[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 47 (Wednesday, March 24, 2010)]
[House]
[Pages H2300-H2311]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DISASTER RELIEF AND SUMMER JOBS ACT OF 2010
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1204, I call up
the bill (H.R. 4899) making emergency supplemental appropriations for
disaster relief and summer jobs for the fiscal year ending September
30, 2010, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1204, the bill
is considered read.
The text of the bill is follows:
H.R. 4899
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the
following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the
Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 2010, and for other purposes, namely:
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Federal Emergency Management Agency
disaster relief
(including transfer of funds)
For an additional amount for ``Disaster Relief'',
$5,100,000,000, to remain available until expended, of which
$5,000,000 shall be transferred to the Department of Homeland
Security Office of the Inspector General for audits and
investigations related to disasters.
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
training and employment services
For an additional amount for ``Training and Employment
Services'' for activities under the Workforce Investment Act
of 1998 (``WIA''), $600,000,000, which shall be available for
obligation on the date of enactment of this Act, for grants
to the States for youth activities: Provided, That such funds
shall be used solely for summer employment programs for
youth: Provided further, That no portion of such funds shall
be reserved to carry out section 127(b)(1)(A) of the WIA:
Provided further, That for purposes of section
127(b)(1)(C)(iv) of the WIA, funds available for youth
activities shall be allotted as if the total amount available
for youth activities in the fiscal year does not exceed
$1,000,000,000: Provided further, That the work readiness
performance indicator described in section
136(b)(2)(A)(ii)(I) of the WIA shall be the only measure of
performance used to assess the effectiveness of summer
employment for youth provided with such funds.
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Payment to Widows and Heirs of Deceased Members of Congress
For a payment to Joyce Murtha, widow of John P. Murtha,
late a Representative from Pennsylvania, $174,000: Provided,
That section 102 shall not apply to this appropriation.
INDEPENDENT AGENCIES
Small Business Administration
business loans program account
For an additional amount for ``Business Loans Program
Account'' for fee reductions and eliminations under section
501 of title V of division A of the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-5) and for the cost
of guaranteed loans under section 502 of such title,
$20,000,000, to remain available until expended: Provided,
That such costs shall be as defined in section 502 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974: Provided further, That up
to $40,000,000 of the amount made available under this
heading in Public Law 111-117 also may be utilized for the
purposes specified in this paragraph: Provided further, That
section 502(f) of title V of division A of the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-5) is
amended by striking ``March 28, 2010'' and inserting ``April
30, 2010''.
GENERAL PROVISIONS
rescissions
Sec. 101. There are hereby rescinded the following amounts
from the specified accounts:
(1) ``Department of Commerce--National Telecommunications
and Information Administration--Digital-to-Analog Converter
Box Program'', $111,500,000, to be derived from unobligated
balances made available under this heading in title II of
division A of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of
2009 (Public Law 111-5; 123 Stat. 128).
(2) ``Department of Transportation--National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration--Consumer Assistance to Recycle
and
[[Page H2301]]
Save Program'', $44,000,000, to be derived from unobligated
balances made available in title XIII of Public Law 111-32
and in Public Law 111-47.
(3) ``Department of Agriculture--Food and Nutrition
Service--Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women,
Infants, and Children (WIC)'', $361,825,000, to be derived
from unobligated balances available from amounts placed in
reserve in title I of division A of the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-5; 123 Stat. 115).
(4) Accounts under the heading ``Department of
Agriculture--Rural Development Programs'', $102,675,000, to
be derived from the unobligated balances of funds that were
provided for such accounts in prior appropriation Acts (other
than Public Law 111-5) and that were designated by the
Congress in such Acts as an emergency requirement pursuant to
a concurrent resolution on the budget or the Balanced Budget
and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.
emergency designation
Sec. 102. Each amount in this Act is designated as an
emergency requirement and necessary to meet emergency needs
pursuant to sections 403 and 423(b) of S. Con. Res. 13 (111th
Congress), the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal
year 2010.
short title
Sec. 103. This Act may be cited as the ``Disaster Relief
and Summer Jobs Act of 2010''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and
the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin.
General Leave
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have
5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and
include extraneous material on H.R. 4899.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Wisconsin?
There was no objection.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
This a very simple bill. It provides $5.1 billion as requested by the
President for FEMA disaster relief because FEMA will run out of money
in the next 2 or 3 weeks. Consistent with all prior year FEMA
supplementals and the President's request, this $5.1 billion is
designated as an emergency. The bill also provides $600 million for
youth summer jobs. This funding will support over 300,000 jobs for
youth ages 16 to 21. This age group had some of the highest
unemployment levels in the country:
Last, the bill extends the successful small business lending
provisions that are contained in the Recovery Act for another month and
provides up to $60 million for that effort. Again, that new funding is
offset. The bill rescinds emergency funding that is not needed in order
to provide for the offsets.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I believe that most Members
would agree that the fiscal path that our country is currently on is
unsustainable. With an annual deficit of $1.6 trillion, a growing
mountain of debt, and unemployment hovering near 10 percent, it's clear
that we must change our course now or face catastrophic consequences in
the very near future.
My colleagues, the simple truth is that Uncle Sam needs a diet. The
single greatest challenge of this Congress and our best hope for
lasting recovery lies in curbing Uncle Sam's appetite for spending.
It's time to cut up the government's credit card and live within our
means starting right now, today.
Just two nights ago, Congress passed a $1 trillion health care bill
that was opposed by every Republican House member and 39 Democrat House
members. Never before in our Nation's history has such historic
legislation been passed by one party over such widespread bipartisan
opposition. Now, here we are again preparing to vote on yet another
huge spending bill that was crafted without any transparency or
bipartisan involvement.
Most Members would agree that providing relief to Americans suffering
from natural disasters is a responsible and worthy use of taxpayer
dollars. Most Members would also agree we don't need to load up a
disaster bill with hundreds of millions of dollars on a summer youth
program--especially when there is already $1.4 billion in the jobs
pipeline.
It's worth noting that the $600 million for a summer youths job
program is being offset by various rescissions in unused funding from
the stimulus bill and other past spending bills.
But my underlying question is this: If there is $1.4 billion already
in the pipeline for a Department of Labor jobs program, why can't we
return the rescinded $600 million dollars back to the Treasury for
deficit reduction? Why must my Democrat friends continue to spend and
spend and spend and spend?
At the beginning of this Congress, the Appropriations Committee
consisted of 60 members--37 Democrats and 23 Republicans. It's worth
noting, however, that my chairman has made it a habit to write his
bills and completely bypass the Democrat and Republican members of the
committee. Do not for one minute believe that this legislation reflects
the work of the House Appropriations Committee or even the Democrats on
the Appropriations Committee, because it does not. To my knowledge,
this bill has had no input from any members other than the chairman
himself. There's been no markup, no amendments, and no potential
offsets debated or even discussed by the committee.
Like the trillion-dollar stimulus package and the subsequent ``son of
stimulus'' passed by the House prior to Christmas, this legislation
will pass without any opportunity for a Member to amend it. With
billions and billions of stimulus funding still unspent, there is no
reason why the entire emergency relief portion of this legislation
cannot be entirely paid for or be used to begin paying down that $1.6
trillion deficit for the year.
{time} 1600
Mr. Obey has argued that Republicans didn't ``pay for'' disasters
when we were in charge. On that point, he is correct. However, when
Republicans were the majority party, annual deficits were not $1.6
trillion as they are today, and we didn't have hundreds of billions of
dollars in unnecessary funding sloshing around in Federal coffers.
Surely we can cut $5.1 billion in unspent stimulus funding to pay for
the FEMA spending involved here. We shouldn't continue to spend money
we don't have.
Mr. Speaker, we can agree to disagree on the cause of our economic
troubles, but the fact remains that we cannot spend our way into
economic health. Until the Congress curbs its appetite for spending,
our economy will continue to suffer.
With that said, I urge Members on both sides of the aisle to insist,
especially after Sunday's budget-busting vote on health care, that we
fully offset the entire cost of this legislation so we do not further
burden future generations with even more debt.
I will close, as I began, with this comment: The simple truth is that
Uncle Sam needs a diet.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OBEY. I yield myself 2 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I would simply note that the gentleman is complaining
because the committee is using precisely the same procedures that it
used in the past when he was chairman and his party was in control of
the situation.
When Republicans controlled the House, they brought supplementals to
the floor in five out of six Congresses that were handled by the
chairman and the chairman alone. That is no different than is happening
today. In fact, from 1995 through 2006, while Republicans controlled
the institution, the House considered 12 supplemental appropriation
bills handled in just that same way.
Secondly, with respect to the so-called runaway spending for summer
youth jobs, that spending is fully offset by other cuts in the bill. So
much for runaway spending. I can't recall similar fiscal rectitude when
the other party was running this place.
Thirdly, let me suggest that when the gentleman complains about not
offsetting the funding for the emergency disaster relief program, I
would point out that the past administration asked us to do the very
same thing eight times in a row, and the Congress did.
Let me also say, by the way, that I would invite the gentleman from
California to join me in cosponsoring legislation, which I have
introduced in this House several times, which would set up a State-
funded disaster program which would be experience rated so that each
State would pay into that fund ahead of time on the basis of how much
they have drawn out of it in the past.
[[Page H2302]]
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. OBEY. I yield myself 1 additional minute.
I would point out that more than half of all disaster relief since
1993 has gone to just four States: Louisiana, Florida, California--the
gentleman's home State--and Mississippi; and 80 percent of all disaster
relief since 1993 has gone to 10 States: those four plus Texas, Puerto
Rico, Alabama, Iowa, North Carolina, and New York.
As a Representative of a State that is not in that 10-State group, I
am perfectly happy to end the need for virtually all disaster payments
paid for by Uncle Sam by establishing the kind of proposal that I have
supported for years. I doubt very much the gentleman from California
would like that because then California would be paying into it in the
same measure that they are drawing out of it through the years.
But I would, nonetheless, invite any Member interested in fiscal
rectitude, whether from a recipient State or not, to join me in that
effort and then we won't have these meaningless debates on the floor
anymore.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
I simply rise, in part, to respond to the comments of my colleague. I
think it's important for us to know that we do have quite a history of
supplemental funding and what we do with emergency spending.
As the chairman suggests, there has been a lot of funny business that
has gone on, but I thought the Members ought to know that from fiscal
year 1989 through fiscal year 2006 there have been 36 multiagency
supplemental appropriations bills that have been considered by the
Congress, and most of them have been enacted into law. Of those, only
seven were never considered by our Appropriations Committee and this
one was not considered by our Appropriations Committee. It was
introduced almost at midnight, the very day we dealt with that
trillion-dollar deficit package that was before us. Those seven that
bypassed the committee I could easily go through in detail, but
essentially they were dealing with the natural disasters that related
to hurricanes in Florida and the disaster that impacted Louisiana and
the like. Emergencies, indeed, but the committee was bypassed for those
emergencies.
It seems to me that it's about time that we took up supplementals
like this, instead of being written at the last minute, be handled in
regular order, be considered by the committee, be available to the
members for not only reading but for amending, and it has become a
consistent pattern that we are not doing that. We are bypassing our
committee as though the committee or subcommittees might as well not
exist.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OBEY. I yield myself 30 seconds.
I would simply say, Mr. Speaker, that the White House submitted this
request for disaster relief over a month ago. Everyone in this
institution has known about it; in addition to which, the gentleman's
staff has known for a good 2 weeks that we would be considering this
disaster relief. The only thing that's different is that we found
offsets within the past few days that would help to fully pay for the
summer jobs program so, therefore, we included that in the proposition.
This is hardly a complicated matter. I am sure that the gentleman
from California is up to a full understanding of it.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers).
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I thank the ranking member for yielding.
I rise, Mr. Speaker, to voice my disappointment with this bill.
First, the sheer cost of the disaster relief section of this bill has
largely resulted from the administration's own reluctance to be
forthright on true disaster costs. When the administration knew full
well that they were looking at an immense shortfall for disaster relief
costs for fiscal year 2010, they all but stuck their heads in the sand,
refused to get off the dime and submit an official request or budget
amendment, and that's after continued inquiries and even congressional
direction--congressional direction--to be more forthcoming with known
costs.
To add insult to injury, FEMA's inability to accurately assess the
costs of certain damages have led to several large arbitration rulings
and settlements, rulings in which FEMA was admonished for having no
sound basis for its estimates. FEMA's ineptitude has resulted in an
additional $1.2 billion in costs to the taxpayers. Ineptitude.
These failures amount to an expensive and now hurried bill. It goes
without saying that the administration and FEMA must do better in
estimating and budgeting for the real costs of disasters. We have been
on this broken path for too long.
Secondly, given the failings of the administration and FEMA, and
considering this supplemental does not follow a singular catastrophic
event, I see no reason why the administration and the Democrat majority
have not worked harder to offset this spending. This concern is
especially relevant when billions of dollars in unobligated money is
lying around--sloshing--in the so-called stimulus bill, a point that
Chairman Lewis has made repeatedly here today.
Why are we further burdening the American people with additional debt
when there are monies that can and should be used to pay for the costs
of real emergencies? Sadly, the majority hasn't even notionally
consulted the minority or, for that matter, the committee on finding
ways to pay for this and is choosing, instead, to just ram this bill
through the House with only an hour of debate.
I would like to think that had this bill been handled properly with
at least some minority input, we could have collaborated to produce a
more fiscally disciplined bill and a bill that included some tough and
badly needed oversight on how the administration and FEMA is budgeting
for disaster relief funding. Needless to say, the majority seems hell-
bent on spending taxpayer money without even giving lip service to an
offset.
Mr. Speaker, at this rate, we are simply passing an impossible
financial emergency to our children and our grandchildren. To say that
I am disappointed at this bill's cost and lack of oversight and
discipline is a gross understatement. The administration and this
Democrat majority must do better.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price).
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I thank the chairman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the disaster relief and summer jobs
supplemental appropriations bill, which includes $5.1 billion for the
Federal Emergency Management Agency's Disaster Relief Fund. The
administration has requested this amount in emergency funding to pay
for recovery from catastrophic events and to be able to respond to
disasters and emergencies through the balance of the fiscal year.
This bill is about making sure that FEMA keeps its promises to
devastated communities that are getting back on their feet as well as
to those who may face disasters in the months to come. In addition to
ongoing recovery costs associated with an active hurricane season and
extraordinary flooding in the Midwest in 2008, FEMA is still required
to pay for some very expensive outstanding costs related to Katrina,
such as the devastated Louisiana schools and Charity Hospital.
Because we are still dealing with these monumental recovery efforts,
the Disaster Relief Fund is being depleted at a rate of nearly $500
million per month this fiscal year. This has nearly doubled the
noncatastrophic 5-year average that FEMA bases its estimates on. At
that rate, OMB projects FEMA will be completely out of disaster relief
funds by the end of March.
It's unfortunate that we find ourselves in the position of running
low on funds just halfway through the fiscal year. I agree that FEMA
needs to find a better way to budget, to account for the known costs of
these catastrophic events when formulating the budget request. I have
pressed them to do that and will continue to do so. But it is
disingenuous for those on the other side of the aisle to lecture us on
this issue when, to a large extent, as they well know, this
supplemental is required to deal with the mess inherited from the
[[Page H2303]]
previous administration. And by ``the mess,'' I mean the practice of
lowballing projected disaster costs as well as billions in deferred
obligations.
The fact of the matter is the last administration failed to bring
these major public infrastructure projects in the gulf coast to a
resolution. We are talking about billions of dollars worth of
liabilities that were just kicked down the road. So no lectures,
please, on irresponsible budgeting. Over $2 billion of this
supplemental could be spent dealing with unresolved Katrina costs.
The FEMA administrator brought these issues to light in a recent
hearing before our subcommittee. He has now committed to correcting
these deficiencies, to cleaning up the mess he inherited, and to making
sure FEMA accounts for its recovery costs, fully accounts, rather than
punting them to the next administration.
Based on the impending shortfall in the fund, FEMA announced last
month that it could only pay for ``immediate needs'' for disasters,
which includes assistance to families and individuals, as well as
debris removal and emergency protective measures. All long-term
rebuilding projects are being deferred until Congress acts. To put that
into perspective for my colleagues, that means that over $367 million
worth of projects in 43 States and four territories will continue to be
delayed if we fail to act.
{time} 1615
And this backlog will only continue to grow. When you add the
expensive Katrina-related issues, FEMA is currently liable for nearly
$2 billion in costs.
In addition to addressing these past disasters, we must prepare for
those to come. The National Weather Service, the Army Corps of
Engineers currently estimate that one-third of the U.S. will be faced
with the possibility of flooding this spring. Without these funds, FEMA
will not be able to assist local communities and States responding to
these flooding disasters. It's critical that we replenish the disaster
relief funds now.
I remind my colleagues that we have always considered disaster relief
funds to be emergency funding, under Republican and Democratic
Congresses, under Republican and Democratic administrations. The last
administration transmitted eight supplementary funding requests for the
disaster relief fund between fiscal 2002 and 2006. Those disaster
relief funds were always requested as an emergency and were not offset.
We all have a stake, Mr. Speaker, in the passage of this bill. I urge
my colleagues to support it.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate my
colleague from North Carolina. He's a regular order kind of guy, and he
chairs the Homeland Security Subcommittee. I've only been complaining
about the way we're handling the process.
My chairman so far has not brought a single supplement to the floor
under an open rule. And you can deal with these things with an open
rule reasonably on the floor. But, ideally, you deal with them in
committee, have a chance for amendments and otherwise.
We just don't bring supplementals to the committee for discussion. So
far there have been--my colleague should know this--so far there have
been $800 billion in spending numbers that Members didn't get a chance
to have any input upon.
With that, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr.
Tiahrt).
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, there's no doubt that unemployment remains a
problem; but the majority, for some reason, thinks we need to borrow
another $600 million to subsidize summer jobs for kids. But, you know,
there's a lot of money already available. Out of the $1.2 billion
provided for youth jobs in the so-called Recovery Act, $366 million is
still unspent. There's another $924 million in annual appropriations
that will be available in about 1 week from now.
Additionally, for each of the last two program years, there's
approximately $250 million appropriated for youth employment that has
not been spent and been carried forward. So when you add all that up,
it's $1.5 billion that's available today already for youth programs in
the summer.
Why on God's green Earth would we borrow another $600 million from
the Chinese?
Mr. OBEY. Will the gentleman yield on that?
Mr. TIAHRT. I have limited time, Mr. Chairman. If you'll be brief.
Mr. OBEY. I would yield to you 30 seconds so I might ask you a
question.
Mr. TIAHRT. I would welcome to have your question, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. OBEY. Why do you keep saying we're borrowing money to add to the
summer youth program when this bill fully offsets every dime that we're
spending on it?
Mr. TIAHRT. Well, Mr. Chairman, we overspent so far this year $655
billion.
Mr. OBEY. No. Would you answer my question? We are not adding one
dime to the deficit by what we are adding to the summer jobs program.
We are fully paying for it by cuts in other programs.
I have great respect for my friend from Kansas, but he needs to be
accurate in what he says.
Mr. TIAHRT. I thank the Chairman. And I would argue that of the $655
billion that we've already had to borrow, you're taking some of that
money and applying it to this program so, again, borrowing money from
the Chinese.
Mr. OBEY. That's new math.
Mr. TIAHRT. Well, I guess I'm entitled to my new math today.
I would like to make the point that these summer jobs, or these
temporary youth jobs that are paid for by tax dollars don't create
permanent jobs. Wichita State University did a study of what we
received with the stimulus money; and of the $6.2 million that was
received, 600 employers temporarily hired 1,593 youth for summer jobs.
Out of that, only 62 jobs were permanent, or 3.8 percent.
So if you look at what's happened through the stimulus, since the
stimulus business was passed, we've lost 3.9 million private sector
jobs. We have created jobs in the Federal Government, 63,000 jobs,
another 230,000 jobs at the State and local level. How are we going to
pay for those jobs in the future?
We've created permanent government jobs and lost private sector jobs.
A little math--that's not new math, but proven math--says that for
every government employee, it takes 10 private sector jobs to pay
enough Federal taxes to cover the cost of that employee.
So what we should be talking about is not temporary jobs in the
summer for youth, but permanent jobs, real jobs. And in fact, we need 3
million jobs just to cover the new government jobs that we've created.
We can create those jobs through tax relief for employers. We can do it
by freezing regulations and forcing the existing regulations through a
simple formula where the benefit exceeds the cost. And we need tort
reform, and we need to become energy independent.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. LEWIS of California. I yield the gentleman an additional minute.
Mr. TIAHRT. The point I want to make about creating a strong economy
to pay for these new government jobs at the Federal and State level, we
have to do things to provide opportunity in our economy. The way you do
that is you enhance the process of hiring people.
Capital is always a coward and only goes where it's welcome. Lowering
taxes for people who invest in jobs will attract capital into our
economy.
Second, we need to freeze our current regulations and force all the
regulations that we have on the books today through a simple formula: B
has to be greater than C. That means that the benefit has to exceed the
cost of implementation. If we would do that, we would lower the cost of
creating things in America, of making things in America, and we have to
make things.
The third thing I would argue is we need to have tort reform. I favor
a loser-pay system like they have in the United Kingdom.
And, fourth, I would like to say if we became energy independent, we
would solve our unemployment problem. Only one State in the entire
United States last year had increased employment. That State was North
Dakota, and it was because they found oil under private property. Had
it been under public lands, we could not have extracted the oil. But
because it was private lands, we created jobs.
I recommend we oppose this bill.
[[Page H2304]]
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
I invite the gentleman's attention to page 4 and page 5 of the bill.
If he will read those two pages, he will see that every dollar of
additional spending for summer jobs is paid for by a reduction in other
government spending programs.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole).
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I share my colleagues' concerns about what's
in the bill, but I'm also concerned by what's not in the bill and,
frankly, that's money to fund the settlement of the so-called Cobell
lawsuit.
As my colleagues on both sides of the aisle know, this lawsuit
against the Federal Government stems from the mismanagement of Indian
trust accounts and trust land since 1887. It involves over half a
million claimants; it has drug on for 14 years through three different
administrations involving both parties.
Finally, in December of last year, a settlement was reached, $3.4
billion: $1.4 billion to individual claimants, $2 billion to allow for
the repurchase of fractionated lands, and some money set aside for an
Indian scholarship fund.
I want to particularly, frankly, commend Secretary Salazar, who did a
wonderful job in bringing this issue to closure. But it's now squarely
in our court in the Congress of the United States. The President has
asked us to solve this problem or to fund the settlement that he's
negotiated.
For the record, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to enter the President's letter
to the Speaker asking action on this particular item. So it's now
squarely in our court.
When the settlement was negotiated, there was a deadline that we
would act in Congress by December 31 of last year. Obviously, we missed
that. There's a second deadline of February 28. We missed that. The
last deadline is April 15.
I know that many of my friends on the other side of the aisle
sincerely want to settle this issue, and I look forward to working with
them as we try to move toward that; but I find it very difficult to
keep people that have been waiting over 100 years waiting a while
longer while we do things in a more immediate framework. So I urge the
Congress to act, and I urge us to, frankly, support the
administration's negotiated settlement. When we do that I'll be there
to help my friends on the other side of the aisle.
The White House,
Washington, DC, February 12, 2010.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
Speaker of the House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Madam Speaker: I ask the Congress to consider the
enclosed amendments to Fiscal Year (FY) 2010 proposals in my
FY 2011 Budget.
Included is an amendment for the Department of Homeland
Security, Disaster Relief, for the continued response and
recovery efforts associated with prior large events, such as
Hurricane Katrina and the Midwest Floods. The proposed total
for FY 2010 in my FY 2011 Budget would increase by $1.5
billion as a result of this amendment.
Also included are amendments to general provisions that
would provide authorization and funding for FY 2010 to
implement the settlement of a case involving the management
of individual Indian trust accounts related to Indian lands
and to settle claims of prior discrimination brought by black
farmers against the Department of Agriculture.
The details of these requests are set forth in the enclosed
letter from the Director of the Office of Management and
Budget.
Sincerely,
Barack Obama.
Enclosure.
Executive Office of the President, Office of Management
and Budget,
Washington, DC, February 12, 2010.
The President,
The White House.
Submitted for your consideration are amendments to the
Fiscal Year (FY) 2010 proposals in your FY 2011 Budget.
Included is an amendment for the Department of Homeland
Security, Disaster Relief. Also included are amendments to
general provisions that would provide authorization and
funding for FY 2010 to implement the settlement of a case
involving the management of individual Indian trust accounts
related to Indian lands and to settle claims of prior
discrimination brought by black farmers against the
Department of Agriculture. These amendments are described
below and in more detail in the enclosures.
The proposed Budget totals for FY 2010 would increase by
$1.5 billion as a result of the following amendment:
Department of Homeland Security, Disaster Relief. This
amendment would provide an additional $1.5 billion and would
increase the pending $3.6 billion FY 2010 supplemental
request included in the FY 2011 Budget to $5.1 billion. These
supplemental funds are needed before March 2010 for the
continued response and recovery efforts associated with prior
large events, such as Hurricane Katrina and the Midwest
Floods. This supplemental request is also being re-
transmitted to underscore the importance of acting in a
timely fashion.
Two FY 2010 proposals were included as mandatory requests
in the FY 2011 Budget, with an expectation that authorization
language would be transmitted at a later date. However, at
this time there are no other appropriate legislative vehicles
available to allow for expeditious consideration of these
proposals. Therefore, they are now being requested as changes
in mandatory programs and as such, are being transmitted to
the Appropriations Committee for their disposition.
General Provision, Sec. 1: Cobell v. Salazar. This
amendment would provide authorization and funding to
implement the settlement of Cobell v. Salazar, a case
involving the management of individual Indian trust accounts
related to Indian lands. Pending congressional action and
final approval by the Court, $3.412 billion will be expended
from the Department of the Treasury's Claims, Judgments, and
Relief Acts account in FY 2010. Within this total, the
settlement agreement provides that $2.0 billion from the
appropriation to this account will be transferred to a new
Trust Land Consolidation Fund in the Department of the
Interior for the buy-back and consolidation of fractionated
land interests and other activities.
General Provision, Sec. 2: Discrimination Claims
Settlement. This amendment would provide authorization and FY
2010 funding of $1.150 billion to settle claims of prior
discrimination brought by black farmers against the
Department of Agriculture that were previously addressed by
section 14012 of Public Law 110-246, the Food Conservation
and Energy Act of 2008.
Recommendation
I have carefully reviewed these requests and am satisfied
that they are necessary at this time. Therefore, I join the
heads of the affected agencies in recommending you transmit
these proposals to the Congress.
Sincerely,
Peter R. Orszag,
Director.
Enclosures.
FY 2010 Supplemental Proposal in the FY 2011 Budget
Agency: Department of Homeland Security.
Bureau: Federal Emergency Management Agency.
Heading: Disaster Relief.
FY 2011 Budget Appendix Page: 1362.
FY 2010 Pending Supplemental Request: $3,600,000,000.
Proposed Amendment: $1,500,000,000.
FY 2010 Revised Supplemental Request: $5,100,000,000.
(In the appropriations language under the above heading,
delete ``$3,600,000,000'' and substitute $5,100,000,000.)
This amendment would provide an additional $1.5 billion for
the Disaster Relief account and would increase the pending
$3.6 billion FY 2010 supplemental request included in the FY
2011 Budget to $5.1 billion.
This request is submitted to: (1) reiterate the need to
provide the proposed funding before March 2010, and
underscore the Administration's support for this proposal;
and (2) request an additional $1.5 billion in anticipation of
arbitration panel decisions likely to impact the Disaster
Relief Fund in a previously unexpected manner. This proposal
provides additional funding for the continued response and
recovery efforts associated with prior large events, such as
Hurricane Katrina and the Midwest Floods.
Through the Disaster Relief Fund, the Federal Emergency
Management Agency provides a significant portion of the total
Federal response to Presidentially-declared major disasters
and emergencies. Primary assistance programs include Federal
assistance to individuals and households, public assistance,
and hazard mitigation assistance, which includes the repair
and reconstruction of State, local, and nonprofit
infrastructure.
FY 2010 Change in a Mandatory Program
Heading: General Provisions--This Act.
FY 2011 Budget Appendix Page: 1366.
FY 2010 Pending Request: $3,412,000,000.
Proposed Amendment:--.
Revised Request: $3,412,000,000.
(In the appropriations language, insert the above new
heading and the following new language directly following
section 2 of the ``General Provisions'' that appear on page
1365:)
SEC. 1. THE INDIVIDUAL INDIAN MONEY ACCOUNT LITIGATION
SETTLEMENT ACT OF 2010.
(a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the
``Individual Indian Money Account Litigation Settlement Act
of 2010''.
(b) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Amended complaint.--The term ``Amended Complaint''
means the Amended Complaint attached to the Settlement.
(2) Land consolidation program.--The term ``Land
Consolidation Program'' means a program conducted in
accordance with the Settlement and the Indian Land
Consolidation Act (25 U.S.C. 2201 et seq.) under which the
Secretary may purchase fractionated interests in trust or
restricted land.
[[Page H2305]]
(3) Litigation.--The term ``Litigation'' means the case
entitled Elouise Cobell et al. v. Ken Salazar et al., United
States District Court, District of Columbia, Civil Action No.
96-1285 (JR).
(4) Plaintiff.--The term ``Plaintiff'' means a member of
any class certified in the Litigation.
(5) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior.
(6) Settlement.--The term ``Settlement'' means the Class
Action Settlement Agreement dated December 7, 2009, in the
Litigation.
(7) Trust administration class.--The term ``Trust
Administration Class'' means the Trust Administration Class
as defined in the Settlement.
(c) Purpose.--The purpose of this section is to authorize
the Settlement.
(d) Authorization.--The Settlement is authorized, ratified,
and confirmed.
(e) Jurisdictional Provisions.--
(l) In general.--Notwithstanding the limitation on
jurisdiction of district courts contained in section
1346(a)(2) of title 28, United States Code, the United States
District Court for the District of Columbia shall have
jurisdiction over the claims asserted in the Amended
Complaint for purposes of the Settlement.
(2) Certification of trust administration class.--
(A) In general.--Notwithstanding the requirements of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the court overseeing the
Litigation may certify the Trust Administration Class.
(B) Treatment.--On certification under sub-paragraph (A),
the Trust Administration Class shall be treated as a class
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) for purposes
of the Settlement.
(f) Accounting/Trust Administration Fund.--
(1) In general.--Of the amounts appropriated by section
1304 of title 31, United States Code, $1,412,000,000 shall be
deposited in the Accounting/Trust Administration Fund, in
accordance with the Settlement.
(2) Conditions met.--The conditions described in section
1304 of title 31, United States Code, shall be considered to
be met for purposes of paragraph (1).
(g) Trust Land Consolidation.--
(1) Trust land consolidation fund.--
(A) Establishment.--On final approval (as defined in the
Settlement) of the Settlement, there shall be established in
the Treasury of the United States a fund, to be known as the
``Trust Land Consolidation Fund''.
(B) Availability of amounts.--Amounts in the Trust Land
Consolidation Fund shall be made available to the Secretary
during the 10-year period beginning on the date of final
approval of the Settlement--
(i) to conduct the Land Consolidation Program; and
(ii) for other costs specified in the Settlement.
(C) Deposits.--
(i) In general.--On final approval (as defined in the
Settlement) of the Settlement, the Secretary of the Treasury
shall deposit in the Trust Land Consolidation Fund
$2,000,000,000 of the amounts appropriated by section 1304 of
title 31, United States Code.
(ii) Conditions met.--The conditions described in section
1304 of title 31, United States Code, shall be considered to
be met for purposes of clause.
(D) Transfers.--In a manner designed to encourage
participation in the Land Consolidation Program, the
Secretary may transfer, at the discretion of the Secretary,
not more than $60,000,000 of amounts in the Trust Land
Consolidation Fund to the Indian Education Scholarship
Holding Fund established under paragraph 2.
(2) Indian education scholarship holding fund.--
(A) Establishment.--On the final approval (as defined in
the Settlement) of the Settlement, there shall be established
in the Treasury of the United States a fund, to be known as
the ``Indian Education Scholarship Holding Fund''.
(B)Availability.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law governing competition, public notification, or Federal
procurement or assistance, amounts in the Indian Education
Scholarship Holding Fund shall be made available, without
further appropriation, to the Secretary to contribute to an
Indian Education Scholarship Fund, as described in the
Settlement, to provide scholarships for Native Americans.
(3) Acquisition of trust or restricted land.--The Secretary
may acquire, at the discretion of the Secretary and in
accordance with the Land Consolidation Program, any
fractional interest in trust or restricted land.
(4) Treatment of unlocatable plaintiffs.--A Plaintiff the
whereabouts of whom are unknown and who, after reasonable
efforts by the Secretary, cannot be located during the 5 year
period beginning on the date of final approval (as defined in
the Settlement) of the Settlement shall be considered to have
accepted an offer made pursuant to the Land Consolidation
Program.
(h) Taxation and Other Benefits.--
(1) Internal revenue code.--For purposes of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986, amounts received by an individual
Indian as a lump sum or a periodic payment pursuant to the
Settlement--
(A) shall not be included in gross income; and
(B) shall not be taken into consideration for purposes of
applying any provision of the Internal Revenue Code that
takes into account excludable income in computing adjusted
gross income or modified adjusted gross income, including
section 86 of that Code (relating to Social Security and tier
1 railroad retirement benefits).
(2) Other benefits.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, amounts received by an individual Indian as a lump sum
or a periodic payment pursuant to the Settlement shall not be
treated for any household member, during the 1-year period
beginning on the date of receipt--
(A) as income for the month during which the amounts were
received; or
(B) as a resource,
for purposes of determining initial eligibility, ongoing
eligibility, or level of benefits under any Federal or
federally assisted program.
This amendment proposes language for consideration by the
Appropriations Committees to provide authorization and
funding to implement the settlement of Cobell v. Salazar, a
case involving the management of individual Indian trust
accounts related to Indian lands. Following the enactment of
this legislation and final approval of the settlement by the
Court, $3.412 billion will be expended from this account in
FY 2010.
Under the terms of the settlement, $1.412 billion would be
used to settle trust management and accounting issues. Each
class member will receive $1,000 for his or her historical
accounting claims and may receive additional funds related to
trust management claims under a formula set forth in the
settlement agreement. (Page 1032 of the FY 2011 Budget
Appendix, Department of the Treasury chapter, provides
further detail regarding implementation of this aspect of the
settlement.)
The settlement agreement also provides $2.0 billion from
the Claims, Judgments, and Relief Acts account for a new
Trust Land Consolidation Fund (Fund) for the buy-back and
consolidation of fractionated land interests. The Fund will
be used for purchases of fractionated interests in parcels of
land from individual Indian landowners. The Fund covers
administrative costs to undertake the process of acquiring
fractionated interests and associated trust reform
activities. The acquisition of fractionated interests is
authorized under the Indian Land Consolidation Act Amendments
of 2000 (Public Law 106-462), and the American Indian Probate
Reform Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-374). The proposed
settlement provides additional authority for the acquisition
of interests held by persons who cannot be located after
engaging in extensive efforts to notify them and locate them
for a five-year period. In addition to purchasing land
interests and other trust reform initiatives, the Fund will
also contribute up to $60 million for a scholarship fund for
the benefit of educating American Indians and Alaska Natives.
(Page 706 of the FY 2011 Budget Appendix, Department of the
Interior chapter, provides further detail regarding
implementation of this aspect of the settlement.)
The FY 2011 Budget included this proposal as mandatory
funding that would become available in FY 2010, consistent
with the recent settlement agreement, dated December 7, 2009,
and anticipated transmitting authorization language at a
later date. However, at this time there are no other
appropriate legislative vehicles available to allow for
expeditious consideration of these necessary proposals.
Therefore, it is now being requested as a change in a
mandatory program to meet the settlement's legislation
enactment deadline of February 28, 2010.
FY 2010 Change in a Mandatory Program
Heading: General Provisions--This Act.
FY 2011 Budget Appendix Page: 1366.
FY 2010 Pending Request: $1,150,000,000.
Proposed Amendment: --.
Revised Request: $1,150,000,000.
(In the appropriations language under the above newly
inserted heading, insert the following new section after the
newly inserted section 1:)
Sec. 2. (a) There is hereby appropriated to the Department
of Agriculture, $1,150,000,000, to remain available until
expended, to carry out the terms of a Settlement Agreement
(``such Settlement Agreement'') executed in In re Black
Farmers Discrimination Litigation, No. 18-511 (D.D.C) that is
approved by a court order that has become final and non-
appealable, and that is comprehensive and provides for the
final settlement of all remaining Pigford claims (Pigford
claims''), as defined in section 14012(a) of Public Law 110-
246. The funds appropriated herein for such Settlement
Agreement are in addition to the $100,000,000 in funds of the
Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) that section 14012 made
available for the payment of Pigford claims and are available
only after such CCC funds have been fully obligated. The use
of the funds appropriated herein shall be subject to the
express terms of such Settlement Agreement. If any of the
funds appropriated herein are not used for carrying out such
Settlement Agreement, such funds shall be returned to the
Treasury and shall not be made available for an purpose
related to section 14012, for any other settlement agreement
executed in In re Black Farmers Discrimination Litigation,
No. 08-511 (D.D.C.), or for any other purpose. If such
Settlement Agreement is not executed and approved as provided
above, then the sole funding available for Pigford claims
shall be the $100,000,000 of funds of the CCC that section
14012 made available for the payment of Pigford claims.
(b) Nothing in this section shall be construed as requiring
the United States, any of its officers or agencies, or any
other party to enter into such Settlement Agreement or any
other settlement agreement.
(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed as creating
the basis for a Pigford claim.
(d) Section 14012 of Public Law 110-246 is amended by
striking subsections (e), (i)(2) and (j), and redesignating
the remaining subsections accordingly.
This amendment proposes language for consideration by the
Appropriations Committees to settle claims of prior
discrimination brought by black farmers against the
[[Page H2306]]
Department of Agriculture that were previously addressed by
section 14012 of Public Law 110-246, the Food Conservation
and Energy Act of 2008. The proposal would provide funding
for a court-approved settlement of litigation requiring the
payment of valid claims pursuant to a privately managed
settlement process. Upon enactment, the authority would
permit the expeditious and judicious resolution of
discrimination claims with minimal burden on the claimants
and the Government.
The FY 2011 Budget included this proposal as mandatory
funding that would become available in FY 2010 and
anticipated transmitting authorization language at a later
date. However, at this time there are no other appropriate
legislative vehicles available to allow for expeditious
consideration of these necessary proposals. Therefore, it is
now being requested as a change in a mandatory program.
Mr. OBEY. I yield myself 30 seconds.
Let me simply say I largely agree with my friend from Oklahoma. We
have one simple dilemma: both in the case of the Cobell settlement and
the Pigford settlement, the administration has asked us to provide the
money. We do not yet have an understanding of whether that will be
provided through an emergency designation or whether it will be fully
offset. We cannot proceed until the decision is made to move one way or
another. As soon as it is, we want to bring both of those to the floor
because I agree with you, we need to deal with both of them.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady).
Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, today we're debating more disaster-
related spending. What we have to ask ourselves, what about the money
Congress has already sent to help families and communities?
As I stand here, Texas is still waiting for the supplemental disaster
funds for Hurricane Ike that Congress approved 18 months ago, Congress,
led by Chairman Obey and Ranking Member Lewis, to try to help
communities who have suffered the sixth most costly hurricane in
American history.
But this time the hold up isn't FEMA; it's HUD. Other States have
received their disaster funds, but HUD continues to hold Texas hostage.
My fellow Texans and I, from both parties, have written to HUD on this
issue. We've requested meetings or calls, and our letters go
unanswered. The State of Texas has worked tirelessly with its local
communities to put together a strong recovery plan, and we know it
because we've just recovered from and are recovering from Hurricane
Rita as well.
But HUD keeps moving the goal posts. They say Washington knows best.
And if the HUD gets their way, the people most impacted by Hurricane
Ike won't even be eligible for help.
It's been 541 days since Congress acted to provide help for disaster
victims. Yet HUD continues to tell Texans, your recovery doesn't
matter. There's no rush.
Well, tell our communities, tell our families, tell our region that
there's no rush. 541 days. HUD needs to act now to approve the Texas
plan and simply help our communities rebuild.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).
Ms. LEE of California. Thank you, Chairman Obey, for yielding and
thank you for introducing this bill. It's very important. And I want to
thank you for your leadership. Also to Chairman Miller and Speaker
Pelosi for working with members of the Congressional Black Caucus to
ensure that this legislation does include funding, which is paid for,
for a summer youth jobs initiative to target funds for our young people
who are unemployed.
The members of the Congressional Black Caucus have been very focused
on stimulating the economy and creating jobs, especially for the
chronically unemployed. As my colleagues know, we are currently in the
midst of a 5-week campaign launched at the beginning of this month to
seek policy solutions for the chronically unemployed. We are working
with our leadership, President Obama, Members of this House and our
coalition partners to put a strategy together to put America back to
work.
One of the key components of our proposed jobs package was to provide
$1.3 billion to the summer youth jobs program with a goal of creating
approximately 500,000 jobs for young people throughout the country. We
met with the President, with our Speaker. We raised the importance of
the summer jobs program to adjust the huge unemployment rate among
young people.
We are committed to putting people back to work, especially our young
people, because now, with this economic downturn, many of our young
people, their parents are unemployed, and so they're helping to buy the
food and to pay the rent.
{time} 1630
When you take a look at the numbers, it's clear why this funding is
so critical. The youth unemployment rate currently stands at more than
23 percent. This is really a national emergency.
Many low income and minority youth populations face even greater
challenges. African American youth unemployment rates are now estimated
to be as high as 42 percent. So we need targeted assistance to help put
our young people to work and to teach them an array of valuable job
skills that they can use throughout their lives.
While this does not include the full $1.3 billion for summer youth
jobs that we requested, it does make a down payment of $600 million,
which is, once again, fully paid for, to create approximately 300,000
new jobs. And this is a very important step forward; but, frankly, we
need the full amount. I hope that we can continue to expand and
increase funding for this valuable program.
In addition, this bill will provide $5.1 billion in disaster relief
to local communities through FEMA to address the impact of recent
storms and disasters throughout the country. As one who comes from
California, a State which is prone to earthquakes and floods, I can
tell you this $5.1 billion is desperately needed.
And, finally, the bill will include an additional $60 million to
extend the provision of the Recovery Act for another month to help
small businesses defray the cost of certain loan fees charged by the
Small Business Administration. Our small businesses are creating jobs
to help turn this economy around.
So as Chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, I want to thank
Chairman Obey and our Speaker and our leadership for this initial down
payment. We are pleased that we can provide some funding for summer
jobs for our young people and we are moving forward this job creation
package.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2
minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Latta).
Mr. LATTA. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, on March 4, I sent a letter to the FEMA administrator.
That letter is regarding my concerns and the concerns I have heard from
U.S. tent manufacturers and suppliers about FEMA purchasing disaster
relief tents from foreign manufacturers.
Humanitarian needs are great throughout the world, and the American
people have shown their generous spirit through the outpouring of
monetary and commodity donations as well as teams of personnel to serve
in the medical assistance area.
U.S. companies who manufacture shelters, such as this tent right
here, can easily increase their production to fill the needs of
humanitarian crises around the world. We need to continue to have U.S.
tent manufacturers who can provide tents to U.S. military, U.S.
embassies, and humanitarian relief efforts throughout the world.
When we use Federal taxpayers' dollars to aid in humanitarian relief
efforts, we need to purchase U.S. manufactured products. The Department
of Defense is required under their Buy American provision to purchase
their humanitarian relief tents from U.S. manufacturers, so why
shouldn't agencies such as FEMA or USAID be required to do the same?
Companies that are proven and have had government contracts help
retain and create jobs. Purchasing U.S.-made tents also represents
economic opportunities for our hard-hit areas in the United States
where manufacturing jobs have disappeared by the thousands in the last
several years.
The simple question I have is, why did or should FEMA or any other
government agency purchase foreign-made tents when American-made tents
help keep Americans employed and are of
[[Page H2307]]
high quality and high value? When our unemployment rates continue to be
at or around 10 percent, and the Fifth Congressional District's exceeds
over 12.5 percent, purchasing foreign-made products with American tax
dollars is troubling to me.
Mr. Speaker, it is time that the U.S. agencies be required to
purchase U.S.-made tents and keep Americans working.
Mr. OBEY. I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Iowa
(Mr. Loebsack).
Mr. LOEBSACK. Mr. Speaker, I do want to thank Chairman Obey for his
work on this important legislation.
This bill is vital to ensuring FEMA can provide assistance to
communities in all of our States that are recovering from major
disasters. It is also critical to FEMA's ability to provide life-saving
help to communities that might experience a major disaster in the
future.
In Iowa, we were devastated by the great flood of 2008. Eighty-five
out of 99 counties were declared major disaster areas. My district
alone had billions of dollars in damage and is still working to
recover, including through an estimated $1 billion in FEMA projects.
However, there is a current freeze on a multitude of FEMA projects
nationwide. According to Iowa's governor, this has put work in jeopardy
on $100 million worth of projects in Iowa alone. In fact, Coralville,
Iowa, which was hard-hit by flooding, has received low bids on recovery
projects but cannot commit because of this freeze. As a result, they
may lose a bid that is 20 percent below what was estimated, which would
actually save taxpayer money.
The National Weather Service says there is an imminent widespread
flood risk in the Midwest this spring. We must ensure FEMA has the
resources needed to help our citizens who might be hit by flooding
again, even as we pray that it won't be needed.
I urge my colleagues to support this legislation to ensure Iowans and
communities nationwide continue to have this important safety net and
we allow FEMA to fulfill its prior commitments to recovery.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, these will be my closing
comments on the bill.
I would like to say to the Members, my chairman, my colleagues, that
I am very empathetic to their description of the way we have handled
FEMA funding in the past. I indeed agree that, in the vast percentage
of cases, that money ought to not be subject to offset requirements.
The emergency rule is there for appropriate reasons.
The only reason for raising this in a procedural way today is because
of the reality that while we have disaster after disaster out there, we
have never had quite a disaster like this huge deficit of this year,
$1.6 trillion, and projecting out to the future there is no end. And
eventually the public knows the economy can't stand it, and they are
suggesting that we try to help them out of this disaster that is ahead
of us.
So it is indeed important for us to realize that in spite of the fact
that there is a huge amount of money in the stimulus package that is
yet unspent that might be used for some of these offsets, we need to
seriously get on track of reducing spending and undermining that
growing deficit so the public can at least have some sense that we are
trying to effect the crisis that is beyond our horizon.
I plan, after we are through here, to offer a motion to recommit on
this bill in order to adopt the amendment I presented in the Rules
Committee on Monday. The motion is simple. It cuts unnecessary money
from the flawed $1 trillion stimulus to pay for the $5.1 billion FEMA
spending provided in Mr. Obey's bill. The balance of the questions, we
have discussed earlier.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I would make only one additional point. This
bill also provides for a 1-month extension of the Recovery Act Small
Business Lending program and provides an additional $60 million for
that program.
Through March 12 of this year, the Recovery Act Small Business
Lending program has supported nearly $23 billion in small business
lending which, according to SBA, has helped create or preserve over
500,000 jobs. I think it is well worth the effort. We need to keep this
program alive.
Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, as Chair of the Homeland Security
Subcommittee on Emergency, Communications, Preparedness, and Response,
I rise today in strong support of H.R. 4899, the Disaster Relief and
Summer Jobs Act of 2010. I support this legislation because it will
help local communities, small businesses, and our Nation's youth. This
is the kind of legislation we need to lift us out of this economic
downturn and deal with the unprecedented disasters that our Nation has
faced these past few months.
I would like to acknowledge Speaker Pelosi and Chairman Obey for
their leadership in bringing this important bill to the floor.
Mr. Speaker, the Disaster Relief and Summer Jobs Act of 2010 is a
$5.1 billion disaster aid package that will help communities rebuild
their homes, infrastructure and local economies and to take steps to
protect them from future disasters. In addition, H.R. 4899 also
provides fully offset funding to expand this summer's youth jobs
program and continue assistance to America's small businesses.
In my home State of California, youth unemployment has hit over 25
percent. The funding provided by H.R. 4899 will allow local Workforce
Investment Boards (WIBs) to expand successful summer jobs programs that
were funded in the Recovery Act. California is also no stranger to
natural disasters, such as wildfires and mudslides. H.R. 4899 provides
$5.1 billion to ensure that the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) can continue its work helping communities recover from recent
disasters and to ensure that they have resources to respond to future
disasters.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I support this bill because it will
provide funding to the communities and populations that need the most
assistance in both disaster relief and job training. I would also like
to note that this bill is fully paid for because it rescinds emergency
funding that is not needed this year, including $44 million provided
for Cash for Clunkers and $103 million provided for agriculture
disasters, that is no longer needed for those disasters.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 4899.
Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Res.
415, a bill that ensures that the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) can continue its work helping communities recover from recent
disasters and to ensure that they have resources to respond to future
disasters.
Like many of my colleagues, I was alarmed by FEMA's recent
announcement that the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA)
Disaster Relief Fund is running out of money.
As you know, my own State of North Dakota experienced record flooding
last year and many local governments have still not fully recovered. In
addition, leaders in my State have once again been in the trench
battling spring flooding this year. The Disaster Relief Fund (DRF) is
used in part to reimburse States and local governments in places like
North Dakota for damages suffered during these kinds of disaster.
The Disaster Relief Fund is currently faced with a shortfall and as a
result, FEMA has issued an order whereby funds cannot be used for the
Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, and certain kinds of public
assistance, until the Fund is replenished. As a result of this
unnecessary delay, many North Dakota communities have been forced to
hold off with initiatives like home buyouts and road repairs that help
the State recover from last year's flooding and better prepare for
flooding this spring. This is unacceptable, which is why I have been
working with the House Appropriations Committee to appropriate the $5.1
billion in supplement funding that is needed for this vital relief
program.
With the funding that will be enacted under this bill, North Dakota
communities will be able to continue to recover from the floods in 2009
as well as prepare for future disasters. This is an important bill and
I encourage my colleagues to strongly support H.R. 4899.
Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of
H.R. 4899, Disaster Relief and Summer Jobs Act.
While the bulk of this legislation provides disaster relief for
ongoing response and recovery efforts, this bill makes important steps
forward to continue our Nation's economic recovery and create jobs.
First, this bill provides fee reductions and eliminations under the
Small Business Administration (SBA) 7(a) loan program and the 504
program, and extends the termination date for the loans through April
30.
These loans have been important economic drivers in my Congressional
district, and have provided needed capital to small businesses in our
communities.
Small businesses are going to play an important part of any economic
recovery. Small businesses are the number one source of new job growth
in our Nation and have created 65 percent of all new jobs in the last
decade.
Between October 2009 and last month, there were 58 SBA 7(a) loans and
15,504
[[Page H2308]]
loans provided to small businesses in my district allowing them to
expand and modernize.
These are the types of programs that Congress must support to
continue our economic recovery and create jobs at home, and I am happy
to support the legislation on the floor today.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, we are facing a crisis with our young
adults--many of whom are unable to find work during this economic
downturn. According to the Department of Labor, the unemployment rate
for 16 to 19 year olds is 25 percent. This is simply unacceptable and
that is why I rise in support of the ``Disaster Relief and Summer Jobs
Act of 2010.'' This legislation, offered by my good friend, the
Chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, will help mitigate this
emergency by providing funds to summer youth programs. The bill will
also ensure Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has adequate
funds at its disposal to enable it to comprehensively and quickly
respond to future natural disasters.
Today's legislation will appropriate funds to provide 300,000 youth
workers a $600 million grant this summer. Furthermore, this
appropriation will fund Workforce Investment Boards (WIBs) that will
expand programs previously funded in the Recovery Act. I believe this
is an effective way to develop our young citizens' critical leadership
skills, and practical training, and in helping them become productive
members of society. I believe these programs will have a positive and
lasting impact in our communities.
Mr. Speaker, the tragedy after hurricane Katrina highlighted the need
for proper management and resources at FEMA. The proposal being
considered today will give $5.1 billion to complete urgently needed
projects and ensure they are fully equipped to respond to future
disasters.
If we are to build a better America, we need to invest in our
country. I believe the proposal today will make America a stronger
country and I urge my colleagues to support it.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4899, the
``Disaster Relief and Summer Jobs Act of 2010''. I strongly support
this bill which, as requested by the President, appropriates an
additional $5.1 billion for the Disaster Relief Fund to support ongoing
disaster relief, recovery, and mitigation efforts, and to ensure that
our Nation is adequately prepared in the event of future disasters.
The Disaster Relief Fund (DRF) provides the funding for the Federal
Government's activities to help communities respond to, recover from,
and mitigate major disasters and emergencies declared by the President
under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance
Act (Stafford Act).
Last month, due to diminishing funds, FEMA announced that the agency
was forced to limit expenditures from the DRF. In some cases, FEMA has
completely suspended reimbursements to State and local governments for
reconstruction projects for facilities damaged or destroyed by recent
disasters. FEMA has also slowed the issuance of reimbursements for
critical post-disaster hazard mitigation projects, which help
communities, build better after a disaster to protect against future
damage.
For example, FEMA has stopped funding projects to make repairs from
facilities damaged in last Spring's flooding in my home State of
Minnesota. Specifically, Federal funding is being held up for repairs
to a building at Concordia College and for road repairs in Becker
County, Lien Township and Gully Township.
Delays in providing reimbursements to States and local governments
will necessarily slow the pace of recovery and mitigation projects, as
most States do not have the flexibility in these difficult economic
times to move ahead without a guarantee of when Federal funds will
become available. Inadequate funding in the DRF, therefore, impedes the
rapid recovery of communities across the country from devastating
disasters and inhibits the job creation and economic stimulus that
these projects provide.
If Congress does not act to replenish the Disaster Relief Fund, FEMA
will be unable to respond to future disasters once the fund is
depleted. This is particularly troubling because the National Weather
Service has issued a warning that there is a high, or above average,
risk of flooding this spring in much of the country. As one example,
the Nation has watched carefully the situation in North Dakota and my
home state of Minnesota, as the Red River crested over the weekend. It
appears that major flooding has thankfully been avoided in large parts
of the two States along the Red River for the time being. However, the
risk of flooding remains and serves as an example of what other parts
of the country may encounter in the coming months.
The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure authorizes and
oversees FEMA's disaster programs under the Stafford Act. Members of my
Committee know first hand the devastation that a disaster can wreak on
a community and the importance of a swift, effective Federal response.
Through oversight and legislation, the Committee has been working to
improve FEMA's operations and provision of disaster assistance. Without
adequate funding in the DRF, however, FEMA will not be able to carry
out any of its critical missions or functions.
On March 12, 2010, I wrote to Speaker Pelosi in support of the
President's request for a supplemental appropriation for the Disaster
Relief Fund and urging swift action to replenish the Fund. I would like
to thank the Speaker and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey),
Chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, for bringing this bill
before the House today. Their dedication to this issue affirms the
importance of the DRF and underscores the urgency of ensuring its
solvency.
I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 4899.
Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, Michigan, and our Nation,
have faced, and continues to weather, high unemployment. Our businesses
struggle with a lack of access to capital. Michiganders have had to
face significant challenges that have tested our faith and our will.
Michiganders, and all Americans, have usually responded with the grit,
the effort, and the will that is evidence of the uniquely American
``can do'' spirit. Despite that spirit, many regions of our Nation
desire and need help. The 13th Congressional District of Michigan is
one of those areas. A portion of that help is in this bill, H.R. 4899,
the Disaster Relief and Summer Jobs Act of 2010. Although I did not
support an earlier jobs bill because it provided tax cuts, not funding,
to our Nation's small businesses, I support this bill.
This legislation is not perfect. While it provides summer jobs to our
Nation's youth, the money goes to the states before it goes to cities,
counties and non-profit agencies. The problem? Our states are broke.
Our states are desperate to balance their budgets. Our states need
these funds as revenues from a once abundant housing market has
evaporated. So while it is not the fault of our states, it is my desire
to get these jobs created as fast as possible.
While I support H.R. 4899, I will continue to fight toward the
enactment of a program similar to the Comprehensive Employment Training
Act (CETA) program, a program that proved that it could reduce the
unemployment rate and train people for short- and long-term jobs and
careers. Funding for this program went directly from the Federal
Government to cities, counties and non-profit organizations to get
individuals trained and back to work.
This bill is great news for three reasons. One, this bill provides
disaster relief. Many regions of our Nation faced record snowfalls,
major floods, and other natural disasters. We still have not completely
fulfilled our promise to the people of New Orleans after Hurricane
Katrina. Not only will this $5.1 billion disaster aid package help
these communities rebuild their homes, infrastructure and local
economies, it will also take steps to protect them from future
disasters.
Two, this bill provides funding for the summer jobs program. As our
Nation begins the long recovery from the deepest economic crisis since
the Great Depression, a summer job is more than just an opportunity for
our Nation's youth to be exposed to possible career paths. It is often
a matter of survival, of life and death. This bill has $600 million,
fully offset, to support over 300,000 jobs for youth ages 16 to 24
through summer employment programs. This age group has some of the
highest unemployment levels, 25 percent for those aged 16 to 19. This
funding will allow local Workforce Investment Boards (WIBs) to expand
successful summer jobs programs that were funded in the Recovery Act.
Three, this bill provides access to capital for our Nation's small
businesses, our Nation's largest employer. There will be $60 million in
the bill, that is fully offset, to extend the Recovery Act small
business lending program for another month. That program eliminated the
fees normally charged for loans through the Small Business
Administration 7(a) and 504 loan programs and increased the government
guarantees on 7(a) loans from 75 percent to 90 percent. Since its
creation, the program has supported nearly $23 billion in small,
business lending, which helped to create or retain over 560,000 jobs.
This bill is not only fiscally responsible, but it is needed and
necessary. I am proud to support this bill, and look forward to working
with my colleagues as we continue to enact legislation that will
address the challenge of our Nation's astronomically high unemployment
rate, provide capital to our Nation's businesses, and ensure that our
economy survives and thrives. The families of America are counting on
Congress to do what is needed to continue to make America great.
Mr. OBEY. I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
[[Page H2309]]
Pursuant to House Resolution 1204, the previous question is ordered
on the bill.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
Motion to Recommit
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at
the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. LEWIS of California. I am.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Lewis of California moves to recommit the bill H.R.
4899 to the Committee on Appropriations with instructions to
report the same back to the House forthwith with the
following amendments:
On page 2, strike line 10 and all that follows through line
4 on page 3.
On page 5, after line 16, insert the following:
(5) ``Department of Labor--Employment and Training
Administration-Training and Employment'', $140,000,000 to be
derived from unobligated balances available from amounts
placed in a national reserve under this heading in title VIII
of division A of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
of 2009 (Public Law 111-5; 123 Stat. 115).
(6) ``Department of Labor--Employment and Training
Administration-Training and Employment'', $400,000,000 to be
derived from unobligated balances available from amounts
provided for competitive grants for worker training in high
growth and emerging industry sectors under this heading in
title VIII of division A of the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-5; 123 Stat. 115).
(7) ``Department of Health and Human Services--National
Institutes of Health-Buildings and Facilities'', $434,000,000
to be derived from unobligated balances available from
amounts provided under this heading in title VIII of division
A of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009
(Public Law 111-5; 123 Stat. 115).
(8) ``Department of Health and Human Services--Agency for
Healthcare Quality and Research-Healthcare Research and
Quality'', $850,000,000 to be derived from unobligated
balances available from amounts provided for comparative
effectiveness research under this heading in title VIII of
division A of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of
2009 (Public Law 111-5; 123 Stat. 115).
(9) ``Department of Health and Human Services--Office of
the Secretary-Office of the National Coordinator for Health
Information Technology'', $1,900,000,000 to be derived from
unobligated balances available under this heading in title
VIII of division A of the American Recovery and Reinvestment
Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-5; 123 Stat. 115).
(10) ``Department of Health and Human Services--Public
Health and Social Services Emergency Fund'', $38,000,000 to
be derived from unobligated balances available under this
heading in title VIII of division A of the American Recovery
and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-5; 123 Stat.
115).
(11) ``Department of Education--Impact Aid'', $60,000,000
to be derived from unobligated balances available under this
heading in title VIII of division A of the American Recovery
and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-5; 123 Stat.
115).
(12) ``Department of Education--Institute of Education
Science'', $250,000,000 to be derived from unobligated
balances available under this heading in title VIII of
division A of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of
2009 (Public Law 111-5; 123 Stat. 115).
(13) ``Social Security Administration--Limitation on
Administrative Expenses'', $497,000,000 to be derived from
unobligated balances available from amounts provided for the
replacement of the National Computing Center under this
heading in title VIII of division A of the American Recovery
and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-5; 123 Stat.
115).
(14) ``Department of Energy--Energy Programs--Title 17-
Innovative Technology Loan Guarantee Program'', $571,000,000
to be derived from unobligated balances available under this
heading in title IV of division A of the American Recovery
and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-5; 123 Stat.
115).
Mr. LEWIS of California (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent to dispense with the reading.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
Point of Order
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I would raise a point of order against the
motion.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order against the motion
because it constitutes legislation on an appropriation bill, which is
in violation of clause 2, rule XXI. The instructions in the motion
include an amendment proposing to include language in the bill that
would provide for the rescission of previously appropriated funds made
available in other appropriation acts.
This is clearly a legislative proposition, Mr. Speaker. Section 1052
of the House Rules and Manual states, in part: An amendment proposing a
rescission constitutes legislation under clause 2(c).
The amendment is, therefore, legislative in nature and is in
violation of clause 2, rule XXI, and I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I wish to be heard on the point
of order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
California.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, as I suggested earlier, the
bill before us contains almost $6 billion in new spending, spending
that is not offset by true reductions. Instead, this $6 billion will
simply pile more money on to the government's charge card and add to
our already astronomical debt.
Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that the bill before us today is
considered to be a general appropriations bill, and under the rules of
the House, general appropriations bills are privileged and are to be
considered in the Committee on Appropriations or sent to the Committee
on Appropriations prior to consideration on the House floor.
I have expressed my concern about the lack of regular order, the
number of supplementals and appropriations bills that are not being
heard in committee or subcommittee. I won't repeat all of those
concerns, except to say that we are on this disastrous pathway because
of our totally ignoring the need to make sense out of our national
deficit and get a handle on spending.
Mr. Speaker, I ask for consideration of my motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair is prepared to rule.
The gentleman from Wisconsin raises a point of order against the
motion on the basis that it violates clause 2 of rule XXI.
The motion proposes to insert a rescission in a general appropriation
bill. As provided in section 1052 of the House Rules and Manual, an
amendment proposing a rescission constitutes legislation in violation
of clause 2(c) of rule XXI.
The point of order is sustained and the motion is not in order.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I appeal the ruling of the
Chair.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is, Shall the decision of the
Chair stand as the judgment of the House?
Motion to Table
Mr. OBEY. I move to table the appeal of the ruling of the Chair.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to table.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule
XX, this 15-minute vote on the motion to table will be followed by 5-
minute votes on passage of the bill, if arising without further
proceedings in recommittal, and the motion to suspend the rules on H.R.
3562.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 239,
nays 176, not voting 14, as follows:
[Roll No. 185]
YEAS--239
Ackerman
Adler (NJ)
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boccieri
Boren
Boswell
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Bright
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Childers
Chu
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Dahlkemper
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Driehaus
Edwards (MD)
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Foster
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Giffords
Gonzalez
Gordon (TN)
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Halvorson
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Herseth Sandlin
[[Page H2310]]
Higgins
Hill
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilroy
Kind
Kirkpatrick (AZ)
Kissell
Klein (FL)
Kosmas
Kratovil
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maffei
Markey (CO)
Markey (MA)
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McMahon
McNerney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (NY)
Murphy, Patrick
Nadler (NY)
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Perlmutter
Perriello
Peters
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Polis (CO)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schauer
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Space
Speier
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Teague
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
NAYS--176
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Cao
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Castle
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
Fallin
Flake
Fleming
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Griffith
Guthrie
Hall (TX)
Harper
Hastings (WA)
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hunter
Inglis
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan (OH)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Lamborn
Lance
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee (NY)
Lewis (CA)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Minnick
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Nye
Olson
Paul
Paulsen
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Posey
Price (GA)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rehberg
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schmidt
Schock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Taylor
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walden
Wamp
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--14
Barrett (SC)
Boucher
Buchanan
Davis (AL)
Donnelly (IN)
Edwards (TX)
Ellsworth
Hoekstra
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Kilpatrick (MI)
Maloney
Reichert
Richardson
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes
remaining in this vote.
{time} 1711
Messrs. HALL of Texas, EHLERS, Ms. FOXX, Mrs. BONO MACK, and Mr.
LATHAM changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Ms. FUDGE, Mr. HINOJOSA, and Mrs. CAPPS changed their vote from
``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the motion to table was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
Pursuant to clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 239,
nays 175, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 14, as follows:
[Roll No. 186]
YEAS--239
Ackerman
Adler (NJ)
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boccieri
Boren
Boswell
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Bright
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Cao
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Childers
Chu
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Dahlkemper
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Driehaus
Edwards (MD)
Edwards (TX)
Ehlers
Ellison
Ellsworth
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Foster
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Giffords
Gonzalez
Gordon (TN)
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Hall (NY)
Halvorson
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Hill
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilroy
Kind
Kissell
Klein (FL)
Kosmas
Kratovil
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maffei
Markey (CO)
Markey (MA)
Marshall
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McMahon
McNerney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Minnick
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (NY)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Nadler (NY)
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Nye
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Perlmutter
Perriello
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Scalise
Schakowsky
Schauer
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Snyder
Space
Speier
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Taylor
Teague
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
NAYS--175
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Baird
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dreier
Duncan
Emerson
Fallin
Flake
Fleming
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Griffith
Guthrie
Hall (TX)
Harper
Hastings (WA)
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth Sandlin
Hunter
Inglis
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan (OH)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kirkpatrick (AZ)
Kline (MN)
Lamborn
Lance
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee (NY)
Lewis (CA)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy (CT)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Olson
Paul
Paulsen
Pence
Peters
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Polis (CO)
Posey
Price (GA)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rehberg
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Schmidt
Schock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walden
Wamp
Westmoreland
[[Page H2311]]
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1
Cassidy
NOT VOTING--14
Barrett (SC)
Boucher
Cooper
Davis (AL)
Gutierrez
Hoekstra
Issa
Jackson Lee (TX)
Kilpatrick (MI)
Maloney
Reichert
Rush
Schrader
Wasserman Schultz
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes
remaining in this vote.
{time} 1718
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 186 I was
unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''
____________________