[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 96 (Wednesday, June 11, 2008)]
[House]
[Pages H5267-H5276]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
EMERGENCY EXTENDED UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION ACT OF 2008
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (H.R. 5749) to provide for a program of emergency unemployment
compensation, as amended.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 5749
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Emergency
Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 2008''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Federal-State agreements.
Sec. 3. Emergency unemployment compensation account.
Sec. 4. Payments to States having agreements for the payment of
emergency unemployment compensation.
Sec. 5. Financing provisions.
Sec. 6. Fraud and overpayments.
Sec. 7. Definitions.
Sec. 8. Applicability.
SEC. 2. FEDERAL-STATE AGREEMENTS.
(a) In General.--Any State which desires to do so may enter
into and participate in an agreement under this Act with the
Secretary of Labor (in this Act referred to as the
``Secretary''). Any State which is a party to an agreement
under this Act may, upon providing 30 days' written notice to
the Secretary, terminate such agreement.
(b) Provisions of Agreement.--Any agreement under
subsection (a) shall provide that the State agency of the
State will make payments of emergency unemployment
compensation to individuals who--
(1) have exhausted all rights to regular compensation under
the State law or under Federal law with respect to a benefit
year (excluding any benefit year that ended before May 1,
2007);
(2) have no rights to regular compensation or extended
compensation with respect to a week under such law or any
other State unemployment compensation law or to compensation
under any other Federal law (except as provided under
subsection (e)); and
(3) are not receiving compensation with respect to such
week under the unemployment compensation law of Canada.
(c) Exhaustion of Benefits.--For purposes of subsection
(b)(1), an individual shall be deemed to have exhausted such
individual's rights to regular compensation under a State law
when--
(1) no payments of regular compensation can be made under
such law because such individual has received all regular
compensation available to such individual based on employment
or wages during such individual's base period; or
(2) such individual's rights to such compensation have been
terminated by reason of the expiration of the benefit year
with respect to which such rights existed.
(d) Weekly Benefit Amount, etc.--For purposes of any
agreement under this Act--
(1) the amount of emergency unemployment compensation which
shall be payable to any individual for any week of total
unemployment shall be equal to the amount of the regular
compensation (including dependents' allowances) payable to
such individual during such individual's benefit year under
the State law for a week of total unemployment;
(2) the terms and conditions of the State law which apply
to claims for regular compensation and to the payment thereof
shall apply to claims for emergency unemployment compensation
and the payment thereof, except where otherwise inconsistent
with the provisions of this Act or with the regulations or
operating instructions of the Secretary promulgated to carry
out this Act; and
(3) the maximum amount of emergency unemployment
compensation payable to any individual for whom an emergency
unemployment compensation account is established under
section 3 shall not exceed the amount established in such
account for such individual.
(e) Election by States.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of Federal law (and if State law permits), the
Governor of a State that is in an extended benefit period may
provide for the payment of emergency unemployment
compensation prior to extended compensation to individuals
who otherwise meet the requirements of this section.
(f) Unauthorized Aliens Ineligible.--A State shall require
as a condition of eligibility for emergency unemployment
compensation under this Act that each alien who receives such
compensation must be legally authorized to work in the United
States, as defined for purposes of the Federal Unemployment
Tax Act (26 U.S.C. 3301 et seq.). In determining whether an
alien meets the requirements of this subsection, a State must
follow the procedures provided in section 1137(d) of the
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1320b-7(d)).
SEC. 3. EMERGENCY UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION ACCOUNT.
(a) In General.--Any agreement under this Act shall provide
that the State will establish, for each eligible individual
who files an application for emergency unemployment
compensation, an emergency unemployment
[[Page H5268]]
compensation account with respect to such individual's
benefit year.
(b) Amount in Account.--
(1) In general.--The amount established in an account under
subsection (a) shall be equal to the lesser of--
(A) 50 percent of the total amount of regular compensation
(including dependents' allowances) payable to the individual
during the individual's benefit year under such law, or
(B) 13 times the individual's average weekly benefit amount
for the benefit year.
(2) Weekly benefit amount.--For purposes of this
subsection, an individual's weekly benefit amount for any
week is the amount of regular compensation (including
dependents' allowances) under the State law payable to such
individual for such week for total unemployment.
(c) Special Rule.--
(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
this section, if, at the time that the individual's account
is exhausted or at any time thereafter, such individual's
State is in an extended benefit period (as determined under
paragraph (2)), then, such account shall be augmented by an
amount equal to the amount originally established in such
account (as determined under subsection (b)(1)).
(2) Extended benefit period.--For purposes of paragraph
(1), a State shall be considered to be in an extended benefit
period, as of any given time, if--
(A) such a period is then in effect for such State under
the Federal-State Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of
1970;
(B) such a period would then be in effect for such State
under such Act if section 203(d) of such Act--
(i) were applied by substituting ``4'' for ``5'' each place
it appears; and
(ii) did not include the requirement under paragraph
(1)(A); or
(C) such a period would then be in effect for such State
under such Act if--
(i) section 203(f) of such Act were applied to such State
(regardless of whether the State by law had provided for such
application); and
(ii) such section 203(f)--
(I) were applied by substituting ``6.0'' for ``6.5'' in
paragraph (1)(A)(i); and
(II) did not include the requirement under paragraph
(1)(A)(ii).
SEC. 4. PAYMENTS TO STATES HAVING AGREEMENTS FOR THE PAYMENT
OF EMERGENCY UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION.
(a) General Rule.--There shall be paid to each State that
has entered into an agreement under this Act an amount equal
to 100 percent of the emergency unemployment compensation
paid to individuals by the State pursuant to such agreement.
(b) Treatment of Reimbursable Compensation.--No payment
shall be made to any State under this section in respect of
any compensation to the extent the State is entitled to
reimbursement in respect of such compensation under the
provisions of any Federal law other than this Act or chapter
85 of title 5, United States Code. A State shall not be
entitled to any reimbursement under such chapter 85 in
respect of any compensation to the extent the State is
entitled to reimbursement under this Act in respect of such
compensation.
(c) Determination of Amount.--Sums payable to any State by
reason of such State having an agreement under this Act shall
be payable, either in advance or by way of reimbursement (as
may be determined by the Secretary), in such amounts as the
Secretary estimates the State will be entitled to receive
under this Act for each calendar month, reduced or increased,
as the case may be, by any amount by which the Secretary
finds that the Secretary's estimates for any prior calendar
month were greater or less than the amounts which should have
been paid to the State. Such estimates may be made on the
basis of such statistical, sampling, or other method as may
be agreed upon by the Secretary and the State agency of the
State involved.
SEC. 5. FINANCING PROVISIONS.
(a) In General.--Funds in the extended unemployment
compensation account (as established by section 905(a) of the
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1105(a))) of the Unemployment
Trust Fund (as established by section 904(a) of such Act (42
U.S.C. 1104(a))) shall be used for the making of payments to
States having agreements entered into under this Act.
(b) Certification.--The Secretary shall from time to time
certify to the Secretary of the Treasury for payment to each
State the sums payable to such State under this Act. The
Secretary of the Treasury, prior to audit or settlement by
the Government Accountability Office, shall make payments to
the State in accordance with such certification, by transfers
from the extended unemployment compensation account (as so
established) to the account of such State in the Unemployment
Trust Fund (as so established).
(c) Assistance to States.--There are appropriated out of
the employment security administration account (as
established by section 901(a) of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 1101(a))) of the Unemployment Trust Fund, without
fiscal year limitation, such funds as may be necessary for
purposes of assisting States (as provided in title III of the
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 501 et seq.)) in meeting the
costs of administration of agreements under this Act.
(d) Appropriations for Certain Payments.--There are
appropriated from the general fund of the Treasury, without
fiscal year limitation, to the extended unemployment
compensation account (as so established) of the Unemployment
Trust Fund (as so established) such sums as the Secretary
estimates to be necessary to make the payments under this
section in respect of--
(1) compensation payable under chapter 85 of title 5,
United States Code; and
(2) compensation payable on the basis of services to which
section 3309(a)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
applies.
Amounts appropriated pursuant to the preceding sentence shall
not be required to be repaid.
SEC. 6. FRAUD AND OVERPAYMENTS.
(a) In General.--If an individual knowingly has made, or
caused to be made by another, a false statement or
representation of a material fact, or knowingly has failed,
or caused another to fail, to disclose a material fact, and
as a result of such false statement or representation or of
such nondisclosure such individual has received an amount of
emergency unemployment compensation under this Act to which
he was not entitled, such individual--
(1) shall be ineligible for further emergency unemployment
compensation under this Act in accordance with the provisions
of the applicable State unemployment compensation law
relating to fraud in connection with a claim for unemployment
compensation; and
(2) shall be subject to prosecution under section 1001 of
title 18, United States Code.
(b) Repayment.--In the case of individuals who have
received amounts of emergency unemployment compensation under
this Act to which they were not entitled, the State shall
require such individuals to repay the amounts of such
emergency unemployment compensation to the State agency,
except that the State agency may waive such repayment if it
determines that--
(1) the payment of such emergency unemployment compensation
was without fault on the part of any such individual; and
(2) such repayment would be contrary to equity and good
conscience.
(c) Recovery by State Agency.--
(1) In general.--The State agency may recover the amount to
be repaid, or any part thereof, by deductions from any
emergency unemployment compensation payable to such
individual under this Act or from any unemployment
compensation payable to such individual under any State or
Federal unemployment compensation law administered by the
State agency or under any other Federal law administered by
the State agency which provides for the payment of any
assistance or allowance with respect to any week of
unemployment, during the 3-year period after the date such
individuals received the payment of the emergency
unemployment compensation to which they were not entitled,
except that no single deduction may exceed 50 percent of the
weekly benefit amount from which such deduction is made.
(2) Opportunity for hearing.--No repayment shall be
required, and no deduction shall be made, until a
determination has been made, notice thereof and an
opportunity for a fair hearing has been given to the
individual, and the determination has become final.
(d) Review.--Any determination by a State agency under this
section shall be subject to review in the same manner and to
the same extent as determinations under the State
unemployment compensation law, and only in that manner and to
that extent.
SEC. 7. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act, the terms ``compensation'', ``regular
compensation'', ``extended compensation'', ``benefit year'',
``base period'', ``State'', ``State agency'', ``State law'',
and ``week'' have the respective meanings given such terms
under section 205 of the Federal-State Extended Unemployment
Compensation Act of 1970 (26 U.S.C. 3304 note).
SEC. 8. APPLICABILITY.
(a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (b), an
agreement entered into under this Act shall apply to weeks of
unemployment--
(1) beginning after the date on which such agreement is
entered into; and
(2) ending on or before March 31, 2009.
(b) Transition for Amount Remaining in Account.--
(1) In general.--Subject to paragraphs (2) and (3), in the
case of an individual who has amounts remaining in an account
established under section 3 as of the last day of the last
week (as determined in accordance with the applicable State
law) ending on or before March 31, 2009, emergency
unemployment compensation shall continue to be payable to
such individual from such amounts for any week beginning
after such last day for which the individual meets the
eligibility requirements of this Act.
(2) Limit on augmentation.--If the account of an individual
is exhausted after the last day of such last week (as so
determined), then section 3(c) shall not apply and such
account shall not be augmented under such section, regardless
of whether such individual's State is in an extended benefit
period (as determined under paragraph (2) of such section).
(3) Limit on compensation.--No compensation shall be
payable by reason of paragraph (1) for any week beginning
after June 30, 2009.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
[[Page H5269]]
New York (Mr. Rangel) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) each
will control 20 minutes.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from New York.
Mr. RANGEL. I would ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of
my very brief remarks, that my time be yielded to Mr. McDermott who
worked so desperately hard with Mr. English to prepare this Congress to
do what has to be done for a crisis that we hoped we would never have
to experience.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New York?
There was no objection.
Mr. RANGEL. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I stand before you not as a Democrat speaking to
Republicans, but as an American who recognizes that if I had to think
of one of the most important assets that our country has had, after we
talked about our flag, our military, our democracy, I think that we all
would agree it's our middle class. They're different from most people.
They're not recognized worldwide. They're not the rich. They're not the
poor. They're people who struggle every day. But it's their dreams, I
think, that make us different from any other country and any other
democracy knowing that in this country there is no glass ceiling.
And no matter what we accomplish, that we could dream for our kids
and for our grandkids, today, through no fault of their own, this dream
is being shattered. It's being shattered by the deficits. It's being
shattered by war. It's being shattered by losing our kids, losing our
jobs, losing our hope, increased price of oil; and people are concerned
about where do we go from here. I suggest to you that no one can
challenge the fact that this country cannot go any further than our
middle class.
So it's up to us to find out how do we handle this and how to
explain, at a time when they're at most need, not just in terms of
dollars and cents but in hopes that this country is going to pull out
of this as we have in the past.
So what did Mr. McDermott and Congressman English do? They said no
matter what happens in this country, whether we win or lose, you can
depend on one thing: We will not give up on the American middle class.
Now, you could talk about deficits and trust funds, you could talk
about PAYGO, you could talk about anything; but you're not going to let
this country drown because of technicalities.
The middle class is there when we need them. They're there to consume
and to buy if they have to. They're there to fight and die in our wars.
And now comes an opportunity where we come here together and we say
it's not much, we've got to struggle to repair the economic damage, but
in the meantime, those of you who have worked every day, those of you
who we've not said ``thank you'' to, we're saying that we're going to
be there because through no fault of your own, our country has let you
down.
I yield back for the technical things, but I do hope when we get back
home that all of us can say, We didn't do everything that we wanted to,
but at the time this bill came up for suspension, we were there for
you.
Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Speaker, before I begin my remarks, first I want to say on behalf
of all of my colleagues our thoughts and prayers are with our good
friend and distinguished ranking member of the House Ways and Means
Committee, Congressman Jim McCrery. Mr. McCrery is not with us today,
and he and his family mourn the untimely passing of Jim's sister. Our
thoughts are with Congressman McCrery and his entire family.
Mr. Speaker, I stand here in support of extending unemployment
benefits, and I have sponsored legislation to accomplish that goal. All
Republican members of the Ways and Means Committee supported extending
benefits when our committee considered this legislation in April. But
today I rise in opposition to the legislation that's before the House
today which includes a radical departure from long-standing Federal
policy when it comes to the balance between work and extended benefits.
And I am especially opposed to the cynical election-year maneuvering
reflected in how the House is considering this important issue today.
Federal law since 1981 has required at least 20 weeks of work before
collecting Federal-extended benefits. The temporary program created in
2002 continued this commonsense policy. I believe requiring at least 20
weeks of work to qualify for Federal extended unemployment benefits is
perfectly fair, but the majority of Democrats do not. So the
legislation before us today makes a radical departure from 27 years of
Federal policy by striking the commonsense 20-week work requirement.
Ironically, nearly every Democratic Member in the House supported
this same requirement as part of the temporary program Congress created
in 2002. Yet today, without a single hearing on this topic, this
legislation would strike that sensible long-standing requirement.
So under this legislation, some individuals will receive 12 months of
total unemployment benefits after having worked for as little as 2
weeks in some cases before being laid off. Does the majority think that
this is fair to taxpayers to pay 12 months of unemployment benefits in
exchange for less than 1 month of work?
Since the 1930s, unemployment benefits have been paid to those
strongly attached to the workforce. That's the logic behind expecting
at least 20 weeks of work before layoff for those who go on to collect
Federal-extended benefits. It is not too much to expect someone who has
worked for at least 20 weeks to collect up to 12 months of unemployment
benefits.
What makes this worse, this legislation is being considered under
rules that prevent any opportunities for amendments, that prevent any
opportunities for substitutes or other avenues to correct what we
believe is a serious error in this radical approach.
The way this bill is being considered is under a process usually
reserved for naming post offices and honoring sports teams. In the past
2 years, this House has named 87 post offices using this process, and
today by using this same process, House majority leaders trivialize the
important issue of extending unemployment benefits to those who are
hurting. And it didn't have to be this way.
Every Republican on the Ways and Means Committee supported extending
unemployment benefits in some fashion 2 months ago. And I suspect
almost every Member of this House shares that view today. The only
disagreement involves whether there should be a minimum work
requirement, among other important details.
But 2 months, again that's 2 months after this so-called emergency
legislation was considered in the Ways and Means Committee, here we are
2 months later with the Majority's flawed take-it-or-leave-it approach.
Mr. Speaker, I recognize many workers are hurting. I continue to
support extending help to those who need it most. Unfortunately, the
bill before us insists on paying extended unemployment benefits even to
those who have worked for only a fraction of the time they will collect
benefits.
This radical policy is a departure from current law, a 27-year-old
bipartisan policy, and that's simply not right. And the way this
legislation is being considered is an affront to all Americans. This
bill was brought directly to the floor without as much as a hearing in
committee.
Mr. Speaker, I have a letter here from the Executive Office of the
President stating the President's position. The administration strongly
opposes this legislation, H.R. 5479, and they state that if it were
presented to the President, the senior advisers would recommend that he
veto the bill.
I place it into the Record at this time.
Executive Office of the President, Office of Management
and Budget,
Washington, DC, June 11, 2008.
Statement of Administration Policy--H.R. 5749--Emergency Extended
Unemployment Compensation Act of 2008--(Rep. McDermott (D) Washington
and 36 cosponsors)
The Administration is deeply committed to continually
fostering an environment where every American who wants a job
has a job. The Administration believes the best way to help
workers is to create an environment that encourages job
creation and to promote effective job training. To accomplish
these goals, the Administration urges Congress to create more
opportunities for
[[Page H5270]]
American exporters by passing the pending free trade
agreements with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea, make
permanent the President's tax cuts that will expire over the
next two years, and reform and reauthorize the Trade
Adjustment Assistance program and the Workforce Investment
Act. The Administration looks forward to continuing to work
with Congress to enact these important measures. However, the
Administration strongly opposes H.R. 5749. If H.R. 5749 were
presented to the President, his senior advisors would
recommend that he veto the bill.
This legislation raises several concerns. First, although
the unemployment rate has recently risen, it remains below
the levels historically relied on to justify a federally
financed extension of unemployment benefits. The last
initiation of temporary extended benefits was in 2002 amidst
the unprecedented events surrounding September 11, 2001.
Other than that special case, extensions have generally been
granted only when the unemployment rate was notably higher
than it is today, at or above 7 percent.
Second, this bill would allow the payment of up to 13 extra
weeks of benefits in every State, even though some of those
States have unemployment rates as low as 2.6 percent. At
present, a majority of States have unemployment rates at or
below 5 percent, and it is fiscally irresponsible to provide
extra benefits in States with low unemployment rates. In
States with higher unemployment rates, the Federal-State
extended benefits program already can provide up to 13
additional weeks of benefits to workers who have exhausted
their regular unemployment insurance benefits. As many
economists have noted, the counterproductive result of a
broad extension of benefits would be that recipients may
remain unemployed for slightly longer than they would have
otherwise.
Third, this bill does not contain an important provision
found in previous Federal extensions and the permanent
Federal-State extended benefits law that assures the benefit
extension is paid only to individuals who have demonstrated a
serious attachment to the labor force. Since 1981,
individuals must have 20 weeks of full-time employment to
qualify for extended unemployment benefits. Under this bill,
individuals who have worked as little as two weeks could
qualify for up to 52 weeks of total unemployment benefits.
This violates the longstanding requirement that extended
benefits should be for Americans with meaningful work
histories.
Fourth, for purposes of determining whether a State is
considered a ``high unemployment'' State in which an extra 13
weeks of benefits is payable (for a total of 26 weeks of
additional benefits), this proposal would use a total
unemployment rate of 6 percent as the trigger for State
eligibility. This is, historically, a relatively low number
for justifying a full year or more of unemployment benefits.
As an alternative to these ill-targeted and costly
measures, the Administration could support legislation that
would offer a 13-week extension of Federally financed
unemployment benefits to high-unemployment States alone.
Mr. Speaker, again, I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill so
that it can be brought back under a rule that allows the House to work
its will and provides an opportunity to include a commonsense work
requirement that does not pay a full year of benefits to someone who
may have worked for as little as 2 weeks.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I want to thank Chairman Rangel for his leadership on behalf of the
American people.
Every Member in the House is elected by the people, and today we're
going to find out if Members remember who they work for.
Before us is H.R. 5749, legislation I introduced because it's time
the government work for the people and extend a helping hand to those
who need a break. Contrary to what you have just heard, this bill was
heard in the committee, was voted on in the committee, and three
members of the Republican Party voted to move it out of the Ways and
Means Committee. It was contained in the supplemental bill, and
everybody in the House has had an opportunity to vote on it and discuss
it. We are repassing it for the second time.
Now, this legislation should pass without a single vote against it.
And that's why it was put on the supplemental on the suspension
calendar. No Member who's read a newspaper or spent any time in a
congressional district talking to constituents lately could possibly
miss the fact that the economy is in serious trouble and so are
millions of Americans, and it will just keep getting worse until we
act.
Last Friday we saw the largest one-month jump in the unemployment
rate in 22 years. Now does anyone doubt the gravity of that situation?
Across America the unemployment rate is rising. It's over 7 percent in
Michigan and above 6 percent in Alaska and a half a dozen other States.
Eighteen percent of the unemployed in this country have not been able
to find a job for at least 6 months. They have exhausted all of their
benefits. And that is what this bill deals with. Everywhere you look,
people are worried about their home and their family and their future.
And no one feels safe no matter where they are.
The economy has been claimed by the Iraq war. This wasteful, needless
war has undermined our economy and put it on a deep, steep downward
slide. Devastating energy and food prices have made the American people
be up against the wall when businesses are shedding jobs to cope. It's
been this way for months, and it's time for some relief.
{time} 1530
The White House has been fighting, and as Mr. Weller says, they've
sent down from the administration a letter already saying they're going
to veto it. Well, that's the administration. What do you expect out of
that place?
This bill would provide 13 weeks of extended unemployment benefits to
all States where people have exhausted their regular unemployment. It
gives another 13 weeks in States where the unemployment rate is above 6
percent.
The usual UI benefit is less than $300 a week. That's poverty level
assistance for a family struggling in an economy when gasoline is $4 a
gallon.
There is not a congressional district in this country that isn't
feeling the effects of this downturn. Every Member in this Chamber has
constituents who need help, and they are the workers we are working
for, presumably.
This bill is a lifeboat to the American people to stay afloat during
increasingly tough economic times. Anybody who votes against this bill
is voting against reality. They are denying it.
Now, sometimes the American people watch this session out of
interest, but today, they're watching because there's an urgent need to
receive some help.
This issue of the 20 weeks is being held up as the reason why I'm
going to vote against it. The Labor Department analyzed the fact that
that unduly affects low-wage workers and women because they work part-
time.
We hear that if you work 2 weeks you can get a year's benefits. Are
you saying that the Governor of Illinois or the Governor of Michigan or
the Governor of Pennsylvania is stupid and he's just throwing money out
the window? These are qualified by the State-level people, and you know
you can't give me one example of any place--people say Oregon, if you
work 2 weeks in Oregon, you somehow are going to get a year's benefits
for 2 weeks. There is no State in the Union where that is true. Give me
one example.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I would note that most House
Republicans and the administration have stated that we all support an
extension of unemployment benefits. In fact, the letter we just placed
in the Record says the administration would sign into law a 13-week
extension that is targeted, providing the extended benefits that we all
would like to see.
Mr. Speaker, as I prepare to yield to my good friend from Michigan, I
would note that, again, the legislation before us is a radical change
which eliminates the 20-week work requirement to qualify for a full 12
months of unemployment benefits, and that's why it's important we
debate it, and that's why I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
With that, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlelady from the
State of Michigan.
Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and, Mr.
Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation.
There certainly is no question that the American economy is
struggling, and that is certainly true for my home State of Michigan.
Michigan working families have been hit very, very hard by the
restructuring, the economic transition that's happening in the domestic
auto industry which has cost thousands of jobs and closing of
factories.
A collapse in the housing market and skyrocketing gas prices have
restricted mobility, making it much more difficult for people to find
work.
And some would argue against this bill by saying that it's an
impediment
[[Page H5271]]
to urging people to actually find work. I would say that argument is
nonsense. People cannot find work if they can't even sell their house.
People cannot travel long distances to find a job if they can't afford
$4 per gallon for gasoline. People cannot find a job if there are no
jobs to be found.
This legislation will provide all unemployed workers 13 extra weeks
of benefits as a bridge to better times, and it will give workers in
hard-hit areas, like my home State of Michigan, an additional 13 weeks
beyond that.
I believe that this is a very appropriate and compassionate action
for this Congress to take, and I urge all of my colleagues to join me
in supporting this critical legislation.
General Leave
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and
insert extraneous material into the Record on H.R. 5749.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Washington?
There was no objection.
Mr. McDERMOTT. I would also like to enter into the Record a letter
from the National Governors Association dated May 1, 2008, asking us to
extend unemployment benefits to exhausted unemployment enrollees.
National Governors Association,
Washington, DC, May 1, 2008.
Hon. Max Baucus,
Chairman, Committee on Finance, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Hon. Charles B. Rangel,
Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means, House of
Representatives, Washington, DC.
Hon. Charles Grassley,
Ranking Member, Committee on Finance, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Jim McCrery,
Ranking Member, Committee on Ways and Means, House of
Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Baucus, Senator Grassley, Chairman Rangel and
Representative McCrery: On behalf of the nation's governors,
we write to express our support for an extension of
unemployment benefits and to request federal assistance for
states to serve a growing number of jobless individuals.
In the last month, 36 states experienced an increase in the
unemployment rate. The national unemployment rate increased
to 5.1 percent in March 2008. Most notable, however, is the
significant number of individuals that are unemployed for 27
weeks or longer, thus exhausting all unemployment benefits.
Today, approximately 16.7 percent of jobless individuals are
experiencing long-term unemployment compared to approximately
11 percent at the beginning of the last recession.
Beginning in 1935, a federal-state partnership was formed
to create an unemployment program that would provide a core
stabilizing function during economic downturns through short-
term income support for jobless individuals. In prior
recessions including the economic downturn that began in
2001, Congress and the Administration utilized the program to
extend unemployment benefits to jobless individuals.
At the same time, any proposal to extend unemployment
benefits must also address the reality that states need
additional resources to administer unemployment claims for a
larger number of individuals for a longer period of time.
This year alone, states may have to administer an average of
nearly 400,000 unemployment insurance claims without federal
funding. Federal support is needed by state employment and
workforce agencies to administer increased initial
unemployment claims, to support weekly unemployment benefits,
and to provide employment and training services.
Given the current economic indicators and historical
precedent, governors believe it is prudent and appropriate
for Congress and the Administration to enact a temporary
federally funded extension of unemployment insurance benefits
and to provide a sufficient increase in funding for states to
assist jobless individuals during this period of economic
slowdown.
We stand ready to work with you and thank you for your
leadership on this issue of national importance.
Sincerely,
Governor Donald L. Carcieri,
Chair, Education, Early Childhood and Workforce Committee.
Governor Brad Henry,
Vice Chair, Education, Early Childhood and Workforce
Committee.
I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).
(Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. LEVIN. It's estimated that 4 million workers, 4 million, would be
eligible under this unemployment extension, over 1 million who have
already exhausted and 3 million in the future.
You know, in previous downturns when there were unemployment offices
giving out checks, we could go there and we could talk to the people.
That's no longer true in most States, but we should not let the absence
of real faces blur our vision in Washington.
If you had the 4 million people line up, it would extend from
Washington, D.C., to Denver, Colorado, and we should not differentiate
as to what State they live in. If they've exhausted their benefits,
they should be eligible.
Mr. Weller says targeted, that's over 6 percent. It leaves out a
majority of those who have exhausted their benefits. It's not targeted.
It's ruthless. It's ruthless. It doesn't take into account the lives of
people.
We saw the biggest increase in 20 years last night, from 5 to 5.5
percent. When President Bush signed the extension in 2002, it was 5.7.
So you're going to stand up here now and quibble because of a
difference of two-tenths of 1 percent, you don't want to extend
benefits.
The 20-week thing is a Trojan horse. It's another excuse not to step
up to the plate.
This is not a political issue. This is a people's issue. The
exhaustion rate is the highest it's been at the beginning of the past
five recessions. I urge on a bipartisan basis the passage of this bill.
Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I would note the previous
speaker referred to 6 percent as being ruthless. That's actually the
formula in the majority Democrats' bill. So it was interesting that he
criticized his own bill.
I would also note to my good friend from Washington (Mr. McDermott)
that Illinois is actually a State in which someone can work 2 weeks and
actually, under the legislation that's before us, obtain 39 weeks of
unemployment benefits.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to a distinguished member
of the House Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Brady.
Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, economically, our Nation is a Nation
of thirds. One-third of our States face steep economic challenges, one-
third are chugging along with their traditional economies, and one-
third are enjoying strong job growth and, in fact, record low
unemployment.
This measure is well-intended. There's no question about it. But
compassion isn't enough. Jobs are what is needed.
Instead of targeting workers in the struggling States that need both
help with their bills and, more importantly, a new job, this measure
provides no job training, no hope to laid off workers, workers that I
know don't want a handout. They want an opportunity for a job that they
can raise their families on. They want an opportunity for new skills.
They want opportunities.
And like many one-size-fits-all Washington programs, this bill
unnecessarily drains the precious unemployment trust fund an extra $8
billion by not targeting the help to the States and the workers who
need it the most.
For hardworking Americans, though, what is most troubling is that
this bill abandons the minimum work requirement that has, in the past,
prevented the unscrupulous from gaming the system. By throwing out this
reasonable requirement, that you actually have a real job before you
get job benefits, people in some States can work as little as 2 weeks
and receive government paychecks for 1 year.
Most Americans do the opposite. We work for a year, then we receive 2
weeks of vacation. In this bill, it's the opposite, 2 weeks of work and
a year of Federal aid. And in fact, while it's been questioned that
that isn't the case, according to the Congressional Budget Office, 4
States allow you to work as little as 1 week under some circumstances
to receive benefits.
And what's unfortunate, who will pay the benefits that have been
gamed? Hardworking American taxpayers who are struggling to make ends
meet with record fuel prices because this Congress refuses to act to
open up our resources and take more responsibility for America's own
energy needs.
In conclusion, helping workers who need it the most, helping them
find new jobs and stopping the gaming of our Federal aid is a
bipartisan goal. Unfortunately, this bill fails on all counts.
[[Page H5272]]
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Lewis).
Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Mr. McDermott for
yielding and for bringing this necessary piece of legislation to us
today.
It is basic, it is common sense, it is the right thing to do. People
are calling out. They're crying out for help.
They ask, where is the Federal Government? Where is Congress? Which
side is the government on? What are you doing to help the unemployed,
people who lost their jobs? It's not their fault. What are you doing to
help those in need, those who need a helping hand? What are you doing
and doing now?
Mr. Speaker, some of us may not remember this, or maybe we never had
to do it, but just a few short years ago, many people in this country
washed their clothes at night and hung them up to a heater or to the
fireplace so they could dry and wear them to work the next morning. I
wonder if we're headed back to that reality. People need help and they
need it now.
Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, it's interesting as we debate
this legislation that some have criticized targeted help for those who
we would like to provide extended unemployment benefits for, and of
course, the bill before us actually targets the final 13 weeks of a
year's worth of unemployment benefits with a 6 percent trigger, and
it's also interesting that a senior member of the Ways and Means
Committee from Michigan, Mr. Levin, labels that 6 percent trigger for
that targeted approach ``ruthless,'' a description that he uses to
describe his own legislation. I would not use that word.
Before further debating the legislation which eliminates the 20-week
work requirement for extended unemployment benefits, Mr. Speaker, can
you tell us how much time we have remaining on both sides?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Illinois has 8 minutes.
The gentleman from Washington has 9 minutes.
Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from California and a senior Republican in the
House Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Herger.
Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, like everyone else in this Chamber, I'm
concerned about rising unemployment, but this legitimate concern does
not justify Congress making poor policy.
I'm concerned that H.R. 5749 significantly departs from the long-
standing Federal policy that workers should have meaningful employment
before collecting extended unemployment benefits. By excluding the
minimum 20 weeks of work requirement, this legislation would allow
someone with as little as 2 weeks of work to qualify for up to 52 weeks
of unemployment benefits. This moves away from the core purpose of
unemployment benefits and towards a welfare-like system.
In addition, such expansive benefits may force States to raise
payroll taxes, resulting in slower job creation and further squeezing
workers' wages. This won't help current workers or unemployed workers
in search of new jobs.
I believe expecting at least 20 weeks of work in exchange for 52
weeks of unemployment benefit is fair to U.S. workers and would limit
any negative impact on job growth and workers' income.
Unfortunately, today's legislation doesn't include this common-sense
requirement, even though Democratic Members were nearly unanimous in
supporting this requirement in the legislation creating the 2002-2004
temporary extended benefits program.
{time} 1545
As a result, while I'm concerned for workers in my district and
across the Nation during this period of economic uncertainty, I must
oppose this legislation and urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' so we can
bring this bill back to the floor in a form that all Members can
support.
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).
Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5749. The
CBO, or the Congressional Budget Office, recently found that extending
unemployment benefits is one of the most cost-effective, fastest acting
forms of economic stimulus. As a matter of fact, it's estimated that
every dollar spent on unemployment insurance boasts the economy by
$1.64.
My friends, this is a systemic problem. This is not a footnote; this
is not an ad lib; this is not something as an addendum. We need to face
this problem head on. Forty percent of unemployed workers in 11 States
have already exhausted their unemployment insurance. In New Jersey,
it's projected that nearly 153,000 workers will deplete their regular
unemployment benefits between now and the next several months. There
are the unemployed. There are those that are underemployed, who have
sought work, have found no work, they find themselves relegated to no
States whatsoever. How dare anyone question this legislation while
people are unemployed!
Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, as we continue to debate this
radical change, which eliminates the 20-week work requirement to be
eligible for 12 months of unemployment benefits, I'm happy to yield 3
minutes to the distinguished Republican whip of the House, Mr. Blunt of
Missouri.
Mr. BLUNT. I thank my friend for yielding.
I, too, share the concerns that, for all the time that the House has
dealt with this whole issue of extended unemployment benefits going
back to 1981, we have never before left this up to the States to decide
how this Federal money would be spent. By, in the past, saying that you
had to meet the 20-week requirement, at least every State had the same
situation that they dealt with.
I would also like to point out, Mr. Speaker, that this bill is being
considered under a procedure known as suspension of the rules. Of
course you know that, Mr. Speaker, but everyone who listens to this
debate may not. Usually that procedure is used for noncontroversial
matters. By putting it under a suspension of the rules, the so-called
PAYGO requirement that the majority has talked about and trumpeted as
fiscal discipline doesn't. That's a requirement where you pay for these
benefits with a bill you bring to the floor. The roughly $10 billion
cost of this bill is just being added to the deficit.
As we're well aware, a group of Democrats known as the ``Blue Dogs''
has been particularly strong in advocating this PAYGO arrangement, yet
apparently they're not going to oppose this bill. And the reason
appears to me to be quite revealing. This morning's CQ Today quotes one
of the Blue Dog leaders as saying that PAYGO should not apply because
it's only a temporary bill. The Member said it's not a bill that's
forever, like the GI benefits bill, it's a short-term thing. So that
means, I guess, that temporary spending increases don't have to be
offset. Yet these same Blue Dogs have forced the House to pass billions
of dollars in tax increases to extend current temporary tax provisions,
like the research provisions, the development provisions, or the
alternative minimum tax patch that we've been able to use to prevent
more people from falling into that tax trap for some years, or the
continuation of being able to deduct local and State sales taxes.
As I've said many times, the PAYGO provision is a tool that's used to
promote tax increases. But every time the majority wants to figure out
how to get around it, they seem to be able to figure out how to get
around it, and they have with this bill today.
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).
Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, what I find most intriguing about this
discussion is that those who are unemployed, to get this benefit, paid
for this insurance policy. This is their money. When times were good,
they put money away to unemployment insurance. And when times are bad,
they get their insurance premiums back, known as unemployment benefits.
It is as simple as that. This is their money, those who are unemployed.
Second, as my colleagues on the other side have forced through and
agreed to spend $48 billion of U.S. taxpayer money to rebuild Iraq--
their roads, their bridges, their schools, their hospitals--but when it
comes to Americans, to give them their unemployment insurance, there
isn't any money in the system; you're breaking the bank; you can't
afford it.
[[Page H5273]]
To those who want to advocate spending 13 years, 10 years, a decade,
as long as it takes in Iraq, I find it ironic they find 13 weeks of
additional unemployment insurance to help a family get through a bump
economically as too much and too long.
Mr. Speaker, 8 years is too long for George Bush's economic policies.
It's right to give these people the economic security they've earned
and put away.
Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, as we continue to debate this
legislation which eliminates the 20-week work requirement to qualify
for up to 12 months of unemployment benefits, I would ask, Mr. Speaker,
how much time remains on each side.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Illinois has 3\1/2\
minutes. The gentleman from Washington has 7 minutes.
Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I will reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Ohio (Mrs. Jones).
(Mrs. JONES of Ohio asked and was given permission to revise and
extend her remarks.)
Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, here we are, June 2008. How many
people do you know are unemployed? How many people do you know who have
been walking, looking for a job, need an opportunity, can't figure out
how they're going to pay for gas that costs $4 a gallon, milk that
costs $3.50, a loaf of bread that costs $3? How many people do you know
like that?
Why not extend unemployment? Why not give these folks an opportunity?
They were hardworking people. They were part of the working class of
America, and now are locked out and left out of the process.
In my own congressional district, there is a community where the
unemployment rate is 11 percent. They want to go back to work. What a
boom to the economy. Give some unemployment benefits to some folks, let
them go spend some money and take care of their families. If only the
Congress would do that today, what a significant opportunity we would
have to bring some people out of a morass back into an opportunity to
do well.
Pass this legislation, ladies and gentlemen. It's the right thing to
do.
Mr. Speaker, I want to first thank Chairman Rangel and Ranking Member
McCrery for their diligent work to bring this legislation to the Floor.
Additionally I would like to thank the Chair of the Subcommittee on
Income Security and Family Support, Jim McDermott and Ranking Member
Weller for their leadership on this issue.
In our teetering economy it is often the unemployed who suffer the
most, and it is time that Congress take a stand for our Nation's
unemployed. The unemployment rate surged to 5.5 percent from 5.0
percent--the biggest one-month jump in more than two decades (since
February 1986) and climbing to the highest level in nearly four years
(October 2004).
These are American workers in the most vulnerable position--often not
able to put food on the table for their families on a consistent basis.
And I will state as I did before we completed the first stimulus
package, that we must not forgot those who are not able to find work.
My State of Ohio does not meet the test under the current formula for
an extension of unemployment benefits. But there are various parts of
Ohio, including my hometown of Cleveland which may by definition have
over 6 percent unemployment. In Ohio, the unemployment rate has gone
from 4.5 percent to 5.3 percent during the Bush Administration. In
Cuyahoga County, unemployment is currently at 6.4 percent. Sadly, there
are cities within my districts whose numbers are even higher than that.
Mere technicalities mean nothing when you cannot pay rent.
This condition is prevalent in many areas around the country. Many of
these workers have been displaced by the sweeping tide of globalization
and are having a hard time finding new employment, or training to
transition to a different type of job in our new economy. Mr. Speaker
we must not forget these Americans.
Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
distinguished Republican leader of the House, Mr. Boehner of Ohio.
Mr. BOEHNER. Let me thank my colleague from Illinois for yielding
time and make clear that I want to vote for a bill that extends
unemployment benefits to those who have been laid off in areas where we
have high unemployment. But the bill before us is not targeted at
States where we've seen the spike in unemployment. I mean, we've got an
unemployment rate in Oklahoma, as an example, of about 2.6 percent, or
maybe you could go to, I think it's South Dakota, where the
unemployment rate is about 2.4 percent. Yet, under this bill, it's a
Federal mandate one-size-fits-all for all 50 States. I just think that
if we're going to be serious about spending taxpayer money, we ought to
target that money to those areas where we have high unemployment and
where people need our help.
The bill also eliminates the requirement that individuals put in at
least 20 weeks of work to collect extended unemployment benefits. And
when this was put into the law, and when we extended this law in 2002,
almost all the Democrat members voted to do this. And what it means is
that some people could work as little as 2 weeks and receive up to 52
weeks of unemployment benefits. I don't think that's neither
reasonable, nor is it a good use of limited taxpayer resources.
I'm open to extending unemployment benefits, but I think this bill
that we have before us falls far short of what we need to do. It's
neither fair to unemployed workers who truly need our help, nor to
taxpayers who are going to fund it.
I think we can do better. And before we send a final version of this
bill to the President, I hope that we do better. And I hope we will
work in a bipartisan way to come to an agreement to extend unemployment
benefits in a reasonable, responsible way. But in the meantime, this
bill is not the answer, and I would urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, to correct something that has just been
said on the floor, I understand that someone may not have read the
bill. There is no mandate in this bill that any State has to do
anything. They can enter into an agreement with the Federal Government
and take this money. They are not forced to do anything. And I'm sure
every smart Governor will figure out what to do.
I yield 1 minute to Ms. Berkley from Nevada.
Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Speaker, Congress has taken several steps to shore
up the Nation's economy, including passage of the economic stimulus
bill that provided millions of Americans with rebate checks and
measures to help homeowners struggling to stay in their homes. This
legislation is an important next step.
The once recession-proof economy of my district of Las Vegas has not
been spared the effects of this downturn. In fact, Nevada has been hit
harder than any other State by the foreclosure crisis, and currently
our unemployment rate is above the national average.
With gas prices and the cost of food skyrocketing, fewer visitors are
coming to Las Vegas. That means that more workers are going to be laid
off. It is, therefore, absolutely critical that Congress step up and
pass an extension of unemployment benefits.
I support the bill we are considering today because it will help
thousands of hardworking Nevadans get by until the situation improves
and they can return to work.
Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on each
side?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has 2\1/2\ minutes. The
gentleman from Washington has 5 minutes.
Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. George Miller).
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding
and appreciate the committee bringing this bill to the floor.
It is just so fundamental that one of the times when government
should step in and lend a family a hand is when that family, through no
fault of their own, has lost their job. The difference is whether or
not that family will be able to maintain and hold on to their home, to
their car, to their kids' education, to provide the wherewithal for
their children. And for millions of Americans, that's what's happened.
And since they've lost that job, they have also exhausted their
unemployment benefits that has enabled them to keep their head barely
above water. They're gone looking for jobs, they've gone looking for
work. They've tried to retrain. They still haven't been able to
[[Page H5274]]
secure the employment because this is a terrible market for employment.
What we need to do is to extend those unemployment benefits to those
families so that they can hold themselves together. It should not be a
policy in this country that when you lose your job through no fault of
your own, that you crash to the ground, you lose your home, you lose
your kids' education, and you start all over again. It's not good for
the economy, it's horrible for these families, and it's wrong for this
government not to take every step we can to prevent that.
Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Well, Mr. Speaker, once again, I want to
state that I believe the vast majority of Members of this House
overwhelmingly support extension of unemployment benefits for those who
need help. We're debating the legislation before us that makes a
radical change in qualifying for unemployment benefits. In fact, you
can work as little as 2 weeks and obtain up to 52 weeks of unemployment
benefits in the State of Illinois under their current policy if this
legislation were to become law.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, it's hard for me to understand why the
gentleman from Illinois keeps bringing up his own State as an example
of wasting money and he has never brought any legislation to fix what
their stupid legislature has done. He is acting as though the people in
his own State don't know what they're doing.
Now, if somebody works, money is paid into the fund. If they work for
a week in one quarter and a week in another quarter, it is possible
that they might get $20 or some minimal benefit. To imply that working
2 weeks you get $400 a week, as you do in the State of Washington, for
26 weeks or 52 weeks is simply misleading, and he knows it.
{time} 1600
I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel).
Mr. RANGEL. Thank you again, Dr. McDermott, Mr. English, and all of
those that I know everybody in this House is sensitive to the plight
that these unfortunate, hardworking people find themselves. All I can
suggest, from a very political point of view, is that at some point
when we get home, somebody is going to ask us how did we vote? And as
they put together their budgets and try to figure out the rent, the
mortgages, the tuition, the gas prices, I just hope that you perfect
the arguments of those of you that oppose this bill in such a way that
you expect they would understand what the heck you are talking about.
Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I note with some humor my good
friend from Washington State's comments about whether or not I proposed
legislation to right the wrong that I have been raising. Actually,
existing law for extending benefits requires 20 weeks' worth. So there
is no need for legislation to maintain existing law. What is important
to point out is that this legislation eliminates that 20-week work
requirement in order to qualify for 52 weeks of unemployment benefits.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, what is the remaining time?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Washington has 2\1/2\
minutes. The gentleman from Illinois has 1\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. McDERMOTT. I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Levin).
Mr. LEVIN. I want to read, Mr. Weller, the metropolitan areas with
unemployment above 6 percent that would be left out under your so-
called targeting, Danville, Illinois, these are among many, and
Kankakee and Rockford. I just picked those three out. And it is
unconscionable for you to say----
Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Will the gentleman from Michigan yield?
Mr. LEVIN. I will yield on your time.
Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Do you agree that the 6 percent that you are
talking about is the 6 percent trigger that----
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Michigan has
expired.
Mr. LEVIN. No, no. The 6 percent is the trigger for the additional 13
weeks, not for the basic 15 weeks. You misstate----
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will suspend.
The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. McDERMOTT. To Mr. Hoyer from Maryland I yield the remaining time.
We have the right to close, however, I think.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Illinois has 1\1/2\
minutes. The gentleman from Washington has 2 minutes.
Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, just so we fully understand, it
is my understanding that the distinguished majority leader is going to
close for the majority and that I have 1 minute remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. WELLER from Illinois. So I should do my close on our side and
then Mr. Hoyer will close for the majority.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is correct.
Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, sometimes in debate positions
are mischaracterized. But I think it is important to point out----
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will suspend.
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I want to recognize Mr. Hoyer first, and
then let you come, and then I will close.
We got our wires crossed.
Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my
time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Maryland for 1 minute.
Mr. HOYER. I thank my friend from Washington State for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, for the last 7\1/2\ years, the President and members of
his administration have claimed that the American economy is doing just
fine. And in December, President Bush said, ``The economy is pretty
good. There are definitely some storm clouds and concerns, but the
underpinning is good.''
But the reality, of course, that we have seen is far different,
particularly for American workers.
Just last Friday, the Labor Department reported that the unemployment
rate jumped one-half of 1 percent, from 5 percent to 5.5 percent. Now
to some of us, perhaps that is simply a statistic. For some families,
it is a crisis. This is the largest 1-month increase in unemployment in
22 years, or said a different way, until the 6th year of the Reagan
administration.
Our economy has actually lost jobs each of the last 5 months, a loss
of some 325,000 jobs since the first of the year. In fact, this
administration has created about 3.6 million jobs over the last 7\1/2\
years, as opposed to 20 million plus jobs under the Clinton
administration, or under Clinton, an average of 236,000 new jobs per
month, and under this administration approximately 40,000 new jobs per
month. And you need 100,000 to stay even. That is why this bill is on
the floor today.
Over the last 12 months, the number of unemployed Americans has
increased by 1.6 million, from nearly 6.9 million in May of 2007 to
nearly 8.5 million in May of this year. That is 8.5 million of our
fellow citizens who don't have a job, who are not sure how they are
going to pay for their housing, their rent, their food, their medicine
and the clothing for their children. That is what we are talking about
today. We are talking about those 8.5 million people who are our
constituents, Americans who need our help. And that is what this vote
is today at this point in time.
In fact, Mr. Speaker, 1.5 million of those workers are what we call
euphemistically ``long-term unemployed,'' which means they have been
jobless for more than 6 months. I don't know how many of you have had
the opportunity to see ``Pursuit of Happyness,'' spelled h-a-p-p-y. It
is a wonderful movie about a now very successful African American and
his little boy who found themselves homeless with no money. And they
went to the homeless shelter, and they couldn't get in. Those are the
people we are talking about. That is what we are voting on this day, as
to whether or not we are going to reach out to those people and try to
lift them up and give them a helping hand, not a handout, but a helping
hand. These are people who were employed, who were working, and through
no fault of their own, they lost
[[Page H5275]]
their jobs. Because if it is the fault of their own, by the way, they
don't get unemployment.
All the while, working Americans have been confronted with decreasing
household incomes, exploding gas and food prices and escalating health
care costs. Why then, given this squeeze on hardworking middle-class
American families, does the President threaten to veto a common-sense,
compassionate response, the temporary extension of unemployment
benefits?
Here is the kicker. Listen to me. There are 200,000 more long-term
jobless Americans today, right now, as we debate this bill, 200,000
more Americans who are on long-term jobless status than when President
Bush last signed an extension of unemployment benefits into law. In
other words, the status today in America is that there are 200,000 more
people who need our help than when President Bush last signed an
extension of long-term unemployment.
How can we then say it is not time to act today, to reach out our
hand today, to say that the Congress of the United States feels your
pain, hears your cry, and responds? There is no justification for the
President's threatened veto on this much-needed legislation, Mr.
Speaker. This bill is not only a sign of compassion and a demonstration
of our values, but it is also a fast-acting form of economic stimulus.
Who says so? Conservative economists say so. It will help lift up our
floundering economy. It will simply provide up to 13 weeks of extended
unemployment benefits in every State to workers exhausting regular
unemployment compensation. And in States with higher levels of
unemployment, an additional 13 weeks is available on top.
Mr. Speaker, this legislation is vital. It is vital for workers and
their families who are struggling to make ends meet in this poorly
performing economy. It is not charity. It is our obligation and
responsibility. It is a recognition that under the administration, the
American worker has been forced to contend with job loss, decreasing
incomes, exploding gas costs, food and health care costs, and
unprecedented foreclosure rates.
Mr. Speaker, this legislation is the right thing to do at the right
time, at the right place. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the
aisle, this is not a Republican or Democratic issue, this is not a
liberal or conservative issue. This is an issue of saying, there are
people in trouble. We hear their cry. We respond to help.
Ladies and gentlemen of the House of Representatives, we call this
the people's House. Help the people this day.
Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I want to echo the majority
leader's comments when I agree that this issue, the issue of extending
unemployment benefits, should not be a Republican or Democrat issue.
And we, of course, on our side of the aisle, want to extend
unemployment benefits for those who need help. And we are prepared to
work, as we have been, to achieve that goal.
I would note that 8 weeks ago when the Ways and Means Committee took
up this legislation, it was deemed emergency legislation. It had to
move through the committee quickly. It was an emergency. We had to do
it right away. Well 2 months later it finally comes to the floor. And I
believe that if we want to be compassionate, if we want to help those
who need help, we need to do it in the right way. And that is if it is
an emergency, we should have done it 8 weeks ago, number one, but we
should also do it in the proper legislative way of ensuring that it is
a bipartisan bill and that we construct it in a way that recognizes
what has worked in the past. And I would note, as the majority leader
said, back in 2002, we passed a bipartisan unemployment extension
legislation that was signed into law by the President, and it
maintained a 27-year precedent which was that one should have to work
for 20 weeks in order to qualify for 52 weeks' worth of unemployment
benefits.
And that is the big concern here with this legislation today. There
is a radical departure from an established policy of 27 years of
requiring 20 weeks of work to qualify for a full year of unemployment
benefits. And the legislation before us today repeals that. It
eliminates a 27-year precedent.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.'' Let's bring
this legislation back tomorrow, under a rule, and allow an amendment to
be offered to strike this radical change.
Again, Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote.
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Illinois says that he
would go for this bill but for this one provision. If that one
provision were there, he would go for it. But the fact is that you have
100 metropolitan areas in this country where people simply have run out
of benefits. And it is over 6 percent in those metropolitan areas. The
Governors have asked us for this, and the technical thing that my
opponent uses is, you know, somewhere out there, there is somebody who
paid $40 into the fund, and because of the way it is written, he gets
$20 out, and so I can't vote for it.
Well there are 1.6 million who already exhausted their benefits, and
there are many more. And the national Governors sent this letter to us.
They are not the only ones. State legislator, labor unions, everyone is
asking for this. You can vote ``no'' if you want. You will have to face
your constituency in November.
Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of
the Emergency Extended Unemployment Compensation Act and congratulate
Speaker Pelosi and Chairman Rangel for their quick response to the
surge in the nation's unemployment rate.
H.R. 5749 will provide immediate relief to families across the
country by extending unemployment benefits for an additional 13 weeks
in all states. It also allows for a further extension in benefits in
states hardest hit by the weakening economy. Passing this legislation
will provide much needed help to 3.8 million Americans--including
70,000 Minnesota families.
The latest Labor Department report showed a 5 percent increase in
unemployment from April 2008 to May 2008--the biggest one-month
increase in unemployment in 22 years. The economic crisis has resulted
in five months of job losses and projections unfortunately indicate
that the situation is likely to worsen.
An extension of unemployment benefits is critical for families
struggling to deal with increased gas and food prices while searching
for a new job. It is also one of the most cost-effective ways to
stimulate the economy. In fact, every $1 spent on these benefits
results in $1.64 in new economic demand.
We need to pass this legislation and provide relief for America's
working families today. This Congress has also enacted an economic
stimulus plan in the form of tax rebate checks and passed several
measures to begin to address gas prices. In addition, the House of
Representatives has passed legislation to help homeowners avoid
foreclosure and a federal budget that would reinvest in Americans. In
the long-term, we need a comprehensive approach to restore the strength
of our economy. We need to get serious about addressing health care
costs and invest in education and training to prepare for competition
in the global economy.
Madam Speaker, H.R. 5749 provides critical, immediate relief for
working families and our struggling economy. I urge my colleagues to
support this important bill.
Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R.
5749, the Emergency Extended Unemployment Act of 2008. This bill would
establish a temporary program providing extended unemployment benefits
in every State to individuals exhausting their regular unemployment
compensation. The duration of these extended benefits would equal the
lesser of 13 weeks or half the duration of regular unemployment
compensation.
This bill could not be any timelier. It is no longer debatable as to
whether the retraction of the economy is hurting every-day Americans
across our nation. Over the first three months of 2008, the U.S.
economy lost a total of 232,000 jobs. With the labor market in such a
steep decline, more workers face the possibility of layoffs and current
unemployment compensation recipients face greater difficulty in
becoming reemployed. The total number of unemployed workers has already
grown by 1.1 million over the last twelve months.
The economic forecast is even worse in my home state of Michigan.
While economists worry about the overall health of our economy, as the
national unemployment average creeps above 5.5 percent, prospective
employees in Michigan face a 7.6-percent unemployment rate--one of the
highest state rates in the nation.
Luckily, this bill recognizes that the retraction of the economy has
hurt some communities more than others. Under this bill, states with
high unemployment, like Michigan, would be able to provide an
additional 13 weeks of extended benefits. This would give the
unemployed a total of 26 weeks of coverage as they transition into new
positions.
[[Page H5276]]
Madam Speaker, we need to help our workers, especially those in who
have been hit the hardest by this economic downturn. At the same time,
we need to stimulate our economy in the most effective manner possible
to prevent the downturn from spiraling into a recession. This bill
accomplishes this goal. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office
released a study this past January specifically endorsing the use of
extended unemployment benefits as a cost-effective way to boost the
economy.
We in the Congress need to be both smart and compassionate. Let's
help the unemployed while protecting those who currently have
employment. Let's stimulate the economy and create new sustainable job
opportunities for the American worker. Let's pass H.R. 5749.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this
legislation to temporarily extend unemployment insurance benefits.
Whether we are in a recession or not, the point is clear: current
economic growth has been so sluggish that the job market is weak and
job prospects are poor. The recent May 2008 jobs report confirms this
as the unemployment rate increased by one-half point to 5.5 percent,
which was the biggest one-month increase in over 20 years. Since the
first of the year, our economy has lost more than 300,000 jobs.
By providing an extra 13 weeks of jobless benefits to workers in
every State who exhaust their unemployment benefits and another 13
weeks of benefits to those in States with high unemployment rates, we
can help approximately 4 million unemployed workers meet basic needs
such as food and rent while they continue to look for work at a time
when the economy is languishing. And we can give our economy a much-
needed boost. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office,
extending unemployment benefits would be one of the most cost-effective
and fastest-acting forms of economic stimulus.
Madam Speaker, many Americans are struggling to make ends meet. With
rising gas and food prices and a weakened labor market, we can help
those hardest hit by this sluggish economy by providing them relief in
passing this much-needed bill.
Mr. LANGEVIN. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5749,
the Emergency Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 2008, which
will provide 13 weeks of extended unemployment compensation benefits
for all workers who have exhausted their current 26 weeks of benefits.
This measure also provides 13 additional weeks for workers in States
with unemployment rates of 6 percent or higher. In order to receive
these benefits, workers must have lost a job through no fault of their
own, be actively searching for a job, be able to work, and must have a
minimum number of weeks worked and amount of wages earned over a
specific timeframe prior to being unemployed.
This bill provides a critical boost to the many Rhode Islanders, and
Americans across the Nation, who are struggling to find employment. Our
country's unemployment rate jumped from 5 percent in April to 5.5
percent in May, the biggest one-month increase in over 20 years. In my
home State of Rhode Island, the unemployment rate reached 6.1 percent
in April, and we have lost an estimated 6,300 jobs since the beginning
of the year. H.R. 5749 would provide relief through March 2006 and
benefit 3.8 million Americans. Most importantly, this measure would
immediately help as many as 8,000 Rhode Islanders.
When discussing this matter, we must remember to look beyond the
statistics and recognize the serious toll that unemployment is taking
on American families. I have received numerous calls from my fellow
Rhode Islanders asking when Congress would extend their benefits. They
tell me how they are looking for a job, but they just have not been
able to find one yet. They have not given up--research has shown that
workers who exhaust their unemployment benefits, search for a job at
similar or higher levels of intensity as those who find employment
before their benefits expire--but they need more time. Compounding the
problem, the rising cost of gas poses an additional challenge in
searching for a job, and rising food prices have made it even harder to
put food on the table. Our constituents are turning to us for help.
As Members of Congress, we have the power to give hard-working
Americans another chance to continue their job search and provide for
their families. Our country has faced economic hardships and recessions
before, and I have no doubt we will weather this current downturn. I
encourage my colleagues to pass this bill and give a hand up to those
who are most vulnerable during these trying times.
Mrs. DAVIS of California. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of
H.R. 5749 to extend unemployment benefits to millions of American
workers, including over 700,000 in my home State of California.
I wanted to take this opportunity to put a human face on the recent
economic downturn.
Just yesterday, I spoke with a 51-year-old woman named Karen from my
home district of San Diego.
After working for the past 10 years as a customer service specialist,
Karen was recently laid off from her job.
She has been actively looking for work but has been unable to find a
job because of the poor economy.
Unable to afford health insurance, the stress of being unemployed is
beginning to take a toll on Karen's health.
It has also become harder and harder for her to pay her bills. She
told me, ``Just looking for a job costs money, because you've got to
pay for the gas to drive to the interviews.''
And to make matters worse, her unemployment benefits have just ended.
By voting for H.R. 5749, we will provide the support millions of
Americans need to get back on their feet.
Let us help American workers get their lives back.
Mr. SIRES. Madam Speaker, today I rise in support of H.R. 5749, the
Emergency Extended Unemployment Compensation Act that will provide
immediate relief to 3.8 million unemployed workers who continue to
struggle to find work in the slowing economy.
Recently, the Nation experienced the biggest one-month jump in the
unemployment rate in more than two decades, rising from 5.0 percent to
5.5 percent and is now an entire percentage point higher than a year
ago. Americans have been losing jobs in each of the past 5 months, with
the number of unemployed now at 3.8 million. The airline and automobile
industries alone have laid off over 50,000 employees combined.
The current high levels of unemployment have only added to the
struggles of the U.S. economy by adding thousands more Americans to
those having a hard time making ends meet. This bill will provide the
necessary extension of unemployment benefits to those 3.8 million
Americans who struggle to find employment within the current timeframe.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this necessary
legislation that will give our economy the relief it needs. Extending
these benefits is an efficient and quick way to support our country's
workers and invigorate the economy. My Democratic colleagues and I are
committed to providing the much needed relief to the millions of
unemployed workers, who in the face of rising gas and food costs,
continue to struggle to support themselves and their families.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time has expired.
The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Rangel) that the House suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R.
5749, as amended.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and
nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be
postponed.
____________________