[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 142 (Thursday, September 22, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H6389-H6411]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2012

  Mr. DREIER, from the Committee on Rules, submitted a privileged 
report (Rept. No. 112-215) on the resolution (H. Res. 412) providing 
for consideration of the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 2608) to 
provide for an additional temporary extension of programs under the 
Small Business Act and the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, and 
for other purposes, which was referred to the House Calendar and 
ordered to be printed.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 412 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 412

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 
     2608) to provide for an additional temporary extension of 
     programs under the Small Business Act and the Small Business 
     Investment Act of 1958, and for other purposes, with the 
     Senate amendment thereto, and to consider in the House, 
     without intervention of any point of order, a motion offered 
     by the chair of the Committee on Appropriations or his 
     designee that the House concur in the Senate amendment with 
     the amendment printed in part A of the report of the 
     Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution modified by 
     the amendment printed in part B of such report. The Senate 
     amendment and the motion shall be considered as read. The 
     motion shall be debatable for one hour equally divided and 
     controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Appropriations. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the motion to its adoption without 
     intervening motion.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California is recognized 
for 1 hour.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to my very good

[[Page H6390]]

friend from Rochester, New York, the distinguished ranking minority 
member of the Committee on Rules, Ms. Slaughter, pending which I yield 
myself such time as I may consume.
  All time that I will be yielding and that my friend from Rochester 
will be yielding will be for debate purposes only.
  (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)


                             General Leave

  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, we have gone through what James Madison, the 
author of the Constitution, has described as an ugly, messy, difficult 
process. That's the legislative process. And while many of us have been 
frustrated, it does work at the end of the day.
  Mr. Speaker, it has to work. It has to work because our fellow 
Americans are suffering at this moment.
  I have just been talking to staff members of the House Appropriations 
Committee, and we have to get the resources to those people who are 
suffering ASAP. As of this morning, there was a grand total of $212 
million in the Federal Emergency Management Agency's fund to deal with 
these disasters that have taken place. Last spring, the Secretary of 
Homeland Security, Ms. Napolitano, testified that we needed additional 
resources.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, let's go back to last spring and realize that was 
before we had hurricanes. It was before we had floods. It was before we 
had tornadoes that hit the Midwest. Think of those poor people in 
Joplin, Missouri, all those homes and lives that were lost. And it was 
before we had this earthquake that, as we all know, damaged the 
Washington Monument right down the street from where we are.
  Mr. Speaker, it's very important that we get those resources there, 
with only $212 million as of this morning. With expenditures somewhere 
in the neighborhood of 30-plus million dollars each day, it means as 
early as Monday of next week we could end up with nothing, nothing for 
those people who are suffering.
  Mr. Speaker, we don't want the government to shut down. We want to 
make sure that the people who are truly in need are able to have the 
resources necessary. But at the same time, we recognize that we have a 
$14.5 trillion national debt. We have massive deficits that are before 
us, and we need to do everything that we can to do what people across 
this country are saying needs to be done--we need to create jobs. We 
need to generate an increase in our gross domestic product growth, and 
the measure that is going to be before us when we report out this rule 
will do just that.
  Mr. Speaker, the measure that we will consider is identical to the 
measure that we considered in the House yesterday, the measure that had 
been reported out, basically the same package that we had last week. 
But a bipartisan request that was made by the Senate majority leader, 
Mr. Reid, and the Senate minority leader, Mr. McConnell, was that we 
have this provision considered as a Senate amendment so that the Senate 
would be able to move as quickly as possible to ensure that our fellow 
Americans have the resources that are necessary. And so that's why we 
have ended up with the same measure that we had yesterday.
  But, Mr. Speaker, as you and I have discussed in the meeting that we 
were just in, there has been a change. There is a very minor change. It 
is one single paragraph. So of the continuing resolution that we had, 
which is $1.043 trillion, exactly what we had yesterday, no change, in 
full compliance with the 3-day layover requirement that exists in the 
House rules--and I will remind my colleagues the measure that's before 
us was put online on Monday, 4 days ago, so, again, in full compliance 
with time to spare to meet the 3-day layover, with one amendment. The 
amendment reads as follows:
  ``At the end of the matter proposed to be inserted by the House 
amendment, before the short title, insert the following:
  ``Section 142. Effective on the date of the enactment of this Act, of 
the unobligated balances remaining available for `Department of 
Energy--Energy Programs--Title 17--Innovative Technology Loan Guarantee 
Program' pursuant to title IV of division A of Public Law 111-5, 
$100,000,000 is rescinded.''
  That is the only change that has been made. Let me tell you why that 
change was made, Mr. Speaker, and I don't often read The Washington 
Post on the House floor, but today's Washington Post has an article 
that explains what it is that led us to call for using the $100 million 
that I just mentioned as an offset.
  I recognize, as one of my colleagues in the Rules Committee stated 
earlier, we know that this company known as Solyndra, which Democrats 
and Republicans alike recognize has been an abject failure for this 
energy program, is one that will not get resources because they have 
gone bankrupt.
  But let me just tell you what led to us focusing on this $100 
million, Mr. Speaker, to ensure that we never again have another 
boondoggle like Solyndra. This is, again, today's Washington Post, in 
an article entitled, ``Solyndra's Ex-Employees Tell of High Spending, 
Factory Woes.'' It reads as follows:
  ``Former employees of Solyndra, the shuttered solar company that 
exhausted half a billion dollars of taxpayer money, said they saw 
questionable spending by management almost as soon as a Federal agency 
approved a $535 million government-backed loan for the start-up.
  ``A new factory built with public money boasted a gleaming conference 
room with glass walls that, with the flip of a switch, turned a smoky 
gray to conceal the room's occupants. Hastily purchased state-of-the-
art equipment ended up being sold for pennies on the dollar, still in 
its plastic wrap, employees said.

                              {time}  2150

  ``As the $344 million factory went up just down the road from the 
company's leased plant in Fremont, California, workers watched as 
pallets of unsold solar panels stacked up in storage. Many wondered: 
Was the factory needed?
  `` `After we got the loan guarantee, they were just spending money 
left and right,' said former Solyndra engineer Lindsey Eastburn. 
`Because we were doing well, nobody cared. Because of that infusion of 
money, it made people sloppy.' ''
  Now, Mr. Speaker, we all know that our fellow Americans are suffering 
across this country because of the tremendous very, very sad disasters 
that we have faced over the last weeks and months, and it is very 
important for us to recognize that every taxpayer dollar is precious, 
especially in these times when there are people losing jobs, losing 
their homes, and losing their businesses.
  This is a very sad and tragic example of the kind of waste that is 
there, and that is why the one very small but important modification to 
the measure that is before us will be to take $100 million and use that 
additionally as an offset to ensure that the hard-earned dollars of the 
American people are not wasted in the way that we have seen.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule, and with 
that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I thank my colleague for yielding me the customary 30 
minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, my speech today will be very much like my speech 
yesterday, but then so is the bill. Yesterday the House on both sides 
of the aisle defeated the majority's first attempt to pass a continuing 
resolution. And here we are 24 hours later with the very same bill. Let 
me repeat, the bill we're debating today is barely changed from the one 
that was defeated yesterday. The bill still contains unacceptable cuts 
to an essential manufacturing jobs program to pay for equally essential 
disaster relief.
  Homes have been destroyed. Roads have collapsed, and local economies 
have been disrupted by a seemingly endless stream of hurricanes, 
tornadoes, tropical storms, and extreme weather that has crisscrossed 
our land. Our moral compass makes it very clear. We know what we need 
to do. We

[[Page H6391]]

must come to the aid of our fellow Americans who need our help. The 
problems they are facing are monumental, and quite simply, no one can 
recover from such natural disasters on their own. They need our help.
  Yet the majority's efforts to hold disaster relief hostage to 
unacceptable cuts is as unwise today as it was 24 hours ago.
  As I said yesterday, when it comes to spending billions of dollars on 
two wars that are bankrupting us, the majority's concern for spending 
is nowhere to be found. Since 2004, American taxpayers have spent over 
$3.4 billion as emergency spending on infrastructure in Afghanistan, 
and even more in Iraq. Not a single one of these $3.4 billion was 
offset, but were paid for by the same taxpayers that are being denied 
taxpayer money now. While we send billions of dollars to Iraq, the 
Iraqi government has begun building. They announced today a high-speed 
rail system to connect Basra to Baghdad. That's the same week that the 
majority in this House took all of the high-speed rail away from the 
United States. And so we will be paying for 280 miles in Iraq, but we 
can't pay for it from Buffalo to Albany.
  When it comes to Americans in need, when it comes to helping women, 
children, and families whose homes have been washed away, the majority 
has decided they just can't help unless they get to take the money from 
a program that has created 39,000 jobs and is poised to create 60,000 
more.
  The bill was wrong yesterday, and it's wrong today.
  Let me just give you some information from, I believe, The New York 
Times. The headline says, ``Republicans Sought Clean-Energy Money for 
Home States.'' Senator McConnell asked for $235 million for an electric 
vehicle plant in Kentucky; Representative Lamar Smith asked for 
stimulus money for a solar plant in Texas; Congressman Fred Upton 
wanted five clean energy projects in Michigan; Representative Cliff 
Stearns asked for a lithium ion battery manufacturing plant in Florida. 
These requests for funding came from the very same program that has 
been discussed being cut these last 2 days.
  I urge all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to stand by 
your beliefs. If you thought the bill was wrong yesterday, there is no 
reason to think the bill is better today; virtually nothing has 
changed.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule and this flawed bill.

               [From the New York Times, Sept. 19, 2011]

         Republicans Sought Clean-Energy Money for Home States

                            (By Eric Lipton)

       Washington.--On the Senate floor and the television 
     airwaves, Senator Mitch McConnell has lambasted the Obama 
     administration over what he has described as its failed 
     efforts to stimulate new jobs through clean-energy projects 
     backed with billions of dollars in federal loans or other 
     assistance.
       But Mr. McConnell, of Kentucky, is one of several prominent 
     Republicans who have worked to steer federal money to clean-
     energy projects in their home states, Energy Department 
     documents show.
       Mr. McConnell made two personal appeals in 2009, asking 
     Energy Secretary Steven Chu to approve as much as $235 
     million in federal loans for a plant to build electric 
     vehicles in Franklin, Ky.
       ``I hope you will realize the importance of such job 
     creation to Kentucky,'' Mr. McConnell said in a July 2009 
     memo supporting an application from Zap Motor Manufacturing.
       Federal lobbying disclosure records show that Mr. 
     McConnell's support for the project came after Zap Motor 
     hired a Kentucky-based lobbyist, Robert Babbage, who has been 
     a frequent contributor to Mr. McConnell's campaigns and 
     boasts on his own Internet site about his close ties to Mr. 
     McConnell.
       Mr. Babbage declined to comment on the project. Gary Dodd, 
     chief executive of Zap Motor, said the intervention by Mr. 
     McConnell came after the company asked him to push the Energy 
     Department to approve the loan.
       Mr. McConnell's office, in a statement, defended his 
     actions, saying, ``There was no effort to push the 
     administration to short-circuit its due diligence simply to 
     plan a ribbon-cutting.''
       Mr. McConnell's high-level advocacy took place despite 
     early struggles for the project, including the financial 
     collapse in 2008 of its first Kentucky business partner, 
     Integrity Manufacturing. Mr. McConnell made no mention of 
     these stumbles as he pushed for federal money, simply saying 
     Zap Motor might create as many as 4,000 jobs in his state.
       Recently, he has joined with other Republicans in 
     criticizing a March 2009 decision by the Obama administration 
     to provide a $535 million government-backed loan to a 
     California solar-panel manufacturer, Solyndra, which recently 
     filed for bankruptcy and is now the subject of inquiries by 
     the F.B.I. and Congress.
       ``The White House fast-tracked a half-billion-dollar loan 
     to a politically connected energy firm,'' Mr. McConnell said 
     Thursday in remarks on the Senate floor. ``This place was 
     supposed to be the poster child of how the original stimulus 
     would create jobs.''
       Another Republican, Representative Lamar Smith of Texas, 
     recently asked Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. to appoint 
     an outside investigator to determine how the Department of 
     Energy distributes clean-energy money. But in 2009, Mr. Smith 
     wrote to Mr. Chu asking him to approve loan guarantees from 
     stimulus money for a Texas project proposed by Tessera Solar, 
     documents show.
       Representative Fred Upton, Republican of Michigan and 
     another critic of the Energy Department program, signed 
     letters along with other members of the Michigan delegation 
     in 2009 and 2010, pushing at least five clean-energy projects 
     in his state, including a $207 million loan request from 
     EcoMotors International. And Representative Cliff Stearns, 
     Republican of Florida, praised the opening last year of a 
     lithium-ion battery manufacturing plant in his state, which 
     relied upon an Energy Department grant.
       Mr. Smith, along with the others, defended their actions, 
     saying lawmakers can be critical of the Energy Department 
     programs while still seeking money.
       ``I wanted to support Texas companies in their applications 
     for grants,'' Mr. Smith said in a statement. ``It is the 
     responsibility of the Obama administration to carry out the 
     necessary financial reviews of these proposals.''

  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume 
to simply say when Ms. Pelosi was Speaker of the House of 
Representatives, my friend from Rochester chaired the Rules Committee. 
The disaster relief provided in the response to Hurricane Katrina was 
partially offset. This is not in any way unprecedented. It's the right 
thing to do.
  I urge my colleagues to support the rule, and with that, I reserve 
the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. McGovern), a member of the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, this House is badly broken. This 
Republican leadership is out of touch. This process is a disgrace. This 
is not the way the people's business is supposed to work. We are now 
debating a continuing resolution that has the same objectionable 
provisions that were rejected yesterday on a bipartisan basis. Plus it 
has additional provisions that cut jobs. It's even worse.
  So here's the deal: what's objectionable to people like me is my 
Republican friends continue to insist on cutting programs that will 
result in the elimination of American jobs. Their view is simple. If 
you want to help victims of tornadoes and hurricanes, then we have to 
pay for it, and we pay for it, in their view, by cutting jobs--not tax 
cuts for millionaires; not subsidies for Big Oil; not cutting 
incentives that encourage sending American jobs overseas. What they're 
advocating is cutting American jobs.
  Mr. Speaker, the Republican leadership, in my opinion, doesn't have a 
clue. They are obsessed with cutting government at all costs, including 
programs that help sustain American jobs, including programs that help 
prevent the elimination of American jobs. And here's the deal. The 
issue is jobs. They may not want to hear it, but the central issue 
before our country is jobs. I don't care where you go in this country, 
what people want to talk about is jobs and the creation of jobs as a 
way to secure our economy. What we should be talking about on the House 
floor tonight is jobs. What we should be talking about on the House 
floor tomorrow is jobs. What we should be talking about every day until 
the American people are back to work is jobs.
  Instead, under this Republican leadership, we're debating trivial 
issues passionately and important ones not at all. I urge my colleagues 
on the other side of the aisle to, at a minimum, allow Democrats to 
bring up the President's jobs bill so we can put people back to work.
  The best way to reduce the debt in this country is to put people back 
to work. Even a slight drop in the unemployment rate in this country 
would result in an incredible reduction in our debt.
  So I urge my colleagues to reject this continuing resolution because 
it is

[[Page H6392]]

about eliminating jobs. It's not about creating more jobs; it's about 
eliminating jobs. Reject this continuing resolution because it plays 
politics with the lives of American citizens who have been victimized 
by natural disasters.
  I urge the Republican leadership to, at least in this one instance, 
try to be bipartisan. We talk about an open House. We talk about 
bipartisanship. Here's an opportunity for us to be bipartisan. Let's 
work together on behalf of the American people. Let's get this bill 
right, and let's focus on jobs. That's what the American people want. 
This bill falls far short of that.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to 
tell my friend from Worcester that clearly jobs is the priority that we 
are focused on. I appreciate very much and would like to associate 
myself with his remarks when he talked about the need for us to focus 
on job creation and economic growth. And I know I'm speaking for 
everyone, everyone on our side of the aisle, when we say we want to 
work in a bipartisan way to ensure that we can get our economy growing 
and so that the American people who are hurting will be able to have 
job opportunities.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  2200

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), the distinguished ranking member of the 
Committee on Natural Resources. This combines a speech he would have 
made yesterday with one he's going to do this evening.
  Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentlelady.
  Write today's date down, September 22, 2011. The Republicans are now 
in open warfare against clean energy. Yesterday was an opening salvo, 
but today is the declaration of war. They've already gutted clean 
energy research and development budgets by 40 percent for next year. 
Their budget for the next 3 years promises to cut those investments by 
90 percent. They've zeroed out loan guarantee programs for all 
renewable energy in their budget while leaving intact $25 billion for 
the nuclear industry. They're prepared to shut down the government 
rather than rescind one penny of the oil and gas industry's $41 billion 
in tax subsidies. But clean energy sector gets the hammer.
  Yesterday, in a gratuitous assist to Big Oil, Republicans tried to 
kill the Clean Car Factory Fund in order to pay for natural disaster 
relief. This is the program that is helping American companies 
manufacture superefficient vehicles that reduce our dangerous 
dependence on foreign oil from OPEC. But, apparently, that bill wasn't 
radical enough for the Tea Party base. So tonight, they come back and 
they're launching their full-frontal assault on clean energy. 
Yesterday, it was just clean cars. Today, it's solar energy, wind 
energy and all renewables. Tonight, they take out the full assault 
attack.
  But a word of warning. Up to a dozen projects are prepared to receive 
the green light in the next week. Swooping in and destroying this 
program now will destroy these projects and destroy the thousands of 
jobs that will come with them. So before you vote for this bill, check 
and see if your State is one of the 38 that has received support under 
this program. Check and see if your State is one of the 12 that could 
have a new project announced next week. Make sure that the 66,000 
people that have jobs today as a result of this program are not from 
your State. By the way, those 66,000 jobs created through this program 
are far more than any jobs created through legislation passed out in 
the first 9 months that the Republicans have controlled the United 
States House of Representatives.
  So our planet is warming and extreme weather is increasing; 100-year 
floods and droughts are now striking every few years. Hurricanes have 
caused floods, massive power outages, and deaths. Texas has been on 
fire after having the hottest summer ever recorded. The President has 
issued disaster relief declarations in 48 States so far this year. 
Eighty-three major disasters declared in 2011, the all-time record; 3 
more months to go this year. Wake up. Wake up. You can't kill these 
programs. This is the solution you are killing.
  Republicans say, fine, we'll provide emergency relief for those who 
have been afflicted by nature's wrath in an ever-warming planet, but we 
won't do it unless we can cut the funds for the programs that promise 
to be the solution to the problem. That's what they're proposing here 
tonight.
  Does the majority ask if we can save money by cutting the hundreds of 
billions of dollars we are planning on spending, the Republicans are 
planning on spending on new nuclear weapons being constructed over the 
next 10 years when we don't need any more nuclear weapons? No. Can we 
cut the tens of billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies we pay to Big 
Oil and King Coal? Of course not. But wind, solar, clean cars, all-
electric vehicles and plug-in hybrids, oh, yeah, let's cut that program 
tonight to fund disaster relief for people in this country suffering 
from weather, from floods, from hurricanes, and from tornadoes caused 
by an ever-changing climate.
  This bill is an embarrassment. This is not worthy of this Congress. 
Vote ``no'' on this latest Republican assault plan to kill the clean 
energy industry in this country on behalf of the Big Oil and Big Coal 
industries.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume 
to say to my friend that there have been 1,100 jobs lost at Solyndra. 
We want to make sure that there is never again, never again another 
Solyndra. That's the reason that we have focused on the $100 million as 
an offset in this measure, Mr. Speaker.
  I think it's also very important to note this morning when I woke up 
I heard the news that General Motors is now in the midst of an 
international partnership in the People's Republic of China to deal 
with the development of electric vehicles. These are the kinds of 
things that the private marketplace is pursuing. I live in Los Angeles, 
California, where we have very serious air quality problems, and we 
just got the news today that Washington, D.C. is number six in the 
Nation when it comes to air quality problems. We want to make sure that 
we have energy-efficient automobiles. We are determined to do that. We 
need to make sure, we need to make sure that those companies that are 
out there pursuing these kinds of alternatives that, frankly, in most 
all cases are free, are free of government grants, are able to succeed 
with that; and that's why we have proceeded with that.
  If my friend would like me to yield, I'm happy to yield to him.
  Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentleman. I'm glad you brought out the 
General Motors deal because the General Motors deal is only possible 
because of the grants and the loans that have been given for the 
batteries and for the new technologies under these programs that are 
now making it possible for General Motors to reinvent.
  Mr. DREIER. If I could reclaim my time, Mr. Speaker, let me say to my 
friend that obviously we have seen the General Motors deal proceed. The 
fact of the matter is it's not solely because of that that we are 
seeing this kind of partnership. But, Mr. Speaker, we are seeing the 
private sector proceed with a policy that I believe very strongly in, 
and that policy is being pro-environment and is, in fact, pro-business.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am going to yield myself 1 minute to 
respond to the General Motors-China issue.
  Earlier this week, The New York Times had a wonderful article in the 
business section that the Chinese were subsidizing electric cars to the 
tune of $19,000 which all of us know is against every trade law the 
world has ever seen. But they were going to sell the Volt, and GM 
announced--they actually told them that in order to sell the Volt at 
all in China they had to give over all of their technology and all the 
information they had on how to build that car. I thought they weren't 
going to do it, but I also read yesterday that now they've got a brand-
new Chinese partner, and they're giving them all the technology. I've 
got some legislation to bring into that, Mr. Speaker. I think it's 
outrageous that that's what's happening to American manufacturers.
  I would like to now yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan 
who

[[Page H6393]]

knows a thing about General Motors, the distinguished ranking member of 
the Committee on Ways and Means, Mr. Levin.
  (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LEVIN. Well, here we go again. You tried to cut jobs last night. 
You lost. Now, you're trying it again. When Americans need jobs, the 
Republicans are pushing an anti-jobs bill. Here's what the NAM said 
about this program that you want to curtail: ``The ATVM program is an 
example of what government-industry partnerships can accomplish. It has 
helped create and preserve thousands of auto sector jobs. The NAM 
believes defunding ATVM will hurt manufacturers and their employees.''
  So you listen to nobody except your empty rhetoric and, I think, 
dangerous action. If that wasn't enough, here's what the Chamber of 
Commerce said: ``The ATVM program promotes manufacturing in the U.S. 
and is an important component of America's energy security.''

                              {time}  2210

  So yesterday, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, we sent 
him a letter citing his reference to the ATVM loan program as a 
``government subsidy for failing industries.'' GM failing? Chrysler 
failing? Ford failing? How misguided.
  Well, now you're on your rampage to kill jobs and you've proposed to 
cut another program, section 1705, the loan program to help investments 
in new energy technology. This is a dangerous precedent. It's also, 
let's be frank, a dangerous smokescreen so some Republicans can change 
their votes. That's what this is all about.
  Well, you don't want to listen to Warren Buffett on taxes, and now 
you're thumbing your vote at Bill Gates. They issued a report 
yesterday--Bill Gates and a number of other technology leaders--and I 
quote from the report about energy programs like what you're trying to 
cut:
  ``If the U.S. fails to invent new technologies and create new markets 
and new jobs that will drive the transformation and revitalization of 
the $5 trillion global energy industry, we will have lost an 
opportunity to lead in what is arguably the largest and most pervasive 
technology sector in the world. However, if the U.S. successfully 
innovates in clean energy, our country stands to reap enormous 
benefits.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.
  Mr. LEVIN. It goes on:
  ``Unfortunately, the country has yet to embark on a clean energy 
innovation program commensurate with the scale of national priorities 
that are at stake. In fact''--and I interpolate here this is what 
you're doing--``rather than improve the country's energy innovation 
program and invest in strategic national interests, the current 
political environment is creating strong pressure to pull back from 
such efforts.''
  That's exactly what you're doing today. This bill is dangerous 
mindlessness.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume 
to simply remind my colleagues why it is that we're here.
  We're faced with the prospect of a government shutdown. There was a 
grand total as of this morning of $212 million in the fund to deal with 
our fellow Americans who are suffering because of disasters that we've 
gone through over the past several weeks and months, and we want to 
make sure that the appropriations process, which has been dumped on us, 
is able to be addressed in a bipartisan way. I want Democrats and 
Republicans alike to come together to address this.
  The $100 million additional offset, the only minor modification that 
has been made, is to ensure that we don't have--and I know Democrats 
and Republicans alike agree on this--we don't want to have another 
Solyndra. And that's what we believe we can do.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
  (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ANDREWS. I thank my friend for yielding.
  Tomorrow will be yet another Friday without a paycheck for too many 
Americans. For many Americans, this may be the week that their 
unemployment benefits finally run out and they have no income left 
whatsoever. For many Americans, this might be the last weekend they 
spend in their home because the eviction notice or the foreclosure 
process comes due next week. There has been a natural disaster this 
summer in America, but there has been an economic disaster in America 
for a very long time.
  Fifteen days ago, the President of the United States came to this 
Chamber and in good faith laid out a plan to put Americans back to 
work. In those 15 days, this majority has had no hearings, no 
discussions, and no votes on the President's plan to put the country 
back to work. Until today, it was accurate to say they had done nothing 
about the job situation in America. Today, they've done something. They 
put forward a bill that destroys a program that has created 39,000 jobs 
in the private sector.
  My friend from California talked about the new deal that GM may 
strike to build the new generation of cars in China. With all due 
respect, that's the point. The purpose of this program is to make sure 
that the next generation of cars is built by Americans and sold to 
Chinese, not built by Chinese and sold to Americans. So if we let this 
bill pass, we are waving the white flag of surrender on the next 
generation of vehicles.
  Now, they say, well, we have to do this because we have to provide 
disaster relief. I think there is unanimity in this Chamber that the 
victims of floods and hurricanes and other crises deserve help, but the 
artificial excuse that's being used here is, well, we have to pay for 
the help.
  I have a suggestion. We're going to spend in the next 10 days in Iraq 
and Afghanistan what it would cost to deal with this disaster relief. 
How about that? Instead of crushing American jobs here at home, why 
don't we do the intelligent thing and say to the Iraqis and the 
Afghans, it's time they ran their own country with their own money. How 
about that for an offset? We should never have to choose between 
employing our neighbors and ignoring our needs.
  The right vote here is ``no.'' Let's bring back to the floor tomorrow 
a plan that both sides can support that keeps Americans working, puts 
Americans back to work, and solves this disaster problem. Vote ``no,'' 
and then let's fix the problem.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume 
to simply say that job creation and economic growth is what we are all 
about. The deal about which my friend just referred is one which is 
part of the global marketplace. The goal of having U.S. manufacturers, 
U.S. workers manufacturing automobiles for sale in China and vice versa 
is our priority.
  With that, I would like to yield 2 minutes to my friend from 
Lawrenceville, Georgia (Mr. Woodall).
  Mr. WOODALL. I thank my chairman for yielding and I appreciate the 
time because, as we talk about the President's jobs bill, I was here, 
too, when the President came to present his ideas, and it kind of 
excited me. Because, as I looked at where the President began on some 
of these jobs issues and I looked at what has been proposed in this 
House already on these jobs issues, I realized exactly how much 
progress we were able to make.
  I think about the President's proposal to eliminate oil company 
subsidies, a proposal that I support. In fact, I have a bill that not 
just eliminates oil company subsidies, but all industrial subsidies so 
that we can let the free market drive that train and create those jobs 
anew.
  I think about the President's proposal to curtail the payroll tax and 
I think, we already have a proposal that not only curtails the payroll 
tax to the small degree the President recommends, but actually, since 
it's the largest tax that 80 percent of American taxpayers pay, 
eliminate it entirely.
  Mr. LEVIN. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WOODALL. I'm limited to only 2 minutes. If my friend from New 
York would like to yield me time, I would be happy to yield that back.

[[Page H6394]]

  But I just want to say, as my friend from the Ways and Means 
Committee knows, not only do we have that proposal introduced here--
it's H.R. 25, the Fair Tax. We've had hearings on it in the Ways and 
Means Committee. So I say to my friend from New Jersey, we are moving 
forward on those agendas.
  But let me just talk about why we're here tonight.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WOODALL. If I could get some time from my friend from New York, I 
would love to yield to agree with you. I wanted to tell you how much I 
believe we're headed on the same track.
  But let me talk about this continuing resolution because that's 
really why we're here, despite the fact that folks bring up where we 
are in the President's jobs bill. This is about getting disaster relief 
to families that need it. And we could have gotten it done yesterday--
and should have gotten it done yesterday. And even though I'm new at 
this process, I actually thought we had an agreement to get it done 
yesterday. I thought we had an agreement because it was the right thing 
to do to get it done yesterday. Now, only folks who are more privy than 
I know why that agreement came unglued and why it was we didn't get it 
done, but we're back here tonight and we have that opportunity. Please, 
please, let's get it done for those folks who need it. The time for 
games has long since passed.

                              {time}  2220

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Before I yield to my friend from New Jersey, let me 
respond to my friend from Georgia. Don't forget that 48 on your side 
voted against it. I don't know what agreement you had with them.
  I now yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Andrews).
  Mr. ANDREWS. I did want to ask my friend from Georgia a question, Mr. 
Speaker, if I might. He says he's on the right track.
  Will the gentleman agree that we should have an up/down vote on the 
President's jobs plan on this floor?
  Mr. WOODALL. I actually don't like those kind of long, complicated 
bills, I would say to my friend. But should we vote on his ideas, one 
idea at a time--I say that regularly. Had we voted on the President's 
health care bill one idea at a time, America would have loved 80 
percent of it.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Reclaiming my time, is that a yes or a no?
  Mr. WOODALL. That's a let's vote on it one idea at a time, not just 
his ideas, but all of our ideas.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Reclaiming my time, will the gentleman vote for the 
President's tax cuts for small businesses that create jobs if they hire 
someone?
  Mr. WOODALL. The tax proposal I'm familiar with is his $1.5 trillion 
tax increase. Is there a different----
  Mr. ANDREWS. Reclaiming my time, the President's plan was a small 
business that creates jobs will get a tax cut.
  Will you vote for that?
  Mr. WOODALL. If he wants to reduce the highest corporate tax rate in 
the world, I am a huge supporter of that.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Reclaiming my time, is that a yes or a no on that idea?
  Mr. WOODALL. I will vote for any reduction in corporate rates that 
the President proposes.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Reclaiming my time, does the gentleman favor the 
provision that says we should put teachers who have been laid off back 
in the classroom?
  Mr. WOODALL. I absolutely do, and with State and local funds we're 
doing that today. I hope we'll continue to do that.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Reclaiming my time, would the gentleman agree, though, 
we should use some Federal funds for that purpose?
  Mr. WOODALL. I do not believe the Federal Government should be 
involved in education.
  Mr. ANDREWS. I disagree.
  Mr. WOODALL. I thank my friend for yielding.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close on our side. If my 
friend is prepared to close, then we can close the debate here and move 
to a vote on the rule, and then move directly to consideration of the 
appropriations bill, so that the American people will be closer to 
getting resources they desperately need.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I am expecting another speaker who is not yet on the 
floor.
  My speaker has arrived, Mr. Crowley of New York, and I will yield him 
3 minutes.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill. I'm not 
opposed to keeping our government up and running. In fact, I want 
desperately to support a bill as simple as keeping the Federal 
Government up and running.
  What I'm imposed to is, I believe, ugly, out-right partisan politics, 
especially at a time when Americans want to work constructively 
together to address the serious problems that we're all facing. But 
bipartisanship is not at work here tonight, and it has not been here 
for some time.
  Since President Obama announced the American Jobs Act, my colleagues 
on the other side have held zero hearings, not a single hearing on that 
plan.
  Since Solyndra announced it was going out of business, the majority 
has held three hearings, and there are more scheduled to come. Let's be 
clear. We should get all the answers, every answer about Solyndra's 
failings. But I'm sorry. That is not a comprehensive agenda that will 
produce one single job.
  Time is ticking because, while we stand here tonight quibbling about 
how to pay for the day-to-day functions of government, and how best to 
assist American communities hurting after hurricanes, flooding, 
droughts, and wildfires, Europe and China are working overtime to 
outcompete us on every front.
  President Obama and the Democratic Party have a plan for keeping the 
U.S. competitive on the global stage. We have a plan for keeping 
American businesses, workers, and industries stronger and better than 
our foreign competitors.
  It's Democrats who got engaged and saved GM and Chrysler. It's 
Democrats who created the Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing 
loan program, a program that has created almost 40,000 auto 
manufacturing jobs in less than 2 years. And it's Democrats who have 
led the way on green energy.
  By contrast, the GOP agenda can be summed up in one word: 
``roadblock.'' Not road building, roadblock.
  Republicans aren't focused on producing jobs. They oppose trying to 
put Detroit back on its feet. They are opposed to bringing President 
Obama's bills to the floor. And in the very bill we are debating right 
now, they are making cuts to the very manufacturing program I just 
cited as a job creator.
  My colleagues, there are Americans across the country who are 
hurting. They've lost jobs, been foreclosed upon, and have endured 
extreme natural disasters of all kinds. They cannot accept a Congress 
that isn't willing to put them first. They cannot accept a Congress 
that insists upon offsets for aid to rebuild America, but not for aid 
to rebuild schools, hospitals, and roads in Iraq and Afghanistan. They 
cannot accept a Congress that holds more hearings on the failure of one 
company, but not one hearing on a job plan for America. I'm sorry, but 
this is not acceptable.
  Vote ``no'' on this bill and reject the GOP's roadblock agenda.
  Mr. DREIER. I am prepared to close the debate on our side.
  I reserve the balance of my time for that purpose.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from 
Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
  Ms. KAPTUR. I thank the ranking member, Ms. Slaughter of New York, 
for granting me this time to say, at first, I really didn't believe it 
when someone suggested to me that the Republican Party would really 
like to defeat President Obama by raising the unemployment rate. I 
thought, that's too cynical to really believe.
  But in this particular proposal tonight, what we see is a proposal by 
the Republican Party to take money from the Advanced Technology Vehicle 
Manufacturing program to help America compete in the auto industry with 
state-managed economies like China's and Japan's, and take it away from 
recovering auto firms and unemployed auto workers to give to disaster 
victims around this country.
  It's a no-win game. We're hurting the American people. We take from 
one sector that is suffering for another sector that is suffering? In 
the greatest

[[Page H6395]]

automotive manufacturing country in the world, we don't want to put 
more people back to work because we want to defeat the President next 
year?
  I'm starting to believe those that suggested this cynical ploy. Why 
should we hurt the automotive industry that is just beginning to hire 
back and starting to lift this economy in the industrial Midwest and 
through hiring at parts suppliers coast to coast?
  Vote ``no'' on this cynical ploy to set disaster victims against 
unemployed auto workers in the automotive industry of this country, 
which has a right to compete. If you want to offset $1.5 billion in 
costs of disaster assistance, take it from the bonuses Wall Street 
titans keep pocketing. For them, it's only pocket change.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from California, our Democrat leader, Ms. Pelosi.
  Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentlelady for yielding, and I commend her 
for her enormous leadership, patience, and great intellect that she 
brings to bear on these issues.
  Mr. Speaker, listening to the debate, it's really almost hard to 
explain to someone why we're coming back tonight with the same old, 
same old warmed-over stew that was rejected yesterday by the Congress 
of the United States. But since then we've had some support expressed 
for the initiative that is contained in this bill and against the 
notion that our Republican colleagues have that it's a good idea to use 
this as a pay-for.
  I take particular pride in this provision that the Republicans are 
trying to zero out in this bill, the Advanced Technology Vehicle 
Manufacturing program.
  You will recall, Mr. Dreier, that it was part of a bill that was 
passed when President Bush was President. It was the Energy 
Independence and Security Act of 2007. It was a bill that passed the 
Congress with strong bipartisan support, including your support, Mr. 
Dreier. In fact, 95 Republicans voted for the bill. It was an even 
split in the Republican Caucus, 95 for, 96 against. But you recall 
voting for that.
  Mr. DREIER. Will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. PELOSI. No, I'm sorry, because you have a half an hour and I 
don't.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I've been mentioned three times, and since 
the gentlewoman has mentioned me--
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from California controls the 
time.
  Ms. PELOSI. The gentleman has all the time. For some reason the 
Republicans are not showing their faces on the floor on this amendment. 
He has plenty of time on this bill, plenty of time to speak. If he 
didn't, I'd be more than happy to yield to him, but since he has so 
much time on his own, he can use that.
  In any event, here's the thing. We have an initiative that is 
bipartisan. We have an initiative that has passed the House in 
overwhelming numbers, 314-100; 314-100 it passed the House after coming 
back from the Senate.
  Yesterday, there was an attempt made to use the funds allocated to 
the Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing program to offset the 
disaster assistance. I myself believe it is a matter of principle that 
we should just do with disaster assistance what we always have done, 
have no doubt in anyone's mind that when a disaster, a natural disaster 
strikes, the Federal Government will be there, FEMA will be funded, and 
that we don't have to look around for a place to say, let's prioritize. 
No, the disaster assistance is our priority.

                              {time}  2230

  But on top of that, they use as a pay-for, again, zeroing out the 
Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing. I don't want you to take my 
words for the merit of this initiative. I want to quote for the record 
the letter from the United States of America Chamber of Commerce and 
the letter from the National Association of Manufacturers.
  First from the Chamber of Commerce:
  ``As Congress sets spending priorities, the Chamber wishes to 
highlight a few important facts about the Advanced Technology Vehicle 
Manufacturing 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 is critical to the Nation's recovery.''
  Then they go on to say that this is funded by the Department of 
Education, and that it's not the fault of industry if these funds have 
not been used.
  In the NAM letter, National Association of Manufacturers, they say 
similarly:
  ``We 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.''
  It was a very proud day for us when President Bush signed this bill. 
It made tremendous advances in energy efficiency and conservation. It 
was a great accomplishment of the Bush administration and a Democratic 
Congress working together, but the bill passed in strong bipartisan 
fashion.
  ``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.''
  I will submit the rest of the letters for the Record so Members can 
read further for themselves in the Congressional Record; and for all 
who view the work of Congress, they can see the importance of these 
initiatives, first by the strong bipartisan support that they received 
in a Democratically controlled Congress but signed by a Republican 
President, President Bush, a very major accomplishment, I think he 
believes.
  The second point, though, is that, again, American people are looking 
for ways for us to create jobs. The Republicans have been in power in 
this Congress in this House of Representatives for over 250 days. They 
have not passed one bill into law which is a job creator; and today, 
they come back to the floor a second day in a row with a job destroyer. 
The repetition of it is almost frivolous when you think that what we 
could be talking about here is a clean CR, a clean continuing 
resolution that will meet our needs to November 18.
  I thank Chairman Dicks for his leadership on this important issue, 
Mr. Levin, certainly Mr. Dingell, who was a champion of this initiative 
from day one and a leader in the fight to preserve it here.
  It could just have been so simple. Let's just keep government open 
until November 18 with a clean continuing resolution instead of coming 
to the floor and for the first time.
  Now my colleagues will say, Well, we've had other emergencies that 
were funded. I'm not talking about emergencies. There are many 
emergencies. I'm talking about disasters. I'm talking about natural 
disasters when people's homes are swept away. This isn't political. 
This is very, very personal, if you've lost your home, your belongings, 
your livelihood, your business, your sense of community, the character 
of the area in which you live, as many of our colleagues on both sides 
of the aisle have done. When you see the nature of the natural 
disasters, whether it's out-of-control forest fires in Texas, what 
happened in Joplin, Missouri, which is almost biblical in its 
proportion, and what happened on the east coast with the earthquake 
followed by hurricane followed by tornado followed by floods and all 
that goes with it.
  Do you think people think that we have any relevance to their lives 
if we're talking about something like this when all they are saying is, 
Help. It's as if a building is on fire and you're going to figure out 
who is going to pay for the water instead of just running to the 
rescue.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this and urge my Republican 
colleagues to please pull this back, bring a clean CR to the floor. 
Let's get serious about the people's business.


[[Page H6396]]


                                               Chamber of Congress


                              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 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,

                                               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 promote energy security.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Paul A. Yost.

  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
and I'll be happy to yield to my distinguished California colleague at 
any moment as I make a couple of remarks here as she walks off the 
floor.
  I asked her to yield, Mr. Speaker, because she three times referenced 
me as it relates to the vehicle program, the Advanced Technology 
Vehicle Manufacturers program. Let me just explain what we're faced 
with today, Mr. Speaker.
  What we're faced with is the challenge of ensuring that we get the 
resources necessary to the American people who are suffering because of 
these disasters. Now, when my California colleague was Speaker of the 
House, we had disasters that took place like Hurricane Katrina. Much of 
that was offset. And so to act as if this is unprecedented is not a 
correct characterization of what has happened, because we have seen 
offsets for disasters in the past on numerous occasions over the last 
decade in excess of $59 billion in offsets that provided for 
supplemental appropriations that have been out there.
  As it relates to the Advanced Technology Vehicle program, I was going 
to say to my California colleague who is no longer on the floor, and 
I'd like to yield to her if she would like to come back to respond to 
this, there is a total of $4 billion that is there. What we're doing is 
utilizing $1.5 billion. So as people say that this program is being 
completely eliminated, that is not a correct characterization of what 
has happened.
  Let me tell you what it is we're doing, Mr. Speaker.
  We're doing everything that we can to find every dollar that we 
possibly can to ensure that our fellow Americans who are suffering due 
to these disasters are able to have the resources that are necessary. 
Of the $1.5 billion which is utilized in the offset, it's been sitting 
in the coffers for 3 years. So to act as if we somehow are going to see 
some great loss of jobs is again a mischaracterization of what is 
happening.
  We're establishing priorities. We have a priority, that being dealing 
with our fellow Americans in Joplin, Missouri, who suffered from that 
horrible tornado that hit that area. That's my home State of Missouri. 
I know how devastating. In listening to our colleague, Mr. Long, it's 
very clear to see in his eyes the kind of effort that he's put in to 
deal with the rebuilding there. That is a priority.
  Dealing with the photographs that we saw from Mr. Welch's district 
who voted for this bill yesterday and I suspect will vote for it again 
this evening to ensure that those who suffered from flooding in Vermont 
have that. And as I said earlier in the day, our new colleague, Tom 
Marino from Williamsport, Pennsylvania, who just in the past several 
days was trudging through the mud as he reported to my colleagues in 
our meeting downstairs talking to the parents of children who were 
literally sitting on the hoods of their automobiles because their homes 
had been devastated. And the question asked by that parent to 
Congressman Marino was, What is it you are going to do? And he said 
that he was going to come to Washington and do everything that he 
possibly can, everything that he would be able to do to ensure that 
they have the resources they need.
  Now, to argue that this is pitting a fund that has been sitting 
dormant for 3 years and is not in the pipeline versus utilization of 
those resources for the American people who are suffering is a very 
inappropriate thing to do.
  So that was the discussion that I was looking forward to having with 
my California colleague as she talked about my support of the Advanced 
Technology Vehicle program.
  Mr. LEVIN. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DREIER. Of course. I'm always happy to yield to my good friend 
from Detroit.

                              {time}  2240

  Mr. LEVIN. Look, no one is saying the total program would be 
obliterated.
  Mr. DREIER. If I could reclaim my time, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman 
just said no one is saying that. I'm sure that my friend was not here 
through the entire debate.
  Mr. LEVIN. I was.
  Mr. DREIER. I don't know that my friend was listening through the 
entire debate.
  Mr. LEVIN. I was.
  Mr. DREIER. May I finish, Mr. Speaker?
  What I want to say is that we were told that we on our side of the 
aisle are declaring war--declaring war--by the statement made by our 
friends from Massachusetts, and from that, one would have to infer that 
we were trying to obliterate a program.
  When we, Mr. Speaker, have 3 years of those dollars sitting dormant, 
not being expended and not in the pipeline, we believe that we can 
utilize those dollars for the American people who

[[Page H6397]]

are truly in need. We need to move ahead with that as expeditiously as 
possible, and I think we should try to do that right now and get to the 
appropriations bill.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEVIN. Will the gentlelady from New York yield me 30 seconds?
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I'm sorry, Mr. Levin. I don't have any more time.
  Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close.
  Mr. LEVIN. How much time is there on both sides, please?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California has 10\1/2\ 
minutes, and the gentlewoman from New York has 3\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. LEVIN. Will the gentleman from California yield to me?
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, let me yield myself 1 minute, and I will 
yield to my friend from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. No one has said that the program will be eliminated. What 
we have said is what the Manufacturers Association has said. It 
believes defunding ATVM will hurt manufacturers and their employees.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I reclaim my time.
  We've had this read to us three times.
  Mr. LEVIN. You don't want to hear the facts.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I've heard it three times read on the House 
floor. We heard the debate earlier today. It was read by our 
colleagues, Mr. Speaker. I've heard this three times on the House 
floor.
  What I want to say is that we've had, for 3 years, the dollars that 
we're utilizing for the offset sitting dormant.
  Mr. LEVIN. It is not true.
  Mr. DREIER. It is true, and it is not in the pipeline to be expended, 
Mr. Speaker. So, for that reason, I believe the people of Joplin, 
Missouri, can better utilize dollars that have been sitting for 3 years 
for absolutely no purpose whatsoever.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question at the 
end of the debate, I will offer an amendment to the rule to ensure that 
disaster victims get the help that they need. My amendment will allow 
Representative Dingell to offer a motion to strike the unacceptable 
House language and to substitute the bipartisan Senate approach.
  I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell).
  (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DINGELL. Here we are again.
  Yesterday, the House rebuked the Republicans because they came 
forward with almost as bad a bill as this. They were going to destroy, 
as they are tonight, the Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing 
program. It's one of the most successful programs we've had. It has 
made 40,000 jobs for Americans. At a time when Americans are losing 
their homes, losing their jobs, running out of unemployment 
compensation, they want to hear us say what we're doing about jobs, 
what we're doing about opportunity, what we're doing about making the 
economy grow.
  So the Republicans, when they got their heads handed to them 
yesterday, went back to caucus and made the bill a little bit worse so 
that they could appeal to their right-wing extremes. The result is that 
you've got a bill here that has been brought to us that nobody has had 
an opportunity to see and a bill on which we haven't got any idea 
exactly what it does.
  We hear our good friend from California tell us how the private 
system of government is working. He says it's working in China because 
the Chinese have forced GM to work with them to manufacture cars over 
there so that they can sell them over here. We say that we ought to be 
manufacturing those cars over here with American workers to sell over 
there in China and in other countries that are playing the same game 
with us.
  This is an enormously successful program. They're submitting their 
successes of yesterday by trying now to cut other programs which do 
this.
  They talk about Solyndra. Solyndra went broke for a very simple 
reason. I sat in on the hearings when I don't think many of the other 
Members on this side did. I heard that the reason they went under was 
the trade practices of the Chinese. That's why. They're underselling 
them in an intolerable way in spite of the fact that we've tried to 
bring that technology over here and to make it work for the American 
people in order to provide jobs for the American people.
  My Republican colleagues are making a war between the American 
workers and American industry on the one side and those who have need 
of relief from the disasters. That's not good. It should not be. It is 
quite sufficient that we help both. There is no need to have an offset 
for a disaster, and time after time we have not done it. But not so the 
Republicans. They are out to kill Department of Energy loan programs. 
These are programs that create jobs.
  Take a look in your district, if they'll give you a copy of this 
bill, and ask yourself and ask them and ask of the legislation: What 
are they cutting that is in your district or your State that's going to 
make jobs and opportunity for your people? You're going to find, when 
this legislation passes--God forbid it will do so--that you have cut 
the opportunities and the well-being of your American people who 
desperately look to us to make the economy go again. You are burning 
here tonight the seed corn of the American people. You are taking and 
striking a major blow against the economy and the well-being of this 
Nation. I say, Shame.
  Reject the rule.
  Reject the previous question.
  Reject the proposal.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from New York has 30 seconds 
remaining.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the 
text of the amendment in the Record along with extraneous material 
immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the 
previous question, I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule and the underlying 
amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to 
simply say to my colleagues that we're here for a very important 
reason. The reason is that we want to make sure that we don't face a 
government shutdown. We want to make sure that we do everything we 
possibly can so that the people in this country who have suffered from 
disasters over the past several weeks and months are able to have the 
resources that they need to do that, and we want to make sure, Mr. 
Speaker, that we do it in a fiscally responsible way so that we can do 
what every American and every Democrat and Republican in this House 
says needs to be done so that we can get our economy growing and put 
into place pro-growth, job creation proposals. I believe that we can do 
that. I think we can do it responsibly.
  I will say that this is the identical package that we had last night, 
with one modification; and that one modification is to ensure, with all 
due respect to my friend, the distinguished dean of this House, that we 
don't have another Solyndra. Regardless of what some have said was the 
cause of their demise, when we have employees of that company coming 
forward and making the case that they were spending money left and 
right, that they were using it on some of the most outrageous things 
imaginable, and that the employees could not understand why they built 
a factory when they had all of these resources in reserve, this cannot 
be allowed. It's not a responsible expenditure of U.S. taxpayer 
dollars, Mr. Speaker, and that's the reason we believe this $100 
million can be used for the people who are truly in need.
  The material previously referred to by Ms. Slaughter is as follows:

    An amendment to H. Res. 412 offered by Ms. Slaughter of New York

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     sections:
       Sec. 2. Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     resolution, after expiration of debate on the motion to 
     concur specified in the first section of this resolution it 
     shall be in order to consider the motion to amend printed in 
     section 3 of this resolution. That motion may be offered only 
     by Representative Dingell of Michigan or his designee, shall 
     be

[[Page H6398]]

     debatable for 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by 
     the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to 
     amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division 
     of the question. All points of order against that motion are 
     waived.
       Sec. 3. The motion to amend referred to in section 2 is as 
     follows:
       ``(1) Strike sections 125 and 126 of the House amendment 
     (and redesignate the subsequent sections accordingly).
       ``(2) At the end of the House amendment, before the short 
     title, insert the following:
       ``Sec. __ . Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     Act, there is hereby enacted into law the provisions of 
     division B of the amendment adopted by the Senate on 
     September 15, 2011, to House Joint Resolution 66 (112th 
     Congress), relating to emergency supplemental disaster relief 
     appropriations.''.
       (The information contained herein was provided by the 
     Republican Minority on multiple occasions throughout the 
     110th and 111th Congresses.)


        THE VOTE ON THE PREVIOUS QUESTION: WHAT IT REALLY MEANS

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an 
     alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be 
     debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       Because the vote today may look bad for the Republican 
     majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is 
     simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on 
     adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive 
     legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is 
     not what they have always said. Listen to the Republican 
     Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in the United 
     States House of Representatives, (6th edition, page 135). 
     Here's how the Republicans describe the previous question 
     vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally not 
     possible to amend the rule because the majority Member 
     controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of 
     offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by 
     voting down the previous question on the rule . . . When the 
     motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the 
     time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering 
     the previous question. That Member, because he then controls 
     the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for 
     the purpose of amendment.''
       In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of 
     Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special 
     Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on 
     such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on 
     Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further 
     debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: 
     ``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a 
     resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control 
     shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous 
     question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who 
     controls the time for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Republican 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

  Mr. DREIER. I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair 
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on 
the question of adoption.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 235, 
nays 177, not voting 21, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 725]

                               YEAS--235

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     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)
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     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
     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
     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--177

     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     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
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hochul
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     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
     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
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--21

     Bachmann
     Bishop (GA)
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Carson (IN)
     Deutch
     Garamendi
     Giffords
     Gohmert

[[Page H6399]]


     Guinta
     Langevin
     Lujan
     Paul
     Rangel
     Reichert
     Schock
     Shuler
     Speier
     Stark
     Waxman
     Welch

                              {time}  2312

  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California changed his vote from ``yea'' to 
``nay.''
  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 176, not voting 19, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 726]

                               YEAS--238

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Amash
     Amodei
     Austria
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     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)
     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
     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--176

     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     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
     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 (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     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
     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
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--19

     Bachmann
     Bilbray
     Bishop (GA)
     Butterfield
     Carson (IN)
     Deutch
     Garamendi
     Giffords
     Hirono
     Lujan
     Olver
     Paul
     Rangel
     Reichert
     Shuler
     Speier
     Stark
     Waxman
     Welch

                              {time}  2319

  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.
  Stated for:
  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 726, had I been present, I 
would have voted ``yes.''


                             General Leave

  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their 
remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 2608.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Kentucky?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the resolution just 
adopted, I call up the bill (H.R. 2608) to provide for an additional 
temporary extension of programs under the Small Business Act and the 
Small Business Investment Act of 1958, and for other purposes, with the 
Senate amendment thereto, and have a motion at the desk.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the Senate 
amendment.
  The text of the Senate amendment is as follows:
  Senate amendment:

       Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
     following:

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Small Business Program 
     Extension and Reform Act of 2011''.

     SEC. 2. ADDITIONAL TEMPORARY EXTENSION OF AUTHORIZATION OF 
                   PROGRAMS UNDER THE SMALL BUSINESS ACT AND THE 
                   SMALL BUSINESS INVESTMENT ACT OF 1958.

       (a) In General.--Section 1 of the Act entitled ``An Act to 
     extend temporarily certain authorities of the Small Business 
     Administration'', approved October 10, 2006 (Public Law 109-
     316; 120 Stat. 1742), as most recently amended by section 2 
     of the Small Business Additional Temporary Extension Act of 
     2011 (Public Law 112-17; 125 Stat. 221), is amended by 
     striking ``July 31, 2011'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``July 31, 2012''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) 
     shall take effect on July 30, 2011.

     SEC. 3. REPEALS AND OTHER TERMINATIONS.

       (a) General Provisions.--
       (1) Effective date.--A repeal or other termination of a 
     provision of law made by this section shall take effect on 
     October 1, 2011.
       (2) Rule.--Nothing in this section shall affect any grant 
     or assistance provided, contract or cooperative agreement 
     entered into, or loan made or guaranteed before October 1, 
     2011 under a provision of law repealed or otherwise 
     terminated by this section and any such grant, assistance, 
     contract, cooperative agreement, or loan shall be subject to 
     the applicable repealed or otherwise terminated provision, as 
     in effect on September 30, 2011.
       (3) Applicability of temporary extensions.--A repeal or 
     other termination of a provision of law made by this section 
     shall have effect notwithstanding any temporary extension of 
     programs, authority, or provisions under the Act entitled 
     ``An Act to extend temporarily certain authorities of the 
     Small Business Administration'', approved October 10, 2006 
     (Public Law 109-316; 120 Stat. 1742).
       (4) Deficit reduction.--Any savings resulting from this Act 
     and the amendments made by this Act shall be returned to the 
     Treasury for deficit reduction.
       (b) Pollution Control Loans.--Paragraph (12) of section 
     7(a) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 636(a)) is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``(A) The Administration'' and inserting 
     ``The Administration''; and

[[Page H6400]]

       (2) by striking ``research and development'' and all that 
     follows and inserting ``research and development.''.
       (c) Small Business Institute.--Subparagraph (E) of section 
     8(b)(1) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 637(b)(1)) is 
     repealed.
       (d) Drug-Free Workplace Grants.--Paragraph (3) of section 
     21(c) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 648(c)) is 
     amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (R) by adding ``and'' at the end;
       (2) in subparagraph (S) by striking ``; and'' and inserting 
     a period; and
       (3) by striking subparagraph (T).
       (e) Central European Small Business Enterprise Development 
     Commission.--Section 25 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 
     652) is repealed.
       (f) Paul D. Coverdell Drug-Free Workplace Program.--Section 
     27 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 654) is repealed.
       (g) Pilot Technology Access Program.--Section 28 of the 
     Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 655) is repealed.
       (h) National Veterans Business Development Corporation.--
       (1) In general.--Section 33 of the Small Business Act (15 
     U.S.C. 657c) is repealed.
       (2) Corporation.--Beginning on the date of enactment of 
     this Act, the National Veterans Business Development 
     Corporation and any successor thereto may not represent that 
     the corporation is federally chartered or in any other manner 
     authorized by the Federal Government.
       (i) Lease Guarantees and Pollution Control.--Part A of 
     title IV of the Small Business Investment Act of 1958 (15 
     U.S.C. 692 et seq.) is repealed.
       (j) Alternative Loss Reserve.--Paragraph (7) of section 
     508(c) of the Small Business Investment Act of 1958 (15 
     U.S.C. 697e(c)) is repealed.
       (k) Small Business Telecommuting Pilot Program.--Subsection 
     (d) of section 1203 of the Energy Independence and Security 
     Act of 2007 (15 U.S.C. 657h) is repealed.
       (l) Technical and Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Small business investment act of 1958.--Section 411(i) 
     of the Small Business Investment Act of 1958 (15 U.S.C. 
     694b(i)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(i) Without limiting the authority conferred upon the 
     Administrator and the Administration by section 201 of this 
     Act, the Administrator and the Administration shall have, in 
     the performance of and with respect to the functions, powers, 
     and duties conferred by this part, all the authority and be 
     subject to the same conditions prescribed in section 5(b) of 
     the Small Business Act with respect to loans, including the 
     authority to execute subleases, assignments of lease and new 
     leases with any person, firm, organization, or other entity, 
     in order to aid in the liquidation of obligations of the 
     Administration hereunder.''.
       (2) Title 10.--Section 1142(b)(13) of title 10, United 
     States Code, is amended by striking ``and the National 
     Veterans Business Development Corporation''.
       (3) Title 38.--Subsection (h) of section 3452 of title 38, 
     United States Code, is amended by striking ``any of the'' and 
     all that follows and inserting ``any small business 
     development center described in section 21 of the Small 
     Business Act (15 U.S.C. 648), insofar as such center offers, 
     sponsors, or cosponsors an entrepreneurship course, as that 
     term is defined in section 3675(c)(2).''.
       (4) Veterans entrepreneurship and small business 
     development act of 1999.--Section 203(c)(5) of the Veterans 
     Entrepreneurship and Small Business Development Act of 1999 
     (15 U.S.C. 657b note) is amended by striking ``In cooperation 
     with the National Veterans Business Development Corporation, 
     develop'' and inserting ``Develop''.

     SEC. 4. TERMINATION OF EMERGING LEADERS PROGRAM.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, effective 
     October 1, 2011, the Administrator of the Small Business 
     Administration may not carry out or otherwise support the 
     program referred to as ``Emerging Leaders'' in the document 
     of the Small Business Administration titled ``FY 2012 
     Congressional Budget Justification and FY 2010 Annual 
     Performance Report'' (or any predecessor or successor 
     document).


                            Motion to Concur

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the motion.
  The text of the motion is as follows:

       Mr. Rogers of Kentucky moves that the House concur in the 
     Senate amendment to H.R. 2608 with an amendment.

  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the 
     amendment of the Senate, insert the following:
     That the following sums are hereby appropriated, out of any 
     money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, and out of 
     applicable corporate or other revenues, receipts, and funds, 
     for the several departments, agencies, corporations, and 
     other organizational units of Government for fiscal year 
     2012, and for other purposes, namely:
       Sec. 101. (a) Such amounts as may be necessary, at a rate 
     for operations as provided in the applicable appropriations 
     Acts for fiscal year 2011 and under the authority and 
     conditions provided in such Acts, for continuing projects or 
     activities (including the costs of direct loans and loan 
     guarantees) that are not otherwise specifically provided for 
     in this Act, that were conducted in fiscal year 2011, and for 
     which appropriations, funds, or other authority were made 
     available in the following appropriations Acts:
       (1) The Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2011 
     (division A of Public Law 112-10).
       (2) The Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011 
     (division B of Public Law 112-10).
       (b) The rate for operations provided by subsection (a) is 
     hereby reduced by 1.503 percent.
       Sec. 102. (a) No appropriation or funds made available or 
     authority granted pursuant to section 101 for the Department 
     of Defense shall be used for (1) the new production of items 
     not funded for production in fiscal year 2011 or prior years; 
     (2) the increase in production rates above those sustained 
     with fiscal year 2011 funds; or (3) the initiation, 
     resumption, or continuation of any project, activity, 
     operation, or organization (defined as any project, 
     subproject, activity, budget activity, program element, and 
     subprogram within a program element, and for any investment 
     items defined as a P-1 line item in a budget activity within 
     an appropriation account and an R-1 line item that includes a 
     program element and subprogram element within an 
     appropriation account) for which appropriations, funds, or 
     other authority were not available during fiscal year 2011.
       (b) No appropriation or funds made available or authority 
     granted pursuant to section 101 for the Department of Defense 
     shall be used to initiate multi-year procurements utilizing 
     advance procurement funding for economic order quantity 
     procurement unless specifically appropriated later.
       Sec. 103.  Appropriations made by section 101 shall be 
     available to the extent and in the manner that would be 
     provided by the pertinent appropriations Act.
       Sec. 104.  Except as otherwise provided in section 102, no 
     appropriation or funds made available or authority granted 
     pursuant to section 101 shall be used to initiate or resume 
     any project or activity for which appropriations, funds, or 
     other authority were not available during fiscal year 2011.
       Sec. 105.  Appropriations made and authority granted 
     pursuant to this Act shall cover all obligations or 
     expenditures incurred for any project or activity during the 
     period for which funds or authority for such project or 
     activity are available under this Act.
       Sec. 106.  Unless otherwise provided for in this Act or in 
     the applicable appropriations Act for fiscal year 2012, 
     appropriations and funds made available and authority granted 
     pursuant to this Act shall be available until whichever of 
     the following first occurs: (1) the enactment into law of an 
     appropriation for any project or activity provided for in 
     this Act; (2) the enactment into law of the applicable 
     appropriations Act for fiscal year 2012 without any provision 
     for such project or activity; or (3) November 18, 2011.
       Sec. 107.  Expenditures made pursuant to this Act shall be 
     charged to the applicable appropriation, fund, or 
     authorization whenever a bill in which such applicable 
     appropriation, fund, or authorization is contained is enacted 
     into law.
       Sec. 108.  Appropriations made and funds made available by 
     or authority granted pursuant to this Act may be used without 
     regard to the time limitations for submission and approval of 
     apportionments set forth in section 1513 of title 31, United 
     States Code, but nothing in this Act may be construed to 
     waive any other provision of law governing the apportionment 
     of funds.
       Sec. 109.  Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, 
     except section 106, for those programs that would otherwise 
     have high initial rates of operation or complete distribution 
     of appropriations at the beginning of fiscal year 2012 
     because of distributions of funding to States, foreign 
     countries, grantees, or others, such high initial rates of 
     operation or complete distribution shall not be made, and no 
     grants shall be awarded for such programs funded by this Act 
     that would impinge on final funding prerogatives.
       Sec. 110.  This Act shall be implemented so that only the 
     most limited funding action of that permitted in the Act 
     shall be taken in order to provide for continuation of 
     projects and activities.
       Sec. 111. (a) For entitlements and other mandatory payments 
     whose budget authority was provided in appropriations Acts 
     for fiscal year 2011, and for activities under the Food and 
     Nutrition Act of 2008, activities shall be continued at the 
     rate to maintain program levels under current law, under the 
     authority and conditions provided in the applicable 
     appropriations Act for fiscal year 2011, to be continued 
     through the date specified in section 106(3).
       (b) Notwithstanding section 106, obligations for mandatory 
     payments due on or about the first day of any month that 
     begins after October 2011 but not later than 30 days after 
     the date specified in section 106(3) may continue to be made, 
     and funds shall be available for such payments.
       Sec. 112.  Amounts made available under section 101 for 
     civilian personnel compensation and benefits in each 
     department and agency may be apportioned up to the rate for 
     operations necessary to avoid furloughs within such 
     department or agency, consistent with the applicable 
     appropriations Act for fiscal year 2011, except that such 
     authority provided under this section shall not be used until 
     after the department or agency has taken all necessary 
     actions to reduce or defer non-personnel-related 
     administrative expenses.
       Sec. 113.  Funds appropriated by this Act may be obligated 
     and expended notwithstanding section 10 of Public Law 91-672 
     (22 U.S.C. 2412), section 15 of the State Department Basic 
     Authorities Act of 1956 (22 U.S.C. 2680), section 313 of the 
     Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1994 and 
     1995 (22 U.S.C. 6212), and section 504(a)(1) of the National 
     Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 414(a)(1)).
       Sec. 114. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b), each 
     amount incorporated by reference in

[[Page H6401]]

     this Act that was previously designated as being for 
     contingency operations directly related to the global war on 
     terrorism pursuant to section 3(c)(2) of H. Res. 5 (112th 
     Congress) and as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 
     403(a) of S. Con. Res. 13 (111th Congress), the concurrent 
     resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2010, is designated 
     by the Congress for Overseas Contingency Operations/Global 
     War on Terrorism pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, 
     except that such amount shall be available only if the 
     President subsequently so designates such amount and 
     transmits such designation to the Congress. Section 101(b) of 
     this Act shall not apply to any amount so designated.
       (b) Subsection (a) shall not apply to amounts for 
     ``Department of Justice--Federal Bureau of Investigation--
     Salaries and Expenses''.
       Sec. 115.  During the period covered by this Act, 
     discretionary amounts appropriated for fiscal year 2012 that 
     were provided in advance by appropriations Acts shall be 
     available in the amounts provided in such Acts, reduced by 
     the percentage in section 101(b).
       Sec. 116.  Notwithstanding section 101, amounts made 
     available by this Act for ``Department of Defense--Operation 
     and Maintenance--Operation and Maintenance, Air Force'' may 
     be used by the Secretary of Defense for operations and 
     activities of the Office of Security Cooperation in Iraq and 
     security assistance teams, including life support, 
     transportation and personal security, and facilities 
     renovation and construction: Provided, That the authority 
     made by this section shall continue in effect through the 
     date specified in section 106(3) of this Act: Provided 
     further, That section 9014 of division A of Public Law 112-10 
     shall not apply to funds appropriated by this Act.
       Sec. 117.  Notwithstanding section 101, funds made 
     available in title IX of division A of Public Law 112-10 for 
     ``Overseas Contingency Operations'' shall be available at a 
     rate for operations not to exceed the rate permitted by H.R. 
     2219 (112th Congress) as passed by the House of 
     Representatives on July 8, 2011.
       Sec. 118.  The authority provided by section 127b of title 
     10, United States Code, shall continue in effect through the 
     date specified in section 106(3) of this Act.
       Sec. 119.  The authority provided by section 1202 of the 
     John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
     Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364; 120 Stat. 2412), as extended 
     by section 1204(b) of the Duncan Hunter National Defense 
     Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110-417; 
     122 Stat. 4623), shall continue in effect through the date 
     specified in section 106(3) of this Act.
       Sec. 120.  Notwithstanding section 101, amounts are 
     provided for ``Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board--
     Salaries and Expenses'' at a rate for operations of 
     $29,130,000.
       Sec. 121.  Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, 
     except section 106, the District of Columbia may expend local 
     funds under the heading ``District of Columbia Funds'' for 
     such programs and activities under title IV of H.R. 2434 
     (112th Congress), as reported by the Committee on 
     Appropriations of the House of Representatives, at the rate 
     set forth under ``District of Columbia Funds--Summary of 
     Expenses'' as included in the Fiscal Year 2012 Budget Request 
     Act of 2011 (D.C. Act 19-92), as modified as of the date of 
     the enactment of this Act.
       Sec. 122.  Notwithstanding section 101, amounts are 
     provided for the necessary expenses of the Recovery 
     Accountability and Transparency Board, to carry out its 
     functions under title XV of division A of the American 
     Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-5), at 
     a rate for operations of $28,350,000.
       Sec. 123. (a) Section 9(m) of the Small Business Act (15 
     U.S.C. 638(m)) shall be applied by substituting the date 
     specified in section 106(3) of this Act for ``September 30, 
     2011''.
       (b) Notwithstanding section 9(n)(1)(A) of the Small 
     Business Act (15 U.S.C. 638(n)(1)(A)), the Small Business 
     Technology Transfer Program shall continue in effect through 
     the date specified in section 106(3) of this Act.
       (c) Notwithstanding section 9(y)(6) of the Small Business 
     Act (15 U.S.C. 638(y)(6)), the pilot program under section 
     9(y) of such Act shall continue in effect through the date 
     specified in section 106(3) of this Act.
       Sec. 124.  Section 8909a(d)(3)(A)(v) of title 5, United 
     States Code, is amended by striking ``September 30, 2011'' 
     and inserting the date specified in section 106(3) of this 
     Act.
       Sec. 125.  Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, 
     effective on the date of the enactment of this Act, of the 
     unobligated balances remaining available to the Department of 
     Energy pursuant to section 129 of the Continuing 
     Appropriations Resolution, 2009 (division A of Public Law 
     110-329), $500,000,000 is rescinded, $774,000,000 is hereby 
     transferred to and merged with ``Department of Homeland 
     Security--Federal Emergency Management Agency--Disaster 
     Relief'', and $226,000,000 is hereby transferred to and 
     merged with ``Corps of Engineers-Civil--Flood Control and 
     Coastal Emergencies'': Provided, That the amounts made 
     available by this section for the Corps of Engineers-Civil 
     shall be for emergency expenses for repair of damage caused 
     by the storm and flood events occurring in 2011: Provided 
     further, That the amounts transferred by this section shall 
     remain available until expended:  Provided further, That each 
     amount transferred by this section is designated as an 
     emergency pursuant to section 3(c)(1) of H. Res. 5 (112th 
     Congress) and as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 
     403(a) of S. Con. Res. 13 (111th Congress), the concurrent 
     resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2010.
       Sec. 126. (a) Notwithstanding section 101, amounts are 
     provided for ``Department of Homeland Security--Federal 
     Emergency Management Agency--Disaster Relief'' at a rate for 
     operations of $2,650,000,000: Provided, That the Secretary of 
     Homeland Security shall provide a full accounting of disaster 
     relief funding requirements for such account for fiscal year 
     2012 not later than 15 days after the date of the enactment 
     of this Act, and for fiscal year 2013 in conjunction with the 
     submission of the President's budget request for fiscal year 
     2013.
       (b) The accounting described in subsection (a) for each 
     fiscal year shall include estimates of the following amounts:
       (1) The unobligated balance of funds in such account that 
     has been (or will be) carried over to such fiscal year from 
     prior fiscal years.
       (2) The unobligated balance of funds in such account that 
     will be carried over from such fiscal year to the subsequent 
     fiscal year.
       (3) The amount of the rolling average of non-catastrophic 
     disasters, and the specific data used to calculate such 
     rolling average, for such fiscal year.
       (4) The amount that will be obligated each month for 
     catastrophic events, delineated by event and State, and the 
     total remaining funding that will be required after such 
     fiscal year for each such catastrophic event for each State.
       (5) The amount of previously obligated funds that will be 
     recovered each month of such fiscal year.
       (6) The amount that will be required in such fiscal year 
     for emergencies, as defined in section 102(1) of the Robert 
     T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 
     U.S.C. 5122(1)).
       (7) The amount that will be required in such fiscal year 
     for major disasters, as defined in section 102(2) of the 
     Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 5122(2)).
       (8) The amount that will be required in such fiscal year 
     for fire management assistance grants, as defined in section 
     420 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency 
     Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5187).
       Sec. 127.  Any funds made available pursuant to section 101 
     for the Department of Homeland Security may be obligated at a 
     rate for operations necessary to sustain essential security 
     activities, such as: staffing levels of operational 
     personnel; immigration enforcement and removal functions, 
     including sustaining not less than necessary detention bed 
     capacity; and United States Secret Service protective 
     activities, including protective activities necessary to 
     secure National Special Security Events. The Secretary of 
     Homeland Security shall notify the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate 
     on each use of the authority provided in this section.
       Sec. 128.  The authority provided by section 532 of Public 
     Law 109-295 shall continue in effect through the date 
     specified in section 106(3) of this Act.
       Sec. 129.  The authority provided by section 831 of the 
     Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 391) shall continue 
     in effect through the date specified in section 106(3) of 
     this Act.
       Sec. 130.  Section 550(b) of the Department of Homeland 
     Security Appropriations Act, 2007 (6 U.S.C. 121 note) shall 
     be applied by substituting the date specified in section 
     106(3) of this Act for ``October 4, 2011''.
       Sec. 131.  Sections 1309(a) and 1319 of the National Flood 
     Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4016(a) and 4026) shall be 
     applied by substituting the date specified in section 106(3) 
     of this Act for ``September 30, 2011''.
       Sec. 132.  Section 330 of the Department of the Interior 
     and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2001 (42 U.S.C. 1701 
     note), concerning Service First authorities, shall continue 
     in effect through the date specified in section 106(3) of 
     this Act.
       Sec. 133.  Notwithstanding section 101, section 1807 of 
     Public Law 112-10 shall be applied by substituting 
     ``$374,743,000'' for ``$363,843,000'' and ``$10,900,000'' for 
     ``$3,000,000''.
       Sec. 134.  The second proviso of section 1801(a)(3) of 
     Public Law 112-10 is amended by striking ``appropriation 
     under this subparagraph'' and inserting ``appropriations made 
     available by this Act''.
       Sec. 135.  Notwithstanding section 101, amounts are 
     provided for ``Federal Mine Safety and Health Review 
     Commission--Salaries and Expenses'' at a rate for operations 
     of $14,510,000.
       Sec. 136.  Sections 399AA(e), 399BB(g), and 399CC(f) of the 
     Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 280i(e), 280i-1(g), 
     280i-2(f)) shall be applied by substituting the date 
     specified in section 106(3) of this Act for ``September 30, 
     2011''.
       Sec. 137.  Notwithstanding section 101, section 2005 of 
     division B of Public Law 112-10 shall be applied by 
     substituting ``$0'' for each dollar amount.
       Sec. 138.  The Export-Import Bank Act of 1945 (12 U.S.C. 
     635 et seq.) shall be applied by substituting the date 
     specified in section 106(3) of this Act for ``September 30, 
     2011'' in section 7 of such Act of 1945.
       Sec. 139.  Section 209 of the International Religious 
     Freedom Act of 1998 (22 U.S.C. 6436) shall be applied by 
     substituting the date specified in section 106(3) of this Act 
     for ``September 30, 2011''.
       Sec. 140.  Commitments to guarantee loans incurred under 
     the General and Special Risk Insurance Funds, as authorized 
     by sections 238 and 519 of the National Housing Act (12 
     U.S.C. 1715z-3 and 1735c), shall not exceed a rate for 
     operations of $25,000,000,000: Provided, That total loan 
     principal, any part of which is to be guaranteed, may be 
     apportioned through the date specified in section 106(3) of 
     this Act, at $80,000,000 multiplied by the number of days 
     covered in this Act.
       Sec. 141. (a) Renewal of Import Restrictions Under Burmese 
     Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003.--
       (1) In general.--Congress approves the renewal of the 
     import restrictions contained in

[[Page H6402]]

     section 3(a)(1) and section 3A (b)(1) and (c)(1) of the 
     Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003.
       (2) Rule of construction.--This section shall be deemed to 
     be a ``renewal resolution'' for purposes of section 9 of the 
     Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003.
       (b) PAYGO Compliance.--The budgetary effects of this 
     section, for the purpose of complying with the Statutory Pay-
     As-You-Go Act of 2010, shall be determined by reference to 
     the latest statement titled ``Budgetary Effects of PAYGO 
     Legislation'' for this section, submitted for printing in the 
     Congressional Record by the Chairman of the House Budget 
     Committee, provided that such statement has been submitted 
     prior to the vote on passage.
       (c) Effective Date.--This section shall take effect on July 
     26, 2011.
       (d) Applicability.--This section shall not be subject to 
     any other provision of this Act.
       Sec. 142. Effective on the date of the enactment of this 
     Act, of the unobligated balances remaining available for 
     ``Department of Energy--Energy Programs--Title 17-Innovative 
     Technology Loan Guarantee Program'' pursuant to title IV of 
     division A of Public Law 111-5, $100,000,000 is rescinded.

        This Act may be cited as the ``Continuing Appropriations 
     Act, 2012''.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 412, the motion 
shall be debatable for 1 hour, equally divided and controlled by the 
chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations.
  The gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) and the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Dicks) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to bring to the floor the continuing 
appropriations resolution to keep the Federal Government operating 
until November 18, 2011. Before you is a slightly amended version of 
the bill, which is necessary after last night's vote. I hope that my 
colleagues recognize the urgency of this situation and will join me in 
taking the responsible step and support this CR.
  This bill must pass if we're going to keep our word to the American 
people. We need to get help to Americans who need it most, those who 
have lost their homes and their businesses to the unforgiving natural 
disasters that have beset us.
  FEMA is rapidly burning through its emergency funding and its ability 
to help those people recover from the tornados, hurricanes, 
earthquakes, wildfires and other disasters.
  Right now, at this minute, FEMA has $200 million left in the coffer. 
They're spending at the rate of $30 million a day for disaster relief. 
And at this rate, of course, they will be out of money over the 
weekend.
  This infusion of funding--$1 billion in emergency fiscal year 2011 
disaster funding and $2.65 billion for fiscal 2012--is critical. I 
can't stress that enough. And it will go far to relieve the burdens of 
those who are in need tonight.
  This version of the bill creates an additional offset to the fiscal 
year 2011 emergency funding. In addition to the $1.5 billion offset 
from the vehicle loan program, we are rescinding $100 million from the 
Innovative Technology Loan Guarantee Program, a section of the failed 
Stimulus Act that funded the now-bankrupt company Solyndra.
  The CR also continues government operations at a rate of $1.043 
trillion. That's the amount agreed to by the Congress and the White 
House in August as part of the debt ceiling compromise, and it is on 
the law books of the country. This reduced responsible rate will help 
restore our Nation's fiscal health.
  It is vital that Congress pass this legislation as swiftly as 
possible. We must prevent a government shutdown, and we have to 
replenish exhaustive disaster recovery funds which will dry up over the 
weekend. And just as importantly, we need time to complete work on the 
fiscal year 2012 appropriations legislation so we can avoid the 
uncertainty and instability that we saw last year when it took us until 
April to complete full-year appropriations legislation.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for this bill, not only to keep the 
government running, but also to help the hundreds of thousands of 
Americans relying on us to get them back on their feet all across the 
country.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DICKS. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I know as well as anyone that Members change their 
minds. I've heard a lot about that the last couple of days. But here we 
are debating essentially the same bill that we voted on yesterday. Many 
Republicans who voted ``no'' last night did so because they believed 
$1.043 trillion is too much spending. The bill before us tonight spends 
$1.043 trillion.
  I will be the first to say every Member is entitled to change his or 
her mind; however, I am eager to hear my Republican colleagues who 
voted ``no'' yesterday answer why it is okay to vote ``yes'' today. And 
I hope these Members will not hang their hat on the one fig leaf of 
change in the bill. The bill now includes a rescission of $100 million 
in emergency funding from section 1705 of the renewables DOE loan 
program. A rescission of emergency funds does not score as a reduction 
from the $1.043 trillion.
  Democrats voted ``no'' for two reasons: we strongly oppose taking 
funding from the Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing program. 
This is a program that has proven to be a success in creating new jobs, 
and such a success that the National Association of Manufacturers and 
the Chamber of Commerce of the United States have both called upon the 
Congress to not cut out this program because, one, the money is repaid, 
and it is creating jobs--something the majority has not done in the 
months that they've been in the majority. This is a jobs program.
  We strongly oppose the notion that efforts to help Americans rebuild 
their lives after floods, hurricanes, wildfires and other natural 
disasters should be put on hold until Congress can agree on offsetting 
reductions in spending. We will continue to vote ``no'' because the 
bill continues to acquire an offset to provide disaster relief funding, 
and that offset is misguided. Republicans take $1.5 billion from the 
Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing program at the Department of 
Energy to pay for $1 billion in disaster relief.
  The Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing program was started in 
2008 to reinvigorate American manufacturing. To date, the program has 
awarded $3.5 billion of credit subsidy to promote energy-efficient 
advanced vehicles and their component parts. The Department of Energy 
estimates the loan guarantees have created or maintained 39,000 jobs in 
California, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio, Michigan, 
Missouri, and Tennessee.
  Some have suggested that this program has been slow to spend 
emergency funding provided in the FY 2000 CR. I say the loan process 
ought to be strenuous. One company originally applied under a different 
loan program in 2006 and received an ATVM loan in 2010. It required 4 
years of due diligence and review to qualify for the loan. Republicans 
seem to be issuing an ultimatum to all loan programs: expedite the 
review process or see your funding transferred away. By the way, the 
company in question, Tesla, employed about 400 employees before 
receiving the loan. Today, they have 1,400 employees in the field of 
engineering research and development, design, manufacturing, assembly, 
maintenance, and service, sales and support.
  The ATVM program has an additional 18 loan applications in progress 
that are projected to create 50,000-60,000 more jobs in California, 
Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, and Ohio. 
One pending application would support investments at 11 plants in 
Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, and Ohio. The company employs over 56,000 
workers, having added nearly 9,000 new workers since 2009. Some of 
these jobs will be at risk because of this offset.
  This is not the time to put American manufacturing jobs at risk.

                              {time}  2330

  That is why the National Association of Manufacturers expressed their 
support for the ATVM program in a letter to the Senate dated September 
22, noting, ``The ATVM program is an example of what government/
industry partnerships can accomplish. It has helped create and preserve 
thousands of auto sector jobs. The NAM believes defunding ATVM will 
hurt manufacturers and their employees.'' And the Chamber of Commerce 
agrees with them.
  Now, I think it's time for us to stay with our position and vote 
``no'' and get a clean CR. That's what I asked the committee to do. We 
need a clean CR. We don't need this offset.

[[Page H6403]]

  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), the distinguished chairman of the 
Commerce, Justice, Science Subcommittee on Appropriations.
  Mr. WOLF. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  I rise in strong support of H.R. 2608, to provide the continuing 
resolution for the initial weeks. And I want to be sure that we keep 
the government open. And by passing this bill, we will keep the 
government open.
  This bill is needed to keep vital government services and programs 
operating past the end of the fiscal year on September 30. As the 
gentleman from Kentucky has stated, the Committee on Appropriations has 
made great progress in moving 11 of the 12 annual bills. However, 
additional time is needed for the consideration of the other.
  This continuing resolution, for anyone who questions it, conforms to 
the spending reduction targets that were agreed to by the House, the 
Senate, and the White House. It's exactly the same number, and so no 
reason to vote against it. Specifically, the bill sets an annual rate 
that reduces overall discretionary spending by 1.5 percent from fiscal 
year 2011.
  In addition, the bill provides disaster funding to provide much-
needed assistance to individuals and communities suffering from 
hurricane and flood damage. The State of Virginia has been hit, as many 
others.
  I urge all my colleagues to vote for this bill. By voting for the 
bill, we will keep the government open.
  The American people sometimes think this institution and this town is 
dysfunctional. We can ensure that we can do our work. Pass this bill.
  Mr. DICKS. I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina 
(Mr. Price), the ranking member on the Homeland Security Appropriations 
Subcommittee and former chair.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, here we go again. Just 
yesterday this continuing resolution failed because of widespread 
concerns with the plan to offset disaster relief funding from a key 
Department of Energy program. One day later we're having the exact same 
debate. The only thing that's changed is that the Republican majority 
has decided this time to target two Energy Department programs instead 
of one.
  When the measure failed yesterday, House Republican leaders faced a 
basic decision. They could give up their efforts to hold disaster 
funding hostage to another partisan budget battle by removing the 
offset and passing the bill with a broad bipartisan majority.
  Or they could make the measure even more extreme in order to cater to 
the most radical members of their party, without concern for the fact 
that FEMA is just days away from running out of money, and communities 
around the country are waiting desperately for the support that's been 
promised them.
  Now, anybody who's been watching this Congress for the last 8 months 
should not be the least surprised by the majority's decision. Once 
again, Republicans have put partisan ideology ahead of the dire needs 
of the American people and are risking yet another destabilizing 
standoff over spending cuts in the process.
  So now we're debating, under a martial-law rule, a bill that is even 
worse than it was yesterday. It still seeks to pay for urgent disaster 
relief needs by taking money from a major job-creating program at the 
Department of Energy.
  As I said in this Chamber yesterday, this is a radical departure from 
the way we have treated emergency disaster relief in the past. Over the 
past 10 years, Congress has approved 16 supplementals that included 
emergency funding for FEMA disaster relief in response to disasters 
such as 9/11, Katrina, Rita, Gustav, and Ike, and floods on the 
Mississippi, Missouri, and other rivers. None of these emergency 
appropriations for the disaster relief fund were paid for with cuts to 
other Federal programs.
  Yesterday I heard several of my friends on the other side of the 
aisle claim that we've offset disaster assistance numerous times over 
the past decade. This is simply not accurate. Some of the supplemental 
bills that included disaster relief also included offsets, but these 
offsets were used to pay for entirely separate programs, never for 
FEMA's Disaster Relief Fund.
  As I said yesterday, this insistence on offsets is bad precedent, and 
it's bad policy. It leaves disaster-affected communities in the lurch 
while undermining our economic recovery by cannibalizing an Energy 
Department program that stands to add tens of thousands of good-paying 
jobs in an industry critical to our future economic competitiveness.
  And it goes even further than that by including a gratuitous and 
arbitrary rescission to another Department of Energy loan program, a 
change aimed at scoring political points against the President and 
winning Tea Party votes. But it has very little to do with balancing 
the budget or providing relief for those in need.
  Moreover, rather than approving a bill that would win passage in the 
Senate, we are now sending over a measure that the Senate majority is 
on record opposing, causing more economic uncertainty, risking yet 
another manufactured crisis.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I once again urge colleagues to oppose this measure, 
to support the Senate's approach to disaster relief instead, which 
would fully fund FEMA's needs without holding them hostage to another 
partisan budget battle.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Aderholt), chairman of the Homeland 
Security Subcommittee on Appropriations.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. I thank the distinguished chair for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this must-pass resolution. 
This CR not only keeps the government operating, but it provides a 
substantial infusion of desperately needed funding totaling $3.65 
billion for disaster relief and emergency flood control efforts.
  That's funding to sustain disaster relief efforts in hard-hit States 
all across this Nation, including the devastation that hit my home 
State of Alabama back in April of this year. That's funding to address 
the record flooding up and down the Mississippi River and along the 
east coast resulting from Hurricane Irene. That's funding to help tens 
of thousands of people who have lost virtually everything but the 
shirts on their backs.
  Mr. Speaker, the time for talk and the time for politicking is over. 
It's time to pass this vital resolution, provide our Nation with 
necessary disaster relief funding, avert a government shutdown, allow 
Congress to scrub the administration's full disaster supplemental 
request, provide the needed oversight, and complete the work on the FY 
2012 budget.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this vital resolution 
and responsibly address our Nation's most pressing needs.
  Mr. DICKS. I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), the ranking member of the Energy and Water 
appropriations subcommittee.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I rise in 
opposition to the measure.
  During the debate on the rule on this measure, Joplin, Missouri was 
mentioned quite often. But I would mention that there is an emergency 
as far as Tuscaloosa, Alabama, is concerned; Hamburg, Iowa, is 
concerned; Cairo, Illinois, is concerned; Springfield, Massachusetts, 
certainly; Joplin, Missouri; Smithville, Mississippi; Williston, North 
Dakota; States like Vermont.
  Subsequent to the rains and floods of this spring, we've had 
earthquakes, we've had wildfires, we had hurricanes.
  The current need of the Army Corps is about $2.257 billion, so the 
first observation I would make is the offsets that are set aside in 
this bill are certainly inadequate to cover that amount.
  But there is a further emergency in this country, and that is the 
fact that, as of August of this year, there were 13,967,000 Americans 
who were without work. In the year 2000, 8 percent of the people who 
live in the great State of Indiana were living in poverty. Today, 16 
percent of the people in the State of Indiana are living in poverty, 
and for those we represent who are working today, for 1 hour's worth of 
their labor, they're making 53 cents less today in real purchasing 
power than they did in 1977.

[[Page H6404]]

                              {time}  2340

  Today, there are 6,643,000 less Americans working in manufacturing 
making a living wage than there were in 1977.
  So the response is let's take $1.5 billion out of an investment 
account where there are still 10 pending applications to try to make 
cars in this country more efficiently, more fuel efficient, and more 
desirable for consumers.
  But earlier tonight we heard, Don't worry; the Chinese are going to 
help our car companies with financing. I'm affronted by that 
possibility. That's why we need this $1.5 billion so maybe we could 
still make cars in the United States of America without the help of the 
Chinese Government.
  I think this is a wrongheaded approach.
  And then let's pile on. There's obviously a controversy about a solar 
company in California. I think perhaps it is a matter to be considered 
not only by oversight in the United States Congress but the Justice 
Department. But that's not a decision for us to make if wrongdoing has 
occurred. But you know what? Let's take it out on somebody else. Let's 
make sure there is not money available for other legitimate companies 
who are trying to increase jobs in this country and who are trying to 
reduce our dependency on foreign oil.
  That wasn't the response I saw in this body in 2008. We had the major 
financial institutions in this country drive our economy into the 
ground. Did we ask them to give back their tax advantages? Did we 
punish them in any way? We gave them money. We should at least pick on 
somebody our own size.
  We didn't ask anybody in Iraq or Afghanistan whether or not they 
needed an offset for emergency money for schools, for hospitals, for 
bridges. The people in Joplin, the people in Vermont, the people in 
these other communities, they need our help now. Traditionally, we have 
recognized the emergency, we have declared the emergency, and we have 
helped them out.
  And when Bill Clinton was President of the United States, we declared 
emergencies like this on three occasions in 1998, 1999, and 2001, and 
we balanced the budget.
  I oppose this measure.
  Mr. ROGERS. I yield 3 minutes to a brand new Member of this body, Mr. 
Speaker, Mr. Marino of Pennsylvania.
  Mr. MARINO. My father taught me a long time ago not to make a speech 
or give an opinion unless I thought it was important. I think tonight 
it's important, and I hope that you also think it's important.
  I would never question anyone's motives and ideals. However, we are 
here tonight to meet the immediate needs of the people that we 
represent.
  This vote is not about politics. This vote is not about Republicans 
or Democrats. This vote is not about cut or not cut. This vote is about 
coming to the aid of the American people whom we represent, the people 
who have been devastated by floods. People like friends and neighbors, 
seniors and children in the 10th Congressional District of Pennsylvania 
and on the east coast. It is heartbreaking and it is heart wrenching. 
You must see it firsthand to understand it.
  The Federal Government's main purpose is to protect its citizens from 
disaster, both from terrorism and from natural disasters.
  My staff and I stood in mud, waste, and stagnant water over the last 
3 weeks along with families who lost everything: furniture, clothes, 
photos, toys stacked outside of their homes that were destroyed or 
condemned. If each of you stood where I stood, I know in my heart that 
because you are compassionate, this bill would have been passed by now.
  I tried to comfort children who were sitting in cars or on car 
rooftops and in truck beds because they could not get into their home 
that was condemned and filled with the same stagnant mud and water and 
waste and snakes that were outside their homes. I talked to grown men 
that were crying because their homes were destroyed and asked me, Where 
am I going to safely put my family tonight?
  A little girl not more than 8 years old asked me where she was going 
to sleep because she no longer had her bed and her bedroom in which she 
and her sister slept.
  Seniors were trapped on the second floor of their home because the 
first floor was flooded. Small businesses were completely wiped out.
  I plead with you, I implore you, I beg you to pass this flood relief 
now for our people who do not have the basic comforts that those of us 
here have. The American people are depending on us to give them a hand 
up, and they deserve our immediate attention.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the ranking member of 
the Commerce, Justice, Science Subcommittee, Mr. Fattah of 
Pennsylvania.
  Mr. FATTAH. If we could have a vote to provide disaster relief, every 
Member in this Chamber would cast a vote in the affirmative. What we're 
asked to make tonight is a Solomon-like choice between tens of 
thousands of jobs for Americans who desperately need them and a limited 
amount of disaster relief. That is not a fair choice.
  And I guess the majority wasn't happy with the polling that showed 
that only 12 percent of the public thought that Congress was doing a 
good job or 13 percent. We dropped to 12. I guess we're trying to get 
into the single digits.
  What we need to do is to do our work.
  Now, this is a program where Ford Motor Company borrowed a loan 
guarantee at 5.9 to put people to work, some 30,000 people to work in 
Michigan and Illinois, Kentucky, Missouri, Ohio. This is a program 
that's working, that taxpayers' money is paid back through these loan 
guarantees.
  The National Association of Manufacturers in today's National Journal 
says that we now, as we have, lead the world in manufacturing with 21 
percent of globally manufactured products. But China is now in second 
place at 15 and Japan has dropped to third at 12. Why would we want to 
concede our leadership in this world in manufacturing?
  In the Republican decade under the Bush White House we lost 350,000 
manufacturing jobs. We saw tens of thousands of small manufacturers 
close down in our Nation. Now, this administration, people talk about 
the number in August, but let's look at the entire 20 months of the 
Obama recovery--2\1/2\ million jobs led by increases consistently in 
manufacturing.
  I ask that we reject this CR. I hope that the majority would come to 
the House with an approach that would actually respond to the disasters 
that we face without asking us to put more Americans out of work.
  Mr. ROGERS. I yield 3 minutes, Mr. Speaker, to the chairman of the 
Financial Services Subcommittee on Appropriations, the gentlelady from 
Missouri (Mrs. Emerson).
  Mrs. EMERSON. Thank you very much.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution. It is a responsible 
measure. It makes good on the promises we must keep to members of our 
military, to our veterans, and to Americans who rely upon the essential 
functions of the Federal Government.
  It cares for the needs of millions of Americans who have suffered 
from the effects of dramatic natural disasters, including the folks in 
my State of Missouri who live in Joplin, who live along the Mississippi 
in my specific district, who live along the Missouri River in the 
northern part of our State.

                              {time}  2350

  These folks can't wait another day for help because people are 
playing politics with this bill. The House and the Appropriations 
Committee are dedicated to a responsible process, and this bill 
reflects the amount of time needed to complete that work.
  I think we've realized this year on both sides of the aisle that we 
have to bring the size and the spending of the Federal Government into 
line with reality. In the hearings and markups that we've conducted in 
the House and in the negotiations to make specific and significant 
spending cuts, not only this year but also in each of the next 10, and 
through the budget process, we have laid the groundwork for a new era 
of stewardship for our taxpayer dollars.
  In addition to our covenant with members of the military, with 
veterans, with the families depending on a helping hand up, and for 
Americans who are really suffering from true emergencies that have 
devastated their homes, like Mr. Marino said--their jobs and their 
lives--we do have a responsibility to the American taxpayer and to 
future generations who cringe

[[Page H6405]]

at the sight of our debt and our deficits.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill allows us to work in good faith, to make good 
on both our promises and our responsibilities. I urge my colleagues on 
both sides of the aisle to, once again, put politics aside and support 
it here tonight.
  Mr. DICKS. Would the Speaker tell us how much time both sides have.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Washington has 14\1/2\ 
minutes left, and the gentleman from Kentucky has 18 minutes left.
  Mr. DICKS. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Today was a very dramatic day on the stock market. The Dow Jones 
dropped 500 points because investors are worried that we're headed into 
a second recession; and what we get from the majority party is to cut 
out a program that creates jobs. The Advanced Technology Vehicle 
Manufacturing program has already created 39,000 jobs. It's going to 
create another 39,000 with the $2.5 billion that remains, and the $1.5 
billion that we're taking out of there would create another 10,000 
jobs. These are jobs. The only way we're going to get unemployment down 
is to put people back to work.
  And here we are again. After savaging all these other programs--
cutting people out of work in the public sector--now we're going to cut 
out automobile jobs. Let me read to you what the National Association 
of Manufacturers has to say, which is not an organ of the Democratic 
Party:
  ``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 program--'' this is the program that 
we're taking $1.5 billion out of ``--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.''
  I mean, if you had to go out and find a business group in this 
country that has more credibility, I don't know what it would be. It's 
the National Association of Manufacturers.
  The Chamber of Commerce, which is also not an organ of the Democratic 
Party, says: ``As Congress sets spending priorities, the Chamber wishes 
to highlight a few important facts about the Advanced Technology 
Vehicle Manufacturing 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 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 applications have been in the queue for years, 
waiting for the administration to complete its due diligence.''
  That line started in the previous administration. So this is a jobs 
program.
  I say to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, we want to take care of 
those people who have suffered disasters. We want to take care of them. 
We will take care of them, but we also want to provide jobs for 
Americans who are unemployed. If I were in your shoes, I'd support jobs 
for workers and also take care of those people who are suffering 
because of a disaster.
  Now, these are Republican-leaning organizations. They get it. Just 
vote ``no,'' and let's get a clean bill and do the right thing for the 
country.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I yield 3 minutes, Mr. Speaker, to the 
chairman of the Interior appropriations subcommittee, the gentleman 
from Idaho (Mr. Simpson).
  Mr. SIMPSON. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I loved listening to the gentleman from Washington's debate. Now, if 
the gentleman wants to really create some jobs in this country, we can 
create hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of jobs if we'll start 
getting oil going back in the gulf and permitted. The gentleman talked 
about not being so reliant on foreign oil. We've got rigs right now 
that were in the gulf that are off the coast of Africa because they 
can't get permitted in the gulf. Now, do you want to create millions of 
jobs? Join us on that, and let's create millions of jobs.
  The gentleman talked about, geez, he just doesn't understand how 
people could change their votes. People actually sometimes learn more 
information and decide that they were wrong the time before and that 
now they'll change their votes, just like some people on that side of 
the aisle who actually issue press releases saying that they were going 
to support this CR and then change their minds. That's okay.
  Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SIMPSON. I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from 
Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. I didn't put out a press release, but I'll tell you one 
thing. I listen. I listen to the Chamber of Commerce and to the 
National Association of Manufacturers. I listen.
  Mr. SIMPSON. I reclaim my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight in support of this continuing resolution. 
This CR is vital to keeping our government operating over the next 7 
weeks while Congress completes its work on next year's budget.
  It's worth reminding Members that tonight this CR actually reduces 
spending from last year's enacted levels and saves taxpayers billions 
of dollars. The irony is that voting against this CR is actually a vote 
for more spending. If you want to reduce government spending, then you 
should vote for this CR. It's pretty simple, really.
  FEMA's coffers for disaster assistance are about to run dry. There is 
no such thing as a Republican natural disaster or a Democrat natural 
disaster. The last thing Congress should do is hold up disaster 
assistance because of partisan politics. We need to approve this CR 
tonight and get the relief to those in need as quickly as humanly 
possible.
  Now, I've got to tell you, in all honestly, I'm not one of those 
people who believes that we have to offset every emergency. We have 
done some in the past--some we have not--but in the past, we have not 
had a $14 trillion deficit. That's the danger to this country is the 
$14 trillion deficit and the $1.6 trillion we add to it every damned 
year.
  I've got to admit, this is only $1 billion. But do you know what? 
Some people say, Oh, that's only $1 billion. I heard one Member say 
yesterday it was nickels and dimes. In Idaho, $1 billion is not nickels 
and dimes. We did not get into this situation a trillion dollars at a 
time. We got here a million and a billion dollars at a time, and that's 
how we're going to get out of this situation. So let's do our job and 
do what's right for the country and get this deficit under control; and 
if we can offset it, let's offset it.

                              {time}  0000


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will remind the Members to refrain 
from using profanity in debate.
  Mr. DICKS. I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished ranking member of 
the Natural Resources Committee, the gentleman Massachusetts (Mr. 
Markey).
  Mr. MARKEY. This is not a debate over compassion. This is not a 
debate over who cares more about the people in Joplin or the people in 
Vermont. This is a debate about what the Republicans, what the Tea 
Party has decided to use as an excuse, as a guise to finish off the 
revolution that the Democrats

[[Page H6406]]

have put in place that changes our relationship with where we get our 
energy from.
  Big Oil and Big Coal have fought solar, wind, all-electric vehicles, 
biomass, geothermal, that entire revolution because they know that it 
will eat into their profits.
  So a disaster occurs that each of us wants to respond to. The 
Republicans, responding to the oil and coal industry, say this is our 
chance to kill the revolution that makes it possible to have vehicles 
go 50, 60, 80, 100 miles a gallon without oil, no oil, that makes it 
possible for us to have wind and solar generate the electricity that 
will fuel those vehicles without sending greenhouse gases up into the 
atmosphere, which is changing our climate and leading to these storms, 
leading to these floods, leading to these disasters that then needs 
FEMA, need the relief that we give to these families. So they take the 
chance, they take the opportunity to kill the very programs which are 
the solution to these disasters which are being created here in our 
country and around the world, the agenda of Big Oil and Big Coal.
  And the temerity of it all is that they know that the automotive 
program has already created 39,000 jobs in our country over the last 3 
years and that this one cut that they are talking about tonight will 
kill 10,000 jobs over the next year. In the solar industry--and, by the 
way, they cut out $100 million in solar and wind guarantees as well.
  Right now, ladies and gentlemen, there are 85,000 jobs in the wind 
industry, almost all of them created in the last 4 years. There are 
85,000 jobs in the coal industry. In other words, in the last 5 years, 
wind now equals the entire coal industry. There are 100,000 jobs in the 
solar industry, and last year we were a net exporter to China; 100,000 
jobs in solar, 85,000 jobs in wind, and it is the future.
  The oil industry laid off 20,000 employees over the last 3 years. Let 
us talk here about future, about young people, about this planet, about 
backing out the oil from OPEC so we can tell them we don't need their 
oil any more than we need their sand. That's what this debate is about 
tonight.
  And under the guise, with these crocodile tears of how much they care 
about the victims, as though it's any greater on our side, they are 
using it as the guise to kill these programs. That's what it's all 
about tonight. That's why we're angry. That's what this is all about.
  Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MARKEY. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. Isn't it true that these alternative energy programs all 
create jobs?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. DICKS. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.
  Don't they all create jobs, these alternative energy programs? So 
instead of just having the automobile program that creates jobs cut by 
$1.5 billion, now they are taking $100 million out of another program 
that creates jobs for the American people, so this is a double header.
  Mr. MARKEY. They could have taken this money out of the $41 million 
of gas breaks for the oil and gas industry, but, no, they take it out 
of solar, they take it out of wind.
  And by the way, wind and solar, with the same amount of money, 
creates five times more jobs than an investment in fossil fuels does. 
So they keep the money in for the programs that create three to five 
times less jobs than the program they are knee-capping here this 
evening. That's what this vote is all about.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MARKEY. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Is Solyndra part of the revolution that the 
gentleman is talking about?
  Mr. MARKEY. Solyndra will receive no money under this program.
  Who will receive this money? Indiana will receive the money.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has again expired.
  Mr. DICKS. I yield the gentleman 15 additional seconds.
  The program was started under the previous administration, the Bush 
administration. The last day they tried to force it out, to have it 
approved, and it was turned down by the good staff at the Department of 
Energy.
  Mr. MARKEY. So they will not receive a nickel under this program. The 
oil and gas industry will receive that money as they tip the people of 
our country upside down and shake the money out of their pockets.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart) a valued member of our committee.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, what the previous gentlemen did not say 
is that Solyndra received $500 million because they have friends in 
high places. Despite even people in this administration who said don't 
do it, they received $500 million. If that was in a different country, 
we wouldn't call it waste; we would call it corruption. But we won't do 
that here. The gentleman didn't say that.
  He talks about the revolution. This cuts $100 million from a program 
that gave because of influence, because of friends in high places, 
because of bundlers of campaign contribution funds to a corporation 
that went bankrupt and laid off a thousand people after receiving this 
money.
  Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. I would just point out that one of the largest investors 
was Walmart, and Walmart has a long history of supporting Republican 
candidates. And I will just say, I will just say they invested, I 
think, $3 or $400 million. So there was a lot of private sector 
investment here, too.
  I appreciate it.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. I reclaim my time.
  Despite what the gentleman says, Mr. Speaker, the previous 
President's administration denied the funding for Solyndra because they 
knew it was a scam, regardless of anything else. This administration 
did that.
  Now, the reason we have to support this CR--let's cut politics aside. 
Let's not talk about revolutions of money blown like stimulus money, 
that was blown. The reason this CR makes sense is because there are 
people who are suffering from natural disasters. This CR funds that 
program and it helps them out. And the reason this is important is 
because it controls the size and the cost of the Federal Government 
that is totally out of control.
  So no more gimmicks, no more giveaways to friends of friends because 
of high pressure.
  Let's pass this CR so we can keep the government rolling, so we can 
slow down the growth of government, and so we can help the victims 
without corruption of those who have friends in high places.
  Mr. DICKS. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a valued 
member of our committee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent).
  Mr. DENT. Mr. Speaker, I too rise in support of this continuing 
resolution. It will fund the government through November 18. It takes 
care of many of our disaster needs.
  As you heard from my colleague so eloquently, Mr. Marino of 
Pennsylvania, you heard about the plight of so many people in towns 
like Shickshinny and West Pittston who are living in the front yard in 
the cars. People are broken. Communities have been ruined, and so we 
need to pass this bill.
  I urge you to support this bill.

                              {time}  0010

  I've heard a lot of talk tonight about manufacturing. My dad's family 
spent 100 years making industrial hardware in Pennsylvania. If you 
really care about manufacturing, some of you might have considered 
voting for a bill last week to allow the Nation's largest exporter to 
open up a billion-dollar facility in the State of South Carolina to 
hire a thousand people to make aircraft. If you really want to help 
manufacturing, you should've voted for that bill.
  You can also help us in stopping EPA's assault on the coal industry 
and on the cement industry. I represent the largest cement-producing 
district in America. These industries are in trouble, and they're under 
assault by this EPA. Help us. There'll be measures considered here to 
deal with them.

[[Page H6407]]

  If you are truly concerned about manufacturing, innovation and 
research, you wouldn't have slapped a 2.3 percent tax on medical 
devices. It's going to kill tens of thousands of jobs in this country. 
We make a lot of devices in my part of the world, in Pennsylvania and 
New Jersey. We need help. Our manufacturers need help.
  So rather than defending a company out in California that just wasted 
$500 million, down the drain, taxpayer dollars, 1,100 people out of 
work, let's do something to help manufacturers. And most importantly, 
let's pass this bill tonight to help so many people who are struggling 
throughout this country in Pennsylvania; New Jersey; New York; Vermont; 
the people of the South; Joplin, Missouri; and elsewhere who have been 
affected by these horrible natural disasters. Please, stand up, do the 
right thing and vote for this continuing resolution.
  Mr. DICKS. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arkansas (Mr. Womack), a hardworking member of our committee and a 
newcomer to the Congress.
  Mr. WOMACK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman of the 
Appropriations Committee for the time.
  I know the hour is late. It's been a long time. Soon we will complete 
action on this temporary spending measure for 2012. Obviously, it is 
work that has to be done. As my friend, the distinguished Rules 
Committee chairman appropriately quoted earlier this evening: the 
process has been ugly. It has been messy; but it works.
  The good news is that most of America has gone to bed and not witness 
to the bickering and rancor evidenced in this Chamber. I can only hope 
that when they wake up tomorrow, we will have done the people's work, 
funding government beyond October 1, giving necessary funding to the 
victims of natural disasters, and doing it such a way that promotes the 
kind of fiscal responsibility long demanded by the people of America.
  It will be sad, indeed tragic, if when the sun comes up tomorrow, 
this Congress, instead of bringing certainty and relief to those 
struggling, as this CR does, we impose yet another threat of a 
government shutdown and more uncertainty into an already skeptical 
populace.
  This legislation up until yesterday, Mr. Speaker, had bipartisan 
support. And only because my friends on the other side of the aisle 
recognized that many on our side preferred much deeper cuts and might 
be predisposed to opposing the CR, they pounced on it. And quickly, in 
an instant, that bipartisan support disappeared into the bowels of the 
business as usual. In other words, Mr. Speaker, it was politics ahead 
of the people.
  Let's remember that this CR we'll vote on in the next few minutes was 
crafted based on the numbers outlined in the BCA approved in this 
Chamber just a few weeks ago, complete with desperately need disaster 
funding, reasonably and responsibly offset.
  I urge my colleagues to support the CR.
  Mr. DICKS. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. May I inquire of the time remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Kentucky has 9 minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Washington has 4\3/4\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Mississippi (Mr. Nunnelee), a member of the committee.
  Mr. NUNNELEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution. The 
question we're debating tonight is not whether we give aid and 
assistance to those of our neighbors that have been hit by serious 
disasters. We all agree that's the appropriate thing to do. The 
question is do we cut spending elsewhere to pay for that assistance.
  Now, what our friends on the left have told us is, look, that's not 
the way we've done it in the past. In fact, we've always done it by 
just going ahead and spending without any offset. Doing it the way 
we've always done it has put us $14 trillion in debt.
  What we have to do is exactly what the people of Monroe County, 
Mississippi did on the night of April 26. Those families had dreams. 
They had hopes; they had plans. And on April 27, the tornados hit and 
their plans changed, and they redirected their spending plans to take 
care of the disaster. Now, if the families in Monroe County, 
Mississippi have done that, they have every reason to expect their 
government to do the same thing.
  Now, we've been told, But we need some government program to create 
jobs. If we will give the American people the assurance that their 
government is serious about cutting spending like this bill does, we'll 
give them the confidence to create jobs. If we remove the regulatory 
burdens, American businesses will create jobs. And if we give them the 
assurance that we're not going to raise their taxes, the American 
economy will thrive and create jobs.
  Mr. DICKS. I yield the balance of my time to the distinguished whip 
of the Democratic Party, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), one 
of my goodest, best friends.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Maryland is recognized 
for 4\3/4\ minutes.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, this is a legislative arena, not a coliseum 
to attack one another. It is a legislative arena to try to come 
together to do what the American public expects us to do.
  There are at least two crises confronting the American people, and 
perhaps three. First of all, they are concerned about the fiscal 
posture of this country. They're right. We need to address that.
  Secondly, they're concerned about jobs. And immediately, as the 
gentleman from Mississippi just pointed out, and the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania who spoke earlier, they are concerned about the disasters 
that have put them at risk. And I suggest to you the people in your 
district and in my district who don't have a job, who aren't sure how 
they are going to pay their mortgage and aren't sure that they are 
going to be able to buy food tomorrow believe that they too have been 
confronted with a disaster. They want us to deal with all three of 
those items and, yes, perhaps more.
  Many of you have stood on this floor and said we need to act now to 
help these people who have been the victims of hurricane, of quake, of 
fire, of flood. Now, if you want to act now, what you bring to this 
floor is a bill that is not controversial so it does not get mired in 
this bickering back and forth, because we care deeply about responding 
now.
  This bill has never enjoyed bipartisan support from my perspective, 
and I told your whip that on Tuesday. There was no surprise. We believe 
strongly that the provision that you have put in this bill is 
detrimental to working people and the expansion of our economy. You 
perhaps do not agree on that. Perhaps we have a legitimate item of 
disagreement. And so if you were really concerned about those flood 
victims, about those hurricane victims, you would have taken that out 
and met that issue another day. But you chose not to do that.
  You chose to continue the partisan path of placing at risk the 
continued funding of government through November 18, which you have all 
expressed a desire to do, and jobs, not that Democrats say are 
advantaged by the provision you want to strike, but the Chamber of 
Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers.

                              {time}  0020

  They say it puts jobs at risk. Your folks in Pennsylvania, I tell my 
friend, will not be helped if this bill continues to be mired in 
partisan differences. And you knew there was a partisan difference, and 
notwithstanding that, you brought it back to this floor. Now I 
understand there are some of you that were concerned that this was 
$1.043 trillion rather than $1.019 trillion. That's been changed for 
you now. And I'm sure all your Tea Party friends are going to be very 
enthusiastic that for four-tenths of a percent you perhaps have changed 
your vote. My, my, my. Four-tenths of a percent. That's the difference 
in this bill from a fiscal perspective.
  My friends, Americans need our help. They don't need Republican help 
or Democratic help; they need all of our help. They need it now. They 
need it not mired in partisan bickering, as my friend said from 
Arkansas. They need us to come together on that which we can agree, 
giving our folks help when

[[Page H6408]]

they need it--now. And I will tell you that the Senate determined that 
there was twice the need--indeed, three times the need--that you have 
determined.
  Ladies and gentlemen, let's defeat this bill and let's bring tonight 
or tomorrow morning a bill that I guarantee you will pass 
overwhelmingly in this House.
  Yesterday, we were hoping to vote--Democrats and Republicans 
together--on a bipartisan bill to fund the Government through November 
according to the budget deal we had agreed upon.
  We did vote together, as it turns out, in bipartisan opposition, 
though for very different reasons.
  Democrats opposed it because it was too extreme, endangering 
emergency funding to help our constituents hit by disasters and 
threatening to cut from a program that actually creates jobs.
  Some Republicans voted against the CR because it wasn't extreme 
enough.
  Now, we have been waiting all day for the Republican leadership to 
send us a bipartisan bill that should have voted on yesterday.
  Unfortunately, the bill we're voting on tonight shows they didn't 
receive the message.
  Not only have they put forward the same bill that failed yesterday, 
with the same troublesome offset and cuts as before, they have worsened 
it by casting a line to extreme members of their party.
  Those Members who wanted an additional $24 billion cut yesterday, I 
suspect, will not be lured by $100 million tonight.
  That is just four tenths of one percent of what they were demanding.
  This new addition to the bill, which would cut loans for the 
construction of renewable energy projects that create jobs, is 
essentially an empty political attack on the administration.
  Now is not the time for political games.
  The American people want us to get serious on the deficit, and we had 
agreed on a way to do so.
  They want us to get serious on jobs and this CR does just the 
opposite.
  The CR we need to pass is one that adheres to the August budget deal.
  There is already bipartisan agreement in the Senate on how to handle 
emergency disaster assistance, and we should follow that example.
  Let's have a vote on a CR we can pass, one the senate can pass, and 
one that isn't set up to drive the parties further apart on budgetary 
issues.
  Let's see a version that will bring us together.
  As I said yesterday, I am ready to cast my vote for that CR, and I 
know other Democrats feel the same way.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this version, and I sincerely hope the 
Republican leadership will recognize why and work with us to do what's 
best for our country.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will remind Members to direct 
their remarks to the Chair.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of 
the time.
  This really is a simple bill. It's merely a bridge to get us until 
November the 18th to continue the government basically as is until that 
time, to get us time to work with the Senate to put together the 
funding for all of fiscal 2012. Norm Dicks and I started out this year 
agreeing that we wanted to restore regular order to the Appropriations 
Committee and the process. And we've worked in that regard. The 
committee has dealt with 11 of the 12 appropriations bills. Six of them 
you've had a chance on the floor to amend and pass, which you have.
  Unfortunately, our brethren across the Capitol have been a little bit 
slow, and they passed one bill, which necessitated that we do something 
to continue the government while we try to work with them to bring them 
along on their bills and fund fiscal 2012.
  This bill started out as a bipartisan bill. We worked to make it so. 
But along the way, on the eve of the bill, all of a sudden we were 
confronted with a partisan attack from this side of the aisle, and we 
had no choice but to respond. But still yet this is a bipartisanly 
constructed bill. It doesn't attack anyone.
  The Homeland Security bill that passed the body, you will recall, 
carried the provision that required that the billion dollars in that 
bill for FEMA would be offset from the automobile account that's been 
discussed. That passed this body in a bipartisan vote. Many Democrats 
voted for it, joined Republicans. No one raised a concern--until this 
bill came to the floor. And all of a sudden, there was this great 
eruption of partisanship on that side of the aisle, which I am very sad 
about.
  But we will muddle through. This is a good bill. It funds your 
government at the level that was agreed to by the parties in the House, 
Senate, and White House, the level that is now the law. It funds us 
until November 18. And by then we hope to have worked out with our 
Senate brethren and sisters the funding for the rest of fiscal 2012.
  So, the hour is late. Time is short. We've made up our minds. Let's 
vote.
  Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, here they go again--House 
Republicans are driving America once more to the brink. They took us to 
the edge of a shutdown in April. They shoved us to the precipice of 
America's first ever default in August. And now after their similar 
attempt failed yesterday, House Republicans are again playing politics 
with the American economy, and American families.
  Hurricane Irene leveled homes end businesses in the Northeast. An 
earthquake destroyed businesses in Mineral, Virginia. In my district, 
Tropical Storm Lee left hundreds of families homeless and damaged 
dozens of small businesses. And yet in this Continuing Resolution, 
House Republicans state they will only help those in extremis if we gut 
the Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing program--a successful 
program that spurs Amerian innovation and creates American jobs.
  In fact, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce urged the retention of this 
important program stating it ``promotes manufacturing in the U.S. and 
is an important component.''
  Americans don't need brinkmanship; they need predictability and 
security. This Continuing Resolution gives them neither. I would urge 
my colleagues to reject it in favor of one that protects Americans.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to 
H.R. 2608, ``The Small Business Program Extension and Reform Act of 
2011,'' which provides for an additional temporary extension of 
programs under the Small Business Act and the Small Business Investment 
Act of 1958 at the expense of job creating efforts.
  The bill before us today is almost identical to the bill that we 
voted against yesterday. Mr. Speaker the bill before us will hurt jobs. 
The central issue before our country is jobs and the creation of jobs 
to secure our economy. We need to focus on talking about jobs. Instead, 
we are now once again focused on a measure that was rejected yesterday. 
The amendment added to this bill is clearly a desperate attempt by my 
Republican colleagues to pass their own ideological Continuing 
Resolution. This amendment would keep the same offset for disaster 
relief which will result in a $1.5 billion cut to the Advanced 
Technology Vehicle Manufacturing Program (ATVM), which has been a 
proven job creator, it created 35,000 jobs in the private sector. The 
purpose of the program is to enable American businesses to build the 
cars of the future that could be sold to China, rather than the 
reverse. It is intended to give us a technological boast in the auto 
industry. As if this was not enough, the amendment adds an additional 
cut--a rescission of $100 million from the Recovery Act Renewable 
Energy Loan guarantee program, which is another cut to a program that 
creates jobs. A move to secure the votes of members concerned about the 
few party interests not the interests of Americans. This legislation 
causes the loss of American jobs!
  The only broken record that I want to hear is the mantra of how to 
create jobs. Let us focus on putting the American people back to work, 
rather than bringing back measures that failed to garner support 
yesterday. I implore my colleagues to recall the reasons they rejected 
this measure in the first place and to do so again. Americans have 
always come to the aid of those in need, after a natural disaster.
  Americans demonstrate a level of compassion that should not be damped 
by measures like the one before us today. Disaster relief funding is 
not a political football; it addresses the needs of Americans who find 
themselves the victims of unforeseeable natural disasters. It is born 
out of our nation's desire to aid those who are in need.
  Now . . . now is not the time to trample on the needs of small 
business owners. Now is not the time to delay assistance to those who 
need support from FEMA. Now is not the time for a partisan position 
that will only cause more Americans to suffer while they have to wait 
on Congress to find balance. Now is the time for balance and reason.
  Small businesses have long been the bedrock of our nation's economy. 
Even with the advent of modern-day multi-national corporations most of 
our day-to-day purchases take place at ``mom and pop'' small 
businesses.
  This piece of legislation holds small businesses hostage in order to 
make a demand that has never been made by Republicans before. This 
demand changes their practice during previous administrations. In the 
past my

[[Page H6409]]

colleagues declared disaster funding as emergency spending and did not 
require offsetting emergency spending.
  This bill would offset the $1 billion in FY11 disaster relief funding 
using a program that is a proven job-creator, a program for small 
businesses. The very small businesses that are currently in need of 
access to loans and other lines of credit in order to build their 
businesses and create jobs. The very small businesses that are the life 
blood of our economy. These businesses, the ``mom and pop'' shops 
across our nation are being held hostage by my colleagues across the 
aisle at the expense of jobs.
  The future successes of their businesses are being held hostage in 
order to demand offsets of funds that have not required such an offset 
in the past. These funds would aid victims of natural disasters. To 
propose such a measure at a time when our economy is so fragile and 
when so many are struggling to survive is unfathomable.
  At a time when our nation needs every single job we can create. 
Before us is a job killing measure. We need job creation to help 
families survive on smaller and smaller pay checks. Before us is 
legislation that places a halt on this growth. My colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle for the first time in our nation's history have 
added to this piece of legislation a requirement that disaster aid be 
offset. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) needs the $6.9 
billion in funding which has been approved in the Senate last week 
without requiring offset. My colleagues have cut this funding in half. 
They have offset this funding by decreasing the funds allotted by 
ending the Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing loan program. 
These cuts cost Americans tens of thousands of jobs. Under the previous 
administration Republicans supported disaster relief without requiring 
an offset, on eight separate occasions but today they want to require 
cuts that will result in job loss.

  As the Representative for Houston, which suffered severe damage in 
2008 as a result of Hurricane Ike, I understand the importance of 
cleanup and rebuilding in the wake of natural disaster. Federal 
Emergency Management Administration (FEMA) addresses the challenges our 
communities face when we are confronted with a catastrophic event or a 
domestic terrorist attack. It is important for people to understand 
that our capacity to deal with hurricanes directly reflects our ability 
to respond to a terrorist attack in Texas or New York, an earthquake in 
California, or a nationwide pandemic flu outbreak.
  We must fund disaster relief. These are unforeseeable events. The 
devastating hurricanes in Texas in recent years is a perfect example. 
Our response to those events have demonstrated a need for significant 
improvement. During Hurricane Katrina, there were insufficient 
quantities of generators that forced hospitals to evacuate patients. 
Local governments waited days for commodities like ice, water, MREs, 
and blue tarps. Evacuees from Texas arrived in Shreveport and Bastrop 
shelters that were grossly unfit for occupancy, and 2,500 people were 
forced to use the same shower facility.
  We must prepare our first responders with the best information and 
training to quickly analyze and share information to understand alerts 
and warning systems, evacuation planning, mission assignments to other 
agencies, contingency contracting, pre-staged resources, Regional 
Hurricane Plans and exercises, communications support, citizen 
preparedness, disaster housing, and long-term recovery planning. In 
order to accomplish this we must fund FEMA, not at the expense of small 
business but because Americans come together at times of crisis. This 
should be what it has always been--emergency funding.
  Emergency preparedness is not the exclusive responsibility of the 
federal government or individual agencies within it. State and local 
officials, nonprofit organizations, private sector businesses, and 
individual citizens must all contribute to the mission in order for our 
Nation to succeed at protecting life and property from disasters. 
Recovery and mitigation are critical to protecting communities from 
future threats, and our ability to respond will suffer if we do not 
focus attention and resources on those missions.
  On any given day the City of Houston faces a widespread and ever-
changing array of threats, such as terrorism, organized crime, natural 
disasters and industrial accidents. Cities and towns across the Nation 
face these and other threats. Indeed, every day, ensuring the security 
of the homeland requires the interaction of multiple Federal 
departments and agencies, as well as operational collaboration across 
Federal, State, local, tribal, and territorial governments, 
nongovernmental organizations, and the private sector. This 
collaboration and cooperation undergirds our security posture at our 
borders and ports, our preparedness in our communities, and our ability 
to effectively react to crises. Consider the devastation that was 
brought by the tornadoes in Alabama and the Southern United States, the 
flooding that has impacted the entire Mississippi River region, from 
Montana to Tennessee, and tornado that claimed more than 100 lives in 
Joplin, Missouri, have shown us that there are disasters we cannot 
predict, and forces of nature for which we cannot plan.
  This legislation is a job killer, it is an affront to growing small 
businesses and will destroy thousands of jobs. I have been firmly 
committed to supporting small businesses and this legislation as 
written will fail to help create the jobs we need at this time. We 
should not prevent the growth of small business in order to address the 
unrealistic demands related to disaster relief funding.
  Moreover, 99 percent of all independent companies and businesses in 
the United States are considered small businesses. They are the engine 
of our economy, creating two-thirds of the new jobs over the last 15 
years. America's 27 million small businesses continue to face a lack of 
credit and tight lending standards, with the number of small 
businesses' loans down nearly 5 million since the financial crisis in 
2008.
  According to the U.S. Small Business Administration, these small 
businesses account for 52 percent of all U.S. workers. These small 
businesses also provide a continuing source of vitality for the 
American economy. Small businesses in the U.S. produced three-fourths 
of the economy's new jobs between 1990 and 1995, and represent an entry 
point into the economy for new groups. Women, for instance, participate 
heavily in small businesses.
  The number of female-owned businesses climbed by 89 percent, to an 
estimated 8.1 million, between 1987 and 1997, and women-owned sole 
proprietorships were expected to reach 35 percent of all such ventures 
by the year 2000. Small firms also tend to hire a greater number of 
older workers and people who prefer to work part-time.
  A major strength of small businesses is their ability to respond 
quickly to changing economic conditions. They often know their 
customers personally and are especially suited to meet local needs. 
There are tons of stories of start-up companies catching national 
attention and growing into large corporations. Just a few examples of 
these types of start-up businesses making big include the computer 
software company Microsoft; the package delivery service Federal 
Express; sports clothing manufacturer Nike; the computer networking 
firm America OnLine; and ice cream maker Ben & Jerry's.
  We must always ensure that we place a high level of priority on small 
businesses. It is also important that we work towards ensuring that 
small businesses receive all the tools and resources necessary for 
their continued growth and development.
  American small businesses are the heart beat of our nation. I believe 
that small businesses represent more than the American dream--they 
represent the American economy. Small businesses account for 95 percent 
of all employers, create half of our gross domestic product, and 
provide three out of four new jobs in this country.
  Small business growth means economic growth for the nation. But to 
keep this segment of our economy thriving, entrepreneurs need access to 
loans. Through loans, small business owners can expand their 
businesses, hire more workers and provide more goods and services. The 
Small Business Administration (SBA), a federal organization that aids 
small businesses with loan and development programs, is a key provider 
of support to small businesses. The SBA's main loan program accounts 
for 30 percent of all long-term small business borrowing in America.
  I have worked hard to help small business owners to fully realize 
their potential. That is why I support entrepreneurial development 
programs, including the Small Business Development Center and Women's 
Business Center programs. These initiatives provide counseling in a 
variety of critical areas, including business plan development, 
finance, and marketing. We must consider what impact changes in this 
appropriations bill will have on small businesses.
  There are 5.8 million minority owned businesses in the United States, 
representing a significant aspect of our economy. In 2007, minority 
owned businesses employed nearly 6 million Americans and generated $1 
trillion dollars in economic output.
  Women owned businesses have increased 20% since 2002, and currently 
total close to 8 million. These organizations make up more than half of 
all businesses in health care and social assistance.
  My home city of Houston, Texas is home to more than 60,000 women 
owned businesses, and more than 60,000 African American owned 
businesses.
  According to a 2009 report published by the Economic Policy 
Institute, ``Starting in 2004, the Small Business Administration (SBA) 
set goals for small business participation in federal contracts. It 
encouraged agencies to award contracts to companies owned by women, 
veterans, and minorities or those located in economically challenged 
areas and

[[Page H6410]]

gave them benchmarks to work toward. The targets are specific: 23% of 
contracts to small business, 5% to woman-owned small businesses, and 3% 
to disabled veteran-owned and HUBZone small businesses.''
  Women and minority owned businesses generate billions of dollars and 
employ millions of people. They are certainly qualified to receive 
these contracts. A mandatory DOD outreach program women and minority 
owned businesses aware of all of the contract opportunities available 
to them.

  Facts: Small businesses are important because they:
  (1) Represent 99.7 percent of all employer firms,
  (2) Employ just over half of all private sector employees,
  (3) Pay 44 percent of total U.S. private payroll,
  (4) Generated 64 percent of net new jobs over the past 15 years,
  (5) Create more than half of the nonfarm private gross domestic 
product (GDP),
  (6) Hire 40 percent of high tech workers (such as scientists, 
engineers, and computer programmers),
  (7) Are 52 percent home-based and 2 percent franchises,
  (8) Made up 97.3 percent of all identified exporters and produced 
30.2 percent of the known export value in FY 2007,
  (9) Produce 13 times more patents per employee than large patenting 
firms and twice as likely as large firm patents to be among the one 
percent most cited.
  Republicans appear to be a mission to cut programs that help families 
and will buttress small businesses. At a time when there are Americans 
faced with the perils which arise during cleaning up after a natural 
disaster. Now is not the time to force those Americans to wait on a 
partisan battle, to pick a fight that has not been fought in eight 
previous authorizations of funds for disaster relief. There needs to be 
a balance when determining which programs to cut and when. A balance to 
finding the funds that will address national disasters. A balanced 
approach is important to ensuring that small business receive the 
support they need.
  I stand here once again asking my colleagues to remember that just 
yesterday we opposed this bill. I implore you to do this once more. I 
support small business and job creation. I will not support small 
business growth being held hostage to the unrealistic demands made by 
my Republican colleagues. American families need measures that are job 
growers rather than measures that are jobs killers.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 412, the previous question is ordered.
  The question is on the motion by the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. 
Rogers).
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 219, 
noes 203, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 727]

                               AYES--219

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Amodei
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Holden
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kelly
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kissell
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCaul
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     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
     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
     Webster
     Welch
     West
     Whitfield
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--203

     Ackerman
     Amash
     Andrews
     Austria
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DesJarlais
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Duncan (SC)
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Flake
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (AZ)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gingrey (GA)
     Graves (GA)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hochul
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jordan
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     King (IA)
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lummis
     Lynch
     Mack
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McClintock
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Poe (TX)
     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
     Schweikert
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walsh (IL)
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Westmoreland
     Wilson (FL)
     Wilson (SC)
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Bachmann
     Deutch
     Giffords
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Paul
     Rangel
     Reichert
     Shuler
     Speier
     Stark

                              {time}  0050

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


                       Correcting the Enrollment

  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I send to the desk a concurrent 
resolution and ask unanimous consent for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the concurrent resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Kentucky?
  There was no objection.
  The text of the concurrent resolution is as follows:

                            H. Con. Res. 81

       Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 
     concurring), That, in the enrollment of the bill (H.R. 2608) 
     to provide for an additional temporary extension of programs 
     under the Small Business Act and the Small Business 
     Investment Act of 1958, and for other purposes, the Clerk of 
     the House of Representatives shall make the following 
     correction:
        Amend the title so as to read: ``An Act making continuing 
     appropriations for fiscal year 2012, and for other 
     purposes.''.

  The concurrent resolution was agreed to.

[[Page H6411]]

  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________