[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 (2012), Part 1]
[House]
[Pages 743-749]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES ON H.R. 3630, TEMPORARY PAYROLL TAX CUT 
                        CONTINUATION ACT OF 2011

  Mr. MICHAUD. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to instruct conferees at 
the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Michaud moves that the managers on the part of the 
     House at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two 
     Houses on the Senate amendment to the bill H.R. 3630 be 
     instructed to recede from section 2123 of the House bill, 
     relating to allowing a waiver of requirements under section 
     3304(a)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, including a 
     requirement that all money withdrawn from the unemployment 
     fund of the State shall be used solely in the payment of 
     unemployment compensation.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 7 of rule XXII, the 
gentleman from Maine (Mr. Michaud) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Brady) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maine.
  Mr. MICHAUD. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would like to yield 4 
minutes to the gentlelady from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
  Ms. KAPTUR. I thank my esteemed colleague, Congressman Mike Michaud 
of Maine, for allowing me this time to join him and to rise in support 
of his motion to instruct conferees on a payroll tax cut extension bill 
that strikes a section that undermines the normal procedures of 
unemployment compensation to people who are out of work as it diverts 
those funds to other purposes.
  Here we have the hardest of hearts that exist in this House, the 
majority on the other side of the aisle, who allowed the market to 
crash in 2008, putting millions of people out of work and then throwing 
millions more out of their homes and turning a cold eye toward them. 
And then proposed to cut heating assistance to those who are struggling 
across this country, and then a majority on the other side voting to 
not extend unemployment benefits to the victims. I didn't see any 
enthusiasm over there for prosecuting the big banks on Wall Street and 
those who had committed the fraud that got us into this mess in the 
first place. No, they want to cut it out of the hearts of the victims.
  Now, the House Republican proposal in H.R. 3630 would allow States to 
apply for waivers to bypass basic protections and standards that now 
apply to the permanent unemployment extension program. States already 
have ample flexibility to determine eligibility for unemployment 
insurance benefits and to set the amount of those benefits, but they 
must now operate under a basic set of rules. For example, States are 
required to spend unemployment insurance funds solely on unemployment 
benefits. They must pay benefits when due, and they may not condition 
eligibility on issues beyond the fact and cause a person's 
unemployment. The Republican bill would circumvent these basic 
protections.
  Under the proposed waiver policy, States could divert unemployment 
funds to other purposes, which seems particularly ill-timed when over 
half of the States' unemployment trust funds are insolvent because 
there's so many people still out of work. This diversion policy could 
lead to jobless individuals being denied weekly unemployment benefits 
and instead being offered less useful benefits. Furthermore, a waiver 
could allow new requirements to be imposed on unemployment insurance 
recipients, including a requirement that they perform a community 
service job to be eligible for benefits.
  Unemployment insurance is an earned benefit for people who have 
worked hard. It's insurance. Effectively they have paid into those 
insurance funds and have lost their jobs through no fault of their own. 
These individuals must actively search for work to be eligible. I have 
people in my district that have sent out 400 resumes, knocked on 
hundreds and hundreds of doors. They want to work. And many receive 
services through the Federally funded one-stop employment centers. 
Regrettably, House Republicans that have consistently targeted this 
system for steep cuts in services at a time when they are needed most 
again have a proposal here.
  You know, I really wonder why they don't focus as much attention on 
prosecution of the Wall Street perpetrators who got us into this mess 
in the first place. I think you've got the telescope turned around in 
the wrong direction. You ought to be caring for those who have an ethic 
of work and who have earned these benefits. And we need to recoup money 
to balance the budget and to meet our societal needs by making sure 
that prosecution occurs for those who took the Republic to the cleaners 
and are still fat and happy sitting in the same chairs that they were 
in back in 2008 up there on Wall Street.
  So I would say to the gentleman I rise in strong support of your 
effort to instruct the conferees and to protect the earned benefits of 
those in our society who build this country forward through thick and 
thin no matter what. They have earned the right to their unemployment 
benefits.

[[Page 744]]


  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I think there is bipartisan agreement--Republicans and Democrats--on 
extending unemployment benefits for a full year.
  Clearly, we're in tough economic times. But here we are 2\1/2\ years 
after the recession officially ended, and yet we have 27 million people 
who can't find a full-time job. We have a lower unemployment rate 
principally because so many Americans have simply given up looking for 
work. What we know is the current unemployment system is not working.
  I think we can all agree that an unemployment check is no substitute 
for a paycheck. We know the longer a person stays unemployed, the 
harder it is for them to get back in the workforce. Most studies show 
that after 2 years, the chances of you getting back in the workforce 
becomes very, very slim, yet the government today subsidizes that 
unemployment for almost that full 2 years.
  There's agreement that the sooner we get people back to work the 
better it is for them, and the better it is for our economy. But what 
the Federal Government is doing today, it isn't working. We have a 
system from the 1930s. We need an unemployment system for the 21st 
century, for today's economy. Commonsense reforms are in order, but the 
Democrat motion to instruct that we just heard about destroys those 
reforms to put people back to work.
  Under the House bill, we allow States, those who know the economies 
better, who know their workers best, to put together innovative 
programs to get people off unemployment and back into the workforce 
where they belong. Under the House bill, for example, we require 
workers to actually look aggressively for a job. You would think that's 
common sense, but under Federal law today a person can go 1\1/2\ years 
receiving unemployment benefits and not be looking for a job. In some 
States, you don't have to look for a job at all. Well, that's not 
acceptable. And those without a GED or a high school diploma, those 
whose chances of getting a job are the slimmest, those who are laid off 
first and hired last, they struggle. But under the House bill, we allow 
States to put together the programs that actually get those workers 
that education.

                              {time}  1930

  For example, if you're 40 years old and don't have a GED, the truth 
of the matter is you still have a quarter of a century left in the 
workforce. We want to help you get that education, to be a better 
applicant, to get a better job, to have a brighter future. But this 
bill denies States the ability to help get that education for their 
workers.
  We give States the ability to tailor job training programs to get 
people, again, back to work. This is what the President talked about 
when he cited Georgia Works and other issues on job creation. The 
Democrat motion stops States who know their local economies best from 
putting, again, these job trainings in place for their workers.
  And finally, in the House bill, we recognize and believe it's time to 
stop subsidizing drug use through Federal benefits. Now, I wonder how 
many people this morning went to work in the dark; how many single moms 
struggled to get their kids to school before they went to work; how 
many people are driving home right now, are going to miss their kid's 
practice, they were at work; how many told their Boy Scout they 
couldn't be at the campout this weekend because they had to work on 
Saturday; how many people working one, two, three jobs that Washington 
takes money from their paycheck to help people who are unemployed.
  And all the House bill does is to ensure that States are allowed to 
help people get that education, get that job training, end subsidizing 
drug use, so they're better applicants with a brighter future. We don't 
require States to do this. We allow States to have waivers, to be 
innovative to do that.
  At the end of the day, the truth of the matter is we have so many 
companies who tell us they want to hire good workers with good 
salaries, but these workers can't pass even a basic drug test. Look, if 
you've got a casual drug habit or a more serious problem, finance it on 
your own. You're not going to take tax dollars from your neighbor who's 
working one or two or three jobs to finance your drug habit. In fact, 
your future is dimmed because of it. And if States decide not to 
implement a drug screening program, it's their decision; it's not 
Washington's.
  The Democrat motion makes sense only if you work in Washington and 
think the current status quo is working. It is not. So I respectfully 
oppose the motion, support the proposed waiver authority, as well as 
its other provisions.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MICHAUD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
  Mr. KUCINICH. I want to thank the gentleman from Maine for his ever-
present leadership on the issue of unemployment insurance and also for 
fighting for jobs for Americans, because we're really here looking at 
two problems. One is the problem of making sure that those who are on 
unemployment are going to get benefits so they can survive, and the 
other one is the massive unemployment that we have in America. I mean, 
obviously, these matters are interrelated.
  Let me speak first to Mr. Michaud's motion to instruct conferees.
  This provision to remove Section 2123 from H.R. 3610, this section 
severely undermines the unemployment insurance system that nearly 8 
million Americans rely on. It allows States to apply for waivers that 
would change how unemployment insurance funds are allocated, and it 
does this under the guise of strengthening reemployment programs. In 
reality, these proposed waivers would allow States to use unemployment 
insurance funds for purposes other than paying out benefits.
  Think about this. If people are on unemployment insurance, they need 
those benefits. They need full benefits. You don't want the State to 
find an excuse to siphon those benefits to some other purpose. And by 
allowing the use of unemployment insurance funds for purposes other 
than providing unemployment benefits to those who rely on them, we 
would be weakening a system that has provided assistance to unemployed 
Americans for decades.
  The rationale for the reallocation is deceptively camouflaged. It's 
being described as fulfilling additional benefits to the unemployed, 
such as bolstering job training programs and reemployment programs. 
Yet, in reality, diverting funds from the unemployment insurance fund 
to other equally important programs is not a viable solution and will, 
ultimately, undermine the unemployment insurance system that millions 
rely on.
  The truth of this matter is that this Congress has been shirking its 
responsibility to independently and to adequately fund these programs.
  Section 2123 of this legislation also gives the States the ability to 
create their own eligibility requirements, which could impede otherwise 
eligible recipients from collecting their benefits. The waivers 
permitted under Section 2123 would give States the opportunity to 
impose new eligibility requirements on unemployment insurance 
recipients that are unrelated to their employment history and current 
unemployment status. This includes giving the States the right to 
require a high school diploma or GED as a prerequisite for receiving 
unemployment benefits.
  Now, think about that. You have so many people who, because of family 
situations, have not been able to finish high school, and they're 
working to support their families. They get laid off, and then they're 
told, Well, wait a minute. Because you don't have a high school 
diploma, you can't get any benefits. This is a double punishment for 
people.
  What we should be doing is enabling people who are unemployed to be 
able to get a college education paid for while they're unemployed, so 
that when they're graduated or better educated, that when they come 
back into the workforce they can help make a greater contribution to 
our country.

[[Page 745]]

  Frivolous requirements like giving States the right to require a high 
school diploma or GED as a prerequisite for receiving unemployment 
benefits will do nothing but prevent benefits from reaching those who 
need them the most.
  In my home State of Ohio, the unemployment rate is still above 8 
percent. Just last week, more than 20,000 Ohioans were on the brink of 
losing their extended benefits. The men and women of this country 
should not have the added stress of monitoring the government's attempt 
to deny or delay their unemployment benefits. We have to protect the 
integrity of the unemployment insurance program and those that rely it.
  And while we're at it, we also have to start thinking about creating 
jobs in this country. We have at least 13 million people who are 
unemployed and another 6 million who are underemployed. It's time we 
got America back to work, then we wouldn't be having this debate about 
unemployment insurance.
  While people are unemployed, they should get the benefits, and they 
should be full benefits. But we should also be creating jobs, and 
that's not what we're doing. We need new mechanisms to create jobs. We 
shouldn't tell people, Well, the government doesn't have any money.
  Well, we're borrowing money from China, South Korea, and Japan. Why 
don't we start--spend the money into circulation. Look at what the 
Federal Reserve does. The Federal Reserve creates money out of nothing, 
gives it to banks. The banks park the money at the Fed. They gain 
interest. Our businesses are starved for lack of capital.
  What if we, the government, took back the constitutional right that 
we have under article I, section 8, to spend or create money, coin 
money, spend it into circulation, create millions of jobs, put our 
country back to work, rebuild our infrastructure? More money for 
education, more money for health care.
  America's best days are ahead of it if we start to think about the 
mechanisms we have to create jobs in this country. In the meantime, we 
sure better protect those people who are unemployed.
  The mechanism I talked about, it's called the NEED Act, National 
Employment Emergency Defense Act. We have a means of getting people 
back to work. In the meantime, if they're not working, let's make sure 
we don't curtail their unemployment benefits.
  Support the Michaud amendment.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Oregon (Mr. Walden), one of the leaders of getting this economy 
and America back on track and people back into good-paying jobs.
  Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, let me make a couple of points about this 
motion to instruct, which I oppose.
  Section 2123, which is the issue here, allows up to 10 States per 
year to apply for waivers to test innovative ideas to help people get a 
job, to help people get back to work, so it's only up to 10 States. And 
waiver programs would have to be cost neutral, rigorously evaluated, 
and then we could understand the policies.
  Look, I think the folks at home in my great State of Oregon are just 
as compassionate, if not more so, than what happens here in Washington. 
I think they can be creative, too, in helping.
  And, in fact, in 2011, Oregon launched its version under a waiver of 
the National Career Readiness Certificate program. Now, what that did 
was certify 10,760 work-ready individuals in the State that they have 
the appropriate math, reading, and other skills necessary to get back 
and contribute to the workforce.

                              {time}  1940

  Now, that hiring tool brought nearly 400 businesses, communities, and 
workers together and then simplified the job-search hiring process. 
These are the kinds of innovative ideas that we could use to actually 
help people get a job.
  This is a horrible economy. We've had 11 recessions since World War 
II. This is the worst one in terms of coming out of it. So the policies 
that have been in place the last couple of years haven't worked.
  The American people were promised if we spent a trillion dollars we 
don't have, including interest on the stimulus, unemployment wouldn't 
go above 8 percent; and yet here we are, record unemployment, record 
deficits. Trillion-dollar year after year after year deficits under the 
Obama administration, and people still out of work, highest poverty 
level since the great anti-poverty campaigns began. This has to change. 
We have to get people back to work.
  One of the issues that we're going to deal with in the conference 
committee, I hope, you want to do something about jobs, then let's stop 
this Boiler MACT rule from going into place. The EPA Boiler MACT rule 
threatens to cripple American manufacturers. We've lost more jobs there 
since back to, I think, World War II; and this rule by EPA would cut 
another 200,000 jobs.
  So let's roll back the job-killing regulations. Let's get Americans 
back to work, and let's leave creativity to the States to help us find 
better ways to take care of those who are unemployed.
  Mr. MICHAUD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The reason why I offered this motion is to protect unemployment 
insurance for the millions of jobless Americans that qualify for it.
  At the end of the last session, the House considered H.R. 3630, a 
bill that would extend the payroll tax cuts as well as the unemployment 
insurance. Unfortunately, the bill also included provisions that would 
undermine the unemployment insurance program as we know it today.
  While I disagree with many of these provisions, my motion to instruct 
focuses on one particular provision: the provision would roll back a 
requirement that States must spend all unemployment funds solely on 
unemployment benefits.
  Now, I know that there might be some who disagree with the size of 
the unemployment program and how many weeks individuals should be able 
to get their unemployment benefits. But I think we can all agree that 
money intended to help the unemployed make ends meet while they're 
looking for work should not be used for something else.
  There are several reasons why maintaining the integrity of the 
unemployment program makes sense.
  First, there are still more than 13 million Americans out of work as 
a result of the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression. 
These Americans rely on unemployment benefits to feed their families 
and pay the rent until they can find another job.
  To allow States to use these funds intended to support these families 
for programs could result in those who have lost their jobs to receive 
a benefit that does not help them make ends meet and would be useless.
  Some might argue that this provision will give States more 
flexibility to implement the unemployment program. I strongly support 
giving States the flexibility to implement national policies in a way 
that makes sense to some of the States, but there's already a great 
flexibility in the unemployment insurance program.
  States already choose and adjust employers' tax rates, benefit 
levels, and duration and eligibility criteria. This provision goes too 
far and jeopardizes unemployment benefits themselves, and it won't help 
the millions of unemployed Americans get back to work.
  Second, unemployment benefits help individuals find other jobs. 
According to CBO, extension of unemployment insurance benefits in the 
past few years increased both employment and participation in the labor 
force over what they would have been otherwise.
  Recent research from the Brookings Institute concluded that 
unemployment insurance does not increase the time that people remain 
unemployed. They found that unemployment benefits may actually keep 
more people in the labor force through its requirement that 
beneficiaries seek work.
  The fact is unemployment benefits remain a crucial resource for 
American workers who lost their jobs as a result of the Great Recession 
and not because of their job performance.

[[Page 746]]

  Using unemployment insurance funding for any purpose other than 
unemployment benefits for struggling families simply makes no sense.
  Third, unemployment benefits stimulate the economy. CBO identified 
increasing aid to the unemployed as one of the policies that would have 
the largest effect on output in employment and therefore trigger 
economic growth. That's because individuals who receive unemployment 
benefits don't put it in their savings account. They spend that money 
on things like putting food on the table for their families.
  If we divert money from the unemployment program, this economic 
stimulus effort will be lost, and our economic recovery will be even 
slower than it is now.
  I think it is important to remind ourselves that the unemployment 
benefits are given to eligible individuals who have previously had a 
job but have lost it for reasons out of their control.
  During the Great Recession, millions of Americans were given pink 
slips. Even now, our economy has started to show small signs of 
recovery, but there are certain areas in Maine's labor market where the 
unemployment rate is more than 20 percent. These families aren't going 
on vacations or buying luxury cars. They're spending all of their money 
in their savings accounts, emptying their 401(k)s and simply doing 
without. They need unemployment benefits to help them stay afloat and 
to help them find a job.
  My motion simply instructs conferees to take out this harmful 
provision so that we can ensure that the unemployment funding is spent 
on unemployment benefits.
  In this environment of reining in government spending and making sure 
taxpayers' dollars are used effectively, I think it makes sense to make 
sure that the unemployment benefits cannot be spent on some other 
program that won't help families or the economy like the unemployment 
insurance.
  So I urge my colleagues to support this motion to ensure that the 
unemployment benefits continue to go to Americans who lost their jobs 
and are trying to get back on their feet.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Berg), one of the new 
freshman members of the Ways and Means Committee who has taken a 
leadership role, who understands it's not an unemployment check the 
workers are seeking, it's a paycheck.
  Mr. BERG. I thank the gentleman from Texas who understands the best 
solutions come from those people that are closest to the problem.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the Democrats' 
motion to instruct. With section 2123 of House bill 3630, we give 
States the waiver authority for unemployment insurance to test and 
expedite re-employment on individuals who are receiving unemployment 
benefits. We are empowering the States, who know their workers best, to 
be creative, to be innovative and to do more for workers to get them 
back to work.
  In my home State of North Dakota where the unemployment rate is the 
lowest in the Nation, we have tremendous re-employment programs that 
are operated through job service. The participants in these re-
employment programs have even said, I would make this program a 
permanent feature so that all people who are unemployed have a chance 
to utilize it. And others who said, You will learn something you never 
thought about before. No one goes away without something.
  Instead of continuing the same Washington business-as-usual, 
inflexible approach to unemployment insurance, it's critical that we 
make commonsense reforms now.
  To me it's obvious: States know their workers best. Let's empower 
them. It's time for Washington to learn from the States, give them the 
flexibility they need.
  With that, I urge my colleagues to oppose the Democrat motion to 
instruct and support the underlying bill.

                              {time}  1950

  Mr. MICHAUD. I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Woolsey).
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening in support of 
Congressman Michaud's motion to instruct conferees.
  Every single one of us in this Chamber woke up this morning and came 
to work. We're lucky to have jobs, jobs that are a source of dignity 
and self-fulfillment. But, Mr. Speaker, 13 million Americans woke up 
this morning with no jobs to go to, with no salaries to help support 
their families. These 13 million Americans are jobless, not because 
there is something wrong with them, but because something is wrong with 
the U.S. economy and with the policies designed to keep 1 percent of 
the population comfortable at the expense of the remaining 99 percent. 
The recession happened to the American people. They didn't bring it on 
themselves.
  My colleagues on the other side of the aisle see it differently. 
Instead of willingly extending jobless Americans the hand up they're 
entitled to, the majority insists on punishing jobless Americans for 
their predicament. They want to manipulate the unemployment insurance 
program that everyone pays into, that everyone deserves to access when 
they fall on hard times. They want to give States the permission to use 
unemployment insurance funds for something other than unemployment 
insurance.
  How convenient. I'd like to propose that we use war spending for 
something other than war spending.
  States already have plenty of flexibility in designing their 
unemployment insurance systems, so this Republican proposal just 
appears to be an attempt to divert money away from unemployment, to 
erect more barriers to accessing these benefits at the very moment 
they're needed the most.
  Here is an idea: Instead of undermining jobless benefits, why doesn't 
the Republican majority put its energy into a real strategy to create 
jobs for these unemployed workers.
  This morning in the Education and the Workforce Committee, we heard 
from a Republican Governor who spoke positively about the imperative of 
job creation and of the importance of Federal investments in 
infrastructure, workforce and career training.
  I hope my friends in the majority will listen to this fellow 
Republican. I hope they will stop playing games with unemployment 
insurance. I hope they will remove this provision that allows States to 
take the unemployment insurance money away from unemployed peoples and, 
instead, pass a big, bold jobs plan. That will remove workers from the 
unemployment ranks.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Renacci), a small business owner, himself, who has 
helped create 1,500 new jobs in the United States.
  Mr. RENACCI. I want to thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the Democratic motion to 
instruct and in support of an initiative in this bill that I believe 
will have a positive impact on our Nation's staggering unemployment 
rate.
  In these uncertain economic times, we must allow States the ability 
to pursue innovative, pro-work strategies, and we must grant them the 
flexibility to build effective employment programs. Every day, I hear 
from businesses in my district in Ohio that are ready to hire but that 
cannot find the right person. Most of those currently collecting 
unemployment insurance want to return to work as soon as possible.
  We must implement measures and expedite reemployment without adding 
to the deficit. A concept for granting States the flexibility to 
redirect a portion of unemployment benefits to an employer was included 
in the original bill. In exchange, the employer would hire a qualified 
unemployed worker at a higher rate than that individual would have 
received on unemployment.
  This commonsense legislation is a win for the unemployed, for 
employers, and for taxpayers. I urge Members to support the underlying 
bill and to oppose any effort to limit this initiative.
  Mr. MICHAUD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Holt).

[[Page 747]]


  Mr. HOLT. I thank the gentleman from Maine for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a simple motion. We want to ensure that 
unemployment funds are used for those who are unemployed. We want to 
make sure that unemployment funds, as promised, are given to those who 
are unemployed. It shouldn't be a partisan issue. There are unemployed 
Republicans. There are unemployed Democrats. There are unemployed 
Independents. Our motion says to them, We're not turning away from you, 
but evidently, it seems to be a partisan issue.
  Let me repeat in clear English what this means when they talk about 
waivers. In clear English, it means that this bill, the House 
Republican bill, would allow States to divert unemployment funds for 
other purposes. States already have ample flexibility. They say they 
need flexibility, but ``flexibility'' really is a euphemism for denying 
benefits. It's an invitation to deny benefits. Right now, States are 
required to spend unemployment insurance funds solely on unemployment 
benefits. They must pay the benefits when they're due. They may not 
condition eligibility on issues beyond the fact of unemployment and 
cause a person's unemployment. Unless we accomplish what the gentleman 
from Maine is trying to accomplish here, this legislation would 
circumvent these basic protections.
  Of course, it's fine for States to innovate and to pursue innovative 
ideas to help people get jobs; but for heaven's sake, don't experiment 
with the livelihoods of people who have lost their jobs. It's called 
unemployment insurance. No, it's not taking money from hardworking 
Americans. I couldn't believe my ears when I heard that here on the 
floor. Insurance is for those people who never expected they would be 
unemployed. I'll show you thousands of people in New Jersey--and I'm 
sure my friend here could show you thousands in Maine--who never 
thought they'd be unemployed for a week or a month or 6 months or 99 
weeks. There are more people who have been unemployed for 99 weeks in 
the past year than at any time since the Great Depression.
  Taking money away from hardworking Americans, I couldn't believe it. 
I never thought I would hear this on the floor.
  Unemployment insurance is not welfare. It is provided to people who 
have worked hard. In effect, they've paid into an insurance fund. 
They've lost their jobs through no fault of their own, and they have to 
actively seek work to be eligible. Unemployment insurance also helps 
the public at large, the economy at large. It's not just helping those 
families--and it certainly does help those families: those spouses, 
those children. As my friend from Maine pointed out, the unemployment 
insurance money isn't stashed under a mattress. The family spends that 
money, and it helps the economy at large.
  Even with the minuscule improvements in the economy recently, long-
term unemployment remains up around record levels. There are millions 
of fewer jobs in the economy today than before the recession started.
  Jeffrey from Plainsboro, New Jersey, wrote me:

       I was wondering if the extension for unemployment benefits 
     will be extended. My wife has been unemployed for close to 2 
     years, and despite trying to get a job, we see her 99-week 
     deadline fast approaching. I am a car salesman who works on 
     commission, so you can imagine, business is down. Please let 
     me know if there is a light at the end of the tunnel. Thanks.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Tipton). The time of the gentleman has 
expired.
  Mr. MICHAUD. I yield the gentleman an additional minute.
  Mr. HOLT. Now, I think he would be outraged if he knew that somebody 
here on the floor was associating his wife with drug abusers, who 
shouldn't get the unemployment insurance benefits that she deserves.
  Robert from Somerset wrote to me to say:

       I am an unemployed Vietnam vet who received my last 
     unemployment check last week. What can I do about this? If 
     you have any suggestions, I would appreciate it. Why is it so 
     hard for you and the other Members of Congress, our 
     Representatives, to help us by voting for the extension of 
     unemployment benefits? Banks do not have to beg, but we do. I 
     don't recall any of the bank management risking their lives 
     for our country.

  If they're interested in experimentation for how to do things better, 
why don't they experiment with maybe denying the banks and investment 
banks some of the benefits they've gotten? I think this veteran would 
be outraged for somebody to tell him that the government is subsidizing 
his unemployment and destroying his motivation to work.


                Announcement By the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded not to traffic the well 
while another Member is under recognition.

                              {time}  2000

  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Reed), one of the new leaders, a freshman Member of 
the House Ways and Means Committees, a gentleman who with his brother 
has run a successful business for 15 years and understands the system 
we have today simply isn't working.
  Mr. REED. I thank the gentleman, my colleague, for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, as my colleague indicated, I am a small business owner. 
I am proud of the business that we started up in Corning, New York, and 
the many people that we have employed in that business, Mr. Speaker.
  I also know that during times when people are in trouble or 
businesses are in trouble, they have to make the hard decision of 
laying some people off, and I can empathize and understand when those 
individuals are in that situation.
  But what we're talking about here tonight, ladies and gentlemen, is 
just some commonsense reforms to allow the States to have the 
flexibility to do what is best for them in their local jurisdictions to 
try to empower the men and women from their districts so that they have 
the opportunity to go back to work. I wholeheartedly disagree with the 
concept that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are arguing 
for tonight to strip that language that would give States the 
flexibility to do commonsense reforms in unemployment, not taking away 
the unemployment program--no one is talking about doing that.
  What we're talking about, ladies and gentlemen, is implementing the 
ability for States to have people get an education, or require people 
to get a GED, to give them tools so that when they go into the 
marketplace they have the ability to get a paycheck again rather than 
an unemployment check. That should be a goal that we in Washington, 
D.C., share across both aisles, and we should send the message to 
America, You know what? We get it in Washington. We don't necessarily 
have all the answers here. We should defer to the people closer to the 
people back in our States and in our local communities.
  This is what our proposal is about. That is where these commonsense 
reforms are coming from, and, again, no one is talking about taking out 
the net that's associated with unemployment insurance. We're talking 
about commonsense reforms that will give people the tools to get back 
to work and take care of themselves.
  Mr. MICHAUD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I would like to thank the gentleman from 
Maine for providing an opportunity for civility and dialogue on the 
true grit of the American constituency.
  I am amazed, I'm shocked, that we would be here on floor of the House 
denigrating an institution that has been accepted as a rainy day 
umbrella, I have said it often, for individuals who've toiled in the 
hot sun and skyscrapers on building infrastructure, on driving buses 
and trains, or however they may have provided for their families, and 
they have now lost their jobs.
  They dutifully paid into the insurance pool called unemployment 
insurance. They followed the laws of their State. Some of them may be 
veterans who are now in the civilian workforce, and they are chagrined 
that they find themselves unemployed. Now we have those who would say 
idle hands are the

[[Page 748]]

devil's workshop and who want to insist that these are drug addicts, 
that they're uneducated, that they need a GED, and that they have all 
kinds of baggage that will not allow them to be gainfully employed.
  Mr. Speaker, I'm very sorry to say that is not true. I know in my own 
community we are more fortunate than others regarding the amount of 
unemployed individuals.
  But I know in the devastated communities people want to work. I have 
had individuals come to my office over and over again. I have seen 
people line up in the hot sun across this Nation this past summer 
attempting to get jobs. So I simply want to join with the gentleman's 
motion to instruct.
  I want this to be the motion to instruct for dignity. I want to thank 
you for insisting that workers who have lost their jobs through no 
fault of their own are not, in essence, drug addicts. That means 
conspicuous drug addicts because sometimes people need counseling. 
Rather than stigmatizing, why don't we have a component that says you 
have job skill training, if you need counseling, you get counseling.
  Let's not denigrate the unemployed. Pass the unemployment insurance. 
Let's call for dignity.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Look, if you think what's working is fine, we don't need to change 
anything. You think 27 million people trying to find a full-time job, 
many of them who have been out of work for 6 months or more, if you 
think that's great, the status quo is perfect, then this motion to 
instruct is what you want.
  But I believe, and many people believe on both sides of the aisle, 
that we can do better; that those who are unemployed and looking for a 
job truly want a paycheck. They don't long for that unemployment check 
every 2 weeks or each month. They long for a job every day.
  And what we want to do is to turn loose those who know their 
community and economy best to put together the innovative program, to 
put people back to work sooner rather than later, because we know the 
longer you stay out of work, the harder it is to find that job. The 
less education you have, the harder it is to find that job and to keep 
that job.
  And so the question at hand here is, should we allow our local 
communities, our local States, to work with businesses, to work with 
workers, design programs to get people back to work sooner rather than 
later? It's worked before in other areas.
  We've given States the waivers to put together innovative programs on 
welfare, again to help educate people and train them and link them up 
with workers so they have a real life, a real career, not a dependency 
on a Federal check.
  And as a result of that, with five Democrat and Republican Governors 
working with Democrat and Republican White Houses, we have succeeded in 
putting people back to work, getting them off the welfare rolls as 
productive citizens. It's worked before. So why don't we apply this 
same type of innovation to a system that has been in place since the 
1930s?
  Frankly, we need a 21st century solution. Washington in this case, 
these tired old ways that are failing workers, why are we sticking with 
them? Why don't we allow States, not direct them, not mandate them, why 
don't we simply allow them to put together programs for job training so 
you can match people's skills or give them skills to get a job.
  Why don't we require that from the first day you get an unemployment 
check to the last day that you're actively searching for work each day, 
not going through the motions, as some do, but that every person 
getting that help is searching aggressively every day to do their best. 
Why don't those who don't have a high school education with years left 
in the workforce, why don't we allow States to put together the program 
to get them that GED so that they actually have a chance for a better 
life because they, again, first to be laid off, hardest to find a job, 
why don't we give them some hope and a high school equivalent degree 
while they're on unemployment. Why don't we ensure that those who are 
getting help for unemployment are ready and available to work.
  Too often, in all sizes of towns across this country, we're finding 
workers who can't pass a simple drug test. More jobs these days require 
that drug test. Why don't we allow States to put programs together to 
screen those early on and put programs together so that that applicant 
is a clean applicant who's ready and willing to work who actually has a 
bright future for themselves and their children.
  So at the end of the day this is a simple question: Do we stick with 
the status quo that we know isn't working? Do we allow States and local 
communities to be innovative to get people back to work sooner rather 
than later? These are the commonsense reforms we think this country 
and, more importantly, these workers deserve.
  I oppose this motion to instruct because I think it's rooted in years 
and decades past, and we deserve better for our workers in America 
today.
  I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  2010

  Mr. MICHAUD. Mr. Speaker, I agree with part of the comments that the 
gentleman made. People do not want to sit home and collect a paycheck. 
They want to go to work. Some people definitely have to be trained for 
jobs. There is nothing in my motion that prevents States from offering 
training programs. Nothing in my motion will prevent States from 
encouraging people to get their GED. States have the flexibility to 
establish these programs on their own. My motion to instruct simply 
says that the benefits that were collected by the employers for 
unemployment benefits will have to be used for unemployment benefits. 
They cannot be used for training programs. They cannot be used to help 
subsidize businesses to pay for these employees. They have to be used 
for unemployment benefits.
  This motion to instruct is important because if you look at my home 
State of Maine, there are more than 48,000 Mainers out of work. And I 
want to read a letter from one of my constituents whose story 
illustrates why its critical that unemployment benefits go to those who 
need them, not for some alternative program. The other alternative 
programs that I heard about earlier this evening, States can do that on 
their own. The only difference is they cannot use unemployment 
benefits.
  I would like to read this letter from my constituent: ``I just became 
a ninety-niner, as those of us who have exhausted our unemployment 
benefits are called. Though some in Congress and the media think we 
comprise the bottom-feeders that the business creators needed to shed, 
this is not always the case.
  ``I have worked hard ever since I was a kid in East Millinocket doing 
odd jobs for my father, peddling newspapers. I went into the Army and 
benefited from the Vietnam-era GI Bill, and since have been glad to 
give back in the form of higher taxes for many years.
  ``In 2009, my former company moved to California and laid me and 
hundreds of others off, despite my having earned superior performance 
reviews for most of my years with them. To their credit, we were given 
outplacement service and a decent severance package.
  ``Nonetheless, I have since tried to find employment in my field, but 
find myself being screened out by junior human resource people who find 
me overqualified, too senior and/or too highly compensated for the job 
at hand. I am certain that some of this is ageism, which, though 
illegal, is still quietly sanctioned in this society. And now we face 
companies brazenly telling us that we need not apply if we have been 
out of work for more than 6 months.
  ``Please show some compassion for those of us who become unemployed 
through no fault of our own and who still hope to join the tax-paying 
ranks once again.''
  This constituent of mine relies on unemployment benefits not because 
he wants to or because he's lazy, but because he can't find a job. As I 
mentioned, some labor markets in the

[[Page 749]]

State of Maine have over 20 percent unemployment. He is the reason I'm 
offering this motion to instruct today to ensure that the unemployment 
insurance program is preserved for Americans like him.
  It requires that unemployment benefits will be used for those 
unemployed. The States have the flexibility to determine eligibility, 
the length, and the amount. They have that flexibility. So I urge my 
colleagues to vote for this motion to instruct and protect unemployment 
benefits for what they were intended for--for those who are 
unemployed--and not to help subsidize other programs that States might 
decide to create.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to instruct.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. MICHAUD. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________