[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 47 (Wednesday, March 24, 2010)]
[House]
[Pages H2273-H2279]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4899, DISASTER RELIEF AND SUMMER
JOBS ACT OF 2010
Mr. PERLMUTTER. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on
Rules, I call up House Resolution 1204 and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 1204
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order to consider in the House 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. All points of
order against consideration of the bill are waived except
those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The bill
shall be considered as read. All points of order against
provisions in the bill are waived. The previous question
shall be considered as ordered on the bill to final passage
without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate
equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Appropriations; and (2)
one motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized
for 1 hour.
Mr. PERLMUTTER. Madam Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms.
Foxx). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate
only. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
General Leave
Mr. PERLMUTTER. I also ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks
on House Resolution 1204.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Colorado?
There was no objection.
Mr. PERLMUTTER. Madam Speaker, House Resolution 1204 provides for
consideration of the Disaster Relief and Summer Jobs Act of 2010 under
a closed rule. The rule provides for 1 hour of debate equally divided
and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the
Appropriations Committee. The rule waives all points of order against
consideration of the bill except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of
rule XXI. The rule provides that the bill shall be considered as read.
And, finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit the bill, with
or without instructions.
Madam Speaker, we are quickly approaching the beginning of disaster
season in the United States. While many natural disasters occur without
warning, we can say with certainty that tornadoes, hurricanes,
wildfires, and flooding will damage communities across our Nation in
the coming 6 months.
Just this week, the residents of North Dakota and Minnesota are
breathing a sigh of relief as the Red River flood crested. In my own
State of Colorado, throughout our history we have suffered our fair
share of destruction by wildfire, tornados, hailstorms, and flooding.
In the gentlewoman Ms. Foxx's district, for instance, a major disaster
was declared just this year due to severe winter storms and flooding.
We don't know where and we don't know when natural disasters will
occur, but our Federal response and relief officials must prepare
nonetheless. And when those disasters do happen, Members of Congress
will tour the devastation in their district and tell their constituents
hurt by the disaster, ``I will do everything I can to help you recover
from this event.''
Today's bill is the most important thing they can do to help in the
recovery and relief efforts. There will be emergency response
professionals who worked overtime and need to be reimbursed. There are
Federal search and rescue teams which will have to be mobilized. FEMA
will have to rebuild public infrastructure and remove debris. FEMA will
have to provide temporary shelter to families displaced by the
disaster. And, under the Stafford Act, these are all responsibilities
of FEMA. There is just no getting around it.
Already this year there have been 18 disasters and three emergency
funds in seven States, and the disaster relief fund is about to be
exhausted. Given the domestic and international efforts FEMA has
undertaken this year, the disaster relief fund will be exhausted within
the next month. So this bill replenishes the disaster relief fund with
$5 billion.
This funding can only be used for disaster relief; it cannot be
shifted into other accounts. And if it is not spent this year, it will
be retained for the fund next year.
Because relief also requires the Federal Government to assist
affected small businesses to resume operations, the bill also provides
for $60 million to be funded to the Small Business Administration. And,
finally, the bill invests $600 million into job training and employment
services.
This is a vital investment to build upon the progress we have made in
the past year to put America back to work.
Because this investment is not an emergency, it is paid for with
unobligated Recovery Act dollars. But make no mistake, this bill is
about robust emergency response capabilities. Natural disasters don't
care about congressional district boundaries. They can happen anywhere
in our country.
I hope Members see the importance of this bill and make the right
vote to ensure FEMA and our Federal disaster relief and recovery
officials have the resources they need to help your States save lives
and rebuild.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding. I yield
myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, despite what the Democrats may say about this bill, my
colleagues could be well served to recognize how this bill represents
little more than a continuation of the arrogant approach to governing
that has pervaded this body since they took control 3 years ago. Let's
start by considering the process for which this rule and bill are
coming before us today.
This legislation, which spends $5.7 billion to replenish a FEMA
disaster relief account and fund a Department
[[Page H2274]]
of Labor Summer Jobs program--``jobs'' in quotes--was introduced last
Sunday, March 21, and was before the Rules Committee the following day.
In February of 2009, shortly after President Obama assumed office,
The Hill newspaper quoted a group of Democrats as saying that,
``Committees must function thoroughly and inclusively, and cooperation
must ensue between the parties and the Houses to ensure that our
legislative tactics enable rather than impede progress. In general, we
must engender an atmosphere that allows partisan games to cease and
collaboration to succeed. We are looking forward to working with you to
restore this institution.''
So much for good intentions.
Despite their best attempts to divert attention from the simple
truth, it is worth remembering the pledge made in 2006 by the then-
minority Democrats to ensure regular order for legislation, promising
that, ``Bills should be developed following full hearings and open
subcommittee and committee markups, with appropriate referrals to other
committees. Members should have at least 24 hours to examine a bill
prior to consideration at the subcommittee level. Bills should
generally come to the floor under a procedure that allows open, full,
and fair debate, consisting of a full amendment process that grants the
minority the right to offer its alternatives, including a substitute.''
Oh, how quickly we forget.
You know, $5.7 billion used to be a lot of money. But the ruling
Democrats, who have apparently no concept of the value of money, have
completely thrown that idea right out of the window.
In fairness to my liberal colleagues, working with such large numbers
starts to get confusing. After all, who pays attention to all those
zeroes? We hardly ever hear the word ``million'' anymore, and it hasn't
been that long ago that Everett Dirksen said, ``A million here, a
million there, and pretty soon you are talking about real money.''
I saw an article today in one of the newspapers from my district
where they talked about the fact that they thought they weren't going
to have money for a summer job program. Now, it looks like they are
going to have it. And the article said, ``Last year, 129 businesses
that used this program benefited from free labor provided by Uncle
Sam.''
We have established in the minds of many Americans that Federal
dollars are somehow or another manna from heaven. They are not manna
from heaven. Somebody has to pay this bill. It's not free. There is no
free lunch. Every dime we are spending has to be borrowed. The American
people understand that, and they are sick and tired of it.
Many of our colleagues support PAYGO, which, they argue, forces
Congress to ``pay for'' certain spending increases with tax increases.
This bill is a perfect example of the sham that is PAYGO.
First off, PAYGO applies only to certain kinds of nondiscretionary
spending, so they exhaust themselves spending on social welfare
programs without so much as a PAYGO speed bump.
When looking for another reason to increase taxes, they simply look
for an excuse to increase automatic spending. That way, they tell their
tax-conscious constituents that their hands were tied as the rules
forced them to support the tax increases. Never take responsibility for
your actions.
What happens when the spending proposals are so much that even
liberals can't tax their way out of them? A few of their tricks include
budgetary gimmicks, like inserting an exception into the rules, or, my
favorite, simply declare the spending to be an emergency.
{time} 1130
The bill we have before us today designates, as an emergency, $5.1
billion in spending for a FEMA account that could and should be funded
through the regular appropriations process. As I raised in the Rules
Committee the other day, we recommend to people that they have 3 months
of income in an account in case they have an emergency, but this is
funding in anticipation. And it means we're borrowing money and we're
paying interest on that borrowed money.
The excuses from my colleagues just are endless. Spending increases
are so common that they have become all too predictable. Observers of
this debate are likely to hear one of the most tired excuses intended
to dodge responsibility for their unconscionable spending binge. When
all else fails, they always fall back on the reliable excuses, Well,
George Bush did it, or, You did it before.
As a teacher, I never let my students get away with childish excuses
like this. This is Congress. People elected us to be responsible for
the decisions we make. It is true that Republicans spent far too much
while in the majority, but the Democrat response is simply to triple
down on the mistakes of the past and return to the same old blame game
that's led this government into the budgetary malaise that we're facing
today. While they say they're simply responding to the mess made by the
previous administration, the Democrats would have you believe that this
mess was created because George Bush didn't spend enough.
The American people need strong leadership. They need effective
leadership. They need leadership that ends the petty, partisan blame
game and accepts responsibility for governance. This bill exemplifies
how the ruling Democrats fail to offer any of these fundamental
leadership traits. That's why this country desperately needs a change
in congressional leadership. We need to vote ``no'' on the rule, and
``no'' on the underlying bill.
With that, Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PERLMUTTER. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I have listened to the gentlelady, and I guess I'm very surprised by
her argument that with FEMA's funding running out within the next 2
weeks, that the Republican side of the aisle would argue against any
funding for future disasters that we know are going to come. For
instance, in Representative Foxx's district just this past month, a
disaster was declared because of flooding and severe winter weather.
These are the counties that were declared a disaster: Alleghany, Ashe,
Avery, Buncombe, Burke, Caldwell, Haywood, and on and on and on. I
looked through the list.
We have had 16 or 17 disasters declared already this year across the
country. Luckily, none of them were in Colorado. I looked at last year.
We had dozens and dozens all across the country, including others in
North Carolina. None were in Colorado. But I can tell you, Coloradans
understand that this is a national issue. This is something that we
take care of as citizens, as Americans across the country, because
we're in this together. It isn't just, Let's wait until the whole thing
runs out and then scurry around and try to figure out what to do. We
are dealing with disasters.
When I'm listening to my friend from North Carolina, it's like she
wants to have Katrina happen all over again, where we're not prepared,
the country is not prepared to deal with a massive emergency. That's
what this is all about. It is about funding FEMA so that it can respond
to the emergencies that we know are going to arise. And so all of this
conversation about procedural tricks and ``You aren't getting this
done,'' this is about funding the emergency management of this country.
I'm surprised, especially when North Carolina just enjoyed the ability
to take advantage of this--well, nobody would enjoy having to draw on
the disaster relief. I take that back. That was an improper statement.
What they did is they had the disaster relief fund available to them to
deal with the troubles they suffered during this past winter.
So I can't see any merit to the argument that's being made that the
issue is not before us properly. It's a five-page bill. The other side
of the aisle, the Republicans, have been complaining about big bills,
too hard to read, take too long. This is five pages that says we're
going to fund our emergency management administration so that we can
deal with the disasters that we know are going to come.
With that, I would reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. FOXX. I appreciate my colleague pointing out the fact that we did
have some areas in North Carolina. Indeed, two of the counties that he
mentioned were in my district, because of the rain that we had
recently. But, you know, declaring a disaster and allocating money to
those counties are two different things.
[[Page H2275]]
I would bet--and I'm sorry I don't have time to do it while we're
here on the floor, but I bet it'll be 18 months before any of those
people see a dime of the money because the bureaucracy is so
incompetent in terms of responding to people. So the money won't be
given out for a long, long time from those disasters, unfortunately,
because usually when there is a disaster, people need help right away,
but it doesn't get done.
We could have gone through regular order on this. There's no reason
not to have gone through regular order. But what you wanted to do was
get this jobs money out there, is my guess, so that you could declare
jobs being created through more government funding.
Madam Speaker, I was in the Congress when Katrina hit, and here's
what happened. We were on August break. Katrina hits on Saturday,
Sunday, Monday. The Speaker of the House, Mr. Hastert, had a conference
call on Wednesday of that week and he said, I either can call everybody
back into session and we will allocate the $10 billion that needs to be
allocated for Katrina right now, in an emergency, or we can have
unanimous consent, no one will come forward and object. I will bring a
few people back in. We'll take care of this need immediately. That's
exactly what happened. Everybody knew there was an emergency, and we
reacted to it.
I don't understand my colleague saying we are not prepared for a
massive disaster. If we aren't, with all the money that we spend on
things, then we have a major problem. I think we are prepared for major
disasters. We showed that on 9/11. We showed it with Katrina. So this
is a straw dog. That's all it is.
Now, given the best efforts of the Democrats to create jobs, starting
with the stimulus last year, perhaps this bill would be better titled:
The Disaster Relief and Summer Government Jobs Act of 2010. As has been
so well articulated in a March 3 Washington Times editorial, ``From
immigration to clean energy to expanding the social safety net, there's
no better way to grease the skids for new government programs in
Washington nowadays then to declare them job-producing bills, then
watch supporters line up and potential opposition crumble.''
The piece goes on to cite multiple examples of how Democrats claim
their proposals will create jobs, but what they never seem to mention
is where these jobs are coming from. Ends up, many of the Democrat
policies do create jobs after all--government jobs--and they do so by
stealing jobs from the private sector. And don't just take my word for
it. Let's look at the evidence.
As you can see, this chart shows the net job gains or losses by major
sector from February of 2009 to February 2010. It illustrates how the
private sector lost 3.9 million jobs over the past year while
government grew by a total 293,000 jobs. Again, the American people are
understanding this and they're getting sick and tired of it. They don't
want to be paying high taxes to be put in debt until infinity in order
to create more government jobs, generally paying twice as much as the
private sector jobs do.
The Senate health care overhaul, replete with its backroom deals,
mandates of dubious constitutional standing, and a dozen tax increases
that break the President's tax pledge, is now law. It remains to be
seen how this health care overhaul will be implemented, but one White
House advisor said it must be implemented ``effectively, efficiently,
and with great accountability.'' If that sounds familiar, it's because
last year the White House was saying the same thing about the stimulus
bill. It turns out the trillion-dollar boondoggle wasn't nearly as
stimulative as advertised. Job creation, not so much. This is the
proof.
Our colleagues continually say that we don't represent things
accurately. I know we can argue about numbers, but these are not
Republican numbers. These are numbers that are true.
Madam Speaker, this bill is not going to do anything to create more
jobs. It's going to continue to hurt the economy.
With that, I will reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PERLMUTTER. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
A couple of things. I'm very surprised that my friend from North
Carolina would hold up the response to Katrina as the model for how we
respond to emergencies. There couldn't be anything farther from the
truth in that respect. It was a terrible mess, a terrible response. I
don't think anybody in this country would say otherwise. The country
was not prepared under the Bush administration. This Congress was not
prepared. This is about preparing for emergencies. Right now, even
though the flood has crested in North Dakota and Minnesota, it still is
a state of emergency. Those States near the river are under water. So
there is an emergency occurring even as we speak.
Now, my good friend from North Carolina has her posters. Of course,
we have ours. Now let's take a look at what really is going on in the
economy.
Under the Bush administration, we had tremendous job loss beginning
in 2007, but certainly in the fall of 2008.
Ms. FOXX. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. PERLMUTTER. Let me explain my poster and then you and I can
debate our posters.
This is private payroll. Drops like a rock until January 2009, which
is the greatest loss of jobs. During that month, some 780,000 jobs--
780,000 jobs lost in January 2009. Twenty thousand jobs lost one year
into the Obama administration in January 2010. It's too many. It's not
right, but it's a heck of a lot better than 780,000 jobs lost in the
last month of the Bush administration.
So my friend complains about the status of jobs, but this country was
in free fall when it came to the economy, the financial system, and
jobs. That has turned around. We have so much farther to go, and that's
part of what this bill does. It provides for summer jobs and training
for many of those people who have been out of work. We have got to get
those people back to work. But we turned around. You see this sea of
red, jobs being lost again and again, month after month. Still, it has
improved dramatically in the last year.
So, I would entertain my friend's question.
Ms. FOXX. Well, my question is: Who was in charge of the Congress
beginning in January of 2007, when the economy started going south?
Mr. PERLMUTTER. The Democrats. Well, you say when the economy started
going south. The economy started going south, I would say to my friend,
in September of 2008, when, because of very lax regulations on Wall
Street, the bottom fell out of the financial system and jobs were lost
at an ever-increasing number. And so the Bush administration, by its
lax regulation, cost thousands and millions of jobs across this
country, and that's what we're trying to stop.
We've been able to slow it down, Madam Speaker. Now it's time to
start adding jobs. And part of this bill provides for job training. It
provides for summer jobs, as well as dealing with the disaster relief
that has to be managed for the rest of this season of tornados and
fires and floods. And we're in a flood right now in North Dakota and
Minnesota. We have to address that and we have to fill that emergency
fund so we can address these things promptly and without any delay, as
I believe occurred with Katrina down in Louisiana.
With that, I would reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1145
Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague very much for yielding
and answering my questions. I didn't say anything about FEMA and its
response to Hurricane Katrina. I think if you will look back at my
comments, it was that Congress was able to respond immediately when
there was a need, which is what we believe should happen.
Mr. PERLMUTTER. Will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. FOXX. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.
Mr. PERLMUTTER. Well, responding after the hurricane hits isn't fast
enough. This is about knowing these things are coming and dealing with
them in advance.
With that, I yield back to my friend.
Ms. FOXX. I thank my colleague.
What I don't understand, if this is what the Democrats want to do,
why don't we have an emergency reserve fund? Again, we advise families
to prepare for emergencies. That's what we
[[Page H2276]]
should do in the government. We should go through regular order. We
should have debate. We should have some idea of where money is going to
need to be spent in advance in terms of how we respond at the Federal
level.
This is more government knowing the answer to everything and
government control from the Federal level. That's exactly what this is.
Is it going to create jobs? Well, yes. It's going to create some summer
jobs for young people, but it's not going to affect that job picture
that my colleague talked about. Neither did the stimulus. The stimulus
was passed. We were told by the White House, by the Congress, ``Pass
this and unemployment will not exceed 8 percent.'' Unemployment has
been right at 10 percent for months and months and months. In fact,
again, the only thing that's been stimulated has been the government,
and that's not where we need to be going.
The American people don't want more government. They want more jobs.
The recent health care overhaul and last year's stimulus bill
illustrate the Congress is very good at growing government; not so good
at spurring job growth.
The simple truth is that if the Democrats really wanted to stimulate
youth employment, there's one sensible, effective policy change that
could do so without spending a dime.
As articulated in a March 10 Wall Street Journal editorial:
``The recent act of Congress that has caused the most economic
hardship goes to the May 2007 law raising the minimum wage in three
stages to $7.25 an hour from $5.15. Rarely has a law hurt more
vulnerable people more quickly. A higher minimum wage has the biggest
impact on those with the least experience or the fewest skills. That
means in particular those looking for entry-level jobs, especially
teenagers. And sure enough, as nearly all economic models predict, the
higher minimum has wreaked havoc with teenage job seekers, well beyond
what you would expect even in a recession.''
The editorial continues by comparing:
``the three-stage increase in the minimum wage with the jobless rate
for teens age 16 to 19 since 2007. The first increase, to $5.85 from
$5.15, after a decade of no increases and when the overall joblessness
rate was below 5 percent and the teen rate was 14.9 percent. The demand
for labor was sufficiently strong in many areas that most employers
were probably willing to absorb the higher wage.
``But as the minimum wage increased even as the overall job market
began to worsen, the damage to teen job seekers became more severe. By
the time the third increase to $7.25 from $6.55 took effect in July
2009, the teen jobless rate was 24.3 percent, and by October, it peaked
at 27.6 percent before dropping to 26.4 percent in January.
``The story is even worse for black teens, who often have lower than
average education levels or live in areas with fewer job prospects.
Their jobless rate climbed from 38.5 percent before the third wage hike
to 49.8 percent in November 2009, before falling back to 43.8 percent
in January. For black male teens, the rate climbed to 52.2 percent in
December from 39.2 percent in July. The difference between the jobless
rates for black teens and the entire population widened by six
percentage points from June 2007 to January 2010. Even assuming those
rates fall as the job market improves this year, they will remain
destructively high.
``The third increase was especially ill-timed because it hit while
the recession was ending but before employers have felt confident to
rehire. To raise the cost of unskilled labor precisely when the jobless
rate is heading toward 10 percent is an act of almost willful economic
stupidity.'' Madam Speaker, I want to remind the Speaker that I am
quoting. ``A Congress that has spent $862 billion to create jobs thus
managed with its wage increase to harm tens of thousands of entry-level
job seekers. And it did so in the name of `compassion' and a `living
wage.' In many cases that wage has since become zero.
``The evidence is clear that increasing the minimum wage is an
expensive and misguided way to try to move working families out of
poverty. According to the Employment Policies Institute, 85 percent of
people who earn the minimum wage aren't the primary bread winner in a
family.
``Most readers remember the work habits they learned from their first
job. Showing up on time, being courteous to customers, learning how to
use technology--such habits are often more valuable than the actual
paycheck. Studies have confirmed that when teens work during summer
months or after school, they have higher lifetime earnings than those
who don't work. So raising the minimum wage may inadvertently reduce
lifetime earnings.
``Most Democrats won't bend on the minimum wage because it is a core
union demand, but free thinkers ought to at least consider the teenage
job problem. The long-term danger is that we are building in a higher
level of structural unemployment as our least skilled workers find it
harder to climb onto the first rung of the job market.''
This will not solve problems. It creates more.
With that, Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PERLMUTTER. Madam Speaker, first I would ask how much time
remains on both sides.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Colorado has 19\1/2\
minutes. The gentlewoman from North Carolina has 11\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. PERLMUTTER. Having no further speakers, I will reserve the
balance of my time.
Ms. FOXX. I now yield such time as he may consume to our colleague
from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentlelady for yielding.
Listening to this debate in my office, I just had to come down here
because it sounds like this debate is taking place in a vacuum here,
like we didn't do anything else this past week. It's been noted that
we're providing extra money for FEMA, some for projects that are in the
pipeline already, some for disasters that we know will occur. You could
put that aside and realize that we're spending I think it's $600
million--$600 million, new money, every dime of which will be borrowed.
Because we're running a deficit, every dime will be borrowed.
Now you may say, ``All this is being taken from the stimulus.'' We
borrowed the stimulus. We borrowed the stimulus money. We are borrowing
nearly 40 percent of the money that we're spending here at the Federal
level. So they'll say, ``Oh, yes. This is being taken from another
program that's already funded.'' But you have to realize we're
borrowing that money, too. So $600 million to create temporary jobs for
kids in the summertime, apparently, with no notion that we may have put
a lot of people out of work with what we just did earlier this week.
You know, we pass a lot of laws here. We're good at that. But we
aren't very good at suspending the laws of economics. We can't do that.
We can pretend that we can, but we can't do it. We can't suspend the
laws of economics, and we can't phase them in, either. So when you
announce that you're going to tax investment capital, that means
there's less investment capital to actually invest in job creating
activities. So the job creating sector is smaller than it was before.
Whenever you take money into government from the job creating sector,
when you tax investment capital, like the health care reform that we
did, that means there's going to be less capital for job creation.
Also, when you look at this health care bill itself, the President
said when he signed the bill into law that the time for overheated
rhetoric is over and that the rhetoric will now be confronted with
reality. Well, let me tell you what the reality is right now. The
reality is higher insurance premiums. So if it's not bad enough out
there with a lack of jobs, Americans all over are going to face much
higher insurance premiums by virtue of the legislation we just passed.
You have to understand that all of the pressures right now are to drive
costs upward. There's no downward pressure economically on insurance
premiums at the moment because any cost controls either don't exist at
all; there's no medical liability reform; and broadening the pool of
people who will come into any insurance pool doesn't happen or is not
on the mandatory side several years from now.
All you have are requirements that preexisting conditions for
children now be covered; that individuals, adults up
[[Page H2277]]
to age 26 can stay on their parents' policy; preventative care now has
to be covered with no deductibles or copays. Now those may or may not
be good policies. That's not what I'm arguing here. But when you do
that, insurance is no longer a hedge against risk. We've just
obliterated what insurance is supposed to be, and insurance companies
will now be treated like public utilities where government simply
regulates them. And all the pressure is upward. There's no downward
economic pressure on price. So what we'll see in the next several
months is insurance premiums jumping up.
I just want to say right now, we shouldn't be surprised when that
happens because we can't suspend the laws of economics. We can pass
laws, but there are certain laws that are there that we can't change,
and those will be slapping us in the face here soon. So when we come to
the floor, it's all well and good to talk about FEMA funding. But I
wish we would talk a little about $600 million also that's going to be
spent--borrowed--whether it's taken from another existing program or
not, we're borrowing that money as well. We're borrowing more money,
adding to the deficit, adding to the debt.
Mr. PERLMUTTER. I yield myself so much time as I might consume.
I'm so glad that my friend Arizona was roused from his office because
of our conversation about FEMA to come down and talk about health
insurance. So I appreciate his statement that higher insurance premiums
are going to be the reality. That's the reality today. That was the
reality yesterday. That was the reality the day before that. That was
the reality in California when they wanted to take the rates up 40
percent, I would say to my friend. That was the reality last year. That
was the reality the year before. If we keep doing the same thing, we're
going to get the same answers. You have to change things at some point,
is what I would say to my friend from Arizona.
I would also say to my friend from Arizona, to argue against
eliminating discrimination against preexisting conditions, which is
what I thought I heard you say, touches pretty much everybody's life in
America. Somebody, either a close friend, a family member, a neighbor
of everybody in this Chamber today, whether on the floor or in the
gallery, has somebody who they know closely has a preexisting
condition, and that is something that has to be addressed.
Mr. FLAKE. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. PERLMUTTER. Not yet.
So I would say to my friend that I appreciate him coming up here to
talk to us about health insurance premiums which are constantly on the
rise. We've got to deal with folks who suffer from preexisting
conditions and can't find assistance otherwise when it comes to their
health insurance. Personally--and I have said many times that I think
it's a violation of the 14th Amendment, the Equal Protection Clause of
the 14th Amendment by not allowing people to have equal access to
insurance. And part of what was addressed by the historic bill that was
signed yesterday by the President is that those people can get
insurance. Those folks who have preexisting conditions can get
insurance. We can have portability, the ability to go from one job to
another, not be locked into a job for fear of losing our insurance.
I appreciated the comments. You'll get another chance. I'm sure the
gentlewoman has a lot of time, so she'll yield to you.
{time} 1200
The other thing I wanted to say to my good friend because he brought
up the economics, in the last 18 months of the Bush administration,
this country lost about $17 trillion in wealth: in homes; in 401(k)s
and pension plans; and in jobs. Since last year, the country, each one
of us, in our little way, each one of us has gained about $5 trillion
back. Our 401(k)s have improved; our pensions have improved; there has
been a stabilizing of home prices; and jobs, as we talked about
earlier, are starting to come back after being lost at an unbelievable
rate under the Bush administration. So the stock market is up by 4,000
points in the last year. It lost 7,500 points in the last 18 months of
the Bush administration.
We are not anywhere near where we need to be, but I say to my friend
who is complaining about the laws of economics, that those laws seem to
be working in a positive sense now.
I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) who
will actually speak about the bill that is before us which is about
FEMA funding and job training.
Mr. PASCRELL. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and
I rise in strong support of the rule and the underlying legislation,
H.R. 4899, the Disaster Relief and Summer Jobs Act of 2010. I want to
commend the Rules Committee, Chairman Obey and the rest of the
Appropriations Committee for bringing this legislation to the floor.
This legislation further shows the Democratic majority's commitment to
supporting jobs for the American people. Jobs for over 300,000 young
people this summer are supported and fully offset in this legislation.
Last weekend, the 8th Congressional District of New Jersey, along
with many other communities throughout the State, were hit with a
severe nor'easter that caused near record flooding throughout the
Passaic River basin. The rising waters, combined with downed trees and
power lines, have led to the closing of many roads and bridges. Over
2,500 residents were forced to evacuate; and State, county and local
first responders continued their great work to help safeguard life and
property.
The flooding has damaged over 3,000 homes. I went back on Monday to
see for myself. I took 3 hours and came right back. Over 400 businesses
were devastated. A preliminary damage assessment estimates the loss to
the public sector alone to be almost $10 million. That is the public
sector.
On Monday when I briefly returned to my district to see for myself,
FEMA was there on schedule, and we hope there will be a very short
period between the time they present their information to the Governor
of the State of New Jersey and then he will make his appeal to the
Federal Government. That is how FEMA should work. We just got notice,
in fact, yesterday that the snow disaster that occurred in the southern
part of the State is just being responded to, so these are bureaucratic
nightmares, particularly to those people forced out of their homes.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. PERLMUTTER. I yield the gentleman another 30 seconds.
Mr. PASCRELL. It is critical that we approve the $5.1 billion
included in this emergency legislation to allow FEMA to continue its
work helping areas of the country like northern New Jersey recover from
these natural disasters.
I urge an ``aye'' vote on the rule and the underlying bill.
Mr. PERLMUTTER. I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Flake).
Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentlelady for yielding. What got me to the
floor was not to talk about FEMA, but when the gentleman brought out a
chart about the economy and jobs, that is what I wanted to talk about.
The gentleman mentioned preexisting conditions. What I said was this
may or may not be good public policy to deal with that. I think it is,
but we ought to deal with it in a responsible way. The Republican plan
was to assist jobs in having high-risk pools for those with preexisting
conditions to go into. And that way you simply don't even pretend you
are suspending the laws of economics and telling the insurance
companies you can't raise your rates because we have suspended the laws
of economics. You recognize that is a cost and that is a subsidy that
will have to be borne, but you do it honestly, not this way, not the
way we did it by saying, hey, we are just going to pass a law, have
everybody covered, and assume we have suspended the laws of economics
and insurance rates will not go up.
The gentleman mentioned that insurance rates have been rising over
the years; you bet they have. And part of the reason for which is we
have shielded insurance companies from competition. We don't allow them
to sell insurance across State lines. And nowhere in this legislation
do we allow them to do that. We also don't allow individuals to have
the same purchasing power that companies have so you can't as an
individual with pretax dollars go out
[[Page H2278]]
and shop for health insurance. So we have shielded them from
competition, and of course rates are going to go up. But they are going
to go up rapidly now because we have imposed these costs upon them.
Again, when we talk about jobs, this seem to be the mantra now. If we
can't allow the job-creating sector to create jobs by having a
reasonable tax and regulatory environment out there, then we are just
going to create government jobs. So that is what we are doing here. We
are going to be borrowing $600 million because even if it is in another
program, we are going to be borrowing that money, too. We are going to
be borrowing $600 million and saying to people, we are going to create
more temporary government jobs throughout the summer. That is not the
answer to our economic woes.
Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to
close.
We keep talking about the economic situation in this country because
it is extraordinarily important to all of us, and all of these bills
that are being passed are exacerbating the problem. As my colleague
from Arizona said and we have said over and over, you cannot repeal the
laws of economics. Our colleagues across the aisle think they can.
Right now, just the interest on U.S. debt in FY 2010 is going to be
$425 billion. That's like paying interest on a credit card and never
ever paying off the principal. The enormous burden of the interest cost
on our debt takes money out of the economy for future generations and
diverts funds from being used for other more pressing priorities. In
addition, the U.S. dependence on borrowing money to fund our budget
deficit places our Nation in the precarious situation of being beholden
to foreign nations like China to finance our Federal spending. High
national debt also diminishes confidence in an economy.
As even President Obama said in November 2009: I think it is
important to recognize if we keep on adding to the debt, even in the
midst of this recovery, that some people can lose confidence in the
U.S. economy in a way that can actually lead to a double-dip recession.
The President and our colleagues on the other side of the aisle talk
a good game, and then they do the opposite. Despite their rhetoric of
fiscal responsibility, the President's budget more than doubles the
debt, drives spending to a new record of $3.8 trillion in fiscal year
2011, pushing the deficit to a new record of $1.6 trillion in FY 2010,
and raises taxes by over $2 trillion through 2020 by the
administration's own estimates.
The President's FY 2011 budget doubles the debt in 5 years and
triples it by 2019 from FY 2008 levels. It pushes the debt to $9.3
trillion this year, or 63.6 percent of gross domestic product, the
largest debt in history and the largest debt as a share of our economy
in 59 years. Despite the Senate's passage of a $1.9 trillion increase
in the debt limit, Congress would need to increase this limit again
before October 1, 2011, under the President's budget. The interest bill
on the debt would more than quadruple by the end of the decade,
reaching $840 billion in 2020.
The budget boosts the deficit to a record level this year, $1.6
trillion, or 10.6 percent, of GDP. This is the largest deficit as a
share of the economy since World War II. Deficits never fall below $700
billion, never below 3.6 percent of GDP, and end the decade at more
than $1 trillion.
Even with a decline in spending due to the repayment of most TARP
funds and the eventual spend-out of stimulus funds, spending reaches a
record level of $3.8 trillion in FY 2011. The budget does not include
the spending impact of the administration's cap-and-trade proposal.
Even so, spending is still 23.7 percent of the economy at the end of
the decade when the historical average has always been 20 percent.
Madam Speaker, we are in a critical time in our country. Economists
have told me that unless we stop spending in a very short period of
time, we are going to become like a Third World nation. What has set us
apart for so long from the rest of the world has been the rule of law
and the fact that we have been fiscally conservative. The American
people are fiscally conservative; they expect their government to be
so. We are putting this country in danger and Republicans are sounding
the call. We want to help the American people, but we know the best way
we can do that is for the Federal Government to get out of the way and
let the entrepreneurial spirit and the freedom that has always
characterized this country allow people to do what is the right thing
to do for our economy. This direction is wrong. We are going to
continue to say that it is wrong, and we know the American people
understand that.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule, to vote ``no'' on
the underlying bill. We don't need to create more government jobs. We
need to let people have control of their lives and of their money. They
will bring the economy back.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. PERLMUTTER. Madam Speaker, I just would remind my friend from
North Carolina and the other Members of her party that when you cut
taxes for the wealthiest of Americans, as was done under the Bush
administration and the Republican Congress, prosecute two wars without
paying for them, and have absolutely no regulation of Wall Street, you
get a financial disaster. We are talking about natural disasters, but
they created a financial disaster that we saw caused the loss of
millions of jobs beginning in 2008.
We need to reverse that, and that is precisely what is happening. The
job loss has gone from 780,000 jobs lost in January 2009, the last
month that George Bush was in office, to 20,000 jobs lost in January
2010. Not good enough, but a lot better. The stock market lost 7,500
points; and in the last year, it has gained 4,000 points back. Not
where we want to be, but a heck of a lot better.
There was $17 trillion lost by each American in their home, in their
pension, in their 401(k)s and in their jobs in the last 18 months of
the George Bush administration. We have gained $5 trillion back. Not
good enough, but a heck of a lot better.
Finally, the fourth quarter of 2008, the last quarter of the Bush
administration, the steepest drop in the gross domestic product, what
this country produces, really since the Depression, 6 percent drop,
gained 5.7 percent in the fourth quarter of 2009. It hasn't gotten us
back to even, but it is a lot better. That is what is going on. And
what we want to do on our side of the aisle is get those Americans back
to work who lost their jobs. That is what this bill is about, the $600
million for job training, for summer jobs. It is to get people back to
work.
When we get people back to work, when this country has employment
that is better than today, then we can really take a good look at the
debt, as they suggest, because that is true, we need to look at the
debt that exists in this country; but we have to get people back to
work.
Now, let's talk about what is the guts of the bill that is before us,
and that is to fund disaster relief. The disaster relief fund for FEMA
is just about out of money, and we need to fund that so we can deal
with the disasters that are existing today in North Dakota, in
Minnesota, New Jersey, North Carolina, but also the ones that we know
are coming over the course of the next 6 or 8 months.
So the bill provides for FEMA funding. It provides for job training
and summer jobs. And, Madam Speaker, this bill that is before us is
about saving lives. It is about dealing with disasters. We need to be
prepared and that is the whole purpose. We can't have any more
Katrinas. We need to do our best to try to deal with those disasters
that we know are coming.
I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.
I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous
question.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
[[Page H2279]]
____________________