Restoration of Emergency Unemployment Compensation Act of 2010

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1495 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 (Ms. Foxx). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 1495.

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

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 1495 provides for consideration of H.R. 5618, the Restoration of Emergency Unemployment Compensation Act of 2010, under a closed rule. The resolution provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means. The amendment printed in the Rules Committee report shall be considered as adopted. The resolution waives all points of order against the bill as amended. The resolution provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions. Finally, the resolution allows for certain resolutions reported from the Committee on Rules to be considered the same day they are reported. The resolution applies the waiver to any resolution reported through the legislative day of July 3, 2010.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. Speaker, as we all know, our country is facing enormous troubles like we have not seen since the Great Depression. At the national level, there is clear evidence that some of the actions that the Democratic Congress have taken are, in fact, working. The economy is again growing, and employers are starting once again to hire.

In 2009, we saw the Nation's GDP grow by 2.8 percent in the third quarter, representing the biggest 6-month turnaround in our economy since 1980. In each successive quarter, we have continued to see positive GDP growth. Since the end of 2009, we have created jobs every single month; and in the last 3 months alone, we have created an average of over 300,000 jobs per month. This is a dramatic change in direction from when President Obama took office and the economy had previously been shrinking at minus 5.4 percent and we were losing jobs at an average of 726,000 jobs per month under the Bush administration.

However, although our economic indicators continue to show that we are making significant progress towards recovery, this does not mean that we are out of the woods yet by any stretch of the imagination. We know that all too well in many pockets of the country, including my own district in the Central Valley of California, the recovery continues to lag well behind the national economic picture. In far too many areas of the country, businesses continue to shed payroll, job losses continue to mount, and hardworking families across America continue to struggle.

Mr. Speaker, as I said, we have not seen times like this since the Great Depression. These are extraordinary circumstances, and they call for extraordinary measures. Despite what my friends on the other side of the aisle may say, what people who are struggling right now need is a hand up; and this Democratic Congress, despite all the obstacles from the other side of the aisle and the other body, will continue to reach out and try to assist Americans with that hand up.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5618 would retroactively restore the emergency unemployment compensation benefits and restore funding for the extended benefits program through the month of November of this year. It would also ensure that States do not cut the level of regular unemployment benefits when they receive these extended Federal benefits, and it would protect workers from having their benefits cut if they experience intermittent earnings which requalify them for regular State unemployment benefits. Without the sort of help provided by this bill, more people will lose their homes, fall behind on their bills and be unable to feed their families. There is a very real risk that the economic crisis could get worse, not better, if we pull the safety net out from under the 1.7 million Americans that are facing these economic conditions right now.

Mr. Speaker, never before in our history has Congress allowed extended unemployment benefits to lapse when the unemployment rate was anywhere close to 10 percent; yet here we are again trying to extend this critical program to keep food on the table for millions of households, including millions of American children across this great Nation simply because the other side of the aisle repeatedly can only say ``no.''

The current emergency unemployment compensation program began to phase out at the end of May, and many of those now losing benefits have only received 26 weeks of regular State-provided unemployment compensation or one of the first tiers of Federal benefits. This means individuals exhausting their 26 weeks of unemployment benefits are not eligible for emergency unemployment benefits at all. This bill will retroactively restore those benefits and continue them and the program through November.

Without this extension, as I said before, an estimated 1.7 million individuals who have lost their jobs will lose their unemployment benefits by July 3. Mr. Speaker, that's no way to celebrate America's independence holiday. This includes well over 300,000 people in California, where our unemployment level is over 12 percent, well above the national average of 9.3. In my own district, the unemployment rates are much higher than even that. In fact, we have numbers that are near the 20 percent mark; and I have in my district the fourth, fifth and sixth highest unemployment rates in my counties in the country.

Nearly every economist will tell you that cutting off unemployment benefits will undermine the economic recovery by suppressing consumer demand at a critical time when we should be enhancing it, and by exacerbating problems, like the home foreclosure crisis that plagues many areas of our country.

I want to thank the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott) for bringing this bill forward and for his steadfast commitment to America's hardworking families. It is vitally important that we pass this bill and provide the much-needed help that our constituents need during these trying times.

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

Mr. Speaker, I understand that the gentlelady and her party don't understand what's happening in Middle America. They don't appreciate what's happening to folks like in my district. They may not hang out in places like my family's bowling alley, where a person who loses their job, and 20 percent of my constituents are nearly out of work, there isn't jobs around every corner. She may have plenty of jobs in her home State. She may not have to worry about that for her constituents.

But in my world, Mr. Speaker, when someone who comes to our bowling alley loses their job, they have nothing else. They don't have the Wall Street bonuses. They don't have the big pension, retirement systems, and the big 401(k) set-aside. They don't have the situation that so many of us need.

We have to provide a safety net for these people, these hardworking Americans.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Mr. Speaker, I look at today's Hill newspaper and I look on page 31. And I oftentimes believe that cartoons and political satire speak much more clearly than the words that we can use in big long speeches. And in today's cartoon, although I can't say that it's very funny to the American people who are being affected by it, you see an American citizen bungee jumping off an unemployment benefit bridge. And the elephant in the cartoon, signifying the other party, snips the line as the American's jumping off. And the comment in the caption reads, ``Don't worry, I'm sure you will land on your feet.'' I think too oftentimes we have this situation where we just expect that Americans are going to land on their feet, and we don't care about those who get left behind. That's what my discussion was today.

The gentleman just referred to the President's comments in Wisconsin about Mr. Boehner. And I would just refer to those comments that Mr. Boehner equated the financial bill that we passed yesterday, the regulatory reform bill that so many Americans are yearning for, he said it was a nuclear weapon to be used on an ant. The problem was an ant. Well, my constituents certainly don't think they were ants until they started being walked over by Wall Street.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire how much time each side has remaining.

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to respond to my colleague from California by saying that the gentleman is once again talking about the long-term questions--whether we need tax cuts or whether we need to have more stimulus. All of those things are open to debate.

What is not open to debate is the fact that 1.7 million Americans today and over the next 3 days and over the last few weeks have lost their unemployment benefits. That is an emergency. That's why we have emergency spending provisions. We have to take care of those Americans who will not be able to feed their families, pay their mortgage payments. That's why we have an unemployment insurance compensation program, to protect those Americans when they find themselves in this kind of a situation.

We can have the other debates on other days. And we certainly have had and we will have. But on today's question of whether we're going to extend those benefits, we need to have the Republicans join us in supporting the American people, in supporting those out-of-work folks.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

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

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

I would like to take this time to correct the statistics and the statements that we just heard from my colleague from North Carolina.

My colleague forgets that in the Clinton administration we created-- not ``we,'' because I wasn't here--but the Democrats and Mr. Clinton created 22 million new jobs for America.

Mr. Bush, when he took over, did not, in fact, inherit a recession. That recession happened after he was in office, and it was a severe one. We started to come out of that. Again, the Bush administration policies caused a second recession. When you look at Mr. Bush's term of office, there were some jobs created; but they were not private-sector jobs, as the gentlelady is so fond of talking about. In fact, if you look at the statistics, there were no new private-sector jobs created during the Bush administration. When Mr. Bush left office, he left a recession that was shedding 750,000-plus jobs a month.

When the good lady from North Carolina talks about the fact that there have been job losses during the Obama administration, many of those are the carryovers. You don't turn around the economy overnight. Mr. Obama can't flip a light switch and create the jobs overnight. It took time to get the policies in place to start bringing the country out of the Bush recession. In fact, in the last 3 months, we have averaged 300,000-plus jobs instead of losing 750,000 a month under the last few months of the Bush administration.

This rewriting of history, this total denial of the economic policies that got us into this mess, is something that, frankly, the American people understand very well. The 20 percent of the population which are unemployed in my district right now understand that very well. The 30 percent of my constituents who have lost their homes to foreclosure understand who got them into this situation. I think that we will, in fact, see a situation where the American people will judge what is going on here.

We will have to work hard to create more jobs in the future. As I said before, we are going to debate those policies. There have been discussions on tax cuts and on the stimulus. The statistics tell us that the average American has not paid this low of a percentage of his taxes in quite some time, since Mr. Truman was in office, I believe it is.

So I believe that there are significant facts that we need to set straight here, facts which represent a positive side of the ledger to my party and to the policies we are advocating.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), a member of the Ways and Means Committee.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to close today by discussing a little bit of what the gentlelady just talked about with regard to PAYGO. I'd like to point out that I'm quite sure that the gentlelady from North Carolina did not vote for the PAYGO resolution in the House rules that we passed at the beginning of this Congress, nor did she vote for statutory PAYGO. They have always talked about tax cuts as the answer to all of America's problems. We could take the tax cut to zero and my, wouldn't we pay for government well?

The reality is that they only want to pay for things that affect common folks--the common Americans that get up every day, put their shoes on, and just want a job to make a living and pay for their family, pay for their home, and earn a better life. They don't want to pay for the tax cuts for the Wall Street big shots. They never want to pay for that. They don't want the PAYGO rules to apply to them.

As I said before in this debate, I grew up in my parents' bowling alley. I saw firsthand what happened to those folks--those hardworking American folks that would come into my parents' establishment just wanting a little bit of fun on a Friday or Saturday night. I saw what happened when they lost their job. They lost their home, they couldn't feed their family. Families disbanded because of the stress and tension under those economic situations.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle voted against, for the most part, the financial regulatory reform bill. They were protecting their friends on Wall Street, the very people that got us into this calamity. Thirty percent of my constituents--around that--have lost their home to foreclosure because of the financial collapse that was caused by the greed on Wall Street. Yet my colleagues on the other side of the aisle continue to defend them. But, for the most part, they will not vote for emergency funding to put food on unemployed workers' tables or to allow them to keep their homes in this time of crisis. I say that it's not all of them because on June 29, 2010, 30 courageous Republicans voted with the Democrats--the 231 Democrats--to extend unemployment benefits and to protect those workers who have lost their job in this economic situation.

Mr. Speaker, I can't sit here today and tell you that every policy that we've put in place since Mr. Obama has been in place has worked as well as I'd like. Frankly, I've been critical on a number of issues that I thought the administration could have done a better job. But I will tell you that when it comes time to taking care of Americans who are in an emergency situation, who have lost their job for no fault of their own but for the fact that the economic situation was a tsunami that swamped them, it is our party who is standing up to make sure that those workers can survive for another day. And for those workers, this absolutely is an emergency.

Mr. Speaker, no one can legitimately doubt that the situation we face right now is an emergency for the American people who are unemployed. And until our economy is firmly on track and moving forward, I believe we must provide help for those unemployed workers to pay their bills and feed their families. If not, we risk falling further into a further economic crisis and we risk leaving way too many families behind.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to support this rule and to support the underlying bill. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question, and on the rule.

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

The previous question was ordered.

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

I thank my colleague from California for yielding time, Mr. Speaker, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise in opposition to this closed rule which rewrites H.R. 5618, the Restoration of Emergency Unemployment Compensation Act and provides martial law/same-day authority for any resolution reported from the Rules Committee through Saturday, July 3.

This bill has been rushed through Congress, avoiding committee action. When the Democrats, who are in charge, brought the bill up before the House for consideration on June 29, it failed to garner the necessary two-thirds majority required for passage. There was bipartisan opposition to this bill.

But why are our colleagues rushing this through? The Senate is not meeting, except to honor Senator Byrd. They know the bill is going nowhere. They say ``extraordinary circumstances require extraordinary measures'' and that the economic crisis is going to get worse if we don't pass this. But this bill is going nowhere, and they know it. They want to be able to go home and say, We voted to extend unemployment benefits and that Republicans voted ``no.''

Well, Republicans want to reduce the deficit; and if the underlying bill had been offset with reduced spending elsewhere, Republicans would have supported it. But it is not. Instead, Democrats are relying on budgetary tricks to avoid their own PAYGO rules. They are waiting until the last minute to address important issues and labeling the cost as ``emergency spending'' so they don't have to account for it in terms of our spending rules.

Frankly, the need for this bill in the first place is a direct admission of the failure of the Obama-Pelosi policies because the many spending bills, which

have already been passed, have failed to create the jobs promised by Speaker Pelosi and President Obama. So they're admitting by saying, We have to extend unemployment benefits, that all the spending has failed. Economists on both sides of the political spectrum are expressing concern over the fiscal health of the U.S. Government. Yesterday, CBO said, ``Our debt is now 62 percent of GDP, up 20 percent in 2 years''-- the 2 years when Democrats controlled all of Congress and had a Democratic President--and it's the ``highest since World War II.''

Congress cannot continue this spending spree. We're simply living beyond our means, and I fear the consequences of our actions are not far off.

Here are a few lines from an article written by John Goodman on June 28 entitled How Bad is Our Fiscal Crisis?

``Already, we've seen some local governments declare bankruptcy. Expect more of that. In the next several years I believe some very large cities are going to announce they cannot pay their bills. State governments will be next. Whereas local governments can declare bankruptcy, State governments can only default. A default by the State of California seems almost inevitable.

``But is it conceivable that the U.S. Government could default? Actually, yes. Every projection shows the gap between spending and tax revenues rising through time.

``Two years ago the first of the baby boomers started claiming early retirement under Social Security. Next year they'll start signing up for Medicare. Before they're through, 78 million people will quit working, quit paying taxes, quit contributing to our retirement system and start drawing benefits instead.''

That's the end of Mr. Goodman's quote.

The underlying bill adds $34 billion to our ever-increasing debt. When Democrats passed their only unemployment insurance extender bill that was offset by other spending cuts last November, the administration hailed it as a ``fiscally responsible approach to expanding unemployment benefits,'' adding that ``fiscal responsibility is central to the medium-term recovery of the economy and the creation of jobs.''

The cost of extending the Democrats' unemployment insurance policy is growing because their failed stimulus bill has not created the promised jobs. Democrats predicted their trillion-dollar 2009 stimulus bill would create 3.7 million jobs. Instead, the debt has grown by $2 trillion, and nearly 3 million more private sector jobs have been eliminated since then.

Democrats promised unemployment would remain under 8 percent if their stimulus passed. Yet it remains stuck near 10 percent today. A total of 48 out of 50 States have lost jobs since the stimulus passed.

However, our colleagues keep spending and keep ignoring economic realities. That is totally irresponsible.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from California may have been trying to be a little humorous in his comments, but job loss in this economy is very serious business.

The American people are asking this Congress controlled by the Democrats, Where are the jobs?

I yield 5 minutes to my distinguished colleague from Indiana (Mr. Pence).

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

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished ranking member of the Rules Committee, Mr. Dreier.

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

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.

Our colleagues across the aisle are saying yes, what the American people want is to see jobs and they keep asking where are the jobs. We keep being told that these failed policies passed by this administration and this Congress

are going to produce jobs. That is not the case.

They like to tout the May employment report issued by the Bureau of Labor Statistics which appears to be positive with the addition of 431,000 new jobs. However, 412,000 of those new positions are for temporary government census workers. In other words, 96 percent of May's job growth will be eliminated in just a few weeks. That's almost half of the jobs that my colleague from New Jersey wants to point out.

The June unemployment rate we believe, as my colleague from California said, will edge up to 9.8 percent from 9.7 percent in May. But they keep bragging about how effective they've been at providing jobs.

The bottom line is, since February 2009, with Democrats in charge of Congress and the White House, more than 3.3 million jobs have been lost in the private sector. The Federal Government has gained more than 590,000 jobs over the same period. I hate to tell you, but the government jobs don't provide a viable solution in helping get the economy back on its feet. Government jobs are supported by tax dollars, and that tax burden is ultimately borne by the entrepreneurs and small businesses that are the engines of economic growth. Further strain on these employers will not help facilitate a healthy economy over the long term.

Now, my colleague from New Jersey just talked about a myth that our colleagues continue to perpetuate, which is about how many jobs were lost in the Bush administration and about how many jobs were gained.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to insert into the Record a piece by Keith Hennessey.

This is a fairly new Democratic claim about job creation. Our colleagues are really searching for ways to justify their terrible policies; but as Mr. Hennessey points out, the Democrats are picking their time frames very carefully. They ignore the 4 million jobs lost during the first 11 months of a Presidency that is, so far, 16 months old. What they don't point out is the fact that President Bush inherited a recession and that their statistics, again, are totally unfounded.

If you will look at the Bureau of Labor Statistics' payroll survey that was done in 2001 to mid-2003, you will see a steady employment decline, followed by a steady, strong, and sustained period of job growth for almost 4 years.

This is the chart put out by Keith Hennessey. He notes that, in the 46 months that we had job growth in the Bush administration, it is the second longest in recorded history for sustained job creation in the U.S. More than 8 million jobs were created during this period. A mild recession began in late 2007--who was in charge of the Congress at that time? The Democrats. They always fail to mention that--followed by a severe contraction in the second half of 2008 and continuing into the Obama administration.

So this chart shows it very well, and it is very objective, Mr. Speaker. It isn't opinion on my part. It's the numbers. As I said, our colleagues are very, very selective in how they make the comparison.

[From Keith Hennessey.com, June 8, 2010]

The New Democratic Claim About Job Creation

A new claim about job creation appears to be bubbling up

through the Democratic ranks. Here is the clearest statement

of that claim, from Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) on

Stuart Varney's show:

On the pace that we're on, with job creation in the last

four months, if we continue on that pace, and all the leading

economists say that it is likely that we will, we will have

created more jobs in this year than in the entire Bush

Presidency.

Ms. Wasserman Schultz is picking her timeframes carefully,

in particular by ignoring the four million jobs lost during

the first 11 months of a Presidency that is so far 16 months

old.

Even today, after five straight months of job growth, three

million fewer people are working than when President Obama

took office. That's hardly something to brag about.

And looking just at last month's strong net increase of

431,000 jobs, we see that nine out of ten net new jobs were

temporary government jobs for census takers. We all hope the

pace of private job creation accelerates, but it's too soon

to declare this a strong and consistent employment recovery

or to project its trend into the rest of the year.

Let me point out one other chart that has been put together, and that is to compare the unemployment over time between administrations, or among administrations, using the average unemployment rate. You will see it is very low under President Johnson at 4.2 percent. Under President Eisenhower, 4.9 percent. The average under President Bush 43, 5.3 percent. The average under President Obama, 9.5 percent.

This is what the American people are interested in. They are asking: Where are the jobs? Why do the Obama administration and Pelosi policies continue to have us lose jobs? Unemployment is at almost 10 percent.

Mr. Speaker, it is not we Republicans who are rewriting history. It is our colleagues on the other side of the aisle.

I will point out once again that Republicans were in charge of the Congress during 6 of the 8 years of Mr. Clinton's administration, and that is when we had the job growth--when Republicans were making the policy here. Mr. Obama did promise to create the jobs. He promised that unemployment would not go above 8 percent. He made lots of promises. As far as I've been able to see, none of the good ones have been kept.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my distinguished colleague from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren).

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

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

Mr. Speaker, Republicans want to help the long-term unemployed, but agree with the American people that new spending needs to be offset by cuts otherwise.

During the Rules Committee markup of the Democrats' H.R. 5618, Mr. Heller from Nevada offered a Republican amendment in the nature of a substitute which was not made in order by a vote of two to seven. This fiscally responsible alternative would have extended unemployment insurance, COBRA, and the current poverty guidelines until September 25th, and paid for it with unused funds from the failed stimulus bill.

Again, the bill before us extends Federal unemployment benefits only through November 2010 and is not paid for, adding its $34 billion price tag to our $13 trillion debt.

Democrats claim their bill satisfies their PAYGO requirements by declaring it is spending in an emergency. But that is simply an excuse for not paying for it. Let me tell you how an emergency is defined in their rules.

In general, the criteria to be considered in determining whether a proposed expenditure or tax change meets an emergency designation includes, one, necessary, essential, or vital, not merely useful or beneficial; two, sudden, quickly coming into being and not building up over time; three, an urgent, pressing, and compelling need requiring immediate action; four, unforeseen, unpredictable, unanticipated, and not permanent, but rather temporary in nature.

We have known about this for a long time. This does not meet the criteria for emergency spending. Declaring it emergency spending is just a gimmick. It is a way to not have to comply with PAYGO. In fact, there are 160 spending programs already exempt from PAYGO or operating under special rules.

You know, just because our colleagues say that it is so, doesn't make it so. Saying that it is PAYGO compliant doesn't mean that there is an offset to it. So our colleagues are very clever in the way they say things.

President Obama said in February 2010, Now Congress will have to pay for what it spends, just like everybody else. After a decade of profligacy, the American people are tired of politicians who talk the talk but don't walk the walk when it comes to fiscal responsibility.

Both the President and our colleagues across the aisle are talking out of both sides of their mouths. They go out and announce that they are making something PAYGO compliant, but they don't. Rather than face facts and support sound economic policies like lowering taxes and reducing regulatory burdens, the Democrats continue to advocate misguided policies that expand the government's control and increase the Nation's debt.

This is not the way to create jobs. The American people continue to ask the question, where are the jobs? Mr. Speaker, this bill is not going to create the jobs, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, the President has said that every economist that has looked at his stimulus plan and all the plans that he has put forth agree with him.

But let me quote Carnegie Mellon economist Allan H. Meltzer, in an article in the Wall Street Journal op-ed June 30: Why Obamanomics Has Failed. ``The administration's stimulus program has failed. Growth is slow and unemployment remains high. The President and his friends and advisers talk endlessly about the circumstances they inherited as a way of avoiding responsibility for the 18 months for which they are responsible. Two overarching reasons explain the failure of Obamanomics. First, administration economists and their outside supporters neglected the longer-term costs and consequences of their actions. Second, the administration and Congress have, through their deeds and words, heightened uncertainty about the economic future. High uncertainty is the enemy of investment and growth.''

Economists get it, Republicans get it, and the American people get it. It's high time the Democrats wake up to the fact that the stimulus isn't working as promised. We need to cut government spending, repeal nonsensical regulations, and lower taxes. We should not be passing this extension without an offset in spending.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule, and ``no'' on the bill. Let's answer the question the American people are asking, Where are the jobs? Let's put in policies that really create jobs.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Florida for yielding time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

You know, he mentioned that we have no problem on one day voting for tax decreases and then the next day voting against unemployment benefits. Unfortunately, our colleagues across the aisle haven't given us an opportunity to vote for tax decreases in this session of Congress. Would that we'd had that opportunity, we certainly would have, because the money that the hardworking people of this country earn belongs to them. It doesn't belong to the government. That's what our colleagues across the aisle think. They want to control everything in this country, including all of the money that the good citizens of this country work hard to earn.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in opposition to this same-day rule on unemployment insurance.

When the White House economic advisors released their report back in January 2009, they concluded that if we just borrowed $1 trillion, the stimulus would stop the unemployment rate from increasing beyond 8 percent. Here we are with a 9.5 percent unemployment rate, the largest deficit in our history, and the national debt at almost $14 trillion. The response of the liberal Democrat leadership is to add $30 billion more to the deficit by not offsetting another extension of Federal unemployment benefits.

The American people want real economic growth and private job creation. If job creation is the number one priority for the Democrats, I'd hate to see what the number two priority is, given the dismal numbers that they've created, particularly in the last 18 months.

During consideration of H.R. 5618, the Democrats' $34 billion unpaid for Restoration of Emergency Unemployment Compensation Act, before the July 4 recess, Democrats opposed the Republican motion to recommit, which would have paid for the extension.

Specifically, the Republican motion to recommit would have used $34 billion in unspent stimulus funds to cover the cost of extending expired unemployment benefits through November 30. This was a fiscally responsible motion which recognized that the American people want Washington to stop spending money we don't have. Adding insurmountable amounts of spending to our soaring deficit helps no one.

Painting Republicans as being unfeeling and uncaring about those who have lost their jobs is inappropriate. We are very concerned with those people, and we want to do everything that we can to help them. But putting us more and more into debt and increasing the deficit is not going to do that. And our colleagues across the aisle should have learned that by now with their very, very bad policies.

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

Mr. Speaker, when asked on July 4th are we headed in the right direction, Vice President Biden answered, ``The economic initiatives that we took, they're working. They're working.'' Vice President Biden's repeatedly touted the failed stimulus package, and has recently coined what he calls ``the summer of recovery.'' Yet when asked about concerns that the stimulus is not working he acknowledges that unemployment remains, ``unacceptably high.''

You know, if we are in a summer of recovery, we can't quite understand why we continue to have high unemployment in this country. When asked by ABC's This Week host Jake Tapper in an interview aired Sunday if the administration ``is getting enough credit'' for the Wall Street bill, the health care bill, and the economic recovery act in light of polls showing the majority of Americans believe the country is on the wrong track, Mr. Biden said, ``The vast majority of the American people and a lot of people really involved don't even know what's inside the packages.'' On the contrary, for the first time in a long time the American people are taking a very strong interest in what Congress is doing, reading the bills and voicing their opinions.

Eighteen months after President Obama's $862 billion so-called stimulus, which really cost $1.2 trillion if you include the $347 billion that the Congressional Budget Office estimates for interest payments on the borrowed money, as my colleagues said across the aisle, there are still five job seekers for every job opening, and we have a 9.5 percent unemployment rate. I appreciate my colleague from Florida helping me make that point that we still have a problem despite the fact that there have been so many policies passed here and so much money spent. We have a 9.5 percent unemployment rate.

Instead of facing reality, we are hearing that everything is going great. That is, everything except that which they might be able to somehow blame on the previous administration. Ignoring that virtually all of the jobs they are touting are government jobs, this misleading statistic doesn't represent net job growth, thereby omitting all the jobs lost since the liberals seized complete control of Washington.

Doesn't it really seem discordant to be promoting unemployment benefits when Democrats are touting this as the summer of recovery? If the Democrats' stimulus were so successful, why do we need to increase our debt by $30 billion more for additional Federal unemployment benefits? Rather than acknowledge their stimulus plan failed and the American people were sold a bill of goods, the President and his administration continue to propose new government programs that increase the deficit. This is wrong. The American people know it.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I know our colleagues again continue to want to rewrite history, but it's just not something we're going to let you do.

Our economy was doing great until you all took over the Congress in January of 2007. You keep blaming what happened in the last few months of President Bush's Presidency on President Bush. But you were in control of Congress. You've been in control. And you have to take the responsibility for what happened. The job losses came on your watch.

We had a $200 billion deficit when you took over the Congress, and you have caused the deficit to go up. It is Democrat policies which have created the problems, not the Republican policies.

On Monday, President Obama took to the Rose Garden to criticize Republicans for insisting that new government spending to extend the Federal unemployment insurance program be paid for by cutting government spending elsewhere. Ironically, in another speech in the Rose Garden last November, President Obama took the opposite position, touting his signing an extension that was ``fully paid for.'' And this is his quote: I would also like to announce I just signed into law a bill that will help grow our economy, save and create new jobs, and provide relief to struggling families and businesses. Now it's important to note that the bill I sign will not add to our deficit. It is fully paid for and so it is fiscally responsible.

Those remarks were made by President Obama on November 6, 2009. So he was for paying for spending before he was against it.

On June 28, Speaker Pelosi made statements indicating the best way to

create new jobs is to hand out more unemployment checks. This is her quote: This is one of the biggest stimuluses to our economy. Economists will tell you this money is spent quickly. It injects demand into the economy and it is job-creating. It creates jobs faster than almost any other initiative that you can name.

This is news to a lot of economists.

I wanted to share also a portion of a Wall Street Journal article from Tuesday entitled, ``Stimulating Unemployment.'' This is the quote: ``Only last week, Vice President Joe Biden was hailing the stimulus for saving and creating three million jobs. This week the White House says we need even more stimulus in the form of jobless checks to make up for the jobs his original spending stimulus didn't create.''

The one possibility the President and congressional Democrats won't entertain is that their own spending and taxing and regulating and labor union favoritism have become the main hindrances to job creation. Since February 2009, the jobless rate has climbed to 9.5 percent from 8.1 percent, and private industry has shed two million jobs. The overall economy has been expanding for at least a year, but employers still don't seem confident enough to add new workers. The economists who sold us the stimulus say it's a mystery. But maybe employers are afraid to hire because they don't know what costs government will impose on them next.

In the immediate policy case, Democrats are going so far as to subsidize more unemployment. If you subsidize something, you get more of it. So if you pay people not to work, they often decide not to work or at least to delay looking or decline a less-than-perfect job offer holding out for something that may or may not materialize.

The economic consensus which includes Obama administration economists in their previous lives couldn't be clearer on this. In a 1990 study for the National Bureau for Economic Research, labor economist Lawrence Katz found that the results indicate that a 1-week increase in potential benefit duration increases the average duration of the unemployment spells of unemployment insurance recipients by 0.16 to 20 weeks, 16 to 20 weeks.

A March 2010 economic report by Michael Farrell of JP Morgan Chase examined several studies and concluded that lengthened availability of jobless benefits has raised the unemployment rate by 1.5 percent points.

A 2006 NBER study by Raj Chetty of U.C. Berkeley on a related subject begins: It is well known that unemployment benefits raise unemployment durations.

President Obama has said that this is a misguided notion and that attitude reflects a lack of faith in the American people. Yet Democrats have consistently passed legislation which takes away the choices and freedoms of the American people. That is the true reflection of a lack of faith in the American people.

And with that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I will just point out again to our colleagues across the aisle that the reason we had a surplus when Bill Clinton was President was because Republicans were in charge of the Congress, and the reason we had a deficit the last 2 years of the Bush administration is because Democrats were in charge of the Congress.

We'll continue to remind you of that.

I now would like to yield such time as he may consume to my distinguished colleague from California (Mr. Dreier).

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

Mr. Speaker, I would point out to my colleagues across the aisle, Mr. Speaker, that Democrats are totally in control of Congress. They have been since January of 2007. In the House, the number is 255- 178. There are two vacancies. In the Senate, it's 59-41, so the Democrats are clearly in charge,

but they continue to blame Republicans who are very much in the minority. The American people are seeing through that, Mr. Speaker. They understand who has the responsibility. And I think, what the quote from Mr. Kyl is saying is that the money belongs to the citizens of this country.

I thank my colleague from Florida for bringing it up. It proves the point. Our friends on the other side of the aisle think that all the money in this country belongs to the government and that it's up to the Members of Congress to decide who is going to get that money. They joined in with President Obama in believing that they should spread around the wealth, take from some and give to others. I think we have heard that philosophy before, but that isn't what the American people believe. They believe that they worked hard for their money; they should keep it.

And I would also say to my colleague across the aisle, is it right and decent to saddle the American people with debt that is going to haunt us for many, many generations? Children not yet born are going to be given this debt while our friends across the aisle fund their pet projects and take from those that they wish to take from and spend where they want to.

There wouldn't need to have been any kind of wait because, again, you are in the majority. You could do this.

I want to say again, Republicans are very sympathetic to those who have lost their jobs, but the problems came when our colleagues across the aisle began irresponsible spending when they took over the Congress, adding rules and regulations. We know what drives jobs away. It's increased government spending and it's increased rules and regulations.

I think that we have to point out the liberal Democrat agenda has failed. Our friends across the aisle need to go back to the drawing board and come back to the American people with real solutions to their real problems.

We are in touch with those folks. I go home every weekend and I talk to the people in my district and they tell me they are very concerned about the future of this country. I can't tell you, Mr. Speaker, how many people tell me every weekend, I am frightened to death for the future of this country based on what is happening in Washington these days.

This isn't the time to dither and blame the Republican minority for the disappointing collapse of governments we have seen since the liberal majority seized control of Congress in 2007.

As I said, my colleague from Florida said earlier that job creation is the number one priority for Democrats. Well, obviously, they are missing the mark. Their spending programs have destroyed, not created, jobs.

Albert Einstein is credited with saying the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Well, our colleagues keep doing the same thing over and over again and expect different results. They are not going to get different results as long as they have these irresponsible policies.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this same-day rule, reject the liberal agenda that continues to distract from private sector job creation and getting our economy back on its feet.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to reclaim my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would be more than happy to yield 30 seconds to Mr. Langevin.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1537 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

General Leave

I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 1537.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 1537 waives the requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII, requiring a two-thirds vote to consider a rule on the same day it is reported from the Rules Committee.

This would allow for the same-day consideration of any resolution reported through the legislative day of July 23, 2010, relating to consideration or disposition of a measure addressing unemployment compensation.

Finally, the resolution allows the Speaker to entertain motions to suspend the rules through the legislative day of July 23, 2010. The Speaker, or her designee, shall consult with the minority leader, or his designee, on the designation of any matter for consideration pursuant to this section.

These are not unusual procedures, as some of my colleagues on the other side are wont to argue. I want to point out that in the 109th Congress the Republican majority reported at least 21 rules that allowed for same-day consideration. In fact, five of those rules waived this requirement against any rule reported from the committee. This rule is for a specific bill.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4213, the Restoration of the Emergency Unemployment Compensation Act of 2010, ensures that absolutely essential funds continue to reach the millions of American citizens struggling to find a job, keep their homes, and provide for their families. This legislation is unconscionably overdue, with unemployment benefits having expired on June 1 of this year.

While I'm pleased to point out that this legislation is retroactive to that date, nevertheless, millions of Americans who desperately needed our support were left hanging by an egregious obstructionism that prevented this legislation from moving forward.

This Congress, and I include both the House and the Senate, has a responsibility to act in the best interest of the American people and to ensure that, in this time of extreme economic hardship, Americans can rely on essential government services to help them through the hard times. Unemployment insurance is one of those services, part of a range of urgently needed activities that are necessary to rebuild our economy and recover from the recession. There is no excuse for delay.

That only two Republican Senators saw fit to vote to ensure that 2.5 million Americans could claim lapsed benefits demonstrates a complete lack of concern for struggling Americans. The fact is that for every open job there are five applicants, leaving the vast majority out of work. Unemployment insurance is not a luxury; it is a necessity. Why Members of this Congress are able to vote in favor of massive tax cuts for the wealthy one day and against unemployment insurance for hardworking Americans the next day is beyond me.

And so, Mr. Speaker, I kind of like would rather that we not have to do a same-day rule. What we should be doing is a 6-weeks-ago rule so we can go back in time and relieve some of the great anxiety and financial hardship endured by millions of Americans while they waited for this Congress to act.

Over the past few days and weeks, much of the debate about the emergency measure has revolved around its cost. While I don't dismiss these concerns, bringing our economy back from the brink of disaster doesn't come cheap, and we have a responsibility to

support Americans during this most painful and difficult time.

In fact, I would argue that Democrats and Republicans have a significant difference of opinion when it comes to what it means to be fiscally responsible. Seemingly, my Republican colleagues think that being fiscally responsible means that when our economy is prospering, and it has prospered in the past and will again, when it's prospering, you will have free rein to cut taxes for the wealthiest and the well to do among us and spend with abandon, as they did when we were prospering. But when their irresponsible fiscal policies come back to bite them, well, then it's too expensive to invest in our economy, to provide for those who can't provide for themselves, or to spend what is necessary to jump-start the economy.

Republicans say they aren't opposed to spending these funds on unemployment insurance; they just want to cut the same amount from other programs. Well, I'll tell you what they can cut. How about not doing any further tax cuts for wealthy people? How about cutting missiles to nowhere? How about cutting some of this Pentagon money and war in this world? How about cutting huge tax subsidies for offshore oil drilling? How about cutting out people taking their money and running to tax havens away from America and not fulfilling their responsibilities?

Mr. Speaker, I don't see Republicans offering to cut those things. Instead, I see them blocking essential legislation with vague platitudes about the need for cuts. They see nothing wrong with leaving the people who are most suffering the effects of their misguided economic views out in the cold. The Republicans' track record has proved them to be nothing but fair-weather deficit hawks.

Democrats, on the other hand, see things a bit differently. We, too, believe that balancing the budget is vital for our long-term prosperity. And I've been here and others, as well as the sitting Speaker, have been here when we did just that, balance the budget. But it can't be done on the backs of struggling Americans. In order to grow this economy, we need to invest in the American people. The Federal Government has a responsibility to help our communities meet their needs and ensure that anyone who wants to find work for a decent wage can do so.

Our economy is already showing considerable signs of recovery, but a jobless recovery is unacceptable. Make no mistake, job creation is the number one priority for Democrats. That is why we're working hard to find ways to create jobs and grow our economy again. But, in the meantime, we cannot simply let millions of Americans fall into financial ruin, lose their homes, be unable to pay their rent, and jeopardize their futures and the futures of their families and children.

Unemployment insurance can make the difference between whether families can afford to put food on the table or pay rent while they devote themselves to finding new employment or to get by, just get by, until the economy improves and jobs are more forthcoming.

I urge my colleagues to support this rule, Mr. Speaker, so that this much-needed, much-overdue legislation can be considered in a timely manner. The American people are waiting. And waiting 1 more minute, not 30 minutes on the U.S. Senate, or 30 hours as they are taking now, waiting 1 more minute is 1 minute too long.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, just to answer my distinguished colleague from North Carolina very briefly, when she began her remarks by indicating that we haven't given them an opportunity to vote on tax cuts, my last look at the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act gave 95 percent of Americans a tax cut. I would be interested to know how many Republicans supported that measure.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts, my good friend and colleague on the Rules Committee, Mr. McGovern.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to a good friend of mine at this time, the distinguished gentleman from Memphis, Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).

Mr. Speaker, I'm very pleased at this time to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), who is a good friend of mine.

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

Will the gentleman yield?

I will yield additional time.

I just want to share with you as a segue of what you're saying, these are remarks from Senator Kyl on the other side:

On extending President Bush's tax cut, despite the cost, his quote, ``You should never have to offset cost of a deliberate decision to reduce tax rates on Americans.''

These are the people that are holding up unemployment.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased at this time to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from not very far from here, Maryland, Donna Edwards.

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

In response to my good friend from California, firstly, I would argue with you that California is not necessarily the greatest State in the Union. We happen to have 50 great States and six wonderful territories in this great country of ours. But coming from Florida, I find that rivalry worthwhile. We will match him any day.

This Congress, when he speaks in terms of the measure that we are proceeding on, from the standpoint of process, this Congress alone provided suspension authority on a day other than Monday, Tuesday, or Wednesday, has allowed for passage of the Iran sanctions conference report, a paid-for doc fix, the Small Business Microlending Expansion Act, the Medicare Premium Fairness Act, and a resolution recognizing Israel's right to defend itself against attacks from Gaza, sponsored by the Speaker along with Representatives Boehner and Cantor.

This same-day authority has allowed for passage of several bills that have already become law, including a bill authorizing the Oil Liability Trust Fund for the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, legislation expanding the Small Business Loan Guarantee program, legislation for the Temporary Extensions Act and the Worker, Homeownership, and Business Assistance Act. All of these bills passed with overwhelming support from the House.

This same process has not only benefited majority Members, it benefited Republican Members as well. Representatives Luetkemeyer, Gingrey, Tiberi, Calvert, Reichert, Platts, Fallin, Schock, Fortenberry, Carter, and Lee have all benefited from this provision by having their legislation adopted under suspension of the rules in spite of what day of the week it was. So much for that. Back to the point dealing with unemployment.

People think that this stuff is done in a vacuum sometimes. Well, Senate Republicans have repeatedly obstructed job creation legislation that extended critical unemployment insurance benefits to help Americans who lost their job through no fault of their own make ends meet as they look for their next job opportunity.

The Republican obstruction is unprecedented. Since 1959, Congress has never allowed unemployment benefits to expire when unemployment is more than 7.2 percent. There are a considerable number of economists--Alan Blinder, Ralph Martire and, then more important, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities--who say that for every $1 spent on unemployment it creates $1.90. So, really, the best stimulus for this economy suggests, as the economists do, that it is stimulated much more by spending on unemployment than we would tax cuts.

I want to say one final thing on tax cuts. I have two personal friends that are fortunate enough in this country to be billionaires. They earned their money the hard way; they earned their money during good and bad times, and

none of us hold any truck with either of those billionaires. I know two other billionaires personally, and not one of them before has ever said that they favored tax cuts--just to talk about some of the American people--they manage regardless.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Oregon, a good friend of mine, Mr. DeFazio.

Mr. Speaker, he fought his way all the way over here, and even though I have but 2 minutes, I would like to share 1 of my minutes with Mr. Langevin.

I would inquire of my good friend from North Carolina if she would be so kind as to yield 30 seconds to Mr. Langevin as well.

Mr. Speaker, we stand ready to provide those struggling to find work this small reprieve; and Democrats in Congress are also committed to putting forth the necessary effort to create jobs, spur economic growth, and put our country once again on the road to prosperity.

But, in the meantime, we have a responsibility to ensure that those most profoundly affected by these difficult times are able to stay afloat--to feed their families, to keep their homes, and to continue to search for new jobs. We must not play political football with unemployment insurance. It is simply too fundamental to the livelihoods of millions of Americans. Our economy is starting to turn around, and the American people cannot afford to wait another second, let alone 30 hours for the United States Senate to act.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question on the same-day rule.

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

The previous question was ordered.

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

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I would just say to my friend from Michigan that not even Democrat Senator Ben Nelson supported the bill last night. I know my friend is trying to paint this as a totally Republican issue, but there were Democrat Senators who didn't support the bill, and I mentioned one of them.

Let me just say that I realize this is about Republicans and Democrats who care about the future of this country. Yet it is said that Albert Einstein once defined insanity as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. Well, that's exactly what the Democrats are doing today--trying to pass, for the third time, an unpaid-for extension of unemployment benefits that the Senate Republicans and Democrats--and the American people--have repeatedly rejected. In fact, just last night, the Senate again said, thanks, but no thanks, to this fiscal insanity. Democrats should put an end to this sham and should pay for this $34 billion spending bill so unemployed Americans can get the help they deserve.

Let me be clear: I support and Republicans have supported extending unemployment benefits, but we must not do so at a cost to the deficit, to the economy, and to future generations. Our inability to get our fiscal house in order isn't just damaging future generations; it is wreaking havoc on job creation today. Surely, if Congress can find money to protect doctors, then we can find money to protect the unemployed.

On Tuesday, the House defeated this same bill, one that would add $34 billion to the deficit under a process that banned any amendments, including any efforts to pay for this bill. Again today, we are on the floor, under a process that bans all amendments. Any attempt for us to offer a way to pay for this legislation is banned under the Democrat autocratic rule of this House.

The only way we can address this issue is to offer a motion to recommit to actually pay for benefits. There is a way to pay for this spending, and it is something we ought to do. Any Member who is serious about reining in the deficit should vote in favor of this MTR. There is an inability or an unwillingness--or both--on the part of the Democrats to pay for this bill. Unemployment benefits have been expired for almost a month, leaving hundreds of thousands of long-term unemployed people without the benefits they need, and that number grows every week.

Let me repeat that fact. Americans are not receiving their unemployment checks because Democrats refuse to pay for these benefits at a time of record Federal deficits.

As I said on Tuesday, the American people know it isn't right to simply add the cost of this spending to our already-overdrawn national credit card. They want us to help those in need, but they also know that someone has to pay when government spends money. That assistance must not put our fiscal house as a nation in even worse shape, and we are already in terrible shape.

The stimulus hasn't worked. In its wake, nearly 3 million private- sector jobs were lost, unemployment soared to 10 percent nationwide, and 48 out of 50 States lost jobs. The American people should not be punished for the failure of the stimulus, and our children and grandchildren should not be punished for the failure of this Congress to act in a fiscally responsible manner.

Even the administration has agreed in the past that paying for unemployment benefits, and I quote, ``is fiscally responsible, and that fiscal responsibility is central to the medium-term recovery of the economy and the creation of jobs.''

That is a quote from the Statement of Administration Policy on a bill last fall extending these same benefits, the only one of eight unemployment extensions so far that was fully paid for.

So let's heed their admonition. Reject this bill, as the Senate already has, and vote to support the unemployed in favor of a fiscally responsible way by supporting the motion to recommit.

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

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 3 minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder).

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

I would say to my friend from New Jersey, we agree this is important.

This is important. This is so important that we believe that we should pay for this. And let me just quote the majority leader, who was on ABC's This Week, said, ``There is spending fatigue across the country.'' His words. And that he's encouraging the administration to look at last year's $787 billion stimulus package to see if some money can be redirected.

I would just say, if this is so important, why not let us offer an amendment to use the unspent stimulus dollars to cut some other wasteful part of government to find some way to pay for this important program.

That's all I say. If we could just get an agreement to offer an amendment to do that and move forward. But no, this bill comes to the floor under the most restrictive rule the House can possibly pass. We cannot offer any amendments. If this is that important, why not let us offer an amendment to find some way to pay for this bill?

At this time I yield 2 minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Louisiana, Dr. Boustany.

At this time I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Heller), a distinguished Member of the Ways and Means Committee.

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

What we've been hearing most of today is really a false choice, that we either do this bill unpaid for or do nothing at all. And in a $3 trillion budget, we can't find the $34 billion to pay for this bill?

As I said before, I have supported the extension of unemployment benefits. I've voted for the extension of unemployment benefits. But given the fiscal shape this country is in now, we believe that it's important to offer these benefits and also pay for these benefits so that we don't help today's unemployed at the expense of tomorrow's future job seekers.

And the effect on the debt, and I could go through the litany. Obviously, it didn't start last year. But if you look at what has happened since January of 2009, a $410 billion supplemental that included 8,500 earmarks, a $1 trillion stimulus, a $1 trillion health care bill. We've got hundreds of billions of dollars in unspent stimulus that isn't being returned to the taxpayers that could be redirected to pay for these unemployment benefits that isn't.

So what I hear is, We just need to spend. And this is an important need, but why not let us offer an amendment to find a way to pay for these extended unemployment benefits?

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

Mr. Speaker, this debate has shown the length the majority will go to in order to avoid paying for any government spending, even calling the eighth extension of unemployment benefits an emergency. One would hope that even the Congress would see this coming after the first seven times.

We could pass this bill with broad bipartisan support if Democrats would just agree to pay for the spending. Instead, their refusal to pay for these benefits will mean hundreds of thousands of unemployed Americans are losing unemployment benefits at a time when the unemployment rate is nearly 10 percent, and it shouldn't be this way, because this bill is going nowhere.

The American people know we must pay for the spending, and the Senate appears to have heard that message. Just last night the Senate rejected this bill, so it has no hope of being signed into law.

Given the Senate vote, this isn't just an exercise in fiscal irresponsibility; it's an exercise in futility.

The unemployed are facing a personal emergency, and our country's facing an emergency that affects us all and future generations. The mountain of debt this bill will only add to.

If we want to help those who are out of work, let's pass something that might actually pass the Senate and won't increase the deficit, such as the motion to recommit that I'll be offering in a moment.

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