[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 109 (Thursday, July 22, 2010)]
[House]
[Pages H5926-H5938]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF SENATE AMENDMENT TO HOUSE AMENDMENT TO
SENATE AMENDMENT TO H.R. 4213, UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION EXTENSION ACT
OF 2010
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee
on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1550 and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 1550
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R.
4213) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend
certain expiring provisions, and for other purposes, with the
Senate amendment to the House amendment to the Senate
amendment thereto, and to consider in the House, without
intervention of any point of order except those arising under
clause 10 of rule XXI, a motion offered by the chair of the
Committee on Ways and Means or his designee that the House
concur in the Senate amendment to the House amendment to the
Senate amendment. The Senate amendment shall be considered as
read. The motion shall be debatable for one hour equally
divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Ways and Means. The previous
question shall be considered as ordered on the motion to
final adoption without intervening motion.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for
1 hour.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only,
I yield the customary 30 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from
North Carolina, Dr. Foxx. All time yielded during consideration of the
rule is for debate only.
General Leave
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that
all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend
their remarks on House Resolution 1550.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Florida?
There was no objection.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
This resolution provides for consideration of the Senate amendment to
the House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 4213, the
Unemployment Compensation Extension Act of 2010, finally.
The rule makes in order a motion offered by the chair of the
Committee on Ways and Means or his designee that the House concur in
the Senate amendment to the House amendment to the Senate amendment to
H.R. 4213. The rule provides 1 hour of debate on the motion equally
divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Ways and Means.
The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the
motion except those arising under clause 10 of rule XXI. Finally, the
rule provides that the Senate amendment shall be considered as read.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4213, the Restoration of Emergency Unemployment
Compensation Act of 2010, ensures that much-needed Federal assistance
continues to reach the millions of Americans struggling to find a job,
trying to keep their homes and doing the best they can to provide for
their families.
This legislation is long overdue with unemployment benefits having
expired on June 1 of this year. Though I am pleased that this
legislation is retroactive to that date, millions of Americans who
desperately needed our support were left hanging by the egregious
obstructionism that prevented this legislation from moving forward.
While the other party is content with giving themselves a pat on the
back for every roadblock they throw in front of the Democratic bill, I
remind my colleagues that they are playing with the livelihoods of
countless, hardworking Americans. What is merely a political win for
them is, in reality, another family that can't make rent, can't send
their kids to college, or can't pay their medical bills.
As we are well aware, much of the debate surrounding this bill has
centered on its cost. Now, we, in the Democratic Party, believe that
balancing the budget is vital for our long-term prosperity, but it
cannot be done on the backs of struggling Americans.
Over the past few weeks, my Republican colleagues have railed on
about Democrats not cutting the deficit or spending beyond our means.
But I wonder if my Republicans colleagues have looked in the mirror
lately.
I have been here for some time; and I can't, for the life of me,
remember any calls for fiscal discipline when their party was cutting
taxes for millionaires and billionaires, sending a blank check
overseas, or squandering $127 billion Federal budget surplus.
Time and again, my colleagues' actions simply do not match their
rhetoric. Further cutting the budget and denying unemployment benefits
aren't going to make jobs magically appear.
{time} 1030
Such actions will only cause our economy to contract and leave more
people out in the cold. Our economy needs a deliberate, targeted
approach to job creation and economic growth, and that is what
Democrats will provide.
To say, as my colleagues often do, that Democrats are moving in the
wrong direction and doing nothing to create jobs is simply a bold-faced
lie. Over the last 1\1/2\ years we've gone from a period of negative
growth to consistent increases in our GDP. We've gone from 22 months of
job loss to 6 straight months of private-sector job creation, albeit
not nearly enough. We've gone from shuttered factories to the largest
12-month gain in industrial production since 1998. Make no mistake, job
creation is the number one priority for Democrats, but as the job
market recovers, there remain far too many who are out of work and
losing hope.
While my Republican colleagues question the need to lend a hand to
those who are struggling, I question their aversion to provide
opportunity to those who have none. Maybe there are no poor people in
some of my colleagues' districts, but in the district that I am
privileged to represent, people are hurting. From Pahokee to Pembroke
Pines, people simply cannot find work. They are pounding the pavement,
willing to take anything that comes their way, and in the meantime they
need our help.
You see, Mr. Speaker, what Republicans seem to consider reckless
spending, the people in the district that I serve consider a vital
lifeline. There are 170,000 Floridians that are unemployed at this
time. What Republicans
[[Page H5927]]
call government waste, the American people call an essential government
service. And what Republicans see as a bloated budget, our citizens see
as the only thing that is keeping them from financial ruin.
The other party can continue to play political theater, but we have
serious work to do. The American people cannot afford to wait a second
longer. They need this extension. They deserve this extension. And we
will not let Republican obstructionism prevent them from getting this
extension.
And, Mr. Speaker, I will make a prediction for you. After all of the
talk for all of these months, all of the obstruction to us having
unemployment compensation extended that had been routinely extended
since 1959 without the kind of obstruction that it met, particularly in
the other body, I predict for you that a significant number of our
Republican colleagues today are going to vote for unemployment
compensation. And in that regard, I'm glad they came to the dance,
albeit a little late.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I thank my colleague, the gentleman from Florida, for yielding time.
Mr. Speaker, today I rise in opposition to this closed rule providing
for consideration of H.R. 4213, a bill extending unemployment
insurance. Republicans know that we must reduce the deficit, and if the
underlying bill had been paid for, Republicans would have gladly
supported it, but it is not.
Undoubtedly, the American people are suffering from the actions of
this Democrat-controlled Congress. We go home every weekend and our
constituents tell us that their concerns are both jobs and the debt. In
fact, they tell us every weekend they are frightened to death for the
future of this country. I've never had constituents tell me that before
this year.
The simple truth is that while the liberals have repeatedly claimed
their $1 trillion 2009 stimulus plan was the right thing to do, it's
hard to tell that from looking at the job situation across the U.S. The
American people are facing high unemployment rates and economic
uncertainty. In fact, we have a quote from our distinguished Chair of
the Federal Reserve, ``Economic future unusually uncertain'' is the
headline in The Washington Times today. But we need to go back to the
drawing board and come back to the American people with real,
commonsense solutions to their real problems that we must be willing to
pay for.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am very pleased
to yield 2 minutes to a former member of the Rules Committee, a good
friend of mine, the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).
Mr. WELCH. I thank the gentleman from Florida.
The question of unemployment benefits being conflated with the debt
that was caused by tax cuts that we couldn't afford--$2.3 trillion--by
a war that was on the credit card, President Bush's war in Iraq that
cost over $1 trillion and rising, a Medicare part D program unfunded,
put on the credit card, that drove this economy into a ditch. If
there's going to be honest discussion about what caused this debt, then
we've got to go back in history--and not distant history--to
acknowledge that it was the reckless spending policies of the
Republican administration and George Bush that contributed more to this
debt than any other administration in the history of this entire
country.
George Bush, in 8 years, accumulated more debt by more reckless
decisions than all of the Presidents who preceded him. All of those
decisions, incidentally, were discretionary decisions: A war of
choice--wrong war, wrong time--put on the credit card of the American
taxpayers; tax cuts that did not stimulate the economy but burdened us
with generations of debt; a Medicare prescription drug program where
the choice was not only to put it on the credit card but to make it
embedded in law the unwillingness of the Federal Government to
negotiate bulk price discounts with the drug companies. It guaranteed
high prices at the expense of the taxpayers and our consumers. That is
the legacy of debt that brought us to this situation.
Then, there is some joint responsibility. This economic collapse we
had as a result of the implosion of Wall Street that happened basically
2 years ago today, there were many reasons for that, but it was excess
debt, reckless speculation on the part of the folks on Wall Street, and
it led to this economic crisis that we have right now.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield the gentleman an additional 30
seconds.
Mr. WELCH. Mr. Speaker, when it comes to providing unemployment
benefits for people who had no responsibility for getting us here, when
it comes to the question of who is going to pay the price, should it be
the victims of these reckless decisions, the squandering of choices
that we had to make the right decision at the right time to build jobs?
Should the people who are the victims of reckless policies in
Washington--and in many cases by the Republican administration, in some
cases because of joint lax regulation by both administrations,
Democratic and Republican--are we going to impose the burden of those
bad choices on the people who had no responsibility and are the
victims? That would be wrong.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I now would like to yield 6 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).
Mr. McCLINTOCK. I thank the gentlelady for yielding.
I would say in response that, yes, George W. Bush was responsible for
what was then the worst debt in the Nation. That was a terrible public
policy, and I make no apologies for it. But it needs to be pointed out
that this administration and this Congress in just 2 years have run up
as much debt as the irresponsible Bush administration did in all 8
years combined. Yes, that was irresponsible fiscal policy. Why in the
world would you want to exacerbate and continue that bad policy?
Republicans have learned their lesson. It appears that lesson has not
yet been learned on the other side of the aisle.
Mr. Speaker, anyone who has experienced firsthand the quiet panic
that stalks every waking hour of an unemployed family knows how
frightening and debilitating is chronic unemployment. You watch your
savings evaporate, you watch your children going without the material
things that their friends enjoy, and you count down the months or even
days until you won't be able to make that crucial rent or house
payment.
{time} 1040
That unemployment check is a lifeline in such times, and I fully
appreciate and understand how desperately an unemployed family is
looking to the security of getting 99 weeks of such checks, but I can't
go along with this for a simple reason: The only way out of this
nightmare of unemployment for these families is a job.
Speaker Pelosi and others have said the most important thing we can
do to create jobs is to extend unemployment benefits to 99 weeks
because the unemployed would spend this money and stimulate the
economy. Well, this analysis completely ignores the harsh and glaring
fact that, before this money can be put back into the economy, it must
first be taken out of the very same economy.
We will have to take $34 billion more out of the economy in order to
finance these extra benefits through November. In fact, this is the
eighth such extension, totaling $120 billion. That means over $1,600
from the pocket of an average family of four in America. Since we don't
have that money, we will have to borrow it from exactly the same
capital pool that would otherwise have been available to loan to
businesses seeking to expand jobs or to home buyers seeking to reenter
the housing market or to consumers seeking to make consumer purchases.
Remember, two-thirds of economic growth depend upon consumer
spending, but that money now won't be there to loan for jobs and homes
and economic growth. This is $34 billion of relief to the unemployed
that they desperately need and that I desperately wish we could
responsibly extend, but to do so would also mean $34 billion of fewer
jobs. It would mean perpetuating this never-ending nightmare of
unemployment for these families and, indeed, throwing more families
into that nightmare.
[[Page H5928]]
We have been told for several years now by Presidents Bush and Obama
that stimulus spending would help the economy, but it hasn't, and there
is a reason it hasn't. Government cannot inject a single dollar into
the economy that it has not first taken out of that very same economy.
Government cannot provide a dollar of temporary relief to the
unemployed without first removing a dollar of permanent relief for the
unemployed--namely, a job.
The talking point du jour from the other side is, well, the
Republicans have no problems giving tax breaks to the wealthy but won't
extend a lifeline to the unemployed. Well, once again, they just don't
get it.
Milton Friedman once observed that spending is the effective rate of
taxation. Spending can only be paid for in two ways--either by current
taxes or by future taxes to retire borrowing. High taxes and deficits
are just the symptom. The problem is the spending, and this is a
spending bill.
On May 9 of 1939, after nearly a decade of unemployment checks and
stimulus spending and with unemployment at 17.2 percent, Franklin
Roosevelt's Secretary of the Treasury, Henry Morgenthau, made this
stunning admission during a meeting with Democratic members of the
House Ways and Means Committee:
He said, No, gentlemen. We have tried spending money. We are spending
more than we have ever spent before, and it does not work. I have just
one interest, and if I am wrong, as far as I am concerned, somebody
else can have my job. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to
see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have
never made good on our promises. I say, after 8 years of this
administration, we have just as much unemployment as when we started
and an enormous debt to boot.
Mr. Speaker, let us heed the lessons of history before we totally
destroy our economy. Perpetual unemployment checks put these desperate
families farther and farther away from the only thing that can truly
end their suffering--a real job. That is a fact nobody around here
wants to face, but until we do, chronic unemployment will continue to
stalk the land, and God forbid, a few years from now, another
Democratic Treasury Secretary will have to make the same admission as
Henry Morgenthau did 71 years ago.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I can't believe what I just
heard.
I heard what Franklin Roosevelt said. I've read what Franklin
Roosevelt said. I was alive during that period of time, and I saw what
happened during Franklin Roosevelt's administration. My parents, among
many others, got jobs during that period of time, and they came out of
the Depression, and this country soared as a result of the policies of
the Roosevelt administration. We will be very wise in this country if
we could possibly implement the wonderful things that he did.
I yield, Mr. Speaker, 3 minutes to my good friend, the distinguished
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from California just said
that, by extending and perpetuating unemployment benefits to families,
it will somehow destroy the economic future of these families. Everyone
is entitled to their own opinions, Mr. Speaker.
I think the reality is, if you take away people's ability to pay
their rent or their utility bills or their credit card bills, you
absolutely destroy them. The issue before the House today is whether or
not 2.5 million Americans, whose unemployment benefits have expired or
are about to expire, should get extensions. I emphatically believe that
they should.
Now, the argument that we have heard from the other side--first,
about not even taking a vote on this issue and now against extending
those benefits--is twofold.
The first, which we just heard a version of, is that to extend their
unemployment benefits somehow zaps the incentive for people to look for
jobs. I would challenge anybody who makes that assertion to go meet 10
or 100 or 500 unemployed people and ask them just how many want ads
they have circled, just how many resumes they have sent out, and just
how hard they have looked for jobs, and I think that will put that
argument to rest.
The second argument is a good faith argument that people do not want
to add to the national debt. First of all, this is a selective
argument. Nearly two-thirds of the national debt was accumulated during
the administrations of Presidents Reagan, George H. W. Bush, and George
W. Bush.
Most recently, when the past administration added to the national
debt by prosecuting an endless occupation of Iraq with borrowed money,
virtually no one on the other side raised this issue. Most recently,
when the prior administration dramatically reduced the taxes of the top
5 percent of the people in this country by borrowing the money,
virtually no one on the other side raised this issue.
Today, Members on the other side, both in the other body and here,
have taken the position that, while extending benefits to janitors and
bus drivers and salespeople who have lost their jobs is somehow
fiscally irresponsible if you don't offset it, extending tax breaks to
the top 5 percent of the people in the country on a permanent basis is
completely responsible.
So, in other words, the person who was laid off from her job of
cleaning an office building can't get unemployment benefits unless
there is a spending cut or a tax increase to pay for it, but the person
who owns the office building, who could get a $500,000 tax cut, could
get that with borrowed money. This makes no sense.
What does make sense is a ``yes'' vote on today's bill.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Heller).
Mr. HELLER. I appreciate the gentlewoman's extending some time.
Mr. Speaker, it is an honor to be here in front of you and to spend
some time talking about these unemployment benefits that we have in
front of us today.
We had some, of course, unfortunate information come out of the
administration as to the unemployment numbers for the last month. They
actually went up in the State of Nevada. Right now, the unemployment
rate in the State of Nevada is at 14.2 percent. In the city of Las
Vegas, that unemployment number is at 14.5 percent. That is the worst
unemployment of any place across this Nation, so it is very
disheartening. The question, I guess, that I have, Mr. Speaker, is:
Who do we hold responsible? Who do we hold responsible for the failed
economic policies of this Congress and this administration?
I want to make it clear that I do not believe that the unemployed are
the ones who should be held accountable for these failures. Despite the
promises from this administration that a stimulus bill would cap
unemployment at 8 percent, we are seeing across this Nation numbers
much higher than that. We continue to see Nevada grow from 10 percent,
11 percent, 12 percent, and now to 14.2 percent. It was supposed to be
an immediate jolt. Clearly, it didn't happen. The truth is the stimulus
has failed the American people and the people of the great State of
Nevada.
I want to read a letter that I received recently from one of my
constituents, Heidi, from the city of Sparks, Nevada.
She writes, ``I need you to really try and understand just how
difficult things are for some, if not most of us, still unemployed here
in the lovely State of Nevada.
{time} 1050
``I have been unemployed for just about 6 months now. My husband was
laid off back in November, recently took a job for a considerably less
amount just to get a job. I have been on several interviews, filled out
countless applications, and sent my resume to countless companies.''
Heidi worked for the same company for 6 years, her husband, laid off
after working 13 years.
It just goes to expand the failed policies that we're seeing here in
this Congress, coming out of this Congress and coming out of the
administration.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Will the gentleman yield? I will yield the
gentleman 15 seconds of my time if he would answer a question.
Mr. HELLER. I will be more than happy to.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. What do you think would have happened had
the stimulus bill not passed?
[[Page H5929]]
Mr. HELLER. In other words, you're asking me what would have happened
if we took all this money out of the private sector and put it in the
public sector? Is that the question you're asking me?
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. What would have happened to those teachers,
what would have happened to those police officers who kept their jobs?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's 15 seconds has expired.
Mr. HELLER. Mr. Speaker, I believe we need private sector money given
to private sector government given to private people, not more public
jobs. And that's what the other side continues to argue.
But I will tell you that Members on both sides, both sides of the
aisle are trying to help the unemployed. But what the argument here is,
do we continue to add $34 billion to the $13 trillion in debt that we
now have here in this country. And that's the argument.
And if you want to ask another question, how do you plan on paying
for it, there was a rule. There was an opportunity for the Rules
Committee to pay for this.
How often is the left and how often is the majority party saying that
the unemployment is a stimulus to this economy? That's great. And if
you want to go down that road, what I would argue is then take the
stimulus dollars that are unused and use it to pay for these
unemployment benefits. You can do it. You can do it. It's not that you
can't do it; it's that you won't do it. And that makes no sense.
I had that substitute amendment in the Rules Committee. Of course it
failed. I think it's unfortunate. What we're doing here today is that
we're going to pass this bill. I'm going to vote against the rule. I
will vote for the bill, but I'm voting against the rule.
And the problem with this is we're going to pass this bill and what
we're going to do is we're going to go on a 6-week vacation. That's
what we're doing here. We're going to go on a 6-week vacation. And what
we're going to say is that, hey, we're going to extend these
unemployment benefits, but we're going to get full pay for 6 weeks
while we're on vacation. Why don't we stay here, Mr. Speaker?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Ms. FOXX. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. HELLER. I want to stay here over the 6-week period, put some
economic, bipartisan economic policies together so the people like
Heidi from the city of Sparks, Nevada, can get a job. I think that's
what we ought to be doing here in Washington, D.C. instead of casting a
vote, ducking and hiding, running out for a 6-week vacation.
I ask a question: Who's to be held responsible for the failed
economic policies of this Congress and this administration? And I don't
believe it should be the unemployed.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it doesn't take a degree in
trigonometry to understand that if you spend $34 billion helping
unemployed people who should have been helped in the first place much
longer ago, and according to the Congressional Budget Office, a very
neutral concern that analyzes these matters, for every dollar spent,
$1.90 comes back into the economy. That would, by my count, add up to
spending $34 billion and having come into the economy $64.6 billion.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), my good friend.
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, it is simply the morally right
thing to do. And as I listen to the bantering and the chattering and
the constant obstructionist policies of my friends, Republicans in this
body and the other body, I'm amazed that there is no moral compass to
say that millions of Americans, those who have worked, are simply
asking that they be able to survive.
This is not a handout. This is a trust, a contract, that when you
work you invest in unemployment insurance to a certain extent, first
given by the States, and now, because the States have run out of money,
our federal government, their government is extending those dollars.
And we know that it's the right thing to do because those people on the
other side of the aisle have allowed this obstructionism to go forward,
but they couldn't fight it anymore.
They couldn't fight 62 percent of the American public who said this
is the right thing to do. They couldn't fight the Congressional Budget
Office who said this is the most cost-effective and fast-acting
infusion of dollars to help people pay their mortgage and food and car
payments and to stay off the streets, and to improve the economy.
And further, Mr. Speaker, Chairman Bernanke said, It's no time for
the deficit hawks to raise their heads. Continuing to stimulate the
economy is the right approach.
What we, as Democrats, are doing, infusing dollars into the economy,
is the best approach to get the economy to grow. Corporate revenues
grew in the last quarter, but corporations are hoarding their money,
for now. I believe we will see more job creation soon.
We are creating jobs and therefore we must continue to stimulate this
economy by these unemployed individuals having resources to buy into
the economy and to make a difference.
I thank the gentleman very much for yielding and allowing me to say
that all of the economists point to the fact that we're doing the right
thing. I ask the Republicans to join us today and stand as Americans
and do what is right for America.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4213, ``The American Jobs and
Closing Tax Loopholes Act of 2010''. I am primarily concerned with the
unemployment provision in this piece of legislation. If passed, this
bill will restore unemployment aid to 2.5 million Americans who have
lost their benefits and are still seeking work in this emerging
economy. It will give hope to the long-term unemployed and allow them a
chance to survive by extending their benefits to November 30th, 2010.
Mr. Speaker, if there is a single federal program that is absolutely
critical to people in communities all across this nation at this time,
it would be unemployment compensation benefits. Unemployed Americans
must have a means to subsist, while continuing to look for work that in
many parts of the country is just not there. Families have to feed
children. Unemployed workers, many of whom rely on public
transportation, need to be able to get to potential employers' places
of work. Utility payments must be paid. Most people use their
unemployment benefits to pay for the basics. No one is getting rich
from unemployment benefits, because the weekly benefit checks are
solely providing for basic food, medicine, gasoline and other necessary
things many individuals with no other means of income are not able to
afford.
Personal and family savings have been exhausted and 401(Ks) have been
tapped, leaving many individuals and families desperate for some type
of assistance until the economy improves and additional jobs are
created. The extension of unemployment benefits for the long-term
unemployed is an emergency. You do not play with people's lives when
there is an emergency. We are in a crisis. Just ask someone who has
been unemployed and looking for work, and they will tell you the same.
With a national unemployment rate of 9.5 percent, preventing and
prolonging people from receiving unemployment benefits is a national
tragedy. In the city of Houston, the unemployment rate stands at 8.3
percent as almost 250,000 individuals remain unemployed. Indeed, I can
not tell you how difficult it has been to explain to my constituents
who are unemployed that there will be no further extension of
unemployment benefits until the Congress acts. Whether the
justification for inaction is the size of the debt or the need for
deficit reduction, it is clear that it is more prudent to act
immediately to give individuals and families looking for work a means
to survive.
H.R. 4213 is just the right measure at the right time. The
legislation will send a message to the nation's unemployed, that this
Congress is dedicated to helping those trying to help themselves. Until
the economy begins to create more jobs at a much faster pace, and the
various stimulus programs continue to accelerate project activity in
local communities, we cannot sit idly and ignore the unemployed. As
such, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 4213.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the distinguished ranking
member of the Rules Committee.
(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by expressing my appreciation
to my very good friend from Grandfather Community North Carolina for
her thoughtful approach in dealing with what is obviously an
extraordinarily difficult issue.
[[Page H5930]]
Night before last I had one of the telephone town hall meetings that
many of our colleagues have regularly now, and there was an unemployed
truck driver who was on the line saying that he had, for 1 year, been
looking for a job. I said, are you going out every day? And he said,
well, actually I'm going out every other day because I've got
responsibilities taking care of my family. But he said that he is out
working very hard to find a job. And he said we need to do what we can
to ensure that those of us who are hurting do have access to those
benefits.
Then he went on to say, after I had talked about the desire for us
to, with our $1 trillion-plus budget, we have a budget well in excess
of $1 trillion, that we might be able to find $34 billion to pay for
this.
He said, that makes so much sense. He said, please try to do that.
And when you do it, then we'll be able to have the unemployment
benefits that we need right now just to survive.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the notion of pay-as-you-go was not a Republican
initiative. It was an initiative led by Democrats; and, in fact, as we
saw the Democrats emerge to majority, pay-as-you-go has been the Holy
Grail. In fact, we've heard constantly that pay-as-you-go would be
utilized to deal with spending legislation, meaning we would offset it
by bringing about spending cuts in other areas.
{time} 1100
Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that my friend Mr. Heller was absolutely
right when he came before the Rules Committee this morning and made his
case that he proposed an offset so that this truck driver in southern
California with whom I spoke 2 nights ago would be able to get his
benefits, and we would also be able to do what this unemployed truck
driver wants, and that is for us to do what he said was a commonsense
approach, to pay for it. I think Mr. Heller really hit the nail right
on the head when he said you can do it; it's just that you won't do it.
I have to say, and I said this when I stood here yesterday, Mr.
Speaker, I like to be a positive, Ronald Reagan optimist. But when we
know that the majority can in fact pay for this and they know that we
are desperately concerned about the fact that an attempt is being made,
as Mr. McClintock pointed out in his thoughtful remarks, that we're
exacerbating the spending problem, which did go on under the Bush
administration, but has gotten substantially worse in the last 18
months--in fact, we all know we've seen an 84 percent increase in
nondefense discretionary spending. And so we've said, okay, we'll go
along, and we want to see if we can find in this $1 trillion-plus
budget $34 billion to offset so that we can pay for these benefits.
The other side of the aisle has chosen not to do it, I think in large
part to put some of us in a position of saying, well, if you're not
going to do this, if you're just going to blindly continue with $34
billion in additional spending, we're not going to go for it. And what
is it they want to do, Mr. Speaker? They of course want to paint us as
being on the other side of those who are trying to make ends meet.
Again, we've seen constantly this class warfare argument. And to me
it's a failed argument. I like to quote the late Senator Paul Tsongas.
We are very pleased to have his widow serve here as our colleague from
Massachusetts. Senator Tsongas had this very clear approach when he was
running for President in 1992. He said, ``The problem with my
Democratic Party is that they love employees, but they hate
employers.''
And, Mr. Speaker, as you look at that argument, this perpetuation of
class warfare, tax cuts for the rich, throwing people who are on
unemployment out into the streets without having any concern for them
whatsoever, that argument really falls very flat because I believe that
the American people understand that we truly do care. We do want to
create opportunity for everyone. And those who are desperately in need
should in fact have their needs met. And we want to do what we can.
Now, I will say that this measure extends for people going onto
unemployment, unemployment benefits for 99 weeks. Ninety-nine weeks.
Now, that's almost 2 years. Now, I hope very much, as Mr. Heller said,
that we can put into place a bipartisan approach, a bipartisan approach
to deal with economic policy that can get this economy growing.
We know that we were promised an unemployment rate that would not
exceed 8 percent if we passed the $1 trillion stimulus bill. And in
part of the area that I represent in southern California, the
unemployment rate is 14.4 percent. Statewide for us in California, just
announced this week, it's 12.3 percent. Nationally, it's 9.5 percent.
Well, it's well in excess of what we were promised.
So why don't we try to do what has succeeded in the past, using again
the model of John F. Kennedy and the model of Ronald Reagan. When John
F. Kennedy's economic growth plan was put into place in 1961, marginal
rate reduction, growth-oriented, growth-oriented tax cuts. I was just
talking to my friend Mr. Welch, the gentleman from Vermont. And it's
true every tax cut does not generate economic growth. But if we had
growth-oriented tax cuts, we could do, I would hope, what John F.
Kennedy was able to do in the 1960s. He saw a 60 percent increase in
the flow of revenues to the Federal Treasury. Economic growth generated
more revenues.
We know that we need to increase revenues. We desperately need to
increase revenues to deal with the spending that has taken place, and
to try and pay down this $13 trillion debt. In the 1980s the increased
flow of revenues to the Treasury was 90 percent when the Ronald Reagan
tax plan was put into place. It's a bipartisan approach, exactly what
Mr. Heller said.
Mr. Speaker, let's use that as our model, which will be substantially
better than what is being put before us today.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to tell
me the remaining time for both sides?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida has 14 minutes
remaining. The gentlewoman from North Carolina has 10\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman, my good friend and colleague on the Rules
Committee, Mr. McGovern.
Mr. McGOVERN. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and the underlying bill.
Mr. Speaker, all I can say is it's about time. And to my friends on the
other side of the aisle, let me say it's a shame that it has taken this
long. For 7 weeks, millions of Americans who have lost their jobs
through no fault of their own have worried about how they are going to
pay for their groceries, pay for their rent, pay for their mortgage, or
pay for their children's college tuitions. They have sat around their
kitchen tables and made tough decisions about their family budgets. And
through this all they have continued to apply for job after job after
job.
That's what unemployed Americans have been doing during these last 7
weeks. But what have the Senate Republicans done to help them, to
restore benefits to Americans who have earned them through a lifetime
of work? They've done nothing. My friends on the other side of the
aisle talked about the need to extend the Bush tax cuts for their
wealthy friends, which they don't want to pay for.
I mean here's the deal: they don't worry about the deficit when it
comes to tax cuts for millionaires, but when it comes to working people
who are confronting difficult times, who are faced with an emergency,
all of a sudden they got religion when it comes to the deficit. They
made a lot of noise about characterizing unemployment benefits as a
government handout or somehow encouraging lazy behavior. But I would
challenge any of my Republican colleagues to say those things face-to-
face to someone who has been out of work for a year, who has applied
for job after job after job after job without getting a response.
Mr. Speaker, the facts don't lie. According to the nonpartisan
Congressional Budget Office, extending unemployment benefits is the
most efficient way for the government to generate economic growth. Each
$1 spent on unemployment benefits creates up to $1.90 in economic
output. Extending these benefits also creates jobs and decreases the
chances that we slip into a double-dip recession.
[[Page H5931]]
In every other economic crisis in American history, Democrats and
Republicans have put aside their partisan differences and provided
emergency unemployment benefits to those Americans who have lost their
jobs.
Mr. Speaker, House Democrats did our job. On July 1, we passed an
extension of benefits that would have restored benefits for those who
lost them in early June. It would have also ensured that jobless
Americans would have the peace of mind of knowing that benefits were
available to them to the end of November while they continue to apply
for jobs. And since then we have worked and reworked this benefits
extension to try to address Republican concerns. But every time, every
single time we have been stonewalled by Republican obstructionism. They
would rather use unemployed Americans as political pawns instead of
restoring benefits to good, decent, hardworking people who have earned
them over a lifetime of work.
Mr. Speaker, enough is enough. Enough of the politics. Let us extend
these benefits to the hardworking people who have lost their jobs, who
are dealing with this difficult economic time. This is the right thing
to do. This is the decent thing to do. We should have done it a long
time ago. I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying
bill.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I have to remind my colleagues across the aisle again that the
Democrats have been in control of Congress since January 2007, and we
have had a Democrat in the White House for almost 2 years. So the
Democrats have been in control and Republicans are in the minority, and
the Democrats can do what they want to because of their numbers in
Congress.
While the Obama administration continues its so-called summer of
recovery, Mr. Speaker, claiming the Democrats' stimulus bill saved or
created 3 million jobs, the facts are 47 out of 50 States have lost
jobs since the stimulus passed. Republicans on the Ways and Means
Committee released a report on Tuesday that showed this data, and I
would like to insert this report into the Record.
Mr. Speaker, this report compares the number of jobs created in each
State that the administration currently claims in a White House report
issued July 14 with the actual change in jobs since the stimulus became
law as documented by the administration's own Department of Labor. It
shows that only Alaska, Kentucky, and North Dakota, along with the
District of Columbia, have shown any real job growth since the stimulus
passed. And even in those States, the official job creation has fallen
far short of administration claims.
{time} 1110
The administration claims that every State and the District of
Columbia have seen a positive job growth. This is simply not true when
you look at the actual numbers from the Department of Labor.
And let me say that in Alaska, only 2,200 jobs have been created
since the stimulus passed. In Kentucky, 2,400 jobs; and in North
Dakota, only 5,100 jobs. And most of us know that in North Dakota it's
because of the discovery of energy. And that compares with what the
administration has said they created 8,000 in North Dakota, they claim
41,000 in Kentucky, they claim 7,000 in Alaska. So the numbers are
quite different.
But let me point out that in the District of Columbia where there are
government jobs that have been created and lobbyist jobs that have been
created as a result of this administration's policies, there are 7,800
jobs. So the bulk of the jobs that have been created are government
jobs.
Republicans don't think this is right, neither do the American people
think this is right. We need real jobs in the private sector.
47 Out of 50 States Have Lost Jobs Since Democrats' Stimulus Law--
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
While the Obama Administration continues their so-called
``Recovery Summer'' tour claiming the Democrats' stimulus
bill ``saved or created'' three millions jobs, the facts show
47 out of 50 States have lost jobs since stimulus passed. The
table below compares the number of jobs the Administration
currently claims its stimulus has somehow created in each
State (center column) with the actual change in jobs since
stimulus became law (right hand column), as documented by the
Department of Labor. It shows that only Alaska, Kentucky and
North Dakota, along with the District of Columbia, have shown
any real job growth since stimulus passed and even in those
States the official job creation has fallen far short of
Administration claims.
``Americans are asking where are the jobs, but all
Washington Democrats are showing them is more unemployment,
debt and higher deficits,'' said Ways and Means Ranking
Member Dave Camp (R-MI).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Administration
claims of change Actual change in
State in jobs through jobs through June
June 2010 2010
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama........................... +42,000 -45,500
Alaska............................ +7,000 +2,200
Arizona........................... +64,000 -80,300
Arkansas.......................... +26,000 -12,600
California........................ +357,000 -520,200
Colorado.......................... +50,000 -84,600
Connecticut....................... +38,000 -34,000
Delaware.......................... +9,000 -5,500
DC................................ +16,000 +7,800
Florida........................... +167,000 -152,200
Georgia........................... +91,000 -124,600
Hawaii............................ +13,000 -12,700
Idaho............................. +15,000 -14,600
Illinois.......................... +140,000 -155,000
Indiana........................... +68,000 -29,800
Iowa.............................. +34,000 -23,700
Kansas............................ +28,000 -34,200
Kentucky.......................... +41,000 +2,400
Louisiana......................... +39,000 -17,300
Maine............................. +14,000 -11,400
Maryland.......................... +53,000 -14,300
Massachusetts..................... +79,000 -36,700
Michigan.......................... +102,000 -91,400
Minnesota......................... +60,000 -47,900
Mississippi....................... +26,000 -25,400
Missouri.......................... +59,000 -48,300
Montana........................... +10,000 -3,100
Nebraska.......................... +17,000 -10,300
Nevada............................ +29,000 -64,300
New Hampshire..................... +13,000 -100
New Jersey........................ +94,000 -68,300
New Mexico........................ +19,000 -30,900
New York.......................... +206,000 -115,400
North Carolina.................... +90,000 -49,700
North Dakota...................... +8,000 +5,100
Ohio.............................. +117,000 -131,500
Oklahoma.......................... +35,000 -33,500
Oregon............................ +41,000 -49,000
Pennsylvania...................... +130,000 -71,600
Rhode Island...................... +11,000 -15,200
South Carolina.................... +41,000 -15,100
South Dakota...................... +8,000 -4,100
Tennessee......................... +60,000 -69,400
Texas............................. +225,000 -57,700
Utah.............................. +27,000 -11,000
Vermont........................... +7,000 -7,300
Virginia.......................... +73,000 -39,500
Washington........................ +67,000 -68,600
West Virginia..................... +16,000 -10,200
Wisconsin......................... +63,000 -82,000
Wyoming........................... +6,000 -9,900
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sources: July 14, 2010, White House.
Council of Economic Advisors report and Ways and Means Republican Staff
calculations based on Department of Labor data.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased at this time
to yield 2 minutes to my good friend, the distinguished gentlewoman
from Nevada (Ms. Berkley).
Ms. BERKLEY. Thank you very much for yielding.
Let me tell you something about the State of Nevada. We have the
highest unemployment rate in the country--14\1/2\ percent unemployed--
our fellow citizens with no jobs to go to and no jobs to seek. We have
the highest mortgage foreclosure rate in the country. Nevadans are
suffering.
It has taken far too long for this Congress to act. Unemployment
benefits are not a handout. It's not welfare. It's giving a helping
hand to our fellow citizens that need it the most, to get them where
they are now--which is without a job--to where they're going to be when
there is an economic recovery.
The gentleman from northern Nevada had an amendment in the Rules
Committee that said unobligated stimulus money should go to pay for
this. How many times does he have to hear that there are no unobligated
funds in the stimulus bill? For any Nevadan to condemn the stimulus
bill is to ignore what's going on in the State of Nevada.
Let me tell you what the stimulus bill did for us. It put $700
billion into our education system. I'm not talking about only paying
teachers and keeping them employed, I'm talking about the possibility
of having to close schools. It put $500 billion into Medicaid so that
poor children and poor adults aren't going to be out on the streets
dying for lack of medical care. Our unemployment compensation trust
fund was broke. Zero. Zippo. We were able to put money into that.
And in addition to that, the construction projects that came directly
from the stimulus package--not public but private contractors bidding
on these projects and then hiring construction workers, the downtown
transportation center, the park-and-ride in Centennial Hills, the
Boulder Highway Transportation Center, and so many more came directly
from this stimulus bill.
In addition to that, we had a middle-income tax cut, we had $250 that
went
[[Page H5932]]
to every Social Security recipient, $250 went to every disabled veteran
in Nevada. We welcomed this money. We needed this money. It kept us
afloat.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry).
Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, yes, I've talked to several of our unemployed
back home. And boy, I tell you, I empathize with them. It's a tough
position. I just talked to an unemployed truck driver. His benefits are
running out, but yet the trucks that have been idled over the last
couple of years are yet to be back onto the road because this is a
jobless recovery. Well, it's a very minimal recovery at best. But they
aren't creating the jobs.
The public knows and we know that the stimulus hasn't worked. The
business community feels that not only does the administration not
understand business, but they are now attacking businesses, and the
policies have created uncertainty where they won't create the jobs.
That's the issue here. There's no jobs for them to go back to because
of the policies that have been adopted in the last year and a half.
We should be growing the economy and getting these people back to
work. That's what they want to do.
Now, again, I empathize. But the issue here is at a time when the
majority is spending probably over $4 trillion by the time this
calendar year is done--and we're already at deficit spending of over a
trillion dollars by June--the people are saying, Stop the spending.
Stop the deficit spending.
And that's what the issue is here is the $34 billion that's not paid
for that's going to go to the deficit and ultimately to our national
debt, and that's what the people are telling us to stop--even the
unemployed truck driver that I talked to.
So, all we ask of the majority here, $34 billion, you're telling me
out of--well, we don't have a budget--but out of $3.8 trillion you
can't find $34 billion to offset and keep your promises of PAYGO?
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would tell my friend where
that trillion-dollar deficit came from is the $1 trillion combined in
Afghanistan and Iraq that we spent that's off budget, never accounted
for, borrowed and spent by the Republicans in the majority.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from
Wisconsin, my good friend, the chairman of the Committee on
Appropriations, David Obey.
Mr. OBEY. I thank the gentleman for the time.
Talk, talk, talk. Blah, blah, blah. Yap, yap, yap. The country is
sick of it all. They are sick of it all. Thank God finally there will
be a cease-fire for the moment on the yap-yapping and the talk-talking
while the Congress actually takes some action to restore unemployment
benefits for nearly 85,000 people in my State and over 2\1/2\ million
Americans who are caught up in the partisan delay game that was being
played every day by some of our friends in the other body.
We're told, ``Oh, we can't afford this.'' We hear that from the same
people who blew up the economy in the first place with two wars paid
for with borrowed money, with two tax cuts primarily aimed at the
highest income people in this country paid for with borrowed money, and
with years of economic policies that allowed Wall Street banks to morph
into casinos because the referee was taken off the field.
And now they're crying crocodile tears at this late date about the
cost of helping folks who are unemployed. And they want us to take
actions in dealing with that that would further weaken the ability of
the economy to grow.
And then some of them even have the gall to challenge the work ethic
of Americans who are drawing unemployment. And some of them are off-
the-wall enough to even believe that those folks would rather get a few
hundred bucks a month rather than a steady paycheck. Well, if you
believe that, I've got a lot of unemployed workers in Wisconsin I'd
like to have you meet.
If you want, if you must, by all means debate economic theory, debate
your academic theories, debate anything you want. But for God's sake
remember that in this debate the people who are being affected are
flesh-and-blood human beings. They are families who need our help. And
it would be nice if we could quit yap-yapping long enough to provide
that help.
Don't use the unemployed as cannon fodder in academic and political
debates. For God's sake, remember there are simply people who need our
help. Get it to them. We can have the phony political debates on
another day.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I need to point out to my colleagues once more
that when the Democrats took over the Congress in January of 2007, the
deficit was about $200 billion. There was a wonderful situation under
Mr. Clinton, they like to point out, but that was because Republicans
were in control of Congress and were controlling spending.
{time} 1120
When the Democrats took control of Congress, that's when things
started going downhill for this country. It's when unemployment started
going up and bad things happened.
Let me say, Republicans have repeatedly called for cutting unspent
stimulus spending to offset spending, but we're not alone.
The majority leader, Mr. Hoyer, said on June 13 there's spending
fatigue across the country and that, if we have dollars not yet
expended in the Recovery Act, they should be redirected to pay for new
spending like this.
The chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, Mr. Obey, hailed
amendments to the supplemental appropriations bill made on July 1 that
were paid for by repeatedly cutting unspent projects in the stimulus
bill.
In the other body, the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Mr.
Baucus, has suggested the same, pay for new spending by cutting
stimulus.
Mr. Speaker, I enter the sources for my comments in my remarks for
the Record.
Republicans have repeatedly called for cutting unspent stimulus
spending to offset this spending. We are not alone. The Majority
Leader, Mr. Hoyer, said on June 13 there is ``spending fatigue'' across
the country and that ``if we have dollars not yet expended in the
recovery act'' that they should be redirected to pay for new spending
like this. The Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, Mr.
Obey, hailed amendments to the supplemental appropriations bill made on
July 1 that were paid for by repeatedly cutting unspent projects in the
stimulus law. In the other body, the Chairman of the Senate Finance
Committee, Mr. Baucus, has suggested the same--pay for new spending by
cutting stimulus.
[From the Hill's On The Money, June 13, 2010]
Hoyer: White House Should Look to Redirect Stimulus Money
(By Silla Brush)
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) wants the White
House to look at unspent money from the 2009 stimulus package
instead of asking Congress for a new fiscal package.
President Barack Obama on Saturday night wrote to
congressional leaders urging them to pass legislation
extending tax cuts and add new spending to prevent ``hundreds
of thousands'' of teacher layoffs, among other cuts. Obama
said that without such measures the economy could ``slide
backwards.''
Hoyer said on ABC's ``This Week'' on Sunday that there is
``spending fatigue'' across the country and that he is
encouraging the administration to look at last year's $787
billion stimulus package to see if some money can be
redirected.
``I have asked the White House to look at the package we
already passed,'' Hoyer said. ``I personally believe if we
have dollars not yet expended in the recovery act we could
apply to this immediate need.''
Centrist Democrats in recent weeks have been more vocal
about their concerns that new spending would lead to higher
deficits and debt.
House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) said: ``To
move without finding other offsets is irresponsible.''
____
[From the Committee on Appropriations, July 1, 2010]
House Consideration of the 2010 Supplemental Appropriations Act:
Amendments on Fully Offset Education and Other Funding
(By Ellis Brachman and Jenilee Keefe Singer)
Washington, D.C.--The House of Representatives passed two
amendments to H.R. 4899, the 2010 supplemental appropriations
bill for efforts in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Haiti and pressing
domestic needs.
The Senate bill provides a total of $45.5 billion in
discretionary funding for FY 2010, of
[[Page H5933]]
which $37.12 billion is provided for our troops in Iraq and
Afghanistan. The bill also provides $5.1 billion for FEMA
disaster relief, $2.9 billion for Haiti, $162 million for the
Gulf Coast oil spill, and over $600 million for other
domestic needs in discretionary appropriations. Additionally,
the bill includes $13 billion in mandatory funding for
Vietnam veterans exposed to Agent Orange as requested by the
President.
The House amendments add $22.8 billion for important
domestic needs, including $10 billion for an Education Jobs
Fund to help save 140,000 education jobs for the next school
year, and funding for Pell Grants, summer youth jobs, the
Pigford and Cobell settlements, border security, innovative
technology energy loans, schools on military installations,
additional Gulf Coast oil spill funding, emergency food
assistance, a new soldier processing center at Fort Hood, and
program integrity investments that are proven to produce 1\1/
2\ times their cost in savings.
In order to hold the total amount to the President's
requested level over a ten-year period, the amendments
include a total of $23.5 billion in offsets: $11.7 billion in
rescissions from programs that no longer require the funding,
have sufficient funds on hand, or do not need the funding
this year or next; $4.7 billion in savings from changes to
mandatory programs; and $7.1 billion in increased revenues.
In total, the amendments save the Federal Government $493
million over ten years compared to the President's request
for Supplemental funding.
SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS IN THE HOUSE AMENDMENTS
Education Jobs: $10 billion, fully offset, for an Education
Jobs Fund to provide additional emergency support to local
school districts to prevent impending layoffs. It is
estimated that this fund will help keep 140,000 school
employees on the job next year.
Process: The fund will be administered by the Department of
Education. After reviewing State applications, the Department
will make formula allocations to States based on total
population and school age population. States will then
distribute the funds to school districts through their
respective funding formulas or based on each district's share
of Title I funds. In the case that a Governor does not submit
an approvable application for funds to the Department of
Education, the bill directs the Secretary to bypass the State
government and make awards directly to other entities within
the State.
Requirements: The bill includes strict provisions to ensure
that States use these funds only for preservation of jobs
serving elementary and secondary education, and not to
supplant State spending on education.
Amounts from the Education Jobs Fund may not be used for
purposes such as equipment, utilities, renovation, or
transportation.
The bill prohibits States from using any of these funds to
add to ``Rainy-Day Funds'' or to pay off State debt.
In order to receive an Education Jobs Fund grant, each
State must provide assurance that State spending for both K-
12 and higher education (measured separately) in fiscal year
2011 will be at or above either:
1. the fiscal year 2009 level (in aggregate or per pupil);
2. the same percentage share of the total State budget as
in fiscal year 2010, or;
3. for states demonstrating especially dire fiscal
conditions, the 2006 fiscal year aggregate dollar level or
percentage share.
NOTE: More stringent rules apply to the State of Texas.
Pell Grants: $4.95 billion, fully offset, to address the
current year shortfall in the Pell Grant Program that was
unanticipated last year. Over 8 million students received
Pell grants this year.
Border Security: $701 million to strengthen enforcement on
the southern border, including:
$208.4 million for 1,200 additional Border Patrol agents
deployed between the ports of entry along the Southwest
Border.
$136 million to maintain current Customs and Border
Protection (CBP) officer staffing levels and add 500
additional officers at ports of entry along the Southwest
Border.
$35.5 million for improved tactical communications on the
Southwest Border, three permanent Border Patrol forward
operating bases, and a surge of workforce integrity
investigations designed to prevent corruption among CBP
officers and agents.
$50 million for Operation Stonegarden grants to support
local law enforcement activities on the border.
$32 million to procure two additional CBP unmanned aircraft
systems.
$30 million for Immigration and Customs Enforcement
activities directed at reducing the threat of narcotics
smuggling and associated violence.
$201 million for Justice Department programs, as requested.
Gulf Oil Spill: $304 million for the Gulf Coast oil spill.
The Senate bill carried $162 million, including: $83 million
for unemployment assistance related to the oil spill and an
oil spill relief employment program; $7 million for NOAA oil
spill response activities, including scientific
investigations and sampling; $14 million to respond to
economic impacts on fishermen; $10 million for Justice legal
activities; $5 million for economic recovery planning; and
$31 million for the Department of the Interior to conduct
additional inspections and enforcement and to strengthen
oversight and regulation and for the EPA to conduct a long-
term risk study. The House amendment adds $12 million for the
newly created Presidential Commission investigating the
spill; and $130 million for an unemployment benefits program
for the self-employed (i.e., fisherman) and for training and
employment services.
Emergency Food Assistance: $50 million for The Emergency
Food Assistance Program for food purchases to distribute
through local emergency food providers.
Schools on DoD Installations: $163 million to improve the
capacity and condition of elementary and secondary schools
located on DoD installations.
Energy Loans: $180 million to allow $18 billion in
innovative technology energy loans, split evenly between
nuclear and renewable energy programs.
Fort Hood Soldier Processing Center: $16.5 million for the
replacement of the Soldier Readiness Processing Center at
Fort Hood, Texas, the site of the 2009 shooting.
Program Integrity Funding: $538 million to strengthen
waste, fraud and abuse prevention and enforcement for
Medicare, Medicaid and the IRS. Research shows that for every
$1.00 invested into identifying and eliminating waste, fraud
and abuse in government spending, we get $1.50 back.
Cobell and Pigford Settlements: $4.6 billion to pay for
settlement of both the Cobell and Pigford class action
lawsuits. The Cobell settlement concerns the government's
management and accounting for over 300,000 American Indians'
trust accounts, and the Pigford settlement ends a decades old
discrimination lawsuit brought by black farmers against USDA.
Summer Jobs: $1 billion to allow local Workforce Investment
Boards to expand successful summer jobs programs that were
funded in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. The
funds would support over 350,000 jobs for youth ages 14 to 24
through summer employment programs. This age group has some
of the highest unemployment levels--25% unemployment for
those aged 16 to 19.
Modifications to the Surface Transportation Extension Act
of 2010: Makes two changes to Title IV, the ``Surface
Transportation Extension Act of 2010,'' of the Hiring
Incentives to Restore Employment (HIRE) Act. First, the
amendment would distribute the Projects of National and
Regional Significance (PNRS) and National Corridor
Infrastructure Improvement (National Corridor) program
funding so that each State receives a share equal to the
greater of either (1) the amount of PNRS and National
Corridor program funding that the State received under the
HIRE Act or (2) the amount of PNRS and National Corridor
funding that the State receives under this Act. The provision
authorizes such sums as may be necessary from the Highway
Trust Fund to provide these amounts. Second, the amendment
would distribute ``additional'' highway formula funds (which
the bill makes available in lieu of additional
Congressionally-designated projects) among all of the highway
formula programs rather than among just six formula programs.
UNDERLYING SENATE PROVISIONS
FEMA Disaster Relief: $5.1 billion for the FEMA Disaster
Relief Fund, as requested by the President and included in
the Senate bill. The request is necessary to pay for known
costs for past disasters, such as Hurricanes Katrina, Rita,
Ike, and Gustav, the Midwest floods of 2008, and the
California wildfires and for needs that emerge from new
disasters.
Veterans: $13.377 billion in mandatory appropriations in
2010, as included in the Senate bill, for the payment of
benefits to Vietnam veterans and their survivors for exposure
to Agent Orange, which has been linked with Parkinson's
disease, ischemic heart disease, and hairy cell/B cell
leukemia. An estimated 86,069 people will be eligible to
receive retroactive payments and 67,259 people will be
eligible to receive new benefits.
Haiti: $2.93 billion provided in the Senate bill for Haiti,
$130 million above the request.
Farm Loans: $31.5 million, supporting $950 million in farm
loans, included in the Senate bill for the Farm Service
Agency (FSA) to provide direct loans to family farmers who
may not qualify for agricultural credit through other
commercial institutions in the tight credit market. The
funding provided in the FY 2010 appropriation bill was
estimated to meet demand at the time the bill was passed, but
demand for the farm ownership and operating loan programs
continues to rise above historical levels due to the lack of
availability of conventional credit.
Disaster Assistance: $100 million in Community Development
Block Grant (CDBG) funding included in the Senate bill to
help local communities devastated by flooding this year.
Mine Safety: $22 million included in the Senate bill to
reverse the growing backlog of mine safety enforcement cases
while ensuring that the Mine Safety and Health Administration
(MSHA) can complete 100% of its mandated mine inspections.
Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission: $2 million included in
the Senate bill to allow the Commission to investigate the
causes of the recent financial crisis. The Commission is
tasked with submitting its report by December, 2010.
Capitol Police: $13 million included in the Senate bill for
the ongoing acquisition and installation of a modern digital
radio system because of known security threats.
[[Page H5934]]
Port of Guam: $50 million, as requested, included in the
Senate bill to improve and provide greater access to port
facilities.
Highway Safety: $15 million included in the Senate bill for
additional studies of sudden acceleration and to administer
fuel economy standards.
Rural Housing Loans: the Senate bill provides authority to
continue making loans, and protects low-income borrowers from
the loan fee increase.
Army Corps of Engineers: $178 million included in the
Senate bill to respond to natural disasters.
Mississippi River and Tributaries: $18.6 million included
in the Senate bill to respond to disasters.
Emergency Drought Relief: $10 million included in the
Senate bill to respond to droughts in the West.
Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies: $20 million provided
in the Senate bill for the Army Corps.
Fisheries Disasters: $26 million provided in the Senate
bill and offset by a NOAA rescission.
Economic Development Administration: $49 million provided
in the Senate bill.
Emergency Forest Restoration: $18 million provided in the
Senate bill.
Coast Guard: $16 million provided in the Senate bill for
aircraft replacement.
OFFSETS
The bill includes $11.7 billion in rescissions from
programs that no longer require the funding, have sufficient
funds on hand, or do not need the funding this year or next.
It also includes $4.7 billion in savings from changes in
mandatory programs. Rescissions include:
$69.9 million in funds appropriated before 2008 to the
Department of Agriculture.
$122 million in funding provided to the Department of
Agriculture for emergencies that have been completed.
$487 million in Recovery Act and other funding provided to
the Department of Agriculture for WIC.
$27.3 million in emergency funding for the Farm Service
Agency provided as early as 2004 that are no longer needed.
$602 million in Recovery Act funding provided to the
Departments of Agriculture and Commerce for broadband grants.
$112 million in funding provided in the Recovery Act for
digital television.
$15 million in funding provided in the Recovery Act for
NIST construction.
$2 billion in funding appropriated as early as 2006 to the
Defense Department.
$500 million in funds appropriated to the Department of
Defense for military construction projects that achieved bid
savings.
$262 million in Recovery Act funding provided to the
Department of Defense.
$177 million in funding appropriated to the Defense
Department for HMMWVs they no longer plan to purchase.
$116 million appropriated for the Non-Line of Sight Launch
System (NLOS-LS) which the Army has terminated.
$100 million appropriated to the Army for Operations and
Maintenance, because of slow execution of some programs
within the account
$87 million appropriated for SINCGARS radios and other Army
procurement programs that have not been spent as quickly as
planned.
$237 million in funds appropriated for Army Corps of
Engineers projects now terminated or completed, or for
projects that have not utilized allocated funding for several
years.
$800 million in funding provided to the Department of
Education for new discretionary grant awards.
$329 million in funding appropriated as early as 2009 to
the Department of Energy, (including out-year savings).
$18 million in funding appropriated as early as 2005 to the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
$100 million in funding appropriated to the General
Services Administration.
$6 million in funds appropriated in 1995 to the Department
of Health and Human Services.
$2 billion in funding appropriated as early as 2004 to the
Department of Health and Human Services for pandemic flu and
procurement of new biological countermeasures.
$200 million in funding for DHS border efforts currently
frozen due to secretarial review.
$36 million in funds appropriated in 2006 to FEMA.
$7 million in funds appropriated in 2006 to the Coast
Guard.
$53.8 million in funds appropriated as early as 2007 for
research in DHS' Domestic Nuclear Detection office.
$6.6 million in funds appropriated in 2007 to the
Transportation Security Administration.
$80 million in Recovery Act funding appropriated to the
Department of Interior, EPA, and Forest Service.
$33 million in funding provided in 1997 and 2004 to the
National Park Service and the Fish & Wildlife Service.
$2.7 million in funds appropriated in 2010 to the
Judiciary.
$11 million in funds appropriated in 1989 to the Federal
Highway Administration.
$8 million in funds appropriated in 2004 and 2006 to the
Federal Aviation Administration.
$112 million in funds appropriated in 2008 for Hurricanes
Ike and Gustav and Midwest Floods.
$400 million in funds appropriated in 2008 for CDBG for
Hurricane Katrina.
$2.2 billion in highway contract authority.
$44 million in unused Recovery Act funding from the
Consumer Assistance to Recycle and Save Program (aka Cash for
Clunkers).
$40 million in Recovery Act funding appropriated to the
State Department.
$150 million in funding appropriated for the Millennium
Challenge Corporation.
$70 million in funding appropriated to the Department of
State and USAID for the Civilian Stabilization Initiative.
$6 million in Recovery Act funding provided to the
Department of Veterans Affairs for which the purpose has been
completed.
$5 million in funding appropriated to the Architect of the
Capitol.
Other Provisions
Iran Sanctions: The House amendment prohibits funding from
being provided for any new contract unless the contractor has
certified that it, and any entities it controls, does not
engage in activity that could be sanctioned under section 5
of the Iran Sanctions Act of 1996.
No Fly List: The Senate bill requires the Transportation
Security Administration (TSA) to require commercial foreign
air carriers to check the list of individuals TSA has
prohibited from flying no later than 30 minutes after the
list has been updated.
High-Value Detainee Interrogations: The Senate bill
requires the FBI to submit the High-Value Detainee
Interrogation procedures, and any updates to those
procedures, to the Congress within 30 days.
Defense Jobs Estimates: The House amendment requires an
assessment of the number of jobs and costs associated with
new major defense acquisitions planned for 2011.
Preserving Access to Affordable Generic Drugs: The House
amendment includes a provision to strengthen the Federal
Trade Commission's ability to restrict lucrative ``pay for
delay'' payments by brand-name drug manufacturers to their
generic competitors to delay the manufacture and marketing of
more affordable generic drugs to consumers. In 2009, an FTC
study found that a ban on these lucrative sweetheart drug
industry deals would save American consumers $35 billion over
10 years. CBO estimates that with the provision in this bill,
the federal government will save more than $2.4 billion over
10 years in lower drug costs for Medicare, Medicaid, military
and veterans' health programs.
Medicaid AMP Computation: The House amendment includes a
provision to clarify the calculation of the ``Average
Manufacturer Price'' (AMP), which determines the amount of
manufacturer rebates to the federal government for outpatient
drugs purchased by the Medicaid program. This technical
correction to the health care reform bill affects certain
injectable, infusible, and inhalation drugs. It will save the
American taxpayers $2.1 billion over 10 years.
Public Safety Collective Bargaining: The House amendment
guarantees collective bargaining rights for the nation's
first responders employed by States and localities. Under the
language, states would administer and enforce their own labor
laws, while the Federal Labor Relations Authority would step
in only where such laws do not exist or do not meet minimum
standards. The language prohibits public safety officers from
engaging in a lockout, sickout, work slowdown, strike, or any
other organized job action that will disrupt the delivery of
emergency services.
FHA Loan Authority: The House amendment increases the loan
commitment authority for the Federal Housing Administration
(FHA) to insure mortgages for multi-family housing, hospitals
and health care facilities. This increase in authority is
necessary in order to avoid a disruption or suspension in the
financing of these facilities.
GRAT Minimum Term: Includes the President's 2011 Budget
proposal to require a minimum 10-year term and other changes
to Grantor retained annuity trusts (``GRATs''). GRATs allow
taxpayers to structure a transfer of assets to avoid gift
taxes. As a result, taxpayer would be required to take on
greater risk in order to take advantage of the gift tax
benefits of using a GRAT. This provision is estimated to
raise $5.297 billion over 10 years.
Crude Tall Oil: Limits eligibility for the cellulosic
biofuel tax credit, which was created to encourage the
development of new production capacity for biofuels that are
not derived from food sources, to fuels that are not highly
corrosive (i.e., fuels that could be used in a car engine or
in a home heating application). The change would prevent
taxpayers from claiming the credit for production of
processed fuels that are highly corrosive, such as crude tall
oil (a waste by-product of the paper manufacturing process).
This proposal is estimated to raise $1.849 billion over 10
years.
____
[From the Hill's On The Money]
House Democrats To Use Unspent Stimulus Money for Teachers
(By Walter Alarkon)
House Democrats will try to use money from their $862
billion stimulus to help pay for education spending in a
supplemental appropriations bill.
The package crafted by House Appropriations Committee
Chairman David Obey (D-Wis.) would include $10 billion to
help states and local governments avoid teacher layoffs, $5
billion for Pell Grant funding and $701 million to increase
security at the Mexican border.
House leaders will try this week to attach the measure as
an amendment to a spending
[[Page H5935]]
bill already passed by the Senate that provides $37 blllion
for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Obey's $11.7 billion domestic spending package wouldn't add
to the $13 trillion debt. It would be offset by redirecting
money in the stimulus and with other spending cuts.
About $1.6 billion in stimulus money that would have gone
to the departments of State, Defense, Interior, Veterans
Affairs, Agriculture and Commerce and for the ``Cash for
Clunkers automobile trade-in program will be used as an
offset in the supplemental bill.
Obey's decision to offset the spending with stimulus funds
is aimed at shoring up support for the supplemental spending
bill. Both Republicans and centrist Democrats have opposed
more deficit spending to help boost the economy.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from
California (Mr. McClintock).
Mr. McCLINTOCK. I thank the gentlelady for yielding.
The jobless need jobs. Why is it that the majority doesn't understand
that? We do not help the unemployed by making more of them.
The gentleman from Florida asked an important question: What would
have happened without all of the trillions of dollars of stimulus
spending? It's becoming increasingly clear what would have happened: a
normal V-shaped recovery.
In every past economic recession, save one, the greater the economic
contraction, the more dramatic has been the following recovery. That
one exception was the recession of 1929 when Keynesian economics had
come into vogue. Herbert Hoover responded to that recession by enacting
the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act that was a tax on tens of thousands of
imported products. He increased Federal spending 60 percent in 4 years.
He increased the Federal income tax rate from 25 to 63 percent. These
were policies that were extended and expanded under Franklin Roosevelt,
and as Roosevelt's own Treasury Secretary admitted in 1939, it did not
work.
The gentleman's history is simply wrong. The Depression ended and the
great postwar economic boom began in 1946. You will find that, in 1946,
Democrat Harry Truman cut Federal spending dramatically. In 1946, he
cut the Federal budget from $80 billion down to $35 billion. He fired
10 million Federal employees. It was called demobilization, and the
result was the entire postwar economic expansion.
Mr. Speaker, it's said that those who don't learn from history are
bound to repeat it. I fear that the majority party is repeating a
failed history of economic contraction at just a time when we need pro-
growth policies.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2
minutes to my colleague and fellow Floridian, the distinguished
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, I am appalled, and my
constituents are appalled, at the Republicans' disrespect and
coldheartedness when it comes to extending unemployment benefits for
out-of-work Americans. Some Republican Members of Congress and
candidates in their party have suggested that unemployment insurance
makes Americans too lazy to work. One Republican Member of the House
even asked, ``Is the government now creating hobos?''
Maybe my Republican colleagues don't understand how unemployment
compensation works. You only qualify for unemployment if you were
employed. Far from being a handout to someone who doesn't want to work,
unemployment benefits are specifically designed for people who want to
work but who can't currently find work.
The Bush recession drove our economy off a cliff creating the worst
economic conditions since the Great Depression. As a result, millions
of Americans lost their jobs. Nearly 800,000 Americans lost their jobs
in the last month of the Bush administration alone. Those are the
facts.
Now we are beginning to recover from this near economic collapse.
We've seen steady economic growth, including six straight months of
private sector job growth, but there are still five unemployed
Americans looking for work for every one job opening available.
The continued Republican opposition to helping out-of-work Americans
is preposterous. It flies in the face of history. Since 1959, Congress
has never let extended unemployment benefits expire when unemployment
is over 7.2 percent.
My colleagues on the other side of the aisle claim that we can't
afford to help unemployed Americans, but where were they when they ran
up the deficit by passing tax cuts for the wealthiest 1 percent of
Americans? Where were they when, year after year, President Bush's
budget did not include the costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?
Mr. Speaker, analysis from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget
Office finds that extending unemployment benefits is one of the most
cost-effective and fast-acting ways to stimulate the economy. Moreover,
economists agree that extending these benefits will create jobs and
decrease the chances of slipping into a double-dip recession. So not
only is it the right thing to do to help people who are temporarily out
of work, it is also one of the best ways to stimulate local economies,
from the very smallest towns to the very biggest cities.
Let's do the right thing. Let's pass extended unemployment benefits.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
You know, I've often said that being here in Washington is like being
Alice in Wonderland. I didn't know that there are a lot of other people
who feel the same way.
I did want to ask my colleague from Massachusetts who made the
contention that if we get $1.90 back for every dollar we spend, we
don't understand why the Democrats are stopping at spending $34 billion
for these unemployment benefits. But I do want to come back to the
issue of being Alice in Wonderland.
And recently, there have been several articles that have been
published that have talked about this being Alice in Wonderland and the
tea party, and I would like to quote from one of those articles from
The Washington Times this Monday.
``A recent CBS Poll reports that 74 percent of the population thinks
the nearly $1 trillion stimulus package either hurt or had no impact on
the economy. Simply put, that means three-fourths of the American
people think the stimulus package was a $1 trillion waste of money. The
same poll reports that 2.5 times as many people think the health care
reform bill signed into law by Democrats will hurt them (33 percent)
rather than help them (13 percent).''
It goes on to say, ``Many Americans are seized with fear as what
might normally be a benign, lame-duck session of Congress looms in
November.''
Another quote: ``In Lewis Carroll's story, Alice finds herself in a
bizarre, nightmarish world where the basic laws of logic no longer
apply and familiar beings take on strange, unreasoning personas. More
and more, many Americans view our progressive leaders on Capitol Hill
and at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue as the insane hosts of an ongoing
Washington-style mad tea party.''
I think that's what many Americans feel. I agree with them. That is
what we are hearing when we go home to our districts and talk to the
people there. They're seeing Washington as Wonderland and that there is
a mad tea party going on.
I would like to also point out that there's another article which
came out in Bloomberg Opinion which talks about the discrepancy in the
job numbers that have come out.
Mr. Speaker, we know Americans are hurting. We know there's a lot of
unemployment and we're sympathetic, but this is not the right way to
go.
[From the Washington Times, July 19, 2010]
A Tale of Two Tea Parties
(By Doug Mainwaring)
Two Tea Parties grip the nation in two very different ways.
The first is the Tea Party movement, which traces its origins
to a watershed historic event as its members attempt to bring
sanity and sustainability back to government. The second
finds its origins in literature--Lewis Carroll's ``The
Adventures of Alice in Wonderland''--and is descriptive of
the surreal governance of the progressives in the White House
and Congress as they continue their push toward governmental
insanity and unsustainability. Like matter and antimatter,
positive and negative charges, they are set in polar
opposition to each other.
In Lewis Carroll's story, Alice finds herself in a bizarre,
nightmarish world where the basic laws of logic no longer
apply and familiar beings take on strange, unreasoning
personas. More and more, many Americans
[[Page H5936]]
view our progressive leaders on Capitol Hill and at 1600
Pennsylvania Ave. as the insane hosts of an ongoing
Washington-style mad tea party. Those leaders act not just
counterintuitively, they act outside the bounds of logic,
reason and historic precedent that normally tether this
country to safety. They behave as political elites who think
they know better than the American public what's best. They
are ludicrously out of touch.
The madness of this Washington tea party is displayed in
myriad ways, but most profoundly in the nearly limitless
demonstrations of stunning disconnect between the political
elites and the American people. Congressional approval hovers
around 20 percent, while disapproval is around 70 percent.
The president's approval rating has been in decline for a
long time, now at about 45 percent and sinking. Despite the
fact that a majority in this country disapprove of the work
being done by the political class, the political elites
continue to pass gigantic, overreaching, outrageously
expensive legislation.
A Rasmussen survey released on Friday finds that 59 percent
of likely voters are embarrassed by the nation's political
class and its behavior while just 23 percent are not. A
stunning 64 percent see the political class as a bigger
threat to our nation than legislation such as Arizona's new
immigration law. Just 20 percent say the opposite. In
general, the nation sees the political class as both an
embarrassment and, in some ways, a threat by about a 3-1
margin.
From the point of view of the ruling political class, it
has racked up tremendous achievements: the stimulus package,
health care reform, education reform, Wall Street reform and
so on. While the elites lift their champagne glasses to toast
themselves, outside the Beltway, no one is popping corks.
Most of the country looks on with jaws dropped, wondering:
What are you folks on Capitol Hill thinking? Twenty-four-
hundred pages of unintelligible health care reform and
another 2,300 pages of unintelligible financial reform signed
into law. Stacked together, they create a legislative Tower
of Babel. How dare you pass this massive legislation while
you lack the confidence of the American people by a 7-2
margin?
Undaunted, their mad tea party continues.
A recent CBS Poll reports that 74 percent of the population
thinks the nearly $1 trillion stimulus package either hurt or
had no impact on the economy. Simply put, that means three-
fourths of the American people think the stimulus package was
a $1 trillion waste of money. The same poll reports that 2.5
times as many people think the health care reform bill signed
into law by Democrats will hurt them (33 percent) rather than
help them (13 percent).
Many Americans are seized with fear as what might normally
be a benign, lame-duck session of Congress looms in November.
Will this be used as a window of opportunity for progressives
to pass more unwanted legislation? ``Cap and trade''? Card
check? This could be their intention.
Our progressive leaders don't get it, and what's more, they
don't care. They don't understand how starkly different, how
irrational and just how unhinged they appear to folks outside
the Beltway. While Lewis Carroll's mad tea party is literary
fantasy, sadly, the progressives' mad tea party in Washington
is very real.
Robert Weissberg offered his view in the American Thinker
on April 29: ``I finally realized that the Obama
administration and its congressional collaborators almost
resemble a foreign occupying force, a coterie of politically
and culturally non-indigenous leaders whose rule contravenes
local values rooted in our national tradition. It is as if
the United States has been occupied by a foreign power, and
this transcends policy objections.''
Dorothy Rabinowitz, writing in the Wall Street Journal a
few weeks later on June 9, shares a similar sentiment: ``A
great part of America now understands that this president's
sense of identification lies elsewhere and is in profound
ways unlike theirs. He is hard put to sound convincingly like
the leader of the nation, because he is, at heart and by
instinct, the voice mainly of his ideological class. He is
the alien in the White House. . . .''
Interestingly, the progressives' mad tea party in
Washington is what has given rise to the august Tea Party
movement. Washington leadership has abandoned the venerable,
common-sense, salt-of-the-earth center and right of our
nation. The movement has emerged to fill the gaping void in
center-right leadership to stem the tide of this Washington
madness. Republican leaders have been either clueless or
unwilling to lead bravely and skillfully. When Republicans
controlled both houses of Congress, they also spent
profligately. With such a huge vacuum of leadership in
Washington, the Tea Party movement has burst forth to lead
the way.
The people at this country's admirable, sustaining center
have been ignored, trampled and tyrannized for too long. They
have been marginalized through political correctness and the
constant motion of the dividing line between progressivism
and conservatism far to the left. We now live in an upside-
down, Alice-in-Wonderland, house-of-mirrors world where the
most basic of mainstream American sensibilities are
considered to be radical right-wing thought. This has led
Americans from sea to shining sea to announce: Enough is
enough.
Tea Partiers seek to end the madness in Washington and
establish fiscal sanity and sound, reasonable,
constitutionally limited government.
____
[From the Bloomberg Opinion, July 18, 2010]
Obama Omits Jobs Killed or Thwarted From Tally
(By Caroline Baum)
Can you believe they're still touting that silly metric?
When I heard last week that the White House would be
announcing the number of ``jobs created or saved'' as a
result of the 2009 American Reinvestment and Recovery Act, my
first reaction was embarrassment.
Imagine how Christina Romer must feel. The chairman of the
President's Council of Economic Advisors was dressed in a
cheery, salmon-colored jacket, a complement to the upbeat
news she had to deliver on July 14. The $787 billion stimulus
enacted in February 2009, which subsequently grew to $862
billion, increased gross domestic product by 2.7 percent to
3.4 percent relative to where it would have been, and added
anywhere from 2.5 million to 3.6 million jobs compared with
an ex-stimulus baseline.
``By this estimate, the Recovery Act has met the
president's goal of saving or creating 3.5 million jobs--two
quarters earlier than anticipated,'' Romer said with a
straight face. (More than 2.5 million non-farm jobs have been
lost since ARRA was enacted in February 2009, all of them in
the private sector, according to the Bureau of Labor
Statistics.)
How does the CEA arrive at these numbers? It uses two
methods, Romer said. The first is a standard macroeconomic
forecasting model that estimates the multiplier effect of
fiscal policy. (The government's spending is someone else's
income.) The second method is statistical, using previous
relationships between GDP and employment to project future
behavior.
model imperfection
These numbers might just as well have been pulled out of a
hat. Recall that it was the same model and method the
administration used in January 2009 to predict an
unemployment rate of 7 percent in the fourth quarter of 2010
with the enactment of the fiscal stimulus and 8.8 percent
without. The unemployment rate now stands at 9.5 percent.
This same model convinced policy makers that the subprime
crisis was contained, encouraged the rating companies to slap
AAA ratings on collateralized garbage, and led banks to
believe they had adequately managed their risks and reserved
for potential losses.
Econometric models rely on the assumption that $1 of
government spending generates more than $1 of GDP, the so-
called multiplier effect. There is no allowance for the
negative multiplier on the other side.
Sure the government can spend money and generate GDP growth
in the short run: Government spending is a component of GDP!
What it giveth it taketh away from the private sector via
taxation or borrowing. Every dollar the government spends is
a dollar the private sector doesn't spend, an investment it
doesn't make, a job it doesn't create. This is what is
unseen, as Frederic Bastiat explained in an 1850 essay.
hiring disincentives
``If the administration wants to take credit for `jobs
created or saved,' it should also accept responsibility for
`jobs destroyed or prevented,''' said Bill Dunkelberg, chief
economist at the National Federation of Independent Business.
Ignoring the flaws in the stimulus for the moment, Congress
raised the hurdle for hiring entry-level workers when it
refused to delay the third step in a three-stage minimum wage
increase last year. And the Department of Labor cracked down
on unpaid internships, outlining six criteria that businesses
had to satisfy in order to hire someone willing and able to
work for nothing to get the experience.
For example, the employer must derive ``no immediate
advantage from the activities of the trainees, and on
occasion the employer's operations may actually be impeded.''
You can't make this stuff up.
recession's advantage
At the White House briefing last week, Romer touted the
leveraging of public investment with private funds, with $1
of Recovery Act funds partnering with $3 of outside spending.
Romer said this public spending ``saved or created 800,000
jobs'' in the second quarter alone.
Once again, what would have happened in the absence of the
government's targeted intervention?
According to a June 2009 study by the Kauffman Foundation
in Kansas City, Missouri, well over half of the companies on
the Fortune 500 list, and almost half of the fastest growing
companies in America, were started during a recession or bear
market. Dunkelberg calls this phenomenon ``negative push
starts.'' People might not be willing to quit their jobs, but
if they get laid off during a recession and were thinking
about starting a business, they might seize the day, he said.
``When people ask me when the best time to start a company
is, I tell them the day before the recession ends,''
Dunkelberg said. ``They can do it on the cheap, and the next
day you get cash flow.''
model that!
What's more, firms less than five years old are responsible
for all of the net new jobs created in the U.S., the Kauffman
study found. Job creation by start-ups is more stable, less
sensitive to the business cycle.
[[Page H5937]]
So, if the goal is to create more jobs, and start-ups are
the ones that create them, why is the Obama administration
partnering up with existing firms?
``Job-creation policies aimed at luring larger, established
employers will inevitably fail,'' said Tim Kane, Kauffman
Foundation senior fellow in research and policy and author of
a follow-up study released this month.
Not to worry. The White House has a model that turns
failure into success.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of
my time.
A little while ago, George Bush said this. Several months after
taking office, he learned that his budgets had already erased the
previous administration's huge surplus that was paying off our
country's debt at a rapid rate and had instead forced the country to
start borrowing heavily again. Bush said, The huge deficit was
incredibly positive news because it will create a fiscal straitjacket
for Congress.
{time} 1130
That's right, massive deficits were incredibly positive news.
Mr. Speaker, I got a little tired of hearing our colleagues saying
what the Democrats haven't done. Let me tell you what we have done.
We have done the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. We have done
the Worker, Homeownership, and Business Assistance Act. We have done
health insurance reform, Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibilities Act.
The Cash for Clunkers Program alone spurred the sale of 700,000
vehicles.
We have done the Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment Act that
helped create 300,000 jobs. When they talk in terms of the stimulus,
the teachers, the police officers and the firefighters, when you ask
them whether or not their jobs were saved, I guarantee you they will
give you an answer.
We did Wall Street reform passed by the House, American Worker,
State, and Business Relief Act passed by the House and Senate, Small
Business and Infrastructure Jobs Tax Act passed by the House. For those
on the other side who argue that there haven't been any tax cuts, there
have been tax cuts, but those tax cuts were for middle class Americans,
93 percent of whom received the tax cut. We have done the Disaster
Relief and Summer Jobs Act passed by the House, and it died over there
in the Senate, and that's regrettable and foolish.
We have done Jobs for Main Street Act, passed by the House. What's
next? Small business lending, clean energy jobs and the COMPETES Act. I
can assure you, we have done a lot and have a lot more to do and many
of the things that I just spoke of create jobs.
My colleagues see this legislation as a handout or a luxury, but to
the millions who are depending on us to act, the extension of
unemployment benefits will make the difference between whether they can
put food on the table, pay their rent, and just get by.
Years of bad economic and fiscal policies have brought us to our
present situation, and there is no switch we can throw to provide an
instant fix. In my home State of Florida, 147,000 individuals will run
out of unemployment benefits.
I haven't met these people, but I read about their plight, people
like Joan McCammon of Kissimmee, a 50-year-old former administrative
assistant who has been out of work for over a year. Though she and her
husband tried to be prepared without this assistance, they will have to
dip into their retirement savings just to make ends meet.
She is not much different from Pandora Evans of Fort Pierce in my
congressional district who has been unemployed for almost 2 years after
losing her job at a service station. Her benefits have run out and her
bills piled up to the point she may soon be homeless.
And there is Joe Becker of Jupiter, Florida, who has applied for
nearly 400 jobs, has put himself through additional training and is
still unable to find work.
These are only three of the 3.2 million Americans who stand to lose
unemployment compensation if we do not act positively. This is not mere
charity for them.
I urge my colleagues to pass this much-needed extension and urge them
to support this rule. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question
and on the rule.
I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question
on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this 15-minute vote on adoption of
House Resolution 1550 will be followed by a 5-minute vote on suspending
the rules and passing H.R. 1469, as amended, on which the yeas and nays
were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 237,
nays 180, not voting 15, as follows:
[Roll No. 461]
YEAS--237
Ackerman
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boccieri
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Childers
Chu
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Dahlkemper
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Driehaus
Edwards (MD)
Edwards (TX)
Ehlers
Ellison
Ellsworth
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Foster
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gonzalez
Gordon (TN)
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Halvorson
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
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 (MA)
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McMahon
McNerney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (NY)
Nadler (NY)
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Perlmutter
Perriello
Peters
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Polis (CO)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
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
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Space
Speier
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Taylor
Teague
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
NAYS--180
Aderholt
Adler (NJ)
Akin
Alexander
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Baird
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bright
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cao
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Castle
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Djou
Dreier
Duncan
Emerson
Flake
Fleming
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Guthrie
Hall (TX)
Harper
Hastings (WA)
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hill
Hunter
Inglis
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan (OH)
King (IA)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Lamborn
Lance
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee (NY)
Lewis (CA)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
[[Page H5938]]
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Markey (CO)
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Minnick
Mitchell
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Nye
Olson
Paul
Paulsen
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Posey
Price (GA)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rehberg
Reichert
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schmidt
Schock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stearns
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walden
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Young (AK)
NOT VOTING--15
Cantor
Capuano
Doyle
Fallin
Hodes
Hoekstra
King (NY)
Maloney
Murphy, Patrick
Ortiz
Quigley
Tiahrt
Titus
Wamp
Young (FL)
{time} 1200
Messrs. HELLER, CARTER, and BAIRD changed their vote from ``yea'' to
``nay.''
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________