[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 102 (Thursday, July 11, 1996)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1259-E1260]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        INTRODUCTION OF LEGISLATION IN SUPPORT OF STATES' RIGHTS

                                 ______
                                 

                          HON. PHILIP M. CRANE

                              of illinois

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, July 11, 1996

  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, over the past several years, my home State of 
Illinois has been embroiled in litigation, Pennington versus Doherty, 
regarding the base period used to determine eligibility for 
unemployment compensation. The plaintiffs in Pennington have argued 
that the Federal Government, and not the individual States, should have 
the right to set those base periods. Their position is diametrically 
opposed to the common practice recognized as lawful and legitimate for 
decades. I believe that States should retain this right and that 
Federal action in this area should not preempt State law. 
Unfortunately, an appellate court did not agree.
  While the outcome of this suit will unquestionably have a significant 
impact on Illinois, it may also lead to changes across the country, 
since more than 40 States utilize similar methods for determining 
eligibility for unemployment compensation. The final ruling could lead 
to greatly increased costs, both for individual States and the Federal 
Government. In fact, some have estimated that an unfavorable outcome in 
this case could increase costs by as much as $750 million over the next 
8 years in Illinois alone, and the Congressional Budget Office has 
estimated that costs to the Federal Government could reach the $3 
billion range over that same period. There can be little doubt that if 
the Pennington suit is successful, other plaintiffs in other States 
will be lining up to file their suits.
  But perhaps even more troubling than the financial impact of this 
decision is the circumvention and misinterpretation of congressional 
intent through judicial action. Earlier today, the Ways and Means 
Subcommittee on Human Resources held a hearing regarding the Pennington 
case. While a variety of witnesses, including representatives of the 
administration, expressed various opinions regarding this case, there 
was unanimity on the fact that Congress intended States to control 
their own base periods. Despite widespread agreement on that issue, the 
courts may now redefine the law through judicial fiat.
  In order to protect congressional intent and avoid these unnecessary 
expenditures, I am

[[Page E1260]]

today introducing legislation which would simply clarify current law by 
stating in no uncertain terms that States have the right to set their 
own base periods and no Federal actions should preempt that right. I 
hope that my colleagues will join with me in supporting States' rights 
and in supporting this legislation.

                          ____________________