Jerry Weller

Mr. WELLER of Illinois

Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, this motion to recommit supports extension of unemployment benefits for long-term unemployed, those who have exhausted their unemployment benefits. And this motion to recommit makes three simple changes to the legislation before us. It adds a requirement of 20 weeks of work for workers to qualify for the extended unemployment benefits. It targets benefits to high unemployment States, and it provides additional money to many of the newly hired individuals to help them deal with the high price of gasoline. I particularly want to thank my colleagues, Mr. Kirk, Mrs. Biggert, Mr. Bilirakis and others for the help that they have given in crafting this motion to recommit as we work towards extension of unemployment benefits to those who need help. First, I would note that this motion reinserts the current law requirement that workers who qualify for Federal extended unemployment benefits must have worked at least 20 weeks before being laid off. This requirement was removed by the majority with the underlying legislation. This commonsense Federal requirement has been in place since 1981 and was included in the temporary extended benefits program Congress created in 2002, our last extended benefit program. Nearly every Democrat Member voted for that bill then, and as we have discussed on this floor for the last 2 days, there is no good reason, there is no argument that has been made by the other side to impose the reestablishment of this long-standing Federal policy now. Second, this motion would specify that only individuals in States with unemployment rates above 5 percent or that have seen a sharp rise in unemployment would be eligible for 13 weeks of Federal extended benefits. As under H.R. 5749, individuals in States with unemployment rates above 6 percent would be eligible for up to 26 weeks of Federal extended benefits. Today, 22 States have unemployment rates above 5 percent or have seen a sharp rise in rates, including six States above 6 percent. So workers in nearly half of the States would be eligible for extended benefits, which could rise, or more would be eligible if States experience a rise in unemployment rates. In contrast with H.R. 5749, this motion would not extend benefits in States that currently have unemployment rates below 5 percent, and I would note that 5 percent is low by historical standards, and that have not been experiencing rising rates. They will continue to be eligible for their basic 26 weeks of unemployment benefits. So I would note that they will continue to have unemployment benefits available to laid-off workers. Moreover, by targeting benefits to where they are needed most, this motion actually reduces the cost of the bill, reduces the deficit, and makes it much more fiscally responsible than the untargeted, unpaid- for, ``in violation of the House rules'' legislation that has been offered by the majority. And third, we all know that every American family is struggling with record gasoline prices. That struggle is especially pronounced for unemployed workers and in particular the long-term unemployed. Those who return to work, however, may face high commuting costs, starting with the high price of gas they must put in their tanks to get to a new job. And I would note that this Democratic Congress, which is the least popular Congress in recorded history because of its lack of action on energy, has refused to allow for increases in domestically produced fuels which we need to help our economy. In fact, it is the Democrat policies in the last year and a half since January 2007 which are responsible for an increase in gasoline prices of $1.73, basically a doubling of gasoline prices since our Democratic friends gained the majority. That's why gasoline prices are over $4. We want to help American workers. And that is why we are offering help to alleviate the high price of gasoline for unemployed individuals. This motion would provide 1 extra week of extended unemployment benefits for those who return to work without exhausting their extended benefits. On average, this would mean an extra $290 per eligible worker. So for an unemployed mother who goes back to work with two children, that could mean up to four tanks of gasoline at today's $4 gasoline prices, probably enough to get her to and from her first full month on the job. Especially for someone who might not have much money left after a long spell of unemployment, that is real relief where today it is desperately needed, at the pump and in the pocketbook. Mr. Speaker, this motion provides timely, targeted and temporary assistance, something the Speaker herself called for earlier this year. So we talked about boosting the economy. I urge its adoption so we can send this bill to the Senate and down to the White House as soon as possible. As the President said, he will veto the underlying bill. Passage of this motion to recommit will give us a bill the President will sign, and it will become law, and we can help unemployed workers. I urge an ``aye'' vote.

Mr. WELLER of Illinois

Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Do you agree that the 6 percent that you are talking about is the 6 percent trigger that----

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

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

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

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

Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Will the gentleman from Michigan yield?

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

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

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

Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, before I begin my remarks, first I want to say on behalf of all of my colleagues our thoughts and prayers are with our good friend and distinguished ranking member of the House Ways and Means Committee, Congressman Jim McCrery. Mr. McCrery is not with us today, and he and his family mourn the untimely passing of Jim's sister. Our thoughts are with Congressman McCrery and his entire family. Mr. Speaker, I stand here in support of extending unemployment benefits, and I have sponsored legislation to accomplish that goal. All Republican members of the Ways and Means Committee supported extending benefits when our committee considered this legislation in April. But today I rise in opposition to the legislation that's before the House today which includes a radical departure from long-standing Federal policy when it comes to the balance between work and extended benefits. And I am especially opposed to the cynical election-year maneuvering reflected in how the House is considering this important issue today. Federal law since 1981 has required at least 20 weeks of work before collecting Federal-extended benefits. The temporary program created in 2002 continued this commonsense policy. I believe requiring at least 20 weeks of work to qualify for Federal extended unemployment benefits is perfectly fair, but the majority of Democrats do not. So the legislation before us today makes a radical departure from 27 years of Federal policy by striking the commonsense 20-week work requirement. Ironically, nearly every Democratic Member in the House supported this same requirement as part of the temporary program Congress created in 2002. Yet today, without a single hearing on this topic, this legislation would strike that sensible long-standing requirement. So under this legislation, some individuals will receive 12 months of total unemployment benefits after having worked for as little as 2 weeks in some cases before being laid off. Does the majority think that this is fair to taxpayers to pay 12 months of unemployment benefits in exchange for less than 1 month of work? Since the 1930s, unemployment benefits have been paid to those strongly attached to the workforce. That's the logic behind expecting at least 20 weeks of work before layoff for those who go on to collect Federal-extended benefits. It is not too much to expect someone who has worked for at least 20 weeks to collect up to 12 months of unemployment benefits. What makes this worse, this legislation is being considered under rules that prevent any opportunities for amendments, that prevent any opportunities for substitutes or other avenues to correct what we believe is a serious error in this radical approach. The way this bill is being considered is under a process usually reserved for naming post offices and honoring sports teams. In the past 2 years, this House has named 87 post offices using this process, and today by using this same process, House majority leaders trivialize the important issue of extending unemployment benefits to those who are hurting. And it didn't have to be this way. Every Republican on the Ways and Means Committee supported extending unemployment benefits in some fashion 2 months ago. And I suspect almost every Member of this House shares that view today. The only disagreement involves whether there should be a minimum work requirement, among other important details. But 2 months, again that's 2 months after this so-called emergency legislation was considered in the Ways and Means Committee, here we are 2 months later with the Majority's flawed take-it-or-leave-it approach. Mr. Speaker, I recognize many workers are hurting. I continue to support extending help to those who need it most. Unfortunately, the bill before us insists on paying extended unemployment benefits even to those who have worked for only a fraction of the time they will collect benefits. This radical policy is a departure from current law, a 27-year-old bipartisan policy, and that's simply not right. And the way this legislation is being considered is an affront to all Americans. This bill was brought directly to the floor without as much as a hearing in committee. Mr. Speaker, I have a letter here from the Executive Office of the President stating the President's position. The administration strongly opposes this legislation, H.R. 5479, and they state that if it were presented to the President, the senior advisers would recommend that he veto the bill. I place it into the Record at this time. Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC, June 11, 2008. Statement of Administration Policy--H.R. 5749--Emergency Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 2008--(Rep. McDermott (D) Washington and 36 cosponsors) The Administration is deeply committed to continually fostering an environment where every American who wants a job has a job. The Administration believes the best way to help workers is to create an environment that encourages job creation and to promote effective job training. To accomplish these goals, the Administration urges Congress to create more opportunities for American exporters by passing the pending free trade agreements with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea, make permanent the President's tax cuts that will expire over the next two years, and reform and reauthorize the Trade Adjustment Assistance program and the Workforce Investment Act. The Administration looks forward to continuing to work with Congress to enact these important measures. However, the Administration strongly opposes H.R. 5749. If H.R. 5749 were presented to the President, his senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill. This legislation raises several concerns. First, although the unemployment rate has recently risen, it remains below the levels historically relied on to justify a federally financed extension of unemployment benefits. The last initiation of temporary extended benefits was in 2002 amidst the unprecedented events surrounding September 11, 2001. Other than that special case, extensions have generally been granted only when the unemployment rate was notably higher than it is today, at or above 7 percent. Second, this bill would allow the payment of up to 13 extra weeks of benefits in every State, even though some of those States have unemployment rates as low as 2.6 percent. At present, a majority of States have unemployment rates at or below 5 percent, and it is fiscally irresponsible to provide extra benefits in States with low unemployment rates. In States with higher unemployment rates, the Federal-State extended benefits program already can provide up to 13 additional weeks of benefits to workers who have exhausted their regular unemployment insurance benefits. As many economists have noted, the counterproductive result of a broad extension of benefits would be that recipients may remain unemployed for slightly longer than they would have otherwise. Third, this bill does not contain an important provision found in previous Federal extensions and the permanent Federal-State extended benefits law that assures the benefit extension is paid only to individuals who have demonstrated a serious attachment to the labor force. Since 1981, individuals must have 20 weeks of full-time employment to qualify for extended unemployment benefits. Under this bill, individuals who have worked as little as two weeks could qualify for up to 52 weeks of total unemployment benefits. This violates the longstanding requirement that extended benefits should be for Americans with meaningful work histories. Fourth, for purposes of determining whether a State is considered a ``high unemployment'' State in which an extra 13 weeks of benefits is payable (for a total of 26 weeks of additional benefits), this proposal would use a total unemployment rate of 6 percent as the trigger for State eligibility. This is, historically, a relatively low number for justifying a full year or more of unemployment benefits. As an alternative to these ill-targeted and costly measures, the Administration could support legislation that would offer a 13-week extension of Federally financed unemployment benefits to high-unemployment States alone. Mr. Speaker, again, I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill so that it can be brought back under a rule that allows the House to work its will and provides an opportunity to include a commonsense work requirement that does not pay a full year of benefits to someone who may have worked for as little as 2 weeks. With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I would note that most House Republicans and the administration have stated that we all support an extension of unemployment benefits. In fact, the letter we just placed in the Record says the administration would sign into law a 13-week extension that is targeted, providing the extended benefits that we all would like to see. Mr. Speaker, as I prepare to yield to my good friend from Michigan, I would note that, again, the legislation before us is a radical change which eliminates the 20-week work requirement to qualify for a full 12 months of unemployment benefits, and that's why it's important we debate it, and that's why I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.'' With that, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlelady from the State of Michigan.

Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I would note the previous speaker referred to 6 percent as being ruthless. That's actually the formula in the majority Democrats' bill. So it was interesting that he criticized his own bill. I would also note to my good friend from Washington (Mr. McDermott) that Illinois is actually a State in which someone can work 2 weeks and actually, under the legislation that's before us, obtain 39 weeks of unemployment benefits. With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to a distinguished member of the House Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Brady.

Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, it's interesting as we debate this legislation that some have criticized targeted help for those who we would like to provide extended unemployment benefits for, and of course, the bill before us actually targets the final 13 weeks of a year's worth of unemployment benefits with a 6 percent trigger, and it's also interesting that a senior member of the Ways and Means Committee from Michigan, Mr. Levin, labels that 6 percent trigger for that targeted approach ``ruthless,'' a description that he uses to describe his own legislation. I would not use that word. Before further debating the legislation which eliminates the 20-week work requirement for extended unemployment benefits, Mr. Speaker, can you tell us how much time we have remaining on both sides?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I want to echo the majority leader's comments when I agree that this issue, the issue of extending unemployment benefits, should not be a Republican or Democrat issue. And we, of course, on our side of the aisle, want to extend unemployment benefits for those who need help. And we are prepared to work, as we have been, to achieve that goal. I would note that 8 weeks ago when the Ways and Means Committee took up this legislation, it was deemed emergency legislation. It had to move through the committee quickly. It was an emergency. We had to do it right away. Well 2 months later it finally comes to the floor. And I believe that if we want to be compassionate, if we want to help those who need help, we need to do it in the right way. And that is if it is an emergency, we should have done it 8 weeks ago, number one, but we should also do it in the proper legislative way of ensuring that it is a bipartisan bill and that we construct it in a way that recognizes what has worked in the past. And I would note, as the majority leader said, back in 2002, we passed a bipartisan unemployment extension legislation that was signed into law by the President, and it maintained a 27-year precedent which was that one should have to work for 20 weeks in order to qualify for 52 weeks' worth of unemployment benefits. And that is the big concern here with this legislation today. There is a radical departure from an established policy of 27 years of requiring 20 weeks of work to qualify for a full year of unemployment benefits. And the legislation before us today repeals that. It eliminates a 27-year precedent. Now, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.'' Let's bring this legislation back tomorrow, under a rule, and allow an amendment to be offered to strike this radical change. Again, Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote.

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

Mr. WELLER of Illinois

Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I rise today to enter into the Record votes I would have cast had I been present for rollcall votes 361 through 369. I was absent on part of the day Thursday, May 22, and Tuesday, June 3, due to personal reasons. If I were present I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall vote 361, ``nay'' on rollcall vote 362, ``nay'' on rollcall vote 363, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 364, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 365, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 366, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 367, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 368, and ``yea'' on rollcall vote 369.

Mr. WELLER of Illinois

Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I rise today to enter into the Record votes I would have cast had I been present for rollcall votes 388 through 390. I was absent on Monday, June 9th, due to flight delays caused by severe weather. If I were present I would have voted, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 388, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 389, and ``yea'' on rollcall vote 390.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this important initiative, the Merida Initiative, to combat illicit narcotics and reduce organized crime authorization legislation. I commend Chairman Berman, Chairman Engel and Ranking Member Ros-Lehtinen for their work in putting together bipartisan legislation that implements not only a bipartisan agreement but also an international agreement with our neighbor and our neighbors to the south. Ladies and gentlemen, think of it in these terms, if in the last few months the director of the FBI had been assassinated by narcotraffickers, think about it if the head of the Drug Enforcement Administration had been assassinated by narcotraffickers, think about it if dozens of police chiefs were shot down in the streets and murdered in their homes in front of their families, how would we as Americans react? Would we ask for help and want every resource we could put in place to go after those who committed those horrible crimes? Ladies and gentlemen, in Mexico, our friend, our ally, our partner in so many ways, that has been occurring, where the head of their counternarcotics program was assassinated, where police chiefs are being shot down, where the narcotraffickers have been so brazen they have publicly posted signs listing police officers and police chiefs that they intend to target for assassination, and at the same time, saying ``come join us. We will pay you better if you are in law enforcement today. Switch sides. You will be paid more.'' Well, today we have a President in Mexico, President Calderon, who decided to take the fight to the narcotraffickers. He has deployed 30,000 Mexican troops against narcotraffickers throughout Mexico, for the first time, and they have asked for our help. Both our friends in Mexico and our friends in Central America have asked our help with this fight. That is why this legislation is important, because we have an obligation to help our neighbors; because by stopping the flow of drugs it affects other issues, policy concerns many of us have talked about. Number one is the flow of drugs into our country. And if you care about illegal immigration, if that has been a point you have debated on this floor, you argued we have got to do something about illegal immigration, well, frankly, safe streets and communities in Mexico and Central America are vital to ensuring that families and their children feel safe in their own communities, rather than having to leave for the United States illegally for a safe place to live. And if you if you care about the arguments that many have made that narcotraffickers are crossing our borders and the Mexicans need to do more, well, they are. Again, 30,000 Mexican troops have been deployed against the narcotraffickers. Unfortunately, in many cases narcotraffickers are equally or better armed than the Mexican military. That is why this legislation is needed. That is why this legislation needs bipartisan support. I urge bipartisan support.