U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

22–104 2017

‘‘UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE: AN OVERVIEW OF 

THE CHALLENGES AND STRENGTHS OF TODAY’S SYSTEM’’ 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

SEPTEMBER 7, 2016 

SERIAL NO. 114–HR11 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Ways and Means 

( 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS
ii 

COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS 

KEVIN BRADY, Texas, Chairman 

SAM JOHNSON, Texas 

DEVIN NUNES, California 

PATRICK J. TIBERI, Ohio 

DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington 

CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, JR., Louisiana 

PETER J. ROSKAM, Illinois 

TOM PRICE, Georgia 

VERN BUCHANAN, Florida 

ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska 

LYNN JENKINS, Kansas 

ERIK PAULSEN, Minnesota 

KENNY MARCHANT, Texas 

DIANE BLACK, Tennessee 

TOM REED, New York 

TODD YOUNG, Indiana 

MIKE KELLY, Pennsylvania 

JIM RENACCI, Ohio 

PAT MEEHAN, Pennsylvania 

KRISTI NOEM, South Dakota 

GEORGE HOLDING, North Carolina 

JASON SMITH, Missouri 

ROBERT J. DOLD, Illinois 

TOM RICE, South Carolina 

SANDER M. LEVIN, Michigan 

CHARLES B. RANGEL, New York 

JIM MCDERMOTT, Washington 

JOHN LEWIS, Georgia 

RICHARD E. NEAL, Massachusetts 

XAVIER BECERRA, California 

LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas 

MIKE THOMPSON, California 

JOHN B. LARSON, Connecticut 

EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon 

RON KIND, Wisconsin 

BILL PASCRELL, JR., New Jersey 

JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York 

DANNY DAVIS, Illinois 

LINDA SA ́ NCHEZ, California 

DAVID STEWART, Staff Director 

NICK GWYN, Minority Chief of Staff 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES 

VERN BUCHANAN, Florida, Chairman 

KRISTI NOEM, South Dakota 

JASON SMITH, Missouri 

ROBERT J. DOLD, Illinois 

TOM RICE, South Carolina 

TOM REED, New York 

DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington 

LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas 

JOHN LEWIS, Georgia 

JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York 

DANNY DAVIS, Illinois 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS
iii 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Advisory of September 7, 2016 announcing the hearing ...................................... 2 

WITNESSES 

Michelle Beebe, Director, Unemployment Insurance, Utah Department of 

Workforce Services ............................................................................................... 45 

Walter Carpenter, MAI, CRE, President, Pinel & Carpenter, Inc. ..................... 20 

Judith M. Conti, Federal Advocacy Coordinator, National Employment Law 

Project ................................................................................................................... 27 

Cissy Proctor, Executive Director, Florida Department of Economic Opportunity ..................................................................................................................... 8 

MEMBER QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Rep. Joseph Crowley ................................................................................................ 71 

MEMBER SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Rep. Vern Buchanan 1 ............................................................................................ 101 

Rep. Vern Buchanan 2 ............................................................................................ 117 

PUBLIC SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Center for Fiscal Equity .......................................................................................... 121 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS

ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS
(1) 

‘‘UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE: AN OVERVIEW 

OF THE CHALLENGES AND STRENGTHS OF 

TODAY’S SYSTEM’’ 

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 7, 2016 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS, SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES, Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:01 a.m., in Room 

1100, Longworth House Office Building, the Honorable Vern 

Buchanan [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

[The advisory of the hearing follows:] 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS
2 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS22104.001
3 

f 

Chairman BUCHANAN. The subcommittee will come to order. 

Good morning and welcome to today’s hearing reviewing the 

challenges and the strengths of the Federal State unemployment 

insurance system. 

The purpose of this hearing is to highlight efforts being undertaken by those on the ground to address the program’s integrity, 

trust fund solvency, and successful reemployment strategies. 

Helping the unemployed to return to work as quickly as possible 

and preventing improper payments within the system will better 

serve employers who fund the system to keep taxes low, as well as 

workers who claim benefits by getting them back to work sooner. 

In 2015, more than 46 billion was levied from employers annually through State and Federal taxes to pay for benefits and program administration. Out of that, 32 billion in benefits were paid 

to 6.5 million beneficiaries. 

States are eager to do more to help the unemployed return to 

work quickly for the sake of workers and job creators. I am excited 

to hear from two States in particularly, Utah and my home State 

of Florida, who are rethinking the old unemployment office and 

transforming UI into reemployment systems. 

Florida has combined a number of agencies at the State level to 

create the Department of Economic Opportunity to provide its citizens with a more streamlined approach to services and even rebranded their UI benefits to be reemployed assistance. I am looking 

forward to hearing more from the department’s executive director, 

Cissy Proctor, about some of the innovative steps the State has 

taken. 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS22104.002
4 

As a business owner myself for 40 years, I know firsthand how 

important it is for a State’s financial house to remain in order and 

the consequences of raising taxes on a company’s bottom line. 

I am particularly pleased to have Mr. Walter Carpenter, a smallbusiness owner from the Orlando area, who will provide members 

with a first-hand account of how policies thought up in Washington 

truly impacts a firm’s ability to hire new employees and grow a regional economy. 

Finally, this hearing will also discuss the importance of properly 

targeting UI benefits to ensure they are going to the right person 

at the right time. In fiscal year 2015 alone, States improperly paid 

$3.5 billion in UI benefits or one out of every $10 sent out from 

the UI system. The Office of Management and Budget continues to 

designate the UI program under the annual list of high-error programs, and yet no real progress has been made to improve this percentage. 

To many States, UI agencies rely on discovering and then trying 

to recover UI payments after they occur. This pay-and-chase approach is costly, time-consuming, and wasteful. It also means that 

only a fraction of improper payments are ever recovered. Since 

States’ UI benefits are supported by payroll taxes on jobs, this 

misspending leads to higher taxes on jobs, reducing the very job 

creation the employee needs most. 

I welcome all our witnesses today and look forward to our discussion. 

Now I yield to the distinguished gentleman, Mr. Doggett, for the 

purposes of an opening statement. 

Mr. DOGGETT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, colleagues. 

Witnesses, we are pleased to have you here. 

Just as builders know to check the roof after a big storm to be 

ready for the next one, economic experts know that during periods 

of prosperity and job growth, like the one we are experiencing right 

now in most parts of the country, that is the time to make sure 

that our unemployment insurance system is ready for the next recession. We have accomplished much in this country, but we have 

never been able to totally suspend the business cycle, just as we 

don’t totally suspend hurricanes and storms, and unless we are 

ready, the problems will only intensify. 

Unfortunately, many States seem to be interested in tearing new 

holes in the insurance system, rather than getting ready for the 

next storm. Those State policies are dangerous not just for workers, 

but also for our national economy. 

Well-functioning unemployment insurance is our first line of defense in keeping economic downturns from spreading and worsening. As bad as the last recession was, it would have been far 

worse without unemployment insurance, and it would have been 

lessened had the efforts that Democrats made here in Congress to 

extend benefits for a longer period of time been permitted. 

Extended unemployment benefits prevented 1.4 million home closures between 2008 and 2012, and we know from economic studies 

that every dollar of unemployment benefits paid produced about a 

dollar and a half to $2 in additional economic growth, stimulating 

the economy and preventing other workers from being laid off. 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS
5 

Of course, we could have done much more had unemployment 

benefits been extended. The estimates are that we could have prevented the loss of about another 200,000 jobs. 

Unfortunately, the majority of States have ignored the lessons of 

the last recession. Certainly my State of Texas has ignored it, and 

they are not preparing their insurance programs for the next recession. Indeed, many are actively reducing the likely effectiveness of 

the unemployment insurance system. 

As of the end of last year, only 18 States in the entire country 

were prepared to pay a year of benefits in another recession. The 

rest of the States did not meet minimum standards of trust fund 

solvency. 

There are some significant exceptions that are doing their job. 

Utah, which is represented at our hearing today, is one of the few 

States that indexes its taxable wage base and has a solvent trust 

fund. My home State of Texas, like most States, would quickly run 

out of money to pay benefits in a recession. And while I am pleased 

to hear that Florida is continuing to improve the solvency of its 

trust fund, it has apparently done so largely by making collection 

of insurance benefits earned in Florida more difficult for unemployment workers to obtain than any other State in the country. 

Fifteen States have cut benefit levels, and the average unemployment benefit replaces significantly less than half of wages lost. 

More than 30 States have changed eligibility to end unemployment 

insurance altogether for some workers who receive other earned 

benefits or work in specific types of jobs. Nine States now provide 

less than 26 weeks of unemployment benefits, the lowest level in 

those nine States in about half a century. 

As the Government Accountability Office noted in a recent audit, 

with long wait times by phone and in person, abandoned calls, 

dropped calls, blocked calls, and long delays in claims processing, 

many States have also created practical barriers to the unemployed 

accessing the insurance that they are due to rely upon. This is a 

time when States are serving fewer workers and yet erecting more 

barriers. 

We all agree that the States should make their unemployment 

trust funds protected from fraud and errors. Individuals, employers, and identity thieves that steal from trust funds should be punished. But some States seem to have forgotten why they are safeguarding these funds, and that is to pay workers the benefits that 

they have earned when they collect them and need them. 

In addition, this Congress is failing to adequately fund the employment service, which plays a critical role in connecting the unemployed with new jobs and providing the skills necessary. 

The cost of a well-funded trust fund is reasonable for employers. 

Wyoming is a State that is doing its job. It has indexed its unemployment tax to maintain a steady trust fund balance and currently 

has the best-prepared trust fund in the country. And a Wyoming 

employer with a low layoff rate pays as little as $69 per employee 

per year in State unemployment taxes. As we saw in the last recession, the benefits of that modest investment for workers in our 

economy are substantial. 

It is time for some accountability from the States regarding why 

workers are not getting earned unemployment benefits and State 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS
6 

trust funds are in the red, in deficit, and not prepared for the next 

recession, and it is way past time for Congress to take some action. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman BUCHANAN. Thank you. 

I see the full committee chairman has joined us. The chair would 

now like to recognize Chairman Brady for his statement and questions. 

Mr. BRADY. Thank you, Chairman Buchanan. 

Does this work? 

I am more mobile than I look. 

Okay. Thank you, Chairman Buchanan, for holding this important hearing on our unemployment insurance system. Thanks for 

letting me join you for a moment. 

One of the most important tenets of the law is that it requires 

a person applying for and receiving Federal unemployment payments to be able to work, to be available for work, and actively 

seeking work as a condition for eligibility. 

In 2012, the bipartisan Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation 

Act was signed into law by President Obama with broad bipartisan 

support. It overturned an outdated 1960s era Department of Labor 

ban on States screening and testing unemployment insurance applicants for illegal drugs. Under the law of the land today, States 

are allowed but not required to test unemployment applicants who 

either, one, lost their jobs due to drug use or are seeking a new 

job that generally requires new employees to pass a drug test. 

In a world where more and more industries and careers require 

workers who are drug free, especially in security-sensitive professions with many directed, by the way, by Federal law, this important reform signed by President Obama made sound policy since 

then and continues to today. If you have lost a job due to drug use, 

you have established you are not fully able to work. If you can’t 

take a new job because you can’t pass a required basic routine drug 

test, you are not really available for work either. In both cases, you 

have forfeited your eligibility to receive unemployment payments 

subsidized by employers. 

Clearly, the intent of the 2012 law was that States could restrict 

benefits for such individuals who fail drug tests, as well as designed programs to help them overcome their drug use issues. 

This policy of reasonable State drug testing builds on the work 

of 20 States that already limit unemployment insurance benefits 

for people who refuse to take or fail an employer drug test or who 

have left previous employment issues with drugs. And according to 

a survey by the Society for Human Resource Management, more 

than half of all businesses drug test all their employees. So this is 

no longer the exception, it is the rule of the workplace. 

Upon enactment, my home State of Texas was the first to modify 

their State laws to begin the Congress-approved policy but was denied the ability to fully implement it because the Department of 

Labor was slow and had not yet issued regulations on the provision. Texas, by the way, has been awarded and honored by this 

White House for its work in matching local workers to local jobs 

through unemployment. 

In the four long years since the law was signed, other Members 

of Congress and I have met repeatedly with Labor Department and 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS
7 

White House budget officials, written letters to Secretary Perez and 

others, held congressional hearings, attended numerous meetings 

and conference calls detailing our concerns over the administration’s delays and widely panned draft regulations which prevent 

willing States and proven States from implementing the law as intended by Congress. Specifically, we thought the Labor Department’s proposed rule in 2014 fell significantly short of achieving 

the intended purpose and would all but guarantee the law was not 

implemented as Congress intended. 

In August of this year, over 4 years after the drug-testing provision was signed into law, the Department of Labor issued its final 

rule, which, similar to the proposed rule 2 years earlier, severely 

limited the ability of States to implement this important policy, 

harming unemployed workers in their quest to find new employment. The Department of Labor’s rule contradicts congressional intent, which aimed to assure employers that UI claimants reentering the workforce are truly able and available to work so more 

of them can be hired. 

Because I believe this administration reneged on Congress’ clear 

wishes to allow States to screen and test for drugs today, I am introducing the Ready to Work Act of 2016. This bill is consistent 

with the congressional intent from 2012 to fulfill the promise of existing law. It removes the role of the Department of Labor to determine which occupations should be subject to this policy. This bill 

seeks to give control back to the States where decisions about the 

administration of unemployment insurance programs involve both 

applicants and the businesses that fund the system. 

If you are unemployed and using drugs, are unable or unwilling 

to pass a basic drug test for a job that requires one, you are not 

ready to work and are not eligible under the law for unemployment 

payments. 

Once again, thank you, Chairman Buchanan, for holding this 

hearing, and to our witnesses who are here today to talk about 

ways we can help more Americans return to work quickly, to match 

those who are unemployed with businesses eager to hire them. 

This is an important issue. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. And thank you for allowing me to join you this morning. 

Chairman BUCHANAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Without objection, other members’ opening statements will be 

made part of the record. 

Today’s witnesses panel includes four experts: Ms. Cissy Proctor, 

executive director for the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity; Mr. Walter Carpenter, President of Pinel & Carpenter, Inc.; 

Ms. Judith Conti, federal advocate coordinator for the National 

Employment Law Project; Ms. Michelle Beebe, director of unemployment insurance for the Utah Department of Workforce Services. 

We will begin with Ms. Proctor. Please proceed with your testimony. Thank you. 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS
8 

STATEMENT OF CISSY PROCTOR, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY 

Ms. PROCTOR. Chairman Buchanan, Members of the Committee, thank you for having me here this morning. And good 

morning to you all. 

My name is Cissy Proctor, and I serve as the executive director 

of the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity. And I appreciate the invitation to be here this morning to talk about the successes we are experiencing in Florida and about the strengths and 

challenges of Florida’s unemployment insurance system, which we 

call reemployment assistance. 

For businesses and job seekers alike, Florida is a great place to 

be, because Governor Rick Scott and our legislature are committed 

to cutting taxes, reducing unnecessary regulation, and ensuring 

that Florida is open for business. Right now there are more than 

250,000 job openings across the State. Private sector businesses 

have added more than 1.1 million jobs over the last 5 years. Our 

unemployment rate is at a more-than-8-year low. Our GDP increase and private sector growth rate are beating the Nation. Our 

State has come a long way over the past 5 years and the private 

sector is confident in our future. 

During the Great Recession, our State’s future looked very different. Unemployment increased to 11.2 percent. Private sector 

businesses lost more than 900,000 jobs. Jobs demand continued to 

fall, as did home prices, the number of visitors, and the number of 

new residents that called Florida home. Our GDP dropped significantly, and our reemployment assistance claims reached 700,000. 

And for those who lost a job, reemployment assistance provided 

short-term financial assistance, but did not get them to where they 

really needed to be, which is back at work. 

During this time, newspaper articles were trumpeting Florida’s 

decline. ‘‘Is Florida Over?’’ asked the Wall Street Journal. 

So how did Florida recover from this recession and see headlines 

change in the Wall Street Journal to ‘‘The Model is Florida, Florida, Florida’’? 

Under Governor Scott’s leadership and commitment, he has provided unrelenting focus on job creation and getting every Floridian 

back to work. In 2011, one of Governor Scott’s first actions, in coordination with the legislature, was to create the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity out of three separate agencies that 

worked on community and economic development, as well as workforce development and their silos. 

The newly created agency’s mission became multifocused in these 

three areas to allow Florida’s growth holistically. So we are looking 

at it holistically with connections between workforce training, economic development, and healthy communities. As we know, a welltrained and ready workforce is key to ensuring economic development as Florida continues to grow. 

And with a strong emphasis on getting the State’s workforce 

headed in the right direction, the next step was to rebrand Florida’s unemployment insurance program as reemployment assistance. This wasn’t just window dressing. The goal of unemployment 

insurance is to be a bridge for individuals who lost their job 

through no fault of their own. 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS
9 

But what happens when you get to the end of the bridge and 

there is nothing there? We chose to change the culture in Florida 

to ensure that the bridge of assistance connects job seekers to reemployment. And we know the most successful way to get job seekers back to work is to rely on a strong statewide workforce system, 

which we have done in Florida. 

I would like to shift the focus a little bit now to talk about identity theft and fraud in public benefit systems. This criminal combination is a huge challenge for the reemployment assistance program in Florida, but it is not just a Florida problem. The Federal 

Trade Commission recently announced that more than 49 percent 

of all identity theft reported in 2015 was related to government 

documents and public benefits fraud, and that is up from 38 percent in the previous year. 

The fraud we are seeing is not just the traditional one-off case 

where an individual knowingly misrepresents eligibility for assistance. This fraud we have exposed is criminal, and it threatens the 

integrity of the reemployment assistance program. Organized 

criminal enterprises are stealing or purchasing this personal information on the dark Web and then using it to get into our systems 

and steal public benefits. 

We realized this crisis at our agency, and we realized it would 

quickly undermine the reemployment assistance program. In early 

2014, the agency’s IT and reemployment assistance teams 

partnered to develop and implement a new system that analyzes 

unemployment claims data and detects patterns of fraud in real 

time. The system is called the Fraud Initiative Rules and Rating 

Engine, or FIRRE, and the results that we have seen are stunning 

and far beyond anything we would have expected to find. 

In the past 21⁄2 years, we have stopped more than 110,000 illegal 

claims from being filed in Florida, which represents $460 million 

that would have been stolen from our system. And individuals may 

not even be aware that their identities are stolen as they are with 

the IRS tax returns when they file their claim or file for benefits. 

So fighting fraud is not only important to protect identities and 

ensure those who deserve to receive reemployment assistance benefits are getting them, but it is also vital to protect Florida’s unemployment trust fund. 

So how is Florida’s reemployment assistance program prepared 

for the future? We know that recessions come and go, and there is 

no doubt that another national recession will hit. The only question 

is when. So continuing to research innovative ways to help our programs run effectively and efficiently will take us through another 

recession and be able to continue to serve claimants while connecting them with employment opportunities in a local community. 

We know barriers to employment still exist, and we are working 

with our partners across the State on innovative ways to eliminate 

those barriers. 

Thank you. 

Chairman BUCHANAN. Thank you, Ms. Proctor. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Proctor follows:] 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS
10 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS22104.003
11 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS22104.004
12 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS22104.005
13 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS22104.006
14 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS22104.007
15 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS22104.008
16 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS22104.009
17 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS22104.010
18 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS22104.011
19 

f 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS22104.012
20 

Chairman BUCHANAN. Mr. Carpenter, please proceed with your 

testimony. 

STATEMENT OF WALTER CARPENTER, MAI, CRE, PRESIDENT, 

PINEL & CARPENTER, INC. 

Mr. CARPENTER. Chairman Buchanan, Ranking Member Doggett, and the Members of the Subcommittee on Human Resources, 

thank you for the opportunity to testify today. 

I am Walter Carpenter, president of Pinel & Carpenter in Orlando, Florida. I graduated from the University of Florida in 1975, 

and in the early 1980s, I was afforded the opportunity to become 

a partner in my firm. Pinel & Carpenter is a real estate valuation 

and consulting firm primarily providing professional services 

throughout the State of Florida. 

Both as an employer and an employee, I am humbled by the fact 

that many of my fellow workers have been employed with the firm 

for over 20 years, spanning my 41 years with the company. I look 

upon these workers and their families as an extension of our work 

family, recognizing they depend upon the decisionmaking and success of the company. 

As a small-business owner, the day-to-day challenges of successfully growing a business, meeting customer demands, managing 

employees, and monitoring Federal and State laws and regulations 

sometimes seems overwhelming. As an employer, I would like to 

speak to you today regarding three areas of the unemployment system I believe directly impact small businesses. 

First, the unemployment tax rate and the rate base, which depends upon the amount to be paid by employers, can have a direct 

impact on future hiring decisions. Depending upon the type of business and the claims experience of the employer, the tax rate can 

dramatically vary and during significant rate increases can actually have a negative impact on employment within a State. 

Secondly, as small-business men and women, we understand the 

importance of the unemployment system being primarily a State 

responsibility with successful solutions creatively solved at a more 

local level. As there are many differences from region to region and 

State to State, one size does not fit all, and an overall Federal solution may actually have unintended adverse consequences in many 

States. 

Finally, as an employer, I specifically understand the very important issue of the integrity in the employer-funded unemployment 

insurance system. During the downturn of the Florida economy, 

employers and employees recognized the value of the system that 

provided a short-term partial wage replacement for individuals who 

found themselves temporarily unemployed. 

As previously mentioned, the bottom line and cost tax rate paid 

by employers is closely monitored and watched in the State of Florida. Although the professional service company like mine may have 

comparatively low rates, I interact on a regular basis with other 

employers in the manufacturing and construction fields which have 

immediately felt the significant rate increase of the trust funds as 

they become depleted. Yet, as an employer, we can partner with 

our State government in formulating solutions which balance a 

rate increase with job growth by increasing funding through other 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS
21 

State programs to encourage companies to relocate to Florida or for 

existing companies to expand. 

Throughout the 2010, 2011, and 2012 legislative session in Florida, employers worked with the State to effect increases in the 

trust fund to adequately pay unemployment claims. The cumulative effect of these cooperative efforts allowed the borrowed 

money from the Federal Government to be paid back and the interest paid off in 2 years. The trust fund in Florida has rebounded to 

a once again healthy status and the employers are paying relatively low rates, which started in 2014 and continue today. 

In most States, the majority of job growth is generated by small 

businesses at the local level. Unemployment claims are paid out to 

individuals at the local level, and the revenue is generated to pay 

the claims through private employers within the State. The unemployment insurance program is appropriately designed to place the 

primary responsibility for the unemployment insurance system at 

the State level with the ability to borrow funds from the Federal 

Government on a temporary basis when State trust funds experience shortfalls. 

To effectively promote job growth and funding for new companies 

to relocate to Florida and for existing businesses to expand, the 

State considers what may be an appropriate maximum number of 

weeks in Florida for payment of unemployment compensation. 

Again, the State of Florida, working with the business community, 

has found that a sliding scale of benefits works well in our State. 

I do not believe a Federal one-size-fits-all approach when it comes 

to the trust fund is a proper to way to achieve creative solutions. 

Finally, as an employer who has contributed to the trust fund for 

some 40 years, I believe the integrity of the unemployment system 

is critical. Of utmost importance is the adoption of clear, straightforward administrative standards requiring that State law requires 

that individuals be able to work, available to work, and actively 

seeking work. 

As an employer, I believe continued improvement should be 

made in the methods used by State unemployment insurance agencies. The unemployment system is intended to be an insurance 

temporary payment program and is not a public assistance system. 

Again, I see this as a public-private partnership with the businesses providing the revenue to support the trust funds and each 

individual State maintaining the integrity of their State systems. 

Chairman Buchanan, Ranking Member Doggett, and the other 

Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to 

present my views to you. I appreciate your service, your time, and 

your consideration. 

Chairman BUCHANAN. Thank you, Mr. Carpenter. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Carpenter follows:] 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS
22 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS22104.013
23 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS22104.014
24 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS22104.015
25 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS22104.016
26 

f 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS22104.017
27 

Chairman BUCHANAN. Ms. Conti, please proceed with your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF JUDITH M. CONTI, FEDERAL ADVOCACY 

COORDINATOR, NATIONAL EMPLOYMENT LAW PROJECT 

Ms. CONTI. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Buchanan, 

Ranking Member Doggett, and Members of the Subcommittee. I appreciate the invitation to testify today. 

Since it was established over 80 years ago, the UI system has 

been one of the mainstays of our Nation’s social insurance system, 

and there is no better example of the importance of the UI system 

than the role it played in the Great Recession. In 2009 alone, UI 

kept an estimated 5 million people out of poverty and saved more 

than 2 million jobs. Over the course of the recession, it closed the 

GDP gap by nearly 20 percent. 

Unfortunately, as Ranking Member Doggett has noted, too many 

States have taken actions that have weakened the UI system since 

the end of the recession. And as a result, today UI recipiency is at 

historic lows and State trust funds are still largely unprepared for 

the next recession, which though not imminent is certainly inevitable. 

Today, I would like to focus on three key areas: State trust fund 

financing and solvency, program integrity, and reemployment services. 

Over the past three decades, rather than forward funding trust 

funds during good economic times, a majority of States have managed their programs with more of a pay-as-you-go approach, which 

left them woefully unprepared for the last recession. Thus, during 

the Great Recession, States had to borrow more than $141 billion 

dollars from the Federal Government to pay their UI claims. And 

then the States had to repay these loans, which was done with a 

mandatory tax on businesses, which they had to pay long before 

the recovery had really taken hold and they were able to pay those 

funds as easily as they could have during good economic times. 

Though virtually all States have paid back their loans, the programs as a group are still unprepared for the next recession. Only 

18 States have sufficient reserves to get through 1 year of typical 

recession claims and none of the 13 largest States in terms of UI 

meet that standard. 

Equally worrisome, because so many States have chosen to repay 

the debt by slashing benefits, we are not ready for the next recession in terms of the cushion that workers may need transitioning 

between jobs. 

But there is time to correct these problems, and the Federal solution is simple. We recommend that Congress gradually raise the UI 

taxable wage base over the next 6 years to $59,000, which is half 

of the Social Security taxable wage base, and we recommend that 

it be tied to the Social Security wage base after it. States and the 

Federal Government can then adjust tax rates in order to make 

sure that they are fair and sufficient to fund for the next recession. 

And I realize that the concept of raising taxes is anathema to 

some, but it is important to keep them in perspective. Currently, 

they represent only 0.6 percent of overall hourly compensation 

costs, a mere 21 cents per worker per hour, and it is a small price 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS
28 

to pay during good economic times for the income support and economic stimulus that they provide during recessions. 

With respect to program integrity, we need to be sure that we 

approach this in a balanced manner, not just talking about claimant fraud. In 2015, for example, just 2.9 percent of total payments 

represented claimant fraud. And, of course, as Ms. Proctor described, there is a larger fraudulent scheme that the States need 

to be adequately financed to deal with as well. 

A virtually equal percentage of overpayments, 2.7 percent in 

2015, were found to be due to agency error, and my written testimony details the levels of employer fault for overpayments as well. 

One of the single biggest barriers to better program integrity is 

the persistent underfunding of UI agencies. Their funding has remained flat since 1995, and it is at its lowest rate since 1986. They 

need to be better resourced to zealously pursue program integrity. 

They also need to be better resourced, as other witnesses here 

today agree, to better invest in high-quality and targeted reemployment services. There is ample evidence of their value to workers, 

employers, and State trust funds, which are held in trust by the 

Federal Government. Yet, in spite of that fact, in spite of the fact 

that the U.S. workforce grew by 36 percent between the years of 

1985 and 2015, funding for reemployment services has shrunk by 

61 percent over the same period of time. 

In order to correct this underfunding and ultimately save the UI 

trust fund’s money from shortened durations of unemployment, we 

recommend that Congress appropriate sufficient funds for the 

agencies to run vibrant reemployment services programs through 

their employment service. We also recommend that Congress make 

a one-time appropriation to help States update their UI technology, 

which will help them better administer every aspect of their program. 

Alternatively, Congress could consider funding 2 years of enhanced reemployment services through the Federal Unemployment 

Account, require that States put the funds they save in those UI 

payments into a type of escrow account, and then reinvest that 

once the 2-year period is over. 

I appreciate the opportunity to testify today, and I am happy to 

answer any questions that you may have. Thank you. 

Chairman BUCHANAN. Thank you, Ms. Conti. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Conti follows:] 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS
29 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS22104.018
30 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS22104.019
31 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS22104.020
32 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS22104.021
33 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS22104.022
34 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS22104.023
35 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS22104.024
36 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS22104.025
37 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS22104.026
38 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS22104.027
39 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS22104.028
40 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS22104.029
41 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS22104.030
42 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS22104.031
43 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS22104.032
44 

f 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS22104.033
45 

Chairman BUCHANAN. Ms. Beebe, please proceed with your 

testimony. 

STATEMENT OF MICHELLE BEEBE, DIRECTOR, UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE, UTAH DEPARTMENT OF WORKFORCE 

SERVICES 

Ms. BEEBE. Chairman Buchanan, Ranking Member Doggett, 

and Members of the Subcommittee, good morning and thank you 

for the opportunity to be here. My name is Michelle Beebe and I 

serve as the unemployment insurance director for the Utah Department of Workforce Services. 

To provide some background on Utah, the average individual in 

Utah qualifies for 22 weeks of benefits at $375 per week and stops 

filing after 12.3 weeks. Our duration and exhaustion rates are 

among the 10 lowest in the country, even with our relatively high 

wage replacement rate. Our State unemployment trust fund was 

one of only 15 to retain solvency during the most recent recession, 

and we are currently ranked as the fifth healthiest in the Nation. 

The recently enacted Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act 

has three primary points of impact on UI: Reemployment services, 

providing meaningful assistance when filing a claim for benefits, 

and using employer wage records to evaluate performance. 

Utah uses a triage approach in facilitating reemployment that 

leverages technology. Individuals filing a new claim are required to 

complete our online work registration and assessment. This includes participating in our State labor exchange, identifying their 

level of need, and utilizing online workshops. Individuals completing this process show a 26 percent increase in higher rates 

compared to individuals who fail to complete the process. 

A certain portion of individuals will find work regardless of our 

intervention. The key is to identify who would best be served by 

an investment in mediated services. This is addressed with a worker profiling model, which evaluates education and previous work 

history to identify the probability of exhausting benefits. 

Utah began participating in the original REA program in 2010, 

and we migrated to the new RESEA program in 2015. This extended the program statewide, and it focused Utah’s mediated outreach on efforts that were for individuals that were recently separated from military service and those identified in the probability 

model. 

Over a period of 5 years, individuals participating in the REA 

program have drawn $10.9 million less in State unemployment 

benefits controlled through the control group. When we account for 

administrative costs, Utah generated an estimated $5.8 million net 

positive return to the State trust fund as a result of the REA program. 

To provide assistance for those filing new claims, instead of inperson support at 31 one-stop centers across our State, we centralized our claims center, and we now operate with only 25 staff. This 

phone and online customer service delivery model includes an online chat feature and a help desk where staff in the one-stop centers can reach a claims taker in less than a minute. By leveraging 

technology, the hours of coverage and the convenience of access is 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS
46 

increased significantly. This is one example of a State using its resources effectively to accomplish the program mission. 

Congress designed the UI program as a Federal-State partnership. This ensures that the voice of local employers, who fundamentally support the payments of unemployment benefits through our 

State trust fund, is heard. Administration of the program is based 

on workload projections and historical operational costs for funding; however, the amount requested by States is consistently decreased in the final base allocation and has not been adjusted to 

include inflationary increases. This underfunding has shifted the 

purpose of the model to essentially having States compete with 

each other for ever-diminishing pieces of the same pie. States are 

left with limited means to pursue innovation. 

The demonstration projects that were created with the Middle 

Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act is one example of proposed 

alternative funding that showed an imbalance in that partnership. 

This allowed for 10 States to pursue projects to improve the effectiveness of reemploying individuals using State trust fund dollars. 

Unfortunately, the overly prescriptive nature of the legislation and 

the subsequent interpretation by the Department of Labor made 

pursuit of such an opportunity unrealistic and in the end no States 

applied. 

Administrative funding is limited and States need flexibility in 

order to achieve sustainability and to pursue invasion. States 

should be held accountable by their employer base—and by extension of Federal Government—to spend responsibly and with demonstrable impact. We exist to protect workers during periods of involuntary unemployment and to protect employers by preserving the 

skills of the local workforce. This can be facilitated with flexibility 

in the use of funding and by realigning the balance of the FederalState partnership to recognize the value of State innovation. 

Thank you to the committee for engaging in this discussion 

today. 

Chairman BUCHANAN. Thank you, Ms. Beebe. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Beebe follows:] 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS
47 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS22104.034
48 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS22104.035
49 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS22104.036
50 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS22104.037
51 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS22104.038
52 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS22104.039
53 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS22104.040
54 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS22104.041
55 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS22104.042
56 

f 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS22104.043
57 

Chairman BUCHANAN. I want to thank all of our witnesses for 

great testimony today. And I will begin with the questioning. 

Mr. Carpenter, you are a small-business guy. I am. I know I talk 

to a lot of different business people, and over the years some have 

told me if they paid $30,000 or $40,000 salary, when they add all 

the add-ons to it, FICA and all the other costs, UI costs, everything 

else, it used to be 20 percent, now it is close to 40, 42 percent. So 

when they hire someone for 50, it ends up being really 70 compared to an independent contractor or something else. 

So I guess I want to get your thoughts with the rising cost of insurance. I know you represent small business across the State as 

well and as a small business person. Ms. Conti had suggested raising the cost of unemployment insurance to small businesses, what 

impact would that have on your business and business in general 

in Florida? 

Mr. CARPENTER. Thank you, Chairman. 

I think any type of an increase in a cost center for a small business has an adverse impact. It requires an immediate increase in 

revenue, which is not always obtainable for a small business. And 

it is usually the cumulative effect of what people believe to be 

small incremental tax increases taken on a small business in totality is what has caused the problem. Oftentimes small integral increases in and to themselves don’t look big, but to a small business, 

multiple ones do. 

Chairman BUCHANAN. Ms. Proctor, I am so impressed with 

what has taken place with the current administration in Florida. 

I know we have gone from 11 percent unemployment down to 4 or 

5. And I know the governor and yourself have restructured a lot 

of it in terms of economic opportunity and UI and all these other 

agencies you merged together. Maybe you can take a minute and 

just explain to us, and maybe it would help other States as well, 

what Florida has done, because it is very impressive what has happened over the last couple of years. 

Ms. PROCTOR. Yes, sir. Thank you, Chairman. 

Over the last couple of years, since Governor Scott took office, 

the focus really has been on getting every Floridian back to work. 

We know that every job is important, and we know that if we support the private sector industry in our State and make sure that 

taxes are low and regulation is low, then there is going to be more 

job creation. Businesses are going to come where they are welcome, 

and if the taxes are too high, then businesses won’t feel welcome, 

just like individuals go where they feel welcome and loved. 

And so we know that and we see that all across the State. If we 

reduce the regulation and a business is able to open its doors sooner, then they are able to make that revenue sooner, they are able 

to hire more people sooner, and the economic impact of that is always felt at a local level. 

So it is very important that we focus not only on the job creation 

in the private sector, but make sure we support that with an environment that shows that businesses are very welcome in Florida 

and that Florida is open for business. 

Chairman BUCHANAN. And your thoughts just quickly on if we 

raise the UI fees that go to, companies have to pay small businesses in Florida, what impact would that have? 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS
58 

Ms. PROCTOR. So we have focused on cutting taxes, not raising 

taxes in the State of Florida. We know that every tax is money out 

of a business owner’s pocket, and we would rather them use that 

money to hire more people or give more benefits or use the money 

as they see fit. So we know that, as was just testified to, every tax 

increment adds on top of each other not only at the State level if 

we add taxes on top of other taxes, but there is also local regulation that has to be taken into account and a business owner will 

feel all of those. So we are focused on cutting taxes rather than 

raising them. 

Chairman BUCHANAN. Thank you. 

And I now would like to recognize the distinguished gentleman, 

Mr. Davis. 

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

And I thank all the witnesses for being here with us. 

Ms. Conti, let me ask, I am concerned about the unemployment 

safety net. Certain groups of Americans continue to struggle. For 

example, the unemployment rate for African Americans is 8.1 percent, much higher than the average. Further, 2 million Americans 

remain long-term unemployed, with African Americans, Asian 

Americans, and older Americans remaining jobless the longest. 

In Illinois, 40.3 percent of the unemployed were jobless for 27 

weeks or more, much higher than the average 27 percent nationally. Chicago’s local rate of employment is below the national average and other large urban cities. 

These high rates or long-term employment, plus the large number of disconnected workers, together with the lower-income jobs 

appearing after the recession, the lack of State trust fund solvency, 

and the tenuous economic health of certain States, suggest that 

any economic volatility in the global market could harm millions of 

Americans. 

What reforms do you think are needed to help these hardest-hit 

Americans now and to help the unemployed if global economic volatility increases in the next few years? 

Ms. CONTI. Thank you for your question, Congressman Davis. 

I think there are two tools that we have at our disposal. The first 

is more vibrant reemployment services, starting with, as Ms. Beebe 

spoke about, the worker profiling system. Utah uses it is to great 

effect, so they can meet a worker on that first week of unemployment and predict who is the most likely to exhaust benefits without 

getting a job and provide them with the intensive services they 

need to either find a job in that period of time or to move them 

into the publicly available training that is available through the 

Workforce Investment Opportunity Act. 

Unfortunately, far too many States don’t use the worker profiling 

system that Congress enacted in 1996, I believe it was, and the 

reasons are twofold. One is many don’t have the money to do it because there aren’t adequate appropriations for UI administrations. 

Some States, Utah probably being one of them, use some State 

money to help with this as well. 

But beyond that, I have also heard a number of State administrators express concern that if they use the profiling system too 

much and disproportionately, it is people of color, for example, or 

women who are turning up as the ones that are most likely to exVerDate Sep 11 2014 06:13 Feb 04, 2017 Jkt 022104 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 I:\WAYS\OUT\22104.XXX 22104

ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS
59 

haust benefits, they are worried about some sort of discrimination 

lawsuit. When I have spoken with folks at DOL, they don’t have 

any concerns like this. 

So I think it would be time for all of us, and this committee could 

help to facilitate that, to facilitate a discussion and perhaps a guidance of the best usage of worker profiling so that States can feel 

comfortable using it to the degree of success that Utah has. 

The other thing I would bring up, especially since you speak 

about disconnected workers, just recently, this summer, along with 

the Center on American Progress and the Georgetown Center for 

Poverty and Inequality, we released a fairly substantial large report about the ways we believe that the UI system should be overhauled in order to make it as vibrant as possible and protect workers, employers, the trust funds, and have that role in the economy 

we think that it should. 

And one thing we recommended was the institution of something 

called a job seekers allowance. It would be a means-tested, modest 

13-week benefit that people who are disconnected from work, people who have not earned enough money or been sufficiently attached to the workforce to qualify for UI, new entrants to the workforce, a small amount of money they can use to defray costs like 

transportation, resumes, wardrobe in order to be able to interview, 

child care if necessary for interviewing. 

And we think that this is something, and once you bring somebody into the system and give them this help and then get them 

connected with reemployment services, as well, or employment 

services, perhaps, in the first instance, when they have that extra 

cushion, when they have that connection to the workforce system 

and the employment service, we think that is going to be something that would be great at getting people who have either given 

up looking for work or disconnected people or folks who haven’t had 

a chance to get into the workforce system yet that opportunity. 

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you very much. And I would certainly agree 

that the Georgetown proposal, as well as some of the interesting 

things that the State of Utah is doing, would be very helpful. I 

have looked at this for a long time. So thank you very much for 

your testimony. 

And I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman BUCHANAN. Thank you, Mr. Davis. 

I now recognize Mr. Rice. 

Mr. RICE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I am so pleased to hear about the successes in Florida and Utah 

in particular and glad that the Federal Government has allowed 

States the level of flexibility they have, although I hear you, Ms. 

Beebe, that perhaps we need to allow States more flexibility for innovation so that we can continue to solve this problem. 

I think the best way to solve the problem is to have a better 

labor market. You know, we have got over 90 million people out of 

the workforce permanently, not looking for a job, because they 

could basically gave up, a large percentage of them. So the best 

way to help with reemployment is to create a tighter labor market 

where people don’t struggle, have such a difficult time to find job. 

And the way we do that under the purview of this committee is tax 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS
60 

reform and other things to make this country more competitive, in 

my opinion. 

But working with the economy that we have now, and the successes that you, Ms. Proctor, and you, Ms. Beebe, have seen in your 

various States, one thing I am curious about is, is there a State association or mechanism for the States to regularly get together and 

compare notes on successful programs and how these innovations 

can be shared with other States? 

Ms. Proctor. 

Ms. PROCTOR. Thank you, Congressman. 

Absolutely. And one of the things we like to do is we like to make 

sure we talk to other States. And we work regularly will Utah and 

with NASWA and make sure that our successes are heard not only 

in our State, but also in other States, because all of the States 

across the Nation are going to have different ideas, and we don’t 

always know what will work in one State. If it may work in Florida, it may not work in other States. But if it does work in Florida, 

there is a chance it will work in other States. 

And so we want to make sure we share that information as 

broadly as possible. We also want to make sure that we have a 

strong economy, because if we don’t have a strong economy and, as 

you were saying, a strong labor force and job market, then we are 

in a difficult situation. So the stronger our economy, the better 

these innovative ideas will work. 

Mr. RICE. And we certainly need a reasonable sinking fund to 

take care of the next recession. We will never completely do away 

with business cycles. But as you say, lower taxes yield a stronger 

economy and less need for unemployment insurance. So there is a 

balance in there somewhere. 

Ms. Beebe, can you tell me about any history that you have had 

with looking at other States and adopting any things that they 

have innovated or other States looking at your programs and 

maybe picking up some of your ideas? 

Ms. BEEBE. Yeah, absolutely. And I think the beauty of bringing 

States together is that you find what may have worked in Florida, 

while it may not have a direct translation to our State, there are 

pieces that are translatable to our economy and we can make it 

work for our local solution. 

Recently, the Department of Labor and the National Association 

of State Workforce Agencies called together representatives from 

both State unemployment programs and State workforce programs 

to talk about work search. We realize that this notion of checking 

off a certain number of contacts each week is not necessarily how 

people meaningfully find work. There are things like networking, 

there is how to use the Internet effectively. And so by getting together a group of different views within the same room and to talk 

through how can we reenvision work search so that it is more effective and also fits the requirements for the unemployment program. 

Mr. RICE. I am so impressed with the testimony you have given 

about the use of technology both for bringing people back in the 

workforce and screening people and then with the, I guess you call 

it, centralization of your unemployment ops where your experts are 

all in one area, you can use the chat feature that you were talking 

about. So often you hear about technology putting workers out of 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS
61 

work. You are using technology to put people back to work. That 

is a fascinating thing. So thank you for your service. 

I yield. 

Chairman BUCHANAN. Thank you, Mr. Rice. 

Mrs. Noem. 

Mrs. NOEM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And, Mr. Carpenter, in your testimony you talked about how one 

size doesn’t fit all. And I think in some of the questioning that we 

have already had today, the different programs that were talked 

about were not one size fits all. In fact, there are 53 different programs across the country based on what each State has chosen to 

do and offer. But for you as a business owner, tell me why it is important that you don’t have the same programs that another State 

may have. 

For me, I am from South Dakota and a small business owner, 

and I don’t know if the same program would work for South Dakota that would work in New York or California or Florida or Illinois. So tell us today why it is important as a business owner to 

have flexibility and have a program that may not be nationwide or 

federalized. 

But also, I want you to talk about Ms. Conti in some of her testimony talked about raising the threshold and potentially raising the 

amount of money that goes into these unemployment funds and 

what that would do to you and your business when that goes into 

place. 

Mr. CARPENTER. Thank you. 

Florida has different types of businesses than other States. So I 

think what may adversely impact another State with regard to employment may not have the same effect in Florida. So I think the 

greatest to overcome unemployment is to concentrate on employment and to provide job growth, and I think that is what Florida 

has done. 

So also, I think the innovation that you get with small business 

working with their State governments on how to adjust the unemployment system in their State, that creates a variety of those, that 

some will work in some States not in others. But that provides a 

large number of those through shared ideas to be shared rather 

than a top-down effect from the Federal Government. 

Mrs. NOEM. Do you have a specific provision or something that 

you feel like was implemented in Florida that made a big difference 

for you as a business owner? 

Mr. CARPENTER. Well, I think the biggest impact in Florida 

over the last 8 to 10 years has been the State working with small 

businesses on what is important with regard to job growth and the 

interaction of the State agencies with the university and the community colleges and working with small business so that the jobs 

and the skill set that small businesses need are actually introduced 

at the community college and the college levels to help the employment in the State. 

And I certainly don’t think that an increase in the wage level on 

unemployment is necessary. I mean, Florida lived through a tremendous recession, and its unemployment funds are back up to the 

level already that it was prerecession, maybe even a little bit above 

that. And that has been obtained within a short period of time and 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS
62 

was still done at the level that we have been at. So as a small business, I don’t think, at least in Florida, that is certainly not necessary. 

Mrs. NOEM. Ms. Proctor, how many weeks is your unemployment, your UI available? What is your program and the average 

benefit per week? 

Ms. PROCTOR. So right now we are at 12 weeks and it is specifically tied in statute to the unemployment rate. So as the unemployment rate drops and more jobs are available in our economy, there 

are fewer weeks available to get the supplement that is provided 

by the reemployment assistance program in Florida. 

Mrs. NOEM. Do you know what the average weekly benefit is? 

Ms. PROCTOR. The average weekly benefit, you can get a max- imum of $275, and most folks get a little bit less than that. And 

usually people stay on about 11 weeks is what we are seeing right 

now. 

Mrs. NOEM. Okay. All right. Great. 

Ms. Beebe, was there other—I know I don’t have much time—but 

was there something specific or another State that was doing something that caused you to look at your program and make a change? 

Because you are outstanding, your cooperation with other States. 

Is there something in particular that helps you get new ideas to 

implement or to try in Utah? 

Ms. BEEBE. I would like to be bring up the example of the State 

workforce development board as part of the Workforce Innovation 

and Opportunity Act. Utah is one of, I believe, 10 States that is 

considered a single State designee, so the workforce board covers 

our entire state workforce development. 

Mrs. NOEM. How is that funded? 

Ms. BEEBE. It is funded through WIOA dollars, employment 

services dollars. It has a variety of funding. 

And with the workforce development board, I was recently having a conversation with a group of employers about how to set up 

an ideal one-stop center. And it was interesting, we had an employer who has nine employees, they are located in a rural town 

called Price, Utah, and we have an employer who has 3,500 employees in an urban center, 1,200 of which are engineers, and the 

distinction of what these employers need for success. 

A hospital in Price, they found that they can find qualified candidates to come and get experience with their residency, but they 

will oftentimes leave once they have that 2-year period to put on 

their resume. And so in order to effectively recruit people for that 

location, they need to find people that have family ties to the location. And so this rural-urban unique situation is very, very important to have in the conversation. 

Mrs. NOEM. Yeah. Great. I am out of time. Sorry. Thank you. 

Ms. BEEBE. Thank you. 

Chairman BUCHANAN. Thank you, Mrs. Noem. 

Mr. Crowley. 

Mr. CROWLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for this 

hearing today. 

I think it is important that we have an understanding of the role 

that unemployment insurance plays throughout our country. It is 

there to help people through a tough time when they have lost 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS
63 

their job through no fault of their own usually. No one looks forward to unemployment insurance, in fact, when they are fired for 

no fault of their own. No one looks forward to unemployment insurance. I don’t have a constituent who says, ‘‘I can’t wait to be on unemployment insurance.’’ Unemployment insurance typically replaces a third or less of a worker’s income. 

What it does do is help people make ends meet between jobs so 

they don’t lose their home or have their children have to go hungry. 

And yet, we have seen States cut back unemployment benefits during some very difficult times for Americans. And there have been 

proposals to make it worse, not better. 

Primarily, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle fought us 

every step of the way when we tried to keep unemployment benefits going to the 3.6 million Americans who had not yet found work 

during the largest recession in our Nation’s history since the Great 

Depression. It seems corporate tax cuts are always on the table. 

When it comes to helping working families, they deemed unemployment insurance to be too extravagant. 

Ms. Conti, I would like to hear more about what you are seeing 

in the unemployment system and what we really should be doing. 

What are some of the reasons that people looking for new jobs, why 

is it they need income, not just job placement services? Does cutting off or blocking unemployment insurance benefits make it easier or harder to look for a job? 

Ms. CONTI. Most of the studies that you see show that it makes 

it harder to look for a job. Unemployment assistance is something 

that keeps people connected to the workforce and keeps them engaging and looking for the jobs. It provides people with the money 

they need to travel to job interviews, whether it is local, just using 

gas or public transportation, or perhaps crossing State lines or 

going to different cities. It takes care of child care for people when 

they are looking for jobs, wardrobes, all of the tools that we need 

for looking for jobs. 

Mr. CROWLEY. And by the way, Ms. Conti, it doesn’t pay for it. 

It helps. 

Ms. CONTI. Exactly. 

Mr. CROWLEY. Child care alone, unemployment insurance is 

not going to cover the cost for child care alone. 

Ms. CONTI. Right. The costs are astronomic. But if somebody 

loses so much of their income and there is no replacement and they 

have a young child that they can’t keep in daycare, for example, 

or can’t put in some sort of affordable and safe care while they are 

interviewing for a job, we hear all sorts of horror stories that there 

are low-income single mothers, for example, who have had to leave 

their children unattended to go look for jobs and then all of a sudden they are in the child welfare system. 

So there is a drastic cause-and-effect problem here and we need 

to be looking at it as a whole. 

Mr. CROWLEY. Holistically. 

Ms. CONTI. There are studies that talk about how when there 

are children in families that are suffering unemployment they have 

less educational achievement, that they really suffer as a result of 

it. 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS
64 

So unemployment is a real human waste. It is a human tragedy. 

Adults want to support their families. They generally want to work 

for a living. It can have a dramatic effect on an entire family unit 

and, in times of recession, on entire communities. 

So when we see States responding to solvency issues by slashing 

benefits so badly that we don’t believe they are going to be ready 

for the next recession and aren’t going to be able to provide adequate resources in times of heightened unemployment, it really 

troubles us for what we are going to see in the future. 

Mr. CROWLEY. It is remarkable, I think, in terms of where we 

have come in the last 8 years, and forgetting that this was the 

worst recession since Herbert Hoover’s Presidency and the Great 

Depression that really started in the Bush administration, was left 

in the lap of the present administration. 

But nine States currently offer less than 26 weeks’ unemployment benefits. When was the last time so many States gave workers so little opportunity to earn enough unemployment protection 

for themselves and for their families? Do you have an idea? 

Ms. CONTI. Not since before the Federal/State unemployment 

insurance system was founded. 

Mr. CROWLEY. And when was that? 

Ms. CONTI. It is over 81 years old. 

Mr. CROWLEY. Eighty-one years. So not since it has been founded has less been given to unemployed workers in this country who 

are looking for work. Is that correct? 

Ms. CONTI. Correct. And right now we have recipiency rates in 

the Nation of about 26 to 28 percent, whereas before the recession 

it was at 36 percent. There are a few States where recipiency is 

as low as 1 in 10 unemployed workers in the State, and that is not 

what we believe is an adequate safety net. 

Mr. CROWLEY. I have additional questions, but my time is running out, unfortunately, so I will have them in writing for you. And 

if you can respond in writing, we would appreciate it. 

Ms. CONTI. I will be happy to do so. Thank you. 

Mr. CROWLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman BUCHANAN. Thank you, Mr. Crowley. 

I now recognize Mr. Smith. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Chairman Buchanan. I want to thank 

the witnesses for being here. 

One thing we should all agree on is reducing fraud in unemployment insurance. When people defraud the system, the people who 

legitimately need our help don’t get access to the resources that are 

needed. 

As I traveled through Missouri during last month, I was completely shocked to read that a man from New Madrid County in 

southeast Missouri in our congressional district was convicted of a 

variety of fraud charges. Among other convictions, his actions resulted in more than $60,000 worth of fraudulent unemployment insurance benefits to some of his employees. 

Sure, I am pleased the authorities tracked him down and ended 

his scheme, but concerned how many more people in Missouri and 

throughout our country are out to defraud the system. 

Ms. Proctor, in your testimony you talked about identity theft 

and fraud in the UI program in particular. Given your experiences, 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS
65 

can you discuss the ways in which Florida has become better at 

identifying this illegal activity? 

Ms. PROCTOR. Yes, sir. Thank you very much. 

So what we found was that there was, back in 2014, something 

else going on in the system. It wasn’t just the traditional one-off 

where somebody may say that they are eligible for benefits and 

then we find out later that they are not, the cut of the pay and 

chase that the chairman was speaking of. 

What we found is that people were stealing identities from you 

name it. I mean, you hear about information being stolen from all 

types of systems all over the world and then being sold. And they 

were using those fake identities to come into the system and get 

benefits. And they can do that in Florida; they can do that all 

across the country. 

For instance, someone could come in and say they are me. They 

could come in and say they are Cissy Proctor and that they have 

lost their job through no fault of their own. And they probably 

know more information about myself than I do. You can buy the 

IP address, for instance, that I may file, may use to go on my online banking system. And they can buy anything they want. 

And so we found that that was very prevalent in our system, and 

we built an in-house system to fight the fraud. And so we have 

what is called, we call it our FIRRE system, that on the front end 

looks for patterns to see if the person who is coming in, for instance, and saying they are Cissy Proctor is not. 

For example, you may be able to file a claim in a very, very short 

period of time that a person would not be able to do it in, or there 

are a lot of other examples that we use to find this fraudulent activity. And then we keep it out of our system so that they are not 

given more information or access to the money or access to the system. 

And then what we have started to do is we have provided, people 

who we think their identity has been stolen, we have started sending them letters to let them know, because like my testimony earlier, unlike the IRS system, you may never file for reemployment 

benefits in Florida, so you may never know that your identity has 

been stolen. 

So we want to let these people know proactively, to give them the 

resources that they need. And so it has been a proactive approach 

on our end to make sure that we keep this identity theft out of our 

system. 

Mr. SMITH. What were some of the initial challenges whenever 

adopting that system? 

Ms. PROCTOR. We built it ourselves. And so it was the creation 

of a system in-house that looked at identity theft in a different 

way. It wasn’t looking at just blocking anybody from getting into 

the system, but we had to make sure that we were only blocking 

the folks that weren’t real. We don’t want to block somebody who 

is coming in the system legitimately to get the benefits that they 

are due. We want to only block the people who are coming in who 

have stolen identities, are coming in to steal money out of the Unemployment Trust Fund. 

So that was the biggest challenge that we had. And what we 

have implemented now on the back end is, if somebody has difVerDate Sep 11 2014 06:13 Feb 04, 2017 Jkt 022104 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 I:\WAYS\OUT\22104.XXX 22104

ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS
66 

ficulty, if they have difficulty authenticating who they are, or we 

have a question about whether or not somebody is using a false 

identity—for instance, you can buy a PDF of a driver’s license with 

your picture on it—and if someone was using something that we 

questioned, we now have an in-person verification option for people. We will call them in and they will come into one of our career 

centers. So not only can they authenticate who they are, but then 

they also can get the help that they need to get reemployed in Florida. 

Mr. SMITH. So what advice would you give the folks back home 

in Missouri, to adopt a system similar to Florida, or is there any 

other advice that you would give? 

Ms. PROCTOR. We work with States all across the country, and 

we are happy to, if there are folks in Missouri that would like to 

talk to our team, we can run them through a demo of our FIRRE 

system, show them what we found, show them what our technology 

does. And we have also for other States, we have actually run some 

claims through our system to show them what levels of fraud they 

may or may not have in their system. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman BUCHANAN. Thank you, Mr. Smith. 

Mr. Dold, you are recognized. 

Mr. DOLD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I certainly want to thank our witnesses for taking your time 

to come and help us with what we believe is obviously an issue 

throughout the country, and we want to make sure that those that 

find themselves out of work have an opportunity not only to get 

back on their feet but find employment again. 

And ultimately, as we look at the unemployment rate that the 

country nationwide says it is 4.9 percent, we all know that that 

number is significantly higher than 4.9 percent. At least back in Illinois, we know that there are a number of folks that have stopped 

looking for work. And I think that ultimately we want to find more 

people back into the workforce. 

Time and time again, Mr. Carpenter, I interact as a small-business owner with other small-business owners. Let’s say I have jobs 

available. I am having a hard time finding people to actually come 

take the jobs. And obviously the role that we want to see is, how 

can we get those that are dealing with our unemployment insurance to be able to marry up with employers. 

So, Ms. Beebe and Ms. Proctor, you obviously in your roles are 

working with your States. How are you engaging with small-business employers that are looking for work? And we recognize that 

a one-size-fits-all doesn’t work, but can you tell us real quickly how 

you are working with small businesses to get people back to work 

with local businesses? 

Ms. PROCTOR. Yes, sir. In Florida, we know that more than 65 

percent of the businesses in Florida have fewer than five employees. So the small businesses are really the backbone of our community. And so what we want to make sure is that there is an environment within which they can do what they need to do, which is 

run their own businesses. 

What is interesting and really great about the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity is on one side we have the ReemVerDate Sep 11 2014 06:13 Feb 04, 2017 Jkt 022104 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 I:\WAYS\OUT\22104.XXX 22104

ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS
67 

ployment Assistance Program, where we are trying to help those 

who lose their job through no fault of their own get back to work. 

So we have a whole system and network of career centers and 

State colleges and universities and private industry and charities 

that are working very hard in Florida to get people back to work. 

And on the other end we work with the business community, because we have the economic development programs for our State. 

And so we work with the chambers across the State, not only the 

Florida chamber but also local chambers, to make sure that we understand what the business needs are in our State and we can 

marry up the business needs with those needs of folks who are 

looking for a job and may need extra training. 

We also recognize in the middle is the communities. We want 

healthy communities. We want to make sure that the infrastructure is available in those communities to support the businesses 

and support a strong economic climate so that everybody who 

wants a job can get back to work. 

Mr. DOLD. Great. 

Ms. Beebe, do you want to talk just a little bit about what you 

are doing in Utah? 

Ms. BEEBE. Absolutely. So we have some formal and informal 

means. In terms of formal engagement with the business community, we find that that occurs through the State Workforce Development Board, where more than 50 percent of the representatives are 

from businesses across the State. 

We also have an Employment Advisory Council. So any time we 

are looking at potential policy changes, we take it in front of our 

group, which has five public, five employer, and five employee representatives, to make sure we are not developing government policy 

in a bubble. 

In terms of the informal means, we have workforce development 

specialists that are located around the State of Utah whose sole job 

is to engage the employer community in making that match between job seeker and employer. Finding a job in tech industry Utah 

County is going to be a very different experience from finding a job 

in the oil and gas industry in Duchesne County, and that local approach is important. 

Mr. DOLD. You also talked a little bit about triaging folks as 

they are coming in and using technology to be able to do that. Obviously, the opportunity that everybody is going to be doing the 

same thing, therefore, taking less staff time, actually freeing up 

staff time to be able to focus on those that might have more specific 

needs. 

Can you talk about how important it is to have the flexibility to 

be able to do things differently in Utah than perhaps a one-sizefits-all mentality coming from the Federal Government? 

Ms. BEEBE. Absolutely. And so by having that flexibility to identify what works best for Utah, we can use our resources where it 

is appropriate. I know that some States have selected to have an 

unemployment representative in each of the one-stop centers. And 

as individuals file for claims, they are meeting with them one-onone. 

By having the flexibility to use our resources, the claims process 

is standardized. We can do that centralized. The RESEA program 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS
68 

is not standardized; it is an individualized approach. It requires an 

individualized communication. And so by identifying what those 

needs are, we are able to have that tailored approach. 

Mr. DOLD. Well, I certainly appreciate that. 

And, Mr. Carpenter, can you talk just a little bit as a small-business owner how you have helped leverage or have leveraged what 

Ms. Proctor and her organization are doing? 

Mr. CARPENTER. Absolutely. I think the engagement of the 

State with the small businesses on what their actual needs are 

from an unemployment standpoint is utmost important. And it 

changes. I mean, it is not something that is stagnant. So that is 

an ongoing conversation with the State of what skill sets are needed in small businesses in our particular State as compared to potentially a different State, like Connecticut. 

Mr. DOLD. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. Chairman, my time has expired. I yield back. 

Chairman BUCHANAN. Thank you, Mr. Dold. 

The gentleman from New York, Mr. Reed. 

Mr. REED. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you to our witnesses. 

The questioning will go to Ms. Proctor and Ms. Beebee, because 

I believe you have implemented something I am very interested in 

exploring a little closer. 

The Theory of Constraints, as indicated in your written testimony, Ms. Proctor, can you articulate that a little bit more in detail? What are you looking for in there to make the programs more 

efficient, less duplicative in their efforts, and what are you seeing 

as the common barriers that you are identifying through the Theory of Constraints and solving with that practice? 

Ms. PROCTOR. Thank you so much for the question. We have 

worked very closely with Utah, who has implemented the Theory 

of Constraints across the State. And what we know is that we want 

to make sure that we provide reemployment assistance to claimants who are eligible in a timely manner. And how do you do that 

with a system that seems to eat up more workers and more IT and 

more money without really making a big difference and making 

sure that the people who are eligible receive that money timely? 

And so we went to Utah and have implemented the Theory of 

Constraints to make sure that what we have is a streamlined process. We make sure that the process runs without looking to new 

IT, without looking to additional money or staff time until we have 

streamlined the process as much as possible, and then we identify 

the IT needs that may help that process just take it one more step. 

And then if we need additional resources or additional dollars, we 

know that we have basically found in every nook and cranny every 

available resource in the agency that we can. 

I mean, one of the examples that we have really focused on with 

the team out of Utah and the Theory of Constraints is our first 

payment timeliness. We know that if we can pay claimants timely 

that it is an extremely important measure, and we haven’t been 

able to hit it in a long time. And just last week, we hit the measure 

and actually exceeded it. 

And I think the focus on making sure that we have a streamlined system, a process that works, when something goes wrong in 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS
69 

the system or we have, for instance, a hurricane like we just had 

where you may have disruption, we need to be able to manage that, 

and being able to manage that with a streamlined process makes 

much more sense than if it is duplicative. 

Mr. REED. So let me get to more of the frontline input, because 

obviously a lot of times sometimes folks in D.C. focus on their point 

of view from here. I am really looking for input from people on the 

front line. 

So, Ms. Beebe, when you are talking about looking at streamlining these programs within your agency, do you look outside of 

your agency? How do we deploy the Theory of Constraints, not just 

within the agency yourself, either economic development or workforce I believe is your agency, how do you deploy that beyond? Because if you are cutting checks to a claimant, are you using one 

central office in the Florida government in order to do that or are 

you doing that within your department and another department is 

doing it on another program, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera? That 

is duplicative, in my opinion. 

So how do you do that? Explain that to me. And what are you 

uncovering as you identify these points of constraints? 

Ms. BEEBE. Thank you for the question. And as Ms. Proctor 

said, it is not always about getting more money. I think that the 

fundamental aspect is engaging staff. 

Mr. REED. Within your agency or outside of your agency? 

Ms. BEEBE. Within agency to begin with. 

Mr. REED. How do you go beyond your agency walls? How do 

you get into those other silos? So that is one thing I have uncovered in looking at some initiatives we have taken. We have silos 

in government that don’t know and don’t communicate with each 

other. How do we break those barriers down so we are using the 

resources most effectively that are deployed in each agency for the 

purposes that other agencies may be able to tap into? 

Ms. BEEBE. I think that comes under strong leadership. One 

way that we have been able to engage outside of those silos is to 

address the issue of worker misclassification. We have found that 

our Utah Department of Workforce Services is often looking at it 

from an unemployment insurance perspective; our Utah Labor 

Commission is looking at it from a workers compensation perspective; and our Department of Commerce is looking at it from a business license perspective. 

By having a coordinated council that meets on a regular basis 

that has these open lines of communication, we are able to share 

tips and leads, we are able to share best practices, and we are able 

to collaborate on our communication streams so that we are not addressing it in a one-off. 

Mr. REED. And what has been your experience once you have 

done that? Has that been a positive experience or have there been 

negative experiences you can share, both positive and negative experiences, with us as policymakers? 

Ms. BEEBE. It has been very positive for us and we have seen 

incredible gains. 

Mr. REED. And why has it been positive? What has allowed it 

to be positive? 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS
70 

Ms. BEEBE. The sharing of ideas and the sharing of tips and 

leads. Information disclosure is so important when it is done in a 

controlled manner in respect to the confidentiality of the data that 

we are sharing. 

Mr. REED. Okay. And what have been negatives? I have got 5 

seconds. Any negative experiences? 

Ms. BEEBE. Negative experience, I think it is the challenges of 

working with larger groups, and those are overcome with strong 

leadership and open communication pathways. 

Mr. REED. I appreciate that input. 

With that, I yield back. My time has expired. 

Chairman BUCHANAN. Thank you, Mr. Reed. 

I would just like to thank all of our witnesses. 

And I know my personal experiences, seeing the administration 

in Florida, the focus has been on jobs and creating jobs. You can’t 

create jobs unless you have successful small businesses. And I 

think that is one of the reasons that we have had so much success 

the last four or five years in Florida, because we talked earlier, it 

is about the culture that has been created. Focus on small business, it will get you the jobs and keep full employment, which is 

the goal. 

But thanks for your thoughts and ideas today. 

Please be advised that members will have 2 weeks to submit 

written questions to be answered later in writing. Those questions 

and your answers will be made part of the formal hearing record. 

Chairman BUCHANAN. With that, the subcommittee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:18 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS
71 

Member Questions For The Record 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS22104.044
72 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS22104.045 22104.046
73 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS22104.047
74 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS22104.048
75 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS22104.049
76 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS22104.050
77 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS22104.051
78 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS22104.052
79 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS22104.053
80 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS22104.054
81 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS22104.055
82 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS22104.056
83 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS22104.057
84 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS22104.058 22104.059
85 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS22104.060 22104.061
86 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS22104.062 22104.063
87 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS22104.064 22104.065
88 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS22104.066 22104.067
89 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS22104.068 22104.069
90 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS22104.070 22104.071
91 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS22104.072 22104.073
92 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS22104.074 22104.075
93 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS22104.076 22104.077
94 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS22104.078 22104.079
95 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS22104.080 22104.081
96 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS22104.082
97 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS22104.083
98 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS22104.084
99 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS22104.085
100 

f 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS22104.086
101 

Member Submissions For The Record 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS22104.087
102 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS22104.088
103 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS22104.089
104 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS22104.090
105 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS22104.091
106 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS22104.092
107 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS22104.093
108 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS22104.094
109 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS22104.095
110 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS22104.096
111 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS22104.097
112 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS22104.098
113 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS22104.099
114 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS22104.100
115 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS22104.101
116 

f 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS22104.102
117 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS22104.103
118 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS22104.104
119 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS22104.105
120 

f 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS22104.106
121 

Public Submissions For The Record 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS22104.107
122 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS22104.108
123 

Æ 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with HEARINGS22104.109