[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 25 (Thursday, February 25, 2010)]
[House]
[Pages H901-H906]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
TEMPORARY EXTENSION ACT OF 2010
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (H.R. 4691) to provide a temporary extension of certain programs,
and for other purposes.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 4691
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Temporary Extension Act of
2010''.
SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE PROVISIONS.
(a) In General.--(1) Section 4007 of the Supplemental
Appropriations Act, 2008 (Public Law 110-252; 26 U.S.C. 3304
note) is amended--
(A) by striking ``February 28, 2010'' each place it appears
and inserting ``April 5, 2010'';
(B) in the heading for subsection (b)(2), by striking
``february 28, 2010'' and inserting ``april 5, 2010''; and
(C) in subsection (b)(3), by striking ``July 31, 2010'' and
inserting ``September 4, 2010''.
(2) Section 2002(e) of the Assistance for Unemployed
Workers and Struggling Families
[[Page H902]]
Act, as contained in Public Law 111-5 (26 U.S.C. 3304 note;
123 Stat. 438), is amended--
(A) in paragraph (1)(B), by striking ``February 28, 2010''
and inserting ``April 5, 2010'';
(B) in the heading for paragraph (2), by striking
``february 28, 2010'' and inserting ``april 5, 2010''; and
(C) in paragraph (3), by striking ``August 31, 2010'' and
inserting ``October 5, 2010''.
(3) Section 2005 of the Assistance for Unemployed Workers
and Struggling Families Act, as contained in Public Law 111-5
(26 U.S.C. 3304 note; 123 Stat. 444), is amended--
(A) by striking ``February 28, 2010'' each place it appears
and inserting ``April 5, 2010''; and
(B) in subsection (c), by striking ``July 31, 2010'' and
inserting ``September 4, 2010''.
(4) Section 5 of the Unemployment Compensation Extension
Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-449; 26 U.S.C. 3304 note) is
amended by striking ``July 31, 2010'' and inserting
``September 4, 2010''.
(b) Funding.--Section 4004(e)(1) of the Supplemental
Appropriations Act, 2008 (Public Law 110-252; 26 U.S.C. 3304
note) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``1009'' and inserting
``1009(a)(1)''; and
(3) by inserting after subparagraph (C) the following new
subparagraph:
``(D) the amendments made by section 2(a)(1) of the
Temporary Extension Act of 2010; and''.
SEC. 3. EXTENSION AND IMPROVEMENT OF PREMIUM ASSISTANCE FOR
COBRA BENEFITS.
(a) Extension of Eligibility Period.--Subsection (a)(3)(A)
of section 3001 of division B of the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-5) is amended by
striking ``February 28, 2010'' and inserting ``March 31,
2010''.
(b) Clarifications Relating to Section 3001 of ARRA.--
(1) Clarification regarding cobra continuation resulting
from reductions in hours.--Subsection (a) of section 3001 of
division B of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of
2009 (Public Law 111-5) is amended--
(A) in paragraph (3)(C), by inserting before the period at
the end the following: ``or consists of a reduction of hours
followed by such an involuntary termination of employment
during such period (as described in paragraph (17)(C))''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following:
``(17) Special rules in case of individuals losing coverage
because of a reduction of hours.--
``(A) New election period.--
``(i) In general.--For the purposes of the COBRA
continuation provisions, in the case of an individual
described in subparagraph (C) who did not make (or who made
and discontinued) an election of COBRA continuation coverage
on the basis of the reduction of hours of employment, the
involuntary termination of employment of such individual on
or after the date of the enactment of this paragraph shall be
treated as a qualifying event.
``(ii) Counting cobra duration period from previous
qualifying event.--In any case of an individual referred to
in clause (i), the period of such individual's continuation
coverage shall be determined as though the qualifying event
were the reduction of hours of employment.
``(iii) Construction.--Nothing in this paragraph shall be
construed as requiring an individual referred to in clause
(i) to make a payment for COBRA continuation coverage between
the reduction of hours and the involuntary termination of
employment.
``(iv) Preexisting conditions.--With respect to an
individual referred to in clause (i) who elects COBRA
continuation coverage pursuant to such clause, rules similar
to the rules in paragraph (4)(C) shall apply.
``(B) Notices.--In the case of an individual described in
subparagraph (C), the administrator of the group health plan
(or other entity) involved shall provide, during the 60-day
period beginning on the date of such individual's involuntary
termination of employment, an additional notification
described in paragraph (7)(A), including information on the
provisions of this paragraph. Rules similar to the rules of
paragraph (7) shall apply with respect to such notification.
``(C) Individuals described.--Individuals described in this
subparagraph are individuals who are assistance eligible
individuals on the basis of a qualifying event consisting of
a reduction of hours occurring during the period described in
paragraph (3)(A) followed by an involuntary termination of
employment insofar as such involuntary termination of
employment occurred on or after the date of the enactment of
this paragraph.''.
(2) Codification of current interpretation.--Subsection
(a)(16) of such section is amended--
(A) by striking clause (ii) of subparagraph (A) and
inserting the following:
``(ii) such individual pays, the amount of such premium,
after the application of paragraph (1)(A), by the latest of--
``(I) 60 days after the date of the enactment of this
paragraph,
``(II) 30 days after the date of provision of the
notification required under subparagraph (D)(ii), or
``(III) the end of the period described in section
4980B(f)(2)(B)(iii) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.'';
and
(B) by striking subclause (I) of subparagraph (C)(i), and
inserting the following:
``(I) such assistance eligible individual experienced an
involuntary termination that was a qualifying event prior to
the date of enactment of the Department of Defense
Appropriations Act, 2010; and''.
(3) Clarification of period of assistance.--Subsection
(a)(2)(A)(ii)(I) of such section is amended by striking ``of
the first month''.
(4) Enforcement.--Subsection (a)(5) of such section is
amended by adding at the end the following: ``In addition to
civil actions that may be brought to enforce applicable
provisions of such Act or other laws, the appropriate
Secretary or an affected individual may bring a civil action
to enforce such determinations and for appropriate relief. In
addition, such Secretary may assess a penalty against a plan
sponsor or health insurance issuer of not more than $110 per
day for each failure to comply with such determination of
such Secretary after 10 days after the date of the plan
sponsor's or issuer's receipt of the determination.''.
(5) Amendments relating to section 3001 of arra.--
(A) Subsection (g)(9) of section 35 of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 is amended by striking ``section 3002(a) of the
Health Insurance Assistance for the Unemployed Act of 2009''
and inserting ``section 3001(a) of title III of division B of
the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009''.
(B) Section 139C of such Code is amended by striking
``section 3002 of the Health Insurance Assistance for the
Unemployed Act of 2009'' and inserting ``section 3001 of
title III of division B of the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009''.
(C) Section 6432 of such Code is amended--
(i) in subsection (a), by striking ``section 3002(a) of the
Health Insurance Assistance for the Unemployed Act of 2009''
and inserting ``section 3001(a) of title III of division B of
the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009'';
(ii) in subsection (c)(3), by striking ``section
3002(a)(1)(A) of such Act'' and inserting ``section
3001(a)(1)(A) of title III of division B of the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009''; and
(iii) by redesignating subsections (e) and (f) as
subsections (f) and (g), respectively, and inserting after
subsection (d) the following new subsection:
``(e) Employer Determination of Qualifying Event as
Involuntary Termination.--For purposes of this section, in
any case in which--
``(1) based on a reasonable interpretation of section
3001(a)(3)(C) of division B of the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009 and administrative guidance
thereunder, an employer determines that the qualifying event
with respect to COBRA continuation coverage for an individual
was involuntary termination of a covered employee's
employment, and
``(2) the employer maintains supporting documentation of
the determination, including an attestation by the employer
of involuntary termination with respect to the covered
employee,
the qualifying event for the individual shall be deemed to be
involuntary termination of the covered employee's
employment.''.
(D) Subsection (a) of section 6720C of such Code is amended
by striking ``section 3002(a)(2)(C) of the Health Insurance
Assistance for the Unemployed Act of 2009'' and inserting
``section 3001(a)(2)(C) of title III of division B of the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect as if included in the provisions of section
3001 of division B of the American Recovery and Reinvestment
Act of 2009 to which they relate, except that--
(1) the amendments made by subsection (b)(1) shall apply to
periods of coverage beginning after the date of the enactment
of this Act;
(2) the amendments made by subsection (b)(2) shall take
effect as if included in the amendments made by section 1010
of division B of the Department of Defense Appropriations
Act, 2010; and
(3) the amendments made by subsections (b)(3) and (b)(4)
shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 4. EXTENSION OF SURFACE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAMS.
(a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (b), for
purposes of the continued extension of surface transportation
programs and related authority to make expenditures from the
Highway Trust Fund and other trust funds under sections 157
through 162 of the Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2010
(Public Law 111-68; 123 Stat. 2050), the date specified in
section 106(3) of that resolution (Public Law 111-68; 123
Stat. 2045) shall be deemed to be March 28, 2010.
(b) Exception.--Subsection (a) shall not apply if an
extension of the programs and authorities described in that
subsection for a longer term than the extension contained in
the Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2010 (Public Law
111-68; 123 Stat. 2050), is enacted before the date of
enactment of this Act.
SEC. 5. INCREASE IN THE MEDICARE PHYSICIAN PAYMENT UPDATE.
Paragraph (10) of section 1848(d) of the Social Security
Act, as added by section 1011(a) of the Department of Defense
Appropriations Act, 2010 (Public Law 111-118), is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``February 28, 2010''
and inserting ``March 31, 2010''; and
[[Page H903]]
(2) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``March 1, 2010'' and
inserting ``April 1, 2010''.
SEC. 6. EXTENSION OF MEDICARE THERAPY CAPS EXCEPTIONS
PROCESS.
Section 1833(g)(5) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
1395l(g)(5)) is amended by striking ``December 31, 2009'' and
inserting ``March 31, 2010''.
SEC. 7. EXTENSION OF USE OF 2009 POVERTY GUIDELINES.
Section 1012 of the Department of Defense Appropriations
Act, 2010 (Public Law 111-118) is amended by striking ``March
1, 2010'' and inserting ``March 31, 2010''.
SEC. 8. EXTENSION OF NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM.
Section 129 of the Continuing Appropriations Resolution,
2010 (Public Law 111-68), as amended by section 1005 of
Public Law 111-118, is further amended by striking ``by
substituting'' and all that follows through the period at the
end, and inserting ``by substituting March 28, 2010, for the
date specified in each such section.''.
SEC. 9. EXTENSION OF SMALL BUSINESS LOAN GUARANTEE PROGRAM.
(a) In General.--Section 502(f) of division A of the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public Law
111-5; 123 Stat. 153) is amended by striking ``February 28,
2010'' and inserting ``March 28, 2010''.
(b) Appropriation.--There is appropriated, out of any funds
in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for an additional
amount for ``Small Business Administration - Business Loans
Program Account'', $60,000,000, to remain available through
March 28, 2010, for the cost of--
(1) fee reductions and eliminations under section 501 of
division A of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of
2009 (Public Law 111-5; 123 Stat. 151) for loans guaranteed
under section 7(a) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C.
636(a)), title V of the Small Business Investment Act of 1958
(15 U.S.C. 695 et seq.), or section 502 of division A of the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public Law
111-5; 123 Stat. 152), as amended by this section; and
(2) loan guarantees under section 502 of division A of the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public Law
111-5; 123 Stat. 152), as amended by this section,
Provided, That such costs, including the cost of modifying
such loans, shall be as defined in section 502 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
SEC. 10. SATELLITE TELEVISION EXTENSION.
(a) Amendments to Section 119 of Title 17, United States
Code.--
(1) In general.--Section 119 of title 17, United States
Code, is amended--
(A) in subsection (c)(1)(E), by striking ``February 28,
2010'' and inserting ``March 28, 2010''; and
(B) in subsection (e), by striking ``February 28, 2010''
and inserting ``March 28, 2010''.
(2) Termination of license.--Section 1003(a)(2)(A) of
Public Law 111-118 is amended by striking ``February 28,
2010'', and inserting ``March 28, 2010''.
(b) Amendments to Communications Act of 1934.--Section
325(b) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 325(b))
is amended--
(1) in paragraph (2)(C), by striking ``February 28, 2010''
and inserting ``March 28, 2010''; and
(2) in paragraph (3)(C), by striking ``March 1, 2010'' each
place it appears in clauses (ii) and (iii) and inserting
``March 29, 2010''.
SEC. 11. DETERMINATION OF BUDGETARY EFFECTS.
(a) In General.--The budgetary effects of this Act, for the
purpose of complying with the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go-Act of
2010, shall be determined by reference to the latest
statement titled ``Budgetary Effects of PAYGO Legislation''
for this Act, submitted for printing in the Congressional
Record by the Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the
House of Representatives, provided that such statement has
been submitted prior to the vote on passage.
(b) Emergency Designation for Congressional Enforcement.--
This Act, with the exception of section 5, is designated as
an emergency for purposes of pay-as-you-go principles. In the
Senate, this Act is designated as an emergency requirement
pursuant to section 403(a) of S. Con. Res. 13 (111th
Congress), the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal
year 2010.
(c) Emergency Designation for Statutory PAYGO.--This Act,
with the exception of section 5, is designated as an
emergency requirement pursuant to section 4(g) of the
Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-139; 2
U.S.C. 933(g)).
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. McDermott) and the gentleman from California (Mr.
Herger) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes Mr. McDermott.
General Leave
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that Members may
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Washington?
There was no objection.
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may
consume.
This bill provides a short-term extension for a number of programs.
When you have the other body basically operating on filibusters
continuously on everything, it's not surprising that suddenly somebody
wakes up over there and figures out that they're going to have to go to
work and pass some legislation.
By the end of March, 1.2 million people will run out of unemployment
benefits, so we're extending unemployment benefits through the 8th of
April, 2010. That is another month. The Senate likes to have a vote on
unemployment about once a month. For whatever reason they want to come
out here and do this when they can see the problem and they want to
drag the American people through this process over and over again, I
cannot understand. The Republicans over there using filibusters to stop
the Senate from doing anything simply don't care about workers in this
country.
Now, there is also an extension of COBRA assistance. We're extending
that until the 28th of March, 2010, so people have health insurance for
another month. Thanks a lot. And we're extending surface transportation
programs, which makes related expenditures for surface transportation
until March 28, 2010.
We're extending the Medicare physician update, which extends the
increase in physicians' payments until March 28, 2010. We're extending
the Medicare therapy cap exceptions until March 28, 2010. We're
extending the poverty guidelines. And I could go on down this list. I
have got a whole bunch more.
{time} 1730
The fact is, we passed, in December, out of this House, a 6-month
extension in unemployment benefits, but somebody decided we had to have
a filibuster in the Senate, so they stepped on the bill. And suddenly
we come to 5:28 p.m. on the 25th of February and somebody says, oh, my
God, there are going to be people in my district with no check. They
have been calling my office for the last 2 weeks. Are they going to
extend benefits? Will my benefits be extended? What's going to happen
to us?
Well, this is their answer. We will give them another month's
reprieve, and I urge all my colleagues to vote for this bill.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
This legislation provides for a 1-month extension of several important
programs, including unemployment insurance and health coverage for
Americans laid off in this recession, a postponement of severe cuts in
Medicare payments to physicians and a satellite television law that
allows Americans in rural areas to get access to local news and
programming.
It's important to realize that this is not a jobs bill. On the
contrary, the extension of unemployment insurance is needed because the
2009 stimulus bill didn't create the jobs Democrats promised. Laid-off
workers should not be punished for that.
Instead of creating 3.7 million jobs as promised, the stimulus bill
was followed by 3.3 million additional job losses. A record 16 million
are now unemployed, and Americans are asking ``where are the jobs?''
The legislation before us continues the payment of a record 99 weeks
of total unemployment benefits, but millions will soon be exhausting
those benefits and wondering what comes next, and they will face a job
market that on top of everything else is now burdened by mammoth
unemployment payroll tax hikes caused by all the unemployment benefits
paid to date. So the need to pass this bill today is the result of the
failure of the Democrat stimulus bill to create the jobs they promised.
If it had created those jobs, and unemployment were now under 8 percent
and falling, as Democrats predicted it would be, we would be in a
position to start winding these benefits down.
Instead, unemployment is near 10 percent, and even the administration
thinks it will remain so through at least this year.
The CBO has estimated this bill will add over $10 billion to the
deficit. Less than 2 weeks after the Democrats' pay-as-you-go bill was
signed into law, we
[[Page H904]]
are already seeing billions of dollars designated as ``emergency
spending'' so we don't have to pay for it.
With abundant unused TARP and stimulus money that could pay for this
bill, it's clear Democrats are not serious about fiscal responsibility.
We also need to craft policies that will actually create jobs so
unemployed workers can get back to work. That will require ending the
massive taxing, spending, and borrowing plans this Democrat Congress
and administration has. These policies have created severe uncertainty
among American workers and businesses, causing economic stagnation and
discouraging hiring. We could eliminate this uncertainty and get the
private-sector American job creation engine humming again by
immediately extending all expiring tax cuts, scrapping plans for a
government takeover of health care, scrapping plans to impose a
national energy tax via a cap-and-trade program, repealing wasteful
stimulus spending, and committing to not increasing taxes until the
economy has fully recovered.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McDERMOTT. I yield 3 minutes to my distinguished colleague from
Michigan (Mr. Levin).
(Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. LEVIN. Well, what we face is the highest number of long-term
unemployed for over 60 years, 6.3 million people, long-term unemployed.
We have 15 million people looking for work.
I came in just in the middle of the statement from my friend from
California. I don't think this is the time for us to be arguing over
past programs. I have never understood what the minority was thinking
about in terms of job creation. They have voted against Recovery Act
bills.
But this isn't the time to be using the plight of the unemployed to
try to make points about previous actions. This is the time for us to
once again face up to the fact that we have huge numbers of people who
are looking for work and can't find it. This is the time for us to
understand the pain for individuals in this circumstance. We passed a
jobs bill here some months ago, unfortunately, without bipartisan
support. But I don't want to argue about that. We should be talking
about providing. It's really not a safety net; it's a subsistence
issue. It's people who have been laid off through no fault of their own
who need a continuation of unemployment compensation.
If we do not do this, the estimate is that over 1 million people
nationally will lose their unemployment benefits in March. That's 1
month alone, 1.2 million people. If that isn't sobering enough to get
us to focus on an extension of unemployment compensation and health
benefits for these people, I don't know what else we will do.
So I hope we will come here and pass this bill and not use it as a
vehicle to be talking about something other than the plight of the
unemployed of this country who can't find a job, 6 or 7 people looking
for a job for every job that might open up.
I urge that we pass this overwhelmingly.
Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I reluctantly support this legislation.
While it has major flaws, which I outlined earlier, the current job
market in so many parts of the country, including my own congressional
district in northern California, is so bad that the help, especially
for long-term unemployed individuals, in this bill is both needed and
merited during the weeks covered by this legislation at the very least.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, as I listened to my friend from Michigan
(Mr. Levin) talk about the situation, it brings you almost beyond anger
to realize that one person in the other body has stopped the
unemployment extension for several months. We don't know, even as we
pass this bill over there today, what will happen if that gentleman
does not lift his restriction on the Senate bill. We may be into a
cloture situation again. Now what they did before, they held up
unemployment insurance, they held it up and held it up, and then, when
it came to the end, everybody voted for it.
It is clear, from the first words out of my colleague from
California's mouth, that this is about trying to prove to the people
that the Democrats can't run the Congress. They can't run the Congress
with the filibuster in the Senate stopping issues like this that are
going to go through here unanimously. Nobody in his right mind is going
to vote against health care and unemployment benefits for people who
are out there struggling, and nobody is going to vote against flood
insurance for people and nobody is going to vote against small business
loan guarantees and a lot of other things that are in this extension
bill because of the filibuster in the Senate.
I urge my colleagues to vote for this, and I urge the other body to
think about changing the filibuster.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this legislation.
This bill would increase Federal spending by $10 billion, or $125 per
family of four in the U.S. None of which would be paid for. And that's
just a fraction of $1,000 per family of four it will cost to extend
these programs through the end of the year, as is already in the works.
That, too, will get added to our children's already enormous tab of
government debt. They deserve far better.
Ironically, just two weeks ago the President signed Democrats'
``paygo'' bill into law. He said ``the PAYGO bill . . . says very
simply that the United States of America should pay as we go and live
within our means again--just like responsible families and businesses
do.''
Yet today, with this bill, we're not living within our means, yet
again.
A second flaw of this bill has to do with jobs. This legislation
simply won't create any.
Some say that extending unemployment benefits stimulates job
creation. If that were so, we would be at full employment already.
Today record numbers of Americans--over 11 million--collect
unemployment checks instead of paychecks. They collect record weeks of
benefits--up to 99 weeks per person. And Congress added another $100
per month to those checks, for the first time ever. Yet since these
programs started in 2008, the unemployment rate has jumped from 5.5
percent to over 10 percent as almost 8 million jobs disappeared.
So if these unemployment benefits are creating jobs, they are sure
hard to see. But what we can see are mammoth payroll tax hikes this
year in most States, as they struggle to pay for these benefits. As
employer after employer has said, those tax hikes will further harm job
creation when businesses and workers are already hurting.
In fact, some respected scholars argue these record unemployment
benefit expansions actually are resulting in more unemployment, not
less. That seems more than plausible.
At this time I would request ask unanimous consent to insert in the
Record an article from the November 17, 2009 New York Post, which
states:
As Larry Summers, the president's top assistant for
economic policy, noted in July, ``the unemployment rate over
the recession has risen about 1 to 1.5 percentage points more
than would normally be attributable to the contraction in
GDP''. . . Summers knows why the US rate is so high. He
explained it well in a 1995 paper co-authored with James
Poterba of MIT: ``Unemployment insurance lengthens
unemployment spells.'' . . . (T)he evidence is overwhelming
that the February stimulus bill has added at least two
percentage points to the unemployment rate. If Congress and
the White House hadn't tried so hard to stimulate long-term
unemployment, the US unemployment rate would now be about 8
percent and falling rather than more than 10 percent and--
rising.
Mr. Chairman, we have tried extending unemployment benefits again and
again. And we have only gotten more unemployment. Yet what unemployed
workers really want are jobs and paychecks. We need to start over and
do the things that really help create jobs for unemployed workers. That
means eliminating uncertainty by scrapping Democrats' government health
care takeover and cap and tax energy plans, extending expiring tax cuts
on businesses and individuals, repealing wasteful stimulus spending,
and committing to not increasing any tax until the economy has fully
recovered.
Until we do that, additional extensions of unemployment benefits will
simply spend even more money we don't have without truly helping
unemployed workers find jobs, which must be our real goal.
[From the New York Post, Nov. 17, 2009]
The `Stimulus' for Unemployment
(By Alan Reynolds)
Why did the unemployment rate rise so rapidly--from 7.2 per
cent in January to 10.2 percent in October? It was clearly
the administration's ``stimulus'' bill--which in February
provided $40 billion to greatly extend jobless benefits at no
cost to the states.
As Larry Summers, the president's top assistant for
economic policy, noted in July, ``the unemployment rate over
the recession
[[Page H905]]
has risen about 1 to 1.5 percentage points more than would
normally be attributable to the contraction in GDP.'' And the
rate has moved nearly a percentage point higher since then,
even though GDP increased. Countries with much deeper
declines in GDP, such as Germany and Sweden, have
unemployment rates far below ours.
Summers knows why the US rate is so high. He explained it
well in a 1995 paper coauthored with James Poterba of MIT:
``Unemployment insurance lengthens unemployment spells.''
That is: When the government pays people 50 to 60 percent
of their previous wage to stay home for a year or more, many
of them do just that.
And the stimulus bribed states to extend benefits--which
have now been stretched to an unprecedented 79 weeks in 28
states and to 46 to 72 weeks in the rest. Before mid-2008, by
contrast, only a few states paid jobless benefits for even a
month beyond the standard 26 weeks.
When you subsidize something, you get more of it. Extending
unemployment benefits from 26 to 79 weeks was guaranteed to
leave many more people unemployed for many more months.
And longer unemployment translates to higher unemployment
rates--because the relatively small numbers of newly
unemployed are added to stubbornly large numbers of those who
lost their jobs more than six months ago.
Until benefits are about to run out, many of the long-term
unemployed are in no rush to make serious efforts to find
another job--or to accept job offers that may involve a long
commute, relocation or disappointing salary and benefits.
(Incidentally, the ``mercy'' of longer benefits does no
long-term favors: The literature is quite clear that a
prolonged period on unemployment tends to depress income for
years after you finally go back to work.)
The median length of unemployment hovered around 10 weeks
for six months before February's ``stimulus'' plan. Since
half the unemployed found jobs within 10 weeks, more than
half of those counted among the unemployed in one month would
no longer be included three months later. In other words,
more frequent turnover among the unemployed held down monthly
unemployment.
But after February, with jobless benefits stretched out to
46 to 79 weeks, the median duration of unemployment nearly
doubled, reaching 18.7 weeks by October.
The unemployment rate has not been rising because of
growing numbers of newly jobless people. Indeed, initial
claims for unemployment benefits are way down. And the number
of unfilled private job openings increased by 9.3 percent
from the end of April to the end of September.
The unemployment rate has been rising because unprecedented
numbers of those who became unemployed six to 19 months ago
are remaining ``on the dole'' until their benefits are nearly
exhausted.
Summers isn't the only administration economist who
understands this very well. Assistant Secretary of the
Treasury for Economic Policy Alan Krueger co-authored a 2002
survey of the topic with Bruce Meyer of the University of
Chicago. They found that ``unemployment insurance and
worker's compensation insurance . . . tend to increase the
length of time employees spend out of work.'' Last August,
Krueger and Andreus Miller of Princeton also found that ``job
search increases sharply [from 20 minutes a week to 70] in
the weeks prior to benefit exhaustion.''
Similarly, Meyer found ``the probability of leaving
unemployment rises dramatically just prior to when benefits
lapse.'' In other words: If you extend benefits to 79 weeks,
many people won't find an acceptable job offer until the 76th
or 78th week.
Meyer and Lawrence Katz of Harvard estimated that ``a one-
week increase in potential benefit duration increases the
average duration of the unemployment spells . . . by 0.16 to
0.20 weeks.'' Apply that formula to the 20-to-53-week
extension we've seen, and you get an average of three to ten
more weeks spent on unemployment. And, sure enough, the
average unemployment spell has risen by seven weeks this
year--to nearly 27 weeks by October.
Katz also found that extended benefits, by making it easier
for workers to wait and see whether they get their old jobs
back, also makes it easier for employers to delay recalling
laid-off workers. Just before unemployment benefits run out,
Katz found ``large positive jumps in both the recall rate and
new job finding rate.''
The White House recently made the mysterious claim of
having ``saved'' 640,329 jobs, at a cost of only $531,250 per
job ($340 billion).
In reality, the evidence is overwhelming that the February
stimulus bill has added at least two percentage points to the
unemployment rate. If Congress and the White House hadn't
tried so hard to stimulate long-term unemployment, the US
unemployment rate would now be about 8 percent and falling
rather than more than 10 percent and--rising.
Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4691, Temporary
Extensions Act of 2010, which temporarily extends a number of important
expiring provisions to assist workers hit hard by the economy as well
as averts the impending cuts under Medicare for physician services.
These are important policies that we should not let lapse.
However, there are also a number of critical rural health payment
adjustments under Medicare that expired last year which are not
included in this package. These payment adjustments were created under
the Medicare Modernization Act to correct flaws in Medicare payments
and have made a tremendous difference to rural hospitals, physicians,
ambulances, and laboratories and the seniors they serve. Congress has a
long record of extending these important rural health care provisions.
Most recently the House found it appropriate to include extensions of
these critical rural health care provisions in legislation passed last
year.
These provisions have not yet been signed into law and I am deeply
concerned that failing to extend these important policies could impact
the ability of rural providers to continue delivering much-needed care
to our seniors. A lapse in these provisions, even temporarily, has
created a great level of instability for our affected providers and the
patients that they serve. That is why 69 bipartisan members of the
bipartisan Rural Health Care Coalition have joined me in urging
leadership to extend these important policies. A copy of this letter
will follow my remarks.
I am committed to retroactively extending these important provisions
which help preserve access to quality health care services in rural
America and will fight to ensure that they are addressed.
Congress of the United States,
Washington, DC, February 24, 2010.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Chairman Charles B. Rangel,
House Committee on Ways and Means,
Washington, DC.
Chairman Henry A. Waxman,
House Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Washington, DC.
Minority Leader John A. Boehner,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Ranking Member Dave Camp,
House Committee on Ways and Means,
Washington, DC.
Ranking Member Joe Barton,
House Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Washington, DC.
Dear Speaker Pelosi, Minority Leader Boehner, Chairman
Rangel, Ranking Member Camp, Chairman Waxman, and Ranking
Member Barton: As members of the House Rural Health Care
Coalition, we are writing on behalf of our rural health care
providers and the patients that they serve to urge Congress
to retroactively extend critical rural health payment
adjustments under Medicare that recently expired. These rural
support payments help preserve access to quality health care
services in rural America and failing to swiftly extend them
could impact the ability to continue delivering much-needed
care to our constituents.
The Medicare Modernization Act (MMA) made important
corrections to flaws in Medicare payments that have made a
tremendous difference to the hospitals, doctors, nurses and
other providers in our states and throughout rural America.
Congress has a long record of extending these important rural
health care provisions. Most recently, the House found it
appropriate to include extensions of many of these critical
rural health care provisions in legislation it passed last
year. However, these provisions have not yet been signed into
law. Therefore, we ask for your continued support to improve
rural health care by including in legislation Congress may
consider in the coming weeks an extension of the critical
rural health provisions described below:
Rural Hospitals: Our rural hospitals provide essential
inpatient, outpatient and post-acute care to nearly 9 million
Medicare beneficiaries. We support an extension of the
geographical wage index reclassifications for the more than
100 ``Section 508 Hospitals,'' in order to continue to
providing greater wage parity within a state in order to
address increasingly competitively labor markets. In
addition, it is critical that Congress ensures that small
rural hospitals continue to be reimbursed for their costs for
their laboratory services and preserves outpatient hold
harmless payments for sole community and small rural
hospitals. We also support an extension of direct billing
under Medicare for certain grandfathered labs for the
technical component of pathology services provided to
certain rural hospitals. Lastly, we support extending the
recently expired Rural Community Hospital Demonstration
project, which tests the feasibility and advisability for
reasonable cost reimbursement for small rural hospitals.
Rural Doctors and Practitioners: Only ten percent of
physicians practice in rural America even though more than a
quarter of the population lives in these areas. In order to
help recruit and retain physicians where they are needed
most, it is imperative that we continue to maintain the 1.0
floor on
[[Page H906]]
the physician work geographic practice cost index (GPCI).
Rural Ambulance: In providing critical emergency health
care to patients, it costs rural ambulance service providers
more per transport than their urban counterparts because of
the greater distances rural providers travel and their lower
transport volume. In fact, many of our rural ambulance
service providers are staffed primarily by volunteers to stay
afloat. That is why it is necessary to ensure that rural
ambulance providers continue to receive an additional 3
percent in Medicare reimbursement, and for super rural
ambulance service providers to continue to receive 22.6
percent to their base rate which helps cover the costs of
serving patients located in these extremely rural areas.
These rural equity policy provisions are critical to the
ability of our rural health care providers to continue to
provide quality care to rural Americans. A lapse in these
provisions, even temporarily, has created a great level of
instability for our affected providers and the patients that
they serve. We urge your continued leadership in championing
these important rural issues.
Sincerely,
Earl Pomeroy, Co-Chair, Rural Health Care Coalition, Greg
Walden, Chet Edwards, Rick Boucher, Dennis Moore,
Michael H. Michaud, Timothy Walz, Leonard L. Boswell,
Cathy McMorris Rodgers, David Loebsack, Bruce Braley,
Jim Marshall, Kathleen A. Dahlkemper, Brett Guthrie,
Don Young, Scott Murphy, Carolyn Kilpatrick, Carol
Shea-Porter, John Boozman, Ben Chandler, Michael
Arcuri, Ron Paul, Frank Kratovil, Kevin Brady, Heath
Shuler, Phil Hare, Charlie Melancon, Marion Berry, Jim
Matheson, Mike Ross, Jo Ann Emerson, Shelley Moore
Capito, Ruben Hinojosa, Michael K. Simpson, Gene
Taylor.
Jerry Moran, Co-chair, Rural Health Care Coalition, James
L. Oberstar, Chaka Fattah, Peter Welch, Raul M.
Grijalva, Ron Kind, Bill Foster, Eric Massa, Dennis
Cardoza, Blaine Luetkemeyer, Bob Etheridge, Adrian
Smith, Brad Ellsworth, Larry Kissell, Donald A.
Manzullo, John W. Olver, Sam Graves, Gabrielle
Giffords, Deborah L. Halvorson, Rick Larsen, Charles A.
Wilson, John Barrow, Rodney Alexander, Stephanie
Herseth Sandlin, John Salazar, Christopher P. Carney,
Lincoln Davis, Harold Rogers, Sanford D. Bishop, Jr.,
Mike McIntyre, Todd Tiahrt, Bill Delahunt, Nick J.
Rahall II, Ike Skelton, Bart Stupak.
Mr. McDERMOTT. I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott) that the House suspend the
rules and pass the bill, H.R. 4691.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the
rules were suspended and the bill was passed.
____________________