An act to designate the federally occupied building located at 1220 Echelon Parkway in Jackson, Mississippi, as the 'James Chaney, Andrew Goodman, Michael Schwerner, and Roy K. Moore Federal Building'.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1620 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina, Dr. Foxx. All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

General Leave

I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 1620.

The SPEAKER pro tempore, (Mr. Langevin). Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Massachusetts?

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 1620 provides for consideration of H.R. 4785, the Rural Energy Savings Program Act. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate controlled by the Committee on Agriculture and Energy and Commerce. The rule makes in order as original text an amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in part A of the Rules Committee report, and the rule also makes in order four amendments printed in part B of the Rules report and provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Mr. Speaker, we all know that too many American families are unemployed. Too many American families are having trouble paying their energy bills. Too many of our manufacturing jobs have gone overseas to China and to other countries.

Now, the Democratic Congress has brought bill after bill after bill after bill to the floor to help American families weather these tough economic times and make long-term investments in a clean economy so that the United States maintains its status in the world as a leader in innovation.

And every time, and every time we bring a bill to the floor, my friends on the other side of the aisle have overwhelmingly voted ``no.'' They have become the party of no, no to everything. Unfortunately, based on some of the statements by some of my Rules Committee colleagues last night in the Rules Committee, I think that that will be their strategy today on this Rural Star bill.

This is a good, cost-effective bill. Rural Star will create high- skilled, high-wage manufacturing and construction jobs while delivering energy savings to millions of Americans by providing access to capital and energy-efficient technologies.

In fact, the National Association of Home Builders endorsed this bill, saying that H.R. 4785 will ``save energy for American families, create jobs, and reap environmental rewards.''

Let's not forget that this bill will put people to work, keep good- paying manufacturing jobs here in the United States, and lower the utility bills of families and farms across the country. The truth is more than 92 percent of energy efficiency products are manufactured here in America.

Let me repeat that, Mr. Speaker. The truth is that more than 92 percent of energy efficiency products are manufactured right here in the United States of America.

We are talking about insulation, windows, doors and water heaters. That's why this is so important. A family or a business will not only hire someone to install these energy efficiency products, but these products will be made in our backyard right here in our own country. Make it in America. That's what Democrats want. That's what we stand for.

There shouldn't be one Member of this body who opposes putting Americans to work in this fashion. And not only will H.R. 4785 result in more Americans jobs; it will lower families' and farms' utility bills. This is particularly important in rural areas where customers are facing increasing costs for electric power. Rural electric co-ops are facing a growing demand for electric power at a time when they are constrained from building new generation capacity.

The gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Inglis, supports this bill because of the positive impacts on rural electric co-ops, and he said so during testimony last night in the Rules Committee. I want to thank Mr. Inglis for his support and for putting American jobs over partisanship today.

To my colleagues who argue that this bill will cost too much, I want to remind them that the programs in this bill involve loans, not grants. These loans must be repaid. CBO has analyzed the legislation and concluded that it does not score. The legislation is fully compliant with statutory PAYGO and House PAYGO rules.

Mr. Speaker, I hope everyone will take a close look at the important provisions in the Rural Star bill that will put Americans to work and help transition us to a stable clean energy economy of tomorrow.

I urge all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to put partisanship aside and support this rule and the underlying bill.

National Association of

Home Builders,

Washington, DC, September 13, 2010.

Hon. Louise Slaughter,

House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Representative Louise: On behalf of the 175,000

members of the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB),

I am writing to express our support for H.R. 4785--the Rural

Energy Savings Program Act of 2010. We applaud your efforts

to create jobs and deliver meaningful energy savings for

consumers in rural communities by providing access to capital

and efficiency technologies.

Without meaningful incentives to improve the energy

efficiency of the 130 million existing homes and dwelling

units that comprise our nation's housing stock, true energy

savings will never materialize from the building sector. NAHB

believes that H.R. 4785 helps address this problem in rural

America by providing low interest loans to consumers to

install energy efficient technologies that will save energy

for American families, create jobs, and reap environmental

rewards.

NAHB further supports the provisions in the legislation

that will establish demonstration programs that help

implement measurement and verification approaches to energy

audits and investments in energy performance improvements

with measurable results. NAHB believes that tracking energy

savings improvements in older, less-efficient homes is

important to demonstrate the voluntary efforts already

underway to reduce GHG emissions from the overall building

sector.

In addition to NAHB's consistent support for other energy

efficiency incentives in both new and existing homes, NAHB

supports H.R. 4785 as a way to further improve the nation's

housing stock and provide avenues for consumers in rural

communities to invest in efficiency. NAHB appreciates your

thoughtful legislation.

Sincerely,

Joe Stanton,

Senior Vice President, Government Affairs.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that the gentlewoman from North Carolina has a problem with American jobs, but 92 percent of the products that have been used in this weatherization process were made here in the United States of America. We are helping keep jobs and we are helping to create jobs. I'm sorry that the Party of No has a problem with that. But the Democratic Party believes that we need to make it in America and that we need to invest in American jobs, and not only keep American jobs, but add American jobs.

The gentlelady says that somehow the weatherization program in the Recovery and Reinvestment Act didn't work. Well, I disagree with her very strongly. In some States like North Carolina, weatherization got off to a slow start, but in other States like Massachusetts we were able to start quickly. This was a function of the State having weatherization programs ready to handle these new funds right away or if they had to be ramped up.

Today, over 30,000 homes each month are being weatherized across the country thanks to the Recovery and Reinvestment Act. In 2009, 1,100 more houses were weatherized in Massachusetts than in North Carolina. But in April, May, and June of this year, 1,000 more houses were weatherized in North Carolina than in Massachusetts. Today, nearly the same number of houses have been weatherized both in North Carolina and in Massachusetts. So to say that this program isn't working and that it's a failure is clearly and utterly a mischaracterization.

I hope that my colleagues will look at the facts and not demagogue this issue simply for political gain. Those projects on weatherization, I will say to my colleague from North Carolina, in her State are helping to keep people in their jobs and helping to create more jobs. Why is that such a big problem to my friends on the Republican side of the aisle? Why do they have a problem with making things here in the United States of America and protecting American jobs? That is one of the best reasons to support this bill. In addition to saving utility costs for families and small businesses, it is about creating jobs in the United States of America.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

For the record, I want to point out to my colleagues that the manager's amendment addresses the issue of Federal employees who are delinquent on their taxes, and I quote from the manager's amendment that a loan shall not be provided to a Federal employee under this act if any of the following apply to the employee: One, that the employee has a seriously delinquent tax debt.

So, yes, everybody should pay their taxes. We all should be concerned about the debt and the deficit, but I find it a little bit astonishing that the party that took a surplus that Bill Clinton gave them and turned it into a record deficit is talking about the importance of reducing our deficit. Dick Cheney, I remember the Vice President of the United States, made the statement that deficits don't matter. I strongly disagree with him, but that was said as the Bush-Cheney administration was racking up historic debt. He said it doesn't make any difference. He was wrong. They drove this country into a ditch, and now they are complaining about the size of the tow truck to get us back on the road.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I think the American people are not going to be fooled. I also find it a little bit astonishing that again, while my friends are talking about the importance of focusing on the deficit, that they have embraced a tax plan that will double the projected deficit by adding $4 trillion to the deficit over the next 10 years. What they are trying to do is make sure that millionaires and above get at least $100,000 in tax breaks. That is where their priorities are.

The purpose of this bill is to not only help families lower their utility costs. The purpose of this bill is to create American jobs. And it is to buy products that are made in the United States of America. Not buy them from China, not buy them from India, not buy them from some other country, but made here in the United States.

I'm sorry that my colleague from North Carolina doesn't believe that the jobs that were created in her district as a result of the weatherization investments in the Reinvestment and Recovery Act somehow don't matter. They do. People are working and they are supporting their families. And we need to do more of that. We need to invest in the American people and the American economy.

I should also point out so there is no mistake: This is not additional spending. What this is is a loan program. This is not adding one cent to our deficit. This is a loan program where people will pay the loans back. CBO says it doesn't score. It is totally compliant with PAYGO. So this notion that somehow we are adding more spending to the deficit is just plain wrong.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Just a couple of things. I will remind the gentlewoman from North Carolina that what dug us into this ditch were tax cuts for the rich that weren't paid for, two wars that weren't paid for and a Medicare prescription drug bill that was like five times the cost we were told it was, and it wasn't paid for. So let's get the record straight on that.

I've got to say, Mr. Speaker, the hypocrisy of the Republican Party just takes my breath away when they get up here and talk about the responsibility that individuals have to pay their taxes. Where were they when we tried to crack down on companies that have opened up P.O. boxes in Bermuda or in the Cayman Islands to avoid paying U.S. taxes, and yet they operate here in the United States and get U.S. Government money? Where were they? You know, the Republicans voted 170-1 to protect tax breaks for companies shipping American jobs overseas, and 95 percent of those Republicans have signed a pledge to protect these tax rates. That's where they are. They want to protect these big corporations that escape paying U.S. taxes, but they want to go after somebody who is working in NIH as a researcher, who is trying to find a cure for cancer. Let's focus on those people. That's what they say.

Look, the point of this legislation here is jobs. It's about saving families and farms and small businesses their utility costs, and it's about creating American jobs. It's about buying things here in the United States of America.

Why is that so objectionable to the Republicans? Why are they fighting this bill that will invest in our economy, that will invest in American jobs, that will help protect American jobs, and that will be great for American jobs? Why is this so controversial? You know, why do they insist that we need to have an economy in which we buy everything from China?

What Democrats are trying to do is to steer this economy toward making it here in America, toward making these products in America and investing in American jobs. That's what this is all about.

So rather than protecting tax breaks for corporations that escape paying U.S. taxes and that get incentives to move jobs overseas, how about standing up for the American worker? How about standing up for this concept of making it in America and for creating and expanding jobs here in the United States?

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I would say to the gentleman and to my friends on the other side of the aisle that they've all been long enough here to add to the mess, and cleaning up the mess means supporting bills like this that will create American jobs, that will protect American jobs. This is an important bill.

Again, for the life of me, I don't understand why there is controversy over a bill to invest in America, to invest in our workers, to help lower utility costs for small businesses, for individuals, for family farms. This is not adding to our deficit one penny. This is a loan program to help people weatherize, you know, their homes, and that's whether it's a mobile home, a farm or a small business. You know, over 90 percent of what is needed to do that is made in America.

Why is that a problem? Why do you have a problem with investing in programs that create American jobs? I mean, that's what this is about.

You know, again, the Republicans voted 170-1 to protect tax breaks for companies shipping American jobs overseas, and 95 percent of House Republicans have signed a pledge to protect these tax breaks. Enough of that. It is time to invest in American workers.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, let me just say that what we are debating here is a bill that costs nothing, that adds nothing to our deficit, that will invest in American jobs, that will invest in American products, versus the Republican plan to add $4 trillion to our deficit. That's what this is about here.

I hear frustration from people back home all the time. What they want is they want a manufacturing strategy. They want a strategy to help expand and create more American jobs, and they want us to close tax loopholes that encourage outsourcing U.S. jobs overseas. They want us to provide hometown tax credits to help small businesses hire new employees and sell their products and innovation overseas.

They want to boost incentives to create American clean energy jobs like making state-of-the-art wind turbines and solar panels, paid for by ending corporate welfare to Big Oil. They want to strengthen rules that the U.S. and its contractors buy products made here in America, especially to build transportation and energy and communication infrastructure. They are tired of us shipping those jobs overseas and importing everything. They want to make it here in America.

They want us to force China and other countries to honor fair trade principles or lose American business. There ought to be a consequence if a country like China abrogates its obligations to a treaty or to a trade bill.

We need to give incentives to hire and retain America's returning veterans for new clean energy jobs, and we need to strengthen partnerships with businesses to retain America's workers for jobs in the future. That's what the American people want. The frustration is: Why are we importing everything from overseas? Why are you giving tax breaks to corporations that move their operations overseas or hire overseas when we have an unemployment problem here in the United States? What the American people are frustrated about is that we are losing American jobs that really, quite frankly, should be made here in America.

So I hear the frustration, but I would say the answer is not adding $4 trillion to our deficit like they want to do. The answer is in supporting programs like this that don't add a cent to our deficit but will create American jobs.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining?

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, the previous speaker used the word ``arrogance,'' and I would just say that I think it is awfully arrogant for Members of this Congress, Members of this body to stand up and vote against bills that help small businesses, that help create American jobs, that provide loans and lending abilities to small businesses. I mean, small business is the engine of our economy, and the bill that we are talking about here today will help a lot of small businesses.

We had a small business bill on the floor that we passed-- unfortunately, my friends on the other side of the aisle voted against it, and I'm told that the Senate is going to be taking it up shortly-- that will provide additional credit to small businesses, which is desperately needed.

I think many of my colleagues went home over the break and talked to a number of small businesses, and access to credit is a big issue. I think we're going to probably get it. It took a long time and a lot of fighting to get it, but my Republican friends, the Party of No on the other side of the aisle, voted against it. So if you want to talk about arrogance, I think that's arrogance.

This bill before us will not add a penny to our deficit, will provide loans that will help create energy-efficient products made here in the United States of America and will also help fund the installation of these products by American workers. This is about creating American jobs. We're going to make it in America, and we're going to create American jobs. That my friends on the other side of the aisle find that controversial or unacceptable is just astounding to me.

And when I hear that the money in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act didn't create any jobs when it comes to the issue of weatherization and energy efficiency, again, I read the statistics. The statistics don't lie. I mean, jobs were created. And many houses have been made more energy efficient, which means individuals and businesses don't have to pay as much in utility bills. And that's an important thing for a small business or a struggling family.

So this is about American jobs. It's about investing in the American people. And I would just say to my friends on the other side of the aisle, rather than voting overwhelmingly, 170-1, to protect tax breaks for companies shipping American jobs overseas, you ought to focus on ways to help keep American jobs here in the United States of America. That's what we're trying to do with this bill.

I urge all my colleagues, don't put politics above people. Don't put politics above people. Do what's right, and let's help create more jobs here in the United States of America.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, once again I urge my colleagues not to put politics over people. These are serious, difficult economic times. We need to make policy here that invests in our people, that invests in American jobs, that helps create a climate where more American jobs can be created.

My colleague from North Carolina talks about how the Republicans somehow are not responsible for this massive, colossal deficit that we have, but I just want to remind people about the facts. The facts are that when Bill Clinton provided George Bush with this record-breaking surplus, it was a Republican Congress and a Republican President that instituted tax cuts--mostly for the wealthy--that weren't paid for; tax cuts that benefited the wealthiest of the wealthy that were not paid for.

It was a prescription drug bill that wasn't paid for and was much more expensive than they advertised. It was two wars that they decided not to pay for. American soldiers and their families sacrificed, but the rest of us are asked to not do anything to help sacrifice or pay for the war.

That all happened when you had a Republican Congress--they were in control of everything--and a Republican President. I mean those are the facts. I am sorry that it bothers my friends, but it's the truth.

And now they are coming up with a proposal that will add $4 trillion to our deficit. It doesn't seem to bother any of them. Well, it bothers me and it bothers the people that I represent. I think it bothers most people in this country. One of the things that I think is clear is that the American people don't want to go back to the same old policies that created this mess.

Mr. Speaker, President Bush holds the worst jobs record of any administration in 75 years, including 4.6 million American manufacturing jobs lost. House Republican leaders have said, and I quote, ``We need to go back to the exact same agenda.'' That's what they want to do. They want to go back to the same policies that created this mess.

I am going to repeat what I said before about the fact that Republicans voted 170 to 1 to protect tax breaks for companies shipping American jobs overseas. One hundred seventy to one to protect tax breaks that are shipping our jobs overseas. Ninety-five percent of House Republicans have signed a pledge to protect these tax breaks. I mean what are they thinking? One hundred percent of House Republicans voted against creating and saving 3.6 million American jobs, including advanced vehicle and clean energy manufacturing jobs. We cannot go back. We cannot go back.

You know, when we make it in America more middle class families will make it too. It's that simple. And what the underlying bill does is provide loans. It doesn't add a single cent to our deficit. It provides loans to families and to businesses and to farms to be able to do weatherization and energy efficiency. And over 90 percent of the products that are needed to do energy efficiency improvements are made in America. Not made in China; made in America. This is a good thing.

The more people take loans and the more people want to weatherize their homes and their businesses, they will save money on utility costs, and more and more American workers will get a job. Why is that so hard for my friends on the other side of the aisle to get? I mean they fight tooth and nail to protect tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires. That is their big issue. I assume that helps them politically in terms of the money given to the Republican National Committee. But it doesn't do a damn thing for American workers.

We need to start insisting that American workers come first. And that is what this bill is about. It is investing in our workforce. It is about making it here in the United States, creating jobs in the United States.

So Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues to vote to support this bill. I would urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.

I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Massachusetts for yielding time. But, Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, I have to rise today in opposition to this rule and the underlying bill.

Even though we have all had the opportunity to meet with our constituents in our districts over the past 6 weeks, it's clear that the ruling Democratic elite still do not seem to get it. My constituents in North Carolina want the Federal Government to stop spending, but this bill authorizes an additional $5 billion for two new government-funded energy efficiency loan programs.

Mr. Speaker, the so-called stimulus in 2009 included over 8 billion in taxpayer dollars that were supposedly meant for energy efficiency in homes. At the time, the ruling Democrats boasted that it authorized $4.7 billion for the Department of Energy to issue grants for a home weatherization program. However, though it was touted as another shovel-ready program, the Department of Energy has used less than 10 percent of those funds in the program's first year; just over 30,000 homes were weatherized instead of the hundreds of thousands promised.

If the Department of Energy can't implement the $4.7 billion program in the stimulus, why should we authorize another $5 billion loan program? We have not seen any evidence of these programs working or being implemented correctly.

Mr. Speaker, apparently the $8 billion in stimulus spending was not enough. The Democrats are now asking that we borrow another $5 billion from foreign countries and our grandchildren. The fact is we cannot afford, nor do we need, these new government programs, especially at a time when we have an unprecedented deficit and return on this spending is questionable at best.

Furthermore, this bill was not vetted by both the committees to which it was referred. And it's remarkable that our colleagues continue to bring ideas that have been rejected back to the floor. The Rules Committee Democrats have issued the self-executing rule to arbitrarily force inclusion of the Home Star Energy Efficiency Loan program into the bill even though 346 Members, including 178 Democrats, already voted against it this past May. They are using blunt force to push their agenda through, ignoring the will of the American people by increasing the program's authorization level from its original $324 million to a whopping $42.5 billion.

Again, Mr. Speaker, I'm disappointed that after having 6 weeks at home to listen to their constituents--not just Democrat constituents, not just Republican constituents, not just Independent or unaffiliated, but folks from all areas of political persuasion. Their constituents don't want them to spend more of their hard-earned money on frivolous government programs. Instead, they want us to cut spending, lower their taxes, and enable businesses to prosper so they can get back to work.

The goals of these two government programs, new programs, could be achieved by existing programs such as the Rural Economic Development Loan and Grant program, which controlled approximately $33.77 million for loans in fiscal 2010. Why two new programs are being created to do something an existing program can already achieve is beyond me.

Finally, I object to this rule because it is, once again, a structured rule. The ruling Democrat elites have chosen to block at least nine amendments from being offered on the floor today and instead have arbitrarily chosen to allow only four, which are the only amendments they will permit us to debate.

Once again, Mr. Speaker, after promising the most open and honest Congress in history, Speaker Pelosi has gone back on her word and against the will of the American people. When will our colleagues across the aisle learn that this House belongs to the people, not to them?

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, there is an old saying: Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.

What this bill does once again is bring up what is sort of a mini- stimulus bill. We were told when the stimulus bill was passed, unemployment wouldn't go above 8 percent. It would create jobs. It would be the great boon for the country. We now have 9.6 percent unemployment. I am a member of an electric co-op. I know very well how electric co-ops work. If the electric co-ops wanted to do this, if it was such a great deal, they would do it. We don't need the Federal Government doing this because everything that our friends have promised has failed, failed, failed. They want to continue their failed programs.

I don't have a problem with American jobs, but what this creates is not American jobs. They want to create more government jobs, which they have done, and we will talk about that in a little bit.

Now I would like to recognize my colleague from Florida, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Rooney), who is going to talk about this immensely successful project that Republicans have started here called YouCut.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Rooney).

Mr. Speaker, here we go again. My colleagues across the aisle always want to talk about this wonderful surplus that President Clinton had. They always neglect to mention that Congress holds the purse strings and it was Republicans who were in charge of the Congress the last 6 years of Mr. Clinton's administration. They were in terrible shape the first 2 years. Republicans took over and we, Republicans, brought the economy to a surplus.

They also like to point out how bad it was when President Bush left office. They always neglect to say you were in charge, Mr. Speaker, and your party, when Mr. Bush left office. You drove the American economy into the ditch, not the Republicans.

Every bill that comes up here is to create jobs, but the American people understand, again, everything you've done has failed, from the stimulus, February a year ago, to now. You want to continue to spend money to create jobs. But government only creates government jobs, not jobs in the private sector. So I can't let my colleague get by with that.

I would like to point out that the item that our colleague from Massachusetts pointed out is such a narrow piece. We want to really do something about Federal employees paying their taxes, not just those who might apply for a loan under this program.

I would now like to yield 3 minutes to the sponsor of this bill, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Chaffetz).

Mr. Speaker, I want to point out a couple of things to my colleague from Massachusetts.

What is sending jobs overseas are things like the government takeover of health care in this country, which is creating such uncertainty and which is driving up the cost of health care for everyone, as well as the rules and regulations established by the EPA and the programs that many of our colleagues across the aisle love so much. They constantly talk about tax cuts for the rich. Well, every American got a tax cut when the tax cuts went into effect. The tax rate for the lowest-income Americans went down from 15 percent to 10 percent. Now they are proposing to allow that to go back up on January 1 and to create the largest tax increase in the history of this country.

It sounds to me like my colleague across the aisle is defending Federal employees from not paying their taxes. I find that really difficult to understand.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my colleague, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Chaffetz).

Mr. Speaker, the reason Republicans vote against these programs is because we pay attention to what happens. Government programs don't work. It's real simple. Our colleagues across the aisle simply haven't learned that.

Again, we go back to the stimulus. We were promised unemployment would not go up past 8 percent. It is almost 10 percent. Our economy is in the ditch. We are in terrible, terrible shape in this country, all because of the spending by our colleagues across the aisle and because of the belief that the government is our savior. It is not our savior.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor).

Mr. Speaker, I now yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished ranking member of the Rules Committee, Mr. Dreier.

(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

With all due respect to my colleague across the aisle, we do not put politics above people. My colleagues and I were out in our districts all during the August recess, and we listened to our constituents. We know what our constituents want. They want a different direction for this country than our friends across the aisle have been taking us, along with this administration.

It wasn't the Republicans that drove this country into the ditch. It was the Democrats through their spend, spend, spend program, debt, debt, debt program. The American people have awakened. They know what's going on, and they don't like it. We're going to do everything we can to stop this irresponsible behavior on the part of our colleagues.

Mr. Speaker, the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results. Our colleagues have talked about every bill they've brought up here in the last 18 months as being a jobs bill. But what they've done is spend, spend, spend and claiming they're creating jobs, but they have failed time after time. The results are clear.

The Democrat elites have run out of ideas about how to get the economy moving in the right direction. The American people can't afford more of the ruling Democrats' failed policies. They want new ideas for getting our economy back on track--not the same warmed-over stimulus and bailout policies that have failed to do anything but create new taxes, record deficits, and high unemployment.

Month after month Americans have been asking, ``Where are the jobs?'' The Democrats have been in total control of this country for almost 2 years, and what has President Obama offered? Nothing new but promising between now and November he will, quote, remind the American people that policies he has put in place have, quote, moved us in the right direction.

Well, good luck, Mr. President, on selling the American people that you've taken us from 5 percent unemployment to 10 percent unemployment and you want to keep going in the same direction. Those who are unemployed aren't going to agree, and those who worry about being unemployed aren't going to agree with the President. The American people do not need more empty rhetoric and politically driven spin from the White House. They need real solutions.

The only jobs this administration has created have been Federal Government jobs, adding to the overwhelming layers of bureaucracy that already exist at the Federal level. From February of 2009 to June 2010, 405,000 Federal Government jobs have been created. Since the so-called ``stimulus,'' American taxpayers have spent $44.9 billion on these new government worker salaries--and yet we continue to see record high unemployment in the private sector. All this administration and the liberal elite ruling Democrats want to do is grow government and grow bureaucracy, and this is evidenced by their backward policies.

As they try to sell their ``Recovery Summer,'' we know that more Americans are concerned about the state of the economic health. An August 24, 2010, Reuters' IPSO poll showed that the economy is a core concern for Americans, with almost three-quarters--72 percent--of Americans very concerned about jobs. It showed 62 percent of Americans now think the country is on the wrong track.

It is clear that though President Obama believes he's sailing the ship in the right direction, the American people overwhelmingly disagree. Even though the results are in and it's clear the American people don't want these policies, our friends across the aisle keep trying to shove expensive, wasteful pieces of legislation down the taxpayers' throat. Mr. Speaker, the American people deserve better than this.

Announcement By the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the amendment to which our colleagues spoke earlier and extraneous material be placed in the Record prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I am going to urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so I can amend the rule to allow all Members of Congress the opportunity to vote on a cost-saving measure.

Recently, Republican Whip Eric Cantor launched YouCut, which gives people an opportunity to vote for Federal

spending they'd like to see Congress cut. Americans have cast their votes, and this week the American people want Congress to save nearly $1 billion by requiring collection of unpaid taxes from Federal employees.

In 2008, the Internal Revenue Service reported that over 90,000 Federal employees were delinquent on their Federal income taxes, owing a total of $1 billion in unpaid taxes. This includes 1,151 employees who owe $7 million at the Department of Treasury which oversees the

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that most Members would agree that the fiscal path that our country is currently on is unsustainable. With an annual deficit of $1.6 trillion, a growing mountain of debt, and unemployment hovering near 10 percent, it's clear that we must change our course now or face catastrophic consequences in the very near future.

My colleagues, the simple truth is that Uncle Sam needs a diet. The single greatest challenge of this Congress and our best hope for lasting recovery lies in curbing Uncle Sam's appetite for spending. It's time to cut up the government's credit card and live within our means starting right now, today.

Just two nights ago, Congress passed a $1 trillion health care bill that was opposed by every Republican House member and 39 Democrat House members. Never before in our Nation's history has such historic legislation been passed by one party over such widespread bipartisan opposition. Now, here we are again preparing to vote on yet another huge spending bill that was crafted without any transparency or bipartisan involvement.

Most Members would agree that providing relief to Americans suffering from natural disasters is a responsible and worthy use of taxpayer dollars. Most Members would also agree we don't need to load up a disaster bill with hundreds of millions of dollars on a summer youth program--especially when there is already $1.4 billion in the jobs pipeline.

It's worth noting that the $600 million for a summer youths job program is being offset by various rescissions in unused funding from the stimulus bill and other past spending bills.

But my underlying question is this: If there is $1.4 billion already in the pipeline for a Department of Labor jobs program, why can't we return the rescinded $600 million dollars back to the Treasury for deficit reduction? Why must my Democrat friends continue to spend and spend and spend and spend?

At the beginning of this Congress, the Appropriations Committee consisted of 60 members--37 Democrats and 23 Republicans. It's worth noting, however, that my chairman has made it a habit to write his bills and completely bypass the Democrat and Republican members of the committee. Do not for one minute believe that this legislation reflects the work of the House Appropriations Committee or even the Democrats on the Appropriations Committee, because it does not. To my knowledge, this bill has had no input from any members other than the chairman himself. There's been no markup, no amendments, and no potential offsets debated or even discussed by the committee.

Like the trillion-dollar stimulus package and the subsequent ``son of stimulus'' passed by the House prior to Christmas, this legislation will pass without any opportunity for a Member to amend it. With billions and billions of stimulus funding still unspent, there is no reason why the entire emergency relief portion of this legislation cannot be entirely paid for or be used to begin paying down that $1.6 trillion deficit for the year.

Mr. Obey has argued that Republicans didn't ``pay for'' disasters when we were in charge. On that point, he is correct. However, when Republicans were the majority party, annual deficits were not $1.6 trillion as they are today, and we didn't have hundreds of billions of dollars in unnecessary funding sloshing around in Federal coffers. Surely we can cut $5.1 billion in unspent stimulus funding to pay for the FEMA spending involved here. We shouldn't continue to spend money we don't have.

Mr. Speaker, we can agree to disagree on the cause of our economic troubles, but the fact remains that we cannot spend our way into economic health. Until the Congress curbs its appetite for spending, our economy will continue to suffer.

With that said, I urge Members on both sides of the aisle to insist, especially after Sunday's budget-busting vote on health care, that we fully offset the entire cost of this legislation so we do not further burden future generations with even more debt.

I will close, as I began, with this comment: The simple truth is that Uncle Sam needs a diet.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I simply rise, in part, to respond to the comments of my colleague. I think it's important for us to know that we do have quite a history of supplemental funding and what we do with emergency spending.

As the chairman suggests, there has been a lot of funny business that has gone on, but I thought the Members ought to know that from fiscal year 1989 through fiscal year 2006 there have been 36 multiagency supplemental appropriations bills that have been considered by the Congress, and most of them have been enacted into law. Of those, only seven were never considered by our Appropriations Committee and this one was not considered by our Appropriations Committee. It was introduced almost at midnight, the very day we dealt with that trillion-dollar deficit package that was before us. Those seven that bypassed the committee I could easily go through in detail, but essentially they were dealing with the natural disasters that related to hurricanes in Florida and the disaster that impacted Louisiana and the like. Emergencies, indeed, but the committee was bypassed for those emergencies.

It seems to me that it's about time that we took up supplementals like this, instead of being written at the last minute, be handled in regular order, be considered by the committee, be available to the members for not only reading but for amending, and it has become a consistent pattern that we are not doing that. We are bypassing our committee as though the committee or subcommittees might as well not exist.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers).

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate my colleague from North Carolina. He's a regular order kind of guy, and he chairs the Homeland Security Subcommittee. I've only been complaining about the way we're handling the process.

My chairman so far has not brought a single supplement to the floor under an open rule. And you can deal with these things with an open rule reasonably on the floor. But, ideally, you deal with them in committee, have a chance for amendments and otherwise.

We just don't bring supplementals to the committee for discussion. So far there have been--my colleague should know this--so far there have been $800 billion in spending numbers that Members didn't get a chance to have any input upon.

With that, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt).

I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady).

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Latta).

Mr. Speaker, these will be my closing comments on the bill.

I would like to say to the Members, my chairman, my colleagues, that I am very empathetic to their description of the way we have handled FEMA funding in the past. I indeed agree that, in the vast percentage of cases, that money ought to not be subject to offset requirements. The emergency rule is there for appropriate reasons.

The only reason for raising this in a procedural way today is because of the reality that while we have disaster after disaster out there, we have never had quite a disaster like this huge deficit of this year, $1.6 trillion, and projecting out to the future there is no end. And eventually the public knows the economy can't stand it, and they are suggesting that we try to help them out of this disaster that is ahead of us.

So it is indeed important for us to realize that in spite of the fact that there is a huge amount of money in the stimulus package that is yet unspent that might be used for some of these offsets, we need to seriously get on track of reducing spending and undermining that growing deficit so the public can at least have some sense that we are trying to effect the crisis that is beyond our horizon.

I plan, after we are through here, to offer a motion to recommit on this bill in order to adopt the amendment I presented in the Rules Committee on Monday. The motion is simple. It cuts unnecessary money from the flawed $1 trillion stimulus to pay for the $5.1 billion FEMA spending provided in Mr. Obey's bill. The balance of the questions, we have discussed earlier.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

I am.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to be heard on the point of order.

Mr. Speaker, as I suggested earlier, the bill before us contains almost $6 billion in new spending, spending that is not offset by true reductions. Instead, this $6 billion will simply pile more money on to the government's charge card and add to our already astronomical debt.

Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that the bill before us today is considered to be a general appropriations bill, and under the rules of the House, general appropriations bills are privileged and are to be considered in the Committee on Appropriations or sent to the Committee on Appropriations prior to consideration on the House floor.

I have expressed my concern about the lack of regular order, the number of supplementals and appropriations bills that are not being heard in committee or subcommittee. I won't repeat all of those concerns, except to say that we are on this disastrous pathway because of our totally ignoring the need to make sense out of our national deficit and get a handle on spending.

Mr. Speaker, I ask for consideration of my motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I appeal the ruling of the Chair.

Mr. Speaker, I share my colleagues' concerns about what's in the bill, but I'm also concerned by what's not in the bill and, frankly, that's money to fund the settlement of the so-called Cobell lawsuit.

As my colleagues on both sides of the aisle know, this lawsuit against the Federal Government stems from the mismanagement of Indian trust accounts and trust land since 1887. It involves over half a million claimants; it has drug on for 14 years through three different administrations involving both parties.

Finally, in December of last year, a settlement was reached, $3.4 billion: $1.4 billion to individual claimants, $2 billion to allow for the repurchase of fractionated lands, and some money set aside for an Indian scholarship fund.

I want to particularly, frankly, commend Secretary Salazar, who did a wonderful job in bringing this issue to closure. But it's now squarely in our court in the Congress of the United States. The President has asked us to solve this problem or to fund the settlement that he's negotiated.

For the record, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to enter the President's letter to the Speaker asking action on this particular item. So it's now squarely in our court.

When the settlement was negotiated, there was a deadline that we would act in Congress by December 31 of last year. Obviously, we missed that. There's a second deadline of February 28. We missed that. The last deadline is April 15.

I know that many of my friends on the other side of the aisle sincerely want to settle this issue, and I look forward to working with them as we try to move toward that; but I find it very difficult to keep people that have been waiting over 100 years waiting a while longer while we do things in a more immediate framework. So I urge the Congress to act, and I urge us to, frankly, support the administration's negotiated settlement. When we do that I'll be there to help my friends on the other side of the aisle.

The White House,

Washington, DC, February 12, 2010.

Hon. Nancy Pelosi,

Speaker of the House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Madam Speaker: I ask the Congress to consider the

enclosed amendments to Fiscal Year (FY) 2010 proposals in my

FY 2011 Budget.

Included is an amendment for the Department of Homeland

Security, Disaster Relief, for the continued response and

recovery efforts associated with prior large events, such as

Hurricane Katrina and the Midwest Floods. The proposed total

for FY 2010 in my FY 2011 Budget would increase by $1.5

billion as a result of this amendment.

Also included are amendments to general provisions that

would provide authorization and funding for FY 2010 to

implement the settlement of a case involving the management

of individual Indian trust accounts related to Indian lands

and to settle claims of prior discrimination brought by black

farmers against the Department of Agriculture.

The details of these requests are set forth in the enclosed

letter from the Director of the Office of Management and

Budget.

Sincerely,

Barack Obama.

Enclosure.

Executive Office of the President, Office of Management

and Budget,

Washington, DC, February 12, 2010.

The President,

The White House.

Submitted for your consideration are amendments to the

Fiscal Year (FY) 2010 proposals in your FY 2011 Budget.

Included is an amendment for the Department of Homeland

Security, Disaster Relief. Also included are amendments to

general provisions that would provide authorization and

funding for FY 2010 to implement the settlement of a case

involving the management of individual Indian trust accounts

related to Indian lands and to settle claims of prior

discrimination brought by black farmers against the

Department of Agriculture. These amendments are described

below and in more detail in the enclosures.

The proposed Budget totals for FY 2010 would increase by

$1.5 billion as a result of the following amendment:

Department of Homeland Security, Disaster Relief. This

amendment would provide an additional $1.5 billion and would

increase the pending $3.6 billion FY 2010 supplemental

request included in the FY 2011 Budget to $5.1 billion. These

supplemental funds are needed before March 2010 for the

continued response and recovery efforts associated with prior

large events, such as Hurricane Katrina and the Midwest

Floods. This supplemental request is also being re-

transmitted to underscore the importance of acting in a

timely fashion.

Two FY 2010 proposals were included as mandatory requests

in the FY 2011 Budget, with an expectation that authorization

language would be transmitted at a later date. However, at

this time there are no other appropriate legislative vehicles

available to allow for expeditious consideration of these

proposals. Therefore, they are now being requested as changes

in mandatory programs and as such, are being transmitted to

the Appropriations Committee for their disposition.

General Provision, Sec. 1: Cobell v. Salazar. This

amendment would provide authorization and funding to

implement the settlement of Cobell v. Salazar, a case

involving the management of individual Indian trust accounts

related to Indian lands. Pending congressional action and

final approval by the Court, $3.412 billion will be expended

from the Department of the Treasury's Claims, Judgments, and

Relief Acts account in FY 2010. Within this total, the

settlement agreement provides that $2.0 billion from the

appropriation to this account will be transferred to a new

Trust Land Consolidation Fund in the Department of the

Interior for the buy-back and consolidation of fractionated

land interests and other activities.

General Provision, Sec. 2: Discrimination Claims

Settlement. This amendment would provide authorization and FY

2010 funding of $1.150 billion to settle claims of prior

discrimination brought by black farmers against the

Department of Agriculture that were previously addressed by

section 14012 of Public Law 110-246, the Food Conservation

and Energy Act of 2008.

Recommendation

I have carefully reviewed these requests and am satisfied

that they are necessary at this time. Therefore, I join the

heads of the affected agencies in recommending you transmit

these proposals to the Congress.

Sincerely,

Peter R. Orszag,

Director.

Enclosures.

FY 2010 Supplemental Proposal in the FY 2011 Budget

Agency: Department of Homeland Security.

Bureau: Federal Emergency Management Agency.

Heading: Disaster Relief.

FY 2011 Budget Appendix Page: 1362.

FY 2010 Pending Supplemental Request: $3,600,000,000.

Proposed Amendment: $1,500,000,000.

FY 2010 Revised Supplemental Request: $5,100,000,000.

(In the appropriations language under the above heading,

delete ``$3,600,000,000'' and substitute $5,100,000,000.)

This amendment would provide an additional $1.5 billion for

the Disaster Relief account and would increase the pending

$3.6 billion FY 2010 supplemental request included in the FY

2011 Budget to $5.1 billion.

This request is submitted to: (1) reiterate the need to

provide the proposed funding before March 2010, and

underscore the Administration's support for this proposal;

and (2) request an additional $1.5 billion in anticipation of

arbitration panel decisions likely to impact the Disaster

Relief Fund in a previously unexpected manner. This proposal

provides additional funding for the continued response and

recovery efforts associated with prior large events, such as

Hurricane Katrina and the Midwest Floods.

Through the Disaster Relief Fund, the Federal Emergency

Management Agency provides a significant portion of the total

Federal response to Presidentially-declared major disasters

and emergencies. Primary assistance programs include Federal

assistance to individuals and households, public assistance,

and hazard mitigation assistance, which includes the repair

and reconstruction of State, local, and nonprofit

infrastructure.

FY 2010 Change in a Mandatory Program

Heading: General Provisions--This Act.

FY 2011 Budget Appendix Page: 1366.

FY 2010 Pending Request: $3,412,000,000.

Proposed Amendment:--.

Revised Request: $3,412,000,000.

(In the appropriations language, insert the above new

heading and the following new language directly following

section 2 of the ``General Provisions'' that appear on page

1365:)

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1204, I call up the bill (H.R. 4899) making emergency supplemental appropriations for disaster relief and summer jobs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2010, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 4899.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

This a very simple bill. It provides $5.1 billion as requested by the President for FEMA disaster relief because FEMA will run out of money in the next 2 or 3 weeks. Consistent with all prior year FEMA supplementals and the President's request, this $5.1 billion is designated as an emergency. The bill also provides $600 million for youth summer jobs. This funding will support over 300,000 jobs for youth ages 16 to 21. This age group had some of the highest unemployment levels in the country:

Last, the bill extends the successful small business lending provisions that are contained in the Recovery Act for another month and provides up to $60 million for that effort. Again, that new funding is offset. The bill rescinds emergency funding that is not needed in order to provide for the offsets.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I would simply note that the gentleman is complaining because the committee is using precisely the same procedures that it used in the past when he was chairman and his party was in control of the situation.

When Republicans controlled the House, they brought supplementals to the floor in five out of six Congresses that were handled by the chairman and the chairman alone. That is no different than is happening today. In fact, from 1995 through 2006, while Republicans controlled the institution, the House considered 12 supplemental appropriation bills handled in just that same way.

Secondly, with respect to the so-called runaway spending for summer youth jobs, that spending is fully offset by other cuts in the bill. So much for runaway spending. I can't recall similar fiscal rectitude when the other party was running this place.

Thirdly, let me suggest that when the gentleman complains about not offsetting the funding for the emergency disaster relief program, I would point out that the past administration asked us to do the very same thing eight times in a row, and the Congress did.

Let me also say, by the way, that I would invite the gentleman from California to join me in cosponsoring legislation, which I have introduced in this House several times, which would set up a State- funded disaster program which would be experience rated so that each State would pay into that fund ahead of time on the basis of how much they have drawn out of it in the past.

I yield myself 1 additional minute.

I would point out that more than half of all disaster relief since 1993 has gone to just four States: Louisiana, Florida, California--the gentleman's home State--and Mississippi; and 80 percent of all disaster relief since 1993 has gone to 10 States: those four plus Texas, Puerto Rico, Alabama, Iowa, North Carolina, and New York.

As a Representative of a State that is not in that 10-State group, I am perfectly happy to end the need for virtually all disaster payments paid for by Uncle Sam by establishing the kind of proposal that I have supported for years. I doubt very much the gentleman from California would like that because then California would be paying into it in the same measure that they are drawing out of it through the years.

But I would, nonetheless, invite any Member interested in fiscal rectitude, whether from a recipient State or not, to join me in that effort and then we won't have these meaningless debates on the floor anymore.

I yield myself 30 seconds.

I would simply say, Mr. Speaker, that the White House submitted this request for disaster relief over a month ago. Everyone in this institution has known about it; in addition to which, the gentleman's staff has known for a good 2 weeks that we would be considering this disaster relief. The only thing that's different is that we found offsets within the past few days that would help to fully pay for the summer jobs program so, therefore, we included that in the proposition.

This is hardly a complicated matter. I am sure that the gentleman from California is up to a full understanding of it.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price).

Will the gentleman yield on that?

I would yield to you 30 seconds so I might ask you a question.

Why do you keep saying we're borrowing money to add to the summer youth program when this bill fully offsets every dime that we're spending on it?

No. Would you answer my question? We are not adding one dime to the deficit by what we are adding to the summer jobs program. We are fully paying for it by cuts in other programs.

I have great respect for my friend from Kansas, but he needs to be accurate in what he says.

That's new math.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

I invite the gentleman's attention to page 4 and page 5 of the bill. If he will read those two pages, he will see that every dollar of additional spending for summer jobs is paid for by a reduction in other government spending programs.

I yield myself 30 seconds.

Let me simply say I largely agree with my friend from Oklahoma. We have one simple dilemma: both in the case of the Cobell settlement and the Pigford settlement, the administration has asked us to provide the money. We do not yet have an understanding of whether that will be provided through an emergency designation or whether it will be fully offset. We cannot proceed until the decision is made to move one way or another. As soon as it is, we want to bring both of those to the floor because I agree with you, we need to deal with both of them.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Loebsack).

Mr. Speaker, I would make only one additional point. This bill also provides for a 1-month extension of the Recovery Act Small Business Lending program and provides an additional $60 million for that program.

Through March 12 of this year, the Recovery Act Small Business Lending program has supported nearly $23 billion in small business lending which, according to SBA, has helped create or preserve over 500,000 jobs. I think it is well worth the effort. We need to keep this program alive.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would raise a point of order against the motion.

Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order against the motion because it constitutes legislation on an appropriation bill, which is in violation of clause 2, rule XXI. The instructions in the motion include an amendment proposing to include language in the bill that would provide for the rescission of previously appropriated funds made available in other appropriation acts.

This is clearly a legislative proposition, Mr. Speaker. Section 1052 of the House Rules and Manual states, in part: An amendment proposing a rescission constitutes legislation under clause 2(c).

The amendment is, therefore, legislative in nature and is in violation of clause 2, rule XXI, and I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

I move to table the appeal of the ruling of the Chair.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.