ECONOMIC RECOVERY AND ASSISTANCE TO 

WORKERS

HEARING

BEFORE THE 

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND 

THE WORKFORCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, NOVEMBER 14, 2001 

Serial No. 107-40 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Education 

and the Workforce

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

WASHINGTON : 2002 

80-044 pdf 

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

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: (202) 512-1800 FAX: (202) 512-2250 

Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
ii

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE 

JOHN A. BOEHNER, Ohio, Chairman 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin GEORGE MILLER, California 

MARGE ROUKEMA, New Jersey DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan 

CASS BALLENGER, North Carolina MAJOR R. OWENS, New York 

PETER HOEKSTRA, Michigan DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey 

HOWARD P. “BUCK” McKEON, California PATSY MINK, Hawaii 

MICHAEL N. CASTLE, Delaware ROBERT E. ANDREWS, New Jersey 

SAM JOHNSON, Texas TIM ROEMER, Indiana 

JAMES C. GREENWOOD, Pennsylvania ROBERT C. “BOBBY” SCOTT, Virginia 

LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California 

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana LYNN N. RIVERS, Michigan 

CHARLIE W. NORWOOD, JR., Georgia RUBEN HINOJOSA, Texas 

BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado CAROLYN McCARTHY, New York 

FRED UPTON, Michigan JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts 

VAN HILLEARY, Tennessee RON KIND, Wisconsin 

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan LORETTA SANCHEZ, California 

THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado HAROLD E. FORD, JR., Tennessee 

ERNIE FLETCHER, Kentucky DENNIS KUCINICH, Ohio 

JIM DeMINT, South Carolina DAVID WU, Oregon 

JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia RUSH D. HOLT, New Jersey 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia HILDA L. SOLIS, California 

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois SUSAN DAVIS, California 

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota 

PATRICK J. TIBERI, Ohio 

RIC KELLER, Florida 

TOM OSBORNE, Nebraska 

JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON, Texas 

Paula Nowakowski, Chief of Staff 

John Lawrence, Minority Staff Director 
iii

Table of Contents 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN JOHN BOEHNER, COMMITTEE ON 

EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE..............................................................2

OPENING STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER GEORGE MILLER, COMMITTEE ON 

EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE..............................................................3

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL HANNAH, PRESIDENT, LOCAL 13358, UNITED 

STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, BIRMINGHAM, AL..........................................5

STATEMENT OF LINDA WOODS, ON BEHALF OF THE PHILADELPHIA 

UNEMPLOYMENT PROJECT, PHILADELPHIA, PA.............................................7

STATEMENT OF JOHN J. SWEENEY, PRESIDENT, AFL-CIO, WASHINGTON, D.C.

...............................................................................................................8

STATEMENT OF PETER R. ORSZAG, JOSEPH A. PECHMAN SENIOR FELLOW, THE 

BROOKINGS INSTITUTION, WASHINGTON, D.C..............................................17

APPENDIX A - WRITTEN STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN JOHN BOEHNER, 

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE....................................39

APPENDIX B - WRITTEN STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER GEORGE MILLER, 

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE....................................43

APPENDIX C - WRITTEN STATEMENT OF MICHAEL HANNAH, PRESIDENT, 

LOCAL 13358, UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, BIRMINGHAM, AL 

...............................................................................................................47

APPENDIX D - WRITTEN STATEMENT OF LINDA WOODS, ON BEHALF OF THE 

PHILADELPHIA UNEMPLOYMENT PROJECT, PHILADELPHIA, PA.....................51

APPENDIX E - WRITTEN STATEMENT OF JOHN J. SWEENEY, PRESIDENT, AFLCIO, WASHINGTON, D.C..............................................................................57

APPENDIX F - WRITTEN STATEMENT OF PETER R. ORSZAG, JOSEPH A. PECHMAN 

SENIOR FELLOW, THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION, WASHINGTON, D. C.

......................................................................................................... 65
iv

APPENDIX G – SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD, STATEMENT OF 

CONGRESSWOMAN HILDA L. SOLIS, COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE 

WORKFORCE............................................................................................95

Table of Indexes...........................................................................................98
1

HEARING ON ECONOMIC RECOVERY 

AND ASSISTANCE TO WORKERS 

____________________

November 14, 2001 

Committee on Education and the Workforce 

 U. S. House of Representatives 

Washington, D.C. 

 The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 2:17 p.m., in Room 2175, Rayburn House Office 

Building, Hon. John A. Boehner, Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

 Present: Representatives Boehner, McKeon, Johnson, Tancredo, Fletcher, Isakson, 

Biggert, Tiberi, Osborne, Miller, Kildee, Owens, Payne, Andrews, Roemer, Scott, Woolsey, 

Rivers, McCarthy, Tierney, Sanchez, Kucinich, Wu, Holt, Solis, Davis, and McCollum. 

 Staff Present: Stephanie Milburn, Professional Staff Member; Dave Thomas, Legislative 

Assistant; Jo-Marie St. Martin, General Counsel; Heather Valentine, Press Secretary; Kristin 

Fitzgerald, Professional Staff Member; Patrick Lyden, Professional Staff Member; Molly Salmi, 

Professional Staff Member; Deborah Samantar, Committee Clerk/Intern Coordinator; John 

Lawrence, Minority Staff Director; Mark Zuckerman, Minority General Counsel; Cheryl 

Johnson, Minority Counsel; Peter Rutledge, Senior Legislative Associate, Labor; and Brian 

Compagnone, Minority Staff Assistant, Labor.

Chairman Boehner. The Committee on Education and the Workforce will come to order. We 

are meeting today for a Minority Day of testimony on economic recovery and assistance to 

workers. Under Committee rule 12-B, opening statements are limited to the Chairman or 

Ranking Member of the Committee; therefore, if other Members have statements, they will be 

included in the record. With that, I ask unanimous consent for the hearing record to remain open 
2

for 14 days to allow Members' statements and other extraneous material referenced during the 

hearing today to be submitted in official hearing record. Without objection, so ordered. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN JOHN BOEHNER, COMMITTEE ON 

EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE 

 I thank you all for joining us today for our continued discussion on assistance for 

workers. This issue remains a matter of urgency for all Americans. Even in the time since our 

previous hearing on October 16 during which Labor Secretary Chao testified, we have seen new 

evidence of the impact of the terrible attacks of September 11 and what they have done to our 

economy and to our workforce. 

The Department of Labor recently released unemployment figures for October. The 

unemployment rate rose to 5.4 percent with hundreds of thousands of additional individuals now 

unemployed. We know that our economy already was softening prior to the attacks, particularly 

in manufacturing. However, in the aftermath of that fateful day, other sectors have been 

impacted dramatically. A sharp decline in travel and tourism has hit one service sector the 

hardest, and I am sure we have heard from all kinds of individuals in our districts seeking 

assistance with finding employment or help for their families. 

Congress has worked for years to create a workforce development system to assist during 

such times, and through the existing one-stop career centers, workers can access a variety of 

services and safety net programs created to help dislocated workers. However, we all agree and 

we are all committed to making sure that our system is seamless and no worker or family falls 

through the cracks. We know the goal of dislocated persons is to find new work and our efforts 

must be geared toward that. 

 In that light, I would like to reiterate something that Secretary Chao stated in her 

testimony before us last month. Our emphasis must be on rapid response with assistance that is 

immediate, effective, and targeted at the problem at hand. Any steps we take should build upon 

existing work force development systems without creating new permanent programs to address 

the needs of workers impacted by September 11, particularly when expensive new programs 

could have unintended negative consequences for our economy. We must ensure a 

compassionate response is focused on giving families the tools and opportunities to find jobs.

President Bush and Labor Secretary Chao have outlined reasonable steps the Congress 

should take to strengthen the safety net for displaced workers as they look for work. The 

Administration's proposal is designed to help workers across all industries that have lost their 

jobs as a result of the events of September 11 by putting people back to work and providing 

needed income support and access to health care. These proposals will provide needed 

additional resources while maintaining flexibility in the current system. 

 Recently I introduced H.R. 3112, which would enact part of the President's plan. The bill 

would increase national emergency grants within the Workforce Investment Act of 1988 by $3 
3

billion. These flexible funds could be used to pay up to 75 percent of the cost of health care 

coverage for up to 10 months for dislocated workers, provide additional weeks of income 

support for individuals who have exhausted their unemployment compensation or do not qualify 

for such payments and provide additional dollars to offer a full array of job search and training 

activities. 

 I remain concerned about creating new programs that require new administrative 

structures and lead to long implementation delays. The Administration's plan can be 

implemented immediately because it builds upon the existing workforce development structure. 

Some may feel it does not provide enough long-term relief. However, we know that it will 

provide months of real relief for workers during which time we can evaluate the status of the 

economy and determine if further action is necessary and appropriate. 

 Today we welcome witnesses testifying at the request of the Members on the Democrat 

side of the aisle, and we look forward to hearing their perspectives on how we can assist 

American workers. In addition, I look forward to continuing to work with Members of this 

Committee on both sides of the aisle to provide hope for workers and their families in these 

difficult times. 

WRITTEN STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN JOHN BOEHNER, COMMITTEE ON 

EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE – 

SEE APPENDIX A 

Chairman Boehner. I would now like to yield to my colleague and friend, the Ranking 

Member from California, Mr. Miller. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER GEORGE MILLER, COMMITTEE 

ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for working with us to hold these hearings at 

our request. Today the Committee on Education and the Workforce is having a unique hearing, 

the first hearing called this year by the Members of the Democratic caucus to look into the 

serious economic deterioration impacting our country and our working men and women. This 

hearing offers us a chance to reshape the economic stimulus legislation that does not adequately 

address the urgent needs of millions of the jobless American working families. The October 

increase in unemployment was the largest over two decades adding more than a half million 

jobless to the 1.1 million jobs lost this year prior to September 11. 

 Only a few weeks ago the House of Representatives passed a stimulus package that 

lavished billions of dollars on the wealthiest of Americans, the same fortunate few who enjoyed 

most of the tax cuts passed earlier this year by the same Congress while offering crumbs to the 
4

hundreds of thousands who have lost their jobs and whose families are on the brink of economic 

catastrophe. The criticism of that House stimulus bill was by no means partisan in nature. This 

is the bill that, in the words of a Wall Street Journal, November 1 editorial, mainly padded 

corporate bottom lines. No less a conservative writer than Kevin Fields compared the House 

passed bill to war profiteering passed in the name of phony economic stimulus. 

Under the Republican bill, Larry Johnson won't get a dime. Larry Johnson doesn't work 

in a corporate boardroom. He cleaned the bar and polished the floors at the World Trade Center 

and now he's out of a job and he is denied unemployment benefits by New York. There are 

hundreds of thousands of “Larry Johnsons”, and something is very wrong here. While 97 

percent of the employers pay unemployment funds, less than 40 percent of the workers 

nationally receive unemployment assistance, a substantial drop over the last 25 years. And in 

some States, the percent of the qualified is much lower than that. Workers in the new economy, 

younger, immigrant, part-time, low income, short term, are especially hurt by inadequate 

unemployment insurance, and economists are predicting that another 1.5 million could lose their 

jobs over the next nine months. 

 Even for those who do qualify, benefits levels are often below the poverty line, leaving 

millions of suddenly unemployed Americans facing poverty, joblessness and homelessness. The 

Republican response to this crisis has been an anecdote of Herbert Hoover. Help the rich and the 

poor will benefit from the improving economy. Prosperity is right around the corner. But we 

were not elected to ignore the suffering of our constituents. 

 When will the Congress hear the voices of our desperate countrymen and women and 

demonstrate its concern for the real victims of this recession? First the House passed a $1.4 

trillion tax cut mainly for the wealthy, then the $38 billion bailout for the oil, gas, and electric 

and nuclear power companies, a $15 billion bailout for the airlines industry ignoring the workers, 

and a stimulus bill that showers over a $100 billion more on the wealthiest, most powerful in our 

Nation and only a fraction of the genuine stimulus. 

 This afternoon, this Committee will hear from those neglected voices beginning with the 

distinguished President of the American Federation of Labor, Congress and Industrial 

Organizations, John Sweeney. Mr. Michael Hannah and Ms. Linda Woods, who are workers who 

find themselves in a predicament at this point in our economy, accompany him. I want to 

welcome them to the Committee. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman. 

WRITTEN STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER GEORGE MILLER, COMMITTEE ON 

EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE – SEE APPENDIX B 

Chairman Boehner. Thank you, Mr. Miller. It is now my pleasure to introduce our panel of 

witnesses today.
5

Our first witness is Mr. Michael Hannah, President of Local 13358 of the United 

Steelworkers of America. Mr. Hannah is from Birmingham, Alabama. Welcome. Our second 

witness today is Ms. Linda Woods. She is representing the Philadelphia Unemployment Project, 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. We welcome you. Our last witness today will be Mr. John 

Sweeney, President of the AFL-CIO, located here in Washington, D.C. 

With that, Mr. Hannah, you may begin. 

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL HANNAH, PRESIDENT, LOCAL 13358, UNITED 

STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, BIRMINGHAM, AL 

 Good afternoon. I am a member of the United Steelworkers of America, Local 13358, 

Birmingham, Alabama. My employer, Butler Manufacturing, maker of pre-engineered metal 

buildings, recently notified me that effective November 30, I would be laid off from my job 

indefinitely. This layoff of 99 workers will be the third mass layoff at my plant in the last two 

years. Our company explained that this upcoming layoff is because of decreased business levels 

directly related to the September 11 terrorist attacks. 

 The layoff is expected to last 6 to 8 months and possibly longer. In January of this year, I 

was among a group of 148 employees laid off for a 4-month period, during which time I received 

unemployment benefits of $190 per week. I now have only 7 weeks of unemployment benefits 

remaining in my state eligibility. It seems very likely that in this next layoff period, that I will 

run out of unemployment benefits before being recalled to my job. 

 The number of initial weekly jobless claims filed in Alabama rose by 51.1 percent from 

September 1 to October 27, and these numbers are climbing. With the unemployment rate rising 

in Alabama, the prospects of finding a decent paying job in my area are not very promising. It is 

especially tough when prospective employers hear that I have over 29 years of service with my 

employer, and that I intend to return there when I am recalled from layoff. It is my opinion that 

the 26-week maximum benefit period is not sufficient, especially during this time of rising 

unemployment levels. 

 With the weekly unemployment compensation benefit level in my State being so low, I 

expect to have some very tough times ahead of me. I can only hope that our government will see 

the need to provide unemployed workers with additional benefits that would help us to provide 

for our families as we suffer through the repercussions of the September 11 tragedy. We 

desperately need a Federal extension of weekly benefits. We also need increased benefit levels 

especially in States such as Alabama, where the maximum benefit is only $190 per week. 

 Another problem that I will have is a lack of health insurance during the period I am 

unemployed. If I choose to keep my health insurance coverage, the COBRA rate that I would 

have to pay would be $529 per month. There is no possible way I can afford to pay COBRA for 

the several months that I expect to be off of work. My wife is disabled due to a back injury that 
6

requires frequent doctor visits and some very expensive medication. It will be a real challenge 

for me to see that she gets medical care during my layoff. I feel that our government should 

assist people with insurance costs in these situations so that they can keep their medical coverage 

during a temporary period of unemployment. 

 I have been an industrial worker for 29 years and I have witnessed a state of decline in 

many manufacturing jobs in Alabama. According to my reading of recent reports, the United 

States lost 1.3 million manufacturing jobs between July 2000, and October 2001, with another 

142,000 manufacturing jobs lost in the month of October. As a proud American worker, I place 

blame on our government's failed trade policies and the changes in our economy. As the elected 

President of my local union at Butler Manufacturing, I represent 149 union members. There are 

currently 53 workers who have been on layoff for periods of 9 to 21 months. 

 Over the past few weeks, I have become aware of some of the problems and financial 

troubles that the now laid off members I represent are having. Many of our workers at Butler 

Manufacturing have exhausted their unemployment benefits completely. Among the workers in 

their mid to late 20's with families to look after, who are currently on an indefinite layoff at 

Butler Manufacturing are the following: 

 Aaron Knight’s family has no insurance. He has a wife and two children, a 4-year-old 

and a newborn. His wife works part-time. His unemployment ran out three months ago. He is 

looking for work and doing odd jobs where he can find them. For the past few months, he has 

been borrowing money from family members to pay medical expenses. 

 Charles Hydrick has a wife and child. He works part-time doing construction work 2 to 3 

days a week. His wife works but makes low wages. He was laid off in January and applied for 

unemployment benefits but didn't qualify, due to an earlier layoff of several months. They have 

no medical insurance. 

 Kenneth Copeland has a wife and two children. His wife doesn't work. They have no 

insurance. His unemployment benefits ran out in July. He found a job and worked for one 

month before being laid off again. His employer has no idea when he can include him in a plant 

recall. No unemployment benefits are available to him because he did not qualify under the 

State rules. 

 These people are my friends and my co-workers. They are mothers and fathers and 

grandparents. They need and deserve the full consideration and help of our government. 

 I would just like to take the opportunity to appeal to our President and our Congress 

today do pass legislation that would provide immediate assistance to all unemployed workers, 

regardless of where they live. Give us the help we need by extending and increasing our 

unemployment benefits and please assist us with a 100 percent COBRA subsidy to allow our 

families to keep our health insurance. Thank you. 
7

WRITTEN STATEMENT OF MICHAEL HANNAH, PRESIDENT, LOCAL 13358, UNITED 

STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, BIRMINGHAM, AL – 

SEE APPENDIX C 

Chairman Boehner. Ms. Woods, you may begin. 

STATEMENT OF LINDA WOODS, ON BEHALF OF THE PHILADELPHIA 

UNEMPLOYMENT PROJECT, PHILADELPHIA, PA 

Good afternoon. I would like to take this time to thank you for inviting me back to speak. 

My name is Linda Woods, and I have been in the printing and advertisement business for 18 

years. As of May the 5th, I was laid off from my job. At this time I have no health insurance. I 

lost that a month later. And also, I had a salary of $19.11 an hour. Two weeks prior to my 

layoff, my son was laid off from his jobs. He held two jobs, in the hotel business and in the car 

factory business also. His hotel business went first and his factory job went in May also. At this 

time, my entire family is out of work. We are in need. My son has taken advantage of going 

back to school for retraining, but my question is how does the system offer 13 months of 

retraining if unemployment is only for 6 months? 

 As a parent, I am saying to myself how can I help my son? Parents are supposed to be 

there for their children. They are supposed to be the backbone of their children. How can I be 

there for him when I am out of work myself? I am angry at the system at this time because as I 

said, I question is the system really set up for the working person? I have worked the majority of 

my life. I have given to the system, and for the system to hand me back 26 weeks and say get 

your life in order, I am angry. I am angry. I have one check left on my unemployment. My 

son's checks have run out. 

 So I am at this question of how are we going to make it? How are we going to make it? 

Tomorrow I have an interview at a camera shop paying $6.50 an hour. I have been looking for 

work since May and I have not yet been offered a job paying over $7 an hour. My question to 

you on behalf of millions, and myself is when is this legislation going to take effect? I don't 

have the time. My time is running out. What am I supposed to do? How is my family supposed 

to make it? 

 Thirteen weeks is a good start, but in 1991, workers received 33 weeks of extension; in 

1983, the unemployed received 23 weeks; 1975, workers received 39 weeks. This recession is 

just getting started and we need more than 13 weeks. Walk in my shoes. How am I going to 

make it? At the age of 46, I never would have believed I would be looking for a job, but I am. 

Families need help and they need help now. My family needs help. 
8

I would like to take this time also for my son to stand up and be recognized, because I am 

very, very proud of him. Thank you very much. 

WRITTEN STATEMENT OF LINDA WOODS, ON BEHALF OF THE PHILADELPHIA 

UNEMPLOYMENT PROJECT, PHILADELPHIA, PA – SEE APPENDIX D 

Chairman Boehner. Mr. Sweeney, you may begin. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN J. SWEENEY, PRESIDENT, AFL-CIO, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Miller, Members of the Committee, I want to thank you for this 

opportunity. I want to thank Michael Hannah and Linda Woods for joining us here today to tell 

their stories. On behalf of the 13 million working men and women of the AFL-CIO, I thank all 

Members of the Committee for this opportunity to share our views on how to put America back 

to work.

The union movement joins with civilized people everywhere in deploring the horrible 

attacks of September 11, in mourning the loss of innocent lives and the loss of national 

innocence they occasioned. Among the thousands who died that day were nearly 1,000 union 

members, many who died in self-valiant and selfless attempts to save others. On September 11, 

hundreds of thousands of workers lost their livelihoods in the economic crisis that has engulfed 

the Nation and much of the world. 

 Terrorist attacks and their devastating impact on consumer confidence, travel and tourism 

worsened an economic downturn that was already underway. Today there is no doubt we are in 

a full-fledged recession. Unemployment jumped to 5.4 percent in October; the biggest 1-month 

jump since 1980. Since September 11, corporations have announced almost 700,000 layoffs. 

These numbers tell a part of the story. But I would like to give you one example that breathes 

life into the numbers. 

Melanie and Peter Fiedler are both laid-off United Airlines employees. Melanie recently 

lost her job. Peter lost his in August. The Fiedlers have four young children. Peter gets about 

$400 per week in unemployment insurance. Because she worked part-time and was on maternity 

leave for several months this year, Melanie may not qualify for unemployment insurance. For 

the time being, she gets severance pay and employer provided health care coverage, but when 

these run out, the family will have to make a $575 monthly COBRA payment to maintain health 

care coverage. With Peter's monthly unemployment insurance of only $1,600 and the regular 
9

monthly expenses of $1,400, there is no way the Fiedlers can make COBRA payments unless 

they receive a sizable subsidy. 

 Stories like these are being repeated countless times over around the Nation. They are 

stories of men and women who work hard and play by the rules. They do not seek a handout, 

just what they have earned and deserved. Help to get through this crisis. The way to help 

families such as the Fiedlers is through sound and sensible tax and spending policies that will 

provide support to those most in need, revive the economy, promote long-term growth and meet 

long neglected and unfilled social needs. 

 First we should increase the assistance to workers who have lost or will lose their jobs 

during this downturn. Unemployment insurance benefit levels, duration and coverage must all 

be improved dramatically. Assisting the unemployed shall put money into the hands and pockets 

of those who need it and who will spend it. The Federal Government should also help 

unemployed working families maintain health care coverage, either by subsidizing COBRA 

payments or by providing access to a public benefit funded under Medicaid and administered by 

the States for uninsured working families without affordable planned coverage. Finally, the 

Federal Government should fully fund job training and retraining programs for all affected 

workers.

Second, we should provide direct Federal aid to struggling State and local governments. 

Many State governments are constrained by balanced budget requirements, and as their revenues 

have declined they are faced with raising taxes or cutting spending, which will only amplify the 

downturn and spur further job loss. National Governors Association reports that the current 

shortfalls in State budgets totals $10 billion.

Third, we should set up Federal investments for building upgrades and update the 

Nation's public infrastructure, investing in infrastructure, improving road, rail, and maritime 

transport, restoring our manufacturing base, and boosting our public health system. These among 

others, will shore up national security and improve our capacity to respond to national 

emergencies as well as create jobs and improve the overall quality of American life. 

 Fourth, we should provide budget-targeted tax relief in the forms of one-time rebates for 

low and middle-income households who did not receive full rebates earlier this year. 

 Last week, the Senate Finance Committee passed the Economic Recovery and Assistance 

for American Workers Act, which provides worker relief and investments similar to those I have 

described. This bill would provide a much-needed boost to the economy and help working 

families, all at a price we can afford. For these reasons, the AFL-CIO endorses the Economic 

Recovery and Assistance for American Workers Act. 

On the other hand, we oppose the so-called stimulus plans the House has passed and the 

Administration has proposed. These plans provide limited and uncertain relief for laid-off 

workers and instead are stacked with large tax cuts for corporations and accelerated rate cuts for 

higher wage earners.
10

We urge Congress to reject these tax cut proposals, which violate important principles 

that the Chairs and Ranking Members of the Senate and House Budget Committees outlined 

earlier for stimulus packages. First, at a 10-year cost exceeding $200 billion, the plans cost too 

much and will worsen the Nation's long-term budget outlook. Second, the plan calls for 

permanent or multi-year tax breaks rather than temporary measures that sunset in 1 year. Third, 

these tax cuts will have a quick effect on the economy and do not encourage investment now 

when the needs are greatest. 

On September 11 and every day since, workers have been front and center in the Nation's 

campaign against terrorism. We owe it to them and to the memory of those who died to ensure 

that working families are also front and center in our national campaign to rebuild the economy 

and to put America back to work. Thank you. 

WRITTEN STATEMENT OF JOHN J. SWEENEY, PRESIDENT, AFL-CIO, WASHINGTON, 

D.C. – SEE APPENDIX E 

Chairman Boehner. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. Miller. 

Mr. Miller. Thank you very much for your testimony and for taking your time under obviously 

difficult circumstances, Linda and Michael, for being here with us.

We obviously believe that you have a very important story to tell, a story that tragically, 

it appears, more and more Americans are going to share with you. I think you have asked the 

right questions, Linda, when you asked how long is it going to be? I find it incredible some of us 

have been warning about the erosion of unemployment benefits and the constant effort by the 

States to limit eligibility, to limit payments, and to limit duration of those benefits for years and 

now, of course, you are the victims of that. It didn't matter when they were cutting these benefits 

back during good economic times. It only matters when people need those benefits. 

 The other thing that I think is quite striking is that between the two of you, we are talking 

about almost 50 years of work history day in and day out. Now when you find yourself in a 

situation of not having a job through no fault of your own, since there is nothing you could have 

done individually to change the economic cycle in this country, or to change the events of 

September 11, you are now victims. After 50 years of work history, both of you are running out 

of your benefits and see the possible collapse of your household financial supports. 

 It is incredible that we have yet to come up with an automatic counter-cyclical effort. We 

all know what is going to happen in this recession. This is not going to be a mystery. We may 

not have wanted to talk about it while we had ten years of a “Huckley Buck” economy, but we 

knew this day was coming, and now we find ourselves in a situation with a system that has no 

ability to absorb the numbers of unemployed or the duration which people will be unemployed 

on that system. 
11

 So what does it mean? It means that before this Congress will get to you with help, 

families will make a decision to lose their car, to start cutting back, and they may lose their 

houses. In all likelihood when I look at you, Michael, if you wanted to keep your health 

insurance out of an $800 a month unemployment benefit, it costs you $529 for your family. That 

is why you have unemployment benefits coming in. When the unemployment benefits are gone, 

there is no ability to buy this COBRA benefit. 

 They lose their health care and somehow we, having been through a series of modern 

economic downturns in 1974, 1984, 1990, still haven't come to grips with the idea that we should 

not require hard-working Americans, the people we praise as the backbone of this country to 

slam to the pavement, lose everything, and start over after 50 years of work. That is what is 

going on in this case.

Twenty-nine years and 18 years of steady effort at a company, and both of you are caught 

in industries that have an immediate reaction to an economic slowdown. What is going on in the 

advertising industry and the commercial printing business is in the papers every day. Companies 

are just going into a sinkhole. Obviously in any kind of building space there are vacancy rates so 

people aren't using Butler buildings to the extent they would for manufacturing or for 

commercial space. I almost feel like apologizing for Congress because I can't believe that we 

would miss this badly, this cycle with this many people who are going to need our help.

You have a situation now where the people who were unemployed before September 11 

have their chances of employment greatly diminished because of the terrorist attack that further 

plunged the economy, and the people who lost their jobs because of the terrorist attack finds 

themselves in an all-downward spiraling economy, and so they are caught in a “washing 

machine”. They are just being spun around. And yet the Congress sits here. It took us two days 

to figure out to bail out the airline industry. It took us an hour or 2 hours of debate to pass a 

stimulus bill for the richest people in the country, but somehow we can't find the time to attend to 

the needs of what is going to be apparently 2 million new unemployed people before the middle 

of next year. That is why we felt it was terribly important to have you come and tell your story. 

 I wish I could tell you that we have extended unemployment benefits that we have 

provided, as President Sweeney has suggested, a substantial subsidy for the COBRA payment so 

that families could afford it. But that is not what this Congress is going to be able to tell you 

unless something breaks dramatically over the next week or so in the negotiations on the 

stimulus bill. This Congress may go home and have a wonderful Thanksgiving, but it will not 

attend to the problems of your family, or of your children in that situation. 

I wish I had more to say in the way of help, but we don't. I think that makes it all the 

more important that you are here to tell these stories and that President Sweeney is here and has 

made very strong recommendations about not only helping the unemployed, but about immediate 

actions that could be taken today to get this economy moving now, not tax breaks 3 and 4 years 

from now, not back loaded projects when people will be so far gone in the economy, but about 

now.
12

 We had hoped that this would be part of the original hearing when the Secretary was 

here, but we weren't able to do that. We appreciate you taking your time. I yield back my 

remaining time. Thank you. 

Chairman McKeon. [Presiding.] Mr. Johnson? No questions. 

Ms. Biggert? 

Mrs. Biggert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Sweeney, I certainly commend you for working with other unions to support the 

international coalition and President Bush and the effort to eradicate terrorism in Afghanistan. 

Could you elaborate on your efforts to support the President in the war on terrorism? 

Mr. Sweeney. I called the President on September 11 and pledged to him the support of the 

labor movement in every way that we could support our country in this horrible time. Since then, 

thousands of union members have been very much involved in the rescue, recovery, and 

hopefully will be involved in the rebuilding that will take place. We have seen such a coming 

together and solidarity of workers who are organized as well as workers who are unorganized to 

support the Administration and the Congress and all of the efforts that have been required. Of 

course, thousands of our members are also involved in the military and have been called up and 

are playing their wonderful role. 

 But with all of this, we don't understand why there isn't a sense of urgency for these 

hundreds of thousands of families who have been directly impacted by all of this, and we did not 

express any objection or any lack of concern about bailing out the airline industry as they 

continued to lay off workers. We just don't understand why the worker protections could not 

have been included in the airline bailout, especially for those who were directly involved in all of 

this, including the airline employees. This just seems to be dragging on so long while all of these 

families are suffering and hurting so badly. 

 I don't know if any of the Members of Congress have ever experienced being laid off 

from a job or being unemployed for a substantial period of time, but I am sure there are some. 

We don't seem to have the political will to address this issue. 

Mrs. Biggert. Well, I think that we all share the view that assistance with health care coverage 

and training as well as cash supports are really vital. A lot of us have seen firsthand our 

constituents as well as family members who are unemployed. So I wouldn't say that we haven't 

had that experience. I think we are all working towards solutions and that is the reason we are 

holding these hearings. 

I would like to certainly thank the panelists that are here. We appreciate Ms. Woods and 

Mr. Hannah sharing their stories with the Committee. I think these are certainly difficult times 

for our Nation, and I appreciate what you are doing, Mr. Sweeney. 
13

 I think that this Committee can develop legislation that can help, but I have been a strong 

supporter of worker training/retraining that the President's FY 2002 budget makes available. I 

think it is $6 billion for these programs, and I would like to know more about the program that 

you are taking, Mr. Hannah or Ms. Woods. 

Mr. Hannah. I am sorry? 

Mrs. Biggert. Training programs, are you involved in any training program right now that 

would help? 

Mr. Hannah. Not at the moment. We had some people from the State of Alabama came out to 

the plant yesterday where I work and went over some of the programs that are available and how 

to apply. I am not very familiar with that at this point, but we have been offered that through the 

State and we will be pursuing that probably. 

Mrs. Biggert. How about you, Ms. Woods? 

Ms. Woods. Not at this time. I am not in a training program but my son is, for mechanical 

engineering. I have applied for financial aid and I do realize I will have to be retrained but, no. 

Mrs. Biggert. Are there dollars available for such a training program if you or your son get into 

that? Does he have some means to be able to take the training? It is very difficult to live if you 

don't have any dollars available. 

Ms. Woods. There are no dollars as far as the training is for 13 months and his training is paid 

for, but as far as the financial situation, family situation, no, there is nothing. 

Mrs. Biggert. We have the Workforce Investment Act, and I know, Mr. Sweeney, you 

mentioned full funding for training. I think that we need to continue to monitor the spending 

rates of the States. My time has expired, so I will yield back. 

Mr. Sweeney. If I might just say we will be happy to supply you with some more specific 

information in terms of what we are recommending on retraining and job training. The 

steelworkers, as an example, have some very, very sophisticated training programs as a part of 

their labor management programs and negotiations with major steel companies, and we would be 

happy to show you some of that, to share that with you. 

Mrs. Biggert. I would appreciate that, and I yield back. 

Chairman McKeon. Mr. Kildee? 

Mr. Kildee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The House-passed economic stimulus bill places a great emphasis upon tax cuts for 

corporations. Many of the tax cuts are retroactive. One is retroactive for 1985, and looking 

through the list of companies that are getting in some cases a billion to $2 billion, many of those 
14

companies already have excess capacity and so they are not likely to plow money into capital 

investment. Sometimes they are even tearing down some of their plants because of that. I know 

that very much in Michigan. But the workers, if they get help, are going to plow that money 

immediately back into the economy, and that is not just a guess. We get that from history. 

 I am a history major. I also can remember that, I was born in 1929, Herbert Hoover had 

great intentions but he really pushed for the reconstruction of finance corporations, which, later 

on did some good. That was his emphasis. He stated big business has got us into this depression 

and big business will get us out. But he forgot about the other side of that coin. There is 

investment on one side of the coin, and there is purchasing power on the other side of the coin, 

and you can't sell unless you have purchasing power. And when Roosevelt came in, there were 

programs that helped my dad and all the people on the east side of Flint who were working 

before the depression. It helped them and they got purchasing power and that was very 

important. 

 I can recall my dad spent his money at Kroegers and Sears Roebucks, J.C. Penney. I 

remember, in 1935, he bought a new washing machine for my mother, a Kenmore from Sears 

Roebuck. That helped Kenmore Company and its workers. They had to hire workers to produce 

that washing machine. It helped the steelworkers. They had to produce the steel. The ripple 

effect of what you give to the worker is immediate. The effect of what you give to businesses, 

many of which have excess capacity, isn't felt. The workers are not going to put that money into 

a dresser drawer or a box, they are going to spend it immediately, and that gives an infusion into 

the economy. 

 I really think we should take a page from history and know what will immediately affect 

that. The people of Flint, Michigan have been hurting. If they get any extra money, they are 

going to spend that money. I think the fundamental defect in the House-passed bill first of all is 

that it did not give enough dollars or attention or concern for those who are suffering the most, 

and they are suffering. Also it would stimulate the economy the most. This is a conjunction of 

good morality and good economics. I have always believed that. 

 I have always believed that the great secret of success of the American economy has been 

its purchasing power. As I said there are two sides to the coin. There is investment, and we 

should encourage investment, but the other side is purchasing power. 

Many of these companies that will be getting a billion or $2 billion from the Treasury 

have that excess capacity. What will they use that money for, to increase the dividends for the 

stockholders? I really think they are missing the boat and the fundamental difference between 

the Senate bill and the House bill is, first of all, how to achieve good morality to make sure 

people are able to live decently as you are asking to do, and your son asking to do, but also good 

economics. This is a great conjunction on when good morality and good economics come 

together, and I think that is where we missed the boat in the House. Do you have any comments 

on that? 

Mr. Sweeney. Yes, Congressman. The labor movement has advocated that putting money into 

the pockets of workers and consumers is the best way to stimulate the economy. We agree with 
15

you that the tax proposals that we have heard do little or nothing to stimulate the economy, and 

for the reasons that you have outlined. If we really want to stimulate the economy, put it into the 

hands of workers who are hurting and who will put that money right back into the economy and 

provide a kick start for it. 

It is hard to understand what the thinking is of those who are proposing these tax cuts and 

tax rebates, and yet not wanting to really provide meaningful protection to workers and their 

families and for all of the reasons that we have had said earlier. 

Mr. Kildee. Thank you very much. I yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman McKeon. Thank you. 

Mr. Isakson? 

Mr. Isakson. Thank you, Mr. McKeon, and I apologize to the panelists that I was delayed and 

did not get to hear their testimony. It was certainly not intentional. I would like to thank Mr. 

Hannah, Mr. Sweeney and Ms. Woods for being here today. 

I think just for the sake of what I have heard since I arrived this is one of those things 

where you can pick sides, especially politically, and especially depending on your district. While 

certainly there is concern and debate about tax treatment for businesses, I think at least so it gets 

in the record, American corporations and businesses consume the products of other corporations 

and businesses. An economic stimulus package either through depreciation, investment, or 

certain tax preference treatments frees up dollars just like a payment to an individual, and gives 

dollars to spend on the economy. 

 So I don't know what was said before, but so it is on the record, we can't dismiss entirely 

that American business and industry has two roles in the economy among others. One is as an 

employer, and the second is as an actual consumer of the products of many other American 

corporations, which is a stimulus for the economy. 

 Secondly, I read Ms. Wood's testimony with regard to COBRA. Having run a business 

for 22 years and from time to time either having to lay people off or having that experience 

within my own family, which I have, I understand the burden of picking up health insurance after 

you have participated in a company plan that has a great subsidy. And I think I am correct that 

while there is a difference between the House and the Senate, you are looking at a 75 percent 

subsidy, and a 100 percent subsidy. And I think that Congress will come very close to what Ms. 

Woods talked about in her particular testimony. 

 With that said, I certainly, as one Member of Congress coming from a major metropolitan 

area that has major manufacturing facilities, aircraft manufacturing facilities, a number of main 

line workers, am going to work hard. I think we need to keep both the worker and the employer 

in mind in this stimulus package, and not any of us get too diverted by pure philosophy because 

we need to do everything we can to make the lives of the workers and the vitality of the 
16

corporations as strong as possible. 

 So I don’t have a question. I just wanted to get that on the record and express my thanks 

to you all for being here. If you have any comment you are welcome to make it. 

 Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Sweeney. We will be happy to supply you with copies of the oral as well as the written 

testimony from the three of us. We appreciate your comments and this is really not a political 

issue, and shouldn't be a political issue. We are talking about how we stimulate our economy 

and get America back working. We think that just as you feel that proper attention has to be paid 

to the business issues, the workers are being neglected in this process. It is taking so long, as you 

know, and we have been bailing out the industry. We are talking about the insurance industry.

We are talking about other industries as well. It is high time that the Congress had the political 

will to take care of workers. 

Mr. Isakson. I appreciate that Mr. Sweeney and I tried to include that in my remarks, but from a 

perspective standpoint. I have a lot of people in the tourism industry and other areas that are 

calling with regard to the bailout of the airlines, and I know Mr. Miller mentioned that in his 

testimony. But the fact of the matter is that many times stabilization, which is what we did for 

the airlines that secured the vitality of that industry at least for a while, also secures the vitality of 

the jobs that remain. 

 Now, I understand there have been 100,000 layoffs, and I am not unconcerned about 

these people, but had we not dealt with that particular issue as expeditiously as we had, the 

numbers of people who would have been affected, individual employees, would have been 

tenfold higher. 

 So the point I was trying to make is there is a balance and you are exactly right. We don't 

need to get skewed either way. We need to look after the worker. We need to understand that 

the corporation and the employer plays a role as well and that was the point I was trying too 

make. 

Mr. Sweeney. With all due respect, with or without bailout, the layoffs are going to increase 

and continue to increase and accelerate in that industry as well as several other industries, and 

that bailout is not slowing down the layoffs. All we know is that the House voted on a bill that is 

inadequate, that is insulting to workers, and if there is going to be reconsideration of it, it should 

happen soon. 

Mr. Isakson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Miller. Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman McKeon. Yes? 
17

Mr. Miller. Because I notice that some Members have a time problem, I ask unanimous consent 

that Dr. Orszag come forward and testify as part of this panel. Then the Members will be able to 

ask questions on the specifics of the issue of the impact of unemployment insurance. 

Chairman McKeon. No objection. So ordered. 

Mr. Miller. I thank you. 

Chairman McKeon. I would like to introduce Dr. Peter Orszag, Joseph A. Pechman Senior 

Fellow, The Brookings Institution, Washington, D.C. We are happy to have you here and we 

will give you five minutes to present your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF PETER R. ORSZAG, JOSEPH A. PECHMAN SENIOR FELLOW, 

THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION, WASHINGTON, D.C.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I would actually like to spend my five minutes 

speaking to one of the questions that was just asked, rather than what I prepared, because I think 

it is such a crucial question. The key issue facing the economy right now is a lack of demand for 

goods and services. We are not fully utilizing the plant equipment and workers that we have, and 

it is often said that unemployment benefits, for example, don't help keep jobs because they just 

go to unemployed workers. That is actually not the right way to think about what is happening 

here.

 The key thing from a macro economic perspective in terms of unemployment benefits is 

that they will almost inevitably be extremely quickly spent. In fact, I will quote from the new 

Nobel Prize winner in economics, Joe Stiglitz, who wrote in The Washington Post this weekend, 

“give money to people who have lost their jobs in this recession, and it would be quickly spent”.

I don't think you actually need to win a Nobel Prize to realize that, but the important point is if 

you give extra dollars to people who have just recently experienced a reduction in their income, 

they are very likely to spend the extra money. That then creates demand for the firms producing 

those goods and services that the unemployed workers are buying. 

 So unemployment benefits are actually sort of a win-win proposition. They help more 

workers keep their jobs by creating demand for goods and services and they also help to 

attenuate the cost of unemployment for those who are unfortunate enough to become 

unemployed. 

 It is also true that some corporate tax breaks can boost demand in the economy, but not 

all corporate tax breaks, and I just want to draw the distinction here. Corporate tax breaks are 

primarily just giving cash to corporations, regardless of their current activities, and I would 

include within that the changes in the corporate alternative minimum tax. Not exactly that, but to 

a first approximation, it is that. I would include within that the changes to the subpart F rules 

that the House legislation made, and a whole series of other changes. 
18

 Just giving more cash to corporations does not create more demand for their product. 

Most corporations are sitting on plenty of cash. Over the past few years, corporations have built 

up hundreds of billions of dollars in liquid financial assets. That is not the problem. The 

problem is that they don't have demands for their products. Just giving additional cash to them 

won't address that problem. It would either just be retained by their companies or passed through 

the shareholders who tend to be higher income people and would not tend to spend the additional 

funds.

 On the other hand, certain types of corporate tax breaks would create demand and would 

create incentives for additional demand, and that is corporate tax breaks that are geared towards 

new things that corporations are doing. I will focus just for a moment on an expensing or tax 

credit investment type of approach, which is only earned by those firms that actually do make 

investments. Their purchases of, say, a computer, are additional demand for the manufacturers of 

the computer, and that does spur the type of demand that we would be looking for in order to 

offset the slowdown that has been occurring. 

 Unfortunately the House legislation, which does include such a provision, and the 

provision is a good one, is not designed right. It extends for too long. Basically, all professional 

forecasters are currently expecting the recession to be over at some point during next year. The 

House legislation would provide an investment incentive that lasts through 2004. So for a firm 

that is trying to decide whether to buy a computer in 2003 or 2002, the House version has no 

impact on the firm's incentives. 

 The Senate version limits the incentive to 2002. If you are that same firm and you are 

deciding whether to buy a computer in 2003 or 2002 and if the incentive is only available in 

2002, you are much more likely to purchase that computer in 2002 than if the incentive were 

available in both years. So by limiting the time period to 2002, the Senate version would 

actually be more effective when it is most needed, and also cost less over the next 10 years than 

the House version. There are other various different things about the investment tax credit or the 

expensing provision that I talked about in my written testimony about how to exactly define it, 

but I see that my time is running out. 

I will just sum up by saying, yes, corporate tax incentives can have some effect on 

demand but not all corporate tax incentives and unfortunately in my opinion most of the ones 

that are in the House legislation are of the not particularly helpful kind, rather than the very 

helpful kind.

And to reiterate, unemployment benefits are not beneficial just to the unemployed. They 

are beneficial to the macro economy as a whole. In fact, let me cite two statistics briefly in my 

remaining time. When the head of a household becomes unemployed, recent research by 

Professor John Gruber of MIT shows food consumption drops by 7 percent. This is not trips, 

this is not nights out at the movies. Food consumption declines by 7 percent. In the absence of 

unemployment benefits it would fall by 22 percent. Fact one. 

Fact two, another recent study by Alan Auerbach of the University of California, Berkley 

and Dan Feenberg at NDAR, the unemployment insurance system, even though it is only 1 to 3 
19

percent as large as the total tax system is a quarter as effective at stabilizing the economy as the 

entire tax system. And what that means is dollar for dollar, it is 8 times more effective. So the 

unemployment insurance system is very effective at bolstering demands for goods and services 

and at stabilizing the economy as well as make the lives of people like you have heard from on 

the panel somewhat better off during their period of unemployment. 

Thank you. 

WRITTEN STATEMENT OF PETER R. ORSZAG, JOSEPH A. PECHMAN SENIOR 

FELLOW, THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION, WASHINGTON, D.C. – SEE APPENDIX F 

Chairman McKeon. Thank you, Doctor. 

 

Mr. Owens? 

Mr. Owens. Thank you very much, Professor Orszag. Your comments have common sense 

power that is hard to challenge and you have a lot of scientifically gathered facts and data to back 

them up. But I still hear Nobel Prize winning economists says investment is more important than 

giving money for unemployment. You have in your discipline folks who still give those crazy 

arguments. Common sense will tell you that if consumers are the engines of our economy, then 

when consumers can't consume, you have got a major problem. It seems to me that it is obvious. 

But we keep getting those arguments. 

Ms. Woods, I am concerned. I am curious about the Philadelphia Unemployment 

Project. Is that a help organization that is working with people who are unemployed? 

Ms. Woods. It is an organization that prepares people for their resumes, interviews, getting 

them set up on the Web site. 

Mr. Owens. Does the Federal Government fund it? 

Ms. Woods. Yes, it does. 

Mr. Owens. Does it? Does the government fund it? 

Ms. Woods. I'm sorry. No, it doesn't. 

Mr. Owens. You made $19.11 an hour before. 

Ms. Woods. I held four positions on my last job of eight years at Webcraft Technology in 

Bristol, PA. Those positions were planner, mechanical layout, MAC operations, and training. 
20

Mr. Owens. I just want to contrast your monthly pay then versus what you get from an 

unemployment check. What was your paycheck per month? 

Ms. Woods. Per month? I would say $3,000. 

Mr. Owens. What is your unemployment check now per month? 

Ms. Woods. About $1200. 

Mr. Owens. $3,000 vs. $1200? 

Ms. Woods. Yes. 

Mr. Owens. Thank you. I also just wanted to add, Mr. Sweeney, that there are some Members 

of Congress who certainly have experienced unemployment as adults and also a childhood full of 

layoffs and unemployment. My father worked at a furniture factory, and they had a union at one 

point and then they busted the union and after that he never made more in his whole life than 

what the minimum wage was. That is all they paid him. 

 And they were always being laid off in the cycle and the cycle seemed to come more 

frequently. And it seems he was always laid off and hunting for odd jobs, et cetera. And so 

some of us have an idea what it is like and are quite disturbed by the fact that we rushed to take 

care of the airline industry. People were shedding all kinds of crocodile tears about it. But even 

then we could not get the employees of the airline industry included in that package. They 

promised to take care of it tomorrow. Tomorrow has not come yet. And they now talk about 

taking care of airline employees in a bigger package for the unemployed overall. 

 But they are not talking about 39 weeks. We had progressed that far when I came to 

Congress, the unemployment benefits were about 39 weeks then. We are going backwards in 

terms of the kind of benefits that are being supplied now. When I was a child, we were very 

poor and had no health care for example. My mother died at 37 because her kidneys failed and 

there was no such thing as dialysis available. But now a poor person can at least rely on the 

government providing dialysis and health care treatment, which may be not as good as we would 

like to have, but for the poor it is like so much better. 

 Progress was made in that area and even though they are trying to cut health care here 

and there, it has not rolled backwards. We have made progress in the area of benefits for 

workers and the unemployed and we have gone backwards and that disturbs me greatly. We 

have gone backwards. Part of what is supposed to take care of this problem, the Workforce 

Investment Act, is all tied up with welfare reform. People who were suffering before are going to 

be suffering even more now because as they had expected they are off the rolls and are expected 

to go find a job and have to compete with the people who had jobs just yesterday and now are 

unemployed. 

 So, my question is, Mr. Sweeney, do the workers who have jobs and the labor movement 

in general have some way to really get the message about the agony that is going to keep coming 
21

for quite a while? I am not too sure we are going to be out of this by the third quarter of next year 

or whatever the economists are predicting. This is not just a matter of economic common sense 

to give more money to people who are the major consumers, but there is also a question of 

fairness and justice in an economy that has plenty. In a Nation that is prosperous, why should we 

have to tolerate this kind of suffering? 

You know, that is the other issues of moving to make certain that people understand how 

awful this is that our government, which has so many resources, is refusing to make them 

available. I guess I ran out of time. You can at least make a comment. 

Mr. Sweeney. I would be very happy to make a comment. We asked the same questions that 

you are asking. The labor movement and our government and management in the past have 

worked very closely together in times of crisis and in recessions. We have always come together 

pretty closely, pretty quickly in terms of addressing all of the areas that had to be addressed. It 

seems to have changed. There seems to be a different attitude among some about how workers 

deserve to be considered, and that is what our members feel all across the country. There is 

anger.

We saw how much workers came together since September 11 and yet, while they are 

grieving, they feel very strongly about what is happening to so many of their fellow workers in 

different industries and different parts of the country. There is a very negative feeling out there 

that this is going to get a lot worse, and that the Congress is delaying addressing these issues in a 

meaningful, fair and just way. We just don't understand why there is this attitude and why it is 

taking so long. 

Mr. Owens. Thank you. 

Chairman McKeon. Mr. Roemer. 

Mr. Roemer. Mr. Sweeney, nice to see you again. I appreciate your attendance here today. Mr. 

Hannah, and Ms. Woods and son, we really appreciate your heartfelt testimony and our hearts 

are with you in your difficult times. 

 In the Midwest where I come from, born and raised, we are going through really tough 

times. Our State budget used to have about a $2 billion surplus. We are now looking at possibly 

a billion dollar shortfall. We are having a very difficult time with steel mills being shut down 

and people being unemployed and out of work, and hearing Ms. Woods' testimony being 

repeated over and over and over again throughout all our neighborhoods and communities. We 

feel the statistics of 236,000 manufacturing jobs having been lost in this country very deeply; 

236,000 people out of work. 

 I have a mid-sized town in my district of about 25,000 people and the name of the town is 

LaPorte, Indiana. This would be every person in that town being unemployed by a factor of 

about 10. Ten times LaPorte, Indiana and you have the number of people out of work in the 

manufacturing sector alone in this country. So we really see the difficulty in the Midwest about 
22

the Mr. Hannahs and the Ms. Woods and the people going through extremely difficult times right 

now.

We need to do something about it as a Congress, as the House of the people, the workers.

What really irritates me is this so-called stimulus package where we have a proposal, and that 

package that will cost Mr. Hannah and Ms. Woods and me about $23 billion called sub part F. 

What it does is, long and short, it gives a huge tax break to primarily banking companies and 

insurance companies to keep their money out of the United States. If they reinvest it in the 

United States, which is what a stimulus package should do, they lose the break. But if they keep 

the money in Europe, they get $23 billion. 

 How does that help our workers? How does that help our neighborhoods and our 

families and the people going through the pain that you folks are going through? Mr. Sweeney I 

know you're aware of sub part 3 sub part F. What would you do with $23 billion? How would 

you help our workers? 

Mr. Sweeney. Where do you want me to start? 

Mr. Roemer. You have all my time; I don't know how much I have left. 

Mr. Sweeney. About the manufacturing industry, Congressman, Michael Hannah talked a little 

bit in his testimony about the loss of manufacturing jobs and what is happening in terms of the 

bankruptcies that are going on and the impact of trade policy on that industry. I am not sure 

whether you were here. No region of our country has been hurt more than the Midwest, and we 

see it in so many manufacturing industries. And that, of course, is a longer discussion in terms 

of what we do to address the concerns of the manufacturing industries, both the management as 

well as the workers. We would be delighted to share some of our information with you on that as 

well. But as far as the $23 billion, to add that to the package would be a great boost for 

achieving what we think is a fair and just worker protection program. 

Dr. Orszag. I would just add, of the somewhat more than $20 billion in costs in that sub part F 

provision, only $260 million occurs in 2002 raising even more questions about why that is 

stimulating in the short run. I think this is one of the prime examples of something that may or 

may not be warranted in the long run, but is clearly not stimulating and has no part to play in the 

stimulus bill. 

Mr. Roemer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman McKeon. Thank you. 

Mr. Scott? 

Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Sweeney, in your testimony you cite Melanie Fiedler, who you say worked part-time 

for many years and lost her job and didn't qualify or may not qualify for unemployment 
23

compensation. Can you explain how someone can work for many years on a job and lose a job 

and not get unemployment compensation? 

Mr. Sweeney. I don't have all the details with me, but there was also a period of time when she 

was on maternity leave, and I am not sure of how the whole work experience came out in the 

end. But all I do know is that she didn't qualify for unemployment insurance. But I will be 

happy to get the specifics. They are a couple that live in Chicago, both worked for United 

Airlines. 

Mr. Scott. Well, just in general, if someone works part-time for many years and loses their job 

and does not commit when looking for a job to be available full-time, are they ineligible for 

unemployment compensation because they did not, or were not willing to work full-time? They 

just wanted to continue part-time? 

Mr. Sweeney. I think that they could be working part-time and meet the criteria for 

unemployment insurance as well. 

Mr. Scott. But if they say they are unwilling to work part-time, full-time, they would be 

ineligible to receive Unemployment Compensation because they were not willing to work. 

Mr. Sweeney. I think it is more the consideration about the number of hours and the number of 

days worked rather than the distinction between part-time and full-time. 

Mr. Scott. Well, the distinction would be what you are willing to do as a condition of the work 

search requirement, and if you are searching for work, but you are not willing to commit to fulltime, in many States you are not eligible for unemployment compensation because you aren't 

willing to work full-time. 

 Now, Dr. Orszag, you indicated in your testimony that 40 percent of the unemployed 

don't get any benefits. And 18 percent of low wage unemployed don't get benefits. How does 

that happen? 

Dr. Orszag. Well, just to follow up on your first question, in 31 states if you are looking for 

work part-time, you would not qualify for unemployment benefits. That is one of the ways in 

which the 40 percent number occurs.

Let's take a mother who went back to work, came off the welfare rolls and can arrange for 

child care in such a way that she can only work 30 hours a week. She has been working 30 hours 

a week for 10 years. It doesn't matter how long. She becomes unemployed and needs to 

continue looking for 30-hour-a-week employment. In basically 31 States, that person would not 

be eligible to receive unemployment benefits as long as she truthfully told the person 

interviewing her that she was looking for work for 30 hours a week. That is one of the ways in 

which that occurs. 

 It is also the case that as part of the system, you need to have worked a sufficient number 

of quarters. For new entrants into the labor force, the way the system is set up now, in many 
24

States, they don't actually look at your most recent quarter of work or even the penultimate 

quarter of work. They are looking back further than that, and so if you just entered the 

workforce last year you are often ineligible because of that reason or if you leave your job for 

what is not determined to be good cause. 

 Let's say that your husband needs to move jobs and you want to follow along with your 

husband, in many States that would disqualify you for unemployment insurance. So there are a 

whole host of reasons for why we have witnessed this seminal decline in the percentage of the 

unemployed who receive benefits that Mr. Miller had referred to at the opening. 

Mr. Scott. Well, in the House-passed bill, we provided substantial funding for unemployment 

compensation. As I understand it, the way the bill is worded, it would be an option for the States 

to use the money for unemployment compensation. In that bill, how would we be assured that 

money would actually go to additional benefits or not? 

Dr. Orszag. No. The House legislation would accelerate payments from the Federal trust fund 

into the State trust funds, and there is no guarantee that that would then feed through into higher 

benefits or expanded benefits at the State level. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office scored 

the proposal at a fraction. Something like 15 percent of the $9 billion that was provided from the 

Federal Government would actually feed through into actual additional expenditures, so no, there 

is no guarantee. I think that is a hope.

The Senate legislation actually makes sure that there will be additional benefits provided 

and expansions in eligibility. The House provision does not. 

Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman McKeon. Ms. Woolsey. 

Ms. Woolsey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, panel. 

I am afraid you are preaching to the choir here. Some on the other side of the aisle were 

here earlier, but I would suggest need to hear this even more than we did. And I wish they were 

here. Your responses have been very telling and very informative to us. Now, of course the first 

people in our workforce that will be affected by a poor economy will be women, particularly 

women with children working their way off welfare. And that is why over the last 5 years when 

I was asked what did I think of how well welfare reform was working, I would say, well, pretty 

good if it doesn't matter that we are taking individuals from welfare to poverty, but at least they 

are working. 

 But wait until we have a turndown in the economy. Then we will know how well the 

welfare-to-work system and what it accomplished has worked. Well, we are here. And we are 

going to be faced not just with wonderful workers like you who have been working and earning 

good wages, but now we are going to have the poorest of the poor looking for work. Linda, you 

were somebody earning $19.11 an hour, if there is any work to be had you are going to be 
25

offered that entry-level job. 

Ms. Woods. Like I said, I will be going to an interview tomorrow being offered $6.50. 

Ms. Woolsey. Well, my point is that when we reauthorize welfare reform, I think we have to 

add education and training to that. So I am sure, and I would guess, President Sweeney, that you 

and probably Dr. Orszag, know what jobs in this country are going unfilled that would require 

additional training, additional education, retraining. I mean, are there jobs that if we did it right, 

we could put people in that would pay a livable wage and not bring people in from outside the 

country for example? John? 

Mr. Sweeney. Well, we are doing a lot of work in States and cities around the country. We just 

this week opened up a one-stop employment office in conjunction with the District of Columbia 

where we have employers mostly in the hotel and tourist and service industries coming in, and 

unemployed workers are being interviewed for jobs. It is a very slow process and there aren't an 

abundance of jobs out there. But we are doing everything we can to stimulate filling jobs and 

affording opportunities for unemployed workers to be able to go through a process that is not too 

complicated. It remains to be seen. 

 We are doing some studies internally on just what the job opportunities and the 

projections are and what industries and what kind of training. We will be doing this on a 

continuing basis and supplying that information to you and all the Members of Congress. 

Ms. Woolsey. Thank you. 

Doctor, has Brookings Institute done any studies do you know? 

Dr. Orszag. I don't know that we project employment opportunities, but what I would add is 

that research does show that for experienced workers and for programs that focus on marketable 

skills, training programs can be effective. It is important to design them right. 

There was an excellent study that the chief economist at the Department of Labor 

conducted in 1995 called, if I remember right, “What is Working” or “What Works and What 

Doesn't”, trying to provide a guide to what works and what doesn't in terms of training programs. 

So well designed training programs can be quite important and effective in aiding workers to 

find new positions. 

Ms. Woolsey. Thank you. 

Michael and Linda, have you looked at jobs that you weren't qualified for but if we had 

this training available for you, you would have gotten them? 

Ms. Woods. Well, the jobs that I have applied for I was told that I was overqualified. 

Ms. Woolsey. Sure. That is the double whammy, isn't it? 
26

Ms. Woods. Yes, it is. 

Ms. Woolsey. Michael? 

Mr. Hannah. I really haven't looked at any jobs. I haven't actually been laid off yet. 

Ms. Woolsey. Oh, that is right you told us that. I am sorry. 

Mr. Hannah. But I was laid off earlier in the year and I didn't go out and look too much for 

work then because at that time, it was supposed to be a 2-month layoff, and it went on and on 

until it was eventually over 4 months. But this time I will be looking for work because I don't 

know how long this will last, and I may possibly have to go into something else because 

manufacturing jobs are just hard to find in my area. So it is possible I will have to look into some 

kind of retraining this time. 

Ms. Woolsey. Well, I would suggest, and I know I am out of time, that when the Federal 

Government looks at expanding unemployment and we get behind doing it properly, and when 

we reauthorize welfare reform, that we add the component of educating and training and 

retraining as key components for getting people into jobs that pay a livable wage. So I thank you 

very much. 

Mr. Sweeney. If I may, Mr. Chairman, I think you should really keep that in mind in terms of 

the reauthorization of TANF when it addresses the welfare-to-work issues and how this all ties 

into the employment situation and job creation. 

Ms. Woolsey. Thank you, Mr. President. I intend to. Thank you. 

Chairman McKeon. One thing I should mention. When we passed the Workforce Investment 

Act a few years ago, we set up the one-stop shops. We held a hearing just a month or so ago 

regarding the huge shortage of nurses and we already know that there is a big shortage in 

teachers. I had two constituents come up to me and thank me. These were both laid-off 

aerospace workers, which is real big in our area. One of them had gotten a voucher from a onestop shop and was going to be a teacher, and the other one was going to be a computer operator. 

So both had taken advantage of retraining, and that is something we really encourage because 

there are fields that are crying for good people. 

Mr. Andrews? 

Mr. Andrews. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank the witnesses especially our visitors 

who traveled here from far away today. Thank you for doing so. I know it was at some hardship 

to your families. I apologize for not being present for your oral testimony, but I have had a 

chance to read it. 

 Ms. Woods, I am a neighbor of yours from across the Delaware River in south Jersey.

We have always considered Philadelphia to be a suburb of our area, so we appreciate seeing you 

here. I also appreciate seeing Mr. McKeon. I have to note my disappointment for the record at 
27

the absence of participation from the majority side of the aisle. You know, since we have been 

in the minority, we have endured a number of hearings where most of the points of view 

expressed were not in agreement with ours. But we came. And I think it is unfortunate that 

more Members of the majority side are not here to hear these presentations. 

 I want to begin, Mr. Sweeney, with your thoughts about the proposed timing of bringing 

to the floor the trade authority negotiation bill, which I think very much relates to the question 

before us today. I am planning on voting against that bill because I believe that it is not in the 

best interest of our country or our economy, and I know that is the position the AFL-CIO as well.

But I wonder if you could tell us your views on the timing of bringing this very difficult question 

before the Congress at the present time. 

Mr. Sweeney. Well, you know my views on trade promotion and authority. And I feel strongly 

that this is not the right time to bring the issue up. We are striving, or are supposed to be striving 

for bipartisanship. And we are going to continue to wage a strong campaign mobilizing our rank 

and file workers, many of whom have been directly impacted as Michael has been and as 

manufacturing industries have been. 

I don't know whether you were here earlier when I really expressed my concern for the 

length of time that it has taken to address worker protection since September 11 and how the 

problem has gone far beyond September 11 with the downturn in the economy. I just don't 

understand why the Congress isn't reacting to this crisis a lot faster than they are and why there 

isn't a stronger sensitivity to the fairness and justice issues. I would agree with you, the fact that 

our Chair is here with one side empty is, I think, an indication that there are Members of 

Congress who are really not concerned about workers and the suffering and struggle that they are 

going through. I think this is as clear an indication as you can get. 

Mr. Andrews. It is hard to fly with only one wing. 

Mr. Hannah, I want to ask you about COBRA benefits and problems, if I read your 

testimony correctly. If you were to be laid off as some of your coworkers have been and you 

chose to stay in the health care plan through COBRA, the premium would be $529 per month; is 

that correct? 

Mr. Hannah. That's correct. 

Mr. Andrews. How much of a monthly unemployment benefit do people in Alabama get when 

they are laid off? 

Mr. Hannah. The maximum we can get in Alabama is $190 a week. And that is what I will 

get, the maximum. 

Mr. Andrews. At $190 a week, the monthly would be $760 a month. 

Mr. Hannah. Right. 
28

Mr. Andrews. So out of a $760 unemployment check, some of which, by the way would be 

taxable if you had other income, you would have to pay a COBRA premium of $529 a month. 

Do you have a mortgage? 

Mr. Hannah. I do. I do have a mortgage. 

Mr. Andrews. I assume that it is greater than the difference between $760 and $529? 

Mr. Hannah. Yes. 

Mr. Andrews. Does your family eat? 

Mr. Hannah. We do right now. 

Mr. Andrews. Pay utility bills? 

Mr. Hannah. Correct. 

Mr. Andrews. How long do you think your savings would last you, if you didn't have a job? 

How long would you be able to pay that COBRA benefit, do you think? 

Mr. Hannah. Well, I am ashamed to say that I don't have much savings left after going through 

a layoff early in the year. My wife went through a period where she couldn't work and became 

disabled, but to tell you, just to be honest, I can't do it at all. I will immediately go without 

insurance because I can't pay it one month. And I am kind of ashamed to say that, but that is just 

the way it is. 

Mr. Andrews. I don't think you should be ashamed. I think we should be ashamed of ourselves 

for a situation where that has to be. The other point I would make about the false economy of 

this is if, God forbid, you got laid off and someone got sick, the public would probably wind up 

paying the bill one way or the other. And it seems to me it would be a lot less expensive to help 

people pay the COBRA benefits now, than wait for them to get sick and run up a huge hospital 

bill.

 Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman McKeon. Thank you. 

Ms. Sanchez? 

Ms. Sanchez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I thank my colleague for a couple of minutes. I 

have to run over to the Senate side for a Senate confirmation hearing. But I did want to ask a 

couple of questions of the Doctor. 

 When I first ran for Congress 5 years ago, I came across a household where the 

gentleman told me that he had been in an aerospace union in California and made $18 an hour 
29

with benefits, and that now he was doing two part-time jobs at $6 an hour and $7 an hour with no 

benefits. And you know, we had this great time of prosperity and yet for a lot of people, 

especially service industry people, there was no prosperity or they didn't really feel it. And now 

we find because of tourism, for example in the Disneyland area, that we are losing job after job 

after job. 

 Before I came to Congress, I ran my own business. And I always found, Doctor, that I 

made business decisions not necessarily on the tax consequences that were going to come 12 

months or 16 months down the road, but on how I could get a product and put a profit level on it 

and mark it up and get it out into the field. I would hire people according to what kind of 

business I had on demand or forecasted in the coming months, not whether I was going to make 

money at the end of the year or whether I was going to pay taxes on it or not. 

 Is that what you usually find with businesses around the country? That they are actually 

going on a month-by-month rather than a tax consequence impact? How much would a business 

decide today's expenditures and today's level of employment based on what types of taxes they 

will be paying 18 months down the road? 

Dr. Orszag. Well I think, as someone who has also run a small business, the answer really 

depends on the size of the business. For small businesses, I think the tax consequences, 

especially the more that they are pushed into the future, probably don't have that much impact on 

decision-making processing. 

 For larger corporations, arguably the tax consequences are more important. But I would 

note even when they are important, they don't necessarily dominate the demand conditions 

facing the firm. In other words, to say that the firm will consider taxes is not to say that taxes are 

more important than how many people are buying their products. But I think the short answer to 

your question is it really does depend on the size of the corporation with larger corporations 

taking into account tax consequences somewhat more than smaller corporations. 

Ms. Sanchez. So if we wanted to do an economic stimulus package and we wanted to really hit 

at the heart of what I have seen, at least in the last decade, that more jobs or jobs in the local 

economy are certainly created by smaller and medium-sized businesses, wouldn't you say that 

incentives as far as capital purchases might be more important for business than a tax 

consequence at the end of the year? 

Dr. Orszag. I am not sure I fully understand the question. But let me just say that I think any 

stimulus plan should not be in the form of corporate tax incentives. The one corporate tax 

incentive that I think might make some sense has to do with an incentive for capital purchases. 

But it has to be designed right and the House version of it is not designed correctly. 

Ms. Sanchez. Since it extends out 3 years, one could really wait 3 years to do the purchase 

rather than to purchase now and create demand in the economy. 
30

Dr. Orszag. Precisely. It makes no sense to extend something when it costs more and is less 

effective when you need it. 

Ms. Sanchez. Thank you. 

And Mr. Hannah and Ms. Woods, I will direct my question to Mr. Hannah. He has 

already talked about getting $190 a week maximum in Alabama and about a $529 COBRA 

payment if he were to try to extend his health benefits after he is laid off. What is the average 

cost would you say of a mortgage or monthly rent in Alabama for a family home? 

Mr. Hannah. Roughly, I would say probably $700. 

Ms. Sanchez. $700? Well, I would just say that in California our average unemployment 

weekly benefit is about $167 a week. And the average of a one-bedroom apartment where I live 

is about $1200 a month. So as bad as it is in Alabama, and as hard as it is going to be to feed 

your family, and to keep the COBRA payment and exhaust your savings, it is even harder in 

other places of the country. So we and Mr. Sweeney and everyone else absolutely need to do 

something right now. 

I agree with you and I hope you will continue to talk even with Members who are not 

here today about the importance of getting this done quickly and getting it done for workers. 

 Thank you. 

Chairman McKeon. Mrs. McCarthy. 

Mrs. McCarthy. Thank you. There is one thing I want to say up front. Just because we are 

questioning a disagreement on why we should be taking care of our workers, I don't think we 

should question how patriotic any Member here, or any Member in this House is towards the 

President and the war. And I am saying that because every time we raise a point of disagreement 

on how to do the stimulus package, someone is questioning my patriotic duty towards my 

country. And I am sorry; I am tired of hearing that. 

 The terrorist attacks happened in New York. I have had to go to too many memorial 

services because I have lost too many constituents. So I have to say that. I am as patriotic as 

anybody in this building, but that does not mean that I don't disagree on how we are going to 

take care of the American people and this down spiral that we are going through. 

 By the way, we also are seeing an awful lot of layoffs of people that are making what 

they used to think was a decent living. My brother-in-law got laid off two weeks ago. He is an 

engineer. He and his wife, my sister, just came to the realization that they don't have enough 

money to pay the mortgage anymore. They live on Long Island. So, I mean, when we talk about 

workers in this country, we have to make sure we take care of every single worker. 

 Now Ms. Woods, you have one more paycheck left? 
31

Ms. Woods. Yes, I do. 

Mrs. McCarthy. Okay. What I am concerned about and the way that you understood what the 

House stimulus bill is or what the President is trying to do as far as unemployment, is that you 

would not be qualified for the 13 extra weeks? 

Ms. Woods. No, I won't. 

Mrs. McCarthy. The other thing that I am curious about with regard to your son who has 

already run out of unemployment even though he is going to a training program, is how can most 

people get through those training programs if they have no stipend to get through the program? I 

heard the statement, you could look into nursing or teaching, which I certainly would 

recommend because I have been a nurse all my life. But I don't know how anyone can go into 

those training programs if they have no stipend or unemployment to get through the program. 

So I think that is something that we have to look into for the future. If you are doing a 

training program, you should be on unemployment during the whole time. If you are taking a 

nursing course, especially if you are going to be an LPN or an RN in a 2-year course resulting in 

an associate degree, no one that is on unemployment can take that time because they have to 

work to pay for an apartment. So we have things to do in the future. 

 We had a meeting this morning of our budget group, so it is a pleasure seeing you again, 

Dr. Orszag.

The other thing that I am curious about, and I want to go back to it, because I think it is 

important that we stress again the reasoning on taking care of the working people of this country 

and how important it is that the monies go to them to keep the economy going. Sometimes I don't 

think people hear this. I certainly supported everything that we are doing to try and get 

unemployment for our people, but how the dollars are actually sent into the economy is what the 

American people have to hear constantly, over and over again. It is not just unemployment. It is 

to get the economy going, and that is what we are supposed to be doing.

Would anyone care to answer? 

Dr. Orszag. Sure. First let me just comment very briefly on the President's proposal. One of 

the things I wasn't able to say because I diverted from the oral testimony that I was going to give 

is that the number of people exhausting benefits in the third quarter of 2001 was 735,000 

workers. That is up 40 percent from the third quarter of 2000. So we have seen a dramatic 

increase in the number of workers who are exhausting benefits, and that of course will continue 

to happen. Under the President's proposal, no one would get extended benefits until March of 

next year. 

 In terms of what unemployment benefits does for the macro economy or in terms of 

stabilizing the macro economy, this is one of the highest “bang for the buck” things that we 

could do in terms of stimulating economy. The key to stimulating the economy in the short run 

is to get extra spending, and the one thing about unemployed workers, unfortunately, is if you 
32

give them extra money they are going to spend it. It is unfortunate from their perspective. It is 

fortunate from the macro economy's perspective. So the key reason that unemployment benefits 

are an effective stimulus measure is that for each extra dollar that you provide in unemployment 

benefits, an extremely high percentage, and I would say virtually all, will be spent. That creates 

demand for other goods and services, which then keeps more workers employed, which then 

creates more demand for other goods and services and is a virtual cycle. 

Mrs. McCarthy. One of the things that I was curious about is that we have had recessions 

before. How has the government responded in past performances to try and get the stimulus 

going? Has the government done what we are doing today as far as giving money more to the 

corporate end versus giving it to our workers to get out there and spend? 

Dr. Orszag. To my knowledge, I am not aware of any. In general, there are two components to 

the government's response. One is a series of things that happen automatically like the existing 

unemployment insurance system automatically responds. The tax system to some degree 

automatically responds. What we have seen in past recessions, like the 1990-1991 recession, is 

the government also went ahead and made additional expansions in the unemployment insurance 

benefit, which was obviously targeted towards lower income workers. I am not aware of a single 

attempt during a recession to spur that economy by very tilted benefits towards the upper end 

income distribution in the past. There may well be, and I will get back to you when I return to 

my office if find one. But nothing is coming to mind. 

Mr. Sweeney. If I may ask Peter a question, hasn't there been some extension of the number of 

weeks and also some subsidizing of COBRA? 

Dr. Orszag. I am not aware of any subsidizing of COBRA. There have been extensions of 

weeks in unemployment benefits. That happened in 1990-1991, and that is actually an important 

point if I could just emphasize it for a moment. 

There are a series of triggers under the current law for an extended benefits program. 

Under unemployment insurance the Federal Government would share costs with the State 

governments. The triggers, however, are basically completely outdated. They are not going to 

take effect. In 1990-1991 the Federal Government created a special program to extend 

unemployment benefits, and that is what is necessary again here. 

Chairman McKeon. Thank you. Time is up on Mrs. McCarthy. 

Ms. Solis? 

Ms. Solis. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome, President Sweeney, and the 

very articulate panelists that came here today. I too want to apologize that we don't have a full 

house for you. I have been waiting to have this discussion on the floor for the past 3 months. 

 Unemployment rates in my district right now are high. They were high even before 

September 11, upwards of 7.3 percent in one of my smallest cities and anywhere between 9 

percent and higher where we have high numbers of low income and minority workers and 
33

families. So this is something that some of us live with in our districts. The fact that we went 

through this terrible tragedy has made a big impact on our area and it will continue to have an 

impact. 

I was very pleased to attend a recent program that the Hotel and Restaurant Workers 

Local 11 had in downtown Los Angeles. Because of the recent layoffs there, I saw the union 

pool forces to put their own one-stop operation together to help dislocated workers. What I was 

very concerned about though was that a large number of those individuals would not qualify for 

unemployment insurance. They also would not be able to get any other Federal benefits. 

 So I asked the question how is this stimulus program going to get to those people who 

may have children, who are here, who are legal, who are documented parents who are working in 

the various industries that you have talked about? What recourse do we have for them? 

 I am also wondering about some of the States. The Governors may not be astute enough, 

and I hate to put it in that manner, but some may not know that this money may be able to be 

targeted in a different fashion. Maybe we need to funnel it through a local CVO that is affiliated 

with a union that works at the grass roots level to help reach those families, because what I am 

seeing right now is just the tip of the iceberg, so to speak. 

 I am very concerned about that, and I want to hear from Dr. Peter Orszag regarding 

rebates. I have a stand-alone bill right now that would give a $300 rebate to anybody that pays 

into the Federal payroll tax system. So if you paid $1,000 this year, and you didn't accrue 

enough to get unemployment insurance benefits, you will get $300 back. I wonder how quickly 

something like this can be expedited? 

Dr. Orszag. Sure, just to respond to the last question first. In my opinion, a rebate aimed at the 

people who were left out of the first series of rebates, who paid payroll tax but didn't have 

sufficient income tax liability to receive the full rebate that went out this summer would be a 

quite effective stimulus. Basically that is focusing on lower income workers. Lower income 

workers tend to spend more of any additional dollars that you give them than higher income 

workers. So focusing money in that way would be quite effective. 

 In terms of the timeliness, there are various different responses I have gotten from the 

IRS and others in terms of how quickly this could be processed. They are currently in the 

process of moving from processing one year's set of tax returns and gearing up for the next years.

But if this was a national priority and the Congress told them to do it, I am sure that it could be 

done quickly. Obviously we are not in a 9:00 to 5:00 setting anymore, and things that weren't 

thought to be achievable before certainly are now with sufficient effort. So I can't give you a 

precise answer as to exactly how quickly it could go out, but it could be relatively quick, 

especially if there were sufficient instruction from the Congress to get it out fast. 

Ms. Solis. It is doable? 
34

Mr. Sweeney. We share your concerns about those who will be left out. The question is what 

kind of a stimulus package are we going to get and just how harmful will it be to hundreds of 

thousands of people who get left out of the process? How do we address their issues and their 

needs? 

Ms. Solis. Thank you. 

Chairman McKeon. I mentioned earlier the Workforce Investment Act that we passed through 

this Committee a couple of years ago. Under that a State may provide need-based payments for 

those who exhaust their unemployment benefits and are involved in the training process. So the 

benefit is there to be used. 

Mr. Tierney? 

Mr. Tierney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was just noting earlier one of the amazing things in 

life here is that when it came time to so call “try” to stimulate the economy, we were very quick 

to give a rebate going back to 1986 to corporations that were already remarkably profitable, and 

here we are arguing about whether or not to give a rebate to individuals who are just trying to 

make ends meet. It would have been interesting if Congress had instead addressed the concept 

of giving Ms. Woods and Mr. Hannah rebates on all the taxes they paid since 1986. I think it 

would be a different situation. 

 I don't know that we have to keep beating the same dead horse. I think the point is 

clearly made despite Mr. Isakson's remarks. I wish he were still here. This is very much 

political. It doesn't have to be political, but they have made it political and they have decided 

that that is the route that they are going to take. In the face of all reasonable economic policies, 

they have decided to give huge amounts of money back to already profitable corporations that 

will not stimulate the economy, instead of taking any action to help people like Ms. Woods and 

Mr. Hannah. 

 I just thought what I might try to do for the record is get a feel from Mr. Hannah and Ms. 

Wood. Put into words if you would, how you feel as individuals affected by this turn of events 

and the economy when you find out that corporations like General Electric and IBM are getting 

hundreds of millions of dollars back in taxes that they have already paid at a time when they are 

profitable, when you sit before us today having to make the case to just get treated fairly at all. 

Mr. Hannah. Speaking for myself, it is just hard to understand the reasoning that you would 

want to give these corporations that much money when they are already so profitable and people 

are in need. You know, I would just like to say that the people I represent, and I think workers in 

general, don't want welfare. We are not asking for welfare. We are just asking for some help to 

get past this temporary problem we are in. And to us it doesn't seem like the corporations need 

the help like we do. So to me it is very unfair. 

 And I want to add something else too. It is difficult in my situation, being an older 

person, to be working for the employer I have for so many years. A lot of people don't want to 

hire a person that has been working for an employer for so many years. They know that if there 
35

is a recall you will go back and they don't want to invest time training you and that type of thing. 

So it is just an unfair situation, in my opinion. 

Mr. Tierney. Ms. Woods? 

Ms. Woods. The same here. Like I said, I have worked for a long time and put into the system, 

and I feel as though, like I said, the system should help me now. I am with Mr. Hannah. I don't 

want unemployment. I would rather work. I am used to working, and not just me like I said. I 

have instilled in my son to work and give his best. Right now we both need help. 

Mr. Tierney. Thank you. I want to explain that I was not being rude when I left earlier. I 

happened to be meeting out back here with some individuals from Lucent, which used to be a 

large employer in my district and is not about to be any longer, trying to get them to understand 

that point that you just made, Ms. Woods. It is not enough to tell us what kind of severance you 

are giving people when you are taking away their job. The question is how are they going to get 

work? What are they going to do next and how do they make themselves survive between now 

and then, which may not be 13 weeks? 

What is your current health care situation? Are you covered at all? 

Ms. Woods. Not at this time, and I need to be. I have medications that I need to take and, like I 

said, I can't afford COBRA. 

Mr. Tierney. Do you know what COBRA would cost you on a monthly basis? 

Ms. Woods. $200. 

Mr. Tierney. And you said earlier that your monthly benefit was? 

Ms. Woods. $1,200, and I am the head of household. 

Mr. Tierney. Sir, are you also on COBRA now or without insurance? 

Mr. Hannah. No, I still have coverage until the end of the month. I won't be laid off until the 

end of the month so my health care will go through that date, and I need the health care but I 

won't be able to afford it. Like I said, it is $529 per month and my wife is disabled so there is no 

way. I badly need to keep my health care. She is disabled and takes some very expensive 

medication, and it is just going to be difficult. 

Mr. Tierney. Doctor, I don't have any questions for you. I want to thank you for your 

testimony. Mr. Sweeney, I want to thank you for all of your time and commitment. You have a 

large job ahead of you because there are many Americans that are facing the same situation as 

Mr. Hannah or Ms. Woods are, and this Congress ought to be working on that side of the 

equation.
36

 Thank you. 

Dr. Orszag. Thank you. 

Chairman McKeon. I believe Mr. Payne is the last Member here with questions. 

Mr. Payne. Right. Thank you very much, and I certainly won't take much of your time. I was 

in and out meeting with people from my district who have been hurt by the economy. We in 

New Jersey are going to be hit pretty hard being right across the river. We are looking at a new 

Governor that has come in and we are looking at the biggest deficit that the State has been faced 

with in the past 15 years. It is really going to be a tremendous impact on us in New Jersey. 

 I don't have any questions. I am sure they have all been asked. We commend you, Mr. 

John Sweeney, for the way that you have brought the AFL-CIO back into the mainstream and 

have really been there working for the working people.

This is a time when we are talking about patriotism, and I think Americans have shown 

that they are really patriotic. When people attack us and come after us, we show what we are 

made of. We are not going to let anybody push us around. We are not going to get accustomed 

to the new reality, we are going to fight back. We are made out of the right stuff. We are not 

going to let some guys over there change our ways. 

 However, it would appear to me that at a time like this when we are all pulling together, I 

have seen more flags in my community in the most depressed part of the neighborhood. We had 

a political meeting, and they wanted to start by singing the Star Spangled Banner. I am sure in 

this corner the Star Spangled Banner has never been sung, but it was sung a couple of weeks ago 

at this political meeting and that is how all Americans are feeling. 

 But then you turn around and you have people take advantage of the situation by passing 

a tax which makes no sense at $1.4 billion for IBM because they paid some taxes 10 years ago. 

Why take advantage of a situation like this? This is a time we should be pulling together as 

Americans. You have got people out there saying, I am ready to go whatever the cost, and you 

have got politicians taking advantage of people, saying, no, we don't want to have this done, we 

are going to do this. It makes me sick, and they ought to be ashamed of themselves. 

 People working all their lives don't know where to go. Where are you supposed to go 

when you don't have health care? Where are you supposed to go? Go to church basements and 

stand in line to get some food. Where do you live? Your landlord, the guy you rent from, has a 

past due mortgage. How is he going to pay the heat bill? But we have got people sitting here 

holier than thou. They are all for family and good things. We are the bad guys. We are all for 

this big tent everybody's in. We are the good, clean, righteous Americans, and they take 

advantage.

 It is wrong, it is absolutely wrong, and I don't even want to get started. I am glad I wasn't 

here most of the time. But anyway, let me just say we are with you, we are supporting you. We 

are going to do the right thing for Americans who make this country great. This side of the aisle 
37

is not going to turn their backs on people. And if it takes 2 months, 2 years, whatever, we are 

going to make sure that we take care of the people who are on the front lines for us. They are 

taking guys from the National Guard, and no one thought they were going to have to go 

anywhere, and we don't know where they are, but they are there for our country. Why isn't our 

country there for our people? It is wrong, and we have got to right it. 

Chairman McKeon. Mr. Kildee? 

Mr. Kildee. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the statement of Ms. Solis and two 

other documents be included in the record. 

Chairman McKeon. No objection. So ordered. 

 At the start of the meeting, the Chairman asked that the record be held open for 14 days 

so anybody that had anything that they wanted to include in the record would be able to do. So I 

reserved my time to the end so everybody would have a chance to have his or her say. Now I 

would like to have my say. 

 I guess I could apologize that there aren't more Republicans here. Everybody here makes 

up their own mind what they are going to do with their time, and we had Members come and go, 

they had Members come and go. They had more stay the whole time. 

 Unemployment doesn't just hit Democrats or just hit Republicans or Independents or the 

Green Party or whatever. It hits everybody. I have a son-in-law that has been out of work now 

for a few months. I have a son that was out of work this year for several months. I have a son 

that is living with me while he is trying to get his own business working, and so I think I 

understand a little bit of what you are talking about. I myself did not go through a period of time 

in my life where I was unemployed because I, most of the time, was working for myself. So you 

are not unemployed, you are just without income, and I understand what that means to be 

without income. 

 And you know we hear stories about our parents and some of the tough things that they 

have gone through. So did my parents when they mortgaged their house and started a business 

and then went weeks without having money to buy groceries. We have all had some tough 

times, and I think we all should pull together and try to help each other. 

 I appreciated Mr. Sweeney saying this isn't political, but obviously it is, and that is 

unfortunate. You were all selected as witnesses for the Minority, and we had a witness here a 

few weeks ago for the Majority. When I came to Congress, I wasn't involved in this before at all, 

and I kind of thought naively that all Republicans would always work together and all Democrats 

would always work together, and most of us most of the time would try to work together for the 

people of the country. And I have had the rude awakening that that doesn't happen. 

 I thought after September 11, it seemed for about a week or so we really did pull 

together, and now we have split apart again, and we are fighting over a lot of different things; 

some of it is ideological, and some of it is political. It is unfortunate because people like Ms. 
38

Woods and Mr. Hannah pay the price while we fight over these things. I don't know the solution, 

but it is important that we come together. 

You know this, Mr. Sweeney. Most of your support goes to them, and most of this today 

has been directed back and forth, and we have become the scapegoats on this side. But I went to 

a meeting with our local teachers union. I said, you know what, in the last election in California 

you supported 43 Members for election and every one of them was a Democrat, and a few other 

districts you didn't like. My district you didn't talk about. When all the support goes one way, 

then it seems like we get separated. The representative of that union called me after that little 

discussion and said, you know, you are right, maybe there is something we could do together. 

And we sat down and worked out a bill that I have introduced with Mr. Berman, and we are 

really doing it in a bipartisan way to help people with a problem they have with Social Security. 

 And I think that there are more things that can be done in a truly bipartisan way, but we 

have got to get over this beating up on each other every time we turn around, because that drives 

us harder into positions, and in the meantime we have people out of work that are suffering. So I 

hope that some positives come out of this today, that it's not just a negative chance for people to 

get some sound bites, and that we really do some things to help the people that are out of work. 

 I thank you, I thank our Members, and I thank the witnesses for your valuable time and 

participation. If there is no further business, this Committee stands adjourned. 

Whereupon, at 4:21 p.m., the Committee was adjourned. 
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98

Table of Indexes 

Chairman Boehner, 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 10 

Chairman McKeon, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 19, 21, 22, 24, 26, 28, 30, 32, 34, 36, 37 

Mr. Andrews, 26, 27, 28 

Mr. Hannah, 5, 13, 26, 27, 28, 30, 34, 35 

Mr. Isakson, 15, 16 

Mr. Kildee, 13, 15, 37 

Mr. Miller, 10, 16, 17 

Mr. Orszag, 22, 23, 24, 25, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 36 

Mr. Owens, 19, 20, 21 

Mr. Payne, 36 

Mr. Roemer, 21, 22 

Mr. Scott, 22, 23, 24 

Mr. Sweeney, 12, 13, 14, 16, 21, 22, 23, 25, 26, 27, 32, 34 

Mr. Tierney, 34, 35 

Mrs. Biggert, 12, 13 

Mrs. McCarthy, 30, 31, 32 

Ms. Sanchez, 28, 29, 30 

Ms. Solis, 32, 33, 34 

Ms. Woods, 13, 19, 20, 25, 26, 31, 35 

Ms. Woolsey, 24, 25, 26