Anabolic Steroid Control Act of 2004

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 656, I call up the bill (H.R. 444) to amend the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 to establish a Personal Reemployment Accounts grant program to assist Americans in returning to work, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and included extraneous material on H.R. 444.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, the economic news over the last 8 months has been very encouraging. Republicans and President Bush have focused on creating jobs and opportunity, helping working Americans by providing tax relief, improving worker training and education to help Americans without work get back on their feet, and enhancing the competitiveness of employers both at home and abroad to ensure they continue to hire more and more American workers.

As recent data from the Labor Department shows, the U.S. is creating thousands of new jobs every month. The pro-growth agenda has created 1.1 million net new jobs over the last 8 months, and 625,000 jobs, net new jobs, I should say, in March and April alone. Moreover, the national unemployment rate declined to 5.6 percent in April, lower than the average unemployment rate during the 1970s, the 1980s, and the 1990s.

While this is welcome news for working Americans, we remain committed to ensuring that every displaced worker has the opportunity to find meaningful employment and access to job-training services that will help them find good-paying jobs. As President Bush has said, one worker out of work is one too many, and we have a responsibility to help working families in times when they need it most.

Job training and worker education is more important to this effort in today's changing economy now more than ever before. Every member of our society, including those who are most vulnerable and the hardest to employ, want to achieve independence and self-sufficiency. No American wants endless reliance on our government, and I think the President recognizes that and providing personal reemployment accounts represents one more way we are helping the unemployed by specifically tailoring job training and employment services to meet their unique needs.

Giving displaced workers the resources they need and continuing this economic expansion is critically important. That brings us to why we are here today: to highlight a new and innovative approach to helping the unemployed get back on their feet. The bill before us, the Worker Reemployment Accounts Act, allows demonstration funding under the Workforce Investment Act to be used by States and local workforce investment boards for a pilot project to offer personal reemployment accounts of up to $3,000.

With the funds from these accounts, unemployed workers may purchase a variety of different services to help them find a new job and to reenter the workforce, including job training, child care, transportation, housing assistance, relocation services, career counseling, computer classes, just to name a few. And all of these are accessible through the One-Stop Career Center system where unemployed workers already seek job training assistance.

A key component of this plan allows workers who become reemployed within 13 weeks to keep the balance of their account as a cash reemployment bonus. In addition, these reemployment accounts empower individual recipients to make choices appropriate for their own circumstances. Recipients will be able to create reemployment accounts that help them navigate all of the options that are available, such as career counseling or job training for a new profession. In providing choice and flexibility, I think we get people back to work into steady, good-paying jobs sooner.

For those who are struggling to get back on their feet, we in Congress, I think, have a responsibility to look for additional solutions to help them when they need it most. The intent of this bill is clear: this new benefit supplements and enhances the services that are already available for those who are most likely to face obstacles in finding and keeping new employment, whether it be unemployment benefits or the employment training programs offered through the Workforce Investment Act.

The bill before us is a pilot project, a scaled-back version of a more comprehensive proposal that the Committee on Education and the Workforce approved last year. Our goal here is to put this program to a test, see how it works in practice, and determine whether it truly gives unemployed workers an option, a workable option to help them improve their job search. The lessons learned through this pilot project will give Congress more information on how best to serve those who are looking for work.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Porter) and the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon) for their work on this measure and last year's bill as well. During hearings that we had last year, we heard from State leaders at a field hearing in Nevada about the practical benefits of these reemployment accounts in helping the unemployed. We also heard from Labor Secretary Elaine Chao, who said that the accounts ``will empower individuals by giving them more flexibility, personal choice, and

control over their job search and career.''

Over the past 2 years, we have taken numerous steps to help unemployed workers, and we are also in the process of reauthorizing the Federal job-training programs under the Workforce Investment Act. Millions of jobless workers should not have to wait for job-training reform, and Congress has an obligation this year to improve those job- training opportunities for American workers. Unfortunately, it appears, though, that some in the other body want to block major job-training legislation that would help strengthen training and retraining opportunities for American workers. I think if given the opportunity, we look forward to completing work on that legislation this year.

But Congress must act now to provide new, innovative options to help workers as quickly as possible, and the choice and flexibility available through personal reemployment accounts will help more Americans get back on their feet and find good jobs.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne), a member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, we probably would not be here today if the other body would actually go to conference on the reauthorization of the Workforce Investment Act. But I think all of us realize that they have been unwilling to go to conference, and we believe that we have got every responsibility known to man to help those people who are unemployed and need help.

Secondly, let me say that, once again, we are getting into a debate about the perfect becoming the enemy of the good. What this bill does is set up a pilot project that allows unemployed workers who qualify the option of this $3,000 reemployment bonus. The real key here is that they, the unemployed workers, get to decide what kind of training they need, what kind of education they might need, what kind of services they may need to help them get back on their feet and into good work. They get to decide, not some bureaucrat in some office somewhere. They get to decide.

And this option of allowing them that flexibility, I think, is worth trying. That is what we are asking for today: Let us try this. Let us see what happens. Let us see if this additional flexibility for unemployed workers does, in fact, help them get the training, retraining they may need to find a good job.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to my colleague, the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Porter) the author of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon), the original author and I would describe as the father of the Workforce Investment Act. I applaud him on his good work.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Porter), the author of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

There was a discussion here about what would happen if workers chose to take a $3,000 personal reemployment account and their ability to access services at the Career One Stops. I just want to set the record straight.

While it is true that recipients would be prohibited from accessing intensive or training services through the One Stop career system for 1 year after the creation of the account, unless, unless the person with the account chooses to purchase services there, however, all individuals remain eligible for the core services provided by the Career One Stop. Such services include job search and placement assistance, including career counseling, where appropriate, and access to labor market information.

Now the idea here is that we allow individuals $3,000, giving them the right to choose the types of services that they think will help them get back on their feet and find a good job. They can purchase those services at the Career One Stop or they can go down the street and go to a community college if they want. But the core services that the Career One Stops provide for all individuals, these persons with the $3,000 personal reemployment accounts, would still be eligible for those core services.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

I think all of us realize that the American economy is changing, and I think it is changing at a more rapid pace than any of us would likely know. During a hearing several months ago, I found a number of statistics that I really found unusual. If we all think back for a moment to 1999, the American economy was in full bloom, the stock market was rising, employment levels were at all-time highs, yet in 1999 the American economy lost 35 million jobs. Yes, that is right. The American economy lost 35 million jobs. But, in 1999, the American economy also created 37 million new jobs, a net gain of 2 million jobs.

Now, let us move forward 3 years to 2002. And what happened in 2002? We had a recession, we had the effects of 9/11, we had a war going on in Afghanistan, and the American economy lost 35 million jobs in 2002. The American economy, though, in 2002, only created 33\1/2\ million new jobs.

This churning that we see in the American economy has always been there, but this churning we are now seeing is happening at a much faster pace than ever before; and, as a result, the need for job training, retraining, and educational services for American workers is at an all-time high.

During our hearing, when we had Alan Greenspan in front of our committee, he said this: ``We need to increase our efforts to ensure that as many of our citizens as possible have the opportunity to capture the benefits that flow from that engagement. For reasons that I shall elucidate shortly, one critical element in creating that opportunity is the provision of rigorous education and ongoing training to all members of our society. This proposal is not novel. It is, in fact, the strategy that we have followed successfully for most of the past century and a strategy that we now should embrace with renewed commitment.''

Education and training and ongoing education and training for the American workforce is absolutely critical, Mr. Speaker.

There has been a lot said here today about the nature of our economy and what is happening, but in a U.S. News and World Report that is out today, dated June 7, Mort Zuckerman, in his editorial, says this:

``The economy is well on a tear. New jobs are being generated in large numbers. Income is growing at twice the rate of last year. And the exhilaration is such that we will probably see 5 percent growth in the gross domestic product. The jobs reports of the past few months have changed market sentiment. Sixty-one percent of private industries surveyed have added workers. That is the highest in 4 years. Business confidence has surged to a 20-year high, and business spending is exploding, with even American manufacturing joining the party. Companies that once saved every nickel are laying out more and more money as capital equipment to meet growing orders in double-digit rates.''

He goes on to say later in the article, ``We are on a trajectory toward extraordinary growth in the second half of 2004 that will beget stronger job and income growth, stronger retail spending, and accelerating demand at a time when businesses have cut costs, raising profit margins to their highest level in years.

``Higher profits will beget more spending, which will beget more business expansion, which will beget more income for workers which should trigger yet another increase in demand.''

Do not look now, but the surging economy may be the real October Surprise. There is a real surge in our economy; and for Americans to take advantage of that surging economy, the kind of education and training that we allow under the Workforce Investment Act and provide for them should be helpful to them. These personal reemployment accounts are a pilot project to give them the choice about the kinds of services they need, the kinds of training or retraining they need to go out and take advantage of a surging economy to get a real job for the long term.

I do, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Human Resources of the Committee on Ways and Means that deals with this.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger) has pointed out, we have extended unemployment benefits on several occasions and have provided tens of billions of dollars in support for those extensions.

The motion to recommit, if Members believe this is going to provide unemployment extensions to people, they are kidding themselves. What the Kildee motion does is create a new program within the Workforce Investment Act to extend unemployment benefits. This is not the usual unemployment system that we have that works really well. Under this proposal, we create a new program that is not funded. There is no funding in this bill for the program that is being created, and all this is going to do is bring false hope to millions of Americans who are out there trying to seek work who are on unemployment.

But the worst part of the motion to recommit is that it totally eliminates the underlying bill. For those of us who believe personal reemployment accounts are a good idea and that projects ought to be initiated to allow people up to $3,000 to find the kind of training, retraining, and education they need in order to gain good employment, that entire bill is eliminated under the gentleman's motion to recommit.

I would urge my colleagues, let us not engage in a facade; let us not make empty promises to people who need our help and need our help badly. This is a new program. It is not funded. It will not extend unemployment benefits. Again, the worse part about it is it would eliminate the entire underlying bill and the personal reemployment accounts that we think will be helpful for American workers who are out of work. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 444, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, this bill completely misses the mark. American workers need job creation. American workers also need extended unemployment benefits. This sour economy has lost 2 million jobs since President Bush took office. This bill does nothing to address these issues, the most pressing facing our workforce today. Instead, H.R. 444 creates an untested and risky job-training voucher scheme.

This voucher scheme cuts off workers from regular job-training benefits when they accept a PRA. This legislation also demeans workers by assuming that those receiving unemployment benefits need a financial lure to go back to work.

I am not sure about other congressional districts, but unemployed workers in Flint, Michigan, my hometown, and other areas of Michigan do not need an incentive to find work. They are in desperate search of work right now. They do not need an incentive to be able to afford their mortgage or to provide for their family. They need jobs.

I am surprised there are those in this body that think that American workers need a financial incentive to find a job. The real story behind this bill is that it simply fails to address the most pressing needs of the American worker. It is a sham.

Let us look at the real problems facing the American worker. Two million jobs have been lost since the beginning of the Bush administration, 8.2 million individuals are unemployed, 1.5 million workers have exhausted their unemployment benefits, wages have barely kept up with inflation, and this bill does nothing to address these problems.

Substantive help for American workers lies in an initiative to create jobs and to extend unemployment insurance. Yet this Republican Congress and the Bush administration has continually failed to address these needs. The last extension of UI benefits ran out late last year. Despite some meager job growth in the past few months, we remain two million jobs in the hole since the beginning of the Bush administration. The Republican answer to these problems is a pilot project for job training vouchers.

This bill brings no new resources to help American workers. Instead, it would steal funding from other proven job training programs. How could this respond to the needs of the American workers?

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to oppose this bill. We need real-world solutions to real-world problems, not unfunded, untested legislation which will not address the true needs of the American worker.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the ranking member of the committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney), a member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Chairman Greenspan before the Committee on Education and the Workforce indicated that he supports the extension of unemployment benefits. And after he made that statement, of course, the President of the United States announced that he would reappoint Alan Greenspan, would extend his tenure. Well, if he does that, let us extend those unemployment benefits which Mr. Greenspan supports.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).

(Mr. HOLT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I am in its present form.

Mr. Speaker, my motion to recommit is simple: It authorizes the extension of unemployment benefits.

Mr. Speaker, 1.5 million workers have exhausted their initial unemployment benefits. These individuals have yet to find employment due to this very sour economy. Despite the need for these workers to provide for their families, this Congress has turned a deaf ear. We have continually failed to ensure the financial security of these workers and their families.

The question for this House is how can we pass legislation providing job-training vouchers when there are no jobs. We need to first ensure the financial security of those workers who have lost their jobs, and we have not done that. This amendment does that by authorizing the extension of unemployment benefits.

Mr. Speaker, we have a moral responsibility today. In Michigan and many other States around the country, job growth is nonexistent or anemic. Nationally, 8.2 million individuals are unemployed. The unemployment rate is 5.6 percent. It is quite evident that American workers want to work. The simple truth is that jobs do not exist. How long are we going to ignore the needs of the American workforce.

The underlying legislation is completely inadequate in addressing the problems facing the American worker. We cannot simply authorize a job- training voucher program. That does not meet the need. We have to act today, and we have to act now by extending unemployment benefits.

I want to remind Members that the House has considered nearly identical language to this motion to recommit during the debate on the Community Services Block Grant bill. I urge Members to support my motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Bishop).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

In conclusion, I would say adoption of my motion to recommit would really begin to touch immediately the needs of those people who are unemployed, rather than this anemic approach offered in the bill itself. I urge that we support the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me this time.

This is a big day for me personally because this is a piece of legislation that represents an agreement on a piece of legislation that I first introduced 4 years ago, and I want to talk a little about the personal aspects of this and how I got involved in the whole anabolic steroid precursor and designer steroid issue.

My son, who I love and who I am lucky enough to get to spend some time with, and I work out fairly regularly together, Mr. Speaker. And, fortunately, about 5 years ago, at one of our workouts, my son was talking to me about some of his friends and his colleagues and some of their training habits. It was also 5 years ago almost immediately after the Mark McGwire record-setting home run streak in Major League Baseball. My son said that he and his friends had all been talking about how they could get better, how they could get bigger, stronger, faster, hit the ball better; and one of the ideas they had, by virtue of some of the advertising and some of the stories they heard about Mark McGwire, was to use a substance called andro.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne), no greater a symbol of the American sports movement than Coach Tom Osborne at Nebraska, mentioned in his remarks andro and its effects, and the record was pretty clear that after Mark McGwire hit his home runs, performing under legal rules established at that time, the use of andro quadrupled, with teenagers making up a large portion of that population. According to the Department of Health and Human Services, one out of every 40 high school students admitted to using andro in the past year, and something in the range of 3 to 4 percent of junior high school students had talked about and were using anabolic steroids.

Now, 20 years ago, we addressed the issue of anabolic steroids and established very clearly the health risks that were attendant to it. But what we find now is this almost insidious effort to market products meant simply to skirt the law, simply to subvert the testing processes that exist and targeting a very vulnerable part of our population, young athletes, people who cared about their fitness, and marketing these products in order to take advantage of that circumstance.

So this legislation coming forward today represents Congress' response to that, an appropriate response that will effectively make it illegal to sell over the counter now, with that presumption of sales over the counter, that a product is safe and does what it says it does. It will make it illegal to sell those products over the counter at the GNCs, at the Wal-Marts, or any of the other places. And what it effectively does is protect our kids, which is, obviously, a very important part.

Now, make no mistake about it, keeping our children safe is far more important than restoring the integrity to the sports world, Mr. Speaker; but with the Anabolic Steroid Control Act we accomplish both of those things. In athletics today, the lines of fair play have been blurred by the prevalence of steroid precursors and designer steroids; and athletes have become more creative in turning those substances, such as andro, into their muscle-building cousins.

Now, I want to respond a little to one of the prior speakers, and this was the gentlewoman who preceded me most immediately, and that was the issue of DHEA and whether we have DHEA mentioned in the list of products specifically mentioned here. As someone 4 years ago that introduced legislation that was very broad and said that any precursor or any designer steroid ought to be outlawed, I came to recognize that that legislation, under the instruction of the chairman and the ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary, probably would not have survived judicial scrutiny.

What we have in this legislation is the perfect balance to make sure that the legislation we pass forward will have the effect we choose it to have, and that is making sure that manufacturers are putting on the shelves products that do what they say and are safe, and, secondly, outlawing those that are not. So whether DHEA is mentioned in this legislation or not, or any other product that is devised, and there will be others the manufacturing community will come forward with, whether they are made illegal or not does not really matter here, Mr. Speaker.

The burden of proof is now shifted to them. The effective tools that we need in order to protect our kids, to protect athletes, and protect the next generation, and to protect the integrity of sports are here. That is why the FDA, the DEA, the United States Olympic Committee, the NFL, the NCAA, all of those groups, the U.S. Anti-Doping Association, CASPER, and all of those groups have come out in support of this legislation. They recognize that this long fight, begun 20 years ago in this body, is coming to the right conclusion, a conclusion that protects the American people.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to recognize the hard work and efforts of the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne). He committed with me 4 years ago to pass this legislation, and we have gotten that done. I also want to recognize the great work of the Committee on the Judiciary and its chairman, who gave us not only an opportunity to be heard but carried this legislation, through the ranking member; and the chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble); and his ranking member, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), for their subcommittee work on all this. This is a strong bipartisan effort that is for the good of the American people.

Finally, and in conclusion, I would point out that all major sport entities of any credibility in this Nation have endorsed this legislation. It is time for Major League Baseball, and most specifically the Major League Baseball Players Association, to end the foot-dragging and to go forward and ban in their own sport these substances that threaten the integrity of their sport. And do it not just because the integrity of their sport is threatened, but do it as well because it is good for America, good for American athletes, and good for the next generation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 444 for multiple reasons.

First of all, we are facing an ever-changing economy both nationally and internationally. Could you imagine just a few years ago going go to the gas station and you would not have help or an attendant, you would have a piece of technology taking your credit card, you enter it into the gas pump, or go to the grocery store where people are being replaced by technology? Can you imagine going to rental car agency and it all being done electronically? So we are facing quite a change in the world and here in the U.S.

Nevada, as my colleagues know, is one of the fastest-growing states in the country but is also the entertainment and resort capital of the world. There was a day when we depended solely on the gaming economy. Not only gaming today is number one, we are the top shopping destination and restaurant destination in the world because we have had to change and change dramatically.

The National Chamber of Commerce has said that 40 percent of the jobs in the future do not exist today. They have also said that 75 percent of the workers as we know them today must change their skills and their technology.

Then we look at what happened after 9/11. September 11 changed the world. The community of Nevada was literally out of business for 90 days. But because of the resilient business community, because of labor working in concert with our resort industry, we are coming back stronger than ever.

The Nevada impacts are such that we are now the bellwether for the economy across the United States. The economy is turning around as Nevada has turned around. People are getting back to work. In Nevada alone we have created close to 60,000 new jobs in the last year. We are in a 4.3 percent unemployment rate, a true bellweather for the economy as it is improving across the country.

And credit goes to labor and business working together. As our business communities change, as has our labor community, such as the Culinary Union working closely with business. But nationwide housing starts, all-time high; gross national product, all-time high; Wall Street, every day we are seeing improvements. Nationwide, 1.1 million new jobs since last August, 625,000 jobs in March and April alone.

But, more importantly, the greatness of society, the greatness of America is not based upon our checkbooks. It is what we do to help those folks that need help. H.R. 444 does just that. It provides a voluntary program, a voluntary program for States to choose if they want to be a part of this program. It is a demonstration project, but, more importantly, it is a new tool to train our workers in this new global environment.

The benefits, we have touched upon them this morning but I would like to cover them one more time.

Transportation. Many of these folks in Nevada have a hard time getting to the job for the interview.

Day care. Why not allow moms and dads to have some assistance? Many need a telephone, simply a telephone to help receive that call when the job is available.

And Nevada, being one of the fastest-growing States regarding the Hispanic population, we need help with language and language barriers.

There are those that will say that these tools exist today. I am sorry, but it is very complex, very confusing. This provides for a one- stop, easy access and a matter-of-fact choice. So the employee who needs help the most can make the decision and receive the balance if they are employed within the 13 weeks.

So, in summary, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this very important tool as we enter this new environment, provide a new tool for a new economy. It is flexible, it is voluntary, and it provides choice for the employee.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on behalf of H.R. 444, and I appreciate Members' votes.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to address the top five false claims that we have heard today about H.R. 444 with some of the facts.

False claim number 5: a reemployment bonus cannot motivate workers to find jobs that do not exist. The truth: as Republicans, our tax and growth programs over the past year have created 1.1 million new jobs, 625,000 coming in March and April. These job opportunities are becoming more available, and we have to ensure that those chronically unemployed have the new tools and new skills to face this new economy.

False claim number 4: PRAs do not provide workers with greater flexibility. Rather, if workers choose a PRA, they would be prohibited from using WIA services for a full year. Mr. Speaker, the truth: reemployment accounts provide the unemployed with a means of developing an individual specific plan for regaining employment. The prohibition against WIA services is to prevent double dipping. I think that is appropriate.

False claim number 3: PRAs will be used as an excuse to not extend the

Temporary Emergency Unemployment Compensation Program. The truth, Mr. Speaker: Republicans have consistently supported extending unemployment benefits. These PRAs are a supplemental approach to benefits and represent one more way that Republicans are using to help Americans find new jobs and get back to work quickly.

False claim number 2: reemployment accounts come at the expense of other WIA job training and employment programs. The truth, Mr. Speaker: while appropriators will ultimately determine the allocation of these dollars, the funding for PRAs will flow through the discretionary fund of demonstration projects, not the funds used for other services.

False claim number 1 on the top of the list: H.R. 444 would restrict, rather than expand, the amount of job training and other reemployment services. Mr. Speaker, Republicans have prioritized funding for job training. Reemployment accounts are a voluntary program that allows for personalized and streamlined reemployment services. No one is forced to use the account, and the purpose of the legislation is to provide the most effective use of funds for the unemployed.

Again, I encourage strong support for H.R. 444.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) very much for the time, and it is a pleasure to work with him on the committee to protect the rights of workers and also to speak to the concern of unemployed Americans.

I rise to strongly oppose H.R. 444, the Worker Reemployment Accounts Act of 2004. I would like to begin with a reflection here.

Alan Greenspan, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, recently appeared in Washington to talk about unemployment and about unemployment insurance, and he said ``that when unemployment is created, through no fault of the workers' actions, then I think it is clearly to our advantage to find ways of creating support in our system, and as a consequence, in times like this, I have supported the issue of extension of unemployment insurance.'' That is Alan Greenspan, the chairman of the Federal Reserve.

Now, there is an urgency about this issue about unemployment, and I would submit that the solution that is being offered today by our friends in the majority is a false solution. We have the chairman of the Federal Reserve ready to recognize the urgency of unemployment insurance. It is obvious that we ought to be providing for an extension of unemployment insurance to meet the needs of those millions of Americans who are desperate today for Congress to take action. Why are they desperate? Well, let us look at what happened.

The economic record of this administration will show that over a period from January of 2001 to April 2004, there has, in fact, been a substantial increase in the unemployment rate from 4.2 percent in January 2001 to 5.6 percent in April of 2004. Let us look more closely at this.

What we have here is of great consequence to millions of Americans because in this period, from January 2001 to April 2004, we have seen long-term unemployment nearly triple. In other words, there are not only more people unemployed, but more people are unemployed for longer periods of time, which means a tremendous adverse economic impact on their families.

In January 2001, there were approximately 680,000 people in this country who were unemployed more than 26 weeks; but now, in April of 2004, under the economic policies of this administration, the unemployment rate for those who have been unemployed for more than 26 weeks has gone to 1.8 million, nearly three times. This, of course, means that there is real desperation on the part of many American families to get some help.

Now, let us put this in a historical context. How do we take the economic policies of this administration with respect to job creation and with respect to the lack thereof and put it against all administrations over the last 70 years? This comparison is noteworthy because what we see here is that going all the way back to the time of Herbert Hoover, there has not been a worse condition where we have seen an actual decline in private sector jobs. In this whole arc of a 70- year period, we see in one administration after another, Democrat and Republican alike, this administration has failed to meet the tests that all other administrations, Democratic and Republican alike, have met; and, in fact, we have here an actual decline in private sector jobs, only in this administration.

So what should be the solution right now with so many people suffering? We have been told this by the Chairman of the Federal Reserve. Our unemployment system is very well structured, and it has worked the way I think we wanted it to work. Alan Greenspan again said that on March 11 of this year.

So we should be here talking today about an extension of unemployment benefits. Not only is it important in terms of recognizing the abysmal failure of an administration in dealing with the creation of jobs, but with knowing the suffering of working families who are not getting any relief whatsoever at a time when the fund, as the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) pointed out, keep building up and up. What are we going to do with all this money? Instead, we have a bill which apparently those who crafted it believe that left to their own devices the 8.2 million unemployed workers in America would prefer to simply remain jobless.

With that analysis and thus the theory that underlies, this bill is absolutely wrong. Unemployed Americans are unemployed not because they want to be, but because they cannot find jobs. Since the recession began 37 months ago, 2.2 million private sector jobs have disappeared, a 2 percent contraction in the job market. In every previous episode of recession and job decline since 1939, the number of jobs fully recovered to above the pre-recessionary peak within 31 months at the start of the recession. This time, however, it has not happened. In fact, if employment had grown by the 2.2 percent rate that occurred in the past three recessionary cycles, today's labor market would have 5.2 million more jobs. Instead, we can all point to lost jobs, and that is all we can point to and more lost jobs.

Well, the administration has responded to the situation by refusing to extend Federal unemployment benefits, an action that is already paid for by the unemployment trust fund; 1.5 million workers remain without a paycheck and without an unemployment check. The number of individuals who have exhausted their State unemployment benefits without finding work is at the highest level ever recorded.

This bill ought to be defeated. It is a nonsolution. It is time for Congress to act in bringing unemployment insurance extension to the floor of this House.