David Thomas: “I appreciate the admonition by my ranking member from New York, because I do want to give specific citation to the two…”

“I appreciate the admonition by my ranking member from New York, because I do want to give specific citation to the two particular areas that I was concerned about, both in the Democratic substitute and in the underlying bill. The gentleman from Maryland and the gentleman from Washington repeated the argument that legislatures must pass laws in dealing with the unemployment money available to them. That is simply not so. The bill provides three different ways that States can assist: One, they can go ahead and provide regular pay or increased unemployment benefits; they can provide extended benefits; or they can furnish unemployment services and support to health. The second concern I had was the misrepresentation that the gentleman made of the Democratic substitute. The gentleman said that it was all Federal money, that it was money that went from the Federal Government on unemployment insurance to States. If anyone wants to take the time to read the bill and look at the Congressional Budget Office scoring sheet, what it says is it has zero cost over 10 years because it comes from the unemployment insurance fund. Why is it a zero cost over 10 years? Because they assume the States will pay back that amount over 10 years. They give it with one hand and say it is Federal money and require the States to pay it back over the next 10. Those are two misrepresentations of the underlying bill and of the substitute.”