U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

65–329 2011

IMPROVING EFFORTS TO HELP UNEMPLOYED 

AMERICANS FIND JOBS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

FEBRUARY 10, 2011

Serial No. 112–HR1 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Ways and Means 

( 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
ii 

COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS 

GEOFF DAVIS, Kentucky, Chairman 

ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska 

ERIK PAULSEN, Minnesota 

RICK BERG, North Dakota 

TOM PRICE, Georgia 

DIANE BLACK, Tennessee 

CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, JR., Louisiana 

LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas 

JIM MCDERMOTT, Washington 

JOHN LEWIS, Georgia 

JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York 

JON TRAUB, Staff Director 

JANICE MAYS, Minority Staff Director 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
iii 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Advisory of February 3, 2011 announcing the hearing ........................................ 2 

WITNESSES 

Kristen Cox, Executive Director, Utah Workforce Services ................................. 6 

Tom Pauken, Chairman, Texas Workforce Commission ...................................... 12 

Heather Boushey, Ph.D., Senior Economist, Center for American Progress ...... 19 

Douglas J. Holmes, President, UWC–Strategic Services on Unemployment 

and Workers’Compensation ................................................................................. 40 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Yvonne Goersch ....................................................................................................... 62 

Joyce Fields .............................................................................................................. 62 

Jennifer Snyder ........................................................................................................ 64 

Lori Parker ............................................................................................................... 64 

Martin G. Thomas, Active Member of the American 99er’s Union ..................... 65 

Elizabeth Steere ....................................................................................................... 66 

Rochelle Sevier ......................................................................................................... 67 

Ellen Turner ............................................................................................................. 67 

Paul Pittman ............................................................................................................ 67 

Tracy Santee ............................................................................................................ 68 

Janice Nichols .......................................................................................................... 69 

James Bufton ........................................................................................................... 69 

Scott Carlson ............................................................................................................ 70 

William Milner ......................................................................................................... 70 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING

anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
(1) 

IMPROVING EFFORTS TO HELP UNEMPLOYED 

AMERICANS FIND JOBS 

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 2011 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS, 

Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 3:48 p.m., in Room 

B–318, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Geoff Davis 

[chairman of the subcommittee] presiding. 

[The advisory announcing the hearing follows:] 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
2 

HEARING ADVISORY 

FROM THE COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS 

Davis Announces Hearing on Improving Efforts to 

Help Unemployed Americans Find Jobs 

February 03, 2011 

Congressman Geoff Davis (R–KY), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Human Resources of the Committee on Ways and Means, today announced that the Subcommittee will hold a hearing on improving efforts to help unemployed Americans 

find jobs. The hearing will take place on Thursday, February 10, 2011, in 

Room B–318 Rayburn House Office Building, immediately after a brief Subcommittee organizational meeting beginning at 2:00 P.M. 

In view of the limited time available to hear witnesses, oral testimony at this 

hearing will be from invited witnesses only. Witnesses will include public and private sector experts on unemployment benefits and employment security policies designed to promote reemployment. However, any individual or organization not 

scheduled for an oral appearance may submit a written statement for consideration 

by the Committee and for inclusion in the printed record of the hearing. 

BACKGROUND: 

In December 2010 (currently the most recent official data; data for January 2011 

will be released on February 4, 2011), there were 14.5 million unemployed individuals in the United States; the U.S. unemployment rate was above 9 percent for the 

20th consecutive month, a record dating back to the beginning of official data in 

1948; and the average duration of unemployment was more than 34 weeks, slightly 

below the all-time high set earlier last year. 

To assist unemployed individuals, the federal-state unemployment compensation 

program created by the Social Security Act of 1935 offers weekly payments while 

unemployed individuals search for work. According to the U.S. Department of Labor, 

in order to be eligible for benefits, jobless workers must have a history of attachment to the workforce and must be able and available for work. Nearly $160 billion 

in total unemployment benefits were paid in fiscal year 2010, counting both state 

and federal benefits, stretching to a combined maximum of up to 99 weeks per individual in high unemployment states. An additional nearly six billion dollars in federal administrative funds were spent last year to process unemployment benefits 

and operate public employment offices designed to connect the unemployed with 

new jobs. 

In announcing the hearing, Chairman Davis said, ‘‘This hearing starts with the 

basic question, ‘Are we doing everything we can to help the unemployed 

find jobs?’ In 2010, about 50 million people were hired into new positions. 

But in this recession, unemployed workers have been at the back of the 

pack when it comes to getting hired. Instead, the number of unemployed 

and the length of unemployment durations have grown to record levels, despite billions of dollars spent on benefits and services designed to help 

them find new work. This hearing will provide an opportunity to review 

that issue, and ask what we can do to make this system work better.’’ 

FOCUS OF THE HEARING: 

The hearing will focus on current policies and programs designed to help unemployed individuals return to work and how they can be improved. 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
3 

DETAILS FOR SUBMISSION OF WRITTEN COMMENTS: 

Please Note: Any person(s) and/or organization(s) wishing to submit for the hearing record must follow the appropriate link on the hearing page of the Committee 

website and complete the informational forms. From the Committee homepage, 

http://waysandmeans.house.gov, select ‘‘Hearings.’’ Select the hearing for which you 

would like to submit, and click on the link entitled, ‘‘Click here to provide a submission for the record.’’ Once you have followed the online instructions, submit all requested information. ATTACH your submission as a Word document, in compliance 

with the formatting requirements listed below, by the close of business on 

Thursday, February 24, 2011. Finally, please note that due to the change in 

House mail policy, the U.S. Capitol Police will refuse sealed-package deliveries to 

all House Office Buildings. For questions, or if you encounter technical problems, 

please call (202) 225–1721 or (202) 225–3625. 

FORMATTING REQUIREMENTS: 

The Committee relies on electronic submissions for printing the official hearing 

record. As always, submissions will be included in the record according to the discretion of the Committee. The Committee will not alter the content of your submission, 

but we reserve the right to format it according to our guidelines. Any submission 

provided to the Committee by a witness, any supplementary materials submitted for 

the printed record, and any written comments in response to a request for written 

comments must conform to the guidelines listed below. Any submission or supplementary item not in compliance with these guidelines will not be printed, but will 

be maintained in the Committee files for review and use by the Committee. 

1. All submissions and supplementary materials must be provided in Word format and MUST 

NOT exceed a total of 10 pages, including attachments. Witnesses and submitters are advised 

that the Committee relies on electronic submissions for printing the official hearing record. 

2. Copies of whole documents submitted as exhibit material will not be accepted for printing. 

Instead, exhibit material should be referenced and quoted or paraphrased. All exhibit material 

not meeting these specifications will be maintained in the Committee files for review and use 

by the Committee. 

3. All submissions must include a list of all clients, persons and/or organizations on whose 

behalf the witness appears. A supplemental sheet must accompany each submission listing the 

name, company, address, telephone, and fax numbers of each witness. 

The Committee seeks to make its facilities accessible to persons with disabilities. 

If you are in need of special accommodations, please call 202–225–1721 or 202–226– 

3411 TTD/TTY in advance of the event (four business days notice is requested). 

Questions with regard to special accommodation needs in general (including availability of Committee materials in alternative formats) may be directed to the Committee as noted above. 

Note: All Committee advisories and news releases are available on the World 

Wide Web at http://www.waysandmeans.house.gov

f 

/. 

Chairman DAVIS. Good afternoon and welcome. 

Today’s hearing is about how we can better help unemployed 

workers return to work. Clearly, we have our work cut out for us. 

As the chart that is on the screen shows, our colleagues’ 2009 

stimulus plan promised to drive unemployment under 7 percent by 

now. Instead, unemployment has now remained at or above 9 percent for a record 21 months. The stimulus advocates promised 

137.5 million jobs by now. Instead, the current number is about 7 

million fewer. That has left almost 14 million workers unemployed, 

plus record numbers on the sideline of our economy. A full 6.2 million are long-term unemployed, and the average duration of unemployment is a record 37 weeks. That is almost double the record 

level before this recession. 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
4 

To help the unemployed reconnect with work, our Nation operates ‘‘employment security’’ programs like unemployment insurance 

and employment security offices where laid-off workers go to connect with jobs. Last year, we spent a stunning $165 billion on those 

benefits and services. But judging by the staggering figures I just 

mentioned, those benefits and services are not succeeding in reconnecting unemployed people with jobs at the rates necessary. We 

need to ask why and provide oversight at the subcommittee. 

We know that every year, according to the Department of Labor, 

some 50 million people get hired into new jobs, so someone is finding work. But what this chart shows is how the unemployed have 

increasingly been left behind. 

The red line shows the share of the unemployed who stay unemployed. That has risen to all-time highs. The blue line shows the 

share of the unemployed who return to work. That ‘‘success’’ rate 

has fallen to record lows. In fact, this is the only recession in 20 

years when the unemployed are more likely to drop out of the 

workforce than to find a job. 

This tells us our employment security programs are simply not 

working as intended and in time. Instead of helping the unemployed become one of the 50 million new hires every year, the unemployed are increasing being left behind. Today’s hearing is to 

ask questions and hear perspectives on what we can do to turn 

that around. 

Vice President Biden recently said that the unemployed should 

just ‘‘hang in there’’ and wait until jobs return. But, at the current 

pace, it could be 2020 before the U.S. returns to full employment. 

That is a long time to ‘‘hang in there.’’ 

Fortunately, we don’t have to wait that long to hear some good 

ideas from our witnesses and our members. Joining us is a distinguished panel of experts to review what can be done and in some 

States is being done to help unemployed workers find and take new 

jobs. 

As we will hear, those policies range from promoting more job 

searches, to better engaging people who need extra training, to 

simply focusing current benefits where the need is greatest. 

We also need to remember unemployment benefits are not free 

and are supported by payroll taxes that are already going up dramatically. Improving our success in helping more unemployed people find jobs will help keep future job-destroying tax hikes to a 

minimum. That is a key goal as well. 

We look forward to all of our witnesses’ testimony. Without objection, each member will have an opportunity to submit a written 

statement and have it included in the record at this point. 

Mr. Doggett, would you care to make an opening statement? 

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. 

You have appropriately raised the right question in this first 

hearing: How do we improve efforts of those who are unemployed 

to find jobs? In that endeavor, I pledge my personal and sincere interest in working with you and other Members of the Committee 

in seeking meaningful answers and in working together to help unemployed Americans prepare for and find work. 

After reviewing the written testimony that has been submitted 

for this hearing, I can see that we have different perspectives on 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
5 

the nature of the problem that we face and the best way to resolve 

it. I believe that the problem is unemployment, not the unemployed. Too many Americans remain unemployed because of a lack 

of work, not for their lack of wanting to work. With the average 

unemployment benefits nationally barely at 70 percent of the poverty line for a family of four, there is little incentive to sit home 

rather than to seek meaningful work at a living wage. 

I don’t believe in the blame-the-victim approach. After all, it is 

not the unemployed who gambled our economic future away on 

Wall Street, or took huge pay packages as companies crumbled, or 

failed to oversee our financial markets. And yet it is their families 

who are really struggling and paying the price for the wrongs of 

others. 

As a chart that I brought shows, we have about 14 million unemployed workers but fewer than 4 million job openings. That is why 

we hear one report after another of employers who post jobs being 

flooded with applicants. For example, I know when Delta Airlines 

in the fall announced that it had 1,000 flight attendant openings, 

it received about 85,000 job applicants. If every job opening in 

America were filled this afternoon, about 11 million Americans 

would still not have a job. 

While today’s unemployment claims report provides a hopeful 

sign with first-time claims dropping to the lowest level in 21⁄2

years, the Congressional Budget Office estimated today in the 

Budget Committee that unemployment will remain above 9 percent 

this year and above 8 percent by the end of next year. CBO also 

projects that only 21⁄2 million jobs will be created this year, leaving 

millions dependent on the unemployment insurance system. 

While our first priority must be pursuing the policies that encourage job creation, this subcommittee’s immediate responsibilities focus more on what to do in the meantime for the many Americans who, through no fault of their own, have lost a job and have 

not been able to find new employment. In this endeavor, our States 

are the laboratories of democracy. We look to them for new ways 

to resolve this challenge. Unfortunately, not all of these experiences are successful. 

With my home State of Texas, there have been some successes, 

and there is also an example of what happens when ideological constraints and political imperatives produce decisions that harm both 

employers and employees. Texas employers will be paying more because our Governor insisted on some unemployed receiving less. 

The Governor rejected $555 million in Federal support for the unemployed in 2009, and Texas is now raising additional taxes on employers and incurring more public debt as a result of that. 

I believe that our leadership has been, number one, unexcelled 

in the country in damning the Economic Recovery Act, but without 

the billions that has been accepted in Texas, we would have a more 

gargantuan budget hole than the $27 billion in which our State is 

now enveloped. Nor would the Texas Back to Work Program, about 

which we will hear more from Commissioner Pauken, have been 

more than a shadow of itself but for the Federal funding received 

by Texas through the Recovery Act. 

During the last 2 years, over $6 billion in federally funded unemployment benefits were provided to laid-off workers in Texas. Texas 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
6 

has been receiving over $4 in Federal unemployment funds for 

every dollar in Federal unemployment taxes paid in the State. Last 

year, Democrats worked to pass legislation to extend funds for the 

Texas Back to Work Program and made several efforts to extend 

unemployment benefits for those across the country. Unfortunately, 

Senate Republicans blocked action on that. 

I expected that the focus after all of the criticism about where 

are the jobs would be on job creation. Unfortunately, thus far in 

the broader House we have focused on health insurance reform, 

criticizing the United Nations, and encouraging special interest financing of Presidential campaigns. I hope the broader House will 

move to focus on job creation now as our subcommittee continues 

to work on unemployment. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Doggett. 

Before we move on to our testimony, I want to remind our witnesses to limit their oral statement to 5 minutes. 

Without objection, all of the written testimony will be made part 

of the permanent record. 

On our distinguished panel this afternoon, we will be hearing 

first from Kristen Cox, Executive Director of Workforce Services 

from the State of Utah; Tom Pauken, Chairman of the Texas Workforce Commission; Heather Boushey, Senior Economist, Center for 

American Progress; and Douglas Holmes, President, UWC–Strategic Services on Unemployment and Workers’ Compensation. 

Ms. Cox, you may proceed with your testimony. 

Ms. COX. As a favor, because I am blind, will you let me know 

when I have 1 minute remaining? 

Chairman DAVIS. Yes. We will give you a 1-minute warning. 

STATEMENT OF KRISTEN COX, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

UTAH WORKFORCE SERVICES 

Ms. COX. Thank you. 

While Utah began the recession with one of the lowest total unemployment rates in the country, the rate has steadily risen to 7.5 

percent. Utah’s economy has expanded, and we are averaging 3.5 

percent growth. That is 31⁄2 times the national average. We have 

one of the lowest duration rates in the country of 16.7 percent. We 

have seen job growth at 1.5 percent, and our unemployment rate 

is just about 7.5, in the bottom third. So that environment we 

think has yielded some good results for our UI claimants and UI 

trust fund, as well as getting people back to work. 

I will go into four strategies that we think are essential to pay 

attention to if you really want to look at reemployment. But a key 

thing for me to point out is that any reemployment initiative to 

date from my perspective is by State initiative and not by Federal 

design. The Federal funding streams and the programs don’t necessarily sustain internal policies that allow for reemployment. They 

happen at the Federal level through grants, maybe haphazard initiatives, but nothing that is sustainable. 

So States who want to take the initiative, we have to do a lot 

of work to blend different funding streams together to make that 

happen. I will point to some things that we think would be helpful 

for us on the State end. 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
7 

Four things that we think we should pay attention to on the 

ground: Number one is claimant expectations and requirements; 

number two is employer incentives; number three is around program integration and system design; and, four, around resources 

and flexibility. 

I have lots of detail, but I will try to give you one or two examples in each of those. 

Let me first talk about customer expectations. And, Representative Doggett, we certainly understand that most people on UI want 

to go back to work, but we want to reinforce at every level of their 

experience that going back to work is a full-time job. So from the 

very beginning of them entering the system, they are required to 

register with our labor exchange. We require mandatory workshop 

participation with our Workforce Investment Act dollars. 

So if we see an industry that is growing, for example, in trucking, we had an area in our State that was growing, we will bring 

UI claimants in to match and do jobs fairs with those employers 

who are willing to hire. If UI claimants are not willing to come in, 

they jeopardize their UI benefits. In fact, we have found over this 

last year 20 percent of our UI claimants did not want to participate 

in those type of job fairs, and they lost their benefits. So we know 

most people want to participate and do a good job, but those who 

are not willing to do that, we don’t think should stay in their benefits. 

So those are a few things on customer claimants. We could get 

into much more detail, but setting that expectation from your marketing to what they see on their screens when they check their benefits is essential, and we have been able to integrate that not just 

in our UI but in our Workforce Investment Act site as well. 

Number two, employer incentives. Two pieces on that. Like 

Texas, we have done a Back to Work Program, a similar model. It 

is a way we can reinvest and help employers find incentives to hire 

UI claimants. We give them $2,000 over 4 months if they hire a 

UI claimant and they sustain that employment. It has been fairly 

successful. We may make some changes and tweaks as we move 

forward. But employers have a lot of candidates to chose from, as 

we all know, but we want to make sure our UI claimants are front 

and center, and there are ways to incentivize that. Back to Work 

is one. There are many other options in that model. 

We also have a penalties and interest account. All States do. It 

is part of money that we collect from unemployment insurance. We 

have reinvested those funds to help businesses expand, retain jobs, 

and bring new businesses into the State of Utah. 

Again, job creation is essential if we are going to put people into 

employment. That is a funding stream we have flexibility over, one 

of the very few, and we are able to reinvest that to help businesses 

stay competitive in Utah. 

Chairman DAVIS. Excuse me, you have 1 minute remaining. 

Ms. COX. Oh, my goodness. 

Let me skip the third thing. The third thing was great. 

I am going to go to the fourth. The thing we really need is resource flexibility. We are working against trying to integrate WIA 

funds, Wagner-Peyser funds, UI funds. The UI program does not 

have any waiver authority for States to be innovative or progresVerDate Nov 24 2008 03:08 Jul 01, 2011 Jkt 065329 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 I:\WAYS\OUT\65329.XXX GPO1 PsN: 65329

anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
8 

sive. We don’t really have a lot of venues to do that. So we are left 

with trying to pull a lot of complex pieces together on our own. If 

we could get waiver authority or you guys could grant Department 

of Labor waiver authority, you would start seeing much more innovation coming out of States in terms of reemployment. 

The second piece of that, States have UI admin dollars. It is Title 

III money under Section 303 of the Social Security act. In Utah, we 

have been very efficient in our resources. We have extra money. We 

would like to reinvest that into reemployment versus just admin, 

and we don’t have the ability to do that. We don’t think we need 

more money. We just want more flexibility with our current money. 

There are other things that you can do as well with the Workforce Reinvestment Act, some of the Wagner-Peyser so you could 

create a true seamless system. But really, from my perspective, we 

feel like we put the money up to the Federal Government, it has 

blown up in a thousand pieces, and down at the State level we are 

trying to put it back together again to give a seamless reemployment environment for people. 

A final thing, there needs to be shared responsibility. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Kristen Cox follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Kristen Cox, Executive Director, 

Utah Department of Workforce Services 

UTAH DEPARTMENT OF WORKFORCE SERVICES RE–EMPLOYMENT 

STRATEGIES FOR HELPING UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE CLAIMANTS RETURN TO WORK 

Principle 

Effective re-employment of Unemployment Insurance (UI) claimants is fundamental to maintaining the economic well-being of individuals, the state, and the nation. Providing re-employment support for UI claimants should be an integrated UI, 

Wagner-Peyser, and WIA service delivery effort in partnership with public and private entities. 

DWS One-Stop Programs and Services 

Utah’s one-stop employment centers provide a comprehensive array of services, including job placement, job development, assessment, and job training. DWS also provides UI to unemployed workers and supportive services for working families in poverty, people with disabilities, and the elderly. The result is a seamless service delivery system to enhance access to programs and services, which improves economic 

opportunities for DWS customers. 

Utah’s Current Economic Situation 

• While Utah began the recession with one of the lowest total unemployment 

rates in the country, the rate has steadily risen to 7.5%; however, Utah’s UI 

rate still ranks in the lower third of the country. 

• Utah’s economy has expanded 3.5% annually over the past five years—faster 

than any other state except North Dakota. This is 31⁄2 times faster than the 

United States as a whole. 

• Total employment in the United States has shrunk over the past five years; 

however, Utah’s employment has increased 1.5% annually—the fourth best in 

the nation. 

• Utah household incomes have surged 5% annually—the top in the country and 

twice as fast as the national average. 

• U.S. News has compiled a list of the 10 cities where job-seekers would have the 

best luck finding a job. Rankings are based on the combination of low unemployment rates and an abundance of job openings, relative to the number of jobseekers. The U.S. News ranking lists Salt Lake City as number 2, with Washington, D.C. ranked as number 1. 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
9 

Key Strategies 

Utah is focusing on four critical strategies for providing pathways for re-employment: 

(1) Providing Meaningful UI Claimant Requirements: UI claimants must be 

provided with meaningful expectations that focus claimants on returning to the 

workforce as their top priority. 

• In Utah, UI claimants are required to register for work with the department’s 

online job board within five business days of their initial claim or they are denied benefits. • Starting in February this year, Utah has doubled the minimum work search requirements to four job contacts per week. Returning to work should be a fulltime job. Not all states require this type of activity. • Utah’s UI Worker Profiling and Re-employment Services (WPRS) involvement 

has increased 500% to over 500 claimants per week. This process requires a 

mandatory online UI eligibility review and an online orientation and self-assessment for those claimants profiled to most likely exhaust benefits. 

» Current data suggests higher exhaustion rates among veterans, older workers (55–64), those who have less than high school completion, and those with 

higher wage replacement rates (weekly benefits divided by weekly base period earnings). » Data on the current recession also indicates that the duration and exhaustion 

rates of UI have remained much higher than previous recessions, highlighting the importance of providing meaningful resources and programs to 

claimants throughout the life of their claim. 

» The department is currently looking into optional online workshops as a cost 

effective alternative to traditional staff assisted workshops. 

• DWS has also worked with employers to identify occupations in which employment opportunities exist and for which a pool of occupationally qualified UI 

claimants is available. An example of this focused re-employment effort is bringing trucking companies together with UI claimants who are trained truck drivers. Suitable claimants are selected and invited to participate in these targeted 

job fairs. Claimants who receive the job fair notification and fail to participate 

are found no longer eligible for UI benefits. 

• Utah has initiated several pilot projects, including mandatory workshop attendance, to facilitate job preparation activities. Preliminary feedback from claimants is very positive. Current workshop data shows: 

» 51 percent of UI claimants who were required to attend, did attend 

» 13 percent went back to work 

» 16 percent were deferred due to a seasonal layoff 

» 20 percent who did not attend a workshop had their UI claim terminated 

(2) Providing Employer Incentives: Effective targeted employer incentives are 

critical to not only incentivizing employers to hire new workers, but also to retain 

existing work from potentially being outsourced. 

• DWS has implemented a ‘‘Back to Work’’ initiative to provide Utah employers 

with an opportunity to re-employ up to 2,500 UI claimants and receive a wage 

subsidy of up to $2,000 per participant for each employee hired. 

» ARRA TANF Contingency funds and TANF funds have been used to cover 

this temporary subsidy, and UI Reed Act funds are being used for the administrative costs. 

» Approximately 1,000 UI claimants and youth are currently enrolled. 

• DWS has reinvested UI penalty and interest funds to assist companies with 

their training of new and incumbent workers. 

» The training curricula may be delivered in-house or hosted by an external 

education institution to support both existing and new companies in Utah. 

Funding is conditional on documented outcomes. 

» The projects that have been approved so far are expected to help bring 1,720 

new jobs to Utah, over $1 billion in new and retained state wages, $69.4 million in new state revenue, and over $100 million in capital investment to the 

state. 

• DWS has reinvested the remaining penalty and interest funds to provide incentives to support local employers with workforce development. Generally, there 

must be an equal financial commitment on the part of the employer. 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
10 

» The approved projects are expected to support the UI trust fund because people become re-employed more quickly. During the first few months of this 

new initiative, nearly 400 jobs were created or retained. 

§ Rural areas could see $5 million in direct and countable investments. The 

additional pending projects, if approved and implemented, could help 

bring another 710 new jobs to Utah which could result in $27 million in 

wages over the next 20 years. The average cost for creating or retaining 

a job is approximately $600—a significant return on investment. 

(3) Increasing Program and Funding Integration 

• Using a $1.3 million federal Re-employment and Eligibility Assessment (REA) 

grant, DWS has implemented an REA program. This program focuses on providing re-employment support to 10,000 claimants who are most likely to exhaust their UI benefits. The REA program is similar to the current Worker 

Profiling system, with the addition of a mandatory staff assisted interview to 

provide counseling, more in-depth assessments, and the development of a work 

plan. 

» The grant provides for collecting data on a similar ‘‘control group’’ of claimants to measure what impact this early intervention has on the long-term duration of a claimant’s collecting benefits. » Initial data outcomes will be available this summer. However, preliminary 

results indicate that approximately 25% of the claimants fail to attend their 

appointment with their employment counselor and are thus denied future 

benefits. 

§ About $440,000 of ARRA Stimulus funding was devoted to integrating 

our current job match system with our UI benefits system. Investing in 

ongoing automated technology tools is critical to the ongoing future employment needs of employers and claimants—long after staff assisted 

funding is no longer available. 

§ The integrated systems gather more accurate and complete data from job 

seekers (UI claimants) and eliminate redundant data collection. 

§ New AutoCoder software assigns ONET codes to job seekers and employer job orders, and these assigned ONET codes are transferred to our 

labor market information (LMI) team. The LMI team provides individually relevant job market information to claimants on their personalized 

My UI Account web page. 

• DWS has effectively used ARRA Re-employment Services and Wagner-Peyser 

funding to increase staffing for Employee Connection Teams in Utah’s Employment Centers, thereby providing more one-on-one re-employment assistance to 

UI claimants. 

(4) Supporting Increased Flexibility of Resources: Separate federal funding 

sources and associated program boundaries can present obstacles to integrated service delivery. Federal law and Department of Labor regulations place clear limitations on how UI, Wagner-Peyser, and WIA funds can be spent. While the intent of 

the limitations is to ensure effective and appropriate program administration, the 

effect can be to make cross-program integration difficult. 

• WIA Title I funds may not be spent on employment generating activities, economic development, and other activities, unless they are directly related to 

training for eligible individuals. Providing less restrictive regulations for WIA 

statewide activity funds could provide greater flexibility in getting individuals 

re-employed. Other program issues to consider include: 

» More flexibility in moving customer training funds between Youth and Adult/ 

Dislocated Worker programs to facilitate re-allocating funds where there is 

the most need. 

» Real-time access to federal data about customers. This could reduce administrative costs, support a more streamlined process for the customer, and ensure more accurate delivery of services. For example, access to Social Security information (SSN verification and benefit payments) is available to 

states for public assistance programs such as TANF, SNAP, and Medicaid. 

However, it is not currently available to support other programs such as WIA 

and WOTC. 

• Expanding the scope of the UI program to achieve claimant re-employment 

would be an efficient use of funds and would help claimants become re-employed as quickly as possible. 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
11 

» Although state workforce agencies across the nation are organized differently, each has an established relationship with UI claimants. This relationship is founded on the administrative principles of accountability and enforceability. Allowing UI to broaden its involvement into supporting claimant 

re-employment is a natural extension to its existing role of assuring UI 

claimants are actively seeking work. » Section 303(a)(8), SSA, provides that, as a condition of receiving a Title III 

grant, the state may expend its Title III grant ‘‘solely . . . for the proper and 

efficient administration’’ of the state’s unemployment compensation law. » Broadening the definition of the ‘‘proper and efficient administration’’ of UI 

would help support the goal of cross-program integration among UI, WagnerPeyser, and WIA and provide program administrators greater flexibility and 

resources to accomplish effective re-employment initiatives. » It would not be our intent to allow a state that is struggling to maintain its 

core UI operational responsibilities to inappropriately divert UI administrative grant funds to expanded activities and further erode their UI program. 

However, perhaps some flexibility could be granted through law, rule, or administrative policy changes or through a waiver process. This could take into 

account some minimum UI performance levels to allow using funds that directly benefit UI claimant re-employment. For example, the ‘‘Utah Back to 

Work’’ wage subsidy program referred to earlier required extensive marketing to claimants and employers. Even though the program was established to help claimants become re-employed earlier and help safeguard the 

UI trust fund, UI administrative grant funds could not be used to notify 

claimants about the program. » WIA, TANF, and SNAP programs offer waivers and more flexibility. If unemployment is one of our largest issues, why not give states more flexible options to help re-employ job seekers? 

• DOL has recently shown good leadership with its focus on re-employment, its 

wage subsidy grants, and state consortium initiatives. It is time to connect benefits and employment into a seamless service delivery strategy without creating 

funding barriers. • Utah has implemented multiple initiatives to help UI claimants become re-employed sooner. A few of these initiatives have been recognized at the national 

level. The U.S. Department of Labor awarded DWS the 2010 UI Innovation 

Award for our electronic correspondence system and the American Institute of 

Full Employment awarded DWS the 2010 Best Practices Award for our on-line 

worker profiling re-employment service program. These initiatives have helped 

Utah enjoy one of the lowest average UI duration rates in the country—16.6 

weeks, despite having a fairly high wage replacement rate. While we have made 

significant progress, our goal is to continually strive to improve services for employers and job seekers. 

Summary of Recommendations 

• Establish clear expectations for claimants that re-employment is a priority and 

requires a full-time commitment. 

• Provide employers with wage, training, and tax incentives that provide economic benefits for employers to expand or retain their workforce. 

• Increase program and funding integration that supports effective meshing of UI 

claimants with employers’ workforce needs. Expansion of the Worker Profiling 

and Re-employment Services and REA grants are good examples of integrated 

funding between UI claimants and re-employment services. 

Increase flexibility of resources to make cross-program integration more efficient 

without creating funding barriers or jeopardizing program accountability. 

f 

Chairman DAVIS. Your time has expired. Thank you. 

Now I have the pleasure of recognizing our fellow colleague on 

the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Texas, Mr. 

Brady, who would like to offer an introduction for his fellow Texan, 

Mr. Pauken. 

Mr. BRADY. Thank you for letting me crash the party, Chairman 

Davis, and Ranking Member Doggett. I am grateful to introduce 

my friend and a true Texas patriot to the subcommittee today. 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
12 

Chairman of the Texas Workforce Commission Tom Pauken is an 

Army veteran with a distinguished record of service to his country 

and our State. His career in the public and private sectors has 

given him valuable insight on improving efforts to help unemployed 

Americans find jobs. As a small business owner and the vice president of a venture capital company, Tom knows what it takes to 

meet a payroll and create jobs. He knows the challenges businesses 

are facing in this economy and the hardships job seekers experience when they look for work or try and learn new skills. 

His public service has also prepared him well for the current position. While serving in the Reagan administration as director of 

action, Tom founded the Vietnam Veterans Leadership Program 

that created a nationwide network to assist unemployed and underemployed Vietnam veterans find good jobs with a future. 

Since taking over as chairman in our State, he has used his experience to create the Texas Veterans Leadership Program. This is 

staffed and managed by veterans of Afghanistan and Iraq and 

seeks to help Texas veterans transition into civilian life by providing employment and training services, resources, and referral. 

Tom has led the way in implementing the new Texas Back to 

Work Program which encourages employers to hire job seekers who 

have been laid off through no fault of their own. We couldn’t have 

a better leader than Tom heading up our State’s workforce development agency. Despite the difficult recession, Texas remained a national leader in job creation, netting 231,000 new jobs last year. 

Tom Pauken has been a successful and innovative leader in the 

military and business and the Federal Government and State government; and I am certain his insights, Mr. Chairman, will be of 

value to the committee. I am honored to introduce him. 

Chairman DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Brady. 

Mr. Pauken, you may proceed. 

STATEMENT OF TOM PAUKEN, CHAIRMAN, 

TEXAS WORKFORCE COMMISSION 

Mr. PAUKEN. Thank you, Chairman Davis and distinguished 

subcommittee minority leader, Congressman Doggett, and thanks 

for those kind words, Congressman Brady. 

Congressman Doggett and I have a slightly different perspective 

on the Texas model. In the last decade, as you know, Congressman, 

we have created in Texas over 640,000 jobs in the private sector. 

That is at a time when every other large labor market State of the 

10 largest labor market States have lost jobs. In fact, during that 

decade, the country has lost 3.2 million private sector jobs. And I 

think it is the business climate that has attracted people from 

other States. 

But what I worry about, quite frankly, is I think we are in a period of structural unemployment, and we need to get beyond partisanship and figure out ways to bring jobs home to America and 

put people back to work. And I will address that in a moment as 

I did in my written testimony. 

But, first, I would like to address the Texas Back to Work Program. It was an initiative primarily funded by State funds, a modest amount. And what it was designed to do was link employers 

with people of modest means who lost their jobs through no fault 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
13 

of their own, making up to $15 an hour by providing incentives to 

the companies to hire people off the unemployment roles. We have 

hired to date 11,000. That is a pretty good number, and hopefully 

we will do a lot more. 

Most of it has been State supported. We did have some discretionary Federal funding; and, as Kristen said earlier, we would 

very much like to see some discretion at the Federal level to be 

able to continue that program and for other States, if they choose 

to move in that direction, to help put people back to work. 

I think it is a win/win situation for Texas employers and for 

those people who are unemployed and are getting back to work. 

Secondly, I have a modest suggestion for those who are on extended benefits. It is really a series of options. Really, the concept, 

we call it Train While They Claim. Those people who are on Federal and extended benefits, they would have three options: 

Number one, if they don’t have their high school degree, let them 

get their GED, study for that. Existing funds are available. Just 

put them at the first of the line, those who are unemployed. 

Option B, if they don’t fit into that category, allow people to go 

to postsecondary or career or community colleges in order to get vocational and technical training to upgrade their skills and be available for the workforce. Again, similar to what we do with Federal 

displaced workers, you simply allow these people who are unemployed to go to the front of the line. 

Third, those people who don’t do A or B would be required to do 

community service with their local communities, many of which are 

laying off people, or with fine nonprofits such as Habitat for Humanity in order to pay for those extended benefits. And if they 

choose not to do A, B, or C, then they would no longer be receiving 

unemployment benefits. This is an approach that would make 

sense, help people, and get people back to work. 

Finally, I would simply say in an overview, particularly since you 

are on the Ways and Means Committee, in my judgment, we have 

got to change the way we tax businesses. We have the most onerous business tax system in the world, with a 35 percent tax rate, 

a 6.2 percent employer portion of the payroll tax. I believe very 

strongly it should be pulled out at its roots and replaced with a 

revenue neutral 8 percent business consumption tax which would 

be border adjusted. All goods and services coming into the U.S. 

would have to pay that tax. All exports, companies exporting would 

get a credit against their business consumption tax. 

It levels the playing field with our trading competitors. And, currently, we are at an approximately 18 to 19 percent disadvantage 

with our trading competitors around the world. It would also bring 

jobs home. It would restore and begin to build—rebuild our manufacturing base. We have lost one-third of our U.S. manufacturing 

base over the last decade. That is 51⁄2 million good American jobs 

which have been shipped overseas, outsourced, or simply gone 

away. That is why I believe we are in a structural unemployment 

situation and in the most serious national recession since the time 

of the Great Depression. 

Bold action is called for. I think this is an approach. We can do 

all of the things at the margin. I think they are very important. 

But, ultimately, I think we have to bring jobs home to America. 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
14 

Finally, I beg to disagree with Congressman Doggett, but, quite 

frankly, we were willing to come up with a program in order to get 

that Federal funding, to do what Congress asked, but simply allow 

our State law to revert to the preexisting law once the Federal 

funds were fully expended. I think this was, quite frankly, an overreach of the Federal Government in trying to federalize or mandate 

what States had to do with respect to unemployment benefits. 

We stand ready to work with the Congress in order to get that 

money back for Texas, which is our money, and we are a donor 

State. We only get 35 cents on a dollar. 

[The prepared statement of Tom Pauken follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Tom Pauken, Chairman, 

Texas Workforce Commission 

Thank you Chairman Davis, Ranking Member Doggett and distinguished Members of the Subcommittee for allowing me to submit this written testimony. 

Texas has an important story to tell and because I believe our experience can help 

policymakers here and in other states address the problem of unemployment. 

Texas has weathered the current recession better than any other large state. 

While we have not been immune to its effects, consider these numbers: 

Between December 2000 and December 2010, Texas created 640,600 private sector jobs, according to recent Labor Department reports. That is an 8% increase over 

the last decade. During that same period of time, every other of the ten largest labor 

market states lost private sector jobs, and the nation as a whole lost more than 3.2 

million such jobs. 

There are many reasons why Texas has fared better than other states during the 

downturn. Governor Perry and the Texas Legislature have instituted polices of fiscal 

restraint and lower taxes that have made Texas the number one place for business 

in our nation. And thanks to our state legislature, the Texas Workforce Commission 

has administered a new program called Texas Back to Work designed to encourage 

employers to hire Texans who are unemployed and who have lost their jobs through 

no fault of their own. More than 10,000 unemployed Texans have been hired as a 

result of the program and this initiative received the Department of Labor’s best 

practices award this past fall. 

The program provides an incentive of up to $2,000 for hiring qualified UI claimants with the goal of rapid reintegration into the workplace. Employers train, develop and oversee new employees with the purpose of retaining the new hire after 

an initial 4 month period in order to receive the full incentive. 

The program has been a win-win for employers, job seekers, and the taxpayers 

of Texas. 

Of the participants in the program, two thirds have successfully completed, with 

89% of them continuing to show wages in the following quarter. Program wide, 75% 

of participants whether they complete or not show wages in the following quarter. 

More importantly, this program helps Texas businesses with the critical task of 

maintaining an up-to-date labor force, while also helping unemployed Texans get off 

the rolls of UI claimants and obtain what they truly seek—a job, not benefits. 

Texas Back to Work was funded with seed money provided by our legislature and 

we later extended the program with federal funds. I have included a detailed summary of the Texas Back to Work program as part of this testimony. Please refer 

to Attachment 1 for more details on the success of the program. 

We believe other states would benefit from following Texas’ example, and I would 

recommend that Congress pass legislation allowing all states the option of using federal and state emergency and extended benefit funds to pursue this cost-effective 

measure for job-creation. I have included draft language for your consideration to 

allow states the flexibility to use emergency and extended benefit funds for job subsidy programs. Please refer to Attachment 2. Now is the time to be proactive, before 

we find ourselves in January of next year, with extended benefits expiring and wondering how much more impact we could have had. 

There are additional changes we believe could make the current system more effective. 

I recommend that, as a condition for receiving extended unemployment benefits, 

recipients would have an option to ‘‘Train While They Claim’’. Those without a high 

school diploma could choose to study for their GED. UI claimants in that category 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
15 

would be entitled to first priority for participation in existing federally funded Adult 

Basic Education programs. 

Those with a high school degree, but lacking specific vocational training, would 

be able to receive job skills training. Again, this would not require an increase in 

federal funding, but simply give claimants top priority to participate in existing federally funded training programs. 

Alternatively, those who don’t choose to get a GED or receive additional skills 

training would be required to gain additional on-the-job experience or training by 

volunteering for community service work for public institutions or approved nonprofits like Habitat for Humanity. Those who refuse to participate in one of these 

three options would no longer be entitled to receive extended unemployment benefits. 

I also want to bring your attention to an unprecedented overreach of federal authority over state unemployment statutes which was part of the American Recovery 

and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Texas was denied $550 million allocated to us by 

the Act—funds that would have been used to pay unemployed workers in our state. 

That federal legislation mandated that, in order to receive those funds, not only was 

the Texas Legislature required to make changes to our laws that would have expanded the number of people eligible to receive unemployment benefits, but our legislature was prohibited from including a sunset provision that would have allowed 

these changes to expire once the federal funds had been completely exhausted for 

their intended purpose. 

No other federal legislation that I am aware of continues to have strings attached 

to it after the funding is gone. Such legislation is a first step in the Federal Government taking over all state unemployment laws in the country. These provisions need 

to be repealed. 

I would ask the distinguished members here today to initiate legislation that 

would amend ARRA and allow Texas to receive the money that has already been 

set aside for us. Texas is not asking for money that is not ours to begin with. Texas 

is a donor state in the Federal Unemployment Insurance system. For every dollar 

we contribute, we receive only 35 cents back. 

Finally, I would be remiss if I did not emphasize that the key to creating jobs 

is to grow the private sector. Government programs, no matter how innovative, cannot bring about the kind of fundamental change that is needed to put America back 

to work. 

We currently have a corporate tax system that rewards American businesses for 

taking on debt—which is deductible—while punitively taxing employment, savings, 

and capital investment—the engines of economic growth and job creation in the private sector. This is an incentive to export prosperity and export American jobs overseas—which is precisely what has happened over the past decade. 

The best way to address this problem is to change the way we tax businesses. 

Let’s replace our onerous corporate tax system with a revenue-neutral, 8% businessconsumption tax that would be border-adjusted. 

This new approach to taxing business would raise just as much in revenues, if 

not more, than the current system of taxation. All goods and services coming into 

the U.S. would pay the 8% tax while all exports would receive a comparable tax 

credit as an offset to its company’s business consumption tax. This would reduce the 

outsourcing of American jobs, encourage long-term investment in U.S. businesses, 

rebuild our manufacturing base, reduce our trade deficits and put business owners 

back in charge of the American economy. This is a real economic stimulus plan to 

get Americans back to work. 

Attachment 1 

The Texas Back to Work Program offers a fixed subsidy of $2000 to private sector 

employers who hire claimants of UI making less than $15/hour in their job before 

being laid off. The program provides a tiered payment plan so that employers do 

not get the full subsidy unless the claimant remains employed with the employer 

for 4 months at 30 hours per week or more. 

Claimants are offered jobs that qualify as ‘‘suitable employment’’ consistent with 

UI regulations. They may or may not know that the employer is receiving a subsidy. 

The job must be full time at better than minimum wage. The employer is to treat 

the TBTW hire as he would any other new employee to the business. Wages paid 

and hours worked are verified before payment is made. 

TWC has done extensive publicizing of the TBTW program including through the 

Governor’s Small Business Conferences. In addition, TWC created a TBTW certificate that it provides TBTW-eligible claimants so that they can use it in the applicaVerDate Nov 24 2008 03:08 Jul 01, 2011 Jkt 065329 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 I:\WAYS\OUT\65329.XXX GPO1 PsN: 65329

anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
16 

tion process to educate employers about the program and to show that they are 

TBTW-eligible as an inducement to the employer. 

These efforts have proven very effective because after a slow start Texas Back to 

Work has placed 10,332 claimants in a little over a year and continues to make 

roughly 250 placements per week. This includes claimants at all points in the claim 

process including those: 

• Receiving state UI benefits (first 26 weeks); 

• Receiving extended federal benefits; or 

• Those who have exhausted all benefits and had not returned to work yet. 

TBTW by the Numbers: 

• Texas Back to Work Placements—10,332 claimants placed 

• # Employers Served—2757 

• Percent Completed Subsidized Period—65.5% 

• Avg. Wages before Lay Off—Using November Analysis (7558 claims) $20,663 

• Avg. Wages with Subsidized Job—Again, using November’s Analysis 

$18,866.87 (91.31% wage replacement rate—for point of reference, 91% used 

to be considered very good wage replacement under WIA DW). Considering 

that many of the UI claimants served have been unemployed for extended periods, we believe this a very good outcome. 

• Percent of TBTW participants with wages in 1st Quarter after Subsidy Completed— 

Overall—75% 

Successful Completers—89% 

(Preliminary analysis indicates that nearly 87% of the 89% were still employed with the same employer.) 

Attachment 2 

The following amendments are proposed to create a wage subsidy option for the 

States out of funding from the Emergency Unemployment Compensation Benefits 

Program and the Extended Benefits Program. The creation of this option would 

allow States the alternative of providing up to thirteen weeks of wage subsidy, for 

the benefit of the claimant, to employers for the reemployment of individuals who 

qualify for further extended benefits. Funding for this subsidized option would not 

exceed the individual’s weekly benefit amount and would not be permitted in any 

case where it would displace an employee. 

The language of the proposed amendments are underlined and contained within 

the statutory provisions in order to provide context. 

Because the claimants would be participating in subsidized reemployment under 

this program, it is anticipated that the claimants would be treated in the same manner as participants in the Texas Back to Work program. 

TITLE IV—EMERGENCY UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION 

FEDERAL–STATE AGREEMENTS 

<< 26 USCA § 3304 NOTE >> 

SEC. 4001. (a) IN GENERAL.—Any State which desires to do so may enter into 

and participate in an agreement under this title with the Secretary of Labor (in this 

title referred to as the ‘‘Secretary’’). Any State which is a party to an agreement 

under this title may, upon providing 30 days’ written notice to the Secretary, terminate such agreement. 

(b) PROVISIONS OF AGREEMENT.—Any agreement under subsection (a) shall 

provide that the State agency of the State will make payments of emergency unemployment compensation to individuals who— 

(1) have exhausted all rights to regular compensation under the State law or 

under Federal law with respect to a benefit year (excluding any benefit year 

that ended before May 1, 2007); 

(2) have no rights to regular compensation or extended compensation with respect to a week under such law or any other State unemployment compensation 

law or to compensation under any other Federal law (except as provided under 

subsection (e)); and 

(3) are not receiving compensation with respect to such week under the unemployment compensation law of Canada. 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
17 

(c) EXHAUSTION OF BENEFITS.—For purposes of subsection (b)(1), an individual shall be deemed to have exhausted such individual’s rights to regular compensation under a State law when— 

(1) no payments of regular compensation can be made under such law because such individual has received all regular compensation available to such 

individual based on employment or wages during such individual’s base period; 

or (2) such individual’s rights to such compensation have been terminated by 

reason of the expiration of the benefit year with respect to which such rights 

existed. 

(d) WEEKLY BENEFIT AMOUNT, ETC.—For purposes of any agreement under 

this title— 

(1) the amount of emergency unemployment compensation which shall be 

payable to any individual for any week of total unemployment shall be equal 

to the amount of the regular compensation (including dependents’ allowances) 

payable to such individual during such individual’s benefit year under the State 

law for a week of total unemployment; 

(2) the terms and conditions of the State law which apply to claims for regular compensation and to the payment thereof shall apply to claims for emergency unemployment compensation and the payment thereof, except— 

(A) that an individual shall not be eligible for emergency unemployment 

compensation under this title unless, in the base period with respect to 

which the individual exhausted all rights to regular compensation under 

the State law, the individual had 20 weeks of full-time insured employment 

or the equivalent in insured wages, as determined under the provisions of 

the State law implementing section 202(a)(5) of the Federal-State Extended 

Unemployment Compensation Act of 1970 (26 U.S.C. 3304 note); and 

(B) where otherwise inconsistent with the provisions of this title or with 

the regulations or operating instructions of the Secretary promulgated to 

carry out this title; and 

(3) the maximum amount of emergency unemployment compensation payable 

to any individual for whom an emergency unemployment compensation account 

is established under Section 4002 shall not exceed the amount established in 

such account for such individual.; and 

(4) in the alternative, a State may provide a wage subsidy from the individual’s emergency unemployment compensation account in an amount per week no greater than the weekly benefit amount, for the benefit of the individual eligible for emergency unemployment compensation benefits, to an employer who 

provides reemployment of the individual for up to thirteen weeks. The subsidized reemployment shall not displace an employee. 

(e) ELECTION BY STATES.—Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal 

law (and if State law permits), the Governor of a State that is in an extended benefit period may provide for the payment of emergency unemployment compensation 

prior to extended compensation to individuals who otherwise meet the requirements 

of this section. 

(f) UNAUTHORIZED ALIENS INELIGIBLE.—A State shall require as a condition of eligibility for emergency unemployment compensation under this Act that 

each alien who receives such compensation must be legally authorized to work in 

the United States, as defined for purposes of the Federal Unemployment Tax Act 

(26 U.S.C. 3301 et seq.). In determining whether an alien meets the requirements 

of this subsection, a State must follow the procedures provided in section 1137(d) 

of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1320b-7(d)). 

PAYMENTS TO STATES HAVING AGREEMENTS FOR THE PAYMENT OF 

EMERGENCY UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION 

<< 26 USCA § 3304 NOTE >> 

SEC. 4003. (a) GENERAL RULE.—There shall be paid to each State that has entered into an agreement under this title an amount equal to 100 percent of the 

emergency unemployment compensation paid to individuals and the emergency unemployment compensation wage subsidies paid for reemployment of individuals by 

the State pursuant to such agreement. 

(b) TREATMENT OF REIMBURSABLE COMPENSATION.—No payment shall 

be made to any State under this section in respect of any compensation to the extent 

the State is entitled to reimbursement in respect of such compensation under the 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
18 

provisions of any Federal law other than this title or chapter 85 of Title 5, United 

States Code. A State shall not be entitled to any reimbursement under such chapter 

85 in respect of any compensation to the extent the State is entitled to reimbursement under this title in respect of such compensation. 

(c) DETERMINATION OF AMOUNT.—Sums payable to any State by reason of 

such State having an agreement under this title shall be payable, either in advance 

or by way of reimbursement (as may be determined by the Secretary), in such 

amounts as the Secretary estimates the State will be entitled to receive under this 

title for each calendar month, reduced or increased, as the case may be, by any 

amount by which the Secretary finds that the Secretary’s estimates for any prior 

calendar month were greater or less than the amounts which should have been paid 

to the State. Such estimates may be made on the basis of such statistical, sampling, 

or other method as may be agreed upon by the Secretary and the State agency of 

the State involved. 

<< 26 USCA § 3304 NOTE >> 

Federal-State Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 1970 

‘‘Sec. 202 [Payment of extended compensation]. 

‘‘(a) [State law requirements] (1) For purposes of section 3304(a)(11) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 [(formerly I.R.C. 1954) subsec. (a)(11) of this section] 

a State law shall provide that payment of extended compensation shall be made, 

for any week of unemployment which begins in the individual’s eligibility period, to 

individuals who have exhausted all rights to regular compensation under the State 

law and who have no rights to regular compensation with respect to such week 

under such law or any other State unemployment compensation law or to compensation under any other Federal law and are not receiving compensation with respect 

to such week under the unemployment compensation law of Canada. For purposes 

of the preceding sentence, an individual shall have exhausted his rights to regular 

compensation under a State law (A) when no payments of regular compensation can 

be made under such law because such individual has received all regular compensation available to him based on employment or wages during his base period, or (B) 

when his rights to such compensation having terminated by reason of the expiration 

of the benefit year with respect to which such rights existed. In the alternative, a 

State may provide a wage subsidy from the individual’s extended compensation account in an amount per week no greater than the weekly benefit amount, for the 

benefit of the individual eligible for extended compensation, to an employer who provides reemployment of the individual for up to thirteen weeks. The subsidized reemployment shall not displace an employee. 

‘‘(2) Except where inconsistent with the provisions of this title [this note], the 

terms and conditions of the State law which apply to claims for regular compensation and to the payment thereof shall apply to claims for extended compensation 

and to the payment thereof. 

<< 26 USCA § 3304 NOTE >> 

‘‘Sec. 204 [Payments to States]. 

(a) [Amount payable] (1) There shall be paid to each State an amount equal 

to one-half of the sum of— 

‘‘(A) the sharable extended compensation, and 

‘‘(B) the sharable regular compensation, 

paid to individuals and the extended compensation wage subsidies paid for reemployment of individuals under the State law. 

‘‘(2) No payment shall be made to any State under this subsection in respect of 

compensation (A) for which the State is entitled to reimbursement under the provisions of any Federal law other than this Act, (B) paid for the first week in an individual’s eligibility period for which extended compensation or sharable regular compensation is paid, if the State law of such State provides for payment (at any time 

or under any circumstances) of regular compensation to an individual for his first 

week of otherwise compensable unemployment, (C) paid for any week with respect 

to which such benefits are not payable by reason of section 233(d) of the Trade Act 

of 1974 [19 U.S.C.A. 2293(d)], or (D) paid to an individual with respect to a week 

of unemployment to the extent that such amount exceeds the amount of such compensation which would be paid to such individual if such State had a benefit structure which provided that the amount of compensation otherwise payable to any indiVerDate Nov 24 2008 03:08 Jul 01, 2011 Jkt 065329 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 I:\WAYS\OUT\65329.XXX GPO1 PsN: 65329

anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
19 

vidual for any week shall be rounded (if not a full dollar amount) to the nearest 

lower full dollar amount. 

‘‘(3) The amount which, but for this paragraph, would be payable under this subsection to any State in respect of any compensation paid to an individual whose base 

period wages include wages for services to which section 3306(c)(7) of the Internal 

Revenue Code of 1986 [26 U.S.C.A. § 3306(c)(7)] applies shall be reduced by an 

amount which bears the same ratio to the amount which, but for this paragraph, 

would be payable under this subsection to such State in respect of such compensation as the amount of the base period wages attributable to such services bears to 

the total amount of the base period wages. 

f 

Chairman DAVIS. Your time has expired, Mr. Pauken. Thank 

you. 

Dr. Boushey. 

STATEMENT OF HEATHER BOUSHEY, PH.D., SENIOR ECONOMIST, CENTER FOR AMERICAN PROGRESS ACTION FUND 

Ms. BOUSHEY. Thank you, Chairman Davis, Ranking Member 

Doggett and Members of the Subcommittee for inviting me here to 

testify today. My name is Heather Boushey, and I am a Senior 

Economist with the American Progress Action Fund. 

So until we fill the demand gap, we will continue to have high 

unemployment, which in turn will drag down economic growth. Today’s high unemployment was caused by the mismanagement of 

the economy in the 2000s, a financial sector only in service of its 

own profits, rather than fostering productive investments, and a 

housing bubble. 

The policies that will create jobs now are those that will make 

investments that not only boost employment in the short term but 

will lay the foundations for long-term economic growth. 

On the one hand, our economy has grown for six straight quarters now. Much of this growth that we have seen has been due to 

the Recovery Act and other policies aimed at addressing the fallout 

from the financial crisis. Yet we continue to have a large gap between what our economy currently produces and what it would be 

producing if workers and the economy’s productive assets were to 

be used at full employment. 

Even though corporate America is flush with cash and profits 

have soared, investment is at its lowest level in more than five decades. The National Federation of Independent Businesses continues to report month after month that its members see a lack of 

sales as their key concern. When businesses don’t see sales, they 

don’t hire. 

Thus, while this recession ended in June of 2009, for everyday 

Americans, this has not been a recovery. There continue to be nearly five workers seeking a job for every job opening available, compared to just over one worker for every job available in early 2000 

before the financial crisis began. 

While some groups have been hit harder than others, today’s unemployment is not a structural problem. In May of 2007, the unemployment rate was 41⁄2 percent. Yet just over a year and a half 

later, the private sector was shedding over 700,000 jobs per month. 

For the unemployment problem that we are facing today to be 

structural, there must be some new set of technological advances 

that made 1 in 10 workers instantaneously obsolete. 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
20 

I agree with the previous speaker that there is a long-term problem, the decline in manufacturing, but there is no evidence that 

that is our problem, the enormous problem of unemployment is 

solely due to that. 

Further, job losses in this recession have been widespread and 

not only concentrated in the sectors hardest hit by the bursting of 

the housing bubble. 

Funds spent on benefits and services designed to help the unemployed find new work have mitigated, not exacerbated, the problem. Unemployment benefits have been good for the economy, and 

a growing body of empirical work shows they have not been hindering workers from finding new employment. 

To boost employment, Congress should focus on three specific 

policy goals: 

First, we continue to need to focus on boosting aggregate demand through investments in infrastructure and making sure 

that the unemployment insurance system and other automatic 

stabilizers remain in working order. The American Society of 

Civilian Engineers estimates that we will need to spend at 

least $2.2 trillion over the next 5 years just to repair our crumbling infrastructure. This doesn’t even include things like highspeed rail, mass transit, and renewable energy investments to 

free ourselves from foreign oil and address climate change. Infrastructure has traditionally been a bipartisan issue and one 

that hopefully this Congress can build a bridge across the aisle 

to address. 

Second, if someone has a job, we should be helping them 

keep it by helping States and localities limit future layoffs and 

thinking about innovative ways to help firms keep workers on 

their payrolls. Simply put, right now, all across America, 

schools are laying off teachers, public universities are trimming their staffs, and community colleges are cutting back. 

These cutbacks constitute not just lost jobs now, but they will 

also eventually worsen educational outcomes for tens of millions of students across the country, consequences that will 

have long-term negative effects on the economy. 

Third, we should be helping the unemployed beat the odds 

and find a new job. The TANF emergency fund led to partnerships with the business community to create nearly a quarter 

of a million new jobs. It was implemented in States with both 

Democratic and Republican Governors with much success. 

Texas, for example, created nearly 40,000 jobs with this program. It has expired as of last September, and it should be reinstated. 

We could also do more to promote successful vocational programs 

that integrate vocation and employment-oriented goals and academic educational programs. However, yesterday, the House Appropriations Committee announced that it wants to cut job training 

programs by 50 percent. This will certainly not help us. 

We continue to live in one of the richest nations on the planet. 

We continue to have the resources to solve the problems that we 

as a Nation choose to solve. And yet here we seem to have lost 

some of our can-do conviction that the economy can indeed improve 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
21 

and we can create good jobs for all who need them. I hope that this 

Congress will continue to use its power to invest in America and 

create jobs. 

[The prepared statement of Heather Boushey follows:] 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING65329A.001
22 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING65329A.002
23 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING65329A.003
24 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING65329A.004
25 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING65329A.005
26 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING65329A.006
27 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING65329A.007
28 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING65329A.008
29 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING65329A.009
30 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING65329A.010
31 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING65329A.011
32 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING65329A.012
33 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING65329A.013
34 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING65329A.014
35 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING65329A.015
36 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING65329A.016
37 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING65329A.017
38 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING65329A.018
39 

f 

Chairman DAVIS. Thank you for your time with us, Dr. 

Boushey. 

Mr. Holmes. 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING65329A.019
40 

STATEMENT OF DOUGLAS J. HOLMES, PRESIDENT, UWC–STRATEGIC SERVICES ON UNEMPLOYMENT AND WORKERS’ COMPENSATION 

Mr. HOLMES. Thank you. 

Chairman Davis, Ranking Member Doggett, Members of the Subcommittee, I am Doug Holmes, President of UWC–Strategic Services on Unemployment and Workers’ Compensation. We are a national organization representing business, particularly in research 

and policy related to unemployment and workers’ compensation. 

Thanks to you, Mr. Chairman, for your leadership in scheduling 

this hearing so early in the session to enable a fresh analysis on 

the heels of recent unemployment data from the Department of 

Labor and the Bureau of Labor Statistics. 

As the economy turns a corner to recovery, new strategies are 

needed to address lingering high unemployment rates and continuing large numbers of long-term unemployed claimants. The 

new year calls for new solutions to match the problems at hand. 

The following observations will help frame the discussion. 

First, the unemployment rate remains too high. Job openings are 

lagging the recovery. The number of mass layoffs has fallen. The 

number of initial applications for State unemployment compensation is declining, and the 4-week moving average of 415,500 initial 

claims is getting close to the 400,000 mark that is generally indicative of nonrecessionary periods. Total unemployment rates vary 

considerably State by State. We have 10 States that have unemployment rates of less than 7 percent, and we have 10 States with 

10 percent or above. 

Employers who plan to hire new employees are still uncertain, 

however; and in addressing how to help Americans find jobs really 

three steps should be taken: 

First, encourage job creation by avoiding increases in the 

cost of hiring and employment; second, encourage unemployed 

workers to seek and accept work that is available in the marketplace; and, third, improve the efficiency of the system to 

match unemployed workers with jobs that are available in the 

marketplace. 

This three-pronged approach removes barriers to job creation and 

encourages the more active and efficient matching of workers seeking work and employers filling employment needs. 

First prong, reduce the cost of hiring and employment. State unemployment insurance taxes as a percent of total wages increased 

on average from 2009 to 2010 by 34 percent, with larger increases 

expected for 2011 and 2012. Special State taxes paid by employers 

to repay Federal interest on loans are also increasing. Thirty-one 

States and jurisdictions have outstanding loans of $42.4 billion; 

and $1.3 billion in interest is due this year on September 30, with 

more than $1.6 billion continuing to be due on an annual basis. 

FUTA taxes are increasing. Employers in Indiana, Michigan, and 

South Carolina have already been required to pay increased FUTA 

taxes for 2009 and/or 2010; and employers in 21 additional States 

will be subject to an increased FUTA tax for 2011. The increased 

tax is projected to cost employers approximately $2 billion for 2011 

and $4 billion for 2012. Congress should, in response to this first 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
41 

issue, provide a waiver of the interest on loans to States to pay unemployment compensation for 2011 and 2012 and also waive the 

FUTA offset credit penalties for 2011 and 2012. 

Second prong of the three-pronged strategy: encourage unemployed workers to seek and accept work. In a recent survey of State 

unemployment insurance agencies, 39 States reported broad exceptions to the general work search requirements, and one State reported that it had no work search requirement at all. The exceptions have in many cases consumed the rule. Individuals in many 

States may be able to apply online, submit claims for unemployment compensation online with electronic self-attestation of their 

work search activities, and have benefits directly deposited into 

their bank accounts. The entire application and weekly claims payment process may be completed with very little contact by the 

claimant with a one stop or employment services office. 

Work search requirements for Federal programs and standards 

for State work search requirements should be enacted to send the 

appropriate signal to claimants that active work search efforts are 

expected and required. 

The Federal extended benefit program should also be reformed to 

identify areas where emergency and extended benefits might be 

curtailed to save some important dollars in target money appropriately. 

Finally, the third prong is to implement initiatives and provide 

services that are most effective in assisting unemployed workers in 

returning to work. Such programs have been described. Utah and 

Texas are good examples of this. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Douglas J. Holmes follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Douglas J. Holmes President, UWC-Strategic 

Services on Unemployment & Workers’ Compensation 

Chairman Davis, Ranking Member Doggett, and Members of the Subcommittee on 

Human Resources, thank you for the opportunity to testify on the topic of improving 

efforts to help unemployed Americans find jobs. 

I am Douglas J. Holmes, President of UWC-Strategic Services on Unemployment 

& Workers’ Compensation (UWC). UWC counts as members a broad range of large 

and small businesses, trade associations, service companies from the Unemployment 

Insurance (UI) industry, third party administrators, and unemployment tax professionals. The organization traces its roots back to 1933 at the time when unemployment insurance was first being considered for enactment. 

Thanks, Mr. Chairman, for your leadership in scheduling this hearing early in the 

Congressional session to enable a fresh analysis of the economy on the heels of recent unemployment and jobs information released last week by the U.S. Department 

of Labor and the Bureau of Labor Statistics. As the economy turns the corner to 

recovery, new strategies are needed to address lingering high unemployment rates 

and continuing large numbers of long term unemployed claimants. The new year 

calls for new solutions to match the problems at hand. 

The following observations and data may help frame the discussion. 

The Unemployment Rate remains too high. In a December 2010 Issues paper 

prepared by James M. Borbely, an economist in the Division of Labor Force Statistics, Office of Employment and Unemployment Statistics, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), Mr. Borbely provides a revealing comparison of the impact of the 

2007–2009 recession and the previous four recessions with respect to the proportion 

of the labor force that is unemployed. 

For the first 8 months of all five recessions, the unemployment rate followed a 

similar upward trend, increasing by about 1 percentage point. During the 2007–09 

recession and the two long recessions of the 1970s and 1980s, the unemployment 

rate increased by an additional 3 percentage points or so during the next 8 months 

of the downturn. However, after 16 months, the similarity disappears as the unemVerDate Nov 24 2008 03:08 Jul 01, 2011 Jkt 065329 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 I:\WAYS\OUT\65329.XXX GPO1 PsN: 65329

anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
42 

ployment rate in the 2007–09 recession continued to trend upward for several 

months. The 2007–09 recession ended in June of 2009, the trough of the high unemployment rate following the recession was 10.1 percent in October of 2009. It has 

now been 16 months since the trough of high unemployment yet the unemployment 

rate remains much higher than at this time during any other of the post recession 

periods since the 1970s. 

Job openings are lagging the recovery. The number of job openings reported 

by the Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey Highlights published by BLS on 

January 11, 2011 shows that job openings declined to their lowest point one month 

after the end of the recession in July of 2009 and employment levels declined 

through December of 2009. Since that low point job openings and employment have 

trended up, but the number of hires only increased by 9 percent from June of 2009 

to November of 2010. Hires totaled 4.2 million in November. 

The number of mass lay-offs has fallen. The number of mass layoffs reported 

by BLS for December 2010 decreased from the prior month and reached its lowest 

level since April 2008. The number of mass lay-offs fell from 2009 to 2010 for temporary help services, school and employee bus transportation, motion picture and 

video production, professional employer organizations, automobile manufacturing, 

and discount department stores. 

The number of initial applications for state unemployment compensation 

is declining. The number of initial state applications has dropped from 682,176 at 

the end of January of 2009 to 490,000 in 2010 and now to 415,000. 

Despite the reduction in the number of initial applications, the number 

of ongoing federal and state unemployment compensation weekly claims 

remains much higher than at this point after any of the previous recessions. The series of federal measures taken to enact emergency unemployment compensation, additional compensation, relaxation of the triggers for extended benefits, 

and incentives to states to expand benefits enacted in the American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act (ARRA) have resulted in a much larger number of unemployment 

claims being filed and unemployment compensation paid than any of the prior four 

recessionary periods. We now have 14 million unemployed individuals, and of those 

claiming unemployment compensation the average duration of claims is more than 

34 weeks. 

Total unemployment rates vary considerably state by state. The industrial 

mix and volatility of the local economies in the states varies considerably. Ten 

states; Hawaii, Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, South Dakota, 

Vermont, Virginia and Wyoming, have three month total average unemployment 

rates of less than 7.0%. Ten states; California, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, Nevada, Oregon, Rhode Island, and South Carolina have unemployment rates 

of 10.0% or above. 

Employer plans to hire new employees are still uncertain. The results of 

the monthly January economic survey conducted by the National Foundation of 

Independent Business (NFIB) showed that 11 percent of business owners reported 

increasing employment at their firms by an average of 2.8 workers while 15 percent 

reported reducing total employment an average of 2.9 workers per firm. Improved 

confidence on the part of small business owners is critical to new job creation. 

In addressing how to help Americans find jobs, three steps should be taken; (1) 

encourage job creation by avoiding increases in the cost of hiring and employment, 

(2) encourage unemployed workers to seek and accept work; and (3) improve the efficiency of the system to match unemployed workers with jobs available in the market place. 

REDUCE THE COST OF HIRING AND EMPLOYMENT 

It is generally recognized by economists that increasing taxes during a period of 

nascent economic recovery is counterproductive. Congress as recently as December 

reduced the social security payroll tax to help spur the economy. Despite widespread 

recognition that now is not a good time, there are a number of automatic tax increase provisions in federal and state law that have begun to increase state and federal unemployment taxes paid by employers. These increases come at the very point 

in the economic cycle that such increases impair employers’ ability to hire employees. 

State unemployment taxes are dramatically increasing. State UI taxes as 

a percent of total wages increased on average from 2009 to 2010 by 34% with larger 

increases expected for 2011 and 2012 as states and employers in many hard hit 

states struggle to restore solvency to state unemployment trust funds that have 

been savaged by the recession and historically high unemployment claims loads. 

Special state taxes paid by employers to repay federal interest on loans 

are increasing. States with outstanding loans with the Federal Government 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
43 

through Title XII of the Social Security Act, effective January 1, 2011 are required 

to pay interest on the loans as a condition of receiving administrative funding for 

the UI program and as a condition of employers in the state receiving the normal 

state offset against the Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA). 

The first statutorily required payment is due on or before September 30, 2011. 

As of February 3, 2011, thirty-one states and jurisdictions had outstanding loans of 

$42.4 billion. States and/or employers in the following states will be impacted with 

interest charges; Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, 

Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, 

Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, 

Vermont, Virgin Islands, Virginia, and Wisconsin. 

Interest due to be paid on these loans is estimated on an annual basis to exceed 

$1.6 billion with the amount to be paid by September 30th of approximately $1.3 

billion. Much of this cost will be paid by employers through increases in existing 

or new special state payroll taxes. The additional tax on payroll will add to the already dramatically increasing state unemployment taxes and discourage the creation of jobs in 2011 and 2012. 

FUTA taxes are increasing. Employers are required to pay automatic increases 

in the Federal Unemployment Tax in states with outstanding federal loans. Employers in Indiana, Michigan and South Carolina have already been required to pay increased FUTA taxes for 2009 and/or 2010, and employers in twenty-one additional 

states, including Alabama, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, 

Idaho, Illinois, Kentucky, Minnesota, Missouri, North Carolina, New Jersey, Nevada, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Virginia, Virgin Islands, and 

Wisconsin will be subject to an increased FUTA tax for 2011. The increased tax is 

projected to cost employers approximately $2–3 billion annually for 2011 and 2012. 

It is no wonder that employers are hesitant to take on the additional cost of hiring 

additional employees given the increases in unemployment insurance related payroll 

taxes and uncertainties as to the cost of doing business. A coordinated effort on the 

part of the states and the Federal Government is essential in response to the skyrocketing taxes. 

Provide short term relief from Federal Unemployment Tax Penalties 

Congress should (1) provide a waiver of the interest on loans to states to pay unemployment compensation for 2011 and 2012, and (2) waive FUTA offset credit penalties for 2011 and 2012. 

These steps will reduce the cost of hiring that would otherwise automatically increase without action by Congress. 

ENCOURAGE UNEMPLOYED WORKERS TO SEEK AND ACCEPT WORK 

The number of unemployed workers being hired is not large enough to significantly reduce the total unemployment rate or the number of long term unemployed 

workers. This suggests a solution that stresses not only the creation of new jobs but 

unemployed workers must be more actively engaged in searching for and accepting 

work that is available in the labor market and/or choose the training needed to obtain the skills and abilities that are in demand in the new economy. 

Some of the federal funds projected to be spent on additional weeks of emergency 

or extended unemployment compensation at this point in the recovery may actually 

produce a disincentive for active job search. The addition of 13 weeks of federal extended benefits is generally recognized by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) 

as having the effect of increasing the duration of state unemployment compensation 

on average by more than two weeks. 

There are record numbers of long term unemployed, many of whom are being paid 

emergency unemployment compensation and extended benefits. The U.S. DOL report for the week of January 15, 2011, shows 3,653,080 individuals were paid EUC 

and 898,381 were paid regular extended benefits. 

In a recent survey of state unemployment insurance agencies conducted for UWC 

by the National Foundation for Unemployment Compensation and Workers’ Compensation, 39 states reported exceptions to the general work search requirements 

and one state reported that it had no work search requirement as a condition of 

eligibility for unemployment compensation. 

Exceptions to work search requirements ranged from a general exception when 

the state unemployment rate exceeded 8.5% to situations where individuals are attached to prior employment and expect to return to work, seek work through hiring 

halls or temporary services, are in approved training, or are between terms of employment for a seasonal employer. 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
44 

The advent of claims systems designed to enable easier claims processing and 

faster payment, unfortunately, has resulted in a lower degree of verification of individuals actively seeking work as a condition of weekly payment. Although millions 

of individuals are filing tens of millions of weekly claims, there are very few individuals who anticipate that their claims will be denied for failure to seek work. Individuals in many states may be able to apply on line, submit claims for unemployment 

compensation on line with electronic self-attestation of their work search activities, 

and have benefits directly deposited into their bank accounts. The entire application 

and weekly claims and payment process may be completed with very little contact 

by the claimant with a one-stop or employment services office. 

Increase Job Search Requirements and Reform Federal Extended Benefit 

and Emergency Programs 

Work search requirements for federal programs and standards for state work 

search requirements should be enacted to send the appropriate signal to claimants 

that active work search efforts are expected and required as a condition of receiving 

unemployment compensation. Work search efforts should be recorded and verifiable. 

The federal extended benefit program should be reformed. The circumstances 

under which federal extended benefits are triggered ‘‘on’’ and ‘‘off,’’ the circumstances under which a federal ‘‘emergency’’ program might be needed, and the 

conditions of receiving extended weeks of unemployment compensation should be reformed to more effectively target funding and respond to the needs of individuals 

in finding jobs. 

Improve the Integrity of the UI Program 

Creating a culture of personal responsibility and accountability is extremely important in assuring that funds available for unemployment compensation are properly paid and individuals for whom the program is dedicated properly receive benefits. According to CBO total state and local unemployment compensation payments 

jumped to $120 billion in 2009, $159 billion in 2010 and payments are estimated 

to be $129 billion for 2011. With overpayment rates currently of approximately 10%, 

the amounts available for collection have increased to $12–16 billion per year. 

In 2010, Congress recognized the need to provide new tools to identify and collect 

the growing amount of overpayments by enacting the Claims Resolution Act of 2010 

(HR 4783). The new law provides new reporting requirements to capture the new 

hire date of individuals as part of the National New Hire system. This data will 

enable states to better identify specific weeks for which individuals are being paid 

wages while claiming unemployment compensation, reduce fraud and increase recovery. The new law also included provisions to enable the offsetting of income tax 

refunds with outstanding unemployment compensation overpayments. 

These new tools are projected to save $2.4 billion over ten years, but the improved 

savings will only be realized if administrative funding is provided to properly implement these new tools and other integrity measures. Additional administrative funds 

for integrity functions are needed not only to be able to combat fraud and to recover 

overpayments but also as a tool to send a signal to claimants of the need for personal accountability in claiming unemployment compensation and actively seeking 

work as a condition of being paid unemployment compensation. 

IMPLEMENT INTIATIVES AND PROVIDE SERVICES THAT ARE MOST 

EFFECTIVE IN ASSISTING UNEMPLOYED WORKERS IN RETURNING 

TO WORK 

It has been well established that effective job search reduces the number of weeks 

that individuals remain on unemployment compensation and serves to more quickly 

fill the staffing needs of employers. The use of web based job search systems and 

public/private partnerships has demonstrated that greater efficiency and effectiveness in job search can be a win/win by reducing the duration of unemployment compensation, and returning unemployed workers to the workforce more quickly. 

The population of long term unemployed workers is not monolithic. Long term unemployed claimants are broadly representative of the workforce and different strategies are needed for the variety of individuals and their barriers to employment. 

The Reemployment & Eligibility Assessment Program (REA) is currently provided 

with a small amount of federal funding to promote rapid reemployment of UI claimants, reduce overpayments and cost-savings for the UI trust fund. The REA combines in-person interviews with assessment of individual claimant skills and abilities, labor market information and the development of a work-search plan. The REA 

program has been demonstrated in many states to reduce the duration of unemployment for individuals participating in the program and should be expanded as a priority to additional claimants. 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
45 

Implement Effective Reemployment Initiatives 

An analysis of the makeup of the 4.4 million long term unemployed claimants and 

those who are likely to exhaust unemployment compensation who are currently 

claiming state unemployment compensation is needed at the state and one-stop local 

area level to determine the most effective ways to assist them in returning to work. 

Once there is a determination of the size of the population to be served and an 

evaluation of resources needed, assessments of workers should form the basis on 

which to determine whether the individuals are in need of additional job search, 

training, and/or support services. 

The publicly funded workforce system in place today is limited in its capacity, and 

an effective plan must combine public as well as privately funded services, and an 

emphasis on active work search, reemployment services, targeted training and incentives to create jobs. 

The leveraging of public funding across program areas as well as private funding 

driven by employers who are making hiring decisions can be extremely effective in 

developing the training and support needed to return unemployed workers to work. 

UWC supports the continued use of reemployment rate measures by the U.S. Department of Labor as part of the evaluation of the UI system. The goal of employment security should be employment, and performance measures should reflect this 

priority. 

Promote Targeted Employment Based Training 

The assessment and referral to training and placement of unemployed workers 

can be effective in enabling workers to find new work. Employer based programs, 

such as customized training, on the job training, and programs such as Georgia 

Works that permit individuals to work as employees or trainees in anticipation of 

long-term employment are the most effective in moving unemployed workers into 

training which is likely to lead to employment. 

Active participation by employers is the key to successful training as employers 

ultimately make the hiring decisions. Targeted initiatives in the areas of health 

services, manufacturing, and other growth areas make sense in the current economy 

as a way to meet employer needs and to reduce unemployment. 

Individuals qualifying for unemployment compensation benefits typically have 

work experience and training from prior work that enables them to find similar 

work. However, particularly during a long term recession such as we have experienced, a larger number of individuals become structurally unemployed and may find 

themselves with skills that are no longer in demand in the labor market. 

These individuals may require services well beyond the temporary partial wage 

replacement provided by the UI program and job search services, and are best 

served in partnership with private and public programs. Trade Adjustment Assistance and the Workforce Investment Act provide a broader array of support services, 

assessment, testing, skills training, and referral services. 

Keep the Role of the UI program Focused on Returning Unemployed Claimants to Work. 

A long list of social safety net programs and services has been established since 

unemployment insurance was enacted in 1935. The list includes TANF, TAA, WIA, 

SNAP, Medicaid, Medicare, heating assistance, subsidized housing, subsidized child 

care, subsidized health care, and earned income tax credits. Many of these programs 

include a cash assistance component. 

Unemployment Insurance is the primary social safety net program targeted in 

providing economic security for individuals who rely principally on their employment and wages for support. The role of the program is to provide short term support for individuals as they search for work after becoming unemployed through no 

fault of their own. The program is not designed or funded to provide support payments over extended periods of time. The goal of the system must be the efficient 

and effective return of claimants to work. 

In developing plans to assist long term unemployed workers in returning to work, 

the UI program should be used in conjunction with workforce programs dedicated 

to provide job search, reemployment and training services that may be funded from 

other sources but are aligned to provide economic security and effective workforce 

services to the benefit of the individual, employers, and economic development. 

CONCLUSION 

Assisting more than 4.4 million unemployed claimants in finding employment is 

a tremendous challenge that calls for the effective use of federal and state resources 

across a range of social service programs as well as the active participation of emVerDate Nov 24 2008 03:08 Jul 01, 2011 Jkt 065329 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 I:\WAYS\OUT\65329.XXX GPO1 PsN: 65329

anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
46 

ployers and individual unemployed workers. In developing strategies to assist unemployed workers there must first be job creation to provide employment opportunities. 

Now is not the time to increase payroll taxes and Congress should act to provide 

relief from Title XII interest and FUTA tax penalties in 2011 and 2012 to encourage 

job creation in the private sector. 

Federal extended benefit and emergency programs should be reformed to better 

target benefits while increasing the emphasis on work search and reemployment 

services. 

States should be properly funded to work with unemployed workers and employers to improve initiatives and services designed to return unemployed claimants to 

work. The REA program, job search services, assessment and referral techniques, 

and improved integrity should receive priority funding with the expectation that 

there will be a quantifiable reduction in the duration of unemployment compensation and an increase in the number of unemployed claimants referred and hired. 

Training initiatives should be closely coordinated with employers in developing 

customized training, OJTs, apprenticeships and other employer based training that 

leads to employment. 

Training and services provided for unemployed claimants should also be coordinated with providers in the private sector and with other workforce programs 

aligned to put claimants back to work. 

f 

Chairman DAVIS. Your time has expired. Thank you. 

We will turn to questions now. I will begin the questioning with 

Mr. Holmes. 

I know that you reviewed the administration’s unemployment tax 

increase proposal regarding the moratorium and the pickup in 

2014, and I have seen your testimony that supports short-term relief of State and Federal tax hikes associated with Federal UI loans 

to the States. If relief is provided to States now, should it be paid, 

in your opinion, paid for by raising taxes higher in future years or 

by cutting spending? 

Mr. HOLMES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I really think that the time to examine spending levels in extended benefits and EUC has come in light of the change in the 

circumstances in the economy. I think we should note that the Federal unemployment tax that funds the EUC account which funds 

extended benefits is in deficit and is borrowing right now. So for 

each additional dollar that is paid in extended benefits or EUC, we 

add another dollar to the Federal deficit. I think we should look at 

the spending side first before we move to looking at any tax. 

Chairman DAVIS. Where would you look in terms of any spending? 

Mr. HOLMES. I think as we look at the data State by State and 

look to what are the labor markets in States that are growing, 

where there are opportunities for work, those are States where you 

could curtail some of the additional weeks of extended benefits and 

maybe move some of that money over to other activities that would 

push people into work or encourage them to work. But I think 

those would be the places to look. 

Chairman DAVIS. Following on that point, under today’s rules, 

people in States with an unemployment rate of 61⁄2 percent are 

guaranteed 86 weeks of benefits. Meanwhile, people in States like 

Nevada, with unemployment rates twice that level, qualify for only 

13 more weeks of benefits, a total of 99 weeks. From a cost standpoint, only 19 percent of emergency extended benefit payments are 

targeted to the high unemployment States, with the remaining 81 

percent provided without regard to the State unemployment rate. 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
47 

Do you feel it makes sense to pay benefits this way or should they 

be better targeted to where unemployment is the highest? 

Mr. HOLMES. I very much agree we should be targeting to 

where the unemployment is higher, because that is where the need 

presents itself more acutely. I would say a targeting approach 

makes better sense. 

Chairman DAVIS. What do you think would be gained by that 

from a standpoint of taxes and job creation? 

Mr. HOLMES. When you look at the entire package of initiatives, first of all, it enables the relief from tax that I talked about, 

which enables businesses to make the decision to hire more people, 

which reduces unemployment compensation. And, also, it targets 

more effectively—whether it is work search or training, you can 

target dollars more effectively to move people into jobs that are 

available in the economy. 

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

I am trying to lead from the front with the example of brevity 

equals elegance due to the challenges that we have had. 

Mr. DOGGETT. 

Mr. DOGGETT. Thank you. I will follow your excellent leadership in that regard. 

Mr. Holmes, do you feel that cutting job training funds will be 

helpful to the efforts of getting the unemployed back to work? 

Mr. HOLMES. I think that the question of training again is a 

matter of targeting the training to employment. So the question 

really should be how are we—— 

Mr. DOGGETT. Do you think we can cut the overall level of job 

training funds and still come out ahead with regard to unemployment? 

Mr. HOLMES. Again, I think it is how you target the funds that 

are available. 

Mr. DOGGETT. Ms. Cox, how do you feel about cutting job training funds? 

Ms. COX. Well, two things on that piece. First, when you talk 

job training funds, when you talk cutting, I would say first it is 

flexibility right now. States have to deal with formulas set up by 

the Feds of where we can allocate those resources between youth, 

dislocated workers, and adults. 

So I have already very little funds in that area, almost 7 million, 

and almost half of that is for youth. I have got kids, would love my 

kids to work. But when we are talking about dislocated workers, 

my first preference would be that we have that ability to switch 

funds between youth, dislocated workers, and adults. 

Mr. DOGGETT. So you don’t want to see your total amount of 

funds cut, you want flexibility in how they are used? 

Ms. COX. I would say we are already struggling with training 

dollars. But I always think there are efficiencies. Right now, when 

I look at the bureaucracy in terms of system design, I do think 

there is some waste. I don’t think we would want to cut training 

dollars, but I think we would want to look at system design and 

cut where the waste is and try to leave the resources for training 

there as much as you can. But I would certainly not be opposed to 

reducing bureaucracy. 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
48 

Mr. DOGGETT. If you can identify any specific areas of waste 

after your testimony to supplement that, I think we would all like 

to have it. 

Ms. COX. Sure. We have some ideas. 

Mr. DOGGETT. We all want to ferret out waste. 

[The information follows:] 

Mrs. Kristen Cox, Executive Director, Utah Workforce Services 

While the Workforce Investment Act provides critical services for America’s workforce, its effectiveness can be hampered by overly restrictive requirements or outdated business processes. It is designed—like most mandates—through a focus on 

policy and oversight rather than on effective system design. 

Integrating policy with efficient business process design and a focus on outcomes 

would eliminate waste and provide more value to the customer while maintaining 

funds for job training and related activities. What follows are a few recommendations to eliminate waste and improve the system. These, and other similar recommendations Utah is considering internally, take into account wasteful activities 

such as unnecessary hand-offs and time spent on approvals, reworks, and duplication—just to name a few. 

National Emergency Grants 

Allow states to retain more resources to respond to emergency lay-offs as compared to the current National Emergency Grant process. Today, it can take months 

for a state’s NEG request to be approved—preventing states from responding to layoffs when the need is greatest. 

Data Validation 

The level of effort required to provide data validation is not worth the limited benefit. Data validation of 800 cases does provide limited case trend information, but 

a smaller case sample—100, for example, would provide basically the same information. Over a two month period, a total of six to eight staff are dedicated to a process 

that produces limited results or outcomes. For data validation to have this kind of 

impact for a small state like Utah implies that the national implications are significant. The effort required from DOL for data validation far exceeds the dozens of 

other programs administered by the Department of Workforce Services. 

Flexibility between Funding Streams 

Current funding formulas require states to spend an allocated dollar amount 

within a specific training category, i.e., youth, dislocated worker, and adult. If there 

is a greater need in one category than another, we are unable to transfer funds between the youth category and the adult/dislocated worker categories. There have 

been instances when funds have gone unspent in one category and could have been 

used in another. States should be given the flexibility to use funds based on local 

economic need. 

Verification of Social Security Numbers and Information 

DOL has not taken the lead in coordinating the electronic verification of social security information. Manually providing the data incurs a great deal of waste in time 

and effort. States currently obtain social security information in an electronic format 

for other programs such as TANF and SNAP, but DOL training programs are behind the times in allowing the electronic verification of social security information. 

Consolidation of the Trade Adjustment Act with WIA Training Programs 

Training programs authorized under TAA ultimately benefit the same individuals 

served under WIA. Case in point: regardless of whether a worker lost his/her job 

because of work going out of the country or because of downsizing, the result is the 

same—a lost job. Allowing a state to integrate the funding and reduce duplicative 

administrative functions would improve efficiency and create equity among customer groups currently being served under different programs. 

Many other areas could be improved such as the grant process, reporting, and 

state plan requirements. With the right focus and design thinking, WIA could become a much leaner and efficient program and significantly impact America’s competitiveness. 

Mr. DOGGETT. Dr. Boushey, I think there is some merit to the 

approach that Commissioner Pauken has described in the Texas 

Back to Work Program, but I have some concerns going forward 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
49 

about financing it by taking money from extended unemployment 

benefits. I wonder if you might respond with your opinion on that. 

Ms. BOUSHEY. I think there are a couple of issues. 

First off, the money that goes out for the unemployment insurance system is supposed to help folks who are unemployed while 

they job search. And so certainly we both want them to be job 

searching, but we need to make sure that the solvency and that 

those funds are still being used for the unemployment insurance 

system. We have already heard up here today that there are a 

number of problems with the system. Most of the States are solvent. It doesn’t seem to make a lot of sense to take moneys from 

a system that already is having trouble to put it towards something 

else. 

I think that is connected to the conversation that the House is 

also having about whether or not you want to cut those job training 

programs. It doesn’t make sense to cut those training programs in 

half. You are sort of robbing Peter to pay Paul, if you will. 

But I also think that there are a couple of things. While training 

programs are certainly important and we need to get folks into 

them, we need to make sure that we are training people for both 

jobs that exist and that we are recognizing the demand problem in 

front of us. 

One of the things about the labor market right now is it is not 

the case that every worker that is unemployed needs to get their 

high school diploma or needs vocational training. When you look at 

the long-term unemployed, for example, unemployed managers 

make up 1 in 10 of the unemployed. Forty-six percent have been 

searching for a new job for at least 6 months. But among construction workers, only 1 in 14 of the total unemployed, only 36 percent 

have been searching for a job for at least 6 months. So it is not 

the case. Those folks who are disproportionately long-term unemployed are in fact in managerial occupations and other occupations 

where a GED or vocational training may not be appropriate. 

I think your point that you made at the very beginning, the problem isn’t the unemployed, it is unemployment. We need to focus on 

demand as a key part of this issue. 

Mr. DOGGETT. I know we won’t confront each other about these 

points, but specifically on the issue of the half a billion dollars of 

unemployment funds Texas did not take, didn’t your office as well 

as the legislative budget board determine that for almost the next 

decade there would be no additional burden on the State of Texas 

by taking those funds. 

Mr. PAUKEN. Congressman Doggett, we were prepared to—in 

fact I came up to Washington last year, met with some members 

of the Texas delegation to devise a program whereby we would get 

the $550 million, do what the Congress mandated. But at the time 

when the Federal money had run out, been fully exhausted, then 

we would be permitted to have a sunset provision. It is a simple 

two paragraph amendment; and, unfortunately, it got rejected. 

And so the reality is that—I just think this is a matter, a philosophical matter. I think it is a move to federalize State unemployment laws; and the idea that a State is under a Federal law, even 

after the Federal funds have run out, I think is an overreach on 

the part of the Federal Government. 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
50 

Mr. DOGGETT. We will just agree to disagree. 

Chairman DAVIS. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The gentleman from Minnesota, Mr. Paulsen. 

Mr. PAULSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Chairman, as you noted in your opening statement—I was 

trying to ask a question of Ms. Cox and Mr. Pauken—— 

You noted in your opening statement there seems to have been 

a breakdown in recent years with our employment security systems 

becoming less successful at helping unemployed people find and 

take jobs. And in Minnesota, as a way to match employers with the 

unemployed, we have Minnesotaworks.net where we have over 

71,000 resumes that are posted for nearly 32,000 jobs. It seems like 

a good start, but there is certainly more we can do to bridge the 

gap or repair the system, I would think. And see if you agree with 

that. 

But, for example, should we hold States more financially accountable for helping unemployed workers find jobs? Do we have systems in place that do that today and do they work? 

Ms. COX. Well, from my perspective—DOL recently I think has 

acknowledged that the reemployment of UI claimants is important, 

but there is not a real meaningful measure in place that drives 

States to reemploy individuals. As I said earlier, it is more by State 

design than it is by Federal design. UI can’t do it alone. 

So in your example with the job matching program, we have used 

Workforce Investment Act dollars, Wagner-Peyser dollars to build 

better technology to help match unemployed workers with jobs that 

actually exist in Utah. But that is because we have been able to 

pull funds across because they are all under my department and 

we have a singular philosophy. That is not always the case. 

At the end of the day, it is much easier to define process and 

point to what people would do. I think the harder discussion is to 

say, what is the outcome and how do we measure it? And I think 

that measurement is something that you would have to look at 

across systems. Either you collapse the funding or you have a common measure across Wagner-Peyser, WIA, and UI so they are all 

responsible and play a role in the re-employment of UI claimants. 

Because it really is at this point some States do it and some 

States don’t based on the philosophical direction of the State. In my 

perspective, re-employing UI claimants is critical. I talked earlier 

with a colleague today the program shouldn’t be the unemployment 

insurance program. It should be the insurance employment program. That should be our focus across all workforce development 

agencies. 

Mr. PAULSEN. Mr. Pauken, would you agree? 

Mr. PAUKEN. I would agree with her sentiments; and, in Texas, 

we do have a measurement for accountability, a 10-week measurement. 

Mr. PAULSEN. Let me just follow up with you, too, because I 

think you described in your testimony the Texas Back to Work program in which Texas provides employer subsidies. 

Mr. PAUKEN. I call it an incentive. 

Mr. PAULSEN. Minnesota actually had a very similar wage program in the 1980s. And you mentioned this program saves taxpayers’ money, counting all of the benefits paid and taxes not colVerDate Nov 24 2008 03:08 Jul 01, 2011 Jkt 065329 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 I:\WAYS\OUT\65329.XXX GPO1 PsN: 65329

anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
51 

lected while someone is unemployed compared to when they have 

a job. So could Texas use even $1 of the Federal extended benefit 

funds for Texas Back to Work subsidies or incentives to get someone hired who might otherwise continue to collect Federal subsidies? 

Mr. PAUKEN. We can’t now, but I would like to see us have the 

discretion to be able to do that. It is a win-win situation because 

we have seen that we are hiring not only people who are on the 

Texas benefits but then they go on to the Federal benefits and even 

people who exhaust their Federal benefits. And we have seen—it 

is $2,000 over 4 months, and it is for employees of modest means, 

people making $15 or less, and that is a pool of 250,000 in Texas, 

and we are at 11. We will easily be at 25 if we get additional State 

funding. And if we had more discretion—and that is what we are 

really seeking. 

I have been out of government since the Reagan administration 

days, and so much seems to be mandated from the Federal Government. Let the flowers bloom at the State and local level. This is 

working, and it is helping the people who are unemployed and 

helping the employers who want to provide, get people back to 

work and get some on-the-job training. 

Mr. PAULSEN. So you would say it is a smart use of Federal 

taxpayer dollars to insist that they are spent on unemployment 

benefits instead of helping someone take a job if possible? More 

flexibility? 

Mr. PAUKEN. Absolutely. That is what we are asking for. It is 

more flexibility. And I think States can choose to go that direction 

if they choose to. 

But the idea of everything being in these little boxes and you are 

limited as to what you can do I think is the wrong way to go. I 

think we need to devolve power to the States and local communities in this area as well as in other areas. 

Chairman DAVIS. Thank you very much. 

Mr. McDermott. 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Earlier this week, the Republicans had on the calendar a bill to 

extend TAA for another 4 months or so, Trade Assistance Adjustment. They pulled the bill. Does it make any difference to any of 

you? 

Mr. PAUKEN. Can I comment on that? 

The real answer, Congressman, is the opening comments some 

people made, the comments about the excesses of the Wall Street 

crowd. But if you have got a tax system that rewards, if you will, 

debt because debt is deductible, while punitively taxing savings 

capital investment employment, what you are doing is you are 

shipping jobs overseas. And the best way to deal with that issue 

is not sort of picking winners and losers in the little marginal fix 

here and there but change the way we tax business to level the 

playing field with our trading competitors. 

And I am glad to see Senator Fritz Hollings has come out for 

this, Congressman Paul Ryan has, Senator DeMint, Pat Choate, 

who was in our State who ran with Ross Perot as his vice presidential running mate as an independent. So I think there is a 

broad cross section. I think that is the way to address this issue, 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
52 

rather than the idea of always trying to come up with something 

where the government is going to do this or that. 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. Your solution for the unemployed is hold 

your breath until we pass a VAT in the United States Congress? 

Mr. PAUKEN. Not at all. My solution is the only way we are 

going to grow out of this, as the Kennedy administration saw and 

as the Reagan administration saw, is to grow the private sector. 

And since the Obama stimulus—— 

Let me make one comment. Since the stimulus program began in 

February of 2009, while we have added approximately 400,00 public-sector government jobs, we have lost another 2.7 million jobs 

from February, 2009, through May of 2010. 

What is being done isn’t working. We really need to have a bold 

approach to change the way we tax business, and I mean this is 

beginning to emerge across the board. I mean, Leo Henry, who was 

an economic adviser to John Edwards, has been talking about this. 

Michael Lynn. This is an approach we need to take. 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. Reclaiming my time. You have given enough 

of your pitch. 

Ms. BOUSHEY. Can I respond to your question? 

Both on two things. You know, one, on the trade adjustment assistance dollars, I mean, that is certainly an important source of 

funding for those workers who have been displaced by trade; and 

we certainly, especially in these high unemployment times, need to 

get those moneys out to them. 

There is actually some very new interesting economic research 

that is doing a really nice job of documenting the impacts on both 

employment and wages from trade and looking at especially communities that have high imports from China and how this is affecting them. I think there is even more and more evidence this is important, we need to be doing more things to both address the kinds 

of things that you are talking about to make sure that we are not 

exporting jobs overseas but also to deal with the aftershocks of it 

for the policies that we have already implemented. 

But then I do need to take sort of a point of information. We 

have seen growth in the private sector in terms of job gains over 

the past year. So it is not the case that since the Recovery Act we 

have seen the—we saw that the nadir of job losses were the month 

that Obama took office and then we saw job losses get smaller and 

smaller and they have been growing and the private sector have 

been adding jobs. And we know the economic growth that we have 

seen is in no small part attributable to what this Congress did, the 

dramatic actions that they took 2 years ago to help provide the 

economy. 

Ms. COX. But one thing on the TAA that—I am not going to get 

in this high-policy discussion. Mine is just on-the-ground practical. 

The folks who get the TAA benefits tend to get a richer package 

than folks that are dislocated through WIA provisions. And this is 

again going to collapsing the bureaucracy and just creating more 

flexibility so that we can serve folks who need help. 

And my preference would be—I guess the question I pose is, why 

do we have a separate TAA benefit package for one set of workers 

as compared to workers where they still lose their jobs, they 

weren’t outsourced, but they get kind of a lower benefit package? 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
53 

So that is just a policy question I think that is worth consideration of why we offer kind of two strategies at the end of the day 

for people who don’t have a job. How do you blend those I think 

is an important question just in terms of trying to operationalize 

this and administer this on the ground. It becomes challenging. 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. I think there ought to be a training benefit 

for everybody. 

Mr. Holmes. 

Mr. HOLMES. The only comments I would add is the kinds of 

services that are provided in TAA that may not be as readily available in the WIA system are the kinds of training that might be 

needed for longer-term unemployed. So I think I would share Ms. 

Cox’s view and we should take a look at how to address those 

issues and not just with those that are impacted by trade but also 

more generally with the population that is long-term unemployed. 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. Thank you. 

Chairman DAVIS. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The gentleman from North Dakota, Mr. Berg. 

Mr. BERG. Thank you. 

A couple of questions. First, kind of a quick comment. 

Dr. Boushey, I don’t think I would be here today if we increased 

jobs since the stimulus passed. Clearly, one of the hopes was that 

it would be a job creating by putting this money in and that we 

would never exceed 8 percent unemployment. Clearly, it has been 

a different path; and, of course, no one could predict the future at 

that time. So I am not here to say anything other than the fact 

that there is a couple of million more jobs out there, people looking 

for work. 

I want to thank Ms. Cox for your presentation. I was very impressed with it. Utah has expanded an economy over 31⁄2 percent 

over the last 5 years. Very impressive. Second only to North Dakota. I like that. I had to repeat that. 

You know, it seems to me coming from the State that—and I 

have heard this—how do we get States to get more waivers? And 

it seems like that, you know, we did a welfare reform years ago, 

and States applied for waivers. They received waivers. It was like 

the Federal Government or the Congress said we want to hear your 

ideas. If I understand, we are all revenue neutral. So we weren’t 

saying we are going to pay you more money, just we want to hear 

your creative ideas. 

I guess what I am asking is, should we provide the States more 

flexibility with waivers, or is there a way we could streamline that 

process to bring those good ideas more quickly to action at the 

State level? 

Ms. COX. Yes and yes. And I say that because, one, waivers is 

the way to really encourage laboratories of innovation at the State 

level. It is true how TANF came about because of that type of innovation. 

I struggle with the waiver process because it can become unto 

itself a cottage industry in the way business is done and you don’t 

end up getting the staff you change but just plain—this ongoing 

role of having to change regulations to get simple things done. 

So I would say if we could get DOL waiver authority so that we 

could put ideas forward, it would be great, with the expectation 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
54 

that there is very clear turnaround times—and this isn’t DOL. This 

has been some of our experience with other Federal bureaucracies. 

There is a clear turnaround time of when those waivers have to be 

approved. There is clear criteria so we are not playing the backand-forth game for 7 months and it is a simplified streamline process. I think it is plausible and very doable, but those expectations 

I think have to be built into any waiver initiatives. 

Mr. BERG. So maybe setting three or four guiding principles 

that these are the waivers, these are areas we are hoping to accomplish. Let States come up with them. And what kind of a turnaround time? 

Ms. COX. I like about 2 days. But knowing that is not very realistic, 8 months. 

Mr. BERG. Would that count the weekend or not? 

Ms. COX. We will give them the weekend off. 

But I think I may have some extreme views. We have sat on 

some waivers—and I will be bold. We have got some really good 

folks at the Department of Labor, but some of our NEG grant applications have taken—this is national emergency grants, ‘‘emergency’’ being the operative term—4 to 6 months to get approved 

and turned around. They are busy. This isn’t a pointing finger 

game. But that doesn’t work when you are on the ground and you 

need people, you have got people at your doorstep who need help. 

So I think it is a collaborative effort with the DOL with what the 

resources are. But I would like to see a 30-day turnaround time. 

That sounds extreme, but you have got to be bold or bureaucracy 

can creep. 

Mr. BERG. Thank you. I yield back. 

Chairman DAVIS. I would like to recognize my friend from Georgia, Mr. Lewis. 

Mr. LEWIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for 

holding this hearing. 

Mr. Holmes, several media outlets, including CNN’s money.com, 

have reported the long-term unemployed workers are now faced 

with hiring discrimination from some employers who have placed 

a restriction on their job posting that says, ‘‘unemployed candidates 

will not be considered or perspective candidates must be currently 

employed.’’ 

What would you say to an unemployed worker who is facing this 

kind of discrimination? Something is not fair there. Something is 

not right there. If you are unemployed, it is sort of saying don’t 

apply. But if you are employed, it is okay for you to apply. What 

would you say to an unemployed worker? 

Mr. HOLMES. Well, I haven’t seen those reports. I would say 

that is inappropriate for any employer to post that, and I think for 

the unemployed person, I think that they should be searching for 

work and looking for work and that is how you get from unemployed into employment. 

I think it is more a question of an inappropriate notice if in fact 

that is what has been put up on the part of the employer. 

Mr. LEWIS. It is my understanding that CNN has been running 

this for some time, and I would like to believe—CNN is based in 

my district, and I would like to believe they are pretty reliable. 

Anyone else want to respond? 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
55 

Mr. PAUKEN. Yes. The Texas Back to Work program discriminates in favor of people who are unemployed. In order to be able 

to participate in the program, you have to have lost your job 

through no fault of your own beyond unemployment compensation 

in Texas or extended benefits or even if extended benefits have 

been exhausted. 

So that is an initiative which has got support from business and 

labor organizations in our State. And I think we would just like to 

be able to have the kind of discretion and flexibility that has been 

discussed in order to use some of the Federal funds supposedly to 

encourage job creation to expand that program. 

Mr. LEWIS. Well, I have an article here that appeared in Money 

from last year. And looking for work, unemployed, need not apply. 

Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit it for the record. 

Chairman DAVIS. Without objection. 

[The information follows:] 

The Honorable John Lewis 

LOOKING FOR WORK? UNEMPLOYED NEED NOT APPLY 

CNNMoney.com 

By Chris Isidore, Senior Writer 

June 16, 2010: 4:25 AM ET 

http://money.cnn.com/2010/06/16/news/economy/unemployed_need_not_apply/ 

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com)—The last thing someone who is unemployed needs 

to be told is that they shouldn’t even apply for the limited number of job openings 

that are available. But some companies and recruiters are doing just that. 

Employment experts say they believe companies are increasingly interested only 

in applicants who already have a job. 

‘‘I think it is more prevalent than it used to be,’’ said Rich Thompson, vice president of learning and performance for Adecco Group North America, the world’s largest staffing firm. ‘‘I don’t have hard numbers, but three out of the last four conversations I’ve had about openings, this requirement was brought up.’’ 

Some job postings include restrictions such as ‘‘unemployed candidates will not be 

considered’’ or ‘‘must be currently employed.’’ Those explicit limitations have occasionally been removed from listings when an employer or recruiter is questioned by 

the media though. 

That’s what happened with numerous listings for grocery store managers throughout the Southeast posted by a South Carolina recruiter, Latro Consulting. 

After CNNMoney called seeking comments on the listings last week, the restriction against unemployed candidates being considered came down. Latro Consulting 

refused to comment when contacted. 

Sony Ericsson, a global phone manufacturer that was hiring for a new Georgia 

facility, also removed a similar restriction after local reporters wrote about it. According to reports, a Sony Ericsson spokesperson said that a mistake had been 

made. 

But even if companies don’t spell out in a job listing that they won’t consider 

someone who currently doesn’t have a job, experts said that unemployed applicants 

are typically ruled out right off the bat. 

‘‘Most executive recruiters won’t look at a candidate unless they have a job, even 

if they don’t like to admit to it,’’ said Lisa Chenofsky Singer, a human resources 

consultant from Millburn, NJ, specializing in media and publishing jobs. 

She said when she proposes candidates for openings, the first question she is often 

asked by a recruiter is if they currently have a job. If the answer is no, she’s typically told the unemployed candidate won’t be interviewed. 

‘‘They think you must have been laid off for performance issues,’’ she said, adding 

that this is a ‘‘myth’’ in a time of high unemployment. 

It is not against the law for companies to exclude the unemployed when trying 

to fill positions, but Judy Conti, a lobbyist for the National Employment Law 

Project, said the practice is a bad one. 

‘‘Making that kind of automatic cut is senseless; you could be missing out on the 

best person of all,’’ she said. ‘‘There are millions of people who are unemployed 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
56 

through no fault of their own. If an employer feels that the best qualified are the 

ones already working, they have no appreciation of the crisis we’re in right now.’’ 

Conti added that firms that hire unemployed job seekers could also benefit from 

a recently-passed tax break that essentially exempts them from paying the 6.2% of 

the new hire’s wages in Social Security taxes for the rest of this year. 

Thompson said he also thinks ruling out the unemployed is a bad idea. But he 

said that part of the problem is that recruiters and human resource departments 

are being overwhelmed with applications for any job opening that is posted. So 

they’re looking for any short-cuts to get the list of applicants to consider down to 

a more manageable size. 

‘‘It’s a tough process to determine which unemployed applicants were laid off even 

though they brought value to their company and which ones had performance 

issues,’’ he said. ‘‘I understand the notion. But there’s the top x percent of unemployed candidates who are very viable and very valuable. You just have to do the 

work to find them.’’ 

Mr. LEWIS. Dr. Boushey, I have heard over and over again that 

the Recovery Act, it didn’t help. That it didn’t matter. Before the 

Recovery Act was signed into law on February 17, 2009, we were 

losing about 750,000 jobs per month. Since the Act was signed, we 

have been creating jobs, more jobs. We are not there yet. But we 

are on our way little by little. It takes a little time to turn around 

a big ship. Could you respond? 

Ms. BOUSHEY. Certainly. 

I mean, it takes a little time to turn around a big ship, as you 

said. It is also the case that we have seen job growth coming back 

in the private sector. We are not seeing it come back fast enough. 

We knew the day that the Recovery Act was signed that it was 

big and it was bold, but there were many economists who said this 

isn’t going to build a full bridge across that chasm, which is the 

massive unemployment that we are seeing. We have seen a lot of 

the dollars out there have been spent. It has created a lot of great 

programs. We have heard a lot today about this Texas program, 

which, of course, used TANF emergency funds to fund this—getting 

folks into these public-private partnership job training programs. 

So some of the things we are talking about today are the impact 

of that. But it is going to take some time. 

And I think I would urge us to just note that we still have an 

output gap in our economy. Even though we took this big step, it 

wasn’t big enough relative to the big hole that we created. 

Mr. PAUKEN. Could I just respond? Just say one correction. 

Primary funding for that Texas Back to Work program was State 

funding. We did use some Federal funding, but the primary source 

was State funding. 

And I would simply suggest that since the stimulus program 

began, through May of 2010, it has been a loss of an additional 2.7 

million private sector jobs; and I don’t know how you can call that 

a success. 

Mr. LEWIS. Mr. Chairman, I have a chart here. I wish everyone 

could see it: Change in Private Employment December, 2007, to 

January, 2011. 

Chairman DAVIS. If the gentleman would like to put that into 

the record. 

Mr. LEWIS. Yes. 

[The information follows:] 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
57 

Chairman DAVIS. Thank you. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. Smith from Nebraska. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman; and, to the panel, I appreciate the discussion that we are able to have here today. 

Mr. Holmes, if you could reflect a little bit on some of this information here, and I have a question. Obviously, you are probably 

well aware of the numbers, that 4 million folks are currently collecting Federal extended unemployment insurance benefits. And 

since June of 2008, the Federal Government has spent a record 

$180 billion for these benefits and covering benefits in some States 

for up to 99 weeks. So this number is in comparison to the $23 billion following the 2001 recession. Where is the money coming from, 

in your opinion. 

Mr. HOLMES. Thank you, Representative Smith. 

The money is coming from a series of—with respect to extended 

benefits, the money is coming from the EUC account, the Expended 

Unemployment Compensation account. That account is in deficit. I 

think the last I looked the two FUTA funded accounts were about 

$30 to $40 billion in deficit. That money is being provided then as 

a transfer from the general revenue into that account; and, in essence, it is adding to the Federal debt. Every additional dollar that 

is being spent now in extended benefits is adding to the national 

debt. So we are borrowing to pay for extended benefits right now. 

Mr. SMITH. But it is general funds conceivably from one State 

to another, given the varying conditions. We don’t all get to enjoy 

the North Dakota status. 

Mr. HOLMES. Right. 

Let me just be clear about this. There are really two programs 

here. There is the emergency unemployment compensation that 

was part of the Recovery Act and actually enacted prior to that 

starting in 2008. That money is coming chiefly from Federal revenue directly. The other, the regular extended benefits which you 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING65329A.020
58 

are talking about that rely on targets depending on unemployment 

rates chiefly, that money is coming, as I described before, through 

the dedicated FUTA funded account and then an advance from general revenue. 

Mr. SMITH. Very good. I guess, for the record, Nebraska isn’t too 

far behind North Dakota. There is some good employment situation. 

But certainly nationwide we do face those challenges. I think the 

issue of product demand or creating more demand for production 

is very important. I do share some frustration that I visited some 

businesses in my district that they do have the demand but they 

are so nervous about adding new employees. They just don’t know 

what is coming down in terms of the regulatory front. They don’t 

know what is around the bend. 

So does anyone else wish to comment on the situation? 

Ms. BOUSHEY. May I speak to that? 

Certainly this has been a few years of there has been a lot of 

change. It has been a dramatic economy, and you can understand 

why especially small- and medium-sized businesses have a hard 

time making commitments to hiring. But it also seems that we are 

seeing signs the economy is improving and we are seeing especially 

large businesses—they are the ones that are holding on to a lot of 

cash and not making investment, right? Investment is at its lowest 

level in five decades. 

That is one of the key questions that I would encourage you to 

think about, that you see—they may be a little concerned about— 

although some of those big decisions have in large part been made. 

Mr. SMITH. What do you mean by large? I am just curious. 

Ms. BOUSHEY. When I say small, I am typically thinking of the 

employer with fewer than a hundred people. Something sort of 

larger companies that are on the stock exchange, those kinds of 

companies that have made a lot of money are holding on to it and 

aren’t making those investments here, creating jobs here in the 

United States. 

Mr. PAUKEN. Well, the majority of the new jobs traditionally 

are created by small businesses, and they are not creating jobs in 

this environment. That is why I think it is a structural employment situation; and they are appropriately nervous, in my judgment. So I don’t see that the current approach is working well. And 

I think until they have confidence that you are serious about growing the private sector they are going to be reluctant to hire. 

And the other concern is we are seeing an up-tick in our State 

and elsewhere in temporary firms hiring. Normally, that is a prelude to permanent employment, but this may be different this time 

as companies are reluctant to put people on permanent payrolls. 

Ms. COX. May I make one comment please? 

It is more the moral dilemma I kind of struggle with. Utah is one 

of the few States that has not taken EB by choice. And a while ago, 

I guess it was a year ago, we were at a conference and someone 

from the Federal level couldn’t believe we weren’t taking it. Well, 

it is free money. 

And sometimes in these discussions when you are at the State 

level versus the Federal level, it seems like there is a disconnect, 

that all of the money is ours and those who have responsibility also 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
59 

need the authority. And so those at the State level we talk about 

our general funds, and then at the Federal level it is the Federal 

dollars. And there seems to be this, I don’t know, disconnect that 

all of that money is ours—EB, EUC. And so it is easy for States 

to sometimes not worry about it as much because the Federal Government is going to handle it. 

I have to go in front of my State legislature over my general 

funds, and I feel super accountable about that. But, man, if it is 

EUC money coming in, I am worried about it, but I am not in front 

of you guys having to be accountable even though we are the passthrough. So that mind-set is concerning to me. 

Chairman DAVIS. Excuse me, Mrs. Cox. The gentleman’s time 

has expired. You have a few seconds to wrap it up. 

Mr. SMITH. If you wouldn’t mind submitting anything for the 

record, I would appreciate it as well. 

Chairman DAVIS. We would appreciate perhaps a detailed response in writing to that question. That way you won’t be constrained by the clock. 

[The information follows:] 

Mrs. Kristen Cox. Executive Director, Utah Workforce Services 

Supporting Increased Flexibility of Resources: Separate federal funding 

sources and associated program boundaries can present obstacles to integrated service delivery. Federal law and Department of Labor regulations place clear limitations on how UI, Wagner-Peyser, and WIA funds can be spent. While the intent of 

the limitations is to ensure effective and appropriate program administration, the 

effect can be to make cross-program integration difficult. 

WIA Title I funds may not be spent on employment generating activities, economic development, and other activities, unless they are directly related to training 

for eligible individuals. Providing less restrictive regulations for WIA statewide activity funds could provide greater flexibility in getting individuals re-employed. 

Other program issues to consider include: 

Real-time access to federal data about customers. This could reduce administrative costs, support a more streamlined process for the customer, and ensure more 

accurate delivery of services. For example, access to Social Security information 

(SSN verification and benefit payments) is available to states for public assistance 

programs such as TANF, SNAP, and Medicaid. However, it is not currently available to support other programs such as WIA and WOTC. 

Expanding the scope of the UI program to achieve claimant re-employment would 

be an efficient use of funds and would help claimants become re-employed as quickly 

as possible. 

WIA, TANF, and SNAP programs offer waivers and more flexibility. If unemployment is one of our largest issues, why not give states more flexible options to help 

re-employ job seekers? 

• DOL has recently shown good leadership with its focus on re-employment, its 

wage subsidy grants, and state consortium initiatives. It is time to connect 

benefits and employment into a seamless service delivery strategy without 

creating funding barriers. 

• Utah has implemented multiple initiatives to help UI claimants become reemployed sooner. A few of these initiatives have been recognized at the national level. The U.S. Department of Labor awarded DWS the 2010 UI Innovation Award for our electronic correspondence system and the American Institute of Full Employment awarded DWS the 2010 Best Practices Award for 

our on-line worker profiling re-employment service program. These initiatives 

have helped Utah enjoy one of the lowest average UI duration rates in the 

country—16.6 weeks, despite having a fairly high wage replacement rate. 

While we have made significant progress, our goal is to continually strive to 

improve services for employers and job seekers. 

Summary of Recommendations 

Establish clear expectations for claimants that re-employment is a priority and requires a full-time commitment. 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
60 

Provide employers with wage, training, and tax incentives that provide economic 

benefits for employers to expand or retain their workforce. 

Increase program and funding integration that supports effective meshing of UI 

claimants with employers’ workforce needs. Expansion of the Worker Profiling and 

Re-employment Services and REA grants are good examples of integrated funding 

between UI claimants and re-employment services. 

Increase flexibility of resources to make cross-program integration more efficient 

without creating funding barriers or jeopardizing program accountability. 

Chairman DAVIS. Mrs. Black from Tennessee. 

Mrs. BLACK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

My question is for you, Mr. Holmes, but any of you can answer 

that. 

I want to go back to the work search, because I was back in my 

State last week doing a listening tour. I visited a number of smaller companies and some manufacturing, and they indicated to me 

that they thought that there was a problem with the way in which 

the surveys are done. 

And you actually have in your testimony, you say, a recent survey of State unemployment agencies conducted for the UWC by the 

National Foundation for Unemployment Compensation and Workers’ Compensation had 39 States reported exceptions to the general 

work search requirements, and one State reported that it had no 

work search requirement as a condition of eligibility for unemployment. 

Mr. HOLMES. Correct. 

Mrs. BLACK. And what I heard from many of these employers 

was that they knew of people in their own community that they 

went to church with, shopped at the grocery store, kids went to 

school with them, that would put down on the paper three different 

companies they went to when they never went there, and they just 

said, I still have this extension so I am not going to look for work. 

And these are jobs on average that—I asked what the salary was. 

So their average was about $15 an hour, so that was not a bad salary. But they were really concerned they weren’t able to get employees in their door and still there was a high unemployment rate 

in this particular county that I was in. 

So I would like for you to speak to that and any one of the rest 

of you that might have suggestions of what we might do to make 

sure that the people who are unemployed, we are reaching the 

right population. 

Mr. HOLMES. Thank you for that question. 

I think that the experience that was relayed to you is fairly common across the country. That over the last, I would say, two or 

three decades, there has been less of an emphasis on the accountability of individuals to search for work and to take it seriously and 

also on whether or not those work searches are meaningful, do they 

have a plan to get back to work. A number of things that were 

often done in prior decades, I would say, more attention paid to 

that has been lost to some degree because of the focus on paying 

unemployment as quickly as possible. 

So I think that—and I mentioned this in my testimony—we need 

to establish some minimum standards for work search that everyone can note and that individuals would be expected to meet, and 

that way we would change the culture back to the idea that there 

is a personal responsibility to search for work in a meaningful way. 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
61 

Mr. PAUKEN. If I could add, in addition to that, I think that if 

you have the Federal extended benefits, if you also—those people 

on Federal extended benefits would have the option of getting the 

GED, getting additional vocational technical training, or if they 

didn’t do A or B, do community service at a reasonable dollar value 

with local municipalities or fine non-profits like Habitat for Humanity. And I think the people who are gaming the system will 

choose not to do A, B, or C; and they are off the system. And the 

others, you give them an incentive to sort of get back in the system 

and kind of prepare yourself for a job. 

Ms. COX. One more thing. I don’t think we have to reinvent the 

wheel. When you look at TANF, we certainly don’t want to have 

the same participation requirements on TANF as we do on the UI 

customers, but there are lessons learned both in food stamps, E&T, 

employment and training, TANF and different aspects of UI when 

you work in an integrated model like we do. 

And I think it is about taking the best of all of those words. Accountability and expectations are certainly there. Random checks is 

part of it. Technology offers a lot of new ways to monitor logs and 

journals and actually document if people did their training on line. 

There are new technologies, and you can really blend that so it is 

not a one-size-fits-all approach. 

But those lessons I think you can find when you do some deep 

digging of how you pull the best practices around work first. It is 

our motto in our department: If you can work, you do work across 

all programs. And that is our model of trying to create an integrated system for all of our claimants, regardless of if you are food 

stamps or UI. It is a seamless system. 

Mrs. BLACK. And I am a big States rights person. So would you 

suggest that this be something that we would do in some way as 

a carrot to encourage some States or do we do it with a stick and 

penalize if you don’t do what these criteria would be set out? 

Mr. HOLMES. If I may, I think that we have in the UI system 

since it was started this requirement that is implied that people be 

available for work and actively seeking work as a condition of being 

paid, but it is not in a statute anywhere. So just this statement in 

Federal statute just to clarify that would be helpful, I think. 

Chairman DAVIS. Thank you. The gentlewoman’s time has expired. 

I want to thank each of our witnesses for your testimony. I want 

to thank you for investing the time and the research to share your 

opinions. It is an issue I care very much about. I know Mr. Doggett 

cares very much about this, approaching the process issues to help 

people in need and at the same time address the structural questions that will assure good stewardship of the resources. And we 

appreciate your help in understanding this issue further and look 

forward to continuing the dialogue. 

If any of our members have additional questions, they will submit them directly to you in writing and what we would ask is you 

submit your responses to us for the record so all members will have 

access to that information. 

And, with that, the committee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 5:00 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Submissions for the Record follow:] 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
62 

Statement of Yvonne Goersch 

99ers Need Help While Waiting for Job Creations!!!! 

Name: Yvonne Goersch 

Title of Hearing: 99ers Need Help While Waiting for Job Creations!!!! 

The fact that I need to have a place to stay feed my child and to just survive while 

these jobs are being created is the most important thing in my life right now. 

I have worked my whole life and never thought this would happen to me I have 

sent at least 20 to 30 resumes a day and have gone to places and have only gotten 

2 interviews which I did not get the job. I know there are people that say we aren’t 

doing anything but sitting around collecting money that is completely wrong and 

also very upsetting . 

It drags all of us to a place where we don’t and shouldn’t be because we don’t 

deserve it. We appreciate what the Government has done the fact that they only 

put in a 13 month extension and didn’t include the 99ers is so wrong and now that 

the Republicans are a majority in the House it doesn’t seem like we get any attention even though the Speaker of the House said if it is paid for we will get it 

through and they found a way to pay for it so it needs to be done!!!!!!!! 

We have to have money for gas to get to interviews and a roof over our head and 

food to eat while we are still looking for jobs that are going to be created. 

We help every other Country but the Government isn’t willing to support 1.5 million people in the United States (that number is not correct either) and the fact that 

the unemployment went down to 9% from 9.4% is also not correct it is a way for 

the Government to say things are getting better and we are doing our job. 

Well guess what even though you said 1.5 million people isn’t really that much 

compared to how many people are on unemployment is so wrong to count us out 

while we voted for you and are about to have nothing. 

I don’t have people to help me and I need that extra time and money since the 

job market is getting better to sustain me and my child so I can keep looking and 

driving there. 

Don’t push us out because of our debt because this money would go straight into 

the economy and that will help the economy and help the 99ers survive before you 

have people’s lives on your conscience while you are living quite good and not worried about 1.5 people (which I know is not correct) we are losing hope and you guys 

are the only people that can help us for now and we need you to make sure we are 

taken care of while looking for jobs!!!!!!!!!!! 

We need this bill to pass ASAP HR6556 because it is all we have for hope and 

time to keep looking otherwise it will be the end of a lot of 99ers so please do the 

right thing and help us and help the economy to keep going!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 

Thank you, 

Yvonne f 

Statement of Joyce Fields 

I have a story to tell. It is a story heard over and over again all across the country, by millions of unemployed Americans. 

PLEASE HELP U.S., THE UNEMPLOYED, GET BACK TO WORK. AND THERE 

ARE A LOT OF ‘‘US’’. 

PROFESSIONALS CANNOT FIND JOBS 

I am in my 50’s and have worked hard all my life. Yet for the past year and 9 

months I’ve been unemployed. A very humbling experience, since I held a professional banking job for almost 30 years before being laid off. Since I am single, I was 

able to move across the state to take another job. That job ended a few months 

later. The company cut my hours to 19 hours a week then laid me off. 

LOOKING FOR WORK 

I have sent out hundreds of resumes. I’ve even gone through the phonebook, sending resumes to every company nearby. To no avail. I have applied at fast food restaurants and cashiers jobs and was told I was overqualified. My last interview was 

six months ago. At that time, I interviewed at a large manufacturing plant. I was 

told over the past year almost half of their 1,500 employees were laid off and their 

jobs were sent to China and India. The employees who remain are working 45+ 

hours a week. The position I applied for was part-time and temporary. It took 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
63 

months of persuasion, I was told, for the department manager to convince the company to fill this one part-time, temporary position. I also applied at a national retail 

store. There I was told my hours would be 0–24 a week, at minimum wage. Zero 

hours a week? This is happening at more and more companies. Because they know 

people are DESPERATE, employers can do whatever they want. Including denying 

employment to the long-term unemployed. Age discrimination is also a factor. Although companies do not ask your age, more and more are including round-about 

questions such as ‘‘what year did you graduate high school’’? This should not be 

legal. I have a lot of experience, good workmanship and good values, and know I 

can bring a lot to a company. I should not be denied a chance to work there because 

I am older and because I haven’t been able to find another job since my last job 

was outsourced. I did not ask for that. I want to work! 

THE HOUSING MARKET AND CRIME 

Rather than losing my home to foreclosure, I put it up for short sale. There was 

a buyer and signed purchase agreement in February 2010. The prospective buyer 

pulled out after 31⁄2 months, since the Bank did not approve the short sale by that 

time, even though the buyer offered $56,000 and the principal balance on my loan 

was $56,008. The Bank would rather foreclose than accept an $8.00 principal loss 

on a short sale? I have since lost my house. The Bank sold it at sherrifs sale to 

Freddie Mac for $30,000. My house appraised at $114,000. Why should I owe my 

bank the difference? They would not work with me to set up a loan modification, 

or accept a short sale, and they were in possession of a home worth almost twice 

of what was owed to them. Yet they sold it for $30,000 and now expect me to come 

up with the difference. The Bank lost my loan documents, and furnished me with 

an affidavit which I later found out was illegal. Why are Banks allowed to get away 

with this? 

The house next door was empty for over a year, bank owned, after the owner lost 

her job. The house across the street was sold at sherrifs sale several months ago. 

The house next to that one was empty for a long time, another bank owned property. It is a ghost town, and where I once felt safe, there have been many robberies 

lately in my neighborhood. Why? Because people have lost their jobs and are getting 

more and more desperate. They are stealing, not for drugs, but in order to put food 

on the table, and to survive. 

THE EFFECTS OF LONG TERM UNEMPLOYMENT 

The unemployed are losing their homes, and who will rent to them if they do not 

have a job? Keeping utilities on is a struggle. Cell phones and cable TV are now 

‘‘luxuries’’ and are cancelled. I live alone and have no immediate family, and must 

depend on others for assistance, which burdens them. I get harassed by creditors 

and my credit is ruined (and prospective employers run credit checks). Cannot afford medical coverage. Never eat out anymore. Never go shopping anymore (but I 

did recently hit the thrift store for a 50% off sale). 

THE EFFECT OF THE GOVERNMENT STIMULUS ON THE UNEMPLOYED 

The banks received trillions of dollars in bailout money, including the one I 

worked at. Banks received money, yet cut down on their employees and as a result 

I lost my job. Banks received money yet would not work with me to modify my loan, 

would not accept a short sale, and foreclosed on my home. Banks received help, U.S. 

citizens as individuals receive very little help and are being evicted from their 

homes. Why is the government turning a blind eye on the unemployed who need 

help, while helping Big Business line their pockets? 

And why can’t unused Stimulus Funds be used to help the unemployed who have 

exhausted their benefits, until they can work again? 

DON’T IGNORE US, WE NEED HELP 

This is a nationwide crisis. Something needs to be done to create jobs immediately, and also unemployment benefits need to be extended for those who have exhausted their benefits. It is reported that unemployment numbers are down for the 

month of December 2010, yet job creation numbers are still in a slump. How can 

this be? Please fix the ‘‘system’’ so reporting is done accurately. Letting UI benefits 

run out for the unemployed who cannot find jobs creates millions of exhaustees or 

‘‘99ers,’’ which further hinders economic growth. With no money to spend, we cannot 

help stimulate the economy. Without jobs, the unemployed will lose their homes, 

which mean less money cities receive in the form of property taxes. Without jobs, 

the unemployed pay less in taxes; this hurts the Federal, State and local governments. The unemployed are then forced to depend on State and County funds for 

food and housing, who in turn will need to borrow money from the Federal GovernVerDate Nov 24 2008 03:08 Jul 01, 2011 Jkt 065329 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 I:\WAYS\OUT\65329.XXX GPO1 PsN: 65329

anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
64 

ment. Yet, more and more of those programs, the last few resources we have to help 

us, are being cut. 

Currently there are too many unemployed people and too few jobs. We WANT to 

work. We want to feel good about our lives and ourselves again. The government 

needs to HELP us, the unemployed, until the economy turns around and we can 

find jobs. AND THERE ARE A LOT OF ‘‘US’’. And we are SCARED. Americans 

should not have to live in fear like this. 

Thank you for reading my story, ‘‘our’’ story. 

Joyce Fields 

f 

Statement of Jennifer Snyder 

Committee on Ways and Means 

Feb. 7, 2011 

RE: Hearing on Improving Efforts to Help Unemployed Americans Find 

Jobs 

My husband has been unemployed for exactly two years now after working for the 

same company for almost thirty years. Since being laid off, he has submitted 100’s 

of resumes, granted only 6 interviews and has received 0 offers of employment. Most 

of the time he never hears back from the jobs he applies to and it is very frustrating. He runs out of unemployment benefits in April and we have little hope that 

he will have a job by then. He is 50 years old and suspects that he is being discriminated against because of his age. Although illegal, ageism is very hard to prove. 

This is his story, but there are millions of Americans that have this same story. 

Imagine yourself at 50—jobless and unwanted. 

He has a considerable amount in his 401k that he would like to use to start or 

buy a business, but the thought of paying taxes and penalty on any withdrawal 

makes us cringe. I wrote Senator Debbie Stabenow in October about this matter and 

she replied that a bill was introduced in March of 2009 (H.R. 1628) to make hardship loans, without penalty, but it was still pending before the House Ways and 

Means Committee. I then contacted the Ways and Means Committee asking for the 

status of this bill and never received a reply. This bill was never acted on and is 

now dead. I am wondering why. 

I am urging you to please reintroduce this legislation and act on it. Too many 

Americans, like my husband, it just might let them make the transformation from 

unemployment to self-employment and it wouldn’t cost the government anything. 

Jennifer Snyder 

f 

Lori Parker 

Thursday, February 10, 2011 

Dear Committee Members: 

I was laid off in January 2009 from my position at a non-profit that provided support services to adults with intellectual disabilities. After the financial crash, the 

social services job market evaporated because of severe budget cuts in state and federal funding. I know the budget cuts were across the board, i.e., in all social services 

across the state, because of the drastic budget cuts occurring in both state and federal funding for social services. For over two years I have tried to find a replacement 

position. But unfortunately, since all social services have been downsized due to 

budget cuts, there aren’t any positions. 

During the time I have been laid off, I repeatedly went to the Career Center at 

the Unemployment Office and requested re-training, as it was clear to me the social 

services industry was basically on life-support, and there would not be any jobs in 

the field for many years. The career center said I wasn’t eligible for the retraining 

program because I was not in the category of people who were eligible for the Trade 

Readjustment Act (losing a job in the manufacturing sector) in which people in manufacturing were eligible to go to school for retraining, and keep their benefits while 

they were learning a new skill to sell on the job market. 

In fact, I was told that if I went back to school to retrain, I would lose my unemployment benefits, while the people who were in manufacturing could go to school, 

and keep getting their unemployment benefits. I was also told that because I already had a four-year degree (sociology), that also disqualified me, even though I 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
65 

received my degree in the early 90s, and my degree was no longer a marketable degree, especially since my work experience was in the social services field, and the 

new jobs that have emerged don’t require these credentials. 

Because so many jobs have been outsourced, and the American economy is changing into different types of services (green economy, etc.), the job market has drastically changed. Many of us who hold bachelor’s degrees, associates degrees, etc. 

from twenty and thirty years ago, are having difficulty finding a job because we are 

older workers, and because there is no demand for our past area of training. We 

need viable opportunities to retrain. We cannot retrain if we are homeless. We need 

workable solutions that take into account that we need a roof over our heads while 

we retrain. Even a one-year certificate program in the new emerging industries is 

more likely to get us a job than the meaningless four and two year degrees that 

we got 20 and 30 years ago. We need new skills on top of our old skills to have 

a chance to compete in such a retracted and changing job market. Jobs are few and 

far between, and those that are there require new skill sets we don’t have. 

My suggestion would be to extend unemployment benefits for one year to those 

out of work for more than a specified number of weeks, and provide free training 

at a one-year certificate program for them, and not disqualify people just because 

they already have a degree from two and three decades ago. A one-year certificate 

in a new, emerging field would give people the new skill set they need to enhance 

their old degrees. 

We have children to take care of. Please help us. 

f 

STATEMENT OF MARTIN G. THOMAS, ACTIVE MEMBER OF THE 

AMERICAN 99ER’S UNION 

My dilemma in this unemployment search is never ending it seems. Hundreds of 

applications, 3 interviews, no job, simple. I’ve applied to everything I feel I’m qualified for. Even an ‘‘all you need is a heartbeat job’’ that caters to low paying alien 

labor. This is destroying America. The President says to get a degree and get a good 

job. Speaker Boehner says you need to get an education to have the ‘‘American 

Dream.’’ That’s all fine and well understood, but people are already trained, have 

degrees and still don’t have jobs. How can you have any faith in the words from 

our leaders when these things have already been accomplished and there is no jobs 

available? Here’s a quote from the President: 

October 13, 2010 11:45 AM 

Obama: ‘‘No Such Thing as Shovel-Ready Projects’’ 

You can’t argue with the horses mouth!!! 

This a true statement, ‘‘There are three types of lies; lies, damned lies, and 

statistics.’’—Mark Twain 

I’m fed up with being lied to, and America has been uninformed. Because of failed 

job creation policies and the emphasis on the useless health care bill that no one 

was able to read is appalling. Why do I have to suffer along with millions in my 

situation? We didn’t ask for health care. Jobs are needed first. We can’t live on 

health care! I can’t pay my essential living expenses on health care. Without a job, 

I can’t afford health care. To lay this burden on family and friends is unfair. America was lied to when they were told the 99ers had their benefits restored. There is 

6–7 million and growing without benefits still. The unemployment rate is more like 

18%. I can do the math. I/WE are treated like idiots and we’re offended. 

It’s very discouraging I’m qualified for my field as a Maintenance Technician. Yes, 

there’s always room for improvement. In this field, you get it on the job. I have no 

daily routine. Until the jobs appear, I/We need our benefits to survive. I/We want 

jobs and not asking for a hand out when requesting an extension of unemployment 

benefits. 

The United Nations sends billions of American dollars to foreign countries in need 

of emergency assistance and they won’t help America. What’s wrong here? There’s 

a national emergency here in AMERICA!!! SOS . . . THE FLAGS UPSIDE DOWN, 

DISTRESS . . . Can you hear me now??? 

I don’t know who the President addressed when he told Americans to get educated 

and get a job. Is there a new private America we don’t know about? Was he speaking to people in China??? To throw words at us that America needs to be retrained 

for jobs. That’s insane, people have training, there are no jobs. Outsourcing American jobs to China and other 3rd world countries doesn’t help. 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
66 

Where’s the America I once knew? If our forefathers were alive, they’d be 

ashamed. Please extend unemployment benefits until the jobs appear. Extending tax 

cuts to millionaires doesn’t help me today. To leave me stranded and all the unemployed is wrong. 

Thank You, and please help me and all the 99ers, Martin G. Thomas 

f 

Elizabeth Steere 

February 9, 2011 

To: House Ways and Means Committee, Sub-Committe on Human Resources 

I am writing to urge you to take quick and immediate action on behalf of the Unemployed in America, especially the large number (which is growing larger with 

each new day) of long-termed unemployed who have already exhausted all available 

unemployment benefits (Exhaustees/99ers). Many of us do not qualify for any assistance from local, county, state, and Federal Government programs for basic living 

needs such as food, shelter, required daily medications, clothing and assistance with 

utilities to keep themselves warm through the winters and cool through the summers. For those who may qualify for some of these programs, they are not being 

assisted because many of the charity and government organizations who provide 

said programs used to assist for these types of necessities have suffered budget, 

funding and donation cuts. How are the Unemployed in America to survive, until 

such a time when jobs are plentiful and they are once again able to sustain themselves and their families? Without the lifeline of Unemployment Insurance Benefits, 

the unemployed will not be able to procure the basic necessities required to simply 

live. 

I am also writing to urge you to resolve the issue of insufficient jobs in America. 

The Unemployed in America are not content to merely exist from the lifeline of Unemployment Insurance Benefits. We want to be able to rebuild our lives, our savings 

and our hopes and dreams for a brighter tomorrow. We are unable to rebuild without JOBS. We desperately need your assistance so that we can again realize a 

bright future for ourselves and our loved ones. Therefore, JOBS must become a high 

priority for America for without it, America will be unable to compete and sustain 

the standards in which our country was founded upon. 

This brings me to my next point. The American government entities cannot create 

jobs, nor can they force an employer to hire, and I understand this. American government has created incentives for the employers to hire, as the American government has given the financial sectors stimulus funds to assist borrowers. However, 

the employers and the financial sectors have not been pro-active with the government’s calls to action. Simply put, they are not helping improve the current economic crisis. Today’s high percentage numbers in unemployment, foreclosures, automobile repossessions, homelessness, bankruptcy filings, overall personal debt, and 

so much more reflect this point to be a fact, not an opinion. 

Plain and simple: Unemployment benefits are a lifeline for the unemployed. It will 

stimulate the economy, as the unemployed are all consumers. It will also prevent 

rises in the percentages of foreclosures, homelessness, bankruptcy filings, vehicle repossessions, overall personal debt and so much more. Therefore, by adding weeks 

to the Emergency Unemployment Compensation program and by creating JOBS so 

that the Unemployed in America may rebuild their lives, it will benefit all of America and the people within this great nation. 

Re-establish our trust in the government systems and assist us in re-building our 

lives; re-instill our faith in the goodness of humanity, in our legislators and the 

overall system of government within our nation; assist us in being proud again to 

be Americans. Pass and/or create the bills necessary to create additional benefit 

weeks. Our lives, the lives of our family members, and the overall economic health 

of America is dependent on this to survive and overcome the current economic crisis. 

Thank you, 

Elizabeth A. Steere 

f 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
67 

Rochelle Sevier 

From: Rochelle Sevier 

Title of Hearing: Improving Efforts to Help Unemployed Americans Find Jobs 

Dear Congressman Geoff Davis (R–KY), 

Thank you for conducting the Hearing for Improving Efforts to Help Unemployed 

Americans Find Jobs. 

I was laid off in October 2008 and have yet to be able to secure any employment 

despite having a Bachelor’s degree in Business Administration and a Master’s degree in Communications Management. I have submitted hundreds of resumes but 

have little to no responses to jobs that I have applied for. 

At this point in time I am willing to take any job since I am a 99er and have 

exhausted all my benefits and have no income. I am unable to secure part-time, fulltime or even temporary positions. I feel as though I will never work again. 

It is crucial that Americans be put back to work as to stimulate the economy and 

get them off government assistance programs. Americans are living in dire situations and need jobs NOW! We cannot hold on much longer, particularly for those 

like myself who have exhausted my unemployment benefits and have no job. 

Sincerely, 

Rochelle J. Sevier f 

Ellen Turner 

Jobs Committee February 7, 2011 

I have been out of work for 99 weeks. Therefore I am a ‘‘99er’’. What does this 

mean? It means that due to no fault of my own, I have not been able to find a job. 

My skill set is a graphic designer. I have a BFA and two certificates: one is Desktop Publishing and the other in New Media Technology. 

I have found short term freelance and temp work only. 

Most of the jobs in my skill set have been outsourced to India, Pakistan, China, 

Ireland and England. 

This is very discouraging. 

I have a mortgage to pay. 

I am now receiving early SS, because I do not have any other recourse, at this 

time. 

It just covers my mortgage. 

For the sake of Americans who have been out of work for this long, please consider some sort of job programs for us to get back in the work force. 

I have applied outside of my skill set for clerical work. I have not gotten any responses. Plus, I have applied for retail jobs, and I have not gotten any responses. 

I do follow ups on every job that I apply for. 

The national unemployment rate has gone down to 9%. I believe, this is a result, 

of many Americans no longer on the unemployment charts due to exhausting benefits. 

Please, help us, any way that you can. There is nothing like work for self-esteem 

and pride. Not to mention, being able to put food on my table and pay for medical 

care, which I desperately need. 

Sincerely, 

Ellen Turner f 

Paul Pittman 

Thursday, February 10, 2011 

Committee on Ways and Means 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Washington, DC 

Representative Dave Camp: 

As a former veteran of the U.S. Air Force, I have watched our freedoms continue 

to dwindle along with our voices. Now, it seems that for some reason, our country 

appears to want to turn its back on the people who tried to work and make it a 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
68 

better place to live. Additionally, it seems set on creating a future generation of potential workers that will enter the workforce with a negative desire to achieve as 

well as a tainted attitude toward their leaders. 

After honorably separating from the Air Force in 1992, I settled in Wisconsin with 

the hope of creating a stable future for my family. Things were working well: I was 

progressing in a management career in the transportation industry and felt confident about the future. Confident enough to even buy a house. In 2009, that 

changed as the economic woes finally caught up with the industry. The small business I worked for could no longer afford to staff me so I was let go with the ‘‘promise’’ of rehiring when things turned around. 

Unfortunately, they did not turn around and so I made a decision with my family 

that I would return to school to try and tie up my work experiences into a more 

marketable package. I took an accelerated course (at my expense) and earned my 

Associates degree in less than a year. Unfortunately, the job market in the region 

had deteriorated to the point that it was now saturated with so many in my same 

situation; to the point that an Associate’s Degree was not really a viable tool any 

longer. So I continued on and began working on my Bachelor’s degree in late 2010, 

still without a job. 

On January 22, 2011 I was notified that my Unemployment benefits had been exhausted. After finally getting through to the Wisconsin Department of Workforce 

Development, I learned that I could apply for a provision as a student. On February 

5th, I was denied this because I was enrolled in a school that offered a bachelor’s 

degree [WI 108.04(16)(a)1.d. The course does not grant substantial credit leading to 

a bachelor’s or higher degree;]. 

So without an income, any hope of trying to redo our housing loan is gone so it 

will continue in foreclosure. Because of the wording of this law, there is no hope 

of trying to appeal the decision, even though I have: All because I am trying to better myself in a way to get a job. My daughters ask me if we are going to lose our 

house: I cannot answer them because they are in a school that is working well for 

them. My wife is concerned that my depression may be getting worse; although I 

do not know why it would. They tell us that unemployment is dropping. Could this 

be because so many like me are no longer on the unemployment role because we 

have been forgotten about or overlooked? Please allow me to tell those of you who 

have never had to deal with losing a job that we who supported you in your elections for change do still in fact exist! We are told that the economy is rebounding. 

Until I am back on my feet and able to provide for my family; I do not believe it! 

You are now looking at an emergency extension of benefits for those of us that 

time has seemingly forgotten about. What I am asking you to do is look back a bit 

when the United States government bailed out the banks and the auto makers. 

They did so readily and without question. So now, why is the possibility of bailing 

out the actual Americans that have worked to make things better for their entire 

lives such a hard decision? Does America and its government want to invest in their 

own people or should they be swept away like yesterday’s garbage? So far, that is 

the way it appears to us who have been forgotten about. 

Thank you for your consideration and time, 

Paul Pittman 

One of the newest ‘‘99ers’’ 

f 

Statement of Tracy Santee 

I’m a single mother and have always been a single mother except for the first year 

of my son’s life. I have always had a job and supported my son, but sometimes 

shared rent with family and friends for many of his first years. I finally got my own 

place while I was in my late 20s. A place that I could afford on my own . . . a trailer in a trailer park. It isn’t the perfect place, and we were and are still teased because of where we live, but it is and was always stability for my son. He went to 

the same school system for a majority of his life and we did well here. 

I worked for 12 plus years at a great company that was sold to another/a merger 

that didn’t provide me with another job. After that, I was unemployed for a few 

months, found a few temporary jobs, and then finally found permanent employment 

for eight years at my last job. I lost my last job due to lack of work/I was laid off. 

My last employer has not only laid off many people, but he has cut his work week 

down to four days to eliminate costs. I AM UNEMPLOYED. Since I have been unemployed, I have lost 20 pounds due to hunger. I am down to 92 pounds and it 

shows. I do not have the money to pay for food as I did while I was employed and 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
69 

I do not qualify for food stamps. I have cut down my household costs as much as 

I could. I still have my car, and intend to keep it as it may be my home soon. 

I have three more years left on my mortgage but I do not see any way that I can 

keep my home (yes, my trailer is my home) if I cannot find a job. I have been unemployed for almost two years. I have been on at least 25 interviews, sent out thousands of resumes, yet I still cannot find employment. An unemployment extension 

for the long term unemployed would help me/my son and MILLIONS of others to 

buy some time to help find a job and KEEP OUR HOMES!! If the government can 

provide us with jobs, ALL THE BETTER!!! We, the long term unemployed, don’t 

want hand outs and we don’t like to be at home every day with no purpose in our 

lives,—WE WANT TO WORK AND WE WANT JOBS!!!!!!! 

It is crystal clear to me . . . there are jobs, BUT we are competing for these jobs. 

There are at least 15 to 20 people interviewing for the same positions YET ONLY 

ONE PERSON WINS THE JOB. Soon, I will be homeless. My mortgage company 

will foreclose on me. The trailer park will evict me. My son . . . how will I take 

care of him??? How will I take care of me??? 

Tracy Santee 

f 

Janice Nichols 

Thursday, February 10, 2011 

To: House Ways and Means Committee 

Hearing for Jobs for Unemployed 

You have no idea how hard it is to have been laid off for over 3 years. My most 

recent experience has been in social services and there are no jobs. These jobs depend upon excess money in the economy and charitable contributions. Obviously, 

there is no excess money in the economy and charitable donations have decreased. 

I have a B.S. degree in Management and Human Relations and have a business 

background, also. Outsourcing has taken a lot of jobs and my technological skills 

need updating. 

The economy is changing. As an older laid-off worker, I need retraining. We need 

a program that will provide unemployment for us for a year, along with one-year 

free training in order to upgrade our skills and become more employable. The longer 

we stay unemployed without available jobs, the less desirable we become to employers. 

We need help to survive and we need jobs. I am a widow who has lost her home 

and my son and I have found it necessary to move in with relatives. I have always 

been able to find a job before the economy took a nose dive. This has taken such 

a toll on all of us. It is unbearable to think that this great country cannot provide 

jobs for their citizens!!! 

Please help us. You are not having to go through this. You are warm and well 

fed and your bills are being paid. Come down to our level and have some compassion. 

It is your duty to help us! 

Sincerely, 

Janice Nichols 

f 

James Bufton 

Thursday, February 10, 2011 

Chairman Camp, 

Americans want to work. The current political bantering is unacceptable and unproductive. Trickle down does not and never did work. History bears this out. We 

are facing actual (U6) unemployment number of well over 16%. No one disputes 

this. Yet, the heartless millionaire conservatives would allow decent hard working 

Americans to be cast aside and forgotten rather than face the problem and the reality at hand. 

I will exhaust my UE insurance in a couple of weeks and with my savings mostly 

depleted will soon lose everything this disabled veteran has worked for all of his 

life. At age 62, even with a very credible and successful work history, I am unVerDate Nov 24 2008 03:08 Jul 01, 2011 Jkt 065329 PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 I:\WAYS\OUT\65329.XXX GPO1 PsN: 65329

anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
70 

wanted. Discrimination is rampant and the conservatives want us to just go off and 

die somewhere so they can deal with further enriching their cronies. 

I first advocate the 14 week extension that Ms. Lee is introducing to the House 

so those in harsh climates will not freeze to death when living on the streets. Further I endorse a public works program where displaced workers can engage in all 

sorts of activities that budgetary constraints have diminished. Tutoring challenged 

students in fundamentals, helping the aging lonely, painting schools in ill repair, 

teaching computer skills, and countless other projects. What community would say: 

‘‘We really don’t need any of these things.’’ That was rhetorical, sorry. 

Please stop pandering to the rich and DO SOMETHING concrete and measurable 

to create jobs in AMERICA. 

Respectfully, 

James Bufton 

f 

Scott Carlson 

Thursday, February 10, 2011 

Scott Carlson 

Title Hearing: Tell a Compelling story. 

Dear Committee, 

I had a job that was ok, I was making money even though it was not much, it 

was steady and I had it for 6 years. Then all of a sudden about 3 years ago, it was 

gone! I made some wrong choices when I was young and I don’t have a Drivers license, I was happy to get that job because it was not that far away. I walked in 

the rain and snow to get there every day, because I knew how lucky I was to have 

it. Now it has been taken away and no one will even look at my applications because, for one the new standard with almost all employers are that they require a 

Drivers license and a background check, even for a basic $7.00 to $8.00 an hour job. 

Also because it has taken so long for some jobs to come back, employers are only 

hiring people who have been out of work 6 months or less, this is a fact! and if you 

search the job listings you will see this requirement with many employers. I am 

only making it because I live with a friend who is on DISABILITY and he only 

brings in about $770.00 a month. It is amazing we are even making it at all. I understand jobs are number one, However the people who have been out of work the 

longest are the ones who will be hired last. This is a fact! anyone who thinks the 

first unemployed get hired first are living in a dream world! We have and still are 

being left behind. Not even the President wants to say a word about us. We need 

more weeks of benefits now. We need hope for a better future like the rest of the 

unemployed. I don’t think its right that some get benefits and not all! That’s what 

was done with the tax cuts this last December, the Republicans said (ALL), should 

get help, so why should unemployment benefits be any different. There was a large 

cost for that small percent of the rich to get tax breaks, so when you look at the 

percentage of 99ers, Please remember the Republicans held out and stopped all for 

a small percentage no matter the cost! 

f 

Statement of William Milner 

2/13/11 

I have worked all my adult life and unfortunately I have been unemployed for 

the last almost two years, I LOOK FOR WORK EVERYDAY I have gone on three 

interviews and have received that second call I’m respectfully asking that you pass 

this bill immediately we need the additional help!!!! PLEASE PASS THIS BILL!!!! 

PLEASE PASS THIS BILL!!!! 

Æ 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING