Congressional Record, Volume 150 Issue 76 (Thursday, June 3, 2004)

[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 76 (Thursday, June 3, 2004)]
[House]
[Pages H3725-H3740]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

BACK TO WORK INCENTIVE ACT OF 2003

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 656, I call up
the bill (H.R. 444) to amend the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 to
establish a Personal Reemployment Accounts grant program to assist
Americans in returning to work, and ask for its immediate consideration
in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). Pursuant to House Resolution
656, the bill is considered read for amendment.
The text of H.R. 444 is as follows:

H.R. 444

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE

This Act may be cited as the ``Back to Work Incentive Act
of 2003''.

[[Page H3726]]

SEC. 2. GRANTS TO SUPPORT PERSONAL REEMPLOYMENT ACCOUNTS.

Subtitle B of title I of the Workforce Investment Act of
1998 (29 U.S.C. 2811 et seq.) is amended by inserting after
chapter 5 the following new chapter:

``CHAPTER 5A--PERSONAL REEMPLOYMENT ACCOUNTS

``SEC. 135A. PURPOSES.

``The purposes of this chapter are to provide for the
establishment of personal reemployment accounts for certain
individuals identified as likely to exhaust their
unemployment compensation in order to--
``(1) accelerate the reemployment of such individuals;
``(2) promote the retention in employment of such
individuals; and
``(3) provide such individuals with enhanced flexibility,
choice, and control in obtaining intensive reemployment,
training, and supportive services.

``SEC. 135B. DEFINITION.

``In this chapter, the term `State' means each of the
several States of the United States, the District of
Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the United
States Virgin Islands.

``SEC. 135C. GRANTS TO STATES.

``(a) Grants.--The Secretary shall--
``(1) reserve \2/10\ of 1 percent of the amount
appropriated under section 137(d) for use under section 135I;
and
``(2) use the remainder of the amount appropriated under
section 137(d) to make allotments in accordance with
subsection (b).
``(b) Allotment Among States.--
``(1) In general.--From the amount made available under
subsection (a)(2), the Secretary shall allot to each State an
amount that is proportionate to the relative number of
unemployed individuals in the State as compared to the total
number of unemployed individuals in all States in order to
provide assistance for eligible individuals in accordance
with this chapter.
``(2) Small state minimum allotment.--The Secretary shall
ensure that--
``(A) each State (other than the United States Virgin
Islands) shall receive an allotment under paragraph (1) that
is not less than \3/10\ of 1 percent of the amount made
available under subsection (a)(2) for the fiscal year; and
``(B) the United States Virgin Islands shall receive an
allotment under paragraph (1) that is not less than \1/10\ of
1 percent of the amount made available under subsection
(a)(2) for the fiscal year.
``(c) Availability.--Notwithstanding section 189(g)(1),
amounts made available under subsection (a) to carry out this
chapter shall be available for obligation and expenditure
beginning on the date of the enactment of the Back to Work
Incentive Act of 2003.

``SEC. 135D. WITHIN STATE ALLOCATION.

``(a) Allocation.--Of the amount allotted to a State under
section 135C--
``(1) not more than 2 percent of the amount may be reserved
by the Governor of the State to enhance the system of worker
profiling described in section 303(j) of the Social Security
Act and to establish and operate a data management system, as
necessary, and carry out other appropriate activities to
implement this chapter;
``(2) 5 percent of the amount shall be allocated by the
State to local areas in accordance with the formula described
in subsection (b) for start-up costs and other operating
costs related to the provision of assistance under this
chapter; and
``(3) the remainder of the amount shall be provided to
local areas for the establishment of personal reemployment
accounts described in section 135E for eligible individuals
in such local areas.
``(b) Formula.--A State shall allocate funds to local areas
in the State under subsection (a)(2) in an amount that is
proportionate to the relative number of unemployed
individuals in the local area as compared to the total number
of unemployed individuals in the State.
``(c) Availability.--Notwithstanding section 189(g)(2),
amounts allotted to a State under section 135C, and amounts
subsequently provided to a local area under this section,
shall be available for obligation and expenditure only for
the 3-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of
the Back to Work Incentive Act of 2003.

``SEC. 135E. PERSONAL REEMPLOYMENT ACCOUNTS.

``(a) Accounts.--
``(1) In general.--Funds provided to a local area under
section 135D shall be used to provide eligible individuals
with personal reemployment accounts to be used in accordance
with section 135F. An eligible individual may receive only
one personal reemployment account.
``(2) Amount.--The State shall establish the amount of a
personal reemployment account, which shall be uniform
throughout the State, and shall not exceed $3,000.
``(b) Eligible Individuals.--
``(1) In general.--Each State shall establish eligibility
criteria for individuals for personal reemployment accounts
in accordance with this subsection.
``(2) Minimum eligibility criteria requirements.--
``(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), an
individual shall be eligible to receive assistance under this
chapter if, beginning after the date of enactment of the Back
to Work Incentive Act of 2003, the individual--
``(i) is identified by the State pursuant to section
303(j)(1) of the Social Security Act as likely to exhaust
regular unemployment compensation and in need of job search
assistance to make a successful transition to new employment;
``(ii) is receiving regular unemployment compensation under
any State or Federal unemployment compensation program
administered by the State; and
``(iii) is eligible for not less than 20 weeks for the
regular unemployment compensation described in clause (ii).
``(B) Additional eligibility and priority criteria.--A
State may establish criteria that is in addition to the
criteria described in subparagraph (A) for the eligibility of
individuals to receive assistance under this chapter. A State
may also establish criteria for priority in the provision of
assistance to such eligible individuals under this chapter.
``(3) Transition rule.--
``(A) Previously identified as likely to exhaust
unemployment compensation.--
``(i) In general.--At the option of the State, and subject
to clause (ii), an individual may be eligible to receive
assistance under this chapter if the individual--

``(I) during the 90-day period ending on the date of the
enactment of the Back to Work Incentive Act of 2003, was
identified by the State pursuant to section 303(j)(1) of the
Social Security Act as likely to exhaust regular unemployment
compensation and in need of job search assistance to make a
successful transition to new employment; and
``(II) otherwise meets the requirements of clauses (ii) and
(iii) of paragraph (2)(A).

``(ii) Additional eligibility and priority criteria.--A
State may establish criteria that is in addition to the
criteria described in clause (i) for the eligibility of
individuals to receive assistance under this chapter. A State
may also establish criteria for priority in the provision of
assistance to such eligible individuals under this chapter.
``(B) Previously exhausted unemployment compensation.--At
the option of the State, an individual may be eligible to
receive assistance under this chapter if the individual--
``(i) during the 90-day period ending on the date of the
enactment of the Back to Work Incentive Act of 2003,
exhausted all rights to any unemployment compensation; and
``(ii)(I) is enrolled in training and needs additional
support to complete such training, with a priority of service
to be provided to such individuals who are training for
shortage occupations or high-growth industries; or
``(II) is separated from employment in an industry or
occupation that has experienced declining employment, or no
longer provides any employment, in the local labor market
during the two-year period ending on the date of the
determination of eligibility of the individual under this
subparagraph.
``(4) No individual entitlement.--Nothing in this chapter
shall be construed to entitle any individual to receive a
personal reemployment account.
``(c) Local Administration.--
``(1) Information and attestation.--Prior to the
establishment of a personal reemployment account for an
eligible individual under this chapter, the one-stop delivery
system shall ensure that the individual--
``(A) is informed of the requirements applicable to the
personal reemployment account, including the allowable uses
of funds from the account, the limitations on access to
services described under section 135F(a)(3)(C) and a
description of such services, and the conditions for
receiving a reemployment bonus;
``(B) has the option to develop a personal reemployment
plan which will identify the employment goals and appropriate
combination of services selected by the individual to achieve
the employment goals; and
``(C) signs an attestation that the individual will comply
with the requirements relating to the personal reemployment
accounts under this chapter and will reimburse the account
or, if the account has been terminated, the program under
this chapter, for any amounts expended from the account that
are not allowable.
``(2) Periodic interviews.--If a recipient exhausts his or
her rights to any unemployment compensation, and the
recipient has a remaining balance in his or her personal
reemployment account, the one-stop delivery system shall
conduct periodic interviews with the recipient to assist the
recipient in meeting his or her individual employment goals.

``SEC. 135F. USE OF FUNDS.

``(a) Allowable Activities.--
``(1) In general.--Subject to the requirements contained in
paragraphs (2) and (3), a recipient may use amounts in a
personal reemployment account to purchase one or more of the
following:
``(A) Intensive services, including those types of services
specified in section 134(d)(3)(C).
``(B) Training services, including those types of services
specified in section 134(d)(4)(D).
``(C) Supportive services, except for needs-related
payments.
``(D) Assistance to purchase or lease an automobile, if
such assistance is necessary to allow the recipient to accept
a bona fide offer of employment for which there is a
reasonable expectation of long-term duration.
``(2) Delivery of services.--The following requirements
relating to delivery of services shall apply to the program
under this chapter:
``(A) Recipients may use funds from the personal
reemployment account to purchase

[[Page H3727]]

the services described in paragraph (1) through the one-stop
delivery system on a fee-for-service basis, or through other
providers, consistent with safeguards described in the State
plan under section 135G.
``(B) The one-stop delivery system may pay costs for such
services directly on behalf of the recipient, through a
voucher system, or by reimbursement to the recipient upon
receipt of appropriate cost documentation, consistent with
safeguards described in the State plan under section 135G.
``(C) Each one-stop delivery system shall make available to
recipients information on training providers specified in
section 134(d)(4)(F)(ii), information available to the one-
stop delivery system on providers of the intensive and
supportive services described in paragraph (1), and
information relating to occupations in demand in the local
area.
``(3) Limitations.--The following limitations shall apply
with respect to personal reemployment accounts under this
chapter:
``(A)(i) Amounts in a personal reemployment account may be
used for up to one year from the date of the establishment of
the account.
``(ii) No personal reemployment account may be established
beginning 2 years after the date of the enactment of the Back
to Work Incentive Act of 2003.
``(B) Each recipient shall submit cost documentation as
required by the one-stop delivery system.
``(C) For the 1-year period following the establishment of
the account, recipients may not receive intensive,
supportive, or training services funded under this title
except on a fee-for-services basis as specified in paragraph
(2)(A).
``(D) Amounts in a personal reemployment account shall be
nontransferable.
``(b) Income Support.--A State may authorize recipients
determined eligible under section 135E(b)(3)(B) to withdraw
amounts from the personal reemployment account on a weekly
basis for purposes of income support in amounts up to the
average weekly amount of unemployment compensation that the
individual received prior to his or her exhaustion of rights
to unemployment compensation if the individual is engaged in
job search, intensive services, or training that is expected
to lead to employment.
``(c) Reemployment Bonus.--
``(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2)--
``(A) if a recipient determined eligible under section
135E(b)(2) obtains full-time employment before the end of the
13th week of unemployment for which unemployment compensation
is paid, the balance of his or her personal reemployment
account shall be provided directly to the recipient in cash;
and
``(B) if a recipient determined eligible under section
135E(b)(3) obtains full-time employment before the end of the
13th week after the date on which the account is established,
the balance of his or her personal reemployment account shall
be provided directly to the recipient in cash.
``(2) Limitations.--The following limitations shall apply
with respect to a recipient described in paragraph (1):
``(A) 60 percent of the remaining personal reemployment
account balance shall be paid to the recipient at the time of
reemployment.
``(B) 40 percent of the remaining personal reemployment
account balance shall be paid to the recipient not later than
6 months after the date of reemployment.
``(3) Exception regarding subsequent unemployment.--If a
recipient described in paragraph (1) subsequently becomes
unemployed due to a lack of work after receiving the portion
of the reemployment bonus specified under paragraph (2)(A),
the individual may use the amount remaining in the personal
reemployment account for the purposes described in subsection
(a) but may not be eligible for additional cash payments
under this subsection.

``SEC. 135G. STATE PLAN.

``(a) In General.--In order for a State to receive an
allotment under section 135C, the Governor of the State shall
submit to the Secretary a plan that includes a description of
how the State intends to carry out the personal reemployment
accounts authorized under this chapter, including--
``(1) the criteria and methods to be used for determining
eligibility for the personal reemployment accounts, including
whether the State intends to include the optional categories
described in section 135E(b)(3), and the additional criteria
and priority for service that the State intends to apply, if
any, pursuant to section 135E(b)(2)(B);
``(2) the methods or procedures, developed in consultation
with local boards and chief elected officials, to be used to
provide eligible individuals information relating to services
and providers, and safeguards, developed in consultation with
such boards and officials, to ensure that funds from the
personal reemployment accounts are used for purposes
authorized under this chapter and are not used for services
or providers that are wholly unreasonable or egregious;
``(3) how the State will coordinate the activities carried
out under this chapter with the employment and training
activities carried out under section 134 and other activities
carried out through the one-stop delivery system in the
State.
``(b) Plan Submission and Approval.--A State plan submitted
to the Secretary under subsection (a) by a Governor shall be
considered to be approved by the Secretary at the end of the
30-day period beginning on the date the Secretary receives
the plan, unless the Secretary makes a written determination
during such period that the plan is incomplete or otherwise
inconsistent with the provisions of this chapter.

``SEC. 135H. PROGRAM INFORMATION.

``The Secretary may require from States the collection and
reporting on such financial, performance, and other program-
related information as the Secretary determines is
appropriate to carry out this chapter, including the
evaluation described in section 135I.

``SEC. 135I. EVALUATION.

``(a) Evaluation.--From the amount made available under
section 135C(a)(1), the Secretary, pursuant to the authority
provided under section 172, shall, directly or through
grants, contracts, or cooperative agreements with appropriate
entities, conduct an evaluation of the activities carried out
under this chapter.
``(b) Conduct of Evaluation.--The evaluation shall examine
the effectiveness of such activities in achieving the
purposes described in section 135A and such other purposes as
the Secretary determines are appropriate.
``(c) Report.--The report to Congress under section 172(e)
relating to the results of the evaluations required under
section 172 shall include the recommendation of the Secretary
with respect to the use of personal reemployment accounts as
a mechanism to assist individuals in obtaining and retaining
employment.''.

SEC. 3. ADMINISTRATION.

Section 117(d) of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (29
U.S.C. 2832(d)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (3)(B)(i)(I), by striking ``sections 128
and 133'' and inserting ``sections 128, 133, and 135D''; and
(2) in paragraph (4), by inserting ``, activities
authorized under section 135F'' after ``section 134''.

SEC. 4. DELIVERY OF SERVICES.

Section 134(c)(1) of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998
(29 U.S.C. 2864(c)(1)) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (D), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) in subparagraph (E), by striking the period at the end
and inserting ``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(F) shall provide access to personal reemployment
accounts in accordance to section 135E.''.

SEC. 5. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATION.

Section 137 of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (29
U.S.C. 2872) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(d) Personal Reemployment Accounts.--
``(1) In general.--There is authorized to be appropriated
$3,600,000,000 for fiscal year 2003 to carry out chapter 5A.
``(2) Availability.--Amounts appropriated pursuant to the
authorization of appropriations under paragraph (1) to carry
out section 135I are authorized to remain available until
expended.''.

SEC. 6. CONFORMING AMENDMENT.

The table of contents for the Workforce Investment Act of
1998 is amended by inserting after the items relating to
chapter 5 of subtitle B of title I the following new items:

``Chapter 5A--Personal Reemployment Accounts

``Sec. 135A. Purposes.
``Sec. 135B. Definitions.
``Sec. 135C. Grants to States.
``Sec. 135D. Within State allocation.
``Sec. 135E. Personal reemployment accounts.
``Sec. 135F. Use of funds.
``Sec. 135G. State plan.
``Sec. 135H. Program information.
``Sec. 135I. Evaluation, technical assistance, and data collection
activities.''.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. In lieu of the amendment recommended by the
Committee on Education and the Workforce printed in the bill, the
amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of H.R.
4444 is adopted.
The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of
the text of H.R. 4444 is as follows:

H.R. 4444

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Worker Reemployment Accounts
Act of 2004''.

SEC. 2. GRANTS TO SUPPORT PERSONAL REEMPLOYMENT ACCOUNTS.

Section 171 of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(e) Personal Reemployment Accounts.--
``(1) Definition.--In this subsection, the term `State'
means each of the several States of the United States, the
District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and
the United States Virgin Islands.
``(2) Demonstration project.--In addition to the
demonstration projects under subsection (b), the Secretary
may establish and implement a national demonstration project
designed to analyze and provide data on workforce training
programs that accelerate the reemployment of unemployed
individuals, promote the retention in employment of such
individuals, and provide such individuals with enhanced
flexibility, choice, and control in obtaining intensive
reemployment, training, and supportive services.
``(3) Grants.--

[[Page H3728]]

``(A) In general.--In carrying out the demonstration
project, the Secretary shall make grants, on a competitive
basis, to eligible entities to provide personal reemployment
accounts to eligible individuals. In awarding grants under
this subsection the Secretary shall take into consideration
awarding grants to eligible entities from diverse geographic
areas, including rural areas.
``(B) Duration.--The Secretary shall make the grants for
periods of not less than 2 years and may renew the grant for
each of the succeeding 3 years.
``(4) Eligible entity.--In this subsection, the term
`eligible entity' means--
``(A) a State; or
``(B) a local board or consortium of local boards.
``(5) Use of funds.--
``(A) In general.--An eligible entity that receives a grant
under this subsection shall use the grant funds to provide,
through a local area or areas, eligible individuals with
personal reemployment accounts. An eligible individual may
receive only 1 personal reemployment account.
``(B) Geographic area and amount.--
``(i) In general.--The eligible entity shall establish the
amount of a personal reemployment account for each eligible
individual participating, which shall be uniform throughout
the area represented by the eligible entity, and shall not
exceed $3,000.
``(ii) Option for states.--If the eligible entity is a
State, the eligible entity may choose to use the grant
statewide, if practicable, or only in specified local areas
within a State.
``(C) Eligible individuals.--
``(i) In general.--Each eligible entity shall establish
eligibility criteria for individuals for personal
reemployment accounts in accordance with this subparagraph.
``(ii) Eligibility criteria requirements.--

``(I) In general.--Subject to subclause (II), an individual
shall be eligible to receive a personal reemployment account
under a grant awarded under this subsection if, beginning
after the date of enactment of this subsection, the
individual--

``(aa) is identified by the State pursuant to section
303(j)(1) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 503(j)(1)) as
likely to exhaust regular unemployment compensation and in
need of job search assistance to make a successful transition
to new employment, or the individual's unemployment can be
attributed in substantial part to unfair competition from
Federal Prison Industries, Incorporated;
``(bb) is receiving regular unemployment compensation under
any Federal or State unemployment compensation program
administered by the State; and
``(cc) is eligible for not less than 20 weeks of regular
unemployment compensation described in item (bb).

``(II) Additional eligibility and priority criteria.--An
eligible entity may establish criteria that are in addition
to the criteria described in subclause (I) for the
eligibility of individuals to receive a personal reemployment
account under this subsection. An eligible entity may also
establish criteria for priority in the provision of a
personal reemployment account to such eligible individuals
under a grant awarded under this subsection.

``(iii) Transition rule.--

``(I) Previously identified as likely to exhaust
unemployment compensation.--

``(aa) In general.--At the option of the eligible entity,
and subject to item (bb), an individual may be eligible to
receive a personal reemployment account under this subsection
if the individual--
``(AA) during the 13-week period ending the week prior to
the date of the enactment of the subsection, was identified
by the State pursuant to section 303(j)(1) of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 503(j)(1)) as likely to exhaust
regular unemployment compensation and in need of job search
assistance to make a successful transition to new employment;
and
``(BB) otherwise meets the requirements of clause
(ii)(I)(bb) and (cc).
``(bb) Additional eligibility and priority criteria.--An
eligible entity may establish criteria that is in addition to
the criteria described in item (aa) for the eligibility of
individuals to receive a personal reemployment account under
this subsection. An eligible entity may also establish
criteria for priority in the provision of such accounts to
such eligible individuals under this subsection.

``(II) Previously exhausted unemployment compensation.--At
the option of the eligible entity, an individual may be
eligible to receive a personal reemployment account under a
grant awarded under this subsection if the individual--

``(aa) during the 26-week period ending the week prior to
the date of the enactment of this subsection, exhausted all
rights to any unemployment compensation; and
``(bb)(AA) is enrolled in training and needs additional
support to complete such training, with a priority of service
to be provided to such individuals who are training for
shortage occupations or high-growth industries; or
``(BB) is separated from employment in an industry or
occupation that has experienced declining employment, or no
longer provides any employment, in the local labor market
during the 2-year period ending on the date of the
determination of eligibility of the individual under this
subparagraph.
``(iv) No individual entitlement.--Nothing in this
subsection shall be construed to entitle any individual to
receive a personal reemployment account.
``(D) Limitations.--
``(i) Information and attestation.--Prior to the
establishment of a personal reemployment account for an
eligible individual, the eligible entity receiving a grant,
through the one-stop delivery system in the participating
local area or areas, shall ensure that the individual--

``(I) is informed of the requirements applicable to the
personal reemployment account, including the allowable uses
of funds from the account, the limitations on access to
services described in paragraph (7)(A)(iii) and a description
of such services, and the conditions for receiving a
reemployment bonus;
``(II) has the option to develop a personal reemployment
plan which will identify the employment goals and appropriate
combination of services selected by the individual to achieve
the employment goals; and
``(III) signs an attestation that the individual has been
given the option to develop a personal reemployment plan in
accordance with subclause (II), will comply with the
requirements under this subsection relating to the personal
reemployment accounts, and will reimburse the account or, if
the account has been terminated, the grant awarded under this
subsection, for any amounts expended from the account that
are not allowable.

``(ii) Periodic interviews.--If a recipient exhausts his or
her rights to any unemployment compensation, and the
recipient has a remaining balance in his or her personal
reemployment account, the one-stop delivery system shall
conduct periodic interviews with the recipient to assist the
recipient in meeting his or her individual employment goals.
``(iii) Use of personal reemployment accounts.--The
eligible entity receiving a grant shall ensure that eligible
individuals receiving a personal reemployment account use the
account in accordance with paragraph (7).
``(6) Application for grants.--To be eligible to receive a
grant under this subsection, an eligible entity shall submit
an application to the Secretary at such time, in such manner,
and containing such information as the Secretary may require,
including--
``(A) if the eligible entity is a State--
``(i) assurance that the application was developed in
conjunction with the local board or boards and chief elected
officials where the personal reemployment accounts shall be
made available; and
``(ii) a description of the methods and procedures for
providing funds to local areas where the personal
reemployment accounts shall be made available; and
``(B) a description of the criteria and methods to be used
for determining eligibility for the personal reemployment
account, including whether the eligible entity intends to
include the optional categories described in paragraph
(5)(C)(iii), and the additional criteria and priority for
service that the eligible entity intends to apply, if any,
pursuant to paragraph (5)(C)(ii)(II);
``(C) a description of the methods or procedures to be used
to provide eligible individuals information relating to
services and providers;
``(D) a description of safeguards to ensure that funds from
the personal reemployment accounts are used for purposes
authorized under this subsection and to ensure the quality
and integrity of services and providers, consistent with the
purpose of providing eligible individuals with enhanced
flexibility, choice, and control in obtaining intensive
reemployment, training, and supportive services;
``(E) a description of how the eligible entity will
coordinate the activities carried out under this subsection
with the employment and training activities carried out under
section 134 and other activities carried out by local boards
through the one-stop delivery system in the State or local
area; and
``(F) an assurance that the eligible entity will comply
with any evaluation and reporting requirements the Secretary
may require.
``(7) Use of personal reemployment accounts.--
``(A) Allowable activities.--
``(i) In general.--Subject to the requirements contained in
clauses (ii) and (iii), a recipient of a personal
reemployment account may use amounts in a personal
reemployment account to purchase 1 or more of the following:

``(I) Intensive services, including those type of services
specified in section 134(d)(3)(C).
``(II) Training services, including those types of services
specified in section 134(d)(4)(D).
``(III) Supportive services, except for needs related
payments.

``(ii) Delivery of services.--The following requirements
relating to delivery of services shall apply to the grants
under this subsection:

``(I) Recipients may use funds from the personal
reemployment account to purchase the services described in
clause (i) through the one-stop delivery system on a fee-for-
service basis, or through other providers, consistent with
the safeguards described in paragraph (6)(D).
``(II) The eligible entity, through the one-stop delivery
system in the participating local area, may pay costs for
such services directly on behalf of the recipient, through a
voucher system, or by reimbursement to the recipient upon
receipt of appropriate cost documentation.

[[Page H3729]]

``(III) Each eligible entity, through the one-stop delivery
system in the participating local area, shall make available
to recipients information on training providers specified in
section 134(d)(4)(F)(ii), information available to the one-
stop delivery system on providers of the intensive and
supportive services described in clause (i), and information
relating to occupations in demand in the local area.

``(iii) Limitations.--The following limitations shall apply
with respect to personal reemployment accounts under this
subsection:

``(I) Amounts in a personal reemployment account may be
used for up to 1 year from the date of the establishment of
the account.
``(II) Each recipient shall submit cost documentation as
required by the one-stop delivery system.
``(III) For the 1-year period following the establishment
of the account, recipients may not receive intensive,
supportive, or training services funded under this title
except on a fee-for-services basis as specified in clause
(ii)(I).
``(IV) Amounts in a personal reemployment account shall be
nontransferable.

``(B) Reemployment bonus.--
``(i) In general.--Subject to clause (ii)--

``(I) if a recipient determined eligible under paragraph
(5)(C)(ii) obtains full-time employment before the 13th week
of unemployment for which unemployment compensation is paid,
the balance of his or her personal reemployment account shall
be provided directly to the recipient in cash; and
``(II) if a recipient determined eligible under paragraph
(5)(C)(iii) obtains full-time employment before the end of
the 13th week after the date on which the account is
established, the balance of his or her personal reemployment
account shall be provided directly to the recipient in cash.

``(ii) Limitations.--The following limitations shall apply
with respect to a recipient described in clause (i):

``(I) 60 percent of the remaining personal reemployment
account balance shall be paid to the recipient at the time of
employment.
``(II) 40 percent of the remaining personal reemployment
account shall be paid to the recipient after 26 weeks of
employment retention.

``(iii) Exception regarding subsequent employment.--If a
recipient described in clause (i) subsequently becomes
unemployed due to a lack of work after receiving the portion
of the reemployment bonus specified under clause (ii)(I), the
individual may use the amount remaining in the personal
reemployment account for the purposes described in
subparagraph (A) but may not be eligible for additional cash
payments under this subparagraph.
``(8) Program information and evaluation.--
``(A) Information.--The Secretary may require from eligible
entities the collection and reporting on such financial,
performance, and other program-related information as the
Secretary determines is appropriate to carry out this
subsection, including the evaluation described in
subparagraph (B).
``(B) Evaluation.--
``(i) In general.--The Secretary, pursuant to the authority
provided under section 172, shall, directly or through
grants, contracts, or cooperative agreement with appropriate
entities, conduct an evaluation of the activities carried out
under any grants awarded under this subsection.
``(ii) Report.--The report to Congress under section 172(e)
relating to the results of the evaluations required under
section 172 shall include the recommendation of the Secretary
with respect to the use of personal reemployment account as a
mechanism to assist individuals in obtaining and retaining
employment.''.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) and
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner).

General Leave

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their
remarks and included extraneous material on H.R. 444.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Ohio?
There was no objection.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the economic news over the last 8 months has been very
encouraging. Republicans and President Bush have focused on creating
jobs and opportunity, helping working Americans by providing tax
relief, improving worker training and education to help Americans
without work get back on their feet, and enhancing the competitiveness
of employers both at home and abroad to ensure they continue to hire
more and more American workers.
As recent data from the Labor Department shows, the U.S. is creating
thousands of new jobs every month. The pro-growth agenda has created
1.1 million net new jobs over the last 8 months, and 625,000 jobs, net
new jobs, I should say, in March and April alone. Moreover, the
national unemployment rate declined to 5.6 percent in April, lower than
the average unemployment rate during the 1970s, the 1980s, and the
1990s.
While this is welcome news for working Americans, we remain committed
to ensuring that every displaced worker has the opportunity to find
meaningful employment and access to job-training services that will
help them find good-paying jobs. As President Bush has said, one worker
out of work is one too many, and we have a responsibility to help
working families in times when they need it most.
Job training and worker education is more important to this effort in
today's changing economy now more than ever before. Every member of our
society, including those who are most vulnerable and the hardest to
employ, want to achieve independence and self-sufficiency. No American
wants endless reliance on our government, and I think the President
recognizes that and providing personal reemployment accounts represents
one more way we are helping the unemployed by specifically tailoring
job training and employment services to meet their unique needs.
Giving displaced workers the resources they need and continuing this
economic expansion is critically important. That brings us to why we
are here today: to highlight a new and innovative approach to helping
the unemployed get back on their feet. The bill before us, the Worker
Reemployment Accounts Act, allows demonstration funding under the
Workforce Investment Act to be used by States and local workforce
investment boards for a pilot project to offer personal reemployment
accounts of up to $3,000.
With the funds from these accounts, unemployed workers may purchase a
variety of different services to help them find a new job and to
reenter the workforce, including job training, child care,
transportation, housing assistance, relocation services, career
counseling, computer classes, just to name a few. And all of these are
accessible through the One-Stop Career Center system where unemployed
workers already seek job training assistance.
A key component of this plan allows workers who become reemployed
within 13 weeks to keep the balance of their account as a cash
reemployment bonus. In addition, these reemployment accounts empower
individual recipients to make choices appropriate for their own
circumstances. Recipients will be able to create reemployment accounts
that help them navigate all of the options that are available, such as
career counseling or job training for a new profession. In providing
choice and flexibility, I think we get people back to work into steady,
good-paying jobs sooner.
For those who are struggling to get back on their feet, we in
Congress, I think, have a responsibility to look for additional
solutions to help them when they need it most. The intent of this bill
is clear: this new benefit supplements and enhances the services that
are already available for those who are most likely to face obstacles
in finding and keeping new employment, whether it be unemployment
benefits or the employment training programs offered through the
Workforce Investment Act.
The bill before us is a pilot project, a scaled-back version of a
more comprehensive proposal that the Committee on Education and the
Workforce approved last year. Our goal here is to put this program to a
test, see how it works in practice, and determine whether it truly
gives unemployed workers an option, a workable option to help them
improve their job search. The lessons learned through this pilot
project will give Congress more information on how best to serve those
who are looking for work.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Porter)
and the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon) for their work on this
measure and last year's bill as well. During hearings that we had last
year, we heard from State leaders at a field hearing in Nevada about
the practical benefits of these reemployment accounts in helping the
unemployed. We also heard from Labor Secretary Elaine Chao, who said
that the accounts ``will empower individuals by giving them more
flexibility, personal choice, and

[[Page H3730]]

control over their job search and career.''
Over the past 2 years, we have taken numerous steps to help
unemployed workers, and we are also in the process of reauthorizing the
Federal job-training programs under the Workforce Investment Act.
Millions of jobless workers should not have to wait for job-training
reform, and Congress has an obligation this year to improve those job-
training opportunities for American workers. Unfortunately, it appears,
though, that some in the other body want to block major job-training
legislation that would help strengthen training and retraining
opportunities for American workers. I think if given the opportunity,
we look forward to completing work on that legislation this year.
But Congress must act now to provide new, innovative options to help
workers as quickly as possible, and the choice and flexibility
available through personal reemployment accounts will help more
Americans get back on their feet and find good jobs.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 444, and
I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, this bill completely misses the mark. American workers
need job creation. American workers also need extended unemployment
benefits. This sour economy has lost 2 million jobs since President
Bush took office. This bill does nothing to address these issues, the
most pressing facing our workforce today. Instead, H.R. 444 creates an
untested and risky job-training voucher scheme.
This voucher scheme cuts off workers from regular job-training
benefits when they accept a PRA. This legislation also demeans workers
by assuming that those receiving unemployment benefits need a financial
lure to go back to work.
I am not sure about other congressional districts, but unemployed
workers in Flint, Michigan, my hometown, and other areas of Michigan do
not need an incentive to find work. They are in desperate search of
work right now. They do not need an incentive to be able to afford
their mortgage or to provide for their family. They need jobs.

{time} 1115

I am surprised there are those in this body that think that American
workers need a financial incentive to find a job. The real story behind
this bill is that it simply fails to address the most pressing needs of
the American worker. It is a sham.
Let us look at the real problems facing the American worker. Two
million jobs have been lost since the beginning of the Bush
administration, 8.2 million individuals are unemployed, 1.5 million
workers have exhausted their unemployment benefits, wages have barely
kept up with inflation, and this bill does nothing to address these
problems.
Substantive help for American workers lies in an initiative to create
jobs and to extend unemployment insurance. Yet this Republican Congress
and the Bush administration has continually failed to address these
needs. The last extension of UI benefits ran out late last year.
Despite some meager job growth in the past few months, we remain two
million jobs in the hole since the beginning of the Bush
administration. The Republican answer to these problems is a pilot
project for job training vouchers.
This bill brings no new resources to help American workers. Instead,
it would steal funding from other proven job training programs. How
could this respond to the needs of the American workers?
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to oppose this bill. We need
real-world solutions to real-world problems, not unfunded, untested
legislation which will not address the true needs of the American
worker.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Nebraska (Mr. Osborne), a member of the Committee on Education and the
Workforce.
Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Speaker, it seems that in these debates we so often
get sidetracked into discussions of ideology, and I think it is
important we focus on the bill before us. I certainly have great
respect for those on the minority side and understand and appreciate
some of their concerns.
I think it is important that we point out that this is a pilot bill.
This is not something that is going to directly impact all workers
everywhere in the country. And the reason I think this is important to
point out is that, as the chairman mentioned, there will be several
different programs that people can allocate their money into. And let
us see if Congress cannot find out exactly where people want to put
their money.
So if 50 percent of the money goes to child care, and 10 percent goes
to enhancing computer skills, and 40 percent goes into career
counseling, pretty soon Congress is going to get a picture as to what
is really important to workers and where those resources need to be
allocated. This certainly represents an innovative approach to
providing assistance to unemployment workers.
As the chairman mentioned, we live in a different world. I think the
average worker today may have as many as four or five different jobs.
And this is not necessarily because the economy is bad, it is simply
because the economy is changing consistently. So almost everyone at one
time or another is going to be between jobs or without a job.
I think this approach offers some unique opportunities. It certainly
offers great flexibility, and this is the critical part in job
training. It may have to do with computer skills, it may be earning a
license to be a realtor, a financial planner, or 1 year at a community
college, which I think is a tremendous option for a great many people.
We feel also that child care, transportation, career counseling,
relocation services, housing assistance are viable alternatives as
well.
The last thing I would like to mention, Mr. Speaker, is simply the
fact that there are some incentives here for people to not only get a
job but to have some money, some seed money to get started on their new
career. For instance, as an example, a person had a $3,000 grant and
$2,000 of it was spent, maybe some of it on community college, some for
child care, and there was $1,000 remaining. This would leave $600 at
employment that person could use to get back on their feet and $400 to
be used after 6 months of employment.
So we think that this is certainly an interesting and flexible
approach. I urge support of this bill, H.R. 444.
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
ranking member of the committee, the gentleman from California (Mr.
George Miller).
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman
for yielding and for his handling of this bill for the minority on the
floor and his work on it in the committee.
And the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) is quite right. We
should oppose this bill. I have to say that I think my colleagues on
the other side of the aisle are simply describing a bill that is not
before us, because they talk about this as being supplemental and
providing flexibility to the unemployed worker.
Now, clearly, we would like to do that, because we have 8 million
unemployed individuals in this country. We have 90,000 people who are
exhausting their unemployment benefits a week in this country who still
have not been unable to find employment, who are in desperate straits.
So, clearly, there is a need for what they are describing.
But let us understand something. What they are describing in terms of
flexibility is already available in the law under the WIA bill that we
are in the process of reauthorizing. They can provide you child care
stipends if it helps you take advantage of a computer training program
or a program at the community college or a program of a collaborative
in your community. They can provide you a transportation voucher to get
to that program if that is what is necessary.
That is why we designed the law that way, because we know that the
unemployed come to these programs, and their needs are varied. Some
people have automobiles, and some people do not. Some people have
access to transportation, and some people do not. Their child care came
with the job, and now they have lost it. That is why we built in that
flexibility in the current program.

[[Page H3731]]

What this says is if you go for the bait on the hook, which is a
grant, that could be up to $3,000, you are then prohibited from
participating in those programs unless you take the $3,000 or the $500
or the $700. Because at $3,000 you are only going to take care of
16,000 people. We have 90,000 people who are losing their unemployment
benefits a week. But if you take the $500, you then have to pay for the
programs that are currently available to you in your community under
the WIA act for free.
What is the deal here, folks? You are no better off. It is not
supplemental. You have just lost your eligibility to what may be very
good, comprehensive training programs.
In my community, industry is coming to community colleges and to the
work incentive force all of the time to say we would like to structure
a program in the community to provide us X number of people in
biotechnology and high technology and refining business, whatever it
is. That is the needs in our community.
You take this $500 voucher, you lose the eligibility to go to those
programs. This is neither flexible nor supplemental. It takes away what
people now have available to them. And if you took this $50 million,
which obviously, given the President's memo on 2006, is going to be cut
from other job training programs, if you added $50 million, you could
provide much more child care to those individuals who need that to
participate in retraining and to get ready for the next employment
opportunity or need transportation costs covered so they can get to the
community college or they can get to the training program or to the
licensure program, whatever it is they choose. That is all available in
law today.
The Republicans have said this is Career Week. This is Career Week in
the United States House of Representatives. The only career we keep
dealing with is legislation that doesn't do anything. We are making a
career out of providing answers that do not answer the questions that
workers are asking. We have got to stop this.
We ought to get on with the WIA bill. We ought to get it
reauthorized. We ought to make sure that the funding is there so that
all of the flexibility that is in that law can be utilized by the 8
million American workers who are looking for jobs in this economy and
have been unable to find them.
So I would hope that my colleagues would join the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Kildee) and vote against this legislation, understanding
that this is harmful and, in fact, it will subtract from the total job
training package that this government is making available to those
unemployed and to their families.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, we probably would not be here today if the other body
would actually go to conference on the reauthorization of the Workforce
Investment Act. But I think all of us realize that they have been
unwilling to go to conference, and we believe that we have got every
responsibility known to man to help those people who are unemployed and
need help.
Secondly, let me say that, once again, we are getting into a debate
about the perfect becoming the enemy of the good. What this bill does
is set up a pilot project that allows unemployed workers who qualify
the option of this $3,000 reemployment bonus. The real key here is that
they, the unemployed workers, get to decide what kind of training they
need, what kind of education they might need, what kind of services
they may need to help them get back on their feet and into good work.
They get to decide, not some bureaucrat in some office somewhere. They
get to decide.
And this option of allowing them that flexibility, I think, is worth
trying. That is what we are asking for today: Let us try this. Let us
see what happens. Let us see if this additional flexibility for
unemployed workers does, in fact, help them get the training,
retraining they may need to find a good job.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to my colleague, the
gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Porter) the author of this bill.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 444 for
multiple reasons.
First of all, we are facing an ever-changing economy both nationally
and internationally. Could you imagine just a few years ago going go to
the gas station and you would not have help or an attendant, you would
have a piece of technology taking your credit card, you enter it into
the gas pump, or go to the grocery store where people are being
replaced by technology? Can you imagine going to rental car agency and
it all being done electronically? So we are facing quite a change in
the world and here in the U.S.
Nevada, as my colleagues know, is one of the fastest-growing states
in the country but is also the entertainment and resort capital of the
world. There was a day when we depended solely on the gaming economy.
Not only gaming today is number one, we are the top shopping
destination and restaurant destination in the world because we have had
to change and change dramatically.
The National Chamber of Commerce has said that 40 percent of the jobs
in the future do not exist today. They have also said that 75 percent
of the workers as we know them today must change their skills and their
technology.
Then we look at what happened after 9/11. September 11 changed the
world. The community of Nevada was literally out of business for 90
days. But because of the resilient business community, because of labor
working in concert with our resort industry, we are coming back
stronger than ever.
The Nevada impacts are such that we are now the bellwether for the
economy across the United States. The economy is turning around as
Nevada has turned around. People are getting back to work. In Nevada
alone we have created close to 60,000 new jobs in the last year. We are
in a 4.3 percent unemployment rate, a true bellweather for the economy
as it is improving across the country.
And credit goes to labor and business working together. As our
business communities change, as has our labor community, such as the
Culinary Union working closely with business. But nationwide housing
starts, all-time high; gross national product, all-time high; Wall
Street, every day we are seeing improvements. Nationwide, 1.1 million
new jobs since last August, 625,000 jobs in March and April alone.
But, more importantly, the greatness of society, the greatness of
America is not based upon our checkbooks. It is what we do to help
those folks that need help. H.R. 444 does just that. It provides a
voluntary program, a voluntary program for States to choose if they
want to be a part of this program. It is a demonstration project, but,
more importantly, it is a new tool to train our workers in this new
global environment.
The benefits, we have touched upon them this morning but I would like
to cover them one more time.
Transportation. Many of these folks in Nevada have a hard time
getting to the job for the interview.
Day care. Why not allow moms and dads to have some assistance? Many
need a telephone, simply a telephone to help receive that call when the
job is available.
And Nevada, being one of the fastest-growing States regarding the
Hispanic population, we need help with language and language barriers.
There are those that will say that these tools exist today. I am
sorry, but it is very complex, very confusing. This provides for a one-
stop, easy access and a matter-of-fact choice. So the employee who
needs help the most can make the decision and receive the balance if
they are employed within the 13 weeks.
So, in summary, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on
this very important tool as we enter this new environment, provide a
new tool for a new economy. It is flexible, it is voluntary, and it
provides choice for the employee.

{time} 1130

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on behalf of H.R.
444, and I appreciate Members' votes.
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney), a member of the committee.
Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Kildee) for yielding me time, and I thank him for his work in
opposition to this

[[Page H3732]]

bill. I think he has it exactly right, Mr. Speaker. These PRAs, as they
are called, the personal reemployment accounts, are presented to us in
the face of over 2 million jobs lost under this present Republican
administration. One and a half million workers have exhausted their
unemployment insurance benefits. President Bush and the House
Republicans refuse to extend those unemployment benefits despite these
facts.
Even Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan thinks it is a good idea
to extend those benefits. The money is already in the trust fund. It is
the right thing to do morally. We have done it in the past, in the
first Bush administration. We did it five times. It is the economically
wise thing to do. For every dollar invested in unemployment benefits,
$1.73 comes back into the economy because people that get it have
needs. They have rent or mortgage payments to make. They have health
care bills, car payments, education costs, groceries. That is what this
economy needs right now to give those people a boost so they can
survive while they are looking for a job.
But the administration and the Republicans in the House seem afraid
that extending those benefits will be an admission of their failed
economic policies, the fact that we have had two tax cuts for
millionaires while we are fighting two wars, and regular Americans are
the ones being asked to sacrifice. So these so-called PRAs are offered,
actually they are reoffered as you have heard, as this is a bill that
was already presented through the House and advisedly passed. It
provides no employment, no unemployment benefits, no job creation.
There is no new money to get people to work. In fact, it is going to be
funded through cuts in existing programs. And because we are $500
billion in deficit, it is pretty clear that there is not going to be
enough money there for the $3,000 that people are talking about. It is
going to in fact be far less per person.
In brief, it is robbing from proven programs that are effective job-
training programs for an experiment that is designed to fail. It is
built on a false premise. We had Secretary Chao come before the
committee and when asked why she would not extend unemployment
insurance benefits, she said because the administration thought that
was an incentive for people not to look for work. That is an insulting,
false premise. Two million people are involuntarily unemployed during
this term. For every three people looking, there is only one job. Many
people that are getting a job are getting it at 21 percent less pay
than the job that they lost.
Although the bill proposes $3,000, it is more likely that people will
get far less. The one-stop centers that we have now are the centers
that have the flexibility. They are serving the needs of people. In
fact, they provide for the other things that were talked about, as the
gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) said. But what they want
to do here is take a program that averages 5 to $6,000 in costs for
job-training programs now available to individuals that have lost their
jobs and substitute it for up to $3,000 which will fall far short in
which they are supposed to pay for that 5 to $6,000 worth of job
training and child care and transportation and housing assistance and
relocation services and career counseling.
This must be a miracle $3,000 per person because it is shrinking as
the needs are there. The present system, Mr. Speaker, is working. It is
one that people have worked on in a bipartisan nature. This is what we
need to do, not false programs, but deal with the real needs of the
unemployed. Give them extended unemployment benefits and give them a
chance to get a job.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). Does the gentleman from
California (Mr. McKeon) wish to control the time of the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Boehner)?
Mr. McKEON. Yes, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from
California (Mr. McKeon) will control the time of the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Boehner).
There was no objection.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Isakson), the vice-chairman of the Subcommittee on 21st
Century Competitiveness.
Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr.
McKeon) for yielding me time. I thank the gentleman from Nevada (Mr.
Porter) for his work on this.
The discussion I have just heard was about what this bill is not. I
would like to talk for a second about what this bill is.
This is a creative opportunity at the election of the local WIA board
and at the election of the applicant for the grant to take a creative
approach to take someone from unemployment to employment.
Now, outside the Beltway there is a real world; and in the 22 years
prior to my election to this Congress, I ran a company, a company
substantially all of whose employees were second or third career which
meant they might have come out of a job loss, a job transfer, or a
temporary unemployment because of the birth of a child or illness or
whatever. And I can tell you in this unique world that we live in there
is not a one-size-fits-all formula in terms of the requirements
necessary for reemployment.
To allow the option for a local board to create these personal
reemployment accounts and the option for an individual to accept the
waiver and apply for the funds does the following things: it takes a
person who is otherwise employable but in need of specific targeted
help, whether it is in specific training, whether it is in child care
or whether it is in transportation, to do a tailor-made job to go into
employment, and I employed people that way every day for 22 years
before I came to Congress.
It is a creative way to approach the needs of some people in looking
for employment.
Secondly, what is so important for us to consider today is the
present-day environment. The number of unemployed has been reduced from
its peak because the American economy is improving. Those that are
unemployed in many cases may be those who are more in need of
specialized training or help that otherwise might have been true a year
ago or 6 months ago. It is only right to grant that flexibility. And as
long as we cannot get an agreement to go to conference on the base bill
that now lies in limbo, it is only appropriate we take the right
initiative.
I want to end with this. There are two basic motivators in human
nature. One is risk and the other is reward. This approach takes the
reward approach and the incentive approach and even in the end has the
encouragement for residual funds to remain with the grantee, if they
are employed earlier than they otherwise might have been.
Any other approach is for people to fear flexibility, to fear choice,
and to fear creativity. Those are not things we should fear. Just as we
proved in welfare-to-work, with targeted funds, with flexibility, with
child care, with training, we could take a life of dependency and turn
it into a life of independency. I will subscribe to that every single
time.
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Chairman Greenspan before the Committee on Education and the
Workforce indicated that he supports the extension of unemployment
benefits. And after he made that statement, of course, the President of
the United States announced that he would reappoint Alan Greenspan,
would extend his tenure. Well, if he does that, let us extend those
unemployment benefits which Mr. Greenspan supports.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Andrews).
(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Kildee), for yielding me time. I rise in opposition to
the bill.
I suppose if you are one of the 8 million unemployed Americans
listening to this debate, Mr. Speaker, you wonder what this bill would
mean to you. First, if you live in one of the many, many States that
would not be part of this pilot program, it means nothing. Second, if
you are in one of the States or counties that has the pilot program,
you keep hearing about this $3,000, there is no $3,000. This bill was
not funded in the President's budget.
If money would be scraped together for it, it would come out of
something

[[Page H3733]]

else that helps unemployed people. It is up to $3,000. So someone
listening to this, Mr. Speaker, should not assume that he or she is
going to get a $3,000 voucher. But let us assume that you live in one
of the pilot counties and the money is there to some extent. What does
this mean? It means you are unemployed and you get a choice. You can
either take all the services that the law presently provides like job
training, like counseling, like transportation, like child care; or you
can give up your right to receive those services for a year and take
this check of up to $3,000 instead.
Now, if you have looked at the price of sending children to child
care, $3,000 does not go very far. If you have looked at tuition at a
career college or a community college, $3,000 does not go very far. If
you have looked at the things that people need to do to get to work or
find work, it does not go very far at all. So the premise of the bill
seems to be that people are not taking jobs because it is better to
stay on unemployment than it is to go get a job. I would suggest, Mr.
Speaker, that anybody who thinks that has probably never been on
unemployment.
The idea here is not that the $3,000 is going to be an incentive for
people to go get a job. People are not taking jobs because the economy
is not creating the jobs. For every three people looking for work in
America today, there is one job. That is the problem that we ought to
fix. We ought to extend unemployment benefits for those without a job.
We ought to pass the transportation bill so that we put 300,000
Americans to work. We ought to adopt the Ryan proposal from yesterday
that would create 100,000 new jobs for first responders to deal with
our homeland security problems. That is the way to fix this problem.
Not this bill.
I would urge my colleagues to oppose the bill.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. McKeon), the original author and I would describe as
the father of the Workforce Investment Act. I applaud him on his good
work.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 444, the Worker
Reemployment Accounts Act, which offers new assistance for unemployed
workers in the form of personal reemployment accounts that would help
workers that need it the most return to work quickly.
I would like to thank my good friend from Nevada (Mr. Porter) for his
hard work and the things he has done in getting this legislation here,
and also the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) for his work and
leadership in getting this bill to the floor.
With 1.1 million new jobs created in the last 8 months, and 625,000
jobs added in March and April, it is clear that our economy is strong
and on the right track. The economic forecast for the manufacturing
sector is also bright after adding jobs for 3 consecutive months. In
fact, on Tuesday the Institute for Supply Management reported that its
manufacturing employment index advanced in May for the seventh
consecutive month and is now at the highest mark in 31 years. Moreover,
the unemployment rate fell to 5.6 percent in April, lower than the
average unemployment rate during the 70s, 80s and 90s.
As an example, my home State of California added more than 61,000
jobs from December 2003 to April 2004. Under the leadership of the
President and Congress who are focusing our efforts to make America
more globally competitive, our Nation's economy is strengthening and
adding momentum every month. Despite these encouraging signs, we need
to do more to help displaced workers get back on their feet. The Worker
Reemployment Accounts Act is a step in the right direction and an
innovative approach to helping workers find good paying jobs.
The bill authorizes funding for a pilot program that would help
workers with personal reemployment accounts of up to $3,000 to purchase
employment-related services to help them return to work. This is a
flexible approach that empowers Americans to find good-paying jobs.
Funds from these accounts can be used for job training, career
counseling, relocation services, child care, and housing assistance
among others.
One of the best elements of the plan is that any unspent balance in
the account can be kept by workers who find work within 13 weeks. It is
a great incentive.
The personal reemployment account will be administered through the
one-stop career center system established under the Workforce
Investment Act, where displaced workers already seek employment
assistance. State and local workforce boards that want to participate
will apply to the Secretary of Labor for competitive grants to offer
personal reemployment accounts to unemployed workers.
An individual who receives an account must be receiving unemployment
benefits, be identified by the State as likely to exhaust his or her
benefits, and be eligible for at least 20 weeks of unemployment
compensation. These accounts are a new benefit that would work in
tandem with unemployment insurance as an additional vehicle for helping
workers in their efforts to find good jobs. It would not create an
entirely new and complicated system to administer, as some on the other
side of the aisle are proposing.
Over the past 2 years, Republicans have taken numerous steps to help
unemployed workers, and this is another way we are responding to needs
of Americans who find themselves without work.
The U.S. economy is strong and getting stronger. By giving job
seekers all the necessary resources they need to return to work, we
will continue this economic resurgence to keep the U.S. jobs-creation
engine running strong. The Worker Reemployment Accounts Act provides a
unique approach to helping displaced workers return to good jobs and
deserves every Member's support.
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin).

{time} 1145

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentleman from Michigan
(Mr. Kildee) for his leadership on this issue and helping working
people in our country; and, Mr. Speaker, let me say I wish that the
comments of the last speaker, my colleague, were true in regards to the
economy, but the facts speak to something quite different.
If we take a look at the jobs that have been created within the last
several months, we find we have traded very good jobs, jobs in this
country, for jobs that are paying much lower wages. When we look at the
total record over the last 3 years, we find we have lost millions of
jobs. When we look at the unemployment rate in this Nation, we find
that many people have just given up hope, and that is why the
unemployment rate may appear to be higher than it really is, but many
people in this Nation who are looking for jobs cannot find jobs and
have literally left the labor field altogether.
Mr. Speaker, we have a problem in our economy, and the problem can
first be summed by saying we do not have enough jobs. We need an
economic program that will create more jobs for Americans.
Number two, Mr. Speaker, we have millions of Americans who cannot
find employment, and they need help called unemployment insurance,
which in every prior recession and downturn Democrats and Republicans
have come together to extend unemployment benefits. We have a fund to
do this. There are millions of dollars in that fund, but yet the
majority refuses to allow us to vote on the unemployment compensation.
So the first issue is the issue of jobs, and we need an economic plan
that will create jobs. Unfortunately, the administration has pursued a
fiscally reckless economic plan that has added trillions of dollars to
our national debt and is killing jobs rather than creating jobs because
of government debt.
The record over the last 3 years, millions of fewer jobs here in this
Nation. People are hurting, Mr. Speaker. We need to do something about
it. Eight million Americans are unemployed today; 1.8 million of them
have been without a job for 6 months or longer. We have record numbers
of people who have exhausted their State unemployment benefits.
Since we allowed last year the expiration of the Federal unemployment
insurance benefits, we have found 1.5

[[Page H3734]]

million workers have exhausted their State benefits without the benefit
of the Federal unemployment insurance; yet, the Republican leadership
has refused us a vote on this floor of an extension of the Federal
unemployment insurance benefits. They know that a majority of the
Members of this body would vote in favor of that legislation, and yet
they deny us a vote on the extension of unemployment benefits. Nineteen
billion dollars is sitting in the Federal unemployment trust account,
$19 billion which is accumulated exactly for this purpose, to help the
unemployed worker; and the majority of Republicans refuse to allow us a
vote on extending those benefits to those who need it.
So, Mr. Speaker, we have a problem. We have a problem with the wrong
economic program, and we have a problem of not helping those people
that are unemployed.
This bill does nothing in that regard. We should be debating programs
to create new job opportunities in America, and we should be extending
unemployment benefits to those who do not have the employment. I regret
that we are not doing that today.
I would urge my colleagues to listen to the motion to recommit,
because that is the only opportunity we are going to have that will be
offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) that at least will
give us a chance to help us do something to help American workers.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Kucinich).
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Kildee) very much for the time, and it is a pleasure to work with him
on the committee to protect the rights of workers and also to speak to
the concern of unemployed Americans.
I rise to strongly oppose H.R. 444, the Worker Reemployment Accounts
Act of 2004. I would like to begin with a reflection here.
Alan Greenspan, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, recently
appeared in Washington to talk about unemployment and about
unemployment insurance, and he said ``that when unemployment is
created, through no fault of the workers' actions, then I think it is
clearly to our advantage to find ways of creating support in our
system, and as a consequence, in times like this, I have supported the
issue of extension of unemployment insurance.'' That is Alan Greenspan,
the chairman of the Federal Reserve.
Now, there is an urgency about this issue about unemployment, and I
would submit that the solution that is being offered today by our
friends in the majority is a false solution. We have the chairman of
the Federal Reserve ready to recognize the urgency of unemployment
insurance. It is obvious that we ought to be providing for an extension
of unemployment insurance to meet the needs of those millions of
Americans who are desperate today for Congress to take action. Why are
they desperate? Well, let us look at what happened.
The economic record of this administration will show that over a
period from January of 2001 to April 2004, there has, in fact, been a
substantial increase in the unemployment rate from 4.2 percent in
January 2001 to 5.6 percent in April of 2004. Let us look more closely
at this.
What we have here is of great consequence to millions of Americans
because in this period, from January 2001 to April 2004, we have seen
long-term unemployment nearly triple. In other words, there are not
only more people unemployed, but more people are unemployed for longer
periods of time, which means a tremendous adverse economic impact on
their families.
In January 2001, there were approximately 680,000 people in this
country who were unemployed more than 26 weeks; but now, in April of
2004, under the economic policies of this administration, the
unemployment rate for those who have been unemployed for more than 26
weeks has gone to 1.8 million, nearly three times. This, of course,
means that there is real desperation on the part of many American
families to get some help.
Now, let us put this in a historical context. How do we take the
economic policies of this administration with respect to job creation
and with respect to the lack thereof and put it against all
administrations over the last 70 years? This comparison is noteworthy
because what we see here is that going all the way back to the time of
Herbert Hoover, there has not been a worse condition where we have seen
an actual decline in private sector jobs. In this whole arc of a 70-
year period, we see in one administration after another, Democrat and
Republican alike, this administration has failed to meet the tests that
all other administrations, Democratic and Republican alike, have met;
and, in fact, we have here an actual decline in private sector jobs,
only in this administration.
So what should be the solution right now with so many people
suffering? We have been told this by the Chairman of the Federal
Reserve. Our unemployment system is very well structured, and it has
worked the way I think we wanted it to work. Alan Greenspan again said
that on March 11 of this year.
So we should be here talking today about an extension of unemployment
benefits. Not only is it important in terms of recognizing the abysmal
failure of an administration in dealing with the creation of jobs, but
with knowing the suffering of working families who are not getting any
relief whatsoever at a time when the fund, as the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Cardin) pointed out, keep building up and up. What are we
going to do with all this money? Instead, we have a bill which
apparently those who crafted it believe that left to their own devices
the 8.2 million unemployed workers in America would prefer to simply
remain jobless.
With that analysis and thus the theory that underlies, this bill is
absolutely wrong. Unemployed Americans are unemployed not because they
want to be, but because they cannot find jobs. Since the recession
began 37 months ago, 2.2 million private sector jobs have disappeared,
a 2 percent contraction in the job market. In every previous episode of
recession and job decline since 1939, the number of jobs fully
recovered to above the pre-recessionary peak within 31 months at the
start of the recession. This time, however, it has not happened. In
fact, if employment had grown by the 2.2 percent rate that occurred in
the past three recessionary cycles, today's labor market would have 5.2
million more jobs. Instead, we can all point to lost jobs, and that is
all we can point to and more lost jobs.
Well, the administration has responded to the situation by refusing
to extend Federal unemployment benefits, an action that is already paid
for by the unemployment trust fund; 1.5 million workers remain without
a paycheck and without an unemployment check. The number of individuals
who have exhausted their State unemployment benefits without finding
work is at the highest level ever recorded.
This bill ought to be defeated. It is a nonsolution. It is time for
Congress to act in bringing unemployment insurance extension to the
floor of this House.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Porter), the author of this bill.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to address the top five false
claims that we have heard today about H.R. 444 with some of the facts.
False claim number 5: a reemployment bonus cannot motivate workers to
find jobs that do not exist. The truth: as Republicans, our tax and
growth programs over the past year have created 1.1 million new jobs,
625,000 coming in March and April. These job opportunities are becoming
more available, and we have to ensure that those chronically unemployed
have the new tools and new skills to face this new economy.
False claim number 4: PRAs do not provide workers with greater
flexibility. Rather, if workers choose a PRA, they would be prohibited
from using WIA services for a full year. Mr. Speaker, the truth:
reemployment accounts provide the unemployed with a means of developing
an individual specific plan for regaining employment. The prohibition
against WIA services is to prevent double dipping. I think that is
appropriate.
False claim number 3: PRAs will be used as an excuse to not extend
the

[[Page H3735]]

Temporary Emergency Unemployment Compensation Program. The truth, Mr.
Speaker: Republicans have consistently supported extending unemployment
benefits. These PRAs are a supplemental approach to benefits and
represent one more way that Republicans are using to help Americans
find new jobs and get back to work quickly.
False claim number 2: reemployment accounts come at the expense of
other WIA job training and employment programs. The truth, Mr. Speaker:
while appropriators will ultimately determine the allocation of these
dollars, the funding for PRAs will flow through the discretionary fund
of demonstration projects, not the funds used for other services.
False claim number 1 on the top of the list: H.R. 444 would restrict,
rather than expand, the amount of job training and other reemployment
services. Mr. Speaker, Republicans have prioritized funding for job
training. Reemployment accounts are a voluntary program that allows for
personalized and streamlined reemployment services. No one is forced to
use the account, and the purpose of the legislation is to provide the
most effective use of funds for the unemployed.

{time} 1200

Again, I encourage strong support for H.R. 444.
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. George Miller).
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the
gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Porter) that he ought to read the bill,
because truth and facts are about what the language of the bill says.
If you read on line 16, page 15, ``For the 1-year period following
the establishment of the account, recipients may not receive intensive,
supportive, or training services funded under this title except for the
fee-for-services basis.''
The gentleman obviously has not read the bill. That means that you
either pay for it with the stipend the gentleman says he wants to give
them, which provides them no additional new services, no flexibility.
So do not stand up here and talk about facts or truth. Read the bill.
Read the bill, and the gentleman will find out what he is doing is
denying them the services that are already available to them today.
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, this bill would establish a demonstration
project that would ostensibly offer personal reemployment accounts to
workers, providing up to $3,000 in assistance for the purpose of
finding a job and paying for services that would help lead to
employment.
Sounds good on the surface, but, as with every bill this
administration puts forward that impacts workers, there is a catch.
Employment services now offered through the One Stop Centers, at no
cost to the unemployed worker, would have to be purchased, meaning that
unemployed workers would now be charged for services that they can
currently receive for free.
To give an idea of the difference, those who utilize One Stop job
training programs right now receive an average of $5,000 to $6,000 in
services, about double the maximum allowed under this bill. So we
should not be fooled. The goal of this bill is not to provide
additional reemployment services or job training funding for unemployed
workers; rather, it is to pave the way for placing a Federal cap on
these services.
In an economy with a million and a half workers who have already
exhausted their unemployment benefits, reducing these services without
providing any job creation program is not only bad economic policy it
is outright dismissive of what these families are going through day
after day, particularly women in transition, nearly half of whom are
already finding Workforce Investment Act services, like local women's
education and training programs, insufficient.
Mr. Speaker, the unemployed workers in this country do not need ``an
incentive'' to look for work. Supporting a family without a job is
incentive enough. What they need is a job. Congress should be expanding
job training and job training access, not limiting them, as next year's
budget does. We should be extending health and unemployment benefits to
the unemployed, not letting them expire in the face of serious
unemployment.
Historically, this country, Republican or Democrat administrations,
have extended unemployment benefits in time of need. As a Nation, we
have said we are going to help people on a temporary basis meet these
unemployment challenges that they have. Not this administration. What
do they say? They say, if we extend those benefits, people will not go
out and look for a job. That is the opinion they have of working people
in this Nation.
I say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, walk in the
shoes of the unemployed; understand what it means to live paycheck to
paycheck. We do not have to worry about that in this body. There are
folks in this country who worry about that every single day. The
unemployed workers in this country deserve better.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
There was a discussion here about what would happen if workers chose
to take a $3,000 personal reemployment account and their ability to
access services at the Career One Stops. I just want to set the record
straight.
While it is true that recipients would be prohibited from accessing
intensive or training services through the One Stop career system for 1
year after the creation of the account, unless, unless the person with
the account chooses to purchase services there, however, all
individuals remain eligible for the core services provided by the
Career One Stop. Such services include job search and placement
assistance, including career counseling, where appropriate, and access
to labor market information.
Now the idea here is that we allow individuals $3,000, giving them
the right to choose the types of services that they think will help
them get back on their feet and find a good job. They can purchase
those services at the Career One Stop or they can go down the street
and go to a community college if they want. But the core services that
the Career One Stops provide for all individuals, these persons with
the $3,000 personal reemployment accounts, would still be eligible for
those core services.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The gentleman from Michigan
(Mr. Kildee) has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Boehner) has 6 minutes remaining.
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Woolsey).
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, it is about time we address unemployment.
Unfortunately, H.R. 444 is not the legislation that will truly put
Americans back to work. It offers only a temporary solution for a
limited pool of unemployed workers and is a poor solution to the
ongoing unemployment problem of this Nation.
Rather than PRAs, personal reemployment accounts, we need across-the-
board investments in the Workforce Investment Act, WIA, and the
Unemployment Insurance, UI, programs. These are the existing programs
that need help so a broader number of workers stabilize their lives and
develop the necessary skills to secure new jobs. Proper funding of
these programs would make the difference. Finding ways to give
unemployed workers real jobs is the real solution to the national
unemployment problem, not a bill that puts additional burdens on the
States, threatening to undo the Federal unemployment system in the
first place.
Let me also remind my colleagues that $1 billion invested in highways
and transit creates 47,500 new jobs. If we really want to create jobs,
we should be moving forward with the transportation bill. These jobs
pay a living wage, give workers the opportunity to better their
communities, while at the same time supporting their families.
H.R. 444 is not a real solution. The real solution would grant
unemployment extensions when finding work takes longer than the length
of the initial benefits, not a bill that forces workers to choose
between receiving

[[Page H3736]]

WIA benefits or PRA benefits with no flexibility to go back to one when
the other is exhausted.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 444 is false security.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt).
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Boehner) for his leadership as chairman on the Committee on Education
and the Workforce. He is doing a tremendous job. I also want to thank
the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Porter) for this important legislation
that he has introduced. I am also a cosponsor.
Education and retraining are the keys to ensuring that the American
worker is the most competitive in the world. Now, this is week three of
8 weeks that the House is dedicating to addressing issues to bring jobs
back into America. These eight issues are all very important because
they are costs that are outside the control of employers. They are
costs that are driven by the Federal Government. We are going to lower
those costs by undoing some of the work Congress has done over the last
generation and freeing up employers to bring jobs back into America.
This week, we also have passed the Teacher Training Enhancement Act,
the Teacher Shortage Response Act, the Priorities for Graduate Studies
Act, and now we are addressing H.R. 444, the Worker Reemployment
Accounts Act.
One of the things I notice about the complaints about this bill from
the other side is that we want to tell people what to do. This bill
gives them flexibility. They can go out and get job training. They can
get child care. They can provide for transportation or career
counseling. The opponents of this bill do not want to provide choices
because they do not trust Americans. They want to tell people what to
do with their benefits. On the Republican side, we say we trust people
to make good choices if they are given some opportunities.
Mr. Speaker, I want to give an example of a mother of three, who was
working at the Ratheon Corporation in Wichita, Kansas. She wanted to
finish her degree, and she got laid off. She could not provide for her
child care, so she had to bring her mother back in from out of town to
live with her while she went back to Wichita State University and
completed her degree. With this legislation, she would have been able
to carry on her education while her children were taken care of; and
her mother would not have had to quit her job and move into her
daughter's house.
This bill gives people flexibility so they can go out and get the
child care they need. It is a good piece of legislation. It is part of
bringing jobs back to America, and I urge all my colleagues to vote for
it.
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Holt).
(Mr. HOLT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition. What we should be doing
today is voting to extend unemployment benefits. However, the
Republican leadership will not let that amendment be offered, even
though or maybe because they know it would pass.
Not only will the majority not assist workers who need jobs, but the
authors of this bill assert that unemployed workers need financial
incentive to get a job. Now, ask the workers whose jobs have been
outsourced whether they need financial incentive to get a job. I am
really shocked that the authors of this bill believe the American
workers effectively need to be bribed to get a job.
American workers are not looking for handouts. They are looking for
jobs. And, even worse, this bill would effectively bar the recipients
of this money from receiving actual job training. Contrary to, and I
must respectfully differ from the chairman, contrary to what he says,
they would not get actual job services. Sure, at a job center, if they
find an open computer, they might be able to use it to prepare a
resume, but they will not get the counseling they need. They will not
get the training they need. This bill would deny workers the important
training opportunities they need.
This Nation has lost more than 2 million jobs under this
administration. We should be dealing with the unemployment needs of
these workers. I ask my colleagues to oppose this risky scheme.
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
I think all of us realize that the American economy is changing, and
I think it is changing at a more rapid pace than any of us would likely
know. During a hearing several months ago, I found a number of
statistics that I really found unusual. If we all think back for a
moment to 1999, the American economy was in full bloom, the stock
market was rising, employment levels were at all-time highs, yet in
1999 the American economy lost 35 million jobs. Yes, that is right. The
American economy lost 35 million jobs. But, in 1999, the American
economy also created 37 million new jobs, a net gain of 2 million jobs.
Now, let us move forward 3 years to 2002. And what happened in 2002?
We had a recession, we had the effects of 9/11, we had a war going on
in Afghanistan, and the American economy lost 35 million jobs in 2002.
The American economy, though, in 2002, only created 33\1/2\ million new
jobs.
This churning that we see in the American economy has always been
there, but this churning we are now seeing is happening at a much
faster pace than ever before; and, as a result, the need for job
training, retraining, and educational services for American workers is
at an all-time high.
During our hearing, when we had Alan Greenspan in front of our
committee, he said this: ``We need to increase our efforts to ensure
that as many of our citizens as possible have the opportunity to
capture the benefits that flow from that engagement. For reasons that I
shall elucidate shortly, one critical element in creating that
opportunity is the provision of rigorous education and ongoing training
to all members of our society. This proposal is not novel. It is, in
fact, the strategy that we have followed successfully for most of the
past century and a strategy that we now should embrace with renewed
commitment.''
Education and training and ongoing education and training for the
American workforce is absolutely critical, Mr. Speaker.
There has been a lot said here today about the nature of our economy
and what is happening, but in a U.S. News and World Report that is out
today, dated June 7, Mort Zuckerman, in his editorial, says this:
``The economy is well on a tear. New jobs are being generated in
large numbers. Income is growing at twice the rate of last year. And
the exhilaration is such that we will probably see 5 percent growth in
the gross domestic product. The jobs reports of the past few months
have changed market sentiment. Sixty-one percent of private industries
surveyed have added workers. That is the highest in 4 years. Business
confidence has surged to a 20-year high, and business spending is
exploding, with even American manufacturing joining the party.
Companies that once saved every nickel are laying out more and more
money as capital equipment to meet growing orders in double-digit
rates.''
He goes on to say later in the article, ``We are on a trajectory
toward extraordinary growth in the second half of 2004 that will beget
stronger job and income growth, stronger retail spending, and
accelerating demand at a time when businesses have cut costs, raising
profit margins to their highest level in years.

{time} 1215

``Higher profits will beget more spending, which will beget more
business expansion, which will beget more income for workers which
should trigger yet another increase in demand.''
Do not look now, but the surging economy may be the real October
Surprise. There is a real surge in our economy; and for Americans to
take advantage of that surging economy, the kind of education and
training that we allow under the Workforce Investment Act and provide
for them should be helpful to them. These personal reemployment
accounts are a pilot project to give them the choice about the kinds of
services they need, the kinds of training or retraining they need to go
out and take advantage of a surging economy to get a real job for the
long term.

[[Page H3737]]

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 444, the
so-called the ``Back to Work Incentive Act.''
This bill is based on flawed assumptions and is an insult to the 1.8
million Americans--22 percent of the total unemployed--who have been
out of work for more than 6 months. The Republicans believe that all
long term unemployed Americans simply aren't looking for jobs because
they are living comfortably on an average weekly unemployment benefit
of $256--or about 37 percent of their former wages. That's ridiculous!
H.R. 444 takes $50 million of valuable funding from effective
programs within the Workforce Investment Act to fund ineffective
Personal Reemployment Accounts (PRAs). The purpose of these accounts is
to provide an incentive payment of up to $3,000 to unemployed workers
to encourage them to find employment faster. It does this despite all
of the research, which shows that PRAs don't work. You would think
living off $256 a week would be enough incentive to find work. However,
these out-of-touch Republicans believe that $256 a week allows
households to pay for their mortgages, groceries, utility bills and
college educations for their children.
If President Bush and House Republicans are so fond of linking
bonuses to job performance, then we should offer the President a bonus
if he actually creates jobs. Since President Bush came to office, 2
million American jobs have been lost. The problem with this economy
isn't lazy unemployed workers, it's ineffective economic policy
management.
Even more puzzling about this legislation is that the provisions of
this bill do not make sense. Supporters argue that PRAs help workers
get jobs because the money provided can be used for job training and
other services such as child care and career counseling. However, if a
worker were to get the maximum PRA of $3,000 it would not be enough to
pay for job training alone, which costs on average $5,000-6,000. That
doesn't take into account all the other costs unemployed workers
confront.
Instead of wasting the American people's money on unproven programs,
this Congress should extend unemployment benefits to the over 1.5
million workers who have exhausted their benefits and expand the
funding for the free job training already provided under the Workforce
Investment Act. These programs provide needy families with immediate
economic relief and the necessary skills to find new jobs.
It is time that President Bush and the Republican Congress stop
blaming unemployed workers for the lack of jobs in this country.
Instead, the Republicans should show some leadership and take
responsibility for their poor economic management.
I urge my colleagues to vote against H.R. 444 and ask the Republican
leadership to consider legislation to actually help unemployed workers
and create jobs in the United States.
Ms. WATSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 444, The
Back to Work Incentive Act. The bill does nothing to help the current
labor market, and offering workers reemployment bonuses does nothing to
help the future of our nations unemployed and won't help put more jobs
into our nation's struggling economy.
This bill is a careless attempt to replace the extension of
unemployment benefits for the long-term unemployed. This bill will help
less than 0.2% of the unemployed and will do nothing for millions of
jobless workers, particularly those out of work for more than 26 weeks.
The Back to Work Incentive provides a $3,000 voucher for only about
15,000 eligible workers. These recipients will not be able to access
free core services provided through the Workforce Investment Act and
they will forfeit the opportunity to get up to $10,000 in other
possible Workforce Investment Act services and benefits available
without cost under existing programs.
This bill also does not address the pressing problems of lack of
available jobs, the need for marketable skills, and sufficient training
funds for today's unemployed workers.
Mr. Speaker, in April alone 320,000 of America's workers exhausted
their unemployment benefits. The Administration must come up with
solutions that will provide jobs for all, not just benefits that are
temporary for some. H.R. 444 doesn't cut it and I urge my colleagues to
vote ``no'' on this bill.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose the
bill before this body, H.R. 444, the Back to Work Incentive Act of
2003. More than 8.3 million individuals are out of work, and by one
estimate, there are three workers for every available job. At the same
time, over 1.2 million unemployed Americans who have exhausted their
federal unemployment benefits are looking to Congress for urgent
relief.
This sad trend means even more to the African American community. As
of January 2004, the national unemployment rate was 5.6%. The African
American unemployment rate was nearly twice that at 10.5%. Unemployment
in this community has soared by 26% since reversing the trend of the
Clinton era when African American unemployment declined by 48%; from
14.1% in January 1993 to 7.3% in December 2000.
In the City of Houston, the unemployment rate has decreased steadily
from 6.6% to 6.0% from November 2003 to April 2004. This kind of trend
is partly indicative of the success of job training programs that give
workers the ability to not only retain employment but to improve their
earning potential. The bill before us today will have a negative effect
on the people of my District and the Districts of all of my colleagues
and should be defeated.
H.R. 444 fails to provide the nation's most vulnerable workers
urgently needed assistance and undermines key provisions of the
existing Workforce Investment Act.
The crux of this legislation calls for the luring of financially
strapped unemployed workers out of more intensive job training with a
`buy out' that could be as little as $500 or less. Workers who are
struggling must then decide whether to sign up for training or to
accept additional financial support for their families.
However, if our colleagues on the other side of the aisle would
really like to help these workers, they should work to extend
unemployment benefits that will provide that urgently needed family
support, with no draconian cap on job training services. H.R. 444 would
require the unemployed to pay for otherwise free job counseling
and training services and ban them from the system if they accept a
Personal Re-employment Account (PRA).

H.R. 444 would undermine our workforce training and unemployment
insurance systems. This bill not only ignores those families who need
the help the most, it nullifies the accountability provisions contained
in our job training programs. H.R. 444 would provide little if any
oversight over program dollars spent on arbitrarily-chosen training
providers. State certification requirements under the current WIA
system would be all but removed with the PRA's--opening the door for
financial abuse with no means to correct or even measures the potential
abuses. Congress just revamped the job training system in 1998 to
provide a comprehensive universal system of job assistance services,
yet the Majority would circumvent their own system to create a new
parallel program.
This bill also fails to provide relief quickly. The Congressional
Budget Office says funds for this program would not even reach workers
until next year--and one out of four eligible families would not be
helped until fiscal year 2005. An unemployment insurance extension can
provide help to workers in a matter of weeks, not months or years--and
would create urgently needed short-term economic stimulus.
Rather than preparing for another extension of unemployment insurance
that will be needed in the late spring, H.R. 444 seeks to utilize
precious resources to provide assistance to the smallest fraction of
the unemployed. This legislation is part of a strategy to undermine and
cut funding to the unemployment and job-training systems and head-off
another federal unemployment benefit extension that would provide
assistance to those who desperately need it.

This legislation bars those who accept Personal Re-employment
Accounts from receiving counseling and training services at a one-stop
employment center for one year once the funds within the account are
exhausted. Unemployed workers currently receive an average of $5,000
(and as high as $10,000) worth of training services under our current
WIA system, and yet many of them are unable to find a sustainable job
due to the jobless stagnation of the economy. H.R. 444 would cut
millions of unemployed workers off from access to needed job training
or re-training programs.
In addition, the infrastructure that would be required to administer
the PRAs in the base bill would take several months, if not a year to
set up, limiting what immediate help we can provide the unemployed.
Mr. Speaker, for the reasons stated above, I oppose this legislation
and urge my colleagues to join me.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I would welcome a constructive approach
to help people who are struggling with the consequences of long-term
unemployment. For nearly three years now, Oregon has had one of the
highest unemployment rates in the entire country. Largely for
circumstances beyond our control--the national and international
economies, the manipulation of energy markets--Oregonians have
suffered. Unfortunately, this bill falls short of providing meaningful
help to the 65,000 Oregonians who have lost their jobs during the Bush
presidency.
This bill caps the benefit at $3,000 per unemployed worker and
provides no assurance that it will approach that much for most people.
The one thing that is guaranteed is that recipients are cut off from
other Federal programs for one year after they use their ``reemployment
accounts.'' This is a poor bargain with no guarantee of success.

[[Page H3738]]

Congress can and should do better than create a cynical shell game of
taking away funding from existing Workforce Investment Act (WIA)
programs and reusing them in a lesser, unestablished program. Congress
should place its priorities behind what the President campaigned on and
existing, productive programs: enhancing Pell Grants, fully funding the
WIA, and using the $14 billion already in the Unemployment Insurance
Trust Fund. Congress has established programs that are useful, flexible
and creative that can help our 8.2 million unemployed workers. This new
draconian proposal is ill-advised and unnecessary.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the bill, and I yield
back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). All time for general debate
has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 656, the previous question is ordered on
the bill, as amended.
The question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.

Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. Kildee

Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I am in its present form.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Kildee moves to recommit the bill H.R. 444 to the
Committee on Education and the Workforce with instructions to
report the same back to the House forthwith with the
following amendments:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be referred to as the ``Emergency Worker
Assistance Act''.

SEC. 2. EMERGENCY UNEMPLOYMENT SUPPORT.

Section 171 of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (29
U.S.C. 2916) is amended by adding at the end the following
new subsection:
``(e) Emergency Unemployment Support.--
``(1) Grants to states.--From the amount appropriated under
paragraph (2), the Secretary shall make grants to States to
provide financial and employment support to individuals who
have exhausted their State unemployment benefits and can no
longer receive, after the week of December 20, 2003, Federal
extended temporary unemployment compensation, and who
continue to be unemployed as of the date of enactment of the
Emergency Worker Assistance Act. The eligibility criteria and
benefit amounts under this paragraph for such individuals
shall be the same as for such individuals prior to December
20, 2003, under the Federal extended temporary unemployment
compensation program.
``(2) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated for fiscal years 2004 and 2005 such sums
as may be necessary to carry out this subsection.''.
Amend the title so as to read: ``A bill to amend the
Workforce Investment Act of 1998 to provide continued
unemployment support to ensure adequate emergency worker
assistance and for other purposes.''

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Kildee) is recognize for 5 minutes in support of his motion
to recommit.
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, my motion to recommit is simple: It
authorizes the extension of unemployment benefits.
Mr. Speaker, 1.5 million workers have exhausted their initial
unemployment benefits. These individuals have yet to find employment
due to this very sour economy. Despite the need for these workers to
provide for their families, this Congress has turned a deaf ear. We
have continually failed to ensure the financial security of these
workers and their families.
The question for this House is how can we pass legislation providing
job-training vouchers when there are no jobs. We need to first ensure
the financial security of those workers who have lost their jobs, and
we have not done that. This amendment does that by authorizing the
extension of unemployment benefits.
Mr. Speaker, we have a moral responsibility today. In Michigan and
many other States around the country, job growth is nonexistent or
anemic. Nationally, 8.2 million individuals are unemployed. The
unemployment rate is 5.6 percent. It is quite evident that American
workers want to work. The simple truth is that jobs do not exist. How
long are we going to ignore the needs of the American workforce.
The underlying legislation is completely inadequate in addressing the
problems facing the American worker. We cannot simply authorize a job-
training voucher program. That does not meet the need. We have to act
today, and we have to act now by extending unemployment benefits.
I want to remind Members that the House has considered nearly
identical language to this motion to recommit during the debate on the
Community Services Block Grant bill. I urge Members to support my
motion to recommit.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Bishop).
Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote for
the Kildee motion to recommit H.R. 444. This motion does what is
needed. The real problems that our country faces today are a lack of
jobs and a lack of adequate unemployment benefits for unemployed
workers who cannot find jobs. There are currently over 8 million
workers who are unemployed. There are also an additional 4 million
workers who are so discouraged about the job situation where they live
that they are no longer looking for work, and there are another 4
million workers working part-time because they cannot find full-time
work. What these workers need is income support until the economy fully
recovers and produces enough jobs for them to support their families.
These workers are not looking for a handout. They want to work, but
where they live, there are no jobs.
Extended unemployment benefits give them the hand up that they need.
Average benefits are only about $200 a week. This amount is hardly
enough to incentivize them to stay home indefinitely, yet that is what
some would have us believe.
Mr. Speaker, 85,000 workers a week are exhausting their unemployment
benefits; long-term unemployment is at the highest level in decades.
The Kildee motion simply provides a minimum level of human decency to
these hard-working Americans. They paid into the unemployment system,
and the unemployment trust fund has over $19 billion in it. Instead of
pushing ineffective reemployment account voucher schemes, we should be
providing unemployment support. Even Alan Greenspan, the chairman of
the Federal Reserve, has supported such an extension. I urge my
colleagues to do the same.
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
In conclusion, I would say adoption of my motion to recommit would
really begin to touch immediately the needs of those people who are
unemployed, rather than this anemic approach offered in the bill
itself. I urge that we support the motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner)
rise in opposition to the motion to recommit?
Mr. BOEHNER. I do, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Herger), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Human
Resources of the Committee on Ways and Means that deals with this.
Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this motion to
recommit. This Republican Congress provided additional assistance to
the unemployed when it was needed. Through laws passed in 2002 and
2003, nearly 8 million laid-off workers received more than $23 billion
in special Federal-extended unemployment benefits. Let me repeat that.
Nearly 8 million people received $23 billion in additional help. We
continued that temporary program twice last year when unemployment was
rising and the economy was shedding jobs.
Fortunately, today that situation has dramatically improved. The
economy recently has been growing at the fastest rate in 20 years.
President Bush's tax relief worked to turn the economy around. That is
why unemployment continues to fall. During the past 12 months,
unemployment rates have dropped in every region of the country,
including in 47 States. Today's unemployment rate is lower than the
average of the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s. Last month saw one of the
steepest drops ever in the number of long-term unemployed. Nearly 1
million new jobs have been created this year alone, 138 million
Americans are working now,

[[Page H3739]]

more than ever before in our Nation's history.
This suggests what we always knew, people want to work, not collect
more unemployment benefits. Republicans are working hard to keep this
tremendous economic and job growth going. This Democrat motion goes in
the opposite direction. It will not help provide critical training for
those seeking jobs.
Mr. Speaker, let us reject this motion to recommit.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger) has
pointed out, we have extended unemployment benefits on several
occasions and have provided tens of billions of dollars in support for
those extensions.
The motion to recommit, if Members believe this is going to provide
unemployment extensions to people, they are kidding themselves. What
the Kildee motion does is create a new program within the Workforce
Investment Act to extend unemployment benefits. This is not the usual
unemployment system that we have that works really well. Under this
proposal, we create a new program that is not funded. There is no
funding in this bill for the program that is being created, and all
this is going to do is bring false hope to millions of Americans who
are out there trying to seek work who are on unemployment.
But the worst part of the motion to recommit is that it totally
eliminates the underlying bill. For those of us who believe personal
reemployment accounts are a good idea and that projects ought to be
initiated to allow people up to $3,000 to find the kind of training,
retraining, and education they need in order to gain good employment,
that entire bill is eliminated under the gentleman's motion to
recommit.
I would urge my colleagues, let us not engage in a facade; let us not
make empty promises to people who need our help and need our help
badly. This is a new program. It is not funded. It will not extend
unemployment benefits. Again, the worse part about it is it would
eliminate the entire underlying bill and the personal reemployment
accounts that we think will be helpful for American workers who are out
of work. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support the motion to
recommit H.R. 444. We must support the workers who are desperately
trying to find work before their benefits run out. Their families are
the reason we must absolutely extend unemployment benefits, not pass
legislation that will fundamentally change the Federal unemployment
benefits system, like H.R. 444.
We need a real solution like extending unemployment benefits so
families have the means to be healthy and safe when their jobs are no
longer secure. How else will these families pay their heating bill,
clothe their children, and feed their family?
These workers want work and seek work, and we must help them as they
get back on their feet again. There is still too little job creation to
write off the Federal Extended Benefits Program.
Mr. Speaker, today, 8.4 million people are out of work, 2.6 million
private sector jobs have been lost since the beginning of the Bush
Administration. Even worse, long-term unemployment is at the highest
level in 10 years. As of April 2004, over 1 million people, in my home
State of California, were unemployed.
My colleagues on the other side of the aisle believe they are helping
unemployed workers by creating these personal reemployment accounts.
But my constituents are not writing me on a weekly basis asking for a
brand new unemployment system. They simply want their unemployment
benefits to continue until they find a job.
H.R. 444 is not the fix they are seeking. If my colleagues really
listened to what the unemployed workers wanted they would grant
families the security of benefits while they continue to seek work.
That's why I urge my colleagues to support this motion to recommit H.R.
444 so we can address what workers really want.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clauses 8 and 9 of rule XX, this
15-minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by 5-minute
votes, as ordered, on passing H.R. 444 and suspending the rules and
passing H.R. 3866.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 199,
nays 216, not voting 19, as follows:

[Roll No. 224]

YEAS--199

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Becerra
Bell
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Capps
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Case
Clay
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley (CA)
Doyle
Edwards
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Goode
Gordon
Green (TX)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Kleczka
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Majette
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Sandlin
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Shays
Sherman
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn

NAYS--216

Aderholt
Akin
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole
Collins
Cox
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
English
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Goodlatte
Goss
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
McCotter
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton

[[Page H3740]]

Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Turner (OH)
Upton
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--19

Ballance
Brady (PA)
Burton (IN)
Capuano
Carson (OK)
Chandler
DeGette
DeMint
Deutsch
Emerson
Fossella
Gerlach
Johnson, Sam
Lynch
Quinn
Ruppersberger
Smith (MI)
Tauzin
Watson

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson) (during the vote). Members are
advised 2 minutes remain in this vote.

{time} 1252

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin, Mr. GILCHREST, and Mrs. CUBIN changed their
vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. LEWIS of Georgia and Mr. GORDON changed their vote from ``nay''
to ``yea.''
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 213,
noes 203, not voting 18, as follows:

[Roll No. 225]

AYES--213

Aderholt
Akin
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole
Collins
Cox
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
English
Everett
Ferguson
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
McCotter
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
Mica
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Sweeney
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Turner (OH)
Upton
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOES--203

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Becerra
Bell
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Capps
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Case
Chandler
Clay
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley (CA)
Doyle
Edwards
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Hostettler
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Kleczka
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Majette
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Sandlin
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn

NOT VOTING--18

Ballance
Brady (PA)
Burton (IN)
Capuano
Carson (OK)
DeGette
DeMint
Deutsch
Emerson
Feeney
Fossella
Gerlach
Johnson, Sam
Lynch
Quinn
Smith (MI)
Tauzin
Watson

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised 2
minutes remain in this vote.

{time} 1303

So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated against:
Ms. WATSON. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 224, I was detained by
constituents from my District. I would have voted ``no'' on H.R. 444.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). Pursuant to section 2 of House
Resolution 656, the texts of H.R. 4409 and H.R. 4411 will be appended
to the engrossment of H.R. 444; and H.R. 4409 and H.R. 4411 are laid on
the table.
(For texts of H.R. 4409 and H.R. 4411 see proceedings of the House of
June 2, 2004, at page H3628 and H3638, respectively.)

____________________