tv U.S. House of Representatives CSPAN July 22, 2010 1:00pm-5:00pm EDT
$34 billion to the national debt regarding unemployment that they don't want to work with us on to at least pay for, using some of that failed stimulus plan. in fact they are still trying to defend the stimulus plan that most americans recognize only grew the size of government and did nothing to help stimulate the economy. and the sad irony of this is that millions of american people are unemployed as a direct result of the policies of this administration. in fact a very real example is occurring right now in south louisiana. just yesterday there was a rally in south louisiana where over 10,000 people showed up to oppose this arbitrary and capricious ban by president obama on drilling in the gulf. . and they try to pit it as safety versus jobs and in fact the president's own safety commission, he appointed after the explosion of the deepwater horizon, said that the moratorium is a bad idea and in fact they went on to say that
this moratorium will decrease safety in the gulf. that's right. the moratorium that the president himself imposed that's costing our state thousands of jobs, thousands more people on unemployment that would much rather a job than the unemployment check than president obama's offering them, their job is taken away by the president not for scientific reasons, because the president's own scientists say the moratorium's a bad idea and will decrease safety, but for political reasons. and in fact as my colleague from louisiana pointed out our entire delegation has been trying for six weeks now to meet with the president to discuss this ill-conceived idea and he refuses to meet with us. and yet you still have hundreds of people each week being added to the unemployment roll because of the president's policy. what the president needs to do is actually work with us to create jobs instead of continuing to push policies that are running people onto the unemployment rolls, putting more jobs overseas and putting our country at greater risk of
energy independence because now our energy supply hasn't decreased but now you're going to actually have more oil imported from these middle eastern countries that don't like us, and by the way, 70% of all oil spills come from tankers importing oil. and now the president is just -- has just made our country more dependent on that imported oil with the addition of his ban on drilling that's creating more unemployment in our state. these policies are wrecking our economy. what we need is to create jobs and part of that means you put good policies in place that help create jobs so that people don't continue to go on the unemployment roll because of the obama policy. that's what we need to do is get a different agenda. the american people are saying, where are the jobs? and all they get is more deficit spending from this administration. they just don't get it. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from washington. mr. mcdermott: mr. speaker, i can't help but respond to the change of subject from the gentleman from louisiana. i guess fishermen aren't worth
anything. fishermen are worthless, all that sea stuff that comes up and they sell all over the place they don't care about that. all they want to do is drill for oil. that the president is careful and prudent and says, let's look at this drilling before we go on with it, because we've just proved that the oil companies are reckless, they've proved it for 79 days in the gulf and if you can't learn from that and realize what it's doing to crabbers and to shrimp fishermen and to oyster beds then you have missed the point. mr. boustany: will the gentleman yield? mr. mcdermott: i yield to the gentleman from illinois, mr. davis. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois is recognized. mr. davis: thank you, mr. speaker. people all over illinois and all over america are waiting with baited breath and they're waiting to pay utility bills, to pay house notes, to make
mortgage payments, to catch up on their rent, to pay college tuition, to buy food for their children. but they're also waiting to say, thank you, nancy pelosi. they want to say, thank you, harry reid. they're waiting to say, thank you, united states congress. they want to say, thank you, barack obama. because the action that you just took this day means to us that you are working for us. you have reinforced our confidence in our government. you have said to us that we do matter and i know that the people of illinois will be saying, thank you, our government. i urge passage and yield back the balance of my time.
the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from louisiana. mr. boustany: thank you, mr. speaker. i have to respond to my friend from the state of washington. and i would say that i would not have the audacity to speak for the people of washington because i haven't had the chance to actually get to know them. and i can tell the gentleman that i do know the fishermen and oystermen and shrimpers and those who run boats down in my state of louisiana. and if they were here on the house floor today they would say, please do not kick us when we're down. lift this ban on drilling because it's going to kill our economy. the shame fishermen and oystermen and shrimpers who are losing their jobs. that's why we need sensible policies. that's why we need sensible policies, mr. speaker. we're all for extending the unemployment benefit insurance but we know we can do it in a responsible way by paying for it with unspent stimulus money. with that i reserve the balance
of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from louisiana reserves his time. the gentleman from washington. mr. mcdermott: mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to the lady from california, mrs. davis. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california is recognized for two minutes. mrs. davis: thank you, mr. speaker. with almost half of the unemployed out of work for more than six months, i'm extremely disappointed that partisan bickering has delayed this important relief to american familyless. i want to share with you what one of my constituents wrote to me and he said, i'll quote, i worked all my life and supported myself and didn't ask for any special treatment. there is pride, pride that comes from work. no one is ready and willing to work more than me. but there just isn't any. since the last thing of unemployment benefits, millions have lost benefits keeping their families in their homes and food on the table. but what we and people may not know or really appreciate is that this also includes tens of thousands of former service members and reservists who return home and find themselves
without work. how, i ask you, mr. speaker, how does prohibiting them from being able to pay their electric and grocery bills help our economy recover? i urge my colleagues to join me in strong support of this extension. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields the balance of the time. the gentleman from louisiana. mr. boustany: i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from louisiana reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington. mr. mcdermott: mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentlelady from california, ms. lee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california is recognized for two minutes. ms. lee: thank you very much, thank you, mr. speaker, and let me thank the gentleman for yielding, for his steady and undying support for people who really have had -- who have had a very tough time and have not had any opportunities for many years now. thank you, mr. mcdermott, for your leadership. you know, we too are saying and i'm listening to the debate here about jobs, we're saying, where
are the jobs? and from what i remember, mr. speaker, there are very few republican votes for the many job creation bills which democrats have passed. so if you're not going to support a real jobs initiative, i can't understand for the life of me why in the world won't you support just the basics for people, just the bit of help for those who have no jobs and for those who you won't help get a job? support for unemployment compensation speaks really to who we are as a country. this is a moral and an ethical issue that those who really care about the least of these should support. people have lost their jobs for a variety of reasons. primarily, yes, the economic policies of the previous administration. we know many people who have lost their jobs due to not being able to find work in this new
economy. people have lost their jobs because their communities have been shut down as a result of the foreclosure crisis. they've lost their homes, they've lost their jobs, they have no health care. i mean, what in the world is going on in our country? i think, you know, until we figure this out, i think some of us really get it in terms of the economic policies and what we need to do, but until we make the case in a way that republicans get it, the least we could do is just help people pay their rent and for those who still have mortgages, pay their mortgage. for those who, you know, don't have enough food, to basically buy food for their kids. we can't even get the republicans to support a youth jobs initiative. my goodness, you know, we have over 40% minority youth, african-american and latino youth, who are unemployed and these young people need jobs. they need jobs not only to
develop their work skills and work experience but they have to help their families put food on the table and pay the rent. so, for goodness sakes, just help these people survive and weather these storms right now because they need something to get through this. otherwise we're going to see a country that we all don't want to see, one that we don't recognize, one that does not care about the common good and this is about the common good. we all have a duty and responsibility to make sure everyone at least is able to survive through these very terrible times. thank you, mr. mcdermott. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington reserves. the gentleman from louisiana. mr. boustany: mr. speaker, i yield three minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr. hensarling, who serves on the president's fiscal responsibility commission. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for three minutes. mr. hensarling: i thank the gentleman for yielding and indeed this is the difference between the two parties here today. as i've listened carefully to the debate, i haven't heard anybody say we shouldn't be extending unemployment benefits.
what i have heard is that one side wants to borrow 43 cents on the dollar mainly from the chinese and send the bill to our children and grandchildren. those are my friends on the democratic side of the aisle. on this side of the aisle we're saying, you know, all the trillions of stimulus money, the $1.2 trillion when you add in the interest factor, those unspent funds, maybe some of the unspent tarp funds, these programs that have helped continue to mire us in almost double-digit unemployment, maybe we could use some of those funds instead and not add to the single largest debt in america's history that's only getting worse under their watch, mr. speaker. that's the primary difference here today. and we must show that we are a fiscally responsible congress today to create jobs. ultimately the people in america
don't want more unemployment checks, they want more paychecks. and it's the policies of this president, the policies of this congress, brought about this by the federal takeover of health care, brought about by this huge permanent wall street bailout bill where the ink is barely dry, the threaten cap and tax bill, and the massive debt that we're drowning in, under the president's own budget we will be paying almost $1 trillion in interest alone on the national debt. i mean, that's the kind of policies that are -- our distinguished democratic majority leader likened to fiscal child abuse. i haven't heard that rhetoric recently, but i hope he still believes it. and because that's what we're engaged in. so i do not understand why my friends on the other side of the aisle refuse to pay for. this i certainly hear the phrase
pay as -- pay for this. i certainly hear the phrase pay as you go frequently but i don't see it practiced. i serve on the president's fiscal responsibility commission. many people consider that title to be an objectiony moron. we will debate that -- oxymoron, we will debate that later. but the former chief of staff to president clinton had said that our debt is a cancer that can destroy us from within. this isn't republican is verbiage, this is democratic verbiage. so why, why do the democrats refuse to pay for this? why do they continue to engage in what the majority leader once termed fiscal child abuse? again, that's where the debate is. the debate is, are you going to pay for the unemployment insurance or are you going to take the burden and put it on our children and grandchildren yet again? that is unconscionable, unsustainable and it ought to be immoral. i yield back.
the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington. mr. mcdermott: mr. speaker, i yield one minute to the majority leader of the house of representatives, mr. hoyer. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. hoyer: i thank my friend for yielding. and the time when it's my opportunity to speak is sometimes good and i think this is one of them. mr. hensarling just spoke. i have great respect for mr. hensarling. he works hard and focuses. he's philosophically well grounded and he follows his philosophy. i disagree with his philosophy. his fiscal premises. and his fiscal premises that were part of the last administration's approach to the finances of this country increased our deficit by 87%, from $5 trillion essentially to a little over $10 trillion. didn't quite double it, but 87%
more debt under the bush administration. , that i -- think a call fiscal child abuse. why? because it was not done at a time of fiscal crisis, with large unemployment. than you employment was caused -- that unemployment was caused by the policies of the last administration. why do i say that? because under the clinton administration we created 21 million jobs in the private sector, just a little short of 21 million jobs, 22.8 million overall when you include public employment. and during the bush administration, how did it relate to that 21.1 million new jobs in the private sector? one millionle. -- one million. how did it relate to job production, 265,000 under the clinton administration and
11,000 per month under the bush administration. that's what their economic policies brought. not $40 billion or $34 billion borrowed money but trillions with an s of borrowed money to fund tax cuts which they did not pay for. they weren't continuations of the tax code, as jon kyl, the second ranking republican leader in the senate, now argues ought not to be paid for. $687 billion we just ought to continue that for the wealthiest in our country, not the little children who are worried about whether their parents are going to be able to afford the mortgage or afford to buy -- put bread on the table. that's what we're talking in this bill. for literally millions of people who have run out of support.
now, will they run out of support in this moral country? they will not ultimately run out of support. they will be put on welfare and food stamps. and they won't be available to the insurance for which their employer and they participate and providing so that in the contingency that we ran the economy into the ditch, the worst economy in three quarters of a century wrought by the bush economic policies to which mr. sessions, the chairman of their campaign committee, says they want to return to the exact agenda. i'm so pleased i had the opportunity to come and respond to my friend from texas. it does demonstrate the difference between our two parties, absolutely. jon kyl who says we ought to borrow $686 billion from the chinese to give it to the wealthiest in america and democrats who say we want to borrow $34 billion to give it
to the children of america whose families are in need, yes, that is the difference, if my friend from texas wants to make that the difference. this is about saying that we have an emergency, and historically from ronald reagan to today, ronald reagan i, bush i and bush ii, what did you do when you were in charge? you borrowed during times of economic trouble to give unemployment insurance. we're doing the same thing. why did we do that? because we perceived it to be an emergency, an emergency that people in the richest nation on the face of the earth were about to run out of the ability to keep their homes, buy their food, clothe their children, a moral and great country thinks that's an emergency. that's what this vote is all about. this vote is also about, as the
gentleman from texas has said, expressing our values. i agree with that. and i'm going to express my values and i urge members of this house to express their values, this day on this vote as millions of people have lost their unemployment insurance because we couldn't get 60 votes in the senate. had almost every democrat saying we need help now. people are running out of the ability to support themselves now. we paid insurance for now. so i urge my colleagues to vote for this legislation. a few weeks -- a few months ago we passed unemployment insurance through this house by unanimous consent. the election wasn't as
approximate it is now. i just made a speech and i have been criticized by some on my side of the aisle and some others to say we need to put everything on the table. i reiterate that today, we need to put everything on the table, no sacred could you say. i have three children, three -- no sacred cows. i have three children, three great grandchild and one great grandchild. i say to them and others in the country, we have a moral responsibility to get a handle on this deficit. a reporter was asking me did i agree with mr. bernanke's comment that we ought to pay if we extended the tax cuts and i said to him this, at a time of fiscal crisis when our economy is struggling to get back from the ditch it was in when this administration took over, how much of a ditch?
during the last year of the clinton administration we had a -- we added 1.9 million new jobs, i tell my friend from texas. 1.9 million new jobs in america, and it was a slowdown period. during the last year of the bush administration, after the economic policies that were pursued from 2001 and 2002 and 2003 and through 2009, even though we took the congress we couldn't do anything because the president would veto legislation and did in fact veto legislation, 3.8 million americans lost their jobs. that's a difference of 1 dch 9 million new -- 1.9 million new jobs during the last month of the clinton administration. is there any wonder why there is pain in america and families are in great distress and they
are angry and they have angst and we share that? today does not solve the problem but today reaches out to those folks in distress and say in the short term on an emergency basis we are going to continue to give you help so you can support your families. in this the wealthiest nation on the face of this earth. you worked hard, you paid in and through no fault of your own you lost your job. maybe because of the fault of wall street that my friend believes we were too harsh on. we're imposing rules on so they can play by the rules and not squander and take risk that put wall street profits before main street stability. yes. and also we're not going to apologize to the b.p. oil company and say we're sorry that we expect you to be accountable for the negligence that caused millions of people
to be in economic distress. we are not going to say sorry. some people want to say sorry, but the president of the united states suggested, hey, you need to help those people. maybe helping people is a difference between our two parties. i don't necessarily think that. i don't want to say that. but if that's the difference, today is a day when 435 of us can stand up and vote aye to help millions of americans in deep distress through no fault of their own. i urge my colleagues to stand up and let people know that you're on their side. and i yieldback the balance of my time. -- and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from louisiana. mr. boustany: i remind my friend, the distinguished majority leader of the house,
that in the 1990's during the clinton administration there was a great bipartisan effort that led to those balanced budgets because there was a republican majority in -- mr. hoyer: will my friend yield on that point? mr. boustany: i yield. mr. hoyer: it's a good point. i ask my friend, that is true. why couldn't you do it when you had the house, the senate and the presidency? mr. boustany: and i will reclaim my time, mr. speaker. i will reclaim my time and i will remind the majority leader that we have the opportunity to go forward now and not cast blame on the past so i would say that -- mr. hoyer: i missed the answer. mr. boustany: president obama got it right in november, 2009, regarding unemployment benefit extension which was fully paid for and he said, and i quote, fiscal responsibility is central to the medium-term recovery of the economy and the creation of jobs. the administration, therefore, supports the fiscally
responsible approach to expanding unemployment benefits embodied in the bill, end quote. all we're saying is there's a better way to do this and that is to pay for this extension. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from louisiana reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington. mr. mcdermott: mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from minnesota, mr. ellison. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from minnesota is recognized for two minutes. mr. ellison: mr. speaker, let me thank the gentleman for giving me a moment to speak. you know, the -- my friends from the party opposite referred to deficits and debts. deficits are important. the debts are important. all these things are critical. but i guess my question is, when the republican caucus voted to give the most wealthy and most privileged members of american society $700---
$700-plus billion tax cut, why didn't they pay for it? when the prescription drug handout was give to big pharma, no fiscal responsibility then. but when the poor, hardworking people of america find themselves without work and say, you know what, still looking for work, haven't found one and need some help from my fellow americans is like, no, no, no. we can't help you because we have to worry about the deficit. why so much concern, so much heart felt angst about what the wealthiest, most privileged americans need but nothing for a cold heart and a closed purse for people who are in an emergency situation? mr. speaker, i ask, what about the debts of the people who are unemployed? what about them having to go to family and borrow money? what about them being captured by the payday lenders and folks who take advantage of poor people who don't have any money and don't have unemployment
insurance? what about their debt? the american people should respond. i don't want to say to the party opposite that this is heartless. it looks that way. i don't want my friends in the opposite show that they don't support poor people. this is the right time. i would say if i have a moment, the fact is for every dollar spent on unemployment benefits $1.60 goes not economy which means we begin to pull ourselves out of this situation and deal with this deficit. thank you very much. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from louisiana. mr. boustany: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington. mr. mcdermott: mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from ohio, ms. kaptur. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from ohio is recognized for two minutes. ms. kaptur: i thank the kind chairman, mr. mcdermott, for yielding me the two minutes. and sometimes when they say
gentlewoman i don't feel so gentle on the subject of unemployment. and in fact i rise in strong support of this bill which is long overdue because of the delays in the other chamber. and i want to thank chairman mcdermott for his extraordinary leadership and our speaker for bringing this bill forward. all the economic studies show that in fact direct consumer spending that results from the expenditure of unemployment checks on basics, paying for food, paying your mortgage so you don't lose your home, making your car payment on that old jalopy you used to go to work, this has the largest bang inside our economy to move it up than any investment we can make other than in infrastructure investment, when we're employing people, building bridges, building roads, some people on the other side of the aisle are making fun of. it's no fun to go over a bridge that collapses. we saw that in minnesota. we need issues in a great
nation like america we take care of. we're one of the platforms that holds this country up. hundreds of thousands of them remain out of work and they will be affected by the extension of these benefits but we have between 600,000 and a million people who are working in part-time jobs or fallen out of the work force because of no fault of their own. the obama administration has added more jobs by the end of august than the whole bush administration did in eight years except create more wars, more unemployment and more outsourcing of jobs. i can't explain them. we don't live in the same world. i respect people who go to work every day. i respect those who get injured on the job. i respect those farmers who are out in the fields right now harvesting crops. i respect those who work for them. i respect the people who work in our auto plants. i respect the people working in 100-degree weather on bridges in my district and trying to
hold things together until a better day comes. the least we can do is return money to them that they already paid in, that their employers already paid in. they earned it. i say to the gentleman, i support this bill 1,000%. ohioans are waiting for their unemployment checks, but most of all, they want to go back to work. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from louisiana. mr. boustany: mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr. hensarling. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for two minutes. mr. hensarling: thank you, mr. speaker. i had not intended to speak yet again on this subject but to heart last three speakers, clearly there appears to be -- hear the last three speakers, clearly there appears to be confusion about unemployment checks and pay checks. what we've heard the speaker said, i wish i had her exact quote in front of me, that essentially by putting out more unemployment checks that this is one of the best ways to create paychecks. i've never heard such circular logic in my life. now, clearly we need an
extension of unemployment. i mean, i must admit, i find it somewhat eye chronic that the president of the united states brings -- ironic that the president of the united states brings up three unemployed workers, to the best of my knowledge they've been unemployed during his president circumstances what a testament to his policies and the policies of this institution, again, between a national takeover of a health care plan, employers don't know how much their health care costs are going to be, they're not creating new jobs. threaten cap and trade, nobody knows what their energy costs are going to be. no new job creation. we have this financial regulatory bill. nobody know what is the cost of capital is going to be, particularly with a bureau that has the ability to ban and ration credit for small businesses. you've got private business sitting on almost $2 trillion that could be employed for paychecks but instead once again due to the policies of my friends on the other side of the aisle we're having the debate on unemployment checks instead. and let me make sure that people
aren't drowning from all the straw in the debate today. here's the debate. in the words of the democratic majority leader, are we going to engage in fiscal child abuse and borrow the money principal pli from the chy toes to pay for this, or are we not? that's the question. that is the only question that is before the house right now. are we going to borrow the money from our children and grandchildren, send them the bill, or are we going to pay for it today and quit using it on failed stimulus plans? that's the debate the american people -- debate, the american people are not confused and they want pay checks, not unemployment checks -- paychecks and not unemployment checks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington. mr. mcdermott: mr. speaker, i yield the balance of my time -- or excuse me, i reserve the balance of my time and reserve the right to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from louisiana. mr. boustany: thank you, mr. speaker.
for clarification sake, i assume the gentleman has no other members wishing to speak. then, mr. speaker, i'm prepared to close. mr. speaker, this is about where we're going to pay for this or -- whether we're going to pay for this or not. consider that this is the eighth time this congress is going to extend these benefits. eighth time. that's an indication that the current economic policy this administration and this congress is a failure. i mentioned earlier the fact of the matter is we have a choice. we can do this in a fiscally responsible way or we can choose to run up additional debt on our children and grandchildren to the tune of $34 billion between now and november. again, i think the president, president obama got it right in the statement of administration policy in november, 2009, when the unemployment benefit extension was actually paid for. gernings i'm going to quote what he said. fiscal responsibility is central to the medium term recovery of
the economy and the creation of jobs. the administration therefore supports the fiscally responsible approach to expanding unemployment benefits embodied in the bill. now, if fiscal responsibility helps the economy and job creation, then fiscal irresponsibility of this bill before us will hurt the economy and job creation. i think the american people have spoken. they want us to do this but they want to us pay for it. let's do the right thing and actually pay for the spending we approve and help our economy grow, help job creation as the administration said, a fiscally responsible approach is what's needed. and with that, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington. mr. mcdermott: mr. speaker, as we close this debate and finally put this on the backburner until november when we have to come back and look at it again,
perhaps, we'll see, i sense one of the speakers on the other side talked about confusion. my view is that the confusion here is between whether we're going to send unemployment checks or we're going to tell people, go hungry. that's the confusion. people say, well, it's about paying for it. i will remind my colleagues on the other side, mr. bush was president for eight years and when we zun employment we did it on an emergency basis, we never paid for it one time and you guys had -- the republicans -- i'm not supposed to address them directly, they didn't pay for it, mr. speaker. they were in charge and their president was in charge but they called it an emergency. now under mr. obama it's not an emergency. suddenly we're going to -- we're going to tie up people's minds
and try and confuse them but the fact is that for six weeks we have said to workers in this country, we are not going to extend benefits. now, we have never in the history of this country, when unemployment was at 7.2% or above, failed to extend benefits. until the republicans got a serious case of fiscal -- well, i'm not going to say exactly what i think. but fiscal disease has overtaken their mind. and they suddenly caught this thing, i don't know, it must be in the air around here, or somewhere down around the ohio river, between cincinnati and kentucky, they got leadership who said, you know, if we kin effect everybody with this fiscal fear -- if we can infect everybody with this fiscal year,
we'll just sacrifice a few million, it's only 2 1/2 million people who are going to lose their benefits, it's not very many, there's 300 million in america and we can throw away 2 1/2 million. that's easy. they won't vote. they're too stupid to know who's doing it to them. that's the kind of message you're sending when you are saying you won't give unemployment benefits. this is so easily understood by the american people. this is not climate change, this is not all the complicated stuff. some people around here think the american people have a very short memory span. but they don't. on stuff wrts right down to the bone -- where it's right down to the bone. and you will remember this day as the day when finally the republicans came to their senses. they finally said, you know this ain't going to work, it really ain't going to work. we're not going to admit it, we're going to say we were doing it on principle but there's no principle at the table when the
mother opens the cup board and there's nothing in it. or when the lights aren't turned on because you haven't paid the utility bills. or when the water's turned off because you haven't paid your water bill. what does a mother say the principle is? now, kids, get in the bath tub, but there's no water. clean yourself up, right? what kind of nonsense is this? you think this money is going for people to buy i pads or -- ipads or iphones or what? -- whatever? this is going for the necessities of life. and you're saying to ordinary people in this country, well, we have a principle that we, under the democrats we have to pay for it. now, not under the democrats. and i can hardly wait until we get the proposals over from the senate to extend the tax breaks. and watch you guys do a double
flip. you won't get -- you will get a 10 in olympic terms for your ability to do a double flip and say, well, now we don't have to pay for it. and watch, they're going to send over the estate tax. they are going to send over a bailout for the people at the very top and you're going to say, oh, well we don't have to pay for them, no. they're very rich and we can't, no, no, no, we can't pay for that. no, no. but we're going to make us pay for the people who are in the most dire distress in this society. it's really shameful and i enjoy -- i'm going to watch with pleasure as you vote no, as you vote yourself out of here. i yield back the balance of my time and urge my colleagues to vote for this bill. the speaker pro tempore: members should address their remarks to the chair. all time for debate has expired. pursuant to house resolution 1550, the previous question is ordered. the question is on the motion
from -- by the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is agreed to and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. mr. boustany: mr. speaker, we'd like a vote. vote. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman ask for the yeas and nays? mr. boustany: yes, the yeas and nays, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the 15-minute vote on the motion to concur will be followed by five-minute vote on the motion to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 5341. members, this is a 15-minute vote. 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of
without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the house will be in order. pursuant to the chair's announcement of earlier today, the house will now observe a moment of silence in memory of officer jacob j. chestnut and detective john m. gibson. will all present please rise for a moment of silence.
without objection the five-minute voting will continue. the unfinished business is the question on suspend the rules and passing h.r. 5341, which the clerk will report by title. the chair: h.r. 5341, a bill to designate the facility of the of postal service locate the at 100 orrindorf drive in michigan as joyce rogers post office building. the speaker pro tempore: the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no.
in the opinion of the chair, the-- >> mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey. >> on that i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
suspended, the bill is passed, and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from new york rise? ms. slaughter: madam speaker, by the direction of the committee on rules, i call up house resolution 1549 and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 222, house resolution
1549. resolved, that upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to consider in the house the bill h.r. 1264, to amend the national flood insurance act of 1968 to provide for the national flood insurance program to make available multiperil coverage for damage resulting from windstorms or floods, and for other purposes. all points of order against consideration of the bill are waived except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule 21. the bill shall be considered as read. all points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill to final passage without intervening motion except, one, one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on financial services. and two, one motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from new york is recognized for one hour. ms. slaughter: thank you very much. madam speaker, for the purpose of debate only i i am pleased to yield the customary 30
minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr. sessions. and all time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only. i yield myself such time as i may consume and ask neak that -- and ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on house resolution 1549. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered, the gentlewoman from new york is recognized. ms. slaughter: thank you, madam speaker. h.res. 1549 provides for consideration of h.r. 1264, the multiple peril insurance act. the rule provides one hour of general debate controlled by the committee on financial services. the rule provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions. madam speaker, there is not a person in the chamber today who can forget the terrible destruction left in the aftermath of hurricane katrina five short years ago. lives were lost, homes were destroyed, businesses closed.
schools and hospitals were underwater. our nation has never been the same. the damage that katrina inflicted on new orleans and across the gulf states left thousands of people homeless. there were refugees spread across more than a dozen states. i think i speak for all of us when i say the storm left a mark on our collective psyche. the storm and flood exposed many troubling failings. one of the most alarming was the fact that so many people who believed that they had adequate insurance in fact were not covered. why? because insurance companies engaged in a maddening shell game with homeowners about their coverage. damage obviously caused by water would be attributed by wind while wind damage was chalked up to flooding. the stalemate left far too many people with no claim. the apparent loophole in coverage made it very difficult
for many families to rebuild in the months and years after the storm. the same problem has cropped up after other hurricanes and large storms over the years. in the aftermath of katrina, congress worked collaboratively on legislation to address the coverage gap, and three years ago legislation to do just that was approved by the house. however, the plan was unable to win passage in the senate, so we are here again to try. despite the challenges it is our contention that taxpayers will actually end up saving significant amounts of money if this type of coverage is made available to americans. in the aftermath of katrina, the federal government spent more than $34 billion on rental assistance, on vouchers, trailers, grants to homeowners and small businesses administration disaster loans to homeowners. had there been a public option
for homeowners to purchase coverage for hurricane losses, some of that cost could have been avoided. with that bill it creates a new program within the national flood insurance program to purchase both flood and windstorm insurance under one multiperil policy or to purchase windstorm coverage to supplement their already existing flurns. it's a bipartisan bill -- flood insurance. it's a bipartisan bill, has been supported by the national association of realtors. this is pay-go compliant since the program is required to pay for itself. the one thing to remember about this legislation is it simply gives americans the option of buying coverage of getting some peace of mind. the issue is far too important for us to wait around for the next round of storms like katrina or ike or gustav to roll ashore and leave far too
many families with nothing. this bill is a simple and effective way to permit people to purchase insurance so that the next storm does not leave them high and dry. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from texas. for what purpose do you rise? mr. sessions: thank you, madam speaker. i want to thank the gentlewoman, the chairwoman of the rules committee for yielding me this time, my friend, ms. slaughter. i, madam speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. sessions: madam speaker, this will be the 34th time i've handled a rule on the house floor and this will be the 34th time i have yet to handle one open rule this session of congress. in fact, over the 130-plus rules this congress we have not yet debated an open rule. and i guess i could add the
word yet but i presume moving forward during this session of congress i don't think we expect to. what a shame, madam speaker? i don't believe that closing de-- what a shame, madam speaker. i don't believe that closing debate or limiting amendments or shutting down members of congress who are elected by their colleagues and peers back home, whether they're republicans or democrats, is wrong. and yet here we are again with my handling of the 34th time this session a closed rule. and i would once again question this agenda. i would question the agenda of the majority party, democratic party, that we already know is about tax and spending and more rules and regulations and more
debt to this great nation. but i think that it's important to look at bad process delivers a bad outcome, and today that's exactly what we're looking at again, another flawed process to bring something to this floor that should be treated more respectfully than the topic that it is. . i'm going to use my time also to talk about some republican ideas. one thing i have the opportunity today, madam speaker, is to call for a vote on the previous question to allow for this week's youcut winner. we over the weeks heard about youcut. youcut is a republican idea that's an online idea. and it's a voting tool. a tool where people who are back home have an opportunity to pick
what they consider to be wasteful government spending. something which this congress is incapable of doing because the agenda does not allow for making wiser choices or even feedback from our colleagues about how we would cut and make this government more efficient. over a million americans have voted this week alone. this week's youcut winner is the elimination of subsidies to first class seats on amtrak's long distance routes. this initiative would yield $1 ,200,000 in savings over 10 years. these are hardworking americans who are paying attention to what we are doing here in washington and they don't want to have their tax dollars subsidized for first class travel on amtrak. i have long advocating for reforming amtrak, especially the long distance routes.
these routes lose money year after year after year. they continue to receive money from the federal government and amtrak has no incentive to improve their operation as long as uncle, that's uncle sam, is willing to pay. this congress i have introduced h.r. 5377, a bill that would require amtrak to eliminate service to long distance routes whose total direct costs are more than twice the revenue. that is where the costs are more than twice the revenue that comes in the federal government should not be paying for that. taxpayers should no longer be footing the bill for amtrak's inefficiencies, and today you are going to have a chance to hear from the republicans about how we think we ought to streamline this government and provide savings to the taxpayer. additionally, we are here today to discuss h.r. 1264 which would expand the national flood insurance program known as nfip, to include windstorm insurance
coverage. but once again today based upon the agenda that this democratic majority has, it would create a massive new government program to offer government paid coverage backed with taxpayer dollars. while this legislation may be well intended, i have no doubt that it is, it would have a crushing impact on a very fragile u.s. job market that would add billions to the federal deficit. that's why we are talking about youcut today. talking about youcut today because the bill we are getting ready to pass here in a few minutes is not even paid for. and our friends in the majority keep talking about, we pay for things. we make the tough decisions. another day in washington where another tough decision is not being made by the leadership of this house and the agenda of tax and spending and more debt and long-term destruction of the
free enterprise system is exactly what's on the bill on the floor of the house today with this bill. transferring these liabilities from the private sector to the nfip would be fiscally irresponsible. the nfip currently owes the u.s. treasury over $18 billion yet we are going to give them more. we are going to empower them some more. the amount that has been forced to borrow from the american taxpayers to pay claims and expenses in excess of the premiums collected. since 2006 the government accounting office has included the nfip on its list of high-risk government programs in need of comprehensive reform. and here today we are empowering a program that's on the high-risk series and encouraging them to do more business, taking business from the free enterprise system.
additionally, the property and casualty insurance company of america estimates that the legislation will eliminate 41,77 5 private sector jobs so that uncle sam and the government can add jobs. madam speaker, that is the hallmark of this democrat majority. it is to empower the government against the free enterprise system. we saw this in may numbers, when the may numbers came out, 431,000 net new jobs and our friends, the democrats, come down every day and look at us. look at all these jobs we are creating. yeah. 431,000 jobs in may, but of that figure, 400,000 were government jobs. they were census jobs, temporary jobs, and you are trying to fool this country. in texas if we were in the texas legislature, that would be deceptive advertising.
should be deceptive advertising in washington and be against the law. with an unemployment rate at 9.5% and loss of over three million jobs since january of 2009, now is not the time to be diminishing more, 41,775 jobs is the estimate. by increetsing the taxpayers' expo -- increasing the taxpayers' exposure also, this program is $22.21 billion in premiums that could be taken out of our economy. but it doesn't stop there. there's more than $20 billion of investment in mutual municipal, state, and local bonds will completely dry up. a line of business that the free enterprise system handles, that the government did not need to do. and government at all levels, state, federal, and local, will lose billions in tax revenue from the free enterprise system.
during the last congress, the senate rejected this proposal by a vote of 74-19. even the administration shockingly, even the administration voiced opposition to adding wind to the n.r.i.p. suggesting it would threaten the long-term stability of the program. exactly right. it's called bankruptcy. never forget the taxpayers there, so probably won't go bankrupt. with the current federal crisis, the financial crisis, and the government crisis, and a record unemployment why would the majority party be pushing for legislation to make unemployment worse, or would this simply be to help the u.s. treasury? i don't know. but either way it's government jobs. and i guess we should be careful and not complain too much because i guess uncle sam needs the help. madam speaker, the voice of the american public has been clear.
americans want a pro-growth solution that will encourage job creation and investment and would keep americans competitive with the world. said today we find 41,000 more jobs, and will dry up in the free enterprise system, jobs back home. this legislation further diminishes not only these jobs where they add billions of dollars to our national debt. that is the hallmark of this administration and this congress. more taxing, more spending, more taking of jobs from the free enterprise system to government, and perhaps worst of all a debt we may never, ever pay for. when my friends on the other side of the aisle start to promote positive solutions instead of federalizing more sectors of our free enterprise system, they can count on receiving our support. can't do it today. today is a no vote.
i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from new york. ms. slaughter: madam speaker, i call on my next speaker, i yield myself a minute, please. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. slaughter: we don't have hurricanes in rochester, new york for which we were extremely grateful. all of us were affected by katrina. all of us saw what happened to the city we love. all of us have friends here in the house and some in the senate who lost everything they had. these were people who had insurance on their homes. they thought they were covered. but because of the fact the insurance companies said, no, they would come to your house which may have been completely overwhelmed with water and say that was wind damage, we don't cover that. with wood august back and forth, so many people lost everything they had. as i said in the opening statement, the government paid $34 billion to try to house and
maintain people until we could find a permanent solution. it's -- if by passing this bill we could avoid that expenditure again, i would call that money well spent. this program is self-sufficient. it's paid for by the premiums. i now yield four minutes to the gentleman from oregon, mr. blumenauer. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for four minutes. mr. blumenauer: i appreciate the gentlelady's courtesy in permitting me to speak on the rule. i will support the rule but i rise in reluctant opposition to the legislation. i sympathize with my good friend from mississippi and admire his passion and commitment to this issue and tireless effort to try and help his constituents who have been put in a horrible situation in the aftermath of katrina. but i do think this bill is a classic example of how our empathy interacts with the system that doesn't work to cloud our judgment and leads us to consider action that would
actually make things worse over the long haul. as mr. taylor has forcefully argued katrina exposed many problems with the national flood insurance program. the confusion about wind and flood damage and the difficulty that his constituents had in getting insurance companies to cover their losses after katrina is unacceptable. that is why i was pleased to support his amendment the flood insurance reform act on the floor last week that would prohibit the insurance companies from excluding wind damage under their own policies solely because flooding also caused damage to the property. i think that would go far in preventing insurance companies from taking advantage of consumers on the federal taxpayers. but expending the flood insurance program to cover wind hazards is like slapping a band-aid on a broken bone and then putting the patient on a skateboard while the bones are still mending. i strongly support the goals of the flood insurance program and know that it's played an important role in ensuring many
american communities while encouraging litigation and reducing risk. but with each additional disaster, it becomes clearer and clearer that the program is broken. right now as my good friend from texas pointed out, it's $19 billion in debt. adding for wind coverage, even if it's supposed to be actuarially sound, will only make this worse. it is very likely to result in significant short-term losses for the flood insurance program. even though c.b.o. has given the bill a neutral score, that's based on a highly questionable assumption that fema will charge actuarial rates that fully cover wind losses. despite a 40-year history of failing to do so for flood losses. fema doesn't have the ability to calculate what actuarial rates
for wind coverage should be, much less enforce them. as robert hunter, who ran the program in the 1970's, has said, poor management at fema, doing a heck of a job, brownie, and lax enforcement of building requirements by local government has meant the program hasn't worked the way it was supposed to. some have even argued it actually encourages development in hazardous areas. speak for a moment about the building code requirements under this legislation. the npip already subsidizes unwise construction -- nfip already subsidizes unwise construction in flood plane. while the bill requires aadoption of building codes to mitigate against wind losses this is not strong enough. it doesn't address development and hazardous areas itself, and by increasing the availability of federally backed insurance,
this bill will give people a false sense of security and provide incentives for development in those various areas. and there is a serious gap in the actual enforcement of those building codes. the current problems with the flood insurance program must be addressed before we can even think of expanding it to cover yet more hazards. the experts on flood insurance agree. the administration sent up a statement of administration policy against the billion yesterday. the bill is opposed by fema. the association of state flood plain managers, the insurance, and reinsurance industry, the environmental community, taxpayers for common sense, the national taxpayers union, and a consumer federation of america. they argue that it would expand the broken program, further encourage development in hazardous areas by giving people a false sense of security. the federal government should not -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired.
mr. blumenauer: and put the american taxpayer further into debt. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: thank you, madam speaker. madam speaker, at this time i'd like to yield three minutes to the gentleman from richmond, virginia, the minority whip, the gentleman, favorite son from virginia, mr. cantor. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. cantor: thank you, madam speaker. i thank the gentleman. madam speaker, i rise in opposition to the rule. i rise in opposition to the previous question. . with over 1.3 million votes cast and counting, the youcut movement continues to give people across america a voice to help put a stop to washington's never-ending shopping spree. house republicans have already offered more than $120 billion in commonsense spending reductions, yet week in and week out the majority has astoundingly voted against the will of the people. proposed by congressman mac
thornberry of tax, this week's youcut winner highlights the latest example of egregious government waste. despite the fact that only 16% of amtrak passengers choose sleeper class fare, which includes a turn-down service and private entertainment, taxpayers are on the hook for more than twice as much than for these passengers compared to those who ride in coach. during these increasingly tough economic times, is it really fair to ask taxpayers to subsidize turndown service and prepaid movies? the american people have emphatically said no. just days ago, madam speaker, four house democrats bucked their party's leadership to form a working group they say is devoted to cutting wasteful spending. as my house republican
colleagues and i have said since youcut launched, tackling our staggering national debt is not a partisan calling. it's an american calling because our country is at a crossroads. it is only logical then, madam speaker, that the new democratic group would support the elimination of first-class amtrak subsidies and save taxpayers up to $1.2 billion over the next decade. i urge them as well as all of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to join us in voting to bring this week's youcut to the floor for a vote and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentlewoman from new york. ms. slaughter: i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves her time. the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: thank you, madam speaker. at this time i'd like to yield three minutes to the gentleman from clarendon, texas, mr. thornberry.
the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. thornberry: i thank my friend for yielding. madam speaker, one of the things that most americans don't realize is to what extent the speaker through the rules committee controls this house and even what we can vote on. she determines what bills will be brought here. even what amendments may be offered. and there are very few ways to get another issue even considered here. but that's what this next vote is about. it's about trying to get a vote on a proposal that most people who went on the youcut website this week have chosen as something that should at least get a vote. now, the gentleman from mississippi has a serious proposal on the floor, but there are other serious proposals which ought to be considered as well. and one of them is to cut the subsidy that goes to amtrak's sleeper class service. madam speaker, the facts are
this -- 16% of the people who ride amtrak's long distance routes, 16% choose the sleeper class service. everybody else rides in coach. but the people who choose the sleeper class service, as the whip mentioned, get a private compartment. usually a private bathroom. they have turndown service where someone comes back and pulls their sheets back for them at night. they have unlimited meals in the dining car. all a very nice thing. the problem is the taxpayers subsidize an average of $396 per ticket for every one of those people who choose that sleeper class service. now, you add it all up and it ends up being $1 billion, actually more than $1 billion over 10 years that the taxpayers subsidize the people who choose the sleeper class service. now, our proposal doesn't eliminate that service. it doesn't change any amtrak
routes. it just says if you're going to have that service you ought to pay the cost of it. you ought to pay the cost of what you buy. i don't think that's terribly revolutionary, but it saves more than $1 billion to the taxpayers. madam speaker, in january i got to speak to a bunch of high school seniors in randall high school in my district. at that time their share of the national debt was about $39,000. today their share of the national debt is $42,739. i think the next vote hinges on this question -- is it worth $1 billion of subsidies for sleeper class service to add to the debt that those high school seniors have to pay? that's the question that members will answer with the next vote. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentlewoman from new york. ms. slaughter: i reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman continues to
reserve. the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: the gentleman, mr. thornberry, makes a great point, and we can today on the floor of this house of representatives add to this bill with its own merits by saying let's also, as we're adding billions of dollars, let's at least simplify government and cut $1 billion off of what it does. it makes sense to me, and i applaud the gentleman, mr. thornberry, for his great youcut suggestion. at this time, madam speaker, i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from wheaton, illinois, pete roskam. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. roskam: i thank the gentleman and thank you, madam speaker. if you were going to sit around and come up with a movie script of absurdity, you couldn't come up with a script that was this real. in other words, taxpayers out subsidizing first-class
passenger travel on railcars throughout the united states. if you trotted that out to hollywood and said, oh, we got one for you, the hollywood types would throw it away and say, no way, it's completely unrealistic except in this congress. congressman thornberry from texas has figured out by carefully reading an inspector general report of the department of transportation that there is a way to save -- to save $1 billion over 10 years. now, think about that. you notice something very interesting. you don't hear anyone coming to this house floor, madam speaker, to defend this practice of subsidizing first-class rail treatment, and the reason is nobody can do it with a straight face. nobody can come and say, oh, no, no, no, we need to subsidize movies on amtrak. we need to subsidize prepaid meals. we need to subsidize -- honest to goodness, the bed turndown
service in the sleeper car. how absurd is that? so oftentimes in political life we're asked, what would you cut? what would you cut? how would you balance this budget? well, i tell you what, you have a whole host of republicans that says let's vote no on the previous question and let's take up this question this time this afternoon to cut $1 billion. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentlewoman from new york. ms. slaughter: i reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman continues to reserve. the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: thank you, madam speaker. at this time i'd like to engage the gentlewoman and ask if she has any further speakers. ms. slaughter: at this moment i do not. are you -- may i inquire of the gentleman if he's ready to close? mr. sessions: i wanted to ask if she has additional speakers, i received a good question -- ms. slaughter: may i inquire if the gentleman is ready to close
? mr. sessions: i have 35 or 50 -- we did not receive enough time in this rule to be able to provide enough time for our speakers. it's a very important topic for us. i understand that you don't have any more speakers but we have a bunch. yes, ma'am, i intend to use. ms. slaughter: we're happy to sit here and yield the time. mr. sessions: at this time i yield three minutes to the gentlewoman from west virginia, mrs. capito. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for three minutes. mrs. capito: thank you, madam speaker. i know we're going to have a big debate on flood insurance and wind insurance and i am going to be participates in -- participating in that. i want to talk about the youcut program. there's nothing that's upsetting to more people across the state of west virginia than i see every day is the overspending the debt and the deficit that is overwhelming them and this country.
but the youcut program, since its inception, we've had 1.3 million americans weigh in on where they think we can cut government spending. folks from all across america are tightening their budgets. this summer they're deciding, can we go on vacation, can he with go for two days, a week, should we fly, drive, should we go out to dinner, should we stay in? these are economic questions we ask every single day and these are the kind of questions we should be asking here in washington, where can we tighten our belts and save our money so our next generation and the generations beyond us are going to have the kind of america that we have and our parents enabled us to have. people are rightly disgusted of the gross abuse of taxpayer money on pet projects and overbloated federal programs. but i think we're listening. republicans are listening and we're taking action. house republicans have already offered $120 billion in
spepping cuts. but the democrats -- spending cuts. but the democrats insist on this dangerous path of overspending. now, some of the cuts we've offered haven't been what we consider around washington huge amounts. maybe just hundreds of millions or billions, but, come on, this is real money, this is taxpayers' dollars. so if you have to start on a smaller amount and grow it larger, we all know it eventually will make a dent. so this week i'm casting my vote to support -- in support of my colleague's proposal to quit subsidizing first-class subsidies to amtrak. only 16% of the passengers opt for first class, yet, we are subsidizing their first class -- their first-class seats on amtrak to the point of several -- $1.3 billion, i think, of subsidies that goes to those
who choose to purchase first-class seats with amtrak. amtrak is great thing. comes right in my district, goes throughout the state and on through the west. people that want to buy first-class seats should be able to pay for it, should be priced accordingly. this is a good way to save over $1.2 billion over 10 years. let's give the american people what they're wanting. that is fiscal restraint and responsibility. that's what american families across this country are exercising across their kitchen table. that's what we should be doing here across the budget table in the united states congress. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the gentlewoman from new york. ms. slaughter: i reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman continues to reserve. the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: thank you, madam speaker. you know, it sounds like the gentlewoman from west virginia gave us a good way to think of things and that is too much of a good thing may not be good. what this rail service is
about, amtrak, probably is a pretty good idea. too much of a good thing where you can't properly manage it or pay for it or it gets larger than what the mission statement is is a bad problem. you know, madam speaker, the republicans are on the floor of the house again today. we're called to washington every week and we can handle that, but day after day after day after day after day after day we handle small ideas and little issues. and today we're handling an issue that the gentleman from mississippi deeply believes in and in fact he will have an opportunity, not only have his ideas on the floor, but he'll get a vote on those ideas. republicans have now for in our
fourth year been saying to this speaker and this majority leader and this democratic majority that we believe that this body is entitled to have an agenda that the majority wants. but we believe it should be balanced. we believe it should include some tough decisionmaking, not just more spending, not just pet projects but rather things which will empower people back home to have confidence in what we're doing here in washington. and republicans have once again today, through youcut, through the leadership of our minority whip, eric cantor, presented ideas on this floors and every single member will have an opportunity to vote on that.
republicans believe that we should have to come make tough decisions. republicans believe that you ought to come and read the bill. republicans believe that that rules committee that's up there, if you say your agenda is going to be open and honest that you ought to mean it. republicans believe that there ought to be an opportunity for members to come and have their ideas heard from. and so we're taking seriously what we think is a duty and an obligation to come and talk about how we can make our jobs that we do more serious by streamlining, providing feedback to federal money that's being spent. an incredible amount of money that not only is being spent out of this town but way too little,
if any, that is about reforming and make the government more efficient. we think that that's what we should be about. we think that we should be about providing ideas, giving money to this government but with the expectation of performance that will alou streamlining and efficiencies and not giving away services at less than what their real cost is. i reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from new york. ms. slaughter: madam speaker, i'm pleased to yield five minutes to the gentleman from mississippi, the sponsor of the legislation, mr. tailor. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. taylor: thank you marks dam chairman. madam speaker, if -- thank you, madam chairman. madam speaker, if i was to have my share on the insurance industry, i would do everything but talk about what the
insurance industry did in south mississippi after hurricane katrina. i would forget, if i was a member of the rules committee, the 12 years that they controlled the floor of the house of representatives, the 12 years that they could have cut the amtrak subsidies had they wanted to. but they didn't. so let's get back to what we're going to talk about today. and again i thank the leadership for bringing this to the floor. if you'd been to mississippi in 2005, you'd have seen this house. it belonged to some folks. on august 29, 2005, hurricane katrina hit south mississippi. so they left this because the nation warned them that a bad storm was coming and came home to this. corky is a financial manager. he's a smart guy. he had a lot of insurance. he thought.
as a matter of fact, corky had $650,000 worth of insurance on that house. problem was, under the rules of the national flood insurance plan that mr. sessions agrees needs changing and i'm trying to change today, we pay the private sector, state farm, nationwide, we pay them to sell the policy, they get a premium, we pay them to adjust the claims. the problem is, no one bothered to think that, wait a minute, we're letting that claims adjuster decide, he's playing god. he can say the wind did it which means his company has to pay, state farm, nationwide, or he can say the water did it, which means the taxpayers have to pay. you're right, mr. sessions. we should not have paid that $18 billion. the reason we paid that $18 billion is a bad set of rules that allowed companies like state farm, nationwide, to stick the taxpayers with their billless. so 18 months after this event -- bills.
so 18 months after this event, he was paid nothing by his insurer, state farm insurance company. so again, if you're a defender of the insurance industry, if you're thinking they're helping you with your campaigns, you sure as heck don't want to talk about that, do you? next house. you go further down the same street would you have seen one of the oldest houses, built around 1800. from 1800 to 2005 no, telling how many hurricanes it survived. this is what it looked like when they left because the nation told them to get the heck out of there, there's a bad storm coming. let's see what they came home -- home to. this is what they came home to. to most people including mississippians, your house is your biggest investment. it is to the large extent an extension of yourself. so they had a lot of insurance or so they thought.
$586,000. when they filed their claim, for almost 24 months they were paid nothing on their wind insurance. now why is this significant? well, noaa and others went back and looked at the events that were called hurricane katrina and noaa tells us that for four hours before the storm surge arrived in south mississippi that house, the house before, was subjected to hurricane-force winds for four hours. before the water ever got there. and yet the insurance companies wanted to turn around and blame everything on the water. why? because they could stick the taxpayers with the bill. next house, please. more typical home, more modest home. this one's about a mile inland. about a mile inland. pretty good way from the water.
beautiful home, this is what the folks who lived there, when they left, looked at last. this is what they came home to. it's not just three houses, it's not 30 houses, it was 30,000 houses that this happened to. so again, these folks, knowing that this was a big part of their lives, had $249,000 worth of insurance. their insurance company was slightly more generous than the previous two times. and offered them $10,000. now, mr. sessions points out that, incorrectly, that maybe government shouldn't be doing this. well, maybe he doesn't talk to his folks in his state capitol often enough because if he had he would know that his state is already doing this. the industry insurance pulled
out, left a vacuum, people had to have some form of wind insurance, so on a state by state basis the state picked up that obligation. ms. slaughter: i yield the gentleman four more minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for four more minutes. mr. taylor: in the gentleman's state of texas, the texas wind pool in 2004 had an exposure of $20.8 billion. that has expanded to $58.6 billion. that's not private sector that's going to pay that bill. that's the texas wind pool. they are on the hook for that. in my home state of mississippi, it's gone from $1.6 billion to $6.3 billion. i can't speak for every state, but i can tell you that pretty well equals the mississippi state budget. if there was a catastrophic storm in mississippi that hit all three coastal counties in one day, this happened three times in my lifetime, it would break the state of mississippi. now, at some point they're going to come up and say they've got
re-insurance -- reinsurance. so let me ask you a simple question. if the families couldn't get a company out of illinois to pay their claim,, if the other family couldn't get a company out of illinois to pay their claim, does anyone really think a company from the bahamas is going to willingly write these checks? who's kidding who? on state by state basis, florida's gone from $2.2 billion to $436 billion. south carolina, $16 billion to $17 billion. georgia, the gentleman from georgia's state, $565 million to $2.1 billion, a 265% increase, not private sector, state liability. so why do we want to do this? because quite honestly the purpose of insurance is that people pay their premium, they live the way they're supposed to but they want the certainty that if something bad happens to them they're going to get paid.
secondly, why should the nation do it? because it would break any one of these states. the chances of every coastal county in mississippi getting hit in the same day has happened three times in my lifetime. florida had four catastrophic storms, hit almost every square inch of the state. but the chances of the same storm hitting every state on the same day is miniscule. and if it does happen, don't worry about paying claims, just call it armageddon. so what we are proposing is a program that instead of letting the private sector collect the premiums and the nation pay the bill would allow people to, as an extension, as an option to their flood insurance, pay for a wind option and that way they come home to nothing, if they come home to a substantially destroyed house, it doesn't matter if the wind did it or the water did it. the fact is they built the house the way they were supposed to, they built it in a place that
was safe, they paid their premiums and they're going to get paid. so the last point, of course the insurance industry doesn't want to tell you so i will. in the same year that the national flood insurance program lost $18 billion, they made $48 billion in profits. why? pretty simple. they collected the premiums, you, the taxpayer, paid the bill. you paid the bill for the fema trailers because again typical insurance policy says if your house is destroyed or your house is wrecked to where you can't live in it, they will pay to put you up. but when they denied these claims in full as they did thousands of times, then someone had to do something. president bush to his credit stepped forward and said we're going to make fema trailers available that cost the taxpayers $4.3 billion -- available. that cost the taxpayers $4.3 billion. grants totaling $15.4 billion
and what was one of the prerequisites to get a grant? you had to have insurance and you didn't get paid. so who paid that bill? uncle sam. you, the taxpayers, paid that bill. lastly, disaster loans, so for a total bill of $34.5 billion. it wasn't $18 billion in losses that year, it was over $50 billion. we're trying to change that. we're trying to come up with a people willum -- program where the premiums pay for the program. one minute. ms. slaughter: i'll give you three. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's recognized for three minutes. mr. taylor: so again, i thank the gentlewoman for bringing this to the floor. i would remind my republican colleagues that in the 12 years that they ran the house i don't ever recall a vote on cuth the subsidy for -- on cutting the subsidy for amtrak. so let's talk about this problem, this day. i would remind my republican colleagues that on a regular
basis they come to the floor and say, you know what? we shouldn't be doing all these things that don't make sense. all these things that don't contribute to each other. amtrak is not an insurance problem. this is an insurance problem, a single bill to do one thing and that's to let those people who want to buy wind insurance as an option to their flood insurance so that they'll know that if they paid their premiums, they built the house the way they were supposed to, something horrible happens, they will get paid. with that i thank you very much. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: thank you very much, madam speaker. by the way, the gentleman from mississippi is a very dear friend of mine who i engage on a regular basis. i just want the gentleman to know that while i know that under speaker pelosi we don't have any process with appropriations to strike or amend any appropriations bills for 12 years i brought an amtrak
cut bill to this floor. so i'll be providing that information. i look forward to the gentleman joining me as soon as we get a republican majority that will allow that to take place on the floor of this house in an open process. madam speaker, at this time i'd like to yield four minutes to the gentleman from savannah, georgia, mr. kingsley. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for four minutes. mr. kingston: i thank the gentleman for yielding and while he -- -- mr. king: i want to say with great emphasis of what a fiscal conservative, my friend from mississippi is and how i know he's struggling to find a solution to something that i would agree is a problem. now, i live in savannah, i have a house on the water front and a beach house. mr. kingston: i have to participate in the national flood insurance program and in the state windstorm pool. and mr. tailor's right, if you've ever dealt with them, it is a pain in the neck, the
bureaucracy is horrible, getting the claims paid is a really big problem, the debates a to what is flood and what is wind and what is wind-driven water is very complicated and i think the insurance companies will get no sympathy from me on this situation. the problem is that here we are again under the pelosi congress with a closed rule. and which none of cuss offer an amendment -- us can offer an amendment. we're all elected, 435 members representing 600,000 people and yet we're not allowed to offer a rule, an amendment because the rules committee has to play favorites and unless you're on the a-list, you can't offer an amendment, even though you still represent 600,000 people like everyone else here. so we kim prove this. a couple of suggestions -- so we can improve this. a couple of suggestions, why don't we give the -- give the state insurance commissioners, because as my friend knows, insurance is a state matter, public law 15 says that states
will regulate insurance, and why not make sure the insurance commissioners have the authority to say to an insurance company, if you want to sell insurance in my state then you're going to have to take a percentage of the flood or the windstorm exposure? give him the power to twist their arms. because i can tell you, having been in the insurance business, i'm a cbcu, that's a charter property casualty underwriter, that insurance companies will cede anything, anything that's difficult they will be glad to let the state government or the federal government take all the flood claims, pay the crime claims, take the d.u.i. drivers. they want the unprofitable stuff off the books because they make money two different ways. one is an underwriting profit and the other is an investment profit. now right now we're in a soft market. insurance premiums on the commercial side are actually going down because insurance companies for some unknown reason are making their money elsewhere.
what mr. taylor is saying is right. the insurance commissioner ought to get to the bottom of it. since we can't amend this to try to put language like that in there we need to bring this rule down to send the bill back to committee. now, i want to say, we almost got through today without a new federal program. i thought might happen. this is a new federal program. we did pass $34 billion onto the next generation and increase debt, which i know some people were clapping about. i don't know exactly follow that. we have a $1.4 trillion, the largest debt in the history of the nation. 90% of our g.d.p. and yet we have members on the democrat side clapping about builder 34 billion in new debt. now, put this in context. may of 2008, a bush stimulus bill, which i voted against, $168 billion. it did not create jobs. bear stearns bailout by the federal reserve in march of 2008, $29 billion. fannie mae bailout, $200
billion in july of 2008. september of 2008, a.i.g. bailout. again, by the federal reserve. $85 billion. now up to $140 billion. and then we had the infamous tarp, $700 billion. i voted no on that. then, here comes the stimulus bill to keep unemployment from going to 8%. unemployment at the time was 7.6%. $800 billion later we are at 10% unemployment. we are right now borrowing 37 cents on every $1 we spend. i think this bill -- could i get -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. kingston: well, i appreciate it and hope you vote the rule down. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas has 1 1/2 minutes remaining. the gentlewoman from new york
has 11 1/2 minutes remaining. the gentlewoman from new york. ms. slaughter: i'll reserve until the gentleman from texas closes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas. the gentlewoman reserves. mr. sessions: thank you very much, madam speaker. i appreciate the gentlewoman from new york for not only this time but getting through this thing. madam speaker, as you can see, republicans and at least one democrat have a lot to talk about. i wish we had more time today. republicans would have liked a lot more time to make sure that we can talk about not only this bill but the implications that are on the floor. republicans continue to offer, madam speaker, commonsense solutions to rein in the current spending spree, the spending spree that's now in its fourth year by this democrat majority. we, like the american people, like transparency and accountability and common sense, creation of jobs, not the extension of unemployment benefits that are not paid for.
we believe in people having jobs. and if this majority were serious and this administration were serious, they'd do the things that work rather than things that don't work. they're doing things that don't work, madam speaker, and that's what this democrat majority will be held accountable for. it's really a sad thing to hear person after person who lose their job, to see the malaise this country is in. madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment immediate prior to the vote on the previous question. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. sessions: legislation before us today brings one more uncertainty to the long-term solvency of the nfip. this legislation risks more american jobs and adds more to our lokeate and state deficit. it's the states' responsibility, not the federal government. but that's part of what this
agenda's all about. for this reason i encourage a no vote on the previous question. i believe that we should be doing -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlewoman from new york. ms. slaughter: madam speaker, i want to remind those persons listening, particularly members of congress who are going to come to the floor to vote, we are not voting on amtrak cars. we are trying to protect those americans who are victims of hurricanes and other related natural disasters were losing everything the way the gulf coast victims of katrina did. the bill will help ensure that the insurance loopholes will be closed and hardworking americans won't be denied a legit mate claim when they desperately need them. so i yield back the balance of my time and call for a yes vote on the previous question and on the rule, and i move the previous question. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on ordering the previous question on the resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it.
mr. sessions: madam speaker, i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote has been ordered. the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 9 of rule 20, the chair will reduce to five minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on the question of adoption. this will be a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote being asked for, a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
yeas are 228 and the nays are 183. the resolution is adopted. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to speak for one minute. without objection, so ordered. >> i was attained by a medical situation and missed the vote to approve the final version of h.r. 4213 the unemployment exen sayings act extension of 2010 earlier. i want to state for the record i would have voted in favor of the legislation today as i did on previous occasions when it came before the house for a vote. i have been a consistent sporter of legislation to extend unemployment benefits to americans who have lost their jobs and i regret not being here for the vote. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: without
objection. the gentleman's statement will appear in the record. the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? mr. cantor: i ask to address the house for one minute for the purposes of inquiring about next week's schedule. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. the house is not in order. i ask members to take their conversations to the cloakroom. the gentleman will proceed. mr. cantor: i thank the speaker and i yield to the majority leader for the purposes of announcing next week's schedule. mr. hoyer: on monday, the house will meet at 12:30 p.m. for morning debate and 2:00 p.m. for legislative business with votes postponed until 6:00 proximate cause on tuesday. the house will meet on tuesday
at 9 a.m. and 10 for legislative business. on wednesday and thursday, 10 a.m. on friday, the house will meet at 9:00 a.m. we will consider several bills under suspension and the complete list will be announced by the close of business tomorrow. we will consider the transportation and h.u.d. appropriation bill. and the military construction and v.a. appropriations bill of 2011. also expect to consider items from the senate, including amendments to h.r. 4899, the supplemental appropriations act of 2010. there are obviously other possibilities of bills coming from the senate and we will consider those as time permits. and i yield back and i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. cantor: mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman for that and would ask him if he could
respond to some reports about several measures perhaps and the possibility of these measures coming to the floor next week, if he could give the house an update. one would be the oil spill response legislation that's coming out of the resources committee, energy and commerce committee and ways and means committee. the small business taxpayer fund bill in the senate, the f.a.a. authorization bill from the senate, the 9/11 compensation bill and the education and labor osha bill relating to mining. if the gentleman could give us an update on those measures. and i yield. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman. rather than going into each one individually, i will say each of those bills is under consideration with respect to oil spills. there has been discussion going among the committees of jurisdiction and if we have a product to move forward, we will be prepared to do so. we believe responding to the oil
spill is critical and have done so, as you know, two bills this week passed unanimously through the house. so we will be proceeding to look at the oil spill issue to try to ensure to the extent we can, a, it doesn't happen again and bmp if it does happen again that the industry is prepared to respond to it. with respect to the other pieces of legislation, they are under discussion, some in this house and some in the senate, as you know. mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman, and mr. speaker, i would ask the gentleman if the members should be prepared for a possible saturday session next week and i yield? mr. hoyer: i thank him for yielding. next week is our last week and we will be recessing for the august break at that point in time, i would put members on notice that there will be certain matters that we must
complete and will complete and as a result, members ought to make sure that they have flexibility for next saturday. mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman. mr. speaker, the majority leader announced two appropriation bills for consideration next week. the fiscal year ends just over two months from now and yet we are only beginning consideration of the first of 12 appropriations bills that fund the entire federal discretionary budget. i would ask the gentleman, mr. speaker, if he could tell us whether to expect those bills coming for consideration on the floor under an open rule. and i would yield. mr. hoyer: i will be talking to mr. obey tomorrow and/or monday to get his views on consideration of those bills. and at that point in time, i will be able to give you a clearer view on thousand those
bills will be considered. mr. cantor: i ask the gentleman if he can commit to the house that he will continue to advocate for an open rule. i know the gentleman has always been and joins me in wanting full and open debate in the house, whether it would be his position that these appropriations bills would come to the floor on an open rule. i yield. mr. hoyer: as the gentleman knows full well because we have been involved in discussions, i have consistently been for considering appropriations bills in a timely manner with agreement between the majority and minority as occurred in 2006, when mr. obey and mr. lewis reach ared agreement on the consideration of those bills. the gentleman is accurate when he says that is my preferred option on the consideration of appropriations bills. as i say, i have not talked to the chairman and i will will -- i will be talking to him to
hetgizz -- to get his views on how these most effectively can be considered. mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman, mr. speaker. turning to the issue of the troop funding bill, mr. speaker, the senate sent the house a troop funding bill supplemental about two months ago. it appeared that that body will be sending us back the exact same version of the bill next week. i'd ask the gentleman, mr. speaker, is that his understanding of the bill, and is it his understanding that that is the bill we can expect the house to be voting on? i yield. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman. the senate, as you know, has not completed consideration of the supplemental and are debating other issues, some of which we sent to them. as a matter of fact, i think some of those have a majority support, small lending in particular, bill, small business bill, would hope they would bring to us on the
supplemental. we included a number of things, not the least of which is to ensure that 140,000 teachers around the couldn't arery remain on the job for our children and for our schools. i don't know whether the senate will include that or not. we also included money for border security, which was not in the senate bill. fema and haiti and oil spill money, i believe, were in the senate bill initially. we've also included that. there are other items we've included to try to grow jobs and expand the economy, which unfortunately the senate, at least at this point in time, has not supported. but i say to my friend that in light of the fact that the senate has not yet passed the supplemental, i'm not sure what is going to be in it but i would say to the gentleman once again, as he knows, it is my intention to ensure that the money for the troops are in fact passed before we leave here. mr. cantor: i thank the
gentleman. that was going to be my question, if faced with the reality that the senate will send us back the version that it did so two months ago, if faced with that, will the house be taking that bill up and then funding our troops before we adjourn for the recess in august? i yield. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman. i'm going to give him the same answer. i'm not going to anticipate -- i found it not very productive endeavor to anticipate what the united states -- what the united states senate will do. i have been so disappointed so often on that speculation i'm not going to enter into such speculation today. however, i will tell the gentleman, as i have said some weeks running now, that it is my intention that we will have a bill pass this house and pass the senate, for that matter, that funds the troops prior to our leaving for our august
break. mr. cantor: i'm reminded by my counsel, mr. speaker, that, and the gentleman would probably agree, the senate is nothing but predictable. mr. speaker, as we are discussing the schedule for next week, i'd like to announce the ninth youcut vote which will take place on the house floor next week. over 1.4 million votes have been cast to date at the republicanwhip.house.gov youcut site. i say to the speaker, i say to the gentleman, four of your members announced a series of proposed cut this is week and while the gentleman did not mention them in his schedule for next week, i would note we've included one of their proposals in our five you u youcut options for next week. the proposal offered by mr. adler would terminate the advanced rned income tax credit
saving $1.1 billion. the additional optioners in public to vote on this week under the youcut program include the elimination of duplicative federal p.e. programs, saving $790 million, the are refocusing of the national park service on administering federal parks, saving $238 million in taxpayer money, the termination of funding for the d.o.d. innovative readiness training program at a $200 million savings and the prohibition of the use of taxpayer funds for political campaigns in foreign countries saving $23 million. so with that, mr. speaker, i would urge the gentleman's consideration perhaps if not at our suggestion, the suggestion of his colleagues on his side of the aisle that perhaps maybe we should endeavor to have a vote on the floor about actually cutting spending. but with that, mr. speaker, i
thank the gentleman always for his time and i yield back. mr. hoyer: would the gentleman yield so i can -- mr. can tok: yes. mr. hoyer: without getting into a long colloquy, i appreciate the gentleman's trying to truncate this, let me say that i think the suggestions on how we can save money, how we can bring the deficit down, from whatever source they come, should be welcomed by all of us. whether they come from your side of the aisle my side of the aisle, from the public at large, republicans, democrats, independents, or totally nonpartisan sources whatsoever, we ought to consider them. we have a significant deficit problem confronting us. i won't go into the reason ares why i think we have those deficit problems but we have them. and we have been trying to dig out of a deep economic recession as all of us know. so that i simply wanted to say
that as you know, this week, we did vote on a -- in a very substantial reduction of transportation savings act which would pass 402-0, we cut $107 million and rescinding unspent money. next week, i suspect we'll have at least one vote, maybe others, to cut substantial dollars. betsy markey has an idea that she's introduced that would save $703 million-plus. we hope to consider that. i want to reiterate which is all i wanted to say that we welcome ideas on how to bring the deficit down. i mentioned, of course, earlier, that mr. kyl indicated that paying for things were not necessary if they were in the tax bill but cutting other things, the problem is, that was $678 billion that he
suggested in borrowed money. and so we're going to have to look, as i said in a speech not too long ago, at all items of expenditure, wherever they may be found, to make sure that we are -- that we return to the fiscal posture, frankly, that we were in when we had a $5.6 trillion surplus in january of 2000. i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman. i would note, we are making progress here, if we are going to avoid pointing fingers and casting blame as to why we are where we are in an effort to move forward and addressing the challenges that our constituents and the people in this country are facing. i welcome the gentleman's desire to look for ways to cut spending. i would just reiterate that there are four individuals on his side of the aisle, mr. adler of new jersey, being one,
having proposed a savings of $1.1 billion that will be part of the youcut activities over the web this week and, mr. speaker, that is the winning proposal, then the gentleman will have an opportunity to join us in putting that measure to a vote. i look forward to that next week, mr. speaker, again, i thank the gentleman for his time and i yield back. mr. hoyer: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the chair at this time lays before the house an enrolled bill. the clerk: h.r. 4213, an act to amend the internal revenue code of 1986 to extend certain expiring provisions and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland rise? mr. hoyer: thank you very muchism ask unanimous consent
that when the house adjourned today it adjourn to meet at 12:30 p.m. on monday next if morning hour debate. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the chair will entertain requests for one-minute recognitions. for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota rise? >> unanimous consent to address the house for one minute, revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. oberstar: i rise with a heavy heart in mourning the untimely loss of terry mcgou fwmbings hey, founder, empreczar yow of the paul bunyan bicycle trail. it was terry who 20 years ago saw the notice of termination of rail service along central minnesota's area from baxter,
minnesota, up to hackensack, and rode out to -- like a modern day town crier, alert communities along the trail to join together, save the right of way to build the paul bunyan trail, which now has 650,000 users a year. every year, terry mobilized group rides and engaged the business communities all along the trail to see not only the physical and outdoors enjoyment and health benefits of a bike-ped-inline skating trail but also to see the business opportunities that have benefited the communities along the trail. we didn't expect terry's loss. he had suffered from parkinson's, but he was there at the helm of this year's ride
and he was already planning for next year's ride. i shall miss him greatly as a friend, a treasured participant in bicycling, and all of bicycling in minnesota will miss terry. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> mr. speaker, yesterday the president of the united states signed legislation into law that dramatically alters the way our financial sector works and makes it harder for the economy to recover. instead of bringing much-need red forms to modernize the financial system, this law grows government again. as the "wall street journal" put it, what started as a promise to streamline and modern nice a financial system turned into 2,300 pages of new
agencies and new powers for the very authorities that fomented the financial crisis. mr. wittman: according to a recent chamber of commerce study, federal regulators have to wrilet 582 rules, issue 81 studies and 39 reports. i opposed this measure as it came before the house. business owners and constituents across my district are frustrated because the policies coming from washington create more bureaucracy and stifle job creation. it's time that washington focuses on common sense principles that put americans back to work, reduce government expansion, and get our economy back on track. we must head back in the right direction for the future of this nation. with that, mr. chairman, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlelady from california rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute, revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> i rise today in support of
the jones act. ms. richardson: the jones act ensures that domestic commerce is carried by u.s. vessels crewed and owned by u.s. citizens. the jonets act ensures a ready merchant marine fleet in time of war and prevents the economy from being dominated by foreign interests who don't pay american taxes, hire american workers or follow american health, savity and environmental laws. ms. sanchez: i would expect all americans to support the jones act and in the past we have. recently, some have tried to blame the jones act for b.p.'s failure to clean up its own mess. nothing could be further from the truth there is no effort that the jones act has interfered with the cleanup in any way. we are in a recession. it's time to work together to expand american manufacturing and create jobs, not play partisan games. i urge my colleagues to stop posturing and start supporting
american families by supporting the jones act. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back her time. the chair would lay before the house the following personal requests. the clerk: leaves of absence requested for mr. culberson of texas for today after 1:45 p.m. and mr. doyle of pennsylvania for today. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the requests are granted. for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina seek attention? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that today following legislative business and any special orders heretofore entered into, the following members may be permitted to address the house, revise and extend their remarks and include therein extraneous materials. mr. moran, july 29, five minute, mr. gingrey, today, five minutes, mr. burton, july 20, 27, 28, 29, five minutes
each, mr. poe, july 29 for five minutes, mr. jones, july 29 for five minutes, mr. flake, today, for five minutes, mr. putnam, july 27, 28 for five minutes each, and mr. graves of georgia today for five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. for what purpose does the gentlelady from california seek recognition? ms. woolsey: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that today following legislative business and any special orders heretofore entered into, the following members may be permitted to address the house for five minutes to revise and extend their remark, and include therein extraneous materials. ms. woolsey, mr. bright, ms. watson, mr. is a plan, ms. kaptur, mr. defazio. . defazio. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2009 and under a previous order of the house, the following members are recognized for five minutes
each. mr. moran from kansas. without objection mr. jones: mr. speaker, back in may, i had the privilege of seeing camp lejeune in my district for a special program put on my sesame street for u.s.o. it is a wonderful program aimed at helping children of service members understand deployment and helps parents talk to their children about a parent who is coming home with a changed personality or not coming home at all. this program has seen nine countries and 84 mill tear bases. the mission is to improve the connection between parent and child during the long absence of deployment and helping children understand the harsh realities of war.
during my visit i was thrilled by the enthusiasm of the sesame street actors and the excitement it brought to the children and parents. this was a heartwarming experience that brought hope and understanding to the very special children of our very special parents who make up our military. it is never easy to try to explain death or war to a child, but with the helpful tools this program uses, like a video using the sesame street characters explaining the death to a small child or young person, the difficult issue becomes much easier to talk about. i would like to thank them for their hard work and concern for our troops. these are people that have not forgotten our men and women overseas and their families back home waiting for their return of their loved one. i encourage my colleagues to attend one of these shows at a
base in your state or near your district. i will realize, as i did, how important this program is to our military families. it is definitely something worth seeing. i like to say to "sesame street and u.s.o. and thank you for making the commitment. we know how difficult it is for our families going on these frequent deployments to iraq and afghanistan. you are making a commitment that those of us in congress are grateful for. before i close, as i do always on this floor, i ask god to please bless our men and women in uniform. i ask god to bless bless the families of our men and women in uniform. i ask god in his loving arms to has given a child in afghanistan and iraq. i ask god to bless the house and senate to do what is right in the eyes of god for his people.
and i ask god to give strength, wisdom and courage to president obama that he will always do what is right in the eyes of god for his people. i will ask three times, god please, god please continue to bless america. and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: jabts. ms. woolsey from california. ms. woolsey: i imagine many of my colleagues have read the "washington post" report on top secret america and i hope they are reacting as i am, with horror and outrage at the sprawling national security and intelligence bureaucracy that has grown like a weed in recent years. this series of articles should shock us into action. at the very least, leaving us to question the conventional wisdom about how best to keep america safe. according to "the post," the
counterterrorism and homeland security apparatus has ballooned to 1,271 government organizations working in roughly 10,000 locations around the country. there are now so many agencies analyzing so much information and issuing so many reports that the whole thing has become redundant, unmanageable and ineffective. actually, we can't measure its precise effectiveness because so much of it is shrouded in secrecy. much of the information about these agencies is classified and therefore not subject to the scrutiny it so badly needs. if this system, which is so big that the -- "the post" refers to it as the fourth branch of government where our domestic social programs our friends on the other side of the aisle would call it out-of-control
spending. but when the rhetoric starts flying it is never the intelligence programs that come in for the harshest criticism. how can we afford this but can't afford to pass a comprehensive jobs package. the organizational chart for this looks like an octopus family on steroids and it makes the proper information-sharing and dot-connecting nearly impossible. i couldn't help but note the irony. if memory serves me, 9/11 exposed the inability of our intelligence agencies to coordinate and communicate properly with one another. so what have we done in response to 9/11? grown our intelligence infrastructure in a way that makes it even harder to coordinate and communicate. of course, we would tolerate a
little bit of bloat if the evidence was clear that the system was working. according to the post analyst the fort hood shooting and christmas day bomber could have been intercepted earlier. so inefficient. the intelligence was there, but it never got into the right hands or it was lost in an avalanche of other data. mr. speaker, when it comes to protecting america, we are thinking big instead of thinking smart. there has to be a better way. we can have the intelligence capabilities we need at a fraction of the current costs and we can use much of the savings on initiatives that attack terrorism at its roots, in places where despair and hopelessness lead people to turn to terrorism in the first place. we need to dramatically increase
our investment in everything from agriculture to education to democracy building to conflict resolution in the trouble spots of the world. maybe if we increased our global humanitarian outreach and empowered nations instead of invading and occupying them, then top secret america wouldn't even be necessary. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. mr. graves from georgia is recognized for five minutes. mr. graves: unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. graves: i rise today to pay tribute to a man who is a champion from my home state of georgia. it has been 10 years this week since the passing of senator pull d. coverdale and i honor the life, spirit of such a man.
described by his colleagues as a soviet-spoken work horse, his passion was shown throughout his public service, throughout the united states army, georgia senate, united states senate and as a director of the peace corps. he was a devoted hard worker who was a pioneer for the conservative movement in georgia. some might say he was a pillar of the community, but that's an understatement. he was the foundation upon which the pillars were built. as a key figure in the establishment of a strong republican party in georgia, he was the first republican since reconstruction to be re-elected to the united states senate. he was no tore tore youse for his ability to work on both sides of the aisle and saw ways through bitter partisanship and he was well liked and respected by all his colleagues. apart from being a brilliant man he was a humble and kind man,
characterics that helped in the advancement of the cause he fought for. as a testament to his humble nature, i will share a story with you and a relationship that would change his life. while vacationing in maine in 1978, he decided he would look up the former chairman of the republican national committee george h.w. bush. he simply found his address in a phone book. he went to his home and knocked on his door and introduced himself and introduced himself to a man who what later become a president of the united states and the pair became closest friends over the next 14 years and helped each other in different ways. when president bush was elected president, the senator sent him a cover letter that said, if you would like the help, i would like to help. the president appointed him director of the peace corps. five years after his death at the dedication of the center for
biomedical and health sciences at the university of georgia, president bush said of the senator. in the washington world of bitter partisanship, paul was the voice of reason, always reaching out and putting the good of the country first and finding solutions where others might find blame or use as a political weapon. he was successful in bringing people across the political aisle. to the end, paul coverdale was a great unifier and so he was. the senator's legacy is particularly important to me as i am the first graduate of the coverdale leadership institute to be elected to the united states congress. he founded the leadership institute to support the republican party in georgia. through the building of the farm team through the republican team. and at the time, georgia was not far removed from being a single-party state. no republican had served as
governor since reconstruction. the senator began working with the current and future republican leaders training them in the practical aspects of politics and government service to ensure that there would be a bipartisan presence among georgia elected officials. i'm especially grateful to the senator for starting this forward-looking program that continues to be relevant and impactful today 10 years after the senator's death. that is certainly a life to be proud of. from the sent of biomedical and health sciences at the university of georgia to the peace corps headquarters building here in washington, d.c. and the leadership institute itself, and many other honors in between, the senator's greatest legacy lives on and i ask that his life be remembered today. thank you, mr. speaker. .
the speaker pro tempore: mr. burton of alabama -- mr. bright from alabama is recognized for five minutes. mr. bright: that's perfectly ok, i'll answer to anything. madam speaker, on july 8, the city of montgomery lost a great public servant, councilman willie cook unexpectedly passed away after suffering a massive heart attack. he was only 53 years old. he was not just a colleague, he was a trusted friend. we were elected to office in the same year, 1999, and it was an honor to work in partnership with him to move our great city forward over the nine years we served together in the city government of our capital city, montgomery, alabama. willie was known to be a tireless advocate for those he represented in council district six. as the "montgomery advertiser" noted, cook provided a strong voice for his constituents and was an aggressive advocate for what he perceived as their best
interest, end quote. last thursday, willie was laid to rest at the memorial cemetery after a service at the convention center. hundreds of friends, family, and admirers were in attendance. it was a fitting way to pay tribute to someone as accomplished as willie cook. my thoughts and prayers continue to be with his wife, lorna, his children, danica, bonita, and triffer, his five grandchildren, and his parents, willie cook jr. and daisy, as they continue to mourn the loss of their son, their husband, and their father. willie will surely be missed in our state capital, montgomery, alabama. he truly was a friend i served with in order to make a big difference in our state capitol. i thank you for allowing me to honor his life today and i
yield back the remainder of my time. the speaker pro tempore: mr. burton of indiana. mr. burton: -- the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from new york rise? >> to claim the gentleman's time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from new york is recognized for five minutes. mrs. maloney: madam speaker, the joint economic committee, which i chair, just issued the latest ae decision of our series of state-by-state snapshots of the economy. it notes that in june, private sector employment grew in 32 states and the district of columbia, while the unemployment rate declined in 39 states and the district of columbia. but the report also makes clear that our economic recovery is
at a crossroads and still faces major challenges, in large part because of the staggering job losses caused by the policies of the prior administration. as you can see, on this chart -- as you can see on this chart, how a steady descent into a red valley of severe job loss began in december, 2007. the red is the prior administration, the last month that the former president was in office this country lost 790,000 jobs. the journey back up under though because ma administration began in early 2009 and coincided with the passage of the recovery act. as you can see, we've been trending in the right direction and gaining jobs these past few
months. it's not victory, but it's -- it certainly is movement in the right direction. but as our report notes, even if the private sector was currently creating jobs at the rate of 217,000 jobs we are month, as occurred during the clinton administration, the highest sustained rate of job creation in our nation's history, it will still take over three years to recreate the 8.5 million private sector jobs lost during the great recession. the lingering high unemployment rate, particularly the long-term unemployment rate, suggests that targeted action such as our recent extension of unemployment insurance benefits are sorely needed to support growth and provide a safety net for the millions of families hurt by the recession.
but there is still much more that congress can and should do, particularly to help small businesses recover. as chairman bernanke pointed out today we need to find ways to provide small, credit-worthy businesses with additional lending, something that i have supported and the democrats have supported from day one. small businesses andest -- these small businesses are the backbone of u.s. labor market. 75% of working americans are employed at businesses with fewer than 250 employees. but a study earlier this year by the joint economic committee found that in the wake of the financial crisis, limited access to capital and credit continues and it has a serious impact on small business hiring.
the tough credit standards that banks are now imposing even on credit worthy small businesses have hamstrung their ability to expand and create jobs. you can see the results of that in this chart which the joint economic committee prepared and this chart looks at the business hiring by mid and large businesses and compares it with the small business hire chg is still in decline. in most recoveries, it is small businesses that are the first to hire, but in this recovery, we see that it is the mid sized and the large businesses that are hiring and that small businesses are not hiring so they do need more support and more help in this economy. one additional thing we should do is ensure that small businesses are able to compete fairly for the federal
contracts for which they are qualified and the federal government contracts out roughly $435 billion every year, and under current law, federal agencies are required to establish contracting goals with at least 23% of all government buying targeted to smaller firms because they are the back bone, they hire the majority of americans. but according to an analysis prepared by the american small business league of federal data, some of the small businesses that have been awarded federal contracts under the provision for small business contracts include some of the largest companies in america. boeing, northrup grumman, general die nanic, hewlett-packard, at&t and rolls royce. these are all extremely fine company bus by no stretch of
the imagination are they small companies. that's why i urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the fairness and transparency contracting act of 2009 sponsored by my good friend and colleague, congressman henry johnson. h.r. 2568 would modify the definition of small businesses in the small business act to include the requirement that no publicly traded company can qualify as a small business. may i request additional time? the speaker pro tempore: the speaker's announced spoil does not permit the gentlelady's -- does not permit. the gentlelady's time has expired. mrs. maloney: it would require that small should mean small and require fairness and transparency so i urge my colleagues to join me in
co-sponsoring this important bill. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady ro -- the gentlelady yields back her time. for what purpose does the gentleman rise? >> i present a privileged report for filing under the rule. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title. the clerk: report to accompany h.r. 5822, a bill make -- making appropriations for military construction, the department of veterans' affairs and related agencies for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2011, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the union calendar and ordered printed. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 21, points of order are reserved. ms. watson of california. mr. burton of indiana.
mr. is a plan of puerto rico. ms. ros-lehtinen of florida. ms. kaptur of ohio. mr. gingrey of georgia. mr. defazio of oregon. mr. flake of arizona. under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2009, the gentleman from georgia, mr. broun is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader. mr. broun: thank you, mr. speaker. americans all over this country are asking, where are the jobs? where are the jobs? we just heard from the previous speaker bragging about the recovery act which has been an abject failure. an abject failure. there have been very few private sector jobs created around this country. what has been created are a lot
of government jobs here in washington, d.c. if someone is looking for a job here in washington, they have a lot of opportunities because government continues to grow exponentially. exponentially. but what's not happening, jobs are not being created out in georgia or around this country. where they're so desperately needed. private sector jobs. i was talking to one of my county commission chairmen recently he said, paul, one year ago in our county, the unemployment rate was 14.3%. i said, oh, my goodness. in my district, we have a very poor district, except for the two major cities, athens and augusta, the a -- the augusta area and the athens area and this is not one of those counties. he said a year ago the unemployment rate was 14.3%.
now it's 10.7% officially. i said that is great. hallelujah, praise the lord. where did the jobs come from? he said, paul, there aren't any jobs. people have just gotten discouraged and quit looking. they've fallen off the unemployment rolls. there are no new jobs here. we're losing jobs. our people and our count -- our people in our county are leaving. they're disgusted and disappointed. that's what's happening all over this country. how do i know that? republicans a couple of months ago launched a website, asking american people to speak out, it's called americaspeakingout.com. we're asking americans to go to americaspeakingout.com, register, it's simple, no cost, and tell us what we should be doing here in congress, right now, today, not only to create jobs but to get the economy back on track. how to deal with health care.
how to deal with the issues that the american people are facing today. we're asking america to speak out. you see, mr. speaker, we live in a republic, representative government. the only way we can continue representative government is if representatives listen to the american people. i've got to say -- i've got a sad, sad thing to say. the leadership in this house don't listen to the american people. give you an example. when we were debating obamacare, 3/4 of america did not want that bill passed. 3/4 of america said no to obamacare. 2/3 today say, at least 60%, or more, say repeal it. repeal it. our leadership here in the democratic side didn't listen to the american people.