Commending the heroic efforts of the people fighting the floods in North Dakota and Minnesota.

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this: If there is $1.4 billion already in the pipeline for a Department of Labor jobs program, why can't we return the rescinded $600 million dollars back to the Treasury for deficit reduction?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.

I thank the gentleman, my friend, for yielding, and appreciate very much the kind comments of Mr. Diaz-Balart as well. Maybe sometime we can get the gentleman from southern Florida up for one of our ice storms. In turn, we can go down for a hurricane. We will all have kind of a better understanding one with another. It certainly does underscore the national dimension of how we hang together as a country. You get hit, we help; we get hit, you help. That's how it works. I want to speak to that for a moment or two in my remarks today.

The entire country, Madam Speaker, watched the compelling news coverage of the massive record flooding in North Dakota and Minnesota this spring that resulted from huge accumulations of snow and dangerous spring ice.

Having witnessed this flood fight firsthand, I understand what made these television images so compelling. From all walks of life, neighbors were helping neighbors. The Nation got to see the character of North Dakota and Minnesota as our communities responded to this disaster.

In my entire life, I have never seen a time when so many of our North Dakota communities faced disaster threats--from one end of the State to the other, and so many places in between.

Take a look at this picture. This is rural Cass County, actually outside of the city limits of Fargo. The next picture, a city a couple hundred miles north, Pembina, North Dakota.

These images are like so many small towns across North Dakota where all you see is water. Water, water everywhere. One of the operating heads of the disaster programs in the State observed to me that it has become a place where our ditches are streams, our streams are rivers, and our rivers are lakes. That's certainly what it felt like during much of the ordeal of this spring.

Record snow, in the end, wasn't the only threat. This next picture illustrates what happens when, as the gentleman illustrated, we had ice jams on the Missouri River, backing water into the southern part of Bismarck, known as Fox Island. It required, as we mentioned, demolition to blow up that ice jam to move this flood out of a place that has not had a flood threat since the construction of the Garrison Dam 60 years ago.

In the middle of all these fights, Fargo Mayor Denny Walaker observed, If we go down, we're going to go down swinging. That absolutely captured the determination of local leadership and the citizens that responded as they fought like crazy to keep their city from becoming inundated by rampaging waters.

Federal, State, and local officials came together with folks from all walks of life. And we're very grateful to President Obama for moving swiftly to declare North Dakota and Minnesota Federal disaster areas, unleashing the help that comes with that designation.

Acting FEMA administrator Nancy Ward stood with our local leaders, ensuring they had the Federal disaster assistance to respond to community flood threats. Governor Hoeven ended calling up more than 2,000 National Guardsmen to respond to the threats. We observed many times that it was good having him work in our sand instead of desert sand, as threats this spring unfolded.

The Corps of Engineers were present--and even senior leadership present in our communities time and time again. We could not have built the kind of emergency levees that were required without the Corps' expertise. They are true partners in this fight.

Throughout these ongoing flood fights I have had the opportunity and the honor of working with local, city, and community officials as they led the battle against the rising waters. While I have always been impressed with the caliber and commitment of our local leadership, I'm now in complete awe after witnessing these individuals lead their communities in times of real crisis.

Make no bones about it, city leaders have been instrumental, instrumental in keeping their residents and their communities safe.

When Federal agency heads came to North Dakota in the middle of all of this, seeking to provide advice and direction, what they got back was an understanding of just how thorough the planning had been and how competent the local response was as leaders led the fight against this. I think it underscores a lesson we need to keep in mind in terms of disaster--Federal support, subject to local leadership, because no one knows the ground better than local leaders.

But we all know the heart of our flood fighting efforts comes down to the people themselves. And our people stepped up, bore down, and worked furiously--neighbor helping neighbor in this struggle to save their homes and communities.

This is a picture of the Fargodome. Now that's an indoor football facility where Division I North Dakota State University Bison play their football games. It was turned into sandbag central. In a town of 90,000, over the course of this ordeal, more than 80,000 volunteers came forward, built millions and millions of sandbags around the clock at the Fargodome. I was there. I've never seen anything like it.

In addition to that, National Guard, local volunteers shown here took those sandbags in the middle of blizzards and everything else, built dikes, sometimes on top of snow banks, sometimes through some of the toughest snow storms we have had in the winter.

Having lived this flood fight for several weeks, I have seen more examples of heroism than I can begin to recount, but the impressions will be with me always. We will never be able to adequately thank the thousands of National Guard, tens of thousands of volunteers, and all the countless government agencies who brought to bear their assistance to fight this record fight.

I think President Obama put it best in his radio address which featured our State's disaster and response in our region, because there's lessons we can learn from all this. The President said, ``At moments like these we're reminded of the power of nature to disrupt lives and endanger communities. But we're also reminded of the power of individuals to make a difference.

``In the face of incredible challenge, the people of these communities have rallied in support of one another. And their service isn't just inspirational--it's integral to our response. It's also a reminder of what we can achieve when Americans come together to serve their communities.

``In facing sudden crises, or more stubborn challenges, the truth is we are all in this together as neighbors and fellow citizens. That is what brought so many to help in North Dakota and Minnesota and other areas affected by the flooding.''

Some may see these images of snow and rain and sand and mud and water and say to themselves, Why would anyone want to live there? But to each of us who played our respective part in this fight, experienced the strength of our community, mobilized together, shoulder to shoulder, helping one another, we say, Why would someone want to live anywhere else?

This congressional resolution is a well-deserved way to express our deep appreciation as a Congress and recognize North Dakotans and Minnesotans publicly for their courage and resilience. They are a true inspiration, and I am committed to standing with them during the long recovery process that now lies ahead. I thank you very much for allowing me this kind of time.

I thank the chairman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the disaster relief and summer jobs supplemental appropriations bill, which includes $5.1 billion for the Federal Emergency Management Agency's Disaster Relief Fund. The administration has requested this amount in emergency funding to pay for recovery from catastrophic events and to be able to respond to disasters and emergencies through the balance of the fiscal year.

This bill is about making sure that FEMA keeps its promises to devastated communities that are getting back on their feet as well as to those who may face disasters in the months to come. In addition to ongoing recovery costs associated with an active hurricane season and extraordinary flooding in the Midwest in 2008, FEMA is still required to pay for some very expensive outstanding costs related to Katrina, such as the devastated Louisiana schools and Charity Hospital.

Because we are still dealing with these monumental recovery efforts, the Disaster Relief Fund is being depleted at a rate of nearly $500 million per month this fiscal year. This has nearly doubled the noncatastrophic 5-year average that FEMA bases its estimates on. At that rate, OMB projects FEMA will be completely out of disaster relief funds by the end of March.

It's unfortunate that we find ourselves in the position of running low on funds just halfway through the fiscal year. I agree that FEMA needs to find a better way to budget, to account for the known costs of these catastrophic events when formulating the budget request. I have pressed them to do that and will continue to do so. But it is disingenuous for those on the other side of the aisle to lecture us on this issue when, to a large extent, as they well know, this supplemental is required to deal with the mess inherited from the

previous administration. And by ``the mess,'' I mean the practice of lowballing projected disaster costs as well as billions in deferred obligations.

The fact of the matter is the last administration failed to bring these major public infrastructure projects in the gulf coast to a resolution. We are talking about billions of dollars worth of liabilities that were just kicked down the road. So no lectures, please, on irresponsible budgeting. Over $2 billion of this supplemental could be spent dealing with unresolved Katrina costs.

The FEMA administrator brought these issues to light in a recent hearing before our subcommittee. He has now committed to correcting these deficiencies, to cleaning up the mess he inherited, and to making sure FEMA accounts for its recovery costs, fully accounts, rather than punting them to the next administration.

Based on the impending shortfall in the fund, FEMA announced last month that it could only pay for ``immediate needs'' for disasters, which includes assistance to families and individuals, as well as debris removal and emergency protective measures. All long-term rebuilding projects are being deferred until Congress acts. To put that into perspective for my colleagues, that means that over $367 million worth of projects in 43 States and four territories will continue to be delayed if we fail to act.

And this backlog will only continue to grow. When you add the expensive Katrina-related issues, FEMA is currently liable for nearly $2 billion in costs.

In addition to addressing these past disasters, we must prepare for those to come. The National Weather Service, the Army Corps of Engineers currently estimate that one-third of the U.S. will be faced with the possibility of flooding this spring. Without these funds, FEMA will not be able to assist local communities and States responding to these flooding disasters. It's critical that we replenish the disaster relief funds now.

I remind my colleagues that we have always considered disaster relief funds to be emergency funding, under Republican and Democratic Congresses, under Republican and Democratic administrations. The last administration transmitted eight supplementary funding requests for the disaster relief fund between fiscal 2002 and 2006. Those disaster relief funds were always requested as an emergency and were not offset.

We all have a stake, Mr. Speaker, in the passage of this bill. I urge my colleagues to support it.