[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 16 (Wednesday, February 1, 2012)]
[House]
[Pages H356-H362]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES ON H.R. 3630, TEMPORARY PAYROLL TAX CUT
CONTINUATION ACT OF 2011
Mr. MICHAUD. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to instruct conferees at
the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Michaud moves that the managers on the part of the
House at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two
Houses on the Senate amendment to the bill H.R. 3630 be
instructed to recede from section 2123 of the House bill,
relating to allowing a waiver of requirements under section
3304(a)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, including a
requirement that all money withdrawn from the unemployment
fund of the State shall be used solely in the payment of
unemployment compensation.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 7 of rule XXII, the
gentleman from Maine (Mr. Michaud) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Brady) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maine.
Mr. MICHAUD. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would like to yield 4
minutes to the gentlelady from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
Ms. KAPTUR. I thank my esteemed colleague, Congressman Mike Michaud
of Maine, for allowing me this time to join him and to rise in support
of his motion to instruct conferees on a payroll tax cut extension bill
that strikes a section that undermines the normal procedures of
unemployment compensation to people who are out of work as it diverts
those funds to other purposes.
Here we have the hardest of hearts that exist in this House, the
majority on the other side of the aisle, who allowed the market to
crash in 2008, putting millions of people out of work and then throwing
millions more out of their homes and turning a cold eye toward them.
And then proposed to cut heating assistance to those who are struggling
across this country, and then a majority on the other side voting to
not extend unemployment benefits to the victims. I didn't see any
enthusiasm over there for prosecuting the big banks on Wall Street and
those who had committed the fraud that got us into this mess in the
first place. No, they want to cut it out of the hearts of the victims.
Now, the House Republican proposal in H.R. 3630 would allow States to
apply for waivers to bypass basic protections and standards that now
apply to the permanent unemployment extension program. States already
have ample flexibility to determine eligibility for unemployment
insurance benefits and to set the amount of those benefits, but they
must now operate under a basic set of rules. For example, States are
required to spend unemployment insurance funds solely on unemployment
benefits. They must pay benefits when due, and they may not condition
eligibility on issues beyond the fact and cause a person's
unemployment. The Republican bill would circumvent these basic
protections.
Under the proposed waiver policy, States could divert unemployment
funds to other purposes, which seems particularly ill-timed when over
half of the States' unemployment trust funds are insolvent because
there's so many people still out of work. This diversion policy could
lead to jobless individuals being denied weekly unemployment benefits
and instead being offered less useful benefits. Furthermore, a waiver
could allow new requirements to be imposed on unemployment insurance
recipients, including a requirement that they perform a community
service job to be eligible for benefits.
Unemployment insurance is an earned benefit for people who have
worked hard. It's insurance. Effectively they have paid into those
insurance funds and have lost their jobs through no fault of their own.
These individuals must actively search for work to be eligible. I have
people in my district that have sent out 400 resumes, knocked on
hundreds and hundreds of doors. They want to work. And many receive
services through the Federally funded one-stop employment centers.
Regrettably, House Republicans that have consistently targeted this
system for steep cuts in services at a time when they are needed most
again have a proposal here.
You know, I really wonder why they don't focus as much attention on
prosecution of the Wall Street perpetrators who got us into this mess
in the first place. I think you've got the telescope turned around in
the wrong direction. You ought to be caring for those who have an ethic
of work and who have earned these benefits. And we need to recoup money
to balance the budget and to meet our societal needs by making sure
that prosecution occurs for those who took the Republic to the cleaners
and are still fat and happy sitting in the same chairs that they were
in back in 2008 up there on Wall Street.
So I would say to the gentleman I rise in strong support of your
effort to
[[Page H357]]
instruct the conferees and to protect the earned benefits of those in
our society who build this country forward through thick and thin no
matter what. They have earned the right to their unemployment benefits.
Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I think there is bipartisan agreement--Republicans and Democrats--on
extending unemployment benefits for a full year.
Clearly, we're in tough economic times. But here we are 2\1/2\ years
after the recession officially ended, and yet we have 27 million people
who can't find a full-time job. We have a lower unemployment rate
principally because so many Americans have simply given up looking for
work. What we know is the current unemployment system is not working.
I think we can all agree that an unemployment check is no substitute
for a paycheck. We know the longer a person stays unemployed, the
harder it is for them to get back in the workforce. Most studies show
that after 2 years, the chances of you getting back in the workforce
becomes very, very slim, yet the government today subsidizes that
unemployment for almost that full 2 years.
There's agreement that the sooner we get people back to work the
better it is for them, and the better it is for our economy. But what
the Federal Government is doing today, it isn't working. We have a
system from the 1930s. We need an unemployment system for the 21st
century, for today's economy. Commonsense reforms are in order, but the
Democrat motion to instruct that we just heard about destroys those
reforms to put people back to work.
Under the House bill, we allow States, those who know the economies
better, who know their workers best, to put together innovative
programs to get people off unemployment and back into the workforce
where they belong. Under the House bill, for example, we require
workers to actually look aggressively for a job. You would think that's
common sense, but under Federal law today a person can go 1\1/2\ years
receiving unemployment benefits and not be looking for a job. In some
States, you don't have to look for a job at all. Well, that's not
acceptable. And those without a GED or a high school diploma, those
whose chances of getting a job are the slimmest, those who are laid off
first and hired last, they struggle. But under the House bill, we allow
States to put together the programs that actually get those workers
that education.
{time} 1930
For example, if you're 40 years old and don't have a GED, the truth
of the matter is you still have a quarter of a century left in the
workforce. We want to help you get that education, to be a better
applicant, to get a better job, to have a brighter future. But this
bill denies States the ability to help get that education for their
workers.
We give States the ability to tailor job training programs to get
people, again, back to work. This is what the President talked about
when he cited Georgia Works and other issues on job creation. The
Democrat motion stops States who know their local economies best from
putting, again, these job trainings in place for their workers.
And finally, in the House bill, we recognize and believe it's time to
stop subsidizing drug use through Federal benefits. Now, I wonder how
many people this morning went to work in the dark; how many single moms
struggled to get their kids to school before they went to work; how
many people are driving home right now, are going to miss their kid's
practice, they were at work; how many told their Boy Scout they
couldn't be at the campout this weekend because they had to work on
Saturday; how many people working one, two, three jobs that Washington
takes money from their paycheck to help people who are unemployed.
And all the House bill does is to ensure that States are allowed to
help people get that education, get that job training, end subsidizing
drug use, so they're better applicants with a brighter future. We don't
require States to do this. We allow States to have waivers, to be
innovative to do that.
At the end of the day, the truth of the matter is we have so many
companies who tell us they want to hire good workers with good
salaries, but these workers can't pass even a basic drug test. Look, if
you've got a casual drug habit or a more serious problem, finance it on
your own. You're not going to take tax dollars from your neighbor who's
working one or two or three jobs to finance your drug habit. In fact,
your future is dimmed because of it. And if States decide not to
implement a drug screening program, it's their decision; it's not
Washington's.
The Democrat motion makes sense only if you work in Washington and
think the current status quo is working. It is not. So I respectfully
oppose the motion, support the proposed waiver authority, as well as
its other provisions.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MICHAUD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
Mr. KUCINICH. I want to thank the gentleman from Maine for his ever-
present leadership on the issue of unemployment insurance and also for
fighting for jobs for Americans, because we're really here looking at
two problems. One is the problem of making sure that those who are on
unemployment are going to get benefits so they can survive, and the
other one is the massive unemployment that we have in America. I mean,
obviously, these matters are interrelated.
Let me speak first to Mr. Michaud's motion to instruct conferees.
This provision to remove Section 2123 from H.R. 3610, this section
severely undermines the unemployment insurance system that nearly 8
million Americans rely on. It allows States to apply for waivers that
would change how unemployment insurance funds are allocated, and it
does this under the guise of strengthening reemployment programs. In
reality, these proposed waivers would allow States to use unemployment
insurance funds for purposes other than paying out benefits.
Think about this. If people are on unemployment insurance, they need
those benefits. They need full benefits. You don't want the State to
find an excuse to siphon those benefits to some other purpose. And by
allowing the use of unemployment insurance funds for purposes other
than providing unemployment benefits to those who rely on them, we
would be weakening a system that has provided assistance to unemployed
Americans for decades.
The rationale for the reallocation is deceptively camouflaged. It's
being described as fulfilling additional benefits to the unemployed,
such as bolstering job training programs and reemployment programs.
Yet, in reality, diverting funds from the unemployment insurance fund
to other equally important programs is not a viable solution and will,
ultimately, undermine the unemployment insurance system that millions
rely on.
The truth of this matter is that this Congress has been shirking its
responsibility to independently and to adequately fund these programs.
Section 2123 of this legislation also gives the States the ability to
create their own eligibility requirements, which could impede otherwise
eligible recipients from collecting their benefits. The waivers
permitted under Section 2123 would give States the opportunity to
impose new eligibility requirements on unemployment insurance
recipients that are unrelated to their employment history and current
unemployment status. This includes giving the States the right to
require a high school diploma or GED as a prerequisite for receiving
unemployment benefits.
Now, think about that. You have so many people who, because of family
situations, have not been able to finish high school, and they're
working to support their families. They get laid off, and then they're
told, Well, wait a minute. Because you don't have a high school
diploma, you can't get any benefits. This is a double punishment for
people.
What we should be doing is enabling people who are unemployed to be
able to get a college education paid for while they're unemployed, so
that when they're graduated or better educated, that when they come
back into the workforce they can help make a greater contribution to
our country.
Frivolous requirements like giving States the right to require a high
[[Page H358]]
school diploma or GED as a prerequisite for receiving unemployment
benefits will do nothing but prevent benefits from reaching those who
need them the most.
In my home State of Ohio, the unemployment rate is still above 8
percent. Just last week, more than 20,000 Ohioans were on the brink of
losing their extended benefits. The men and women of this country
should not have the added stress of monitoring the government's attempt
to deny or delay their unemployment benefits. We have to protect the
integrity of the unemployment insurance program and those that rely it.
And while we're at it, we also have to start thinking about creating
jobs in this country. We have at least 13 million people who are
unemployed and another 6 million who are underemployed. It's time we
got America back to work, then we wouldn't be having this debate about
unemployment insurance.
While people are unemployed, they should get the benefits, and they
should be full benefits. But we should also be creating jobs, and
that's not what we're doing. We need new mechanisms to create jobs. We
shouldn't tell people, Well, the government doesn't have any money.
Well, we're borrowing money from China, South Korea, and Japan. Why
don't we start--spend the money into circulation. Look at what the
Federal Reserve does. The Federal Reserve creates money out of nothing,
gives it to banks. The banks park the money at the Fed. They gain
interest. Our businesses are starved for lack of capital.
What if we, the government, took back the constitutional right that
we have under article I, section 8, to spend or create money, coin
money, spend it into circulation, create millions of jobs, put our
country back to work, rebuild our infrastructure? More money for
education, more money for health care.
America's best days are ahead of it if we start to think about the
mechanisms we have to create jobs in this country. In the meantime, we
sure better protect those people who are unemployed.
The mechanism I talked about, it's called the NEED Act, National
Employment Emergency Defense Act. We have a means of getting people
back to work. In the meantime, if they're not working, let's make sure
we don't curtail their unemployment benefits.
Support the Michaud amendment.
Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Oregon (Mr. Walden), one of the leaders of getting this economy
and America back on track and people back into good-paying jobs.
Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, let me make a couple of points about this
motion to instruct, which I oppose.
Section 2123, which is the issue here, allows up to 10 States per
year to apply for waivers to test innovative ideas to help people get a
job, to help people get back to work, so it's only up to 10 States. And
waiver programs would have to be cost neutral, rigorously evaluated,
and then we could understand the policies.
Look, I think the folks at home in my great State of Oregon are just
as compassionate, if not more so, than what happens here in Washington.
I think they can be creative, too, in helping.
And, in fact, in 2011, Oregon launched its version under a waiver of
the National Career Readiness Certificate program. Now, what that did
was certify 10,760 work-ready individuals in the State that they have
the appropriate math, reading, and other skills necessary to get back
and contribute to the workforce.
{time} 1940
Now, that hiring tool brought nearly 400 businesses, communities, and
workers together and then simplified the job-search hiring process.
These are the kinds of innovative ideas that we could use to actually
help people get a job.
This is a horrible economy. We've had 11 recessions since World War
II. This is the worst one in terms of coming out of it. So the policies
that have been in place the last couple of years haven't work.
The American people were promised if we spent a trillion dollars we
don't have, including interest on the stimulus, unemployment wouldn't
go above 8 percent; and yet here we are, record unemployment, record
deficits. Trillion-dollar year after year after year deficits under the
Obama administration, and people still out of work, highest poverty
level since the great anti-poverty campaigns began. This has to change.
We have to get people back to work.
One of the issues that we're going to deal with in the conference
committee, I hope, you want to do something about jobs, then let's stop
this Boiler MACT rule from going into place. The EPA Boiler MACT rule
threatens to cripple American manufacturers. We've lost more jobs there
since back to, I think, World War II; and this rule by EPA would cut
another 200,000 jobs.
So let's roll back the job-killing regulations. Let's get Americans
back to work, and let's leave creativity to the States to help us find
better ways to take care of those who are unemployed.
Mr. MICHAUD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The reason why I offered this motion is to protect unemployment
insurance for the millions of jobless Americans that qualify for it.
At the end of the last session, the House considered H.R. 3630, a
bill that would extend the payroll tax cuts as well as the unemployment
insurance. Unfortunately, the bill also included provisions that would
undermine the unemployment insurance program as we know it today.
While I disagree with many of these provisions, my motion to instruct
focuses on one particular provision: the provision would roll back a
requirement that States must spend all unemployment funds solely on
unemployment benefits.
Now, I know that there might be some who disagree with the size of
the unemployment program and how many weeks individuals should be able
to get their unemployment benefits. But I think we can all agree that
money intended to help the unemployed make ends meet while they're
looking for work should not be used for something else.
There are several reasons why maintaining the integrity of the
unemployment program makes sense.
First, there are still more than 13 million Americans out of work as
a result of the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression.
These Americans rely on unemployment benefits to feed their families
and pay the rent until they can find another job.
To allow States to use these funds intended to support these families
for programs could result in those who have lost their jobs to receive
a benefit that does not help them make ends meet and would be useless.
Some might argue that this provision will give States more
flexibility to implement the unemployment program. I strongly support
giving States the flexibility to implement national policies in a way
that makes sense to some of the States, but there's already a great
flexibility in the unemployment insurance program.
States already choose and adjust employers' tax rates, benefit
levels, and duration and eligibility criteria. This provision goes too
far and jeopardizes unemployment benefits themselves, and it won't help
the millions of unemployed Americans get back to work.
Second, unemployment benefits help individuals find other jobs.
According to CBO, extension of unemployment insurance benefits in the
past few years increased both employment and participation in the labor
force over what they would have been otherwise.
Recent research from the Brookings Institute concluded that
unemployment insurance does not increase the time that people remain
unemployed. They found that unemployment benefits may actually keep
more people in the labor force through its requirement that
beneficiaries seek work.
The fact is unemployment benefits remain a crucial resource for
American workers who lost their jobs as a result of the Great Recession
and not because of their job performance.
Using unemployment insurance funding for any purpose other than
unemployment benefits for struggling families simply makes no sense.
Third, unemployment benefits stimulate the economy. CBO identified
increasing aid to the unemployed as one of the policies that would have
the largest effect on output in employment and therefore trigger
economic growth. That's because individuals who receive
[[Page H359]]
unemployment benefits don't put it in their savings account. They spend
that money on things like putting food on the table for their families.
If we divert money from the unemployment program, this economic
stimulus effort will be lost, and our economic recovery will be even
slower than it is now.
I think it is important to remind ourselves that the unemployment
benefits are given to eligible individuals who have previously had a
job but have lost it for reasons out of their control.
During the Great Recession, millions of Americans were given pink
slips. Even now, our economy has started to show small signs of
recovery, but there are certain areas in Maine's labor market where the
unemployment rate is more than 20 percent. These families aren't going
on vacations or buying luxury cars. They're spending all of their money
in their savings accounts, emptying their 401(k)s and simply doing
without. They need unemployment benefits to help them stay afloat and
to help them find a job.
My motion simply instructs conferees to take out this harmful
provision so that we can ensure that the unemployment funding is spent
on unemployment benefits.
In this environment of reining in government spending and making sure
taxpayers' dollars are used effectively, I think it makes sense to make
sure that the unemployment benefits cannot be spent on some other
program that won't help families or the economy like the unemployment
insurance.
So I urge my colleagues to support this motion to ensure that the
unemployment benefits continue to go to Americans who lost their jobs
and are trying to get back on their feet.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Berg), one of the new
freshman members of the Ways and Means Committee who has taken a
leadership role, who understands it's not an unemployment check the
workers are seeking, it's a paycheck.
Mr. BERG. I thank the gentleman from Texas who understands the best
solutions come from those people that are closest to the problem.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the Democrats'
motion to instruct. With section 2123 of House bill 3630, we give
States the waiver authority for unemployment insurance to test and
expedite re-employment on individuals who are receiving unemployment
benefits. We are empowering the States, who know their workers best, to
be creative, to be innovative and to do more for workers to get them
back to work.
In my home State of North Dakota where the unemployment rate is the
lowest in the Nation, we have tremendous re-employment programs that
are operated through job service. The participants in these re-
employment programs have even said, I would make this program a
permanent feature so that all people who are unemployed have a chance
to utilize it. And others who said, You will learn something you never
thought about before. No one goes away without something.
Instead of continuing the same Washington business-as-usual,
inflexible approach to unemployment insurance, it's critical that we
make commonsense reforms now.
To me it's obvious: States know their workers best. Let's empower
them. It's time for Washington to learn from the States, give them the
flexibility they need.
With that, I urge my colleagues to oppose the Democrat motion to
instruct and support the underlying bill.
{time} 1950
Mr. MICHAUD. I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from California
(Ms. Woolsey).
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening in support of
Congressman Michaud's motion to instruct conferees.
Every single one of us in this Chamber woke up this morning and came
to work. We're lucky to have jobs, jobs that are a source of dignity
and self-fulfillment. But, Mr. Speaker, 13 million Americans woke up
this morning with no jobs to go to, with no salaries to help support
their families. These 13 million Americans are jobless, not because
there is something wrong with them, but because something is wrong with
the U.S. economy and with the policies designed to keep 1 percent of
the population comfortable at the expense of the remaining 99 percent.
The recession happened to the American people. They didn't bring it on
themselves.
My colleagues on the other side of the aisle see it differently.
Instead of willingly extending jobless Americans the hand up they're
entitled to, the majority insists on punishing jobless Americans for
their predicament. They want to manipulate the unemployment insurance
program that everyone pays into, that everyone deserves to access when
they fall on hard times. They want to give States the permission to use
unemployment insurance funds for something other than unemployment
insurance.
How convenient. I'd like to propose that we use war spending for
something other than war spending.
States already have plenty of flexibility in designing their
unemployment insurance systems, so this Republican proposal just
appears to be an attempt to divert money away from unemployment, to
erect more barriers to accessing these benefits at the very moment
they're needed the most.
Here is an idea: Instead of undermining jobless benefits, why doesn't
the Republican majority put its energy into a real strategy to create
jobs for these unemployed workers.
This morning in the Education and the Workforce Committee, we heard
from a Republican Governor who spoke positively about the imperative of
job creation and of the importance of Federal investments in
infrastructure, workforce and career training.
I hope my friends in the majority will listen to this fellow
Republican. I hope they will stop playing games with unemployment
insurance. I hope they will remove this provision that allows States to
take the unemployment insurance money away from unemployed peoples and,
instead, pass a big, bold jobs plan. That will remove workers from the
unemployment ranks.
Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Renacci), a small business owner, himself, who has
helped create 1,500 new jobs in the United States.
Mr. RENACCI. I want to thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the Democratic motion to
instruct and in support of an initiative in this bill that I believe
will have a positive impact on our Nation's staggering unemployment
rate.
In these uncertain economic times, we must allow States the ability
to pursue innovative, pro-work strategies, and we must grant them the
flexibility to build effective employment programs. Every day, I hear
from businesses in my district in Ohio that are ready to hire but that
cannot find the right person. Most of those currently collecting
unemployment insurance want to return to work as soon as possible.
We must implement measures and expedite reemployment without adding
to the deficit. A concept for granting States the flexibility to
redirect a portion of unemployment benefits to an employer was included
in the original bill. In exchange, the employer would hire a qualified
unemployed worker at a higher rate than that individual would have
received on unemployment.
This commonsense legislation is a win for the unemployed, for
employers, and for taxpayers. I urge Members to support the underlying
bill and to oppose any effort to limit this initiative.
Mr. MICHAUD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Holt).
Mr. HOLT. I thank the gentleman from Maine for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, this is a simple motion. We want to ensure that
unemployment funds are used for those who are unemployed. We want to
make sure that unemployment funds, as promised, are given to those who
are unemployed. It shouldn't be a partisan issue. There are unemployed
Republicans. There are unemployed Democrats. There are unemployed
Independents. Our motion says to them, We're not turning away from you,
but evidently, it seems to be a partisan issue.
Let me repeat in clear English what this means when they talk about
waivers. In clear English, it means that this bill, the House
Republican bill, would allow States to divert unemployment
[[Page H360]]
funds for other purposes. States already have ample flexibility. They
say they need flexibility, but ``flexibility'' really is a euphemism
for denying benefits. It's an invitation to deny benefits. Right now,
States are required to spend unemployment insurance funds solely on
unemployment benefits. They must pay the benefits when they're due.
They may not condition eligibility on issues beyond the fact of
unemployment and cause a person's unemployment. Unless we accomplish
what the gentleman from Maine is trying to accomplish here, this
legislation would circumvent these basic protections.
Of course, it's fine for States to innovate and to pursue innovative
ideas to help people get jobs; but for heaven's sake, don't experiment
with the livelihoods of people who have lost their jobs. It's called
unemployment insurance. No, it's not taking money from hardworking
Americans. I couldn't believe my ears when I heard that here on the
floor. Insurance is for those people who never expected they would be
unemployed. I'll show you thousands of people in New Jersey--and I'm
sure my friend here could show you thousands in Maine--who never
thought they'd be unemployed for a week or a month or 6 months or 99
weeks. There are more people who have been unemployed for 99 weeks in
the past year than at any time since the Great Depression.
Taking money away from hardworking Americans, I couldn't believe it.
I never thought I would hear this on the floor.
Unemployment insurance is not welfare. It is provided to people who
have worked hard. In effect, they've paid into an insurance fund.
They've lost their jobs through no fault of their own, and they have to
actively seek work to be eligible. Unemployment insurance also helps
the public at large, the economy at large. It's not just helping those
families--and it certainly does help those families: those spouses,
those children. As my friend from Maine pointed out, the unemployment
insurance money isn't stashed under a mattress. The family spends that
money, and it helps the economy at large.
Even with the minuscule improvements in the economy recently, long-
term unemployment remains up around record levels. There are millions
of fewer jobs in the economy today than before the recession started.
Jeffrey from Plainsboro, New Jersey, wrote me:
I was wondering if the extension for unemployment benefits
will be extended. My wife has been unemployed for close to 2
years, and despite trying to get a job, we see her 99-week
deadline fast approaching. I am a car salesman who works on
commission, so you can imagine, business is down. Please let
me know if there is a light at the end of the tunnel. Thanks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Tipton). The time of the gentleman has
expired.
Mr. MICHAUD. I yield the gentleman an additional minute.
Mr. HOLT. Now, I think he would be outraged if he knew that somebody
here on the floor was associating his wife with drug abusers, who
shouldn't get the unemployment insurance benefits that she deserves.
Robert from Somerset wrote to me to say:
I am an unemployed Vietnam vet who received my last
unemployment check last week. What can I do about this? If
you have any suggestions, I would appreciate it. Why is it so
hard for you and the other Members of Congress, our
Representatives, to help us by voting for the extension of
unemployment benefits? Banks do not have to beg, but we do. I
don't recall any of the bank management risking their lives
for our country.
If they're interested in experimentation for how to do things better,
why don't they experiment with maybe denying the banks and investment
banks some of the benefits they've gotten? I think this veteran would
be outraged for somebody to tell him that the government is subsidizing
his unemployment and destroying his motivation to work.
Announcement By the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded not to traffic the well
while another Member is under recognition.
{time} 2000
Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Reed), one of the new leaders, a freshman Member of
the House Ways and Means Committees, a gentleman who with his brother
has run a successful business for 15 years and understands the system
we have today simply isn't working.
Mr. REED. I thank the gentleman, my colleague, for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, as my colleague indicated, I am a small business owner.
I am proud of the business that we started up in Corning, New York, and
the many people that we have employed in that business, Mr. Speaker.
I also know that during times when people are in trouble or
businesses are in trouble, they have to make the hard decision of
laying some people off, and I can empathize and understand when those
individuals are in that situation.
But what we're talking about here tonight, ladies and gentlemen, is
just some commonsense reforms to allow the States to have the
flexibility to do what is best for them in their local jurisdictions to
try to empower the men and women from their districts so that they have
the opportunity to go back to work. I wholeheartedly disagree with the
concept that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are arguing
for tonight to strip that language that would give States the
flexibility to do commonsense reforms in unemployment, not taking away
the unemployment program--no one is talking about doing that.
What we're talking about, ladies and gentlemen, is implementing the
ability for States to have people get an education, or require people
to get a GED, to give them tools so that when they go into the
marketplace they have the ability to get a paycheck again rather than
an unemployment check. That should be a goal that we in Washington,
D.C., share across both aisles, and we should send the message to
America, You know what? We get it in Washington. We don't necessarily
have all the answers here. We should defer to the people closer to the
people back in our States and in our local communities.
This is what our proposal is about. That is where these commonsense
reforms are coming from, and, again, no one is talking about taking out
the net that's associated with unemployment insurance. We're talking
about commonsense reforms that will give people the tools to get back
to work and take care of themselves.
Mr. MICHAUD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I would like to thank the gentleman from
Maine for providing an opportunity for civility and dialogue on the
true grit of the American constituency.
I am amazed, I'm shocked, that we would be here on floor of the House
denigrating an institution that has been accepted as a rainy day
umbrella, I have said it often, for individuals who've toiled in the
hot sun and skyscrapers on building infrastructure, on driving buses
and trains, or however they may have provided for their families, and
they have now lost their jobs.
They dutifully paid into the insurance pool called unemployment
insurance. They followed the laws of their State. Some of them may be
veterans who are now in the civilian workforce, and they are chagrined
that they find themselves unemployed. Now we have those who would say
idle hands are the devil's workshop and who want to insist that these
are drug addicts, that they're uneducated, that they need a GED, and
that they have all kinds of baggage that will not allow them to be
gainfully employed.
Mr. Speaker, I'm very sorry to say that is not true. I know in my own
community we are more fortunate than others regarding the amount of
unemployed individuals.
But I know in the devastated communities people want to work. I have
had individuals come to my office over and over again. I have seen
people line up in the hot sun across this Nation this past summer
attempting to get jobs. So I simply want to join with the gentleman's
motion to instruct.
I want this to be the motion to instruct for dignity. I want to thank
you for insisting that workers who have lost their jobs through no
fault of their own are not, in essence, drug addicts. That means
conspicuous drug addicts because sometimes people need counseling.
Rather than stigmatizing, why don't we have a component that says you
have job skill training, if you need counseling, you get counseling.
[[Page H361]]
Let's not denigrate the unemployed. Pass the unemployment insurance.
Let's call for dignity.
Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Look, if you think what's working is fine, we don't need to change
anything. You think 27 million people trying to find a full-time job,
many of them who have been out of work for 6 months or more, if you
think that's great, the status quo is perfect, then this motion to
instruct is what you want.
But I believe, and many people believe on both sides of the aisle,
that we can do better; that those who are unemployed and looking for a
job truly want a paycheck. They don't long for that unemployment check
every 2 weeks or each month. They long for a job every day.
And what we want to do is to turn loose those who know their
community and economy best to put together the innovative program, to
put people back to work sooner rather than later, because we know the
longer you stay out of work, the harder it is to find that job. The
less education you have, the harder it is to find that job and to keep
that job.
And so the question at hand here is, should we allow our local
communities, our local States, to work with businesses, to work with
workers, design programs to get people back to work sooner rather than
later? It's worked before in other areas.
We've given States the waivers to put together innovative programs on
welfare, again to help educate people and train them and link them up
with workers so they have a real life, a real career, not a dependency
on a Federal check.
And as a result of that, with five Democrat and Republican Governors
working with Democrat and Republican White Houses, we have succeeded in
putting people back to work, getting them off the welfare rolls as
productive citizens. It's worked before. So why don't we apply this
same type of innovation to a system that has been in place since the
1930s?
Frankly, we need a 21st century solution. Washington in this case,
these tired old ways that are failing workers, why are we sticking with
them? Why don't we allow States, not direct them, not mandate them, why
don't we simply allow them to put together programs for job training so
you can match people's skills or give them skills to get a job.
Why don't we require that from the first day you get an unemployment
check to the last day that you're actively searching for work each day,
not going through the motions, as some do, but that every person
getting that help is searching aggressively every day to do their best.
Why don't those who don't have a high school education with years left
in the workforce, why don't we allow States to put together the program
to get them that GED so that they actually have a chance for a better
life because they, again, first to be laid off, hardest to find a job,
why don't we give them some hope and a high school equivalent degree
while they're on unemployment. Why don't we ensure that those who are
getting help for unemployment are ready and available to work.
Too often, in all sizes of towns across this country, we're finding
workers who can't pass a simple drug test. More jobs these days require
that drug test. Why don't we allow States to put programs together to
screen those early on and put programs together so that that applicant
is a clean applicant who's ready and willing to work who actually has a
bright future for themselves and their children.
So at the end of the day this is a simple question: Do we stick with
the status quo that we know isn't working? Do we allow States and local
communities to be innovative to get people back to work sooner rather
than later? These are the commonsense reforms we think this country
and, more importantly, these workers deserve.
I oppose this motion to instruct because I think it's rooted in years
and decades past, and we deserve better for our workers in America
today.
I yield back the balance of my time.
{time} 2010
Mr. MICHAUD. Mr. Speaker, I agree with part of the comments that the
gentleman made. People do not want to sit home and collect a paycheck.
They want to go to work. Some people definitely have to be trained for
jobs. There is nothing in my motion that prevents States from offering
training programs. Nothing in my motion will prevent States from
encouraging people to get their GED. States have the flexibility to
establish these programs on their own. My motion to instruct simply
says that the benefits that were collected by the employers for
unemployment benefits will have to be used for unemployment benefits.
They cannot be used for training programs. They cannot be used to help
subsidize businesses to pay for these employees. They have to be used
for unemployment benefits.
This motion to instruct is important because if you look at my home
State of Maine, there are more than 48,000 Mainers out of work. And I
want to read a letter from one of my constituents whose story
illustrates why its critical that unemployment benefits go to those who
need them, not for some alternative program. The other alternative
programs that I heard about earlier this evening, States can do that on
their own. The only difference is they cannot use unemployment
benefits.
I would like to read this letter from my constituent: ``I just became
a ninety-niner, as those of us who have exhausted our unemployment
benefits are called. Though some in Congress and the media think we
comprise the bottom-feeders that the business creators needed to shed,
this is not always the case.
``I have worked hard ever since I was a kid in East Millinocket doing
odd jobs for my father, peddling newspapers. I went into the Army and
benefited from the Vietnam-era GI Bill, and since have been glad to
give back in the form of higher taxes for many years.
``In 2009, my former company moved to California and laid me and
hundreds of others off, despite my having earned superior performance
reviews for most of my years with them. To their credit, we were given
outplacement service and a decent severance package.
``Nonetheless, I have since tried to find employment in my field, but
find myself being screened out by junior human resource people who find
me overqualified, too senior and/or too highly compensated for the job
at hand. I am certain that some of this is ageism, which, though
illegal, is still quietly sanctioned in this society. And now we face
companies brazenly telling us that we need not apply if we have been
out of work for more than 6 months.
``Please show some compassion for those of us who become unemployed
through no fault of our own and who still hope to join the tax-paying
ranks once again.''
This constituent of mine relies on unemployment benefits not because
he wants to or because he's lazy, but because he can't find a job. As I
mentioned, some labor markets in the State of Maine have over 20
percent unemployment. He is the reason I'm offering this motion to
instruct today to ensure that the unemployment insurance program is
preserved for Americans like him.
It requires that unemployment benefits will be used for those
unemployed. The States have the flexibility to determine eligibility,
the length, and the amount. They have that flexibility. So I urge my
colleagues to vote for this motion to instruct and protect unemployment
benefits for what they were intended for--for those who are
unemployed--and not to help subsidize other programs that States might
decide to create.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to instruct.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. MICHAUD. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
[[Page H362]]
____________________