[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 4]
[House]
[Pages 4770-4781]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




              DISASTER RELIEF AND SUMMER JOBS ACT OF 2010

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1204, I call up 
the bill (H.R. 4899) making emergency supplemental appropriations for 
disaster relief and summer jobs for the fiscal year ending September 
30, 2010, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1204, the bill 
is considered read.
  The text of the bill is follows:

                               H.R. 4899

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the 
     following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the 
     Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the fiscal year 
     ending September 30, 2010, and for other purposes, namely:

                    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

                  Federal Emergency Management Agency

                            disaster relief

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For an additional amount for ``Disaster Relief'', 
     $5,100,000,000, to remain available until expended, of which 
     $5,000,000 shall be transferred to the Department of Homeland 
     Security Office of the Inspector General for audits and 
     investigations related to disasters.

                          DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

                 Employment and Training Administration

                    training and employment services

       For an additional amount for ``Training and Employment 
     Services'' for activities under the Workforce Investment Act 
     of 1998 (``WIA''), $600,000,000, which shall be available for 
     obligation on the date of enactment of this Act, for grants 
     to the States for youth activities: Provided, That such funds 
     shall be used solely for summer employment programs for 
     youth: Provided further, That no portion of such funds shall 
     be reserved to carry out section 127(b)(1)(A) of the WIA: 
     Provided further, That for purposes of section 
     127(b)(1)(C)(iv) of the WIA, funds available for youth 
     activities shall be allotted as if the total amount available 
     for youth activities in the fiscal year does not exceed 
     $1,000,000,000: Provided further, That the work readiness 
     performance indicator described in section 
     136(b)(2)(A)(ii)(I) of the WIA shall be the only measure of 
     performance used to assess the effectiveness of summer 
     employment for youth provided with such funds.

                           LEGISLATIVE BRANCH

                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

      Payment to Widows and Heirs of Deceased Members of Congress

       For a payment to Joyce Murtha, widow of John P. Murtha, 
     late a Representative from Pennsylvania, $174,000: Provided, 
     That section 102 shall not apply to this appropriation.

                          INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

                     Small Business Administration

                     business loans program account

       For an additional amount for ``Business Loans Program 
     Account'' for fee reductions and eliminations under section 
     501 of title V of division A of the American Recovery and 
     Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-5) and for the cost 
     of guaranteed loans under section 502 of such title, 
     $20,000,000, to remain available until expended: Provided, 
     That such costs shall be as defined in section 502 of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974: Provided further, That up 
     to $40,000,000 of the amount made available under this 
     heading in Public Law 111-117 also may be utilized for the 
     purposes specified in this paragraph: Provided further, That 
     section 502(f) of title V of division A of the American 
     Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-5) is 
     amended by striking ``March 28, 2010'' and inserting ``April 
     30, 2010''.

                           GENERAL PROVISIONS


                              rescissions

       Sec. 101. There are hereby rescinded the following amounts 
     from the specified accounts:
       (1) ``Department of Commerce--National Telecommunications 
     and Information Administration--Digital-to-Analog Converter 
     Box Program'', $111,500,000, to be derived from unobligated 
     balances made available

[[Page 4771]]

     under this heading in title II of division A of the American 
     Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-5; 123 
     Stat. 128).
       (2) ``Department of Transportation--National Highway 
     Traffic Safety Administration--Consumer Assistance to Recycle 
     and Save Program'', $44,000,000, to be derived from 
     unobligated balances made available in title XIII of Public 
     Law 111-32 and in Public Law 111-47.
       (3) ``Department of Agriculture--Food and Nutrition 
     Service--Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, 
     Infants, and Children (WIC)'', $361,825,000, to be derived 
     from unobligated balances available from amounts placed in 
     reserve in title I of division A of the American Recovery and 
     Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-5; 123 Stat. 115).
       (4) Accounts under the heading ``Department of 
     Agriculture--Rural Development Programs'', $102,675,000, to 
     be derived from the unobligated balances of funds that were 
     provided for such accounts in prior appropriation Acts (other 
     than Public Law 111-5) and that were designated by the 
     Congress in such Acts as an emergency requirement pursuant to 
     a concurrent resolution on the budget or the Balanced Budget 
     and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.


                         emergency designation

       Sec. 102. Each amount in this Act is designated as an 
     emergency requirement and necessary to meet emergency needs 
     pursuant to sections 403 and 423(b) of S. Con. Res. 13 (111th 
     Congress), the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal 
     year 2010.


                              short title

       Sec. 103. This Act may be cited as the ``Disaster Relief 
     and Summer Jobs Act of 2010''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin.


                             General Leave

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 
5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and 
include extraneous material on H.R. 4899.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Wisconsin?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  This a very simple bill. It provides $5.1 billion as requested by the 
President for FEMA disaster relief because FEMA will run out of money 
in the next 2 or 3 weeks. Consistent with all prior year FEMA 
supplementals and the President's request, this $5.1 billion is 
designated as an emergency. The bill also provides $600 million for 
youth summer jobs. This funding will support over 300,000 jobs for 
youth ages 16 to 21. This age group had some of the highest 
unemployment levels in the country:
  Last, the bill extends the successful small business lending 
provisions that are contained in the Recovery Act for another month and 
provides up to $60 million for that effort. Again, that new funding is 
offset. The bill rescinds emergency funding that is not needed in order 
to provide for the offsets.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I believe that most Members 
would agree that the fiscal path that our country is currently on is 
unsustainable. With an annual deficit of $1.6 trillion, a growing 
mountain of debt, and unemployment hovering near 10 percent, it's clear 
that we must change our course now or face catastrophic consequences in 
the very near future.
  My colleagues, the simple truth is that Uncle Sam needs a diet. The 
single greatest challenge of this Congress and our best hope for 
lasting recovery lies in curbing Uncle Sam's appetite for spending. 
It's time to cut up the government's credit card and live within our 
means starting right now, today.
  Just two nights ago, Congress passed a $1 trillion health care bill 
that was opposed by every Republican House member and 39 Democrat House 
members. Never before in our Nation's history has such historic 
legislation been passed by one party over such widespread bipartisan 
opposition. Now, here we are again preparing to vote on yet another 
huge spending bill that was crafted without any transparency or 
bipartisan involvement.
  Most Members would agree that providing relief to Americans suffering 
from natural disasters is a responsible and worthy use of taxpayer 
dollars. Most Members would also agree we don't need to load up a 
disaster bill with hundreds of millions of dollars on a summer youth 
program--especially when there is already $1.4 billion in the jobs 
pipeline.
  It's worth noting that the $600 million for a summer youths job 
program is being offset by various rescissions in unused funding from 
the stimulus bill and other past spending bills.
  But my underlying question is this: If there is $1.4 billion already 
in the pipeline for a Department of Labor jobs program, why can't we 
return the rescinded $600 million dollars back to the Treasury for 
deficit reduction? Why must my Democrat friends continue to spend and 
spend and spend and spend?
  At the beginning of this Congress, the Appropriations Committee 
consisted of 60 members--37 Democrats and 23 Republicans. It's worth 
noting, however, that my chairman has made it a habit to write his 
bills and completely bypass the Democrat and Republican members of the 
committee. Do not for one minute believe that this legislation reflects 
the work of the House Appropriations Committee or even the Democrats on 
the Appropriations Committee, because it does not. To my knowledge, 
this bill has had no input from any members other than the chairman 
himself. There's been no markup, no amendments, and no potential 
offsets debated or even discussed by the committee.
  Like the trillion-dollar stimulus package and the subsequent ``son of 
stimulus'' passed by the House prior to Christmas, this legislation 
will pass without any opportunity for a Member to amend it. With 
billions and billions of stimulus funding still unspent, there is no 
reason why the entire emergency relief portion of this legislation 
cannot be entirely paid for or be used to begin paying down that $1.6 
trillion deficit for the year.

                              {time}  1600

  Mr. Obey has argued that Republicans didn't ``pay for'' disasters 
when we were in charge. On that point, he is correct. However, when 
Republicans were the majority party, annual deficits were not $1.6 
trillion as they are today, and we didn't have hundreds of billions of 
dollars in unnecessary funding sloshing around in Federal coffers. 
Surely we can cut $5.1 billion in unspent stimulus funding to pay for 
the FEMA spending involved here. We shouldn't continue to spend money 
we don't have.
  Mr. Speaker, we can agree to disagree on the cause of our economic 
troubles, but the fact remains that we cannot spend our way into 
economic health. Until the Congress curbs its appetite for spending, 
our economy will continue to suffer.
  With that said, I urge Members on both sides of the aisle to insist, 
especially after Sunday's budget-busting vote on health care, that we 
fully offset the entire cost of this legislation so we do not further 
burden future generations with even more debt.
  I will close, as I began, with this comment: The simple truth is that 
Uncle Sam needs a diet.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I would simply note that the gentleman is complaining 
because the committee is using precisely the same procedures that it 
used in the past when he was chairman and his party was in control of 
the situation.
  When Republicans controlled the House, they brought supplementals to 
the floor in five out of six Congresses that were handled by the 
chairman and the chairman alone. That is no different than is happening 
today. In fact, from 1995 through 2006, while Republicans controlled 
the institution, the House considered 12 supplemental appropriation 
bills handled in just that same way.
  Secondly, with respect to the so-called runaway spending for summer 
youth jobs, that spending is fully offset by other cuts in the bill. So 
much for runaway spending. I can't recall similar fiscal rectitude when 
the other party was running this place.
  Thirdly, let me suggest that when the gentleman complains about not 
offsetting the funding for the emergency

[[Page 4772]]

disaster relief program, I would point out that the past administration 
asked us to do the very same thing eight times in a row, and the 
Congress did.
  Let me also say, by the way, that I would invite the gentleman from 
California to join me in cosponsoring legislation, which I have 
introduced in this House several times, which would set up a State-
funded disaster program which would be experience rated so that each 
State would pay into that fund ahead of time on the basis of how much 
they have drawn out of it in the past.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. OBEY. I yield myself 1 additional minute.
  I would point out that more than half of all disaster relief since 
1993 has gone to just four States: Louisiana, Florida, California--the 
gentleman's home State--and Mississippi; and 80 percent of all disaster 
relief since 1993 has gone to 10 States: those four plus Texas, Puerto 
Rico, Alabama, Iowa, North Carolina, and New York.
  As a Representative of a State that is not in that 10-State group, I 
am perfectly happy to end the need for virtually all disaster payments 
paid for by Uncle Sam by establishing the kind of proposal that I have 
supported for years. I doubt very much the gentleman from California 
would like that because then California would be paying into it in the 
same measure that they are drawing out of it through the years.
  But I would, nonetheless, invite any Member interested in fiscal 
rectitude, whether from a recipient State or not, to join me in that 
effort and then we won't have these meaningless debates on the floor 
anymore.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  I simply rise, in part, to respond to the comments of my colleague. I 
think it's important for us to know that we do have quite a history of 
supplemental funding and what we do with emergency spending.
  As the chairman suggests, there has been a lot of funny business that 
has gone on, but I thought the Members ought to know that from fiscal 
year 1989 through fiscal year 2006 there have been 36 multiagency 
supplemental appropriations bills that have been considered by the 
Congress, and most of them have been enacted into law. Of those, only 
seven were never considered by our Appropriations Committee and this 
one was not considered by our Appropriations Committee. It was 
introduced almost at midnight, the very day we dealt with that 
trillion-dollar deficit package that was before us. Those seven that 
bypassed the committee I could easily go through in detail, but 
essentially they were dealing with the natural disasters that related 
to hurricanes in Florida and the disaster that impacted Louisiana and 
the like. Emergencies, indeed, but the committee was bypassed for those 
emergencies.
  It seems to me that it's about time that we took up supplementals 
like this, instead of being written at the last minute, be handled in 
regular order, be considered by the committee, be available to the 
members for not only reading but for amending, and it has become a 
consistent pattern that we are not doing that. We are bypassing our 
committee as though the committee or subcommittees might as well not 
exist.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. I yield myself 30 seconds.
  I would simply say, Mr. Speaker, that the White House submitted this 
request for disaster relief over a month ago. Everyone in this 
institution has known about it; in addition to which, the gentleman's 
staff has known for a good 2 weeks that we would be considering this 
disaster relief. The only thing that's different is that we found 
offsets within the past few days that would help to fully pay for the 
summer jobs program so, therefore, we included that in the proposition.
  This is hardly a complicated matter. I am sure that the gentleman 
from California is up to a full understanding of it.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers).
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I thank the ranking member for yielding.
  I rise, Mr. Speaker, to voice my disappointment with this bill. 
First, the sheer cost of the disaster relief section of this bill has 
largely resulted from the administration's own reluctance to be 
forthright on true disaster costs. When the administration knew full 
well that they were looking at an immense shortfall for disaster relief 
costs for fiscal year 2010, they all but stuck their heads in the sand, 
refused to get off the dime and submit an official request or budget 
amendment, and that's after continued inquiries and even congressional 
direction--congressional direction--to be more forthcoming with known 
costs.
  To add insult to injury, FEMA's inability to accurately assess the 
costs of certain damages have led to several large arbitration rulings 
and settlements, rulings in which FEMA was admonished for having no 
sound basis for its estimates. FEMA's ineptitude has resulted in an 
additional $1.2 billion in costs to the taxpayers. Ineptitude.
  These failures amount to an expensive and now hurried bill. It goes 
without saying that the administration and FEMA must do better in 
estimating and budgeting for the real costs of disasters. We have been 
on this broken path for too long.
  Secondly, given the failings of the administration and FEMA, and 
considering this supplemental does not follow a singular catastrophic 
event, I see no reason why the administration and the Democrat majority 
have not worked harder to offset this spending. This concern is 
especially relevant when billions of dollars in unobligated money is 
lying around--sloshing--in the so-called stimulus bill, a point that 
Chairman Lewis has made repeatedly here today.
  Why are we further burdening the American people with additional debt 
when there are monies that can and should be used to pay for the costs 
of real emergencies? Sadly, the majority hasn't even notionally 
consulted the minority or, for that matter, the committee on finding 
ways to pay for this and is choosing, instead, to just ram this bill 
through the House with only an hour of debate.
  I would like to think that had this bill been handled properly with 
at least some minority input, we could have collaborated to produce a 
more fiscally disciplined bill and a bill that included some tough and 
badly needed oversight on how the administration and FEMA is budgeting 
for disaster relief funding. Needless to say, the majority seems hell-
bent on spending taxpayer money without even giving lip service to an 
offset.
  Mr. Speaker, at this rate, we are simply passing an impossible 
financial emergency to our children and our grandchildren. To say that 
I am disappointed at this bill's cost and lack of oversight and 
discipline is a gross understatement. The administration and this 
Democrat majority must do better.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price).
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I thank the chairman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the disaster relief and summer jobs 
supplemental appropriations bill, which includes $5.1 billion for the 
Federal Emergency Management Agency's Disaster Relief Fund. The 
administration has requested this amount in emergency funding to pay 
for recovery from catastrophic events and to be able to respond to 
disasters and emergencies through the balance of the fiscal year.
  This bill is about making sure that FEMA keeps its promises to 
devastated communities that are getting back on their feet as well as 
to those who may face disasters in the months to come. In addition to 
ongoing recovery costs associated with an active hurricane season and 
extraordinary flooding in the Midwest in 2008, FEMA is still required 
to pay for some very expensive outstanding costs related to Katrina, 
such as the devastated Louisiana schools and Charity Hospital.

[[Page 4773]]

  Because we are still dealing with these monumental recovery efforts, 
the Disaster Relief Fund is being depleted at a rate of nearly $500 
million per month this fiscal year. This has nearly doubled the 
noncatastrophic 5-year average that FEMA bases its estimates on. At 
that rate, OMB projects FEMA will be completely out of disaster relief 
funds by the end of March.
  It's unfortunate that we find ourselves in the position of running 
low on funds just halfway through the fiscal year. I agree that FEMA 
needs to find a better way to budget, to account for the known costs of 
these catastrophic events when formulating the budget request. I have 
pressed them to do that and will continue to do so. But it is 
disingenuous for those on the other side of the aisle to lecture us on 
this issue when, to a large extent, as they well know, this 
supplemental is required to deal with the mess inherited from the 
previous administration. And by ``the mess,'' I mean the practice of 
lowballing projected disaster costs as well as billions in deferred 
obligations.
  The fact of the matter is the last administration failed to bring 
these major public infrastructure projects in the gulf coast to a 
resolution. We are talking about billions of dollars worth of 
liabilities that were just kicked down the road. So no lectures, 
please, on irresponsible budgeting. Over $2 billion of this 
supplemental could be spent dealing with unresolved Katrina costs.
  The FEMA administrator brought these issues to light in a recent 
hearing before our subcommittee. He has now committed to correcting 
these deficiencies, to cleaning up the mess he inherited, and to making 
sure FEMA accounts for its recovery costs, fully accounts, rather than 
punting them to the next administration.
  Based on the impending shortfall in the fund, FEMA announced last 
month that it could only pay for ``immediate needs'' for disasters, 
which includes assistance to families and individuals, as well as 
debris removal and emergency protective measures. All long-term 
rebuilding projects are being deferred until Congress acts. To put that 
into perspective for my colleagues, that means that over $367 million 
worth of projects in 43 States and four territories will continue to be 
delayed if we fail to act.

                              {time}  1615

  And this backlog will only continue to grow. When you add the 
expensive Katrina-related issues, FEMA is currently liable for nearly 
$2 billion in costs.
  In addition to addressing these past disasters, we must prepare for 
those to come. The National Weather Service, the Army Corps of 
Engineers currently estimate that one-third of the U.S. will be faced 
with the possibility of flooding this spring. Without these funds, FEMA 
will not be able to assist local communities and States responding to 
these flooding disasters. It's critical that we replenish the disaster 
relief funds now.
  I remind my colleagues that we have always considered disaster relief 
funds to be emergency funding, under Republican and Democratic 
Congresses, under Republican and Democratic administrations. The last 
administration transmitted eight supplementary funding requests for the 
disaster relief fund between fiscal 2002 and 2006. Those disaster 
relief funds were always requested as an emergency and were not offset.
  We all have a stake, Mr. Speaker, in the passage of this bill. I urge 
my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate my 
colleague from North Carolina. He's a regular order kind of guy, and he 
chairs the Homeland Security Subcommittee. I've only been complaining 
about the way we're handling the process.
  My chairman so far has not brought a single supplement to the floor 
under an open rule. And you can deal with these things with an open 
rule reasonably on the floor. But, ideally, you deal with them in 
committee, have a chance for amendments and otherwise.
  We just don't bring supplementals to the committee for discussion. So 
far there have been--my colleague should know this--so far there have 
been $800 billion in spending numbers that Members didn't get a chance 
to have any input upon.
  With that, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. 
Tiahrt).
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, there's no doubt that unemployment remains a 
problem; but the majority, for some reason, thinks we need to borrow 
another $600 million to subsidize summer jobs for kids. But, you know, 
there's a lot of money already available. Out of the $1.2 billion 
provided for youth jobs in the so-called Recovery Act, $366 million is 
still unspent. There's another $924 million in annual appropriations 
that will be available in about 1 week from now.
  Additionally, for each of the last two program years, there's 
approximately $250 million appropriated for youth employment that has 
not been spent and been carried forward. So when you add all that up, 
it's $1.5 billion that's available today already for youth programs in 
the summer.
  Why on God's green Earth would we borrow another $600 million from 
the Chinese?
  Mr. OBEY. Will the gentleman yield on that?
  Mr. TIAHRT. I have limited time, Mr. Chairman. If you'll be brief.
  Mr. OBEY. I would yield to you 30 seconds so I might ask you a 
question.
  Mr. TIAHRT. I would welcome to have your question, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. OBEY. Why do you keep saying we're borrowing money to add to the 
summer youth program when this bill fully offsets every dime that we're 
spending on it?
  Mr. TIAHRT. Well, Mr. Chairman, we overspent so far this year $655 
billion.
  Mr. OBEY. No. Would you answer my question? We are not adding one 
dime to the deficit by what we are adding to the summer jobs program. 
We are fully paying for it by cuts in other programs.
  I have great respect for my friend from Kansas, but he needs to be 
accurate in what he says.
  Mr. TIAHRT. I thank the Chairman. And I would argue that of the $655 
billion that we've already had to borrow, you're taking some of that 
money and applying it to this program so, again, borrowing money from 
the Chinese.
  Mr. OBEY. That's new math.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Well, I guess I'm entitled to my new math today.
  I would like to make the point that these summer jobs, or these 
temporary youth jobs that are paid for by tax dollars don't create 
permanent jobs. Wichita State University did a study of what we 
received with the stimulus money; and of the $6.2 million that was 
received, 600 employers temporarily hired 1,593 youth for summer jobs. 
Out of that, only 62 jobs were permanent, or 3.8 percent.
  So if you look at what's happened through the stimulus, since the 
stimulus business was passed, we've lost 3.9 million private sector 
jobs. We have created jobs in the Federal Government, 63,000 jobs, 
another 230,000 jobs at the State and local level. How are we going to 
pay for those jobs in the future?
  We've created permanent government jobs and lost private sector jobs. 
A little math--that's not new math, but proven math--says that for 
every government employee, it takes 10 private sector jobs to pay 
enough Federal taxes to cover the cost of that employee.
  So what we should be talking about is not temporary jobs in the 
summer for youth, but permanent jobs, real jobs. And in fact, we need 3 
million jobs just to cover the new government jobs that we've created. 
We can create those jobs through tax relief for employers. We can do it 
by freezing regulations and forcing the existing regulations through a 
simple formula where the benefit exceeds the cost. And we need tort 
reform, and we need to become energy independent.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. I yield the gentleman an additional minute.
  Mr. TIAHRT. The point I want to make about creating a strong economy 
to pay for these new government jobs at the Federal and State level, we 
have to do things to provide opportunity in

[[Page 4774]]

our economy. The way you do that is you enhance the process of hiring 
people.
  Capital is always a coward and only goes where it's welcome. Lowering 
taxes for people who invest in jobs will attract capital into our 
economy.
  Second, we need to freeze our current regulations and force all the 
regulations that we have on the books today through a simple formula: B 
has to be greater than C. That means that the benefit has to exceed the 
cost of implementation. If we would do that, we would lower the cost of 
creating things in America, of making things in America, and we have to 
make things.
  The third thing I would argue is we need to have tort reform. I favor 
a loser-pay system like they have in the United Kingdom.
  And, fourth, I would like to say if we became energy independent, we 
would solve our unemployment problem. Only one State in the entire 
United States last year had increased employment. That State was North 
Dakota, and it was because they found oil under private property. Had 
it been under public lands, we could not have extracted the oil. But 
because it was private lands, we created jobs.
  I recommend we oppose this bill.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  I invite the gentleman's attention to page 4 and page 5 of the bill. 
If he will read those two pages, he will see that every dollar of 
additional spending for summer jobs is paid for by a reduction in other 
government spending programs.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole).
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I share my colleagues' concerns about what's 
in the bill, but I'm also concerned by what's not in the bill and, 
frankly, that's money to fund the settlement of the so-called Cobell 
lawsuit.
  As my colleagues on both sides of the aisle know, this lawsuit 
against the Federal Government stems from the mismanagement of Indian 
trust accounts and trust land since 1887. It involves over half a 
million claimants; it has drug on for 14 years through three different 
administrations involving both parties.
  Finally, in December of last year, a settlement was reached, $3.4 
billion: $1.4 billion to individual claimants, $2 billion to allow for 
the repurchase of fractionated lands, and some money set aside for an 
Indian scholarship fund.
  I want to particularly, frankly, commend Secretary Salazar, who did a 
wonderful job in bringing this issue to closure. But it's now squarely 
in our court in the Congress of the United States. The President has 
asked us to solve this problem or to fund the settlement that he's 
negotiated.
  For the record, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to enter the President's letter 
to the Speaker asking action on this particular item. So it's now 
squarely in our court.
  When the settlement was negotiated, there was a deadline that we 
would act in Congress by December 31 of last year. Obviously, we missed 
that. There's a second deadline of February 28. We missed that. The 
last deadline is April 15.
  I know that many of my friends on the other side of the aisle 
sincerely want to settle this issue, and I look forward to working with 
them as we try to move toward that; but I find it very difficult to 
keep people that have been waiting over 100 years waiting a while 
longer while we do things in a more immediate framework. So I urge the 
Congress to act, and I urge us to, frankly, support the 
administration's negotiated settlement. When we do that I'll be there 
to help my friends on the other side of the aisle.

                                              The White House,

                                Washington, DC, February 12, 2010.
     Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
     Speaker of the House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Madam Speaker: I ask the Congress to consider the 
     enclosed amendments to Fiscal Year (FY) 2010 proposals in my 
     FY 2011 Budget.
       Included is an amendment for the Department of Homeland 
     Security, Disaster Relief, for the continued response and 
     recovery efforts associated with prior large events, such as 
     Hurricane Katrina and the Midwest Floods. The proposed total 
     for FY 2010 in my FY 2011 Budget would increase by $1.5 
     billion as a result of this amendment.
       Also included are amendments to general provisions that 
     would provide authorization and funding for FY 2010 to 
     implement the settlement of a case involving the management 
     of individual Indian trust accounts related to Indian lands 
     and to settle claims of prior discrimination brought by black 
     farmers against the Department of Agriculture.
       The details of these requests are set forth in the enclosed 
     letter from the Director of the Office of Management and 
     Budget.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Barack Obama.
       Enclosure.

         Executive Office of the President, Office of Management 
           and Budget,
                                Washington, DC, February 12, 2010.
     The President,
     The White House.
       Submitted for your consideration are amendments to the 
     Fiscal Year (FY) 2010 proposals in your FY 2011 Budget. 
     Included is an amendment for the Department of Homeland 
     Security, Disaster Relief. Also included are amendments to 
     general provisions that would provide authorization and 
     funding for FY 2010 to implement the settlement of a case 
     involving the management of individual Indian trust accounts 
     related to Indian lands and to settle claims of prior 
     discrimination brought by black farmers against the 
     Department of Agriculture. These amendments are described 
     below and in more detail in the enclosures.
       The proposed Budget totals for FY 2010 would increase by 
     $1.5 billion as a result of the following amendment:
       Department of Homeland Security, Disaster Relief. This 
     amendment would provide an additional $1.5 billion and would 
     increase the pending $3.6 billion FY 2010 supplemental 
     request included in the FY 2011 Budget to $5.1 billion. These 
     supplemental funds are needed before March 2010 for the 
     continued response and recovery efforts associated with prior 
     large events, such as Hurricane Katrina and the Midwest 
     Floods. This supplemental request is also being re-
     transmitted to underscore the importance of acting in a 
     timely fashion.
       Two FY 2010 proposals were included as mandatory requests 
     in the FY 2011 Budget, with an expectation that authorization 
     language would be transmitted at a later date. However, at 
     this time there are no other appropriate legislative vehicles 
     available to allow for expeditious consideration of these 
     proposals. Therefore, they are now being requested as changes 
     in mandatory programs and as such, are being transmitted to 
     the Appropriations Committee for their disposition.
       General Provision, Sec. 1: Cobell v. Salazar. This 
     amendment would provide authorization and funding to 
     implement the settlement of Cobell v. Salazar, a case 
     involving the management of individual Indian trust accounts 
     related to Indian lands. Pending congressional action and 
     final approval by the Court, $3.412 billion will be expended 
     from the Department of the Treasury's Claims, Judgments, and 
     Relief Acts account in FY 2010. Within this total, the 
     settlement agreement provides that $2.0 billion from the 
     appropriation to this account will be transferred to a new 
     Trust Land Consolidation Fund in the Department of the 
     Interior for the buy-back and consolidation of fractionated 
     land interests and other activities.
       General Provision, Sec. 2: Discrimination Claims 
     Settlement. This amendment would provide authorization and FY 
     2010 funding of $1.150 billion to settle claims of prior 
     discrimination brought by black farmers against the 
     Department of Agriculture that were previously addressed by 
     section 14012 of Public Law 110-246, the Food Conservation 
     and Energy Act of 2008.
     Recommendation
       I have carefully reviewed these requests and am satisfied 
     that they are necessary at this time. Therefore, I join the 
     heads of the affected agencies in recommending you transmit 
     these proposals to the Congress.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Peter R. Orszag,
                                                         Director.
       Enclosures.

          FY 2010 Supplemental Proposal in the FY 2011 Budget

       Agency: Department of Homeland Security.
       Bureau: Federal Emergency Management Agency.
       Heading: Disaster Relief.
       FY 2011 Budget Appendix Page: 1362.
       FY 2010 Pending Supplemental Request: $3,600,000,000.
       Proposed Amendment: $1,500,000,000.
       FY 2010 Revised Supplemental Request: $5,100,000,000.
       (In the appropriations language under the above heading, 
     delete ``$3,600,000,000'' and substitute $5,100,000,000.)
       This amendment would provide an additional $1.5 billion for 
     the Disaster Relief account and would increase the pending 
     $3.6 billion FY 2010 supplemental request included in the FY 
     2011 Budget to $5.1 billion.

[[Page 4775]]

       This request is submitted to: (1) reiterate the need to 
     provide the proposed funding before March 2010, and 
     underscore the Administration's support for this proposal; 
     and (2) request an additional $1.5 billion in anticipation of 
     arbitration panel decisions likely to impact the Disaster 
     Relief Fund in a previously unexpected manner. This proposal 
     provides additional funding for the continued response and 
     recovery efforts associated with prior large events, such as 
     Hurricane Katrina and the Midwest Floods.
       Through the Disaster Relief Fund, the Federal Emergency 
     Management Agency provides a significant portion of the total 
     Federal response to Presidentially-declared major disasters 
     and emergencies. Primary assistance programs include Federal 
     assistance to individuals and households, public assistance, 
     and hazard mitigation assistance, which includes the repair 
     and reconstruction of State, local, and nonprofit 
     infrastructure.

                 FY 2010 Change in a Mandatory Program

       Heading: General Provisions--This Act.
       FY 2011 Budget Appendix Page: 1366.
       FY 2010 Pending Request: $3,412,000,000.
       Proposed Amendment:--.
       Revised Request: $3,412,000,000.
       (In the appropriations language, insert the above new 
     heading and the following new language directly following 
     section 2 of the ``General Provisions'' that appear on page 
     1365:)

     SEC. 1. THE INDIVIDUAL INDIAN MONEY ACCOUNT LITIGATION 
                   SETTLEMENT ACT OF 2010.

       (a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the 
     ``Individual Indian Money Account Litigation Settlement Act 
     of 2010''.
       (b) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Amended complaint.--The term ``Amended Complaint'' 
     means the Amended Complaint attached to the Settlement.
       (2) Land consolidation program.--The term ``Land 
     Consolidation Program'' means a program conducted in 
     accordance with the Settlement and the Indian Land 
     Consolidation Act (25 U.S.C. 2201 et seq.) under which the 
     Secretary may purchase fractionated interests in trust or 
     restricted land.
       (3) Litigation.--The term ``Litigation'' means the case 
     entitled Elouise Cobell et al. v. Ken Salazar et al., United 
     States District Court, District of Columbia, Civil Action No. 
     96-1285 (JR).
       (4) Plaintiff.--The term ``Plaintiff'' means a member of 
     any class certified in the Litigation.
       (5) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Interior.
       (6) Settlement.--The term ``Settlement'' means the Class 
     Action Settlement Agreement dated December 7, 2009, in the 
     Litigation.
       (7) Trust administration class.--The term ``Trust 
     Administration Class'' means the Trust Administration Class 
     as defined in the Settlement.
       (c) Purpose.--The purpose of this section is to authorize 
     the Settlement.
       (d) Authorization.--The Settlement is authorized, ratified, 
     and confirmed.
       (e) Jurisdictional Provisions.--
       (l) In general.--Notwithstanding the limitation on 
     jurisdiction of district courts contained in section 
     1346(a)(2) of title 28, United States Code, the United States 
     District Court for the District of Columbia shall have 
     jurisdiction over the claims asserted in the Amended 
     Complaint for purposes of the Settlement.
       (2) Certification of trust administration class.--
       (A) In general.--Notwithstanding the requirements of the 
     Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the court overseeing the 
     Litigation may certify the Trust Administration Class.
       (B) Treatment.--On certification under sub-paragraph (A), 
     the Trust Administration Class shall be treated as a class 
     under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) for purposes 
     of the Settlement.
       (f) Accounting/Trust Administration Fund.--
       (1) In general.--Of the amounts appropriated by section 
     1304 of title 31, United States Code, $1,412,000,000 shall be 
     deposited in the Accounting/Trust Administration Fund, in 
     accordance with the Settlement.
       (2) Conditions met.--The conditions described in section 
     1304 of title 31, United States Code, shall be considered to 
     be met for purposes of paragraph (1).
       (g) Trust Land Consolidation.--
       (1) Trust land consolidation fund.--
       (A) Establishment.--On final approval (as defined in the 
     Settlement) of the Settlement, there shall be established in 
     the Treasury of the United States a fund, to be known as the 
     ``Trust Land Consolidation Fund''.
       (B) Availability of amounts.--Amounts in the Trust Land 
     Consolidation Fund shall be made available to the Secretary 
     during the 10-year period beginning on the date of final 
     approval of the Settlement--
       (i) to conduct the Land Consolidation Program; and
       (ii) for other costs specified in the Settlement.
       (C) Deposits.--
       (i) In general.--On final approval (as defined in the 
     Settlement) of the Settlement, the Secretary of the Treasury 
     shall deposit in the Trust Land Consolidation Fund 
     $2,000,000,000 of the amounts appropriated by section 1304 of 
     title 31, United States Code.
       (ii) Conditions met.--The conditions described in section 
     1304 of title 31, United States Code, shall be considered to 
     be met for purposes of clause.
       (D) Transfers.--In a manner designed to encourage 
     participation in the Land Consolidation Program, the 
     Secretary may transfer, at the discretion of the Secretary, 
     not more than $60,000,000 of amounts in the Trust Land 
     Consolidation Fund to the Indian Education Scholarship 
     Holding Fund established under paragraph 2.
       (2) Indian education scholarship holding fund.--
       (A) Establishment.--On the final approval (as defined in 
     the Settlement) of the Settlement, there shall be established 
     in the Treasury of the United States a fund, to be known as 
     the ``Indian Education Scholarship Holding Fund''.
       (B)Availability.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law governing competition, public notification, or Federal 
     procurement or assistance, amounts in the Indian Education 
     Scholarship Holding Fund shall be made available, without 
     further appropriation, to the Secretary to contribute to an 
     Indian Education Scholarship Fund, as described in the 
     Settlement, to provide scholarships for Native Americans.
       (3) Acquisition of trust or restricted land.--The Secretary 
     may acquire, at the discretion of the Secretary and in 
     accordance with the Land Consolidation Program, any 
     fractional interest in trust or restricted land.
       (4) Treatment of unlocatable plaintiffs.--A Plaintiff the 
     whereabouts of whom are unknown and who, after reasonable 
     efforts by the Secretary, cannot be located during the 5 year 
     period beginning on the date of final approval (as defined in 
     the Settlement) of the Settlement shall be considered to have 
     accepted an offer made pursuant to the Land Consolidation 
     Program.
       (h) Taxation and Other Benefits.--
       (1) Internal revenue code.--For purposes of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986, amounts received by an individual 
     Indian as a lump sum or a periodic payment pursuant to the 
     Settlement--
       (A) shall not be included in gross income; and
       (B) shall not be taken into consideration for purposes of 
     applying any provision of the Internal Revenue Code that 
     takes into account excludable income in computing adjusted 
     gross income or modified adjusted gross income, including 
     section 86 of that Code (relating to Social Security and tier 
     1 railroad retirement benefits).
       (2) Other benefits.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, amounts received by an individual Indian as a lump sum 
     or a periodic payment pursuant to the Settlement shall not be 
     treated for any household member, during the 1-year period 
     beginning on the date of receipt--
       (A) as income for the month during which the amounts were 
     received; or
       (B) as a resource,

     for purposes of determining initial eligibility, ongoing 
     eligibility, or level of benefits under any Federal or 
     federally assisted program.
       This amendment proposes language for consideration by the 
     Appropriations Committees to provide authorization and 
     funding to implement the settlement of Cobell v. Salazar, a 
     case involving the management of individual Indian trust 
     accounts related to Indian lands. Following the enactment of 
     this legislation and final approval of the settlement by the 
     Court, $3.412 billion will be expended from this account in 
     FY 2010.
       Under the terms of the settlement, $1.412 billion would be 
     used to settle trust management and accounting issues. Each 
     class member will receive $1,000 for his or her historical 
     accounting claims and may receive additional funds related to 
     trust management claims under a formula set forth in the 
     settlement agreement. (Page 1032 of the FY 2011 Budget 
     Appendix, Department of the Treasury chapter, provides 
     further detail regarding implementation of this aspect of the 
     settlement.)
       The settlement agreement also provides $2.0 billion from 
     the Claims, Judgments, and Relief Acts account for a new 
     Trust Land Consolidation Fund (Fund) for the buy-back and 
     consolidation of fractionated land interests. The Fund will 
     be used for purchases of fractionated interests in parcels of 
     land from individual Indian landowners. The Fund covers 
     administrative costs to undertake the process of acquiring 
     fractionated interests and associated trust reform 
     activities. The acquisition of fractionated interests is 
     authorized under the Indian Land Consolidation Act Amendments 
     of 2000 (Public Law 106-462), and the American Indian Probate 
     Reform Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-374). The proposed 
     settlement provides additional authority for the acquisition 
     of interests held by persons who cannot be located after 
     engaging in extensive efforts to notify them and locate them 
     for a five-year period. In addition to purchasing land 
     interests and other trust reform initiatives, the Fund will 
     also contribute up to $60 million for a scholarship fund for 
     the benefit of educating American Indians and Alaska Natives. 
     (Page 706 of the FY 2011 Budget Appendix, Department of the 
     Interior chapter, provides further detail regarding 
     implementation of this aspect of the settlement.)
       The FY 2011 Budget included this proposal as mandatory 
     funding that would become available in FY 2010, consistent 
     with the recent settlement agreement, dated December 7, 2009, 
     and anticipated transmitting authorization language at a 
     later date. However, at this time there are no other 
     appropriate legislative vehicles available to allow for 
     expeditious consideration of these necessary proposals. 
     Therefore, it is now being requested as a change in a 
     mandatory program to meet the settlement's legislation 
     enactment deadline of February 28, 2010.

[[Page 4776]]

       FY 2010 Change in a Mandatory Program
       Heading: General Provisions--This Act.
       FY 2011 Budget Appendix Page: 1366.
       FY 2010 Pending Request: $1,150,000,000.
       Proposed Amendment: --.
       Revised Request: $1,150,000,000.
       (In the appropriations language under the above newly 
     inserted heading, insert the following new section after the 
     newly inserted section 1:)
       Sec. 2. (a) There is hereby appropriated to the Department 
     of Agriculture, $1,150,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended, to carry out the terms of a Settlement Agreement 
     (``such Settlement Agreement'') executed in In re Black 
     Farmers Discrimination Litigation, No. 18-511 (D.D.C) that is 
     approved by a court order that has become final and non-
     appealable, and that is comprehensive and provides for the 
     final settlement of all remaining Pigford claims (Pigford 
     claims''), as defined in section 14012(a) of Public Law 110-
     246. The funds appropriated herein for such Settlement 
     Agreement are in addition to the $100,000,000 in funds of the 
     Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) that section 14012 made 
     available for the payment of Pigford claims and are available 
     only after such CCC funds have been fully obligated. The use 
     of the funds appropriated herein shall be subject to the 
     express terms of such Settlement Agreement. If any of the 
     funds appropriated herein are not used for carrying out such 
     Settlement Agreement, such funds shall be returned to the 
     Treasury and shall not be made available for an purpose 
     related to section 14012, for any other settlement agreement 
     executed in In re Black Farmers Discrimination Litigation, 
     No. 08-511 (D.D.C.), or for any other purpose. If such 
     Settlement Agreement is not executed and approved as provided 
     above, then the sole funding available for Pigford claims 
     shall be the $100,000,000 of funds of the CCC that section 
     14012 made available for the payment of Pigford claims.
       (b) Nothing in this section shall be construed as requiring 
     the United States, any of its officers or agencies, or any 
     other party to enter into such Settlement Agreement or any 
     other settlement agreement.
       (c) Nothing in this section shall be construed as creating 
     the basis for a Pigford claim.
       (d) Section 14012 of Public Law 110-246 is amended by 
     striking subsections (e), (i)(2) and (j), and redesignating 
     the remaining subsections accordingly.
       This amendment proposes language for consideration by the 
     Appropriations Committees to settle claims of prior 
     discrimination brought by black farmers against the 
     Department of Agriculture that were previously addressed by 
     section 14012 of Public Law 110-246, the Food Conservation 
     and Energy Act of 2008. The proposal would provide funding 
     for a court-approved settlement of litigation requiring the 
     payment of valid claims pursuant to a privately managed 
     settlement process. Upon enactment, the authority would 
     permit the expeditious and judicious resolution of 
     discrimination claims with minimal burden on the claimants 
     and the Government.
       The FY 2011 Budget included this proposal as mandatory 
     funding that would become available in FY 2010 and 
     anticipated transmitting authorization language at a later 
     date. However, at this time there are no other appropriate 
     legislative vehicles available to allow for expeditious 
     consideration of these necessary proposals. Therefore, it is 
     now being requested as a change in a mandatory program.

  Mr. OBEY. I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Let me simply say I largely agree with my friend from Oklahoma. We 
have one simple dilemma: both in the case of the Cobell settlement and 
the Pigford settlement, the administration has asked us to provide the 
money. We do not yet have an understanding of whether that will be 
provided through an emergency designation or whether it will be fully 
offset. We cannot proceed until the decision is made to move one way or 
another. As soon as it is, we want to bring both of those to the floor 
because I agree with you, we need to deal with both of them.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady).
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, today we're debating more disaster-
related spending. What we have to ask ourselves, what about the money 
Congress has already sent to help families and communities?
  As I stand here, Texas is still waiting for the supplemental disaster 
funds for Hurricane Ike that Congress approved 18 months ago, Congress, 
led by Chairman Obey and Ranking Member Lewis, to try to help 
communities who have suffered the sixth most costly hurricane in 
American history.
  But this time the hold up isn't FEMA; it's HUD. Other States have 
received their disaster funds, but HUD continues to hold Texas hostage. 
My fellow Texans and I, from both parties, have written to HUD on this 
issue. We've requested meetings or calls, and our letters go 
unanswered. The State of Texas has worked tirelessly with its local 
communities to put together a strong recovery plan, and we know it 
because we've just recovered from and are recovering from Hurricane 
Rita as well.
  But HUD keeps moving the goal posts. They say Washington knows best. 
And if the HUD gets their way, the people most impacted by Hurricane 
Ike won't even be eligible for help.
  It's been 541 days since Congress acted to provide help for disaster 
victims. Yet HUD continues to tell Texans, your recovery doesn't 
matter. There's no rush.
  Well, tell our communities, tell our families, tell our region that 
there's no rush. 541 days. HUD needs to act now to approve the Texas 
plan and simply help our communities rebuild.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).
  Ms. LEE of California. Thank you, Chairman Obey, for yielding and 
thank you for introducing this bill. It's very important. And I want to 
thank you for your leadership. Also to Chairman Miller and Speaker 
Pelosi for working with members of the Congressional Black Caucus to 
ensure that this legislation does include funding, which is paid for, 
for a summer youth jobs initiative to target funds for our young people 
who are unemployed.
  The members of the Congressional Black Caucus have been very focused 
on stimulating the economy and creating jobs, especially for the 
chronically unemployed. As my colleagues know, we are currently in the 
midst of a 5-week campaign launched at the beginning of this month to 
seek policy solutions for the chronically unemployed. We are working 
with our leadership, President Obama, Members of this House and our 
coalition partners to put a strategy together to put America back to 
work.
  One of the key components of our proposed jobs package was to provide 
$1.3 billion to the summer youth jobs program with a goal of creating 
approximately 500,000 jobs for young people throughout the country. We 
met with the President, with our Speaker. We raised the importance of 
the summer jobs program to adjust the huge unemployment rate among 
young people.
  We are committed to putting people back to work, especially our young 
people, because now, with this economic downturn, many of our young 
people, their parents are unemployed, and so they're helping to buy the 
food and to pay the rent.

                              {time}  1630

  When you take a look at the numbers, it's clear why this funding is 
so critical. The youth unemployment rate currently stands at more than 
23 percent. This is really a national emergency.
  Many low income and minority youth populations face even greater 
challenges. African American youth unemployment rates are now estimated 
to be as high as 42 percent. So we need targeted assistance to help put 
our young people to work and to teach them an array of valuable job 
skills that they can use throughout their lives.
  While this does not include the full $1.3 billion for summer youth 
jobs that we requested, it does make a down payment of $600 million, 
which is, once again, fully paid for, to create approximately 300,000 
new jobs. And this is a very important step forward; but, frankly, we 
need the full amount. I hope that we can continue to expand and 
increase funding for this valuable program.
  In addition, this bill will provide $5.1 billion in disaster relief 
to local communities through FEMA to address the impact of recent 
storms and disasters throughout the country. As one who comes from 
California, a State which is prone to earthquakes and floods, I can 
tell you this $5.1 billion is desperately needed.
  And, finally, the bill will include an additional $60 million to 
extend the provision of the Recovery Act for another month to help 
small businesses defray the cost of certain loan fees charged by the 
Small Business Administration. Our small businesses are creating jobs 
to help turn this economy around.

[[Page 4777]]

  So as Chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, I want to thank 
Chairman Obey and our Speaker and our leadership for this initial down 
payment. We are pleased that we can provide some funding for summer 
jobs for our young people and we are moving forward this job creation 
package.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 
minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Latta).
  Mr. LATTA. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, on March 4, I sent a letter to the FEMA administrator. 
That letter is regarding my concerns and the concerns I have heard from 
U.S. tent manufacturers and suppliers about FEMA purchasing disaster 
relief tents from foreign manufacturers.
  Humanitarian needs are great throughout the world, and the American 
people have shown their generous spirit through the outpouring of 
monetary and commodity donations as well as teams of personnel to serve 
in the medical assistance area.
  U.S. companies who manufacture shelters, such as this tent right 
here, can easily increase their production to fill the needs of 
humanitarian crises around the world. We need to continue to have U.S. 
tent manufacturers who can provide tents to U.S. military, U.S. 
embassies, and humanitarian relief efforts throughout the world.
  When we use Federal taxpayers' dollars to aid in humanitarian relief 
efforts, we need to purchase U.S. manufactured products. The Department 
of Defense is required under their Buy American provision to purchase 
their humanitarian relief tents from U.S. manufacturers, so why 
shouldn't agencies such as FEMA or USAID be required to do the same?
  Companies that are proven and have had government contracts help 
retain and create jobs. Purchasing U.S.-made tents also represents 
economic opportunities for our hard-hit areas in the United States 
where manufacturing jobs have disappeared by the thousands in the last 
several years.
  The simple question I have is, why did or should FEMA or any other 
government agency purchase foreign-made tents when American-made tents 
help keep Americans employed and are of high quality and high value? 
When our unemployment rates continue to be at or around 10 percent, and 
the Fifth Congressional District's exceeds over 12.5 percent, 
purchasing foreign-made products with American tax dollars is troubling 
to me.
  Mr. Speaker, it is time that the U.S. agencies be required to 
purchase U.S.-made tents and keep Americans working.
  Mr. OBEY. I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Iowa 
(Mr. Loebsack).
  Mr. LOEBSACK. Mr. Speaker, I do want to thank Chairman Obey for his 
work on this important legislation.
  This bill is vital to ensuring FEMA can provide assistance to 
communities in all of our States that are recovering from major 
disasters. It is also critical to FEMA's ability to provide life-saving 
help to communities that might experience a major disaster in the 
future.
  In Iowa, we were devastated by the great flood of 2008. Eighty-five 
out of 99 counties were declared major disaster areas. My district 
alone had billions of dollars in damage and is still working to 
recover, including through an estimated $1 billion in FEMA projects.
  However, there is a current freeze on a multitude of FEMA projects 
nationwide. According to Iowa's governor, this has put work in jeopardy 
on $100 million worth of projects in Iowa alone. In fact, Coralville, 
Iowa, which was hard-hit by flooding, has received low bids on recovery 
projects but cannot commit because of this freeze. As a result, they 
may lose a bid that is 20 percent below what was estimated, which would 
actually save taxpayer money.
  The National Weather Service says there is an imminent widespread 
flood risk in the Midwest this spring. We must ensure FEMA has the 
resources needed to help our citizens who might be hit by flooding 
again, even as we pray that it won't be needed.
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation to ensure Iowans and 
communities nationwide continue to have this important safety net and 
we allow FEMA to fulfill its prior commitments to recovery.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, these will be my closing 
comments on the bill.
  I would like to say to the Members, my chairman, my colleagues, that 
I am very empathetic to their description of the way we have handled 
FEMA funding in the past. I indeed agree that, in the vast percentage 
of cases, that money ought to not be subject to offset requirements. 
The emergency rule is there for appropriate reasons.
  The only reason for raising this in a procedural way today is because 
of the reality that while we have disaster after disaster out there, we 
have never had quite a disaster like this huge deficit of this year, 
$1.6 trillion, and projecting out to the future there is no end. And 
eventually the public knows the economy can't stand it, and they are 
suggesting that we try to help them out of this disaster that is ahead 
of us.
  So it is indeed important for us to realize that in spite of the fact 
that there is a huge amount of money in the stimulus package that is 
yet unspent that might be used for some of these offsets, we need to 
seriously get on track of reducing spending and undermining that 
growing deficit so the public can at least have some sense that we are 
trying to effect the crisis that is beyond our horizon.
  I plan, after we are through here, to offer a motion to recommit on 
this bill in order to adopt the amendment I presented in the Rules 
Committee on Monday. The motion is simple. It cuts unnecessary money 
from the flawed $1 trillion stimulus to pay for the $5.1 billion FEMA 
spending provided in Mr. Obey's bill. The balance of the questions, we 
have discussed earlier.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I would make only one additional point. This 
bill also provides for a 1-month extension of the Recovery Act Small 
Business Lending program and provides an additional $60 million for 
that program.
  Through March 12 of this year, the Recovery Act Small Business 
Lending program has supported nearly $23 billion in small business 
lending which, according to SBA, has helped create or preserve over 
500,000 jobs. I think it is well worth the effort. We need to keep this 
program alive.
  Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, as Chair of the Homeland Security 
Subcommittee on Emergency, Communications, Preparedness, and Response, 
I rise today in strong support of H.R. 4899, the Disaster Relief and 
Summer Jobs Act of 2010. I support this legislation because it will 
help local communities, small businesses, and our Nation's youth. This 
is the kind of legislation we need to lift us out of this economic 
downturn and deal with the unprecedented disasters that our Nation has 
faced these past few months.
  I would like to acknowledge Speaker Pelosi and Chairman Obey for 
their leadership in bringing this important bill to the floor.
  Mr. Speaker, the Disaster Relief and Summer Jobs Act of 2010 is a 
$5.1 billion disaster aid package that will help communities rebuild 
their homes, infrastructure and local economies and to take steps to 
protect them from future disasters. In addition, H.R. 4899 also 
provides fully offset funding to expand this summer's youth jobs 
program and continue assistance to America's small businesses.
  In my home State of California, youth unemployment has hit over 25 
percent. The funding provided by H.R. 4899 will allow local Workforce 
Investment Boards (WIBs) to expand successful summer jobs programs that 
were funded in the Recovery Act. California is also no stranger to 
natural disasters, such as wildfires and mudslides. H.R. 4899 provides 
$5.1 billion to ensure that the Federal Emergency Management Agency 
(FEMA) can continue its work helping communities recover from recent 
disasters and to ensure that they have resources to respond to future 
disasters.
  In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I support this bill because it will 
provide funding to the communities and populations that need the most 
assistance in both disaster relief and job training. I would also like 
to note that this bill is fully paid for because it rescinds emergency 
funding that is not needed this year, including $44 million provided 
for Cash for Clunkers and $103 million provided for agriculture 
disasters, that is no longer needed for those disasters.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 4899.
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Res. 
415, a bill that ensures that the Federal Emergency Management Agency 
(FEMA) can continue its work

[[Page 4778]]

helping communities recover from recent disasters and to ensure that 
they have resources to respond to future disasters.
  Like many of my colleagues, I was alarmed by FEMA's recent 
announcement that the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) 
Disaster Relief Fund is running out of money.
  As you know, my own State of North Dakota experienced record flooding 
last year and many local governments have still not fully recovered. In 
addition, leaders in my State have once again been in the trench 
battling spring flooding this year. The Disaster Relief Fund (DRF) is 
used in part to reimburse States and local governments in places like 
North Dakota for damages suffered during these kinds of disaster.
  The Disaster Relief Fund is currently faced with a shortfall and as a 
result, FEMA has issued an order whereby funds cannot be used for the 
Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, and certain kinds of public 
assistance, until the Fund is replenished. As a result of this 
unnecessary delay, many North Dakota communities have been forced to 
hold off with initiatives like home buyouts and road repairs that help 
the State recover from last year's flooding and better prepare for 
flooding this spring. This is unacceptable, which is why I have been 
working with the House Appropriations Committee to appropriate the $5.1 
billion in supplement funding that is needed for this vital relief 
program.
  With the funding that will be enacted under this bill, North Dakota 
communities will be able to continue to recover from the floods in 2009 
as well as prepare for future disasters. This is an important bill and 
I encourage my colleagues to strongly support H.R. 4899.
  Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of 
H.R. 4899, Disaster Relief and Summer Jobs Act.
  While the bulk of this legislation provides disaster relief for 
ongoing response and recovery efforts, this bill makes important steps 
forward to continue our Nation's economic recovery and create jobs.
  First, this bill provides fee reductions and eliminations under the 
Small Business Administration (SBA) 7(a) loan program and the 504 
program, and extends the termination date for the loans through April 
30.
  These loans have been important economic drivers in my Congressional 
district, and have provided needed capital to small businesses in our 
communities.
  Small businesses are going to play an important part of any economic 
recovery. Small businesses are the number one source of new job growth 
in our Nation and have created 65 percent of all new jobs in the last 
decade.
  Between October 2009 and last month, there were 58 SBA 7(a) loans and 
15,504 loans provided to small businesses in my district allowing them 
to expand and modernize.
  These are the types of programs that Congress must support to 
continue our economic recovery and create jobs at home, and I am happy 
to support the legislation on the floor today.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, we are facing a crisis with our young 
adults--many of whom are unable to find work during this economic 
downturn. According to the Department of Labor, the unemployment rate 
for 16 to 19 year olds is 25 percent. This is simply unacceptable and 
that is why I rise in support of the ``Disaster Relief and Summer Jobs 
Act of 2010.'' This legislation, offered by my good friend, the 
Chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, will help mitigate this 
emergency by providing funds to summer youth programs. The bill will 
also ensure Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has adequate 
funds at its disposal to enable it to comprehensively and quickly 
respond to future natural disasters.
  Today's legislation will appropriate funds to provide 300,000 youth 
workers a $600 million grant this summer. Furthermore, this 
appropriation will fund Workforce Investment Boards (WIBs) that will 
expand programs previously funded in the Recovery Act. I believe this 
is an effective way to develop our young citizens' critical leadership 
skills, and practical training, and in helping them become productive 
members of society. I believe these programs will have a positive and 
lasting impact in our communities.
  Mr. Speaker, the tragedy after hurricane Katrina highlighted the need 
for proper management and resources at FEMA. The proposal being 
considered today will give $5.1 billion to complete urgently needed 
projects and ensure they are fully equipped to respond to future 
disasters.
  If we are to build a better America, we need to invest in our 
country. I believe the proposal today will make America a stronger 
country and I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4899, the 
``Disaster Relief and Summer Jobs Act of 2010''. I strongly support 
this bill which, as requested by the President, appropriates an 
additional $5.1 billion for the Disaster Relief Fund to support ongoing 
disaster relief, recovery, and mitigation efforts, and to ensure that 
our Nation is adequately prepared in the event of future disasters.
  The Disaster Relief Fund (DRF) provides the funding for the Federal 
Government's activities to help communities respond to, recover from, 
and mitigate major disasters and emergencies declared by the President 
under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance 
Act (Stafford Act).
  Last month, due to diminishing funds, FEMA announced that the agency 
was forced to limit expenditures from the DRF. In some cases, FEMA has 
completely suspended reimbursements to State and local governments for 
reconstruction projects for facilities damaged or destroyed by recent 
disasters. FEMA has also slowed the issuance of reimbursements for 
critical post-disaster hazard mitigation projects, which help 
communities, build better after a disaster to protect against future 
damage.
  For example, FEMA has stopped funding projects to make repairs from 
facilities damaged in last Spring's flooding in my home State of 
Minnesota. Specifically, Federal funding is being held up for repairs 
to a building at Concordia College and for road repairs in Becker 
County, Lien Township and Gully Township.
  Delays in providing reimbursements to States and local governments 
will necessarily slow the pace of recovery and mitigation projects, as 
most States do not have the flexibility in these difficult economic 
times to move ahead without a guarantee of when Federal funds will 
become available. Inadequate funding in the DRF, therefore, impedes the 
rapid recovery of communities across the country from devastating 
disasters and inhibits the job creation and economic stimulus that 
these projects provide.
  If Congress does not act to replenish the Disaster Relief Fund, FEMA 
will be unable to respond to future disasters once the fund is 
depleted. This is particularly troubling because the National Weather 
Service has issued a warning that there is a high, or above average, 
risk of flooding this spring in much of the country. As one example, 
the Nation has watched carefully the situation in North Dakota and my 
home state of Minnesota, as the Red River crested over the weekend. It 
appears that major flooding has thankfully been avoided in large parts 
of the two States along the Red River for the time being. However, the 
risk of flooding remains and serves as an example of what other parts 
of the country may encounter in the coming months.
  The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure authorizes and 
oversees FEMA's disaster programs under the Stafford Act. Members of my 
Committee know first hand the devastation that a disaster can wreak on 
a community and the importance of a swift, effective Federal response. 
Through oversight and legislation, the Committee has been working to 
improve FEMA's operations and provision of disaster assistance. Without 
adequate funding in the DRF, however, FEMA will not be able to carry 
out any of its critical missions or functions.
  On March 12, 2010, I wrote to Speaker Pelosi in support of the 
President's request for a supplemental appropriation for the Disaster 
Relief Fund and urging swift action to replenish the Fund. I would like 
to thank the Speaker and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), 
Chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, for bringing this bill 
before the House today. Their dedication to this issue affirms the 
importance of the DRF and underscores the urgency of ensuring its 
solvency.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 4899.
  Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, Michigan, and our Nation, 
have faced, and continues to weather, high unemployment. Our businesses 
struggle with a lack of access to capital. Michiganders have had to 
face significant challenges that have tested our faith and our will. 
Michiganders, and all Americans, have usually responded with the grit, 
the effort, and the will that is evidence of the uniquely American 
``can do'' spirit. Despite that spirit, many regions of our Nation 
desire and need help. The 13th Congressional District of Michigan is 
one of those areas. A portion of that help is in this bill, H.R. 4899, 
the Disaster Relief and Summer Jobs Act of 2010. Although I did not 
support an earlier jobs bill because it provided tax cuts, not funding, 
to our Nation's small businesses, I support this bill.
  This legislation is not perfect. While it provides summer jobs to our 
Nation's youth, the money goes to the states before it goes to cities, 
counties and non-profit agencies. The problem? Our states are broke. 
Our states are

[[Page 4779]]

desperate to balance their budgets. Our states need these funds as 
revenues from a once abundant housing market has evaporated. So while 
it is not the fault of our states, it is my desire to get these jobs 
created as fast as possible.
  While I support H.R. 4899, I will continue to fight toward the 
enactment of a program similar to the Comprehensive Employment Training 
Act (CETA) program, a program that proved that it could reduce the 
unemployment rate and train people for short- and long-term jobs and 
careers. Funding for this program went directly from the Federal 
Government to cities, counties and non-profit organizations to get 
individuals trained and back to work.
  This bill is great news for three reasons. One, this bill provides 
disaster relief. Many regions of our Nation faced record snowfalls, 
major floods, and other natural disasters. We still have not completely 
fulfilled our promise to the people of New Orleans after Hurricane 
Katrina. Not only will this $5.1 billion disaster aid package help 
these communities rebuild their homes, infrastructure and local 
economies, it will also take steps to protect them from future 
disasters.
  Two, this bill provides funding for the summer jobs program. As our 
Nation begins the long recovery from the deepest economic crisis since 
the Great Depression, a summer job is more than just an opportunity for 
our Nation's youth to be exposed to possible career paths. It is often 
a matter of survival, of life and death. This bill has $600 million, 
fully offset, to support over 300,000 jobs for youth ages 16 to 24 
through summer employment programs. This age group has some of the 
highest unemployment levels, 25 percent for those aged 16 to 19. This 
funding will allow local Workforce Investment Boards (WIBs) to expand 
successful summer jobs programs that were funded in the Recovery Act.
  Three, this bill provides access to capital for our Nation's small 
businesses, our Nation's largest employer. There will be $60 million in 
the bill, that is fully offset, to extend the Recovery Act small 
business lending program for another month. That program eliminated the 
fees normally charged for loans through the Small Business 
Administration 7(a) and 504 loan programs and increased the government 
guarantees on 7(a) loans from 75 percent to 90 percent. Since its 
creation, the program has supported nearly $23 billion in small, 
business lending, which helped to create or retain over 560,000 jobs.
  This bill is not only fiscally responsible, but it is needed and 
necessary. I am proud to support this bill, and look forward to working 
with my colleagues as we continue to enact legislation that will 
address the challenge of our Nation's astronomically high unemployment 
rate, provide capital to our Nation's businesses, and ensure that our 
economy survives and thrives. The families of America are counting on 
Congress to do what is needed to continue to make America great.
  Mr. OBEY. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 1204, the previous question is ordered 
on the bill.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


                           Motion to Recommit

  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at 
the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. LEWIS of California. I am.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Lewis of California moves to recommit the bill H.R. 
     4899 to the Committee on Appropriations with instructions to 
     report the same back to the House forthwith with the 
     following amendments:
       On page 2, strike line 10 and all that follows through line 
     4 on page 3.
       On page 5, after line 16, insert the following:
       (5) ``Department of Labor--Employment and Training 
     Administration-Training and Employment'', $140,000,000 to be 
     derived from unobligated balances available from amounts 
     placed in a national reserve under this heading in title VIII 
     of division A of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act 
     of 2009 (Public Law 111-5; 123 Stat. 115).
       (6) ``Department of Labor--Employment and Training 
     Administration-Training and Employment'', $400,000,000 to be 
     derived from unobligated balances available from amounts 
     provided for competitive grants for worker training in high 
     growth and emerging industry sectors under this heading in 
     title VIII of division A of the American Recovery and 
     Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-5; 123 Stat. 115).
       (7) ``Department of Health and Human Services--National 
     Institutes of Health-Buildings and Facilities'', $434,000,000 
     to be derived from unobligated balances available from 
     amounts provided under this heading in title VIII of division 
     A of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 
     (Public Law 111-5; 123 Stat. 115).
       (8) ``Department of Health and Human Services--Agency for 
     Healthcare Quality and Research-Healthcare Research and 
     Quality'', $850,000,000 to be derived from unobligated 
     balances available from amounts provided for comparative 
     effectiveness research under this heading in title VIII of 
     division A of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 
     2009 (Public Law 111-5; 123 Stat. 115).
       (9) ``Department of Health and Human Services--Office of 
     the Secretary-Office of the National Coordinator for Health 
     Information Technology'', $1,900,000,000 to be derived from 
     unobligated balances available under this heading in title 
     VIII of division A of the American Recovery and Reinvestment 
     Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-5; 123 Stat. 115).
       (10) ``Department of Health and Human Services--Public 
     Health and Social Services Emergency Fund'', $38,000,000 to 
     be derived from unobligated balances available under this 
     heading in title VIII of division A of the American Recovery 
     and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-5; 123 Stat. 
     115).
       (11) ``Department of Education--Impact Aid'', $60,000,000 
     to be derived from unobligated balances available under this 
     heading in title VIII of division A of the American Recovery 
     and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-5; 123 Stat. 
     115).
       (12) ``Department of Education--Institute of Education 
     Science'', $250,000,000 to be derived from unobligated 
     balances available under this heading in title VIII of 
     division A of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 
     2009 (Public Law 111-5; 123 Stat. 115).
       (13) ``Social Security Administration--Limitation on 
     Administrative Expenses'', $497,000,000 to be derived from 
     unobligated balances available from amounts provided for the 
     replacement of the National Computing Center under this 
     heading in title VIII of division A of the American Recovery 
     and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-5; 123 Stat. 
     115).
       (14) ``Department of Energy--Energy Programs--Title 17-
     Innovative Technology Loan Guarantee Program'', $571,000,000 
     to be derived from unobligated balances available under this 
     heading in title IV of division A of the American Recovery 
     and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-5; 123 Stat. 
     115).

  Mr. LEWIS of California (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask 
unanimous consent to dispense with the reading.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I would raise a point of order against the 
motion.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order against the motion 
because it constitutes legislation on an appropriation bill, which is 
in violation of clause 2, rule XXI. The instructions in the motion 
include an amendment proposing to include language in the bill that 
would provide for the rescission of previously appropriated funds made 
available in other appropriation acts.
  This is clearly a legislative proposition, Mr. Speaker. Section 1052 
of the House Rules and Manual states, in part: An amendment proposing a 
rescission constitutes legislation under clause 2(c).
  The amendment is, therefore, legislative in nature and is in 
violation of clause 2, rule XXI, and I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I wish to be heard on the point 
of order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
California.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, as I suggested earlier, the 
bill before us contains almost $6 billion in new spending, spending 
that is not offset by true reductions. Instead, this $6 billion will 
simply pile more money on to the government's charge card and add to 
our already astronomical debt.
  Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that the bill before us today is 
considered to be a general appropriations bill, and under the rules of 
the House, general appropriations bills are privileged and are to be 
considered in the Committee on Appropriations or sent to the Committee 
on Appropriations prior to consideration on the House floor.
  I have expressed my concern about the lack of regular order, the 
number

[[Page 4780]]

of supplementals and appropriations bills that are not being heard in 
committee or subcommittee. I won't repeat all of those concerns, except 
to say that we are on this disastrous pathway because of our totally 
ignoring the need to make sense out of our national deficit and get a 
handle on spending.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask for consideration of my motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair is prepared to rule.
  The gentleman from Wisconsin raises a point of order against the 
motion on the basis that it violates clause 2 of rule XXI.
  The motion proposes to insert a rescission in a general appropriation 
bill. As provided in section 1052 of the House Rules and Manual, an 
amendment proposing a rescission constitutes legislation in violation 
of clause 2(c) of rule XXI.
  The point of order is sustained and the motion is not in order.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I appeal the ruling of the 
Chair.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is, Shall the decision of the 
Chair stand as the judgment of the House?


                            Motion to Table

  Mr. OBEY. I move to table the appeal of the ruling of the Chair.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to table.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 
XX, this 15-minute vote on the motion to table will be followed by 5-
minute votes on passage of the bill, if arising without further 
proceedings in recommittal, and the motion to suspend the rules on H.R. 
3562.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 239, 
nays 176, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 185]

                               YEAS--239

     Ackerman
     Adler (NJ)
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boccieri
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Bright
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Childers
     Chu
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Dahlkemper
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Driehaus
     Edwards (MD)
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foster
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Giffords
     Gonzalez
     Gordon (TN)
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Halvorson
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilroy
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick (AZ)
     Kissell
     Klein (FL)
     Kosmas
     Kratovil
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Markey (CO)
     Markey (MA)
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McMahon
     McNerney
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy (NY)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Nadler (NY)
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Perriello
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis (CO)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schauer
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Space
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Teague
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--176

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Cao
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Castle
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Fallin
     Flake
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Griffith
     Guthrie
     Hall (TX)
     Harper
     Hastings (WA)
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hunter
     Inglis
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan (OH)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lee (NY)
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Minnick
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Nye
     Olson
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rehberg
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden
     Wamp
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Barrett (SC)
     Boucher
     Buchanan
     Davis (AL)
     Donnelly (IN)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ellsworth
     Hoekstra
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Maloney
     Reichert
     Richardson


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes 
remaining in this vote.

                              {time}  1711

  Messrs. HALL of Texas, EHLERS, Ms. FOXX, Mrs. BONO MACK, and Mr. 
LATHAM changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Ms. FUDGE, Mr. HINOJOSA, and Mrs. CAPPS changed their vote from 
``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the motion to table was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  Pursuant to clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 239, 
nays 175, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 186]

                               YEAS--239

     Ackerman
     Adler (NJ)
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boccieri
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Bright
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Cao
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Childers
     Chu
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Dahlkemper
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Driehaus
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ehlers
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foster
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Giffords
     Gonzalez
     Gordon (TN)
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Hall (NY)
     Halvorson

[[Page 4781]]


     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Hill
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilroy
     Kind
     Kissell
     Klein (FL)
     Kosmas
     Kratovil
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Markey (CO)
     Markey (MA)
     Marshall
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McMahon
     McNerney
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Minnick
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (NY)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Nadler (NY)
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Nye
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Perriello
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Scalise
     Schakowsky
     Schauer
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Snyder
     Space
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Taylor
     Teague
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--175

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baird
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Emerson
     Fallin
     Flake
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Griffith
     Guthrie
     Hall (TX)
     Harper
     Hastings (WA)
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth Sandlin
     Hunter
     Inglis
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan (OH)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kirkpatrick (AZ)
     Kline (MN)
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lee (NY)
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy (CT)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Olson
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pence
     Peters
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Polis (CO)
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rehberg
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden
     Wamp
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     Cassidy
       

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Barrett (SC)
     Boucher
     Cooper
     Davis (AL)
     Gutierrez
     Hoekstra
     Issa
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Maloney
     Reichert
     Rush
     Schrader
     Wasserman Schultz


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes 
remaining in this vote.

                              {time}  1718

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 186 I was 
unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

                          ____________________