99–006 

112TH CONGRESS REPT. 112–87 " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session Part 1 

JOBS ACT OF 2011 

MAY 23, 2011.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of 

the Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. CAMP, from the Committee on Ways and Means, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

DISSENTING VIEWS 

[To accompany H.R. 1745] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on Ways and Means, to whom was referred the 

bill (H.R. 1745) to improve jobs, opportunity, benefits, and services 

for unemployed Americans, and for other purposes, having considered the same, report favorably thereon with an amendment and 

recommend that the bill as amended do pass. 

The amendment is as follows: 

Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following: 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS. 

(a) SHORT TITLE.—This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Jobs, Opportunity, Benefits, and 

Services Act of 2011’’ or the ‘‘JOBS Act of 2011’’. 

(b) TABLE OF CONTENTS.—The table of contents of this Act is as follows: 

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents. 

TITLE I—REFORMS OF UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION TO PROMOTE WORK AND JOB CREATION 

Sec. 101. Consistent job search requirements. 

Sec. 102. Participation in reemployment services made a condition of benefit receipt. 

Sec. 103. State flexibility to promote the reemployment of unemployed workers. 

Sec. 104. Repeal of regulation requiring higher State taxes. 

Sec. 105. Restore State flexibility to improve unemployment program solvency. 

Sec. 106. Data standardization for improved data matching. 

Sec. 107. Technical and conforming amendments. 

TITLE II—FORWARD FUNDING OF REMAINING FEDERAL UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION FUNDS 

Sec. 201. Special transfers to all States. 

Sec. 202. Emergency unemployment compensation transition rules. 

Sec. 203. Extended benefits program transition rules. 

Sec. 204. Emergency designation. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
2 

TITLE I—REFORMS OF UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION TO PROMOTE WORK AND JOB 

CREATION 

SEC. 101. CONSISTENT JOB SEARCH REQUIREMENTS. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 303(a) of the Social Security Act is amended by adding 

at the end the following: 

‘‘(11)(A) A requirement that, as a condition of eligibility for regular compensation for any week, a claimant must be able to work, available to work, and actively seeking work. 

‘‘(B) For purposes of this paragraph, the term ‘actively seeking work’ means, 

with respect to any individual, that such individual is actively engaged in a systematic and sustained effort to obtain work, as determined based on evidence 

(whether in electronic format or otherwise) satisfactory to the State agency 

charged with the administration of the State law. 

‘‘(C) The specific requirements that must be met in order to satisfy this paragraph shall be established by the State agency, and shall include at least the 

following: 

‘‘(i) Registration for employment services within 14 days after making initial application for regular compensation. 

‘‘(ii) Posting a resume, record, or other application for employment on 

such database as the State agency may require. 

‘‘(iii) Applying, in such manner as the State agency may require, for work 

which is similar to that previously performed by the individual, and which 

offers wages comparable to wages for similar work in the local labor market 

in which the individual resides or is actively seeking work.’’. 

(b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by subsection (a) shall apply to 

weeks beginning after the end of the first session of the State legislature which begins after the date of enactment of this Act. 

SEC. 102. PARTICIPATION IN REEMPLOYMENT SERVICES MADE A CONDITION OF BENEFIT RECEIPT. 

(a) SOCIAL SECURITY ACT.—Paragraph (10) of section 303(a) of the Social Security 

Act is amended to read as follows: 

‘‘(10)(A) A requirement that, as a condition of eligibility for regular compensation for any week— 

‘‘(i) a claimant shall meet the minimum educational requirements set 

forth in subparagraph (B); and 

‘‘(ii) any claimant who has been referred to reemployment services shall 

participate in such services. 

‘‘(B) For purposes of this paragraph, an individual shall not be considered to 

have met the minimum educational requirements of this subparagraph unless 

such individual— 

‘‘(i) has earned a high school diploma; 

‘‘(ii) has earned the General Educational Development (GED) credential 

or other State-recognized equivalent (including by meeting recognized alternative standards for individuals with disabilities); or 

‘‘(iii) is enrolled and making satisfactory progress in classes leading to 

satisfaction of clause (ii). 

‘‘(C) The requirements of subparagraph (B) may be waived for an individual 

to the extent that the State agency charged with the administration of the State 

law deems such requirements to be unduly burdensome in the case of such individual.’’. 

(b) INTERNAL REVENUE CODE OF 1986.—Paragraph (8) of section 3304(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended to read as follows: 

‘‘(8) compensation shall not be denied to an individual for any week in which 

the individual is enrolled and making satisfactory progress in education or 

training which has been previously approved by the State agency;’’. 

(c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by this section shall apply to weeks 

beginning after the end of the first session of the State legislature which begins 

after the date of enactment of this Act. 

SEC. 103. STATE FLEXIBILITY TO PROMOTE THE REEMPLOYMENT OF UNEMPLOYED WORKERS. 

Title III of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 501 and following) is amended by 

adding at the end the following: 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
3 

‘‘DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS

‘‘SEC. 305. (a) The Secretary of Labor may enter into agreements, with States submitting an application described in subsection (b), for the purpose of allowing such 

States to conduct demonstration projects to test and evaluate measures designed— 

‘‘(1) to expedite the reemployment of individuals who establish initial eligibility for unemployment compensation under the State law of such State; or 

‘‘(2) to improve the effectiveness of a State in carrying out its State law with 

respect to reemployment. 

‘‘(b) The Governor of any State desiring to conduct a demonstration project under 

this section shall submit an application to the Secretary of Labor. Any such application shall, at a minimum, include— 

‘‘(1) a general description of the proposed demonstration project, including the 

authority (under the laws of the State) for the measures to be tested, as well 

as the period of time during which such demonstration project would be conducted; 

‘‘(2) if a waiver under subsection (c) is requested, the specific aspects of the 

project to which the waiver would apply and the reasons why such waiver is 

needed; 

‘‘(3) a description of the goals and the expected programmatic outcomes of the 

demonstration project, including how the project would contribute to the objective described in subsection (a)(1), subsection (a)(2), or both; 

‘‘(4) assurances (accompanied by supporting analysis) that the demonstration 

project would not result in any increased net costs to the State’s account in the 

Unemployment Trust Fund; 

‘‘(5) a description of the manner in which the State— 

‘‘(A) will conduct an impact evaluation, using a control or comparison 

group or other valid methodology, of the demonstration project; and 

‘‘(B) will determine the extent to which the goals and outcomes described 

in paragraph (3) were achieved; and 

‘‘(6) assurances that the State will provide any reports relating to the demonstration project, after its approval, as the Secretary of Labor may require. 

‘‘(c) The Secretary of Labor may waive any of the requirements of section 

3304(a)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 or of paragraph (1) or (5) of section 

303(a), to the extent and for the period the Secretary of Labor considers necessary 

to enable the State to carry out a demonstration project under this section. 

‘‘(d) A demonstration project under this section— 

‘‘(1) may be commenced any time after the date of enactment of this section; 

and 

‘‘(2) may not be approved for a period of time greater than 3 years, subject 

to extension upon request of the Governor of the State involved for such additional period as the Secretary of Labor may agree to, except that in no event 

may a demonstration project under this section be conducted after the end of 

the 5-year period beginning on the date of enactment of this section. 

‘‘(e) The Secretary of Labor shall, in the case of any State for which an application 

is submitted under subsection (b)— 

‘‘(1) notify the State as to whether such application has been approved or denied within 30 days after receipt of a complete application; and 

‘‘(2) provide public notice of the decision within 10 days after providing notification to the State in accordance with paragraph (1). 

Public notice under paragraph (2) may be provided through the Internet or other 

appropriate means. Any application under this section that has not been denied 

within such 30 days shall be deemed approved, and public notice of any approval 

under this sentence shall be provided within 10 days thereafter. 

‘‘(f) The Secretary of Labor may terminate a demonstration project under this section if the Secretary makes a final determination that the State has violated the 

substantive terms or conditions of the project.’’. 

SEC. 104. REPEAL OF REGULATION REQUIRING HIGHER STATE TAXES. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1202(b)(2) of the Social Security Act is amended— 

(1) in subparagraph (A), by inserting ‘‘and’’ at the end; 

(2) in subparagraph (B), by striking ‘‘, and’’ and inserting a period; and 

(3) by striking subparagraph (C). 

(b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by subsection (a) shall take effect 

as of the date of enactment of this Act. 

SEC. 105. RESTORE STATE FLEXIBILITY TO IMPROVE UNEMPLOYMENT PROGRAM SOLVENCY. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Subsection (g) of section 4001 of the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2008 (Public Law 110–252; 26 U.S.C. 3304 note) is repealed. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
4 

(b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by subsection (a) shall take effect as 

of the date of enactment of this Act. 

SEC. 106. DATA STANDARDIZATION FOR IMPROVED DATA MATCHING. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Title IX of the Social Security Act is amended by adding at the 

end the following: 

‘‘DATA STANDARDIZATION FOR IMPROVED DATA MATCHING

‘‘Standard Data Elements 

‘‘SEC. 911. (a)(1) The Secretary of Labor, in consultation with an interagency work 

group established by the Office of Management and Budget, and considering State 

perspectives, shall, by rule, designate standard data elements for any category of 

information required under title III or this title. 

‘‘(2) The standard data elements designated under paragraph (1) shall, to the extent practicable, be nonproprietary and interoperable. 

‘‘(3) In designating standard data elements under this subsection, the Secretary 

of Labor shall, to the extent practicable, incorporate— 

‘‘(A) interoperable standards developed and maintained by an international 

voluntary consensus standards body, as defined by the Office of Management 

and Budget, such as the International Organization for Standardization; 

‘‘(B) interoperable standards developed and maintained by intergovernmental 

partnerships, such as the National Information Exchange Model; and 

‘‘(C) interoperable standards developed and maintained by Federal entities 

with authority over contracting and financial assistance, such as the Federal 

Acquisition Regulations Council. 

‘‘Data Standards for Reporting 

‘‘(b)(1) The Secretary of Labor, in consultation with an interagency work group established by the Office of Management and Budget, and considering State government perspectives, shall, by rule, designate data reporting standards to govern the 

reporting required under title III or this title. 

‘‘(2) The data reporting standards required by paragraph (1) shall, to the extent 

practicable— 

‘‘(A) incorporate a widely-accepted, non-proprietary, searchable, computerreadable format; 

‘‘(B) be consistent with and implement applicable accounting principles; and 

‘‘(C) be capable of being continually upgraded as necessary. 

‘‘(3) In designating reporting standards under this subsection, the Secretary of 

Labor shall, to the extent practicable, incorporate existing nonproprietary standards, such as the eXtensible Business Reporting Language.’’. 

(b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by this section shall apply after September 30, 2012 . 

SEC. 107. TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENTS. 

(a) USE OF UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION TO REPAY OVERPAYMENTS.—Section 

3304(a)(4)(D) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and section 303(g)(1) of the Social Security Act are amended by striking ‘‘may’’ and inserting ‘‘shall’’. 

(b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by subsection (a) shall apply to 

weeks beginning after the end of the first session of the State legislature which begins after the date of enactment of this Act. 

TITLE II—FORWARD FUNDING OF REMAINING 

FEDERAL UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION 

FUNDS 

SEC. 201. SPECIAL TRANSFERS TO ALL STATES. 

(a) SPECIAL TRANSFERS IN FISCAL YEARS 2011 AND 2012.—Section 903 of the Social Security Act is amended by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘Special Transfers in Fiscal Years 2011 and 2012 

‘‘(h)(1) The Secretary of the Treasury shall transfer (as of the dates determined 

under paragraph (4)) from the extended unemployment compensation account to the 

account of each State in the Unemployment Trust Fund the amount determined 

with respect to such State under paragraph (2). 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
5 

‘‘(2)(A) The amount to be transferred to a State under this subsection in any fiscal 

year is the amount derived by multiplying the applicable total dollar amount for 

such fiscal year by the applicable fraction for such State. 

‘‘(B) For purposes of subparagraph (A), the applicable total dollar amount is— 

‘‘(i) for fiscal year 2011, $12,800,000,000; and 

‘‘(ii) for fiscal year 2012, $18,200,000,000. 

‘‘(C) For purposes of subparagraph (A), the applicable fraction for a State is a fraction— 

‘‘(i) the numerator of which is the total amount of extended compensation and 

emergency unemployment compensation paid out by such State for weeks beginning in the 12-month period described in clause (ii); and 

‘‘(ii) the denominator of which is the total amount of extended compensation 

and emergency unemployment compensation paid out by all States for weeks 

beginning in the most recent 12-month period for which that information is 

available for all States as of May 1, 2011. 

‘‘(3)(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), amounts transferred to a State 

account pursuant to this subsection shall be used only in the payment of extended 

compensation and emergency unemployment compensation, in accordance with applicable provisions of Federal and State law (including agreements and implementing regulations) as in effect on May 1, 2011. 

‘‘(B) A State may, pursuant to specific legislation enacted by the legislative body 

of the State after the date of enactment of the JOBS Act of 2011, use money transferred to the State account of such State under this subsection for (i) the payment 

of unemployment compensation, (ii) the repayment of advances made to such State 

under section 1201 (including interest thereon), and (iii) reemployment services designed to enhance the rapid reemployment of unemployed workers (such as mandatory workshops, claimant assessments, resume preparation and job search assistance, wage subsidy programs, eligibility reviews, labor market information, development of a work-search plan, and training), if and only if— 

‘‘(I) the purposes and amounts are specified in the law; 

‘‘(II) the money is withdrawn and expended, for the purpose described in 

clause (i), (ii), or (iii) (as the case may be), after the date of enactment of the 

law; and 

‘‘(III) the use of the money is accounted for in accordance with standards established by the Secretary of Labor. 

‘‘(4) Transfers under this subsection shall— 

‘‘(A) to the extent that they relate to the amount set forth in paragraph 

(2)(B)(i), be made within 10 days after the date of enactment of this subsection; 

and 

‘‘(B) to the extent that they relate to the amount set forth in paragraph 

(2)(B)(ii), be made after September 30, 2011, and on or before October 10, 

2011.’’. 

(b) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in section 903(b) of the Social Security Act 

shall be considered to apply with respect to any transfer under section 903(h) of 

such Act (as amended by this section). 

(c) REGULATIONS.—The Secretary of Labor may prescribe any operating instructions or regulations necessary to carry out this section and the amendment made 

by this section. 

SEC. 202. EMERGENCY UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION TRANSITION RULES. 

(a) REPEAL.—Section 4003 of the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2008 is repealed. 

(b) FINANCING.—Section 4004(e)(1) of the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2008 

is amended— 

(1) in subparagraph (F), by striking ‘‘and’’ after the semicolon; and 

(2) by adding after subparagraph (G) the following: 

‘‘(H) the amendment made by section 201 of the Jobs, Opportunity, Benefits, and Services Act of 2011; and’’. 

(c) EFFECTIVE DATE OF REPEAL.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—The amendment made by subsection (a) shall be effective 

with respect to weeks ending after July 6, 2011. 

(2) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this subsection shall be considered 

to affect the reimbursability of any emergency unemployment compensation 

paid for a week ending before July 7, 2011. 

SEC. 203. EXTENDED BENEFITS PROGRAM TRANSITION RULES. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 2005 of the Assistance for Unemployed Workers and 

Struggling Families Act, as contained in Public Law 111–5 (26 U.S.C. 3304 note), 

is amended— 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
6 

(1) in subsection (a), by striking ‘‘January 4, 2012’’ and inserting ‘‘July 6, 

2011’’; 

(2) in subsection (b), by striking ‘‘January 4, 2012’’ and inserting ‘‘the date 

of enactment of the JOBS Act of 2011’’; and 

(3) by striking subsection (c). 

(b) TERMINATION OF PROVISIONS RELATING TO TEMPORARY MODIFICATION OF EX- TENDED BENEFIT INDICATORS.—Section 203 of the Federal-State Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 1970, as amended by section 502 of the Tax Relief, 

Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010 (Public 

Law 111-312; 124 Stat. 3307), is amended— 

(1) in subsection (d) (in the next to last sentence), by striking ‘‘December 31, 

2011’’ and inserting ‘‘June 30, 2011’’; and 

(2) in subsection (f)(2), by striking ‘‘December 31, 2011’’ and inserting ‘‘June 

30, 2011’’. 

(c) SAVINGS PROVISION.—In the case of any State law which, as of the date of enactment of this Act, has been amended in conformance with the amendments made 

by subsection (a) or (b) of section 502 of the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance 

Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-312; 124 Stat. 3307) 

and section 2005(a) of the Assistance for Unemployed Workers and Struggling Families Act (Public Law 111-5; 26 U.S.C. 3304 note), the amendment made by subsection (a)(1) shall be disregarded for purposes of any provision of such State law 

which provides for a State ‘‘off’’ indicator or which otherwise provides for the termination of an extended benefit period by reason of the cessation of full Federal funding of sharable extended compensation or sharable regular compensation. 

SEC. 204. EMERGENCY DESIGNATION. 

The budgetary effects of this Act are designated as an emergency requirement and 

necessary to meet emergency needs pursuant to section 4(g) of the Statutory PayAs-You-Go Act of 2010. 

I. SUMMARY AND BACKGROUND 

A. PURPOSE AND SUMMARY

The bill, H.R. 1745, as ordered reported by the Committee on 

Ways and Means on May 11, 2011, would make important reforms 

to the Unemployment Insurance (UI) program designed to help 

more unemployed individuals return to work quickly, while also 

giving States new flexibility in using temporary Federal unemployment program funds. To achieve these purposes, the bill amends 

relevant unemployment provisions of the Social Security Act, the 

Internal Revenue Code, the Supplemental Appropriations Act of 

2008, the Assistance for Unemployed Workers and Struggling Families Act, and the Federal-State Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 1970. 

Specifically, Title I of the legislation includes several reforms of 

the UI program designed to promote work, education and training, 

and program integrity, while Title II ‘‘forward funds’’ remaining 

temporary Federal unemployment funds to States. In Title I, Section 101 sets minimum job search requirements in all States for 

the first time. Section 102 requires participation in education and 

other reemployment services as a condition of benefit receipt for individuals most likely to have difficulty returning to work. Section 

103 grants States new flexibility to operate cost-neutral ‘‘waiver’’ 

programs to promote faster returns to work for unemployed workers. Section 104 repeals a regulation that if left in place would result in higher State unemployment taxes on jobs in the years 

ahead. Section 105 allows States immediate flexibility to improve 

unemployment program solvency without having to resort to raising taxes, repealing a provision enacted in the 2009 stimulus law. 

Section 106 requires the U.S. Secretary of Labor to designate 

standard data elements for any category of information under TiVerDate Mar 15 2010 05:38 May 25, 2011 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR087P1.XXX HR087P1

smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
7 

tles III or IX of the Social Security Act, in order to improve Unemployment Insurance administration program integrity. Section 107 

improves the integrity of unemployment benefits by directing 

States to recover more unemployment benefit overpayments. Section 201 transfers $31 billion in temporary Federal unemployment program funds to States in an equitable distribution to all 

States while providing new flexibility in how those funds can be 

used to assist the unemployed. Given those transfers, Section 202 

provides necessary transition rules for one of the current Federal 

programs, the Extended Unemployment Compensation (EUC) program, while section 203 does the same for the Federal Extended 

Benefits (EB) program. Section 204 provides for an emergency designation related to the budgetary effects of the bill. 

B. BACKGROUND AND THE NEED FOR LEGISLATION

On May 5, 2011, Rep. David Camp (R–MI), Chairman of the 

House Committee on Ways and Means; Rep. Geoff Davis (R–KY), 

Chairman of the Subcommittee on Human Resources of the House 

Committee on Ways and Means; and Rep. Rick Berg (R–ND), a 

Member of the Subcommittee on Human Resources, introduced 

H.R. 1745, a bill to improve jobs, opportunity, benefits, and services 

for unemployed Americans, and for other purposes. The Committee 

on Ways and Means received the referral for the bill because the 

bill includes unemployment insurance provisions that fall within 

the jurisdiction of the Committee, including relevant provisions of 

the Social Security Act (SSA), the Internal Revenue Code (IRC), 

the Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2008, the Assistance for 

Unemployed Workers and Struggling Families Act, and the Federal-State Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 1970. The 

Committee found three primary problems with the existing Unemployment Insurance system: first, it requires reforms to better help 

unemployed Americans prepare for and find jobs; second, rising unemployment insurance taxes on jobs are hindering job creation and 

hiring; and third, current federal funds are both poorly targeted 

and lack the flexibility needed to help unemployed individuals return to work sooner. 

C. LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

Background 

H.R. 1745 was introduced on May 5, 2011, and was referred to 

the Committee on Ways and Means. 

Committee action 

The Committee on Ways and Means marked up the bill on May 

11, 2011, and ordered the bill as amended favorably reported. 

Committee hearings 

On February 10, 2011, the Subcommittee on Human Resources 

of the House Committee on Ways and Means held a hearing on improving efforts to help unemployed Americans find jobs. On March 

11, 2011, the Subcommittee on Human Resources of the House 

Committee on Ways and Means held a hearing on the use of data 

matching to improve customer service, program integrity, and taxpayer savings. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
8 

1O’Leary, Christopher. 2004. UI Work Search Rules and Their Effects on Employment. Report 

prepared for the Center for Employment Security Education and Research, National Association 

of State Workforce Agencies. Available online: http://research.upjohn.org/reports/83/. 

II. EXPLANATION OF THE BILL 

TITLE I—REFORMS OF UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION 

TO PROMOTE WORK AND JOB CREATION 

A. CONSISTENT JOB SEARCH REQUIREMENTS (SEC. 101 OF THE BILL

AND SEC. 303(a) OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT) 

PRESENT LAW

Federal unemployment law does not contain explicit job search 

requirements for the receipt of regular State unemployment compensation (UC). Through interpretation of the framework of the 

Federal unemployment laws contained within the Social Security 

Act (SSA) and in the Federal Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA), it 

is generally understood that workers must have lost their jobs 

through no fault of their own and must be able, available, and willing to work. Variations exist in State law requirements concerning 

ability and availability for work. Most State laws require evidence 

of ability to work through the filing of claims and registration for 

work at a public employment office. Availability for work is often 

translated to mean being ready, willing, and able to work. Meeting 

the requirement of registration for work at a public employment office is considered as some evidence of availability. 

Section 202(a)(3)(A) of the Federal-State Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 1970, as amended, does explicitly require active job search. However, the method of determining active 

job search is left to the determination of the States. 

REASONS FOR CHANGE

The Committee believes the lack of a current requirement that 

unemployment insurance recipients engage in meaningful job 

search, along with minimum standards for what that means, is a 

significant omission. The Committee notes that under current law, 

in which State and Federal benefits are payable for up to 99 weeks 

under three separate programs, an explicit work search requirement applies in only one of those programs—the Extended Benefits 

program that generally provides benefits at the end of a worker’s 

time collecting Unemployment Insurance. This is exactly backwards—States should expect UI recipients to engage in effective job 

searches from the beginning of their time collecting unemployment 

benefits, not only at the very end of their time collecting those benefits. Thus Section 101 of the legislation amends the Social Security Act to generally apply the current job search standards, similar to those that apply under the Extended Benefits program, to all 

weeks of unemployment benefit collection, with appropriate updates to assist States in effectively administering this provision. 

A significant body of evidence suggests that effective job search 

requirements increase the likelihood that unemployed workers return to work. For example, a 2004 report by the Upjohn Institute 

for Employment Research 1 summarizes findings from numerous 

studies that have shown how job search requirements and job 

search assistance can significantly reduce the length of receipt of 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
9 

unemployment insurance benefits. Implementing a standard requirement across the Unemployment Insurance system will communicate a uniform message to recipients as well as help them 

more quickly return to the workforce. 

The Subcommittee on Human Resources, in its February 10, 

2011 hearing on improving efforts to help unemployed Americans 

find jobs, received testimony in support of strengthening job search. 

For example, Kristen Cox, the Executive Director of the Utah Department of Workforce Services, noted, ‘‘In Utah, UI claimants are 

required to register for work with the department’s online job 

board within five business days of their initial claim or they are denied benefits. Starting in February this year, Utah has doubled the 

minimum work search requirements to four job contacts per week. 

Returning to work should be a full-time job. Not all States require 

this type of activity.’’ Douglas J. Holmes, President of UWC-Strategic Services on Unemployment and Workers’ Compensation, 

added, ‘‘In a recent survey of state unemployment insurance agencies conducted for UWC by the National Foundation for Unemployment Compensation and Workers’ Compensation, 39 states reported exceptions to the general work search requirements and one 

state reported that it had no work search requirement as a condition of eligibility for unemployment compensation. Exceptions to 

work search requirements ranged from a general exception when 

the state unemployment rate exceeded 8.5% to situations where individuals are attached to prior employment and expect to return to 

work, seek work through hiring halls or temporary services, are in 

approved training, or are between terms of employment for a seasonal employer.’’ Mr. Holmes recommended ‘‘Work search requirements for federal programs and standards for State work search requirements should be enacted to send the appropriate signal to 

claimants that active work search efforts are expected and required 

as a condition of receiving unemployment compensation. Work 

search efforts should be recorded and verifiable.’’ 

As a result, the Committee believes that consistent and meaningful job search requirements are both appropriate and will help 

more unemployed individuals more quickly return to work, which 

is the Unemployment Insurance program’s ultimate intent. 

EXPLANATION OF PROVISION

The provision creates minimum job search requirements for individuals collecting unemployment benefits—ensuring all are actively 

seeking work, have registered for employment services, have posted 

resumes, and have applied for work similar to that which the individual previously performed. 

EFFECTIVE DATE

The provision becomes effective after the end of the next session 

of each State’s legislature. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
10 

2 ‘‘Table A–4. Employment status of the civilian population 25 years and over by educational 

attainment.’’ May 6, 2011. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Available online: http://www.bls.gov/ 

news.release/empsit.to4.htm 

B. PARTICIPATION IN REEMPLOYMENT SERVICES MADE A CONDITION

OF BENEFIT RECEIPT (SEC. 102 OF THE BILL AND SEC. 303(A) OF

THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT AND SEC. 3304 OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE) 

PRESENT LAW

Federal law does not require minimum educational standards as 

a condition of benefit receipt. Section 303(a)(9) of the SSA requires 

any claimant who has been referred to reemployment services pursuant to the profiling system under Section 303(j)(1)(B) to participate in such services or in similar services unless the State agency 

charged with the administration of the State law determines that 

(1) such claimant has completed such services, or (2) there is justifiable cause for such claimant’s failure to participate in such services. 

Section 303(j) requires the State to use a system of profiling all 

new claimants for regular compensation. The profiling system 

must: (1) identify which claimants will be likely to exhaust regular 

compensation and will need job search assistance services to make 

a successful transition to new employment; and (2) refer the identified claimants to reemployment services (including job search assistance services) that are available under any State or Federal 

law. 

Section 3304(a)(8) of the IRC requires, as a condition for employers in a State to receive normal credit against the Federal tax, that 

a State’s unemployment benefits laws provide that compensation 

shall not be denied to an individual for any week because he is in 

training with the approval of the State agency (or because of the 

application, to any such week in training, of State law provisions 

relating to availability for work, active search for work, or refusal 

to accept work). A recent Training and Employment Guidance Letter (TEGL) No. 21–08, among other items, strongly encouraged 

States to broaden their definition of approved training for UC beneficiaries during economic downturns. 

REASONS FOR CHANGE

The Committee believes changes are needed to the existing Unemployment Insurance system so that States better assist individuals in receiving the education and other services they require to 

return to work at decent wages. 

First, the bill would generally condition UI receipt for individuals 

without a high school diploma on their making progress toward a 

GED; the provision allows States to waive this requirement if it 

would be ‘‘unduly burdensome’’ in individual cases—for example involving older workers with substantial work experience. This provision responds to clear evidence that individuals without a high 

school diploma are at significant risk in current and likely future 

labor markets. For example, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics data,2 in April 2011 adults without a high school diploma experienced an unemployment rate of 14.6 percent—more than 50 percent above the level for adults who had graduated from high school. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
11 

3Greenstone, Michael and Looney, Adam. February 4, 2011. A Broader Look at the U.S. Employment Situation and the Importance of a Good Education. The Brookings Institution. Available online: http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2011/0204ljobs_greenstone_looney.aspx 

Only 39 percent of adults without a high school diploma were employed, compared with 55 percent of high school graduates and 73 

percent of college graduates. A February 2011 Brookings Institution report 3 put these differences in context: ‘‘One in three people 

in the United States with less than a high school education is either unemployed or underemployed. . . . Beyond the immediate 

difficulties that unemployment causes for affected families, these 

differences in labor market participation undermine the country’s 

social fabric.’’ The provision is designed to expect more unemployed 

persons without a high school diploma to use their time receiving 

benefits productively, helping them return to work sooner and at 

better wages, and whenever possible preventing future instances of 

unemployment. 

The Subcommittee on Human Resources, at its February 10, 

2011 hearing, received testimony in support of engaging individuals in additional education while they collect unemployment benefits. For example, as part of a broader activity requirement applicable to all unemployment benefit recipients, Tom Pauken, the Chairman of the Texas Workforce Commission, proposed, ‘‘Those without 

a high school diploma could choose to study for their GED. UI 

claimants in that category would be entitled to first priority for 

participation in existing federally funded Adult Basic Education 

programs.’’ 

Second, Section 102 of the bill expects individuals who have otherwise been referred to reemployment services by the State to participate in those services as a condition of eligibility for benefits. 

The Committee notes that States currently must have a system 

that profiles all new claimants for regular compensation, and identifies those most likely to exhaust regular compensation and need 

job search assistance services to make a successful transition to 

new employment. While States are expected to refer the identified 

claimants to reemployment services, there is no current requirement that the individual participate in services to which they have 

been referred. The Committee notes that, while record numbers 

have been receiving and exhausting unemployment benefits in recent years, a very small percentage of unemployment benefit recipients are being referred to reemployment services, and even fewer 

are completing them. In 2010 (the most recent available data), out 

of almost 11 million people who started collecting unemployment 

benefits, 2.2 million were referred to reemployment services 

through the worker profiling system; but of this number only 

slightly more than 200,000 reported to a training service—only 

around 10 percent of those referred, and less than 2 percent of all 

recipients. 

EXPLANATION OF PROVISION

The provision amends Section 303(a) of the Social Security Act 

and 3304(a) of the Internal Revenue Code to require unemployment 

insurance recipients who lack a high school diploma to be making 

progress toward a GED to remain eligible for benefits; it includes 

a broad exception allowing States to waive this requirement if it 

would be ‘‘unduly burdensome’’ in individual cases, such as older 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
12 

workers. Separately, the provision expects individuals who have 

otherwise been referred to reemployment services by the State to 

participate in those services as a condition of eligibility for unemployment benefits. 

EFFECTIVE DATE

The provision becomes effective after the end of the next session 

of each State’s legislature. 

C. STATE FLEXIBILITY TO PROMOTE RETURNS TO WORK FOR UNEMPLOYED WORKERS (SEC. 103 OF THE BILL AND SECTION 305 OF

THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT) 

PRESENT LAW

Section 3304(a)(4) of the IRC and Section 303(a)(5) of the SSA set 

the withdrawal standards for States to use funds within the State 

account in the Unemployment Trust Fund (UTF). All funds withdrawn from the unemployment fund of the State shall be used solely in the payment of unemployment compensation, exclusive of expenses of administration. Few exceptions exist; these include, for 

instance, withholding for tax purposes, for child support payments, 

to repay UI overpayments or covered unemployment compensation 

debt, and for benefits for the Self-Employment Assistance program 

and the Short-Time Compensation program. 

Section 303(a)(1) requires that the State UC program personnel 

be merit employees. 

REASONS FOR CHANGE

The Committee believes it is appropriate to enact changes designed to help more people return to work. Testing innovative approaches is an opportunity granted in other areas of social policy. 

As a result, the Committee believes that States should have the 

flexibility to test and evaluate innovative demonstration projects 

within the Unemployment Insurance system designed to help more 

unemployed workers return to work. 

The Committee has long recognized the importance of State flexibility and experimentation in social programs. Prior to the successful welfare reform efforts undertaken by the Committee in the mid1990s, States were granted waivers from certain requirements of 

welfare law to test new approaches to help low-income families become self-sufficient. This experimentation with work requirements, 

time limits, eligibility criteria, and alternate types of benefits generated a wealth of ideas for reforming the underlying program. 

These ideas were then successfully adopted as part of a broad nationwide overhaul of the welfare system, culminating in the creation of the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program in 1996. Research has shown that in the decade following 

that overhaul, this program played a key role in increasing earnings of low-income single mothers and in reducing child poverty. 

In addition to welfare waivers, the Committee has also provided 

waiver authority to States in the area of child welfare. These waivers allowed States to test ways of better serving children in foster 

care and other programs, and the results from successful child welfare waiver experiments also have been incorporated into Federal 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
13 

law, which has both improved the lives of children and ensured 

that money is well spent. 

Expanding this practice of providing waivers to include State Unemployment Insurance programs may yield tangible short-term 

gains for individuals while also providing valuable information that 

can inform Federal policymaking in the future. 

EXPLANATION OF PROVISION

The provision allows States to apply for cost-neutral ‘‘waivers’’ of 

Federal unemployment law, so they can test innovative strategies 

to promote more and faster reemployment of unemployed workers. 

EFFECTIVE DATE

This provision becomes effective on the date of enactment of the 

Act. 

D. REPEAL OF REGULATION REQUIRING HIGHER STATE TAXES (SEC. 104 OF THE BILL AND SEC. 1202(B)(2) OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT) 

PRESENT LAW

Programmatically, the U.S. Labor Department has long suggested a State’s balance account within the Unemployment Trust 

Fund (UTF) should provide for one year’s projected benefit payment needs on the basis of the highest levels of benefit payments 

experienced by the State over the last three business cycles. This 

is called the average high-cost multiple (AHCM). A ratio of 1.0 or 

greater prior to a recession would be considered to be minimally 

solvent. 

Section 1202(b)(2) of the SSA allows States to borrow funds without interest from the Federal Unemployment Account (FUA) within 

the UTF during the year. To receive these interest-free loans, 

States must meet three conditions: 

(A) States must repay the loans by September 30 of the fiscal 

year. 

(B) For those loans to maintain their interest-free status, there 

cannot be any loans made to that State in October, November, or 

December of the calendar year of such an interest-free loan. If 

loans are made in the last quarter of the calendar year, the ‘‘interest-free’’ loans made in the previous fiscal year will retroactively 

accrue interest charges. 

(C) States must meet funding goals relating to their account in 

the UTF, established by the Secretary of Labor under 42 C.F.R. 

§ 503(c)(3). 

42 C.F.R. § 503(c)(3) requires that by 2019, States must have had 

at least one year in the past five calendar years before the year in 

which loans are taken where the ratio of its trust fund balance to 

the average highest cost multiple (AHCM) is at least 1.0. Additionally, States must meet two criteria for maintenance of tax effort in 

every year from the most recent year the AHCM was at least 1.0 

and the year in which advances are taken: The average State unemployment tax rate (the ratio of total State tax amount collected 

over the total taxable wages) was at least 80% of the prior year’s 

rate; and, the average State unemployment tax rate is at least 75% 

of the average benefit-cost ratio over the preceding five calendar 

years, where the benefit-cost ratio for a year is defined as the 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
14 

amount of benefits and interest paid in the year divided by the 

total covered wages paid in the year. 

REASONS FOR CHANGE

The Committee is concerned that the solvency standard that the 

U.S. Department of Labor has proposed would not be reasonably 

attainable in many States, especially given the large number of 

States with current negative balances, including the more than 30 

that have had to resort to a combined over $40 billion in borrowing 

from the Federal government to date. Thus the enforcement of the 

proposed solvency standard in the future would have the effect of 

either (1) forcing steep benefit reductions or even greater unemployment tax increases on jobs than are already taking effect due 

to the recession, further harming job creation and hiring, or (2) 

permanently denying States the ability to access short-term interest-free borrowing that would otherwise be available to assist them 

in paying unemployment benefits in a future downturn. Neither 

outcome is acceptable, and thus section 104 repeals the U.S. Department of Labor regulation. 

EXPLANATION OF PROVISION

The provision amends Section 1202(b)(2) of the Social Security 

Act by repealing a September 17, 2010 U.S. Department of Labor 

regulation on funding goals that would be made a condition of a 

State’s ability to receive interest-free advances from the Federal 

Government for the payment of unemployment insurance. 

EFFECTIVE DATE

The provision becomes effective on the date of enactment of the 

Act. 

E. STATE FLEXIBILITY TO IMPROVE UNEMPLOYMENT PROGRAM SOLVENCY WITHOUT RAISING TAXES (SEC. 105 OF THE BILL AND SEC. 

4001 OF THE SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2008) 

PRESENT LAW

Section 4001(g) of the Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2008 

(P.L. 110–252), as amended, currently prevents States from decreasing the average weekly benefit amount of regular UC payments. That is, a State is not permitted to pay an average weekly 

UC benefit that is less than what would have been paid under 

State law prior to what was in effect on June 2, 2010. This ‘‘nonreduction rule’’ is a condition of the EUC08 Federal-State agreement of P.L. 110–252, as amended. 

REASONS FOR CHANGE

The current ‘‘nonreduction rule’’ was originally applied in the 

2009 stimulus law as an effort to ensure States maintain their own 

unemployment benefit payments while the Federal government 

was providing an additional $25 per week in ‘‘Federal additional 

compensation.’’ The Committee believes this current rule should be 

eliminated for several reasons. 

First, ‘‘Federal additional compensation’’ is no longer payable, 

having ended in December 2010. Thus the original purpose for 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
15 

which this provision was created—to ensure that States do not reduce State benefit levels while a special Federal benefit of $25 was 

payable—no longer exists. 

Second, this provision effectively forces States that wish to improve the solvency of their UI programs to raise taxes, rather than 

also consider appropriate benefit reductions. In all prior recessions, 

States used both those tools to improve the solvency of their unemployment programs. This ‘‘nonreduction rule’’ has thus likely contributed to the steep rise in State unemployment taxes in recent 

years; State unemployment taxes will have risen by 44 percent between fiscal year 2009 (when this provision took effect) and 2011, 

according to U.S. Department of Labor statistics in their Fiscal 

Year 2012 UI Outlook. 

Finally, repeal of this provision is consistent with the additional 

flexibility provided States under the provisions of Title II of the 

JOBS Act, described below. 

EXPLANATION OF PROVISION

The legislation repeals a provision in section 4001 of the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2008, that since the 2009 stimulus law 

has blocked States that want to improve solvency from reducing 

State unemployment benefits while still receiving Federal extended 

benefit funds. The provision being repealed has left States no 

choice but to raise taxes on jobs if they want to improve unemployment program solvency. 

EFFECTIVE DATE

The provision becomes effective on the date of enactment of the 

Act. 

F. DATA STANDARDIZATION FOR IMPROVED DATA MATCHING (SEC. 

106 OF THE BILL AND TITLE IX OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT) 

PRESENT LAW

There are currently no specific Federal laws or regulations related to uniform data elements for data matching in the FederalState unemployment insurance system. Section 303(a)(6) of the 

SSA requires States to make reports of information and data as required by the U.S. Secretary of Labor. But current Federal law contains no precise requirements regarding codes or identifiers attached to UC, EUC08, or EB program data or any other data 

standards. 

REASONS FOR CHANGE

The Committee believes the programs within its jurisdiction 

should, from an information technology standpoint, operate consistently within and across programs. By beginning the process of data 

standardization and the use of common reporting mechanisms in 

this section, the Committee is achieving three goals: better preventing and identifying fraud and abuse; increasing the efficiency 

of administrative resources; and producing program savings for 

U.S. taxpayers. The private sector is decades ahead in its ability 

to use data efficiently to detect patterns of misuse, such as when 

credit cards are lost or stolen, and streamlining backend data procVerDate Mar 15 2010 05:38 May 25, 2011 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR087P1.XXX HR087P1

smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
16 

essing. The public sector needs to review those best practices to 

better improve the operation of public benefit programs, prevent 

and identify fraud and abuse, and improve recovery of misspent 

taxpayer funds. The first step is organizing the data, as this section 

directs the Secretary to do starting with the Unemployment Insurance program. 

The Subcommittee on Human Resources, in its March 11, 2011 

hearing on the use of data matching to improve customer service, 

program integrity, and taxpayer savings, received testimony in 

support of consistent data standards that are non-proprietary and 

promote the interoperability of data across various information 

technology platforms, including State legacy systems. The hearing 

confirmed that not only are programs within the Subcommittee’s 

jurisdiction in silos, but so is the accompanying data. Improved 

data standards will help increase the efficiency of data exchanges 

to use and reuse data within and across programs. In the Unemployment Insurance program, consistent data standards will allow 

States to automate the exchange of claimant data on work and benefit receipt, reducing delays and minimizing improper payments. It 

will also help to automate application forms by pre-populating 

them with reliable and verified data, which can reduce the manual 

burden on staff and allow them more time to engage individuals in 

reemployment services, all while reducing error. 

Therefore, the Committee believes that non-proprietary, interoperable data standards in the Unemployment Insurance program 

are the first step to better organizing and using data to address 

fraud and abuse and increase administrative efficiency. This process will have the additional important benefit of improving the 

services the program provides to unemployed individuals in their 

efforts to return to work. 

EXPLANATION OF PROVISION

The provision directs the U.S. Secretary of Labor to develop 

standardized data elements to be used in improving the accuracy 

and administration of unemployment benefits. 

EFFECTIVE DATE

The provision becomes effective on October 1, 2012. 

G. TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENTS (SEC. 107 OF THE

BILL AND SEC. 3304(a)(4) OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE AND

303(g)(1) OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT) 

PRESENT LAW

Section 3304(a)(4)(D) of the IRC allows States to deduct overpayments from current benefits, as authorized in Section 303(g)(1) of 

the SSA. Under current law, this deduction of overpayments from 

unemployment benefit payments is optional for States, which 

‘‘may’’ carry out this provision (or may not). Many States grant 

waivers—in cases of extreme hardship for individuals, for example—or do not require this deduction of overpayments for every 

case. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
17 

REASONS FOR CHANGE

The Committee believes in the need to strengthen program integrity, including the collection of benefit overpayments. Data reflecting benefit payments made in 2009 reveal unemployment overpayments continue to increase in both percentage and absolute dollar 

terms. A large part of the absolute increase is due to the significant 

rise in total unemployment benefits paid. The most recent data indicates an overpayment rate of 10.6%, and a total of $16.5 billion 

in annual overpayments. Recoverable overpayments estimated by 

the Benefit Accuracy Measurement (BAM) survey increased from 

$2.8 billion in FY 2009 to $4.0 billion in FY 2010, as benefits paid 

increased. The conforming amendment in the legislation is designed to enhance the States’ ability to efficiently recover such rising overpayments from current benefits, with limited additional administrative burdens. It is also consistent with overpayment collection methods in other programs, as well as the Treasury Offset 

Program designed to collect unemployment benefits overpayments 

from Federal tax refunds. 

EXPLANATION OF PROVISION

The provision requires States to reduce current unemployment 

benefits to recover prior unemployment benefit overpayments. 

EFFECTIVE DATE

The provision becomes effective after the end of the next session 

of each State’s legislature. 

TITLE II—FORWARD FUNDING REMAINING FEDERAL 

UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION 

A. SPECIAL TRANSFERS TO ALL STATES (SEC. 201 OF THE BILL AND

SEC. 903 OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT) 

PRESENT LAW

All unemployment benefits—including Federal unemployment 

benefits (i.e., the Extended Benefit (EB) and Emergency Unemployment Compensation (EUC08) programs)—are mandatory entitlements paid out to individuals who meet certain eligibility requirements. These benefit payments are not appropriated by Congress 

under current law. Regular UC benefits are financed through 

States taxes on employers. 

Under permanent law in Section 204(a)(1) of the Federal-State 

Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 1970 (P.L. 91–373), 

the cost of EB benefits are shared, with half (50%) of EB funded 

by the Federal government and States funding the other half 

(50%). 

Section 2005(a) of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act 

of 2009 (P.L. 111–5), as amended, temporarily changes the FederalState funding arrangement. The Federal government finances 

100% of EB benefits until January 4, 2012, with the exception of 

‘‘non-sharable’’ benefits (generally, these are former State and local 

employees’ EB benefits). For individuals who were receiving EB 

payments on January 4, 2012, the Federal government will continue to pay 100% of EB benefits for the duration of these individVerDate Mar 15 2010 05:38 May 25, 2011 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR087P1.XXX HR087P1

smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
18 

uals’ benefits (but not for new entrants to the EB program starting 

after that date). 

Section 4004(e)(1) of the Supplemental Appropriations Act of 

2008 (P.L. 110–252), as amended, finances EUC08 benefits from 

general funds of the U.S. Treasury through the expiration of the 

EUC08 program the week ending on or before January 3, 2012. 

States do not need to repay these funds. 

Under Section 4001(a) of the Supplemental Appropriations Act of 

2008 (P.L. 110–252), as amended, a State has the option to terminate the Federal-State EUC08 agreement with 30 days notice to 

the U.S. Department of Labor. 

REASONS FOR CHANGE

Due to the record amount of unemployment benefits paid since 

the start of the recession in 2007, most States have been forced to 

dramatically increase unemployment taxes on jobs, compromising 

employers’ ability to hire new workers. Meanwhile, under temporary Federal measures that expire in December 2011, States will 

be paid about $31 billion in Federal unemployment funds, but 

under current law none of that money can be used to mitigate 

those steep tax hikes on jobs or otherwise provide services to help 

more unemployed individuals return to work. Instead, all of these 

temporary Federal funds must be spent on a highly prescriptive 

system of 100% Federally-funded unemployment benefits lasting up 

to 73 weeks, which when combined with 26 weeks of State Unemployment Insurance benefits, means unemployment checks in half 

of the States now last up to 99 weeks per person—or nearly two 

years. The current maximum of 73 weeks of 100% Federally-funded 

benefits is 40 weeks longer than has ever been provided in any 

other recession, and 47 weeks beyond the typical maximum of 26 

weeks of 100% Federally-funded benefits. Title II of this legislation, 

and specifically section 201, is designed to bridge this divide by 

providing all States new flexibility in spending their share of the 

$31 billion in remaining temporary Federal unemployment funds. 

Under section 201, States must use this money to continue paying 

current Federal unemployment benefits, unless they pass laws to 

use the funds differently within the bounds of the Unemployment 

Insurance system, including to promote more job creation and hiring. 

Specifically, by passing a new State law, States could spend 

these temporary Federal funds within the UI system for any of the 

following purposes: (1) to support State unemployment benefits 

without the need for higher taxes or additional borrowing; (2) to 

provide reduced weeks of extended benefits after workers exhaust 

State benefits (or even increased weeks for certain individuals or 

groups, subject to the fixed amount of funds provided); (3) to repay 

Federal unemployment loans States have taken to pay past unemployment benefits or to pay the interest on those loans, without 

having to raise State unemployment taxes; or (4) to provide reemployment services, including wage subsidies, promoting reemployment and job creation. 

States with unemployment loans would not have their interest 

charges waived, but instead could better target current Federal 

funds and use any savings to prevent job-destroying unemployment 

tax hikes. Under current law up to 99 weeks of total unemployVerDate Mar 15 2010 05:38 May 25, 2011 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR087P1.XXX HR087P1

smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
19 

ment benefits are paid across most of the U.S., including up to 73 

weeks of Federal benefits, an all-time record. But 70 percent of the 

Federal spending to date behind those 73 weeks of benefits has 

been untargeted, as the money has been spent without regard to 

the State’s unemployment rate. For example, under current law, in 

North Dakota where the unemployment rate is 3.6 percent, unemployed workers collect over a year of total benefits, including 34 

weeks of Federal unemployment benefits. Even in States with unemployment rates as low as 6.5 percent—which is significantly 

below the current 9.0 percent national average—as many as 60 

weeks of Federal benefits are payable after someone exhausts 26 

weeks of State benefits, for a total of 86 weeks of benefits. Section 

201 of the legislation allows States to decide whether these Federal 

rules make sense given local conditions, and if not, to choose to 

spend money that has already been committed more wisely within 

the unemployment insurance system, by passing a law to that effect. 

The Congressional Budget Office expects that current temporary 

Federal unemployment benefits law will result in $31 billion in 

Federal spending during the remainder of FYs 2011 and 2012. Section 201 equitably divides that $31 billion in expected spending 

among the States, according to their share of Federal unemployment benefits spending in the past 12 months. 

EXPLANATION OF PROVISION

The provision forward funds to State unemployment accounts the 

expected $31 billion in remaining temporary Federal unemployment funds. Funds will be provided in FY 2011 ($12.8 billion, 

transferred within 10 days of enactment) and FY 2012 ($18.2 billion, transferred between October 1st and 10th, 2011). State shares 

of the $31 billion will be equal to their share of Federal unemployment benefit spending in the most recent 12 months. This provision 

also requires States to spend these funds: (1) to pay current Federal unemployment benefits; or (2) as specified by a State law 

passed after enactment, for regular or extended unemployment 

benefits, for repaying Federal unemployment loans (or interest on 

those loans), or for reemployment services such as wage subsidies, 

job search assistance, and other services designed to promote rapid 

reemployment. 

EFFECTIVE DATE

The provision becomes effective on the date of enactment of the 

Act. 

B. EMERGENCY UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION TRANSITION RULES

(SEC. 202 OF THE BILL AND SEC. 4003 AND 4004(e)(1) OF THE SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2008) 

PRESENT LAW

Section 4001 of the Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2008 

(P.L. 110–252), as amended, allows all States to enter into a Federal-State agreement to make EUC08 payments to eligible individuals. As described above, EUC08 benefit payments are currently financed from general funds of the U.S. Treasury until the expiraVerDate Mar 15 2010 05:38 May 25, 2011 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR087P1.XXX HR087P1

smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
20 

tion of the EUC08 program the week ending on or before January 

3, 2012. 

Section 4001(a) of the Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2008 

(P.L. 110–252, as amended) provides a State with the option to terminate the Federal-State EUC08 agreement with 30 days notice to 

the U.S. Department of Labor. 

Section 4003(a) of the Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2008 

(P.L. 110–252), as amended, authorizes payments to States with 

Federal-State agreements from the U.S. Treasury for the purposes 

of EUC08 benefits. 

REASONS FOR CHANGE

The provisions of Section 201 forward fund all of the remaining 

Federal Emergency Unemployment Compensation (EUC) program 

funds to States.μ Consistent with that, Section 202 ends the current monthly payment mechanism for that program, which is no 

longer needed. 

EXPLANATION OF PROVISION

Since Section 201 forward funds to all States their expected 

share of remaining Federal EUC funds payable during the remainder of that program, this section repeals the current monthly payment system used by that program. It also includes a technical provision adding this legislation to the list of unemployment laws for 

which general funds may be transferred. 

EFFECTIVE DATE

The repeal of current monthly payments to States is effective 

with respect to weeks ending after July 6, 2011. 

C. EXTENDED BENEFITS PROGRAM TRANSITION RULES (SEC. 203 OF

THE BILL, SEC. 2005 OF THE ASSISTANCE FOR UNEMPLOYED

WORKERS AND STRUGGLING FAMILIES ACT, SEC. 203 AND

204(a)(1) OF THE FEDERAL-STATE EXTENDED UNEMPLOYMENT

COMPENSATION ACT OF 1970, AND SEC. 502 OF THE TAX RELIEF, 

UNEMPLOYMENT REAUTHORIZATION, AND JOB CREATION ACT OF

2010) 

PRESENT LAW

As detailed above, EB benefits are temporarily 100% Federally financed (Section 2005(a) of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L. 111–5), as amended). Under current law, 

the Federal government finances 100% of EB benefits until January 4, 2012 with the exception of ‘‘nonsharable’’ benefits (benefits 

for persons who worked for employers that are not subject to Federal Unemployment Taxes such as former State employees). The 

Federal government will continue to pay 100% of EB benefits for 

the duration of these individuals’ benefits for individuals receiving 

EB payments on January 4, 2012, but not for new entrants to the 

EB program after that date. 

In addition, Section 502 of the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010 (P.L. 111–312) 

amends Sections 203(d) & (f) of the Federal-State Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 1970 (P.L. 91–373) to allow States 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
21 

to temporarily use lookback calculations for their EB trigger based 

on three years of unemployment rate data (rather than the current 

lookback of two years of data) as part of their mandatory and/or 

optional EB triggers if States would otherwise trigger off or not be 

on a period of EB benefits. States implement the lookback changes 

individually by amending their State Unemployment Compensation 

laws. This temporary option to use three-year EB trigger lookbacks 

expires the week on or before December 31, 2011. As of May 8, 

2011, 23 States have enacted State laws to adopt a three-year 

lookback for one or more of the EB program triggers. 

REASONS FOR CHANGE

The Committee believes that States should be provided flexibility 

to support Unemployment Insurance beneficiaries in returning to 

work by forward funding remaining Federal extended benefit dollars to the States. However, if States take no additional action, the 

Committee intends for benefits to continue to be paid under current temporary Federal policies. 

EXPLANATION OF PROVISION

The provisions of Section 201 forward fund all of the remaining 

Federal Extended Benefit (EB) program funds to States associated 

with temporary expansions of that program, specifically policies 

that provide for 100 percent Federal funding and a three-year 

lookback that has allowed more States to qualify for the program 

in CY 2011. Consistent with that forward funding approach in Section 201, Section 203 ends those temporary expansions, since 

States will receive the funds associated with those policies. 

This section includes a technical ‘‘savings provision’’ designed to 

ensure that, if States take no additional action, EB program benefits continue to be paid automatically, despite State laws that express that the program will only be operational as long as they receive 100% Federal funding or apply a three-year lookback. 

EFFECTIVE DATE

In general, these provisions are effective on July 1, 2011. 

D. EMERGENCY DESIGNATION (SEC. 204 OF THE BILL) 

PRESENT LAW

Section 204 of this legislation designates the budgetary effects of 

H.R. 1745 as an emergency requirement and ‘‘necessary to meet 

emergency needs pursuant to section 4(g) of the Statutory Pay-AsYou-Go Act of 2010.’’ 

REASONS FOR CHANGE

The Committee believes current emergency funds should be 

repurposed to provide greater flexibility to States and that this will 

help more people return to work. Because of this repurposing, the 

legislation needs to carry an emergency designation. 

EXPLANATION OF PROVISION

Section 204 is a technical provision required because the underlying provisions amended in Title II originally carried an emerVerDate Mar 15 2010 05:38 May 25, 2011 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR087P1.XXX HR087P1

smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
22 

gency designation. Because it amends the purposes for which funds 

payable under those provisions may be spent, the legislation also 

needs to carry an emergency designation. 

EFFECTIVE DATE

The provision is effective upon the date of enactment of the Act. 

III. VOTES OF THE COMMITTEE 

In compliance with clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the following statements are made concerning the votes of the Committee on Ways and Means in its consideration of the bill, H.R. 1745. 

The bill H.R. 1745 was ordered favorably reported, as amended, 

by a rollcall vote of 20 yeas to 14 nays (with a quorum being 

present). The vote was as follows: 

Representative Yea Nay Present Representative Yea Nay Present 

Mr. Camp .............................. X ........... ............. Mr. Levin .............................. ........... X .............

Mr. Herger ............................. X ........... ............. Mr. Rangel ........................... ........... X .............

Mr. Johnson ........................... ........... ........... ............. Mr. Stark .............................. ........... X .............

Mr. Brady .............................. X ........... ............. Mr. McDermott ..................... ........... X .............

Mr. Ryan ............................... X ........... ............. Mr. Lewis .............................. ........... ........... .............

Mr. Nunes ............................. X ........... ............. Mr. Neal ............................... ........... X .............

Mr. Tiberi .............................. X ........... ............. Mr. Becerra .......................... ........... X .............

Mr. Davis .............................. X ........... ............. Mr. Doggett .......................... ........... X .............

Mr. Reichert .......................... X ........... ............. Mr. Thompson ...................... ........... X .............

Mr. Boustany ......................... X ........... ............. Mr. Larson ............................ ........... X .............

Mr. Roskam ........................... X ........... ............. Mr. Blumenauer ................... ........... X .............

Mr. Gerlach ........................... X ........... ............. Mr. Kind ............................... ........... X .............

Mr. Price ............................... X ........... ............. Mr. Pascrell .......................... ........... X .............

Mr. Buchanan ....................... X ........... ............. Ms. Berkley ........................... ........... X .............

Mr. Smith .............................. X ........... ............. Mr. Crowley .......................... ........... X .............

Mr. Schock ............................ X ........... .............

Ms. Jenkins ........................... X ........... .............

Mr. Paulsen ........................... X ........... .............

Mr. Marchant ........................ X ........... .............

Mr. Berg ................................ X ........... .............

Ms. Black .............................. X ........... .............

VOTES ON AMENDMENTS

The Davis Amendment to the Amendment in the Nature of a 

Substitute to H.R. 1745 passed by voice vote (with a quorum being 

present). 

The Doggett Amendment to the Amendment in the Nature of a 

Substitute to H.R. 1745 failed by voice vote (with a quorum being 

present). 

IV. BUDGET EFFECTS OF THE BILL 

A. COMMITTEE ESTIMATE OF BUDGETARY EFFECTS

In compliance with clause 3(d) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the following statement is made concerning the effects on the budget of the revenue provisions of the 

bill, H.R. 1745 as reported: The Committee agrees with the estimates prepared by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), which 

are included below. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
23 

STATEMENT REGARDING NEW BUDGET AUTHORITY AND TAX

EXPENDITURES BUDGET AUTHORITY

The bill as reported is not in compliance with clause 3(c)(2) of 

rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives. However, 

the Chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means has already 

provided an amendment in the nature of a substitute to the Committee on Rules to bring the bill into compliance with clause 3(c)(2) 

of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives. The 

amendment makes technical and conforming changes to Section 

203 of the legislation, which were brought to the Committee’s attention after markup and are designed to ensure that individuals 

currently eligible for Extended Benefits remain eligible and that 

States are not able to claim additional matching payments since 

the bill already provides full Federal funding for those benefits. 

Once the technical and conforming changes are made to section 

203, the Committee will be able to state that the bill involves no 

new or increased budgetary authority. The Committee will also be 

able to state further that the bill involves no new or increased tax 

expenditures. 

As a result, the Committee has requested CBO provide an estimate for the bill as reported as well as for the amendment in the 

nature of a substitute containing the technical and conforming 

changes needed to comply with both the Committee’s intent and 

House rules on deficit reduction. 

B. COST ESTIMATE PREPARED BY THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET

OFFICE

In compliance with clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, requiring a cost estimate prepared by 

the CBO, the following statement by CBO is provided: 

U.S. CONGRESS, 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE, 

Washington, DC, May 23, 2011. 

Hon. DAVE CAMP, 

Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 1745, the Jobs, Opportunity, Benefits, and Services Act of 2011. 

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased 

to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Christina Hawley Anthony. 

Sincerely, 

DOUGLAS W. ELMENDORF. 

Enclosure. 

H.R. 1745—Jobs, Opportunity, Benefits, and Services Act of 2011 

Summary: H.R. 1745 would, beginning in July 2011, repeal provisions that allow federal reimbursements for the emergency unemployment compensation program (EUC), temporarily provide full 

federal funding for extended benefits (EB), and allow states to 

make it easier to provide EB. The legislation also would tempoVerDate Mar 15 2010 05:38 May 25, 2011 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR087P1.XXX HR087P1

smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
24 

rarily suspend the 50 percent federal match for EB through December 2011. 

Additionally, enacting the bill would provide special distributions to the states in 2011 and 2012 totaling $31 billion, which states 

could use to continue to provide EUC and EB (as those programs 

existed on May 1, 2011), or pay for other unemployment-related expenses, including any interest due on loans from the unemployment trust fund (UTF). 

Finally, H.R. 1745 would require states to reduce unemployment 

benefits to individuals who have received overpayments, require individuals to meet certain criteria for receipt of benefits, and direct 

the Department of Labor to establish uniform reporting codes. 

CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 1745 would reduce outlays by $125 million in 2011 and by $3.1 billion over the 2011–2021 period. 

Under the bill, revenues also would decline by $2.4 billion over the 

2011–2021 period. On balance, enacting H.R. 1745 would reduce 

deficits by approximately $0.7 billion over the 2011–2021 period. 

Implementing the bill would not have a significant effect on discretionary spending. 

Pay-as-you-go procedures apply because enacting the legislation 

would affect direct spending and revenues. 

H.R. 1745 would impose no intergovernmental or private-sector 

mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA). 

Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated budgetary impact of H.R. 1745 is shown in the following table. The costs 

of this legislation fall within budget function 600 (income security). 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
25 

By fiscal year, in millions of dollars— 

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2011– 2016 2011– 2021 

CHANGES IN DIRECT SPENDING 

Estimated Budget Authority .................................................................................................. ¥125 ¥2,835 ¥15 ¥15 ¥15 ¥15 ¥15 ¥15 ¥15 ¥15 ¥15 ¥3,020 ¥3,095 

Estimated Outlays ................................................................................................................. ¥125 ¥2,835 ¥15 ¥15 ¥15 ¥15 ¥15 ¥15 ¥15 ¥15 ¥15 ¥3,020 ¥3,095 

CHANGES IN REVENUES 

Estimated Revenues .............................................................................................................. 0 ¥8 ¥211 ¥616 ¥617 ¥477 ¥233 ¥185 ¥38 ¥11 ¥11 ¥1,929 ¥2,407 

NET INCREASE OR DECREASE (¥) IN THE DEFICIT FROM CHANGES IN DIRECT SPENDING AND REVENUES 

Estimated Impact on the Deficit ........................................................................................... ¥125 ¥2,827 196 601 602 462 218 170 23 ¥4 ¥4 ¥1,091 ¥688 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
26 

Basis of estimate: For the purpose of this estimate, CBO assumes 

H.R. 1745 will be enacted by July 1, 2011. Later enactment could 

change the estimate significantly. 

H.R. 1745 would repeal the federal funding for EUC for weeks 

of unemployment ending after July 6, 2011. In addition, H.R. 1745 

would terminate temporary aspects of the EB program that extend 

100 percent federal funding for that program and make it easier 

for states to meet the unemployment rate thresholds required to 

provide benefits. The bill also would temporarily suspend the 50 

percent federal match for EB through December 2011. 

Direct Spending 

The bill would transfer $12.8 billion to states for fiscal year 2011 and $18.2 billion for fiscal year 2012. States could use those funds 

to operate EUC and EB as they existed in state agreements as of 

May 1, 2011. However, the total amount that would be transferred 

is about $0.6 billion lower than the amounts CBO projects states 

will spend on EUC and special EB under current law. (Under current law, EUC and the temporary EB provisions are authorized 

through December 2011; states may terminate agreements to provide EUC by giving 30 days’ notice to the Department of Labor.) 

A state could use the transferred funds for other unemploymentrelated purposes, including paying interest due on loans from the 

UTF, but such changes would require state legislation. 

CBO estimates that most states would continue to operate EUC and EB programs using their share of the total $31 billion in transfers that would be provided by H.R. 1745. However, CBO expects 

that some states would opt out of EUC, provide fewer benefits 

under EB, or change their laws to use a portion of the funds for 

other purposes. CBO estimates that such changes would decrease 

outlays for EUC and EB by $125 million in 2011 and $2.8 billion 

in 2012. 

The bill also would direct states to offset overpayments of unemployment compensation by reducing benefits to individuals, harmonize job search requirements, and mandate recipients of unemployment compensation to meet a minimum education threshold 

(though that requirement could be waived in cases of hardship). 

CBO estimates those provisions would reduce outlays by about $15 

million per year beginning in 2013. 

Revenues 

Provisions in H.R. 1745 would affect states’ revenues for unemployment compensation, which are reflected on the federal budget. 

Lower outlays would result in higher balances in states’ unemployment trust funds. CBO estimates that some states would respond 

to the higher balances by reducing their unemployment taxes (or 

by avoiding tax increases assumed in the baseline that would replenish the trust funds). As a result, CBO estimates that, on net, 

revenues would decline by $2.4 billion over the 2011–2021 period 

under H.R. 1745. 

Pay-As-You-Go considerations: The Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act 

of 2010 establishes budget reporting and enforcement procedures 

for legislation affecting direct spending or revenues. The net 

changes in outlays and revenues that are subject to those pay-asyou-go procedures are shown in the following table. Under H.R. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
27 

1745, there would be no net impact for purposes of enforcing the 

Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act because the bill would designate the 

bill’s effects as an emergency requirement. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
28 

CBO ESTIMATE OF PAY-AS-YOU-GO EFFECTS FOR H.R. 1745 AS ORDERED REPORTED BY THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS ON MAY 11, 2011, WITH 

SUBSEQUENT LANGUAGE PROVIDED ON MAY 18, 2011 

By fiscal year, in millions of dollars— 

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2011– 2016 2011–2021 

NET INCREASE OR DECREASE (¥) IN THE DEFICIT 

Total change .................................................................................................................. ¥125 ¥2,827 196 601 602 462 218 170 23 ¥4 ¥4 ¥1,091 ¥688 

Less: 

Designated as Emergency Requirements a ........................................................... 125 2,827 ¥196 ¥601 ¥602 ¥462 ¥218 ¥170 ¥23 4 4 1,091 688 

Statutory Pay-As-You Go Impact ................................................................................... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Memorandum: 

Change in Outlays ................................................................................................ ¥125 ¥2,835 ¥15 ¥15 ¥15 ¥15 ¥15 ¥15 ¥15 ¥15 ¥15 ¥3,020 ¥3,095 

Change in Revenues ............................................................................................. 0 ¥8 ¥211 ¥616 ¥617 ¥477 ¥233 ¥185 ¥38 ¥11 ¥11 ¥1,929 ¥2,407 

a Section 204 of H.R. 1745 would designate the budgetary effects of the bill as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 4(g) of the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
29 

Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: H.R. 1745 contains 

no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in 

UMRA. CBO estimates that changes to the unemployment compensation program would result in lower federal transfers to the 

states than under current law and also would result in decreases 

in unemployment taxes in some states. These effects, however, 

would result from states’ participation in the federal unemployment insurance program, which is voluntary, and would not result 

from intergovernmental mandates as defined in UMRA. 

Previous CBO estimate: On May 23, 2011, CBO transmitted an 

estimate of the budgetary effects of H.R. 1745, as ordered reported 

by the House Committee on Ways and Means on May 11, 2011. 

That version of the bill would allow states to receive a federal 

match of 50 percent of the costs of EB beginning in July 2011, and, 

in CBO’s estimation, would result in a net increase in federal deficits of $4 million over the 2011–2021 period. The amendment in 

the nature of a substitute would temporarily suspend that matching provision, and as a result would result in savings over the 

2011–2021 period of $0.7 billion. 

Estimate prepared by: Federal Spending: Christina Hawley Anthony; Federal Revenues: Barbara Edwards; Impact on State, 

Local, and Tribal Governments: Lisa Ramirez-Branum; Impact on 

the Private Sector: Sarah Axeen. 

Estimate approved by: Peter H. Fontaine, Assistant Director for 

Budget Analysis; Frank Sammartino; Assistant Director for Tax 

Analysis. 

U.S. CONGRESS, 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE, 

Washington, DC, May 23, 2011. 

Hon. DAVE CAMP, 

Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 1745, the Jobs, Opportunity, Benefits, and Services Act of 2011. 

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased 

to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Christina Hawley Anthony. 

Sincerely, 

DOUGLAS W. ELMENDORF. 

Enclosure. 

H.R. 1745—Jobs, Opportunity, Benefits, and Services Act of 2011 

Summary: H.R. 1745 would, beginning in July 2011, repeal provisions that allow federal reimbursements for the emergency unemployment compensation program (EUC), temporarily provide full 

federal funding for extended benefits (EB), and allow states to 

make it easier to provide EB. 

Additionally, enacting the bill would provide special distributions 

to the states in 2011 and 2012 totaling $31 billion, which states 

could use to continue to provide EUC and EB (as those programs 

existed on May 1, 2011), or pay for other unemployment-related expenses, including any interest due on loans from the unemployment trust fund (UTF). 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
30 

Finally, H.R. 1745 would require states to reduce unemployment 

benefits to individuals who have received overpayments, require individuals to meet certain criteria for receipt of benefits, and direct 

the Department of Labor to establish uniform reporting codes. 

CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 1745 would reduce outlays by $125 million in 2011 and by $3.1 billion over the 2011–2021 period. 

Under the bill, revenues also would decline by $3.1 billion over the 

2011–2021 period. On balance, enacting H.R. 1745 would increase 

deficits by $4 million over the 2011–2021 period. Implementing the 

bill would not have a significant effect on discretionary spending. 

Pay-as-you-go procedures apply because enacting the legislation 

would affect direct spending and revenues. 

H.R. 1745 would impose no intergovernmental or private-sector 

mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA). 

Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated budgetary impact of H.R. 1745 is shown in the following table. The costs 

of this legislation fall within budget function 600 (income security). 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
31 

By fiscal year, in millions of dollars— 

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2011– 2016 2011– 2021 

CHANGES IN DIRECT SPENDING 

Estimated Budget Authority .................................................................................................... ¥125 ¥2,835 ¥15 ¥15 ¥15 ¥15 ¥15 ¥15 ¥15 ¥15 ¥15 ¥3,020 ¥3,095 

Estimated Outlays ................................................................................................................... ¥125 ¥2,835 ¥15 ¥15 ¥15 ¥15 ¥15 ¥15 ¥15 ¥15 ¥15 ¥3,020 ¥3,095 

CHANGES IN REVENUES 

Estimated Revenues ................................................................................................................ 0 ¥47 ¥352 ¥798 ¥772 ¥568 ¥291 ¥208 ¥41 ¥11 ¥11 ¥2,537 ¥3,099 

NET INCREASE OR DECREASE (¥) IN THE DEFICIT FROM CHANGES IN DIRECT SPENDING AND REVENUES 

Estimated Impact on the Deficit ............................................................................................. ¥125 ¥2,788 337 783 757 553 276 193 26 ¥4 ¥4 ¥483 4 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
32 

Basis of estimate: For the purpose of this estimate, CBO assumes 

H.R. 1745 will be enacted by July 1, 2011. Later enactment could 

change the estimate significantly. 

H.R. 1745 would repeal the federal funding for EUC for weeks 

of unemployment ending after July 6, 2011. In addition, H.R. 1745 

would terminate temporary aspects of the EB program that extend 

100 percent federal funding for that program and make it easier 

for states to meet the unemployment rate thresholds required to 

provide benefits. 

Direct Spending 

The bill would transfer $12.8 billion to states for fiscal year 2011 and $18.2 billion for fiscal year 2012. States could use those funds 

to operate EUC and EB as they existed in state agreements as of 

May 1, 2011. However, the total amount that would be transferred 

is about $0.6 billion lower than the amounts CBO projects states 

will spend on EUC and special EB under current law. (Under current law, EUC and the temporary EB provisions are authorized 

through December 2011; states may terminate agreements to provide EUC by giving 30 days’ notice to the Department of Labor.) 

A state could use the transferred funds for other unemploymentrelated purposes, including paying interest due on loans from the 

UTF, but such changes would require state legislation. 

CBO estimates that most states would continue to operate EUC and EB programs using their share of the total $31 billion in transfers that would be provided by H.R. 1745. However, CBO expects 

that some states would opt out of EUC, provide fewer benefits 

under EB, or change their laws to use a portion of the funds for 

other purposes. CBO estimates that such changes would decrease 

outlays for EUC and EB by $125 million in 2011 and $2.8 billion 

in 2012. 

The bill also would direct states to offset overpayments of unemployment compensation by reducing benefits to individuals, harmonize job search requirements, and mandate recipients of unemployment compensation to meet a minimum education threshold 

(though that requirement could be waived in cases of hardship). 

CBO estimates those provisions would reduce outlays by about $15 

million per year beginning in 2013. 

Revenues 

Provisions in H.R. 1745 would affect states’ revenues for unemployment compensation, which are reflected on the federal budget. 

Lower outlays would result in higher balances in states’ unemployment trust funds. In addition, beginning in July 2011, states would 

be able to receive a 50 percent match on expenses for EB, even if 

the states choose to fund their EB expenses with their share of the 

transferred funds. That provision also would result in higher balances in states’ trust funds than under current law. CBO estimates 

that some states would respond to the higher balances by reducing 

their unemployment taxes (or by avoiding tax increases assumed in 

the baseline that would replenish the trust funds). As a result, 

CBO estimates that, on net, revenues would decline by $3.1 billion 

over the 2011–2021 period under H.R. 1745. 

Pay-As-You-Go considerations: The Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act 

of 2010 establishes budget reporting and enforcement procedures 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
33 

for legislation affecting direct spending or revenues. The net 

changes in outlays and revenues that are subject to those pay-asyou-go procedures are shown in the following table. Under H.R. 

1745, there would be no net impact for purposes of enforcing the 

Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act because the bill would designate the 

bill’s effects as an emergency requirement. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
34 

CBO ESTIMATE OF PAY-AS-YOU-GO EFFECTS FOR H.R. 1745 AS ORDERED REPORTED BY THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS ON MAY 11, 2011, WITH 

SUBSEQUENT LANGUAGE PROVIDED ON MAY 18, 2011 

By fiscal year, in millions of dollars— 

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2011– 2016 2011– 2021 

NET INCREASE OR DECREASE (¥) IN THE DEFICIT 

Total change ............................................................................................................................ ¥125 ¥2,788 337 783 757 553 276 193 26 ¥4 ¥4 ¥483 4 

Less: 

Designated as Emergency Requirements a ..................................................................... 125 2,788 ¥337 ¥783 ¥757 ¥553 ¥276 ¥193 ¥26 4 4 483 ¥4 

Statutory Pay-As-You Go Impact ............................................................................................. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Memorandum: 

Change in Outlays .......................................................................................................... ¥125 ¥2,835 ¥15 ¥15 ¥15 ¥15 ¥15 ¥15 ¥15 ¥15 ¥15 ¥3,020 ¥3,095 

Change in Revenues ....................................................................................................... 0 ¥47 ¥352 ¥798 ¥772 ¥568 ¥291 ¥208 ¥41 ¥11 ¥11 ¥2,537 ¥3,099 

a Section 204 of H.R. 1745 would designate the budgetary effects of the bill as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 4(g) of the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
35 

Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: H.R. 1745 contains 

no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in 

UMRA. CBO estimates that changes to the unemployment compensation program would result in lower federal transfers to the 

states than under current law and also would result in decreases 

in unemployment taxes in some states. These effects, however, 

would result from states’ participation in the federal unemployment insurance program, which is voluntary, and would not result 

from intergovernmental mandates as defined in UMRA. 

Estimate prepared by: Federal Spending: Christina Hawley Anthony; Federal Revenues: Barbara Edwards; Impact on State, 

Local, and Tribal Governments: Lisa Ramirez-Branum; Impact on 

the Private Sector: Sarah Axeen. 

Estimate approved by: Peter H. Fontaine, Assistant Director for 

Budget Analysis; Frank Sammartino, Assistant Director for Tax 

Analysis. 

V. OTHER MATTERS TO BE DISCUSSED UNDER THE 

RULES OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

A. COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

With respect to clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives (relating to oversight findings), the Committee concluded that it was appropriate and timely to enact the 

sections included in the bill, as reported. 

B. STATEMENT OF GENERAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

With respect to clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the Committee advises that the bill contains no measure that authorizes new or additional funding compared with the current law baseline, so no statement of general 

performance goals and objectives for which any measure authorizes 

funding is required. 

C. INFORMATION RELATING TO UNFUNDED MANDATES

This information is provided in accordance with section 423 of 

the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. No. 104–4). 

The Committee has determined that the revenue provisions of 

the bill do not impose a Federal mandate on the private sector. The 

Committee has determined that the revenue provisions of the bill 

do not impose a Federal intergovernmental mandate on State, 

local, or tribal governments. 

D. APPLICABILITY OF HOUSE RULE XXI 5(b) 

Clause 5(b) of rule XXI of the Rules of the House of Representatives provides, in part, that ‘‘A bill or joint resolution, amendment, 

or conference report carrying a Federal income tax rate increase 

may not be considered as passed or agreed to unless so determined 

by a vote of not less than three-fifths of the Members voting, a 

quorum being present.’’ The Committee has carefully reviewed the 

sections of the bill, and states that the bill does not involve any 

Federal income tax rate increases within the meaning of the rule. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
36 

E. CONGRESSIONAL EARMARKS, LIMITED TAX BENEFITS, AND

LIMITED TARIFF BENEFITS

With respect to clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the Committee has carefully reviewed the provision of the bill, and states that the provisions of the bill do not 

contain any congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited 

tariff benefits within the meaning of the rule. 

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED

In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the bill, 

as reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in italic, 

existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman): 

SOCIAL SECURITY ACT 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE III—GRANTS TO STATES FOR UNEMPLOYMENT 

COMPENSATION ADMINISTRATION 

* * * * * * * 

PROVISIONS OF STATE LAWS

SEC. 303. (a) The Secretary of Labor shall make no certification 

for payment to any State unless he finds that the law of such 

State, approved by the Secretary of Labor under the Federal Unemployment Tax Act, includes provision for— 

(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

ø(10) A requirement that, as a condition of eligibility for regular compensation for any week, any claimant who has been 

referred to reemployment services pursuant to the profiling 

system under subsection (j)(1)(B) participate in such services or 

in similar services unless the State agency charged with the 

administration of the State law determines— 

ø(A) such claimant has completed such services; or 

ø(B) there is justifiable cause for such claimant’s failure 

to participate in such services.¿ 

(10)(A) A requirement that, as a condition of eligibility for 

regular compensation for any week— 

(i) a claimant shall meet the minimum educational requirements set forth in subparagraph (B); and 

(ii) any claimant who has been referred to reemployment 

services shall participate in such services. 

(B) For purposes of this paragraph, an individual shall not 

be considered to have met the minimum educational requirements of this subparagraph unless such individual— 

(i) has earned a high school diploma; 

(ii) has earned the General Educational Development 

(GED) credential or other State-recognized equivalent (including by meeting recognized alternative standards for individuals with disabilities); or 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
37 

(iii) is enrolled and making satisfactory progress in classes leading to satisfaction of clause (ii). 

(C) The requirements of subparagraph (B) may be waived for 

an individual to the extent that the State agency charged with 

the administration of the State law deems such requirements to 

be unduly burdensome in the case of such individual. 

(11)(A) A requirement that, as a condition of eligibility for 

regular compensation for any week, a claimant must be able to 

work, available to work, and actively seeking work. 

(B) For purposes of this paragraph, the term ‘‘actively seeking 

work’’ means, with respect to any individual, that such individual is actively engaged in a systematic and sustained effort 

to obtain work, as determined based on evidence (whether in 

electronic format or otherwise) satisfactory to the State agency 

charged with the administration of the State law. 

(C) The specific requirements that must be met in order to 

satisfy this paragraph shall be established by the State agency, 

and shall include at least the following: 

(i) Registration for employment services within 14 days 

after making initial application for regular compensation. 

(ii) Posting a resume, record, or other application for employment on such database as the State agency may require. 

(iii) Applying, in such manner as the State agency may 

require, for work which is similar to that previously performed by the individual, and which offers wages comparable to wages for similar work in the local labor market 

in which the individual resides or is actively seeking work. 

* * * * * * * 

(g)(1) A State ømay¿ shall deduct from unemployment benefits 

otherwise payable to an individual an amount equal to any overpayment made to such individual under an unemployment benefit 

program of the United States or of any other State, and not previously recovered. The amount so deducted shall be paid to the jurisdiction under whose program such overpayment was made. Any 

such deduction shall be made only in accordance with the same 

procedures relating to notice and opportunity for a hearing as 

apply to the recovery of overpayments of regular unemployment 

compensation paid by such State. 

* * * * * * * 

DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS

SEC. 305. (a) The Secretary of Labor may enter into agreements, 

with States submitting an application described in subsection (b), 

for the purpose of allowing such States to conduct demonstration 

projects to test and evaluate measures designed— 

(1) to expedite the reemployment of individuals who establish 

initial eligibility for unemployment compensation under the 

State law of such State; or 

(2) to improve the effectiveness of a State in carrying out its 

State law with respect to reemployment. 

(b) The Governor of any State desiring to conduct a demonstration project under this section shall submit an application to the 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
38 

Secretary of Labor. Any such application shall, at a minimum, include— 

(1) a general description of the proposed demonstration 

project, including the authority (under the laws of the State) for 

the measures to be tested, as well as the period of time during 

which such demonstration project would be conducted; 

(2) if a waiver under subsection (c) is requested, the specific 

aspects of the project to which the waiver would apply and the 

reasons why such waiver is needed; 

(3) a description of the goals and the expected programmatic 

outcomes of the demonstration project, including how the 

project would contribute to the objective described in subsection 

(a)(1), subsection (a)(2), or both; 

(4) assurances (accompanied by supporting analysis) that the 

demonstration project would not result in any increased net 

costs to the State’s account in the Unemployment Trust Fund; 

(5) a description of the manner in which the State— 

(A) will conduct an impact evaluation, using a control or 

comparison group or other valid methodology, of the demonstration project; and 

(B) will determine the extent to which the goals and outcomes described in paragraph (3) were achieved; and 

(6) assurances that the State will provide any reports relating 

to the demonstration project, after its approval, as the Secretary 

of Labor may require. 

(c) The Secretary of Labor may waive any of the requirements of 

section 3304(a)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 or of paragraph (1) or (5) of section 303(a), to the extent and for the period 

the Secretary of Labor considers necessary to enable the State to 

carry out a demonstration project under this section. 

(d) A demonstration project under this section— 

(1) may be commenced any time after the date of enactment 

of this section; and 

(2) may not be approved for a period of time greater than 3 

years, subject to extension upon request of the Governor of the 

State involved for such additional period as the Secretary of 

Labor may agree to, except that in no event may a demonstration project under this section be conducted after the end of the 

5-year period beginning on the date of enactment of this section. 

(e) The Secretary of Labor shall, in the case of any State for 

which an application is submitted under subsection (b)— 

(1) notify the State as to whether such application has been 

approved or denied within 30 days after receipt of a complete 

application; and 

(2) provide public notice of the decision within 10 days after 

providing notification to the State in accordance with paragraph (1). 

Public notice under paragraph (2) may be provided through the 

Internet or other appropriate means. Any application under this section that has not been denied within such 30 days shall be deemed 

approved, and public notice of any approval under this sentence 

shall be provided within 10 days thereafter. 

(f) The Secretary of Labor may terminate a demonstration project 

under this section if the Secretary makes a final determination that 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
39 

the State has violated the substantive terms or conditions of the 

project. 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE IX—MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS RELATING TO 

EMPLOYMENT SECURITY 

* * * * * * * 

AMOUNTS TRANSFERRED TO STATE ACCOUNTS

SEC. 903. (a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

Special Transfers in Fiscal Years 2011 and 2012 

(h)(1) The Secretary of the Treasury shall transfer (as of the dates 

determined under paragraph (4)) from the extended unemployment 

compensation account to the account of each State in the Unemployment Trust Fund the amount determined with respect to such State 

under paragraph (2). 

(2)(A) The amount to be transferred to a State under this subsection in any fiscal year is the amount derived by multiplying the 

applicable total dollar amount for such fiscal year by the applicable 

fraction for such State. 

(B) For purposes of subparagraph (A), the applicable total dollar 

amount is— 

(i) for fiscal year 2011, $12,800,000,000; and 

(ii) for fiscal year 2012, $18,200,000,000. 

(C) For purposes of subparagraph (A), the applicable fraction for 

a State is a fraction— 

(i) the numerator of which is the total amount of extended 

compensation and emergency unemployment compensation paid 

out by such State for weeks beginning in the 12-month period 

described in clause (ii); and 

(ii) the denominator of which is the total amount of extended 

compensation and emergency unemployment compensation paid 

out by all States for weeks beginning in the most recent 12- 

month period for which that information is available for all 

States as of May 1, 2011. 

(3)(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), amounts transferred to a State account pursuant to this subsection shall be used 

only in the payment of extended compensation and emergency unemployment compensation, in accordance with applicable provisions of 

Federal and State law (including agreements and implementing 

regulations) as in effect on May 1, 2011. 

(B) A State may, pursuant to specific legislation enacted by the 

legislative body of the State after the date of enactment of the JOBS 

Act of 2011, use money transferred to the State account of such 

State under this subsection for (i) the payment of unemployment 

compensation, (ii) the repayment of advances made to such State 

under section 1201 (including interest thereon), and (iii) reemployment services designed to enhance the rapid reemployment of unemployed workers (such as mandatory workshops, claimant assessVerDate Mar 15 2010 05:38 May 25, 2011 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6603 E:\HR\OC\HR087P1.XXX HR087P1

smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
40 

ments, resume preparation and job search assistance, wage subsidy 

programs, eligibility reviews, labor market information, development of a work-search plan, and training), if and only if— 

(I) the purposes and amounts are specified in the law; 

(II) the money is withdrawn and expended, for the purpose 

described in clause (i), (ii), or (iii) (as the case may be), after 

the date of enactment of the law; and 

(III) the use of the money is accounted for in accordance with 

standards established by the Secretary of Labor. 

(4) Transfers under this subsection shall— 

(A) to the extent that they relate to the amount set forth in 

paragraph (2)(B)(i), be made within 10 days after the date of 

enactment of this subsection; and 

(B) to the extent that they relate to the amount set forth in 

paragraph (2)(B)(ii), be made after September 30, 2011, and on 

or before October 10, 2011. 

* * * * * * * 

DATA STANDARDIZATION FOR IMPROVED DATA MATCHING

Standard Data Elements 

SEC. 911. (a)(1) The Secretary of Labor, in consultation with an 

interagency work group established by the Office of Management 

and Budget, and considering State perspectives, shall, by rule, designate standard data elements for any category of information required under title III or this title. 

(2) The standard data elements designated under paragraph (1) 

shall, to the extent practicable, be nonproprietary and interoperable. 

(3) In designating standard data elements under this subsection, 

the Secretary of Labor shall, to the extent practicable, incorporate— 

(A) interoperable standards developed and maintained by an 

international voluntary consensus standards body, as defined 

by the Office of Management and Budget, such as the International Organization for Standardization; 

(B) interoperable standards developed and maintained by 

intergovernmental partnerships, such as the National Information Exchange Model; and 

(C) interoperable standards developed and maintained by 

Federal entities with authority over contracting and financial 

assistance, such as the Federal Acquisition Regulations Council. 

Data Standards for Reporting 

(b)(1) The Secretary of Labor, in consultation with an interagency 

work group established by the Office of Management and Budget, 

and considering State government perspectives, shall, by rule, designate data reporting standards to govern the reporting required 

under title III or this title. 

(2) The data reporting standards required by paragraph (1) shall, 

to the extent practicable— 

(A) incorporate a widely-accepted, non-proprietary, searchable, computer-readable format; 

(B) be consistent with and implement applicable accounting 

principles; and 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
41 

(C) be capable of being continually upgraded as necessary. 

(3) In designating reporting standards under this subsection, the 

Secretary of Labor shall, to the extent practicable, incorporate existing nonproprietary standards, such as the eXtensible Business Reporting Language. 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE XII—ADVANCES TO STATE UNEMPLOYMENT FUNDS 

* * * * * * * 

REPAYMENT BY STATES OF ADVANCES TO STATE UNEMPLOYMENT

FUNDS

SEC. 1202. (a) * * * 

(b)(1) * * * 

(2) No interest shall be required to be paid under paragraph (1) 

with respect to any advance or advances made during any calendar 

year if— 

(A) such advances are repaid in full before the close of September 30 of the calendar year in which the advances revere 

made, and 

(B) no other advance was made to such State under section 

1201 during such calendar year and after the date on which 

the repayment of the advances was completedø, and¿. 

ø(C) such State meets funding goals, established under regulations issued by the Secretary of Labor, relating to the accounts of the States in the Unemployment Trust Fund.¿ 

* * * * * * * 

INTERNAL REVENUE CODE OF 1986 

* * * * * * * 

Subtitle C—Employment Taxes 

* * * * * * * 

CHAPTER 23—FEDERAL UNEMPLOYMENT TAX 

ACT 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 3304. APPROVAL OF STATE LAWS. 

(a) REQUIREMENTS.—The Secretary of Labor shall approve any 

State law submitted to him, within 30 days of such submission, 

which he finds provides that— 

(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(4) all money withdrawn from the unemployment fund of the 

State shall be used solely in the payment of unemployment 

compensation, exclusive of expenses of administration, and for 

refunds of sums erroneously paid into such fund and refunds 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
42 

paid in accordance with the provisions of section 3305(b); except that— 

(A) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(D) amounts ømay¿ shall be deducted from unemployment benefits and used to repay overpayments as provided 

in section 303(g) of the Social Security Act; 

* * * * * * * 

ø(8) compensation shall not be denied to an individual for 

any week because he is in training with the approval of the 

State agency (or because of the application, to any such week 

in training, of State law provisions relating to availability for 

work, active search for work, or refusal to accept work);¿ 

(8) compensation shall not be denied to an individual for any 

week in which the individual is enrolled and making satisfactory progress in education or training which has been previously approved by the State agency; 

* * * * * * * 

SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2008 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE IV—EMERGENCY UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION 

FEDERAL-STATE AGREEMENTS

SEC. 4001. (a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

ø(g) NONREDUCTION RULE.—An agreement under this section 

shall not apply (or shall cease to apply) with respect to a State 

upon a determination by the Secretary that the method governing 

the computation of regular compensation under the State law of 

that State has been modified in a manner such that— 

ø(1) the average weekly benefit amount of regular compensation which will be payable during the period of the agreement 

occurring on or after June 2, 2010 (determined disregarding 

any additional amounts attributable to the modification described in section 2002(b)(1) of the Assistance for Unemployed 

Workers and Struggling Families Act, as contained in Public 

Law 111–5 (26 U.S.C. 3304 note; 123 Stat. 438)), will be less 

than 

ø(2) the average weekly benefit amount of regular compensation which would otherwise have been payable during such period under the State law, as in effect on June 2, 2010.¿ 

* * * * * * * 

øPAYMENTS TO STATES HAVING AGREEMENTS FOR THE PAYMENT OF

EMERGENCY UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION

øSEC. 4003. (a) GENERAL RULE.—There shall be paid to each 

State that has entered into an agreement under this title an 

amount equal to 100 percent of the emergency unemployment comVerDate Mar 15 2010 05:38 May 25, 2011 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR087P1.XXX HR087P1

smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
43 

pensation paid to individuals by the State pursuant to such agreement. 

ø(b) TREATMENT OF REIMBURSABLE COMPENSATION.—No payment 

shall be made to any State under this section in respect of any 

compensation to the extent the State is entitled to reimbursement 

in respect of such compensation under the provisions of any Federal law other than this title or chapter 85 of title 5, United States 

Code. A State shall not be entitled to any reimbursement under 

such chapter 85 in respect of any compensation to the extent the 

State is entitled to reimbursement under this title in respect of 

such compensation. 

ø(c) DETERMINATION OF AMOUNT.—Sums payable to any State by 

reason of such State having an agreement under this title shall be 

payable, either in advance or by way of reimbursement (as may be 

determined by the Secretary), in such amounts as the Secretary estimates the State will be entitled to receive under this title for each 

calendar month, reduced or increased, as the case may be, by any 

amount by which the Secretary finds that the Secretary’s estimates 

for any prior calendar month were greater or less than the 

amounts which should have been paid to the State. Such estimates 

may be made on the basis of such statistical, sampling, or other 

method as may be agreed upon by the Secretary and the State 

agency of the State involved.¿ 

FINANCING PROVISIONS

SEC. 4004. (a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(e) TRANSFER OF FUNDS.—Notwithstanding any other provision of 

law, the Secretary of the Treasury shall transfer from the general 

fund of the Treasury (from funds not otherwise appropriated)— 

(1) to the extended unemployment compensation account (as 

established by section 905 of the Social Security Act) such 

sums as the Secretary of Labor estimates to be necessary to 

make payments to States under this title by reason of— 

(A) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(F) the amendments made by section 2(a)(1) of the Unemployment Compensation Extension Act of 2010; øand¿ 

* * * * * * * 

(H) the amendment made by section 201 of the Jobs, Opportunity, Benefits, and Services Act of 2011; and 

* * * * * * * 

ASSISTANCE FOR UNEMPLOYED WORKERS AND 

STRUGGLING FAMILIES ACT 

* * * * * * * 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
44 

TITLE II—ASSISTANCE FOR UNEMPLOYED WORKERS AND STRUGGLING 

FAMILIES 

* * * * * * * 

Subtitle A—Unemployment Insurance 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 2005. FULL FEDERAL FUNDING OF EXTENDED UNEMPLOYMENT 

COMPENSATION FOR A LIMITED PERIOD. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—In the case of sharable extended compensation 

and sharable regular compensation paid for weeks of unemployment beginning after the date of the enactment of this section and 

before øJanuary 4, 2012¿ July 6, 2011, section 204(a)(1) of the Federal-State Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 1970 (26 

U.S.C. 3304 note) shall be applied by substituting ‘‘100 percent of’’ 

for ‘‘one-half of’’. 

(b) SPECIAL RULE.—At the option of a State, for any weeks of unemployment beginning after the date of the enactment of this section and before øJanuary 4, 2012¿ the date of enactment of the 

JOBS Act of 2011, an individual’s eligibility period (as described in 

section 203(c) of the Federal-State Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 1970) shall, for purposes of any determination of 

eligibility for extended compensation under the State law of such 

State, be considered to include any week which begins— 

(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

ø(c) LIMITED EXTENSION.—In the case of an individual who receives extended compensation with respect to 1 or more weeks of 

unemployment beginning after the date of the enactment of this 

Act and before January 4, 2012, the provisions of subsections (a) 

and (b) shall, at the option of a State, be applied by substituting 

‘‘ending before June 11, 2012’’ for ‘‘before January 4, 2012’’.¿ 

* * * * * * * 

FEDERAL-STATE EXTENDED UNEMPLOYMENT 

COMPENSATION ACT OF 1970 

* * * * * * * 

EXTENDED BENEFIT PERIOD

Beginning and Ending 

SEC. 203. (a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

State On and Off Indicators.— 

(d) For purposes of this section— 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
45 

(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

Effective with respect to compensation for weeks of unemployment 

beginning after March 30, 1977 (or, if later, the date established 

pursuant to State law), the State may by law provide that the determination of whether there has been a State ‘‘on’’ or ‘‘off’’ indicator beginning or ending any extended benefit period shall be 

made under this subsection as if (i) paragraph (1) did not contain 

subparagraph (A) thereof, and (ii) the figure ‘‘5’’ contained in subparagraph (B) thereof were ‘‘6’’; except that, notwithstanding any 

such provision of State law, any week for which there would otherwise be a State ‘‘on’’ indicator shall continue to be such a week and 

shall not be determined to be a week for which there is a State 

‘‘off’’ indicator. Effective with respect to compensation for weeks of 

unemployment beginning after the date of enactment of the Tax 

Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010 (or, if later, the date established pursuant to 

State law), and ending on or before øDecember 31, 2011¿ June 30, 

2011, the State may by law provide that the determination of 

whether there has been a state ‘‘on’’ or ‘‘off’’ indicator beginning or 

ending any extended benefit period shall be made under this subsection as if the word ‘‘two’’ were ‘‘three’’ in subparagraph (1)(A). 

For purposes of this subsection, the rate of insured unemployment 

for any thirteen-week period shall be determined by reference to 

the average monthly covered employment under the State law for 

the first four of the most recent six calendar quarters ending before 

the close of such period. 

* * * * * * * 

Alternative Trigger 

(f)(1) * * * 

(2) Effective with respect to compensation for weeks of unemployment beginning after the date of enactment of the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 

2010 (or, if later, the date established pursuant to State law), and 

ending on or before øDecember 31, 2011¿ June 30, 2011, the State 

may by law provide that the determination of whether there has 

been a state ‘‘on’’ or ‘‘off’’ indicator beginning or ending any extended benefit period shall be made under this subsection as if the 

word ‘‘either’’ were ‘‘any’’, the word ‘‘both’’ were ‘‘all’’, and the figure 

‘‘2’’ were ‘‘3’’ in clause (1)(A)(ii). 

* * * * * * * 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
(46) 

DISSENTING VIEWS 

We oppose H.R. 1745 because the legislation ends the current 

Federal guarantee of extended unemployment benefits for America’s long-term unemployed. Jeopardizing the unemployment benefits of over four million Americans is the wrong path for our Nation, and it reneges on legislation Republicans agreed to less than 

six months ago to extend unemployment benefits in exchange for 

continuing tax cuts for the wealthy. 

Under the policies adopted by Democrats in Congress and President Obama, our economy has created over two million new private 

sector jobs over the last 14 months. By comparison, during the last 

14 months of President Bush’s Administration, the Nation lost over 

3.7 million private sector jobs. But even with this improvement, the 

job market remains tough for many Americans. There are still 

roughly 7 million fewer jobs in the economy today than when the 

‘‘Great Recession’’ started in December 2007. Data from the Department of Labor shows there are about four and half unemployed 

individuals for every available job. Additionally, the long-term unemployment rate for the first four months of this year is at an historically high level, with over 44 percent of the jobless without 

work for at least six months. 

During the markup of H.R. 1745, Members of the majority suggested the legislation does not encourage States to terminate unemployment benefits for Americans struggling to find work. However, the bill clearly allows States to divert up to $31 billion of Federal funds for extended unemployment benefits toward other purposes. As Labor Secretary Hilda Solis says in her letter opposing 

the legislation, ‘‘H.R. 1745 could end these crucial benefits by providing incentives for states to eliminate these benefit programs altogether.’’ 

The majority also suggested that the risk of unemployment funds 

being diverted is moderated by the fact some States have already 

ended their legislative sessions. Of course, these States could come 

back into special session to change their laws. Furthermore, a Governor could unilaterally end a State’s participation in the Emergency Unemployment Compensation (EUC) program (without approval from the legislature) and wait for the next legislative session to reach agreement on how to spend the funds that have been 

diverted from paying extended unemployment benefits. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
47 

The legislation makes it clear that one of the purposes that 

States can divert Federal UI funds toward is paying all or a portion 

of any outstanding loan the State has received from the Federal 

Unemployment Trust Funds. We note that many proposals have 

been put forward to address solvency issues within the unemployment system, and we would have preferred a genuine effort to find 

bipartisan consensus on the issue. In this context, it is worth remembering that the Government Accountability Office (GAO) informed the Committee last year that State UI financing policies are 

a major factor behind their current insolvency problems. More specifically, GAO found, ‘‘Long-standing UI tax policies and practices 

in many States over 3 decades have eroded trust fund reserves, 

leaving States in a weak position prior to the recent recession.’’ The 

report highlighted that ‘‘While [unemployment] benefits over the 

last 3 decades have remained largely flat relative to wages, employer tax rates have declined.’’ In terms of restoring the solvency 

of the Federal Unemployment Trust Funds, H.R. 1745 fails to continue an expiring source of funding that has been in place for over 

30 years and that has been routinely extended with bipartisan support. 

We also believe it is important to recognize that unemployment benefits are not generous, with the average weekly benefit of $300 

reaching only 70 percent of the poverty line for a family of four. 

Nevertheless, unemployment insurance remains the difference between hardship and destitution for millions of workers who have 

lost their jobs through no fault of their own. Over four million jobless workers now depend on Federal unemployment insurance and 

the legislation ends the assurance that their benefits will continue. 

Furthermore, the bill repeals a protection that prevents States 

from cutting the cash amount of regular unemployment benefits 

when participating in the EUC program. We also are concerned 

about proposals that tie eligibility to education and training at a 

time when the majority’s budget proposals slash funding for education, job training and employment services. 

Finally, while the majority calls H.R. 1745 a jobs bill, the legislation has nothing to do with creating jobs. In fact, by diverting 

money from unemployment benefits to purposes with less economic 

impact, the legislation could cost American jobs. An analysis by the 

Economic Policy Institute points out that if every State used the 

unemployment funds for debt repayment or trust fund solvency instead of continuing extended benefits, 322,000 jobs could be lost 

due to the decline in economic activity associated with the expenditure of UI benefits. Of course, if only some States pursued that 

course, the negative impact would be smaller, but there could still 

be a harmful effect on job growth. 

We therefore oppose H.R. 1745 as a bill that could negatively impact job creation, hurt unemployed Americans, and take the wrong 

step in addressing long-term solvency for the Unemployment Insurance system. The Republican majority should refrain from blaming 

the unemployed for unemployment and join with us in working to 

continue to create jobs. 

SANDER LEVIN. JOHN LEWIS. 

SHELLEY BERKLEY. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
48 

BILL PASCRELL, Jr. 

JOHN B. LARSON. JIM MCDERMOTT. EARL BLUMENAUER. LLOYD DOGGETT. PETE STARK. JOE CROWLEY. CHARLES B. RANGEL. RON KIND. MIKE THOMPSON. XAVIER BECERRA. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS