Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I don't know whether I made a pledge. I am very much for this. I am a cosponsor of that. I want to pass it as soon as possible. It's been the chairman's judgment as to when to bring it up. He is going to bring it up, and I am going to bring it as soon thereafter as is practical, which I suspect to be a matter of days. But if he passes it on Thursday and if we are not scheduled to be here on a Friday, I don't know that I will schedule Friday; we may pass it Tuesday, but I expect to pass it very shortly after it passes out of committee.

Mr. HOYER. This bill, frankly, with all due respect, your help would be nice, but not needed. It's the other bill I need your help on.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 11 a.m. tomorrow; and, further, when the House adjourns on that day, it adjourn to meet at 12:30 p.m. on Tuesday, October 20, 2009, for morning-hour debate.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Of course, the conference hasn't been held so I don't want to predict what's going to be in there or not. I will tell the gentleman, as the gentleman knows, the authorization bill, the conference report that we just passed does have within it, as you know, a prohibition on the release of Guantanamo detainees in the United States, territories, and possessions. In addition, it restricts detainee transfers to the United States or its territories or possessions until 45 days after the President has submitted a plan to Congress certifying that the detainees will pose little or no threat or risk to the United States if transferred. That language we just passed. Now, I can't predict whether the appropriations conference will track that language or will have different language such as the language to which you just referred. But I expect there to be language on that issue.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank him for coming by my office and spending time in discussion. As the gentleman knows, health care has been the focus of this Congress for much of our present session; three committees have completed their work, ongoing discussions about how to put the work product of the three individual committees together. The Senate Finance Committee is, we think, going to vote on theirs next week. The Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee has reported out a bill. So we have five committees that have essentially completed their work. There will be, obviously, once the bills are put together and all the suggestions are incorporated, a necessity to get a score from CBO. We expect that to take at least a week, 7 days, maybe more. In addition to that, the Speaker and I have both indicated that there will be 72 hours' notice of the bill and a manager's amendment. I want to clarify that. If they both come out at the same time, it will be one 72-hour period. If for any reason they come out separately, then we will make sure that the last issued will have 72 hours before we put the bill out on the floor. In light of that, my expectation is certainly the bill will not be on the floor either the next week or early in the following week. The earliest, in my opinion, the bill could be on the floor would be the latter part of the second week from now.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. On Monday, the House will not be in session. On Tuesday, the House will meet at 12:30 p.m. for morning-hour debate and 2 p.m. for legislative business with votes postponed until 6:30 p.m. On Wednesday and Thursday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for legislative business. On Friday, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for legislative business. We will consider several bills under suspension of the rules. The complete list of suspension bills will be announced by the close of business tomorrow, as is the custom. In addition, we will consider H.R. 2442, the Bay Area Regional Water Recycling Program Expansion Act of 2009; the conference report on H.R. 2892, the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act of 2010; and quite possibly, assuming the conference is completed, the conference report on H.R. 2996, the Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act.

Mr. HOYER. At this point in time, these are still under discussion, and, therefore, I don't have a specific answer for the gentleman. But the Speaker's comments, I think, spoke to the fact that they are still under discussion.

Mr. HOYER. I think that would be the earliest, as a practical matter, that we could put the bill on the floor with the notice that we have indicated we're going to give and, of course, with the CBO score.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. As I have said before, my expectation is that Members ought to be planning on at least 4-day weeks in the first week in November and the third week in November. As the gentleman knows, Veterans Day falls in the middle of the second week of November, and my belief is it's going to be very difficult to get Members back for a day and a half--and very impractical and costly--then to have to go back for Veterans Day and then probably not come back doesn't seem to be a very useful use of time. But I have caveated that with the issue of health care. Health care is, as I said, the major issue that we're focused on. We think it's critically important for the American people to have access to affordable, quality health care, which is our objective. As a result, that second week we haven't given it away yet, but my expectation is that we probably will not be meeting that week. My expectation is also--and my plan will be--not to meet Thanksgiving week. I think people ought to be home during Thanksgiving week and, again, I make the caveat as to where we may be on health care. Now of course if we can get unanimous consent to put it on a consent calendar and pass it, maybe we can shorten the time. But absent that, I want to make sure that we all understand that if health care, for instance, was being considered that third week and we had to move into Saturday or Monday to pass it, we might do that. But again, I reiterate that for November, my expectation is first and third week probably here at least Tuesday through Friday of each week, and with respect to the second week, probably not here and the fourth week probably not here. Having said that, you asked for the balance of the year. Again, it will depend upon whether we can complete our work within those 2 months. If we can't, we will clearly be here in December. Again, as someone who has served here a long time and has seen us meet as late as December 23 or 24, I think that's not good for our families, it's not good for the Members, and I certainly am not one that looks forward to that, and I am going to do everything I can to make sure that we get our work done no later than the end of the second week of December.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. In terms of where the Speaker and I are, we have been consistently for, as you know, a public option. The Speaker and I continue to be for a public option, as is the President, and we believe the majority of the House is for that. I will tell the gentleman that I think that in terms of the reimbursement rates, as I said, that's still under discussion, but I think there is consensus that a public option is something, as the President has indicated, as we have indicated, that will provide a competitive model to both bring prices down and to protect consumers. So I think the answer is that that's certainly still part of our plan.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I have talked to Mr. Berman. He is in discussions with the White House. Both you and I are strong supporters of the legislation, as is Mr. Berman. My expectation is he has indicated that he wants to consider this bill and bring it to the floor, and I have told him that as soon as it's ready to come to the floor, I will schedule it for the floor. In addition, I will tell the gentleman that it is possible that we will have the sanctions bill out of the Financial Services Committee. As you know, there are two different bills. The Berman bill is the stronger of the two. But we may well move next week, may move next week, on the Financial Services sanction bill, which deals with, obviously, financial transactions. My expectation is Mr. Berman is looking at this and does hope and expect to bring this bill out either at the very latter part of a couple weeks from now or perhaps the first week in November. But I know he's very much engaged in this, and we very much support moving on this.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 10 a.m. tomorrow, and further, when the House adjourns on that day, it adjourn to meet at 12:30 p.m. on Tuesday next for morning-hour debate.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the chairman for yielding. I thank the ranking member for his leadership. I want to say particularly as I start that the distinguished chairman of this committee does America a great service. This is a critical bill for our Nation and for our men and women in uniform. There is no greater advocate of America's readiness or the quality of life of our service personnel than the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton). I want to thank him for his leadership. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the conference report on this vital bill for fiscal year 2010, which takes important steps to enhance our military readiness, our national security, and the well-being of our military families, and I might add our Federal employees, our civilian personnel as well. I particularly want to thank Chairman Skelton, the Armed Services Committee and staff for their months of hard work to bring this legislation close to enactment. I know on the staff, this has been tough. The conference was tough. In sum, the conference report authorizes $550.2 billion in budget authority for the Department of Defense and the national security programs at the Department of Energy, as well as $130 billion for overseas contingency operations. It is a serious response to the real, immediate, and rapidly changing threats our Nation and our troops face. Among its most important provisions are those that help to rebuild our Armed Forces, which are worn down after years of war. It provides $11 billion and $2 billion to re-equip the Army and Marine Corps respectively, as well as $6.9 billion to meet equipment shortfalls in the National Guard and Reserve. In line with President Obama's request, it also adds an additional 30,000 troops to the Army, 14,650 to the Air Force, 8,100 to the Marines, and 2,477 to the Navy. I believe these are critical provisions. We are asking our men and women to serve long tours at great risk. The trauma that they are experiencing is very substantial. The ops tempo, as we call it, is such that if we do not increase our forces, we will not be able to give the proper rest that our troops need. So I congratulate the committee for attending to that issue It authorizes 30,000 more Army troops in fiscal years 2011 and 2012. Our Nation has made the proper decision to confront those who would cause us risk. But if we are going to do so, we must properly resource our services with the proper number of personnel. To ensure safety and dignified living standards for those troops, it commits $350 million to construct new Army training barracks and $200 million for facilities in the National Guard and Reserve. This conference report also orients our country in the direction of the new national security strategy put forward by the Obama administration, which includes redeployment from Iraq and a commitment to the stability of Afghanistan and Pakistan. The conference report reflects those priorities. Mr. Speaker, I have other matters that I could speak to, but I think everyone on this floor knows the importance of this bill. I note the presence on the floor of, like Mr. Skelton, one of the great leaders in supporting our Armed Forces on the floor with me, my good and dear friend Bill Young from the State of Florida, as the ranking Republican on the Appropriations Subcommittee. I want to thank him for his leadership. Mr. Young has been here, Ike, longer than either one of us has been here, and he has served his country very well. It is appropriate that he is on the floor as we consider this important bill. In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would urge every Member in this House to support this bill which supports our troops, to support this bill which authorizes the funds necessary to respond to the needs and the policies of the United States of America in protecting our citizens and our homeland from those who would undermine our security and safety, who would attack our property and persons. That's what this bill is about. This bill has many items in it, some more controversial than others. But at heart, this bill is about our troops and about America's security. I would hope and urge every one of my colleagues, when the roll is called, to vote ``aye'' on this critically important bill for the security of the United States of America. Mr. Skelton, I congratulate you for your leadership. You are one of America's great patriots and leaders, and I am proud to be your colleague.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. If the gentleman would yield, I appreciate that, and I am confident that, as the gentleman points out, that we will move ahead in a bipartisan and overwhelming fashion on this bill. But I want to make it very clear: We don't have to wait for anybody. Having said that, the judgment of the chairman, in concert with the administration, is that we do want to see what developments occur in the very near term. And I think that's what I meant. Hopefully that's what I said. The gentleman's accurate; we don't have to wait, certainly for Russia or China or for anybody else, to take the action we deem to be appropriate.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. And he's correct: we do have a different perspective on this. Of course, the gentleman supported economic policies in 2001 and 2003 that of course produced the worst job performance of any administration since Herbert Hoover. We lost 3.1 million jobs in the last 14 months of the Bush administration, lost an average of 680,000 jobs during the last 3 months of the administration that President Obama was faced with. We acted decisively and boldly, in my opinion, under the President's leadership. In point of fact, we reduced the average of some 680,000 in the last 3 months of the Bush administration to, over the last 3 months, 350,000 and only 216,000 jobs lost. I say ``only.'' That relates to 741,000 jobs lost the last month of the Bush administration. That is a half a million fewer jobs. It's not where we want to be, but it is certainly a lot better. Many economists in our party and, frankly, in your party, Mr. Zandi we refer to, estimate that we have over a million jobs more than we would have had had we not passed the Recovery and Reinvestment Act. There has been a 1.3 percent rise in consumer spending in August. It was the biggest increase since the 2.8 surge in October of 2001. The Labor Department released a report last week showing that during the previous week, the number of newly laid-off workers seeking unemployment benefits fell for the third straight week, evidence that layoffs are continuing to ease at the earliest stages of the economic recovery. Without going into a lot more statistics, we do have a substantive difference as to whether or not our economy is getting better. The good news, from my perspective, is most economists agree with us that we've bottomed out and we're starting to come up. We're going to have unemployment figures tomorrow that will be announced. Hopefully, they're down even further. The stock market, I will tell my friend, in the Recovery and Reinvestment he thinks hasn't worked is up from about 7,200-7,300 up to about 9,700. I will tell you that every American that opens their 401(k) or retirement plan thinks that progress has been made. I know I do when I open mine. I am very pleased to see that. So we do differ. We differ not only on the success of the economic plan that was pursued for 8 years that led to the deepest recession that we have had in 75 years. But the gentleman stands and asked me a question about adopting more of those policies, and with all due respect, my friend, we didn't think those policies were going to work, we don't think they did work, and, in fact, the policies that your party voted against to a person in 1993 produced exactly the opposite results: high employment, low deficits; in fact, a net surplus at the end of the 8 years of the Clinton administration, and a reduction in spending which you doubled in terms of percentage, 3.5 under the Clinton years and 7 percent under President Bush's years. So, yes, we have a difference of opinion. We think we have pursued vigorously policies to create jobs, create economic stability, create growth in our economy, and we think it's working.

Mr. HOYER. As the gentleman probably knows, I have also indicated I thought General McChrystal ought to come to the Congress and testify, not only before the committees, but perhaps brief a bipartisan session. I don't mean an address to it, but a bipartisan briefing, either in the Armed Services Committee or on the floor here or in the auditorium. I think that's appropriate. As the gentleman knows, the President has been involved in very extensive consultation with the Cabinet members that deal with the national security issues, including Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Admiral Mike Mullen; General Jones, the National Security Advisor; Secretary Clinton; the Vice President and others who are dealing with this issue. As you know, there has been no specific request directed to the Congress at this point in time, either by General McChrystal, Secretary Gates, or the President, so that it may well be an issue of timing as to when they're ready to come to the Congress to lay out the specific plans that they believe we ought to pursue. But I think that everyone shares the conviction that this is a critical issue with which the Congress is going to deal, and that General McChrystal, who is the commander on the ground in Afghanistan, needs to come before the Congress and give us his best judgment as to how we can be successful.

Mr. HOYER. If the gentleman would yield, because I think probably--to complete the answer--the Speaker and I are both committed to giving substantial notice, not only of the bill, when a bill is put together, but also of any manager's amendment which may effect the resolution between the three committee documents. It is our expectation that there would be at least 72 hours for either the bill and the manager's amendment or, if they are separate, 72 hours for each.

Mr. HOYER. I do not expect a bill to be on the floor within the next 2 weeks, if that's what the gentleman's asking. I think we'll have time to have discussions.

Mr. HOYER. If the gentleman will yield.

Mr. HOYER. First of all, let me say that, as far as I know, we have no premise that we want to pursue of a government takeover of health care, so notwithstanding the characterization, we don't believe that what's being proposed does that, any more than Medicare, from our perspective, was a takeover of the health care system. Having said that, we are working, as you know, as the press is reporting, on seeing what alternatives are available. There are three committee bills that have been reported out of the Energy and Commerce Committee, had full markups, Ways and Means Committee, and the Education and Labor Committee. As you know, they differ in part, and so there are now discussions as to how you meld those bills together with the theory and intention of offering a bill from those three bills. We would expect the Rules Committee, at some point in time, to effect that objective, as has been done in the past. Our expectation is that we will do that within the time frame that we're able to do it; that is to say, there's not yet a resolution of how that is accomplished, so we don't have a time frame. And we haven't set a time frame, but we will do it when it's possible to put forward. Lastly, I would say to the gentleman, he and I talked earlier this week, as he pointed out, and I look forward to sitting down with him next week to see if there are areas where we can agree. If there are, we'd like to do that. And I think the gentleman has expressed his desire to do so as well. On the other hand, as we know, there are areas of substantial disagreement. It's certainly not our view that we can start over again. It is our view that this matter has had over 90 hearings over the last couple of years; that we've had over 2,000 town meetings on this, and we've been really at this for about over a year now, with very substantial discussions during the Presidential campaign from all candidates on both sides of the aisle, as to the fact that health care reform was necessary, and we believe the overwhelming majority of the American people believe that. Obviously, the details are the critical issue, and I look forward to pursuing discussions next week with the gentleman.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. On Monday the House will not be in session. On Tuesday the House will meet at 12:30 p.m. for morning-hour debate and 2 p.m. for legislative business, with votes postponed until 6:30. On Wednesday and Thursday the House will meet at 10 a.m. for legislative business. On Friday there are no votes expected. We will consider several bills under suspension of the rules. The complete list of suspension bills, as is the custom, will be announced by the close of business tomorrow. In addition to the suspension bills, we will consider H.R. 2442, the Bay Area Regional Water Recycling Program Expansion Act of 2009, the conference report on H.R. 2997, the Agricultural, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2010, and the conference report on H.R. 2892, the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act of 2010.

Mr. HOYER. Since I made that representation, I have, in fact, met with both not only Mr. Berman, the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, but also Mr. Frank, the chairman of the Financial Services Committee. As the gentleman knows, there are two sanctions bills. One is Chairman Frank's bill, which passed the House overwhelmingly last year, and provides authority to State and local governments to divest their assets from any company that invests $20 million or more in Iran's energy sector. That is not as consequential, obviously, as Mr. Berman's bill. Mr. Berman's bill, as you know, requires any foreign entities that sell refined petroleum to Iran or otherwise assist such sales to be banned from doing business in the United States. Obviously, that has real teeth to it. As the gentleman also knows, October 1, discussions are underway with Iran for the first time in a long time. Furthermore, significantly, the administration is working with our allies, certainly with, as the gentleman knows, with Britain and France, but also engaged with Germany as well, and with Russia and with China, members of the P-5 plus 1, essentially, members of the Security Council plus Germany, on how we might respond to what the world has viewed as a violation of the U.N. resolutions and what Iran has been doing. The gentleman and I share a view that Iran's process is unacceptable, that Iran's pursuing of nuclear armed capability, weapons capability is unacceptable and dangerous to the region and to the international community. The administration shares that view, and therefore, with respect to Mr. Berman's resolution, we are in contact with the administration, and Mr. Berman is prepared to bring that forward at a time when, based upon whatever may occur in the next week--I don't want to put a time frame on it--a week or two, that might indicate that we could get a broader international toughening of sanctions that now exist, with the agreement, particularly of Russia. As you know, President Medvedev has made some pretty strong statements about Qom and the findings there, and what he believes to be Iran's failure to keep the world informed and concern about what Iran is doing, which was a positive sign. But with those considerations in mind, I know that Mr. Berman is very focused on this and ready to bring a resolution to the floor at a time he believes is consistent with the administration's trying to attain, with the international community, the strongest possible sanctions internationally, as well as our own sanctions.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 10 a.m. tomorrow; and, further, when the House adjourns on that day, it adjourn to meet at 12:30 p.m. on Tuesday, October 6, 2009, for morning-hour debate.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. First of all, I want to congratulate Congresswoman Titus for her leadership on this issue. She is an extraordinary Member of this House, very able, and, as Congresswoman Berkley, her colleague from Nevada just indicated, this will be directed at helping a lot of seniors. I rise in opposition to this suspension bill. I have, for a number of years, spoken about how difficult it will be for us to get a handle on entitlements. If we don't get a handle on entitlements, my friends, we will be spending nothing more in another 50 years than money on entitlements and payment on the national debt, and our children will not be happy. They will not congratulate us. Now, there is no speaker who will speak today who will not speak on behalf of those seniors who, as my colleague Shelley Berkley just referenced, rely on Social Security to support themselves. We anticipated that concern when we adopted the legislation relating to this subject. And as a result of anticipating that, we said if there is not a cost-of-living increase, we will exempt approximately three- quarters, actually 73 percent, of seniors from any premium increase. Why? Because we rightfully concluded, as many speakers on this floor have observed, that those seniors would be put under stress because of no cost-of-living increase but having an increase in their premium. Now, ladies and gentlemen, I don't know how many of you go to sleep at night worried about whether Ross Perot can pay his premium, but this will freeze Ross Perot's basic premium from going up. This will affect every premium payer, including those who make individually $85,000 or more, and, as a couple, $170,000 or more. Now, the problem with doing that is not that we don't have some empathy for those folks--by the way, every one of us who votes on that bill falls in that category. Now, we may not be 65 or above, as I am, but we are in that category. Now, the issue is, at a time of stress, of fiscal challenge, do we say to Ross Perot, we feel your pain and so we are going to exempt you from an increase? Hear me, we have exempted all of those $85,000 and below under present law. My friends, I think that as well meaning as this legislation is, it is not about poor seniors. It's not about those who are less well off who are having greater stress, because they are taken care of. There are four categories of people who aren't taken care of under present law. First of all, there are some 2.1 million who are the $85,000 and above crowd. There are a lesser number, 1.3 million, who are Medicare newly eligible folks, and they have never paid a premium, so their premium won't go up; their premium will be what it is. There are 7.3 million who are dual-eligibles, and the dual-eligibles, of course, will not pay anything more because that will be the responsibility of the States. Is this an additional burden on the States? It is. We will either borrow the money or the States will pay it. Our children will pay off our debt. But our law anticipated that if this was the case, that for the 7.3 million dual-eligibles, the States would pick up the difference. People say, well, what if the States don't pick up the difference? The States have an option. I understand that. We don't control that. We could change the law and say they don't have an option, but we haven't done that. Then there are some 850,000 who did not participate in Social Security. There are the four categories. Because they didn't participate in Social Security, they are not covered here and they get a State pension. Now, I tried to get the average of the State pension or the board of education pension or whatever, and I don't have that. I haven't been able to get that information. This bill was considered by the committee yesterday, reported out today. Do I stand here happy that some seniors around the country are going to say Steny Hoyer was against them? I am not happy about that. But I have felt it my responsibility to come to this floor, as someone who speaks about entitlement reform, as someone who believes we have got to exercise fiscal discipline, as someone who believes we ought to take care of the less well-off in our country, which are taken care of by the present law, 73 percent, under $85,000. We take care of that. That's an individual; $170,000 for a couple. At some point in time, my friends, we have to buck up our courage and our judgment and say, if we take care of everybody, we won't be able to take care of those who need us most. That's my concern. If we take care of everybody, irrespective of their ability to pay for themselves, the Ross Perots of America, frankly, the Steny Hoyers of America, then we will not be able to take care of those most in need in America.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman from Washington, the Chair of the subcommittee, for yielding. I thank Mr. Davis for his support in facilitating this coming to the floor. Mr. Speaker, 8 months into the 111th Congress and the Obama Presidency, it's clear to me, and I think others, that the economic policies that we've put in place are helping to pull our country out of the recession. This month, the Blue Chip economic survey confirmed that 81 percent of leading economists believe that the recession is over. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke recently stated that he agrees. Nonpartisan economic analysts agree that the actions taken by the Obama administration and our Congress, including the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, were critical to stabilizing our economy and putting us back on a path to recovery. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, Moody's, and the Council of Economic Advisers all concluded that our economy has approximately 1 million more jobs than it would have had if the Recovery Act had not been passed. Last week, Mr. Speaker, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities found that the Recovery Act kept 6 million Americans from falling below the poverty line and reduced the severity of poverty for 33 million Americans. Whether we're Republicans or Democrats, those are results we can all cheer because they mean economic security to the people we represent. However, Mr. Speaker, it's clear to all of us that unemployment remains a problem for millions of American families. The headlines may say that our recession is over; but for those individuals who remain out of work, this is still a time of hardship and struggle. According to the CBO, it has also become clear that the hole we are climbing out of was deeper than we knew. Now we know that the economy was in even worse shape than economists realized when President Obama took office in January. Though unemployment continues to strain families in all of our districts, job losses have been steadily decreasing the last 3 months under this administration, with last month's figures the best in over a year. But while job losses are slowing, it will take some time before we can reverse the losses that economists agree began nearly 2 years ago and start creating enough jobs for people who have been out of work. Long-term unemployment, Mr. Speaker, remains at its highest rate since we began measuring in 1948. Over 33 percent of the total unemployed have been out of work for more than 26 weeks, thereby requiring this legislation. Even as our country emerges from an economic crisis, hundreds of thousands of Americans and their families face a more personal crisis. At the end of this month, if we do not act, their unemployment insurance will run out, even though they continue to look for work. Many of these workers are middle class Americans. Many of them lost their jobs without notice. According to a recent unemployment survey conducted by the Heldrich Center for Workforce Development at Rutgers: ``Six in 10 of those whose employer had let them go had no advanced warning, adding to the pain for many. Nearly four in 10 said they had been employed by their company for more than 3 years and one in 10 for more than a decade.'' In other words, Americans who had what they thought were stable jobs--and made commitments based on these jobs, like mortgages, college payments, auto payments--found themselves out of work without warning, leaving them and their families in dire straits. For their sake, this bill extends for up to 13 weeks the unemployment benefits of more than 300,000 American workers. Our fellow citizens, through no fault of their own, find themselves without a job, without a livelihood, without a way to support themselves and their families. I know that some argue that unemployment insurance can be an incentive not to seek a job at all. But that argument doesn't hold water for the workers who are the target of this bill: workers in the States with unemployment rates over 8.5 percent, the States in which an honest effort to find work is most likely to be frustrating. We chose to target those workers who are still having difficulty finding a job, not because they're failing to give their best effort, but because the economic climate of their State is still difficult. Very frankly, Mr. Speaker, my State will not qualify. That's the good news. But for those unemployed, the bad news, perhaps. But not only is supporting job-seeking workers the right thing to do; extending unemployment insurance benefits all of us. That's because the money provided is quickly spent on necessities, which provides an immediate boost to local economies. Mr. Speaker, an extension of unemployment insurance is supported by a bipartisan coalition of Governors, who understand its benefits for their economies and their families. They write that the unemployment benefits have ``offered relief each month to struggling families across the country and have played a critical role in stabilizing the economy,'' and that these benefits, they say, must be extended. I would also add that because this bill is fully paid for, it doesn't add to the deficit. In 8 months, we have come a long way, a long way in recovering from the recession inherited by this administration. But we cannot forget, we must not forget those whom the recovery has not yet reached, which is why I urge my colleagues to support this important bill, and why I thank Mr. McDermott and Mr. Davis for their leadership in bringing this bill to the floor in an appropriate time frame so that we can get relief to those people before their benefits run out.