Dave Camp

Mr. CAMP

Mr. CAMP. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities said that these welfare emergency fund jobs only last as long as the funding does. Frankly, nearly half of the ``jobs'' Democrats claim have been created are summer jobs, which are either over or are about to be. Let me just say that it is pretty well-known here that Governors of every political stripe are obviously looking to the Federal Government for cash, but the fact is we are broke. At this time I yield 2 minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger).

Mr. CAMP. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. CAMP. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. CAMP

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, three weeks ago we were here talking about this. Two months ago we were here talking about this. And even if this bill becomes law, in four months we will likely be back again talking about this. The specific subject is extended unemployment benefits. But the real issue, and what is driving the need for a record 99 weeks of unemployment benefits, is this Administration's woeful record when it comes to creating jobs that provide paychecks, instead of unemployment checks. In February 2009, the President signed into law the Democrats' trillion-dollar ``stimulus'' plan. That was the plan Democrats promised would create 3.7 million jobs, keep unemployment under 8 percent, and stimulate strong private sector job growth. None of that happened. Instead, over 2 million more jobs were lost and unemployment spiked to 10 percent, though the number of government jobs has grown somewhat. So here we are again--extending unemployment benefits because stimulus failed to create the millions of jobs Democrats promised. But instead of doing this responsibly, this bill will simply add another $34 billion to our $13 trillion mountain of debt. We can do better than this. Both Republicans and Democrats support helping the long-term unemployed. And both Republicans and Democrats want to responsibly pay for these benefits. That would be far better than adding to the unchecked growth in our debt that is already costing us jobs, and that threatens to overwhelm our economy in debt and higher taxes for decades to come. The fact is, we can both provide this help and pay for it by cutting less effective stimulus spending. The last time we debated unemployment benefits, I offered a motion to pay for that spending. That is what the Heller substitute to this bill would have done if it was made in order today. Even the Democrat Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Senator Baucus, has also proposed cutting stimulus to pay for certain extenders. The American people know it isn't right to add these costs to our already overdrawn national credit card. They want to help those in need. But they also know someone has to pay when government spends money. That assistance must not put our fiscal house as a Nation in even worse shape--and we are already in terrible shape. I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to reject this bill today and instead work together to quickly pass a bill to extend Federal unemployment benefits while responsibly paying for it. That is what we should have been doing all along, which would have prevented the lapse in benefits millions have already experienced. Democrat Leaders rejected that obvious compromise, leading to needless additional suffering in recent weeks by millions of unemployed workers who want a job. But it is not too late to fix this, and to do so responsibly, so that we do right by the unemployed, as well as future generations.

Mr. CAMP

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield such time as he may consume to the ranking member of the Trade Subcommittee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady).

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time. I will make a statement when it's time to close.

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. First, let me address the rule of the House. It's very clear that these are treated the same way, if you look at the rules. In fact, if you pull the rules of the House out, there is subsection called ``Congressional Earmarks.'' All of this is listed in that section. So it's very clear that there was an intent to incorporate, unfortunately wrongly, these kinds of provisions in the earmark process. We didn't write that rule. The Democrats wrote that rule. We are trying to have some integrity to the entire process. Now, I realize that on the other side, whether it's a budget, and the Budget Act of 1974, you ignore that; whether it's PAYGO, you ignore that whenever it suits your needs and, quote, ``find an emergency'' to get around that. But the fact is we need to reform this process. We have not done that. And I have in personal terms urged the chairman not to bring this under suspension of the rules. The last time this bill was on suspension in the 109th Congress it failed, and a majority of the Democrats voted against the bill. I think this is not the process in order to find a bipartisan path forward on this bill. What we really need to do, I think what should have been done, is not bring this bill where it requires a supermajority, because I think it is very likely the bill will fail. And that may be the political outcome that my friends on the other side wanted. But in order to move this legislation in a bipartisan way forward, I think it's going to be important to get a rule, which I am certain will occur, and we will be back on the floor very shortly addressing this matter with a rule and a simple majority vote. So I would just urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill until we can find a way to bring this legislation to the floor with a bipartisan rule that we have had the ranking member on the Rules Committee come forward and say he would be willing to work with the majority to find a way to resolve this issue. Again, I urge a ``no'' vote on this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CAMP. At this time, Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier). (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CAMP. I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I'm disappointed that I can't support this legislation. The Miscellaneous Tariff bill has long been a bipartisan effort that helps both American manufacturers and consumers obtain lower-cost access to products that aren't made in the United States. I appreciate the chairman following my statements so carefully and even quoting them to this House, because the process used to assemble this legislation is a model in transparency and accountability. It has been a longstanding process used by many Congresses under both Republican and Democrat control, and it should serve as an example of how similar legislation should be prepared. Every provision is first introduced as a separate bill. Each provision is vetted by the administration and by the U.S. ITC, the International Trade Commission, and is subject to public notice and comment. All information is posted on the committee Web site. And any provision receiving any opposition is removed from the final package. In my view, this bill technically does not contain earmarks in the form of limited tariff benefits. Each provision lowers duties on imports; and any company or entity or person that imports that product receives the benefit of those lower duties, not just those few that we can positively identify today. But despite these facts, Democrats have written the rules of the House in such a way as to treat limited tariff benefits like other earmarks, and the Democrats were wrong to do so. The Republican Conference has taken the position, and correctly so, that we are taking a 1-year moratorium on all the provisions included in the Democrat rule to demonstrate our commitment to getting government spending under control. I am committed to both the letter and spirit of that moratorium and therefore will vote against the bill. In fact, the majority is well aware of our earmark ban, and I can't help but wonder if this wasn't put on the suspension calendar after 3\1/2\ years without a vote so that it would fail and they might avoid taking the blame. It's a sham and it won't work. The business community knows it, the American workers whose jobs depend on it know it, and we know it. Democrats have had 3\1/2\ years to pass the Miscellaneous Tariff bill and they have failed to do so. Congress has not passed a miscellaneous tariff bill since December of 2006, right before the Democrats took the majority and except for the Peru Free Trade Agreement have brought no trade legislation to the floor in the time that they have been in the majority. Given the state of our economy, given the loss of jobs, I think that record is not only an embarrassing one; it's a shameful one. And the record speaks for itself. Republicans have long supported the MTB and U.S. employers, while the Democrats have written the rules of the House to discriminate against this bill. Under this majority, business investment and hiring are frozen in the face of looming tax hikes, smothering government regulation, and little, very little-- frankly, no action on the trade agenda. A true commitment to trade and the good-paying U.S. jobs it provides would involve passing the pending bilateral trade agreements which economically are even more important to this country than the bill before us today. Mr. Speaker, what you're seeing today is merely one more attempt by the majority to distract American workers and employers from the real damage they've done to the American economy. This legislation cannot overcome the $670 billion in new taxes already passed by this Congress and the billions more coming. It cannot overcome the anti-business attitude of so much of the legislation produced by the majority. Mr. Speaker, if my friends on the other side of the aisle were truly interested in helping American manufacturers, they would be lowering taxes, knocking down trade barriers, and supporting the private sector. This legislation is no substitute for those policies. The House should take a breather from earmarks as called for in the moratorium from the Republican Conference. It is unfortunate that this pause includes the MTB; but we didn't write the rule, the majority did. I urge my colleagues to show the American people that we are serious about reforming the way Washington works and vote ``no.'' I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CAMP

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, this motion to recommit on H.R. 5618 has a provision to pay for the extended unemployment benefits proposed in the underlying bill. We think it is important to help long-term unemployed people, and we want to do it without adding another $34 billion to the Nation's record $13 trillion debt. We know that the stimulus hasn't worked. In its wake, nearly 3 million private-sector jobs were lost, unemployed soared to 10 percent nationwide, and 48 out of 50 States lost jobs. So this motion to recommit pays for the $34 billion in Federal unemployment costs by cutting that much in unspent stimulus spending. Only a portion of the $1 trillion stimulus has been paid out, $414 billion as of June 18, as reported by the official Recovery Act Web site. That leaves hundreds of billions of dollars unspent and available to offset this bill. I would like to quote from the Statement of Administration Policy last November: ``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.'' That statement was about the only one of the eight unemployment benefits extender bills so far that was actually paid for. But the same can and should be said about this motion. It is fiscally responsible, and it is central to the recovery of our economy and job creation. I would also like to read a quote from Speaker Pelosi that appeared in Congress Daily AM on Monday. She said, ``I am hard-put to pass any more initiatives here unless there is some reasonable prospect of success on the Senate side.'' Well, there isn't a reasonable prospect of success on the Senate side unless we adopt this motion to recommit. Just last night, the Senate rejected the unpaid-for version of this bill. Rejecting this motion ensures this bill will die in the Senate and that hundreds of thousands of unemployed Americans will continue to go without their unemployment benefits. I urge all Members to join me in supporting this motion to recommit, which will help today's unemployed workers and improve the future for our children and grandchildren by not adding to our debt. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I appeal the ruling of the chair.

Mr. CAMP. I am, in its present form.

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, at a time of record deficits, it should always be germane to consider proposals to offset higher spending. And, in light of the Senate already rejecting an unpaid-for version of this bill just last night, I ask that the Speaker deny the point of order so we can pay for this bill and ensure that unemployed Americans do not continue to go without unemployment benefits.

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker I would like to be heard on the point of order.

Mr. CAMP

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, this debate has shown the length the majority will go to in order to avoid paying for any government spending, even calling the eighth extension of unemployment benefits an emergency. One would hope that even the Congress would see this coming after the first seven times. We could pass this bill with broad bipartisan support if Democrats would just agree to pay for the spending. Instead, their refusal to pay for these benefits will mean hundreds of thousands of unemployed Americans are losing unemployment benefits at a time when the unemployment rate is nearly 10 percent, and it shouldn't be this way, because this bill is going nowhere. The American people know we must pay for the spending, and the Senate appears to have heard that message. Just last night the Senate rejected this bill, so it has no hope of being signed into law. Given the Senate vote, this isn't just an exercise in fiscal irresponsibility; it's an exercise in futility. The unemployed are facing a personal emergency, and our country's facing an emergency that affects us all and future generations. The mountain of debt this bill will only add to. If we want to help those who are out of work, let's pass something that might actually pass the Senate and won't increase the deficit, such as the motion to recommit that I'll be offering in a moment. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CAMP. At this time I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Heller), a distinguished Member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would say to my friend from New Jersey, we agree this is important. This is important. This is so important that we believe that we should pay for this. And let me just quote the majority leader, who was on ABC's This Week, said, ``There is spending fatigue across the country.'' His words. And that he's encouraging the administration to look at last year's $787 billion stimulus package to see if some money can be redirected. I would just say, if this is so important, why not let us offer an amendment to use the unspent stimulus dollars to cut some other wasteful part of government to find some way to pay for this important program. That's all I say. If we could just get an agreement to offer an amendment to do that and move forward. But no, this bill comes to the floor under the most restrictive rule the House can possibly pass. We cannot offer any amendments. If this is that important, why not let us offer an amendment to find some way to pay for this bill? At this time I yield 2 minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Louisiana, Dr. Boustany.

Mr. CAMP. I yield myself such time as I may consume. What we've been hearing most of today is really a false choice, that we either do this bill unpaid for or do nothing at all. And in a $3 trillion budget, we can't find the $34 billion to pay for this bill? As I said before, I have supported the extension of unemployment benefits. I've voted for the extension of unemployment benefits. But given the fiscal shape this country is in now, we believe that it's important to offer these benefits and also pay for these benefits so that we don't help today's unemployed at the expense of tomorrow's future job seekers. And the effect on the debt, and I could go through the litany. Obviously, it didn't start last year. But if you look at what has happened since January of 2009, a $410 billion supplemental that included 8,500 earmarks, a $1 trillion stimulus, a $1 trillion health care bill. We've got hundreds of billions of dollars in unspent stimulus that isn't being returned to the taxpayers that could be redirected to pay for these unemployment benefits that isn't. So what I hear is, We just need to spend. And this is an important need, but why not let us offer an amendment to find a way to pay for these extended unemployment benefits? Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CAMP. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would just say to my friend from Michigan that not even Democrat Senator Ben Nelson supported the bill last night. I know my friend is trying to paint this as a totally Republican issue, but there were Democrat Senators who didn't support the bill, and I mentioned one of them. Let me just say that I realize this is about Republicans and Democrats who care about the future of this country. Yet it is said that Albert Einstein once defined insanity as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. Well, that's exactly what the Democrats are doing today--trying to pass, for the third time, an unpaid-for extension of unemployment benefits that the Senate Republicans and Democrats--and the American people--have repeatedly rejected. In fact, just last night, the Senate again said, thanks, but no thanks, to this fiscal insanity. Democrats should put an end to this sham and should pay for this $34 billion spending bill so unemployed Americans can get the help they deserve. Let me be clear: I support and Republicans have supported extending unemployment benefits, but we must not do so at a cost to the deficit, to the economy, and to future generations. Our inability to get our fiscal house in order isn't just damaging future generations; it is wreaking havoc on job creation today. Surely, if Congress can find money to protect doctors, then we can find money to protect the unemployed. On Tuesday, the House defeated this same bill, one that would add $34 billion to the deficit under a process that banned any amendments, including any efforts to pay for this bill. Again today, we are on the floor, under a process that bans all amendments. Any attempt for us to offer a way to pay for this legislation is banned under the Democrat autocratic rule of this House. The only way we can address this issue is to offer a motion to recommit to actually pay for benefits. There is a way to pay for this spending, and it is something we ought to do. Any Member who is serious about reining in the deficit should vote in favor of this MTR. There is an inability or an unwillingness--or both--on the part of the Democrats to pay for this bill. Unemployment benefits have been expired for almost a month, leaving hundreds of thousands of long-term unemployed people without the benefits they need, and that number grows every week. Let me repeat that fact. Americans are not receiving their unemployment checks because Democrats refuse to pay for these benefits at a time of record Federal deficits. As I said on Tuesday, the American people know it isn't right to simply add the cost of this spending to our already-overdrawn national credit card. They want us to help those in need, but they also know that someone has to pay when government spends money. That assistance must not put our fiscal house as a nation in even worse shape, and we are already in terrible shape. The stimulus hasn't worked. In its wake, nearly 3 million private- sector jobs were lost, unemployment soared to 10 percent nationwide, and 48 out of 50 States lost jobs. The American people should not be punished for the failure of the stimulus, and our children and grandchildren should not be punished for the failure of this Congress to act in a fiscally responsible manner. Even the administration has agreed in the past that paying for unemployment benefits, and I quote, ``is fiscally responsible, and that fiscal responsibility is central to the medium-term recovery of the economy and the creation of jobs.'' That is a quote from the Statement of Administration Policy on a bill last fall extending these same benefits, the only one of eight unemployment extensions so far that was fully paid for. So let's heed their admonition. Reject this bill, as the Senate already has, and vote to support the unemployed in favor of a fiscally responsible way by supporting the motion to recommit. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 3 minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder).

Mr. CAMP. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.