[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 9]
[House]
[Pages 12219-12229]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




        EMERGENCY EXTENDED UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION ACT OF 2008

  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 5749) to provide for a program of emergency unemployment 
compensation, as amended.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 5749

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Emergency 
     Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 2008''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act 
     is as follows:

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

[[Page 12220]]



     SEC. 2. FEDERAL-STATE AGREEMENTS.

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

     SEC. 3. EMERGENCY UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION ACCOUNT.

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

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

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

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

     SEC. 5. FINANCING PROVISIONS.

       (a) In General.--Funds in the extended unemployment 
     compensation account (as established by section 905(a) of the 
     Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1105(a))) of the Unemployment 
     Trust Fund (as established by section 904(a) of such Act (42 
     U.S.C. 1104(a))) shall be used for the making of payments to 
     States having agreements entered into under this Act.
       (b) Certification.--The Secretary shall from time to time 
     certify to the Secretary of the Treasury for payment to each 
     State the sums payable to such State under this Act. The 
     Secretary of the Treasury, prior to audit or settlement by 
     the Government Accountability Office, shall make payments to 
     the State in accordance with such certification, by transfers 
     from the extended unemployment compensation account (as so 
     established) to the account of such State in the Unemployment 
     Trust Fund (as so established).
       (c) Assistance to States.--There are appropriated out of 
     the employment security administration account (as 
     established by section 901(a) of the Social Security Act (42 
     U.S.C. 1101(a))) of the Unemployment Trust Fund, without 
     fiscal year limitation, such funds as may be necessary for 
     purposes of assisting States (as provided in title III of the 
     Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 501 et seq.)) in meeting the 
     costs of administration of agreements under this Act.
       (d) Appropriations for Certain Payments.--There are 
     appropriated from the general fund of the Treasury, without 
     fiscal year limitation, to the extended unemployment 
     compensation account (as so established) of the Unemployment 
     Trust Fund (as so established) such sums as the Secretary 
     estimates to be necessary to make the payments under this 
     section in respect of--
       (1) compensation payable under chapter 85 of title 5, 
     United States Code; and
       (2) compensation payable on the basis of services to which 
     section 3309(a)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
     applies.
     Amounts appropriated pursuant to the preceding sentence shall 
     not be required to be repaid.

     SEC. 6. FRAUD AND OVERPAYMENTS.

       (a) In General.--If an individual knowingly has made, or 
     caused to be made by another, a false statement or 
     representation of a material fact, or knowingly has failed, 
     or

[[Page 12221]]

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

     SEC. 7. DEFINITIONS.

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

     SEC. 8. APPLICABILITY.

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

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Rangel) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) each 
will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. RANGEL. I would ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of 
my very brief remarks, that my time be yielded to Mr. McDermott who 
worked so desperately hard with Mr. English to prepare this Congress to 
do what has to be done for a crisis that we hoped we would never have 
to experience.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. RANGEL. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I stand before you not as a Democrat speaking to 
Republicans, but as an American who recognizes that if I had to think 
of one of the most important assets that our country has had, after we 
talked about our flag, our military, our democracy, I think that we all 
would agree it's our middle class. They're different from most people. 
They're not recognized worldwide. They're not the rich. They're not the 
poor. They're people who struggle every day. But it's their dreams, I 
think, that make us different from any other country and any other 
democracy knowing that in this country there is no glass ceiling.
  And no matter what we accomplish, that we could dream for our kids 
and for our grandkids, today, through no fault of their own, this dream 
is being shattered. It's being shattered by the deficits. It's being 
shattered by war. It's being shattered by losing our kids, losing our 
jobs, losing our hope, increased price of oil; and people are concerned 
about where do we go from here. I suggest to you that no one can 
challenge the fact that this country cannot go any further than our 
middle class.
  So it's up to us to find out how do we handle this and how to 
explain, at a time when they're at most need, not just in terms of 
dollars and cents but in hopes that this country is going to pull out 
of this as we have in the past.
  So what did Mr. McDermott and Congressman English do? They said no 
matter what happens in this country, whether we win or lose, you can 
depend on one thing: We will not give up on the American middle class. 
Now, you could talk about deficits and trust funds, you could talk 
about PAYGO, you could talk about anything; but you're not going to let 
this country drown because of technicalities.
  The middle class is there when we need them. They're there to consume 
and to buy if they have to. They're there to fight and die in our wars. 
And now comes an opportunity where we come here together and we say 
it's not much, we've got to struggle to repair the economic damage, but 
in the meantime, those of you who have worked every day, those of you 
who we've not said ``thank you'' to, we're saying that we're going to 
be there because through no fault of your own, our country has let you 
down.
  I yield back for the technical things, but I do hope when we get back 
home that all of us can say, We didn't do everything that we wanted to, 
but at the time this bill came up for suspension, we were there for 
you.
  Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, before I begin my remarks, first I want to say on behalf 
of all of my colleagues our thoughts and prayers are with our good 
friend and distinguished ranking member of the House Ways and Means 
Committee, Congressman Jim McCrery. Mr. McCrery is not with us today, 
and he and his family mourn the untimely passing of Jim's sister. Our 
thoughts are with Congressman McCrery and his entire family.
  Mr. Speaker, I stand here in support of extending unemployment 
benefits, and I have sponsored legislation to accomplish that goal. All 
Republican members of the Ways and Means Committee supported extending 
benefits when our committee considered this legislation in April. But 
today I rise in opposition to the legislation that's before the House 
today which includes a radical departure from long-standing Federal 
policy when it comes to the balance between work and extended benefits. 
And I am especially opposed to the cynical election-year maneuvering 
reflected in how the House is considering this important issue today.
  Federal law since 1981 has required at least 20 weeks of work before 
collecting Federal-extended benefits. The temporary program created in 
2002 continued this commonsense policy. I believe requiring at least 20 
weeks of work to qualify for Federal extended unemployment benefits is 
perfectly fair, but the majority of Democrats do not. So the

[[Page 12222]]

legislation before us today makes a radical departure from 27 years of 
Federal policy by striking the commonsense 20-week work requirement.
  Ironically, nearly every Democratic Member in the House supported 
this same requirement as part of the temporary program Congress created 
in 2002. Yet today, without a single hearing on this topic, this 
legislation would strike that sensible long-standing requirement.
  So under this legislation, some individuals will receive 12 months of 
total unemployment benefits after having worked for as little as 2 
weeks in some cases before being laid off. Does the majority think that 
this is fair to taxpayers to pay 12 months of unemployment benefits in 
exchange for less than 1 month of work?
  Since the 1930s, unemployment benefits have been paid to those 
strongly attached to the workforce. That's the logic behind expecting 
at least 20 weeks of work before layoff for those who go on to collect 
Federal-extended benefits. It is not too much to expect someone who has 
worked for at least 20 weeks to collect up to 12 months of unemployment 
benefits.
  What makes this worse, this legislation is being considered under 
rules that prevent any opportunities for amendments, that prevent any 
opportunities for substitutes or other avenues to correct what we 
believe is a serious error in this radical approach.
  The way this bill is being considered is under a process usually 
reserved for naming post offices and honoring sports teams. In the past 
2 years, this House has named 87 post offices using this process, and 
today by using this same process, House majority leaders trivialize the 
important issue of extending unemployment benefits to those who are 
hurting. And it didn't have to be this way.
  Every Republican on the Ways and Means Committee supported extending 
unemployment benefits in some fashion 2 months ago. And I suspect 
almost every Member of this House shares that view today. The only 
disagreement involves whether there should be a minimum work 
requirement, among other important details.
  But 2 months, again that's 2 months after this so-called emergency 
legislation was considered in the Ways and Means Committee, here we are 
2 months later with the Majority's flawed take-it-or-leave-it approach.
  Mr. Speaker, I recognize many workers are hurting. I continue to 
support extending help to those who need it most. Unfortunately, the 
bill before us insists on paying extended unemployment benefits even to 
those who have worked for only a fraction of the time they will collect 
benefits.
  This radical policy is a departure from current law, a 27-year-old 
bipartisan policy, and that's simply not right. And the way this 
legislation is being considered is an affront to all Americans. This 
bill was brought directly to the floor without as much as a hearing in 
committee.
  Mr. Speaker, I have a letter here from the Executive Office of the 
President stating the President's position. The administration strongly 
opposes this legislation, H.R. 5479, and they state that if it were 
presented to the President, the senior advisers would recommend that he 
veto the bill.
  I place it into the Record at this time.

         Executive Office of the President, Office of Management 
           and Budget,
                                    Washington, DC, June 11, 2008.

   Statement of Administration Policy--H.R. 5749--Emergency Extended 
 Unemployment Compensation Act of 2008--(Rep. McDermott (D) Washington 
                           and 36 cosponsors)

       The Administration is deeply committed to continually 
     fostering an environment where every American who wants a job 
     has a job. The Administration believes the best way to help 
     workers is to create an environment that encourages job 
     creation and to promote effective job training. To accomplish 
     these goals, the Administration urges Congress to create more 
     opportunities for American exporters by passing the pending 
     free trade agreements with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea, 
     make permanent the President's tax cuts that will expire over 
     the next two years, and reform and reauthorize the Trade 
     Adjustment Assistance program and the Workforce Investment 
     Act. The Administration looks forward to continuing to work 
     with Congress to enact these important measures. However, the 
     Administration strongly opposes H.R. 5749. If H.R. 5749 were 
     presented to the President, his senior advisors would 
     recommend that he veto the bill.
       This legislation raises several concerns. First, although 
     the unemployment rate has recently risen, it remains below 
     the levels historically relied on to justify a federally 
     financed extension of unemployment benefits. The last 
     initiation of temporary extended benefits was in 2002 amidst 
     the unprecedented events surrounding September 11, 2001. 
     Other than that special case, extensions have generally been 
     granted only when the unemployment rate was notably higher 
     than it is today, at or above 7 percent.
       Second, this bill would allow the payment of up to 13 extra 
     weeks of benefits in every State, even though some of those 
     States have unemployment rates as low as 2.6 percent. At 
     present, a majority of States have unemployment rates at or 
     below 5 percent, and it is fiscally irresponsible to provide 
     extra benefits in States with low unemployment rates. In 
     States with higher unemployment rates, the Federal-State 
     extended benefits program already can provide up to 13 
     additional weeks of benefits to workers who have exhausted 
     their regular unemployment insurance benefits. As many 
     economists have noted, the counterproductive result of a 
     broad extension of benefits would be that recipients may 
     remain unemployed for slightly longer than they would have 
     otherwise.
       Third, this bill does not contain an important provision 
     found in previous Federal extensions and the permanent 
     Federal-State extended benefits law that assures the benefit 
     extension is paid only to individuals who have demonstrated a 
     serious attachment to the labor force. Since 1981, 
     individuals must have 20 weeks of full-time employment to 
     qualify for extended unemployment benefits. Under this bill, 
     individuals who have worked as little as two weeks could 
     qualify for up to 52 weeks of total unemployment benefits. 
     This violates the longstanding requirement that extended 
     benefits should be for Americans with meaningful work 
     histories.
       Fourth, for purposes of determining whether a State is 
     considered a ``high unemployment'' State in which an extra 13 
     weeks of benefits is payable (for a total of 26 weeks of 
     additional benefits), this proposal would use a total 
     unemployment rate of 6 percent as the trigger for State 
     eligibility. This is, historically, a relatively low number 
     for justifying a full year or more of unemployment benefits.
       As an alternative to these ill-targeted and costly 
     measures, the Administration could support legislation that 
     would offer a 13-week extension of Federally financed 
     unemployment benefits to high-unemployment States alone.

  Mr. Speaker, again, I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill so 
that it can be brought back under a rule that allows the House to work 
its will and provides an opportunity to include a commonsense work 
requirement that does not pay a full year of benefits to someone who 
may have worked for as little as 2 weeks.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I want to thank Chairman Rangel for his leadership on behalf of the 
American people.
  Every Member in the House is elected by the people, and today we're 
going to find out if Members remember who they work for.
  Before us is H.R. 5749, legislation I introduced because it's time 
the government work for the people and extend a helping hand to those 
who need a break. Contrary to what you have just heard, this bill was 
heard in the committee, was voted on in the committee, and three 
members of the Republican Party voted to move it out of the Ways and 
Means Committee. It was contained in the supplemental bill, and 
everybody in the House has had an opportunity to vote on it and discuss 
it. We are repassing it for the second time.
  Now, this legislation should pass without a single vote against it. 
And that's why it was put on the supplemental on the suspension 
calendar. No Member who's read a newspaper or spent any time in a 
congressional district talking to constituents lately could possibly 
miss the fact that the economy is in serious trouble and so are 
millions of Americans, and it will just keep getting worse until we 
act.
  Last Friday we saw the largest one-month jump in the unemployment 
rate in 22 years. Now does anyone doubt the gravity of that situation? 
Across America the unemployment rate is rising. It's over 7 percent in 
Michigan and above 6 percent in Alaska and a half a dozen other States.

[[Page 12223]]

  Eighteen percent of the unemployed in this country have not been able 
to find a job for at least 6 months. They have exhausted all of their 
benefits. And that is what this bill deals with. Everywhere you look, 
people are worried about their home and their family and their future. 
And no one feels safe no matter where they are.
  The economy has been claimed by the Iraq war. This wasteful, needless 
war has undermined our economy and put it on a deep, steep downward 
slide. Devastating energy and food prices have made the American people 
be up against the wall when businesses are shedding jobs to cope. It's 
been this way for months, and it's time for some relief.

                              {time}  1530

  The White House has been fighting, and as Mr. Weller says, they've 
sent down from the administration a letter already saying they're going 
to veto it. Well, that's the administration. What do you expect out of 
that place?
  This bill would provide 13 weeks of extended unemployment benefits to 
all States where people have exhausted their regular unemployment. It 
gives another 13 weeks in States where the unemployment rate is above 6 
percent.
  The usual UI benefit is less than $300 a week. That's poverty level 
assistance for a family struggling in an economy when gasoline is $4 a 
gallon.
  There is not a congressional district in this country that isn't 
feeling the effects of this downturn. Every Member in this Chamber has 
constituents who need help, and they are the workers we are working 
for, presumably.
  This bill is a lifeboat to the American people to stay afloat during 
increasingly tough economic times. Anybody who votes against this bill 
is voting against reality. They are denying it.
  Now, sometimes the American people watch this session out of 
interest, but today, they're watching because there's an urgent need to 
receive some help.
  This issue of the 20 weeks is being held up as the reason why I'm 
going to vote against it. The Labor Department analyzed the fact that 
that unduly affects low-wage workers and women because they work part-
time.
  We hear that if you work 2 weeks you can get a year's benefits. Are 
you saying that the Governor of Illinois or the Governor of Michigan or 
the Governor of Pennsylvania is stupid and he's just throwing money out 
the window? These are qualified by the State-level people, and you know 
you can't give me one example of any place--people say Oregon, if you 
work 2 weeks in Oregon, you somehow are going to get a year's benefits 
for 2 weeks. There is no State in the Union where that is true. Give me 
one example.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I would note that most House 
Republicans and the administration have stated that we all support an 
extension of unemployment benefits. In fact, the letter we just placed 
in the Record says the administration would sign into law a 13-week 
extension that is targeted, providing the extended benefits that we all 
would like to see.
  Mr. Speaker, as I prepare to yield to my good friend from Michigan, I 
would note that, again, the legislation before us is a radical change 
which eliminates the 20-week work requirement to qualify for a full 12 
months of unemployment benefits, and that's why it's important we 
debate it, and that's why I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
  With that, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlelady from the 
State of Michigan.
  Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and, Mr. 
Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation.
  There certainly is no question that the American economy is 
struggling, and that is certainly true for my home State of Michigan. 
Michigan working families have been hit very, very hard by the 
restructuring, the economic transition that's happening in the domestic 
auto industry which has cost thousands of jobs and closing of 
factories.
  A collapse in the housing market and skyrocketing gas prices have 
restricted mobility, making it much more difficult for people to find 
work.
  And some would argue against this bill by saying that it's an 
impediment to urging people to actually find work. I would say that 
argument is nonsense. People cannot find work if they can't even sell 
their house. People cannot travel long distances to find a job if they 
can't afford $4 per gallon for gasoline. People cannot find a job if 
there are no jobs to be found.
  This legislation will provide all unemployed workers 13 extra weeks 
of benefits as a bridge to better times, and it will give workers in 
hard-hit areas, like my home State of Michigan, an additional 13 weeks 
beyond that.
  I believe that this is a very appropriate and compassionate action 
for this Congress to take, and I urge all of my colleagues to join me 
in supporting this critical legislation.


                             General Leave

  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and 
insert extraneous material into the Record on H.R. 5749.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Washington?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. I would also like to enter into the Record a letter 
from the National Governors Association dated May 1, 2008, asking us to 
extend unemployment benefits to exhausted unemployment enrollees.

                               National Governors Association,

                                      Washington, DC, May 1, 2008.
     Hon. Max Baucus,
     Chairman, Committee on Finance, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Charles B. Rangel,
     Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Charles Grassley,
     Ranking Member, Committee on Finance, U.S. Senate, 
         Washington, DC.
     Hon. Jim McCrery,
     Ranking Member, Committee on Ways and Means, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Baucus, Senator Grassley, Chairman Rangel and 
     Representative McCrery: On behalf of the nation's governors, 
     we write to express our support for an extension of 
     unemployment benefits and to request federal assistance for 
     states to serve a growing number of jobless individuals.
       In the last month, 36 states experienced an increase in the 
     unemployment rate. The national unemployment rate increased 
     to 5.1 percent in March 2008. Most notable, however, is the 
     significant number of individuals that are unemployed for 27 
     weeks or longer, thus exhausting all unemployment benefits. 
     Today, approximately 16.7 percent of jobless individuals are 
     experiencing long-term unemployment compared to approximately 
     11 percent at the beginning of the last recession.
       Beginning in 1935, a federal-state partnership was formed 
     to create an unemployment program that would provide a core 
     stabilizing function during economic downturns through short-
     term income support for jobless individuals. In prior 
     recessions including the economic downturn that began in 
     2001, Congress and the Administration utilized the program to 
     extend unemployment benefits to jobless individuals.
       At the same time, any proposal to extend unemployment 
     benefits must also address the reality that states need 
     additional resources to administer unemployment claims for a 
     larger number of individuals for a longer period of time. 
     This year alone, states may have to administer an average of 
     nearly 400,000 unemployment insurance claims without federal 
     funding. Federal support is needed by state employment and 
     workforce agencies to administer increased initial 
     unemployment claims, to support weekly unemployment benefits, 
     and to provide employment and training services.
       Given the current economic indicators and historical 
     precedent, governors believe it is prudent and appropriate 
     for Congress and the Administration to enact a temporary 
     federally funded extension of unemployment insurance benefits 
     and to provide a sufficient increase in funding for states to 
     assist jobless individuals during this period of economic 
     slowdown.
       We stand ready to work with you and thank you for your 
     leadership on this issue of national importance.
           Sincerely,
     Governor Donald L. Carcieri,
       Chair, Education, Early Childhood and Workforce Committee.
     Governor Brad Henry,
       Vice Chair, Education, Early Childhood and

[[Page 12224]]

     Workforce Committee.

  I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).
  Mr. LEVIN. It's estimated that 4 million workers, 4 million, would be 
eligible under this unemployment extension, over 1 million who have 
already exhausted and 3 million in the future.
  You know, in previous downturns when there were unemployment offices 
giving out checks, we could go there and we could talk to the people. 
That's no longer true in most States, but we should not let the absence 
of real faces blur our vision in Washington.
  If you had the 4 million people line up, it would extend from 
Washington, D.C., to Denver, Colorado, and we should not differentiate 
as to what State they live in. If they've exhausted their benefits, 
they should be eligible.
  Mr. Weller says targeted, that's over 6 percent. It leaves out a 
majority of those who have exhausted their benefits. It's not targeted. 
It's ruthless. It's ruthless. It doesn't take into account the lives of 
people.
  We saw the biggest increase in 20 years last night, from 5 to 5.5 
percent. When President Bush signed the extension in 2002, it was 5.7. 
So you're going to stand up here now and quibble because of a 
difference of two-tenths of 1 percent, you don't want to extend 
benefits.
  The 20-week thing is a Trojan horse. It's another excuse not to step 
up to the plate.
  This is not a political issue. This is a people's issue. The 
exhaustion rate is the highest it's been at the beginning of the past 
five recessions. I urge on a bipartisan basis the passage of this bill.
  Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I would note the previous 
speaker referred to 6 percent as being ruthless. That's actually the 
formula in the majority Democrats' bill. So it was interesting that he 
criticized his own bill.
  I would also note to my good friend from Washington (Mr. McDermott) 
that Illinois is actually a State in which someone can work 2 weeks and 
actually, under the legislation that's before us, obtain 39 weeks of 
unemployment benefits.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to a distinguished member 
of the House Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Brady.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, economically, our Nation is a Nation 
of thirds. One-third of our States face steep economic challenges, one-
third are chugging along with their traditional economies, and one-
third are enjoying strong job growth and, in fact, record low 
unemployment.
  This measure is well-intended. There's no question about it. But 
compassion isn't enough. Jobs are what is needed.
  Instead of targeting workers in the struggling States that need both 
help with their bills and, more importantly, a new job, this measure 
provides no job training, no hope to laid off workers, workers that I 
know don't want a handout. They want an opportunity for a job that they 
can raise their families on. They want an opportunity for new skills. 
They want opportunities.
  And like many one-size-fits-all Washington programs, this bill 
unnecessarily drains the precious unemployment trust fund an extra $8 
billion by not targeting the help to the States and the workers who 
need it the most.
  For hardworking Americans, though, what is most troubling is that 
this bill abandons the minimum work requirement that has, in the past, 
prevented the unscrupulous from gaming the system. By throwing out this 
reasonable requirement, that you actually have a real job before you 
get job benefits, people in some States can work as little as 2 weeks 
and receive government paychecks for 1 year.
  Most Americans do the opposite. We work for a year, then we receive 2 
weeks of vacation. In this bill, it's the opposite, 2 weeks of work and 
a year of Federal aid. And in fact, while it's been questioned that 
that isn't the case, according to the Congressional Budget Office, 4 
States allow you to work as little as 1 week under some circumstances 
to receive benefits.
  And what's unfortunate, who will pay the benefits that have been 
gamed? Hardworking American taxpayers who are struggling to make ends 
meet with record fuel prices because this Congress refuses to act to 
open up our resources and take more responsibility for America's own 
energy needs.
  In conclusion, helping workers who need it the most, helping them 
find new jobs and stopping the gaming of our Federal aid is a 
bipartisan goal. Unfortunately, this bill fails on all counts.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Lewis).
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Mr. McDermott for 
yielding and for bringing this necessary piece of legislation to us 
today.
  It is basic, it is common sense, it is the right thing to do. People 
are calling out. They're crying out for help.
  They ask, where is the Federal Government? Where is Congress? Which 
side is the government on? What are you doing to help the unemployed, 
people who lost their jobs? It's not their fault. What are you doing to 
help those in need, those who need a helping hand? What are you doing 
and doing now?
  Mr. Speaker, some of us may not remember this, or maybe we never had 
to do it, but just a few short years ago, many people in this country 
washed their clothes at night and hung them up to a heater or to the 
fireplace so they could dry and wear them to work the next morning. I 
wonder if we're headed back to that reality. People need help and they 
need it now.
  Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, it's interesting as we debate 
this legislation that some have criticized targeted help for those who 
we would like to provide extended unemployment benefits for, and of 
course, the bill before us actually targets the final 13 weeks of a 
year's worth of unemployment benefits with a 6 percent trigger, and 
it's also interesting that a senior member of the Ways and Means 
Committee from Michigan, Mr. Levin, labels that 6 percent trigger for 
that targeted approach ``ruthless,'' a description that he uses to 
describe his own legislation. I would not use that word.
  Before further debating the legislation which eliminates the 20-week 
work requirement for extended unemployment benefits, Mr. Speaker, can 
you tell us how much time we have remaining on both sides?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Illinois has 8 minutes. 
The gentleman from Washington has 9 minutes.
  Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from California and a senior Republican in the 
House Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Herger.
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, like everyone else in this Chamber, I'm 
concerned about rising unemployment, but this legitimate concern does 
not justify Congress making poor policy.
  I'm concerned that H.R. 5749 significantly departs from the long-
standing Federal policy that workers should have meaningful employment 
before collecting extended unemployment benefits. By excluding the 
minimum 20 weeks of work requirement, this legislation would allow 
someone with as little as 2 weeks of work to qualify for up to 52 weeks 
of unemployment benefits. This moves away from the core purpose of 
unemployment benefits and towards a welfare-like system.
  In addition, such expansive benefits may force States to raise 
payroll taxes, resulting in slower job creation and further squeezing 
workers' wages. This won't help current workers or unemployed workers 
in search of new jobs.
  I believe expecting at least 20 weeks of work in exchange for 52 
weeks of unemployment benefit is fair to U.S. workers and would limit 
any negative impact on job growth and workers' income.
  Unfortunately, today's legislation doesn't include this common-sense 
requirement, even though Democratic Members were nearly unanimous in 
supporting this requirement in the legislation creating the 2002-2004 
temporary extended benefits program.

                              {time}  1545

  As a result, while I'm concerned for workers in my district and 
across the

[[Page 12225]]

Nation during this period of economic uncertainty, I must oppose this 
legislation and urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' so we can bring this 
bill back to the floor in a form that all Members can support.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5749. The 
CBO, or the Congressional Budget Office, recently found that extending 
unemployment benefits is one of the most cost-effective, fastest acting 
forms of economic stimulus. As a matter of fact, it's estimated that 
every dollar spent on unemployment insurance boasts the economy by 
$1.64.
  My friends, this is a systemic problem. This is not a footnote; this 
is not an ad lib; this is not something as an addendum. We need to face 
this problem head on. Forty percent of unemployed workers in 11 States 
have already exhausted their unemployment insurance. In New Jersey, 
it's projected that nearly 153,000 workers will deplete their regular 
unemployment benefits between now and the next several months. There 
are the unemployed. There are those that are underemployed, who have 
sought work, have found no work, they find themselves relegated to no 
States whatsoever. How dare anyone question this legislation while 
people are unemployed!
  Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, as we continue to debate this 
radical change, which eliminates the 20-week work requirement to be 
eligible for 12 months of unemployment benefits, I'm happy to yield 3 
minutes to the distinguished Republican whip of the House, Mr. Blunt of 
Missouri.
  Mr. BLUNT. I thank my friend for yielding.
  I, too, share the concerns that, for all the time that the House has 
dealt with this whole issue of extended unemployment benefits going 
back to 1981, we have never before left this up to the States to decide 
how this Federal money would be spent. By, in the past, saying that you 
had to meet the 20-week requirement, at least every State had the same 
situation that they dealt with.
  I would also like to point out, Mr. Speaker, that this bill is being 
considered under a procedure known as suspension of the rules. Of 
course you know that, Mr. Speaker, but everyone who listens to this 
debate may not. Usually that procedure is used for noncontroversial 
matters. By putting it under a suspension of the rules, the so-called 
PAYGO requirement that the majority has talked about and trumpeted as 
fiscal discipline doesn't. That's a requirement where you pay for these 
benefits with a bill you bring to the floor. The roughly $10 billion 
cost of this bill is just being added to the deficit.
  As we're well aware, a group of Democrats known as the ``Blue Dogs'' 
has been particularly strong in advocating this PAYGO arrangement, yet 
apparently they're not going to oppose this bill. And the reason 
appears to me to be quite revealing. This morning's CQ Today quotes one 
of the Blue Dog leaders as saying that PAYGO should not apply because 
it's only a temporary bill. The Member said it's not a bill that's 
forever, like the GI benefits bill, it's a short-term thing. So that 
means, I guess, that temporary spending increases don't have to be 
offset. Yet these same Blue Dogs have forced the House to pass billions 
of dollars in tax increases to extend current temporary tax provisions, 
like the research provisions, the development provisions, or the 
alternative minimum tax patch that we've been able to use to prevent 
more people from falling into that tax trap for some years, or the 
continuation of being able to deduct local and State sales taxes.
  As I've said many times, the PAYGO provision is a tool that's used to 
promote tax increases. But every time the majority wants to figure out 
how to get around it, they seem to be able to figure out how to get 
around it, and they have with this bill today.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).
  Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, what I find most intriguing about this 
discussion is that those who are unemployed, to get this benefit, paid 
for this insurance policy. This is their money. When times were good, 
they put money away to unemployment insurance. And when times are bad, 
they get their insurance premiums back, known as unemployment benefits. 
It is as simple as that. This is their money, those who are unemployed.
  Second, as my colleagues on the other side have forced through and 
agreed to spend $48 billion of U.S. taxpayer money to rebuild Iraq--
their roads, their bridges, their schools, their hospitals--but when it 
comes to Americans, to give them their unemployment insurance, there 
isn't any money in the system; you're breaking the bank; you can't 
afford it.
  To those who want to advocate spending 13 years, 10 years, a decade, 
as long as it takes in Iraq, I find it ironic they find 13 weeks of 
additional unemployment insurance to help a family get through a bump 
economically as too much and too long.
  Mr. Speaker, 8 years is too long for George Bush's economic policies. 
It's right to give these people the economic security they've earned 
and put away.
  Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, as we continue to debate this 
legislation which eliminates the 20-week work requirement to qualify 
for up to 12 months of unemployment benefits, I would ask, Mr. Speaker, 
how much time remains on each side.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Illinois has 3\1/2\ 
minutes. The gentleman from Washington has 7 minutes.
  Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I will reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Ohio (Mrs. Jones).
  Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, here we are, June 2008. How many 
people do you know are unemployed? How many people do you know who have 
been walking, looking for a job, need an opportunity, can't figure out 
how they're going to pay for gas that costs $4 a gallon, milk that 
costs $3.50, a loaf of bread that costs $3? How many people do you know 
like that?
  Why not extend unemployment? Why not give these folks an opportunity? 
They were hardworking people. They were part of the working class of 
America, and now are locked out and left out of the process.
  In my own congressional district, there is a community where the 
unemployment rate is 11 percent. They want to go back to work. What a 
boom to the economy. Give some unemployment benefits to some folks, let 
them go spend some money and take care of their families. If only the 
Congress would do that today, what a significant opportunity we would 
have to bring some people out of a morass back into an opportunity to 
do well.
  Pass this legislation, ladies and gentlemen. It's the right thing to 
do.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to first thank Chairman Rangel and Ranking Member 
McCrery for their diligent work to bring this legislation to the Floor. 
Additionally I would like to thank the Chair of the Subcommittee on 
Income Security and Family Support, Jim McDermott and Ranking Member 
Weller for their leadership on this issue.
  In our teetering economy it is often the unemployed who suffer the 
most, and it is time that Congress take a stand for our Nation's 
unemployed. The unemployment rate surged to 5.5 percent from 5.0 
percent--the biggest one-month jump in more than two decades (since 
February 1986) and climbing to the highest level in nearly four years 
(October 2004).
  These are American workers in the most vulnerable position--often not 
able to put food on the table for their families on a consistent basis. 
And I will state as I did before we completed the first stimulus 
package, that we must not forgot those who are not able to find work.
  My State of Ohio does not meet the test under the current formula for 
an extension of unemployment benefits. But there are various parts of 
Ohio, including my hometown of Cleveland which may by definition have 
over 6 percent unemployment. In Ohio, the unemployment rate has gone 
from 4.5 percent to 5.3 percent during the Bush Administration. In 
Cuyahoga County, unemployment is currently at 6.4 percent. Sadly, there 
are cities within my districts whose numbers are even higher than that. 
Mere technicalities mean nothing when you cannot pay rent.

[[Page 12226]]

  This condition is prevalent in many areas around the country. Many of 
these workers have been displaced by the sweeping tide of globalization 
and are having a hard time finding new employment, or training to 
transition to a different type of job in our new economy. Mr. Speaker 
we must not forget these Americans.
  Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished Republican leader of the House, Mr. Boehner of Ohio.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Let me thank my colleague from Illinois for yielding 
time and make clear that I want to vote for a bill that extends 
unemployment benefits to those who have been laid off in areas where we 
have high unemployment. But the bill before us is not targeted at 
States where we've seen the spike in unemployment. I mean, we've got an 
unemployment rate in Oklahoma, as an example, of about 2.6 percent, or 
maybe you could go to, I think it's South Dakota, where the 
unemployment rate is about 2.4 percent. Yet, under this bill, it's a 
Federal mandate one-size-fits-all for all 50 States. I just think that 
if we're going to be serious about spending taxpayer money, we ought to 
target that money to those areas where we have high unemployment and 
where people need our help.
  The bill also eliminates the requirement that individuals put in at 
least 20 weeks of work to collect extended unemployment benefits. And 
when this was put into the law, and when we extended this law in 2002, 
almost all the Democrat members voted to do this. And what it means is 
that some people could work as little as 2 weeks and receive up to 52 
weeks of unemployment benefits. I don't think that's neither 
reasonable, nor is it a good use of limited taxpayer resources.
  I'm open to extending unemployment benefits, but I think this bill 
that we have before us falls far short of what we need to do. It's 
neither fair to unemployed workers who truly need our help, nor to 
taxpayers who are going to fund it.
  I think we can do better. And before we send a final version of this 
bill to the President, I hope that we do better. And I hope we will 
work in a bipartisan way to come to an agreement to extend unemployment 
benefits in a reasonable, responsible way. But in the meantime, this 
bill is not the answer, and I would urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, to correct something that has just been 
said on the floor, I understand that someone may not have read the 
bill. There is no mandate in this bill that any State has to do 
anything. They can enter into an agreement with the Federal Government 
and take this money. They are not forced to do anything. And I'm sure 
every smart Governor will figure out what to do.
  I yield 1 minute to Ms. Berkley from Nevada.
  Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Speaker, Congress has taken several steps to shore 
up the Nation's economy, including passage of the economic stimulus 
bill that provided millions of Americans with rebate checks and 
measures to help homeowners struggling to stay in their homes. This 
legislation is an important next step.
  The once recession-proof economy of my district of Las Vegas has not 
been spared the effects of this downturn. In fact, Nevada has been hit 
harder than any other State by the foreclosure crisis, and currently 
our unemployment rate is above the national average.
  With gas prices and the cost of food skyrocketing, fewer visitors are 
coming to Las Vegas. That means that more workers are going to be laid 
off. It is, therefore, absolutely critical that Congress step up and 
pass an extension of unemployment benefits.
  I support the bill we are considering today because it will help 
thousands of hardworking Nevadans get by until the situation improves 
and they can return to work.
  Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on each 
side?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has 2\1/2\ minutes. The 
gentleman from Washington has 5 minutes.
  Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. George Miller).
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding 
and appreciate the committee bringing this bill to the floor.
  It is just so fundamental that one of the times when government 
should step in and lend a family a hand is when that family, through no 
fault of their own, has lost their job. The difference is whether or 
not that family will be able to maintain and hold on to their home, to 
their car, to their kids' education, to provide the wherewithal for 
their children. And for millions of Americans, that's what's happened. 
And since they've lost that job, they have also exhausted their 
unemployment benefits that has enabled them to keep their head barely 
above water. They're gone looking for jobs, they've gone looking for 
work. They've tried to retrain. They still haven't been able to secure 
the employment because this is a terrible market for employment.
  What we need to do is to extend those unemployment benefits to those 
families so that they can hold themselves together. It should not be a 
policy in this country that when you lose your job through no fault of 
your own, that you crash to the ground, you lose your home, you lose 
your kids' education, and you start all over again. It's not good for 
the economy, it's horrible for these families, and it's wrong for this 
government not to take every step we can to prevent that.
  Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Well, Mr. Speaker, once again, I want to 
state that I believe the vast majority of Members of this House 
overwhelmingly support extension of unemployment benefits for those who 
need help. We're debating the legislation before us that makes a 
radical change in qualifying for unemployment benefits. In fact, you 
can work as little as 2 weeks and obtain up to 52 weeks of unemployment 
benefits in the State of Illinois under their current policy if this 
legislation were to become law.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, it's hard for me to understand why the 
gentleman from Illinois keeps bringing up his own State as an example 
of wasting money and he has never brought any legislation to fix what 
their stupid legislature has done. He is acting as though the people in 
his own State don't know what they're doing.
  Now, if somebody works, money is paid into the fund. If they work for 
a week in one quarter and a week in another quarter, it is possible 
that they might get $20 or some minimal benefit. To imply that working 
2 weeks you get $400 a week, as you do in the State of Washington, for 
26 weeks or 52 weeks is simply misleading, and he knows it.

                              {time}  1600

  I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel).
  Mr. RANGEL. Thank you again, Dr. McDermott, Mr. English, and all of 
those that I know everybody in this House is sensitive to the plight 
that these unfortunate, hardworking people find themselves. All I can 
suggest, from a very political point of view, is that at some point 
when we get home, somebody is going to ask us how did we vote? And as 
they put together their budgets and try to figure out the rent, the 
mortgages, the tuition, the gas prices, I just hope that you perfect 
the arguments of those of you that oppose this bill in such a way that 
you expect they would understand what the heck you are talking about.
  Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I note with some humor my good 
friend from Washington State's comments about whether or not I proposed 
legislation to right the wrong that I have been raising. Actually, 
existing law for extending benefits requires 20 weeks' worth. So there 
is no need for legislation to maintain existing law. What is important 
to point out is that this legislation eliminates that 20-week work 
requirement in order to qualify for 52 weeks of unemployment benefits.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, what is the remaining time?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Washington has 2\1/2\ 
minutes. The gentleman from Illinois has 1\1/2\ minutes.

[[Page 12227]]


  Mr. McDERMOTT. I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Levin).
  Mr. LEVIN. I want to read, Mr. Weller, the metropolitan areas with 
unemployment above 6 percent that would be left out under your so-
called targeting, Danville, Illinois, these are among many, and 
Kankakee and Rockford. I just picked those three out. And it is 
unconscionable for you to say----
  Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Will the gentleman from Michigan yield?
  Mr. LEVIN. I will yield on your time.
  Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Do you agree that the 6 percent that you are 
talking about is the 6 percent trigger that----
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Michigan has 
expired.
  Mr. LEVIN. No, no. The 6 percent is the trigger for the additional 13 
weeks, not for the basic 15 weeks. You misstate----
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will suspend.
  The gentleman's time has expired.
  Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. To Mr. Hoyer from Maryland I yield the remaining time. 
We have the right to close, however, I think.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Illinois has 1\1/2\ 
minutes. The gentleman from Washington has 2 minutes.
  Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, just so we fully understand, it 
is my understanding that the distinguished majority leader is going to 
close for the majority and that I have 1 minute remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. WELLER from Illinois. So I should do my close on our side and 
then Mr. Hoyer will close for the majority.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is correct.
  Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, sometimes in debate positions 
are mischaracterized. But I think it is important to point out----
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will suspend.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I want to recognize Mr. Hoyer first, and 
then let you come, and then I will close.
  We got our wires crossed.
  Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Maryland for 1 minute.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank my friend from Washington State for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, for the last 7\1/2\ years, the President and members of 
his administration have claimed that the American economy is doing just 
fine. And in December, President Bush said, ``The economy is pretty 
good. There are definitely some storm clouds and concerns, but the 
underpinning is good.''
  But the reality, of course, that we have seen is far different, 
particularly for American workers.
  Just last Friday, the Labor Department reported that the unemployment 
rate jumped one-half of 1 percent, from 5 percent to 5.5 percent. Now 
to some of us, perhaps that is simply a statistic. For some families, 
it is a crisis. This is the largest 1-month increase in unemployment in 
22 years, or said a different way, until the 6th year of the Reagan 
administration.
  Our economy has actually lost jobs each of the last 5 months, a loss 
of some 325,000 jobs since the first of the year. In fact, this 
administration has created about 3.6 million jobs over the last 7\1/2\ 
years, as opposed to 20 million plus jobs under the Clinton 
administration, or under Clinton, an average of 236,000 new jobs per 
month, and under this administration approximately 40,000 new jobs per 
month. And you need 100,000 to stay even. That is why this bill is on 
the floor today.
  Over the last 12 months, the number of unemployed Americans has 
increased by 1.6 million, from nearly 6.9 million in May of 2007 to 
nearly 8.5 million in May of this year. That is 8.5 million of our 
fellow citizens who don't have a job, who are not sure how they are 
going to pay for their housing, their rent, their food, their medicine 
and the clothing for their children. That is what we are talking about 
today. We are talking about those 8.5 million people who are our 
constituents, Americans who need our help. And that is what this vote 
is today at this point in time.
  In fact, Mr. Speaker, 1.5 million of those workers are what we call 
euphemistically ``long-term unemployed,'' which means they have been 
jobless for more than 6 months. I don't know how many of you have had 
the opportunity to see ``Pursuit of Happyness,'' spelled h-a-p-p-y. It 
is a wonderful movie about a now very successful African American and 
his little boy who found themselves homeless with no money. And they 
went to the homeless shelter, and they couldn't get in. Those are the 
people we are talking about. That is what we are voting on this day, as 
to whether or not we are going to reach out to those people and try to 
lift them up and give them a helping hand, not a handout, but a helping 
hand. These are people who were employed, who were working, and through 
no fault of their own, they lost their jobs. Because if it is the fault 
of their own, by the way, they don't get unemployment.
  All the while, working Americans have been confronted with decreasing 
household incomes, exploding gas and food prices and escalating health 
care costs. Why then, given this squeeze on hardworking middle-class 
American families, does the President threaten to veto a common-sense, 
compassionate response, the temporary extension of unemployment 
benefits?
  Here is the kicker. Listen to me. There are 200,000 more long-term 
jobless Americans today, right now, as we debate this bill, 200,000 
more Americans who are on long-term jobless status than when President 
Bush last signed an extension of unemployment benefits into law. In 
other words, the status today in America is that there are 200,000 more 
people who need our help than when President Bush last signed an 
extension of long-term unemployment.
  How can we then say it is not time to act today, to reach out our 
hand today, to say that the Congress of the United States feels your 
pain, hears your cry, and responds? There is no justification for the 
President's threatened veto on this much-needed legislation, Mr. 
Speaker. This bill is not only a sign of compassion and a demonstration 
of our values, but it is also a fast-acting form of economic stimulus.
  Who says so? Conservative economists say so. It will help lift up our 
floundering economy. It will simply provide up to 13 weeks of extended 
unemployment benefits in every State to workers exhausting regular 
unemployment compensation. And in States with higher levels of 
unemployment, an additional 13 weeks is available on top.
  Mr. Speaker, this legislation is vital. It is vital for workers and 
their families who are struggling to make ends meet in this poorly 
performing economy. It is not charity. It is our obligation and 
responsibility. It is a recognition that under the administration, the 
American worker has been forced to contend with job loss, decreasing 
incomes, exploding gas costs, food and health care costs, and 
unprecedented foreclosure rates.
  Mr. Speaker, this legislation is the right thing to do at the right 
time, at the right place. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle, this is not a Republican or Democratic issue, this is not a 
liberal or conservative issue. This is an issue of saying, there are 
people in trouble. We hear their cry. We respond to help.
  Ladies and gentlemen of the House of Representatives, we call this 
the people's House. Help the people this day.
  Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I want to echo the majority 
leader's comments when I agree that this issue, the issue of extending 
unemployment benefits, should not be a Republican or Democrat issue. 
And we, of course, on our side of the aisle, want to extend 
unemployment benefits for those who need help. And we are prepared to 
work, as we have been, to achieve that goal.

[[Page 12228]]

  I would note that 8 weeks ago when the Ways and Means Committee took 
up this legislation, it was deemed emergency legislation. It had to 
move through the committee quickly. It was an emergency. We had to do 
it right away. Well 2 months later it finally comes to the floor. And I 
believe that if we want to be compassionate, if we want to help those 
who need help, we need to do it in the right way. And that is if it is 
an emergency, we should have done it 8 weeks ago, number one, but we 
should also do it in the proper legislative way of ensuring that it is 
a bipartisan bill and that we construct it in a way that recognizes 
what has worked in the past. And I would note, as the majority leader 
said, back in 2002, we passed a bipartisan unemployment extension 
legislation that was signed into law by the President, and it 
maintained a 27-year precedent which was that one should have to work 
for 20 weeks in order to qualify for 52 weeks' worth of unemployment 
benefits.
  And that is the big concern here with this legislation today. There 
is a radical departure from an established policy of 27 years of 
requiring 20 weeks of work to qualify for a full year of unemployment 
benefits. And the legislation before us today repeals that. It 
eliminates a 27-year precedent.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.'' Let's bring 
this legislation back tomorrow, under a rule, and allow an amendment to 
be offered to strike this radical change.
  Again, Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Illinois says that he 
would go for this bill but for this one provision. If that one 
provision were there, he would go for it. But the fact is that you have 
100 metropolitan areas in this country where people simply have run out 
of benefits. And it is over 6 percent in those metropolitan areas. The 
Governors have asked us for this, and the technical thing that my 
opponent uses is, you know, somewhere out there, there is somebody who 
paid $40 into the fund, and because of the way it is written, he gets 
$20 out, and so I can't vote for it.
  Well there are 1.6 million who already exhausted their benefits, and 
there are many more. And the national Governors sent this letter to us. 
They are not the only ones. State legislator, labor unions, everyone is 
asking for this. You can vote ``no'' if you want. You will have to face 
your constituency in November.
  Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of 
the Emergency Extended Unemployment Compensation Act and congratulate 
Speaker Pelosi and Chairman Rangel for their quick response to the 
surge in the nation's unemployment rate.
  H.R. 5749 will provide immediate relief to families across the 
country by extending unemployment benefits for an additional 13 weeks 
in all states. It also allows for a further extension in benefits in 
states hardest hit by the weakening economy. Passing this legislation 
will provide much needed help to 3.8 million Americans--including 
70,000 Minnesota families.
  The latest Labor Department report showed a 5 percent increase in 
unemployment from April 2008 to May 2008--the biggest one-month 
increase in unemployment in 22 years. The economic crisis has resulted 
in five months of job losses and projections unfortunately indicate 
that the situation is likely to worsen.
  An extension of unemployment benefits is critical for families 
struggling to deal with increased gas and food prices while searching 
for a new job. It is also one of the most cost-effective ways to 
stimulate the economy. In fact, every $1 spent on these benefits 
results in $1.64 in new economic demand.
  We need to pass this legislation and provide relief for America's 
working families today. This Congress has also enacted an economic 
stimulus plan in the form of tax rebate checks and passed several 
measures to begin to address gas prices. In addition, the House of 
Representatives has passed legislation to help homeowners avoid 
foreclosure and a federal budget that would reinvest in Americans. In 
the long-term, we need a comprehensive approach to restore the strength 
of our economy. We need to get serious about addressing health care 
costs and invest in education and training to prepare for competition 
in the global economy.
  Madam Speaker, H.R. 5749 provides critical, immediate relief for 
working families and our struggling economy. I urge my colleagues to 
support this important bill.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 
5749, the Emergency Extended Unemployment Act of 2008. This bill would 
establish a temporary program providing extended unemployment benefits 
in every State to individuals exhausting their regular unemployment 
compensation. The duration of these extended benefits would equal the 
lesser of 13 weeks or half the duration of regular unemployment 
compensation.
  This bill could not be any timelier. It is no longer debatable as to 
whether the retraction of the economy is hurting every-day Americans 
across our nation. Over the first three months of 2008, the U.S. 
economy lost a total of 232,000 jobs. With the labor market in such a 
steep decline, more workers face the possibility of layoffs and current 
unemployment compensation recipients face greater difficulty in 
becoming reemployed. The total number of unemployed workers has already 
grown by 1.1 million over the last twelve months.
  The economic forecast is even worse in my home state of Michigan. 
While economists worry about the overall health of our economy, as the 
national unemployment average creeps above 5.5 percent, prospective 
employees in Michigan face a 7.6-percent unemployment rate--one of the 
highest state rates in the nation.
  Luckily, this bill recognizes that the retraction of the economy has 
hurt some communities more than others. Under this bill, states with 
high unemployment, like Michigan, would be able to provide an 
additional 13 weeks of extended benefits. This would give the 
unemployed a total of 26 weeks of coverage as they transition into new 
positions.
  Madam Speaker, we need to help our workers, especially those in who 
have been hit the hardest by this economic downturn. At the same time, 
we need to stimulate our economy in the most effective manner possible 
to prevent the downturn from spiraling into a recession. This bill 
accomplishes this goal. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office 
released a study this past January specifically endorsing the use of 
extended unemployment benefits as a cost-effective way to boost the 
economy.
  We in the Congress need to be both smart and compassionate. Let's 
help the unemployed while protecting those who currently have 
employment. Let's stimulate the economy and create new sustainable job 
opportunities for the American worker. Let's pass H.R. 5749.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this 
legislation to temporarily extend unemployment insurance benefits.
  Whether we are in a recession or not, the point is clear: current 
economic growth has been so sluggish that the job market is weak and 
job prospects are poor. The recent May 2008 jobs report confirms this 
as the unemployment rate increased by one-half point to 5.5 percent, 
which was the biggest one-month increase in over 20 years. Since the 
first of the year, our economy has lost more than 300,000 jobs.
  By providing an extra 13 weeks of jobless benefits to workers in 
every State who exhaust their unemployment benefits and another 13 
weeks of benefits to those in States with high unemployment rates, we 
can help approximately 4 million unemployed workers meet basic needs 
such as food and rent while they continue to look for work at a time 
when the economy is languishing. And we can give our economy a much-
needed boost. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, 
extending unemployment benefits would be one of the most cost-effective 
and fastest-acting forms of economic stimulus.
  Madam Speaker, many Americans are struggling to make ends meet. With 
rising gas and food prices and a weakened labor market, we can help 
those hardest hit by this sluggish economy by providing them relief in 
passing this much-needed bill.
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5749, 
the Emergency Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 2008, which 
will provide 13 weeks of extended unemployment compensation benefits 
for all workers who have exhausted their current 26 weeks of benefits. 
This measure also provides 13 additional weeks for workers in States 
with unemployment rates of 6 percent or higher. In order to receive 
these benefits, workers must have lost a job through no fault of their 
own, be actively searching for a job, be able to work, and must have a 
minimum number of weeks worked and amount of wages earned over a 
specific timeframe prior to being unemployed.
  This bill provides a critical boost to the many Rhode Islanders, and 
Americans across the Nation, who are struggling to find employment. Our 
country's unemployment rate

[[Page 12229]]

jumped from 5 percent in April to 5.5 percent in May, the biggest one-
month increase in over 20 years. In my home State of Rhode Island, the 
unemployment rate reached 6.1 percent in April, and we have lost an 
estimated 6,300 jobs since the beginning of the year. H.R. 5749 would 
provide relief through March 2006 and benefit 3.8 million Americans. 
Most importantly, this measure would immediately help as many as 8,000 
Rhode Islanders.
  When discussing this matter, we must remember to look beyond the 
statistics and recognize the serious toll that unemployment is taking 
on American families. I have received numerous calls from my fellow 
Rhode Islanders asking when Congress would extend their benefits. They 
tell me how they are looking for a job, but they just have not been 
able to find one yet. They have not given up--research has shown that 
workers who exhaust their unemployment benefits, search for a job at 
similar or higher levels of intensity as those who find employment 
before their benefits expire--but they need more time. Compounding the 
problem, the rising cost of gas poses an additional challenge in 
searching for a job, and rising food prices have made it even harder to 
put food on the table. Our constituents are turning to us for help.
  As Members of Congress, we have the power to give hard-working 
Americans another chance to continue their job search and provide for 
their families. Our country has faced economic hardships and recessions 
before, and I have no doubt we will weather this current downturn. I 
encourage my colleagues to pass this bill and give a hand up to those 
who are most vulnerable during these trying times.
  Mrs. DAVIS of California. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of 
H.R. 5749 to extend unemployment benefits to millions of American 
workers, including over 700,000 in my home State of California.
  I wanted to take this opportunity to put a human face on the recent 
economic downturn.
  Just yesterday, I spoke with a 51-year-old woman named Karen from my 
home district of San Diego.
  After working for the past 10 years as a customer service specialist, 
Karen was recently laid off from her job.
  She has been actively looking for work but has been unable to find a 
job because of the poor economy.
  Unable to afford health insurance, the stress of being unemployed is 
beginning to take a toll on Karen's health.
  It has also become harder and harder for her to pay her bills. She 
told me, ``Just looking for a job costs money, because you've got to 
pay for the gas to drive to the interviews.''
  And to make matters worse, her unemployment benefits have just ended.
  By voting for H.R. 5749, we will provide the support millions of 
Americans need to get back on their feet.
  Let us help American workers get their lives back.
  Mr. SIRES. Madam Speaker, today I rise in support of H.R. 5749, the 
Emergency Extended Unemployment Compensation Act that will provide 
immediate relief to 3.8 million unemployed workers who continue to 
struggle to find work in the slowing economy.
  Recently, the Nation experienced the biggest one-month jump in the 
unemployment rate in more than two decades, rising from 5.0 percent to 
5.5 percent and is now an entire percentage point higher than a year 
ago. Americans have been losing jobs in each of the past 5 months, with 
the number of unemployed now at 3.8 million. The airline and automobile 
industries alone have laid off over 50,000 employees combined.
  The current high levels of unemployment have only added to the 
struggles of the U.S. economy by adding thousands more Americans to 
those having a hard time making ends meet. This bill will provide the 
necessary extension of unemployment benefits to those 3.8 million 
Americans who struggle to find employment within the current timeframe.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this necessary 
legislation that will give our economy the relief it needs. Extending 
these benefits is an efficient and quick way to support our country's 
workers and invigorate the economy. My Democratic colleagues and I are 
committed to providing the much needed relief to the millions of 
unemployed workers, who in the face of rising gas and food costs, 
continue to struggle to support themselves and their families.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time has expired.
  The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Rangel) that the House suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 
5749, as amended.
  The question was taken.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds 
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
  Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and 
nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the 
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be 
postponed.

                          ____________________