Congressional Record, Volume 154 Issue 97 (Thursday, June 12, 2008)

[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 97 (Thursday, June 12, 2008)]
[House]
[Pages H5345-H5361]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

EMERGENCY EXTENDED UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION ACT OF 2008

Mr. RANGEL. Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1265, I call
up the bill (H.R. 5749) to provide for a program of emergency
unemployment compensation, and ask for its immediate consideration.
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 of 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.

[[Page H5346]]

(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.

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 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, 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 if, at the time of exhaustion (as described in
paragraph (1))--
(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'', ``additional
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.

[[Page H5347]]

the last week (as determined in accordance with the
applicable State law) ending on or before February 1, 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 April 30, 2009.

Point of Order

Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order
against consideration of this bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order
against consideration of this bill because the bill violates clause 10
of rule XXI of the Rules of the House of Representatives which provides
in pertinent part that ``it shall not be in order to consider any bill
if the provisions of such measure affecting direct spending and
revenues have the net effect of increasing the deficit'' over the 5- or
10-year budget scoring window.
This rule is commonly referred to as the pay-as-you-go rule or PAYGO
and was enacted by the majority with great fanfare at the beginning of
this Congress.
In reviewing the estimate prepared by the Congressional Budget
Office, I note that they have scored this bill as increasing the
deficit by $14 billion over the next 5 years, and nearly $10 billion
over the coming decade.
Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the table prepared by the
Congressional Budget Office appear at this point in the Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Illinois?
There was no objection.
Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Madam Speaker, given this overwhelming
evidence that this bill does have the net effect of increasing the
deficit over both scoring windows, I must respectfully insist on my
point of order that the bill violates the PAYGO rule.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does any other Member wish to be heard?
Mr. RANGEL. Madam Speaker, I ask that the gentleman's motion receive
the consideration it deserves.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Illinois makes a point of
order against consideration of H.R. 5749 on the ground that the bill
includes provisions affecting direct spending or revenues that would
have the net effect of increasing the Federal budget deficit. That
point of order sounds in clause 10 of rule XXI.
The special order of business prescribed by the adoption of House
Resolution 1265 waives any such point of order. The Chair will read the
operative sentence of House Resolution 1265: ``All points of order
against consideration of the bill are waived except those arising under
clause 9 of rule XXI.''
The Chair finds that the point of order raised by the gentleman from
Illinois has been waived.
The Chair therefore holds that the point of order is overruled.
Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Madam Speaker, on that I respectfully appeal
the ruling of the Chair.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is, Shall the decision of the
Chair stand as the judgment of the House?

Motion to Table Offered by Mr. Rangel

Mr. RANGEL. I move to table the appeal.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to table.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and
nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 217,
nays 185, not voting 31, as follows:

[Roll No. 410]

YEAS--217

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Castor
Cazayoux
Chandler
Childers
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Foster
Frank (MA)
Gillibrand
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth Sandlin
Hill
Hinchey
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Richardson
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Space
Speier
Spratt
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Tsongas
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth

NAYS--185

Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Bachus
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Ferguson
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Paul
Pearce
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Porter
Price (GA)
Putnam
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Saxton
Scalise
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield (KY)
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman (VA)
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--31

Baca
Braley (IA)
Davis (IL)
Dicks
Flake
Gonzalez
Gutierrez
Higgins
Hinojosa
Hulshof
Kagen
Kilpatrick
Kind
Loebsack
Maloney (NY)
McCrery
Miller (FL)
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Ortiz
Pence
Pryce (OH)
Radanovich
Reyes
Rogers (MI)

[[Page H5348]]

Rush
Smith (NJ)
Stark
Tancredo
Walsh (NY)
Wolf

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes
remaining in this vote.

{time} 1245

So the motion to table was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Salazar). The Chair would clarify that
the insertion by the gentleman from Illinois will appear separately
from the point of order in the Record.
Pursuant to House Resolution 1265, in lieu of the amendment
recommended by the Committee on Ways and Means, printed in the bill,
the amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in House Report
110-710 is adopted and the bill, as amended, is considered read.
The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:

Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:

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. 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 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.

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

[[Page H5349]]

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.

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. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) and
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
Mr. RANGEL. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I ask unanimous consent that I yield to myself such time as I may
consume and at that conclusion the balance of the time allotted be
given to Dr. McDermott, a senior member of the Ways and Means
Committee, who was the major drafter of the bill that is before the
House.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New York?
There was no objection.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, here we are again, once again fighting for
the dignity of millions of Americans who worked every day of their
adult lives, paid into a trust fund, believing if there ever was a
need, that their Congress, their Members would respond to it.
The compensation that we are offering in this legislation is so
meager that it is almost embarrassing to have to fight to get it, and
the whole concept that maybe the President believes that if they are
given assistance, they would rather not look for a job but rather have
these checks. But I think I want America to know that as long as good
people want to work, as long as they don't have money to pay their
bills, as long as oil prices are up, education, health care, as long as
these good people cannot survive and begin to lose their dignity and
their pride, as long as these great Americans, middle Americans find
themselves in this position, that we on our side will continue to fight
no matter what you do.
So you can attack us on parliamentary grounds, you can talk about
PAYGO, you can talk about suspension, you can go get a veto, but the
American people should know that we are not going to give up. We are
not going to give in, and that we will prevail. So whatever tactics,
language, rhetoric you come up with, at the end of the day when the
family says I know I can depend on our Congress, they will be asking:
And how do your congressmen vote on this issue? And I hope that you
will be guided by your conscience and not your party.
So I would like to yield the balance of my time to Dr. McDermott to
get into the specifics, but I hope that we will be able, with our vote
today, to get into the heart of the American people and let them know
that this Congress and this country will not let them down.
Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Speaker, as Yogi Berra once said, this is like deja vu all over
again. Yesterday after an 8-week delay, the House considered and failed
to pass the legislation once again before us today. I continue to
support providing extended unemployment benefits to workers who need it
most. In fact, every Republican on the Ways and Means Committee
supported extending unemployment benefits when this legislation was
considered in committee 2 months ago; again, 8 weeks ago.
Again, Republicans want to extend unemployment benefits. And we want
to help those who are hurting the most. We also recognize that it is
time that we pass legislation that can become law.
Ladies and gentlemen, that is why I rise in strong opposition to the
legislation before us today which does not satisfy the simple standard
of helping those who need it most and who have worked a modest number
of weeks to earn these benefits.
Yesterday, the Democratic leadership brought identical legislation to
the

[[Page H5350]]

floor under a process normally reserved for naming post offices and
honoring sports teams. This resulted in a take-it-or-leave-it approach
to this very important issue of extending unemployment benefits, and
the bill failed to gain enough votes, forcing us to return to the floor
again today.
Now have our Democratic colleagues budged an inch? Absolutely not.
Today we are considering the same legislation which once again fails to
include a long-standing and reasonable policy requiring at least 20
weeks of work to qualify for extended unemployment benefits.
As several of us on this side of the aisle have noted, without this
sensible requirement under H.R. 5749, workers could qualify for as many
as 52 weeks of unemployment benefits, a full year, after having worked
as little as one or two weeks. But whether someone worked two or 10
weeks or even 19 weeks, the simple fact is that current Federal law
includes a straightforward rule that requires a modest minimum amount
of work before someone can qualify for months, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12
months of unemployment benefits courtesy of our taxpayers.
This 20-weeks rule is not too much to ask. It is fair, and it is
inexcusable for the other side not to include such a reasonable, long-
standing rule. In fact, to not include it, as the bill before us would
do, is a radical, and I say that again, radical change, radical
departure from current law.
My friends in the majority have called this issue a straw man. If it
is just a straw man, why did they make the change? Why did they make
this radical policy change that breaks 27 years of bipartisan policy
which requires 20 weeks of work to qualify for a full year of
unemployment benefits.
Mr. Speaker, I have a United States Department of Labor document that
shows examples of States that would allow 1 year's benefits for only 1
or 2 weeks' work, including a State like Michigan where you would only
have to work one week to be able to obtain, under this legislation, 52
weeks worth of benefits.
I would like to insert this Department of Labor document into the
Record.

STATES IN WHICH INDIVIDUALS COULD QUALIFY FOR UI WITH ONLY 2 WEEKS OF
WORK
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minimum wages needed to
qualify:
State -------------------------------
Wages in 1 Total wages in
week 2 weeks
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AL...................................... >$1,157 >$2,214
AK...................................... .............. $1,000
AZ...................................... $1,500 $2,250
AR...................................... .............. $1,971
CA...................................... $900 $1,125
CO...................................... \1\ $1,084 $2,500
CT...................................... .............. \1\ $780
DE...................................... .............. \1\ $920
DC...................................... $1,300 $1,950
FL...................................... $2,267 $3,400
GA...................................... $1,232 \1\ $1,848
HI...................................... .............. $130
ID...................................... $1,508 $1,885
IL...................................... .............. $1,600
IN...................................... $1,000 $2,750
IA...................................... $1,190 $1,790
KS...................................... $2,377 $3,030
KY...................................... $1,963 $2,944
LA...................................... $800 $1,200
ME...................................... \2\ $1,276 $3,828
MD...................................... >$576 $900
MA...................................... .............. $3,000
MI...................................... $2,757 $4,136
MN...................................... $1,000 $1,250
MS...................................... $780 $1,200
MO...................................... $1,500 $2,250
MT...................................... $1,392 \3\ $2,087
NE...................................... $800 $2,651
NV...................................... $400 $600
NH...................................... $1,400 $2,800
NJ...................................... .............. $2,860
NM...................................... $1,604 ..............
NY...................................... $1,600 $2,400
NC...................................... $1,066 $4,291
ND...................................... $1,984 $2,975
OK...................................... $1,000 $1,500
OR...................................... $667 $1,000
PR...................................... $77 $280
RI...................................... $1,480 $2,960
SC...................................... $540 $900
SD...................................... $728 $1,288
TN...................................... >$780 >$1,560
TX...................................... $1,413 $2,091
UT...................................... $1,933 $2,900
VT...................................... $1,981 $2,773
VA...................................... .............. \1\ $2,700
VI...................................... $858 $1,287
WV...................................... .............. $2,200
WI...................................... $1,325 $1,590
WY...................................... $2,072 $2,900
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In 2 HQs.
\2\ In each of 2 Qs
\3\ In 2 Qs.
Note: Most states require wages in 2 different calendar quarters in
order to meet monetary eligibility requirements.
The source of this information is the 2008 Comparison of State
Unemployment Insurance Laws, Chapter 3, Table 3-3.

Yesterday the majority called up this legislation under special rules
that barred any amendments. Today we are considering this legislation
in much the same way, no amendments to be considered, no substitute to
be considered, and every rule of the House except one is waived.
The majority even waived the House Democrat's so-called PAYGO rule.
That admits that the cost of this legislation would simply be added to
the deficit. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office confirms this
much. Their estimate of the cost of this legislation shows it will
increase the deficit by $14 billion over the next 5 years, and that is
probably just a start.
Also, Mr. Speaker, I would like to include in the Record a copy of
the Congressional Budget Office score of H.R. 5749 as approved by the
Ways and Means Committee which provides a fuller discussion of this
point.
H.R. 5749--Emergency Extended Unemployment Compensation Act
of 2008
Summary: H.R. 5749 would make individuals who exhaust their
regular benefits eligible for unemployment compensation for
an additional period of time. The Congressional Budget Office
estimates that enacting the bill would:
Increase direct spending by $6.2 billion in 2008 and $11.7
billion over the 2008-2018 period; and
Increase revenues by a net amount of $3.2 billion of the
2008-2018 period.
In total, these changes would increase budget deficits (or
reduce future surpluses) by $6.2 billion in 2008 and by a net
of $8.5 billion over the 2008-2018 period.
The bill contains no intergovernmental or private-sector
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
(UMRA).
Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated
budgetary impact of H.R. 5749 is shown in the following
table. The spending effects of this legislation fall within
budget function 600 (income security).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By fiscal year, in billions of dollars--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2008-2013 2008-2018
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Changes in Direct Spending 6.2 6.7 0 0 0 0 0 -0.2 -0.3 -0.3 -0.4 12.8 11.7
(Outlays) \1\.................
Changes in Revenues............ 0 * 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.7 0.8 0.6 3.2
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net Change in Deficits or 6.2 6.6 -0.1 -0.2 -0.2 -0.1 -0.3 -0.6 -0.7 -1.0 -1.2 12.2 8.5
Surpluses \2\.................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For direct spending changes, budget authority equals outlays.
\2\ Positive numbers indicate an increase in deficits or decrease in surpluses.
Note: * = gain of less than $50 million; components may not add to totals because of rounding.

Basis of estimate: For this estimate, CBO assumes that the
bill will be enacted by June 1, 2008, and that spending will
follow historical patterns for similar activities.
Direct Spending
Most states' regular unemployment compensation programs
provide up to 26 weeks of benefits to qualified individuals.
The bill would authorize a program for emergency extended
unemployment compensation (EEUC), which would provide federal
funding for additional benefits--up to 13 weeks in all
states--to beneficiaries who exhaust their regular benefits.
(Certain individuals who exhausted their regular benefits
prior to the bill's enactment also would be eligible for
EEUC). An additional 13 weeks of benefits would be provided
in states that meet certain thresholds or triggers with
respect to unemployment. States would be eligible to provide
the additional 13 weeks of benefits if unemployment levels
reach an insured unemployment rate of 4 percent or higher, or
a total unemployment rate of 6 percent or higher. (CBO
estimates that around one quarter of beneficiaries would be
in states that would qualify to provide that additional 13
weeks.) Benefits would be available from the date of
enactment through April 30, 2009, but no new beneficiaries
could be added to the program after February 1, 2009.
Based on the number of people who previously exhausted
regular benefits, as well as those anticipated to exhaust
benefits in the coming months, CBO estimates that over the
2008-2009 period:
About 3.2 million people would collect EEUC and that
benefits paid over that time period would total $11.7
billion;
Administrative costs related to the EEUC program would
total $0.6 billion; and
Outlays for regular unemployment benefits would increase by
$0.9 billion because the availability of the EEUC benefits
would affect some recipients' employment decisions.

[[Page H5351]]

(Most of those costs would be offset by increases in State
revenues over fiscal years 2009 through 2013, as discussed
below under ``Revenues.'')
Those costs would be slightly offset by reduced payments
from other federal programs that provide extended
unemployment benefits--the extended benefits program and
trade adjustment assistance for workers. CBO estimates those
offsets would amount to $0.3 billion in 2008 and 2009.
Under the financing provisions of the bill, funds in the
Extended Unemployment Compensation Account would be
transferred to the state accounts for the benefit and
administrative expenses incurred for the EEUC program.
Because the state unemployment funds are included in the
federal budget, those transfers would have no immediate
budgetary effect. However, they would interact with
provisions of the federal unemployment law known as the
``Reed Act.'' Under those provisions, when funds in the
federal accounts of the unemployment trust fund exceed
certain statutory limits, excess revenues from the federal
unemployment tax are transferred to the state accounts. In
CBO's current baseline, we project that the federal
government will transfer $8.6 billion to the states over the
2013-2018 period. CBO's baseline includes outlays from the
Reed Act transfers totaling $1.1 billion from 2014 to 2018.
Under the bill, outlays for EEUC would reduce the federal
trust fund balances to levels that would preclude such Reed
Act transfers. Thus, relative to CBO's baseline projections,
outlays under the bill would be $1.1 billion lower.
CBO estimates that the net effect of unemployment-related
provisions on direct spending would total $12.8 billion over
the 2008-2013 period and $11.7 billion over the 2008-2018
period.
Revenues
The availability of EEUC benefits may discourage recipients
from searching for work and accepting less-desirable jobs as
quickly as they would in the absence of this act. Thus, some
recipients may remain unemployed for slightly longer than
they would have otherwise, and direct spending for regular
benefits would increase during 2008 and 2009. CBO expects
that some states would respond to the lower balances in their
unemployment trust funds by increasing their unemployment
taxes, resulting in an increase of $0.6 billion in revenues
over the 2009-2013 period.
The interaction between EEUC and Reed Act transfers also
would affect revenues. Under the baseline, CBO estimates
that, as a result of the estimated $8.6 billion in Reed Act
transfers, states would reduce unemployment taxes by about
$2.5 billion over the 2014-2018 period, with additional
revenue losses occurring after 2018. CBO estimates that
transfers to the states under the EEUC program would reduce
the federal trust fund balances to levels that would preclude
such Reed Act transfers, resulting in revenues that would be
$2.5 billion higher than our baseline projections of revenues
over the five-year period beginning in 2014.
Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: H.R. 5749
contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as
defined in UMRA. CBO estimates that the changes to the
unemployment compensation system would result in decreased
federal transfers to states and also would lead to increased
unemployment taxes in some states. These effects, however,
would result from states' participation in the federal
unemployment insurance program, which is voluntary, and would
not result from intergovernmental mandates as defined in
UMRA.
Previous CBO estimate: On February 6, 2008, CBO transmitted
an estimate of the budgetary effects of the Economic Stimulus
Act of 2008, as ordered reported by the Senate Committee on
Finance on January 30, 2008. That bill contained provisions
for the extension of unemployment compensation that are
similar to provisions in H.R. 5749. Differences between the
estimated costs reflect small economic and technical
adjustments to CBO's baseline and differences in the
legislation.
Estimate prepared by: Federal Spending: Christina Hawley
Anthony; Federal Revenues: Barbara Edwards; Impact on State,
Local, and Tribal Governments: Lisa Ramirez-Branum; and
Impact on the Private Sector: Ralph Smith.
Estimate approved by: Peter H. Fontaine, Assistant Director
for Budget Analysis.

These facts directly contradict the majority's pledges for a more
open and honest operation of the House, as well as their pledges to pay
for every piece of legislation that comes to the floor. Now we are
seeing the fine print of these pledges, including that new spending
deemed temporary does not have to be paid for. This is yet another
violation of the majority Democrats' PAYGO rule which is looking more
and more like Swiss cheese than effective budget policy. I hope my
friends in the fiscally conservative Blue Dog Coalition are watching as
their leadership once again waives the rules of the House to increase
spending and to increase taxes.
Make no mistake, this legislation will do both, living up to the true
spirit of the Democrats' PAYGO rule.
Mr. Speaker, the President has stated his intent to veto this
legislation because it does not include the 20 weeks of work
requirement and proposes untargeted benefits, among other reasons.
Republicans noted these flaws in our debate on the floor yesterday, and
we offered to work with the majority to correct them so that we have
legislation that could become law quickly to help those who need help,
so the path to passage of a truly bipartisan and responsible bill is
clear to address these concerns.
Two months ago, that was 8 weeks ago, every Republican on the Ways
and Means Committee supported extending unemployment benefits, and I
introduced a bill and offered as an amendment legislation that would
have paid extended benefits in high unemployment States like Michigan,
and many others, and that was in April, 8 weeks ago. Yet for the past 2
months, 8 weeks, the residents of those States where jobs are hardest
to come by and these benefits are most needed, have been forced to wait
on the majority in Congress. It is election-year politics. Members
should have a chance to vote on a targeted proposal that would actually
provide extended benefits in high-unemployment States like Michigan and
others. And importantly, a vote on legislation the President would sign
so these benefits can actually start being paid.
In contrast to such a constructive approach, the majority wants to
continue playing politics, election-year politics, with unemployment
benefits. So today, Members will once again we forced to vote on
legislation the President says he will not sign and includes a radical
departure from current policy when it comes to the balance between work
and benefits.
Again I ask my colleagues to vote against this legislation so we can
work together in a bipartisan way because I truly believe both
Republicans and Democrats want to help those who are unemployed. We
need to craft an appropriate bipartisan solution quickly to this
immediate concern. The legislation before us does not meet that
challenge and will not be signed into law. We want to help those who
need help. We can extend unemployment benefits for those who have
exhausted them. It is time we work together.
Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I reserve the balance of my
time.

General Leave

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks
and include extraneous material 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. Mr. Speaker, I think this is a wonderful debate. I
love to hear the Republican talking points said over and over again. I
have counted now the phrase ``8 weeks'' since we passed this bill out
of the committee. I have heard it 19 times so far and I expect we will
hear it at least nineteen-hundred times before we pass the bill.
But the fact is that the ranking member knows he could have voted
``yes'' when it came out of committee. He could have voted ``yes'' when
it was on the floor on the 15th of May which is when we voted on this.
We already have taken action on it once; and he had a chance yesterday
to vote ``yes'' on it, but he said ``no'' again. And I suspect today--
well, we'll see what he does. Maybe he will change his mind.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume because it is
a new day and we woke up with some bad news about the U.S. economy. The
Washington Post has the story, ``A new report from the Federal Reserve
paints a portrait of the U.S. economy under pressure from almost every
sector. Across the board, the U.S. economy is deteriorating, including
jobs.'' And here we are again today trying to help the American people
by passing the Emergency Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of
2008.
Yesterday, 144 Republican Members ignored the will of the people and
instead followed the whim of a lame duck President.

{time} 1300

If three votes had switched, we would have had enough votes to pass
this bill and give the American people the help they need. They didn't,
so we're back here today because we're going to make it happen.

[[Page H5352]]

The economic data paint a compelling case for immediate action. But
my Republican colleague stood at the podium yesterday, and did it again
today, waving a veto threat from the White House.
This is the President who's given us this war that's put us in a
terrible mess. He's given us bank problems and every other thing that's
going on, gas prices. And now he waves a letter and says, we don't want
to do anything for the unemployed who've exhausted their benefits.
They hid behind rhetoric that pretends to contend itself with people
qualifying for benefits. They served up a real cold red herring for
dinner last night for those people that exhausted their benefits,
because they simply want to deny American workers unemployment
benefits.
Remember, this money didn't come out of the tax base. It came from
their employers who paid it into a trust fund for exactly this purpose;
when they lose their job, they should have access to it.
Now, let me be clear. This 20-week rule that we hear yelled about
here, that many Republicans want included in the bill, would mean that
workers could work for over 10 straight months and be denied extended
benefits, depending on the vagaries of the various laws in States
across this country.
The Department of Labor has estimated that around 10 percent of those
who've exhausted their benefits might be excluded from extended
benefits if we were to include this 20-week rule. These workers are
disproportionately low-wage, part-time, minority and women.
In other words, the Republicans propose to solve a problem by
creating one. Instead of helping people, the Republicans' alternative
is to penalize workers on the lowest rung of the economic ladder. Very
typical. Look at the tax cuts.
The American people need solutions, and that's what H.R. 5749 is
about. It would immediately provide 13 weeks of extended benefits for
workers in every State who've exhausted their benefits. It provides an
additional 13 weeks of benefits in States with an unemployment rate of
6 percent or higher.
This bill is targeted. You hear them say we want a targeted bill. Of
course it's targeted. It's targeted to do one thing, to help those
people who need it the most.
Here's how it works. Anyone a State qualifies for unemployment
benefits, and who has exhausted what the State has provided them, would
be eligible for extended benefits of the same amount for half as long
as the State provided them. So, if you received 26 weeks in your State
from the State, and you run out, you get 13 more weeks of extended
benefits. If you get 10 weeks from your State, you will get 5 weeks
more of extended benefits.
The Federal Reserve outlook wasn't the only piece of information we
received yesterday. A little while ago the Labor Department announced
that initial claims for unemployment benefits jumped more than expected
last week. The number of people filing for unemployment benefits last
week increased 384,000 people, in 1 week. And all the Republicans want
to do is wave a veto letter from the White House.
Helping the American people should not be a partisan issue; but the
Republicans and the president are trying to make it just that.
Yesterday we had a bipartisan bill. Almost 50 Republicans voted for
it. I urge my Republican colleagues to follow their conscience and not
their caucus and vote with the Democrats to help the American people.
The Emergency Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 2008 is the
least we can do for the American people.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, would you share with us how much
time remains on each side, please?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Illinois has 22 minutes.
The gentleman from Washington has 21\1/2\.
Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, as we continue to debate this
legislation which makes a radical change, eliminating the Federal work
requirement to qualify for federally funded unemployment benefits, I
wish to yield 3 minutes to the senior Republican on the House Ways and
Means Committee, Mr. Herger of California.
Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues on both sides of the aisle
want to help U.S. workers during this period of economic uncertainty.
Yet, the question has always been: How do we best provide this
assistance?
Under the proposal before us today, workers in States with
historically low levels of unemployment would receive 13 weeks of
Federal unemployment benefits, on top of their current 26 weeks of
regular State unemployment benefits. This means that workers in States
like Iowa, that have a documented labor shortage, would receive 39
weeks of unemployment benefits. This makes no sense.
Instead of creating an untargeted expansion of unemployment benefits,
we should be focusing on growing the economy. We want to see every
State have a job surplus, not a surplus of extended unemployment
benefits.
Today's legislation will result in higher taxes on our small
businesses, resulting in slower job creation. This won't help U.S.
workers.
The best way to help our workers is to foster economic growth that
creates jobs. We can do that by passing pro-growth tax policies that
keep our businesses competitive globally, and provide them with
certainty to make important investments in our economy with our work,
without worrying about a massive tax increase.
We can also help our workers by passing our fair trade agreements,
which would create tens of thousands of jobs here in the United States.
And if we really want to help workers, we also need to be confronting
rising gas prices so people can afford to get to work. We should remove
our self-imposed embargo on domestic energy production, which will make
energy more affordable and create more jobs.
These are the policies that Congress should be talking about here
today. These are the types of policies that are going to create a
strong and growing economy that will provide our workers with the jobs
they need to support their families.
Mr. Speaker, the legislation before us today is the wrong approach. I
urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Levin from Michigan will have 3 minutes. I yield
to the gentleman.
(Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. LEVIN. I think the more we discuss this, the clearer the issue
becomes, including the last statement that we heard. There's no
disagreement about the need for growth policies. But to say that, and
use it as an excuse not to provide extended unemployment benefits is
really indefensible.
You can't say to people who have been out of work for 26 weeks, who
are there through no fault of their own, and who must be looking for
work, that because of the absence of growth policies they should,
essentially, be out in the cold. That's close to a cold-blooded
approach to this issue.
And, if you mention States like Iowa, look, in some States, if
there's a surplus, people who are out of work, in most cases, if
they're looking for work, and they must, will find other work.
But it makes no sense to take the position of the administration, and
that's what the gentleman from California, essentially, was reflecting,
where they say that historically, the unemployment rate has had to be
at a certain level in order for Unemployment Compensation to be
extended.
And there was, they say, an exception after September 11, 2001. It's
really hard to fathom who people would use 2001, September 11, as an
excuse not to extend benefits.
The unemployment rate when President Bush signed the extension was
5.7. It's now 5.5. And essentially, what you're saying is we're going
to deny benefits to well over a million, with 3 million more likely to
come, because of a difference of \2/10\ of 1 percent.
And then you say you want it to be targeted. But, as we pointed out,
the data vary from month to month. One month it's 100 metropolitan
areas with unemployment rates over 6 percent. More recently, it's been
65 or 66. It will probably go up. How do you, in good conscience, stand
before people in those areas and say no?
I mentioned to the gentleman from Illinois----
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's time has expired.

[[Page H5353]]

Mr. LEVIN. I ask for 2 additional minutes.
Mr. McDERMOTT. I yield the gentleman 2 additional minutes.
Mr. LEVIN. I asked the gentleman from Illinois how he would respond
to people in certain areas. I don't know how you do that.
I asked the gentleman, and I didn't mean to get personal really, but
just to raise the issue poignantly. If you're from the State of
Washington, as he is, and there's higher unemployment than 6 percent in
Yakima, how do you say to the people there, you don't get the
extension, while people in other States receive it. It is simply not--
--
Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Is the gentleman yielding time?
Mr. LEVIN. Yes.
Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Well, I would first point out to my friend
from Michigan that I represent the State of Illinois. And under the
legislation which we offered in committee, my State of Illinois would
receive extended unemployment benefits.
I would also state that the Republican minority on the committee
supported extension of unemployment benefits.
Mr. LEVIN. Let me just take back my time. Look, the position, that
hasn't been the position of the administration. It's used the 6 percent
level. That's what they're talking about here. And you have to go home
and explain to the areas, I mentioned three in Illinois, because the
State isn't above a certain level, but areas are, you don't get it,
while people who are in a State like Michigan with over 6 percent,
everybody does.
But the trouble is, everybody counts in this country. Everybody who's
out of work 26 weeks, through no fault of their own, and looking for
work, they have to be looking for work.
I read these letters from people in Michigan, and I just say this:
Just read letters from people in your State. No longer can you go to
unemployment offices in most States, because they're not there, so
people aren't in line. But they're in line in this country.
As I said, if you're counted----
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. LEVIN. I guess 1 more minute if I might.
Mr. McDERMOTT. I yield the gentleman an additional minute.
Mr. LEVIN. If you counted the people who are now exhausting their
benefits, or have, and those who are likely, it would reach, the line,
from here, this Capitol to Denver.
So don't talk about energy policy. We have to face up to that. Don't
talk about trade policy. We have to face up to that. Talk about the
lives in the homes of over a million people.
I just hope that, you withheld, or there were withheld the three
votes necessary to get to two-thirds yesterday.

{time} 1315

I know the maneuvers on this floor.
But essentially, they're obeying the position, if not the orders,
from the White House instead of the orders from the people at home.
I urge strong support of this. I urge that we pass it with even more
votes than was passed last time and send it to the Senate so we can get
this job done.
Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I would note that the Ways and
Means Committee passed a bill on unemployment benefits 8 weeks ago. And
for 8 weeks, unemployed workers who've exhausted their unemployment
benefits in Michigan and Illinois have gone without unemployment
benefits during election-year politics.
Mr. Speaker, as we continue debate, this legislation before us, which
includes a radical policy change, eliminating the Federal work
requirement to qualify for federally funded unemployment benefits, I
yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from the State of
Kentucky (Mr. Lewis), a senior member of the Ways and Means Committee.
Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I think the American people, the
American workers, they're fed up. They're probably fed up with the fact
that we have to be here today debating an extension of unemployment
compensation, and if we don't do something about the energy crisis in
this country, we're going to be back time and time again to talk about
extending compensation to unemployed workers because it's going to lead
to more and more unemployment.
You know, it is a shame, and I think the American people are starting
to say, What is wrong in Washington when America has 496 billion
barrels of oil that can be used, but the Democrat leadership in
Congress says, No, not one dime for American oil. But they're willing
to spend billions upon trillions of dollars to foreign countries for
oil.
What is wrong with that picture? It's okay for gas to be maybe at $5
a gallon by the end of the summer, but no, we can't do anything about
building new refineries here. We can't do anything about drilling oil
here. We can't do anything about mining coal here, coal gasification.
The energy bill that the Democrats offered was solar, wind, and
renewable. Not one dime for oil, not one dime for coal, not one dime
for natural gas. You can't put solar in your gas tank. You can't put
wind in your gas tank.
Now, I'm wondering how the United Miner Workers feel about the fact
that they have a 300-year supply of coal but no help for coal
gasification. I wonder how the United Auto Workers feel in Michigan,
talking about losing jobs. When GM and Ford are moving as quickly as
they can to electric automobiles but the Chinese are buying SUVs as
fast as they can get them. There's something wrong with this picture.
And I wonder how the Teamsters feel when their trucks are sitting
idly by not being able to move the goods across this country, out of
work because the Democrat Congress--where is the leadership? We need in
this country leadership to step forward and say by a date certain, we
are going to be energy independent from the Middle East, from
Venezuela, and we're going to have our own energy, our own
opportunities to create jobs.
Can you imagine the millions of jobs that would be created by
building pipelines, by going after our resources? Can you imagine the
millions of jobs that the United Mine Workers would have, the United
Auto Workers would have, the construction union workers would have? I
think the rank and file members of our unions in this country have got
to say, What is wrong with these people that we've been supporting all
of these years? What are they doing for us now?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield the
gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. I think they're starting to ask.
I talked to a group of citizens this morning, and they're wanting to
know what is wrong with the Congress; what is wrong with the Democrat
leadership; what is wrong with their presumptive nominee for the
presidency who says, Yeah, I think this is good that gas is at this
all-time high price. I just wish it had come along a little slower.
You know, I think there is going to have to be some answers, and
they're going to have to come up fairly soon because the American
people are fed up. They're not wanting worker compensation,
unemployment compensation. They're wanting jobs, and energy provides
jobs.
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I don't know if I walked into the wrong
place or not. I thought we were talking about unemployment, but all I
hear is a lot of talk about energy. Now, I don't know if the Members on
the other side have forgotten what the subject is today or exactly what
the problem is, but the fact is that we didn't wait 8 weeks. My ranking
member, Mr. Weller, knows better than that. We voted on May 15 on this
issue, and it's sitting over in the Senate. The Senate Republicans have
got their foot on it. And the White House hasn't said ``boo'' to them.
So the Republicans are killing this proposal over there in the
Senate. We're going to send it back to them another way. And I think
they will have a second chance to think about it. The closer we get to
the election, I think the more interested they will get in this issue.
But there's one issue here that I think somehow with the straw man
that keeps getting put up here for everybody to look at, this person
out there somewhere in Oregon or Illinois that worked for two weeks and
is going to get unemployment benefits. We're

[[Page H5354]]

not talking about somebody on welfare here. We're talking about
somebody who worked.
Now, my opponents on the other side keep sounding like we're talking
about the dregs of the earth, people who are just stealing or somehow
sneaking in and maneuvering and somehow getting something they're not
entitled to. When they worked, their employer put money into the
unemployment trust for their benefit.
Some people on the other side believe that we ought to have States'
rights. States ought to be able to do stuff. Okay. States write the
unemployment laws for their State. And in Illinois, it is true that if
you work for two weeks, one week in one quarter and one week in another
quarter, and your total wages are $1,600, so that means you worked one
week and got $800; and then, just lucky, your next week of work was in
another quarter, you got $800, you would be eligible in Illinois for
$51 a week for 26 weeks for a grand total of $1,326. That comes from a
letter from the Department of Employment Security signed by Joseph
Mueller, which I will now insert into the Record.

Illinois, Department

of Employment Security,

Chicago, IL, June 12, 2008.
Mr. Indivar Dutta-Gupta,
House of Representatives, Committee on Ways and Means,
Subcommittee on Income Security and Family Support,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Dutta-Gupta: With regard to the hypothetical you
pose, if worker X worked three weeks in IL, he or she might
well not be entitled to any unemployment benefits.
To qualify for unemployment benefits in IL, an individual
must have been paid at least $1600 during his/her ``base
period,'' receiving at least $440 outside the base period
quarter in which his/her wages were the highest.
Consequently, to qualify, worker X's three weeks of wages
would have had to straddle two base period quarters, with at
least $440 being paid in the ``low quarter.''
Assuming he/she did qualify, worker X's benefit amount
would depend upon the amount of wages he/she was paid during
his/her base period. A claimant's weekly benefit amount in IL
can range from $51 to $376.
If worker X just met the $1,600/$440 requirement, he/she
would be entitled to $51/wk for up to 26 weeks (a total of
$1,326).
To qualify for what is the current average weekly benefit
payment in IL, worker X would have had to receive over $4700/
wk.
As an aside, three weeks' worth of wages would not qualify
an individual receiving IL's current minimum wage of $7.75/
hr, even if the payments did straddle two base period
quarters.
In conclusion, it would be theoretically possible for an
individual with three weeks' worth of base period wages--and
49 weeks with no wages for employment--to qualify for
benefits in IL. However, the three weeks would have to fall
``just right'' and average over $500/wk. IDES's system does
not track the number of weeks individuals work. However,
based on anecdotal feedback from program staff, it does not
seem this theoretical possibility has been a common
occurrence, if it has ever occurred.
You also pose a hypothetical in which worker X works just
two weeks. It would be theoretically possible to qualify for
benefits with just two weeks' worth of wages. Again, however,
the wages would have to straddle two base period quarters
and, in that scenario, average $800/wk. It seems this has not
been a common occurrence either.
Sincerely,
Jospeh P. Mueller,
Legal Counsel.

I don't know. Maybe Illinois is a lot easier to live in than
Washington State, but getting $1,326 for 6 months is not exactly a
living wage. I mean, anybody who sits at home and waits for their $51
check and says, Oh great, I'm going to live on $51 this week. I don't
know where they live in Illinois. I don't believe it is in Chicago.
Must be way down somewhere in the south end of the State or somewhere.
I don't know how you could live on that. To think that that person is a
slug who's just sitting there and saying, Well, I have got this $51
check coming, I don't believe I'm going to go look for work, is
implying that that person is not a responsible human being who's been
trying to get work and has worked in the past and is getting benefits
that they earned to which they are entitled.
Now, if that's the reason the Republicans want to hang it up and not
vote for this bill and say we're not going to give those extended
benefits because there's one person in Illinois somewhere who worked
for 2 weeks and made the minimum benefit and gets 26 weeks of $51 a
week, if that's what you're going to go home and explain on the
campaign trail why you didn't extend unemployment benefits to people
who had exhausted their benefits, that's going to be real interesting
to watch because I don't think the people of Illinois or any other
State are going to buy this kind of an argument.
When we asked this question in Oregon, they said it isn't true. There
isn't anybody getting benefits like that.
Now, it seems to me that it just comes back to the point that you
really don't want to vote for unemployment benefits. I understand it's
been the party's policy since 1935. You have never liked it because you
thought it weakened people's resolve. That is the talk of somebody who
has never been unemployed. If you have lived in a house where somebody
has been unemployed and have seen what it does to the family when the
father or the mother can't bring home a paycheck, you don't look at
those people and say, Well, they're taking something that isn't theirs,
when they paid for this benefit into the unemployment trust. They are
entitled to this. It would be the same as saying to old people, Well,
you're taking that Social Security that was paid into the trust for
you, and somehow you're not entitled to it.
We don't do that.
America looks after the weakest. That's how you judge whether a
society is really strong or not.
I recognize the Speaker for 1 minute.
Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his
outstanding leadership on this issue. He has been a relentless and
persistent advocate for America's working families, for hard workers in
our country who, through no fault of their own, and in large measure
because of the poor economic policies of the Bush administration, have
lost their job.
Mr. Speaker, it is said, and it's been said directly by George
Bernard Shaw, that it is the mark of a truly intelligent person to be
moved by statistics. My colleagues have made the case for why we need
this unemployment insurance, and I want to address once again, as they
have, some of the statistics and see if it is the mark of truly
intelligent people to respond to that.
Today we have the opportunity to help 3.8 million Americans who are
out of work and their families in large part because of the disastrous
economic policies of the White House and the Republicans in Congress.
There are 3.8 million Americans for whom 13 weeks of the unemployment
insurance system, a system, as the gentleman indicated, that they have
paid for, could mean not losing a home or a job or skipping meals or
needed health care. Today we have that opportunity to provide that
help.
More statistics.
In the Bush economy, gas prices have skyrocketed to $4 a gallon. One
in ten Americans are at risk of losing their homes, and even more
families are seeing the value of their greatest financial assets, their
homes, plummet.
More statistics.
On Friday, we received the alarming news that since the beginning of
the year, our Nation has lost more than 325,000 jobs, including 49,000
in the month of May alone.
The Nation's unemployment rate has risen to 5.5 percent, the biggest
monthly increase since 1986. In two decades, last Friday on that day,
it jumped 0.5 percent to 5\1/2\ percent.
On that same day, by the way, my colleagues, the price per barrel of
oil increased by over $11 in that 1 day. In the 1990s, in 1998, the
price per barrel was that exact same figure, just over $11. 1998, price
per barrel of oil, $11-plus. Last Friday, price per barrel jumped,
increased over $11 to over $130 per barrel.

{time} 1330

So this is the economic situation in which these families find
themselves. They have been hardworking, played by the rules, paid into
the system, paid into the system for occasions like this where there's
a downturn in the economy, and they lose their jobs through no fault of
their own. And the Republicans want to make them look like charity
cases.
These are strong people. They are the backbone of America. We have a
responsibility to them. And if they are not moved by statistics, as
George Bernard Shaw says any intelligent person should be, perhaps you
would be moved by their personal stories.
This extension of unemployment benefits will help people like Kathy
Henry. She was laid off her job at an advertising company last August.
In February, her unemployment benefits ran

[[Page H5355]]

out. As she says, ``I must have had 100 interviews, and no one wants to
hire me.'' Many times people think the people that are being
interviewed for these jobs are overqualified. ``An extension of
unemployment benefits would give me more time to look for a job,''
Kathy says.
And Liz Waller of Missouri, she just has 3 weeks of unemployment
benefits left. She said, ``Absolutely, an extension would make a big
difference for me. I'm dying to get back to work.'' I'm dying to get
back to work, ``but I've done interview after interview and there are
just way too many job candidates out there. I just keep getting told
I'm overqualified.''
There is a concern on the part of some employers that as people
continue to look for work and look for jobs at lower pay, that if they
hire them, then they will leave when they can find a job at higher pay
with an upturn in the economy.
This isn't about people sitting on their butts back home saying,
goody, I'm getting an unemployment check; now I can really look my
family in the eye and say I'm providing. These people want to provide
for their families. To imply anything else is an insult to these
millions of people who have lost their jobs through no fault of their
own and, in large measure, because of the Bush administration's failed
economic policies.
Let's think about our veterans. This legislation is especially
important to our returning military veterans. A recent government
report prepared for the Veterans Affairs Department found that young
veterans earn less and have a harder time finding work than do
civilians in the same age group. The percentage of veterans not in the
labor force--because they couldn't find jobs, stopped looking for work
because they couldn't find jobs, or went back to school--jumped to 23
percent in 2005 from 10 percent in the year 2000.
Our veterans come home; they can't find work. Some of them need this
unemployment insurance, and the Republicans are saying, ``Just say
no.''
Extending unemployment benefits not only helps those who are looking
for work, it stimulates the economy. According to the Congressional
Budget Office, it is one of the most cost-effective and fast-acting
ways to stimulate the economy because the money is spent quickly. For
every $1 spent on unemployment benefits, $1 spent generates $1.64 in
new economic demand. Stimulates the economy.
All Americans who work pay unemployment insurance, pay into a trust
fund for a rainy day. The rainy day is here. Today, across the country
and for millions of Americans, that rainy day is here. Congress should
ensure that those who paid into the system for the benefits now can
receive them, and we can do this by passing this legislation today.
Mr. Speaker, the issue and the debate is not a partisan one. All
Americans are feeling serious and deep economic pain. The people who
will benefit from this are Democrats, Republicans, nonpartisans,
Independents, people who aren't even interested in the political
system. Yet, President Bush has issued a veto threat against this
legislation, despite the fact that it will help--let's get back to our
statistics--3.8 million Americans and, in fact, the entire economy.
And so I get back to our friend George Bernard Shaw. ``It is the mark
of a truly intelligent person to be moved by statistics.''
I thank Chairman McDermott for your important work on this
subcommittee, on this legislation. I also want to commend the chairman
of the full committee for being a truly intelligent man, moved by
statistics, Chairman Rangel for his relentless work on this important
legislation. To Mr. Levin as well and to all of the members of the
committee, thank you for bringing this important legislation to the
floor.
The American people are waiting to see if Congress will act to help
them on a matter that is relevant to their economic survival at a
difficult time in their lives for money that they paid into the system.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``aye.''
Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I want to state that I share the
Speaker's admiration for Mr. Rangel and Mr. McDermott. I consider Mr.
Rangel very intelligent, and I enjoy working with Mr. McDermott as
well, but I do disagree with the distinguished Speaker on a point that
she made.
You know, she was talking about 5.5 percent unemployment, which in my
view is too high, but I would note that it seems sometimes the
definition of a bad economy is who's in the White House.
In 1996, President Clinton stood before us at the State of the Union
in January 1996. Unemployment was at 5.6 percent, higher than it is
today. President Clinton said the economy was the healthiest it has
been in three decades. Well, today unemployment is lower than it was
when President Clinton made that statement.
So, we all agree the economy needs to be improved, but President
Clinton would say it's the healthiest in decades, if he were standing
again before us based on his definition of a healthy economy.
I would also note, as my good friend from Washington has made the
point, that why are we talking about energy. When I talk to the folks
back home in Illinois at the local grocery store, at the gas station,
and people are commenting about food prices and energy prices, they say
that when you have over $4 gasoline, that's bad for the economy.
There's people losing jobs because energy costs are so high.
As we talk about statistics, and the distinguished Speaker referred
to statistics, I would note that the approval rating of the Democrat
Congress today is 16 percent. Only 16 percent of the American people
think the Democrat majority is doing a good job. Now, historically,
that would tell us that today's Congress is the least popular in
recorded history.
No Congress has had a lower approval rating than the current Democrat
majority. Why? Because since the Democratic majority became the
majority in 2007, gasoline prices have gone up $1.73. Think about that.
The Democrat majority has refused to expand the supply of gasoline, has
refused to expand the supply of oil. Why? Because they are locking
away, under their policies, domestic sources of oil and gasoline, and
continuing to make us more dependent on foreign sources of oil, people
like Hugo Chavez in Venezuela and sources in the Mideast that we're
dependent upon because of the Democrat majority's policies.
Again, there's a reason this Congress is the least popular in
recorded history, because gasoline prices have gone up $1.73 since our
Democratic friends gained the majority.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Drake).
Mrs. DRAKE. Mr. Speaker, for 2 days now, this Congress has addressed
a bill to provide increased unemployment benefits. The irony is what we
are not talking about.
We must talk about why are businesses leaving America, why are we
losing these jobs. The answer is overwhelmingly the cost of energy and
our refusal as a Congress to capture our natural resources.
Dow Chemical stood beside us when Representative John Peterson
announced the NEED Act, the bill that lifts the moratorium for natural
gas in the Outer Continental Shelf. They told us of a $30 billion
expansion and 10,000 jobs that they wished were here in America, but
they were going to China, Libya and Saudi Arabia. Why? The price of
natural gas. You can't pay $8 to $10 in America for an energy source
that's 85 cents in those countries. We all know we lost the fertilizer
industry a long time ago.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman's time has expired.
Mr. WELLER of Illinois. I would be happy to yield 1 additional minute
to the gentlelady from Virginia.
Mrs. DRAKE. Think of the jobs that could be created, the jobs that we
could keep here just by this industry.
And just yesterday, the subcommittee voted on a 9-6 vote, with the
Democrat majority all voting not to allow us to lift the moratorium on
the Outer Continental Shelf. In the last 25 years, we've captured 7
billion barrels of oil in the Outer Continental Shelf. Do you realize
the spillage has been one one-thousandth of 1 percent?
We also need to talk about those American families, those American
workers who have purchased homes where they wanted them to be, not

[[Page H5356]]

worried about a commute to their job, but today, for several of those,
their gas cost is the same as their mortgage. That impacts business in
America.
Mr. Speaker, America is a great Nation because of her people. It's
our responsibility to put the policies in place that allow them to have
a quality of life and to create the jobs.
Mr. McDERMOTT. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, as I had noted earlier, this
Congress, the Democrat majority in the House today, has the lowest
level of popularity, lowest level approval in recorded history, 16
percent. Why? Because of actions like today.
This legislation that is before us came out of committee 8 weeks ago.
Eight weeks, 2 months, that those who are unemployed have exhausted
their benefits and been asking for extended unemployment benefits. We
in the Republicans on the Ways and Means Committee said we want to work
with our Democrat friends in the majority so we can pass a bill that's
bipartisan, provides extend unemployment benefits and, frankly, becomes
law.
I would note, there's a publication on Capitol Hill called Congress
Daily. It shows that today's exercise is frankly just election-year
politics, probably one more reason this Democratic majority has the
lowest level of approval in recorded history of any Congress. This
Democrat leadership today is quoted as saying, It's not what we had
hoped. We'll keep trying. But ultimately this is clearly going to only
be possible on the supplemental.
So, ladies and gentlemen, what we're doing today is an election-year
exercise, and unfortunately, we've lost 8 weeks, which means that for 8
weeks, unemployed workers who have exhausted their unemployment
benefits have had to painfully wait for the action of this Congress. We
want to work together in a bipartisan way. We want to pass legislation
that will become law, and as my friend on the other side of the aisle
knows, this bill isn't going to become law.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to one of the newest
Members of the House of Representatives, the distinguished Member from
Louisiana (Mr. Scalise).
Mr. SCALISE. I thank the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. Speaker, why would we want to extend unemployment benefits when
we can instead pass legislation that will create more American jobs and
lower gas prices at the same time? We can create American jobs by
passing legislation to increase the supply of oil by exploring our own
natural resources, in places like ANWR and the Outer Continental Shelf.
We can create more American jobs by passing legislation to expedite the
permitting process to increase refining capacity here in our own
country. We can create more American jobs by passing legislation to
explore alternative sources of energy. We can create more American
jobs, and not only will these pieces of legislation do that, these
pieces of legislation will also reduce unemployment and lead to lower
gas prices at the pumps.
Rather than passing a bill that pays unemployment benefits for a year
to someone who only worked for 2 weeks, like this legislation does,
rather than passing a bill that adds more than $8.5 billion to the
Federal deficit, I call on Speaker Pelosi and the Democratic leadership
in Congress to set this bill on the side and bring up our legislation
that will increase the supply of American oil, reduce our dependence on
Middle Eastern oil and, most importantly, create more American jobs and
reduce gas prices.

{time} 1345

Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, several speakers have suggested
that there is plenty of funds in Federal unemployment accounts to
support these benefits. Today, those trust funds include $35 billion,
and the Congressional Budget Office suggests this legislation will
spend about $14 billion over the next 2 years.
But that's just the start. This program will run from July through
March of 2009; that's 9 months. But once started, such programs have
always been extended. The average duration of these temporary programs
is about 30 months. Do the math. That's more than three times as long
as the legislation before us suggests. So this program could very well
wind up costing at least three times as much as the score of this bill
says. Three times 14 billion is 42 billion; 42 billion is more than the
35 billion in the current unemployment trust funds.
The last time Congress created a program like this that drained the
Federal unemployment accounts in the 1970s, it had to create a
temporary surtax that applies to all workers. That temporary surtax
still exists today; it is more than 30 years old.
It's important to note, Mr. Speaker, this legislation not only adds
to the deficit, but it's going to force a tax increase.
With that, 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 and
make clear once again that Republicans in the House want to pass a
responsible extension of unemployment benefits.
We realize that there are people in America who are hurting, who need
help. But the bill that we have before us is an irresponsible bill. And
it's irresponsible for two reasons; one, it's not targeted to the
States that have high unemployment. It says we're going to extend 13
additional weeks of unemployment in all 50 States regardless of what
the unemployment rate is. I'll use the example I used yesterday.
Oklahoma has a 2.6 percent unemployment rate. Why would we need an
additional 13 weeks of unemployment in that State? And so it's not
targeted to the States that need the help, and it could be targeted.
The second problem is the fact that we reduce--or basically
eliminate--the work requirements. Under the current law, you've got to
work 20 weeks in order to be entitled to unemployment benefits. Under
this bill, you could work as little as 2 weeks and be entitled to up to
a year of unemployment benefits. I just think that that's a poor use of
our taxpayer funds.
Why aren't they thinking about the hardworking men and women in
America, who go to work every day, they pay taxes, they do tough jobs,
they have to give part of their money to us so that we can spend it on
behalf of the American people to provide services? We should always
remember that it's the hardworking people in America that provide the
taxpayer funds that we spend. And our job is to spend those funds in a
responsible way, and this is not, in my view, a responsible bill.
Republicans want to work with Democrats to pass a responsible
extension of unemployment benefits. And we can do it together if we
will just sit down and work it out. But we all know this bill is going
nowhere. This bill is dead on arrival, the Senate is not going to take
it up, it's going nowhere. And so instead of wasting all of this time
having this debate about an irresponsible bill, we actually could have
legislation on the floor today that allows us to produce more American
energy.
I think the American people want us to achieve energy independence,
and the only way we're going to get there is to do what I call, ``all
of the above.'' We need to conserve more in America. We need biofuels;
we need alternative fuels; we need to get serious about nuclear energy;
and we need to produce more oil and gas here in the United States
instead of depending on some 70 percent of it coming from foreign
sources.
But over the course of the last 18 years that I've been a Member of
Congress there have been 46 energy votes on the floor of this House
that would allow us to produce more American energy. And guess what?
Forty-six times I voted to bring more American energy to the market.
The Speaker of the House got to vote over those last 18 years on the
same 46 votes. Do you know how many times she voted in favor of
American energy? Twice.
When it comes to American energy, it's pretty clear what party is in
favor of bringing more American energy to the marketplace. Bringing
American energy to the marketplace in an environmentally safe way is
possible, and we ought to do it in order to achieve energy independence
and bring down the price of energy and gasoline in America. It would be
far more productive doing that bill on the floor today than doing the
bill that we're doing.
Mr. McDERMOTT. We have no more speakers.

[[Page H5357]]

I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much
time we have remaining.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Illinois has 4\1/2\
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Washington has 1\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, as I would note, the legislation
before us, as was so eloquently described by the Republican leader of
the House, makes some radical changes. For 27 years, Republicans and
Democrats have had in place a work rule requirement for federally
funded unemployment benefits. It said, to qualify for up to a year, 12
months, you should work 20 weeks. That seems a fair trade off between
work and benefits. And this legislation before us, Mr. Speaker, removes
that requirement.
Now, my friends on the other side of the aisle refer to that concern
as just kind of a straw man, it doesn't really matter. Well, why did
they do it? Why is there a need to remove a 20-week work requirement to
qualify for 12 months or a full year of unemployment benefits? We've
had no hearings in committee. No one has explained why they're making
this radical change. It just seems to be omitted from the presentations
by the majority side of the aisle. So again we ask why. You know, under
this policy that they're putting forward, someone would only need to
work 2 weeks in a State like Michigan or Illinois and qualify for a
full 1 year or 12 months of federally funded unemployment benefits.
That's a radical policy change.
And let me just repeat what every Republican has stated: We want to
extend unemployment benefits for those workers in hard-hit States who
have exhausted their benefits. And we have repeatedly offered to our
friends on the other side of the aisle saying we want to get a bill
signed into law. Let's set aside election-year politics, let's work
together, let's extend benefits for those who have exhausted their
benefits another 13, and in some cases, 26 weeks. But we want to work
together to get it done, because if we don't, and we just do the usual
politics as usual, election-year politics, bring legislation to the
floor we know is not going to become law, make speeches, the folks back
home are going to be disappointed.
As has been noted by many, this Congress today only enjoys a 16-
percent approval rating amongst the people of Illinois, the people of
America. That is the lowest approval rating of any Congress in recorded
history. Why? Because of the election-year politics that are being
practiced today.
So I'm going to again offer to my good friends on the other side of
the aisle, people who I am very fond of, people I enjoy working with,
we need to work together because people are hurting. We need to work
together to help those in our States who are unemployed and who have
exhausted their benefits. And because of election-year politics,
unemployed workers in States like Michigan and Illinois, who have
exhausted their benefits, have gone without. Why? Because Congress has
played election-year politics.
So let's work together. I urge a ``no'' vote on this legislation
because it's not going to become law. I urge a ``no'' vote so that we
work together to solve this challenge and quickly place on the
President's desk legislation that will become law that extends
unemployment benefits because we support extending unemployment
benefits.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I have trouble following the logic that
you would vote ``no'' because it isn't going to become law. Why don't
you vote ``yes'' and put it over there, and maybe the Senate this time
will come to their senses and do something with this proposal? It's
been over there since May 15. And I think that it really is an issue
that we ought to give them one more chance to come to their senses.
Now, when you compare the unemployment rate of today with 1996, I
really appreciate that because during the Clinton administration there
were 20 million new jobs created, and in 1996, they were creating
hundreds of thousands of jobs per month. In this administration, over
the last 5 months we've lost a quarter of a million jobs. This is a
totally different time.
There are huge problems out there, and they're not getting any
better. And they're not going to get solved here today by, ``let's open
up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling.'' Even if we did
that, the oil wouldn't be here for about 4 years, and a lot of people
on unemployment would be pretty hungry waiting for that job in the oil
industry 4 years from now.
Mr. Speaker, the American people should only have one question in
their minds today: How bad does it have to get before the President and
the Republican leadership decide to join the Democrats in extending a
helping hand for unemployment benefits? The revised data released by
the Labor Department today shows things are even worse than we thought.
Now the decision is up to us.
I introduced this legislation and invited my friend and colleague,
Republican Representative Phil English, to join me because helping the
American people to survive during tough economic times should not be a
partisan issue. People say it has become a partisan issue here. Well,
yeah, the White House has made it a partisan issue. They've said
there's no problem, and they will not sign a bill that we craft.
They've made their mind up before they even have a chance to look at
it.
But too many others on the other side have made it just that. The
American people woke up this morning to some bad economic news, and our
efforts to help them were derailed by the Republican obstructionists.
Those headlines, ``Republicans kill extended unemployment benefits,''
you're going to have another set if you're not careful.
We talked a lot yesterday and today about unemployment rates
exceeding 6 or 7 percent in several parts of the country, and the
devastating impact of those rates. Now, I confess I'm not an
economist--I know that's no surprise--but let me predict that the
unemployment rate among House Republican Members will go a whole lot
higher than 7 percent if they continue to refuse to help the American
people in this growing economic crisis.
It's called the Emergency Extended Unemployment Insurance Act of 2008
because it is an emergency, and the time to act is right now.
A vote for H.R. 5749 is a vote to help the American people and the
American economy.
Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, democrats in Congress have pushed
to extend unemployment benefits since the beginning of the year, as the
economy weakened, but have faced continued resistance from the Bush
Administration. Nobody can argue that our economy is struggling. For
five consecutive months, the U.S. economy has lost jobs, totaling
324,000. Over the last year, the number of unemployed workers has grown
by 1.6 million. The number of people looking for work climbed to 8.5
million in May. Nearly 1 in 5 jobless workers (1.6 million) is long-
term unemployed (jobless for more than 26 weeks). There are 200,000
more long-term jobless Americans now than when President Bush signed
the last extension of unemployment benefits into law in 2002.
The airline industry has eliminated 22,000 jobs so far this year,
more than in all of 2007, most recently at Continental (3,000 jobs) and
United (up to 1,600 jobs), and the automobile industry continues to
face job cuts, leading industries with announced layoffs in May with
over 30,000.
In May, we had the biggest one-month jump in the unemployment rate in
two decades. 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). The unemployment rate is now a full percentage point
higher than a year ago. Families can wait no longer, and neither will
this Congress.
Today, the House will take up H.R. 5749, the Emergency Extended
Unemployment Compensation Act:
To immediately provide up to 13 weeks of extended unemployment
benefits in every state to workers exhausting the 26 weeks of regular
unemployment benefits.
In states with higher levels of unemployment (six percent or higher),
an additional 13 weeks would be available, for a total of 26 weeks of
extended benefits.
Relief would run through March 2009.
The bill would provide much-needed relief to 3.8 million unemployed
workers to assist them with rapidly rising gas and food costs, while
they continue to struggle to find work in the slowing economy.
Federal unemployment trust funds, which have more than enough
reserves to cover the cost, will finance these benefits.

[[Page H5358]]

In Texas, this bill would help 160,239 unemployed workers. Extending
these benefits is one of the most cost-effective and fast-acting ways
to stimulate the economy because the money is spent quickly. According
to the Congressional Budget Office, every $1 spent on unemployment
benefits generates $1.64 in new economic demand. This bill costs $11
billion over 10 years, or 1.1 billion per year. That is approximately 3
days in Iraq.
I commend my colleagues, Congressman McDermott and Congressman
English for introducing this bill and I urge my colleagues to support
its passage.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of
H.R. 5749, Emergency Extended Unemployment Act of 2008, introduced by
my distinguished colleague Representative McDermott. This important
legislation will provide much-needed relief to 3.8 million unemployed
workers who are besieged to cope with rapidly rising gas and food
costs, while they continue to struggle to find work in the slowing
economy.
Democrats in Congress have pushed to extend unemployment benefits
since the beginning of the year, as the economy weakened, but have
faced continued resistance from the Bush Administration. Today, the
House will take up H.R. 5749, the Emergency Extended Unemployment
Compensation Act on the suspension calendar. The legislation would
immediately provide up to 13 weeks of extended unemployment benefits in
every state to workers who have exhausted the 26 weeks of regular
unemployment benefits. For states with especially high unemployment
rates, an additional 13 weeks would be offered, bringing the total to
26 weeks of extended benefits.
The need for action is clear. For the fifth straight month, the
economy lost jobs and unemployment rose from 5.0 percent in April to
5.5 percent in May, with 49,000 jobs lost in May alone. The economy has
lost nearly 325,000 jobs this year and 3.8 million Americans are
unemployed. These grim statistics are yet another signal that the Bush
Administration's economic policies have failed the American people.
Americans are now facing higher costs for basic necessities,
unemployment is up, millions of families have lost their homes or value
in their homes due to the housing crisis, and 7 million more Americans
are uninsured.
Extending unemployment benefits is one of the most cost-effective and
fast-acting ways to stimulate the economy because the money is spent
quickly, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Every $1 spent
on unemployment benefits generates $1.64 in new economic demand.
Unfortunately, President Bush and some Republicans oppose our effort to
help unemployed workers and to get our economy moving again. Instead,
they want more of the same.
Middle class families can't afford four more years of the kind of
policies that have weakened our economy and left hundreds of thousands
of Americans looking for work and struggling to make ends meet. We hope
the President and his Republican allies will change course and work
with us to assist unemployed workers. Today, gas prices hit an average
of $4.05 per gallon, a new historic high. The price of a barrel of oil
increased more on Friday, in one single day, than a barrel cost a
decade ago, before George W. Bush became President. Even in the face of
these record increases, Senate Republicans blocked consideration of the
Renewable Energy and Job Creation Act of 2008. The Renewable Energy and
Job Creation Act of 2008 passed the House, and would retain and create
hundreds of thousands of green energy jobs. Experts estimate biofuel
blends are keeping gas prices about 15 percent lower than they
otherwise would be now--and the energy law increases our commitment to
these and other American-grown biofuels.

While Democrats are taking action to lessen our dependence on foreign
oil and lower prices, Republicans continue to repeat the same old
rhetoric: continued calling for drilling in ANWR, even though the
Department of Energy has concluded that opening up the Arctic for
drilling would not reduce the price of a gallon of gasoline until 20
years from now--and then only by about 1 penny. Since 2000, drilling
has increased dramatically--climbing about 66 percent--while gas prices
continue to increase. Additionally, the federal government has already
opened up leases to 68 million acres of federal land that oil companies
aren't even tapping.
From day one, the New Direction Congress has been fighting to reduce
our dependence on foreign oil, bring down record gas prices, and launch
a cleaner, smarter energy future for America that lowers costs and
creates hundreds of thousands of green jobs. Democrats in Congress have
already taken action to bring down the price of gas, passing
legislation to suspend the filling of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve,
SPR, starting June 30th and going through the end of the year. The
House also approved the Gas Price Relief for Consumers Act of 2008. The
legislation gives U.S. authorities the ability to prosecute
anticompetitive conduct committed by international cartels like OPEC
that restricts supply and drives up prices. The House also continues to
build on the work of the Energy Independence and Security Act which
will transition the American economy to more efficient vehicles and
reduce our dependence on foreign fuels.
I am proud to support this important legislation that will address
the economic needs of the American people, and I urge my colleagues to
join in so doing.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this
urgently needed legislation.
The latest statistics, show that the national unemployment rate has
risen from 5 percent to 5.5 percent, the biggest increase in a single
month in over 20 years, and now is at the highest level in nearly four
years.
The economy has been slowing and has been losing jobs for at least
five months. In May the number of people looking for work reached 8.5
million--and nearly one in five has been unemployed for more than 26
weeks.
Colorado has not been as hard hit as some other States, but we are
not immune. For example, Denver will be affected by United Airlines'
discontinuing its low-fare ``Ted'' carrier as well by layoffs by other
airlines and companies in other sectors.
And, in the Nation as a whole the number of long-term unemployed
Americans is higher now than when Congress last extended unemployment
benefits in 2002.
This legislation will respond to that problem by immediately
providing up to 13 weeks of extended unemployment benefits in every
state to workers exhausting the 26 weeks of regular unemployment
benefits. In addition, another 13 weeks of extended benefits will be
available in States with unemployment rates of six percent or higher.
According to the Congressional Budget Office, this will help some 3.8
million Americans.
And by helping them, we help the country--because extending
unemployment compensation benefits is one of the most cost-effective
and fast-acting ways to stimulate the economy. In fact, an estimate by
an independent expert--the chief economist of Moody's Economy.com--
indicates that each dollar of unemployment benefits generates $1.64 in
new economic demand, while the existing federal unemployment trust
funds have more than enough reserves to cover the cost.
Mr. Speaker, in my opinion this legislation deserves prompt approval.
In fact, I think it should have been passed yesterday--and would have
been if just 3 more of our Republican colleagues had voted for it then,
when we considered it under a procedure that required a two-thirds
majority for passage.
But even a day late, we still have an opportunity to do the right
thing, so I urge its approval by the House.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support today's legislation
to extend unemployment benefits at a time of economic hardship for
families in Oregon and across the country. There are currently over
106,000 unemployed workers in Oregon and as many as 3.8 million
nationally who are struggling with the rising cost of food and fuel.
Today's legislation will immediately provide up to 13 weeks of
extended unemployment benefits in every state to workers exhausting
their 26 weeks of regular unemployment benefits. In states with levels
of unemployment at 6 percent or higher, an additional 13 weeks would be
available for a total of 26 weeks of extended benefits.
In my home state of Oregon, our economy has weakened but remained at
the relative national average of 5.5 percent. However, that is an
unemployment rate 0.5 percent higher than this time last year. Although
Oregonians would not qualify at this time for the second extension of
benefits, it gives me peace of mind to know that safety nets are in
place if the Oregon economy gets bleaker. Many in Oregon well remember
the downturn in 2003 when during the summer the unemployment exceeded
8.5 percent, the highest in the country.
During major economic slowdowns, unemployed workers are the hardest
hit. Not only do they suffer a loss of wages, but they face a tighter
job market in which to return. Extending these workers' benefits is not
only morally correct; it is also good for our ailing economy. The
Congressional Budget office estimates that every $1 spent on
unemployment benefits generates $1.64 in new economic demand.
I am pleased that Democrats have moved quickly to pass this benefits
extension for the workers who need it most. I hope that the Senate will
move quickly and the President will refrain from vetoing this
legislation so that American families can get the help they need.
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 1265, the previous question is ordered
on the bill, as amended.

[[Page H5359]]

The question is on the 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. Weller of Illinois

Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at
the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. WELLER of Illinois. In its current form I am.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Weller of Illinois moves to recommit the bill H.R. 5749
to the Committee on Ways and Means with instructions to
report the same back to the House forthwith, with the
following amendments:
In section 2(a), strike ``Any State which desires to do
so'' and insert ``Any State whose average rate of total
unemployment equals or exceeds 5.0 percent or equals or
exceeds 120 percent of the average rate of total unemployment
in such State for the corresponding period in the preceding
calendar year (as determined by the Secretary of Labor in a
manner based on clause (i) or (ii) of section 203(f)(1)(A) of
the Federal-State Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of
1970, as the case may be)''.
Strike paragraph (2) of section 2(d) and insert the
following:
(2) the terms and conditions of the State law which apply
to claims for regular compensation and to the payment thereof
shall apply to claims for emergency unemployment compensation
and the payment thereof, except--
(A) that an individual shall not be eligible for emergency
unemployment compensation under this Act unless, in the base
period with respect to which the individual exhausted all
rights to regular compensation under the State law, the
individual had 20 weeks of full-time insured employment or
the equivalent in insured wages, as determined under the
provisions of the State law implementing section 202(a)(5) of
the Federal-State Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of
1970 (26 U.S.C. 3304 note); and
(B) where otherwise inconsistent with the provisions of
this Act or with the regulations or operating instructions of
the Secretary promulgated to carry out this Act; and
At the end of section 3, add the following:
(d) Transportation Subsidies To Assist Those Returning to
Work.--
(1) Applicability.--This subsection applies in the case of
any individual who becomes reemployed for at least one full
week after an account under this section is established for
such individual but before such individual has exhausted such
individual's rights under this Act (including the right to
have such account augmented under subsection (c), if
applicable).
(2) Eligibility for transportation subsidy.--In order to
subsidize transportation expenses associated with returning
to work, an individual described in paragraph (1) shall, for
purposes of any determination of rights under this Act, be
entitled to have such individual's first full week of
reemployment (as referred to in paragraph (1)) treated in the
same manner as if it were a week during which such individual
had remained unemployed and had satisfied the work search and
other requirements for receiving emergency unemployment
compensation (other than filing a claim).

Mr. WELLER of Illinois (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent to waive the reading.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Illinois?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Illinois is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his motion.

{time} 1400

Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, this motion to recommit supports
extension of unemployment benefits for long-term unemployed, those who
have exhausted their unemployment benefits. And this motion to recommit
makes three simple changes to the legislation before us. It adds a
requirement of 20 weeks of work for workers to qualify for the extended
unemployment benefits. It targets benefits to high unemployment States,
and it provides additional money to many of the newly hired individuals
to help them deal with the high price of gasoline.
I particularly want to thank my colleagues, Mr. Kirk, Mrs. Biggert,
Mr. Bilirakis and others for the help that they have given in crafting
this motion to recommit as we work towards extension of unemployment
benefits to those who need help.
First, I would note that this motion reinserts the current law
requirement that workers who qualify for Federal extended unemployment
benefits must have worked at least 20 weeks before being laid off. This
requirement was removed by the majority with the underlying
legislation.
This commonsense Federal requirement has been in place since 1981 and
was included in the temporary extended benefits program Congress
created in 2002, our last extended benefit program.
Nearly every Democrat Member voted for that bill then, and as we have
discussed on this floor for the last 2 days, there is no good reason,
there is no argument that has been made by the other side to impose the
reestablishment of this long-standing Federal policy now.
Second, this motion would specify that only individuals in States
with unemployment rates above 5 percent or that have seen a sharp rise
in unemployment would be eligible for 13 weeks of Federal extended
benefits. As under H.R. 5749, individuals in States with unemployment
rates above 6 percent would be eligible for up to 26 weeks of Federal
extended benefits.
Today, 22 States have unemployment rates above 5 percent or have seen
a sharp rise in rates, including six States above 6 percent. So workers
in nearly half of the States would be eligible for extended benefits,
which could rise, or more would be eligible if States experience a rise
in unemployment rates.
In contrast with H.R. 5749, this motion would not extend benefits in
States that currently have unemployment rates below 5 percent, and I
would note that 5 percent is low by historical standards, and that have
not been experiencing rising rates. They will continue to be eligible
for their basic 26 weeks of unemployment benefits. So I would note that
they will continue to have unemployment benefits available to laid-off
workers.
Moreover, by targeting benefits to where they are needed most, this
motion actually reduces the cost of the bill, reduces the deficit, and
makes it much more fiscally responsible than the untargeted, unpaid-
for, ``in violation of the House rules'' legislation that has been
offered by the majority.
And third, we all know that every American family is struggling with
record gasoline prices. That struggle is especially pronounced for
unemployed workers and in particular the long-term unemployed. Those
who return to work, however, may face high commuting costs, starting
with the high price of gas they must put in their tanks to get to a new
job.
And I would note that this Democratic Congress, which is the least
popular Congress in recorded history because of its lack of action on
energy, has refused to allow for increases in domestically produced
fuels which we need to help our economy.
In fact, it is the Democrat policies in the last year and a half
since January 2007 which are responsible for an increase in gasoline
prices of $1.73, basically a doubling of gasoline prices since our
Democratic friends gained the majority. That's why gasoline prices are
over $4.
We want to help American workers. And that is why we are offering
help to alleviate the high price of gasoline for unemployed
individuals. This motion would provide 1 extra week of extended
unemployment benefits for those who return to work without exhausting
their extended benefits. On average, this would mean an extra $290 per
eligible worker. So for an unemployed mother who goes back to work with
two children, that could mean up to four tanks of gasoline at today's
$4 gasoline prices, probably enough to get her to and from her first
full month on the job. Especially for someone who might not have much
money left after a long spell of unemployment, that is real relief
where today it is desperately needed, at the pump and in the
pocketbook.
Mr. Speaker, this motion provides timely, targeted and temporary
assistance, something the Speaker herself called for earlier this year.
So we talked about boosting the economy. I urge its adoption so we can
send this bill to the Senate and down to the White House as soon as
possible. As the President said, he will veto the underlying bill.
Passage of this motion to recommit will give us a bill the President
will sign, and it will become law, and we can help unemployed workers.
I urge an ``aye'' vote.
Mr. McDERMOTT. I rise in opposition to the motion.

[[Page H5360]]

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Washington is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, sometimes I am kind of appalled. I didn't
think they could write a motion to recommit that would be worse than
already their public stance is. But this motion to recommit would deny
extended unemployment benefits to long-term jobless workers in 31
States. As you know, Mr. Speaker, some Members may be in their offices.
They ought to listen to the list.
Alabama gets nothing. Arizona gets nothing. Arkansas, Colorado,
Delaware, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland.
Massachusetts is gone too. Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire,
New Jersey, New York, New Mexico. Why, it goes on and on. North Dakota,
Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Vermont. The way they have
written this, those States get nothing. They don't even get 13 weeks.
Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming. None of them get a
single benefit from this bill if that amendment is adopted.
Now let's just talk for a second here about what we are talking
about. New Jersey. Atlantic City has an unemployment rate of 6.1
percent right now. But since they are in the State of New Jersey where
the unemployment rate is only 4 percent, in Atlantic City, people are
tough out of luck. They aren't going to get a single benefit. Or if
they live in Ocean City where it is 6.6 percent, or they live in
Vineland, Millville or Bridgeton where it is 7.1 percent, not a single
penny goes to those people because they live in a State where it is
only 4 percent.
Now I would like to see the community meeting that the Members go to
when they explain to people that they voted ``no'' on giving extended
benefits to people who have unemployment benefits and have exhausted
them in these States. This makes it much worse than the bill we have.
It clearly confirms that the Republicans really want to give
unemployment benefits to no one.
Now as to the question of whether or not we have given a reason, we
took the 20-week provision out for a very simple reason, because it
denies benefits to 10 percent of the people who are presently in our
workforce. These are benefits they earned by having money taken out of
their paycheck. Their employer said, ``I am not going to give you this.
I am going to put this in the unemployment fund.'' That is how it
works.
So those employees that had that money being put in there and now
they lose their benefits because of the fact that they have worked 10
months and they didn't get to the right place in the right time to get
their 20 weeks, it is simply a denial of benefits to women, to low-wage
workers and to minorities. It is basically people at the bottom of the
economic rungs. And the Republicans are pleased to do that. Not only do
they take it away from them, but they also take it away from 31 States.
I urge the Members to think about the election when they vote ``no''
on this amendment.
Ms. GIFFORDS. Mr. Speaker, I do not support the minority's effort to
weaken the impact of extended unemployment benefits for Americans. In
this economic downturn, our workers should be able to receive the same
13-week extension granted to workers exhausting the regular 26 weeks of
unemployment benefits in other states.
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, since January 2001, only
5.3 million jobs have been created nationwide. In Arizona, an average
of 1,470 jobs have been lost each month for the past 6 months. Only
389,700 new jobs have been created since January 2001--or 4,480 new
jobs per month--as compared with a total of 691,700 new jobs during the
previous decade--or 7,950 per month.
This year, Arizona's job losses have been concentrated in
construction and housing-related industries, including real estate and
finance, but they are beginning to appear across a wide range of
industries as this economic decline continues. I support the benefits
provided by H.R. 5749 because according to the Congressional Budget
Office, they are a cost-effective and fast-acting means of stimulating
the economy. Every $1 spent on unemployment benefits generates $1.64 in
new economic demand.
I will vote ``yea'' on final passage of H.R. 574 the Emergency
Extended Unemployment Compensation Act, and do not support the
minority's efforts to undermine effective economic relief for
Arizonans.
I yield back the balance of my time.
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. WELLER of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the
ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a
quorum is not present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule XX, this 15-minute vote on
the motion to recommit will be followed by 5-minute votes on the
question of passage, and the motion to suspend the rules on S. 2146.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 170,
nays 243, not voting 21, as follows:

[Roll No. 411]

YEAS--170

Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Bachus
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Carter
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Deal (GA)
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Giffords
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Keller
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
Lamborn
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Poe
Price (GA)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Saxton
Scalise
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shays
Shimkus
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield (KY)
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman (VA)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NAYS--243

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Castle
Castor
Cazayoux
Chandler
Childers
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Foster
Frank (MA)
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gillibrand
Goode
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth Sandlin
Hill
Hinchey
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
King (IA)
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell

[[Page H5361]]

Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pearce
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Platts
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Shuster
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Space
Speier
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Tsongas
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walsh (NY)
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth

NOT VOTING--21

Braley (IA)
Burgess
Buyer
Davis, Tom
Ferguson
Flake
Gonzalez
Higgins
Hinojosa
Hulshof
Kind
LaHood
Loebsack
McCrery
Moran (KS)
Ortiz
Paul
Pryce (OH)
Rogers (MI)
Rush
Tancredo

{time} 1432

Messrs. LARSON of Connecticut, DeFAZIO, CLYBURN, GERLACH, MURPHY of
Connecticut, MITCHELL, FILNER, HODES, Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota,
Messrs. PORTER, PLATTS, JOHNSON of Illinois, KING of Iowa, JOHNSON of
Georgia and SHUSTER changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Messrs. BOOZMAN, SIMPSON, POE and REYNOLDS changed their vote from
``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Ms. GIFFORDS. Mr. Speaker, today I intended to vote ``no'' on the
Motion to Recommit H.R. 5749, the Emergency Extended Unemployment
Compensation Act, vote No. 411. Despite my efforts to ensure that my
vote was recorded as ``no,'' it was recorded as ``yea.''
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.
Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and
nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 274,
nays 137, not voting 23, as follows:

[Roll No. 412]

YEAS--274

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Brown, Corrine
Buchanan
Butterfield
Camp (MI)
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Castle
Castor
Cazayoux
Chabot
Chandler
Childers
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doyle
Edwards
Ehlers
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fossella
Foster
Frank (MA)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gillibrand
Goode
Gordon
Graves
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hayes
Heller
Herseth Sandlin
Hill
Hinchey
Hirono
Hodes
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
King (NY)
Klein (FL)
Knollenberg
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
Lampson
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
LaTourette
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McNerney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Platts
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Reichert
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schmidt
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shays
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Souder
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Tsongas
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walberg
Walsh (NY)
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
Young (AK)

NAYS--137

Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Bachus
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Carter
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Deal (GA)
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Granger
Hall (TX)
Hastings (WA)
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Lamborn
Latham
Latta
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Pickering
Pitts
Poe
Price (GA)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rehberg
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Roskam
Royce
Sali
Saxton
Scalise
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Stearns
Sullivan
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Walden (OR)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield (KY)
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman (VA)
Wolf
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--23

Berman
Braley (IA)
Burgess
Buyer
Davis, Tom
Ferguson
Flake
Gonzalez
Higgins
Hinojosa
Hulshof
Kind
LaHood
Loebsack
McCrery
Moran (KS)
Ortiz
Paul
Pryce (OH)
Rogers (MI)
Rush
Speier
Tancredo

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes
remaining in this vote.

{time} 1439

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 for:
Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I rise to voice my support for
H.R. 5749, the Emergency Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of
2008. I am not able to cast my vote today. However, as a co-sponsor of
this bill if I had been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on final
passage of H.R. 5749.
Mr. TIM MURPHY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 412,
H.R. 5749, to provide for a program of emergency unemployment
compensation, I was mistakenly recorded as voting ``no.'' I should have
been recorded as voting ``yea'' on final passage. I am a proud
cosponsor of H.R. 5749.
Ms. SPEIER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 412, I was speaking with a
constituent right off the floor and by the time I realized a second
vote was called, I was too late to cast my vote in favor of this
important legislation. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

____________________