[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 142 (Thursday, September 22, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H6366-H6374]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    WAIVING REQUIREMENT OF CLAUSE 6(a) OF RULE XIII WITH RESPECT TO 
                  CONSIDERATION OF CERTAIN RESOLUTIONS

  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 409 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 409

       Resolved, That the requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII 
     for a two-thirds vote to consider a report from the Committee 
     on Rules on the same day it is presented to the House is 
     waived with respect to any resolution reported through the 
     legislative day of September 30, 2011, relating to a measure 
     making continuing appropriations for the fiscal year ending 
     September 30, 2011.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California is recognized 
for 1 hour.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to my very good friend, my Rules Committee 
colleague, the gentleman from Worcester, Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), 
pending which I yield myself such time as I might consume. During 
consideration of the resolution, all time that is yielded is yielded 
for debate purposes only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. DREIER. I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 
legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on the 
matter that is before us.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, we are dealing with extraordinarily 
challenging times.
  The American people have been sending a message to us which is 
powerful and overwhelming, and it's one that I believe that both 
Democrats and Republicans have heard, and that is: We need to get our 
economy back on track. We need to make sure that we have a climate that 
will create jobs so that people--many of whom I represent, sadly, and I 
know the Speaker faces the same thing in the Show Me State of Missouri, 
and my friend in his State of Massachusetts faces this. We have friends 
and neighbors who have lost their jobs, who have lost their homes, who 
have lost their businesses, and the message that has come to us 
overwhelmingly is that we must put into place policies that will 
encourage job creation and economic growth.
  We obviously have a very troubled global economy. The developments 
that have taken place in Europe have played a big role in leading to 
today's huge drop in the stock market. I haven't looked at it in the 
last few minutes, but earlier today it was down over 400 points, and I 
know we have obviously difficult decisions that lie ahead for many.
  We, as an institution, the United States Congress, have a 
responsibility to address the fiscal needs and challenges that are 
before us. One of those challenges and one of the factors that has 
played a role in the economic downturn, I believe very strongly, has 
been the $14\1/2\ trillion national debt that looms before us.
  Again, as you know very well, Madam Speaker, in a bipartisan way, 
Democrats and Republicans alike decry the $14\1/2\ trillion national 
debt that we have and the fact that we have deficits going as far as 
the eye can see.
  Now, we know that last July, just before we adjourned for the month 
of August, we had to deal with the question of whether or not we were 
going to increase the debt ceiling. We tackled that issue, and we ended 
up coming to a bipartisan consensus. We all knew that it was necessary 
for us to increase the debt ceiling because there was a responsibility 
to pay the bills that have been accumulated in the past.
  From this side of the aisle, we complained and fought against the 82 
percent increase in non-defense discretionary spending that we've seen 
over the past 4 years, but with that money having been spent, we 
recognized that the bills had to be paid.
  That led us, Madam Speaker, to come to a bipartisan consensus that we 
would, in fact, increase the debt ceiling; but we had to tackle, in a 
bipartisan way, the deficit and debt issues that are looming before us.
  So we put into place a joint select committee which, as we all know, 
is going to be charged with, by November 23, completing its work and, 
by December 23, having a vote in the House and the Senate. And if 
they're not successful, we will deal with sequestration, which will be 
across-the-board spending cuts that I don't think anyone wants to see 
happen because we want to be in a position where we make those 
decisions for $1\1/2\ trillion. And as many have said, that group of 
Senators the other day said a $4 trillion--excuse me--$4 billion. What 
is the number? I was right, $4 trillion. Excuse me. You know the 
proverbial Everett Dirksen line: A billion here, a billion there; 
before long, you're talking about real money. And that was five decades 
ago that he said that, and we are where we are now.
  So the plan, as proposed by some, Madam Speaker, would take us to as 
much as $4 trillion in spending cuts, and I hope we can do that in a 
bipartisan way.
  Now we are in a position where we--as I said yesterday during the 
debate on the rule on this issue, last year, for the first time since 
the 1974 Budget Act was put into place, we didn't have a budget that 
was proposed to us.

                              {time}  1540

  Hey, I'm not in the business of pointing the finger of blame. I'm 
just in the business of looking at the facts of where we are. So we 
know what has been inherited. We know, as we hear these very strong 
statements being made, that we've gone through a difficult 9 months. We 
had to deal with the continuing resolution to simply clean up the mess. 
The Acting Speaker is a member of the Appropriations Committee, and she 
knows very well the challenges that we had with those appropriations 
bills having to be done last year. That Appropriations Committee on 
which the Acting Speaker sits has to deal with this issue, and had to 
deal with it earlier this year. Today, Madam Speaker, we are in a 
similar position.
  We, right now, know that the fiscal year comes to an end next week. 
We have some very important priorities that need to be addressed, and 
the one that everyone is talking about is the fact that we have seen 
disaster after disaster hit this Nation. We are determined to ensure 
that those who have suffered most over the past several weeks and 
months from disasters--flooding--and I remember seeing my colleague 
from Vermont (Mr. Welch) yesterday. He sent out photographs of the 
devastation of the flooding that has taken place in Vermont. In 
Pennsylvania, we just had a Republican Conference at which one of our 
new colleagues, Mr. Marino, was up, talking about the fact that he has 
been walking through mud, talking to families--to parents who have 
their children literally sitting on automobiles because they can't get 
into their homes--and asking what it is that they're going to do.
  We have our fellow Americans who are suffering, and we want to ensure 
that the dollars necessary for the Federal Emergency Management Agency 
are there. The chairman of the Appropriations Committee reported to us 
that we're seeing about $30 million a day being expended through the 
FEMA funding, and there's about $200 million left. So we are faced with 
the prospect of expiration--the expiration of all of the resources that 
FEMA needs--by this weekend, Madam Speaker. That's the reason that we 
are back here today.

[[Page H6367]]

  We all know what happened yesterday. The Democratic majority and some 
Republicans chose to vote ``no'' on the continuing resolution, which 
would simply take us from now to November 18--a very short period of 
time, just a matter of a month and a half--so that during that time we 
can, as Speaker Boehner has said, deal with the overall appropriations 
process and establish the priorities. So we are here today, having had 
a meeting in the Rules Committee last night, calling for same-day 
consideration so that, quite possibly, with some modifications, we can 
bring up that bill which had enjoyed bipartisan support.
  It is no secret, I'm sure the Democrats will acknowledge, that the 
minority whip, Mr. Hoyer, and the ranking member of the Appropriations 
Committee, Mr. Dicks from Seattle, both had indicated earlier support. 
They acknowledge it. They're on the record as having done that. They 
said that they had changed their minds, and I respect that. Members 
have a right to change their minds. We all have a right to change our 
minds. But that decision was made, and we went to the vote and the 
votes were not there.
  Madam Speaker, I think there is clearly a bipartisan understanding 
that ensuring that resources get to our fellow Americans who are 
suffering due to these disasters that have hit--hurricanes, tornadoes, 
flooding--is a priority that we all share. Personally, I'd like to see 
the Federal Government get out of being the place of first resort for 
the American people to look to when there is a time of disaster.
  In fact, the Acting Speaker's late husband, with whom I was elected 
in 1980, led an effort, going back decades, when he served here, that 
was working on proposals for us to address the disaster relief issue, 
which was a very, very challenging one. He explored and came up with 
some great proposals for how we could deal with disasters beyond having 
the Federal Government be the place of first resort for the American 
people when they are faced with the aftermath of a disaster.
  But, Madam Speaker, those changes that were proposed by my late 
colleague Bill Emerson were not made in order, were not addressed, were 
not implemented, and so we are where we are; and while I'd love to see 
those changes down the road, today we need to address the very pressing 
needs that our fellow Americans have for some kind of resolution to 
this issue.
  We have this same-day rule so that we can today pass with what I hope 
will be strong bipartisan support a continuing resolution that will 
simply carry us from now to November 18, during which time we will see, 
Madam Speaker, you and the other members of the Appropriations 
Committee work to come up with some kind of resolution to this issue.
  I am going to urge my colleagues to support this measure in the name 
of bipartisanship, in the name of our effort to try and resolve this 
pressing issue.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I want to thank the gentleman from California, Chairman 
Dreier, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself 
such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. McGOVERN. Here we go again, Madam Speaker. Republicans are, once 
again, going back on their promises for a more open, more transparent 
House of Representatives--another martial law rule designed to fix 
problems of their own doing, another effort to break the rules just to 
fix their own mess.
  And it didn't have to be this way.
  For months, we've known that more disaster assistance was needed to 
address the aftermath of the tragedy in Joplin and, more recently, to 
address the damage caused by Irene as it made its way from North 
Carolina up the east coast into New England. Americans respond to 
natural disasters. That's what we do. We always have. We rise to the 
occasion when our neighbors are in need. The problem is when 
politicians start playing politics with people's lives, and that's 
where we find ourselves today.
  Yesterday, the Republican leadership brought a continuing resolution 
to the floor that not only provided less disaster assistance than that 
of the Senate, it also offset that funding by cutting a green jobs 
initiative. It's not enough that we've been in session 261 days without 
a single jobs proposal from the Republicans. With yesterday's 
continuing resolution, Republicans actually proposed cutting a jobs 
program just to make political points with their Tea Party base.
  Yesterday, Democrats said enough--enough to the job-killing 
Republican agenda, enough to the notion that fiscal austerity means 
turning our backs on people in need, enough to the ``my way or the 
highway'' attitude that seems to make up the ideology of the Republican 
leadership.
  Yesterday, 48 Republicans joined 182 Democrats in defeating the 
continuing resolution. According to Politico, it was ``an embarrassing 
setback.''
  Yesterday, Republicans and Democrats said, Don't play games with the 
lives of Americans.
  It's almost as if the Republicans blame the victims of the hurricane 
and tornado for having the audacity to live in the paths of those 
natural disasters. So here we are again, forced to consider a martial 
law rule in an attempt to fix the problems that the Republicans, 
themselves, created, a martial law rule that not only waives the rules 
of the House but that also allows for the immediate consideration of a 
new continuing resolution.
  No time to read the bill, even though the Republicans started out the 
year by promising 72 hours to look at any legislation voted on in the 
House. No time to read the bill. No ability to amend the bill.
  So much for the new open Congress.
  It wasn't too long ago that my colleagues on the Rules Committee were 
touting the new open Congress. Look how far this new Republican House 
has fallen.
  Madam Speaker, it is disappointing that we're here today. It's 
disappointing that the Republicans are making a mockery of the 
legislative process. It's disappointing that they continue to choose 
politics over the American people. The American people deserve better 
than this.
  With that, Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
to say to my friend that it's very unfortunate. In my opening remarks, 
I made the best attempt that I could to be as bipartisan as possible. 
Democrats and Republicans alike recognize that we've had the most open 
House, the most transparent process, and that more amendments have been 
made in order.
  I am very proud that the Rules Committee has repeatedly made McGovern 
amendments in order that have been proposed to the Rules Committee. In 
the measure that we have addressing the regulation issue, we made every 
single amendment that complied with the rules of the House in order--an 
amendment offered by my friend Mr. Hastings.
  So, to talk about these sorts of crocodile tears, Madam Speaker, the 
House has gotten to a new low. We need to make sure that the American 
people who are suffering and in need have the resources that are 
necessary.

                              {time}  1550

  The measure that is before us has a higher level of funding for those 
who are in need than the President has proposed to ensure that we 
immediately get those dollars to the people who are suffering, and 
there are people all over this country who have been suffering through 
these disasters, and it needs to be done.
  Madam Speaker, I will say that we are what we are. The legislative 
process is not always a pretty one, but I began by talking about our 
priority of job creation and economic growth; limiting the size and 
scope and reach of the Federal Government; trying to decrease the 
regulatory burden, which our TRAIN Act--which we just debated the rule 
on a little while ago--is designed to address these sorts of steps, 
designed to make sure that more Americans will have opportunities to be 
members of the workforce, to be able to support their families and so 
that people won't see their small businesses lost because of the 
economic downturn. Those are the priorities that we have, and getting 
our fiscal house in order while meeting our priorities which, in this 
day and age, disaster assistance is one of, are what we've got to do.

[[Page H6368]]

  So I am proud to work closely with my Democratic colleagues. I am 
proud of the fact that they have been supportive, Madam Speaker, of a 
number of the measures that we have had before us; and I am proud that 
we have been able to take many of their ideas, Madam Speaker, and allow 
them to be considered on the House floor so that we've been able to 
have a free-flowing debate.
  That's what the American people want. I believe that since every 
Member of this House represents just about the same number of people, 
about 600,000. Under the new census, it will be, I think, 704,000 
constituents, that they have a right to be heard, they have a right to 
have their ideas considered.
  That hasn't always been the case under Republicans or Democrats in 
the past, but today it is. We're doing our doggone-est to make sure 
that more Members have their ideas considered.
  I am very proud of that fact, and I will say that I regularly have 
Democrats come to me and say they are very appreciative of the fact 
that we have been able to allow their ideas to be considered on the 
House floor.
  I am proud of the strides that we have been making under Speaker 
Boehner. We have a long way to go, but this is all inside baseball 
stuff. As you know very well, Madam Speaker, the priority is job 
creation and economic growth to ensure that our fellow Americans have 
the kinds of opportunities that they need.
  Let us proceed. This is a procedure that I don't particularly like, 
but in light of the fact that there had been a bipartisan agreement 
yesterday that did not work out--that's about the nicest way that I can 
put it, it didn't work out--and so we had no choice other than to allow 
for a rule that would provide for same-day consideration simply of this 
measure to ensure that we don't go through a government shutdown.
  I mean, we wouldn't be doing a same-day rule, Madam Speaker, if we 
weren't faced with, frankly, the threat--and I'm not going to point the 
finger of blame, but I will say it hasn't been Republicans who have 
been talking about the idea of a government shutdown. It's something 
that has come from some others and some on the other side of the 
Capitol who have talked about the prospect of that. We want to avoid 
it. We want to ensure it doesn't happen.
  And so we're going to have an opportunity, Madam Speaker, to have a 
measure before us that will address the very important priorities of 
disaster assistance and other areas which doesn't cut as much as I 
would like. I would have loved to have voted ``no'' yesterday, Madam 
Speaker, because I believe that the spending level is higher than it 
should be.
  The Republicans do, in fact, have a majority in the House of 
Representatives, but our Democratic colleagues have a majority in the 
United States Senate. We know that President Obama is a Democrat. In 
light of that, we have to come to some kind of a bipartisan consensus. 
So we're turning ourselves inside out to make that happen, and we have 
done it time and time again; and this is another example of it.
  I hope that we will be able to move ahead and as expeditiously as 
possible provide the assurance that our fellow Americans need.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I'm a little bit confused. The gentleman referred to 
the legislation before us that it would provide this for the American 
people and that for the American people.
  The legislation before us is a martial law rule which says that a 
bill that we have yet to see will be able to be brought up on the floor 
for same-day consideration. So I don't know what's in the new 
continuing resolution.
  Maybe the gentleman can enlighten us: Do we expect a vote on the 
continuing resolution today? When can we see this continuing 
resolution? Does the gentleman have any insight that he can fill us in 
on and when Members might actually be able to see the bill?
  Mr. DREIER. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DREIER. First of all, let me express my apologies; 99.999 percent 
of the time I am always riveted to the words of my friend from 
Worcester when he is offering his thoughts. I have to admit I was 
talking to our distinguished Rules Committee colleague, Mr. Webster, 
over here.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Let me reclaim my time and repeat the question.
  The question is that the gentleman on a number of occasions referred 
to that the bill provides this for the American people and that for the 
American people when the bill before us is a martial law rule. We 
haven't seen the continuing resolution. When do we expect to see it? 
Are we voting on it today?
  Mr. DREIER. First of all, let me thank the gentleman and say that he 
is right on mark in raising that question. It's not only a fair 
question; it's an appropriate question to ask of me.
  The answer is we will have a meeting in the House Rules Committee 
right upstairs on the third floor, at which time we will have before us 
a proposal that I can tell you will be very similar to the measure that 
was considered yesterday. As you know, there was $1.043 trillion in 
that proposal.
  Mr. McGOVERN. If I can reclaim my time, will that be in the next 
hour? Will that be today?
  Mr. DREIER. It's my hope that we'll be able to do this today. That's 
the reason, as my friend knows, we were going to pass this measure 
yesterday and it didn't work out. I mean, that's part of the 
legislative process.
  I thank my friend for yielding.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Reclaiming my time, the Rules Committee will consider 
it today, and then we would vote on it tonight? Is that the plan?
  Mr. DREIER. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, what I would say is that I hope the Rules Committee 
will be able to meet in the not-too-distant future. It's now about 2\1/
2\ minutes before 4 o'clock. I can't say how quickly we'll be able to 
meet.
  We certainly, as is always the case, will give the minority ample 
notice for them to have a chance to look at whatever modifications are 
made to the continuing resolution that will be before us.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Is that 1 hour or 72 hours?
  Mr. DREIER. Excuse me?
  Mr. McGOVERN. Will you give me 1 hour, or 72 hours as was promised?
  Mr. DREIER. I have no idea what the gentleman is talking about. What 
is 72 hours? What is that?
  Mr. McGOVERN. My understanding was that one of the pledges of the new 
Republican majority was that we were going to have a 72-hour layover to 
be able to read the bill.
  Mr. DREIER. Well, there was never any such pledge made. If the 
gentleman looks at the rules of the House, he knows very well that 
there's nothing in there that states 72 hours.
  Mr. McGOVERN. If I could reclaim my time, I thought in the rules of 
the House it was 3 calendar days.
  Mr. DREIER. That is true. As the gentleman knows very well, we're in 
a position right now where we're dealing with an emergency situation; 
the American people are hurting. We had the measure before us with a 
full 3 days. It was put online on Monday, and so we had the 3 full 
days. And it is true, we're looking at what would be possibly an 
amendment to that measure, and so we will be in compliance.
  First of all, again, let me say, Madam Speaker, that there was not 
any 72 hours in the rules of the House, if the gentleman would look at 
the rules of the House. It is a 3-day layover requirement, and I 
believe that we will be in full compliance with the 3-day layover.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Reclaiming my time, if I understand the gentleman 
correctly, we may or may not meet soon. We may or may not vote on it 
today.
  Mr. DREIER. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McGOVERN. I'm happy to yield.
  Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding.
  Let me just say that obviously we had a bipartisan agreement that was 
voted on yesterday that did not enjoy bipartisan support. I say that 
based on

[[Page H6369]]

the fact that we had agreements made in colloquies that took place----
  Mr. McGOVERN. If I can reclaim my time, the gentleman mentioned our 
distinguished minority whip on a number of occasions. I don't recall 
him ever saying that he supported the Republican bill.

                              {time}  1600

  Mr. DREIER. Let me specifically say that the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Dicks), the ranking member of the Appropriations 
Committee, indicated before the gentleman and the other Rules Committee 
members and me that he would be supportive of the measure; and he had a 
right to change his mind.
  And, second, in the colloquy that took place last week between the 
distinguished minority whip and the majority leader, the minority whip 
indicated that he was supportive of the continuing resolution.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Reclaiming my time, I don't recall that, and I'll check 
with the minority whip to double-check on that.
  I guess I'm just trying to provide some information to the Members of 
the House who are watching what's going on.
  Am I correct in saying that, as of right now, we don't know when 
we're going to meet and we don't know when we'll see a final version of 
the continuing resolution?
  Mr. DREIER. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McGOVERN. Yes.
  Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, let me say that, first, to address the issue that was 
raised earlier, there was confusion. I don't know what the gentleman 
meant about 72 hours. There is a 3-day layover requirement. We will 
not, and let me underscore again, Madam Speaker, we will not be waiving 
the 3-day layover requirement; okay? So, I just think it's important 
for us to make that point. The gentleman repeatedly raises 72 hours and 
we're not in compliance with this and that, when, in fact, Madam 
Speaker, we will not be waiving. It's a 3-day layover requirement that 
exists, and we will not be waiving that.
  Second, as far as what time, I believe that, within the next few 
hours, we'll be able to meet in the Rules Committee and come to the 
House floor. There are no guarantees. There are no guarantees, but I 
believe there is a very good chance that we will be able to, in the 
next few hours, meet in the Rules Committee and the gentleman and I 
will come to the floor with a rule that will allow us to make in order 
the continuing resolution to ensure that our fellow Americans who are 
suffering will have the resources they need.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Reclaiming my time, if I may ask the gentleman one 
additional question, does he anticipate that the Advanced Technology 
Vehicle Manufacturing Loan Program will be cut in the new version of 
the continuing resolution that will be brought before us?
  Mr. DREIER. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding.
  Let me say, at this juncture, I cannot tell my friend exactly what 
this measure is going to consist of, but we're in a position right now 
where that will be considered by the Committee on Rules when we meet 
upstairs. So we'll be meeting upstairs and we'll see whether that might 
be an amendment.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Reclaiming my time, Madam Speaker, just for the record, 
I would like to have inserted a letter from Paul A. Yost, who's the 
vice president at the National Association of Manufacturers, and a 
letter from R. Bruce Josten, who is the executive vice president, 
Government Affairs of the Chamber of Commerce of the United States, 
both strongly objecting to the offset that Republicans included in the 
continuing resolution that we considered yesterday that went down.
  One of the reasons there was great objection over this, Madam 
Speaker, was because this program that was cut actually was a job-
creating program putting people to work. I would say to my colleagues, 
if you want to reduce the debt in this country, you ought to figure out 
a way to put people back to work; and the way you put people back to 
work is not cut every single program that provides assistance to 
business and to people to be able to get on their feet and create jobs.
  We have a crisis in this country that is not being addressed by this 
House of Representatives which has yet to consider a single jobs bill. 
And instead, we have a continuing resolution that gets brought to the 
floor that provides less disaster assistance than the Senate bill does 
to people who are in need and pays for it, offsets it, by cutting a 
program to create jobs. What sense does that make?
  When it comes to disaster relief, we have never, ever, ever offset 
disaster relief because you can't predict with any accuracy whether 
there's going to be a tornado next year or a hurricane next year or an 
earthquake next year.
  There are some things we don't offset we should offset; for example, 
the wars. We've been in Afghanistan for 10 years, and I can't figure 
out why we're still there, but we're still there. Ten years. I can 
predict pretty much--very accurately--how much it will cost to stay 
another year, and yet we borrow that money. We put it on the credit 
card. We borrow $10 billion a month for military operations in 
Afghanistan that goes onto our credit card; not paid for. Not paid for.
  But when it comes to helping people in this country who have been 
adversely impacted by a natural disaster, through no fault of their 
own, who have lost their homes, who've seen their communities 
devastated, all of a sudden we're here saying we've got to find these 
offsets. And where do the offsets come from? They don't come from 
Donald Trump's tax cut. Where they come from is a program to put people 
to work.
  The gentleman, the chairman of the Rules Committee, talks about this 
great openness that we have in the Rules Committee. I have offered, I 
think about half a dozen times, an amendment to go after the U.S. 
taxpayer-funded oil subsidies, these subsidies that we provide oil 
companies that are making record profits, and we can't even get that 
issue for a vote on this House floor.
  I hope we have enough time to read what's in the bill. I hope that we 
have enough time to understand what's in the bill. I hope that we meet 
today. I hope that we meet at a decent hour. But we don't have the 
answers to any of those questions, and I think that that's unfortunate 
when it comes to a bill about the funding, the continuing funding of 
our government.
  Again, Madam Speaker, I regret that we are here. I regret that we are 
debating a martial law rule. We're not debating a continuing resolution 
right now. It's a martial rule that basically shuts everything down and 
allows them to bring up a bill any time they want to bring a bill up. 
People won't even have time to read it. And we'll have that vote 
possibly today. But again, we don't have any definite commitments from 
the other side what time or even if it will be today.
  I will close by saying, Madam Speaker, that I think it is important 
that this House gets back to the issue of jobs and protecting and 
caring for the people here in this country. Our biggest challenges, I'm 
going to tell my friends on the other side, are not halfway around the 
world; some of them are just halfway down the block. I regret very much 
that this Congress has yet to deal with the issue of jobs.

                                               Chamber of Commerce


                              of the United States of America,

                               Washington, DC, September 22, 2011.
       To The Members of the U.S. House of Representatives: The 
     U.S. chamber of Commerce, the world's largest business 
     federation representing the interests of more than three 
     million businesses and organizations of every size, sector, 
     and region, strongly supports disaster relief funding to 
     assist victims of natural disasters. The Chamber is also a 
     vocal proponent of fiscal responsibility and recognizes that 
     Congress must make difficult but necessary choices among 
     competing priorities.
       As Congress sets spending priorities, the Chamber wishes to 
     highlight a few important facts about the Advanced Technology 
     Vehicle Manufacturing (ATVM) loan program. First, the program 
     was authorized in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 
     2007, which was supported by both Republicans and Democrats 
     as an important step in reducing America's dependence on oil 
     from unstable regimes. Second, ATVM loans, which will be 
     repaid with interest, incentivize automakers and suppliers to 
     build more fuel-efficient advanced technology vehicles in the 
     U.S., providing new, opportunities for American workers in a 
     sector of the economy that

[[Page H6370]]

     is critical to the nation's recovery. Third, the fact that 
     the Department of Energy has yet to use the funds Congress 
     appropriated for the program is not the fault of industry; 
     numerous loan applicants have been in the queue for years, 
     waiting for the Administration to complete its due diligence.
       Again, while the Chamber understands the importance of 
     reducing America's unacceptable debt and believes that all 
     programs must be on the table, the Chamber urges you to bear 
     in mind the facts about the ATVM loan program, which promotes 
     manufacturing in the U.S. and is an important component of 
     America's energy security.
           Sincerely,
     R. Bruce Josten.
                                  ____

                                           National Association of


                                                Manufacturers,

                               Washington, DC, September 22, 2011.
     Hon. Harry Reid,
     Majority Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC
     Hon. Mitch McConnell,
     Minority Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Leaders Reid and McConnell: The NAM is the largest 
     trade association in the United States, representing over 
     11,000 small, medium and large manufacturers in all 50 
     states. We are the leading voice for the manufacturing 
     economy, which provides millions of high-wage jobs in the 
     U.S. Two-thirds of our members are small businesses, which 
     serve as the engine for job growth. Our mission is to enhance 
     the competitiveness of manufacturers and improve American 
     living standards by shaping a legislative and regulatory 
     environment conducive to U.S. economic growth.
       The NAM is writing to express our support for the Advanced 
     Technology Vehicle Manufacturing (ATVM) program, authorized 
     under the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 with 
     bipartisan support and signed into law by President Bush. The 
     ATVM program is an example of what government/industry 
     partnerships can accomplish. It has helped create and 
     preserve thousands of auto sector jobs and put our nation on 
     a path towards greater energy security. The NAM believes 
     defunding ATVM will hurt manufacturers and their employees.
       Introducing any new model motor vehicle is a capital 
     intensive process. Automobile manufacturers and suppliers 
     must make large investments at the front end before a vehicle 
     enters production. The ATVM program assists this process by 
     providing low cost capital for retooling U.S. facilities. 
     These loans, which will be repaid with interest, allow 
     automakers to build more fuel-efficient advance technology 
     vehicles in the U.S. and provide greater job security for the 
     workers they employ. Furthermore, it is worth noting that 
     many suppliers to the automobile manufacturers are small and 
     medium manufacturers. These smaller manufacturers have the 
     potential to create thousands of jobs but are typically some 
     of the first businesses impacted by a struggling economy. By 
     maintaining the ATVM program the government will also be 
     supporting the maintenance and growth of these smaller 
     manufacturers.
       During this time of economic recovery, we urge you to 
     preserve this successful program that is helping preserve 
     auto sector jobs and make promote energy security.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Paul A. Yost.

  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DREIER. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Let me say, Madam Speaker, to my very good friend that jobs and job 
creation are exactly what virtually every piece of legislation that 
we've been addressing in this House has been designed to deal with. 
Now, my friends on the other side of the aisle believe that the nearly 
$1 trillion--it was like $787 billion, I think, and then if you add the 
interest, it came up to like $1.1 trillion. That stimulus bill was 
their jobs bill. As I recall, we were told, if we saw that $1 trillion 
stimulus bill implemented, that the unemployment rate would not exceed 
8 percent.
  Well, Madam Speaker, in part of the area that I represent, we have an 
unemployment rate of 14 percent. We have a national unemployment rate 
of over 9 percent, and it's not acceptable. So I totally concur with my 
friend's assessment, and I congratulate him. I congratulate him for his 
opening statement there when he said the best way for us to deal with 
the deficit is to make sure that people in this country have jobs.
  Economic growth is what we've been talking about. I believe if we had 
2, 3, 4 percent more GDP growth in this country, we wouldn't be here 
having this discussion. The question is: How is it that we get our 
fellow Americans back to work?
  We believe that it's essential to create long-term, good jobs in the 
private sector. We believe in doing things like opening up new markets 
around the world, because 96 percent of the world's consumers are 
outside of our borders. Ninety-six percent of the world's consumers are 
outside of our borders. And yet, unfortunately, we have not been able 
to have, yet, the agreements that have been negotiated over the past 
several years sent to us in the Congress to vote on. Clearly, if we had 
the agreements that have been negotiated between the Koreans and the 
United States, the Colombians and the United States, the Panamanians 
and the United States, we would create many, many jobs here in the 
United States.
  Yesterday, Madam Speaker, I met with the Ambassador from Colombia. On 
August 15, they implemented an agreement with Canada for a free trade 
agreement between Canada and Colombia. And guess what? There has been 
an 18.9 percent increase in wheat exports from Canada to Colombia in 1 
single month.

                              {time}  1610

  Now, Madam Speaker, I have said this time and time again here. We 
have union and nonunion workers who are employed by companies, great 
American companies that are manufacturing companies like Caterpillar, 
John Deere, and Whirlpool, and we could get these people working, we 
could get these people working if we could open up new markets for 
those manufactured products in Latin America and in Asia. That's 
exactly what we've got ahead of us. And I hope very much that the 
President will immediately send to us those agreements so that we can 
enjoy, again, bipartisan support, Democrats and Republicans working 
together to pass these agreements.
  If we do that, we will do exactly what my friend just said, Madam 
Speaker, we will do exactly what my friend just said in his opening 
statement there. What he said was we need to get Americans into jobs so 
that we can have the revenues that are necessary for us to deal with 
the deficit and debt challenges that we have.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DREIER. I'm happy to yield to my friend.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  I just found out some news here in answer to a question I had earlier 
about offsets. Apparently, according to the National Journal, the 
Republican leaders are considering tacking on as much as $100 million 
in additional offsets to their GOP continuing resolution they are 
bringing to the floor. That is a quote attributed to House Rules 
Committee Chairman David Dreier. So I just read in the National Journal 
basically that there will be additional offsets.
  Mr. DREIER. If I could reclaim my time, Madam Speaker, let me just 
say that I hope very much we are able to see offsets for this because, 
again, we have a $14.5 trillion national debt. We have deficits as far 
as the eye can see. So, as we deal with the very important priorities 
of ensuring that our fellow Americans who are suffering because of 
these tragic disasters that have taken place across the country--we 
need to realize that there is a hell of a lot of waste in the Federal 
Government, a hell of a lot of waste, and there are regulations.
  Again, the measure that I just mentioned, my friends said that we 
haven't had jobs bills before us, but the measure that Mr. Hastings was 
just managing the rule on is designed to deal with the burden of 
regulations which have undermined the potential for job creation and 
economic growth.
  Again, pursuing an economic growth agenda is a priority of ours, and 
making sure that we get our fiscal house in order is one of those. So 
that is why I will say to my friend in response to his question, you 
bet we are going to try and find areas where the Federal Government has 
been expending dollars that have not been spent wisely and use those 
dollars to ensure that those who are suffering and those who are in 
need have what is necessary for them to survive.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Which brings me back to my original point of why it's 
important for us to see this bill. You say that you want to eliminate 
waste, but the U.S. Chamber of Commerce says that the Advanced 
Technology Vehicle Manufacturing program is not waste; it creates jobs. 
So I don't know where else you're going to cut.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, if I could reclaim my time, let me say to 
my friend we are not going to waive the 3-day layover requirement, and 
whatever changes are made in this

[[Page H6371]]

measure will be addressed in the House Rules Committee and then fully 
debated on this House floor so the Members will have an opportunity to 
decide whether or not they are going to support the special rule that 
would then make in order consideration of this continuing resolution 
that will prevent a government shutdown, make sure that the resources 
for those who are suffering are made available, and take us to November 
18 so that very thoughtful members of the Appropriations Committee, 
like the acting Speaker, will be able to deal with the appropriations 
priorities that we need to between now and November 18.
  With that, Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I just want to make sure the record is 
clear when it comes to Democratic support for the continuing 
resolution. In his pen and pad press conference, Minority Whip Hoyer 
said he was ``loath'' to support yesterday's CR, and I have a copy of 
that press conference and the transcript of the colloquy that went on 
on the House floor here. So if anybody is interested in reading it in 
detail, I have it here.
  At this point, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Hastings).
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I thank my colleague on the Rules Committee 
and my good friend for yielding. I echo all of the sentiments that he 
has made previously.
  Firstly, I'd like to point to the fact that the National Association 
of Manufacturers, in its last sentence in a letter directed to Senator 
Reid and Senator Mitch McConnell, says, ``During this time of economic 
recovery, we urge you to preserve this successful program''--meaning 
the Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing program--``that is 
helping preserve auto sector jobs and promote energy security.''
  Bruce Josten, from the Chamber of Commerce, while citing to all 
Members of the House of Representatives that the chamber ``understands 
the importance of reducing America's unacceptable debt and believes 
that all programs must be on the table, the chamber urges you to bear 
in mind the facts about the ATVM loan program, which promotes 
manufacturing in the United States and is an important component of 
America's energy security.''
  I only cited that for the reason that there could be no better person 
to know what martial law is than the distinguished chairman of the 
Rules Committee, who is my good friend. He and I, he and Mr. McGovern 
and I, Ms. Slaughter and he and I have been back and forth on martial 
law when Democrats were in charge and when Republicans were in charge. 
One thing you need to understand is this is martial law that you are 
bringing this rule under, and we don't even know what's in the bill.
  Yesterday afternoon, the Republican leadership brought up a bill that 
failed American workers, failed our Nation's economy, and failed those 
struggling to recover from natural disasters. It is no surprise that 
their rank and file then failed them.
  Rather than take up language that has already passed the Senate with 
bipartisan support, Republicans instead chose to pit unemployed factory 
workers against hurricane victims. This is not the kind of behavior 
that will bring our Nation out of this recession.
  While Republicans continue their partisan squabbles, countless 
Americans are fighting for their livelihoods. Six years after Hurricane 
Katrina, roofs are still being replaced, homes are being repaired and 
paperwork is still pending for funds that have yet to be allocated. And 
if you've been to New Orleans, you'll see a whole section of that city 
that is not in repair.
  In my home State of Florida, FEMA has already delayed $1.68 million 
for work resulting from 2004 and 2005 Hurricanes Charley, Frances, 
Ivan, Jeanne and Dennis.
  Given my colleague's distorted priorities, I can't help but wonder 
how long will the people of New England have to wait since we've been 
waiting in Florida since 2004 and 2005.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. And some have been waiting for drought 
relief and flood relief for an equal number of years. But this appears 
to be of no consequence to my Republican colleagues as they fail to 
recognize that their ideological posturing has very real repercussions. 
Once again, their irresponsible behavior and unwillingness to 
compromise has put us on the brink of yet another shutdown.
  H. Res. 409 unnecessarily will provide for same-day consideration of 
another Republican continuing resolution, violating the House 
Republicans' rules package passed in January which provided that all 
bills will be available to the public 3 days before coming to a vote. 
Not only did we not get the required 72 hours, we didn't get 24 hours.
  The Speaker made it very clear. He said that we will dispense with 
the conventional wisdom that bigger bills are always better; that fast 
legislating is good legislating; and that allowing additional 
amendments and open debate makes the legislative process less efficient 
than our forefathers intended. Legislators and the public will have 3 
days to read bills before they come to a vote.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has again expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield to the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

                              {time}  1620

  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. We were told we would have 3 days to read 
bills before they come to a vote. We were told that they would be on 
the Internet and that technology is available so that all of America 
could see what we're doing. And as the Speaker said--and I thoroughly 
agree--fast legislating is not good legislating, especially when there 
is no need to require a rushed, closed process. As far as we know, 
we're voting on a same-day rule for a bill we don't even know exists. 
Before we even ask to spend billions of dollars, we should have some 
idea of what's going on. And it's not enough for me to hear that we're 
going to hear about it in the Rules Committee later on. I want to know 
what's going on right now.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, first, may I inquire of the Chair how much 
time is remaining on each side?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California has 6 minutes 
remaining, and the gentleman from Massachusetts has 10 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
to say to my friend from Fort Lauderdale, my Rules Committee colleague, 
Mr. Hastings, that I'd like to associate myself with a segment of the 
remarks that he made talking about the priority of addressing the very 
pressing needs of those who are suffering because of the disasters that 
have taken place in this country. My friend is absolutely right, and 
that's the reason that we are here.
  Now, I would like to say that I don't know where it is that my 
friends get this 72 hours that's discussed regularly. Mr. McGovern has 
raised that, Mr. Hastings has raised it, Madam Speaker, and I don't 
know where they get that. We have what is known as the 3-day layover 
requirement. And let me clarify this because obviously some of my 
colleagues don't completely understand. I'm talking about the rules of 
the House, not statements that may have been made. The rules of the 
House say that there is a 3-day layover requirement.
  On Monday, Madam Speaker, this measure was put online; the bill that 
we voted on yesterday was put online. It calls for $1.043 trillion in 
spending on an annual basis as we address keeping the government going, 
ensuring we don't have a government shutdown between now and November 
18. That was put online on Monday.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DREIER. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I just wanted to respond to your statement 
that you don't know where we--
  Mr. DREIER. Are you telling me I can't associate myself with your 
remarks?
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. No, that you don't know where we got the 72 
hours from. Well, if you go on the Speaker's Web site, you will see in 
the very first paragraph what he says in that regard with reference to 
72 hours. Perhaps that's where we got it from.

[[Page H6372]]

  Mr. DREIER. If I could reclaim my time, I will tell my friend that 
the rules of the House are what we are complying with. The rules of the 
House say a 3-day layover requirement. On Monday, this was made 
available and put online. And now my friend says, I want to see it now, 
I want to see exactly what we're considering.
  The reason that we will not be waiving the 3-day layover requirement 
is that we are going to have a bill that is very similar to the measure 
that we had last night, with possibly an amendment made to that.
  I am happy to further yield to my friend.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Just one thing, Mr. Chairman: Does the 
Speaker's word matter or not?
  Mr. DREIER. If I could reclaim my time, Madam Speaker, I will tell 
you that I don't know what he means by the ``Speaker's word.'' The 
rules of the House are what we live by.
  The rules of the House say that it needs to be made available online 
for 3 days. And guess what, Madam Speaker? We are in full compliance 
with the rules of the House, and we have no intention to waive that.
  Okay. I'm looking now at a statement that was made on some program on 
Fox that says: ``I will not bring a bill to the floor that hasn't been 
posted online for at least 72 hours.'' Let me say thank you. I want to 
express my great appreciation. And I appreciate the size of the type, 
too, making it very easy for me to read it across the aisle here, 
another indication of our bridging the gap between either side of the 
aisle here, which is something I greatly appreciate.
  It did turn out that the Speaker did say that, but then we came 
forward with a rules package; and that's why what I'm saying is the 
rules say that we will in fact have 3 days. A 3-day layover requirement 
needs to be met, and that's what the rules of the House consist of.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, one thing I really would like 
to make clear and take out some of the hyperbole and the passion from 
my side or yours, we know, and you have said--and I echo your 
expressions with reference to the need for us to address--
  Mr. DREIER. If I could reclaim my time for just one moment--and the 
reason I'm doing that is that I'm told that we have about 1 minute or 
so left, and I know my friend has 10 minutes. So could my friend yield 
to the gentleman and me? I know we're going to get the great poster 
with the Speaker's quote up there again, and I will look forward to 
reading it again, and I will join in reading it again with you all.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. The only thing I am trying to get across is 
I don't want the American public to believe that whenever we get 
through--whether it's 72 hours, or whenever it is--that that means that 
the desperately needed money in Vermont and in New England and other 
places is going to be forthcoming most immediately because I'm telling 
you that from '04 and '05, from six hurricanes we are not being paid in 
the State of Florida.
  Mr. DREIER. Let me just very quickly say that it was explained to us 
by the chairman of the Appropriations Committee today that we're 
spending about $30 million a day. There's $200 million in the account; 
it's scheduled to expire by this weekend. Passage of this measure 
tonight is something that will ensure that we will at least have those 
resources, and I hope we can address the needs of those Floridians who 
continue to suffer.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Well, not only Floridians.
  Mr. DREIER. And others in this country.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Exactly. That's the point. From tornadoes, 
from hurricanes, from fires, all over the place.
  Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend.
  Mr. Speaker, I would say to my friend that I'm going to close the 
debate over here as soon as my friend holds up that brilliant poster of 
the Fox News interview that Speaker Boehner had.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I am going to hold this poster up because I want to make 
sure that it's clear to everybody. I'm going to quote this: ``I will 
not bring a bill to the floor that hasn't been posted online for at 
least 72 hours.'' John Boehner, Fox News, ``America's News Room,'' 7/
22/2010.
  Mr. Speaker, we can have all the verbal gyrations that we can come up 
with here about how not to kind of get to the point, which is that 
we're not going to be able to have 3 days or 72 hours or 3 legislative 
days--or three anything--to look at this bill. And the bill that we're 
going to be debating later today or tomorrow--we don't really know--is 
going to be different. And we know it's going to be different because 
the chairman of the Rules Committee said in an interview that we have 
online to National Journal that there's probably going to be another 
$100 million more in offsets. And so where are those offsets coming 
from?
  We know that one of the offsets that was in the continuing resolution 
yesterday was an offset that actually was a job killer, that actually 
is something that not only Democrats supported, but the United States 
Chamber of Commerce supported. Everyone came together and agreed that 
this is a good program, and it was cut, and it is going to discourage 
job creation in this country.
  So I think it is important to know where these offsets are going to 
be coming from. And, again, let me repeat what I've said over and over: 
this has not been a bipartisan process. The only thing bipartisan about 
this continuing resolution was the opposition to it.
  And, again, I would tell my Republican friends that the reason why 
this promise by Speaker Boehner is important is because we do need to 
understand what's in the bill. We're beginning to understand that your 
rules don't live up to what you actually promised.
  Mr. Speaker, the other thing about this that I think is important for 
people to understand is that never, ever, ever have we ever insisted on 
offsets for emergency spending for disasters. We don't know whether 
there will be one, two, three, or no emergencies that hit our country 
next year or the year after or the year after that. Maybe my Republican 
friends have now figured out a way to predict earthquakes and tsunamis 
and hurricanes and tornadoes, but we don't know how to predict with any 
accuracy.
  And this notion that we're not going to be there, that we're going to 
insist on offsets in order to provide people who have been thrown out 
of their homes, whose communities have been destroyed through no fault 
of their own, that we can find an offset when we don't need any offsets 
for nation-building in Afghanistan, that's all on your credit card. 
There's no offsets needed for that.

                              {time}  1630

  Why is it that no offsets are needed to do that kind of stuff, but 
when it comes to helping people in this country, all of a sudden we 
become super fiscally conservative? We need to have offsets for 
everything.
  You want to reduce the debt? Put people back to work. That's how you 
do it. Cutting programs that put people back to work doesn't put people 
back to work. It slows down the economic recovery.
  Here we are in September, and we have yet to deal with a single jobs 
bill on this floor. I don't know what it's like in California, but I 
can tell you in Massachusetts, when I go home, people want to talk 
about jobs and the economy. Yes, they want to reduce the debt, and they 
understand, by ending some of these wars, by cutting back on some of 
these overseas bases that we have, by asking Donald Trump to pay his 
fair share.
  There's something wrong in this country when a billionaire hedge fund 
manager pays a lower tax rate than his secretary. It's like, no, we 
can't ask that person, that billionaire to pay his fair share. 
Everything is aimed at working people and those who are most 
vulnerable.
  We should be talking about putting America back to work. We should be 
debating every day about ways to stimulate this economy, to provide 
incentives to put people back to work, to find ways to stop 
incentivizing corporations to send American jobs overseas.

[[Page H6373]]

  Instead, my friends on the other side of the aisle are protecting all 
that status quo. I mean, they are protecting those tax breaks, those 
incentives that encourage jobs to go overseas. Enough. Enough.
  I'll close by saying this, Mr. Speaker: When it comes to protecting 
subsidies for Big Oil companies, my friends are there. When it comes to 
rebuilding and nation building in Afghanistan, they're there. When it 
comes to maintaining a Tax Code that allows a billionaire hedge fund 
manager to pay a lower tax rate than his secretary, they're there. But 
when it comes to disaster assistance, when it comes to jobs, when it 
comes to things that matter to everyday people, it is a struggle. It is 
a fight.
  I would urge my colleagues to rethink their priorities, to work in a 
bipartisan way when it comes to disaster relief and job creation.
  Let's bring the President's jobs bill to the floor. If you don't like 
it, vote against it. But allow us to have the opportunity in this new, 
open House. Let us bring the President's jobs bill to the floor. Let us 
see whether we can pass it here. I think if this truly is an open 
House, we ought to have that opportunity.
  I will just say, Mr. Speaker, before I yield back the balance of my 
time, I don't know when we're going to get this bill. I don't know 
where the cuts are going to be made. I don't know what other job-
creating programs are going to be cut. But again, ``I will not bring a 
bill to the floor that hasn't been posted on line for at least 72 
hours.'' We're not even going to get 72 minutes, in all likelihood.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DREIER. I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, the American people are hurting and have been suffering 
from disasters over the past several weeks and months and, obviously, 
for a long period of time in the past.
  We just had a meeting downstairs where one of my new colleagues, the 
gentleman from Williamsport, Pennsylvania (Mr. Marino) stood up and 
talked about the fact that he, just days ago, was trudging through mud, 
meeting with the parents of small children, young children who were 
literally sitting on the hoods of automobiles in Pennsylvania where 
terrible flooding has taken place, and they have been asking him, since 
they had lost their homes, what he was going to do. And Mr. Marino made 
it very clear that he would do everything possible to ensure that those 
families would have what they needed. And that's why we're here right 
now with the measure that we have before us.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, this measure that will come before us later this 
evening is a measure that has been online more than 72 hours. It was 
put online on Monday. Today is Thursday, so well beyond 72 hours it's 
been made available.
  We have actually doubled, from $500 million to $1 billion, the FY11 
request that was made by the President because we understand the 
imperative of getting these resources to the American people who are 
suffering. We can do that, Mr. Speaker, while, at the same time, 
reining in the size and scope and reach and control of the Federal 
Government, because everyone knows, Democrats and Republicans alike 
acknowledge, that there is waste in government, and that's the reason 
that we're saying we must pare the level of spending back.
  And so, Mr. Speaker, this is not martial law. This is simply our step 
to ensure that the American people get the resources they need and that 
we do it in a fiscally responsible way, and it stems from what was a 
bipartisan agreement.
  Mr. Speaker, with that, I urge an ``aye'' vote on the rule.
  I yield back the balance and I move the previous question on the 
resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Womack). The question is on ordering the 
previous question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 
XX, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question on House 
Resolution 409 will be followed by 5-minute votes on adoption of House 
Resolution 409, if ordered; ordering the previous question on House 
Resolution 406; and adoption of House Resolution 406, if ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 240, 
nays 180, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 721]

                               YEAS--240

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Austria
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cohen
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner (NY)
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                               NAYS--180

     Ackerman
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Connolly (VA)
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hochul
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Ross (AR)
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes

[[Page H6374]]


     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Bachmann
     Conyers
     Deutch
     Giffords
     Higgins
     Hirono
     Kaptur
     Lee (CA)
     Paul
     Rangel
     Reichert
     Richmond
     Yarmuth

                              {time}  1711

  Mr. GUTIERREZ, Ms. MATSUI, Messrs. McINTYRE, CROWLEY, and Ms. EDDIE 
BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. BARTLETT changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 238, 
nays 182, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 722]

                               YEAS--238

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Austria
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cohen
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner (NY)
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                               NAYS--182

     Ackerman
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Connolly (VA)
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hochul
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Ross (AR)
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Bachmann
     Conyers
     Deutch
     Giffords
     Gohmert
     Hirono
     Johnson (GA)
     Larson (CT)
     Markey
     Paul
     Rangel
     Reichert
     Yarmuth

                              {time}  1718

  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________