[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 2]
[House]
[Pages 1924-1928]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                    TEMPORARY EXTENSION ACT OF 2010

  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 4691) to provide a temporary extension of certain programs, 
and for other purposes.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 4691

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Temporary Extension Act of 
     2010''.

     SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE PROVISIONS.

       (a) In General.--(1) Section 4007 of the Supplemental 
     Appropriations Act, 2008 (Public Law 110-252; 26 U.S.C. 3304 
     note) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``February 28, 2010'' each place it appears 
     and inserting ``April 5, 2010'';
       (B) in the heading for subsection (b)(2), by striking 
     ``february 28, 2010'' and inserting ``april 5, 2010''; and
       (C) in subsection (b)(3), by striking ``July 31, 2010'' and 
     inserting ``September 4, 2010''.
       (2) Section 2002(e) of the Assistance for Unemployed 
     Workers and Struggling Families Act, as contained in Public 
     Law 111-5 (26 U.S.C. 3304 note; 123 Stat. 438), is amended--
       (A) in paragraph (1)(B), by striking ``February 28, 2010'' 
     and inserting ``April 5, 2010'';
       (B) in the heading for paragraph (2), by striking 
     ``february 28, 2010'' and inserting ``april 5, 2010''; and
       (C) in paragraph (3), by striking ``August 31, 2010'' and 
     inserting ``October 5, 2010''.
       (3) Section 2005 of the Assistance for Unemployed Workers 
     and Struggling Families Act, as contained in Public Law 111-5 
     (26 U.S.C. 3304 note; 123 Stat. 444), is amended--
       (A) by striking ``February 28, 2010'' each place it appears 
     and inserting ``April 5, 2010''; and
       (B) in subsection (c), by striking ``July 31, 2010'' and 
     inserting ``September 4, 2010''.
       (4) Section 5 of the Unemployment Compensation Extension 
     Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-449; 26 U.S.C. 3304 note) is 
     amended by striking ``July 31, 2010'' and inserting 
     ``September 4, 2010''.
       (b) Funding.--Section 4004(e)(1) of the Supplemental 
     Appropriations Act, 2008 (Public Law 110-252; 26 U.S.C. 3304 
     note) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (2) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``1009'' and inserting 
     ``1009(a)(1)''; and
       (3) by inserting after subparagraph (C) the following new 
     subparagraph:
       ``(D) the amendments made by section 2(a)(1) of the 
     Temporary Extension Act of 2010; and''.

     SEC. 3. EXTENSION AND IMPROVEMENT OF PREMIUM ASSISTANCE FOR 
                   COBRA BENEFITS.

       (a) Extension of Eligibility Period.--Subsection (a)(3)(A) 
     of section 3001 of division B of the American Recovery and 
     Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-5) is amended by 
     striking ``February 28, 2010'' and inserting ``March 31, 
     2010''.
       (b) Clarifications Relating to Section 3001 of ARRA.--
       (1) Clarification regarding cobra continuation resulting 
     from reductions in hours.--Subsection (a) of section 3001 of 
     division B of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 
     2009 (Public Law 111-5) is amended--
       (A) in paragraph (3)(C), by inserting before the period at 
     the end the following: ``or consists of a reduction of hours 
     followed by such an involuntary termination of employment 
     during such period (as described in paragraph (17)(C))''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(17) Special rules in case of individuals losing coverage 
     because of a reduction of hours.--
       ``(A) New election period.--
       ``(i) In general.--For the purposes of the COBRA 
     continuation provisions, in the case of an individual 
     described in subparagraph (C) who did not make (or who made 
     and discontinued) an election of COBRA continuation coverage 
     on the basis of the reduction of hours of employment, the 
     involuntary termination of employment of such individual on 
     or after the date of the enactment of this paragraph shall be 
     treated as a qualifying event.
       ``(ii) Counting cobra duration period from previous 
     qualifying event.--In any case of an individual referred to 
     in clause (i), the period of such individual's continuation 
     coverage shall be determined as though the qualifying event 
     were the reduction of hours of employment.
       ``(iii) Construction.--Nothing in this paragraph shall be 
     construed as requiring an individual referred to in clause 
     (i) to make a payment for COBRA continuation coverage between 
     the reduction of hours and the involuntary termination of 
     employment.
       ``(iv) Preexisting conditions.--With respect to an 
     individual referred to in clause (i) who elects COBRA 
     continuation coverage pursuant to such clause, rules similar 
     to the rules in paragraph (4)(C) shall apply.
       ``(B) Notices.--In the case of an individual described in 
     subparagraph (C), the administrator of the group health plan 
     (or other entity) involved shall provide, during the 60-day 
     period beginning on the date of such individual's involuntary 
     termination of employment, an additional notification 
     described in paragraph (7)(A), including information on the 
     provisions of this paragraph. Rules similar to the rules of 
     paragraph (7) shall apply with respect to such notification.
       ``(C) Individuals described.--Individuals described in this 
     subparagraph are individuals who are assistance eligible 
     individuals on the basis of a qualifying event consisting of 
     a reduction of hours occurring during the period described in 
     paragraph (3)(A) followed by an involuntary termination of 
     employment insofar as such involuntary termination of 
     employment occurred on or after the date of the enactment of 
     this paragraph.''.
       (2) Codification of current interpretation.--Subsection 
     (a)(16) of such section is amended--
       (A) by striking clause (ii) of subparagraph (A) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(ii) such individual pays, the amount of such premium, 
     after the application of paragraph (1)(A), by the latest of--

       ``(I) 60 days after the date of the enactment of this 
     paragraph,
       ``(II) 30 days after the date of provision of the 
     notification required under subparagraph (D)(ii), or
       ``(III) the end of the period described in section 
     4980B(f)(2)(B)(iii) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.''; 
     and

       (B) by striking subclause (I) of subparagraph (C)(i), and 
     inserting the following:

       ``(I) such assistance eligible individual experienced an 
     involuntary termination that was a qualifying event prior to 
     the date of enactment of the Department of Defense 
     Appropriations Act, 2010; and''.

       (3) Clarification of period of assistance.--Subsection 
     (a)(2)(A)(ii)(I) of such section is amended by striking ``of 
     the first month''.
       (4) Enforcement.--Subsection (a)(5) of such section is 
     amended by adding at the end the following: ``In addition to 
     civil actions that may be brought to enforce applicable 
     provisions of such Act or other laws, the appropriate 
     Secretary or an affected individual may bring a civil action 
     to enforce such determinations and for appropriate relief. In 
     addition, such Secretary may assess a penalty against a plan 
     sponsor or health insurance issuer of not more than $110 per 
     day for each failure to comply with such determination of 
     such Secretary after 10 days after the

[[Page 1925]]

     date of the plan sponsor's or issuer's receipt of the 
     determination.''.
       (5) Amendments relating to section 3001 of arra.--
       (A) Subsection (g)(9) of section 35 of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986 is amended by striking ``section 3002(a) of the 
     Health Insurance Assistance for the Unemployed Act of 2009'' 
     and inserting ``section 3001(a) of title III of division B of 
     the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009''.
       (B) Section 139C of such Code is amended by striking 
     ``section 3002 of the Health Insurance Assistance for the 
     Unemployed Act of 2009'' and inserting ``section 3001 of 
     title III of division B of the American Recovery and 
     Reinvestment Act of 2009''.
       (C) Section 6432 of such Code is amended--
       (i) in subsection (a), by striking ``section 3002(a) of the 
     Health Insurance Assistance for the Unemployed Act of 2009'' 
     and inserting ``section 3001(a) of title III of division B of 
     the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009'';
       (ii) in subsection (c)(3), by striking ``section 
     3002(a)(1)(A) of such Act'' and inserting ``section 
     3001(a)(1)(A) of title III of division B of the American 
     Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009''; and
       (iii) by redesignating subsections (e) and (f) as 
     subsections (f) and (g), respectively, and inserting after 
     subsection (d) the following new subsection:
       ``(e) Employer Determination of Qualifying Event as 
     Involuntary Termination.--For purposes of this section, in 
     any case in which--
       ``(1) based on a reasonable interpretation of section 
     3001(a)(3)(C) of division B of the American Recovery and 
     Reinvestment Act of 2009 and administrative guidance 
     thereunder, an employer determines that the qualifying event 
     with respect to COBRA continuation coverage for an individual 
     was involuntary termination of a covered employee's 
     employment, and
       ``(2) the employer maintains supporting documentation of 
     the determination, including an attestation by the employer 
     of involuntary termination with respect to the covered 
     employee,
     the qualifying event for the individual shall be deemed to be 
     involuntary termination of the covered employee's 
     employment.''.
       (D) Subsection (a) of section 6720C of such Code is amended 
     by striking ``section 3002(a)(2)(C) of the Health Insurance 
     Assistance for the Unemployed Act of 2009'' and inserting 
     ``section 3001(a)(2)(C) of title III of division B of the 
     American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect as if included in the provisions of section 
     3001 of division B of the American Recovery and Reinvestment 
     Act of 2009 to which they relate, except that--
       (1) the amendments made by subsection (b)(1) shall apply to 
     periods of coverage beginning after the date of the enactment 
     of this Act;
       (2) the amendments made by subsection (b)(2) shall take 
     effect as if included in the amendments made by section 1010 
     of division B of the Department of Defense Appropriations 
     Act, 2010; and
       (3) the amendments made by subsections (b)(3) and (b)(4) 
     shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 4. EXTENSION OF SURFACE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAMS.

       (a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (b), for 
     purposes of the continued extension of surface transportation 
     programs and related authority to make expenditures from the 
     Highway Trust Fund and other trust funds under sections 157 
     through 162 of the Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2010 
     (Public Law 111-68; 123 Stat. 2050), the date specified in 
     section 106(3) of that resolution (Public Law 111-68; 123 
     Stat. 2045) shall be deemed to be March 28, 2010.
       (b) Exception.--Subsection (a) shall not apply if an 
     extension of the programs and authorities described in that 
     subsection for a longer term than the extension contained in 
     the Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2010 (Public Law 
     111-68; 123 Stat. 2050), is enacted before the date of 
     enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 5. INCREASE IN THE MEDICARE PHYSICIAN PAYMENT UPDATE.

       Paragraph (10) of section 1848(d) of the Social Security 
     Act, as added by section 1011(a) of the Department of Defense 
     Appropriations Act, 2010 (Public Law 111-118), is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``February 28, 2010'' 
     and inserting ``March 31, 2010''; and
       (2) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``March 1, 2010'' and 
     inserting ``April 1, 2010''.

     SEC. 6. EXTENSION OF MEDICARE THERAPY CAPS EXCEPTIONS 
                   PROCESS.

       Section 1833(g)(5) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1395l(g)(5)) is amended by striking ``December 31, 2009'' and 
     inserting ``March 31, 2010''.

     SEC. 7. EXTENSION OF USE OF 2009 POVERTY GUIDELINES.

       Section 1012 of the Department of Defense Appropriations 
     Act, 2010 (Public Law 111-118) is amended by striking ``March 
     1, 2010'' and inserting ``March 31, 2010''.

     SEC. 8. EXTENSION OF NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM.

       Section 129 of the Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 
     2010 (Public Law 111-68), as amended by section 1005 of 
     Public Law 111-118, is further amended by striking ``by 
     substituting'' and all that follows through the period at the 
     end, and inserting ``by substituting March 28, 2010, for the 
     date specified in each such section.''.

     SEC. 9. EXTENSION OF SMALL BUSINESS LOAN GUARANTEE PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--Section 502(f) of division A of the 
     American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public Law 
     111-5; 123 Stat. 153) is amended by striking ``February 28, 
     2010'' and inserting ``March 28, 2010''.
       (b) Appropriation.--There is appropriated, out of any funds 
     in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for an additional 
     amount for ``Small Business Administration - Business Loans 
     Program Account'', $60,000,000, to remain available through 
     March 28, 2010, for the cost of--
       (1) fee reductions and eliminations under section 501 of 
     division A of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 
     2009 (Public Law 111-5; 123 Stat. 151) for loans guaranteed 
     under section 7(a) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 
     636(a)), title V of the Small Business Investment Act of 1958 
     (15 U.S.C. 695 et seq.), or section 502 of division A of the 
     American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public Law 
     111-5; 123 Stat. 152), as amended by this section; and
       (2) loan guarantees under section 502 of division A of the 
     American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public Law 
     111-5; 123 Stat. 152), as amended by this section,
     Provided, That such costs, including the cost of modifying 
     such loans, shall be as defined in section 502 of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

     SEC. 10. SATELLITE TELEVISION EXTENSION.

       (a) Amendments to Section 119 of Title 17, United States 
     Code.--
       (1) In general.--Section 119 of title 17, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (A) in subsection (c)(1)(E), by striking ``February 28, 
     2010'' and inserting ``March 28, 2010''; and
       (B) in subsection (e), by striking ``February 28, 2010'' 
     and inserting ``March 28, 2010''.
       (2) Termination of license.--Section 1003(a)(2)(A) of 
     Public Law 111-118 is amended by striking ``February 28, 
     2010'', and inserting ``March 28, 2010''.
       (b) Amendments to Communications Act of 1934.--Section 
     325(b) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 325(b)) 
     is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (2)(C), by striking ``February 28, 2010'' 
     and inserting ``March 28, 2010''; and
       (2) in paragraph (3)(C), by striking ``March 1, 2010'' each 
     place it appears in clauses (ii) and (iii) and inserting 
     ``March 29, 2010''.

     SEC. 11. DETERMINATION OF BUDGETARY EFFECTS.

       (a) In General.--The budgetary effects of this Act, for the 
     purpose of complying with the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go-Act of 
     2010, shall be determined by reference to the latest 
     statement titled ``Budgetary Effects of PAYGO Legislation'' 
     for this Act, submitted for printing in the Congressional 
     Record by the Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the 
     House of Representatives, provided that such statement has 
     been submitted prior to the vote on passage.
       (b) Emergency Designation for Congressional Enforcement.--
     This Act, with the exception of section 5, is designated as 
     an emergency for purposes of pay-as-you-go principles. In the 
     Senate, this Act is designated as an emergency requirement 
     pursuant to section 403(a) of S. Con. Res. 13 (111th 
     Congress), the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal 
     year 2010.
       (c) Emergency Designation for Statutory PAYGO.--This Act, 
     with the exception of section 5, is designated as an 
     emergency requirement pursuant to section 4(g) of the 
     Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-139; 2 
     U.S.C. 933(g)).

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. McDermott) and the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Herger) each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington.


                             General Leave

  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that Members may 
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Washington?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may 
consume.
  This bill provides a short-term extension for a number of programs.
  When you have the other body basically operating on filibusters 
continuously on everything, it's not surprising that suddenly somebody 
wakes up over there and figures out that they're going to have to go to 
work and pass some legislation.
  By the end of March, 1.2 million people will run out of unemployment 
benefits, so we're extending unemployment

[[Page 1926]]

benefits through the 8th of April, 2010. That is another month. The 
Senate likes to have a vote on unemployment about once a month. For 
whatever reason they want to come out here and do this when they can 
see the problem and they want to drag the American people through this 
process over and over again, I cannot understand. The Republicans over 
there using filibusters to stop the Senate from doing anything simply 
don't care about workers in this country.
  Now, there is also an extension of COBRA assistance. We're extending 
that until the 28th of March, 2010, so people have health insurance for 
another month. Thanks a lot. And we're extending surface transportation 
programs, which makes related expenditures for surface transportation 
until March 28, 2010.
  We're extending the Medicare physician update, which extends the 
increase in physicians' payments until March 28, 2010. We're extending 
the Medicare therapy cap exceptions until March 28, 2010. We're 
extending the poverty guidelines. And I could go on down this list. I 
have got a whole bunch more.

                              {time}  1730

  The fact is, we passed, in December, out of this House, a 6-month 
extension in unemployment benefits, but somebody decided we had to have 
a filibuster in the Senate, so they stepped on the bill. And suddenly 
we come to 5:28 p.m. on the 25th of February and somebody says, oh, my 
God, there are going to be people in my district with no check. They 
have been calling my office for the last 2 weeks. Are they going to 
extend benefits? Will my benefits be extended? What's going to happen 
to us?
  Well, this is their answer. We will give them another month's 
reprieve, and I urge all my colleagues to vote for this bill.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
This legislation provides for a 1-month extension of several important 
programs, including unemployment insurance and health coverage for 
Americans laid off in this recession, a postponement of severe cuts in 
Medicare payments to physicians and a satellite television law that 
allows Americans in rural areas to get access to local news and 
programming.
  It's important to realize that this is not a jobs bill. On the 
contrary, the extension of unemployment insurance is needed because the 
2009 stimulus bill didn't create the jobs Democrats promised. Laid-off 
workers should not be punished for that.
  Instead of creating 3.7 million jobs as promised, the stimulus bill 
was followed by 3.3 million additional job losses. A record 16 million 
are now unemployed, and Americans are asking ``where are the jobs?''
  The legislation before us continues the payment of a record 99 weeks 
of total unemployment benefits, but millions will soon be exhausting 
those benefits and wondering what comes next, and they will face a job 
market that on top of everything else is now burdened by mammoth 
unemployment payroll tax hikes caused by all the unemployment benefits 
paid to date. So the need to pass this bill today is the result of the 
failure of the Democrat stimulus bill to create the jobs they promised. 
If it had created those jobs, and unemployment were now under 8 percent 
and falling, as Democrats predicted it would be, we would be in a 
position to start winding these benefits down.
  Instead, unemployment is near 10 percent, and even the administration 
thinks it will remain so through at least this year.
  The CBO has estimated this bill will add over $10 billion to the 
deficit. Less than 2 weeks after the Democrats' pay-as-you-go bill was 
signed into law, we are already seeing billions of dollars designated 
as ``emergency spending'' so we don't have to pay for it.
  With abundant unused TARP and stimulus money that could pay for this 
bill, it's clear Democrats are not serious about fiscal responsibility.
  We also need to craft policies that will actually create jobs so 
unemployed workers can get back to work. That will require ending the 
massive taxing, spending, and borrowing plans this Democrat Congress 
and administration has. These policies have created severe uncertainty 
among American workers and businesses, causing economic stagnation and 
discouraging hiring. We could eliminate this uncertainty and get the 
private-sector American job creation engine humming again by 
immediately extending all expiring tax cuts, scrapping plans for a 
government takeover of health care, scrapping plans to impose a 
national energy tax via a cap-and-trade program, repealing wasteful 
stimulus spending, and committing to not increasing taxes until the 
economy has fully recovered.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. I yield 3 minutes to my distinguished colleague from 
Michigan (Mr. Levin).
  Mr. LEVIN. Well, what we face is the highest number of long-term 
unemployed for over 60 years, 6.3 million people, long-term unemployed. 
We have 15 million people looking for work.
  I came in just in the middle of the statement from my friend from 
California. I don't think this is the time for us to be arguing over 
past programs. I have never understood what the minority was thinking 
about in terms of job creation. They have voted against Recovery Act 
bills.
  But this isn't the time to be using the plight of the unemployed to 
try to make points about previous actions. This is the time for us to 
once again face up to the fact that we have huge numbers of people who 
are looking for work and can't find it. This is the time for us to 
understand the pain for individuals in this circumstance. We passed a 
jobs bill here some months ago, unfortunately, without bipartisan 
support. But I don't want to argue about that. We should be talking 
about providing. It's really not a safety net; it's a subsistence 
issue. It's people who have been laid off through no fault of their own 
who need a continuation of unemployment compensation.
  If we do not do this, the estimate is that over 1 million people 
nationally will lose their unemployment benefits in March. That's 1 
month alone, 1.2 million people. If that isn't sobering enough to get 
us to focus on an extension of unemployment compensation and health 
benefits for these people, I don't know what else we will do.
  So I hope we will come here and pass this bill and not use it as a 
vehicle to be talking about something other than the plight of the 
unemployed of this country who can't find a job, 6 or 7 people looking 
for a job for every job that might open up.
  I urge that we pass this overwhelmingly.
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I reluctantly support this legislation. 
While it has major flaws, which I outlined earlier, the current job 
market in so many parts of the country, including my own congressional 
district in northern California, is so bad that the help, especially 
for long-term unemployed individuals, in this bill is both needed and 
merited during the weeks covered by this legislation at the very least.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, as I listened to my friend from Michigan 
(Mr. Levin) talk about the situation, it brings you almost beyond anger 
to realize that one person in the other body has stopped the 
unemployment extension for several months. We don't know, even as we 
pass this bill over there today, what will happen if that gentleman 
does not lift his restriction on the Senate bill. We may be into a 
cloture situation again. Now what they did before, they held up 
unemployment insurance, they held it up and held it up, and then, when 
it came to the end, everybody voted for it.
  It is clear, from the first words out of my colleague from 
California's mouth, that this is about trying to prove to the people 
that the Democrats can't run the Congress. They can't run the Congress 
with the filibuster in the Senate stopping issues like this that are 
going to go through here unanimously. Nobody in his right mind is going 
to vote against health care and unemployment benefits for people who 
are out

[[Page 1927]]

there struggling, and nobody is going to vote against flood insurance 
for people and nobody is going to vote against small business loan 
guarantees and a lot of other things that are in this extension bill 
because of the filibuster in the Senate.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for this, and I urge the other body to 
think about changing the filibuster.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this legislation.
  This bill would increase Federal spending by $10 billion, or $125 per 
family of four in the U.S. None of which would be paid for. And that's 
just a fraction of $1,000 per family of four it will cost to extend 
these programs through the end of the year, as is already in the works. 
That, too, will get added to our children's already enormous tab of 
government debt. They deserve far better.
  Ironically, just two weeks ago the President signed Democrats' 
``paygo'' bill into law. He said ``the PAYGO bill . . . says very 
simply that the United States of America should pay as we go and live 
within our means again--just like responsible families and businesses 
do.''
  Yet today, with this bill, we're not living within our means, yet 
again.
  A second flaw of this bill has to do with jobs. This legislation 
simply won't create any.
  Some say that extending unemployment benefits stimulates job 
creation. If that were so, we would be at full employment already. 
Today record numbers of Americans--over 11 million--collect 
unemployment checks instead of paychecks. They collect record weeks of 
benefits--up to 99 weeks per person. And Congress added another $100 
per month to those checks, for the first time ever. Yet since these 
programs started in 2008, the unemployment rate has jumped from 5.5 
percent to over 10 percent as almost 8 million jobs disappeared.
  So if these unemployment benefits are creating jobs, they are sure 
hard to see. But what we can see are mammoth payroll tax hikes this 
year in most States, as they struggle to pay for these benefits. As 
employer after employer has said, those tax hikes will further harm job 
creation when businesses and workers are already hurting.
  In fact, some respected scholars argue these record unemployment 
benefit expansions actually are resulting in more unemployment, not 
less. That seems more than plausible.
  At this time I would request ask unanimous consent to insert in the 
Record an article from the November 17, 2009 New York Post, which 
states:

       As Larry Summers, the president's top assistant for 
     economic policy, noted in July, ``the unemployment rate over 
     the recession has risen about 1 to 1.5 percentage points more 
     than would normally be attributable to the contraction in 
     GDP''. . . Summers knows why the US rate is so high. He 
     explained it well in a 1995 paper co-authored with James 
     Poterba of MIT: ``Unemployment insurance lengthens 
     unemployment spells.'' . . . (T)he evidence is overwhelming 
     that the February stimulus bill has added at least two 
     percentage points to the unemployment rate. If Congress and 
     the White House hadn't tried so hard to stimulate long-term 
     unemployment, the US unemployment rate would now be about 8 
     percent and falling rather than more than 10 percent and--
     rising.

  Mr. Chairman, we have tried extending unemployment benefits again and 
again. And we have only gotten more unemployment. Yet what unemployed 
workers really want are jobs and paychecks. We need to start over and 
do the things that really help create jobs for unemployed workers. That 
means eliminating uncertainty by scrapping Democrats' government health 
care takeover and cap and tax energy plans, extending expiring tax cuts 
on businesses and individuals, repealing wasteful stimulus spending, 
and committing to not increasing any tax until the economy has fully 
recovered.
  Until we do that, additional extensions of unemployment benefits will 
simply spend even more money we don't have without truly helping 
unemployed workers find jobs, which must be our real goal.

                [From the New York Post, Nov. 17, 2009]

                    The `Stimulus' for Unemployment

                           (By Alan Reynolds)

       Why did the unemployment rate rise so rapidly--from 7.2 per 
     cent in January to 10.2 percent in October? It was clearly 
     the administration's ``stimulus'' bill--which in February 
     provided $40 billion to greatly extend jobless benefits at no 
     cost to the states.
       As Larry Summers, the president's top assistant for 
     economic policy, noted in July, ``the unemployment rate over 
     the recession has risen about 1 to 1.5 percentage points more 
     than would normally be attributable to the contraction in 
     GDP.'' And the rate has moved nearly a percentage point 
     higher since then, even though GDP increased. Countries with 
     much deeper declines in GDP, such as Germany and Sweden, have 
     unemployment rates far below ours.
       Summers knows why the US rate is so high. He explained it 
     well in a 1995 paper coauthored with James Poterba of MIT: 
     ``Unemployment insurance lengthens unemployment spells.''
       That is: When the government pays people 50 to 60 percent 
     of their previous wage to stay home for a year or more, many 
     of them do just that.
       And the stimulus bribed states to extend benefits--which 
     have now been stretched to an unprecedented 79 weeks in 28 
     states and to 46 to 72 weeks in the rest. Before mid-2008, by 
     contrast, only a few states paid jobless benefits for even a 
     month beyond the standard 26 weeks.
       When you subsidize something, you get more of it. Extending 
     unemployment benefits from 26 to 79 weeks was guaranteed to 
     leave many more people unemployed for many more months.
       And longer unemployment translates to higher unemployment 
     rates--because the relatively small numbers of newly 
     unemployed are added to stubbornly large numbers of those who 
     lost their jobs more than six months ago.
       Until benefits are about to run out, many of the long-term 
     unemployed are in no rush to make serious efforts to find 
     another job--or to accept job offers that may involve a long 
     commute, relocation or disappointing salary and benefits.
       (Incidentally, the ``mercy'' of longer benefits does no 
     long-term favors: The literature is quite clear that a 
     prolonged period on unemployment tends to depress income for 
     years after you finally go back to work.)
       The median length of unemployment hovered around 10 weeks 
     for six months before February's ``stimulus'' plan. Since 
     half the unemployed found jobs within 10 weeks, more than 
     half of those counted among the unemployed in one month would 
     no longer be included three months later. In other words, 
     more frequent turnover among the unemployed held down monthly 
     unemployment.
       But after February, with jobless benefits stretched out to 
     46 to 79 weeks, the median duration of unemployment nearly 
     doubled, reaching 18.7 weeks by October.
       The unemployment rate has not been rising because of 
     growing numbers of newly jobless people. Indeed, initial 
     claims for unemployment benefits are way down. And the number 
     of unfilled private job openings increased by 9.3 percent 
     from the end of April to the end of September.
       The unemployment rate has been rising because unprecedented 
     numbers of those who became unemployed six to 19 months ago 
     are remaining ``on the dole'' until their benefits are nearly 
     exhausted.
       Summers isn't the only administration economist who 
     understands this very well. Assistant Secretary of the 
     Treasury for Economic Policy Alan Krueger co-authored a 2002 
     survey of the topic with Bruce Meyer of the University of 
     Chicago. They found that ``unemployment insurance and 
     worker's compensation insurance . . . tend to increase the 
     length of time employees spend out of work.'' Last August, 
     Krueger and Andreus Miller of Princeton also found that ``job 
     search increases sharply [from 20 minutes a week to 70] in 
     the weeks prior to benefit exhaustion.''
       Similarly, Meyer found ``the probability of leaving 
     unemployment rises dramatically just prior to when benefits 
     lapse.'' In other words: If you extend benefits to 79 weeks, 
     many people won't find an acceptable job offer until the 76th 
     or 78th week.
       Meyer and Lawrence Katz of Harvard estimated that ``a one-
     week increase in potential benefit duration increases the 
     average duration of the unemployment spells . . . by 0.16 to 
     0.20 weeks.'' Apply that formula to the 20-to-53-week 
     extension we've seen, and you get an average of three to ten 
     more weeks spent on unemployment. And, sure enough, the 
     average unemployment spell has risen by seven weeks this 
     year--to nearly 27 weeks by October.
       Katz also found that extended benefits, by making it easier 
     for workers to wait and see whether they get their old jobs 
     back, also makes it easier for employers to delay recalling 
     laid-off workers. Just before unemployment benefits run out, 
     Katz found ``large positive jumps in both the recall rate and 
     new job finding rate.''
       The White House recently made the mysterious claim of 
     having ``saved'' 640,329 jobs, at a cost of only $531,250 per 
     job ($340 billion).
       In reality, the evidence is overwhelming that the February 
     stimulus bill has added at least two percentage points to the 
     unemployment rate. If Congress and the White House hadn't 
     tried so hard to stimulate long-term unemployment, the US 
     unemployment rate would now be about 8 percent and falling 
     rather than more than 10 percent and--rising.
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4691, Temporary 
Extensions Act of 2010, which temporarily extends a number of important 
expiring provisions to assist workers hit hard by the economy as well 
as averts the impending cuts under Medicare for physician services. 
These are important policies that we should not let lapse.

[[Page 1928]]

  However, there are also a number of critical rural health payment 
adjustments under Medicare that expired last year which are not 
included in this package. These payment adjustments were created under 
the Medicare Modernization Act to correct flaws in Medicare payments 
and have made a tremendous difference to rural hospitals, physicians, 
ambulances, and laboratories and the seniors they serve. Congress has a 
long record of extending these important rural health care provisions. 
Most recently the House found it appropriate to include extensions of 
these critical rural health care provisions in legislation passed last 
year.
  These provisions have not yet been signed into law and I am deeply 
concerned that failing to extend these important policies could impact 
the ability of rural providers to continue delivering much-needed care 
to our seniors. A lapse in these provisions, even temporarily, has 
created a great level of instability for our affected providers and the 
patients that they serve. That is why 69 bipartisan members of the 
bipartisan Rural Health Care Coalition have joined me in urging 
leadership to extend these important policies. A copy of this letter 
will follow my remarks.
  I am committed to retroactively extending these important provisions 
which help preserve access to quality health care services in rural 
America and will fight to ensure that they are addressed.


                                Congress of the United States,

                                Washington, DC, February 24, 2010.
     Speaker Nancy Pelosi,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
     Chairman Charles B. Rangel,
     House Committee on Ways and Means,
     Washington, DC.
     Chairman Henry A. Waxman,
     House Committee on Energy and Commerce,
     Washington, DC.
     Minority Leader John A. Boehner,
     House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
     Ranking Member Dave Camp,
     House Committee on Ways and Means,
     Washington, DC.
     Ranking Member Joe Barton,
     House Committee on Energy and Commerce,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Speaker Pelosi, Minority Leader Boehner, Chairman 
     Rangel, Ranking Member Camp, Chairman Waxman, and Ranking 
     Member Barton: As members of the House Rural Health Care 
     Coalition, we are writing on behalf of our rural health care 
     providers and the patients that they serve to urge Congress 
     to retroactively extend critical rural health payment 
     adjustments under Medicare that recently expired. These rural 
     support payments help preserve access to quality health care 
     services in rural America and failing to swiftly extend them 
     could impact the ability to continue delivering much-needed 
     care to our constituents.
       The Medicare Modernization Act (MMA) made important 
     corrections to flaws in Medicare payments that have made a 
     tremendous difference to the hospitals, doctors, nurses and 
     other providers in our states and throughout rural America. 
     Congress has a long record of extending these important rural 
     health care provisions. Most recently, the House found it 
     appropriate to include extensions of many of these critical 
     rural health care provisions in legislation it passed last 
     year. However, these provisions have not yet been signed into 
     law. Therefore, we ask for your continued support to improve 
     rural health care by including in legislation Congress may 
     consider in the coming weeks an extension of the critical 
     rural health provisions described below:
       Rural Hospitals: Our rural hospitals provide essential 
     inpatient, outpatient and post-acute care to nearly 9 million 
     Medicare beneficiaries. We support an extension of the 
     geographical wage index reclassifications for the more than 
     100 ``Section 508 Hospitals,'' in order to continue to 
     providing greater wage parity within a state in order to 
     address increasingly competitively labor markets. In 
     addition, it is critical that Congress ensures that small 
     rural hospitals continue to be reimbursed for their costs for 
     their laboratory services and preserves outpatient hold 
     harmless payments for sole community and small rural 
     hospitals. We also support an extension of direct billing 
     under Medicare for certain grandfathered labs for the 
     technical component of pathology services provided to certain 
     rural hospitals. Lastly, we support extending the recently 
     expired Rural Community Hospital Demonstration project, which 
     tests the feasibility and advisability for reasonable cost 
     reimbursement for small rural hospitals.
       Rural Doctors and Practitioners: Only ten percent of 
     physicians practice in rural America even though more than a 
     quarter of the population lives in these areas. In order to 
     help recruit and retain physicians where they are needed 
     most, it is imperative that we continue to maintain the 1.0 
     floor on the physician work geographic practice cost index 
     (GPCI).
       Rural Ambulance: In providing critical emergency health 
     care to patients, it costs rural ambulance service providers 
     more per transport than their urban counterparts because of 
     the greater distances rural providers travel and their lower 
     transport volume. In fact, many of our rural ambulance 
     service providers are staffed primarily by volunteers to stay 
     afloat. That is why it is necessary to ensure that rural 
     ambulance providers continue to receive an additional 3 
     percent in Medicare reimbursement, and for super rural 
     ambulance service providers to continue to receive 22.6 
     percent to their base rate which helps cover the costs of 
     serving patients located in these extremely rural areas.
       These rural equity policy provisions are critical to the 
     ability of our rural health care providers to continue to 
     provide quality care to rural Americans. A lapse in these 
     provisions, even temporarily, has created a great level of 
     instability for our affected providers and the patients that 
     they serve. We urge your continued leadership in championing 
     these important rural issues.
           Sincerely,
         Earl Pomeroy, Co-Chair, Rural Health Care Coalition, Greg 
           Walden, Chet Edwards, Rick Boucher, Dennis Moore, 
           Michael H. Michaud, Timothy Walz, Leonard L. Boswell, 
           Cathy McMorris Rodgers, David Loebsack, Bruce Braley, 
           Jim Marshall, Kathleen A. Dahlkemper, Brett Guthrie, 
           Don Young, Scott Murphy, Carolyn Kilpatrick, Carol 
           Shea-Porter, John Boozman, Ben Chandler, Michael 
           Arcuri, Ron Paul, Frank Kratovil, Kevin Brady, Heath 
           Shuler, Phil Hare, Charlie Melancon, Marion Berry, Jim 
           Matheson, Mike Ross, Jo Ann Emerson, Shelley Moore 
           Capito, Ruben Hinojosa, Michael K. Simpson, Gene 
           Taylor.
         Jerry Moran, Co-chair, Rural Health Care Coalition, James 
           L. Oberstar, Chaka Fattah, Peter Welch, Raul M. 
           Grijalva, Ron Kind, Bill Foster, Eric Massa, Dennis 
           Cardoza, Blaine Luetkemeyer, Bob Etheridge, Adrian 
           Smith, Brad Ellsworth, Larry Kissell, Donald A. 
           Manzullo, John W. Olver, Sam Graves, Gabrielle 
           Giffords, Deborah L. Halvorson, Rick Larsen, Charles A. 
           Wilson, John Barrow, Rodney Alexander, Stephanie 
           Herseth Sandlin, John Salazar, Christopher P. Carney, 
           Lincoln Davis, Harold Rogers, Sanford D. Bishop, Jr., 
           Mike McIntyre, Todd Tiahrt, Bill Delahunt, Nick J. 
           Rahall II, Ike Skelton, Bart Stupak.

  Mr. McDERMOTT. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott) that the House suspend the 
rules and pass the bill, H.R. 4691.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the 
rules were suspended and the bill was passed.

                          ____________________