[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 9]
[House]
[Pages 11393-11409]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                   BACK TO WORK INCENTIVE ACT OF 2003

  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 656, I call up 
the bill (H.R. 444) to amend the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 to 
establish a Personal Reemployment Accounts grant program to assist 
Americans in returning to work, and ask for its immediate consideration 
in the House.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). Pursuant to House Resolution 
656, the bill is considered read for amendment.
  The text of H.R. 444 is as follows:

                                H.R. 444

       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 ``Back to Work Incentive Act 
     of 2003''.

     SEC. 2. GRANTS TO SUPPORT PERSONAL REEMPLOYMENT ACCOUNTS.

       Subtitle B of title I of the Workforce Investment Act of 
     1998 (29 U.S.C. 2811 et seq.) is

[[Page 11394]]

     amended by inserting after chapter 5 the following new 
     chapter:

              ``CHAPTER 5A--PERSONAL REEMPLOYMENT ACCOUNTS

     ``SEC. 135A. PURPOSES.

       ``The purposes of this chapter are to provide for the 
     establishment of personal reemployment accounts for certain 
     individuals identified as likely to exhaust their 
     unemployment compensation in order to--
       ``(1) accelerate the reemployment of such individuals;
       ``(2) promote the retention in employment of such 
     individuals; and
       ``(3) provide such individuals with enhanced flexibility, 
     choice, and control in obtaining intensive reemployment, 
     training, and supportive services.

     ``SEC. 135B. DEFINITION.

       ``In this chapter, the term `State' means each of the 
     several States of the United States, the District of 
     Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the United 
     States Virgin Islands.

     ``SEC. 135C. GRANTS TO STATES.

       ``(a) Grants.--The Secretary shall--
       ``(1) reserve \2/10\ of 1 percent of the amount 
     appropriated under section 137(d) for use under section 135I; 
     and
       ``(2) use the remainder of the amount appropriated under 
     section 137(d) to make allotments in accordance with 
     subsection (b).
       ``(b) Allotment Among States.--
       ``(1) In general.--From the amount made available under 
     subsection (a)(2), the Secretary shall allot to each State an 
     amount that is proportionate to the relative number of 
     unemployed individuals in the State as compared to the total 
     number of unemployed individuals in all States in order to 
     provide assistance for eligible individuals in accordance 
     with this chapter.
       ``(2) Small state minimum allotment.--The Secretary shall 
     ensure that--
       ``(A) each State (other than the United States Virgin 
     Islands) shall receive an allotment under paragraph (1) that 
     is not less than \3/10\ of 1 percent of the amount made 
     available under subsection (a)(2) for the fiscal year; and
       ``(B) the United States Virgin Islands shall receive an 
     allotment under paragraph (1) that is not less than \1/10\ of 
     1 percent of the amount made available under subsection 
     (a)(2) for the fiscal year.
       ``(c) Availability.--Notwithstanding section 189(g)(1), 
     amounts made available under subsection (a) to carry out this 
     chapter shall be available for obligation and expenditure 
     beginning on the date of the enactment of the Back to Work 
     Incentive Act of 2003.

     ``SEC. 135D. WITHIN STATE ALLOCATION.

       ``(a) Allocation.--Of the amount allotted to a State under 
     section 135C--
       ``(1) not more than 2 percent of the amount may be reserved 
     by the Governor of the State to enhance the system of worker 
     profiling described in section 303(j) of the Social Security 
     Act and to establish and operate a data management system, as 
     necessary, and carry out other appropriate activities to 
     implement this chapter;
       ``(2) 5 percent of the amount shall be allocated by the 
     State to local areas in accordance with the formula described 
     in subsection (b) for start-up costs and other operating 
     costs related to the provision of assistance under this 
     chapter; and
       ``(3) the remainder of the amount shall be provided to 
     local areas for the establishment of personal reemployment 
     accounts described in section 135E for eligible individuals 
     in such local areas.
       ``(b) Formula.--A State shall allocate funds to local areas 
     in the State under subsection (a)(2) in an amount that is 
     proportionate to the relative number of unemployed 
     individuals in the local area as compared to the total number 
     of unemployed individuals in the State.
       ``(c) Availability.--Notwithstanding section 189(g)(2), 
     amounts allotted to a State under section 135C, and amounts 
     subsequently provided to a local area under this section, 
     shall be available for obligation and expenditure only for 
     the 3-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of 
     the Back to Work Incentive Act of 2003.

     ``SEC. 135E. PERSONAL REEMPLOYMENT ACCOUNTS.

       ``(a) Accounts.--
       ``(1) In general.--Funds provided to a local area under 
     section 135D shall be used to provide eligible individuals 
     with personal reemployment accounts to be used in accordance 
     with section 135F. An eligible individual may receive only 
     one personal reemployment account.
       ``(2) Amount.--The State shall establish the amount of a 
     personal reemployment account, which shall be uniform 
     throughout the State, and shall not exceed $3,000.
       ``(b) Eligible Individuals.--
       ``(1) In general.--Each State shall establish eligibility 
     criteria for individuals for personal reemployment accounts 
     in accordance with this subsection.
       ``(2) Minimum eligibility criteria requirements.--
       ``(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), an 
     individual shall be eligible to receive assistance under this 
     chapter if, beginning after the date of enactment of the Back 
     to Work Incentive Act of 2003, the individual--
       ``(i) is identified by the State pursuant to section 
     303(j)(1) of the Social Security Act as likely to exhaust 
     regular unemployment compensation and in need of job search 
     assistance to make a successful transition to new employment;
       ``(ii) is receiving regular unemployment compensation under 
     any State or Federal unemployment compensation program 
     administered by the State; and
       ``(iii) is eligible for not less than 20 weeks for the 
     regular unemployment compensation described in clause (ii).
       ``(B) Additional eligibility and priority criteria.--A 
     State may establish criteria that is in addition to the 
     criteria described in subparagraph (A) for the eligibility of 
     individuals to receive assistance under this chapter. A State 
     may also establish criteria for priority in the provision of 
     assistance to such eligible individuals under this chapter.
       ``(3) Transition rule.--
       ``(A) Previously identified as likely to exhaust 
     unemployment compensation.--
       ``(i) In general.--At the option of the State, and subject 
     to clause (ii), an individual may be eligible to receive 
     assistance under this chapter if the individual--

       ``(I) during the 90-day period ending on the date of the 
     enactment of the Back to Work Incentive Act of 2003, was 
     identified by the State pursuant to section 303(j)(1) of the 
     Social Security Act as likely to exhaust regular unemployment 
     compensation and in need of job search assistance to make a 
     successful transition to new employment; and
       ``(II) otherwise meets the requirements of clauses (ii) and 
     (iii) of paragraph (2)(A).

       ``(ii) Additional eligibility and priority criteria.--A 
     State may establish criteria that is in addition to the 
     criteria described in clause (i) for the eligibility of 
     individuals to receive assistance under this chapter. A State 
     may also establish criteria for priority in the provision of 
     assistance to such eligible individuals under this chapter.
       ``(B) Previously exhausted unemployment compensation.--At 
     the option of the State, an individual may be eligible to 
     receive assistance under this chapter if the individual--
       ``(i) during the 90-day period ending on the date of the 
     enactment of the Back to Work Incentive Act of 2003, 
     exhausted all rights to any unemployment compensation; and
       ``(ii)(I) is enrolled in training and needs additional 
     support to complete such training, with a priority of service 
     to be provided to such individuals who are training for 
     shortage occupations or high-growth industries; or
       ``(II) is separated from employment in an industry or 
     occupation that has experienced declining employment, or no 
     longer provides any employment, in the local labor market 
     during the two-year period ending on the date of the 
     determination of eligibility of the individual under this 
     subparagraph.
       ``(4) No individual entitlement.--Nothing in this chapter 
     shall be construed to entitle any individual to receive a 
     personal reemployment account.
       ``(c) Local Administration.--
       ``(1) Information and attestation.--Prior to the 
     establishment of a personal reemployment account for an 
     eligible individual under this chapter, the one-stop delivery 
     system shall ensure that the individual--
       ``(A) is informed of the requirements applicable to the 
     personal reemployment account, including the allowable uses 
     of funds from the account, the limitations on access to 
     services described under section 135F(a)(3)(C) and a 
     description of such services, and the conditions for 
     receiving a reemployment bonus;
       ``(B) has the option to develop a personal reemployment 
     plan which will identify the employment goals and appropriate 
     combination of services selected by the individual to achieve 
     the employment goals; and
       ``(C) signs an attestation that the individual will comply 
     with the requirements relating to the personal reemployment 
     accounts under this chapter and will reimburse the account 
     or, if the account has been terminated, the program under 
     this chapter, for any amounts expended from the account that 
     are not allowable.
       ``(2) Periodic interviews.--If a recipient exhausts his or 
     her rights to any unemployment compensation, and the 
     recipient has a remaining balance in his or her personal 
     reemployment account, the one-stop delivery system shall 
     conduct periodic interviews with the recipient to assist the 
     recipient in meeting his or her individual employment goals.

     ``SEC. 135F. USE OF FUNDS.

       ``(a) Allowable Activities.--
       ``(1) In general.--Subject to the requirements contained in 
     paragraphs (2) and (3), a recipient may use amounts in a 
     personal reemployment account to purchase one or more of the 
     following:
       ``(A) Intensive services, including those types of services 
     specified in section 134(d)(3)(C).
       ``(B) Training services, including those types of services 
     specified in section 134(d)(4)(D).
       ``(C) Supportive services, except for needs-related 
     payments.
       ``(D) Assistance to purchase or lease an automobile, if 
     such assistance is necessary to allow the recipient to accept 
     a bona fide offer of employment for which there is a 
     reasonable expectation of long-term duration.

[[Page 11395]]

       ``(2) Delivery of services.--The following requirements 
     relating to delivery of services shall apply to the program 
     under this chapter:
       ``(A) Recipients may use funds from the personal 
     reemployment account to purchase the services described in 
     paragraph (1) through the one-stop delivery system on a fee-
     for-service basis, or through other providers, consistent 
     with safeguards described in the State plan under section 
     135G.
       ``(B) The one-stop delivery system may pay costs for such 
     services directly on behalf of the recipient, through a 
     voucher system, or by reimbursement to the recipient upon 
     receipt of appropriate cost documentation, consistent with 
     safeguards described in the State plan under section 135G.
       ``(C) Each one-stop delivery system shall make available to 
     recipients information on training providers specified in 
     section 134(d)(4)(F)(ii), information available to the one-
     stop delivery system on providers of the intensive and 
     supportive services described in paragraph (1), and 
     information relating to occupations in demand in the local 
     area.
       ``(3) Limitations.--The following limitations shall apply 
     with respect to personal reemployment accounts under this 
     chapter:
       ``(A)(i) Amounts in a personal reemployment account may be 
     used for up to one year from the date of the establishment of 
     the account.
       ``(ii) No personal reemployment account may be established 
     beginning 2 years after the date of the enactment of the Back 
     to Work Incentive Act of 2003.
       ``(B) Each recipient shall submit cost documentation as 
     required by the one-stop delivery system.
       ``(C) For the 1-year period following the establishment of 
     the account, recipients may not receive intensive, 
     supportive, or training services funded under this title 
     except on a fee-for-services basis as specified in paragraph 
     (2)(A).
       ``(D) Amounts in a personal reemployment account shall be 
     nontransferable.
       ``(b) Income Support.--A State may authorize recipients 
     determined eligible under section 135E(b)(3)(B) to withdraw 
     amounts from the personal reemployment account on a weekly 
     basis for purposes of income support in amounts up to the 
     average weekly amount of unemployment compensation that the 
     individual received prior to his or her exhaustion of rights 
     to unemployment compensation if the individual is engaged in 
     job search, intensive services, or training that is expected 
     to lead to employment.
       ``(c) Reemployment Bonus.--
       ``(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2)--
       ``(A) if a recipient determined eligible under section 
     135E(b)(2) obtains full-time employment before the end of the 
     13th week of unemployment for which unemployment compensation 
     is paid, the balance of his or her personal reemployment 
     account shall be provided directly to the recipient in cash; 
     and
       ``(B) if a recipient determined eligible under section 
     135E(b)(3) obtains full-time employment before the end of the 
     13th week after the date on which the account is established, 
     the balance of his or her personal reemployment account shall 
     be provided directly to the recipient in cash.
       ``(2) Limitations.--The following limitations shall apply 
     with respect to a recipient described in paragraph (1):
       ``(A) 60 percent of the remaining personal reemployment 
     account balance shall be paid to the recipient at the time of 
     reemployment.
       ``(B) 40 percent of the remaining personal reemployment 
     account balance shall be paid to the recipient not later than 
     6 months after the date of reemployment.
       ``(3) Exception regarding subsequent unemployment.--If a 
     recipient described in paragraph (1) subsequently becomes 
     unemployed due to a lack of work after receiving the portion 
     of the reemployment bonus specified under paragraph (2)(A), 
     the individual may use the amount remaining in the personal 
     reemployment account for the purposes described in subsection 
     (a) but may not be eligible for additional cash payments 
     under this subsection.

     ``SEC. 135G. STATE PLAN.

       ``(a) In General.--In order for a State to receive an 
     allotment under section 135C, the Governor of the State shall 
     submit to the Secretary a plan that includes a description of 
     how the State intends to carry out the personal reemployment 
     accounts authorized under this chapter, including--
       ``(1) the criteria and methods to be used for determining 
     eligibility for the personal reemployment accounts, including 
     whether the State intends to include the optional categories 
     described in section 135E(b)(3), and the additional criteria 
     and priority for service that the State intends to apply, if 
     any, pursuant to section 135E(b)(2)(B);
       ``(2) the methods or procedures, developed in consultation 
     with local boards and chief elected officials, to be used to 
     provide eligible individuals information relating to services 
     and providers, and safeguards, developed in consultation with 
     such boards and officials, to ensure that funds from the 
     personal reemployment accounts are used for purposes 
     authorized under this chapter and are not used for services 
     or providers that are wholly unreasonable or egregious;
       ``(3) how the State will coordinate the activities carried 
     out under this chapter with the employment and training 
     activities carried out under section 134 and other activities 
     carried out through the one-stop delivery system in the 
     State.
       ``(b) Plan Submission and Approval.--A State plan submitted 
     to the Secretary under subsection (a) by a Governor shall be 
     considered to be approved by the Secretary at the end of the 
     30-day period beginning on the date the Secretary receives 
     the plan, unless the Secretary makes a written determination 
     during such period that the plan is incomplete or otherwise 
     inconsistent with the provisions of this chapter.

     ``SEC. 135H. PROGRAM INFORMATION.

       ``The Secretary may require from States the collection and 
     reporting on such financial, performance, and other program-
     related information as the Secretary determines is 
     appropriate to carry out this chapter, including the 
     evaluation described in section 135I.

     ``SEC. 135I. EVALUATION.

       ``(a) Evaluation.--From the amount made available under 
     section 135C(a)(1), the Secretary, pursuant to the authority 
     provided under section 172, shall, directly or through 
     grants, contracts, or cooperative agreements with appropriate 
     entities, conduct an evaluation of the activities carried out 
     under this chapter.
       ``(b) Conduct of Evaluation.--The evaluation shall examine 
     the effectiveness of such activities in achieving the 
     purposes described in section 135A and such other purposes as 
     the Secretary determines are appropriate.
       ``(c) Report.--The report to Congress under section 172(e) 
     relating to the results of the evaluations required under 
     section 172 shall include the recommendation of the Secretary 
     with respect to the use of personal reemployment accounts as 
     a mechanism to assist individuals in obtaining and retaining 
     employment.''.

     SEC. 3. ADMINISTRATION.

       Section 117(d) of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (29 
     U.S.C. 2832(d)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (3)(B)(i)(I), by striking ``sections 128 
     and 133'' and inserting ``sections 128, 133, and 135D''; and
       (2) in paragraph (4), by inserting ``, activities 
     authorized under section 135F'' after ``section 134''.

     SEC. 4. DELIVERY OF SERVICES.

       Section 134(c)(1) of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 
     (29 U.S.C. 2864(c)(1)) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (D), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (2) in subparagraph (E), by striking the period at the end 
     and inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(F) shall provide access to personal reemployment 
     accounts in accordance to section 135E.''.

     SEC. 5. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATION.

       Section 137 of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (29 
     U.S.C. 2872) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(d) Personal Reemployment Accounts.--
       ``(1) In general.--There is authorized to be appropriated 
     $3,600,000,000 for fiscal year 2003 to carry out chapter 5A.
       ``(2) Availability.--Amounts appropriated pursuant to the 
     authorization of appropriations under paragraph (1) to carry 
     out section 135I are authorized to remain available until 
     expended.''.

     SEC. 6. CONFORMING AMENDMENT.

       The table of contents for the Workforce Investment Act of 
     1998 is amended by inserting after the items relating to 
     chapter 5 of subtitle B of title I the following new items:

              ``Chapter 5A--Personal Reemployment Accounts

``Sec. 135A. Purposes.
``Sec. 135B. Definitions.
``Sec. 135C. Grants to States.
``Sec. 135D. Within State allocation.
``Sec. 135E. Personal reemployment accounts.
``Sec. 135F. Use of funds.
``Sec. 135G. State plan.
``Sec. 135H. Program information.
``Sec. 135I. Evaluation, technical assistance, and data collection 
              activities.''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In lieu of the amendment recommended by the 
Committee on Education and the Workforce printed in the bill, the 
amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of H.R. 
4444 is adopted.
  The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of 
the text of H.R. 4444 is as follows:

                               H.R. 4444

       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 ``Worker Reemployment Accounts 
     Act of 2004''.

     SEC. 2. GRANTS TO SUPPORT PERSONAL REEMPLOYMENT ACCOUNTS.

       Section 171 of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(e) Personal Reemployment Accounts.--
       ``(1) Definition.--In this subsection, the term `State' 
     means each of the several

[[Page 11396]]

     States of the United States, the District of Columbia, the 
     Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the United States Virgin 
     Islands.
       ``(2) Demonstration project.--In addition to the 
     demonstration projects under subsection (b), the Secretary 
     may establish and implement a national demonstration project 
     designed to analyze and provide data on workforce training 
     programs that accelerate the reemployment of unemployed 
     individuals, promote the retention in employment of such 
     individuals, and provide such individuals with enhanced 
     flexibility, choice, and control in obtaining intensive 
     reemployment, training, and supportive services.
       ``(3) Grants.--
       ``(A) In general.--In carrying out the demonstration 
     project, the Secretary shall make grants, on a competitive 
     basis, to eligible entities to provide personal reemployment 
     accounts to eligible individuals. In awarding grants under 
     this subsection the Secretary shall take into consideration 
     awarding grants to eligible entities from diverse geographic 
     areas, including rural areas.
       ``(B) Duration.--The Secretary shall make the grants for 
     periods of not less than 2 years and may renew the grant for 
     each of the succeeding 3 years.
       ``(4) Eligible entity.--In this subsection, the term 
     `eligible entity' means--
       ``(A) a State; or
       ``(B) a local board or consortium of local boards.
       ``(5) Use of funds.--
       ``(A) In general.--An eligible entity that receives a grant 
     under this subsection shall use the grant funds to provide, 
     through a local area or areas, eligible individuals with 
     personal reemployment accounts. An eligible individual may 
     receive only 1 personal reemployment account.
       ``(B) Geographic area and amount.--
       ``(i) In general.--The eligible entity shall establish the 
     amount of a personal reemployment account for each eligible 
     individual participating, which shall be uniform throughout 
     the area represented by the eligible entity, and shall not 
     exceed $3,000.
       ``(ii) Option for states.--If the eligible entity is a 
     State, the eligible entity may choose to use the grant 
     statewide, if practicable, or only in specified local areas 
     within a State.
       ``(C) Eligible individuals.--
       ``(i) In general.--Each eligible entity shall establish 
     eligibility criteria for individuals for personal 
     reemployment accounts in accordance with this subparagraph.
       ``(ii) Eligibility criteria requirements.--

       ``(I) In general.--Subject to subclause (II), an individual 
     shall be eligible to receive a personal reemployment account 
     under a grant awarded under this subsection if, beginning 
     after the date of enactment of this subsection, the 
     individual--

       ``(aa) is identified by the State pursuant to section 
     303(j)(1) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 503(j)(1)) as 
     likely to exhaust regular unemployment compensation and in 
     need of job search assistance to make a successful transition 
     to new employment, or the individual's unemployment can be 
     attributed in substantial part to unfair competition from 
     Federal Prison Industries, Incorporated;
       ``(bb) is receiving regular unemployment compensation under 
     any Federal or State unemployment compensation program 
     administered by the State; and
       ``(cc) is eligible for not less than 20 weeks of regular 
     unemployment compensation described in item (bb).

       ``(II) Additional eligibility and priority criteria.--An 
     eligible entity may establish criteria that are in addition 
     to the criteria described in subclause (I) for the 
     eligibility of individuals to receive a personal reemployment 
     account under this subsection. An eligible entity may also 
     establish criteria for priority in the provision of a 
     personal reemployment account to such eligible individuals 
     under a grant awarded under this subsection.

       ``(iii) Transition rule.--

       ``(I) Previously identified as likely to exhaust 
     unemployment compensation.--

       ``(aa) In general.--At the option of the eligible entity, 
     and subject to item (bb), an individual may be eligible to 
     receive a personal reemployment account under this subsection 
     if the individual--
       ``(AA) during the 13-week period ending the week prior to 
     the date of the enactment of the subsection, was identified 
     by the State pursuant to section 303(j)(1) of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 503(j)(1)) as likely to exhaust 
     regular unemployment compensation and in need of job search 
     assistance to make a successful transition to new employment; 
     and
       ``(BB) otherwise meets the requirements of clause 
     (ii)(I)(bb) and (cc).
       ``(bb) Additional eligibility and priority criteria.--An 
     eligible entity may establish criteria that is in addition to 
     the criteria described in item (aa) for the eligibility of 
     individuals to receive a personal reemployment account under 
     this subsection. An eligible entity may also establish 
     criteria for priority in the provision of such accounts to 
     such eligible individuals under this subsection.

       ``(II) Previously exhausted unemployment compensation.--At 
     the option of the eligible entity, an individual may be 
     eligible to receive a personal reemployment account under a 
     grant awarded under this subsection if the individual--

       ``(aa) during the 26-week period ending the week prior to 
     the date of the enactment of this subsection, exhausted all 
     rights to any unemployment compensation; and
       ``(bb)(AA) is enrolled in training and needs additional 
     support to complete such training, with a priority of service 
     to be provided to such individuals who are training for 
     shortage occupations or high-growth industries; or
       ``(BB) is separated from employment in an industry or 
     occupation that has experienced declining employment, or no 
     longer provides any employment, in the local labor market 
     during the 2-year period ending on the date of the 
     determination of eligibility of the individual under this 
     subparagraph.
       ``(iv) No individual entitlement.--Nothing in this 
     subsection shall be construed to entitle any individual to 
     receive a personal reemployment account.
       ``(D) Limitations.--
       ``(i) Information and attestation.--Prior to the 
     establishment of a personal reemployment account for an 
     eligible individual, the eligible entity receiving a grant, 
     through the one-stop delivery system in the participating 
     local area or areas, shall ensure that the individual--

       ``(I) is informed of the requirements applicable to the 
     personal reemployment account, including the allowable uses 
     of funds from the account, the limitations on access to 
     services described in paragraph (7)(A)(iii) and a description 
     of such services, and the conditions for receiving a 
     reemployment bonus;
       ``(II) has the option to develop a personal reemployment 
     plan which will identify the employment goals and appropriate 
     combination of services selected by the individual to achieve 
     the employment goals; and
       ``(III) signs an attestation that the individual has been 
     given the option to develop a personal reemployment plan in 
     accordance with subclause (II), will comply with the 
     requirements under this subsection relating to the personal 
     reemployment accounts, and will reimburse the account or, if 
     the account has been terminated, the grant awarded under this 
     subsection, for any amounts expended from the account that 
     are not allowable.

       ``(ii) Periodic interviews.--If a recipient exhausts his or 
     her rights to any unemployment compensation, and the 
     recipient has a remaining balance in his or her personal 
     reemployment account, the one-stop delivery system shall 
     conduct periodic interviews with the recipient to assist the 
     recipient in meeting his or her individual employment goals.
       ``(iii) Use of personal reemployment accounts.--The 
     eligible entity receiving a grant shall ensure that eligible 
     individuals receiving a personal reemployment account use the 
     account in accordance with paragraph (7).
       ``(6) Application for grants.--To be eligible to receive a 
     grant under this subsection, an eligible entity shall submit 
     an application to the Secretary at such time, in such manner, 
     and containing such information as the Secretary may require, 
     including--
       ``(A) if the eligible entity is a State--
       ``(i) assurance that the application was developed in 
     conjunction with the local board or boards and chief elected 
     officials where the personal reemployment accounts shall be 
     made available; and
       ``(ii) a description of the methods and procedures for 
     providing funds to local areas where the personal 
     reemployment accounts shall be made available; and
       ``(B) a description of the criteria and methods to be used 
     for determining eligibility for the personal reemployment 
     account, including whether the eligible entity intends to 
     include the optional categories described in paragraph 
     (5)(C)(iii), and the additional criteria and priority for 
     service that the eligible entity intends to apply, if any, 
     pursuant to paragraph (5)(C)(ii)(II);
       ``(C) a description of the methods or procedures to be used 
     to provide eligible individuals information relating to 
     services and providers;
       ``(D) a description of safeguards to ensure that funds from 
     the personal reemployment accounts are used for purposes 
     authorized under this subsection and to ensure the quality 
     and integrity of services and providers, consistent with the 
     purpose of providing eligible individuals with enhanced 
     flexibility, choice, and control in obtaining intensive 
     reemployment, training, and supportive services;
       ``(E) a description of how the eligible entity will 
     coordinate the activities carried out under this subsection 
     with the employment and training activities carried out under 
     section 134 and other activities carried out by local boards 
     through the one-stop delivery system in the State or local 
     area; and
       ``(F) an assurance that the eligible entity will comply 
     with any evaluation and reporting requirements the Secretary 
     may require.
       ``(7) Use of personal reemployment accounts.--
       ``(A) Allowable activities.--
       ``(i) In general.--Subject to the requirements contained in 
     clauses (ii) and (iii), a recipient of a personal 
     reemployment account may use amounts in a personal 
     reemployment account to purchase 1 or more of the following:

[[Page 11397]]

       ``(I) Intensive services, including those type of services 
     specified in section 134(d)(3)(C).
       ``(II) Training services, including those types of services 
     specified in section 134(d)(4)(D).
       ``(III) Supportive services, except for needs related 
     payments.

       ``(ii) Delivery of services.--The following requirements 
     relating to delivery of services shall apply to the grants 
     under this subsection:

       ``(I) Recipients may use funds from the personal 
     reemployment account to purchase the services described in 
     clause (i) through the one-stop delivery system on a fee-for-
     service basis, or through other providers, consistent with 
     the safeguards described in paragraph (6)(D).
       ``(II) The eligible entity, through the one-stop delivery 
     system in the participating local area, may pay costs for 
     such services directly on behalf of the recipient, through a 
     voucher system, or by reimbursement to the recipient upon 
     receipt of appropriate cost documentation.
       ``(III) Each eligible entity, through the one-stop delivery 
     system in the participating local area, shall make available 
     to recipients information on training providers specified in 
     section 134(d)(4)(F)(ii), information available to the one-
     stop delivery system on providers of the intensive and 
     supportive services described in clause (i), and information 
     relating to occupations in demand in the local area.

       ``(iii) Limitations.--The following limitations shall apply 
     with respect to personal reemployment accounts under this 
     subsection:

       ``(I) Amounts in a personal reemployment account may be 
     used for up to 1 year from the date of the establishment of 
     the account.
       ``(II) Each recipient shall submit cost documentation as 
     required by the one-stop delivery system.
       ``(III) For the 1-year period following the establishment 
     of the account, recipients may not receive intensive, 
     supportive, or training services funded under this title 
     except on a fee-for-services basis as specified in clause 
     (ii)(I).
       ``(IV) Amounts in a personal reemployment account shall be 
     nontransferable.

       ``(B) Reemployment bonus.--
       ``(i) In general.--Subject to clause (ii)--

       ``(I) if a recipient determined eligible under paragraph 
     (5)(C)(ii) obtains full-time employment before the 13th week 
     of unemployment for which unemployment compensation is paid, 
     the balance of his or her personal reemployment account shall 
     be provided directly to the recipient in cash; and
       ``(II) if a recipient determined eligible under paragraph 
     (5)(C)(iii) obtains full-time employment before the end of 
     the 13th week after the date on which the account is 
     established, the balance of his or her personal reemployment 
     account shall be provided directly to the recipient in cash.

       ``(ii) Limitations.--The following limitations shall apply 
     with respect to a recipient described in clause (i):

       ``(I) 60 percent of the remaining personal reemployment 
     account balance shall be paid to the recipient at the time of 
     employment.
       ``(II) 40 percent of the remaining personal reemployment 
     account shall be paid to the recipient after 26 weeks of 
     employment retention.

       ``(iii) Exception regarding subsequent employment.--If a 
     recipient described in clause (i) subsequently becomes 
     unemployed due to a lack of work after receiving the portion 
     of the reemployment bonus specified under clause (ii)(I), the 
     individual may use the amount remaining in the personal 
     reemployment account for the purposes described in 
     subparagraph (A) but may not be eligible for additional cash 
     payments under this subparagraph.
       ``(8) Program information and evaluation.--
       ``(A) Information.--The Secretary may require from eligible 
     entities the collection and reporting on such financial, 
     performance, and other program-related information as the 
     Secretary determines is appropriate to carry out this 
     subsection, including the evaluation described in 
     subparagraph (B).
       ``(B) Evaluation.--
       ``(i) In general.--The Secretary, pursuant to the authority 
     provided under section 172, shall, directly or through 
     grants, contracts, or cooperative agreement with appropriate 
     entities, conduct an evaluation of the activities carried out 
     under any grants awarded under this subsection.
       ``(ii) Report.--The report to Congress under section 172(e) 
     relating to the results of the evaluations required under 
     section 172 shall include the recommendation of the Secretary 
     with respect to the use of personal reemployment account as a 
     mechanism to assist individuals in obtaining and retaining 
     employment.''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) and 
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner).


                             General Leave

  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their 
remarks and included extraneous material on H.R. 444.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the economic news over the last 8 months has been very 
encouraging. Republicans and President Bush have focused on creating 
jobs and opportunity, helping working Americans by providing tax 
relief, improving worker training and education to help Americans 
without work get back on their feet, and enhancing the competitiveness 
of employers both at home and abroad to ensure they continue to hire 
more and more American workers.
  As recent data from the Labor Department shows, the U.S. is creating 
thousands of new jobs every month. The pro-growth agenda has created 
1.1 million net new jobs over the last 8 months, and 625,000 jobs, net 
new jobs, I should say, in March and April alone. Moreover, the 
national unemployment rate declined to 5.6 percent in April, lower than 
the average unemployment rate during the 1970s, the 1980s, and the 
1990s.
  While this is welcome news for working Americans, we remain committed 
to ensuring that every displaced worker has the opportunity to find 
meaningful employment and access to job-training services that will 
help them find good-paying jobs. As President Bush has said, one worker 
out of work is one too many, and we have a responsibility to help 
working families in times when they need it most.
  Job training and worker education is more important to this effort in 
today's changing economy now more than ever before. Every member of our 
society, including those who are most vulnerable and the hardest to 
employ, want to achieve independence and self-sufficiency. No American 
wants endless reliance on our government, and I think the President 
recognizes that and providing personal reemployment accounts represents 
one more way we are helping the unemployed by specifically tailoring 
job training and employment services to meet their unique needs.
  Giving displaced workers the resources they need and continuing this 
economic expansion is critically important. That brings us to why we 
are here today: to highlight a new and innovative approach to helping 
the unemployed get back on their feet. The bill before us, the Worker 
Reemployment Accounts Act, allows demonstration funding under the 
Workforce Investment Act to be used by States and local workforce 
investment boards for a pilot project to offer personal reemployment 
accounts of up to $3,000.
  With the funds from these accounts, unemployed workers may purchase a 
variety of different services to help them find a new job and to 
reenter the workforce, including job training, child care, 
transportation, housing assistance, relocation services, career 
counseling, computer classes, just to name a few. And all of these are 
accessible through the One-Stop Career Center system where unemployed 
workers already seek job training assistance.
  A key component of this plan allows workers who become reemployed 
within 13 weeks to keep the balance of their account as a cash 
reemployment bonus. In addition, these reemployment accounts empower 
individual recipients to make choices appropriate for their own 
circumstances. Recipients will be able to create reemployment accounts 
that help them navigate all of the options that are available, such as 
career counseling or job training for a new profession. In providing 
choice and flexibility, I think we get people back to work into steady, 
good-paying jobs sooner.
  For those who are struggling to get back on their feet, we in 
Congress, I think, have a responsibility to look for additional 
solutions to help them when they need it most. The intent of this bill 
is clear: this new benefit supplements and enhances the services that 
are already available for those who are most likely to face obstacles 
in finding and keeping new employment, whether

[[Page 11398]]

it be unemployment benefits or the employment training programs offered 
through the Workforce Investment Act.
  The bill before us is a pilot project, a scaled-back version of a 
more comprehensive proposal that the Committee on Education and the 
Workforce approved last year. Our goal here is to put this program to a 
test, see how it works in practice, and determine whether it truly 
gives unemployed workers an option, a workable option to help them 
improve their job search. The lessons learned through this pilot 
project will give Congress more information on how best to serve those 
who are looking for work.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Porter) 
and the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon) for their work on this 
measure and last year's bill as well. During hearings that we had last 
year, we heard from State leaders at a field hearing in Nevada about 
the practical benefits of these reemployment accounts in helping the 
unemployed. We also heard from Labor Secretary Elaine Chao, who said 
that the accounts ``will empower individuals by giving them more 
flexibility, personal choice, and control over their job search and 
career.''
  Over the past 2 years, we have taken numerous steps to help 
unemployed workers, and we are also in the process of reauthorizing the 
Federal job-training programs under the Workforce Investment Act. 
Millions of jobless workers should not have to wait for job-training 
reform, and Congress has an obligation this year to improve those job-
training opportunities for American workers. Unfortunately, it appears, 
though, that some in the other body want to block major job-training 
legislation that would help strengthen training and retraining 
opportunities for American workers. I think if given the opportunity, 
we look forward to completing work on that legislation this year.
  But Congress must act now to provide new, innovative options to help 
workers as quickly as possible, and the choice and flexibility 
available through personal reemployment accounts will help more 
Americans get back on their feet and find good jobs.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 444, and 
I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill completely misses the mark. American workers 
need job creation. American workers also need extended unemployment 
benefits. This sour economy has lost 2 million jobs since President 
Bush took office. This bill does nothing to address these issues, the 
most pressing facing our workforce today. Instead, H.R. 444 creates an 
untested and risky job-training voucher scheme.
  This voucher scheme cuts off workers from regular job-training 
benefits when they accept a PRA. This legislation also demeans workers 
by assuming that those receiving unemployment benefits need a financial 
lure to go back to work.
  I am not sure about other congressional districts, but unemployed 
workers in Flint, Michigan, my hometown, and other areas of Michigan do 
not need an incentive to find work. They are in desperate search of 
work right now. They do not need an incentive to be able to afford 
their mortgage or to provide for their family. They need jobs.

                              {time}  1115

  I am surprised there are those in this body that think that American 
workers need a financial incentive to find a job. The real story behind 
this bill is that it simply fails to address the most pressing needs of 
the American worker. It is a sham.
  Let us look at the real problems facing the American worker. Two 
million jobs have been lost since the beginning of the Bush 
administration, 8.2 million individuals are unemployed, 1.5 million 
workers have exhausted their unemployment benefits, wages have barely 
kept up with inflation, and this bill does nothing to address these 
problems.
  Substantive help for American workers lies in an initiative to create 
jobs and to extend unemployment insurance. Yet this Republican Congress 
and the Bush administration has continually failed to address these 
needs. The last extension of UI benefits ran out late last year. 
Despite some meager job growth in the past few months, we remain two 
million jobs in the hole since the beginning of the Bush 
administration. The Republican answer to these problems is a pilot 
project for job training vouchers.
  This bill brings no new resources to help American workers. Instead, 
it would steal funding from other proven job training programs. How 
could this respond to the needs of the American workers?
  In closing, Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to oppose this bill. We need 
real-world solutions to real-world problems, not unfunded, untested 
legislation which will not address the true needs of the American 
worker.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Nebraska (Mr. Osborne), a member of the Committee on Education and the 
Workforce.
  Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Speaker, it seems that in these debates we so often 
get sidetracked into discussions of ideology, and I think it is 
important we focus on the bill before us. I certainly have great 
respect for those on the minority side and understand and appreciate 
some of their concerns.
  I think it is important that we point out that this is a pilot bill. 
This is not something that is going to directly impact all workers 
everywhere in the country. And the reason I think this is important to 
point out is that, as the chairman mentioned, there will be several 
different programs that people can allocate their money into. And let 
us see if Congress cannot find out exactly where people want to put 
their money.
  So if 50 percent of the money goes to child care, and 10 percent goes 
to enhancing computer skills, and 40 percent goes into career 
counseling, pretty soon Congress is going to get a picture as to what 
is really important to workers and where those resources need to be 
allocated. This certainly represents an innovative approach to 
providing assistance to unemployment workers.
  As the chairman mentioned, we live in a different world. I think the 
average worker today may have as many as four or five different jobs. 
And this is not necessarily because the economy is bad, it is simply 
because the economy is changing consistently. So almost everyone at one 
time or another is going to be between jobs or without a job.
  I think this approach offers some unique opportunities. It certainly 
offers great flexibility, and this is the critical part in job 
training. It may have to do with computer skills, it may be earning a 
license to be a realtor, a financial planner, or 1 year at a community 
college, which I think is a tremendous option for a great many people. 
We feel also that child care, transportation, career counseling, 
relocation services, housing assistance are viable alternatives as 
well.
  The last thing I would like to mention, Mr. Speaker, is simply the 
fact that there are some incentives here for people to not only get a 
job but to have some money, some seed money to get started on their new 
career. For instance, as an example, a person had a $3,000 grant and 
$2,000 of it was spent, maybe some of it on community college, some for 
child care, and there was $1,000 remaining. This would leave $600 at 
employment that person could use to get back on their feet and $400 to 
be used after 6 months of employment.
  So we think that this is certainly an interesting and flexible 
approach. I urge support of this bill, H.R. 444.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
ranking member of the committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. 
George Miller).
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman 
for yielding and for his handling of this bill for the minority on the 
floor and his work on it in the committee.
  And the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) is quite right. We 
should

[[Page 11399]]

oppose this bill. I have to say that I think my colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle are simply describing a bill that is not before us, 
because they talk about this as being supplemental and providing 
flexibility to the unemployed worker.
  Now, clearly, we would like to do that, because we have 8 million 
unemployed individuals in this country. We have 90,000 people who are 
exhausting their unemployment benefits a week in this country who still 
have not been unable to find employment, who are in desperate straits. 
So, clearly, there is a need for what they are describing.
  But let us understand something. What they are describing in terms of 
flexibility is already available in the law under the WIA bill that we 
are in the process of reauthorizing. They can provide you child care 
stipends if it helps you take advantage of a computer training program 
or a program at the community college or a program of a collaborative 
in your community. They can provide you a transportation voucher to get 
to that program if that is what is necessary.
  That is why we designed the law that way, because we know that the 
unemployed come to these programs, and their needs are varied. Some 
people have automobiles, and some people do not. Some people have 
access to transportation, and some people do not. Their child care came 
with the job, and now they have lost it. That is why we built in that 
flexibility in the current program.
  What this says is if you go for the bait on the hook, which is a 
grant, that could be up to $3,000, you are then prohibited from 
participating in those programs unless you take the $3,000 or the $500 
or the $700. Because at $3,000 you are only going to take care of 
16,000 people. We have 90,000 people who are losing their unemployment 
benefits a week. But if you take the $500, you then have to pay for the 
programs that are currently available to you in your community under 
the WIA act for free.
  What is the deal here, folks? You are no better off. It is not 
supplemental. You have just lost your eligibility to what may be very 
good, comprehensive training programs.
  In my community, industry is coming to community colleges and to the 
work incentive force all of the time to say we would like to structure 
a program in the community to provide us X number of people in 
biotechnology and high technology and refining business, whatever it 
is. That is the needs in our community.
  You take this $500 voucher, you lose the eligibility to go to those 
programs. This is neither flexible nor supplemental. It takes away what 
people now have available to them. And if you took this $50 million, 
which obviously, given the President's memo on 2006, is going to be cut 
from other job training programs, if you added $50 million, you could 
provide much more child care to those individuals who need that to 
participate in retraining and to get ready for the next employment 
opportunity or need transportation costs covered so they can get to the 
community college or they can get to the training program or to the 
licensure program, whatever it is they choose. That is all available in 
law today.
  The Republicans have said this is Career Week. This is Career Week in 
the United States House of Representatives. The only career we keep 
dealing with is legislation that doesn't do anything. We are making a 
career out of providing answers that do not answer the questions that 
workers are asking. We have got to stop this.
  We ought to get on with the WIA bill. We ought to get it 
reauthorized. We ought to make sure that the funding is there so that 
all of the flexibility that is in that law can be utilized by the 8 
million American workers who are looking for jobs in this economy and 
have been unable to find them.
  So I would hope that my colleagues would join the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Kildee) and vote against this legislation, understanding 
that this is harmful and, in fact, it will subtract from the total job 
training package that this government is making available to those 
unemployed and to their families.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, we probably would not be here today if the other body 
would actually go to conference on the reauthorization of the Workforce 
Investment Act. But I think all of us realize that they have been 
unwilling to go to conference, and we believe that we have got every 
responsibility known to man to help those people who are unemployed and 
need help.
  Secondly, let me say that, once again, we are getting into a debate 
about the perfect becoming the enemy of the good. What this bill does 
is set up a pilot project that allows unemployed workers who qualify 
the option of this $3,000 reemployment bonus. The real key here is that 
they, the unemployed workers, get to decide what kind of training they 
need, what kind of education they might need, what kind of services 
they may need to help them get back on their feet and into good work. 
They get to decide, not some bureaucrat in some office somewhere. They 
get to decide.
  And this option of allowing them that flexibility, I think, is worth 
trying. That is what we are asking for today: Let us try this. Let us 
see what happens. Let us see if this additional flexibility for 
unemployed workers does, in fact, help them get the training, 
retraining they may need to find a good job.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to my colleague, the 
gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Porter) the author of this bill.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 444 for 
multiple reasons.
  First of all, we are facing an ever-changing economy both nationally 
and internationally. Could you imagine just a few years ago going go to 
the gas station and you would not have help or an attendant, you would 
have a piece of technology taking your credit card, you enter it into 
the gas pump, or go to the grocery store where people are being 
replaced by technology? Can you imagine going to rental car agency and 
it all being done electronically? So we are facing quite a change in 
the world and here in the U.S.
  Nevada, as my colleagues know, is one of the fastest-growing states 
in the country but is also the entertainment and resort capital of the 
world. There was a day when we depended solely on the gaming economy. 
Not only gaming today is number one, we are the top shopping 
destination and restaurant destination in the world because we have had 
to change and change dramatically.
  The National Chamber of Commerce has said that 40 percent of the jobs 
in the future do not exist today. They have also said that 75 percent 
of the workers as we know them today must change their skills and their 
technology.
  Then we look at what happened after 9/11. September 11 changed the 
world. The community of Nevada was literally out of business for 90 
days. But because of the resilient business community, because of labor 
working in concert with our resort industry, we are coming back 
stronger than ever.
  The Nevada impacts are such that we are now the bellwether for the 
economy across the United States. The economy is turning around as 
Nevada has turned around. People are getting back to work. In Nevada 
alone we have created close to 60,000 new jobs in the last year. We are 
in a 4.3 percent unemployment rate, a true bellweather for the economy 
as it is improving across the country.
  And credit goes to labor and business working together. As our 
business communities change, as has our labor community, such as the 
Culinary Union working closely with business. But nationwide housing 
starts, all-time high; gross national product, all-time high; Wall 
Street, every day we are seeing improvements. Nationwide, 1.1 million 
new jobs since last August, 625,000 jobs in March and April alone.
  But, more importantly, the greatness of society, the greatness of 
America is not based upon our checkbooks. It is what we do to help 
those folks that need help. H.R. 444 does just that. It provides a 
voluntary program, a voluntary program for States to choose if they 
want to be a part of this program.

[[Page 11400]]

It is a demonstration project, but, more importantly, it is a new tool 
to train our workers in this new global environment.
  The benefits, we have touched upon them this morning but I would like 
to cover them one more time.
  Transportation. Many of these folks in Nevada have a hard time 
getting to the job for the interview.
  Day care. Why not allow moms and dads to have some assistance? Many 
need a telephone, simply a telephone to help receive that call when the 
job is available.
  And Nevada, being one of the fastest-growing States regarding the 
Hispanic population, we need help with language and language barriers.
  There are those that will say that these tools exist today. I am 
sorry, but it is very complex, very confusing. This provides for a one-
stop, easy access and a matter-of-fact choice. So the employee who 
needs help the most can make the decision and receive the balance if 
they are employed within the 13 weeks.
  So, in summary, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on 
this very important tool as we enter this new environment, provide a 
new tool for a new economy. It is flexible, it is voluntary, and it 
provides choice for the employee.

                              {time}  1130

  Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on behalf of H.R. 
444, and I appreciate Members' votes.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney), a member of the committee.
  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Kildee) for yielding me time, and I thank him for his work in 
opposition to this bill. I think he has it exactly right, Mr. Speaker. 
These PRAs, as they are called, the personal reemployment accounts, are 
presented to us in the face of over 2 million jobs lost under this 
present Republican administration. One and a half million workers have 
exhausted their unemployment insurance benefits. President Bush and the 
House Republicans refuse to extend those unemployment benefits despite 
these facts.
  Even Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan thinks it is a good idea 
to extend those benefits. The money is already in the trust fund. It is 
the right thing to do morally. We have done it in the past, in the 
first Bush administration. We did it five times. It is the economically 
wise thing to do. For every dollar invested in unemployment benefits, 
$1.73 comes back into the economy because people that get it have 
needs. They have rent or mortgage payments to make. They have health 
care bills, car payments, education costs, groceries. That is what this 
economy needs right now to give those people a boost so they can 
survive while they are looking for a job.
  But the administration and the Republicans in the House seem afraid 
that extending those benefits will be an admission of their failed 
economic policies, the fact that we have had two tax cuts for 
millionaires while we are fighting two wars, and regular Americans are 
the ones being asked to sacrifice. So these so-called PRAs are offered, 
actually they are reoffered as you have heard, as this is a bill that 
was already presented through the House and advisedly passed. It 
provides no employment, no unemployment benefits, no job creation. 
There is no new money to get people to work. In fact, it is going to be 
funded through cuts in existing programs. And because we are $500 
billion in deficit, it is pretty clear that there is not going to be 
enough money there for the $3,000 that people are talking about. It is 
going to in fact be far less per person.
  In brief, it is robbing from proven programs that are effective job-
training programs for an experiment that is designed to fail. It is 
built on a false premise. We had Secretary Chao come before the 
committee and when asked why she would not extend unemployment 
insurance benefits, she said because the administration thought that 
was an incentive for people not to look for work. That is an insulting, 
false premise. Two million people are involuntarily unemployed during 
this term. For every three people looking, there is only one job. Many 
people that are getting a job are getting it at 21 percent less pay 
than the job that they lost.
  Although the bill proposes $3,000, it is more likely that people will 
get far less. The one-stop centers that we have now are the centers 
that have the flexibility. They are serving the needs of people. In 
fact, they provide for the other things that were talked about, as the 
gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) said. But what they want 
to do here is take a program that averages 5 to $6,000 in costs for 
job-training programs now available to individuals that have lost their 
jobs and substitute it for up to $3,000 which will fall far short in 
which they are supposed to pay for that 5 to $6,000 worth of job 
training and child care and transportation and housing assistance and 
relocation services and career counseling.
  This must be a miracle $3,000 per person because it is shrinking as 
the needs are there. The present system, Mr. Speaker, is working. It is 
one that people have worked on in a bipartisan nature. This is what we 
need to do, not false programs, but deal with the real needs of the 
unemployed. Give them extended unemployment benefits and give them a 
chance to get a job.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). Does the gentleman from 
California (Mr. McKeon) wish to control the time of the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Boehner)?
  Mr. McKEON. Yes, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. McKeon) will control the time of the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Boehner).
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Isakson), the vice-chairman of the Subcommittee on 21st 
Century Competitiveness.
  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. 
McKeon) for yielding me time. I thank the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. 
Porter) for his work on this.
  The discussion I have just heard was about what this bill is not. I 
would like to talk for a second about what this bill is.
  This is a creative opportunity at the election of the local WIA board 
and at the election of the applicant for the grant to take a creative 
approach to take someone from unemployment to employment.
  Now, outside the Beltway there is a real world; and in the 22 years 
prior to my election to this Congress, I ran a company, a company 
substantially all of whose employees were second or third career which 
meant they might have come out of a job loss, a job transfer, or a 
temporary unemployment because of the birth of a child or illness or 
whatever. And I can tell you in this unique world that we live in there 
is not a one-size-fits-all formula in terms of the requirements 
necessary for reemployment.
  To allow the option for a local board to create these personal 
reemployment accounts and the option for an individual to accept the 
waiver and apply for the funds does the following things: it takes a 
person who is otherwise employable but in need of specific targeted 
help, whether it is in specific training, whether it is in child care 
or whether it is in transportation, to do a tailor-made job to go into 
employment, and I employed people that way every day for 22 years 
before I came to Congress.
  It is a creative way to approach the needs of some people in looking 
for employment.
  Secondly, what is so important for us to consider today is the 
present-day environment. The number of unemployed has been reduced from 
its peak because the American economy is improving. Those that are 
unemployed in many cases may be those who are more in need of 
specialized training or help that otherwise might have been true a year 
ago or 6 months ago. It is only right to grant that flexibility. And as 
long as we cannot get an agreement to go to conference on the base bill 
that now lies in limbo, it is only appropriate we take the right 
initiative.

[[Page 11401]]

  I want to end with this. There are two basic motivators in human 
nature. One is risk and the other is reward. This approach takes the 
reward approach and the incentive approach and even in the end has the 
encouragement for residual funds to remain with the grantee, if they 
are employed earlier than they otherwise might have been.
  Any other approach is for people to fear flexibility, to fear choice, 
and to fear creativity. Those are not things we should fear. Just as we 
proved in welfare-to-work, with targeted funds, with flexibility, with 
child care, with training, we could take a life of dependency and turn 
it into a life of independency. I will subscribe to that every single 
time.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Chairman Greenspan before the Committee on Education and the 
Workforce indicated that he supports the extension of unemployment 
benefits. And after he made that statement, of course, the President of 
the United States announced that he would reappoint Alan Greenspan, 
would extend his tenure. Well, if he does that, let us extend those 
unemployment benefits which Mr. Greenspan supports.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Andrews).
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Kildee), for yielding me time. I rise in opposition to 
the bill.
  I suppose if you are one of the 8 million unemployed Americans 
listening to this debate, Mr. Speaker, you wonder what this bill would 
mean to you. First, if you live in one of the many, many States that 
would not be part of this pilot program, it means nothing. Second, if 
you are in one of the States or counties that has the pilot program, 
you keep hearing about this $3,000, there is no $3,000. This bill was 
not funded in the President's budget.
  If money would be scraped together for it, it would come out of 
something else that helps unemployed people. It is up to $3,000. So 
someone listening to this, Mr. Speaker, should not assume that he or 
she is going to get a $3,000 voucher. But let us assume that you live 
in one of the pilot counties and the money is there to some extent. 
What does this mean? It means you are unemployed and you get a choice. 
You can either take all the services that the law presently provides 
like job training, like counseling, like transportation, like child 
care; or you can give up your right to receive those services for a 
year and take this check of up to $3,000 instead.
  Now, if you have looked at the price of sending children to child 
care, $3,000 does not go very far. If you have looked at tuition at a 
career college or a community college, $3,000 does not go very far. If 
you have looked at the things that people need to do to get to work or 
find work, it does not go very far at all. So the premise of the bill 
seems to be that people are not taking jobs because it is better to 
stay on unemployment than it is to go get a job. I would suggest, Mr. 
Speaker, that anybody who thinks that has probably never been on 
unemployment.
  The idea here is not that the $3,000 is going to be an incentive for 
people to go get a job. People are not taking jobs because the economy 
is not creating the jobs. For every three people looking for work in 
America today, there is one job. That is the problem that we ought to 
fix. We ought to extend unemployment benefits for those without a job. 
We ought to pass the transportation bill so that we put 300,000 
Americans to work. We ought to adopt the Ryan proposal from yesterday 
that would create 100,000 new jobs for first responders to deal with 
our homeland security problems. That is the way to fix this problem. 
Not this bill.
  I would urge my colleagues to oppose the bill.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. McKeon), the original author and I would describe as 
the father of the Workforce Investment Act. I applaud him on his good 
work.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 444, the Worker 
Reemployment Accounts Act, which offers new assistance for unemployed 
workers in the form of personal reemployment accounts that would help 
workers that need it the most return to work quickly.
  I would like to thank my good friend from Nevada (Mr. Porter) for his 
hard work and the things he has done in getting this legislation here, 
and also the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) for his work and 
leadership in getting this bill to the floor.
  With 1.1 million new jobs created in the last 8 months, and 625,000 
jobs added in March and April, it is clear that our economy is strong 
and on the right track. The economic forecast for the manufacturing 
sector is also bright after adding jobs for 3 consecutive months. In 
fact, on Tuesday the Institute for Supply Management reported that its 
manufacturing employment index advanced in May for the seventh 
consecutive month and is now at the highest mark in 31 years. Moreover, 
the unemployment rate fell to 5.6 percent in April, lower than the 
average unemployment rate during the 70s, 80s and 90s.
  As an example, my home State of California added more than 61,000 
jobs from December 2003 to April 2004. Under the leadership of the 
President and Congress who are focusing our efforts to make America 
more globally competitive, our Nation's economy is strengthening and 
adding momentum every month. Despite these encouraging signs, we need 
to do more to help displaced workers get back on their feet. The Worker 
Reemployment Accounts Act is a step in the right direction and an 
innovative approach to helping workers find good paying jobs.
  The bill authorizes funding for a pilot program that would help 
workers with personal reemployment accounts of up to $3,000 to purchase 
employment-related services to help them return to work. This is a 
flexible approach that empowers Americans to find good-paying jobs. 
Funds from these accounts can be used for job training, career 
counseling, relocation services, child care, and housing assistance 
among others.
  One of the best elements of the plan is that any unspent balance in 
the account can be kept by workers who find work within 13 weeks. It is 
a great incentive.
  The personal reemployment account will be administered through the 
one-stop career center system established under the Workforce 
Investment Act, where displaced workers already seek employment 
assistance. State and local workforce boards that want to participate 
will apply to the Secretary of Labor for competitive grants to offer 
personal reemployment accounts to unemployed workers.
  An individual who receives an account must be receiving unemployment 
benefits, be identified by the State as likely to exhaust his or her 
benefits, and be eligible for at least 20 weeks of unemployment 
compensation. These accounts are a new benefit that would work in 
tandem with unemployment insurance as an additional vehicle for helping 
workers in their efforts to find good jobs. It would not create an 
entirely new and complicated system to administer, as some on the other 
side of the aisle are proposing.
  Over the past 2 years, Republicans have taken numerous steps to help 
unemployed workers, and this is another way we are responding to needs 
of Americans who find themselves without work.
  The U.S. economy is strong and getting stronger. By giving job 
seekers all the necessary resources they need to return to work, we 
will continue this economic resurgence to keep the U.S. jobs-creation 
engine running strong. The Worker Reemployment Accounts Act provides a 
unique approach to helping displaced workers return to good jobs and 
deserves every Member's support.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin).

                              {time}  1145

  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentleman from Michigan

[[Page 11402]]

(Mr. Kildee) for his leadership on this issue and helping working 
people in our country; and, Mr. Speaker, let me say I wish that the 
comments of the last speaker, my colleague, were true in regards to the 
economy, but the facts speak to something quite different.
  If we take a look at the jobs that have been created within the last 
several months, we find we have traded very good jobs, jobs in this 
country, for jobs that are paying much lower wages. When we look at the 
total record over the last 3 years, we find we have lost millions of 
jobs. When we look at the unemployment rate in this Nation, we find 
that many people have just given up hope, and that is why the 
unemployment rate may appear to be higher than it really is, but many 
people in this Nation who are looking for jobs cannot find jobs and 
have literally left the labor field altogether.
  Mr. Speaker, we have a problem in our economy, and the problem can 
first be summed by saying we do not have enough jobs. We need an 
economic program that will create more jobs for Americans.
  Number two, Mr. Speaker, we have millions of Americans who cannot 
find employment, and they need help called unemployment insurance, 
which in every prior recession and downturn Democrats and Republicans 
have come together to extend unemployment benefits. We have a fund to 
do this. There are millions of dollars in that fund, but yet the 
majority refuses to allow us to vote on the unemployment compensation.
  So the first issue is the issue of jobs, and we need an economic plan 
that will create jobs. Unfortunately, the administration has pursued a 
fiscally reckless economic plan that has added trillions of dollars to 
our national debt and is killing jobs rather than creating jobs because 
of government debt.
  The record over the last 3 years, millions of fewer jobs here in this 
Nation. People are hurting, Mr. Speaker. We need to do something about 
it. Eight million Americans are unemployed today; 1.8 million of them 
have been without a job for 6 months or longer. We have record numbers 
of people who have exhausted their State unemployment benefits.
  Since we allowed last year the expiration of the Federal unemployment 
insurance benefits, we have found 1.5 million workers have exhausted 
their State benefits without the benefit of the Federal unemployment 
insurance; yet, the Republican leadership has refused us a vote on this 
floor of an extension of the Federal unemployment insurance benefits. 
They know that a majority of the Members of this body would vote in 
favor of that legislation, and yet they deny us a vote on the extension 
of unemployment benefits. Nineteen billion dollars is sitting in the 
Federal unemployment trust account, $19 billion which is accumulated 
exactly for this purpose, to help the unemployed worker; and the 
majority of Republicans refuse to allow us a vote on extending those 
benefits to those who need it.
  So, Mr. Speaker, we have a problem. We have a problem with the wrong 
economic program, and we have a problem of not helping those people 
that are unemployed.
  This bill does nothing in that regard. We should be debating programs 
to create new job opportunities in America, and we should be extending 
unemployment benefits to those who do not have the employment. I regret 
that we are not doing that today.
  I would urge my colleagues to listen to the motion to recommit, 
because that is the only opportunity we are going to have that will be 
offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) that at least will 
give us a chance to help us do something to help American workers.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Kucinich).
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Kildee) very much for the time, and it is a pleasure to work with him 
on the committee to protect the rights of workers and also to speak to 
the concern of unemployed Americans.
  I rise to strongly oppose H.R. 444, the Worker Reemployment Accounts 
Act of 2004. I would like to begin with a reflection here.
  Alan Greenspan, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, recently 
appeared in Washington to talk about unemployment and about 
unemployment insurance, and he said ``that when unemployment is 
created, through no fault of the workers' actions, then I think it is 
clearly to our advantage to find ways of creating support in our 
system, and as a consequence, in times like this, I have supported the 
issue of extension of unemployment insurance.'' That is Alan Greenspan, 
the chairman of the Federal Reserve.
  Now, there is an urgency about this issue about unemployment, and I 
would submit that the solution that is being offered today by our 
friends in the majority is a false solution. We have the chairman of 
the Federal Reserve ready to recognize the urgency of unemployment 
insurance. It is obvious that we ought to be providing for an extension 
of unemployment insurance to meet the needs of those millions of 
Americans who are desperate today for Congress to take action. Why are 
they desperate? Well, let us look at what happened.
  The economic record of this administration will show that over a 
period from January of 2001 to April 2004, there has, in fact, been a 
substantial increase in the unemployment rate from 4.2 percent in 
January 2001 to 5.6 percent in April of 2004. Let us look more closely 
at this.
  What we have here is of great consequence to millions of Americans 
because in this period, from January 2001 to April 2004, we have seen 
long-term unemployment nearly triple. In other words, there are not 
only more people unemployed, but more people are unemployed for longer 
periods of time, which means a tremendous adverse economic impact on 
their families.
  In January 2001, there were approximately 680,000 people in this 
country who were unemployed more than 26 weeks; but now, in April of 
2004, under the economic policies of this administration, the 
unemployment rate for those who have been unemployed for more than 26 
weeks has gone to 1.8 million, nearly three times. This, of course, 
means that there is real desperation on the part of many American 
families to get some help.
  Now, let us put this in a historical context. How do we take the 
economic policies of this administration with respect to job creation 
and with respect to the lack thereof and put it against all 
administrations over the last 70 years? This comparison is noteworthy 
because what we see here is that going all the way back to the time of 
Herbert Hoover, there has not been a worse condition where we have seen 
an actual decline in private sector jobs. In this whole arc of a 70-
year period, we see in one administration after another, Democrat and 
Republican alike, this administration has failed to meet the tests that 
all other administrations, Democratic and Republican alike, have met; 
and, in fact, we have here an actual decline in private sector jobs, 
only in this administration.
  So what should be the solution right now with so many people 
suffering? We have been told this by the Chairman of the Federal 
Reserve. Our unemployment system is very well structured, and it has 
worked the way I think we wanted it to work. Alan Greenspan again said 
that on March 11 of this year.
  So we should be here talking today about an extension of unemployment 
benefits. Not only is it important in terms of recognizing the abysmal 
failure of an administration in dealing with the creation of jobs, but 
with knowing the suffering of working families who are not getting any 
relief whatsoever at a time when the fund, as the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Cardin) pointed out, keep building up and up. What are we 
going to do with all this money? Instead, we have a bill which 
apparently those who crafted it believe that left to their own devices 
the 8.2 million unemployed workers in America would prefer to simply 
remain jobless.

[[Page 11403]]

  With that analysis and thus the theory that underlies, this bill is 
absolutely wrong. Unemployed Americans are unemployed not because they 
want to be, but because they cannot find jobs. Since the recession 
began 37 months ago, 2.2 million private sector jobs have disappeared, 
a 2 percent contraction in the job market. In every previous episode of 
recession and job decline since 1939, the number of jobs fully 
recovered to above the pre-recessionary peak within 31 months at the 
start of the recession. This time, however, it has not happened. In 
fact, if employment had grown by the 2.2 percent rate that occurred in 
the past three recessionary cycles, today's labor market would have 5.2 
million more jobs. Instead, we can all point to lost jobs, and that is 
all we can point to and more lost jobs.
  Well, the administration has responded to the situation by refusing 
to extend Federal unemployment benefits, an action that is already paid 
for by the unemployment trust fund; 1.5 million workers remain without 
a paycheck and without an unemployment check. The number of individuals 
who have exhausted their State unemployment benefits without finding 
work is at the highest level ever recorded.
  This bill ought to be defeated. It is a nonsolution. It is time for 
Congress to act in bringing unemployment insurance extension to the 
floor of this House.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Porter), the author of this bill.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to address the top five false 
claims that we have heard today about H.R. 444 with some of the facts.
  False claim number 5: a reemployment bonus cannot motivate workers to 
find jobs that do not exist. The truth: as Republicans, our tax and 
growth programs over the past year have created 1.1 million new jobs, 
625,000 coming in March and April. These job opportunities are becoming 
more available, and we have to ensure that those chronically unemployed 
have the new tools and new skills to face this new economy.
  False claim number 4: PRAs do not provide workers with greater 
flexibility. Rather, if workers choose a PRA, they would be prohibited 
from using WIA services for a full year. Mr. Speaker, the truth: 
reemployment accounts provide the unemployed with a means of developing 
an individual specific plan for regaining employment. The prohibition 
against WIA services is to prevent double dipping. I think that is 
appropriate.
  False claim number 3: PRAs will be used as an excuse to not extend 
the Temporary Emergency Unemployment Compensation Program. The truth, 
Mr. Speaker: Republicans have consistently supported extending 
unemployment benefits. These PRAs are a supplemental approach to 
benefits and represent one more way that Republicans are using to help 
Americans find new jobs and get back to work quickly.
  False claim number 2: reemployment accounts come at the expense of 
other WIA job training and employment programs. The truth, Mr. Speaker: 
while appropriators will ultimately determine the allocation of these 
dollars, the funding for PRAs will flow through the discretionary fund 
of demonstration projects, not the funds used for other services.
  False claim number 1 on the top of the list: H.R. 444 would restrict, 
rather than expand, the amount of job training and other reemployment 
services. Mr. Speaker, Republicans have prioritized funding for job 
training. Reemployment accounts are a voluntary program that allows for 
personalized and streamlined reemployment services. No one is forced to 
use the account, and the purpose of the legislation is to provide the 
most effective use of funds for the unemployed.

                              {time}  1200

  Again, I encourage strong support for H.R. 444.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. George Miller).
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the 
gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Porter) that he ought to read the bill, 
because truth and facts are about what the language of the bill says.
  If you read on line 16, page 15, ``For the 1-year period following 
the establishment of the account, recipients may not receive intensive, 
supportive, or training services funded under this title except for the 
fee-for-services basis.''
  The gentleman obviously has not read the bill. That means that you 
either pay for it with the stipend the gentleman says he wants to give 
them, which provides them no additional new services, no flexibility. 
So do not stand up here and talk about facts or truth. Read the bill. 
Read the bill, and the gentleman will find out what he is doing is 
denying them the services that are already available to them today.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, this bill would establish a demonstration 
project that would ostensibly offer personal reemployment accounts to 
workers, providing up to $3,000 in assistance for the purpose of 
finding a job and paying for services that would help lead to 
employment.
  Sounds good on the surface, but, as with every bill this 
administration puts forward that impacts workers, there is a catch. 
Employment services now offered through the One Stop Centers, at no 
cost to the unemployed worker, would have to be purchased, meaning that 
unemployed workers would now be charged for services that they can 
currently receive for free.
  To give an idea of the difference, those who utilize One Stop job 
training programs right now receive an average of $5,000 to $6,000 in 
services, about double the maximum allowed under this bill. So we 
should not be fooled. The goal of this bill is not to provide 
additional reemployment services or job training funding for unemployed 
workers; rather, it is to pave the way for placing a Federal cap on 
these services.
  In an economy with a million and a half workers who have already 
exhausted their unemployment benefits, reducing these services without 
providing any job creation program is not only bad economic policy it 
is outright dismissive of what these families are going through day 
after day, particularly women in transition, nearly half of whom are 
already finding Workforce Investment Act services, like local women's 
education and training programs, insufficient.
  Mr. Speaker, the unemployed workers in this country do not need ``an 
incentive'' to look for work. Supporting a family without a job is 
incentive enough. What they need is a job. Congress should be expanding 
job training and job training access, not limiting them, as next year's 
budget does. We should be extending health and unemployment benefits to 
the unemployed, not letting them expire in the face of serious 
unemployment.
  Historically, this country, Republican or Democrat administrations, 
have extended unemployment benefits in time of need. As a Nation, we 
have said we are going to help people on a temporary basis meet these 
unemployment challenges that they have. Not this administration. What 
do they say? They say, if we extend those benefits, people will not go 
out and look for a job. That is the opinion they have of working people 
in this Nation.
  I say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, walk in the 
shoes of the unemployed; understand what it means to live paycheck to 
paycheck. We do not have to worry about that in this body. There are 
folks in this country who worry about that every single day. The 
unemployed workers in this country deserve better.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  There was a discussion here about what would happen if workers chose 
to take a $3,000 personal reemployment account and their ability to 
access services at the Career One Stops. I just want to set the record 
straight.
  While it is true that recipients would be prohibited from accessing 
intensive

[[Page 11404]]

or training services through the One Stop career system for 1 year 
after the creation of the account, unless, unless the person with the 
account chooses to purchase services there, however, all individuals 
remain eligible for the core services provided by the Career One Stop. 
Such services include job search and placement assistance, including 
career counseling, where appropriate, and access to labor market 
information.
  Now the idea here is that we allow individuals $3,000, giving them 
the right to choose the types of services that they think will help 
them get back on their feet and find a good job. They can purchase 
those services at the Career One Stop or they can go down the street 
and go to a community college if they want. But the core services that 
the Career One Stops provide for all individuals, these persons with 
the $3,000 personal reemployment accounts, would still be eligible for 
those core services.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Kildee) has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Boehner) has 6 minutes remaining.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Woolsey).
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, it is about time we address unemployment. 
Unfortunately, H.R. 444 is not the legislation that will truly put 
Americans back to work. It offers only a temporary solution for a 
limited pool of unemployed workers and is a poor solution to the 
ongoing unemployment problem of this Nation.
  Rather than PRAs, personal reemployment accounts, we need across-the-
board investments in the Workforce Investment Act, WIA, and the 
Unemployment Insurance, UI, programs. These are the existing programs 
that need help so a broader number of workers stabilize their lives and 
develop the necessary skills to secure new jobs. Proper funding of 
these programs would make the difference. Finding ways to give 
unemployed workers real jobs is the real solution to the national 
unemployment problem, not a bill that puts additional burdens on the 
States, threatening to undo the Federal unemployment system in the 
first place.
  Let me also remind my colleagues that $1 billion invested in highways 
and transit creates 47,500 new jobs. If we really want to create jobs, 
we should be moving forward with the transportation bill. These jobs 
pay a living wage, give workers the opportunity to better their 
communities, while at the same time supporting their families.
  H.R. 444 is not a real solution. The real solution would grant 
unemployment extensions when finding work takes longer than the length 
of the initial benefits, not a bill that forces workers to choose 
between receiving WIA benefits or PRA benefits with no flexibility to 
go back to one when the other is exhausted.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 444 is false security.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt).
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Boehner) for his leadership as chairman on the Committee on Education 
and the Workforce. He is doing a tremendous job. I also want to thank 
the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Porter) for this important legislation 
that he has introduced. I am also a cosponsor.
  Education and retraining are the keys to ensuring that the American 
worker is the most competitive in the world. Now, this is week three of 
8 weeks that the House is dedicating to addressing issues to bring jobs 
back into America. These eight issues are all very important because 
they are costs that are outside the control of employers. They are 
costs that are driven by the Federal Government. We are going to lower 
those costs by undoing some of the work Congress has done over the last 
generation and freeing up employers to bring jobs back into America.
  This week, we also have passed the Teacher Training Enhancement Act, 
the Teacher Shortage Response Act, the Priorities for Graduate Studies 
Act, and now we are addressing H.R. 444, the Worker Reemployment 
Accounts Act.
  One of the things I notice about the complaints about this bill from 
the other side is that we want to tell people what to do. This bill 
gives them flexibility. They can go out and get job training. They can 
get child care. They can provide for transportation or career 
counseling. The opponents of this bill do not want to provide choices 
because they do not trust Americans. They want to tell people what to 
do with their benefits. On the Republican side, we say we trust people 
to make good choices if they are given some opportunities.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to give an example of a mother of three, who was 
working at the Ratheon Corporation in Wichita, Kansas. She wanted to 
finish her degree, and she got laid off. She could not provide for her 
child care, so she had to bring her mother back in from out of town to 
live with her while she went back to Wichita State University and 
completed her degree. With this legislation, she would have been able 
to carry on her education while her children were taken care of; and 
her mother would not have had to quit her job and move into her 
daughter's house.
  This bill gives people flexibility so they can go out and get the 
child care they need. It is a good piece of legislation. It is part of 
bringing jobs back to America, and I urge all my colleagues to vote for 
it.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Holt).
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition. What we should be doing 
today is voting to extend unemployment benefits. However, the 
Republican leadership will not let that amendment be offered, even 
though or maybe because they know it would pass.
  Not only will the majority not assist workers who need jobs, but the 
authors of this bill assert that unemployed workers need financial 
incentive to get a job. Now, ask the workers whose jobs have been 
outsourced whether they need financial incentive to get a job. I am 
really shocked that the authors of this bill believe the American 
workers effectively need to be bribed to get a job.
  American workers are not looking for handouts. They are looking for 
jobs. And, even worse, this bill would effectively bar the recipients 
of this money from receiving actual job training. Contrary to, and I 
must respectfully differ from the chairman, contrary to what he says, 
they would not get actual job services. Sure, at a job center, if they 
find an open computer, they might be able to use it to prepare a 
resume, but they will not get the counseling they need. They will not 
get the training they need. This bill would deny workers the important 
training opportunities they need.
  This Nation has lost more than 2 million jobs under this 
administration. We should be dealing with the unemployment needs of 
these workers. I ask my colleagues to oppose this risky scheme.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I think all of us realize that the American economy is changing, and 
I think it is changing at a more rapid pace than any of us would likely 
know. During a hearing several months ago, I found a number of 
statistics that I really found unusual. If we all think back for a 
moment to 1999, the American economy was in full bloom, the stock 
market was rising, employment levels were at all-time highs, yet in 
1999 the American economy lost 35 million jobs. Yes, that is right. The 
American economy lost 35 million jobs. But, in 1999, the American 
economy also created 37 million new jobs, a net gain of 2 million jobs.
  Now, let us move forward 3 years to 2002. And what happened in 2002? 
We had a recession, we had the effects of 9/11, we had a war going on 
in Afghanistan, and the American economy lost

[[Page 11405]]

35 million jobs in 2002. The American economy, though, in 2002, only 
created 33\1/2\ million new jobs.
  This churning that we see in the American economy has always been 
there, but this churning we are now seeing is happening at a much 
faster pace than ever before; and, as a result, the need for job 
training, retraining, and educational services for American workers is 
at an all-time high.
  During our hearing, when we had Alan Greenspan in front of our 
committee, he said this: ``We need to increase our efforts to ensure 
that as many of our citizens as possible have the opportunity to 
capture the benefits that flow from that engagement. For reasons that I 
shall elucidate shortly, one critical element in creating that 
opportunity is the provision of rigorous education and ongoing training 
to all members of our society. This proposal is not novel. It is, in 
fact, the strategy that we have followed successfully for most of the 
past century and a strategy that we now should embrace with renewed 
commitment.''
  Education and training and ongoing education and training for the 
American workforce is absolutely critical, Mr. Speaker.
  There has been a lot said here today about the nature of our economy 
and what is happening, but in a U.S. News and World Report that is out 
today, dated June 7, Mort Zuckerman, in his editorial, says this:
  ``The economy is well on a tear. New jobs are being generated in 
large numbers. Income is growing at twice the rate of last year. And 
the exhilaration is such that we will probably see 5 percent growth in 
the gross domestic product. The jobs reports of the past few months 
have changed market sentiment. Sixty-one percent of private industries 
surveyed have added workers. That is the highest in 4 years. Business 
confidence has surged to a 20-year high, and business spending is 
exploding, with even American manufacturing joining the party. 
Companies that once saved every nickel are laying out more and more 
money as capital equipment to meet growing orders in double-digit 
rates.''
  He goes on to say later in the article, ``We are on a trajectory 
toward extraordinary growth in the second half of 2004 that will beget 
stronger job and income growth, stronger retail spending, and 
accelerating demand at a time when businesses have cut costs, raising 
profit margins to their highest level in years.

                              {time}  1215

  ``Higher profits will beget more spending, which will beget more 
business expansion, which will beget more income for workers which 
should trigger yet another increase in demand.''
  Do not look now, but the surging economy may be the real October 
Surprise. There is a real surge in our economy; and for Americans to 
take advantage of that surging economy, the kind of education and 
training that we allow under the Workforce Investment Act and provide 
for them should be helpful to them. These personal reemployment 
accounts are a pilot project to give them the choice about the kinds of 
services they need, the kinds of training or retraining they need to go 
out and take advantage of a surging economy to get a real job for the 
long term.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 444, the 
so-called the ``Back to Work Incentive Act.''
  This bill is based on flawed assumptions and is an insult to the 1.8 
million Americans--22 percent of the total unemployed--who have been 
out of work for more than 6 months. The Republicans believe that all 
long term unemployed Americans simply aren't looking for jobs because 
they are living comfortably on an average weekly unemployment benefit 
of $256--or about 37 percent of their former wages. That's ridiculous!
  H.R. 444 takes $50 million of valuable funding from effective 
programs within the Workforce Investment Act to fund ineffective 
Personal Reemployment Accounts (PRAs). The purpose of these accounts is 
to provide an incentive payment of up to $3,000 to unemployed workers 
to encourage them to find employment faster. It does this despite all 
of the research, which shows that PRAs don't work. You would think 
living off $256 a week would be enough incentive to find work. However, 
these out-of-touch Republicans believe that $256 a week allows 
households to pay for their mortgages, groceries, utility bills and 
college educations for their children.
  If President Bush and House Republicans are so fond of linking 
bonuses to job performance, then we should offer the President a bonus 
if he actually creates jobs. Since President Bush came to office, 2 
million American jobs have been lost. The problem with this economy 
isn't lazy unemployed workers, it's ineffective economic policy 
management.
  Even more puzzling about this legislation is that the provisions of 
this bill do not make sense. Supporters argue that PRAs help workers 
get jobs because the money provided can be used for job training and 
other services such as child care and career counseling. However, if a 
worker were to get the maximum PRA of $3,000 it would not be enough to 
pay for job training alone, which costs on average $5,000-6,000. That 
doesn't take into account all the other costs unemployed workers 
confront.
  Instead of wasting the American people's money on unproven programs, 
this Congress should extend unemployment benefits to the over 1.5 
million workers who have exhausted their benefits and expand the 
funding for the free job training already provided under the Workforce 
Investment Act. These programs provide needy families with immediate 
economic relief and the necessary skills to find new jobs.
  It is time that President Bush and the Republican Congress stop 
blaming unemployed workers for the lack of jobs in this country. 
Instead, the Republicans should show some leadership and take 
responsibility for their poor economic management.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against H.R. 444 and ask the Republican 
leadership to consider legislation to actually help unemployed workers 
and create jobs in the United States.
  Ms. WATSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 444, the 
Back to Work Incentive Act. The bill does nothing to help the current 
labor market, and offering workers reemployment bonuses does nothing to 
help the future of our nations unemployed and won't help put more jobs 
into our nation's struggling economy.
  This bill is a careless attempt to replace the extension of 
unemployment benefits for the long-term unemployed. This bill will help 
less than 0.2% of the unemployed and will do nothing for millions of 
jobless workers, particularly those out of work for more than 26 weeks.
  The Back to Work Incentive provides a $3,000 voucher for only about 
15,000 eligible workers. These recipients will not be able to access 
free core services provided through the Workforce Investment Act and 
they will forfeit the opportunity to get up to $10,000 in other 
possible Workforce Investment Act services and benefits available 
without cost under existing programs.
  This bill also does not address the pressing problems of lack of 
available jobs, the need for marketable skills, and sufficient training 
funds for today's unemployed workers.
  Mr. Speaker, in April alone 320,000 of America's workers exhausted 
their unemployment benefits. The Administration must come up with 
solutions that will provide jobs for all, not just benefits that are 
temporary for some. H.R. 444 doesn't cut it and I urge my colleagues to 
vote ``no'' on this bill.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose the 
bill before this body, H.R. 444, the Back to Work Incentive Act of 
2003. More than 8.3 million individuals are out of work, and by one 
estimate, there are three workers for every available job. At the same 
time, over 1.2 million unemployed Americans who have exhausted their 
federal unemployment benefits are looking to Congress for urgent 
relief.
  This sad trend means even more to the African American community. As 
of January 2004, the national unemployment rate was 5.6 percent. The 
African American unemployment rate was nearly twice that at 10.5%. 
Unemployment in this community has soared by 26% since reversing the 
trend of the Clinton era when African American unemployment declined by 
48 percent; from 14.1 percent in January 1993 to 7.3% in December 2000.
  In the City of Houston, the unemployment rate has decreased steadily 
from 6.6% to 6.0% from November 2003 to April 2004. This kind of trend 
is partly indicative of the success of job training programs that give 
workers the ability to not only retain employment but to improve their 
earning potential. The bill before us today will have a negative effect 
on the people of my District and the Districts of all of my colleagues 
and should be defeated.
  H.R. 444 fails to provide the nation's most vulnerable workers 
urgently needed assistance and undermines key provisions of the 
existing Workforce Investment Act.
  The crux of this legislation calls for the luring of financially 
strapped unemployed workers out of more intensive job training with a

[[Page 11406]]

`buy out' that could be as little as $500 or less. Workers who are 
struggling must then decide whether to sign up for training or to 
accept additional financial support for their families.
  However, if our colleagues on the other side of the aisle would 
really like to help these workers, they should work to extend 
unemployment benefits that will provide that urgently needed family 
support, with no draconian cap on job training services. H.R. 444 would 
require the unemployed to pay for otherwise free job counseling and 
training services and ban them from the system if they accept a 
Personal Re-employment Account (PRA).
  H.R. 444 would undermine our workforce training and unemployment 
insurance systems. This bill not only ignores those families who need 
the help the most, it nullifies the accountability provisions contained 
in our job training programs. H.R. 444 would provide little if any 
oversight over program dollars spent on arbitrarily-chosen training 
providers. State certification requirements under the current WIA 
system would be all but removed with the PRA's--opening the door for 
financial abuse with no means to correct or even measures the potential 
abuses. Congress just revamped the job training system in 1998 to 
provide a comprehensive universal system of job assistance services, 
yet the Majority would circumvent their own system to create a new 
parallel program.
  This bill also fails to provide relief quickly. The Congressional 
Budget Office says funds for this program would not even reach workers 
until next year--and one out of four eligible families would not be 
helped until fiscal year 2005. An unemployment insurance extension can 
provide help to workers in a matter of weeks, not months or years--and 
would create urgently needed short-term economic stimulus.
  Rather than preparing for another extension of unemployment insurance 
that will be needed in the late spring, H.R. 444 seeks to utilize 
precious resources to provide assistance to the smallest fraction of 
the unemployed. This legislation is part of a strategy to undermine and 
cut funding to the unemployment and job-training systems and head-off 
another federal unemployment benefit extension that would provide 
assistance to those who desperately need it.
  This legislation bars those who accept Personal Re-employment 
Accounts from receiving counseling and training services at a one-stop 
employment center for one year once the funds within the account are 
exhausted. Unemployed workers currently receive an average of $5,000 
(and as high as $10,000) worth of training services under our current 
WIA system, and yet many of them are unable to find a sustainable job 
due to the jobless stagnation of the economy. H.R. 444 would cut 
millions of unemployed workers off from access to needed job training 
or re-training programs.
  In addition, the infrastructure that would be required to administer 
the PRAs in the base bill would take several months, if not a year to 
set up, limiting what immediate help we can provide the unemployed.
  Mr. Speaker, for the reasons stated above, I oppose this legislation 
and urge my colleagues to join me.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I would welcome a constructive approach 
to help people who are struggling with the consequences of long-term 
unemployment. For nearly three years now, Oregon has had one of the 
highest unemployment rates in the entire country. Largely for 
circumstances beyond our control--the national and international 
economies, the manipulation of energy markets--Oregonians have 
suffered. Unfortunately, this bill falls short of providing meaningful 
help to the 65,000 Oregonians who have lost their jobs during the Bush 
presidency.
  This bill caps the benefit at $3,000 per unemployed worker and 
provides no assurance that it will approach that much for most people. 
The one thing that is guaranteed is that recipients are cut off from 
other Federal programs for one year after they use their ``reemployment 
accounts.'' This is a poor bargain with no guarantee of success.
  Congress can and should do better than create a cynical shell game of 
taking away funding from existing Workforce Investment Act (WIA) 
programs and reusing them in a lesser, unestablished program. Congress 
should place its priorities behind what the President campaigned on and 
existing, productive programs: enhancing Pell Grants, fully funding the 
WIA, and using the $14 billion already in the Unemployment Insurance 
Trust Fund. Congress has established programs that are useful, flexible 
and creative that can help our 8.2 million unemployed workers. This new 
draconian proposal is ill-advised and unnecessary.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the bill, 
and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). All time for general debate 
has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 656, the previous question is ordered on 
the bill, as amended.
  The question is on 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. Kildee

  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I am in its present form.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Kildee moves to recommit the bill H.R. 444 to the 
     Committee on Education and the Workforce with instructions to 
     report the same back to the House forthwith with the 
     following amendments:
        Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
     following:

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be referred to as the ``Emergency Worker 
     Assistance Act''.

     SEC. 2. EMERGENCY UNEMPLOYMENT SUPPORT.

       Section 171 of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (29 
     U.S.C. 2916) is amended by adding at the end the following 
     new subsection:
       ``(e) Emergency Unemployment Support.--
       ``(1) Grants to states.--From the amount appropriated under 
     paragraph (2), the Secretary shall make grants to States to 
     provide financial and employment support to individuals who 
     have exhausted their State unemployment benefits and can no 
     longer receive, after the week of December 20, 2003, Federal 
     extended temporary unemployment compensation, and who 
     continue to be unemployed as of the date of enactment of the 
     Emergency Worker Assistance Act. The eligibility criteria and 
     benefit amounts under this paragraph for such individuals 
     shall be the same as for such individuals prior to December 
     20, 2003, under the Federal extended temporary unemployment 
     compensation program.
       ``(2) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated for fiscal years 2004 and 2005 such sums 
     as may be necessary to carry out this subsection.''.
       Amend the title so as to read: ``A bill to amend the 
     Workforce Investment Act of 1998 to provide continued 
     unemployment support to ensure adequate emergency worker 
     assistance and for other purposes.''

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Kildee) is recognize for 5 minutes in support of his motion 
to recommit.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, my motion to recommit is simple: It 
authorizes the extension of unemployment benefits.
  Mr. Speaker, 1.5 million workers have exhausted their initial 
unemployment benefits. These individuals have yet to find employment 
due to this very sour economy. Despite the need for these workers to 
provide for their families, this Congress has turned a deaf ear. We 
have continually failed to ensure the financial security of these 
workers and their families.
  The question for this House is how can we pass legislation providing 
job-training vouchers when there are no jobs. We need to first ensure 
the financial security of those workers who have lost their jobs, and 
we have not done that. This amendment does that by authorizing the 
extension of unemployment benefits.
  Mr. Speaker, we have a moral responsibility today. In Michigan and 
many other States around the country, job growth is nonexistent or 
anemic. Nationally, 8.2 million individuals are unemployed. The 
unemployment rate is 5.6 percent. It is quite evident that American 
workers want to work. The simple truth is that jobs do not exist. How 
long are we going to ignore the needs of the American workforce.
  The underlying legislation is completely inadequate in addressing the 
problems facing the American worker. We cannot simply authorize a job-
training voucher program. That does not meet the need. We have to act 
today, and we have to act now by extending unemployment benefits.
  I want to remind Members that the House has considered nearly 
identical language to this motion to recommit during the debate on the 
Community

[[Page 11407]]

Services Block Grant bill. I urge Members to support my motion to 
recommit.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Bishop).
  Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote for 
the Kildee motion to recommit H.R. 444. This motion does what is 
needed. The real problems that our country faces today are a lack of 
jobs and a lack of adequate unemployment benefits for unemployed 
workers who cannot find jobs. There are currently over 8 million 
workers who are unemployed. There are also an additional 4 million 
workers who are so discouraged about the job situation where they live 
that they are no longer looking for work, and there are another 4 
million workers working part-time because they cannot find full-time 
work. What these workers need is income support until the economy fully 
recovers and produces enough jobs for them to support their families. 
These workers are not looking for a handout. They want to work, but 
where they live, there are no jobs.
  Extended unemployment benefits give them the hand up that they need. 
Average benefits are only about $200 a week. This amount is hardly 
enough to incentivize them to stay home indefinitely, yet that is what 
some would have us believe.
  Mr. Speaker, 85,000 workers a week are exhausting their unemployment 
benefits; long-term unemployment is at the highest level in decades. 
The Kildee motion simply provides a minimum level of human decency to 
these hard-working Americans. They paid into the unemployment system, 
and the unemployment trust fund has over $19 billion in it. Instead of 
pushing ineffective reemployment account voucher schemes, we should be 
providing unemployment support. Even Alan Greenspan, the chairman of 
the Federal Reserve, has supported such an extension. I urge my 
colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  In conclusion, I would say adoption of my motion to recommit would 
really begin to touch immediately the needs of those people who are 
unemployed, rather than this anemic approach offered in the bill 
itself. I urge that we support the motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) 
rise in opposition to the motion to recommit?
  Mr. BOEHNER. I do, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Herger), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Human 
Resources of the Committee on Ways and Means that deals with this.
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this motion to 
recommit. This Republican Congress provided additional assistance to 
the unemployed when it was needed. Through laws passed in 2002 and 
2003, nearly 8 million laid-off workers received more than $23 billion 
in special Federal-extended unemployment benefits. Let me repeat that. 
Nearly 8 million people received $23 billion in additional help. We 
continued that temporary program twice last year when unemployment was 
rising and the economy was shedding jobs.
  Fortunately, today that situation has dramatically improved. The 
economy recently has been growing at the fastest rate in 20 years. 
President Bush's tax relief worked to turn the economy around. That is 
why unemployment continues to fall. During the past 12 months, 
unemployment rates have dropped in every region of the country, 
including in 47 States. Today's unemployment rate is lower than the 
average of the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s. Last month saw one of the 
steepest drops ever in the number of long-term unemployed. Nearly 1 
million new jobs have been created this year alone, 138 million 
Americans are working now, more than ever before in our Nation's 
history.
  This suggests what we always knew, people want to work, not collect 
more unemployment benefits. Republicans are working hard to keep this 
tremendous economic and job growth going. This Democrat motion goes in 
the opposite direction. It will not help provide critical training for 
those seeking jobs.
  Mr. Speaker, let us reject this motion to recommit.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger) has 
pointed out, we have extended unemployment benefits on several 
occasions and have provided tens of billions of dollars in support for 
those extensions.
  The motion to recommit, if Members believe this is going to provide 
unemployment extensions to people, they are kidding themselves. What 
the Kildee motion does is create a new program within the Workforce 
Investment Act to extend unemployment benefits. This is not the usual 
unemployment system that we have that works really well. Under this 
proposal, we create a new program that is not funded. There is no 
funding in this bill for the program that is being created, and all 
this is going to do is bring false hope to millions of Americans who 
are out there trying to seek work who are on unemployment.
  But the worst part of the motion to recommit is that it totally 
eliminates the underlying bill. For those of us who believe personal 
reemployment accounts are a good idea and that projects ought to be 
initiated to allow people up to $3,000 to find the kind of training, 
retraining, and education they need in order to gain good employment, 
that entire bill is eliminated under the gentleman's motion to 
recommit.
  I would urge my colleagues, let us not engage in a facade; let us not 
make empty promises to people who need our help and need our help 
badly. This is a new program. It is not funded. It will not extend 
unemployment benefits. Again, the worse part about it is it would 
eliminate the entire underlying bill and the personal reemployment 
accounts that we think will be helpful for American workers who are out 
of work. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support the motion to 
recommit H.R. 444. We must support the workers who are desperately 
trying to find work before their benefits run out. Their families are 
the reason we must absolutely extend unemployment benefits, not pass 
legislation that will fundamentally change the Federal unemployment 
benefits system, like H.R. 444.
  We need a real solution like extending unemployment benefits so 
families have the means to be healthy and safe when their jobs are no 
longer secure. How else will these families pay their heating bill, 
clothe their children, and feed their family?
  These workers want work and seek work, and we must help them as they 
get back on their feet again. There is still too little job creation to 
write off the Federal Extended Benefits Program.
  Mr. Speaker, today, 8.4 million people are out of work, 2.6 million 
private sector jobs have been lost since the beginning of the Bush 
Administration. Even worse, long-term unemployment is at the highest 
level in 10 years. As of April 2004, over 1 million people, in my home 
State of California, were unemployed.
  My colleagues on the other side of the aisle believe they are helping 
unemployed workers by creating these personal reemployment accounts. 
But my constituents are not writing me on a weekly basis asking for a 
brand new unemployment system. They simply want their unemployment 
benefits to continue until they find a job.
  H.R. 444 is not the fix they are seeking. If my colleagues really 
listened to what the unemployed workers wanted they would grant 
families the security of benefits while they continue to seek work. 
That's why I urge my colleagues to support this motion to recommit H.R. 
444 so we can address what workers really want.
  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. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clauses 8 and 9 of rule XX, this

[[Page 11408]]

15-minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by 5-minute 
votes, as ordered, on passing H.R. 444 and suspending the rules and 
passing H.R. 3866.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 199, 
nays 216, not voting 19, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 224]

                               YEAS--199

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Becerra
     Bell
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Capps
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Case
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley (CA)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley (OR)
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Majette
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner (TX)
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NAYS--216

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burr
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole
     Collins
     Cox
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     English
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--19

     Ballance
     Brady (PA)
     Burton (IN)
     Capuano
     Carson (OK)
     Chandler
     DeGette
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Emerson
     Fossella
     Gerlach
     Johnson, Sam
     Lynch
     Quinn
     Ruppersberger
     Smith (MI)
     Tauzin
     Watson


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson) (during the vote). Members are 
advised 2 minutes remain in this vote.

                              {time}  1252

  Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin, Mr. GILCHREST, and Mrs. CUBIN changed their 
vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia and Mr. GORDON changed their vote from ``nay'' 
to ``yea.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  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.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 213, 
noes 203, not voting 18, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 225]

                               AYES--213

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burr
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole
     Collins
     Cox
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     English
     Everett
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--203

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca

[[Page 11409]]


     Baird
     Baldwin
     Becerra
     Bell
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Capps
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Case
     Chandler
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley (CA)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley (OR)
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Majette
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner (TX)
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--18

     Ballance
     Brady (PA)
     Burton (IN)
     Capuano
     Carson (OK)
     DeGette
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Emerson
     Feeney
     Fossella
     Gerlach
     Johnson, Sam
     Lynch
     Quinn
     Smith (MI)
     Tauzin
     Watson


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised 2 
minutes remain in this vote.

                              {time}  1303

  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 against:
  Ms. WATSON. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 224, I was detained by 
constituents from my District. I would have voted ``no'' on H.R. 444.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). Pursuant to section 2 of House 
Resolution 656, the texts of H.R. 4409 and H.R. 4411 will be appended 
to the engrossment of H.R. 444; and H.R. 4409 and H.R. 4411 are laid on 
the table.
  (For texts of H.R. 4409 and H.R. 4411 see proceedings of the House of 
June 2, 2004, at page H3628 and H3638, respectively.)

                          ____________________