Providing for consideration of 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.

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding. I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, despite what the Democrats may say about this bill, my colleagues could be well served to recognize how this bill represents little more than a continuation of the arrogant approach to governing that has pervaded this body since they took control 3 years ago. Let's start by considering the process for which this rule and bill are coming before us today.

This legislation, which spends $5.7 billion to replenish a FEMA disaster relief account and fund a Department

of Labor Summer Jobs program--``jobs'' in quotes--was introduced last Sunday, March 21, and was before the Rules Committee the following day.

In February of 2009, shortly after President Obama assumed office, The Hill newspaper quoted a group of Democrats as saying that, ``Committees must function thoroughly and inclusively, and cooperation must ensue between the parties and the Houses to ensure that our legislative tactics enable rather than impede progress. In general, we must engender an atmosphere that allows partisan games to cease and collaboration to succeed. We are looking forward to working with you to restore this institution.''

So much for good intentions.

Despite their best attempts to divert attention from the simple truth, it is worth remembering the pledge made in 2006 by the then- minority Democrats to ensure regular order for legislation, promising that, ``Bills should be developed following full hearings and open subcommittee and committee markups, with appropriate referrals to other committees. Members should have at least 24 hours to examine a bill prior to consideration at the subcommittee level. Bills should generally come to the floor under a procedure that allows open, full, and fair debate, consisting of a full amendment process that grants the minority the right to offer its alternatives, including a substitute.''

Oh, how quickly we forget.

You know, $5.7 billion used to be a lot of money. But the ruling Democrats, who have apparently no concept of the value of money, have completely thrown that idea right out of the window.

In fairness to my liberal colleagues, working with such large numbers starts to get confusing. After all, who pays attention to all those zeroes? We hardly ever hear the word ``million'' anymore, and it hasn't been that long ago that Everett Dirksen said, ``A million here, a million there, and pretty soon you are talking about real money.''

I saw an article today in one of the newspapers from my district where they talked about the fact that they thought they weren't going to have money for a summer job program. Now, it looks like they are going to have it. And the article said, ``Last year, 129 businesses that used this program benefited from free labor provided by Uncle Sam.''

We have established in the minds of many Americans that Federal dollars are somehow or another manna from heaven. They are not manna from heaven. Somebody has to pay this bill. It's not free. There is no free lunch. Every dime we are spending has to be borrowed. The American people understand that, and they are sick and tired of it.

Many of our colleagues support PAYGO, which, they argue, forces Congress to ``pay for'' certain spending increases with tax increases. This bill is a perfect example of the sham that is PAYGO.

First off, PAYGO applies only to certain kinds of nondiscretionary spending, so they exhaust themselves spending on social welfare programs without so much as a PAYGO speed bump.

When looking for another reason to increase taxes, they simply look for an excuse to increase automatic spending. That way, they tell their tax-conscious constituents that their hands were tied as the rules forced them to support the tax increases. Never take responsibility for your actions.

What happens when the spending proposals are so much that even liberals can't tax their way out of them? A few of their tricks include budgetary gimmicks, like inserting an exception into the rules, or, my favorite, simply declare the spending to be an emergency.

The bill we have before us today designates, as an emergency, $5.1 billion in spending for a FEMA account that could and should be funded through the regular appropriations process. As I raised in the Rules Committee the other day, we recommend to people that they have 3 months of income in an account in case they have an emergency, but this is funding in anticipation. And it means we're borrowing money and we're paying interest on that borrowed money.

The excuses from my colleagues just are endless. Spending increases are so common that they have become all too predictable. Observers of this debate are likely to hear one of the most tired excuses intended to dodge responsibility for their unconscionable spending binge. When all else fails, they always fall back on the reliable excuses, Well, George Bush did it, or, You did it before.

As a teacher, I never let my students get away with childish excuses like this. This is Congress. People elected us to be responsible for the decisions we make. It is true that Republicans spent far too much while in the majority, but the Democrat response is simply to triple down on the mistakes of the past and return to the same old blame game that's led this government into the budgetary malaise that we're facing today. While they say they're simply responding to the mess made by the previous administration, the Democrats would have you believe that this mess was created because George Bush didn't spend enough.

The American people need strong leadership. They need effective leadership. They need leadership that ends the petty, partisan blame game and accepts responsibility for governance. This bill exemplifies how the ruling Democrats fail to offer any of these fundamental leadership traits. That's why this country desperately needs a change in congressional leadership. We need to vote ``no'' on the rule, and ``no'' on the underlying bill.

With that, Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

I appreciate my colleague pointing out the fact that we did have some areas in North Carolina. Indeed, two of the counties that he mentioned were in my district, because of the rain that we had recently. But, you know, declaring a disaster and allocating money to those counties are two different things.

I would bet--and I'm sorry I don't have time to do it while we're here on the floor, but I bet it'll be 18 months before any of those people see a dime of the money because the bureaucracy is so incompetent in terms of responding to people. So the money won't be given out for a long, long time from those disasters, unfortunately, because usually when there is a disaster, people need help right away, but it doesn't get done.

We could have gone through regular order on this. There's no reason not to have gone through regular order. But what you wanted to do was get this jobs money out there, is my guess, so that you could declare jobs being created through more government funding.

Madam Speaker, I was in the Congress when Katrina hit, and here's what happened. We were on August break. Katrina hits on Saturday, Sunday, Monday. The Speaker of the House, Mr. Hastert, had a conference call on Wednesday of that week and he said, I either can call everybody back into session and we will allocate the $10 billion that needs to be allocated for Katrina right now, in an emergency, or we can have unanimous consent, no one will come forward and object. I will bring a few people back in. We'll take care of this need immediately. That's exactly what happened. Everybody knew there was an emergency, and we reacted to it.

I don't understand my colleague saying we are not prepared for a massive disaster. If we aren't, with all the money that we spend on things, then we have a major problem. I think we are prepared for major disasters. We showed that on 9/11. We showed it with Katrina. So this is a straw dog. That's all it is.

Now, given the best efforts of the Democrats to create jobs, starting with the stimulus last year, perhaps this bill would be better titled: The Disaster Relief and Summer Government Jobs Act of 2010. As has been so well articulated in a March 3 Washington Times editorial, ``From immigration to clean energy to expanding the social safety net, there's no better way to grease the skids for new government programs in Washington nowadays then to declare them job-producing bills, then watch supporters line up and potential opposition crumble.''

The piece goes on to cite multiple examples of how Democrats claim their proposals will create jobs, but what they never seem to mention is where these jobs are coming from. Ends up, many of the Democrat policies do create jobs after all--government jobs--and they do so by stealing jobs from the private sector. And don't just take my word for it. Let's look at the evidence.

As you can see, this chart shows the net job gains or losses by major sector from February of 2009 to February 2010. It illustrates how the private sector lost 3.9 million jobs over the past year while government grew by a total 293,000 jobs. Again, the American people are understanding this and they're getting sick and tired of it. They don't want to be paying high taxes to be put in debt until infinity in order to create more government jobs, generally paying twice as much as the private sector jobs do.

The Senate health care overhaul, replete with its backroom deals, mandates of dubious constitutional standing, and a dozen tax increases that break the President's tax pledge, is now law. It remains to be seen how this health care overhaul will be implemented, but one White House advisor said it must be implemented ``effectively, efficiently, and with great accountability.'' If that sounds familiar, it's because last year the White House was saying the same thing about the stimulus bill. It turns out the trillion-dollar boondoggle wasn't nearly as stimulative as advertised. Job creation, not so much. This is the proof.

Our colleagues continually say that we don't represent things accurately. I know we can argue about numbers, but these are not Republican numbers. These are numbers that are true.

Madam Speaker, this bill is not going to do anything to create more jobs. It's going to continue to hurt the economy.

With that, I will reserve the balance of my time.

Would the gentleman yield?

Well, my question is: Who was in charge of the Congress beginning in January of 2007, when the economy started going south?

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague very much for yielding and answering my questions. I didn't say anything about FEMA and its response to Hurricane Katrina. I think if you will look back at my comments, it was that Congress was able to respond immediately when there was a need, which is what we believe should happen.

I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.

I thank my colleague.

What I don't understand, if this is what the Democrats want to do, why don't we have an emergency reserve fund? Again, we advise families to prepare for emergencies. That's what we

should do in the government. We should go through regular order. We should have debate. We should have some idea of where money is going to need to be spent in advance in terms of how we respond at the Federal level.

This is more government knowing the answer to everything and government control from the Federal level. That's exactly what this is. Is it going to create jobs? Well, yes. It's going to create some summer jobs for young people, but it's not going to affect that job picture that my colleague talked about. Neither did the stimulus. The stimulus was passed. We were told by the White House, by the Congress, ``Pass this and unemployment will not exceed 8 percent.'' Unemployment has been right at 10 percent for months and months and months. In fact, again, the only thing that's been stimulated has been the government, and that's not where we need to be going.

The American people don't want more government. They want more jobs. The recent health care overhaul and last year's stimulus bill illustrate the Congress is very good at growing government; not so good at spurring job growth.

The simple truth is that if the Democrats really wanted to stimulate youth employment, there's one sensible, effective policy change that could do so without spending a dime.

As articulated in a March 10 Wall Street Journal editorial:

``The recent act of Congress that has caused the most economic hardship goes to the May 2007 law raising the minimum wage in three stages to $7.25 an hour from $5.15. Rarely has a law hurt more vulnerable people more quickly. A higher minimum wage has the biggest impact on those with the least experience or the fewest skills. That means in particular those looking for entry-level jobs, especially teenagers. And sure enough, as nearly all economic models predict, the higher minimum has wreaked havoc with teenage job seekers, well beyond what you would expect even in a recession.''

The editorial continues by comparing:

``the three-stage increase in the minimum wage with the jobless rate for teens age 16 to 19 since 2007. The first increase, to $5.85 from $5.15, after a decade of no increases and when the overall joblessness rate was below 5 percent and the teen rate was 14.9 percent. The demand for labor was sufficiently strong in many areas that most employers were probably willing to absorb the higher wage.

``But as the minimum wage increased even as the overall job market began to worsen, the damage to teen job seekers became more severe. By the time the third increase to $7.25 from $6.55 took effect in July 2009, the teen jobless rate was 24.3 percent, and by October, it peaked at 27.6 percent before dropping to 26.4 percent in January.

``The story is even worse for black teens, who often have lower than average education levels or live in areas with fewer job prospects. Their jobless rate climbed from 38.5 percent before the third wage hike to 49.8 percent in November 2009, before falling back to 43.8 percent in January. For black male teens, the rate climbed to 52.2 percent in December from 39.2 percent in July. The difference between the jobless rates for black teens and the entire population widened by six percentage points from June 2007 to January 2010. Even assuming those rates fall as the job market improves this year, they will remain destructively high.

``The third increase was especially ill-timed because it hit while the recession was ending but before employers have felt confident to rehire. To raise the cost of unskilled labor precisely when the jobless rate is heading toward 10 percent is an act of almost willful economic stupidity.'' Madam Speaker, I want to remind the Speaker that I am quoting. ``A Congress that has spent $862 billion to create jobs thus managed with its wage increase to harm tens of thousands of entry-level job seekers. And it did so in the name of `compassion' and a `living wage.' In many cases that wage has since become zero.

``The evidence is clear that increasing the minimum wage is an expensive and misguided way to try to move working families out of poverty. According to the Employment Policies Institute, 85 percent of people who earn the minimum wage aren't the primary bread winner in a family.

``Most readers remember the work habits they learned from their first job. Showing up on time, being courteous to customers, learning how to use technology--such habits are often more valuable than the actual paycheck. Studies have confirmed that when teens work during summer months or after school, they have higher lifetime earnings than those who don't work. So raising the minimum wage may inadvertently reduce lifetime earnings.

``Most Democrats won't bend on the minimum wage because it is a core union demand, but free thinkers ought to at least consider the teenage job problem. The long-term danger is that we are building in a higher level of structural unemployment as our least skilled workers find it harder to climb onto the first rung of the job market.''

This will not solve problems. It creates more.

With that, Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

I now yield such time as he may consume to our colleague from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close.

We keep talking about the economic situation in this country because it is extraordinarily important to all of us, and all of these bills that are being passed are exacerbating the problem. As my colleague from Arizona said and we have said over and over, you cannot repeal the laws of economics. Our colleagues across the aisle think they can.

Right now, just the interest on U.S. debt in FY 2010 is going to be $425 billion. That's like paying interest on a credit card and never ever paying off the principal. The enormous burden of the interest cost on our debt takes money out of the economy for future generations and diverts funds from being used for other more pressing priorities. In addition, the U.S. dependence on borrowing money to fund our budget deficit places our Nation in the precarious situation of being beholden to foreign nations like China to finance our Federal spending. High national debt also diminishes confidence in an economy.

As even President Obama said in November 2009: I think it is important to recognize if we keep on adding to the debt, even in the midst of this recovery, that some people can lose confidence in the U.S. economy in a way that can actually lead to a double-dip recession.

The President and our colleagues on the other side of the aisle talk a good game, and then they do the opposite. Despite their rhetoric of fiscal responsibility, the President's budget more than doubles the debt, drives spending to a new record of $3.8 trillion in fiscal year 2011, pushing the deficit to a new record of $1.6 trillion in FY 2010, and raises taxes by over $2 trillion through 2020 by the administration's own estimates.

The President's FY 2011 budget doubles the debt in 5 years and triples it by 2019 from FY 2008 levels. It pushes the debt to $9.3 trillion this year, or 63.6 percent of gross domestic product, the largest debt in history and the largest debt as a share of our economy in 59 years. Despite the Senate's passage of a $1.9 trillion increase in the debt limit, Congress would need to increase this limit again before October 1, 2011, under the President's budget. The interest bill on the debt would more than quadruple by the end of the decade, reaching $840 billion in 2020.

The budget boosts the deficit to a record level this year, $1.6 trillion, or 10.6 percent, of GDP. This is the largest deficit as a share of the economy since World War II. Deficits never fall below $700 billion, never below 3.6 percent of GDP, and end the decade at more than $1 trillion.

Even with a decline in spending due to the repayment of most TARP funds and the eventual spend-out of stimulus funds, spending reaches a record level of $3.8 trillion in FY 2011. The budget does not include the spending impact of the administration's cap-and-trade proposal. Even so, spending is still 23.7 percent of the economy at the end of the decade when the historical average has always been 20 percent.

Madam Speaker, we are in a critical time in our country. Economists have told me that unless we stop spending in a very short period of time, we are going to become like a Third World nation. What has set us apart for so long from the rest of the world has been the rule of law and the fact that we have been fiscally conservative. The American people are fiscally conservative; they expect their government to be so. We are putting this country in danger and Republicans are sounding the call. We want to help the American people, but we know the best way we can do that is for the Federal Government to get out of the way and let the entrepreneurial spirit and the freedom that has always characterized this country allow people to do what is the right thing to do for our economy. This direction is wrong. We are going to continue to say that it is wrong, and we know the American people understand that.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule, to vote ``no'' on the underlying bill. We don't need to create more government jobs. We need to let people have control of their lives and of their money. They will bring the economy back.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1204 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for purposes 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. I yield myself such time as I may consume.

General Leave

I also ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 1204.

Madam Speaker, House Resolution 1204 provides for consideration of the Disaster Relief and Summer Jobs Act of 2010 under a closed rule. The rule provides for 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Appropriations Committee. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The rule provides that the bill shall be considered as read. And, finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit the bill, with or without instructions.

Madam Speaker, we are quickly approaching the beginning of disaster season in the United States. While many natural disasters occur without warning, we can say with certainty that tornadoes, hurricanes, wildfires, and flooding will damage communities across our Nation in the coming 6 months.

Just this week, the residents of North Dakota and Minnesota are breathing a sigh of relief as the Red River flood crested. In my own State of Colorado, throughout our history we have suffered our fair share of destruction by wildfire, tornados, hailstorms, and flooding. In the gentlewoman Ms. Foxx's district, for instance, a major disaster was declared just this year due to severe winter storms and flooding.

We don't know where and we don't know when natural disasters will occur, but our Federal response and relief officials must prepare nonetheless. And when those disasters do happen, Members of Congress will tour the devastation in their district and tell their constituents hurt by the disaster, ``I will do everything I can to help you recover from this event.''

Today's bill is the most important thing they can do to help in the recovery and relief efforts. There will be emergency response professionals who worked overtime and need to be reimbursed. There are Federal search and rescue teams which will have to be mobilized. FEMA will have to rebuild public infrastructure and remove debris. FEMA will have to provide temporary shelter to families displaced by the disaster. And, under the Stafford Act, these are all responsibilities of FEMA. There is just no getting around it.

Already this year there have been 18 disasters and three emergency funds in seven States, and the disaster relief fund is about to be exhausted. Given the domestic and international efforts FEMA has undertaken this year, the disaster relief fund will be exhausted within the next month. So this bill replenishes the disaster relief fund with $5 billion.

This funding can only be used for disaster relief; it cannot be shifted into other accounts. And if it is not spent this year, it will be retained for the fund next year.

Because relief also requires the Federal Government to assist affected small businesses to resume operations, the bill also provides for $60 million to be funded to the Small Business Administration. And, finally, the bill invests $600 million into job training and employment services.

This is a vital investment to build upon the progress we have made in the past year to put America back to work.

Because this investment is not an emergency, it is paid for with unobligated Recovery Act dollars. But make no mistake, this bill is about robust emergency response capabilities. Natural disasters don't care about congressional district boundaries. They can happen anywhere in our country.

I hope Members see the importance of this bill and make the right vote to ensure FEMA and our Federal disaster relief and recovery officials have the resources they need to help your States save lives and rebuild.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I have listened to the gentlelady, and I guess I'm very surprised by her argument that with FEMA's funding running out within the next 2 weeks, that the Republican side of the aisle would argue against any funding for future disasters that we know are going to come. For instance, in Representative Foxx's district just this past month, a disaster was declared because of flooding and severe winter weather. These are the counties that were declared a disaster: Alleghany, Ashe, Avery, Buncombe, Burke, Caldwell, Haywood, and on and on and on. I looked through the list.

We have had 16 or 17 disasters declared already this year across the country. Luckily, none of them were in Colorado. I looked at last year. We had dozens and dozens all across the country, including others in North Carolina. None were in Colorado. But I can tell you, Coloradans understand that this is a national issue. This is something that we take care of as citizens, as Americans across the country, because we're in this together. It isn't just, Let's wait until the whole thing runs out and then scurry around and try to figure out what to do. We are dealing with disasters.

When I'm listening to my friend from North Carolina, it's like she wants to have Katrina happen all over again, where we're not prepared, the country is not prepared to deal with a massive emergency. That's what this is all about. It is about funding FEMA so that it can respond to the emergencies that we know are going to arise. And so all of this conversation about procedural tricks and ``You aren't getting this done,'' this is about funding the emergency management of this country. I'm surprised, especially when North Carolina just enjoyed the ability to take advantage of this--well, nobody would enjoy having to draw on the disaster relief. I take that back. That was an improper statement. What they did is they had the disaster relief fund available to them to deal with the troubles they suffered during this past winter.

So I can't see any merit to the argument that's being made that the issue is not before us properly. It's a five-page bill. The other side of the aisle, the Republicans, have been complaining about big bills, too hard to read, take too long. This is five pages that says we're going to fund our emergency management administration so that we can deal with the disasters that we know are going to come.

With that, I would reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

A couple of things. I'm very surprised that my friend from North Carolina would hold up the response to Katrina as the model for how we respond to emergencies. There couldn't be anything farther from the truth in that respect. It was a terrible mess, a terrible response. I don't think anybody in this country would say otherwise. The country was not prepared under the Bush administration. This Congress was not prepared. This is about preparing for emergencies. Right now, even though the flood has crested in North Dakota and Minnesota, it still is a state of emergency. Those States near the river are under water. So there is an emergency occurring even as we speak.

Now, my good friend from North Carolina has her posters. Of course, we have ours. Now let's take a look at what really is going on in the economy.

Under the Bush administration, we had tremendous job loss beginning in 2007, but certainly in the fall of 2008.

Let me explain my poster and then you and I can debate our posters.

This is private payroll. Drops like a rock until January 2009, which is the greatest loss of jobs. During that month, some 780,000 jobs-- 780,000 jobs lost in January 2009. Twenty thousand jobs lost one year into the Obama administration in January 2010. It's too many. It's not right, but it's a heck of a lot better than 780,000 jobs lost in the last month of the Bush administration.

So my friend complains about the status of jobs, but this country was in free fall when it came to the economy, the financial system, and jobs. That has turned around. We have so much farther to go, and that's part of what this bill does. It provides for summer jobs and training for many of those people who have been out of work. We have got to get those people back to work. But we turned around. You see this sea of red, jobs being lost again and again, month after month. Still, it has improved dramatically in the last year.

So, I would entertain my friend's question.

The Democrats. Well, you say when the economy started going south. The economy started going south, I would say to my friend, in September of 2008, when, because of very lax regulations on Wall Street, the bottom fell out of the financial system and jobs were lost at an ever-increasing number. And so the Bush administration, by its lax regulation, cost thousands and millions of jobs across this country, and that's what we're trying to stop.

We've been able to slow it down, Madam Speaker. Now it's time to start adding jobs. And part of this bill provides for job training. It provides for summer jobs, as well as dealing with the disaster relief that has to be managed for the rest of this season of tornados and fires and floods. And we're in a flood right now in North Dakota and Minnesota. We have to address that and we have to fill that emergency fund so we can address these things promptly and without any delay, as I believe occurred with Katrina down in Louisiana.

With that, I would reserve the balance of my time.

Will the gentlewoman yield?

Well, responding after the hurricane hits isn't fast enough. This is about knowing these things are coming and dealing with them in advance.

With that, I yield back to my friend.

Madam Speaker, first I would ask how much time remains on both sides.

Having no further speakers, I will reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself so much time as I might consume.

I'm so glad that my friend Arizona was roused from his office because of our conversation about FEMA to come down and talk about health insurance. So I appreciate his statement that higher insurance premiums are going to be the reality. That's the reality today. That was the reality yesterday. That was the reality the day before that. That was the reality in California when they wanted to take the rates up 40 percent, I would say to my friend. That was the reality last year. That was the reality the year before. If we keep doing the same thing, we're going to get the same answers. You have to change things at some point, is what I would say to my friend from Arizona.

I would also say to my friend from Arizona, to argue against eliminating discrimination against preexisting conditions, which is what I thought I heard you say, touches pretty much everybody's life in America. Somebody, either a close friend, a family member, a neighbor of everybody in this Chamber today, whether on the floor or in the gallery, has somebody who they know closely has a preexisting condition, and that is something that has to be addressed.

Not yet.

So I would say to my friend that I appreciate him coming up here to talk to us about health insurance premiums which are constantly on the rise. We've got to deal with folks who suffer from preexisting conditions and can't find assistance otherwise when it comes to their health insurance. Personally--and I have said many times that I think it's a violation of the 14th Amendment, the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment by not allowing people to have equal access to insurance. And part of what was addressed by the historic bill that was signed yesterday by the President is that those people can get insurance. Those folks who have preexisting conditions can get insurance. We can have portability, the ability to go from one job to another, not be locked into a job for fear of losing our insurance.

I appreciated the comments. You'll get another chance. I'm sure the gentlewoman has a lot of time, so she'll yield to you.

The other thing I wanted to say to my good friend because he brought up the economics, in the last 18 months of the Bush administration, this country lost about $17 trillion in wealth: in homes; in 401(k)s and pension plans; and in jobs. Since last year, the country, each one of us, in our little way, each one of us has gained about $5 trillion back. Our 401(k)s have improved; our pensions have improved; there has been a stabilizing of home prices; and jobs, as we talked about earlier, are starting to come back after being lost at an unbelievable rate under the Bush administration. So the stock market is up by 4,000 points in the last year. It lost 7,500 points in the last 18 months of the Bush administration.

We are not anywhere near where we need to be, but I say to my friend who is complaining about the laws of economics, that those laws seem to be working in a positive sense now.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) who will actually speak about the bill that is before us which is about FEMA funding and job training.

I yield the gentleman another 30 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I just would remind my friend from North Carolina and the other Members of her party that when you cut taxes for the wealthiest of Americans, as was done under the Bush administration and the Republican Congress, prosecute two wars without paying for them, and have absolutely no regulation of Wall Street, you get a financial disaster. We are talking about natural disasters, but they created a financial disaster that we saw caused the loss of millions of jobs beginning in 2008.

We need to reverse that, and that is precisely what is happening. The job loss has gone from 780,000 jobs lost in January 2009, the last month that George Bush was in office, to 20,000 jobs lost in January 2010. Not good enough, but a lot better. The stock market lost 7,500 points; and in the last year, it has gained 4,000 points back. Not where we want to be, but a heck of a lot better.

There was $17 trillion lost by each American in their home, in their pension, in their 401(k)s and in their jobs in the last 18 months of the George Bush administration. We have gained $5 trillion back. Not good enough, but a heck of a lot better.

Finally, the fourth quarter of 2008, the last quarter of the Bush administration, the steepest drop in the gross domestic product, what this country produces, really since the Depression, 6 percent drop, gained 5.7 percent in the fourth quarter of 2009. It hasn't gotten us back to even, but it is a lot better. That is what is going on. And what we want to do on our side of the aisle is get those Americans back to work who lost their jobs. That is what this bill is about, the $600 million for job training, for summer jobs. It is to get people back to work.

When we get people back to work, when this country has employment that is better than today, then we can really take a good look at the debt, as they suggest, because that is true, we need to look at the debt that exists in this country; but we have to get people back to work.

Now, let's talk about what is the guts of the bill that is before us, and that is to fund disaster relief. The disaster relief fund for FEMA is just about out of money, and we need to fund that so we can deal with the disasters that are existing today in North Dakota, in Minnesota, New Jersey, North Carolina, but also the ones that we know are coming over the course of the next 6 or 8 months.

So the bill provides for FEMA funding. It provides for job training and summer jobs. And, Madam Speaker, this bill that is before us is about saving lives. It is about dealing with disasters. We need to be prepared and that is the whole purpose. We can't have any more Katrinas. We need to do our best to try to deal with those disasters that we know are coming.

I 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.

The previous question was ordered.

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.