[House Report 110-607]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
110th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session 110-607
======================================================================
EMERGENCY EXTENDED UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION ACT OF 2008
_______
April 24, 2008.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Rangel, from the Committee on Ways and Means, submitted the
following
R E P O R T
together with
DISSENTING VIEWS
[To accompany H.R. 5749]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Ways and Means, to whom was referred the
bill (H.R. 5749) to provide for a program of emergency
unemployment compensation, having considered the same, report
favorably thereon with an amendment and recommend that the bill
as amended do pass.
The amendment is as follows:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Emergency Extended
Unemployment Compensation Act of 2008''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act is as
follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Federal-State agreements.
Sec. 3. Emergency unemployment compensation account.
Sec. 4. Payments to States having agreements for the payment of
emergency unemployment compensation.
Sec. 5. Financing provisions.
Sec. 6. Fraud and overpayments.
Sec. 7. Definitions.
Sec. 8. Applicability.
SEC. 2. FEDERAL-STATE AGREEMENTS.
(a) In General.--Any State which desires to do so may enter into and
participate in an agreement under this Act with the Secretary of Labor
(in this Act referred to as the ``Secretary''). Any State which is a
party to an agreement under this Act may, upon providing 30 days'
written notice to the Secretary, terminate such agreement.
(b) Provisions of Agreement.--Any agreement under subsection (a)
shall provide that the State agency of the State will make payments of
emergency unemployment compensation to individuals who--
(1) have exhausted all rights to regular compensation under
the State law or under Federal law with respect to a benefit
year (excluding any benefit year that ended before May 1,
2007);
(2) have no rights to regular compensation or extended
compensation with respect to a week under such law or any other
State unemployment compensation law or to compensation under
any other Federal law (except as provided under subsection
(e)); and
(3) are not receiving compensation with respect to such week
under the unemployment compensation law of Canada.
(c) Exhaustion of Benefits.--For purposes of subsection (b)(1), an
individual shall be deemed to have exhausted such individual's rights
to regular compensation under a State law when--
(1) no payments of regular compensation can be made under
such law because such individual has received all regular
compensation available to such individual based on employment
or wages during such individual's base period; or
(2) such individual's rights to such compensation have been
terminated by reason of the expiration of the benefit year with
respect to which such rights existed.
(d) Weekly Benefit Amount, Etc.--For purposes of any agreement under
this Act--
(1) the amount of emergency unemployment compensation which
shall be payable to any individual for any week of total
unemployment shall be equal to the amount of the regular
compensation (including dependents' allowances) payable to such
individual during such individual's benefit year under the
State law for a week of total unemployment;
(2) the terms and conditions of the State law which apply to
claims for regular compensation and to the payment thereof
shall apply to claims for emergency unemployment compensation
and the payment thereof, except where otherwise inconsistent
with the provisions of this Act or with the regulations or
operating instructions of the Secretary promulgated to carry
out this Act; and
(3) the maximum amount of emergency unemployment compensation
payable to any individual for whom an emergency unemployment
compensation account is established under section 3 shall not
exceed the amount established in such account for such
individual.
(e) Election by States.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
Federal law (and if State law permits), the Governor of a State that is
in an extended benefit period may provide for the payment of emergency
unemployment compensation prior to extended compensation to individuals
who otherwise meet the requirements of this section.
SEC. 3. EMERGENCY UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION ACCOUNT.
(a) In General.--Any agreement under this Act shall provide that the
State will establish, for each eligible individual who files an
application for emergency unemployment compensation, an emergency
unemployment compensation account with respect to such individual's
benefit year.
(b) Amount in Account.--
(1) In general.--The amount established in an account under
subsection (a) shall be equal to the lesser of--
(A) 50 percent of the total amount of regular
compensation (including dependents' allowances) payable
to the individual during the individual's benefit year
under such law, or
(B) 13 times the individual's average weekly benefit
amount for the benefit year.
(2) Weekly benefit amount.--For purposes of this subsection,
an individual's weekly benefit amount for any week is the
amount of regular compensation (including dependents'
allowances) under the State law payable to such individual for
such week for total unemployment.
(c) Special Rule.--
(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of this
section, if, at the time that the individual's account is
exhausted or at any time thereafter, such individual's State is
in an extended benefit period (as determined under paragraph
(2)), then, such account shall be augmented by an amount equal
to the amount originally established in such account (as
determined under subsection (b)(1)).
(2) Extended benefit period.--For purposes of paragraph (1),
a State shall be considered to be in an extended benefit
period, as of any given time, if--
(A) such a period is then in effect for such State
under the Federal-State Extended Unemployment
Compensation Act of 1970;
(B) such a period would then be in effect for such
State under such Act if section 203(d) of such Act--
(i) were applied by substituting ``4'' for
``5'' each place it appears; and
(ii) did not include the requirement under
paragraph (1)(A); or
(C) such a period would then be in effect for such
State under such Act if--
(i) section 203(f) of such Act were applied
to such State (regardless of whether the State
by law had provided for such application); and
(ii) such section 203(f)--
(I) were applied by substituting
``6.0'' for ``6.5'' in paragraph
(1)(A)(i); and
(II) did not include the requirement
under paragraph (1)(A)(ii).
SEC. 4. PAYMENTS TO STATES HAVING AGREEMENTS FOR THE PAYMENT OF
EMERGENCY UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION.
(a) General Rule.--There shall be paid to each State that has entered
into an agreement under this Act an amount equal to 100 percent of the
emergency unemployment compensation paid to individuals by the State
pursuant to such agreement.
(b) Treatment of Reimbursable Compensation.--No payment shall be made
to any State under this section in respect of any compensation to the
extent the State is entitled to reimbursement in respect of such
compensation under the provisions of any Federal law other than this
Act or chapter 85 of title 5, United States Code. A State shall not be
entitled to any reimbursement under such chapter 85 in respect of any
compensation to the extent the State is entitled to reimbursement under
this Act in respect of such compensation.
(c) Determination of Amount.--Sums payable to any State by reason of
such State having an agreement under this Act shall be payable, either
in advance or by way of reimbursement (as may be determined by the
Secretary), in such amounts as the Secretary estimates the State will
be entitled to receive under this Act for each calendar month, reduced
or increased, as the case may be, by any amount by which the Secretary
finds that the Secretary's estimates for any prior calendar month were
greater or less than the amounts which should have been paid to the
State. Such estimates may be made on the basis of such statistical,
sampling, or other method as may be agreed upon by the Secretary and
the State agency of the State involved.
SEC. 5. FINANCING PROVISIONS.
(a) In General.--Funds in the extended unemployment compensation
account (as established by section 905(a) of the Social Security Act
(42 U.S.C. 1105(a)) of the Unemployment Trust Fund (as established by
section 904(a) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1104(a)) shall be used for the
making of payments to States having agreements entered into under this
Act.
(b) Certification.--The Secretary shall from time to time certify to
the Secretary of the Treasury for payment to each State the sums
payable to such State under this Act. The Secretary of the Treasury,
prior to audit or settlement by the Government Accountability Office,
shall make payments to the State in accordance with such certification,
by transfers from the extended unemployment compensation account (as so
established) to the account of such State in the Unemployment Trust
Fund (as so established).
(c) Assistance to States.--There are appropriated out of the
employment security administration account (as established by section
901(a) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1101(a)) of the
Unemployment Trust Fund, without fiscal year limitation, such funds as
may be necessary for purposes of assisting States (as provided in title
III of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 501 et seq.)) in meeting the
costs of administration of agreements under this Act.
(d) Appropriations for Certain Payments.--There are appropriated from
the general fund of the Treasury, without fiscal year limitation, to
the extended unemployment compensation account (as so established) of
the Unemployment Trust Fund (as so established) such sums as the
Secretary estimates to be necessary to make the payments under this
section in respect of--
(1) compensation payable under chapter 85 of title 5, United
States Code; and
(2) compensation payable on the basis of services to which
section 3309(a)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
applies.
Amounts appropriated pursuant to the preceding sentence shall not be
required to be repaid.
SEC. 6. FRAUD AND OVERPAYMENTS.
(a) In General.--If an individual knowingly has made, or caused to be
made by another, a false statement or representation of a material
fact, or knowingly has failed, or caused another to fail, to disclose a
material fact, and as a result of such false statement or
representation or of such nondisclosure such individual has received an
amount of emergency unemployment compensation under this Act to which
he was not entitled, such individual--
(1) shall be ineligible for further emergency unemployment
compensation under this Act in accordance with the provisions
of the applicable State unemployment compensation law relating
to fraud in connection with a claim for unemployment
compensation; and
(2) shall be subject to prosecution under section 1001 of
title 18, United States Code.
(b) Repayment.--In the case of individuals who have received amounts
of emergency unemployment compensation under this Act to which they
were not entitled, the State shall require such individuals to repay
the amounts of such emergency unemployment compensation to the State
agency, except that the State agency may waive such repayment if it
determines that--
(1) the payment of such emergency unemployment compensation
was without fault on the part of any such individual; and
(2) such repayment would be contrary to equity and good
conscience.
(c) Recovery by State Agency.--
(1) In general.--The State agency may recover the amount to
be repaid, or any part thereof, by deductions from any
emergency unemployment compensation payable to such individual
under this Act or from any unemployment compensation payable to
such individual under any State or Federal unemployment
compensation law administered by the State agency or under any
other Federal law administered by the State agency which
provides for the payment of any assistance or allowance with
respect to any week of unemployment, during the 3-year period
after the date such individuals received the payment of the
emergency unemployment compensation to which they were not
entitled, except that no single deduction may exceed 50 percent
of the weekly benefit amount from which such deduction is made.
(2) Opportunity for hearing.--No repayment shall be required,
and no deduction shall be made, until a determination has been
made, notice thereof and an opportunity for a fair hearing has
been given to the individual, and the determination has become
final.
(d) Review.--Any determination by a State agency under this section
shall be subject to review in the same manner and to the same extent as
determinations under the State unemployment compensation law, and only
in that manner and to that extent.
SEC. 7. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act, the terms ``compensation'', ``regular compensation'',
``extended compensation'', ``additional compensation'', ``benefit
year'', ``base period'', ``State'', ``State agency'', ``State law'',
and ``week'' have the respective meanings given such terms under
section 205 of the Federal-State Extended Unemployment Compensation Act
of 1970 (26 U.S.C. 3304 note).
SEC. 8. APPLICABILITY.
(a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (b), an agreement
entered into under this Act shall apply to weeks of unemployment--
(1) beginning after the date on which such agreement is
entered into; and
(2) ending on or before February 1, 2009.
(b) Transition for Amount Remaining in Account.--
(1) In general.--Subject to paragraphs (2) and (3), in the
case of an individual who has amounts remaining in an account
established under section 3 as of the last day of the last week
(as determined in accordance with the applicable State law)
ending on or before February 1, 2009, emergency unemployment
compensation shall continue to be payable to such individual
from such amounts for any week beginning after such last day
for which the individual meets the eligibility requirements of
this Act.
(2) Limit on augmentation.--If the account of an individual
is exhausted after the last day of such last week (as so
determined), then section 3(c) shall not apply and such account
shall not be augmented under such section, regardless of
whether such individual's State is in an extended benefit
period (as determined under paragraph (2) of such section).
(3) Limit on compensation.--No compensation shall be payable
by reason of paragraph (1) for any week beginning after April
30, 2009.
I. SUMMARY AND BACKGROUND
PURPOSE AND SUMMARY
The bill, H.R. 5749, as amended, would establish a
temporary program providing extended unemployment benefits in
every State to individuals exhausting their regular
unemployment compensation. States would enter into agreements
with the Federal government to provide these benefits. The
weekly benefit amount provided by the program would equal the
amount received under regular unemployment compensation. The
terms and conditions for regular unemployment compensation also
would apply to these extended benefits. An individual's benefit
year for regular compensation must have ended on or after May
1, 2007 for the individual to be eligible for extended benefits
under the program.
The duration of these extended benefits would equal the
lesser of 13 weeks or half the duration of regular unemployment
compensation. In States with high unemployment, defined in the
bill as at least 6% total unemployment or 4% insured
unemployment, an additional 13 weeks of extended benefits would
be provided for a total of 26 weeks. The benefit and
administrative costs of the program would be fully financed by
the Federal unemployment accounts. The program would terminate
on February 1, 2009. However, any individual receiving benefits
through the program before that date would be eligible for
their entire 13-week benefit.
BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION
Over the first three months of 2008, the U.S. economy lost
a total of 232,000 jobs. With the labor market in such a steep
decline, more workers face the possibility of layoffs and
current unemployment compensation recipients face greater
difficulty in becoming reemployed. The total number of
unemployed workers has already grown by 1.1 million over the
last twelve months.
This rise in joblessness is particularly troubling since
the number of long-term unemployed workers is already very
high. At the onset of the 2001 recession, 696,000 workers were
unemployed for more than six months, representing about 11% of
all unemployed workers. Similarly, at the start of the 1990
recession, the long-term unemployed comprised 9.8% of all
jobless workers. In March of 2008, there were nearly 1.3
million workers who were unemployed for more than six months
(representing nearly 17% of all unemployed workers). Not only
is the number of long-term unemployed nearly twice as high
compared to the beginning of the last recession, but it is also
higher than indicated at the time Congress finally extended
unemployment benefits in 2002.
Furthermore, the percentage of workers exhausting regular
unemployment compensation (36%) is higher today than at the
beginning of any of the past five recessions. Given this high
exhaustion rate, the Congressional Budget Office assumes that
roughly 3.5 million Americans will run out of unemployment
benefits before finding work this year.
When economic conditions have deteriorated in the past five
decades, Congress has routinely provided extended unemployment
benefits to dislocated workers. Such federally-funded
extensions have occurred in 1958, 1961, 1972, 1975, 1982, 1991,
and 2002. Sometimes these extensions have been delayed until
long after the beginning of an economic downturn--a mistake
this legislation attempts to avoid.
Unemployment benefits are extended during economic
downturns in recognition of the fact that workers are losing
their jobs and having difficulty becoming reemployed due to a
depressed labor market. Providing assistance to such workers
not only helps them and their families avoid severe
deprivation, but it also reduces the severity and duration of
an economic downturn by sustaining consumer demand. For
example, it has been estimated by Moody's Economy.com that
every dollar of extended unemployment benefits generates $1.64
of economic growth. The Congressional Budget Office also
recently concluded that extending unemployment benefits
provides one of the most cost-effective and fastest-acting
forms of economic stimulus because jobless workers have little
choice but to spend the money quickly.
While there are varying degrees of unemployment among the
States, local areas of high unemployment exist throughout much
of the nation. There are over 100 metropolitan areas located
all over the country with unemployment rates of 6% or higher,
according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Similarly, there
are many counties with significant unemployment, even in States
with relatively low unemployment rates.
These facts strongly argue for quickly extending
unemployment benefits for long-term unemployed workers on a
nationwide basis.
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
The Emergency Extended Unemployment Compensation Act, H.R.
5749, was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means on April
9, 2008. On April 10, 2008, the Ways and Means Subcommittee on
Income Security and Family Support held a hearing on extending
unemployment compensation, which included a discussion of H.R.
5749. The Committee on Ways and Means marked up H.R. 5749 on
April 16, 2008, and ordered the bill, as amended, favorably
reported by a roll call vote, with a quorum present.
II. EXPLANATION OF THE BILL
Sec. 2. Federal-State Agreements
PRESENT LAW
The Unemployment Insurance (UI) program (also known as
unemployment compensation) is funded by both Federal and State
payroll taxes and pays benefits to covered workers who become
involuntarily unemployed for economic reasons and meet State-
established eligibility rules. Federal administration of UI is
under the purview of the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL).
Federal law sets broad rules that the 53 State programs must
follow (Puerto Rico, the US Virgin Islands, and the District of
Columbia are included). The Federal tax pays for both Federal
and State administrative costs, the Federal share of the
extended benefit (EB) program (50%), loans to insolvent State
UI accounts, and State employment services. The State tax pays
for the regular UI benefit and the State share of the EB
program (50%).
EXPLANATION OF THE PROVISION
The bill would create a new temporary extension of
Unemployment Insurance that would entitle certain unemployed
individuals to unemployment benefits (Emergency Unemployment
Compensation) that are not available under current law.
Individuals who had exhausted their benefits with respect to a
benefit year (excluding any benefit year that ended before May
1, 2007) may be eligible for these additional benefits. The
amount of the benefit would be the equivalent of the
individual's weekly regular UI benefit (including dependents'
allowances).
The terms and conditions of the State law for receipt of
regular UI benefits also would apply to these benefits.
Governors of the States would be able to provide for the
payment of the emergency UI benefit before the EB benefit. Such
an election would not require a State to ``trigger off'' an EB
period. Thus, once the regular UI benefit was exhausted a State
could opt for the individual to receive the emergency UI
benefit (100% Federal funding) before receiving the EB benefit
(50% Federal funding and 50% State funding).
REASONS FOR CHANGE
The current EB program rarely triggers on in States with
high and/or rising unemployment given the program's
requirements. Congress has therefore routinely established
temporary Federal extended benefits programs in response to
economic weakness and growing unemployment.
EFFECTIVE DATE
The provision is effective upon enactment.
Sec. 3. Emergency Unemployment Insurance Account
PRESENT LAW
The EB program, established by P.L. 91-373 (26 U.S.C. 3304,
note), may extend UI benefits at the State level if certain
economic situations exist within the State. Although the EB
program is not currently active in any State, it--like the UI
program--is permanently authorized. The EB program is triggered
when a State's insured unemployment rate (IUR) or total
unemployment rate (TUR) reaches certain levels. All States must
pay up to 13 weeks of EB if the IUR for the previous 13 weeks
is at least 5% and is 120% of the average of the rates for the
same 13-week period in each of the 2 previous years. There are
two other optional thresholds that States may choose. (They may
choose one, both, or none.) Under these options, the State
would provide the following:
Option 1: an additional 13 weeks of benefits if
the State's IUR is at least 6%, regardless of previous years'
averages.
Option 2: an additional 13 weeks of benefits if
the State's TUR is at least 6.5% and is at least 110% of the
State's average TUR for the same 13 weeks in either of the
previous two years; or, in a ``high unemployment period,'' an
additional 20 weeks of benefits if the TUR is at least 8% and
is at least 110% of the State's average TUR for the same 13
weeks in either of the previous two years.
Beyond the regular UI benefit eligibility requirements,
eligibility for EB benefits requires that individuals must have
20 weeks of full-time insured employment or its equivalent.
EXPLANATION OF THE PROVISION
The provision would establish an account for individuals
who were eligible for this emergency extended UI benefit. The
number of weeks an individual would be eligible for these
emergency extended UI benefits would be the lesser of 50% of
the total regular UI eligibility or 13 weeks.
Under a special rule, if the State is in an EB period
(which has a special definition for purposes of this temporary
extension) at the time the UI benefits exhausted, then the
amount of emergency extended UI benefits is augmented by an
additional amount that is equivalent to an additional 13 weeks
(or 50% of the total regular UI eligibility, if less). Thus, in
those ``high unemployment'' States where the EB program was
triggered, temporary benefits of up to 26 weeks would be
possible (13 additional weeks plus another 13 extra weeks for
the special EB period).
The bill would temporarily change the definition of an EB
period for the purposes of this provision by expanding the
definition of an EB period to include States with a TUR that
was at least 6.0% and States with an IUR that was at least 4.0%
(regardless of the IUR and TUR in the same 13-week period in
the previous two years and regardless of whether or not State
law includes the TUR trigger option in the EB program).
REASONS FOR CHANGE
The Committee believes current economic and employment
circumstances warrant establishing a temporary, federally-
funded extended unemployment benefits program. Like all such
recent programs, the legislation provides a basic level of
assistance in all States with additional help provided in
States with higher unemployment. In an effort to avoid
penalizing workers in States currently suffering with high
unemployment, the Committee did not require that States have
rising unemployment, in addition to high unemployment, in order
to be deemed a high unemployment State and therefore eligible
to offer a second 13 weeks of emergency extended UI benefits.
Additionally, the Committee believes that all workers
considered sufficiently attached to the workforce to be
eligible for regular UI benefits should be eligible for
emergency extended UI benefits, especially since up to six
months of a worker's wage record might not be considered when
eligibility for regular UI benefits is determined.
EFFECTIVE DATE
The provision is effective upon enactment.
Sec. 4. Payments to States Having Agreements for the Payment of
Emergency Unemployment Insurance
PRESENT LAW
The Federal unemployment tax on employers, among other
uses, pays the Federal share (50%) of the extended benefit (EB)
program and 100% of Federal and State administrative costs.
State unemployment taxes on employers pay for 100% of the
regular UI benefit and 50% of the EB benefit.
EXPLANATION OF THE PROVISION
100% of the temporary extended UI benefit would be
federally funded.
REASONS FOR CHANGE
The legislation follows past temporary programs in
providing 100% Federal funding for the extended unemployment
benefits.
EFFECTIVE DATE
The provision is effective upon enactment.
Sec. 5. Financing Provisions
PRESENT LAW
UI benefits are financed through employer taxes. The
Federal taxes on employers are under the authority of the
Federal Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA), and the State taxes are
under the authority given by the State Unemployment Tax Acts
(SUTA). These taxes are deposited in the appropriate accounts
within the U.S. Treasury's Unemployment Trust Fund (UTF).
Among its 59 accounts, the Federal UTF in the U.S. Treasury
includes: the Employment Security Administration Account
(ESAA), the Extended Unemployment Compensation Account (EUCA),
the Federal Unemployment Account (FUA), 53 State accounts, the
Federal Employees Compensation Account, and two accounts
related to the Railroad Retirement Board. Federal unemployment
taxes are placed in the ESAA, the EUCA, and the FUA. Each
State's unemployment taxes are placed in the appropriate
State's account.
EXPLANATION OF THE PROVISION
The provision would allow funds in the Federal EUCA within
the UTF to be used for the payment of emergency UI benefits. In
addition, it would appropriate such sums as necessary for
administrative costs (i.e., without fiscal year limitation)
from the Federal ESAA.
The provision would appropriate funds for the emergency UI
benefits paid to employees of non-profits and governmental
entities from the general fund of the Treasury payable into the
Federal EUCA. Those amounts would not be required to be repaid.
REASONS FOR CHANGE
Dedicated payroll taxes fund the Federal unemployment trust
funds, which now hold reserves of roughly $35 billion. The
legislation uses these funds to help long-term unemployed
workers.
EFFECTIVE DATE
The provision is effective upon enactment.
Sec. 6. Fraud and Overpayments
PRESENT LAW
All State laws provide for recovering UI benefits paid to
workers who later are found not to be entitled to them. In
addition to direct repayment, States use several tools to
recoup these funds. States may, at the discretion of the State
agency, recover overpayments by deducting from future benefits
payable (benefit offset). They also may offset overpayments
with State tax refunds due to the worker. They also can compel
repayment by pursuing civil action in State court. Finally,
some States may assess interest on outstanding overpayment
balances. Some States provide that if the overpayment is not
the fault of the individual, the individual is not liable to
repay the amount overpaid.
EXPLANATION OF THE PROVISION
If an individual lies or cooperates in a lie in order to
receive an emergency UI benefit to which he or she was not
entitled, the individual would be ineligible for further
emergency UI benefits and would be subject to prosecution under
section 1001 of title 18 of the United States Code (Chapter
47--Fraud and False Statements).
The provision would mandate States to require individuals
who have received emergency UI benefits to which they were not
entitled to repay the benefits. The State would be able to
waive the repayment if it determines the payment was made
without fault on the part of the individual and such repayment
would be contrary to equity and good conscience.
The provision would allow States to recover erroneous
payments through deductions from any emergency UI benefits
payable to such individual or from any State or Federal
unemployment benefit with respect to any week of unemployment,
during the 3-year period after the date such individual
received the erroneous emergency UI benefit payment. No single
deduction would be allowed to exceed 50% of the weekly benefit
amount from which such deduction is made. In addition to
regular UI and EB benefits, the Trade Readjustment Allowance
and the Federal Disaster Unemployment Assistance benefit (among
other similar benefits) also would qualify to have such a
deduction.
No repayment shall be required until a determination has
been made and an opportunity for a fair hearing has been given
to the individual and the determination has become final.
REASONS FOR CHANGE
The legislation ensures anti-fraud provisions apply to
benefits provided under the bill.
EFFECTIVE DATE
The provision is effective upon enactment.
Sec. 7. Definitions
PRESENT LAW
Section 205 of the Federal-State Extended Unemployment
Compensation Act of 1970 (26 U.S.C. 3304 note) provides
definitions for the EB program. Included among the definitions
are the following:
The term ``compensation'' means cash benefits
payable to individuals with respect to their unemployment.
The term ``regular compensation'' means
compensation payable to an individual under any State
unemployment compensation law (including compensation payable
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. chapter 85--that is, Federal employee and
ex-servicemember unemployment benefits), other than extended
compensation and additional compensation.
The term ``extended compensation'' means
compensation (including additional compensation and
compensation payable pursuant to 5 U.S.C. chapter 85) payable
for weeks of unemployment beginning in an extended benefit
period to an individual under those provisions of the State law
which satisfy the requirements of this title with respect to
the payment of extended compensation.
The term ``additional compensation'' means
compensation payable to exhaustees by reason of conditions of
high unemployment or by reason of other special factors.
The term ``benefit year'' means the benefit year
as defined in the applicable State law.
The term ``base period'' means the base period as
determined under applicable State law for the benefit year.
The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of
Labor of the United States.
The term ``State'' includes the District of
Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the Virgin
Islands.
The term ``State agency'' means the agency of the
State which administers its State law.
The term ``State law'' means the UI law of the
State, approved by the Secretary of Labor under section 3304 of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
The term ``week'' means a week as defined in the
applicable State law.
EXPLANATION OF THE PROVISION
The proposal would keep all but one of these definitions.
The proposal does not include the definition of the term
``Secretary.''
REASONS FOR CHANGE
This legislation uses the more specific term ``Secretary of
Labor'' in place of the term ``Secretary.''
EFFECTIVE DATE
The provision is effective upon enactment.
Sec. 8. Applicability
PRESENT LAW
Not applicable.
EXPLANATION OF PROVISION
The program would terminate in the week ending on or before
February 1, 2009. Those unemployed individuals who had
qualified for the emergency UI benefit or had qualified for the
additional ``EB'' (high unemployment) provision would continue
to receive payments for the number of weeks they were deemed
eligible. However, if the unemployed individual has not
exhausted the first emergency extension of UI benefits by
February 1, 2009, regardless of State economic conditions, the
individual would not be eligible for an additional ``EB'' (high
unemployment) extension of the emergency UI benefit. If an
individual exhausts his or her regular UI benefits after
February 1, 2009, the individual would not be eligible for any
emergency UI benefit. No such benefits shall be payable for any
week beginning after April 30, 2009.
REASONS FOR CHANGE
The Committee believes that the termination date of the
program created by this legislation signals to workers that the
Federal government will assist them as the economy slows, while
allowing the next Congress to consider the appropriate response
to the economic conditions existing at that time.
EFFECTIVE DATE
The provision is effective upon enactment.
IV. BUDGET EFFECTS OF THE BILL
A. COMMITTEE ESTIMATE OF BUDGETARY EFFECTS
In compliance with clause 3(d)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules
of the House of Representatives, the following Statement is
made concerning the effects on the budget of this bill, H.R.
5749: The bill is estimated to have the following effects of
Federal budget receipts for fiscal years 2008-2018:
B. STATEMENT REGARDING NEW BUDGET AUTHORITY OR TAX EXPENDITURES
In compliance with clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules
of the House of Representatives, the Committee states that the
bill involves new budget authority and changes in revenues or
tax expenditures. (See amounts in the Congressional Budget
Office estimate provided below and in the table above.)
C. COST ESTIMATE PREPARED BY THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE
In compliance with clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules
of the House of Representatives, requiring a cost estimate
prepared by the CBO, the following report prepared by the CBO
is provided.
U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, April 17, 2008.
Hon. Charles B. Rangel,
Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 5749, the
Emergency Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 2008.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Christina
Hawley Anthony.
Sincerely,
Robert A. Sunshine
(For Peter R. Orszag, Director).
Enclosure.
H.R. 5749--Emergency Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 2008
Summary: H.R. 5749 would make individuals who exhaust their
regular benefits eligible for unemployment compensation for an
additional period of time. The Congressional Budget Office
estimates that enacting the bill would:
Increase direct spending by $6.2 billion in
2008 and $11.7 billion over the 2008-2018 period; and
Increase revenues by a net amount of $3.2
billion over the 2008-2018 period.
In total, these changes would increase budget deficits (or
reduce future surpluses) by $6.2 billion in 2008 and by a net
of $8.5 billion over the 2008-2018 period.
The bill contains no intergovernmental or private-sector
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA).
Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated
budgetary impact of H.R. 5749 is shown in the following table.
The spending effects of this legislation fall within budget
function 600 (income security).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By fiscal year, in billions of dollars--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2008-2013 2008-2018
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Changes in Direct Spending (Outlays) \1\.. 6.2 6.7 0 0 0 0 0 -0.2 -0.3 -0.3 -0.4 12.8 11.7
Changes in Revenues....................... 0 * 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.7 0.8 0.6 3.2
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net Change in Deficits or Surpluses \2\... 6.2 6.6 -0.1 -0.2 -0.2 -0.1 -0.3 -0.6 -0.7 -1.0 -1.2 12.2 8.5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For direct spending changes, budget authority equals outlays.
\2\ Positive numbers indicate an increase in deficits or decrease in surpluses.
Note: * = gain of less than $50 million; components may not add to totals because of rounding.
Basis of estimate: For this estimate, CBO assumes that the
bill will be enacted by June 1, 2008, and that spending will
follow historical patterns for similar activities.
Direct spending
Most states' regular unemployment compensation programs
provide up to 26 weeks of benefits to qualified individuals.
The bill would authorize a program for emergency extended
unemployment compensation (EEUC), which would provide federal
funding for additional benefits--up to 13 weeks in all states--
to beneficiaries who exhaust their regular benefits. (Certain
individuals who exhausted their regular benefits prior to the
bill's enactment also would be eligible for EEUC). An
additional 13 weeks of benefits would be provided in states
that meet certain thresholds or triggers with respect to
unemployment. States would be eligible to provide the
additional 13 weeks of benefits if unemployment levels reach an
insured unemployment rate of 4 percent or higher, or a total
unemployment rate of 6 percent or higher. (CBO estimates that
around one quarter of beneficiaries would be in states that
would qualify to provide that additional 13 weeks.) Benefits
would be available from the date of enactment through April 30,
2009, but no new beneficiaries could be added to the program
after February 1, 2009.
Based on the number of people who previously exhausted
regular benefits, as well as those anticipated to exhaust
benefits in the coming months, CBO estimates that over the
2008-2009 period:
About 3.2 million people would collect EEUC
and that benefits paid over that time period would
total $11.7 billion;
Administrative costs related to the EEUC
program would total $0.6 billion; and
Outlays for regular unemployment benefits
would increase by $0.9 billion because the availability
of the EEUC benefits would affect some recipients'
employment decisions. (Most of those costs would be
offset by increases in state revenues over fiscal years
2009 through 2013, as discussed below under
``Revenues.'')
Those costs would be slightly offset by reduced payments
from other federal programs that provide extended unemployment
benefits--the extended benefits program and trade adjustment
assistance for workers. CBO estimates those offsets would
amount to $0.3 billion in 2008 and 2009.
Under the financing provisions of the bill, funds in the
Extended Unemployment Compensation Account would be transferred
to the state accounts for the benefit and administrative
expenses incurred for the EEUC program. Because the state
unemployment funds are included in the federal budget, those
transfers would have no immediate budgetary effect. However,
they would interact with provisions of the federal unemployment
law known as the ``Reed Act.'' Under those provisions, when
funds in the federal accounts of the unemployment trust fund
exceed certain statutory limits, excess revenues from the
federal unemployment tax are transferred to the state accounts.
In CBO's current baseline, we project that the federal
government will transfer $8.6 billion to the states over the
2013-2018 period. CBO's baseline includes outlays from the Reed
Act transfers totaling $1.1 billion from 2014 to 2018. Under
the bill, outlays for EEUC would reduce the federal trust fund
balances to levels that would preclude such Reed Act transfers.
Thus, relative to CBO's baseline projections, outlays under the
bill would be $1.1 billion lower.
CBO estimates that the net effect of unemployment-related
provisions on direct spending would total $12.8 billion over
the 2008-2013 period and $11.7 billion over the 2008-2018
period.
Revenues
The availability of EEUC benefits may discourage recipients
from searching for work and accepting less-desirable jobs as
quickly as they would in the absence of this act. Thus, some
recipients may remain unemployed for slightly longer than they
would have otherwise, and direct spending for regular benefits
would increase during 2008 and 2009. CBO expects that some
states would respond to the lower balances in their
unemployment trust funds by increasing their unemployment
taxes, resulting in an increase of $0.6 billion in revenues
over the 2009-2013 period.
The interaction between EEUC and Reed Act transfers also
would affect revenues. Under the baseline, CBO estimates that,
as a result of the estimated $8.6 billion in Reed Act
transfers, states would reduce unemployment taxes by about $2.5
billion over the 2014-2018 period, with additional revenue
losses occurring after 2018. CBO estimates that transfers to
the states under the EEUC program would reduce the federal
trust fund balances to levels that would preclude such Reed Act
transfers, resulting in revenues that would be $2.5 billion
higher than our baseline projections of revenues over the five-
year period beginning in 2014.
Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: H.R. 5749
contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as
defined in UMRA. CBO estimates that the changes to the
unemployment compensation system would result in decreased
federal transfers to states and also would lead to increased
unemployment taxes in some states. These effects, however,
would result from states' participation in the federal
unemployment insurance program, which is voluntary, and would
not result from intergovernmental mandates as defined in UMRA.
Previous CBO estimate: On February 6, 2008, CBO transmitted
an estimate of the budgetary effects of the Economic Stimulus
Act of 2008, as ordered reported by the Senate Committee on
Finance on January 30, 2008. That bill contained provisions for
the extension of unemployment compensation that are similar to
provisions in H.R. 5749. Differences between the estimated
costs reflect small economic and technical adjustments to CBO's
baseline and differences in the legislation.
Estimate prepared by: Federal spending: Christina Hawley
Anthony; Federal revenues: Barbara Edwards; Impact on state,
local, and tribal governments: Lisa Ramirez-Branum; Impact on
the private sector: Ralph Smith.
Estimate approved by: Peter H. Fontaine, Assistant Director
for Budget Analysis.
V. OTHER MATTERS TO BE DISCUSSED UNDER THE RULES OF THE HOUSE
COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
With respect to clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives (relating to oversight findings),
the Committee concluded that it was appropriate and timely to
enact the sections included in the bill, as reported.
STATEMENT OF GENERAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
With respect to clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, the Committee establishes the
following performance related goals and objectives for this
legislation: The Secretary of Labor shall use the authority
under the Emergency Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of
2008, as amended, to provide extended unemployment compensation
to workers exhausting regular unemployment benefits in the
midst of a weak labor market. States shall enter into
agreements with the Secretary to provide these federally-funded
extended benefits to eligible workers.
CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY STATEMENT
With respect to clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, relating to Constitutional
Authority, the Committee states that the Committee's action in
reporting the bill is derived from Article 1 of the
Constitution, Section 8 (`The Congress shall have power to . .
. provide for the general Welfare of the United States.')
INFORMATION RELATING TO UNFUNDED MANDATES
This information is provided in accordance with section 423
of the Unfunded Mandates Act of 1995 (Pub. L. No. 104-4).
The Committee has determined that the revenue provisions of
the bill do not impose a Federal mandate on the private sector.
The Committee has determined that the revenue provisions of
the bill do not impose a Federal intergovernmental mandate on
State, local, or tribal governments.
APPLICABILITY OF HOUSE RULE XXI 5(1)(B)
Clause 5 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House of
Representatives provides, in part, that ``A bill or joint
resolution, amendment, or conference report carrying a Federal
income tax rate increase may not be considered as passed or
agreed to unless so determined by a vote of not less than
three-fifths of the Members voting, a quorum being present.''
The Committee has carefully reviewed the section of the bill,
and states that the bill does not involve any Federal income
tax rate increases within the meaning of the Rule.
PRE-EMPTING CLARIFICATION
This information is provided in accordance with section 423
of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. The Committee has
determined that the bill, as reported, does not pre-empt State
or local law.
LIMITED TAX BENEFITS
Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House
of Representatives, the Ways and Means Committee has determined
that the bill as reported contains no congressional earmarks,
limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits within the
meaning of that Rule.
VI. CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED
Pursuant to compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the
Rules of the House of Representatives, the Ways and Means
Committee has determined that the bill does not propose to
repeal or amend a statute or part thereof.
VII. DISSENTING VIEWS
When the Committee met on April 16 regarding extending
unemployment benefits, there were proposals on both sides of
the aisle to consider. These options were crafted through hard
work and good intentions and were designed to help people who
are hurting after being laid off from their jobs.
Unfortunately, the Committee's final product was so flawed that
Members on both sides of the aisle were unable to support it.
By immediately providing extended unemployment benefits in all
States, even those with exceptionally low unemployment rates,
the bill reported today would add to the Federal deficit, would
unnecessarily raise State payroll taxes, and would allow those
with minimal attachment to the workforce to collect up to six
months of Federal unemployment benefits.
Today's unemployment rate is a relatively low 5.1 percent.
The U.S. has never created a temporary extended benefits
program at such a low unemployment rate. In fact, when the last
such temporary extended unemployment benefits program was
created in March 2002, the unemployment rate was 5.7 percent--
the lowest unemployment rate when such a program was created in
U.S. history. For perspective, during the Clinton
Administration (1993-2000), the average unemployment rate for
the Nation was 5.2 percent--higher than today's level.
This is not to say that there are not States with
struggling economies and unemployment rates well above average
that might benefit from Federal assistance for long term
unemployed workers. Any effort to extend unemployment benefits
should be targeted to such States with high unemployment rates
where jobs are hardest to find. That is what the Republican
Substitute sought to do--building on longstanding Federal
policy reflected in the Extended Benefits program created in
1970. Unfortunately, in their zeal to pay benefits in all
States regardless of State labor market conditions, the
Majority rejected this targeted, commonsense approach.
There are two main problems with the bill that was reported
from the Committee. First, extended unemployment benefits would
be paid in all States, regardless of the availability of jobs
there. As was detailed during the markup, in February 2008 a
full 19 States had unemployment rates of 4 percent or less.
Even more States--27 in all--have unemployment rates within 1
percentage point of their all-time low. In Washington State,
for example, the February 2008 unemployment rate was 4.5
percent--a slight tick above Washington's all-time low of 4.4
percent, set just last year. It simply doesn't make sense to
extend benefits in States where jobless rates are near all time
lows. If extended benefits are merited today in States where
State unemployment rates are exceptionally low, and the
National rate is lower than it has been in recent decades, when
and where do supporters of this approach think that extended
unemployment benefits should not be available? This is a
precedent Republicans cannot support. Instead, we think
targeting extended unemployment benefits in those States with
high unemployment rates is in order, especially if such a
program is to begin at today's relatively low 5.1 percent
unemployment rate.
The second problem with the bill reported is the fact that
it would not be paid for, despite promises to the contrary.
When the Income Security Subcommittee had a hearing on this
legislation on April 10, Rep. Stark suggested the legislation
didn't need to be paid for since there was money in the Federal
unemployment insurance trust funds that could be used for this
purpose. There are reserves in those trust funds, and both
Republican and Democrat Congresses have used those reserves to
pay for temporary extended benefits programs before.
But it is simply not true that choosing to spend those
reserves will not add to the deficit. It will increase the
deficit, by the amount of the additional spending in the
Committee reported bill--about $12 billion for a program that
would operate for just one year. The Congressional Budget
Office (CBO) score of H.R. 5749 confirms as much: The CBO
report says the bill would cost $12.2 billion over 5 years, and
notes these ``numbers indicate an increase in deficits.'' But
these figures likely understate the true costs of this
legislation since, once started, such temporary programs are
regularly extended. Indeed, the typical such ``temporary''
program started in recent decades went on to operate for a
total of about 30 months. If the program proposed in H.R. 5749
follows the same path, the total cost would balloon to $30
billion or more.
Democrats have made much of the new ``paygo rule''
supposedly guiding the budget policy of this Congress. For
example, Speaker Pelosi on January 4, 2007 pledged that ``this
110th Congress will commit itself to a higher standard: pay-as-
you-go, no new deficit spending. Our new America will provide
unlimited opportunity for future generations, not burden them
with mountains of debt.'' This rule has been used by the
Majority to insist on raising taxes to ``pay for'' even the
extension of expiring tax relief. One would certainly expect
such a rule would require an offset for the new mandatory
spending proposed in this bill. But despite the significant new
Federal spending, and their supposed commitment to pay as you
go budgeting, the Majority did not include an offset with this
bill. Why? Because, despite their lofty rhetoric, it appears
that this bill will exploit a loophole in the paygo rules the
Majority crafted, which exempt new mandatory spending from
paygo requirements if the legislation is included in an
appropriations measure, as this bill apparently will be.
In her January 29, 2008 floor statement on the bipartisan
economic stimulus package Congress passed, Speaker Pelosi said:
``I think it's a good day for us here and let's hope for the
Senate to take their lead from us and be disciplined, focused,
fiscally responsible, and act in a timely, temporary, and
targeted way on behalf of meeting the needs of the American
people.'' The reported bill is not fiscally responsible, and it
is not targeted.
It is noteworthy that, even after being alerted to the
opposition of one of their own Members to passing an unpaid for
bill, the Majority rejected Republican efforts to limit the
increase in the deficit associated with this effort. The
Republican Substitute offered by Rep. Weller of Illinois would
have cost half as much as the Chairman's Amendment, yet was
rejected by the Majority. Similarly, the amendment offered by
Rep. McCrery, requiring a minimum work requirement for
individuals to qualify for Federal extended benefits, would
have better targeted benefits. But despite knowing of the
opposition of Republicans and even of one of their Members to
adding to the deficit, the Majority rejected such efforts.
Rep. Weller's Substitute amendment to provide extended
benefits in States that have high or fast rising unemployment
rates is consistent with the Speaker's stated challenge for any
stimulus legislation to be targeted where needs are greatest.
His substitute would make available up to 13 weeks of 100
percent Federally funded extended unemployment benefits in
States that have an unemployment rate above the National
average, or have experienced a 20 percent rise in unemployment
rates in the past year, or are a ``high unemployment State'' as
defined under the Majority bill (which includes having at least
a 4 percent insured unemployment rate or at least a 6 percent
total unemployment rate). Combined with regular unemployment
benefits available in all States, under the Weller Substitute a
total of 39 weeks of benefits would be available during the
coming year to assist unemployed workers where jobs are hardest
to find. On Main Street U.S.A., that helps people who need the
help most.
As Rep. Weller noted, his targeted substitute would be more
generous than a proposal recently touted by the AFL-CIO, often
considered the voice of workers. Under that proposal, extended
benefits would be paid only when the Nation's unemployment rate
exceeded 5.5 percent, which given today's 5.1 percent
unemployment rate would mean ``not now.'' The Weller Substitute
would start paying benefits in 18 States with high or fast
rising unemployment rates right away. This commonsense
substitute did not pass, and other attempts to improve the
underlying bill also were rejected.
Rep. McCrery offered an amendment to reinstate a
requirement that individuals claiming Federal extended benefits
must have worked for 20 weeks (or earned the equivalent in
wages) prior to being laid off. This provision reflects a
longstanding requirement of the permanent Federal-State
Extended Benefit (EB) program created in 1970; it was also
included in the 2002 Temporary Extended Unemployment
Compensation program that passed the House by a 417-3 vote--and
which was supported by every current Committee Democrat who was
in the House then. The ``20 weeks of work'' requirement was
created to ensure a proper balance between weeks of work
performed and unemployment benefits paid, especially when
special extended benefits are added; it should have been
included in the Committee reported bill. Without such a minimum
work requirement, workers who perform only seasonal work, for
example, might qualify for six months of extended unemployment
benefits--which benefits might be paid for far more weeks than
they actually worked to earn those benefits.
Rep. Weller also proposed to improve the Majority bill by
adding a provision granting States new waiver authority to test
wage insurance and other pro-work efforts as part of their
unemployment benefits program. This amendment had no cost,
would increase State flexibility, and was designed to spur
efforts to help laid off workers find new jobs. Yet it too was
rejected. It is telling that the Majority summarily rejected
this provision, despite its being the only legislation
considered at markup that would have attempted to assist
unemployed workers in finding new jobs, as opposed to simply
extending the length of time such workers might qualify for
benefit checks. It is hard to escape the irony of that.
It is important to consider the bigger picture, too. The
House in 2007 passed legislation drafted by the Majority that
would encourage States to offer up to 26 weeks of regular
unemployment benefits to people seeking only part-time jobs, to
those who quit their jobs for various reasons, and to those who
just joined the workforce. Under the bill reported today, the
Nation would not only pay 26 weeks of regular State
unemployment benefits to such workers, but up to another 26
weeks of Federal extended benefits, too--potentially doubling
the extent of unemployment benefits for any single worker to a
full year (or even longer in some States with their own
extended benefit and other special programs). Throughout the
hearing and markup process, several Democrats argued such
benefits were merited even in low-unemployment States, given
the presence there of communities with relatively higher
unemployment rates. But if needed now in even low-unemployment
States and while the Nation's unemployment rate is a relatively
low 5.1 percent, when in the future does the Majority think
Federal extended benefits will not be merited in all States?
It's hard not to perceive a pattern here of the Majority
attempting to increasingly make unemployment benefits more like
welfare benefits than traditional unemployment insurance--with
more and longer benefits paid to people with less and less
attachment to the workforce. That's not only contrary to the
longstanding purpose of the Nation's unemployment benefits
program, but such expanding benefits will require expanding
taxes, too--resulting in slower job creation and requiring ever
higher payroll taxes, which will further squeeze workers'
wages. How will that help either current workers, or unemployed
workers in search of new jobs?
Ways and Means Republicans want to help unemployed workers,
especially those in States suffering weak job prospects as
evidenced by high unemployment rates. That is why Republicans
supported a targeted approach to extending unemployment
benefits. This would have provided real help where it is needed
most. At the same time, Republicans want to ensure that current
actions in the name of compassion for workers do not contribute
to greater burdens for our children and grandchildren in the
form of ever mounting debt. The Speaker's past rhetoric has
described how stimulus legislation should be targeted and
fiscally responsible. Yet despite such pledges, the Majority
legislation is both untargeted and fiscally irresponsible. That
is why Republicans could not support the Committee bill.
We hope that, as the legislation reported out of the
Committee moves forward, additional action will be taken to
make it both targeted and fiscally responsible--assisting those
in need without adding to the burdens already facing current
and future generations of workers.
Jim McCrery.
Wally Herger.
Jerry Weller.
Kenny Hulshof.
Ron Lewis.
Kevin Brady.
Eric Cantor.
Sam Johnson.
Paul Ryan.
Devin Nunes.
John Linder.
Jim Ramstad.
Pat Tiberi.