Lake Barkley Water Level Improvement Act

Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order against consideration of this bill.

Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order against consideration of this bill because the bill violates clause 10 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House of Representatives which provides in pertinent part that ``it shall not be in order to consider any bill if the provisions of such measure affecting direct spending and revenues have the net effect of increasing the deficit'' over the 5- or 10-year budget scoring window.

This rule is commonly referred to as the pay-as-you-go rule or PAYGO and was enacted by the majority with great fanfare at the beginning of this Congress.

In reviewing the estimate prepared by the Congressional Budget Office, I note that they have scored this bill as increasing the deficit by $14 billion over the next 5 years, and nearly $10 billion over the coming decade.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the table prepared by the Congressional Budget Office appear at this point in the Record.

Madam Speaker, given this overwhelming evidence that this bill does have the net effect of increasing the deficit over both scoring windows, I must respectfully insist on my point of order that the bill violates the PAYGO rule.

Madam Speaker, on that I respectfully appeal the ruling of the Chair.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, as Yogi Berra once said, this is like deja vu all over again. Yesterday after an 8-week delay, the House considered and failed to pass the legislation once again before us today. I continue to support providing extended unemployment benefits to workers who need it most. In fact, every Republican on the Ways and Means Committee supported extending unemployment benefits when this legislation was considered in committee 2 months ago; again, 8 weeks ago.

Again, Republicans want to extend unemployment benefits. And we want to help those who are hurting the most. We also recognize that it is time that we pass legislation that can become law.

Ladies and gentlemen, that is why I rise in strong opposition to the legislation before us today which does not satisfy the simple standard of helping those who need it most and who have worked a modest number of weeks to earn these benefits.

Yesterday, the Democratic leadership brought identical legislation to the

floor under a process normally reserved for naming post offices and honoring sports teams. This resulted in a take-it-or-leave-it approach to this very important issue of extending unemployment benefits, and the bill failed to gain enough votes, forcing us to return to the floor again today.

Now have our Democratic colleagues budged an inch? Absolutely not. Today we are considering the same legislation which once again fails to include a long-standing and reasonable policy requiring at least 20 weeks of work to qualify for extended unemployment benefits.

As several of us on this side of the aisle have noted, without this sensible requirement under H.R. 5749, workers could qualify for as many as 52 weeks of unemployment benefits, a full year, after having worked as little as one or two weeks. But whether someone worked two or 10 weeks or even 19 weeks, the simple fact is that current Federal law includes a straightforward rule that requires a modest minimum amount of work before someone can qualify for months, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 months of unemployment benefits courtesy of our taxpayers.

This 20-weeks rule is not too much to ask. It is fair, and it is inexcusable for the other side not to include such a reasonable, long- standing rule. In fact, to not include it, as the bill before us would do, is a radical, and I say that again, radical change, radical departure from current law.

My friends in the majority have called this issue a straw man. If it is just a straw man, why did they make the change? Why did they make this radical policy change that breaks 27 years of bipartisan policy which requires 20 weeks of work to qualify for a full year of unemployment benefits.

Mr. Speaker, I have a United States Department of Labor document that shows examples of States that would allow 1 year's benefits for only 1 or 2 weeks' work, including a State like Michigan where you would only have to work one week to be able to obtain, under this legislation, 52 weeks worth of benefits.

I would like to insert this Department of Labor document into the Record.

Mr. Speaker, would you share with us how much time remains on each side, please?

Mr. Speaker, as we continue to debate this legislation which makes a radical change, eliminating the Federal work requirement to qualify for federally funded unemployment benefits, I wish to yield 3 minutes to the senior Republican on the House Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Herger of California.

Is the gentleman yielding time?

Well, I would first point out to my friend from Michigan that I represent the State of Illinois. And under the legislation which we offered in committee, my State of Illinois would receive extended unemployment benefits.

I would also state that the Republican minority on the committee supported extension of unemployment benefits.

Mr. Speaker, I would note that the Ways and Means Committee passed a bill on unemployment benefits 8 weeks ago. And for 8 weeks, unemployed workers who've exhausted their unemployment benefits in Michigan and Illinois have gone without unemployment benefits during election-year politics.

Mr. Speaker, as we continue debate, this legislation before us, which includes a radical policy change, eliminating the Federal work requirement to qualify for federally funded unemployment benefits, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from the State of Kentucky (Mr. Lewis), a senior member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I want to state that I share the Speaker's admiration for Mr. Rangel and Mr. McDermott. I consider Mr. Rangel very intelligent, and I enjoy working with Mr. McDermott as well, but I do disagree with the distinguished Speaker on a point that she made.

You know, she was talking about 5.5 percent unemployment, which in my view is too high, but I would note that it seems sometimes the definition of a bad economy is who's in the White House.

In 1996, President Clinton stood before us at the State of the Union in January 1996. Unemployment was at 5.6 percent, higher than it is today. President Clinton said the economy was the healthiest it has been in three decades. Well, today unemployment is lower than it was when President Clinton made that statement.

So, we all agree the economy needs to be improved, but President Clinton would say it's the healthiest in decades, if he were standing again before us based on his definition of a healthy economy.

I would also note, as my good friend from Washington has made the point, that why are we talking about energy. When I talk to the folks back home in Illinois at the local grocery store, at the gas station, and people are commenting about food prices and energy prices, they say that when you have over $4 gasoline, that's bad for the economy. There's people losing jobs because energy costs are so high.

As we talk about statistics, and the distinguished Speaker referred to statistics, I would note that the approval rating of the Democrat Congress today is 16 percent. Only 16 percent of the American people think the Democrat majority is doing a good job. Now, historically, that would tell us that today's Congress is the least popular in recorded history.

No Congress has had a lower approval rating than the current Democrat majority. Why? Because since the Democratic majority became the majority in 2007, gasoline prices have gone up $1.73. Think about that. The Democrat majority has refused to expand the supply of gasoline, has refused to expand the supply of oil. Why? Because they are locking away, under their policies, domestic sources of oil and gasoline, and continuing to make us more dependent on foreign sources of oil, people like Hugo Chavez in Venezuela and sources in the Mideast that we're dependent upon because of the Democrat majority's policies.

Again, there's a reason this Congress is the least popular in recorded history, because gasoline prices have gone up $1.73 since our Democratic friends gained the majority.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Drake).

I would be happy to yield 1 additional minute to the gentlelady from Virginia.

Mr. Speaker, as I had noted earlier, this Congress, the Democrat majority in the House today, has the lowest level of popularity, lowest level approval in recorded history, 16 percent. Why? Because of actions like today.

This legislation that is before us came out of committee 8 weeks ago. Eight weeks, 2 months, that those who are unemployed have exhausted their benefits and been asking for extended unemployment benefits. We in the Republicans on the Ways and Means Committee said we want to work with our Democrat friends in the majority so we can pass a bill that's bipartisan, provides extend unemployment benefits and, frankly, becomes law.

I would note, there's a publication on Capitol Hill called Congress Daily. It shows that today's exercise is frankly just election-year politics, probably one more reason this Democratic majority has the lowest level of approval in recorded history of any Congress. This Democrat leadership today is quoted as saying, It's not what we had hoped. We'll keep trying. But ultimately this is clearly going to only be possible on the supplemental.

So, ladies and gentlemen, what we're doing today is an election-year exercise, and unfortunately, we've lost 8 weeks, which means that for 8 weeks, unemployed workers who have exhausted their unemployment benefits have had to painfully wait for the action of this Congress. We want to work together in a bipartisan way. We want to pass legislation that will become law, and as my friend on the other side of the aisle knows, this bill isn't going to become law.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to one of the newest Members of the House of Representatives, the distinguished Member from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise).

Mr. Speaker, several speakers have suggested that there is plenty of funds in Federal unemployment accounts to support these benefits. Today, those trust funds include $35 billion, and the Congressional Budget Office suggests this legislation will spend about $14 billion over the next 2 years.

But that's just the start. This program will run from July through March of 2009; that's 9 months. But once started, such programs have always been extended. The average duration of these temporary programs is about 30 months. Do the math. That's more than three times as long as the legislation before us suggests. So this program could very well wind up costing at least three times as much as the score of this bill says. Three times 14 billion is 42 billion; 42 billion is more than the 35 billion in the current unemployment trust funds.

The last time Congress created a program like this that drained the Federal unemployment accounts in the 1970s, it had to create a temporary surtax that applies to all workers. That temporary surtax still exists today; it is more than 30 years old.

It's important to note, Mr. Speaker, this legislation not only adds to the deficit, but it's going to force a tax increase.

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

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time we have remaining.

Mr. Speaker, as I would note, the legislation before us, as was so eloquently described by the Republican leader of the House, makes some radical changes. For 27 years, Republicans and Democrats have had in place a work rule requirement for federally funded unemployment benefits. It said, to qualify for up to a year, 12 months, you should work 20 weeks. That seems a fair trade off between work and benefits. And this legislation before us, Mr. Speaker, removes that requirement.

Now, my friends on the other side of the aisle refer to that concern as just kind of a straw man, it doesn't really matter. Well, why did they do it? Why is there a need to remove a 20-week work requirement to qualify for 12 months or a full year of unemployment benefits? We've had no hearings in committee. No one has explained why they're making this radical change. It just seems to be omitted from the presentations by the majority side of the aisle. So again we ask why. You know, under this policy that they're putting forward, someone would only need to work 2 weeks in a State like Michigan or Illinois and qualify for a full 1 year or 12 months of federally funded unemployment benefits. That's a radical policy change.

And let me just repeat what every Republican has stated: We want to extend unemployment benefits for those workers in hard-hit States who have exhausted their benefits. And we have repeatedly offered to our friends on the other side of the aisle saying we want to get a bill signed into law. Let's set aside election-year politics, let's work together, let's extend benefits for those who have exhausted their benefits another 13, and in some cases, 26 weeks. But we want to work together to get it done, because if we don't, and we just do the usual politics as usual, election-year politics, bring legislation to the floor we know is not going to become law, make speeches, the folks back home are going to be disappointed.

As has been noted by many, this Congress today only enjoys a 16- percent approval rating amongst the people of Illinois, the people of America. That is the lowest approval rating of any Congress in recorded history. Why? Because of the election-year politics that are being practiced today.

So I'm going to again offer to my good friends on the other side of the aisle, people who I am very fond of, people I enjoy working with, we need to work together because people are hurting. We need to work together to help those in our States who are unemployed and who have exhausted their benefits. And because of election-year politics, unemployed workers in States like Michigan and Illinois, who have exhausted their benefits, have gone without. Why? Because Congress has played election-year politics.

So let's work together. I urge a ``no'' vote on this legislation because it's not going to become law. I urge a ``no'' vote so that we work together to solve this challenge and quickly place on the President's desk legislation that will become law that extends unemployment benefits because we support extending unemployment benefits.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

In its current form I am.

Mr. Speaker, this motion to recommit supports extension of unemployment benefits for long-term unemployed, those who have exhausted their unemployment benefits. And this motion to recommit makes three simple changes to the legislation before us. It adds a requirement of 20 weeks of work for workers to qualify for the extended unemployment benefits. It targets benefits to high unemployment States, and it provides additional money to many of the newly hired individuals to help them deal with the high price of gasoline.

I particularly want to thank my colleagues, Mr. Kirk, Mrs. Biggert, Mr. Bilirakis and others for the help that they have given in crafting this motion to recommit as we work towards extension of unemployment benefits to those who need help.

First, I would note that this motion reinserts the current law requirement that workers who qualify for Federal extended unemployment benefits must have worked at least 20 weeks before being laid off. This requirement was removed by the majority with the underlying legislation.

This commonsense Federal requirement has been in place since 1981 and was included in the temporary extended benefits program Congress created in 2002, our last extended benefit program.

Nearly every Democrat Member voted for that bill then, and as we have discussed on this floor for the last 2 days, there is no good reason, there is no argument that has been made by the other side to impose the reestablishment of this long-standing Federal policy now.

Second, this motion would specify that only individuals in States with unemployment rates above 5 percent or that have seen a sharp rise in unemployment would be eligible for 13 weeks of Federal extended benefits. As under H.R. 5749, individuals in States with unemployment rates above 6 percent would be eligible for up to 26 weeks of Federal extended benefits.

Today, 22 States have unemployment rates above 5 percent or have seen a sharp rise in rates, including six States above 6 percent. So workers in nearly half of the States would be eligible for extended benefits, which could rise, or more would be eligible if States experience a rise in unemployment rates.

In contrast with H.R. 5749, this motion would not extend benefits in States that currently have unemployment rates below 5 percent, and I would note that 5 percent is low by historical standards, and that have not been experiencing rising rates. They will continue to be eligible for their basic 26 weeks of unemployment benefits. So I would note that they will continue to have unemployment benefits available to laid-off workers.

Moreover, by targeting benefits to where they are needed most, this motion actually reduces the cost of the bill, reduces the deficit, and makes it much more fiscally responsible than the untargeted, unpaid- for, ``in violation of the House rules'' legislation that has been offered by the majority.

And third, we all know that every American family is struggling with record gasoline prices. That struggle is especially pronounced for unemployed workers and in particular the long-term unemployed. Those who return to work, however, may face high commuting costs, starting with the high price of gas they must put in their tanks to get to a new job.

And I would note that this Democratic Congress, which is the least popular Congress in recorded history because of its lack of action on energy, has refused to allow for increases in domestically produced fuels which we need to help our economy.

In fact, it is the Democrat policies in the last year and a half since January 2007 which are responsible for an increase in gasoline prices of $1.73, basically a doubling of gasoline prices since our Democratic friends gained the majority. That's why gasoline prices are over $4.

We want to help American workers. And that is why we are offering help to alleviate the high price of gasoline for unemployed individuals. This motion would provide 1 extra week of extended unemployment benefits for those who return to work without exhausting their extended benefits. On average, this would mean an extra $290 per eligible worker. So for an unemployed mother who goes back to work with two children, that could mean up to four tanks of gasoline at today's $4 gasoline prices, probably enough to get her to and from her first full month on the job. Especially for someone who might not have much money left after a long spell of unemployment, that is real relief where today it is desperately needed, at the pump and in the pocketbook.

Mr. Speaker, this motion provides timely, targeted and temporary assistance, something the Speaker herself called for earlier this year. So we talked about boosting the economy. I urge its adoption so we can send this bill to the Senate and down to the White House as soon as possible. As the President said, he will veto the underlying bill. Passage of this motion to recommit will give us a bill the President will sign, and it will become law, and we can help unemployed workers.

I urge an ``aye'' vote.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I think this is a wonderful debate. I love to hear the Republican talking points said over and over again. I have counted now the phrase ``8 weeks'' since we passed this bill out of the committee. I have heard it 19 times so far and I expect we will hear it at least nineteen-hundred times before we pass the bill.

But the fact is that the ranking member knows he could have voted ``yes'' when it came out of committee. He could have voted ``yes'' when it was on the floor on the 15th of May which is when we voted on this. We already have taken action on it once; and he had a chance yesterday to vote ``yes'' on it, but he said ``no'' again. And I suspect today-- well, we'll see what he does. Maybe he will change his mind.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume because it is a new day and we woke up with some bad news about the U.S. economy. The Washington Post has the story, ``A new report from the Federal Reserve paints a portrait of the U.S. economy under pressure from almost every sector. Across the board, the U.S. economy is deteriorating, including jobs.'' And here we are again today trying to help the American people by passing the Emergency Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 2008.

Yesterday, 144 Republican Members ignored the will of the people and instead followed the whim of a lame duck President.

If three votes had switched, we would have had enough votes to pass this bill and give the American people the help they need. They didn't, so we're back here today because we're going to make it happen.

The economic data paint a compelling case for immediate action. But my Republican colleague stood at the podium yesterday, and did it again today, waving a veto threat from the White House.

This is the President who's given us this war that's put us in a terrible mess. He's given us bank problems and every other thing that's going on, gas prices. And now he waves a letter and says, we don't want to do anything for the unemployed who've exhausted their benefits.

They hid behind rhetoric that pretends to contend itself with people qualifying for benefits. They served up a real cold red herring for dinner last night for those people that exhausted their benefits, because they simply want to deny American workers unemployment benefits.

Remember, this money didn't come out of the tax base. It came from their employers who paid it into a trust fund for exactly this purpose; when they lose their job, they should have access to it.

Now, let me be clear. This 20-week rule that we hear yelled about here, that many Republicans want included in the bill, would mean that workers could work for over 10 straight months and be denied extended benefits, depending on the vagaries of the various laws in States across this country.

The Department of Labor has estimated that around 10 percent of those who've exhausted their benefits might be excluded from extended benefits if we were to include this 20-week rule. These workers are disproportionately low-wage, part-time, minority and women.

In other words, the Republicans propose to solve a problem by creating one. Instead of helping people, the Republicans' alternative is to penalize workers on the lowest rung of the economic ladder. Very typical. Look at the tax cuts.

The American people need solutions, and that's what H.R. 5749 is about. It would immediately provide 13 weeks of extended benefits for workers in every State who've exhausted their benefits. It provides an additional 13 weeks of benefits in States with an unemployment rate of 6 percent or higher.

This bill is targeted. You hear them say we want a targeted bill. Of course it's targeted. It's targeted to do one thing, to help those people who need it the most.

Here's how it works. Anyone a State qualifies for unemployment benefits, and who has exhausted what the State has provided them, would be eligible for extended benefits of the same amount for half as long as the State provided them. So, if you received 26 weeks in your State from the State, and you run out, you get 13 more weeks of extended benefits. If you get 10 weeks from your State, you will get 5 weeks more of extended benefits.

The Federal Reserve outlook wasn't the only piece of information we received yesterday. A little while ago the Labor Department announced that initial claims for unemployment benefits jumped more than expected last week. The number of people filing for unemployment benefits last week increased 384,000 people, in 1 week. And all the Republicans want to do is wave a veto letter from the White House.

Helping the American people should not be a partisan issue; but the Republicans and the president are trying to make it just that.

Yesterday we had a bipartisan bill. Almost 50 Republicans voted for it. I urge my Republican colleagues to follow their conscience and not their caucus and vote with the Democrats to help the American people. The Emergency Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 2008 is the least we can do for the American people.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Levin from Michigan will have 3 minutes. I yield to the gentleman.

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

I yield the gentleman 2 additional minutes.

I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, I don't know if I walked into the wrong place or not. I thought we were talking about unemployment, but all I hear is a lot of talk about energy. Now, I don't know if the Members on the other side have forgotten what the subject is today or exactly what the problem is, but the fact is that we didn't wait 8 weeks. My ranking member, Mr. Weller, knows better than that. We voted on May 15 on this issue, and it's sitting over in the Senate. The Senate Republicans have got their foot on it. And the White House hasn't said ``boo'' to them.

So the Republicans are killing this proposal over there in the Senate. We're going to send it back to them another way. And I think they will have a second chance to think about it. The closer we get to the election, I think the more interested they will get in this issue.

But there's one issue here that I think somehow with the straw man that keeps getting put up here for everybody to look at, this person out there somewhere in Oregon or Illinois that worked for two weeks and is going to get unemployment benefits. We're

not talking about somebody on welfare here. We're talking about somebody who worked.

Now, my opponents on the other side keep sounding like we're talking about the dregs of the earth, people who are just stealing or somehow sneaking in and maneuvering and somehow getting something they're not entitled to. When they worked, their employer put money into the unemployment trust for their benefit.

Some people on the other side believe that we ought to have States' rights. States ought to be able to do stuff. Okay. States write the unemployment laws for their State. And in Illinois, it is true that if you work for two weeks, one week in one quarter and one week in another quarter, and your total wages are $1,600, so that means you worked one week and got $800; and then, just lucky, your next week of work was in another quarter, you got $800, you would be eligible in Illinois for $51 a week for 26 weeks for a grand total of $1,326. That comes from a letter from the Department of Employment Security signed by Joseph Mueller, which I will now insert into the Record.

Illinois, Department

of Employment Security,

Chicago, IL, June 12, 2008.

Mr. Indivar Dutta-Gupta,

House of Representatives, Committee on Ways and Means,

Subcommittee on Income Security and Family Support,

Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Dutta-Gupta: With regard to the hypothetical you

pose, if worker X worked three weeks in IL, he or she might

well not be entitled to any unemployment benefits.

To qualify for unemployment benefits in IL, an individual

must have been paid at least $1600 during his/her ``base

period,'' receiving at least $440 outside the base period

quarter in which his/her wages were the highest.

Consequently, to qualify, worker X's three weeks of wages

would have had to straddle two base period quarters, with at

least $440 being paid in the ``low quarter.''

Assuming he/she did qualify, worker X's benefit amount

would depend upon the amount of wages he/she was paid during

his/her base period. A claimant's weekly benefit amount in IL

can range from $51 to $376.

If worker X just met the $1,600/$440 requirement, he/she

would be entitled to $51/wk for up to 26 weeks (a total of

$1,326).

To qualify for what is the current average weekly benefit

payment in IL, worker X would have had to receive over $4700/

wk.

As an aside, three weeks' worth of wages would not qualify

an individual receiving IL's current minimum wage of $7.75/

hr, even if the payments did straddle two base period

quarters.

In conclusion, it would be theoretically possible for an

individual with three weeks' worth of base period wages--and

49 weeks with no wages for employment--to qualify for

benefits in IL. However, the three weeks would have to fall

``just right'' and average over $500/wk. IDES's system does

not track the number of weeks individuals work. However,

based on anecdotal feedback from program staff, it does not

seem this theoretical possibility has been a common

occurrence, if it has ever occurred.

You also pose a hypothetical in which worker X works just

two weeks. It would be theoretically possible to qualify for

benefits with just two weeks' worth of wages. Again, however,

the wages would have to straddle two base period quarters

and, in that scenario, average $800/wk. It seems this has not

been a common occurrence either.

Sincerely,

Jospeh P. Mueller,

Legal Counsel.

I don't know. Maybe Illinois is a lot easier to live in than Washington State, but getting $1,326 for 6 months is not exactly a living wage. I mean, anybody who sits at home and waits for their $51 check and says, Oh great, I'm going to live on $51 this week. I don't know where they live in Illinois. I don't believe it is in Chicago. Must be way down somewhere in the south end of the State or somewhere. I don't know how you could live on that. To think that that person is a slug who's just sitting there and saying, Well, I have got this $51 check coming, I don't believe I'm going to go look for work, is implying that that person is not a responsible human being who's been trying to get work and has worked in the past and is getting benefits that they earned to which they are entitled.

Now, if that's the reason the Republicans want to hang it up and not vote for this bill and say we're not going to give those extended benefits because there's one person in Illinois somewhere who worked for 2 weeks and made the minimum benefit and gets 26 weeks of $51 a week, if that's what you're going to go home and explain on the campaign trail why you didn't extend unemployment benefits to people who had exhausted their benefits, that's going to be real interesting to watch because I don't think the people of Illinois or any other State are going to buy this kind of an argument.

When we asked this question in Oregon, they said it isn't true. There isn't anybody getting benefits like that.

Now, it seems to me that it just comes back to the point that you really don't want to vote for unemployment benefits. I understand it's been the party's policy since 1935. You have never liked it because you thought it weakened people's resolve. That is the talk of somebody who has never been unemployed. If you have lived in a house where somebody has been unemployed and have seen what it does to the family when the father or the mother can't bring home a paycheck, you don't look at those people and say, Well, they're taking something that isn't theirs, when they paid for this benefit into the unemployment trust. They are entitled to this. It would be the same as saying to old people, Well, you're taking that Social Security that was paid into the trust for you, and somehow you're not entitled to it.

We don't do that.

America looks after the weakest. That's how you judge whether a society is really strong or not.

I recognize the Speaker for 1 minute.

We have no more speakers.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have trouble following the logic that you would vote ``no'' because it isn't going to become law. Why don't you vote ``yes'' and put it over there, and maybe the Senate this time will come to their senses and do something with this proposal? It's been over there since May 15. And I think that it really is an issue that we ought to give them one more chance to come to their senses.

Now, when you compare the unemployment rate of today with 1996, I really appreciate that because during the Clinton administration there were 20 million new jobs created, and in 1996, they were creating hundreds of thousands of jobs per month. In this administration, over the last 5 months we've lost a quarter of a million jobs. This is a totally different time.

There are huge problems out there, and they're not getting any better. And they're not going to get solved here today by, ``let's open up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling.'' Even if we did that, the oil wouldn't be here for about 4 years, and a lot of people on unemployment would be pretty hungry waiting for that job in the oil industry 4 years from now.

Mr. Speaker, the American people should only have one question in their minds today: How bad does it have to get before the President and the Republican leadership decide to join the Democrats in extending a helping hand for unemployment benefits? The revised data released by the Labor Department today shows things are even worse than we thought. Now the decision is up to us.

I introduced this legislation and invited my friend and colleague, Republican Representative Phil English, to join me because helping the American people to survive during tough economic times should not be a partisan issue. People say it has become a partisan issue here. Well, yeah, the White House has made it a partisan issue. They've said there's no problem, and they will not sign a bill that we craft. They've made their mind up before they even have a chance to look at it.

But too many others on the other side have made it just that. The American people woke up this morning to some bad economic news, and our efforts to help them were derailed by the Republican obstructionists. Those headlines, ``Republicans kill extended unemployment benefits,'' you're going to have another set if you're not careful.

We talked a lot yesterday and today about unemployment rates exceeding 6 or 7 percent in several parts of the country, and the devastating impact of those rates. Now, I confess I'm not an economist--I know that's no surprise--but let me predict that the unemployment rate among House Republican Members will go a whole lot higher than 7 percent if they continue to refuse to help the American people in this growing economic crisis.

It's called the Emergency Extended Unemployment Insurance Act of 2008 because it is an emergency, and the time to act is right now.

A vote for H.R. 5749 is a vote to help the American people and the American economy.

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

I rise in opposition to the motion.

Mr. Speaker, sometimes I am kind of appalled. I didn't think they could write a motion to recommit that would be worse than already their public stance is. But this motion to recommit would deny extended unemployment benefits to long-term jobless workers in 31 States. As you know, Mr. Speaker, some Members may be in their offices. They ought to listen to the list.

Alabama gets nothing. Arizona gets nothing. Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland. Massachusetts is gone too. Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, New Mexico. Why, it goes on and on. North Dakota, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Vermont. The way they have written this, those States get nothing. They don't even get 13 weeks. Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming. None of them get a single benefit from this bill if that amendment is adopted.

Now let's just talk for a second here about what we are talking about. New Jersey. Atlantic City has an unemployment rate of 6.1 percent right now. But since they are in the State of New Jersey where the unemployment rate is only 4 percent, in Atlantic City, people are tough out of luck. They aren't going to get a single benefit. Or if they live in Ocean City where it is 6.6 percent, or they live in Vineland, Millville or Bridgeton where it is 7.1 percent, not a single penny goes to those people because they live in a State where it is only 4 percent.

Now I would like to see the community meeting that the Members go to when they explain to people that they voted ``no'' on giving extended benefits to people who have unemployment benefits and have exhausted them in these States. This makes it much worse than the bill we have. It clearly confirms that the Republicans really want to give unemployment benefits to no one.

Now as to the question of whether or not we have given a reason, we took the 20-week provision out for a very simple reason, because it denies benefits to 10 percent of the people who are presently in our workforce. These are benefits they earned by having money taken out of their paycheck. Their employer said, ``I am not going to give you this. I am going to put this in the unemployment fund.'' That is how it works.

So those employees that had that money being put in there and now they lose their benefits because of the fact that they have worked 10 months and they didn't get to the right place in the right time to get their 20 weeks, it is simply a denial of benefits to women, to low-wage workers and to minorities. It is basically people at the bottom of the economic rungs. And the Republicans are pleased to do that. Not only do they take it away from them, but they also take it away from 31 States.

I urge the Members to think about the election when they vote ``no'' on this amendment.

I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his outstanding leadership on this issue. He has been a relentless and persistent advocate for America's working families, for hard workers in our country who, through no fault of their own, and in large measure because of the poor economic policies of the Bush administration, have lost their job.

Mr. Speaker, it is said, and it's been said directly by George Bernard Shaw, that it is the mark of a truly intelligent person to be moved by statistics. My colleagues have made the case for why we need this unemployment insurance, and I want to address once again, as they have, some of the statistics and see if it is the mark of truly intelligent people to respond to that.

Today we have the opportunity to help 3.8 million Americans who are out of work and their families in large part because of the disastrous economic policies of the White House and the Republicans in Congress.

There are 3.8 million Americans for whom 13 weeks of the unemployment insurance system, a system, as the gentleman indicated, that they have paid for, could mean not losing a home or a job or skipping meals or needed health care. Today we have that opportunity to provide that help.

More statistics.

In the Bush economy, gas prices have skyrocketed to $4 a gallon. One in ten Americans are at risk of losing their homes, and even more families are seeing the value of their greatest financial assets, their homes, plummet.

More statistics.

On Friday, we received the alarming news that since the beginning of the year, our Nation has lost more than 325,000 jobs, including 49,000 in the month of May alone.

The Nation's unemployment rate has risen to 5.5 percent, the biggest monthly increase since 1986. In two decades, last Friday on that day, it jumped 0.5 percent to 5\1/2\ percent.

On that same day, by the way, my colleagues, the price per barrel of oil increased by over $11 in that 1 day. In the 1990s, in 1998, the price per barrel was that exact same figure, just over $11. 1998, price per barrel of oil, $11-plus. Last Friday, price per barrel jumped, increased over $11 to over $130 per barrel.

So this is the economic situation in which these families find themselves. They have been hardworking, played by the rules, paid into the system, paid into the system for occasions like this where there's a downturn in the economy, and they lose their jobs through no fault of their own. And the Republicans want to make them look like charity cases.

These are strong people. They are the backbone of America. We have a responsibility to them. And if they are not moved by statistics, as George Bernard Shaw says any intelligent person should be, perhaps you would be moved by their personal stories.

This extension of unemployment benefits will help people like Kathy Henry. She was laid off her job at an advertising company last August. In February, her unemployment benefits ran

out. As she says, ``I must have had 100 interviews, and no one wants to hire me.'' Many times people think the people that are being interviewed for these jobs are overqualified. ``An extension of unemployment benefits would give me more time to look for a job,'' Kathy says.

And Liz Waller of Missouri, she just has 3 weeks of unemployment benefits left. She said, ``Absolutely, an extension would make a big difference for me. I'm dying to get back to work.'' I'm dying to get back to work, ``but I've done interview after interview and there are just way too many job candidates out there. I just keep getting told I'm overqualified.''

There is a concern on the part of some employers that as people continue to look for work and look for jobs at lower pay, that if they hire them, then they will leave when they can find a job at higher pay with an upturn in the economy.

This isn't about people sitting on their butts back home saying, goody, I'm getting an unemployment check; now I can really look my family in the eye and say I'm providing. These people want to provide for their families. To imply anything else is an insult to these millions of people who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own and, in large measure, because of the Bush administration's failed economic policies.

Let's think about our veterans. This legislation is especially important to our returning military veterans. A recent government report prepared for the Veterans Affairs Department found that young veterans earn less and have a harder time finding work than do civilians in the same age group. The percentage of veterans not in the labor force--because they couldn't find jobs, stopped looking for work because they couldn't find jobs, or went back to school--jumped to 23 percent in 2005 from 10 percent in the year 2000.

Our veterans come home; they can't find work. Some of them need this unemployment insurance, and the Republicans are saying, ``Just say no.''

Extending unemployment benefits not only helps those who are looking for work, it stimulates the economy. According to the Congressional Budget Office, it is one of the most cost-effective and fast-acting ways to stimulate the economy because the money is spent quickly. For every $1 spent on unemployment benefits, $1 spent generates $1.64 in new economic demand. Stimulates the economy.

All Americans who work pay unemployment insurance, pay into a trust fund for a rainy day. The rainy day is here. Today, across the country and for millions of Americans, that rainy day is here. Congress should ensure that those who paid into the system for the benefits now can receive them, and we can do this by passing this legislation today.

Mr. Speaker, the issue and the debate is not a partisan one. All Americans are feeling serious and deep economic pain. The people who will benefit from this are Democrats, Republicans, nonpartisans, Independents, people who aren't even interested in the political system. Yet, President Bush has issued a veto threat against this legislation, despite the fact that it will help--let's get back to our statistics--3.8 million Americans and, in fact, the entire economy.

And so I get back to our friend George Bernard Shaw. ``It is the mark of a truly intelligent person to be moved by statistics.''

I thank Chairman McDermott for your important work on this subcommittee, on this legislation. I also want to commend the chairman of the full committee for being a truly intelligent man, moved by statistics, Chairman Rangel for his relentless work on this important legislation. To Mr. Levin as well and to all of the members of the committee, thank you for bringing this important legislation to the floor.

The American people are waiting to see if Congress will act to help them on a matter that is relevant to their economic survival at a difficult time in their lives for money that they paid into the system. I urge my colleagues to vote ``aye.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 5749, Emergency Extended Unemployment Act of 2008, introduced by my distinguished colleague Representative McDermott. This important legislation will provide much-needed relief to 3.8 million unemployed workers who are besieged to cope with rapidly rising gas and food costs, while they continue to struggle to find work in the slowing economy.

Democrats in Congress have pushed to extend unemployment benefits since the beginning of the year, as the economy weakened, but have faced continued resistance from the Bush Administration. Today, the House will take up H.R. 5749, the Emergency Extended Unemployment Compensation Act on the suspension calendar. The legislation would immediately provide up to 13 weeks of extended unemployment benefits in every state to workers who have exhausted the 26 weeks of regular unemployment benefits. For states with especially high unemployment rates, an additional 13 weeks would be offered, bringing the total to 26 weeks of extended benefits.

The need for action is clear. For the fifth straight month, the economy lost jobs and unemployment rose from 5.0 percent in April to 5.5 percent in May, with 49,000 jobs lost in May alone. The economy has lost nearly 325,000 jobs this year and 3.8 million Americans are unemployed. These grim statistics are yet another signal that the Bush Administration's economic policies have failed the American people. Americans are now facing higher costs for basic necessities, unemployment is up, millions of families have lost their homes or value in their homes due to the housing crisis, and 7 million more Americans are uninsured.

Extending unemployment benefits is one of the most cost-effective and fast-acting ways to stimulate the economy because the money is spent quickly, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Every $1 spent on unemployment benefits generates $1.64 in new economic demand. Unfortunately, President Bush and some Republicans oppose our effort to help unemployed workers and to get our economy moving again. Instead, they want more of the same.

Middle class families can't afford four more years of the kind of policies that have weakened our economy and left hundreds of thousands of Americans looking for work and struggling to make ends meet. We hope the President and his Republican allies will change course and work with us to assist unemployed workers. Today, gas prices hit an average of $4.05 per gallon, a new historic high. The price of a barrel of oil increased more on Friday, in one single day, than a barrel cost a decade ago, before George W. Bush became President. Even in the face of these record increases, Senate Republicans blocked consideration of the Renewable Energy and Job Creation Act of 2008. The Renewable Energy and Job Creation Act of 2008 passed the House, and would retain and create hundreds of thousands of green energy jobs. Experts estimate biofuel blends are keeping gas prices about 15 percent lower than they otherwise would be now--and the energy law increases our commitment to these and other American-grown biofuels.

While Democrats are taking action to lessen our dependence on foreign oil and lower prices, Republicans continue to repeat the same old rhetoric: continued calling for drilling in ANWR, even though the Department of Energy has concluded that opening up the Arctic for drilling would not reduce the price of a gallon of gasoline until 20 years from now--and then only by about 1 penny. Since 2000, drilling has increased dramatically--climbing about 66 percent--while gas prices continue to increase. Additionally, the federal government has already opened up leases to 68 million acres of federal land that oil companies aren't even tapping.

From day one, the New Direction Congress has been fighting to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, bring down record gas prices, and launch a cleaner, smarter energy future for America that lowers costs and creates hundreds of thousands of green jobs. Democrats in Congress have already taken action to bring down the price of gas, passing legislation to suspend the filling of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, SPR, starting June 30th and going through the end of the year. The House also approved the Gas Price Relief for Consumers Act of 2008. The legislation gives U.S. authorities the ability to prosecute anticompetitive conduct committed by international cartels like OPEC that restricts supply and drives up prices. The House also continues to build on the work of the Energy Independence and Security Act which will transition the American economy to more efficient vehicles and reduce our dependence on foreign fuels.

I am proud to support this important legislation that will address the economic needs of the American people, and I urge my colleagues to join in so doing.

I think the more we discuss this, the clearer the issue becomes, including the last statement that we heard. There's no disagreement about the need for growth policies. But to say that, and use it as an excuse not to provide extended unemployment benefits is really indefensible.

You can't say to people who have been out of work for 26 weeks, who are there through no fault of their own, and who must be looking for work, that because of the absence of growth policies they should, essentially, be out in the cold. That's close to a cold-blooded approach to this issue.

And, if you mention States like Iowa, look, in some States, if there's a surplus, people who are out of work, in most cases, if they're looking for work, and they must, will find other work.

But it makes no sense to take the position of the administration, and that's what the gentleman from California, essentially, was reflecting, where they say that historically, the unemployment rate has had to be at a certain level in order for Unemployment Compensation to be extended.

And there was, they say, an exception after September 11, 2001. It's really hard to fathom who people would use 2001, September 11, as an excuse not to extend benefits.

The unemployment rate when President Bush signed the extension was 5.7. It's now 5.5. And essentially, what you're saying is we're going to deny benefits to well over a million, with 3 million more likely to come, because of a difference of \2/10\ of 1 percent.

And then you say you want it to be targeted. But, as we pointed out, the data vary from month to month. One month it's 100 metropolitan areas with unemployment rates over 6 percent. More recently, it's been 65 or 66. It will probably go up. How do you, in good conscience, stand before people in those areas and say no?

I mentioned to the gentleman from Illinois----

I ask for 2 additional minutes.

I asked the gentleman from Illinois how he would respond to people in certain areas. I don't know how you do that.

I asked the gentleman, and I didn't mean to get personal really, but just to raise the issue poignantly. If you're from the State of Washington, as he is, and there's higher unemployment than 6 percent in Yakima, how do you say to the people there, you don't get the extension, while people in other States receive it. It is simply not-- --

Yes.

Let me just take back my time. Look, the position, that hasn't been the position of the administration. It's used the 6 percent level. That's what they're talking about here. And you have to go home and explain to the areas, I mentioned three in Illinois, because the State isn't above a certain level, but areas are, you don't get it, while people who are in a State like Michigan with over 6 percent, everybody does.

But the trouble is, everybody counts in this country. Everybody who's out of work 26 weeks, through no fault of their own, and looking for work, they have to be looking for work.

I read these letters from people in Michigan, and I just say this: Just read letters from people in your State. No longer can you go to unemployment offices in most States, because they're not there, so people aren't in line. But they're in line in this country.

As I said, if you're counted----

I guess 1 more minute if I might.

If you counted the people who are now exhausting their benefits, or have, and those who are likely, it would reach, the line, from here, this Capitol to Denver.

So don't talk about energy policy. We have to face up to that. Don't talk about trade policy. We have to face up to that. Talk about the lives in the homes of over a million people.

I just hope that, you withheld, or there were withheld the three votes necessary to get to two-thirds yesterday.

I know the maneuvers on this floor.

But essentially, they're obeying the position, if not the orders, from the White House instead of the orders from the people at home.

I urge strong support of this. I urge that we pass it with even more votes than was passed last time and send it to the Senate so we can get this job done.