the Recovery Act and actually enacted prior to
    that starting in 2008. That money is coming chiefly from
    Federal revenue directly. The other, the regular extended
    benefits which you are talking about that rely on targets
    depending on unemployment rates chiefly, that money is coming,
    as I described before, through the dedicated FUTA funded
    account and then an advance from general revenue.
        Mr. SMITH. Very good. I guess, for the record, Nebraska
    isn't too far behind North Dakota. There is some good
    employment situation.
        But certainly nationwide we do face those challenges. I
    think the issue of product demand or creating more demand for
    production is very important. I do share some frustration that
    I visited some businesses in my district that they do have the
    demand but they are so nervous about adding new employees. They
    just don't know what is coming down in terms of the regulatory
    front. They don't know what is around the bend.
        So does anyone else wish to comment on the situation?
        Ms. BOUSHEY. May I speak to that?
        Certainly this has been a few years of there has been a lot
    of change. It has been a dramatic economy, and you can
    understand why especially small- and medium-sized businesses
    have a hard time making commitments to hiring. But it also
    seems that we are seeing signs the economy is improving and we
    are seeing especially large businesses--they are the ones that
    are holding on to a lot of cash and not making investment,
    right? Investment is at its lowest level in five decades.
        That is one of the key questions that I would encourage you
    to think about, that you see--they may be a little concerned
    about--although some of those big decisions have in large part
    been made.
        Mr. SMITH. What do you mean by large? I am just curious.
        Ms. BOUSHEY. When I say small, I am typically thinking of
    the employer with fewer than a hundred people. Something sort
    of larger companies that are on the stock exchange, those kinds
    of companies that have made a lot of money are holding on to it
    and aren't making those investments here, creating jobs here in
    the United States.
        Mr. PAUKEN. Well, the majority of the new jobs
    traditionally are created by small businesses, and they are not
    creating jobs in this environment. That is why I think it is a
    structural employment situation; and they are appropriately
    nervous, in my judgment. So I don't see that the current
    approach is working well. And I think until they have
    confidence that you are serious about growing the private
    sector they are going to be reluctant to hire.
        And the other concern is we are seeing an up-tick in our
    State and elsewhere in temporary firms hiring. Normally, that
    is a prelude to permanent employment, but this may be different
    this time as companies are reluctant to put people on permanent
    payrolls.
        Ms. COX. May I make one comment please?
        It is more the moral dilemma I kind of struggle with. Utah
    is one of the few States that has not taken EB by choice. And a
    while ago, I guess it was a year ago, we were at a conference
    and someone from the Federal level couldn't believe we weren't
    taking it. Well, it is free money.
        And sometimes in these discussions when you are at the
    State level versus the Federal level, it seems like there is a
    disconnect, that all of the money is ours and those who have
    responsibility also need the authority. And so those at the
    State level we talk about our general funds, and then at the
    Federal level it is the Federal dollars. And there seems to be
    this, I don't know, disconnect that all of that money is ours--
    EB, EUC. And so it is easy for States to sometimes not worry
    about it as much because the Federal Government is going to
    handle it.
        I have to go in front of my State legislature over my
    general funds, and I feel super accountable about that. But,
    man, if it is EUC money coming in, I am worried about it, but I
    am not in front of you guys having to be accountable even
    though we are the pass-through. So that mind-set is concerning
    to me.
        Chairman DAVIS. Excuse me, Mrs. Cox. The gentleman's time
    has expired. You have a few seconds to wrap it up.
        Mr. SMITH. If you wouldn't mind submitting anything for the
    record, I would appreciate it as well.
        Chairman DAVIS. We would appreciate perhaps a detailed
    response in writing to that question. That way you won't be
    constrained by the clock.
        [The information follows:]
         Mrs. Kristen Cox. Executive Director, Utah Workforce Services
        Supporting Increased Flexibility of Resources: Separate federal
    funding sources and associated program boundaries can present obstacles
    to integrated service delivery. Federal law and Department of Labor
    regulations place clear limitations on how UI, Wagner-Peyser, and WIA
    funds can be spent. While the intent of the limitations is to ensure
    effective and appropriate program administration, the effect can be to
    make cross-program integration difficult.
        WIA Title I funds may not be spent on employment generating
    activities, economic development, and other activities, unless they are
    directly related to training for eligible individuals. Providing less
    restrictive regulations for WIA statewide activity funds could provide
    greater flexibility in getting individuals re-employed. Other program
    issues to consider include:
        Real-time access to federal data about customers. This could reduce
    administrative costs, support a more streamlined process for the
    customer, and ensure more accurate delivery of services. For example,
    access to Social Security information (SSN verification and benefit
    payments) is available to states for public assistance programs such as
    TANF, SNAP, and Medicaid. However, it is not currently available to
    support other programs such as WIA and WOTC.
        Expanding the scope of the UI program to achieve claimant re-
    employment would be an efficient use of funds and would help claimants
    become re-employed as quickly as possible.
        WIA, TANF, and SNAP programs offer waivers and more flexibility. If
    unemployment is one of our largest issues, why not give states more
    flexible options to help re-employ job seekers?

              DOL has recently shown good leadership with its focus
            on re-employment, its wage subsidy grants, and state consortium
            initiatives. It is time to connect benefits and employment into
            a seamless service delivery strategy without creating funding
            barriers.
              Utah has implemented multiple initiatives to help UI
            claimants become re-employed sooner. A few of these initiatives
            have been recognized at the national level. The U.S. Department
            of Labor awarded DWS the 2010 UI Innovation Award for our
            electronic correspondence system and the American Institute of
            Full Employment awarded DWS the 2010 Best Practices Award for
            our on-line worker profiling re-employment service program.
            These initiatives have helped Utah enjoy one of the lowest
            average UI duration rates in the country--16.6 weeks, despite
            having a fairly high wage replacement rate. While we have made
            significant progress, our goal is to continually strive to
            improve services for employers and job seekers.

    Summary of Recommendations
        Establish clear expectations for claimants that re-employment is a
    priority and requires a full-time commitment.
        Provide employers with wage, training, and tax incentives that
    provide economic benefits for employers to expand or retain their
    workforce.
        Increase program and funding integration that supports effective
    meshing of UI claimants with employers' workforce needs. Expansion of
    the Worker Profiling and Re-employment Services and REA grants are good
    examples of integrated funding between UI claimants and re-employment
    services.
        Increase flexibility of resources to make cross-program integration
    more efficient without creating funding barriers or jeopardizing
    program accountability.

        Chairman DAVIS. Mrs. Black from Tennessee.
        Mrs. BLACK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        My question is for you, Mr. Holmes, but any of you can
    answer that.
        I want to go back to the work search, because I was back in
    my State last week doing a listening tour. I visited a number
    of smaller companies and some manufacturing, and they indicated
    to me that they thought that there was a problem with the way
    in which the surveys are done.
        And you actually have in your testimony, you say, a recent
    survey of State unemployment agencies conducted for the UWC by
    the National Foundation for Unemployment Compensation and
    Workers' Compensation had 39 States reported exceptions to the
    general work search requirements, and one State reported that
    it had no work search requirement as a condition of eligibility
    for unemployment.
        Mr. HOLMES. Correct.
        Mrs. BLACK. And what I heard from many of these employers
    was that they knew of people in their own community that they
    went to church with, shopped at the grocery store, kids went to
    school with them, that would put down on the paper three
    different companies they went to when they never went there,
    and they just said, I still have this extension so I am not
    going to look for work. And these are jobs on average that--I
    asked what the salary was. So their average was about $15 an
    hour, so that was not a bad salary. But they were really
    concerned they weren't able to get employees in their door and
    still there was a high unemployment rate in this particular
    county that I was in.
        So I would like for you to speak to that and any one of the
    rest of you that might have suggestions of what we might do to
    make sure that the people who are unemployed, we are reaching
    the right population.
        Mr. HOLMES. Thank you for that question.
        I think that the experience that was relayed to you is
    fairly common across the country. That over the last, I would
    say, two or three decades, there has been less of an emphasis
    on the accountability of individuals to search for work and to
    take it seriously and also on whether or not those work
    searches are meaningful, do they have a plan to get back to
    work. A number of things that were often done in prior decades,
    I would say, more attention paid to that has been lost to some
    degree because of the focus on paying unemployment as quickly
    as possible.
        So I think that--and I mentioned this in my testimony--we
    need to establish some minimum standards for work search that
    everyone can note and that individuals would be expected to
    meet, and that way we would change the culture back to the idea
    that there is a personal responsibility to search for work in a
    meaningful way.
        Mr. PAUKEN. If I could add, in addition to that, I think
    that if you have the Federal extended benefits, if you also--
    those people on Federal extended benefits would have the option
    of getting the GED, getting additional vocational technical
    training, or if they didn't do A or B, do community service at
    a reasonable dollar value with local municipalities or fine
    non-profits like Habitat for Humanity. And I think the people
    who are gaming the system will choose not to do A, B, or C; and
    they are off the system. And the others, you give them an
    incentive to sort of get back in the system and kind of prepare
    yourself for a job.
        Ms. COX. One more thing. I don't think we have to reinvent
    the wheel. When you look at TANF, we certainly don't want to
    have the same participation requirements on TANF as we do on
    the UI customers, but there are lessons learned both in food
    stamps, E&T, employment and training, TANF and different
    aspects of UI when you work in an integrated model like we do.
        And I think it is about taking the best of all of those
    words. Accountability and expectations are certainly there.
    Random checks is part of it. Technology offers a lot of new
    ways to monitor logs and journals and actually document if
    people did their training on line. There are new technologies,
    and you can really blend that so it is not a one-size-fits-all
    approach.
        But those lessons I think you can find when you do some
    deep digging of how you pull the best practices around work
    first. It is our motto in our department: If you can work, you
    do work across all programs. And that is our model of trying to
    create an integrated system for all of our claimants,
    regardless of if you are food stamps or UI. It is a seamless
    system.
        Mrs. BLACK. And I am a big States rights person. So would
    you suggest that this be something that we would do in some way
    as a carrot to encourage some States or do we do it with a
    stick and penalize if you don't do what these criteria would be
    set out?
        Mr. HOLMES. If I may, I think that we have in the UI system
    since it was started this requirement that is implied that
    people be available for work and actively seeking work as a
    condition of being paid, but it is not in a statute anywhere.
    So just this statement in Federal statute just to clarify that
    would be helpful, I think.
        Chairman DAVIS. Thank you. The gentlewoman's time has
    expired.
        I want to thank each of our witnesses for your testimony. I
    want to thank you for investing the time and the research to
    share your opinions. It is an issue I care very much about. I
    know Mr. Doggett cares very much about this, approaching the
    process issues to help people in need and at the same time
    address the structural questions that will assure good
    stewardship of the resources. And we appreciate your help in
    understanding this issue further and look forward to continuing
    the dialogue.
        If any of our members have additional questions, they will
    submit them directly to you in writing and what we would ask is
    you submit your responses to us for the record so all members
    will have access to that information.
        And, with that, the committee stands adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 5:00 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
        [Submissions for the Record follow:]

                          Statement of Yvonne Goersch

    99ers Need Help While Waiting for Job Creations!!!!
    Name: Yvonne Goersch
    Title of Hearing: 99ers Need Help While Waiting for Job Creations!!!!

        The fact that I need to have a place to stay feed my child and to
    just survive while these jobs are being created is the most important
    thing in my life right now.
        I have worked my whole life and never thought this would happen to
    me I have sent at least 20 to 30 resumes a day and have gone to places
    and have only gotten 2 interviews which I did not get the job. I know
    there are people that say we aren't doing anything but sitting around
    collecting money that is completely wrong and also very upsetting .
        It drags all of us to a place where we don't and shouldn't be
    because we don't deserve it. We appreciate what the Government has done
    the fact that they only put in a 13 month extension and didn't include
    the 99ers is so wrong and now that the Republicans are a majority in
    the House it doesn't seem like we get any attention even though the
    Speaker of the House said if it is paid for we will get it through and
    they found a way to pay for it so it needs to be done!!!!!!!!
        We have to have money for gas to get to interviews and a roof over
    our head and food to eat while we are still looking for jobs that are
    going to be created.
        We help every other Country but the Government isn't willing to
    support 1.5 million people in the United States (that number is not
    correct either) and the fact that the unemployment went down to 9% from
    9.4% is also not correct it is a way for the Government to say things
    are getting better and we are doing our job.
        Well guess what even though you said 1.5 million people isn't
    really that much compared to how many people are on unemployment is so
    wrong to count us out while we voted for you and are about to have
    nothing.
        I don't have people to help me and I need that extra time and money
    since the job market is getting better to sustain me and my child so I
    can keep looking and driving there.
        Don't push us out because of our debt because this money would go
    straight into the economy and that will help the economy and help the
    99ers survive before you have people's lives on your conscience while
    you are living quite good and not worried about 1.5 people (which I
    know is not correct) we are losing hope and you guys are the only
    people that can help us for now and we need you to make sure we are
    taken care of while looking for jobs!!!!!!!!!!!
        We need this bill to pass ASAP HR6556 because it is all we have for
    hope and time to keep looking otherwise it will be the end of a lot of
    99ers so please do the right thing and help us and help the economy to
    keep going!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Thank you,

            Yvonne

                           Statement of Joyce Fields

        I have a story to tell. It is a story heard over and over again all
    across the country, by millions of unemployed Americans.

    PLEASE HELP U.S., THE UNEMPLOYED, GET BACK TO WORK. AND THERE ARE A LOT
            OF ``US''.
    PROFESSIONALS CANNOT FIND JOBS
        I am in my 50's and have worked hard all my life. Yet for the past
    year and 9 months I've been unemployed. A very humbling experience,
    since I held a professional banking job for almost 30 years before
    being laid off. Since I am single, I was able to move across the state
    to take another job. That job ended a few months later. The company cut
    my hours to 19 hours a week then laid me off.

    LOOKING FOR WORK
        I have sent out hundreds of resumes. I've even gone through the
    phonebook, sending resumes to every company nearby. To no avail. I have
    applied at fast food restaurants and cashiers jobs and was told I was
    overqualified. My last interview was six months ago. At that time, I
    interviewed at a large manufacturing plant. I was told over the past
    year almost half of their 1,500 employees were laid off and their jobs
    were sent to China and India. The employees who remain are working 45+
    hours a week. The position I applied for was part-time and temporary.
    It took months of persuasion, I was told, for the department manager to
    convince the company to fill this one part-time, temporary position. I
    also applied at a national retail store. There I was told my hours
    would be 0-24 a week, at minimum wage. Zero hours a week? This is
    happening at more and more companies. Because they know people are
    DESPERATE, employers can do whatever they want. Including denying
    employment to the long-term unemployed. Age discrimination is also a
    factor. Although companies do not ask your age, more and more are
    including round-about questions such as ``what year did you graduate
    high school''? This should not be legal. I have a lot of experience,
    good workmanship and good values, and know I can bring a lot to a
    company. I should not be denied a chance to work there because I am
    older and because I haven't been able to find another job since my last
    job was outsourced. I did not ask for that. I want to work!

    THE HOUSING MARKET AND CRIME
        Rather than losing my home to foreclosure, I put it up for short
    sale. There was a buyer and signed purchase agreement in February 2010.
    The prospective buyer pulled out after 3\1/2\ months, since the Bank
    did not approve the short sale by that time, even though the buyer
    offered $56,000 and the principal balance on my loan was $56,008. The
    Bank would rather foreclose than accept an $8.00 principal loss on a
    short sale? I have since lost my house. The Bank sold it at sherrifs
    sale to Freddie Mac for $30,000. My house appraised at $114,000. Why
    should I owe my bank the difference? They would not work with me to set
    up a loan modification, or accept a short sale, and they were in
    possession of a home worth almost twice of what was owed to them. Yet
    they sold it for $30,000 and now expect me to come up with the
    difference. The Bank lost my loan documents, and furnished me with an
    affidavit which I later found out was illegal. Why are Banks allowed to
    get away with this?
        The house next door was empty for over a year, bank owned, after
    the owner lost her job. The house across the street was sold at
    sherrifs sale several months ago. The house next to that one was empty
    for a long time, another bank owned property. It is a ghost town, and
    where I once felt safe, there have been many robberies lately in my
    neighborhood. Why? Because people have lost their jobs and are getting
    more and more desperate. They are stealing, not for drugs, but in order
    to put food on the table, and to survive.

    THE EFFECTS OF LONG TERM UNEMPLOYMENT
        The unemployed are losing their homes, and who will rent to them if
    they do not have a job? Keeping utilities on is a struggle. Cell phones
    and cable TV are now ``luxuries'' and are cancelled. I live alone and
    have no immediate family, and must depend on others for assistance,
    which burdens them. I get harassed by creditors and my credit is ruined
    (and prospective employers run credit checks). Cannot afford medical
    coverage. Never eat out anymore. Never go shopping anymore (but I did

    recently hit the thrift store for a 50% off sale).
    THE EFFECT OF THE GOVERNMENT STIMULUS ON THE UNEMPLOYED
        The banks received trillions of dollars in bailout money, including
    the one I worked at. Banks received money, yet cut down on their
    employees and as a result I lost my job. Banks received money yet would
    not work with me to modify my loan, would not accept a short sale, and
    foreclosed on my home. Banks received help, U.S. citizens as
    individuals receive very little help and are being evicted from their
    homes. Why is the government turning a blind eye on the unemployed who
    need help, while helping Big Business line their pockets?
        And why can't unused Stimulus Funds be used to help the unemployed
    who have exhausted their benefits, until they can work again?

    DON'T IGNORE US, WE NEED HELP
        This is a nationwide crisis. Something needs to be done to create
    jobs immediately, and also unemployment benefits need to be extended
    for those who have exhausted their benefits. It is reported that
    unemployment numbers are down for the month of December 2010, yet job
    creation numbers are still in a slump. How can this be? Please fix the
    ``system'' so reporting is done accurately. Letting UI benefits run out
    for the unemployed who cannot find jobs creates millions of exhaustees
    or ``99ers,'' which further hinders economic growth. With no money to
    spend, we cannot help stimulate the economy. Without jobs, the
    unemployed will lose their homes, which mean less money cities receive
    in the form of property taxes. Without jobs, the unemployed pay less in
    taxes; this hurts the Federal, State and local governments. The
    unemployed are then forced to depend on State and County funds for food
    and housing, who in turn will need to borrow money from the Federal
    Government. Yet, more and more of those programs, the last few
    resources we have to help us, are being cut.
        Currently there are too many unemployed people and too few jobs. We
    WANT to work. We want to feel good about our lives and ourselves again.
    The government needs to HELP us, the unemployed, until the economy
    turns around and we can find jobs. AND THERE ARE A LOT OF ``US''. And
    we are SCARED. Americans should not have to live in fear like this.
        Thank you for reading my story, ``our'' story.

        Joyce Fields

                          Statement of Jennifer Snyder

    Committee on Ways and Means
    Feb. 7, 2011
    RE: Hearing on Improving Efforts to Help Unemployed Americans Find Jobs

        My husband has been unemployed for exactly two years now after
    working for the same company for almost thirty years. Since being laid
    off, he has submitted 100's of resumes, granted only 6 interviews and
    has received 0 offers of employment. Most of the time he never hears
    back from the jobs he applies to and it is very frustrating. He runs
    out of unemployment benefits in April and we have little hope that he
    will have a job by then. He is 50 years old and suspects that he is
    being discriminated against because of his age. Although illegal,
    ageism is very hard to prove. This is his story, but there are millions
    of Americans that have this same story. Imagine yourself at 50--jobless
    and unwanted.
        He has a considerable amount in his 401k that he would like to use
    to start or buy a business, but the thought of paying taxes and penalty
    on any withdrawal makes us cringe. I wrote Senator Debbie Stabenow in
    October about this matter and she replied that a bill was introduced in
    March of 2009 (H.R. 1628) to make hardship loans, without penalty, but
    it was still pending before the House Ways and Means Committee. I then
    contacted the Ways and Means Committee asking for the status of this
    bill and never received a reply. This bill was never acted on and is
    now dead. I am wondering why.
        I am urging you to please reintroduce this legislation and act on
    it. Too many Americans, like my husband, it just might let them make
    the transformation from unemployment to self-employment and it wouldn't
    cost the government anything.

            Jennifer Snyder

                                  Lori Parker
                                            Thursday, February 10, 2011

    Dear Committee Members:

        I was laid off in January 2009 from my position at a non-profit
    that provided support services to adults with intellectual
    disabilities. After the financial crash, the social services job market
    evaporated because of severe budget cuts in state and federal funding.
    I know the budget cuts were across the board, i.e., in all social
    services across the state, because of the drastic budget cuts occurring
    in both state and federal funding for social services. For over two
    years I have tried to find a replacement position. But unfortunately,
    since all social services have been downsized due to budget cuts, there
    aren't any positions.
        During the time I have been laid off, I repeatedly went to the
    Career Center at the Unemployment Office and requested re-training, as
    it was clear to me the social services industry was basically on life-
    support, and there would not be any jobs in the field for many years.
    The career center said I wasn't eligible for the retraining program
    because I was not in the category of people who were eligible for the
    Trade Readjustment Act (losing a job in the manufacturing sector) in
    which people in manufacturing were eligible to go to school for
    retraining, and keep their benefits while they were learning a new
    skill to sell on the job market.
        In fact, I was told that if I went back to school to retrain, I
    would lose my unemployment benefits, while the people who were in
    manufacturing could go to school, and keep getting their unemployment
    benefits. I was also told that because I already had a four-year degree
    (sociology), that also disqualified me, even though I received my
    degree in the early 90s, and my degree was no longer a marketable
    degree, especially since my work experience was in the social services
    field, and the new jobs that have emerged don't require these
    credentials.
        Because so many jobs have been outsourced, and the American economy
    is changing into different types of services (green economy, etc.), the
    job market has drastically changed. Many of us who hold bachelor's
    degrees, associates degrees, etc. from twenty and thirty years ago, are
    having difficulty finding a job because we are older workers, and
    because there is no demand for our past area of training. We need
    viable opportunities to retrain. We cannot retrain if we are homeless.
    We need workable solutions that take into account that we need a roof
    over our heads while we retrain. Even a one-year certificate program in
    the new emerging industries is more likely to get us a job than the
    meaningless four and two year degrees that we got 20 and 30 years ago.
    We need new skills on top of our old skills to have a chance to compete
    in such a retracted and changing job market. Jobs are few and far
    between, and those that are there require new skill sets we don't have.
        My suggestion would be to extend unemployment benefits for one year
    to those out of work for more than a specified number of weeks, and
    provide free training at a one-year certificate program for them, and
    not disqualify people just because they already have a degree from two
    and three decades ago. A one-year certificate in a new, emerging field
    would give people the new skill set they need to enhance their old
    degrees.
        We have children to take care of. Please help us.

      STATEMENT OF MARTIN G. THOMAS, ACTIVE MEMBER OF THE AMERICAN 99ER'S
                                     UNION

        My dilemma in this unemployment search is never ending it seems.
    Hundreds of applications, 3 interviews, no job, simple. I've applied to
    everything I feel I'm qualified for. Even an ``all you need is a
    heartbeat job'' that caters to low paying alien labor. This is
    destroying America. The President says to get a degree and get a good
    job. Speaker Boehner says you need to get an education to have the
    ``American Dream.'' That's all fine and well understood, but people are
    already trained, have degrees and still don't have jobs. How can you
    have any faith in the words from our leaders when these things have
    already been accomplished and there is no jobs available? Here's a
    quote from the President:

            October 13, 2010 11:45 AM
            Obama: ``No Such Thing as Shovel-Ready Projects''

            You can't argue with the horses mouth!!!
         This a true statement, ``There are three types of lies; lies,
            damned lies, and
              statistics.''--Mark Twain

        I'm fed up with being lied to, and America has been uninformed.
    Because of failed job creation policies and the emphasis on the useless
    health care bill that no one was able to read is appalling. Why do I
    have to suffer along with millions in my situation? We didn't ask for
    health care. Jobs are needed first. We can't live on health care! I
    can't pay my essential living expenses on health care. Without a job, I
    can't afford health care. To lay this burden on family and friends is
    unfair. America was lied to when they were told the 99ers had their
    benefits restored. There is 6-7 million and growing without benefits
    still. The unemployment rate is more like 18%. I can do the math. I/WE
    are treated like idiots and we're offended.
        It's very discouraging I'm qualified for my field as a Maintenance
    Technician. Yes, there's always room for improvement. In this field,
    you get it on the job. I have no daily routine. Until the jobs appear,
    I/We need our benefits to survive. I/We want jobs and not asking for a
    hand out when requesting an extension of unemployment benefits.
        The United Nations sends billions of American dollars to foreign
    countries in need of emergency assistance and they won't help America.
    What's wrong here? There's a national emergency here in AMERICA!!! SOS
    . . . THE FLAGS UPSIDE DOWN, DISTRESS . . . Can you hear me now???
        I don't know who the President addressed when he told Americans to
    get educated and get a job. Is there a new private America we don't
    know about? Was he speaking to people in China??? To throw words at us
    that America needs to be retrained for jobs. That's insane, people have
    training, there are no jobs. Outsourcing American jobs to China and
    other 3rd world countries doesn't help.
        Where's the America I once knew? If our forefathers were alive,
    they'd be ashamed. Please extend unemployment benefits until the jobs
    appear. Extending tax cuts to millionaires doesn't help me today. To
    leave me stranded and all the unemployed is wrong.
        Thank You, and please help me and all the 99ers, Martin G. Thomas

                                Elizabeth Steere
                                                       February 9, 2011

    To: House Ways and Means Committee, Sub-Committe on Human Resources

        I am writing to urge you to take quick and immediate action on
    behalf of the Unemployed in America, especially the large number (which
    is growing larger with each new day) of long-termed unemployed who have
    already exhausted all available unemployment benefits (Exhaustees/
    99ers). Many of us do not qualify for any assistance from local,
    county, state, and Federal Government programs for basic living needs
    such as food, shelter, required daily medications, clothing and
    assistance with utilities to keep themselves warm through the winters
    and cool through the summers. For those who may qualify for some of
    these programs, they are not being assisted because many of the charity
    and government organizations who provide said programs used to assist
    for these types of necessities have suffered budget, funding and
    donation cuts. How are the Unemployed in America to survive, until such
    a time when jobs are plentiful and they are once again able to sustain
    themselves and their families? Without the lifeline of Unemployment
    Insurance Benefits, the unemployed will not be able to procure the
    basic necessities required to simply live.
        I am also writing to urge you to resolve the issue of insufficient
    jobs in America. The Unemployed in America are not content to merely
    exist from the lifeline of Unemployment Insurance Benefits. We want to
    be able to rebuild our lives, our savings and our hopes and dreams for
    a brighter tomorrow. We are unable to rebuild without JOBS. We
    desperately need your assistance so that we can again realize a bright
    future for ourselves and our loved ones. Therefore, JOBS must become a
    high priority for America for without it, America will be unable to
    compete and sustain the standards in which our country was founded
    upon.
        This brings me to my next point. The American government entities
    cannot create jobs, nor can they force an employer to hire, and I
    understand this. American government has created incentives for the
    employers to hire, as the American government has given the financial
    sectors stimulus funds to assist borrowers. However, the employers and
    the financial sectors have not been pro-active with the government's
    calls to action. Simply put, they are not helping improve the current
    economic crisis. Today's high percentage numbers in unemployment,
    foreclosures, automobile repossessions, homelessness, bankruptcy
    filings, overall personal debt, and so much more reflect this point to
    be a fact, not an opinion.
        Plain and simple: Unemployment benefits are a lifeline for the
    unemployed. It will stimulate the economy, as the unemployed are all
    consumers. It will also prevent rises in the percentages of
    foreclosures, homelessness, bankruptcy filings, vehicle repossessions,
    overall personal debt and so much more. Therefore, by adding weeks to
    the Emergency Unemployment Compensation program and by creating JOBS so
    that the Unemployed in America may rebuild their lives, it will benefit
    all of America and the people within this great nation.
        Re-establish our trust in the government systems and assist us in
    re-building our lives; re-instill our faith in the goodness of
    humanity, in our legislators and the overall system of government
    within our nation; assist us in being proud again to be Americans. Pass
    and/or create the bills necessary to create additional benefit weeks.
    Our lives, the lives of our family members, and the overall economic
    health of America is dependent on this to survive and overcome the
    current economic crisis.

    Thank you,

            Elizabeth A. Steere

                                Rochelle Sevier
    From: Rochelle Sevier

    Title of Hearing: Improving Efforts to Help Unemployed Americans Find
        Jobs

    Dear Congressman Geoff Davis (R-KY),

        Thank you for conducting the Hearing for Improving Efforts to Help
    Unemployed Americans Find Jobs.
        I was laid off in October 2008 and have yet to be able to secure
    any employment despite having a Bachelor's degree in Business
    Administration and a Master's degree in Communications Management. I
    have submitted hundreds of resumes but have little to no responses to
    jobs that I have applied for.
        At this point in time I am willing to take any job since I am a
    99er and have exhausted all my benefits and have no income. I am unable
    to secure part-time, full-time or even temporary positions. I feel as
    though I will never work again.
        It is crucial that Americans be put back to work as to stimulate
    the economy and get them off government assistance programs. Americans
    are living in dire situations and need jobs NOW! We cannot hold on much
    longer, particularly for those like myself who have exhausted my
    unemployment benefits and have no job.

    Sincerely,

            Rochelle J. Sevier

                                  Ellen Turner
    Jobs Committee February 7, 2011

        I have been out of work for 99 weeks. Therefore I am a ``99er''.
    What does this mean? It means that due to no fault of my own, I have
    not been able to find a job.
        My skill set is a graphic designer. I have a BFA and two
    certificates: one is Desktop Publishing and the other in New Media
    Technology.
        I have found short term freelance and temp work only.
        Most of the jobs in my skill set have been outsourced to India,
    Pakistan, China, Ireland and England.
        This is very discouraging.
        I have a mortgage to pay.
        I am now receiving early SS, because I do not have any other
    recourse, at this time.
        It just covers my mortgage.
        For the sake of Americans who have been out of work for this long,
    please consider some sort of job programs for us to get back in the
    work force.
        I have applied outside of my skill set for clerical work. I have
    not gotten any responses. Plus, I have applied for retail jobs, and I
    have not gotten any responses. I do follow ups on every job that I
    apply for.
        The national unemployment rate has gone down to 9%. I believe, this
    is a result, of many Americans no longer on the unemployment charts due
    to exhausting benefits.
        Please, help us, any way that you can. There is nothing like work
    for self-esteem and pride. Not to mention, being able to put food on my
    table and pay for medical care, which I desperately need.

    Sincerely,

            Ellen Turner

                                  Paul Pittman
                                            Thursday, February 10, 2011

    Committee on Ways and Means
    U.S. House of Representatives
    Washington, DC

    Representative Dave Camp:

        As a former veteran of the U.S. Air Force, I have watched our
    freedoms continue to dwindle along with our voices. Now, it seems that
    for some reason, our country appears to want to turn its back on the
    people who tried to work and make it a better place to live.
    Additionally, it seems set on creating a future generation of potential
    workers that will enter the workforce with a negative desire to achieve
    as well as a tainted attitude toward their leaders.
        After honorably separating from the Air Force in 1992, I settled in
    Wisconsin with the hope of creating a stable future for my family.
    Things were working well: I was progressing in a management career in
    the transportation industry and felt confident about the future.
    Confident enough to even buy a house. In 2009, that changed as the
    economic woes finally caught up with the industry. The small business I
    worked for could no longer afford to staff me so I was let go with the
    ``promise'' of rehiring when things turned around.
        Unfortunately, they did not turn around and so I made a decision
    with my family that I would return to school to try and tie up my work
    experiences into a more marketable package. I took an accelerated
    course (at my expense) and earned my Associates degree in less than a
    year. Unfortunately, the job market in the region had deteriorated to
    the point that it was now saturated with so many in my same situation;
    to the point that an Associate's Degree was not really a viable tool
    any longer. So I continued on and began working on my Bachelor's degree
    in late 2010, still without a job.
        On January 22, 2011 I was notified that my Unemployment benefits
    had been exhausted. After finally getting through to the Wisconsin
    Department of Workforce Development, I learned that I could apply for a
    provision as a student. On February 5th, I was denied this because I
    was enrolled in a school that offered a bachelor's degree [WI
    108.04(16)(a)1.d. The course does not grant substantial credit leading
    to a bachelor's or higher degree;].
        So without an income, any hope of trying to redo our housing loan
    is gone so it will continue in foreclosure. Because of the wording of
    this law, there is no hope of trying to appeal the decision, even
    though I have: All because I am trying to better myself in a way to get
    a job. My daughters ask me if we are going to lose our house: I cannot
    answer them because they are in a school that is working well for them.
    My wife is concerned that my depression may be getting worse; although
    I do not know why it would. They tell us that unemployment is dropping.
    Could this be because so many like me are no longer on the unemployment
    role because we have been forgotten about or overlooked? Please allow
    me to tell those of you who have never had to deal with losing a job
    that we who supported you in your elections for change do still in fact
    exist! We are told that the economy is rebounding. Until I am back on
    my feet and able to provide for my family; I do not believe it!
        You are now looking at an emergency extension of benefits for those
    of us that time has seemingly forgotten about. What I am asking you to
    do is look back a bit when the United States government bailed out the
    banks and the auto makers. They did so readily and without question. So
    now, why is the possibility of bailing out the actual Americans that
    have worked to make things better for their entire lives such a hard
    decision? Does America and its government want to invest in their own
    people or should they be swept away like yesterday's garbage? So far,
    that is the way it appears to us who have been forgotten about.

    Thank you for your consideration and time,

    Paul Pittman
    One of the newest ``99ers''

                           Statement of Tracy Santee

        I'm a single mother and have always been a single mother except for
    the first year of my son's life. I have always had a job and supported
    my son, but sometimes shared rent with family and friends for many of
    his first years. I finally got my own place while I was in my late 20s.
    A place that I could afford on my own . . . a trailer in a trailer
    park. It isn't the perfect place, and we were and are still teased
    because of where we live, but it is and was always stability for my
    son. He went to the same school system for a majority of his life and
    we did well here.
        I worked for 12 plus years at a great company that was sold to
    another/a merger that didn't provide me with another job. After that, I
    was unemployed for a few months, found a few temporary jobs, and then
    finally found permanent employment for eight years at my last job. I
    lost my last job due to lack of work/I was laid off. My last employer
    has not only laid off many people, but he has cut his work week down to
    four days to eliminate costs. I AM UNEMPLOYED. Since I have been
    unemployed, I have lost 20 pounds due to hunger. I am down to 92 pounds
    and it shows. I do not have the money to pay for food as I did while I
    was employed and I do not qualify for food stamps. I have cut down my
    household costs as much as I could. I still have my car, and intend to
    keep it as it may be my home soon.
        I have three more years left on my mortgage but I do not see any
    way that I can keep my home (yes, my trailer is my home) if I cannot
    find a job. I have been unemployed for almost two years. I have been on
    at least 25 interviews, sent out thousands of resumes, yet I still
    cannot find employment. An unemployment extension for the long term
    unemployed would help me/my son and MILLIONS of others to buy some time
    to help find a job and KEEP OUR HOMES!! If the government can provide
    us with jobs, ALL THE BETTER!!! We, the long term unemployed, don't
    want hand outs and we don't like to be at home every day with no
    purpose in our lives,--WE WANT TO WORK AND WE WANT JOBS!!!!!!!
        It is crystal clear to me . . . there are jobs, BUT we are
    competing for these jobs. There are at least 15 to 20 people
    interviewing for the same positions YET ONLY ONE PERSON WINS THE JOB.
    Soon, I will be homeless. My mortgage company will foreclose on me. The
    trailer park will evict me. My son . . . how will I take care of him???
    How will I take care of me???

            Tracy Santee

                                 Janice Nichols

                                            Thursday, February 10, 2011

    To: House Ways and Means Committee
    Hearing for Jobs for Unemployed

        You have no idea how hard it is to have been laid off for over 3
    years. My most recent experience has been in social services and there
    are no jobs. These jobs depend upon excess money in the economy and
    charitable contributions. Obviously, there is no excess money in the
    economy and charitable donations have decreased.
        I have a B.S. degree in Management and Human Relations and have a
    business background, also. Outsourcing has taken a lot of jobs and my
    technological skills need updating.
        The economy is changing. As an older laid-off worker, I need
    retraining. We need a program that will provide unemployment for us for
    a year, along with one-year free training in order to upgrade our
    skills and become more employable. The longer we stay unemployed
    without available jobs, the less desirable we become to employers.
        We need help to survive and we need jobs. I am a widow who has lost
    her home and my son and I have found it necessary to move in with
    relatives. I have always been able to find a job before the economy
    took a nose dive. This has taken such a toll on all of us. It is
    unbearable to think that this great country cannot provide jobs for
    their citizens!!!
        Please help us. You are not having to go through this. You are warm
    and well fed and your bills are being paid. Come down to our level and
    have some compassion.
        It is your duty to help us!

    Sincerely,

            Janice Nichols

                                  James Bufton
                                            Thursday, February 10, 2011

    Chairman Camp,

        Americans want to work. The current political bantering is
    unacceptable and unproductive. Trickle down does not and never did
    work. History bears this out. We are facing actual (U6) unemployment
    number of well over 16%. No one disputes this. Yet, the heartless
    millionaire conservatives would allow decent hard working Americans to
    be cast aside and forgotten rather than face the problem and the
    reality at hand.
        I will exhaust my UE insurance in a couple of weeks and with my
    savings mostly depleted will soon lose everything this disabled veteran
    has worked for all of his life. At age 62, even with a very credible
    and successful work history, I am unwanted. Discrimination is rampant
    and the conservatives want us to just go off and die somewhere so they
    can deal with further enriching their cronies.
        I first advocate the 14 week extension that Ms. Lee is introducing
    to the House so those in harsh climates will not freeze to death when
    living on the streets. Further I endorse a public works program where
    displaced workers can engage in all sorts of activities that budgetary
    constraints have diminished. Tutoring challenged students in
    fundamentals, helping the aging lonely, painting schools in ill repair,
    teaching computer skills, and countless other projects. What community
    would say: ``We really don't need any of these things.'' That was
    rhetorical, sorry.
        Please stop pandering to the rich and DO SOMETHING concrete and
    measurable to create jobs in AMERICA.

    Respectfully,

            James Bufton

                                 Scott Carlson
                                            Thursday, February 10, 2011

    Scott Carlson
    Title Hearing: Tell a Compelling story.

    Dear Committee,

        I had a job that was ok, I was making money even though it was not
    much, it was steady and I had it for 6 years. Then all of a sudden
    about 3 years ago, it was gone! I made some wrong choices when I was
    young and I don't have a Drivers license, I was happy to get that job
    because it was not that far away. I walked in the rain and snow to get
    there every day, because I knew how lucky I was to have it. Now it has
    been taken away and no one will even look at my applications because,
    for one the new standard with almost all employers are that they
    require a Drivers license and a background check, even for a basic
    $7.00 to $8.00 an hour job. Also because it has taken so long for some
    jobs to come back, employers are only hiring people who have been out
    of work 6 months or less, this is a fact! and if you search the job
    listings you will see this requirement with many employers. I am only
    making it because I live with a friend who is on DISABILITY and he only
    brings in about $770.00 a month. It is amazing we are even making it at
    all. I understand jobs are number one, However the people who have been
    out of work the longest are the ones who will be hired last. This is a
    fact! anyone who thinks the first unemployed get hired first are living
    in a dream world! We have and still are being left behind. Not even the
    President wants to say a word about us. We need more weeks of benefits
    now. We need hope for a better future like the rest of the unemployed.
    I don't think its right that some get benefits and not all! That's what
    was done with the tax cuts this last December, the Republicans said
    (ALL), should get help, so why should unemployment benefits be any
    different. There was a large cost for that small percent of the rich to
    get tax breaks, so when you look at the percentage of 99ers, Please
    remember the Republicans held out and stopped all for a small
    percentage no matter the cost!

                          Statement of William Milner
    2/13/11

        I have worked all my adult life and unfortunately I have been
    unemployed for the last almost two years, I LOOK FOR WORK EVERYDAY I
    have gone on three interviews and have received that second call I'm
    respectfully asking that you pass this bill immediately we need the
    additional help!!!! PLEASE PASS THIS BILL!!!! PLEASE PASS THIS BILL!!!!