[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.

       (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; 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

[[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.

       (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 February 1, 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

[[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. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Federal-State agreements.
Sec. 3. Emergency unemployment compensation account.
Sec. 4. Payments to States having agreements for the payment of 
              emergency unemployment compensation.
Sec. 5. Financing provisions.
Sec. 6. Fraud and overpayments.
Sec. 7. Definitions.
Sec. 8. Applicability.

     SEC. 2. FEDERAL-STATE AGREEMENTS.

       (a) In General.--Any State which desires to do so may enter 
     into and participate in an agreement under this Act with the 
     Secretary of Labor (in this Act referred to as the 
     ``Secretary''). Any State which is a party to an agreement 
     under this Act may, upon providing 30 days' written notice to 
     the Secretary, terminate such agreement.
       (b) Provisions of Agreement.--Any agreement under 
     subsection (a) shall provide that the State agency of the 
     State will make payments of emergency unemployment 
     compensation to individuals who--
       (1) have exhausted all rights to regular compensation under 
     the State law or under Federal law with respect to a benefit 
     year (excluding any benefit year that ended before May 1, 
     2007);
       (2) have no rights to regular compensation or extended 
     compensation with respect to a week under such law or any 
     other State unemployment compensation law or to compensation 
     under any other Federal law (except as provided under 
     subsection (e)); and
       (3) are not receiving compensation with respect to such 
     week under the unemployment compensation law of Canada.
       (c) Exhaustion of Benefits.--For purposes of subsection 
     (b)(1), an individual shall be deemed to have exhausted such 
     individual's rights to regular compensation under a State law 
     when--
       (1) no payments of regular compensation can be made under 
     such law because such individual has received all regular 
     compensation available to such individual based on employment 
     or wages during such individual's base period; or
       (2) such individual's rights to such compensation have been 
     terminated by reason of the expiration of the benefit year 
     with respect to which such rights existed.
       (d) Weekly Benefit Amount, etc.--For purposes of any 
     agreement under this Act--
       (1) the amount of emergency unemployment compensation which 
     shall be payable to any individual for any week of total 
     unemployment shall be equal to the amount of the regular 
     compensation (including dependents' allowances) payable to 
     such individual during such individual's benefit year under 
     the State law for a week of total unemployment;
       (2) the terms and conditions of the State law which apply 
     to claims for regular compensation and to the payment thereof 
     shall apply to claims for emergency unemployment compensation 
     and the payment thereof, except where otherwise inconsistent 
     with the provisions of this Act or with the regulations or 
     operating instructions of the Secretary promulgated to carry 
     out this Act; and
       (3) the maximum amount of emergency unemployment 
     compensation payable to any individual for whom an emergency 
     unemployment compensation account is established under 
     section 3 shall not exceed the amount established in such 
     account for such individual.
       (e) Election by States.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of Federal law (and if State law permits), the 
     Governor of a State that is in an extended benefit period may 
     provide for the payment of emergency unemployment 
     compensation prior to extended compensation to individuals 
     who otherwise meet the requirements of this section.
       (f) Unauthorized Aliens Ineligible.--A State shall require 
     as a condition of eligibility for emergency unemployment 
     compensation under this Act that each alien who receives such 
     compensation must be legally authorized to work in the United 
     States, as defined for purposes of the Federal Unemployment 
     Tax Act (26 U.S.C. 3301 et seq.). In determining whether an 
     alien meets the requirements of this subsection, a State must 
     follow the procedures provided in section 1137(d) of the 
     Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1320b-7(d)).

     SEC. 3. EMERGENCY UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION ACCOUNT.

       (a) In General.--Any agreement under this Act shall provide 
     that the State will establish, for each eligible individual 
     who files an application for emergency unemployment 
     compensation, an emergency unemployment compensation account 
     with respect to such individual's benefit year.
       (b) Amount in Account.--
       (1) In general.--The amount established in an account under 
     subsection (a) shall be equal to the lesser of--
       (A) 50 percent of the total amount of regular compensation 
     (including dependents' allowances) payable to the individual 
     during the individual's benefit year under such law, or
       (B) 13 times the individual's average weekly benefit amount 
     for the benefit year.
       (2) Weekly benefit amount.--For purposes of this 
     subsection, an individual's weekly benefit amount for any 
     week is the amount of regular compensation (including 
     dependents' allowances) under the State law payable to such 
     individual for such week for total unemployment.
       (c) Special Rule.--
       (1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     this section, if, at the time that the individual's account 
     is exhausted or at any time thereafter, such individual's 
     State is in an extended benefit period (as determined under 
     paragraph (2)), then, such account shall be augmented by an 
     amount equal to the amount originally established in such 
     account (as determined under subsection (b)(1)).
       (2) Extended benefit period.--For purposes of paragraph 
     (1), a State shall be considered to be in an extended benefit 
     period, as of any given time, if--
       (A) such a period is then in effect for such State under 
     the Federal-State Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 
     1970;
       (B) such a period would then be in effect for such State 
     under such Act if section 203(d) of such Act--
       (i) were applied by substituting ``4'' for ``5'' each place 
     it appears; and
       (ii) did not include the requirement under paragraph 
     (1)(A); or
       (C) such a period would then be in effect for such State 
     under such Act if--
       (i) section 203(f) of such Act were applied to such State 
     (regardless of whether the State by law had provided for such 
     application); and
       (ii) such section 203(f)--

       (I) were applied by substituting ``6.0'' for ``6.5'' in 
     paragraph (1)(A)(i); and
       (II) did not include the requirement under paragraph 
     (1)(A)(ii).

     SEC. 4. PAYMENTS TO STATES HAVING AGREEMENTS FOR THE PAYMENT 
                   OF EMERGENCY UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION.

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

     SEC. 5. FINANCING PROVISIONS.

       (a) In General.--Funds in the extended unemployment 
     compensation account (as established by section 905(a) of the 
     Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1105(a))) of the Unemployment 
     Trust Fund (as established by section 904(a) of such Act (42 
     U.S.C. 1104(a))) shall be used for the making of payments to 
     States having agreements entered into under this Act.
       (b) Certification.--The Secretary shall from time to time 
     certify to the Secretary of the Treasury for payment to each 
     State the sums payable to such State under this Act. The 
     Secretary of the Treasury, prior to audit

[[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.

       (a) In General.--If an individual knowingly has made, or 
     caused to be made by another, a false statement or 
     representation of a material fact, or knowingly has failed, 
     or caused another to fail, to disclose a material fact, and 
     as a result of such false statement or representation or of 
     such nondisclosure such individual has received an amount of 
     emergency unemployment compensation under this Act to which 
     he was not entitled, such individual--
       (1) shall be ineligible for further emergency unemployment 
     compensation under this Act in accordance with the provisions 
     of the applicable State unemployment compensation law 
     relating to fraud in connection with a claim for unemployment 
     compensation; and
       (2) shall be subject to prosecution under section 1001 of 
     title 18, United States Code.
       (b) Repayment.--In the case of individuals who have 
     received amounts of emergency unemployment compensation under 
     this Act to which they were not entitled, the State shall 
     require such individuals to repay the amounts of such 
     emergency unemployment compensation to the State agency, 
     except that the State agency may waive such repayment if it 
     determines that--
       (1) the payment of such emergency unemployment compensation 
     was without fault on the part of any such individual; and
       (2) such repayment would be contrary to equity and good 
     conscience.
       (c) Recovery by State Agency.--
       (1) In general.--The State agency may recover the amount to 
     be repaid, or any part thereof, by deductions from any 
     emergency unemployment compensation payable to such 
     individual under this Act or from any unemployment 
     compensation payable to such individual under any State or 
     Federal unemployment compensation law administered by the 
     State agency or under any other Federal law administered by 
     the State agency which provides for the payment of any 
     assistance or allowance with respect to any week of 
     unemployment, during the 3-year period after the date such 
     individuals received the payment of the emergency 
     unemployment compensation to which they were not entitled, 
     except that no single deduction may exceed 50 percent of the 
     weekly benefit amount from which such deduction is made.
       (2) Opportunity for hearing.--No repayment shall be 
     required, and no deduction shall be made, until a 
     determination has been made, notice thereof and an 
     opportunity for a fair hearing has been given to the 
     individual, and the determination has become final.
       (d) Review.--Any determination by a State agency under this 
     section shall be subject to review in the same manner and to 
     the same extent as determinations under the State 
     unemployment compensation law, and only in that manner and to 
     that extent.

     SEC. 7. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act, the terms ``compensation'', ``regular 
     compensation'', ``extended compensation'', ``benefit year'', 
     ``base period'', ``State'', ``State agency'', ``State law'', 
     and ``week'' have the respective meanings given such terms 
     under section 205 of the Federal-State Extended Unemployment 
     Compensation Act of 1970 (26 U.S.C. 3304 note).

     SEC. 8. APPLICABILITY.

       (a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (b), an 
     agreement entered into under this Act shall apply to weeks of 
     unemployment--
       (1) beginning after the date on which such agreement is 
     entered into; and
       (2) ending on or before March 31, 2009.
       (b) Transition for Amount Remaining in Account.--
       (1) In general.--Subject to paragraphs (2) and (3), in the 
     case of an individual who has amounts remaining in an account 
     established under section 3 as of the last day of the last 
     week (as determined in accordance with the applicable State 
     law) ending on or before March 31, 2009, emergency 
     unemployment compensation shall continue to be payable to 
     such individual from such amounts for any week beginning 
     after such last day for which the individual meets the 
     eligibility requirements of this Act.
       (2) Limit on augmentation.--If the account of an individual 
     is exhausted after the last day of such last week (as so 
     determined), then section 3(c) shall not apply and such 
     account shall not be augmented under such section, regardless 
     of whether such individual's State is in an extended benefit 
     period (as determined under paragraph (2) of such section).
       (3) Limit on compensation.--No compensation shall be 
     payable by reason of paragraph (1) for any week beginning 
     after June 30, 2009.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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.''

                          ____________________