To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 117 North Kidd Street in Ionia, Michigan, as the "Alonzo Woodruff Post Office Building".

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

Mr. Speaker, before I begin my remarks, first I want to say on behalf of all of my colleagues our thoughts and prayers are with our good friend and distinguished ranking member of the House Ways and Means Committee, Congressman Jim McCrery. Mr. McCrery is not with us today, and he and his family mourn the untimely passing of Jim's sister. Our thoughts are with Congressman McCrery and his entire family.

Mr. Speaker, I stand here in support of extending unemployment benefits, and I have sponsored legislation to accomplish that goal. All Republican members of the Ways and Means Committee supported extending benefits when our committee considered this legislation in April. But today I rise in opposition to the legislation that's before the House today which includes a radical departure from long-standing Federal policy when it comes to the balance between work and extended benefits. And I am especially opposed to the cynical election-year maneuvering reflected in how the House is considering this important issue today.

Federal law since 1981 has required at least 20 weeks of work before collecting Federal-extended benefits. The temporary program created in 2002 continued this commonsense policy. I believe requiring at least 20 weeks of work to qualify for Federal extended unemployment benefits is perfectly fair, but the majority of Democrats do not. So the legislation before us today makes a radical departure from 27 years of Federal policy by striking the commonsense 20-week work requirement.

Ironically, nearly every Democratic Member in the House supported this same requirement as part of the temporary program Congress created in 2002. Yet today, without a single hearing on this topic, this legislation would strike that sensible long-standing requirement.

So under this legislation, some individuals will receive 12 months of total unemployment benefits after having worked for as little as 2 weeks in some cases before being laid off. Does the majority think that this is fair to taxpayers to pay 12 months of unemployment benefits in exchange for less than 1 month of work?

Since the 1930s, unemployment benefits have been paid to those strongly attached to the workforce. That's the logic behind expecting at least 20 weeks of work before layoff for those who go on to collect Federal-extended benefits. It is not too much to expect someone who has worked for at least 20 weeks to collect up to 12 months of unemployment benefits.

What makes this worse, this legislation is being considered under rules that prevent any opportunities for amendments, that prevent any opportunities for substitutes or other avenues to correct what we believe is a serious error in this radical approach.

The way this bill is being considered is under a process usually reserved for naming post offices and honoring sports teams. In the past 2 years, this House has named 87 post offices using this process, and today by using this same process, House majority leaders trivialize the important issue of extending unemployment benefits to those who are hurting. And it didn't have to be this way.

Every Republican on the Ways and Means Committee supported extending unemployment benefits in some fashion 2 months ago. And I suspect almost every Member of this House shares that view today. The only disagreement involves whether there should be a minimum work requirement, among other important details.

But 2 months, again that's 2 months after this so-called emergency legislation was considered in the Ways and Means Committee, here we are 2 months later with the Majority's flawed take-it-or-leave-it approach.

Mr. Speaker, I recognize many workers are hurting. I continue to support extending help to those who need it most. Unfortunately, the bill before us insists on paying extended unemployment benefits even to those who have worked for only a fraction of the time they will collect benefits.

This radical policy is a departure from current law, a 27-year-old bipartisan policy, and that's simply not right. And the way this legislation is being considered is an affront to all Americans. This bill was brought directly to the floor without as much as a hearing in committee.

Mr. Speaker, I have a letter here from the Executive Office of the President stating the President's position. The administration strongly opposes this legislation, H.R. 5479, and they state that if it were presented to the President, the senior advisers would recommend that he veto the bill.

I place it into the Record at this time.

Executive Office of the President, Office of Management

and Budget,

Washington, DC, June 11, 2008.

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

and 36 cosponsors)

The Administration is deeply committed to continually

fostering an environment where every American who wants a job

has a job. The Administration believes the best way to help

workers is to create an environment that encourages job

creation and to promote effective job training. To accomplish

these goals, the Administration urges Congress to create more

opportunities for

American exporters by passing the pending free trade

agreements with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea, make

permanent the President's tax cuts that will expire over the

next two years, and reform and reauthorize the Trade

Adjustment Assistance program and the Workforce Investment

Act. The Administration looks forward to continuing to work

with Congress to enact these important measures. However, the

Administration strongly opposes H.R. 5749. If H.R. 5749 were

presented to the President, his senior advisors would

recommend that he veto the bill.

This legislation raises several concerns. First, although

the unemployment rate has recently risen, it remains below

the levels historically relied on to justify a federally

financed extension of unemployment benefits. The last

initiation of temporary extended benefits was in 2002 amidst

the unprecedented events surrounding September 11, 2001.

Other than that special case, extensions have generally been

granted only when the unemployment rate was notably higher

than it is today, at or above 7 percent.

Second, this bill would allow the payment of up to 13 extra

weeks of benefits in every State, even though some of those

States have unemployment rates as low as 2.6 percent. At

present, a majority of States have unemployment rates at or

below 5 percent, and it is fiscally irresponsible to provide

extra benefits in States with low unemployment rates. In

States with higher unemployment rates, the Federal-State

extended benefits program already can provide up to 13

additional weeks of benefits to workers who have exhausted

their regular unemployment insurance benefits. As many

economists have noted, the counterproductive result of a

broad extension of benefits would be that recipients may

remain unemployed for slightly longer than they would have

otherwise.

Third, this bill does not contain an important provision

found in previous Federal extensions and the permanent

Federal-State extended benefits law that assures the benefit

extension is paid only to individuals who have demonstrated a

serious attachment to the labor force. Since 1981,

individuals must have 20 weeks of full-time employment to

qualify for extended unemployment benefits. Under this bill,

individuals who have worked as little as two weeks could

qualify for up to 52 weeks of total unemployment benefits.

This violates the longstanding requirement that extended

benefits should be for Americans with meaningful work

histories.

Fourth, for purposes of determining whether a State is

considered a ``high unemployment'' State in which an extra 13

weeks of benefits is payable (for a total of 26 weeks of

additional benefits), this proposal would use a total

unemployment rate of 6 percent as the trigger for State

eligibility. This is, historically, a relatively low number

for justifying a full year or more of unemployment benefits.

As an alternative to these ill-targeted and costly

measures, the Administration could support legislation that

would offer a 13-week extension of Federally financed

unemployment benefits to high-unemployment States alone.

Mr. Speaker, again, I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill so that it can be brought back under a rule that allows the House to work its will and provides an opportunity to include a commonsense work requirement that does not pay a full year of benefits to someone who may have worked for as little as 2 weeks.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would note that most House Republicans and the administration have stated that we all support an extension of unemployment benefits. In fact, the letter we just placed in the Record says the administration would sign into law a 13-week extension that is targeted, providing the extended benefits that we all would like to see.

Mr. Speaker, as I prepare to yield to my good friend from Michigan, I would note that, again, the legislation before us is a radical change which eliminates the 20-week work requirement to qualify for a full 12 months of unemployment benefits, and that's why it's important we debate it, and that's why I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

With that, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlelady from the State of Michigan.

Mr. Speaker, I would note the previous speaker referred to 6 percent as being ruthless. That's actually the formula in the majority Democrats' bill. So it was interesting that he criticized his own bill.

I would also note to my good friend from Washington (Mr. McDermott) that Illinois is actually a State in which someone can work 2 weeks and actually, under the legislation that's before us, obtain 39 weeks of unemployment benefits.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to a distinguished member of the House Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Brady.

Mr. Speaker, it's interesting as we debate this legislation that some have criticized targeted help for those who we would like to provide extended unemployment benefits for, and of course, the bill before us actually targets the final 13 weeks of a year's worth of unemployment benefits with a 6 percent trigger, and it's also interesting that a senior member of the Ways and Means Committee from Michigan, Mr. Levin, labels that 6 percent trigger for that targeted approach ``ruthless,'' a description that he uses to describe his own legislation. I would not use that word.

Before further debating the legislation which eliminates the 20-week work requirement for extended unemployment benefits, Mr. Speaker, can you tell us how much time we have remaining on both sides?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California and a senior Republican in the House Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Herger.

Mr. Speaker, as we continue to debate this radical change, which eliminates the 20-week work requirement to be eligible for 12 months of unemployment benefits, I'm happy to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished Republican whip of the House, Mr. Blunt of Missouri.

Mr. Speaker, as we continue to debate this legislation which eliminates the 20-week work requirement to qualify for up to 12 months of unemployment benefits, I would ask, Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on each side.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished Republican leader of the House, Mr. Boehner of Ohio.

Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on each side?

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

Well, Mr. Speaker, once again, I want to state that I believe the vast majority of Members of this House overwhelmingly support extension of unemployment benefits for those who need help. We're debating the legislation before us that makes a radical change in qualifying for unemployment benefits. In fact, you can work as little as 2 weeks and obtain up to 52 weeks of unemployment benefits in the State of Illinois under their current policy if this legislation were to become law.

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

Mr. Speaker, I note with some humor my good friend from Washington State's comments about whether or not I proposed legislation to right the wrong that I have been raising. Actually, existing law for extending benefits requires 20 weeks' worth. So there is no need for legislation to maintain existing law. What is important to point out is that this legislation eliminates that 20-week work requirement in order to qualify for 52 weeks of unemployment benefits.

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

Will the gentleman from Michigan yield?

Do you agree that the 6 percent that you are talking about is the 6 percent trigger that----

Mr. Speaker, just so we fully understand, it is my understanding that the distinguished majority leader is going to close for the majority and that I have 1 minute remaining?

Mr. Speaker, sometimes in debate positions are mischaracterized. But I think it is important to point out----

Mr. Speaker, I want to echo the majority leader's comments when I agree that this issue, the issue of extending unemployment benefits, should not be a Republican or Democrat issue. And we, of course, on our side of the aisle, want to extend unemployment benefits for those who need help. And we are prepared to work, as we have been, to achieve that goal.

I would note that 8 weeks ago when the Ways and Means Committee took up this legislation, it was deemed emergency legislation. It had to move through the committee quickly. It was an emergency. We had to do it right away. Well 2 months later it finally comes to the floor. And I believe that if we want to be compassionate, if we want to help those who need help, we need to do it in the right way. And that is if it is an emergency, we should have done it 8 weeks ago, number one, but we should also do it in the proper legislative way of ensuring that it is a bipartisan bill and that we construct it in a way that recognizes what has worked in the past. And I would note, as the majority leader said, back in 2002, we passed a bipartisan unemployment extension legislation that was signed into law by the President, and it maintained a 27-year precedent which was that one should have to work for 20 weeks in order to qualify for 52 weeks' worth of unemployment benefits.

And that is the big concern here with this legislation today. There is a radical departure from an established policy of 27 years of requiring 20 weeks of work to qualify for a full year of unemployment benefits. And the legislation before us today repeals that. It eliminates a 27-year precedent.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.'' Let's bring this legislation back tomorrow, under a rule, and allow an amendment to be offered to strike this radical change.

Again, Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote.

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

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

I want to thank Chairman Rangel for his leadership on behalf of the American people.

Every Member in the House is elected by the people, and today we're going to find out if Members remember who they work for.

Before us is H.R. 5749, legislation I introduced because it's time the government work for the people and extend a helping hand to those who need a break. Contrary to what you have just heard, this bill was heard in the committee, was voted on in the committee, and three members of the Republican Party voted to move it out of the Ways and Means Committee. It was contained in the supplemental bill, and everybody in the House has had an opportunity to vote on it and discuss it. We are repassing it for the second time.

Now, this legislation should pass without a single vote against it. And that's why it was put on the supplemental on the suspension calendar. No Member who's read a newspaper or spent any time in a congressional district talking to constituents lately could possibly miss the fact that the economy is in serious trouble and so are millions of Americans, and it will just keep getting worse until we act.

Last Friday we saw the largest one-month jump in the unemployment rate in 22 years. Now does anyone doubt the gravity of that situation? Across America the unemployment rate is rising. It's over 7 percent in Michigan and above 6 percent in Alaska and a half a dozen other States.

Eighteen percent of the unemployed in this country have not been able to find a job for at least 6 months. They have exhausted all of their benefits. And that is what this bill deals with. Everywhere you look, people are worried about their home and their family and their future. And no one feels safe no matter where they are.

The economy has been claimed by the Iraq war. This wasteful, needless war has undermined our economy and put it on a deep, steep downward slide. Devastating energy and food prices have made the American people be up against the wall when businesses are shedding jobs to cope. It's been this way for months, and it's time for some relief.

The White House has been fighting, and as Mr. Weller says, they've sent down from the administration a letter already saying they're going to veto it. Well, that's the administration. What do you expect out of that place?

This bill would provide 13 weeks of extended unemployment benefits to all States where people have exhausted their regular unemployment. It gives another 13 weeks in States where the unemployment rate is above 6 percent.

The usual UI benefit is less than $300 a week. That's poverty level assistance for a family struggling in an economy when gasoline is $4 a gallon.

There is not a congressional district in this country that isn't feeling the effects of this downturn. Every Member in this Chamber has constituents who need help, and they are the workers we are working for, presumably.

This bill is a lifeboat to the American people to stay afloat during increasingly tough economic times. Anybody who votes against this bill is voting against reality. They are denying it.

Now, sometimes the American people watch this session out of interest, but today, they're watching because there's an urgent need to receive some help.

This issue of the 20 weeks is being held up as the reason why I'm going to vote against it. The Labor Department analyzed the fact that that unduly affects low-wage workers and women because they work part- time.

We hear that if you work 2 weeks you can get a year's benefits. Are you saying that the Governor of Illinois or the Governor of Michigan or the Governor of Pennsylvania is stupid and he's just throwing money out the window? These are qualified by the State-level people, and you know you can't give me one example of any place--people say Oregon, if you work 2 weeks in Oregon, you somehow are going to get a year's benefits for 2 weeks. There is no State in the Union where that is true. Give me one example.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material into the Record on H.R. 5749.

I would also like to enter into the Record a letter from the National Governors Association dated May 1, 2008, asking us to extend unemployment benefits to exhausted unemployment enrollees.

National Governors Association,

Washington, DC, May 1, 2008.

Hon. Max Baucus,

Chairman, Committee on Finance, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

Hon. Charles B. Rangel,

Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means, House of

Representatives, Washington, DC.

Hon. Charles Grassley,

Ranking Member, Committee on Finance, U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Jim McCrery,

Ranking Member, Committee on Ways and Means, House of

Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Baucus, Senator Grassley, Chairman Rangel and

Representative McCrery: On behalf of the nation's governors,

we write to express our support for an extension of

unemployment benefits and to request federal assistance for

states to serve a growing number of jobless individuals.

In the last month, 36 states experienced an increase in the

unemployment rate. The national unemployment rate increased

to 5.1 percent in March 2008. Most notable, however, is the

significant number of individuals that are unemployed for 27

weeks or longer, thus exhausting all unemployment benefits.

Today, approximately 16.7 percent of jobless individuals are

experiencing long-term unemployment compared to approximately

11 percent at the beginning of the last recession.

Beginning in 1935, a federal-state partnership was formed

to create an unemployment program that would provide a core

stabilizing function during economic downturns through short-

term income support for jobless individuals. In prior

recessions including the economic downturn that began in

2001, Congress and the Administration utilized the program to

extend unemployment benefits to jobless individuals.

At the same time, any proposal to extend unemployment

benefits must also address the reality that states need

additional resources to administer unemployment claims for a

larger number of individuals for a longer period of time.

This year alone, states may have to administer an average of

nearly 400,000 unemployment insurance claims without federal

funding. Federal support is needed by state employment and

workforce agencies to administer increased initial

unemployment claims, to support weekly unemployment benefits,

and to provide employment and training services.

Given the current economic indicators and historical

precedent, governors believe it is prudent and appropriate

for Congress and the Administration to enact a temporary

federally funded extension of unemployment insurance benefits

and to provide a sufficient increase in funding for states to

assist jobless individuals during this period of economic

slowdown.

We stand ready to work with you and thank you for your

leadership on this issue of national importance.

Sincerely,

Governor Donald L. Carcieri,

Chair, Education, Early Childhood and Workforce Committee.

Governor Brad Henry,

Vice Chair, Education, Early Childhood and Workforce

Committee.

I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones).

(Mrs. JONES of Ohio asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, to correct something that has just been said on the floor, I understand that someone may not have read the bill. There is no mandate in this bill that any State has to do anything. They can enter into an agreement with the Federal Government and take this money. They are not forced to do anything. And I'm sure every smart Governor will figure out what to do.

I yield 1 minute to Ms. Berkley from Nevada.

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

Mr. Speaker, it's hard for me to understand why the gentleman from Illinois keeps bringing up his own State as an example of wasting money and he has never brought any legislation to fix what their stupid legislature has done. He is acting as though the people in his own State don't know what they're doing.

Now, if somebody works, money is paid into the fund. If they work for a week in one quarter and a week in another quarter, it is possible that they might get $20 or some minimal benefit. To imply that working 2 weeks you get $400 a week, as you do in the State of Washington, for 26 weeks or 52 weeks is simply misleading, and he knows it.

I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel).

Mr. Speaker, what is the remaining time?

I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).

To Mr. Hoyer from Maryland I yield the remaining time. We have the right to close, however, I think.

Mr. Speaker, I want to recognize Mr. Hoyer first, and then let you come, and then I will close.

We got our wires crossed.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Illinois says that he would go for this bill but for this one provision. If that one provision were there, he would go for it. But the fact is that you have 100 metropolitan areas in this country where people simply have run out of benefits. And it is over 6 percent in those metropolitan areas. The Governors have asked us for this, and the technical thing that my opponent uses is, you know, somewhere out there, there is somebody who paid $40 into the fund, and because of the way it is written, he gets $20 out, and so I can't vote for it.

Well there are 1.6 million who already exhausted their benefits, and there are many more. And the national Governors sent this letter to us. They are not the only ones. State legislator, labor unions, everyone is asking for this. You can vote ``no'' if you want. You will have to face your constituency in November.

I thank my friend from Washington State for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, for the last 7\1/2\ years, the President and members of his administration have claimed that the American economy is doing just fine. And in December, President Bush said, ``The economy is pretty good. There are definitely some storm clouds and concerns, but the underpinning is good.''

But the reality, of course, that we have seen is far different, particularly for American workers.

Just last Friday, the Labor Department reported that the unemployment rate jumped one-half of 1 percent, from 5 percent to 5.5 percent. Now to some of us, perhaps that is simply a statistic. For some families, it is a crisis. This is the largest 1-month increase in unemployment in 22 years, or said a different way, until the 6th year of the Reagan administration.

Our economy has actually lost jobs each of the last 5 months, a loss of some 325,000 jobs since the first of the year. In fact, this administration has created about 3.6 million jobs over the last 7\1/2\ years, as opposed to 20 million plus jobs under the Clinton administration, or under Clinton, an average of 236,000 new jobs per month, and under this administration approximately 40,000 new jobs per month. And you need 100,000 to stay even. That is why this bill is on the floor today.

Over the last 12 months, the number of unemployed Americans has increased by 1.6 million, from nearly 6.9 million in May of 2007 to nearly 8.5 million in May of this year. That is 8.5 million of our fellow citizens who don't have a job, who are not sure how they are going to pay for their housing, their rent, their food, their medicine and the clothing for their children. That is what we are talking about today. We are talking about those 8.5 million people who are our constituents, Americans who need our help. And that is what this vote is today at this point in time.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, 1.5 million of those workers are what we call euphemistically ``long-term unemployed,'' which means they have been jobless for more than 6 months. I don't know how many of you have had the opportunity to see ``Pursuit of Happyness,'' spelled h-a-p-p-y. It is a wonderful movie about a now very successful African American and his little boy who found themselves homeless with no money. And they went to the homeless shelter, and they couldn't get in. Those are the people we are talking about. That is what we are voting on this day, as to whether or not we are going to reach out to those people and try to lift them up and give them a helping hand, not a handout, but a helping hand. These are people who were employed, who were working, and through no fault of their own, they lost

their jobs. Because if it is the fault of their own, by the way, they don't get unemployment.

All the while, working Americans have been confronted with decreasing household incomes, exploding gas and food prices and escalating health care costs. Why then, given this squeeze on hardworking middle-class American families, does the President threaten to veto a common-sense, compassionate response, the temporary extension of unemployment benefits?

Here is the kicker. Listen to me. There are 200,000 more long-term jobless Americans today, right now, as we debate this bill, 200,000 more Americans who are on long-term jobless status than when President Bush last signed an extension of unemployment benefits into law. In other words, the status today in America is that there are 200,000 more people who need our help than when President Bush last signed an extension of long-term unemployment.

How can we then say it is not time to act today, to reach out our hand today, to say that the Congress of the United States feels your pain, hears your cry, and responds? There is no justification for the President's threatened veto on this much-needed legislation, Mr. Speaker. This bill is not only a sign of compassion and a demonstration of our values, but it is also a fast-acting form of economic stimulus.

Who says so? Conservative economists say so. It will help lift up our floundering economy. It will simply provide up to 13 weeks of extended unemployment benefits in every State to workers exhausting regular unemployment compensation. And in States with higher levels of unemployment, an additional 13 weeks is available on top.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation is vital. It is vital for workers and their families who are struggling to make ends meet in this poorly performing economy. It is not charity. It is our obligation and responsibility. It is a recognition that under the administration, the American worker has been forced to contend with job loss, decreasing incomes, exploding gas costs, food and health care costs, and unprecedented foreclosure rates.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation is the right thing to do at the right time, at the right place. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, this is not a Republican or Democratic issue, this is not a liberal or conservative issue. This is an issue of saying, there are people in trouble. We hear their cry. We respond to help.

Ladies and gentlemen of the House of Representatives, we call this the people's House. Help the people this day.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5749) to provide for a program of emergency unemployment compensation, as amended.

I would ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of my very brief remarks, that my time be yielded to Mr. McDermott who worked so desperately hard with Mr. English to prepare this Congress to do what has to be done for a crisis that we hoped we would never have to experience.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I stand before you not as a Democrat speaking to Republicans, but as an American who recognizes that if I had to think of one of the most important assets that our country has had, after we talked about our flag, our military, our democracy, I think that we all would agree it's our middle class. They're different from most people. They're not recognized worldwide. They're not the rich. They're not the poor. They're people who struggle every day. But it's their dreams, I think, that make us different from any other country and any other democracy knowing that in this country there is no glass ceiling.

And no matter what we accomplish, that we could dream for our kids and for our grandkids, today, through no fault of their own, this dream is being shattered. It's being shattered by the deficits. It's being shattered by war. It's being shattered by losing our kids, losing our jobs, losing our hope, increased price of oil; and people are concerned about where do we go from here. I suggest to you that no one can challenge the fact that this country cannot go any further than our middle class.

So it's up to us to find out how do we handle this and how to explain, at a time when they're at most need, not just in terms of dollars and cents but in hopes that this country is going to pull out of this as we have in the past.

So what did Mr. McDermott and Congressman English do? They said no matter what happens in this country, whether we win or lose, you can depend on one thing: We will not give up on the American middle class. Now, you could talk about deficits and trust funds, you could talk about PAYGO, you could talk about anything; but you're not going to let this country drown because of technicalities.

The middle class is there when we need them. They're there to consume and to buy if they have to. They're there to fight and die in our wars. And now comes an opportunity where we come here together and we say it's not much, we've got to struggle to repair the economic damage, but in the meantime, those of you who have worked every day, those of you who we've not said ``thank you'' to, we're saying that we're going to be there because through no fault of your own, our country has let you down.

I yield back for the technical things, but I do hope when we get back home that all of us can say, We didn't do everything that we wanted to, but at the time this bill came up for suspension, we were there for you.

Thank you again, Dr. McDermott, Mr. English, and all of those that I know everybody in this House is sensitive to the plight that these unfortunate, hardworking people find themselves. All I can suggest, from a very political point of view, is that at some point when we get home, somebody is going to ask us how did we vote? And as they put together their budgets and try to figure out the rent, the mortgages, the tuition, the gas prices, I just hope that you perfect the arguments of those of you that oppose this bill in such a way that you expect they would understand what the heck you are talking about.

Mr. Speaker, here we are, June 2008. How many people do you know are unemployed? How many people do you know who have been walking, looking for a job, need an opportunity, can't figure out how they're going to pay for gas that costs $4 a gallon, milk that costs $3.50, a loaf of bread that costs $3? How many people do you know like that?

Why not extend unemployment? Why not give these folks an opportunity? They were hardworking people. They were part of the working class of America, and now are locked out and left out of the process.

In my own congressional district, there is a community where the unemployment rate is 11 percent. They want to go back to work. What a boom to the economy. Give some unemployment benefits to some folks, let them go spend some money and take care of their families. If only the Congress would do that today, what a significant opportunity we would have to bring some people out of a morass back into an opportunity to do well.

Pass this legislation, ladies and gentlemen. It's the right thing to do.

Mr. Speaker, I want to first thank Chairman Rangel and Ranking Member McCrery for their diligent work to bring this legislation to the Floor. Additionally I would like to thank the Chair of the Subcommittee on Income Security and Family Support, Jim McDermott and Ranking Member Weller for their leadership on this issue.

In our teetering economy it is often the unemployed who suffer the most, and it is time that Congress take a stand for our Nation's unemployed. The unemployment rate surged to 5.5 percent from 5.0 percent--the biggest one-month jump in more than two decades (since February 1986) and climbing to the highest level in nearly four years (October 2004).

These are American workers in the most vulnerable position--often not able to put food on the table for their families on a consistent basis. And I will state as I did before we completed the first stimulus package, that we must not forgot those who are not able to find work.

My State of Ohio does not meet the test under the current formula for an extension of unemployment benefits. But there are various parts of Ohio, including my hometown of Cleveland which may by definition have over 6 percent unemployment. In Ohio, the unemployment rate has gone from 4.5 percent to 5.3 percent during the Bush Administration. In Cuyahoga County, unemployment is currently at 6.4 percent. Sadly, there are cities within my districts whose numbers are even higher than that. Mere technicalities mean nothing when you cannot pay rent.

This condition is prevalent in many areas around the country. Many of these workers have been displaced by the sweeping tide of globalization and are having a hard time finding new employment, or training to transition to a different type of job in our new economy. Mr. Speaker we must not forget these Americans.