Providing for consideration of the Senate amendment to the House amendment to the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 4213) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend certain expiring provisions, and for other purposes.

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

I thank my colleague, the gentleman from Florida, for yielding time.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in opposition to this closed rule providing for consideration of H.R. 4213, a bill extending unemployment insurance. Republicans know that we must reduce the deficit, and if the underlying bill had been paid for, Republicans would have gladly supported it, but it is not.

Undoubtedly, the American people are suffering from the actions of this Democrat-controlled Congress. We go home every weekend and our constituents tell us that their concerns are both jobs and the debt. In fact, they tell us every weekend they are frightened to death for the future of this country. I've never had constituents tell me that before this year.

The simple truth is that while the liberals have repeatedly claimed their $1 trillion 2009 stimulus plan was the right thing to do, it's hard to tell that from looking at the job situation across the U.S. The American people are facing high unemployment rates and economic uncertainty. In fact, we have a quote from our distinguished Chair of the Federal Reserve, ``Economic future unusually uncertain'' is the headline in The Washington Times today. But we need to go back to the drawing board and come back to the American people with real, commonsense solutions to their real problems that we must be willing to pay for.

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

Mr. Speaker, I now would like to yield 6 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Heller).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the distinguished ranking member of the Rules Committee.

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

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

I have to remind my colleagues across the aisle again that the Democrats have been in control of Congress since January 2007, and we have had a Democrat in the White House for almost 2 years. So the Democrats have been in control and Republicans are in the minority, and the Democrats can do what they want to because of their numbers in Congress.

While the Obama administration continues its so-called summer of recovery, Mr. Speaker, claiming the Democrats' stimulus bill saved or created 3 million jobs, the facts are 47 out of 50 States have lost jobs since the stimulus passed. Republicans on the Ways and Means Committee released a report on Tuesday that showed this data, and I would like to insert this report into the Record.

Mr. Speaker, this report compares the number of jobs created in each State that the administration currently claims in a White House report issued July 14 with the actual change in jobs since the stimulus became law as documented by the administration's own Department of Labor. It shows that only Alaska, Kentucky, and North Dakota, along with the District of Columbia, have shown any real job growth since the stimulus passed. And even in those States, the official job creation has fallen far short of administration claims.

The administration claims that every State and the District of Columbia have seen a positive job growth. This is simply not true when you look at the actual numbers from the Department of Labor.

And let me say that in Alaska, only 2,200 jobs have been created since the stimulus passed. In Kentucky, 2,400 jobs; and in North Dakota, only 5,100 jobs. And most of us know that in North Dakota it's because of the discovery of energy. And that compares with what the administration has said they created 8,000 in North Dakota, they claim 41,000 in Kentucky, they claim 7,000 in Alaska. So the numbers are quite different.

But let me point out that in the District of Columbia where there are government jobs that have been created and lobbyist jobs that have been created as a result of this administration's policies, there are 7,800 jobs. So the bulk of the jobs that have been created are government jobs.

Republicans don't think this is right, neither do the American people think this is right. We need real jobs in the private sector.

47 Out of 50 States Have Lost Jobs Since Democrats' Stimulus Law--

Tuesday, July 20, 2010

While the Obama Administration continues their so-called

``Recovery Summer'' tour claiming the Democrats' stimulus

bill ``saved or created'' three millions jobs, the facts show

47 out of 50 States have lost jobs since stimulus passed. The

table below compares the number of jobs the Administration

currently claims its stimulus has somehow created in each

State (center column) with the actual change in jobs since

stimulus became law (right hand column), as documented by the

Department of Labor. It shows that only Alaska, Kentucky and

North Dakota, along with the District of Columbia, have shown

any real job growth since stimulus passed and even in those

States the official job creation has fallen far short of

Administration claims.

``Americans are asking where are the jobs, but all

Washington Democrats are showing them is more unemployment,

debt and higher deficits,'' said Ways and Means Ranking

Member Dave Camp (R-MI).

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Administration

claims of change Actual change in

State in jobs through jobs through June

June 2010 2010 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Alabama........................... +42,000 -45,500 Alaska............................ +7,000 +2,200 Arizona........................... +64,000 -80,300 Arkansas.......................... +26,000 -12,600 California........................ +357,000 -520,200 Colorado.......................... +50,000 -84,600 Connecticut....................... +38,000 -34,000 Delaware.......................... +9,000 -5,500

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry).

Mr. Speaker, I need to point out to my colleagues once more that when the Democrats took over the Congress in January of 2007, the deficit was about $200 billion. There was a wonderful situation under Mr. Clinton, they like to point out, but that was because Republicans were in control of Congress and were controlling spending.

When the Democrats took control of Congress, that's when things started going downhill for this country. It's when unemployment started going up and bad things happened.

Let me say, Republicans have repeatedly called for cutting unspent stimulus spending to offset spending, but we're not alone.

The majority leader, Mr. Hoyer, said on June 13 there's spending fatigue across the country and that, if we have dollars not yet expended in the Recovery Act, they should be redirected to pay for new spending like this.

The chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, Mr. Obey, hailed amendments to the supplemental appropriations bill made on July 1 that were paid for by repeatedly cutting unspent projects in the stimulus bill.

In the other body, the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Mr. Baucus, has suggested the same, pay for new spending by cutting stimulus.

Mr. Speaker, I enter the sources for my comments in my remarks for the Record.

Republicans have repeatedly called for cutting unspent stimulus spending to offset this spending. We are not alone. The Majority Leader, Mr. Hoyer, said on June 13 there is ``spending fatigue'' across the country and that ``if we have dollars not yet expended in the recovery act'' that they should be redirected to pay for new spending like this. The Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, Mr. Obey, hailed amendments to the supplemental appropriations bill made on July 1 that were paid for by repeatedly cutting unspent projects in the stimulus law. In the other body, the Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Mr. Baucus, has suggested the same--pay for new spending by cutting stimulus.

[From the Hill's On The Money, June 13, 2010]

Hoyer: White House Should Look to Redirect Stimulus Money

(By Silla Brush)

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) wants the White

House to look at unspent money from the 2009 stimulus package

instead of asking Congress for a new fiscal package.

President Barack Obama on Saturday night wrote to

congressional leaders urging them to pass legislation

extending tax cuts and add new spending to prevent ``hundreds

of thousands'' of teacher layoffs, among other cuts. Obama

said that without such measures the economy could ``slide

backwards.''

Hoyer said on ABC's ``This Week'' on Sunday that there is

``spending fatigue'' across the country and that he is

encouraging the administration to look at last year's $787

billion stimulus package to see if some money can be

redirected.

``I have asked the White House to look at the package we

already passed,'' Hoyer said. ``I personally believe if we

have dollars not yet expended in the recovery act we could

apply to this immediate need.''

Centrist Democrats in recent weeks have been more vocal

about their concerns that new spending would lead to higher

deficits and debt.

House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) said: ``To

move without finding other offsets is irresponsible.''

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

You know, I've often said that being here in Washington is like being Alice in Wonderland. I didn't know that there are a lot of other people who feel the same way.

I did want to ask my colleague from Massachusetts who made the contention that if we get $1.90 back for every dollar we spend, we don't understand why the Democrats are stopping at spending $34 billion for these unemployment benefits. But I do want to come back to the issue of being Alice in Wonderland.

And recently, there have been several articles that have been published that have talked about this being Alice in Wonderland and the tea party, and I would like to quote from one of those articles from The Washington Times this Monday.

``A recent CBS Poll reports that 74 percent of the population thinks the nearly $1 trillion stimulus package either hurt or had no impact on the economy. Simply put, that means three-fourths of the American people think the stimulus package was a $1 trillion waste of money. The same poll reports that 2.5 times as many people think the health care reform bill signed into law by Democrats will hurt them (33 percent) rather than help them (13 percent).''

It goes on to say, ``Many Americans are seized with fear as what might normally be a benign, lame-duck session of Congress looms in November.''

Another quote: ``In Lewis Carroll's story, Alice finds herself in a bizarre, nightmarish world where the basic laws of logic no longer apply and familiar beings take on strange, unreasoning personas. More and more, many Americans view our progressive leaders on Capitol Hill and at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue as the insane hosts of an ongoing Washington-style mad tea party.''

I think that's what many Americans feel. I agree with them. That is what we are hearing when we go home to our districts and talk to the people there. They're seeing Washington as Wonderland and that there is a mad tea party going on.

I would like to also point out that there's another article which came out in Bloomberg Opinion which talks about the discrepancy in the job numbers that have come out.

Mr. Speaker, we know Americans are hurting. We know there's a lot of unemployment and we're sympathetic, but this is not the right way to go.

[From the Washington Times, July 19, 2010]

A Tale of Two Tea Parties

(By Doug Mainwaring)

Two Tea Parties grip the nation in two very different ways.

The first is the Tea Party movement, which traces its origins

to a watershed historic event as its members attempt to bring

sanity and sustainability back to government. The second

finds its origins in literature--Lewis Carroll's ``The

Adventures of Alice in Wonderland''--and is descriptive of

the surreal governance of the progressives in the White House

and Congress as they continue their push toward governmental

insanity and unsustainability. Like matter and antimatter,

positive and negative charges, they are set in polar

opposition to each other.

In Lewis Carroll's story, Alice finds herself in a bizarre,

nightmarish world where the basic laws of logic no longer

apply and familiar beings take on strange, unreasoning

personas. More and more, many Americans

view our progressive leaders on Capitol Hill and at 1600

Pennsylvania Ave. as the insane hosts of an ongoing

Washington-style mad tea party. Those leaders act not just

counterintuitively, they act outside the bounds of logic,

reason and historic precedent that normally tether this

country to safety. They behave as political elites who think

they know better than the American public what's best. They

are ludicrously out of touch.

The madness of this Washington tea party is displayed in

myriad ways, but most profoundly in the nearly limitless

demonstrations of stunning disconnect between the political

elites and the American people. Congressional approval hovers

around 20 percent, while disapproval is around 70 percent.

The president's approval rating has been in decline for a

long time, now at about 45 percent and sinking. Despite the

fact that a majority in this country disapprove of the work

being done by the political class, the political elites

continue to pass gigantic, overreaching, outrageously

expensive legislation.

A Rasmussen survey released on Friday finds that 59 percent

of likely voters are embarrassed by the nation's political

class and its behavior while just 23 percent are not. A

stunning 64 percent see the political class as a bigger

threat to our nation than legislation such as Arizona's new

immigration law. Just 20 percent say the opposite. In

general, the nation sees the political class as both an

embarrassment and, in some ways, a threat by about a 3-1

margin.

From the point of view of the ruling political class, it

has racked up tremendous achievements: the stimulus package,

health care reform, education reform, Wall Street reform and

so on. While the elites lift their champagne glasses to toast

themselves, outside the Beltway, no one is popping corks.

Most of the country looks on with jaws dropped, wondering:

What are you folks on Capitol Hill thinking? Twenty-four-

hundred pages of unintelligible health care reform and

another 2,300 pages of unintelligible financial reform signed

into law. Stacked together, they create a legislative Tower

of Babel. How dare you pass this massive legislation while

you lack the confidence of the American people by a 7-2

margin?

Undaunted, their mad tea party continues.

A recent CBS Poll reports that 74 percent of the population

thinks the nearly $1 trillion stimulus package either hurt or

had no impact on the economy. Simply put, that means three-

fourths of the American people think the stimulus package was

a $1 trillion waste of money. The same poll reports that 2.5

times as many people think the health care reform bill signed

into law by Democrats will hurt them (33 percent) rather than

help them (13 percent).

Many Americans are seized with fear as what might normally

be a benign, lame-duck session of Congress looms in November.

Will this be used as a window of opportunity for progressives

to pass more unwanted legislation? ``Cap and trade''? Card

check? This could be their intention.

Our progressive leaders don't get it, and what's more, they

don't care. They don't understand how starkly different, how

irrational and just how unhinged they appear to folks outside

the Beltway. While Lewis Carroll's mad tea party is literary

fantasy, sadly, the progressives' mad tea party in Washington

is very real.

Robert Weissberg offered his view in the American Thinker

on April 29: ``I finally realized that the Obama

administration and its congressional collaborators almost

resemble a foreign occupying force, a coterie of politically

and culturally non-indigenous leaders whose rule contravenes

local values rooted in our national tradition. It is as if

the United States has been occupied by a foreign power, and

this transcends policy objections.''

Dorothy Rabinowitz, writing in the Wall Street Journal a

few weeks later on June 9, shares a similar sentiment: ``A

great part of America now understands that this president's

sense of identification lies elsewhere and is in profound

ways unlike theirs. He is hard put to sound convincingly like

the leader of the nation, because he is, at heart and by

instinct, the voice mainly of his ideological class. He is

the alien in the White House. . . .''

Interestingly, the progressives' mad tea party in

Washington is what has given rise to the august Tea Party

movement. Washington leadership has abandoned the venerable,

common-sense, salt-of-the-earth center and right of our

nation. The movement has emerged to fill the gaping void in

center-right leadership to stem the tide of this Washington

madness. Republican leaders have been either clueless or

unwilling to lead bravely and skillfully. When Republicans

controlled both houses of Congress, they also spent

profligately. With such a huge vacuum of leadership in

Washington, the Tea Party movement has burst forth to lead

the way.

The people at this country's admirable, sustaining center

have been ignored, trampled and tyrannized for too long. They

have been marginalized through political correctness and the

constant motion of the dividing line between progressivism

and conservatism far to the left. We now live in an upside-

down, Alice-in-Wonderland, house-of-mirrors world where the

most basic of mainstream American sensibilities are

considered to be radical right-wing thought. This has led

Americans from sea to shining sea to announce: Enough is

enough.

Tea Partiers seek to end the madness in Washington and

establish fiscal sanity and sound, reasonable,

constitutionally limited government.

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

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1550 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, Dr. Foxx. All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 1550.

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

This resolution provides for consideration of the Senate amendment to the House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 4213, the Unemployment Compensation Extension Act of 2010, finally.

The rule makes in order a motion offered by the chair of the Committee on Ways and Means or his designee that the House concur in the Senate amendment to the House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 4213. The rule provides 1 hour of debate on the motion equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the motion except those arising under clause 10 of rule XXI. Finally, the rule provides that the Senate amendment shall be considered as read.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4213, the Restoration of Emergency Unemployment Compensation Act of 2010, ensures that much-needed Federal assistance continues to reach the millions of Americans struggling to find a job, trying to keep their homes and doing the best they can to provide for their families.

This legislation is long overdue with unemployment benefits having expired on June 1 of this year. Though I am pleased that this legislation is retroactive to that date, millions of Americans who desperately needed our support were left hanging by the egregious obstructionism that prevented this legislation from moving forward.

While the other party is content with giving themselves a pat on the back for every roadblock they throw in front of the Democratic bill, I remind my colleagues that they are playing with the livelihoods of countless, hardworking Americans. What is merely a political win for them is, in reality, another family that can't make rent, can't send their kids to college, or can't pay their medical bills.

As we are well aware, much of the debate surrounding this bill has centered on its cost. Now, we, in the Democratic Party, believe that balancing the budget is vital for our long-term prosperity, but it cannot be done on the backs of struggling Americans.

Over the past few weeks, my Republican colleagues have railed on about Democrats not cutting the deficit or spending beyond our means. But I wonder if my Republicans colleagues have looked in the mirror lately.

I have been here for some time; and I can't, for the life of me, remember any calls for fiscal discipline when their party was cutting taxes for millionaires and billionaires, sending a blank check overseas, or squandering $127 billion Federal budget surplus.

Time and again, my colleagues' actions simply do not match their rhetoric. Further cutting the budget and denying unemployment benefits aren't going to make jobs magically appear.

Such actions will only cause our economy to contract and leave more people out in the cold. Our economy needs a deliberate, targeted approach to job creation and economic growth, and that is what Democrats will provide.

To say, as my colleagues often do, that Democrats are moving in the wrong direction and doing nothing to create jobs is simply a bold-faced lie. Over the last 1\1/2\ years we've gone from a period of negative growth to consistent increases in our GDP. We've gone from 22 months of job loss to 6 straight months of private-sector job creation, albeit not nearly enough. We've gone from shuttered factories to the largest 12-month gain in industrial production since 1998. Make no mistake, job creation is the number one priority for Democrats, but as the job market recovers, there remain far too many who are out of work and losing hope.

While my Republican colleagues question the need to lend a hand to those who are struggling, I question their aversion to provide opportunity to those who have none. Maybe there are no poor people in some of my colleagues' districts, but in the district that I am privileged to represent, people are hurting. From Pahokee to Pembroke Pines, people simply cannot find work. They are pounding the pavement, willing to take anything that comes their way, and in the meantime they need our help.

You see, Mr. Speaker, what Republicans seem to consider reckless spending, the people in the district that I serve consider a vital lifeline. There are 170,000 Floridians that are unemployed at this time. What Republicans

call government waste, the American people call an essential government service. And what Republicans see as a bloated budget, our citizens see as the only thing that is keeping them from financial ruin.

The other party can continue to play political theater, but we have serious work to do. The American people cannot afford to wait a second longer. They need this extension. They deserve this extension. And we will not let Republican obstructionism prevent them from getting this extension.

And, Mr. Speaker, I will make a prediction for you. After all of the talk for all of these months, all of the obstruction to us having unemployment compensation extended that had been routinely extended since 1959 without the kind of obstruction that it met, particularly in the other body, I predict for you that a significant number of our Republican colleagues today are going to vote for unemployment compensation. And in that regard, I'm glad they came to the dance, albeit a little late.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to a former member of the Rules Committee, a good friend of mine, the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I can't believe what I just heard.

I heard what Franklin Roosevelt said. I've read what Franklin Roosevelt said. I was alive during that period of time, and I saw what happened during Franklin Roosevelt's administration. My parents, among many others, got jobs during that period of time, and they came out of the Depression, and this country soared as a result of the policies of the Roosevelt administration. We will be very wise in this country if we could possibly implement the wonderful things that he did.

I yield, Mr. Speaker, 3 minutes to my good friend, the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

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

Will the gentleman yield? I will yield the gentleman 15 seconds of my time if he would answer a question.

What do you think would have happened had the stimulus bill not passed?

What would have happened to those teachers, what would have happened to those police officers who kept their jobs?

Mr. Speaker, it doesn't take a degree in trigonometry to understand that if you spend $34 billion helping unemployed people who should have been helped in the first place much longer ago, and according to the Congressional Budget Office, a very neutral concern that analyzes these matters, for every dollar spent, $1.90 comes back into the economy. That would, by my count, add up to spending $34 billion and having come into the economy $64.6 billion.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), my good friend.

Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to tell me the remaining time for both sides?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased at this time to yield 2 minutes to my good friend, the distinguished gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley).

Mr. Speaker, I would tell my friend where that trillion-dollar deficit came from is the $1 trillion combined in Afghanistan and Iraq that we spent that's off budget, never accounted for, borrowed and spent by the Republicans in the majority.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin, my good friend, the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, David Obey.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to my colleague and fellow Floridian, the distinguished gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).

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

A little while ago, George Bush said this. Several months after taking office, he learned that his budgets had already erased the previous administration's huge surplus that was paying off our country's debt at a rapid rate and had instead forced the country to start borrowing heavily again. Bush said, The huge deficit was incredibly positive news because it will create a fiscal straitjacket for Congress.

That's right, massive deficits were incredibly positive news.

Mr. Speaker, I got a little tired of hearing our colleagues saying what the Democrats haven't done. Let me tell you what we have done.

We have done the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. We have done the Worker, Homeownership, and Business Assistance Act. We have done health insurance reform, Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibilities Act. The Cash for Clunkers Program alone spurred the sale of 700,000 vehicles.

We have done the Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment Act that helped create 300,000 jobs. When they talk in terms of the stimulus, the teachers, the police officers and the firefighters, when you ask them whether or not their jobs were saved, I guarantee you they will give you an answer.

We did Wall Street reform passed by the House, American Worker, State, and Business Relief Act passed by the House and Senate, Small Business and Infrastructure Jobs Tax Act passed by the House. For those on the other side who argue that there haven't been any tax cuts, there have been tax cuts, but those tax cuts were for middle class Americans, 93 percent of whom received the tax cut. We have done the Disaster Relief and Summer Jobs Act passed by the House, and it died over there in the Senate, and that's regrettable and foolish.

We have done Jobs for Main Street Act, passed by the House. What's next? Small business lending, clean energy jobs and the COMPETES Act. I can assure you, we have done a lot and have a lot more to do and many of the things that I just spoke of create jobs.

My colleagues see this legislation as a handout or a luxury, but to the millions who are depending on us to act, the extension of unemployment benefits will make the difference between whether they can put food on the table, pay their rent, and just get by.

Years of bad economic and fiscal policies have brought us to our present situation, and there is no switch we can throw to provide an instant fix. In my home State of Florida, 147,000 individuals will run out of unemployment benefits.

I haven't met these people, but I read about their plight, people like Joan McCammon of Kissimmee, a 50-year-old former administrative assistant who has been out of work for over a year. Though she and her husband tried to be prepared without this assistance, they will have to dip into their retirement savings just to make ends meet.

She is not much different from Pandora Evans of Fort Pierce in my congressional district who has been unemployed for almost 2 years after losing her job at a service station. Her benefits have run out and her bills piled up to the point she may soon be homeless.

And there is Joe Becker of Jupiter, Florida, who has applied for nearly 400 jobs, has put himself through additional training and is still unable to find work.

These are only three of the 3.2 million Americans who stand to lose unemployment compensation if we do not act positively. This is not mere charity for them.

I urge my colleagues to pass this much-needed extension and urge them to support this rule. 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 on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.

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

Mr. Speaker, my State of Louisiana has faced four hurricanes, a recession, and now an oil spill. And every one of us in this body has faced and looked into the eyes of those who lost their homes and lost their jobs. And every one of us in this body feels deep compassion for those who are in those dire straits. And we all want to help. Republicans want to help those looking for work, we want to help those who are struggling with this current economic slowdown, but we also agree with the American people that new spending must be paid for.

This latest unemployment insurance extender bill fails to do what the American people want us to do. Instead, the Democratic approach adds another $34 billion to the already staggering $13 trillion national debt. And that's not because we have a shortage of ineffective, inefficient, wasteful spending that we could cut to offset what's needed to pay for this. We want to do this, but we want to do what the American people want us to do--and that is to pay for it.

Republicans have repeatedly called for the cutting of unspent stimulus spending to offset this new stream of spending. The majority leader himself, Mr. Hoyer, said on June 13, there is ``spending fatigue'' across this country and that ``if we have dollars not yet expended in the recovery act'' that they should be redirected for new spending such as this.

Mr. Speaker, 18 months ago the administration told the American people that their trillion-dollar stimulus plan would create millions of jobs and keep unemployment below 8 percent. Instead, 2 million jobs more have been lost and unemployment surged to nearly 10 percent. Overall, 47 out of 50 States have lost jobs since the Democrats' February 2009 stimulus bill, including my home State of Louisiana.

Instead of supporting this economy and getting Americans back to work, jobs have been lost, our debt continues to spiral out of control, and the only solution we have here, without an ability to amend, without an ability to offer some alternative approach, is to add another $34 billion in new spending without offsetting it. New spending is unnecessary, and Republicans have been calling for this wasted stimulus money to be put to better use by supporting the long-term unemployed. I suggest the best way to create jobs is to stop destroying good-paying jobs that already exist. And let me explain what I mean by that.

This is the single most important issue in my home State of Louisiana. The people of Louisiana are facing job loss. In addition to a failed economic policy, a failed stimulus, President Obama's ill- conceived and unwarranted and--in the words of a Federal judge-- arbitrary and capricious ban on offshore drilling is galvanizing residents across the gulf coast like I've never seen before. And the long term implications of this, Mr. Speaker, are real. Real lives are affected by this.

Because of this policy, tens of thousands of good-paying jobs along the gulf coast are immediately at risk, and it doesn't have to be this way. But unfortunately, the elites in this administration and the President himself refuse to understand this.

Six weeks ago, the Louisiana delegation--the entire delegation, Democrats and Republicans, House and Senate--requested a meeting with the President in writing. And we have not even gotten a response back. Frankly, Mr. Speaker, that's just unacceptable, and it's irresponsible.

Already three gulf rigs have left American waters heading to other parts of the world, and the trend is going to continue at an accelerated rate. And once a rig is gone, it could be years before it returns--if it ever returns at all. Each one of these deepwater rigs employs 1,400 workers. You take 1,400 workers and multiply it by six, and those are the immediate support workers. These are jobs that are being lost.

And smaller companies that cannot afford to move are simply losing their workers. People are losing their jobs, costing thousands of jobs.

I met recently with about 35 companies. These are all small companies affected by this. And there was an African American couple. He got started doing janitorial work. And he worked very hard for years to do this, saved his money and started a small business, an oil service company that he was so proud of. The American dream, by God. He started this company and grew it to 20 workers. And he had accelerating work until this ban on drilling, and now he has no work, and he's seeing his life savings go down the drain. Why? Because of an ill-founded, government-imposed moratorium that makes no sense.

These are rig workers and energy engineers, they're plumbers, they're electricians, they're dock workers. They work in the maritime industry. And yet this is the kind of policy we're getting. This ban hurts everybody. We stand united on the gulf coast to support good-paying jobs.

This stimulus has failed, and it's time to direct these funds into more beneficial areas to help those who are chronically unemployed.

The last time this House acted, Mr. Camp, the ranking member of our Ways and Means Committee, offered a motion to extend these benefits while paying for the spending by using unspent funds from the failed stimulus bill. The House could immediately act on that same type of provision today with the Senate following suit to get these benefits to the long-term unemployed in a way that helps the economy, job creation--instead of hampering job creation even more.

That is what we should be doing and what would most help the unemployed get benefits that they need today and the jobs that they need tomorrow.

The American people want President Obama and this Congress to spur entrepreneurship and American competitiveness and to create good-paying jobs. Instead, the President and this Congress continue on a path of increasing uncertainty leading to high unemployment and runaway spending. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, this is the eighth time this unemployment benefit insurance is extended. I think that, in and of itself, speaks for the failure of the economic policies.

Secondly, a massive tax increase in the face of economic uncertainty is only going to hurt economic growth and job creation, and on our side of the aisle, we'll work to find the offset to avoiding these tax increases on the American people.

And finally, I just want to point out that private sector growth in the year 2010, the rate of private sector growth has actually been slower than what we saw in the Great Depression.

I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder), the ranking member on one of the subcommittees of Ways and Means.

Mr. Speaker, just to briefly respond to the previous speaker, we want to look forward. We don't want to look back. We don't want a cynical look to the past; we want a positive vision to the future for the American people, which means we want to go along and promote growth in the economy and do an extension of unemployment benefits in a responsible way by paying for it, eliminating wasteful spending in the stimulus package as the offset.

I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite), a member of the House Ways and Means Committee.

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 20 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, yes, it is an investment, but it is one we can pay for. And that's the sad state that we're in today because we are being refused the ability to even offer those kinds of amendments.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to my friend, a member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Heller).

Mr. Speaker, in addition to what Mr. Hoyer said about using the unused stimulus funds, Mr. Obey has hailed amendments to the Supplemental Appropriations bill made on July 1 that were paid for by repeatedly cutting unspent projects in the stimulus law. And in the other body, the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Mr. Baucus, has suggested the same. And that's what we're saying here. There is a better way to do this, a fiscally responsible way to not only take care of the forgotten man and woman today, but to prevent even more from being forgotten in the future.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise). Mr. Scalise and I have worked together on American competitiveness, trying to achieve energy independence to meet our national security needs and to grow jobs.

Mr. Speaker, I have to respond to my friend from the State of Washington.

I would say that I would not have the audacity to speak for the people of Washington, because I haven't had the chance to actually get to know them. I can tell the gentleman that I do know the fishermen, the oystermen, the shrimpers, and those who run boats down in my State of Louisiana.

If they were here on the House floor today, they would say, ``Please do not kick us when we're down. Lift this ban on drilling because, if not, it is going to kill our economy.'' These are the same fishermen and oystermen and shrimpers who are losing their jobs.

That's why we need sensible policies, Mr. Speaker. We are all for extending the unemployment benefit insurance, but we know we can do it in a responsible way--by paying for it with unspent stimulus money.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling), who serves on the President's Fiscal Responsibility Commission.

Mr. Speaker, I remind my friend, the distinguished majority leader of the House, that in the 1990s, during the Clinton administration, there was a great bipartisan effort that led to those balanced budgets because there was a Republican majority.

I will yield.

I will reclaim my time, and I will remind the majority leader that we have the opportunity to go forward now and not cast blame on the past. So I would say that President Obama actually got it right in a statement of administration policy on November 2009 regarding unemployment benefit extensions, which was fully paid for. And here is what he said. I quote, ``Fiscal responsibility is central to the medium-term recovery of the economy and the creation of jobs. The administration therefore supports the fiscally responsible approach to expanding unemployment benefits embodied in the bill.''

All we're saying is there is a better way to do this, and that is to pay for this extension.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

This is about whether we're going to pay for this or not. Consider that this is the eighth time this Congress is going to extend these benefits. The eighth time. That's an indication that the current economic policy of this administration and this Congress is a failure.

I mentioned earlier the fact of the matter is we have a choice. We can do this in a fiscally responsible way, or we can choose to run up additional debt on our children and grandchildren to the tune of $34 billion between now and November.

Again, I think the President, President Obama, got it right in the statement of administration policy in November 2009 when the unemployment benefit extension was actually paid for. Again, I'm going to quote what he said: ``Fiscal responsibility is central to the medium-term of the economy and the creation of jobs. The administration therefore supports the fiscally responsible approach to expanding unemployment benefits embodied in the bill.''

Now, if fiscal responsibility helps the economy and job creation, then the fiscal irresponsibility of this bill before us will hurt the economy and job creation.

And I think the American people have spoken. They want us to do this, but they want us to pay for it. Let's do the right thing and actually pay for the spending we approve and help our economy grow, help job creation. As the administration said, a fiscally responsible approach is what's needed.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, when most of our Republican colleagues vote ``no'' against extending unemployment benefits for Americans today, these people who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own, they will say they are doing it out of concern for the deficit. But, in reality, they are simply trying to make the President fail at any cost.

We have precedent here for that. Back in the 1990s, when Newt Gingrich ruled this place, they thought the American people were stupid, but it didn't work then and it won't work now.

In December 1995, Newt Gingrich thought he could win the Presidency for the Republican Party by shutting down the government and proving that Bill Clinton was ineffective.

You all remember that. Instead, the American people caught on to this foolishness and overwhelmingly reelected Bill Clinton to office in 1996.

Now they have got the same play book again; they are running it again. The Republican leadership in Congress has decided that the way for the Republicans to get the White House back is by denying unemployment benefits to workers who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own. Show them that this government doesn't work. For over 6 weeks they have held displaced workers as hostages.

Now, you would think they would have learned from Gingrich back in 1995. It doesn't work. He only held the country hostage for a few days, and then he gave it up because people need to look at what the Senate Republicans are doing in the other body to see exactly what they are doing again today.

Even after the Senate broke the Republican filibuster on restoring unemployment benefits 2 days ago, the Republicans insisted on running out every minute of time left on the clock before allowing a final vote on this bill.

They wanted to dangle those workers out there for yet one more day. They wanted them to sit at home and wonder is it going to happen. How am I going to feed my kids? Can I pay for my house? For families who are without income and rely on unemployment benefits to make ends meet, every day counts.

Republicans clearly couldn't care less, and they forced these unemployed workers to twist in the wind for one more day. This is a slap in the face to millions of Americans who are struggling to find work and rely on unemployment benefits as a lifeline.

This effort to undermine the effectiveness of President Obama by denying unemployment benefits to workers, and by denying the President the power to create jobs, will ultimately fail. Republicans have done nothing more than help ensure that Mr. Obama will be elected a second time.

Good move, guys. The American people will remember and despite what the Republicans think, the voters are not stupid. They don't want the ghost of Newt Gingrich running this country, and they don't want to return to the failed economic policies of President Bush.

They know that they want this government to help people when they need help, and they know that they didn't lose their job because they did something wrong. Greed on Wall Street got them. They are suffering because of that greed which we dealt with a couple of days ago, but they need a check to pay the rent and pay for food.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal).

Mr. Speaker, I can't help but respond to the change of subject from the gentleman from Louisiana.

I guess fishermen aren't worth anything. Fishermen are worthless. All that sea stuff that comes up and that they sell all over the place, they don't care about that. All they want to do is drill for oil. The President is careful and prudent and says let's look at this drilling before we go on with it because we have just proven that the oil companies are reckless. They have proven it for 79 days in the gulf, and if you can't learn from that and realize what it is doing to crabbers and to shrimp fishermen and to oystermen, then you have missed the point.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the majority leader of the House of Representatives.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, as we close this debate and finally put this on the back burner until November when we have to come back and look at it again perhaps--we'll see--one of the speakers on the other side talked about confusion. My view is that the confusion here is between whether we're going to send unemployment checks or we're going to tell people, Go hungry. That's the confusion.

People say, Well, it's about paying for it. I will remind my colleagues on the other side Mr. Bush was President for 8 years, and when we did unemployment, we did it on an emergency basis. We never paid for it one time and you guys, the Republicans--I'm not supposed to address them directly--they didn't pay for it, Mr. Speaker. They were in charge and their President was in charge, but they called it an emergency.

Now under Mr. Obama, it's not an emergency.

Suddenly we're going to tie up people's minds and try and confuse them. But the fact is that for 6 weeks we have said to workers in this country, We are not going to extend benefits.

Now, we have never, in the history of this country, when unemployment was at 7.2 or above, failed to extend benefits until the Republicans got a serious case of fiscal--well, I'm not going to say exactly what I think--but fiscal disease has overtaken their mind. And they've suddenly caught this thing--it must be in the air around here or somewhere down around the Ohio River between Cincinnati and Kentucky. They've got leadership that said, You know, we can infect everybody with this fiscal fear. We'll just sacrifice a

few million. It's only 2\1/2\ million people who are going to lose their benefits. So it's not very many. There's 300 million in America. We can throw away 2\1/2\ million. That's easy. They won't vote. They're too stupid to know who's doing it to them.

That's the kind of message you're sending when you're saying you won't give unemployment benefits.

This is so easily understood by the American people. This is not climate change. This is not all the complicated stuff. Some people around here think the American people have a very short memory span, but they don't on stuff where it's right down to the bone.

And you will remember this day as the day when finally the Republicans came to their senses. They finally said, You know, this ain't going to work. It really ain't going to work. We're not going to admit it. We're going to say we were doing it on principle.

But there is no principle at the table when the mother opens the cupboard and there is nothing in it. Or when the lights aren't turned on because you haven't paid the utility bills. Or when the water is turned off because you haven't paid your water bill. What does a mother say the principle is? Now kids, get in the bathtub, but there is no water. Clean yourself up, right?

What kind of nonsense is this? Do you think this money is going for people to buy iPads or iPhones or i4Phones or whatever? This is going for the necessities of life. And you're saying to the ordinary people of this country, Well, we have a principle, under the Democrats, we have to pay for it. Now not under the Democrats.

And I can hardly wait until we get the proposals over from the Senate to extend the tax breaks and watch you guys do a double flip. You will get a ``10'' in Olympic terms for your ability to do a double flip and say, Well, now we don't have to pay for it. And watch, they're going to send over the estate tax. They are going to send over a bailout for the people at the very top. And you're going to say, We don't have to pay for them. Oh, no. No, no. They're very rich. No, no, no, no, no, we can't pay for that. No, no. But they're going to make us pay for the people who are in the most dire distress in this society.

It's really shameful, and I'm going to watch with pleasure as you vote ``no'' as you vote yourself out of here.

I urge my colleagues to vote for this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Announcement By the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I thank him for bringing this important legislation to the floor today. And indeed, there is some good news in it, but there is some not-so-good news in it as well.

I listened very attentively to the previous speaker talk about why these unemployment benefits had to be paid for, and I was struck by the inconsistency in his remarks and that of the Republicans in the United States Senate and in the House of Representatives. It's important to note that while they demand that these benefits be paid for--$34 billion in unemployment benefits going to those who have played by the rules, worked hard, who are unemployed through no fault of their own, $34 billion, which injected into the economy will indeed create jobs-- while they have said that $700 billion of tax cuts for the wealthiest people in America shouldn't be paid for. ``Inconsistent'' is the politest word I can use to describe that.

Thirty-four billion dollars for those who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own.

Last week the Economic Policy Institute released a report making it clear that not only do unemployment benefits protect those who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own, but would lead to more jobs, higher wages, and a stronger economy for all Americans.

And why is that so? That is so because these benefits are given to people who need them. The money will be spent immediately on necessities injecting demand into the economy, creating jobs. In fact, the Economic Policy Institute figured that would be 1.4 million jobs relating to the unemployment benefits that are out there now.

The Congressional Budget Office which is independent and nonpartisan has confirmed that extending unemployment benefits is the most efficient way for the government to generate economic growth.

Now, I know why the gentleman may want to change the subject to other things. He mentions Katrina. We all supported Katrina. Did anybody talk about paying for that emergency? No. It was an emergency. We have a compact with the American people in the time of a natural disaster-- even though that disaster was exacerbated by cronyism in the Bush administration.

But let's not go there. Let's just stay on this subject. And the subject at hand is when this bill was introduced today, this resolution, I'm sure you all heard that it was an amendment to an amendment. Well, the Senate amendment that we are voting on, the amendment that they put in took out the jobs initiatives. And those initiatives were paid for. Build America Bonds. That was part of the original bill, to build the infrastructure of America, the highways and infrastructure of America in a new green way creating new green jobs and new green technologies. And the Build America jobs that went beyond those investments; FMAP to stabilize our State economies.

Thirty States have written their budgets already on the basis of this funding being in the legislation and paid for--not increasing the deficit. We passed it in December. The Senate only now is sending it back to us because the Republicans have objected to that, and the amendment to the amendment eliminates that stability for States.

Summer jobs, well, it's too late for summer jobs, so youth jobs. In December, we passed the bill for summer jobs for America's youth. The amendment to the amendment takes out those youths. And they were paid for, because on the one hand they say everything has to be paid for. Well, when it's paid for, then are they just plain opposed to summer jobs for youths? Are they opposed to Build America Bonds to grow our economy and meet the needs of our country infrastructurewise?

The Housing Trust Fund, very, very important initiative.

Concurrent receipt: I don't think there's any doubt that every person in this Congress supports our veterans. One issue that is a high priority for America's veterans when we meet with them on a regular basis is the issue of concurrent receipt. You may not be familiar with that term, but it's a disability tax on our veterans, and with so many veterans returning home with disabilities from Iraq and Afghanistan this is very, very important. It was in the bill. It was paid for. Again, money given to people who need it for necessities who would spend it, inject demand into the economy and create jobs. So the amendment to the amendment that the Senate Republicans would finally let pass in the Senate removed concurrent receipt, paid for, for our veterans.

The list goes on and on, a list of paid-for initiatives that benefit our veterans, grow our economy, create jobs, help our workers, help our young people, stabilize our States, all paid for. The Republican Senators said ``no,'' and they held up this particular amendment to the amendment for over 6 weeks because they said it had to be paid for.

At the very same time, they were saying we must pay for $34 billion for benefits for the unemployed but we don't have to pay for the $700 billion for the wealthiest people in America to have tax cuts. Those same tax cuts, during the 8 years of the Bush administration, did not create jobs; they increased the deficit. And the Republicans have said they want to go back to the exact agenda of the Bush administration. They look with increased fondness on the Bush administration.

Well, let me say this here today. The good news about this is finally our unemployed will get their benefits. It will be retroactive. It's really sad that it has to come to this. Nonpaid-for tax cuts for the rich; paid-for benefits for our workers.

But it's important to note, contrary to what you might hear from some in this Chamber, that in the first 8 months of the Obama administration, more jobs were created--well, by the time we finish August, more jobs will have been created than in the 8 years of the Bush administration. While they increased the deficit by trillions of dollars, while we lost jobs, where they took us to a brink of financial crisis of our financial industry, where they took us deep into recession, where they took us deep into deficit, they want to return to the exact same agenda.

We are not going back and our step forward into the future, one step into the future is being taken today when we say to American workers, You have played by the rules. You have worked hard. You have lost your job through no fault of your own. You have these benefits, but we must do more to create jobs, to create more jobs.

I urge our colleagues today to understand how important this is, the distinction between those who support our workers. Respect the contract that we have with them so that when the economy ebbs and flows and the cycle of employment and unemployment is not in their favor, that we will be there for them. And being there for them is not just about them. It's also about the entire economy, the entire economy. The economy cannot flourish and be entrepreneurial unless it knows that there's a safety net in case the economy comes down.

The Republicans are saying ``no'' to that. They've said ``no'' over and over again, and they're saying ``no'' today unless it is paid for, again, while they still say, We want tax cuts for the wealthiest, $700 billion worth, 20 times more than this bill for unemployment insurance.

But don't forget what they took out of the bill and don't forget that that includes concurrent receipt for our veterans.

I urge our colleagues to proudly vote for this legislation.

I commend my colleague Mr. Levin for his hard work on this and other legislation, and I know, because it's absolutely essential, that at some point we will get a jobs bill that will come back from the Senate. We agree that it should be paid for. We've sent it over to them paid for, and that they will recognize that we need to create jobs, good- paying jobs that take us into the future and, most of all, that we're not going back to the failed economic policies of the Bush administration.

I urge a strong ``aye'' vote on both sides of the aisle.