Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, as chairman of the Income Security and Family Support Subcommittee, I've spent the last 6 months fighting for passage of the emergency unemployment extension. The American people needed a helping hand back in January when I introduced the legislation, and they need it now more than ever.

Just the other day, my home State of Washington reported the largest 1-month increase in unemployment in 28 years. The unemployment rate spiked in just 1 month from 4.7 to 5.3 percent. We saw much the same happen at the national level.

Yet for all the evidence, all the objective data, we saw the White House order Senate Republicans to drag their feet until the President got his way. Last week, the House voted overwhelmingly to pass emergency unemployment on its own merits. We achieved a two-thirds vote in here, veto-proof. So what did the President do? He ordered the Senate Republicans to withhold help from the Americans until he could force Congress to cut out the extra help needed in badly hit States like Michigan, Alaska, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island, California and the District of Columbia.

Today we're going to get the best that we can get from a lame duck President and the Senate Republicans.

John Mccain must have written off Michigan and California. But the American people have been hit hard by economic calamity, rooted in the disastrous policies of this administration, and they deserve better than this. When Americans can't find jobs because this President and Senate Republicans have tanked the economy, I submit the wrong people are standing in the unemployment line. And I trust the American people will remember in November who fought for them and who fought against them.

Madam Speaker, the Bible says, ``By their deeds, you shall know them.'' The Republicans do not want to help unemployed workers in this country. It is as simple as that. If you go back to the debate in 1935 and come forward, the Republicans have always resisted the idea of unemployment benefits because the argument is that people will sit at home and wait for a check and that they will then not go out and look for work.

Now, it's clear that's not true and now, today, what they are hanging their hat on is some mythical worker out there who has worked 2 weeks and is going to get full benefits. That simply is misleading in the very plainest form.

Madam Speaker, I have a letter which I ask to enter into the Record from the Oregon Unemployment Department, signed by Tom Byerley.

State of Oregon,

Employment Department,

Salem, OR, June 11, 2008.

Indivar Dutta-Gupta,

Professional Staff, House of Representatives, Committee on

Ways and Means Subcommittee on Income Security and Family

Support, Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Dutta-Gupta: In the deliberations by Congress

relating to a proposal to extend unemployment insurance

benefits, it has come to my attention that Oregon has been

held up as an example as a state where a worker could work

only three weeks during the base period upon which the claim

was filed and qualify for 26 weeks of regular state benefits

and an additional 13 weeks, or 26 depending on the

unemployment rate, of benefits under the bill to extend

claims. That is not true.

In Oregon a worker must have a minimum of $1,000 in

earnings for the entire base year. In addition, he must have

total base year wages in an amount equal to or in excess of

one and one half times the wages in the highest quarter.

Oregon Revised Statute 657.150(2)(a)(A). With only three

weeks of work, the only way this worker could qualify would

be to work in two separate quarters. As an example, when an

individual worked only three weeks in the base year, we'll

place one week of work in one quarter and two in the

subsequent quarter.

In this scenario, let's say the second quarter where the

claimant worked two weeks would be the highest quarter since

he worked two weeks and only one week in the prior quarter.

In simplest terms, he earns $333 for one week in the first

quarter and $667 for two weeks of work in the second quarter.

That gives him the minimum required wage threshold of $ 1,000

total earnings to qualify and gives him wages of one and one

half times in the highest quarter in total base year wages.

This worker would qualify for $108 per week for 3.08 weeks.

$108 for three weeks and the last payment would be $9. This

worker would not receive the full 26 weeks. Our law provides

that if total base year wages are between $1,000 and

$8,423.99, the maximum award will always be 1/3 of the total

base year wages or in this case, $333.

I cannot speculate how our law could be misconstrued to say

that someone with the minimum wages to qualify for a claim

would be able to claim the maximum award or 26 weeks. The

information I have reviewed that I understand has been

referenced in the ``Highlights of State Unemployment

Compensation Laws, January 2007'' published by the National

Foundation for Unemployment and Worker's Compensation (UWC)

on pages 53 through 56 entitled ``Qualifying Requirements''

(copy attached) is accurate. In fact, we provide that data on

an annual basis. To read this to say you only have to work

three weeks to qualify for a maximum claim of 26 weeks is

simply reading something into our qualifying requirements

that isn't there.

I hope this information is helpful. Please don't hesitate

to contact me at (503) 947-1707 if you have any additional

questions.

Sincerely,

Tom Byerley,

UI Director.

This letter says, ``In the deliberations by Congress relating to a proposal to extend unemployment insurance benefits, it has come to my attention that Oregon has been held up as an example as a State where a worker could work only 3 weeks during the base period and receive 26 weeks of benefits and an additional 13 weeks. That is not true.''

He goes on to say, ``I cannot speculate how our law could be misconstrued to say that someone with the minimum wages to qualify for a claim would be able to claim the maximum award'' or benefit.

Now, what Members have to understand is the qualification for unemployment is decided by State legislatures. They make the decision. Many of them do not start the quarter that you are in. If you lost your job today, they would not count back to the 1st of April, they will not count to the first of the year, they would start counting last year in 2007.

So he gives an example, suppose somebody worked one week in September and two weeks in October, and they made $1,000. They would be eligible in Oregon for a check of $108 for three weeks and $9 in the fourth week.

Now, if you want to hold up benefits for 1.5 million people in the United States for one lone Oregon duck who got $108 for three weeks and $9 in the fourth week, you go ahead. Your decision will be from the voters in your districts in this election.

This is a red herring. It has been.

This was put into the law in 1981 when the workforce was entirely different. Women were not such a big part of the workforce, we did not have part-time jobs. When you have this provision in the law you are denying extended benefits to about 10 percent of the people who have exhausted their benefits. Because they did not work full time, they don't get anything, and these objections are simply a reflection of the Republicans, the fact they do not want to give unemployment benefits.

Vote for the rule. Vote for the bill.

Thank you for yielding.

If you read the history of the enactment of the 1935 Social Security Act, the last issue argued in the United States Congress was an amendment by the Republicans trying to take out unemployment benefits because they said it weakened the will of people to search for work. It is a long, distinguished record.

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.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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.

Madam Speaker, on June 9, I was unable to vote on House Resolutions 1225, 1243, and 127. Had I been able, I would have voted in support of these resolutions.

Mr. Speaker, we are coming to a moment of truth in a few hours for every Member of the House of Representatives. The truth is that every congressional district across the country, individuals and groups of people are struggling to find jobs in an economy cut down by a senseless, wasteful war, overwhelming energy prices, rising food prices and just bad business fundamentals.

People can't find jobs because there aren't enough of them. The truth is 4 million have exhausted their unemployment benefits already and things could get even worse unless we pass the Emergency Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 2008.

The truth is the American people elected us to serve them, and the Emergency Extended Unemployment Compensation Act will be a test of whether the Members remember who they really work for, the people or Big Oil. We are hours away from a moment of truth.

Vote for this bill, H.R. 5749, because Americans who work every day and lose their job through no fault of their own are entitled to a helping hand from their government.

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.

Madam Speaker, I submit the following:

What I Can Do

(By Philmon Haile)

First of all I would like to thank Kirstin Hayden and all

of the One World Now folks for inviting me to speak here

today; and for bringing me home from our nation's capitol.

When I was a younger man I dreamt I could change the world.

However, as I grew older and wiser I realized that the world

was too big and immovable and would not change. Consequently,

I decided to take on a narrower target and change my country.

However, as I grew older and wiser, I realized my country was

too big, too fixed in its way of doing things, immovable and

would not change. I therefore decided to address my city and

community. However, once again as I grew older and wiser I

realized that my city and community were too large and

immovable and would not change. So, I decided that one last

time I would try and change those nearest to me: my friends

and family. But, as I had learned so many times before, those

nearest to me--my friends and family--would not change. The

problems I saw in the world included violence, intolerance,

and racism. Broken and divided schools and cities, racial

slurs, being spoken and glorified through the media. Growing

up I heard phrases like ``you're not black enough'', to any

African-American who stepped outside the circle and made

white friends and listened to any other music other than Rap,

or played any other sports besides basketball. I think

``you're not black enough'' is just another way to say you

don't have sufficient hate for others. If being black means

to hate, then I would rather be green. Of course this isn't

what it means to be black. I've heard of genocide and gang

violence. When I was born, my home country Eritrea had just

finished a thirty-year war for independence from Ethiopia. A

war is still going on today between the two countries, with a

tense border conflict plaguing the people. I am close to this

war because both parents were involved in it, a facet of my

personal and family history. These problems are so real to me

I pray every night for the safety of grandparents, who--as I

speak--continue to live in a war torn country run by a

dictator. Because these issues are so real, I spend a lot of

time thinking about why this happens.

I found the problem. People hurt each other because they

had no idea what it felt to be the other party. I knew the

answer too, and I thought the best way to end all of this was

through education; uniting people through education; giving

them a chance to learn about each other so they can coexist

peacefully.

Now, as I stand here, old and tired at the ripe old age of

17, I finally get it. Perhaps if I abolished my own

stereotypes, I could have impacted my friends and family.

Their change in turn may have influenced more people and

could have changed my city and community and--who knows--

maybe even my country and the world: a ripple effect like a

pebble in the pond.

Let's be honest with ourselves--anyone who grows in this

world has certain established mind sets and we all need to

tear them down before we can progress and accept people for

who they are.

In order to be a successful leader, one must be willing to

give up certain ideas, decisions and a degree of popularity

in order to negotiate, mediate and decide what is in the best

interest of the whole. The persona you create around you is

how people perceive you. Without a positive attitude I've

learned the ability to lead others confidently and work

together is greatly diminished. Qualities of tolerance,

openness, and optimism are what One World Now represents and

instills in all their students, qualities that will reside

and resonate forever.

When I came to Garfield High School, I never thought that I

could take Chinese especially for free, or much less use

those skills and afford to study abroad. You know, my brother

studied abroad just as I hope to. I know my family couldn't

afford to send both my brother and me abroad. I know this is

the case for many other people traveling on a One World Now!

Scholarship. After my older brother, Robel discovered One

World Now! I wanted to do it. We have a ``typical'' older-

younger brother relationship, so he tells me that only upper

classmen can be involved, so being the gullible freshman I

was, I believed him, only to learn my sophomore year that

freshmen were enrolled in One World Now! classes. It is

amazing what One World Now! is doing, offering high school

students classes in the two most critical world languages:

Arabic and Chinese. Believe me, in my position as a

Congressional Page, I hear about the Middle East and China in

debates almost every day. If our leaders knew Chinese and

Arabic and understood their cultures, this world would be a

much different place. If they could have been involved in One

World Now, they would have a better understanding. One World

Now is more than just Chinese and Arabic classes and the free

food at Friday leadership meetings: it is a melting pot--a

place where I was exposed to many different cultures, races,

and religions; a place where I made many good friends. Every

week that I went to One World Now classes, I grew a little

bit. I sometimes got tired of them saying ``get out of your

comfort zone'' and ``be passionate'', but that was what

really happened, at every meeting I felt I was stripped of

all the walls I put up and just showed the bare and true

Philmon. That's how you really gain social skills and grow as

a person. There are so many different types of people you

don't know how to act, so just act like yourself. That's how

you really build character. The change that has occurred in

me is something I can't describe, something deep within has

changed. I am now able to communicate my ideas better, more

powerfully. The only thing I can't communicate is the change

that has occurred because it so deep within me, but resonates

and I can always feel it. This is all because of One World

Now and the opportunities offered me from their influence.

Through One World Now, I've really walked a thousand miles. I

am a different person than when I was a sophomore.

When I was invited to be a U.S. House of Representatives

Page and I accepted, I felt both sad and happy. The sadness

came when I realized I would not be able to take One World

Now classes every other day. Before I accepted, I went to the

One World Now office and asked how this would affect my

membership at One World Now. They told me that I will always

be a part of the One World Now family, and that I could even

apply to go to China with them this summer. I came to DC sad

that I wouldn't be able to take Chinese in a formal Chinese

class setting provided by One World Now, but I was determined

I would not give up. I found the Chinese Cultural Center, and

learned I could take Chinese there. So I went over there and

they asked questions like ``how long have you been taking

Chinese?'' and I told them one year, so they gave their

second year test because they only offered up to Chinese

level the level I should have been at. I took the test and

they told me that I was too advanced to take their classes,

so Teacher Sun (find her in the audience) if you're in the

room, you taught me well. So I decided to become a volunteer

and asked if they could only speak to me in Chinese. While in

DC I still called my old Chinese classmates and teacher, to

make sure I was caught up to where I needed to be. I was

now ready to reap the benefits of the Congressional Page

program.

In this program I am able watch the debates of our

country's architects. I think it

is a blessing to watch the people who serve our country pass

legislation. I have a new-found respect for the Congress of

this nation. This program is perfect for me. Young people are

asked what they want to be when they grow up, and I always

had no idea, so I would fabricate one of the many formulated

answers and say something like a doctor or a lawyer, not

really knowing exactly what I was saying. Now I think I know.

Just like Members of Congress, I want to devote my life to

service and make a difference in the world. I would to be an

Ambassador and work with different institutions around the

world to make a change. Change to bring my home country of

Eritrea, and bring its people, my people out of the

straggling choke-hold of poverty, to bring peace to the

border conflict between Eritrea and Ethiopia. People of these

countries are the same: they share the same religion,

culture, and values, divided only by politics.

A quote from George Bernard Shaw describes exactly how I

feel:

``This is the true joy in life, the being used for a

purpose recognized by yourself as a mighty one: the being a

force of nature instead of a feverish selfish little clod of

ailments and grievances complaining that the world will not

devote itself to making you happy. I am of the opinion that

my life belongs to the whole community and as long as I can

live it is my privilege to do for it whatever I can. I want

to be thoroughly used up when I die, for harder I work the

more I live, I rejoice in life for its sake''.

All this would not be possible without One World Now. Ms.

Kristin Hayden nominated me to Congressman Jim McDermott,

Democrat from the Seventh Congressional District of

Washington State. When I was lucky enough to get into the

program, I was then one of ten Pages selected to stay for a

second semester to be a role model for the new Pages who were

coming in for the Spring Session.

While in DC, I have thought about my summer a great deal. I

would like to travel to China on a One World Now scholarship.

I know this will be a fantastic. I am truly excited about

traveling this summer. I will never forget what One World Now

scholarships have offered me. Opportunities like these don't

come every day, and One World Now isn't just an every day

occurrence. I can guarantee you that Kirstin Hayden is

talented and passionate; able to speak Russian and being a

great entrepreneur that started this extraordinary program

from scratch.

This program started five years ago at Ingram High School,

with one language, Chinese, and twelve students. Now this

program has extended itself to Garfield, Cleveland,

Roosevelt, Rainier Beach, and Franklin High Schools--six

different schools! I hope that it can continue to spread and

impact many other high school students and make the

difference in their lives as it has made in my life.

This reminds me of an anecdote. It is about a young man who

tries to make a difference in the world:

It was high tide and there were thousands of Starfishes

washed up ashore, and a man saw a young man throwing star

fish back into the sea, and asked

``What are you doing?''

The young man paused, looked up and replied, ``Throwing

Starfish back into the ocean.''

``I guess I should have asked; why are you are throwing

Starfish into the ocean?'' said the bystander.

``The sun is up and the tide is going out and if I don't

throw them in they'll die.''

The young man said.

``But don't you realize that there are miles and miles of

beach and Starfish all along it, you can't possibly make a

difference!''

The young man listened politely, then bent down, picked up

another Starfish and threw it into the sea, past the breaking

waves. ``It made a difference for that one.''

One World Now is the young man making a difference in

students' lives. I am an example of that difference being

made. And guess what? I am going to make a difference in

others lives also. One World Now makes its difference in a

very unique way, I think this is why One World Now is so

great! It empowers those, like me, who have found their

commitment in life. One World Now is worth supporting. One

World Now is worth attending. It's lasting legacy, it's gifts

to Seattle and to the Nation, are the gifts of students like

me. As I grow older and wiser, I realize that the more I

serve my community, I change myself for the better, and I am

also changing the world.

I will give you a reason why we ought to have this amendment. We know what happens when we give this President a blank check. It always goes badly. We get a

banner, Mission Accomplished, and he gets to continue a failed war that has now claimed the U.S. economy as its latest casualty. That is why I urge my colleagues to approve this Lee amendment.

This lame duck President must not be able to indenture the next President to carry on a disastrous war of security. This is a lame duck administration trying to rewrite history, and they will tie the hands of the Nation into a knot in the process if we let them. The next President and the next Congress are the only ones who should determine the future policy in Iraq. This amendment ensures this will happen.

The President has had a blank check since 2001, and we see where we are. This amendment brings some balance to the process. It's time to close the blank check account for a lame duck President. We ought to approve the Lee amendment and preserve our chance in the future to get out of Iraq.

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. 6049.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

I yield the gentleman an additional 10 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal).

Mr. Speaker, I understand from my distinguished colleague from Michigan that this bill is headed for nowhere.

Are you talking about the White House?

No, I'm going to let the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) have 2 minutes.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy).

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

Today, we are going to approve a plan that will produce significant new energy resources for the American people. We have passed this bill four times. Mr. Brady is right. There is nothing new here. We keep passing it and passing it and the oil companies keep killing it.

What you're hearing today, just the last speaker says, let's drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge or go hat in hand to OPEC and say, Please produce more oil. Or let's have some more secret meetings down in the White House with the Vice President and design a new tax policy that will get our oil prices even higher. They met in the first months in the White House and decided how to drive up the oil prices for the oil companies.

We are going to implement a tax plan that uses the Tax Code to produce renewable energy to put us on a path to providing our children with an energy-independent future. The plan creates incentives for America to apply technology and use practices to use energy more efficiently than the way we are presently doing.

There was a time a long time ago when the United States led in alternative energy. But now Denmark, Japan and Germany are far ahead of us because of 8 years of this present administration and their attitudes toward alternative energy.

With this legislation, we'll take a big step toward regaining our leadership in the manufacture and deployment of renewable energy. This legislation will not only create jobs in what may be the world's largest emerging industry, but it will be a blueprint for the energy policy for the 21st century.

We need to end our addiction to oil, and that's what this bill is about. I urge my colleagues to support it this time.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would remind the gentleman from Missouri that during the 6 years that the Bush administration had a rubber-stamp Congress up here, they put it out 1 year at a time. Now you want us to make it long. We will see.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).

Mr. Speaker, could I inquire how much time remains on both sides.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the Speaker, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).

Mr. Speaker, I would like to enter into the Record a letter from the managing director of Credit Suisse that says, ``I am writing in support of H.R. 6049. We fully support your efforts to use the revised deferred compensation measure as a revenue raiser.''

Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC,

New York, NY, May 15, 2008.

Chairman Charles Rangel,

Committee on Ways and Means, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Rangel: On behalf of Credit Suisse, I am

writing to express our support for H.R. 6049 the Energy and

Tax Extenders Act of 2008. The bill's deferred compensation

provision is of particular interest to us and we very much

appreciate the efforts of you and your staff to ensure that

this measure does not create any unintended consequences.

We are aware that issues have been raised regarding the

need to offset the bill and with the deferred compensation

provision specifically. As you are aware,'we are generally

cautious as it pertains to revenue raisers and always look to

work with the Committee to guard against unintended

consequences. However, in this instance we fully support your

efforts to use the revised deferred compensation measure as a

revenue raiser in H.R. 60491 Given the House rules on pay-go,

we recognize that without offsets the bill is not likely to

be enacted this year, thereby causing a series of tax

provisions to expire which in our opinion would not be a good

overall outcome.

I reiterate our support for the measure and thank you again

for your willingness to work with us on the deferred

compensation provision. I look forward to working with you

again in the future and please let us know if we can be of

any assistance.

Sincerely,

Thomas Prevost,

Managing Director.

I yield the gentlewoman 15 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Schwartz).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Davis).

Mr. Speaker, I would reserve the balance of my time to close, using the majority leader.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from Maryland, the majority leader to close the debate.

Mr. Speaker, it's kind of funny to listen to the other side talk today. You would think that they had been really working on the energy crisis in this country.

When the President took over, gasoline was about $1.80 a gallon, and now it's $3.80 a gallon where I live. Now, that's an energy policy you could see developed in the White House by Mr. Cheney. He brought in all the oil company executives and said, how can we drive up the price of gasoline so you guys can make a whole lot of money? They had a secret meeting. They wouldn't tell anybody who was there. They wouldn't tell anybody what was talked about. They have been fighting in the courts for 8 years to keep from telling us what went on at that meeting at the beginning of the Bush administration.

We see the results. They got them, the biggest profits of the oil companies in history. And we tried to take a little $16 billion loophole and close it and use some of that money for alternative energy production and conservation and the President said, no way, we can't take anything away from those oil companies. Why, they need it all.

We're not going to get a reduction in oil prices in this country until we change the administration when Barack Obama takes over on the 20th of January, 2009.

Mr. Speaker, the brave men and women who are in harm's way right now serving and defending America should not be subjected to unfair taxes or barriers to assistance. But that is exactly what is happening today, and this legislation will change that for members of the military and others serving our Nation, for instance, in AmeriCorps.

Ways and Means Chairman Charlie Rangel recognized the burden being placed on our heroes and included provisions that will alter over a dozen tax provisions and remove barriers to other benefit programs for military families. It's the least we can do for those who do so much for us. The chairman, a veteran, and I, also a veteran, are proud to bring legislation to the floor that demonstrates the House fully and fairly supports our soldiers.

For instance, there are provisions in the legislation that improve how the Supplemental Security Income, or SSI program, treats military families, veterans, and those who have served our country. Under current law, some military families lose part of their SSI benefits because a portion of their compensation is counted as unearned income. This bill would stop that unfair treatment.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates this change alone would affect about 3,000 military families with disabled children. In addition to helping military families, the legislation would ensure that AmeriCorps volunteers do not unfairly lose their SSI benefits. More specifically, the bill would prevent allowances provided to AmeriCorps participants from reducing SSI benefits.

On the tax side, the chairman included an initiative that Mr. Van Hollen and I proposed that would remove an obstacle for some Americans who serve in the Peace Corps. This provision ensures that overseas service by Peace Corps volunteers does not arbitrarily remove the exclusion for capital gains tax on a principal residence. This protection is similar to one already provided to Americans working for the Foreign Service.

Mr. Speaker, all of these provisions aim to ensure that service to our Nation does not disadvantage those who serve.

Because the legislation deals with arcane areas like the Tax Code, this may not sound exciting, but it's very important. This legislation tells our soldiers in word and deed that we thank them for their service and we are watching out for them, just as they are watching out for us. This small measure of fairness deserves every Member's support.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 1185) expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that Congress should recognize the important contributions of Americans who serve as foster parents and, in doing so, unselfishly open their homes and family lives to children in need.

Mr. Speaker, every day another 850 American children enter foster care. If you go outside and walk along the Mall today, you will see cardboard cutouts of children. Another 850 representations will be added each day this week to help us all understand who are at risk and what is at stake. The fact is, most people are unaware of how many children are in foster care right now and how many more will be in foster care tomorrow. My hope is that the image of those cardboard cutouts will be so compelling that America will take and demand action.

As the chairman of the subcommittee with jurisdiction over the foster care system, I want the House to make this issue as important as the children we need to help. Each child in this Nation deserves nothing less than a safe, loving home with a caregiver who ensures their physical and emotional well-being, supports their dreams in life and helps them become healthy and happy adults. For over a half a million children in our Nation, that home is not with their biological parents. Instead, the nurturing environment is found in the homes of foster families, who temporarily support a child until that child can either be safely returned to their biological parents or moved to a permanent home.

What I just described in a few words doesn't begin to cover the heroic actions by Americans on behalf of foster children, so we are here today to mark the month of May as National Foster Care Month. It is a designation reserved for heroes, and there are hundreds of thousands of American heroes to be noticed and thanked. They are the people who open their homes and their hearts to children who are seeking sanctuary when they are no longer able to live safely in their homes. These people are the safety net for these children, the difference between hope and disaster.

National Foster Care Month also recognizes the unsung heroes who work in the foster care system itself, these individuals who dedicate their lives to improving the well-being of children who are under the care of the State. Many of these dedicated people work for relatively little salary, with limited resources, and often face very dangerous situations. They do it because they care, and we are grateful.

There isn't anything partisan about ensuring the safety and well- being of children. We either meet our responsibility to protect these children, or we don't.

Lives indeed hang in the balance. That is why Congress must work together to improve our Nation's foster care system and to fully support these children, including those who age out of the foster care system each year and their caretakers, which includes grandparents and other relatives. It is up to us to ensure that the educational, medical, and emotional needs of foster children are met. It is up to us to make sure they know they are not alone. In truth, their outcomes in life are linked to our ability to guarantee that the State has the resources to provide these children with the assistance they need.

Foster children should have the same opportunities in life that our other children have. It is up to us to guarantee that our Federal programs support that basic right.

I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing May 2008 as National Foster Care Month. We salute the tireless work of foster care parents, case workers, court personnel, service providers, and advocates, many of whom are former foster children, for their commitment to supporting vulnerable children across this Nation. We must recommit ourselves to working to improve the foster care system because of the lives of innocent children who are at stake, and we have the power to make a difference.

I would like at this time to take one moment to recognize my colleague, Mr. Weller, who has been my ranking member on this subcommittee, and he and I have worked together hand in hand on this issue. This is not a partisan issue, and it has been a real pleasure to have Mr. Weller as my ranking member in this session of Congress. We have a bill coming which we hope this House will also approve at another time.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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. Res. 1185.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to join with my colleague and friend John Lewis in fighting to do what is right for America's foster kids.

Every year, an estimated 24,000 foster kids reach their 18th birthday. Instead of a celebration, they hit a dead end. Try and remember what it was like when you were 18 years old. As it stands today for foster kids, the support system simply stops for those kids on the day at a point when they are not quite ready for everything they are going to face in the world. No place to live, no money for food, no money to go on for education, no place to live while they finish high school. All of those things are what face our youngsters in foster care today when they hit 18 in many States in this country.

Many of these children do not have access to critical support services like health care. If they are on medication, it ends that day.

They don't get the Medicaid, they don't get the coverage after that. There is no transition for these young people at all. Many are not connected to an adult who can serve as a mentor or someone who can be someone to get advice from when they go on. The system simply discards them. Not surprisingly, trouble can be the end result. Far too many become disconnected from the educational system and the labor force and become much of the homeless that we see on the streets of our city. Many of them wind up in our jails.

When the State removes a child from their biological parents because of abuse or neglect and places that child in foster care, we become the foster parents. Now, most of us did not have parents who threw us out on our own on the day we were 18. In fact, the whole boomerang idea of going back to your parents when you've been through college is very common in this country. We continue to have contact with our children when they're gone, after they're 18. Eighteen is not some magic date. And I believe a child in foster care deserves no less than anyone else's children. So we have some work to do to deliver on that promise, and we can take a big step by approving this bill.

Like many other young people, foster kids need the guidance and support of a caring adult that will last a lifetime. It's our job to make that happen. One way is to transition a child out of the system. We should make sure that when a child leaves foster care, they have a connection with someone, perhaps a lost sibling or some other relative that can be a source of love and support for them. Nurturing doesn't stop at 18, and if it continues, the odds for that foster kid doing well rise dramatically.

We should also provide a significant support system for these children after they become 18. The Chafee Foster Care Independence Program was partly designed to fill this need. But additional supports are needed to provide these young people with skills and resources they need to become successful adults. It's time for Congress to follow suit and ensure that when a child leaves foster care they have an opportunity to prosper as an adult.

I thank Congressman Lewis for offering this important resolution, and urge my colleagues to support it and to work with us to strengthen our Nation's foster care system, so that young people who age out of the system are not thrown out of it but instead have the same opportunities that other kids have.

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

Mr. Speaker, the economy has been one of the casualties of the Iraq war. And this administration has consistently refused to be interested in dealing with the problems of the unemployed.

We tried to get this introduced when we had the stimulus package some months ago. The administration didn't want to do anything with the unemployed. Long-term unemployment in this country is up to 17.9 percent. Now, you would think they would care, but they still aren't asking for it.

They have never changed their tune from 1935. They never thought we should have unemployment insurance in the Social Security Act of 1935 because they said if you give people unemployment insurance, they won't want to go to work, they will just want to sit home and get a check. That comes from people who have never been unemployed. That comes from people who don't know anybody who has ever been unemployed. It is simply nonsense.

We need to put the money into the economy. We need to give it to the workers who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own. And this administration still sits there and says, no, we're not going to extend unemployment benefits.

There are 26 weeks in here; 13 for everybody, and 13 weeks for those States that are over 6 percent.

Mr. Speaker, the U.S. economy is one of the casualties of the Iraq war, and passing an extension of unemployment benefits is nothing less than battlefield triage for innocent American workers who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own.

When I first introduced legislation several months ago to extend unemployment benefits, I had hoped the White House would declare a cease fire so that we could act quickly and on a bipartisan basis to help the American people and U.S. economy.

Instead, months went by while the administration pretended the gathering economic storm was nothing to worry about. And matters just kept getting worse.

Long-term unemployment--the percentage of unemployed workers who have not been able to find a job for at least 6 months--now stands at 17.8 percent. That is something to worry about. And act on.

My bipartisan unemployment extension bill will extend benefits in every State for an additional 13 weeks, and in States where the overall unemployment rate exceeds 6 percent, there is another 13-week extension.

We are going to help the American people weather this storm. And at the same time, we're going to lessen the economic blow to the U.S. economy.

We know people spend their unemployment benefits quickly, and we know a dollar in benefits yields $1.73 in positive economic impact as the money ripples through the economy.

Governors, mayors, State legislators, economists, advocates for working families, and the faith community are all asking for this extension of unemployment benefits.

Only those on the far right are opposed.

They say that unemployment benefits keep people from going out and looking for a job, but they are both out of line and out of touch.

Across America the average unemployment benefit is less than $300 a week--below the poverty-level for an American family.

What we're doing today is throwing a lifeline to the American people. Enough damage has already been done to the U.S. economy because of all the money spent on the endless Iraq war.

It's time for Congress to tend to the economic casualties at home.

Vote for extending unemployment benefits because it is a vote for helping the American people.

National Governors Association,

Washington, DC, May 1, 2008.

Hon. Max Baucus,

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

Hon. Charles Grassley,

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

Washington, DC.

Hon. Charles B. Rangel,

Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means, House of

Representatives, 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,

Donald L. Carcieri,

Governor, Chair, Education, Early Childhood and Workforce

Committee.

Brad Henry,

Governor, Vice Chair, Education, Early Childhood and

Workforce Committee.