[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]]



                          ____________________