[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 10]
[House]
[Pages 13969-13979]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




     PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF SENATE AMENDMENT TO H.R. 2608, 
                  CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2012

  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 405 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 405

       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 the report of the Committee on Rules 
     accompanying this resolution. 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.
       Sec. 2.  House Resolution 399 is laid on the table.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for 
1 hour.
  Mr. WOODALL. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
  For the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to 
the gentlelady from New York (Ms. Slaughter), pending which I yield 
myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this 
resolution, all time is yielded for the purpose of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. WOODALL. I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 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 Georgia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 405 provides for a closed 
rule for the consideration of H.R. 2608. It's a temporary continuing 
resolution that will fund the operations of the United States 
Government through November 18 of this year. It is important to note 
that the funding levels in this CR are the very same fiscally 
responsible levels that this Congress and President Barack Obama 
approved in the Budget Control Act just 1 month ago. This is not a 
departure from our path of restoring fiscal sanity, Mr. Speaker. We are 
committed to continuing on that path. But, unfortunately, the actions 
of the other body leave us no choice but to consider this continuing 
resolution today.
  I take no pride, Mr. Speaker, in sharing with you--actually, that's 
not true. That's not true at all. I take great pride in sharing with 
you what the House has done over the last 6 months, 7 months, 8 months; 
but I take no pride at all in pointing out what has not happened on the 
other end of this Capitol to do the work that needs to be done.
  Constitutionally, we are required to fund the operations of the 
government. June 2 of this year, the House passed the Homeland Security 
appropriations bill. To date, the Senate has not.

[[Page 13970]]

  On June 14 of this year, the House passed the Military Construction 
and Veterans Affairs bill. This is the one bill that our friends in the 
Senate have passed as well.
  June 16, the House passed the Agriculture appropriations bill. To 
date, the Senate has taken no action at all.
  July 15, the House passed the Energy and Water appropriations bill. 
To date, the Senate has not.
  July 22, the House passed the Legislative Branch appropriations bill. 
To date, the Senate has not.
  Mr. Speaker, I did not run for Congress last November, I did not show 
up here as a freshman to continue business as usual, passing continuing 
resolution after continuing resolution after continuing resolution. And 
I know my friends on both sides of the aisle believe that's a process 
which has long since exceeded its usefulness.
  I am so proud that we as a body have begun to pass those 
appropriations bills one by one by one. And what have we gotten because 
of that? We've gotten oversight. We've had the opportunity to discuss 
line by line by line what are our priorities as the House. Now, those 
priorities differ from time to time between my friends on the 
Democratic side of the aisle and my friends on the Republican side of 
the aisle, but we have an opportunity at least to discuss those 
priorities.
  When the other body fails to pass the appropriations bills, what 
choices do we have left? What choices are available to me as a new 
freshman Member of the House? I could choose to abrogate 
responsibility. I could choose to say no. No, we're just going to wait, 
and if the Senate fails to act, then so be it. Let the government shut 
down and let the chips fall where they may. That's not the kind of 
operation I want to run. That's not why I came to the United States 
Congress. I came to the United States Congress because this is the 
people's House. This is where thoughtful discussion of the people's 
priorities takes place.
  What brings me to the floor today is to consider this continuing 
resolution that for just 1\1/2\ short months, through November 18, will 
extend the operations of the government so we can continue that 
thoughtful discussion that I know so many of the Members here came for.
  With that, I urge my colleagues to thoughtfully consider this rule 
today, thoughtfully consider the underlying bill; and 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, we are here today because our colleagues in the 
Republican majority have failed. They failed the most basic 
responsibility of this institution, as my colleague has mentioned, to 
pass regular and routine bills to keep the government's doors open, to 
keep retirement checks in the mail, and vital government services 
available to the American people.
  In a few days the fiscal year will end; and without a stopgap 
measure, funding for essential government services will run out. 
Despite 9 months of claims from the Republican majority that things 
have changed and despite a pledge to America that promised a different 
Washington, and despite endless calls for a regular appropriations 
process, not a single appropriations bill has been enacted for the 
upcoming fiscal year which begins October 1.
  Throughout this failed process, the majority has blamed everyone but 
themselves. They have pointed fingers at President Obama, complained 
about our colleagues in the Senate, and blamed the Washington status 
quo that they say they can't control. Throughout the process, the one 
group of people they won't lay responsibility with is themselves.
  After 9 months with not a single bill successfully making its way 
through Congress, finger-pointing rings hollow. Not only has no 
appropriations bill been enacted, but half of the necessary 
appropriations bills haven't even been brought to the floor for a vote. 
The majority controls this body and has used their powers to pursue 
sideshow legislation and dangerous games of default, but they can't 
schedule a vote for the most fundamental pieces of legislation that we 
consider every year.
  As I stand here today to vote on a billion-dollar Band-Aid that will 
allow us to scrape by until November, the hope is by November the 
majority will be able to do the job they failed to do all year. Growing 
up, every child hopes for such a homework extension. By the time we are 
elected to Congress, however, we should know that our work must be 
handed in on time.

                              {time}  1400

  Sadly, today's legislation isn't even the biggest failure of 
leadership that we are facing in the House. If the press reports are 
accurate, we may be headed for an even bigger failure in November. In 
recent days, reports have surfaced that the majority plans to fund the 
entire Federal Government with one massive, trillion-dollar omnibus 
bill.
  This bill would explicitly break a promise that the Republican 
majority made to the American people. In the Pledge to America, their 
leadership included a goal entitled ``advance legislative issues one at 
a time.'' In the document they explain, ``we will end the practice of 
packaging unpopular bills with must-pass legislation to circumvent the 
will of the American people. Instead, we will pass major legislation 
one issue at a time.''
  During a speech at the American Enterprise Institute in 2010, Speaker 
Boehner affirmed the need to consider appropriations legislation one 
bill at a time, saying he wanted to do away with the concept of 
comprehensive spending bills. On the eve of assuming the majority in 
the House, Speaker Boehner elaborated, saying, ``I do not believe that 
having 2,000-page bills serves anyone's best interest. Not the House, 
not for the Members and not the American people.'' But, if press 
reports are correct, a 2,000-page bill or more is what we will get.
  Let's be clear. The prospect of omnibus funding is happening for two 
simple reasons: First, our colleagues on the other side will not work 
in a bipartisan manner. There are no Democrat fingerprints on any bills 
that come to the floor to make the compromise necessary to reach 
consensus. They continue to pass legislation filled with special 
interest favors and ideological pursuits that the American people never 
asked for and don't want. As a result, the legislation is built to 
fail, and fail it does--over and over again.
  Secondly, instead of doing the tough, unglamorous, work of the House, 
we have spent most of the time on ideological quests and political 
games. Instead of fulfilling the pledge to uphold the Constitution, the 
majority has worked to fulfill campaign pledges to Grover Norquist and 
the far right. Instead of creating jobs, our colleagues on the other 
side have spent months on end pushing a partisan agenda that has 
covered everything from the trivial to the very real dangers of 
default.
  Instead of funding the Department of Energy, the majority has tried 
to micromanage our lightbulbs. Instead of funding the Nation's schools, 
they tried to eliminate Big Bird. Instead of funding the EPA, they 
tried to sell the land surrounding the Grand Canyon to the state-owned 
mining companies of Russia and South Korea. Instead of funding cancer 
research conducted by the NIH, they have tried, repeatedly, to repeal 
health care reform. And instead of setting a responsible budget for the 
next fiscal year, they brought our economy to the brink of default and 
led to the first-ever downgrade of our Nation's credit.
  Even today, our colleagues on the other side are injecting politics 
into a stopgap CR. Today we are considering legislation that will only 
provide disaster relief to hurricane victims if billions of dollars are 
taken from a successful alternative energy program that has created 
39,000 jobs to date and is poised to create 60,000 more. We were told 
in the Rules Committee that this was money simply lying there.
  In effect, the other side of the aisle is telling the American people 
that Congress will either help rebuild shattered communities or 
Congress will create new green jobs, but we refuse to do both. This 
immoral approach reflects a House of Representatives that is void

[[Page 13971]]

of responsible leadership from those in charge.
  Today I'll do the little bit that I can to provide leadership sorely 
lacking from those in charge. Mr. Speaker, if we can defeat the 
previous question at the end of this debate, I will offer an amendment 
to the rule to ensure that disaster victims get the help they need. My 
amendment will allow Representative Dingell to offer a motion to strike 
the unacceptable House language that says all disaster aid must be 
offset and substitute the bipartisan Senate approach.
  Since 2004, American taxpayers have spent over $3.4 billion on 
infrastructure in Afghanistan and even more in Iraq. Not a single one 
of those $3.4 billion was held hostage or offset by any program in our 
budget. But now, as many Americans are struggling to rebuild and get 
their lives back to normal, the majority refuses to help unless they 
are allowed to defund a successful program they happen to dislike. 
Remember, what this says is that the American public is financing the 
reconstruction of Afghanistan and Iraq with taxpayer money, but 
taxpayer money without an offset will not be used to help the American 
taxpayer. That takes a lot of explaining.
  Because the majority decided that pursuing a partisan agenda was more 
important than meeting the basic needs of the country, we face the 
prospect of a trillion dollar, 1,000-page bill to keep the government 
running because the other side will not stop playing politics and start 
governing as we are all expected to do. This failure is a disservice to 
the American people, an abdication of our responsibilities as 
legislators, and a shame to the expectations, responsibilities and 
duties of the House.
  The majority rode into Washington vowing to change the ways of the 
past, but over the last 9 months, the American people have witnessed a 
case study in abandoned responsibilities and misguided priorities. 
Until the Republican majority begins to govern with responsibility, I 
fear this Congress will continue to live up to the low regard our 
Nation has for it, which brings shame on us all. I urge my colleagues 
on the other side to stop serving their political interests, start 
doing bipartisan bills, and start serving our country.
  In closing, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on today's rule and 
the underlying legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 5 minutes to a 
gentleman who has presided over the most open Rules Committee in recent 
memory, not just a chairman, but my chairman, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Dreier).
  Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding and congratulate him on 
his stellar management of this very important rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I've been listening to the remarks of my very good 
friend and distinguished colleague, the ranking minority member of the 
Committee on Rules, the gentlewoman from Rochester, New York (Ms. 
Slaughter) and I have to say that as I listen to the remarks, I'm going 
to keep my hands to my side. I'm not going to point the finger of blame 
at anybody. I'm simply going to state a few facts that I think are 
important for all the Members of this House to look at.
  It's true, the last 9 months under this Republican majority have been 
very difficult, very painful, and very challenging for us as we've been 
tackling the challenge of job creation and economic growth. There's a 
reason that we have had such a difficult time in the last 9 months here 
in this Congress. And the reason is very simple: Last year, for the 
first time in nearly three decades since the 1974 Budget and 
Impoundment Act was established, we didn't even have a budget proposed 
from the then-majority.
  And the fact that there was no budget proposed in the last Congress 
to deal with the very important spending priorities that we, as a 
Nation, needed to address, and the fact that we had not one single 
appropriations bill, not one single appropriations bill, completed in 
the last Congress--we inherited at the beginning of this year, and 
Democrats and Republicans alike will acknowledge it, we inherited a 
hell of a mess. It was a big mess that we inherited. And guess what? We 
decided that we were going to tackle that mess in a bipartisan way.
  My friend who has just talked about the need for bipartisanship, we 
began in dealing with the appropriations process with, as Members will 
recall, being here for hours and hours and hours because Democrats and 
Republicans alike were able to put their mark--their mark--on this 
spending bill which we, because of the lack of action in the last 
Congress, inherited in this 9 months.
  And so my friend is absolutely right. The last 9 months have not been 
easy. They've not been easy at all. And I appreciate the fact that she 
has worked in a bipartisan way in a number of areas, because as she 
knows very well, the bill that we're going to be considering this week, 
the regulatory relief bill, we make every amendment that complied with 
the rules of the House in order. So many more Democratic amendments 
have been made in order than Republican amendments on a number of 
pieces of legislation, and that's so that we can do exactly what my 
friend has said hasn't happened, and that is work in a bipartisan way.
  Now I think that probably the single largest bipartisan achievement 
that we've had in this past 9 months has been the agreement that we 
came to at the end of July, and that was an agreement that Democrats 
and Republicans alike recognized had to be addressed, we needed to 
increase the debt ceiling.

                              {time}  1410

  We didn't like the fact that there had been so much spending that had 
taken place, but we recognized that it had to be done. So Democrats and 
Republicans came together to make that happen.
  We have further opportunities for bipartisan agreement coming right 
down the pike. Democrats and Republicans, alike, have said we need to 
open up new markets around the world for us to create union and 
nonunion jobs so that we can export more manufactured products from the 
United States of America into these markets. And we have three pending 
trade agreements with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea that will go a 
long way towards doing what it is Democrats and Republicans, alike, 
want to do.
  I'm not going to accuse a single Democrat of not wanting to create 
jobs in this country. Everybody wants to make sure that their 
constituents aren't hurting, that their constituents aren't losing 
their homes, their jobs, their businesses. I know that everybody, 
Democrat and Republican, alike, wants to make that happen. We will have 
an opportunity, in a bipartisan way, to do just that, Mr. Speaker, when 
it comes to these market-opening agreements in these very, very, very 
important countries that will help us again create union and nonunion 
jobs.
  And I think when it comes to the issue of job creation and income 
growth, we need to look at the unfortunate mischaracterization that has 
been made time and time again of things like the tax cuts that have 
enjoyed bipartisan support, what I call the Bush-Obama tax cuts.
  First, the '01 tax cuts, I will acknowledge, were not real growth 
creators, but the '03 tax cuts generated economic growth that actually 
enhanced the flow of revenues to the Federal Treasury. And that's not 
my speculation. All one needs to do is simply look at the raw numbers.
  In 2003, Mr. Speaker, the Federal Treasury had $1.782 trillion in 
revenues from all sources. That was in '03. At the time we saw those 
tax cuts put into place, $1.782 trillion in revenues. Up until the 
economic downturn in 2007, we saw an increase of 44 percent in the flow 
of revenues that came into the Federal Treasury to $2.567 trillion. 
Now, that's an increase, Mr. Speaker, of $785 billion that came in.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bass of New Hampshire). The time of the 
gentleman has expired.
  Mr. WOODALL. I yield the gentleman an additional 5 minutes.
  Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding.
  That, Mr. Speaker, was a 44 percent increase, increasing by $785 
billion the

[[Page 13972]]

flow in revenues from the '03 revenue flow of $1.782 trillion to the 
'07 revenue flow of $2.567 trillion.
  The reason I use these numbers is that we all are focused on job 
creation and economic growth. We all know that increased gross domestic 
product will go a long way towards dealing with our deficit challenges 
and the difficulties that we face. And, Mr. Speaker, what I want us to 
do is recognize that, as my friend from Lawrenceville very generously 
said, I presided over more open rules than we had in the Republican 
Congress in the past and certainly than we had in the 4 years that 
preceded this. And I'm proud of that. I'm very proud of the fact that 
we've been able to make so many amendments in order that my Democratic 
colleagues have offered. We have a Hastings amendment that we made in 
order on the bill that we're going to be considering later. I'm happy 
that we've done that. We will have a chance to debate these issues and 
I hope come to a bipartisan agreement.
  Mr. Speaker, I will just say in closing that we have had a difficult 
9 months. My friend from Rochester is absolutely right. It's been a 
challenging 9 months. And as long as Americans are hurting, it's going 
to always be difficult for us here. But being able to establish 
priorities, to come together in a bipartisan way, is important.
  This measure that we're considering today is being done at the 
request of the bipartisan leadership of our colleagues in the other 
body who want to be able to move this continuing resolution through as 
expeditiously as possible to, as my friend from Lawrenceville said, 
recognize that between now and November 18 we simply want to ensure 
that the resources are there.
  I see my friend from Vermont, and I will say to my friend that I read 
and looked at the photographs of the flooding that has taken place in 
Vermont. It has been devastating. I've looked at the disasters that 
have taken place across this country. My State of California suffers 
from earthquakes, fires, flooding, lots of disasters. An earthquake was 
felt in this Capitol during the month of August. We know that disasters 
occur. We must do everything we can to address those. But calling for 
an $8 billion increase in spending beyond the $1.43 trillion that this 
continuing resolution calls for is not the answer.
  We need to prioritize to ensure that those who are really suffering 
can, in fact, have their needs addressed, and I believe that this 
House, in a bipartisan way, can and should and, I hope, will do that.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts, a Member of the Rules Committee, Mr. McGovern.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, today the Republican majority has made a 
mockery of both the process for and the content of this short-term 
continuing resolution.
  Over the past several weeks, wildfires, floods, tornados, and 
earthquakes have brought tragedy to so many Americans, and, as it 
always has, the United States Government is responding with vitally 
needed resources and support. The Senate has already passed a disaster 
relief bill twice as large as the package contained in this CR and with 
the appropriate emergency designation. But House Republican leaders 
have decided to cut the Senate amount in half and tie it to an 
ideologically driven offset that takes modern technology off the table 
for U.S. car and vehicle manufacturers and which could cost thousands 
of current and future jobs.
  And please don't tell me that it's all about balancing the budget and 
ending emergency spending that isn't paid for. The continuing 
resolution that we're debating today includes money to continue the 
misguided war in Afghanistan to the tune of $10 billion each month. 
None of it is paid for, not a penny. It's never been paid for. It's 
always been borrowed money that each week adds billions to the deficit. 
If my Republican friends believe we don't need to offset billions of 
dollars for war, then why are they demanding that we offset disaster 
aid for families who were flooded out by a hurricane or whose homes 
were burnt to the ground by a wildfire?
  Mr. Speaker, we've been in Afghanistan for 10 years. We know how much 
it costs. Its funding is as predictable as it gets, yet each and every 
year money for the war receives a so-called ``emergency'' designation, 
but responding to unpredictable natural disasters does not? It makes no 
sense. And if the Republican leadership has figured out a way to 
accurately predict the next tornado or earthquake, I would like to hear 
it.
  The American people are tired of the hypocrisy and tired of the 
Republican priorities that make it easier to invest overseas and nearly 
impossible to help people here at home.
  I urge my Republican friends to put the American people first. I urge 
my colleagues to oppose this closed rule and oppose the underlying 
bill.
  Mr. WOODALL. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), the distinguished ranking member 
of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. LEVIN. We've heard a lot of rhetoric the first 10 minutes, or 
whatever, on the majority side, but rhetoric cannot mask, cannot 
obscure reality. The reality is this is an antijobs bill.
  In '07, we put forth the Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing 
loan program. It has worked. Tens of thousands of jobs have been 
created as a result of that program in Michigan, Illinois, Ohio, 
Indiana, Louisiana, and Florida. And so now the majority says they're 
going to pay for this bill. How? By ending a program that has created 
jobs. That's the reality. It cuts it off, even though there are 
applications pending that will create thousands of more jobs in the 
manufacturing base of this country, in Indiana, Missouri, Ohio, 
California, Michigan, and other States.
  It's inexcusable. It's inexcusable.
  Mr. WOODALL. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. WOODALL. I appreciate the gentleman yielding.
  You may have some information that we did not have in the Rules 
Committee. My understanding is that this program, which has billions 
that were appropriated in 2008 and have not yet been spent, not only 
can----
  Mr. LEVIN. You've been misinformed. There are millions and millions 
of dollars that are already in the pipeline to be spent and 
applications for the balance of that money. That's a fact.

                              {time}  1420

  So if you've been misinformed, I suggest that you go back to the 
Rules Committee and take another look at this. This is an anti-jobs 
bill when we need jobs in the United States of America.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will remind Members to direct 
their remarks to the Chair.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
to speak to what's inexcusable here. And I hate that that's where we 
have to end up.
  The truth of the matter is what we have down here today is the re-
litigation of something that we already litigated in July and August, 
and that is that this bill today funds just until November 18 at the 
level that we, as a body, agreed to. You may not like it, I may not 
like it, but we agreed to it: a level that's 1043, $1.043 trillion. 
That's a big number. That is a big number.
  This resolution today, this continuing resolution to get us through 
November 18, does not re-litigate that decision. We spent a lot of time 
on that in July and August, and again, we come from different places on 
whether or not that's the right number. I probably say it's too high, 
you may say it's too low, but this is simply a resolution that 
implements the will of this House.
  Mr. LEVIN. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WOODALL. I would be happy to yield to my friend.
  Mr. LEVIN. There is nothing in that decision, nothing in that action 
that

[[Page 13973]]

paid for a continuing resolution that will take away jobs from the 
businesses and workers of the United States of America, purely and 
simply.
  Mr. WOODALL. Reclaiming my time from my friend, you're absolutely 
right that this bill does not define where those $1.043 trillion go, 
and I take issue with that too.
  I go back to what you called rhetoric, the 10 minutes that we spent 
at the beginning where we went through line by line to talk about, 
golly, the work I'm so proud of that you and I have done together, the 
individual appropriations bills that you and I have worked through 
together, doing what was supposed to be done in this House. That was 
the time to do these things, one by one, and, golly, we did. We did.
  Mr. LEVIN. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WOODALL. I would be happy to yield to my friend.
  Mr. LEVIN. So now you're saying we're paying for it by taking away 
jobs from businesses and workers. That's what this does. You can't hide 
that fact.
  Mr. WOODALL. Reclaiming my time, as I'm not the chairman of the 
committee, I will quote the chairman of the committee, who tells us 
that not only can we use this offset here today, but there remains not 
millions, but billions of dollars in the account to be used for this 
purpose; dollars that were appropriated, Mr. Speaker, in 2008, 3 years 
ago. They remain unspent, but we leave them there just in case. Just in 
case.
  And what I would say to my friend is, if we can just get around to 
doing this process right again, and I have great hope that we can, if 
we can get back to doing the process right, we'll have this discussion 
not on a $1.043 trillion continuing resolution, and not even on a half-
trillion dollar continuing resolution, but on the Energy and Water 
appropriations bill. We'll be able to get back to it, and I have that 
great wish for this House, Mr. Speaker.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I want to yield myself 10 seconds to say 
that I said in my opening statement that this program has already 
yielded 39,000 jobs, on its way to 60,000, which will not be able to be 
met because you are using this as the offset.
  I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Pascrell), who suffered great damage in the hurricane.
  Mr. PASCRELL. Look, we're all Americans. We're not Democrats, 
Republicans.
  You had 5,000 people evacuated in my district. When you see the 
damage in small towns and large towns, then you can appreciate it. The 
President came, the Governor of the State, who is not of my persuasion, 
came. They saw it firsthand. Homeland Security came. Mr. Fugate from 
FEMA came. They saw it firsthand. The damage is deep, and it's not 
going to be taken away and remedied within 2 weeks, 2 months, or 2 
years because the ground was so saturated that trees fell without any 
wind, and are still falling.
  Now, we are only one of 51 districts affected in 15 States, and we're 
talking about over 30 million people. And for the first time since I've 
been a Member of Congress, the other side, your side, wants to make 
this conditional, the aid, so that we carve out from either this 
program or that program, which is immaterial at this point, the money 
to help these very people.
  The estimates are very clear as to how much this is going to cost, 
beyond our wildest dreams. We don't stop and ask those folks in Joplin, 
who had a huge tornado, where 160 people were killed, we don't say, 
wait till we go and rob Peter in order to respond to your emergency.
  The fires in Texas--we have never done this on an emergency. This is 
an absolute disgrace because we're all Americans. We're not Democrats 
or Republicans.
  Why didn't we do this, for crying out loud, in 2001 when we went to 
war? We didn't say, let's take from this program or that program. That 
was an emergency. We came up with the money and we sure as hell didn't 
pay for it, did we? And now look where we are economically.
  We're talking about an emergency in our own country here, in our own 
neighborhoods. We need both sides to come together, and that's why we 
formed the coalition of Democrats and Republicans. And Republicans are 
not going to vote for this either. I'm telling you right now. So why 
don't we come together. They passed a clean bill in the Senate.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield the gentleman another 10 seconds.
  Mr. PASCRELL. This coalition is going to stay strong because America 
is more important than either party, and we need to help our brothers 
and sisters who are hurting right now, many that will not return to 
their homes. They can't. Think about that.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, to correct what may be a misunderstanding 
about the swiftness with which this Congress is reacting to those 
tragedies, I yield 5 minutes to the chairman of the Appropriations 
Committee, who has moved immediately on these issues, the gentleman 
from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers).
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  As to the point, Mr. Speaker, of whether or not we offset these 
emergency bills, over the last 10 years, we have used offsets in over 
half of the emergency spending bills and supplementals, over half, 15 
of 30, actually, including war supplementals, emergency supplementals, 
military construction, defense supplementals, disaster relief and 
recovery, in 2008, for example, and on and on.
  Using offsets to pay for disaster relief is the rule here. This is 
not an exception. And we're only offsetting $1 billion of it. In fact, 
when the Homeland Security bill passed a few months ago, it included 
this very offset, and the bill passed by bipartisan support throughout 
the body. You've already voted for this, and, I might add, 
successfully.
  Now, on that green car fund--I'm going to call it that--there's over 
$4 billion this minute sitting idle in that account, and it's been 
sitting idle for 3 years. The $1.5 billion rescission in subsidies we 
propose will not have a significant impact on the program, contrary to 
what some people say. All applications for those loans in late-term 
stages and negotiations will not be affected. Talk to the agency 
downtown, which we have. They will not be affected.
  The factory in Michigan or Indiana will not be affected. In total, 
eight pending applications for loan guarantees totaling over $6 billion 
will not be impacted by this offset. Michigan has the largest stake: 
four applications totaling $4.7 billion in loan guarantees, which are 
free and clear.

                              {time}  1430

  Other States with applications in the queue that are safe from this 
round of cuts include Indiana and Louisiana.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, this bill contains $3.65 billion for immediate 
disaster relief, which our people need and deserve. As this bill works 
its way through the process until November 18, no doubt FEMA will have 
by then completed their surveys and investigations of disasters and can 
tell Congress, through the White House, how much more money is needed; 
and we'll provide it. It's covered in the debt ceiling bill that passed 
this body a few weeks ago.
  I'm telling you the Appropriations Committee will provide whatever 
relief is required when we get the documentation, which is traditional, 
as all of the Members of this body know because they helped prepare 
those investigations.
  So this is a clean bill. This merely extends the time for us to work 
with the Senate to perfect a continuing bill for the balance of 2012. 
It gives us 5 or 6 weeks, but only 3 or 4 of those weeks will be 
available because both bodies will not be here all that time. This is a 
clean bill. And it provides disaster relief in the appropriate way. And 
there's plenty of money there for the immediate needs that we've been 
told about by FEMA.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge the adoption of the rule and the underlying bill.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York, a

[[Page 13974]]

 member of the Committee on Appropriations, Mr. Hinchey.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and more 
broadly to the manner in which the House has dealt with disaster relief 
funding.
  This year, our country has experienced some of the worst natural 
disasters in more than a generation. The cost of Hurricane Irene alone 
is estimated to be over $1.5 billion and Tropical Storm Lee's costs are 
still being tallied.
  Yet despite these overwhelming needs, the disaster aid included in 
this bill is grossly inadequate and would not sufficiently help the 
millions of Americans who are recent victims of floods, hurricanes, 
tornadoes, and wildfires.
  My district took a one-two punch from Hurricane Irene and Tropical 
Storm Lee. In the southern tier of New York, we've just seen the second 
500-year flood in 5 years both in Broome and Tioga counties. Scores of 
homes were completely destroyed, and there are over a hundred people 
who are still living in an emergency center in Binghamton not knowing 
when they'll be able to return to their homes, if they can return ever 
at all.
  Major companies have been shut down because their facilities are 
flooded. The total cost to rebuild the region will likely exceed $250 
million.
  In the Hudson Valley, Hurricane Irene caused massive power outages 
and record flooding. In Ulster County, 60 percent of residents lost 
power; seven bridges were destroyed. In fact, two of those bridges were 
just washed away and not found.
  Vegetable farmers in Ulster, Orange, and Sullivan Counties suffered 
devastating losses; and because the crop insurance program remains 
wholly inadequate for them, these farmers may get no assistance at all. 
Ulster and Orange Counties alone have an estimated $62 million in 
agricultural losses. Yet this bill does nothing for these farmers.
  And just when some of these communities began building from Irene, a 
second round of flooding from Lee washed away much of their hard work. 
Now they need to start the recovery work again.
  The Senate has already passed a $7 billion standalone disaster bill 
that funds the President's FEMA budget request and provides additional 
emergency assistance for the Department of Agriculture and other 
agencies that are seeing their disaster funds dwindle. This is 
absolutely necessary.
  This bill that we are dealing with here today is a half job. It's 
playing politics with the lives of people who are desperate and are 
begging us to set aside games and get this done. Let's put an end to it 
now so that we can take up the Senate's bill so that we can adequately 
deal with this problem and solve the problems for all of these people 
in so many ways.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  To get back on the topic of this continuing resolution today, that 
is, this number that we agreed on just a month ago, $1.043 trillion, to 
fund the operations of this government.
  Mr. Speaker, I go back and I look at emergency requests that this 
body has made. Now, I'm a freshman. I was just elected in November, 
began my service in January. But over the last 10 years, there have 
been 30 emergency and supplemental bills passed.
  Now, what I would say to my friends who have been here longer than I 
have is perhaps if you have to do it three times a year, it's really 
not a surprise. Perhaps we ought to be able to budget for it.
  And to his great credit, and to the committee's great credit, and 
candidly I would say to the House's great credit, we are trying for the 
first time in a long time to say you know what, we can't prevent 
tragedy. Tragedy is going to happen. But we can plan ahead for tragedy 
so that the American people have the security of knowing the money's 
going to be there when they need it.
  And when I look, Mr. Speaker, at the way we're pouring money out of 
this body, I worry will the money be there when the American people 
need it. This budget makes sure that it does.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WOODALL. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Thank you very much. I deeply appreciate it.
  The situation that we're dealing with here is critically important. 
It's harming huge numbers of people.
  What the Senate has done is an adequate solution to this problem. 
They've provided the adequate funding that is going to deal with this. 
There have been at least seven Republicans over there in the Senate who 
supported that bill and voted for it. Why are you not dealing with an 
adequate solution to this problem? Why are you insisting on half ways, 
not dealing with the kinds of issues that need to be dealt with?
  Mr. WOODALL. Reclaiming my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York will suspend.
  The gentleman from Georgia has the floor.
  Mr. WOODALL. I thank you, Mr. Speaker.
  Because I hope where my friend was going to go was an acknowledgment 
that this process has provided twice the amount of disaster funding 
that the President requested, twice that amount in FY11, plus it 
forward-funds FY12.
  Mr. Speaker, again, I am proud that we are trying to grapple with 
these issues. There is not a person on the floor of this House that is 
saying ``no'' to Americans in distress. What folks are saying is 
``yes'' to making sure that when those distresses come again, we 
budgeted for it.
  I would now like to yield 2 minutes to my friend, the chairman of the 
Appropriations Committee, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers).
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Let me just reiterate.
  The $1 billion in the fiscal '11 portion of this bill is two times 
the amount the President requested. We doubled it. The amount that's in 
the bill for fiscal 2012, $2.65 billion, is more than the initial 
request that was made to us by the White House. We're here to tell 
you--and I've repeated this now four times--whatever the amount is 
needed that we see FEMA coming to us requesting, we're going to 
provide. Now, we've got until November 18 by this extension, by this 
CR, and during that period of time we will get the documentation from 
the White House and from FEMA about additional funds that are 
requested.
  I assure the gentleman from New York who spoke, your concerns will be 
addressed during these next few weeks, and the money will be there 
that's documented from the White House and from FEMA for disaster 
relief. We will not let our people hurt.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I'm going to give myself another second here just to 
say I keep hearing that we're all set for next year in the budget, but 
who's going to tell Mother Nature just how much we can afford and hope 
that we don't get more than that?
  I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

                              {time}  1440

  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, America has had an economic disaster and a 
natural disaster. The economic disaster is 15 million people 
unemployed, and then we had the natural disasters of August. This bill 
tries to help the natural disaster get solved by making the economic 
disaster worse. It takes a program that has produced 39,000 private 
sector jobs and cripples it.
  Now, the ostensible purpose for this is that we want to offset the 
spending to help deal with the natural disasters we had around this 
country in August; but on multiple occasions in the last 7 years, 
different administrations came to the Congress and asked for 
infrastructure spending to help rebuild Iraq--$3.7 billion worth of it 
to help rebuild Iraq and not a penny of offset.
  Ladies and gentlemen, if we can vote to spend the public's money to 
rebuild roads and bridges in Iraq, let's not require an offset to 
rebuild roads and bridges in New York and Vermont and New Jersey. The 
right vote is ``no.'' Rewrite this bill, and do so in a way without 
worsening our economic disaster.
  Mr. WOODALL. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from

[[Page 13975]]

Vermont (Mr. Welch), who watched Route 4 in Vermont crumble like a 
cookie in the rain and wash away.
  Mr. WELCH. I thank the gentlelady for yielding.
  This bill is not about the offset. This bill is not about whether 
we're going to pay for emergency spending. We must and we will. What 
this bill is about is whether we're going to help 427 residents of 
Pittsfield, Vermont, who were in the wake of the wrath of Hurricane 
Irene.
  That flood came down and ripped their road to the north and ripped 
their road to the south, and the water went in the middle, taking out 
homes and taking out public buildings. That's the selectboard--
volunteers. It was that volunteer fire department--volunteers. They 
didn't have time to have an argument about offsets. They had to find 
out how they could get an excavator in there, and if they didn't have 
one, they had to borrow one. They had towns that weren't leveraging 
some disputes they might have had about whether they would turn back an 
excavator or earthmoving equipment to help them out. They did it. They 
had their school running the next day, not because they had a school 
that was functional--their kids couldn't even get out. They did one 
thing first, and that was to set up school on the green. They set it up 
on the green. Two days after this hurricane, the kids were going to 
school, and their parents were making them feel secure. They couldn't 
get to a passable road for several days. What did they do? They cut a 
path through the woods so that, for half a mile, kids could walk and 
get to transportation.
  Now, they're going to have a tab even if we help them, and they know 
they have to pay for it; but, you know, if your neighbor's house is on 
fire and if you've got a boundary line dispute, you can use the 
leverage of his urgent necessity to get that fire hose and hold off and 
get it on condition that he cave--or you can do the right thing.
  Every time this Congress has had an opportunity to come to the aid of 
your district or mine, we've stepped up. No Vermonter has ever 
complained to me that we used his tax dollars to help out in Texas, to 
help out in Ohio, to help out on the gulf coast; and we didn't make it 
conditional in getting our way--my offset, what might be Afghanistan, 
and yours might be some environmental program. We knew that was not the 
time to do it. We are in this together.
  This Congress has an obligation to the American people. I have an 
obligation to the folks in your district, as you do in mine, to do the 
right thing when an act of God requires for its remedy an act of 
Congress. Let us act, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds just to say that 
we have the distinguished Appropriations chairman here on the floor, 
who has said, not only have we doubled the President's request here, 
but there is a commitment to making the dollars available to everyone 
who is in need in these disasters. That's the kind of commitment this 
Nation has always made to its citizens. That's the kind of commitment 
that this bill continues to make to America's citizens.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Watt).
  Mr. WATT. Mr. Speaker, last Friday, the President signed the patent 
reform bill; but before the ink is dry on the patent reform bill, the 
agreement that led to the passage of it that all of the fees that are 
collected by the Patent and Trademark Office will be used by the Patent 
and Trademark Office is reneged on in this continuing resolution.
  This is a job-creating bill, an innovation-creating bill, and because 
we have been taking the money of the Patent and Trademark Office for 
years and diverting it to the general fund, we have, in effect, imposed 
a tax on innovation in this country. The appropriators promised us that 
they were going to correct this problem, but there is nothing in this 
bill to address that promise. I don't see how I can support a 
continuing resolution that does not honor the commitment that was made 
in our patent reform bill.
  Just last Friday, the President signed the America Invents Act (AIA), 
a bipartisan bill that promises to stimulate innovation and create jobs 
and add fuel to our economy. The AIA created a mechanism for USPTO, 
beginning in FY2012, to access all of the fees it collects by allowing 
USPTO to notify Congress that the Office will need the excess fees to 
support its operations and hire the staff required to reduce the 
staggering backlog of patent applications. Now, despite this hard 
fought deal--one which I opposed precisely because it depends upon an 
annual commitment to honor and implement the deal--the CR before us 
fails to put the USPTO on the firm, stable footing we all agreed was 
necessary for it to dig out of the backlog, avoid a tax on innovation, 
and stimulate job growth.
  Under the current CR, for at least 7 weeks the USPTO will be held to 
a spending rate based on last year's FY11 appropriations, a rate that 
ignores Congress's directive and authorization that the USPTO be able 
to use the fees it collects in order to support implementation of the 
act and that those funds not be diverted to pay for wars, government 
waste and other Federal Government operations. I will resist the 
temptation to say, ``I told you so,'' because that would not advance 
the debate or solve the serious problem I have identified before and 
identify again today. What is most compelling is that ensuring that the 
PTO has access to all of its funds costs nothing to the American 
taxpayer. It is, therefore, confusing why we are again facing such a 
heavy lift to simply give the PTO access to the funds it earns through 
its operations. But what is clear to me is that, without a provision to 
ensure adequate funding for the PTO, the bill the President just signed 
will not serve the important purposes it was designed to serve. This CR 
does not provide such funding, and I cannot support the CR. I urge my 
colleagues who say they believe in reducing the tax burden on 
businesses, large and small, those who fought to ensure that the 
independent engines of economic growth run at full throttle, I urge 
them to vote no on the rule and against this CR and work to get the 
funding the USPTO needs and that this Congress promised it would have.
  Mr. WOODALL. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell).
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, this bill is brought to us by people who 
know the cost of everything and the value of nothing. The hard fact of 
the matter is they've fought two wars on the credit card. This is one 
of the few times that we've ever found that they have required offsets 
for emergencies, so now we're trying to fix a bad bill.
  I want to make the observation that we have a serious problem. We 
have a natural emergency, and we have people who have a lasting 
unemployment situation that is going to destroy the country and destroy 
families and people in this country.
  Having said that, I am baffled as to why we are considering a measure 
that is going to cut funding for the Advanced Technology Vehicle 
Manufacturing program. This is a loan program that has created or saved 
over 40,000 jobs so far, and if it's left alone and not destroyed, as 
would be done here, it will create another 10,000 more by year's end.
  For all the talk in Washington on that side of the aisle about 
creating jobs, we find that they're out to kill jobs again, and killing 
ATVM just plain makes no sense. It is going to prevent job creation. 
The Economic Policy Institute just released a report that my home State 
of Michigan has lost nearly 80,000 jobs to China since 2001, where they 
sustain and support their industry and where we do not. If we cripple 
this loan program, Michigan and the rest of the country can expect to 
lose even more jobs and their ability to compete globally in the 21st 
century.
  I understand we're living through tough economic times and have to 
squeeze every penny to make sure it counts, but I want to remind 
everybody here present that there are more applications in the pipeline 
than there is money to participate in this particular program. So we 
are essentially robbing Peter to pay Paul, but it is going to come at 
an enormous cost to the economic future of your constituents and mine.
  Now, it comforts me that many of my colleagues have seen through this

[[Page 13976]]

rascality and have observed it for what it is. Over 100 of them have 
signed on to a letter by my friends Mr. Peters and Ms. Eshoo in 
opposition to gutting ATVM.
  I urge my colleagues to stand up for what is right by defeating the 
previous question and by adopting my amendment. If we can't do that, 
let's vote this rule down and let's vote this bill down, and let's go 
about the Nation's business in a wise and sensible fashion which will 
create jobs and not strangle economic opportunity for our people.
  I want to thank the distinguished gentlewoman from New York for her 
leadership on this matter; but I want to denounce the behavior that I 
see on the other side, where they are walking into one of the most 
important issues that this country confronts with their eyes completely 
closed.
  Mr. WOODALL. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Ellison).

                              {time}  1450

  Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, there is a not-so-thin line between being 
frugal and fiscally responsible and then downright cheap and stingy, 
and this bill demonstrates the difference.
  To say to somebody who was in a disaster, to say to somebody who 
might lose everything, where the waters are rising, the fires are 
burning, the storms are knocking things down, to say, you know what, we 
can only help you if we cut somewhere else, is the most stingy, 
shortsighted, poorest form of representative government I have ever 
seen. It is outrageous to tell Americans facing disaster that you don't 
get any help unless you can find how to squeeze it out somewhere.
  Americans help Americans. Americans stand up for each other at a time 
of crisis. This is a hallmark of who we are, and it doesn't matter 
whether you are Republican or Democrat, whether you are from the north, 
the south, the east or the west, whether you are black, white, Latino, 
wherever you come from, when Americans are in trouble, Americans 
respond. And we don't reach inside and say, well, if I can afford it, 
we will help you out. We just jump forward and we help out.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ELLISON. No, I will not yield, and I won't cede any of my time, 
so you don't need to ask again.
  I am also just absolutely appalled, appalled, that the Republican 
bill will cost at least 10,000 good-paying American manufacturing jobs 
and perhaps tens of thousands more by cutting the Advanced Technology 
Vehicle Manufacturing loan program, which is putting Americans to work 
at producing cleaner American cars.
  This provision, perhaps more than any other, demonstrates the 
fraudulent nature, fraud, fraud, of claiming that the Republicans are 
trying to produce jobs. They are not trying to make jobs.
  They run around saying that rich people are job creators, they are 
profit creators. And you know who is absolutely not a job creator? 
Anyone who votes ``yes'' on this bill.
  Vote ``no,'' absolutely ``no'' on this bad piece of bill.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I am proud that we have been able to have a 
conversation with one another and yield that time throughout the day.
  In order to continue that, I yield 1 minute to the chairman, the 
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers).
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Thank you for yielding.
  The previous speaker doesn't understand the bill. The $2.65 billion 
in the 2012 portion of the bill is not offset, only the portion for 
fiscal 2011 is required to be offset. And I would remind the gentleman, 
as well as everyone else, many of whom voted for the Homeland Security 
bill a few months ago, it included this provision.
  The disaster relief money, twice what the President requested of us, 
we doubled his request. That part is offset, the fiscal 2011 moneys, 
but the bulk of the money in this bill, the $2.65 billion for fiscal 
2012, it's not offset. So the gentleman is incorrect.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Peters).
  Mr. PETERS. Mr. Speaker, I come from the Greater Detroit area, which 
has been especially hard hit from this recession.
  When many wanted to let the auto industry fail, I stood with 
President Obama, and now the Big Three auto companies are once again 
earning profits and creating jobs in our region.
  Today, however, the House Republicans are trying to pass job-killing 
cuts to our auto industry by eliminating section 136 loans. We have the 
support of the Big Three auto manufacturers, as well as several labor 
unions and environmental groups but, sadly, the Tea Party can't even 
say ``yes'' to a program that has created and protected 41,000 jobs. In 
fact, according to experts, this program is directly responsible for 
bringing manufacturing of the Ford Focus automobile from Mexico to 
Michigan, with American workers making the Ford Focus.
  We absolutely need to fund disaster relief for communities affected 
by the recent natural disasters, but that doesn't mean we need to cause 
an economic disaster for our workers.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule and ``no'' on the 
continuing resolution because we need to be working to create more 
American manufacturing jobs, not destroying them.
  Mr. WOODALL. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. 
Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, it would seem that we would 
come to the floor of the House at this time and celebrate a continuing 
resolution in the backdrop of Tropical Storm Lee and Hurricane Irene, 
the enormity of the tragedy in Vermont.
  I know that my colleagues from that area are in pain and still 
suffering from the devastation. I noticed upstate New York, Prattsville 
in particular, a city that is full of pain with individuals who are at 
loss of why their town is no longer.
  But in that instance, as my colleagues know, my Republicans friends 
know, although we have had some moments that we have not been proud of, 
such as in the gulf region when we were not prepared for Hurricane 
Katrina, we have still risen to the occasion thereafter and said to the 
American people that if you are in a disaster, this Nation will come to 
your aid.
  Unfortunately, this CR does not in any way befit the American way, 
for here we have a fix that is really a broken fix.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield the gentlewoman 1 additional minute.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Rather than declaring disasters what they 
are, emergencies, and providing the dollars that we need, we are, in 
essence, if I might use the old-fashioned term, nickel and diming our 
responsibilities. It is patently unfair to put the American people in 
the crosshairs of our politics about having an offset for emergency 
funding.
  Do you want to tell that, if we look back at 2005 to the thousand-
plus that died in Hurricane Katrina, you have to have an offset? Let's 
think about whether we're going to send you any money.
  Now, I know that there is a need for this legislation to pass, but 
once we concede the idea that the American people will be put in the 
pickle of an offset, that means that disaster knocks at your door, not 
at your invitation, and the Federal Government, which is, in fact, the 
umbrella on a rainy day, it will not be there. I will not be able to 
tolerate that.
  What we should be doing is passing a CR that declares emergency 
funding what it is--to be there for the American people. And this next 
thing we should be doing is passing the President's jobs bill, for that 
is how we will ensure that we are doing the job that the American 
people want.
  This CR is a bunch of smoke and mirrors, and I will not tell the 
American people that they are second-class citizens. If I can find the 
dime to pay for your misery, I will look for the dime. That is not the 
American way.
  Mr. WOODALL. I yield 1 minute to the chairman of the committee, the 
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers).

[[Page 13977]]


  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I thank the gentleman for yielding again. 
I'll be very brief.
  The gentlewoman who just spoke mentioned Katrina and that we should 
not offset expenses of emergency disaster spending. In fact, in 2006 
that's exactly what we did do. We required offsets for aid for Katrina 
and other matters, $33.5 billion in offsets in Katrina aid in 2006. And 
then again in 2007, we offset $939 million in offsets for, among other 
things, Hurricane Katrina recovery.
  As I have said before, over the last 10 years, we have offset more 
than half of the disaster emergency relief bills we have passed here. 
It's not unusual, and the gentlelady is mistaken that we did not 
request offsets for Katrina. We did.
  Mr. WOODALL. I say to my friend to from New York, I have no more 
speakers and am prepared to close.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an 
amendment to the rule to make in order a motion to strike the 
unacceptable House disaster funding language and substitute the 
bipartisan Senate approach.
  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. Mr. Speaker, I want to urge my colleagues to vote 
``no,'' defeat the previous question, and if we are successful in 
defeating the previous question and offering our amendment, then we 
will get on with the underlying House amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1500

  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I think one thing that unites us as Republicans and Democrats, and 
actually unites us as Americans, is when we face adversity, we say: Can 
we do better? Can we do better? You know, it's one thing to muddle 
through, but it's something else to learn from that experience and come 
back the next time and do better.
  Now, I'm proud to be here as part of a freshman class, Mr. Speaker; 
89 new Republican freshmen, 10 new Democratic freshmen. Ninety-nine 
Members of this House are brand new this year; 99 Members of this 
House. And so we look back. We look back on profligate spending where 
even though American families are asked to prioritize their spending 
each and every day, for some reason the Congress didn't. Even though 
small businesses are asked to prioritize their spending every day, for 
some reason Congress didn't.
  What this new Congress has done, Mr. Speaker, this 112th Congress has 
done, is to say: Can we do better? And the answer is yes. Why are the 
American people so cynical about Congress, Mr. Speaker? Why are our 
approval ratings in the tank? It was less than 2 months ago, less than 
2 months ago we agreed that for next year we should spend $1.43 
trillion. And we're already talking about that we've got that number 
wrong and we want to spend more. Folks, we have to make those priority 
decisions. Thirty times, Mr. Speaker, thirty times in the last 10 years 
we came up with emergency spending. Thirty times, Mr. Speaker.
  Let me just ask you, the Defense Iraq-Afghanistan supplemental in 
2004, is anybody surprised that it took more money in those places than 
we had budgeted? Anybody think that's a surprise? I'm not surprised by 
that, Mr. Speaker. I wasn't here, but I'm not surprised. What I wish we 
could have done was budgeted better for that. Did we know in 2004 that 
it was going to take more money? Of course we did. But what did we do? 
We gamed that system.
  What is this Appropriations Committee doing? What is this 
Appropriations Committee doing? They're saying that they know tragedy 
is going to befall Americans. They don't know what; they don't know 
when; but they know that it's going to happen. And so they're going to 
budget for it. Why? Because we tell Americans day after day after day 
that programs that they count on might not be there tomorrow. Why? 
Because we're broke. We tell Americans every day something that they 
might want to do, something they thought might be available, it might 
not be available. Why? Because we're broke.
  But I agree with my friends on the Democratic side of the aisle, when 
folks are facing disaster, they don't want to have to ask that 
question. When folks are facing personal tragedy, they don't want to 
have to ask that question: Will there be money there? Will there be 
help there?
  No, in our communities, we know the help is going to be there. We 
know our neighbors are going to be there for us, and we know our 
families will be there for us. And for the first time in a long time, 
Mr. Speaker, we now know that the American Congress is going to be 
there, too, because we are changing business as usual.
  We asked the question: Can we do better? And the Speaker and the 
committee chairmen said, Yes. Yes, we can. I encourage support for the 
rule, and I encourage a vote on the underlying resolution.
  The material previously referred to by Ms. Slaughter is as follows:

   An Amendment to H. Res. 405 Offered by Mrs. Slaughter of New York

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     sections:
       Sec. 3. 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 4 of this resolution. That motion may be offered only 
     by Representative Dingell of Michigan or his designee, shall 
     be 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. 4. The motion to amend referred to in section 3 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

[[Page 13978]]

     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. WOODALL. 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.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 
XX, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be 
followed by 5-minute votes on adoption of House Resolution 405, if 
ordered, and suspending the rules with regard to Senate Concurrent 
Resolution 28 and S. 846.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 237, 
nays 188, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 715]

                               YEAS--237

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Austria
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     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
     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--188

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

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Baca
     Bachmann
     Giffords
     Lewis (GA)
     Luetkemeyer
     Paul
     Reichert
     Sutton

                              {time}  1530

  Messrs. ROTHMAN of New Jersey, LARSON of Connecticut, Ms. FUDGE, and 
Mrs. NAPOLITANO changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mrs. MYRICK changed her vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 238, 
nays 185, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 716]

                               YEAS--238

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Austria
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     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
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)

[[Page 13979]]


     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)
     Kissell
     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--185

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

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Baca
     Bachmann
     Giffords
     Gingrey (GA)
     Hastings (FL)
     Lewis (GA)
     Paul
     Reichert
     Sutton
     Welch

                              {time}  1537

  Mr. ROKITA changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  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.

                          ____________________