Eva M. Clayton: “I think both of my colleagues' points are very timely, and it has to be understood in the context of our wanting to have…”

“I think both of my colleagues' points are very timely, and it has to be understood in the context of our wanting to have a program that would have an impact immediately, that would not be a permanent fix, meaning that we want something that is temporary that we can remove when there is no need, but we want something that will be responsive for right now. The bill that passed the House transferred unabated or unstructured or unmodified to the States the unemployment insurance that we have called the Reed Act. And what it would do, the States would have to match it. A case in point: if Florida is now in a deficit, they do not have a reserve to match it. In fact, again responding to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, they made a survey of all the States, and the survey results by the National Association of State Workforce Agencies confirmed that 38 States of the 50 that responded stated that they have questioned whether they would use those funds. And most respondents say they would not expand or extend the benefit. Why? Because they are uncertain how long this will last.”