And in that circumstance, what will be the effect if the effort last week by Republicans on the House Appropriations Committee to slash the Workforce Investment Act by 75 percent--almost eliminate it--what will the effect be on employment…

And, really, if you look back over the decades through Republican administrations and Democratic administrations, when we have hit unemployment levels that are as high as they are today, have there usually been bipartisan efforts to extend…

I am thankful that it wasn't, because I think the unemployed need the assistance more in my state than Governor Perry needs their money to pay off state bonds.

That doesn't seem to me to be a very creative way to address this problem.

Threats of default on our debt and threats to shut down the government only set back our economic recovery and cost us more jobs.

The unemployment rate in my state, 8.5 percent, stands higher today than at any time in the last quarter of a century.

Terminating unemployment assistance would hurt our nation's economy by further suppressing consumer demand and confidence.

When folks lose a job through no fault of their own, the least we ought to do is extend a life line.

With reference to the JOBS Act, my recollection is that the bill, though strongly urged in Committee and strongly opposed by me and others in Committee, was never brought by the House leadership to the House floor so that anything could be…

And I know, as I said in my opening statement, there are those who want to blame the unemployed for unemployment. But aren't we in a circumstance today where there are more than four unemployed Americans available for every job opening?

Today in America the problem that we face is not the unemployed, but unemployment.