[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 10]
[House]
[Pages 13980-13994]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                  CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2012

  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 House Resolution 
405, 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 amendment is as follows:


[[Page 13981]]

       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
       (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.

[[Page 13982]]

       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 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,

[[Page 13983]]

     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 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.
        This Act may be cited as the ``Continuing Appropriations 
     Act, 2012''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 405, 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. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring to the 
floor the continuing appropriations resolution to keep the Federal 
Government operating until November 18 of this year. For procedural 
reasons, this is being done as an amendment to the Senate amendment to 
H.R. 2608 to speed passage through the Senate, at their request; but in 
substance, this is the same as the continuing resolution, H.J. Res. 79, 
that I introduced on September 14.
  This CR, Mr. Speaker, will give Congress the time needed to complete 
fiscal year 2012 appropriations and to adequately fund vital government 
programs and services by working to put Federal spending on a more 
sustainable course. Just as significantly, this bill provides 
desperately needed funding for disaster recovery and relief.
  I would have preferred to have completed the appropriations process 
in regular order, and I believe the House made great strides in doing 
so. The Appropriations Committee moved on 11 of the 12 annual 
appropriations bills, and six bills have cleared the House; but we 
still need time to collaborate with our colleagues in the Senate in 
order to complete this work, and a short-term bill will allow us to do 
so.
  As we saw last year and into the spring, the threat of a government 
shutdown causes dangerous economic instability, and at this precarious 
time, we need to bolster American public confidence that their 
representatives in Washington are working for them and are not letting 
politics come before people.
  The CR continues government operations at a rate of $1.043 trillion--
the total amount agreed to by the Congress and the White House in the 
Budget Control Act. It's clean of most policy provisions to ensure 
swift passage, but we've provided small changes for safety, security, 
and continuity of essential programs.
  For instance, we've extended Federal flood insurance availability and 
the availability of defense survival equipment for our troops abroad. 
In addition, this CR will help meet the needs of the thousands of 
families, businesses, and communities burdened by recent natural 
disasters by providing an immediate $1 billion in emergency 2011 
funding now as well as an additional $2.65 billion for the next year. 
We are helping our citizens get back on their feet.
  The $776 million in the bill for the FEMA Disaster Relief Fund, which 
is $276 million more than the President or the Senate proposed, is 
time-sensitive and critical. That fund is now below $250 million and is 
running out of money fast. Unless we provide additional funding, within 
a matter of days the Disaster Relief Fund will soon be empty, leaving 
millions of people in the lurch.
  The $1 billion in emergency funding for fiscal year 2011 has been 
offset by a cut to the Department of Energy's Advanced Technology 
Vehicle Manufacturing loan program, which has more than $4 billion in 
unspent idle funds in the pipeline. It has been there for 3 years. Now 
is the time to use those idle dollars for true and immediate purposes: 
aiding our fellow citizens in their times of greatest need as they cope 
with the aftermath of wildfires, tornadoes, earthquakes, and 
hurricanes--an unprecedented string of disasters in this country.
  Now, the notion of offsetting emergency spending has gotten a lot of 
attention as of late. Let me be very clear that offsetting emergency 
spending is not a unique practice. In fact, over the last 10 years, the 
Congress has used offsets in at least 15 of 30 emergency supplemental 
spending bills--half of them. In total, the Congress has passed over 
$60 billion in emergency offsets in the last 10 years, most of which 
had a large amount of support on both sides of the aisle, including the 
support of former Speaker Pelosi.
  The loan program used as an offset in this bill has had excess funds 
for years, and taking the money will not negatively affect that 
program. All entities in final loan stages will still get the funding 
they've worked for. Furthermore, this offset is identical to the one 
already passed by the House in June as part of the Homeland Security 
appropriations bill. We've already voted for it.

                              {time}  1600

  In addition, the committee will continue to consider additional 
disaster funding over the next few weeks as we bring the fiscal year 
2012 appropriations process to a close, hopefully by

[[Page 13984]]

November 18, including reviewing estimates that are still coming in 
from recent disasters so that families and communities can get the 
assistance they need while making sure that every dollar is well spent.
  The Budget Control Act, which both Houses in Congress and the White 
House agreed to, provides for 2012 disaster funding in that capacity. 
But with respect to this continuing resolution, at this time we do not 
have all of the necessary information on the cost of the recent 
disasters nor the time to work out a final comprehensive agreement with 
the White House and the Senate.
  As Members of this body know, back in their home districts, the FEMA 
administration works to survey the damage and report that to the White 
House who, in turn, makes the request to Congress for disaster funds. 
That's the normal procedure in which we are involved now, and I assure 
the Members that, as we get those estimates from the White House in the 
next few weeks and months, they will be addressed and monies will be 
available.
  Therefore, we must meet the most immediate need and provide 
additional funding now for FEMA to keep that program going for the next 
several months. That's what this continuing resolution does and why we, 
the House and Senate, have to pass this bill immediately.
  This CR lives up to the guidelines set in the Budget Control Act, as 
well as our commitment to responsible and reduced levels of spending. 
We can ride our fiscal ship while still supporting the essential 
government programs and services and disaster aid.
  With this in mind, it is my intention that Congress complete the 
fiscal year 2012 appropriations work without any further delay. The 
sooner we pass this CR, the sooner we can focus on this long-term 
appropriations legislation and get it done before November 18.
  I urge my colleagues in both Chambers to support this bill so we can 
send it to the President as soon as possible.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DICKS. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in reluctant opposition to the continuing 
resolution. For the most part, it is a clean CR. It provides funding at 
$1.043 trillion through November 18. The amount reflects the Budget 
Control Act cap on FY 2012 appropriations. The CR continues funding as 
provided in FY 2011 with a 1.503 percent across-the-board cut to come 
down from approximately 1.059 to 1.043.
  The CR adds a handful of anomalies requested by the administration 
through OMB, including provisions to cut back on overseas contingency 
operations funds from the level of 2011 down to the level that was 
passed in the Defense appropriations bill, which is approximately 118; 
authorize DHS work on national special security events; extend flood 
insurance; and delay the Postal Service payment obligation. The last 
provision will allow mail service to continue while Congress pursues 
legislative reforms.
  The matter that concerns me and the Democratic Caucus is the way the 
majority has provided disaster relief funding. FEMA's Disaster Relief 
Fund is precariously short on money in FY 2011. Americans are trying to 
rebuild their lives after the devastating effect of floods, wildfires, 
and hurricanes in a record year of natural disasters, and FEMA is 
running out of resources to help them.
  FEMA has deferred funding for all long-term rebuilding projects to 
focus on immediate needs. The administration requested a $500 million 
supplemental appropriation for the remaining days in the fiscal year. 
They requested 2011 emergency funds. They did not recommend an offset. 
This has been the practice for supplemental disaster relief.
  Since 2002, Congress appropriated $95 billion in supplemental 
disaster relief. All of it was designated as an emergency, and none of 
it was offset. Some other emergencies may have been paid for during the 
Clinton administration; however, during the Bush administration, this 
was not so for disaster relief. Now, there were other categories of 
emergency spending and other supplementals that were offset but not 
disaster relief.
  For fiscal years 2002 through 2006, President Bush requested 
supplemental disaster relief funding eight times. Each of the eight 
times was designated as an emergency and none were offset. With 
Republicans in the majority, some of the Bush emergency disaster relief 
bills, without offsets, were approved by voice vote and some were 
considered under unanimous consent.
  Nonetheless, House Republicans today insist on departing from this 
practice. They take $1.5 billion from the Advanced Technology Vehicle 
Manufacturing program at the Department of Energy to pay for $1 billion 
in disaster relief, disaster and emergency relief. We have discussed 
compromise with the other side. They have been unwilling to accept our 
suggestions.
  The Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing program was started in 
2008 to reinvigorate American manufacturing. To date, this program has 
awarded $3.5 billion of credit subsidy to promote energy efficient 
advanced vehicles and their component parts. The Department of Energy 
estimates that loan guarantees have created or maintained, in total, 
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 2009 CR. I say the loan review 
process is and ought to be strenuous. One company, Tesla, 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.
  Having read many of the press releases that went out when there was 
another DOE program that ran into difficulties, I didn't note anybody 
there saying we shouldn't take time for due diligence. Due diligence is 
required.
  By the way, the company in question, Tesla, employed about 400 
workers before receiving the loan. Today, they have 1,400 employees in 
the fields of engineering research and development, design, 
manufacturing, assembly, maintenance, service, sales, and support.
  The ATVM program has an additional 18 loan applications in progress 
that are projected to create 50,000 to 60,000 more jobs, in total, 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, and they are adding nearly 9,000 new workers since 
2009. Some of the jobs will be at risk by using this offset.
  This is not the time to put American manufacturing jobs at risk. If 
you want to make it in America, you can't take away this funding.

                              {time}  1610

  If there is one thing we've learned on the economic forefront, it's 
that we need a growth policy, we don't need a cut policy. Cut and grow 
just ain't so.
  I would point out that we need to get people back to work. And the 
way you do that is programs like this that are going to hire people 
instead of fire people. We have been doing a lot of firing, and it 
hasn't worked. When are we going to wake up? When is the majority party 
going to realize that we have to do something to create growth and 
stimulate the economy and put people back to work? The only way we're 
going to get the deficit down is to bring unemployment down.
  This is an employment program. It should be supported. We should 
defeat the continuing resolution and come up with--either take this out 
or come up with another offset that doesn't hurt job creation in our 
country.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  The gentleman mentioned in his statement that we had not used offsets 
to fund disaster relief; I beg to differ. In 2001, emergency 
supplemental, offset; 2002, emergency supplemental, offset; 2004, 
disaster relief for wildfire and others, offset. And in 2005, offset 
for relief for the tsunami. In 2006, relief for

[[Page 13985]]

Katrina, offset. In 2008, disaster relief and recovery, $20 billion in 
offsets. I could go on. There are many times where we have used the 
offsets to pay for supplementals. In fact, over the last 10 years, 15 
of the 30 emergency spending bills and supplementals were offset, for a 
total of $60 billion over the last 10 years.
  Now, on this offset that has been mentioned, over $4 billion sits 
idle in that account and has so for 3 years now as the administration 
has been slow to obligate that money. The $1.5 billion rescission in 
subsidies we propose will not have a significant impact on the program. 
This is the same rescission, Madam Speaker, that we used in the 2012 
Homeland Security appropriations bill that passed this House with 
bipartisan support in June. Exactly the same. And yet the Senate didn't 
act and that billion dollars was not available for disaster relief.
  States with applications in the queue in this program, like Indiana, 
Louisiana, Ohio, Michigan, Florida, Missouri, California and many 
others, will still receive their due diligence just like before and 
could receive awards as well.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DICKS. I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina 
(Mr. Price).
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, the fact that we are even 
debating the substance of this continuing resolution is a telling 
statement about the priorities of the current House majority.
  FEMA's disaster relief fund, after all, is operating on fumes. Since 
late August, the agency has deferred funding for all long-term 
rebuilding projects in order to have enough resources to meet the most 
pressing emergency needs. This means that critical rebuilding efforts 
in over 40 States--Louisiana, Mississippi, Florida, Iowa, North Dakota, 
Tennessee, Missouri, Alabama, my own State of North Carolina and 
others--are on hold. Thousands of people who would currently be earning 
a good paycheck by working on rebuilding efforts are not, and 
communities that are still recovering from past disasters are being 
told to move to the back of the line to make way for those affected by 
the more recent disasters.
  Madam Speaker, this Congress has a responsibility to make good on our 
promise to these communities by ensuring that FEMA has enough resources 
to respond to all major disasters. Regardless of where and when they 
occurred, we must not pit one State or one region against the other.
  The administration has made clear what it will take: a $500 million 
supplemental appropriation for the remainder of this fiscal year, and 
an increase of $4.6 billion above its initial request for fiscal year 
2012. This CR includes $1 billion in supplemental fiscal 2011 funding, 
and a $2.65 billion downpayment toward fiscal 2012. But I'm not 
satisfied with either the amount or with the price of inclusion.
  Since 2002, Congress has appropriated $95 billion in supplemental 
funding for the disaster relief fund and additional disaster funding 
for the Corps of Engineers. Those are the two accounts we are talking 
about here, and that has all been designated as an emergency and none 
of it offset.
  Now, at a time when communities up and down the eastern seaboard are 
still reeling from the aftermath of Hurricane Irene, at a time when 
millions of Americans are still struggling to find a good job, House 
Republicans are telling us that this time around, FEMA won't get any 
more disaster relief funding for the current year unless we take money 
from another Federal agency. This is a radical departure from the way 
in which both parties have treated emergency disaster relief over the 
past decade, and it will undermine our economic recovery.
  The Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing program which our 
Republican colleagues propose to cannibalize, that program stands to 
add tens of thousands of good paying jobs in an industry that will be 
critical to our future economic competitiveness. This is a bad 
precedent, and it's bad policy.
  It's no wonder the American people are fed up with Congress. Once 
again the majority is putting partisan ideology ahead of the dire needs 
of the American people by telling our communities they won't get relief 
until we wage yet another budget battle here in Congress.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this approach and instead support the 
disaster relief measure approved by the Senate which would fully fund 
FEMA's needs without requiring yet another fight over spending offsets.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Aderholt), chair of the House 
Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. I want to thank the distinguished chairman of the full 
Appropriations Committee for yielding, and, Madam Speaker, I rise in 
strong support of this must-pass resolution.
  Not only does this CR provide the necessary funds and authority to 
keep the government open, it also provides an immediate and a 
substantial infusion of vital funding to both FEMA's disaster relief 
efforts and the Corps of Engineers' flood control and coastal emergency 
account, and it does all of this in a fiscally responsible way. This 
resolution before us today complies with the recently enacted Budget 
Control Act and provides the Appropriations Committee of the House and 
Senate ample time to do our work on the FY 2012 budget.
  For the hard-hit communities all across the country, including my 
home State of Alabama, which was hit hard back in April, and those 
devastated by fires, floods, tornadoes, and hurricanes over the past 12 
months, this CR will sustain FEMA's disaster relief and recovery 
efforts and help the Corps with additional funding for emergency flood 
control projects.
  As I mentioned, my home State of Alabama was hit hard back on April 
27, so if anyone is interested in sustaining FEMA's disaster relief, it 
would be me. And I do believe this bill does the job, and just that.
  The duration of this CR will provide the time to review and 
scrutinize FEMA's preliminary damage estimates for Hurricane Irene, 
estimates that are based on historical projections rather than actual 
data and claims that are still in the process of being collected. This 
oversight will enable the Appropriations Committee the time to properly 
and responsibly address the administration's full supplemental request, 
a request that was submitted to Congress only about 2 weeks ago. And 
while Congress has an undeniable obligation to thoroughly address our 
Nation's disaster relief needs, we can no longer afford to simply throw 
money at calamities and then ask the hard questions later on. We have 
to get our funding priorities right the first time, and that is exactly 
what both Chairman Rogers and I have repeatedly said when it comes to 
appropriations for homeland security.
  Madam Speaker, this CR is the right tool for the right time, and I 
urge my colleagues to support this vital resolution and responsibly 
address our Nation's most pressing needs.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ADERHOLT. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.

                              {time}  1620

  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. The gentleman is the chair of the Homeland 
Security Subcommittee which funds FEMA.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. Exactly.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Now, you passed a bill back in June that 
provided $1 billion for FEMA for disaster relief; is that right?
  Mr. ADERHOLT. We passed that.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. What happened to that bill?
  Mr. ADERHOLT. It passed the committee.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I mean, after it passed the House.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. And it passed the House and was sent to the Senate.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. And what happened then?
  Mr. ADERHOLT. And that's where it's sitting.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Nothing has taken place in the Senate since 
June?

[[Page 13986]]


  Mr. ADERHOLT. Absolutely.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. And your bill would have provided $1 billion 
today for disaster relief, and the other body hasn't acted?
  Mr. ADERHOLT. We did that, as you say, back well before June. It 
passed the House in June, and it sits over there even today.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. No wonder they're operating on fumes.
  I'm talking about FEMA.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  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 appreciate the gentleman yielding, and I rise to 
oppose the taking of the $1.5 billion from the advanced technology 
vehicle manufacturing account to offset a portion of the Army Corps 
disaster needs estimated to be $2.256 billion instead of declaring this 
matter an emergency.
  I do think as a matter of policy this institution and the Congress as 
a whole needs to have the intestinal fortitude to understand that we 
have natural disasters every year, and we need to set aside moneys to 
fund those and not to take money out of investment accounts that create 
jobs in the United States of America.
  We have two problems that we're discussing today. One is a natural 
problem. We have had tornadoes, we have had floods, we have had 
hurricanes, we had an earthquake, and we have had wildfires. So what is 
new?
  The fact is in every year save two since 1997, the Congress has 
recognized the need for emergency funds to respond to the impacts of 
natural disasters on our Nation's water resources infrastructure. Since 
2001, the Congress has provided more than $24 billion in emergency 
funds to the Army Corps of Engineers for this very purpose. And 
according to the Corps of Engineers, we have spent $5.12 billion on an 
emergency basis in Afghanistan and Iraq on economic infrastructures.
  Now, some suggest all of this has to be offset because we have a 
fiscal crisis. I would point out that those emergency declarations for 
water emergencies in 1998 occurred and the budget of the United States 
was balanced. There was an emergency declaration as far as those water 
projects in 1999, and we had a balanced budget. There was not an 
emergency declaration in 2000, and we balanced a budget. In 2001 we had 
an emergency declaration for water disasters, and we balanced the 
budget. That's not an argument not to meet the human crisis that people 
are facing in this country.
  I certainly think that my colleague from Washington covered the 
account as far as vehicle manufacturing very well and the investment it 
represents and the jobs maintained and created that are represented 
again in this account.
  And certainly Chairman Rogers makes a point, and rightfully so, that 
many of these dollars have now been allocated to specific loan programs 
and others, eight specifically, will be resolved by the end of this 
year. Again, this offset would not impact those, and the chairman is 
absolutely correct. However, I do point out to my colleagues that the 
remaining 10 projects are in the stage of due diligence, the same words 
that my colleague from Washington used, to compete for the remainder of 
the $1.5 billion with approximately 10,000 jobs at stake.
  Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. Isn't it true that the industrial States are the ones that 
are getting most of this money because that's where the automobile 
industry has over the years been located?
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. The gentleman is correct. But I would broaden that to 
suggest the United States of America is getting that money, and people 
who want to make things in the United States of America and manufacture 
things in the United States of America are getting that money.
  Mr. DICKS. Isn't it true we already know this program works, this 
program received $7.5 billion, and $3.5 billion of it has been 
obligated and is out there as loans? I think it tripled under the loan 
guarantee program.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Capito). The time of the gentleman has 
expired.
  Mr. DICKS. I yield the gentleman 2 additional minutes.
  And so we are seeing that this program actually works. I mean, if 
there was some question that it was something that hasn't worked, but 
it is creating jobs and it will create jobs in the future. And there is 
a whole bunch of people in there making applications from many of these 
States that you and I just talked about.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Right. We have 10 pending, and I would not be on the 
floor if I did not believe we've maintained and created jobs and we 
have potentially 10,000 more jobs than we can create with the $1.5 
billion that is pending; and I would point out, again, I would broaden 
your observation to the entire United States of America.
  I mentioned two problems we face. The second is manufacturing in the 
United States of America. In 1977, we had over 18 million Americans 
engaged in manufacturing. Last year, we had over 11 million. The real 
hourly wage for what an American worker is paid for 1 hour's worth of 
their physical labor, whatever they may do in this country, is 53 cents 
less in 2010 than it was in 1977. That's not the country I want to 
leave the children of this world, and I'm convinced it's because of the 
loss of those manufacturing jobs.
  If it's good enough to declare an emergency and build a children's 
hospital in Basra, Iraq, we ought not to take money out of an 
investment account that creates jobs in the auto industry to help 
people in Tuscaloosa, Alabama.
  If it is good enough to declare an emergency to have generators 
installed in Kandahar, Afghanistan, by the Army Corps of Engineers, we 
ought not to take money away from job-creating programs to help people 
in Springfield, Massachusetts. If it's good enough to build a 
hydroelectric dam in Afghanistan on an emergency basis, we ought to 
declare an emergency to help people in Smithville, Mississippi.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has again expired.
  Mr. DICKS. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. I think I have made my point. I think the gentleman 
has, and I think this is the wrong policy. Again, institutionally we 
need to come to grips with natural disasters, set those moneys aside; 
but in the alternative and in the intermediate term, we need to 
recognize them for what they are and not rob the future of this Nation 
economically to do so.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
chairman of the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations of Appropriations, 
the gentlelady from Texas (Ms. Granger).
  Ms. GRANGER. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of this bill to 
fund the continuing operations of the Federal Government until November 
18. I appreciate the leadership of Chairman Rogers in addressing the 
responsibilities of this Congress.
  Passing this stopgap measure will give Congress time to complete the 
fiscal year 2012 appropriations process. In spite of our late start, 
the Appropriations Committee was still able to move 11 of the 12 
appropriations bills this year. However, the committee still needs time 
to collaborate with the Senate.
  The continuing resolution funds vital government programs and 
services and allows essential bills to be paid. It reduces spending to 
the levels agreed to by the Congress and the administration in the 
Budget Control Act that was signed into law in August. And it avoids 
controversial policy riders in order to ensure swift passage.
  There are many reasons Members should support this bill. Perhaps one 
of the most important is what this bill does for our military. Without 
a CR, our servicemembers and their families don't get paid. They would 
have to continue to do their work protecting the country, but they 
would have to do it while worrying about whether they would be able to 
pay their bills or mortgage.

[[Page 13987]]

  Our brave men and women in uniform already faced that possibility 
earlier this year. They deserve better. They need to know that the 
United States Congress stands behind them. This bill addresses disaster 
relief, and it funds it in a responsible way.

                              {time}  1630

  I urge my colleagues to support this bill so it can be enacted as 
soon as possible and the Appropriations Committee can complete its work 
without any further delay. This is a responsible action for us to take 
to go forward. The American people expect the Congress to do our jobs. 
The Appropriations Committee must complete its work.
  Mr. DICKS. Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Rothman), a member of the Appropriations 
Committee.
  Mr. ROTHMAN of New Jersey. I thank my distinguished chairman and the 
ranking member for this conversation.
  Madam Speaker, Congress has found the money over the years for 
disaster relief for all other parts of the country time and time again, 
whether it was forest fires in the West, droughts in the Southwest, 
flooding in the Midwest, tornados in the South. Now the Republican 
majority in the House of Representatives says that when the Northeast 
suffers devastating flooding as a result of Hurricane Irene and 
Tropical Storm Lee, you won't get enough to cover all of your damages 
and we're going to have to cut other investments in programs that 
create manufacturing jobs in America. That's simply outrageous.
  I saw firsthand the devastation that occurred in my district in 
northeastern New Jersey. Thousands of my constituents lost their 
possessions, were forced to evacuate from their homes or were without 
power for days, and critical infrastructure was damaged. Recovery 
efforts are beyond the means of the State and local governments. Our 
neighbors, our local communities, our local businesses need Federal 
help to rebuild and they need it now in full, just like every other 
part of the country in all the years past.
  This is not a partisan matter in the Northeast. My Republican 
Governor, Governor Chris Christie from New Jersey, said our people are 
suffering now and they need Federal support now, and he was right.
  It is time to meet the disaster needs of American citizens in New 
Jersey, in northeastern United States of America, to do so now and in 
full. And the Republican majority should get rid of the bill it has 
now--which I'm going to vote against--and give full relief to the 
American people from New Jersey. We've been paying the tab for others 
for a long time. We need the help now.
  Mr. DICKS. Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time remains 
on both sides?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Washington has 9\1/2\ 
minutes remaining and the gentleman from Kentucky has 14\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a very 
hardworking member of our committee, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. 
Cole).
  Mr. COLE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I rise to urge support of H.R. 2608, the Continuing 
Resolution Act of 2012.
  Frankly, I had hoped not to be here in this particular capacity. I 
had hoped by this point this year we would have been able to restore 
complete regular order and move our appropriations bills through in a 
normal fashion. And, frankly, thanks to the leadership of Chairman 
Rogers and the cooperation of Chairman Dicks, we've made a lot of 
progress in doing just that, and hopefully next year we'll be able to 
complete that progress and build upon what's been accomplished this 
year. However, there is a genuine need for this continuing resolution 
at this particular time for a number of reasons.
  First, with all due respect, our friends on the other side of the 
aisle didn't write a budget this year, and that took up quite a bit of 
time earlier this year getting ready for 2011. Second, we all know we 
had a prolonged debate over the debt ceiling. That took up a lot of 
time. And finally, with all due respect to our friends on the other 
side of the Rotunda, the Senate operates at a rather leisurely pace 
these days when it comes to budgeting and appropriating--and, frankly, 
has for several years. That needs to change.
  Some people in this Chamber will oppose this bill because it 
``doesn't have enough money for disaster relief.'' The reality is it 
does. And we can add to that, once the continuing resolution is 
completed and the appropriations process moves forward, as necessary 
with due diligence.
  Frankly, a lot of this talk about not having enough relief is simply 
a ruse to spend more money in other areas without being responsible and 
offsetting expenses from existing revenue. Some on my side of the aisle 
will oppose this legislation because it spends too much. And, frankly, 
I have a good deal of sympathy with that. We all would like to lower 
spending while taking care of legitimate disaster relief.
  But this agreement is one that operates under a total spending level. 
It's been worked out and it's a compromise, and it's one that we ought 
to honor, honestly, on both sides of the aisle. And my friends who 
oppose it because it spends too much will only end up triggering 
additional spending if this legislation doesn't pass. It's a 
responsible bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 
seconds.
  Mr. COLE. In closing, Madam Speaker, it's a responsible piece of 
legislation. We ought to act on it.
  Frankly, it shouldn't be a partisan football. We can take care of 
people that need relief fully and expeditiously, we can exercise our 
responsibilities in appropriate oversight fashion, and we can continue 
to work toward deficit reduction in the long term if we pass this 
continuing resolution.
  Mr. DICKS. Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the ranking 
Democratic member of the Natural Resources Committee, Congressman Ed 
Markey of Massachusetts.
  Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentleman from Washington State.
  We're having 100-year floods every year. We're having tornados rip 
through Joplin. We have floods in Vermont, in New Jersey, New York. We 
have hurricanes all across the country. We have 48 States who have had 
emergency declarations so far this year. The planet is warming; the 
weather is worsening.
  What is the response of the Republicans? They have to find the 
money--they say all of a sudden--for disaster relief for people who are 
suffering, for people who are desperate, for people whose lives have 
been altered permanently.
  They say we have to cut something. Now, do they say we're going to 
cut the nuclear weapons program because America doesn't need any more 
nuclear weapons? No. Are we going to cut the breaks that we give to oil 
and coal? No, we're not going to touch those things. Where are we 
going? What does the Republican Party do? What does the Tea Party want? 
I ask what the Tea Party wants.
  The Tea Party wants to cut the Clean Car Factory Fund. Now, what is 
that? Well, that's the fund that we have that's going to invent the 
automobiles and the trucks that go 60, 70, 80, 90 miles per gallon 
without having to use oil. Now, why is that important? Two reasons: 
One, it's the oil that's being burnt that creates the greenhouse gases 
that are warming up the planet, causing all of these weather conditions 
that are leading to these disaster relief programs that have to have 
more money in them as each year goes by; and, two, it is so that we can 
tell the OPEC ministers, We don't need your oil any more than we need 
your sand.
  So what are they doing here today? They're taking the one program 
that is central to the health and well-being of our country and to our 
national security--so that we alter our relationship with OPEC--and 
they are slashing it. They are slashing the one program that reinvents 
the vehicles that we drive. They are slashing the one program that 
gives young people in our country some hope that we are going to invent 
our way out of this problem.

[[Page 13988]]

  You don't have to be Dick Tracy to figure out what's going on here. 
The oil industry, the coal industry, all of the polluting industries 
are saying kill the program that makes sure that the vehicles we get in 
20 years get 75 or 100 miles per gallon without using one gallon of 
oil.
  Vote ``no'' on this terrible bill.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished chair of the Legislative Branch Appropriations 
Subcommittee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Crenshaw).
  Mr. CRENSHAW. I thank the gentleman for yielding the time.
  I just want to urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this continuing 
resolution.
  This body has been doing a lot of things to try to get the economy 
moving again, to try to put people back to work, create jobs. One of 
the ways we can do that is to change this culture of spending into a 
culture of saving. Quit crowding out the private sector so that the 
private sector can come in and do the job creation that we know they 
can do.

                              {time}  1640

  We've taken some giant steps on stopping all the spending that's gone 
on here. Last year we did some good things. Eventually we funded the 
government at less than last year's level, and this year we hoped that 
we would come in and do the individual Appropriations subcommittees. In 
the House we passed six of those through the full House. Unfortunately, 
the Senate only passed one, and so we find ourselves now in a situation 
where we have to pass a continuing resolution.
  But, again, all the subcommittees that came before this full House 
funded their subcommittees at less than last year's level. We now have 
a continuing resolution that has funding that's less than last year. 
It's been agreed to by the House, agreed to by the Senate, and agreed 
to by the President.
  And we can argue about the process. We can argue about whether it 
should be a little more or a little bit less. But we'll give ourselves 
until November 18 to finalize all the work that needs to be done. And 
so I think it's appropriate that we pass this, move forward, and 
continue to try to get a handle on the spending to help get our economy 
moving again.
  Mr. DICKS. May I inquire how much time remains?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Washington has 7 minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Kentucky has 10\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. DICKS. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
distinguished chair of the Labor-HHS Subcommittee, the gentleman from 
Montana (Mr. Rehberg).
  Mr. REHBERG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  Madam Speaker, there is no phrase that better embodies the fact that 
something here in Washington is broken than ``government shutdown.'' 
Yesterday we heard those words for the second time in a year, and that 
tells us the old ways of doing things simply don't work anymore. It's 
time for a new direction.
  Every month we're faced with new unemployment numbers, new market 
losses, and new deficit figures. We can never forget that behind those 
numbers are people. Unemployment isn't just a number; it's people who 
worry about how they will fill their gas tanks or put food on their 
table.
  Market losses aren't just lines on a graph; it's the retirement 
savings of seniors across the country who struggle to afford medicine 
they need. And deficit isn't just borrowed money; it's the future being 
stolen from our children and our grandchildren.
  As subcommittee chairman of Labor, Health and Human Services and 
Education appropriations, I support this continuing resolution. Not 
only does it prevent a government shutdown, it gives us time to finish 
working on the remaining appropriations bills in an open and 
transparent way.
  I look forward to my subcommittee introducing and debating their 
work. Let me tell you a little bit about it. As we've been crafting 
this bill, I've worked closely with you, Members of this body, and 
listened to folks from Montana and throughout the country. We want it 
to be a balanced plan that fundamentally improves how the government 
spends its money, the hardworking money of taxpayers.
  We want to make government more accountable and efficient, saving as 
much as possible on top of the savings from earlier this year. In 
addition to eliminating inefficient programs, we'll improve the 
remaining government by defunding enforcement of unnecessary and 
overreaching regulations. These regulations cost jobs and hamper 
economic recovery.
  By spending strategically, we can maintain critical funding for 
things like education and biomedical research. To be successful in 
tomorrow's economy, our children need to be prepared for the skilled 
jobs that are going unfilled today. We also need to invest in basic 
research so the U.S. can continue to be a leader in biomedical 
advancements. Our subcommittee wants to do that.
  Our legislation will keep the promise we made to rein in government 
spending and government growth. It's the next step, not the final one. 
We still have a long way to go, but by finding ways to do more with 
less, we are changing the direction in Washington. That's what the 
American people want, and I'm confident that by passing this continuing 
resolution it will give us the time to do it in the open and do it 
right.
  With that, I hope you'll vote for this continuing resolution.
  Mr. DICKS. I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Engel).
  Mr. ENGEL. I thank the gentleman from Washington for yielding to me, 
and I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 2608, the Continuing 
Appropriations Act of 2012. I oppose playing political games with FEMA 
disaster funding while American citizens are recovering from recent 
natural disasters that have wiped out homes, businesses, and lives.
  In an unprecedented move, the Republican majority requires an offset 
for FEMA funding. FEMA must be fully funded so that my constituents can 
continue recovering from the devastation of Hurricane Irene. By 
requiring this offset, we're playing politics with the lives of those 
who need our assistance most.
  Let me tell my Republican colleagues that if you want an offset, 
let's get rid of the Bush tax cuts for the rich. That's an offset that 
you won't want to get rid of.
  This bill presents a false choice: that we need to cut off one hand 
to save the other. The bill slashes funds from a program that would 
reinvigorate the manufacturing sector and decrease our reliance on 
foreign oil to fund FEMA. We can do both, and we need not buy in to 
this ridiculous logic. In times of disaster, we must always take care 
of our citizens and our country first, period.
  Try telling my constituents who are struggling in the aftermath of a 
hurricane, sorry, you'll have to wait till we find an offset. Sorry, we 
really don't care about your problems. We have other pressing things to 
do.
  Reasonable Democrats and Republicans maintained the practice of 
helping constituents in the past. Why this policy has changed is beyond 
me.
  Madam Speaker, disasters are not associated with one political party, 
and helping our citizens should be a top priority of both.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on the CR, and urge the majority to bring a bill 
to the floor that fully funds FEMA and doesn't harm job creation and 
does the right thing.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ENGEL. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Does the gentleman realize that back in June, 
in this body we passed, with bipartisan support, the Homeland Security 
bill, which contained $1 billion for FEMA, sent it to the Senate, and 
it's been laying there for the last 3 months? Did the gentleman know 
that?
  Mr. ENGEL. I do know that. Unfortunately, it's been difficult passing

[[Page 13989]]

things in the Senate because, quite frankly, the minority filibusters 
everything to death, and getting the 60 votes is very, very difficult.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the very hardworking chair of the 
Interior subcommittee on appropriations, the gentleman whose 
subcommittee held more hearings than any other, I think 22 different 
hearings--we had 150 committee-wide, but he won the award for the most 
hearings--the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Simpson).
  Mr. SIMPSON. I thank the chairman for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, many Members of Congress, myself included, recognize 
that if we want to get our economy going again we need to take steps to 
get our fiscal house back in order and provide certainty to the 
marketplace so small business and job creators can begin hiring again.
  Until we finish the regular appropriations process for the coming 
year, we won't be able to implement the necessary spending reductions 
and policy reforms needed to get our economy moving again.
  While the House has come close to passing all of the appropriation 
bills out of committee and many of the bills on the floor, the Senate 
has passed only one bill so far. This CR gives us time to complete that 
work, while cutting current spending. To me, that seems like a much 
more reasonable solution than threatening another government shutdown, 
which will only hurt the economy.
  Congress has one responsibility each year, and that is to pass the 12 
appropriations bills by the beginning of the year. That job has been 
made harder this year by the fact that the previous majority did not 
complete their work by the end of 2010.
  But I've got to tell you, in all honesty, this debate has almost been 
bizarre to me today. People have asked me whether we need to offset 
emergency spending, and I said emergency spending does not have to be 
offset. But if you can find the offsets to do so, why not do so? And 
that's what we've tried to do in this bill.
  This debate seems to me almost devoid of the fact that we are $1.5 
trillion in debt this year. The gentlelady from Texas, in the debate on 
the rule, said, we're nickel and diming those that are suffering from 
disaster, and that we shouldn't be nickel and diming.
  I don't know, but in Idaho, $1.5 trillion, or the $1 billion that 
we're offsetting here, is not nickels and dimes.
  The gentleman from New Jersey said people need relief now in New 
Jersey. They are going to get relief when we pass this bill.
  The gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price) said, we are 
cannibalizing the program that we are taking the money out of. In full 
committee, this amendment was offered on the Homeland Security bill. 
This amendment was offered. There was no objection to it. It passed on 
a voice vote. And now we are cannibalizing the program?
  We need to pass this so that we can get on and finish our 
appropriations bills.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Kentucky has 5\3/4\ 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Washington has 5 minutes 
remaining.

                              {time}  1650

  Mr. DICKS. I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished Democratic whip, my 
good friend, Mr. Hoyer, from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I rise in opposition to this bill.
  Now, all of us are for a continuing resolution which keeps the 
government in business. In the past, on both sides of the aisle, we 
have talked about clean CRs, clean CRs in the short term--this going to 
November 18--to keep government running. I was hopeful that we would 
have such a CR this time so we would not continue to give to the 
American public the feeling that we can't come to agreement.
  I was not in the Appropriations Committee. The gentleman, my good 
friend from Idaho, said this was an amendment that was not opposed in 
committee. I don't know whether Mr. Price would agree with that. I 
don't know what the facts on that were. But let me say this:
  This is a pay-for that is extraordinarily controversial on our side 
of the aisle, extraordinarily controversial because the message we got 
from America as we were home, and as we get today, is we need to create 
jobs. We need to grow the economy. We perceive on this side of the 
aisle as having selected a pay-for, which, by the way, pay-for for FEMA 
disaster aid, as I understand it from staff, has never happened before. 
No precedent for doing this.
  Let me give you an example that we all ought to all understand.
  Your water heater goes out at 2 a.m. in the morning. Your family is 
going to get up the next day and they need to take a shower and they 
need to get ready, and you need a water heater right away. So what do 
you do? You go out and buy the water heater. What do you do? You charge 
it. Because it's an emergency, you've got to get it online.
  We have a lot of people who have suffered an emergency assault by 
hurricane, by tornado, by fire, by earthquake, and they need help now. 
And historically, we have given help now and have not gotten into a 
debate about what priority do we undermine in that process. We respond 
to the true emergency.
  Now, we've had a lot of emergencies, and Mr. Rogers and I have been 
here a long time, that were not really emergencies. We claimed they 
were emergencies so we didn't have to pay for them under our rules.
  But there is no one, I think, in this body or in this country who 
doesn't believe that Irene caused a legitimate emergency--not feigned, 
not used for the purposes of justifying where we may go. The 
longstanding precedent in both Chambers has been to respond to 
disasters immediately by getting victims the help they need.
  Just as a family can't budget in advance for a car breaking down or 
the water heater or something as I mentioned, we have provided in the 
agreement that we just made just a few weeks ago for headroom for 
exactly these kinds of emergencies--$11 billion. However, we did not 
provide that for 2011. But, again, 2011 is when the emergency occurred 
and when the money is needed now.
  The Senate just passed a disaster relief bill that adheres to this 
precedent, and it passed with significant bipartisan support. 
Unfortunately, Republicans here insist on breaking with this 
commonsense precedent and with their colleagues in the Senate and 
demand that responding to an emergency be offset by cutting elsewhere.
  Now, again, let me precisely say, on emergency, FEMA funding directed 
at disaster relief.
  Now, the problem we have is that the target for paying for this is 
what we perceive to be a job creator. So as a result, I would ask that 
we reject this bill.
  We have some time left to do another CR that we ought to agree on in 
a bipartisan way, a clean CR, short-term, so that, yes, we can, as the 
gentleman from Idaho said, get on with our business.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I yield 2 minutes to a very hardworking 
member of our committee, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bonner).
  Mr. BONNER. I appreciate the gentleman from Kentucky yielding time.
  As a member of the Appropriations Committee, I rise in support of the 
continuing resolution that is before us today. This CR continues 
government operations at an amount agreed to by the Congress and the 
White House in the Budget Control Act just a few weeks ago, as was 
noted by the distinguished Democrat whip.
  But make no mistake, the American people spoke loudly last November 
and the message was clear: We need to spend less. And both the House 
Budget Committee and the House Appropriations Committee have been at 
the vanguard of meeting that challenge.
  But the other message that many of us receive when we go back home to 
our districts from our constituents is they want this institution to 
function.

[[Page 13990]]

They want their elected officials on both sides to put aside the 
partisan differences and to work to create an environment that fosters 
job creation and economic growth and that reduces spending and puts our 
Nation back on a path towards fiscal solvency.
  Naturally, I find it disappointing to now learn that some of our 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle are opposing this bill for 
purely political reasons after signalling their support just last week.
  And to my friends in our own conference who believe we should make 
deeper cuts in this CR, I would say we agree. The House has voted to 
reduce spending further on multiple occasions, and this Appropriations 
Committee has reported many bills to do so as well.
  Sadly, in this hyperpartisan political environment with the 
Republican majority in the House, a Democrat majority in the Senate, 
and a Democrat White House, the will of the House alone cannot rule the 
day simply because we wish to do so.
  This is a reasonable bill which pays for the disaster funding it 
contains, and it holds the funding level at an agreed-upon amount and 
allows the committee the opportunity to do its work in the remaining 
days of this year before fiscal year 2012 kicks in.
  I urge my colleagues to support this passage.
  Mr. DICKS. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I yield 2 minutes to a new member of our 
committee who's doing a great job, from the State of Arkansas, Steve 
Womack.
  Mr. WOMACK. I thank the gentleman, the distinguished chairman of the 
Appropriations Committee for yielding and appreciate this time.
  If I heard it once when I was back in my district, I heard it dozens 
of times, and that was the frustration of my constituents concerning 
our inability to get our business done, to get it done on time without 
the panic and anxiety associated with threatened shutdowns of 
government.
  This vote today is an opportunity for us to do just that--fund 
government consistently with the amounts agreed to in the Budget 
Control Act, giving the necessary time to complete 2012 appropriations 
and save America from the threat of another government shutdown.
  Now, as was articulated by the distinguished chairman a moment ago, 
I'm a freshman, and I realize I'm still learning the ropes of this 
Chamber and how things get done, but let's just go back in context.
  This funds government at levels consistent with the Budget Control 
Act passed in this very room a few weeks ago. It addresses disaster 
funding and does so in a very responsible way. It is not unprecedented 
nor is it unique to find offsets. And this offset is exactly what this 
House passed in the Homeland Security appropriations bill.
  So what has changed? I suggest to you, Madam Speaker, that the 
political strategies have changed, and the emotions and the hardships 
of the people affected by these disasters are really nothing more than 
a political prop in this entire discussion designed to make us look 
hard-hearted or insensitive. Nothing could be further from the truth.
  Just a moment ago, the distinguished Democratic whip from Maryland 
talked about the water heater going out in the middle of the night. You 
just simply go charge one. What happens when you go to charge it and 
your credit is denied? You've maxed out on your credit card. As my 
friend Mike Simpson said a moment ago, we're broke. We're a trillion 
and a half dollars in deficit.
  Our plan, this CR, provides the necessary funding, does it 
responsibly and consistently with already agreed-upon numbers. I urge 
its passage.

                              {time}  1700

  Mr. DICKS. I yield the balance of my time to the distinguished 
Democratic leader from California, whose State has suffered a number of 
major disasters over the years, so she is well versed on this subject, 
Ms. Pelosi.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman is recognized for 1 minute.
  Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I congratulate 
him on his tremendous leadership as the ranking member on the 
Appropriations Committee.
  When he was speaking today, I was thinking back to when I was a 
relatively new Member of Congress--not even here 2 years--when we had 
the Loma Prieta earthquake in the San Francisco Bay Area. It was 
shocking to us. Of course, it was a complete surprise--a terrible 
natural disaster. The Bay Bridge was out of commission and cracked. The 
homes were on fire for days and days and days--a true natural disaster.
  When I came to the floor when this issue was brought up by the 
chairman of the Appropriations Committee, the Honorable Jamie Whitten 
of Mississippi, he came to the floor; and with his words of comfort and 
assurance to the people who were affected by this natural disaster, his 
comments made all the difference in the world. In listening to him, no 
one had any doubt that the Federal Government was going to honor its 
commitment to the American people: that when in time of natural 
disaster, we will be there. We have a compact with the American people.
  How different the conversation is today when we're talking about 
saying, when in a time of natural disaster--and by the way, there have 
been many more natural disasters than in the San Francisco Bay Area, 
the Loma Prieta, which stretched for long distances in northern 
California. Today, we've had hurricanes, earthquakes, tornadoes, 
floods, forest fires still raging out of control in some parts of the 
country--Texas, until recently, in that situation. I hope that it's 
under control now or that the rain we all prayed for there is coming.
  And what do we do? We come to the floor and say, Now we're going to 
institute a new policy that says: in time of natural disaster, we're 
going to have to find some place to pay for it. Now, what's next? Where 
are we going next to pay for it?
  The distinguished chairman has said, well, we've paid for emergencies 
before and, indeed, we have. I'm talking about something of a much 
different caliber. I'm talking about a natural disaster. I'm talking 
about the FEMA Disaster Relief Fund. With all of the disasters that are 
happening at once, we don't know when the next one will come; but what 
is frightening also is we don't know where this majority wants to go to 
pay for it.
  I have serious objection to the pay-for in this legislation. I have a 
bigger objection that we would have to pay for a disaster. We never 
paid for the tax cuts for the rich. They never were paid for. We never 
paid for the wars in Afghanistan or Iraq. They were never paid for. 
But, all of a sudden, we have to pay to try to make whole these people 
who have been affected, who have lost everything. I've visited there. I 
wish you would. Maybe you have. But it's not that the joblessness story 
is finished. It's not that as we go to a new disaster, we're finished 
with the old one. It's just compounded.
  Someone mentioned earlier in the election--people talked about this--
that the American people, whether in election or out of election, want 
jobs; and exactly what this bill does is cut jobs. Instead of creating 
jobs, which is the number one priority of the American people, this 
Republican bill will cost good-paying jobs. It's amazing because the 
bill that we're debating here will cost at least 10 good-paying 
American manufacturing jobs--Make It in America--and perhaps tens of 
thousands more by cutting the Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing 
loan program.
  I'm not even going to speak too much about it because our colleagues 
already have. They've talked about how this takes us to the next place 
in innovation and competitiveness for our country, the next place in 
technology for cars that will reduce emissions, which will help to stop 
some of these natural disasters. These loans are proven to be 
effective. They have already created 42,000 jobs, putting America to 
work making cleaner, more efficient American cars. We shouldn't have to 
choose between creating jobs and caring for

[[Page 13991]]

those struggling in the aftermath of disasters like Hurricane Irene and 
the earthquake that preceded it and the floods that continue.
  One of the speakers, a gentleman whom I respect, said this is a 
political move. Well, if there is anything that is not political in our 
country, it is a natural disaster. Do you want to talk politics when 
somebody is suffering a natural disaster? There is no place for that. 
At some place, we walk on a ground that is more hallowed than the 
normal terrain on which we debate, and that terrain is the terrain of 
the disaster that has affected the American people. If you looked in 
their eyes, you would feel so helpless that you could not make them 
whole. You may not be able to provide them the personal effects of 
their families. I've seen it so many times.
  Will they economically be made whole? Will their homes be restored in 
a way that makes it the home it was before that they loved, that 
created a sense of community, one home after another? So we're at a 
very, very sad place for all of these people. We don't know who is 
next.
  What makes me suspicious about what the majority has put into this--
and I want you to know this--is we haven't paid for natural disaster 
assistance before. They're using this advanced technology vehicle 
manufacturing. They're taking $1 billion of it to pay for the disaster. 
There is a half a billion dollars left, and they're rescinding it in 
this bill. They're eliminating it. So this isn't about paying for the 
disaster. This is about destroying an initiative that is job-creating, 
that is innovative, that keeps America number one, that creates good-
paying jobs in our country.
  It's really hard to understand what the motivation is for that, but 
one thing is clear--they are using the disaster to eliminate that 
initiative, and that's just not right. But even if they had the best 
offset in the world, I still think it is wrong for them to go down a 
path that says, This time, for your disaster, we're using this 
technology program. What's next? With all of the disasters that we 
have, where do we have the room to say, On those days, at that specific 
time, this is how we'll pay for it?
  Let's, instead, do something that gives hope to people, that creates 
an economic boomlet in these places that have been affected and not a 
discouragement that they are being treated differently than anybody 
else has been in time of natural disasters.
  I heard the distinguished chairman use the term ``emergency.'' It's a 
different story. It's a different story. It is with great sadness that 
we try to meet the needs of people at this difficult time. It's in 
great sadness that we even have to have a debate about it. I urge our 
Republican colleagues to withdraw this bill. Come back clean. Let us 
vote together to address the natural disaster that has afflicted our 
country, recognizing that we don't know what's around the corner.
  As one of my colleagues said, We said we're going to pay for 
everything.
  We don't know what God has in store for us for the next disaster. We 
hope and pray that, whatever it is, we have the strength to meet the 
needs of our people in a way that has nothing to do with politics but 
everything to do with America.
  With that, I urge my colleagues to vote against this, reluctantly, 
because I would love for us to join together but not in its present 
form.

                              {time}  1710

  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Madam Speaker, this is a simple bill. This is a simple continuation 
of spending until November 18.
  I would not want it on my record that I voted against helping the 
postal workers keep their routes until November 18. We take care of 
that problem in this bill. I wouldn't want to vote ``no'' on that if I 
could help it.
  I wouldn't want to vote ``no'' to refuse to continue the government 
and all that the government does. I wouldn't want it on my record that 
I voted against helping people who are flooded, the subject of 
wildfires, earthquakes and all other sorts of calamities. A vote of 
``no'' on this bill says no other help for those people.
  Now, the gentlewoman who just preceded me, the former Speaker of the 
House, says that we should not use offsets to pay for at least a 
portion of these disaster funds. In fact, while the gentlewoman was 
Speaker of this House, we did just that.
  We voted to offset the funding for Hurricane Katrina in 2006 and 
2007. We voted for offsets for disaster relief in 2008, 2009; and, 
lastly, in 2010 we voted to offset $10 billion for what was called the 
Pelosi edu-jobs stimulus bill. The gentlewoman voted for that offset.
  So I urge you to vote for this bill. We will have plenty of time 
during the negotiations with the Senate during the next 6 weeks to take 
into account the additional bills we are going to get for flooding and 
other disaster relief, and we will take care of the problem between now 
and then.
  Vote ``yes'' on the bill.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Speaker, today's Continuing Resolution would 
fund Federal Government operations through November 18, 2011 at 98.5% 
of FY 2011 funding levels, reflecting the 1.5% across-the-board cut 
required to bring spending in line with the $1.043 trillion 
discretionary cap for FY 2012 in the recently enacted Budget Control 
Act of 2011.
  Additionally, H.R. 2608 provides $3.65 billion in disaster relief 
funding, which is $1.8 billion below President Obama's request and 
$3.25 billion less than the Senate allocation supported by ten 
Republican Senators. Of the $3.65 billion for disaster relief in 
today's legislation, $1 billion is made available in FY 2011 and the 
remaining $2.65 billion is designated as FY 2012 money. However, in a 
sharp break with precedent under previous administrations from both 
parties, the $1 billion in FY 2011 in emergency disaster relief is 
offset by a $1.5 billion cut in the Advanced Technology Vehicle 
Manufacturing program.
  Madam Speaker, we should not be holding emergency disaster relief 
hostage to political infighting in Washington, DC. And with 
unemployment still hovering above 9%, we certainly shouldn't be 
undermining a proven job creator like the Advanced Technology Vehicle 
Manufacturing program that will help next generation vehicles get built 
in the United States rather than overseas.
  Instead, we should put politics aside, pass a clean CR and get 
disaster relief where it is needed without undercutting innovation and 
job creation in an economy that needs more of both.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, I rise today to provide 
explanation and clarification of the intended budget effects from the 
anomaly related to the U.S. Postal Service that is contained in the 
House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 2608, the Continuing 
Resolution (CR) for Fiscal Year 2012.
  The amendment would postpone from September 30, 2011 until November 
18, 2011 the payment due from the Postal Service, which is off-budget, 
to an on-budget account managed by the Office of Personnel Management 
(OPM).
  The Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act of 2006 requires the 
Postal Service to make a $5.5 billion payment to OPM by September 30, 
2011 to pre-fund retiree health benefits. However, the Postal Service 
does not currently have adequate funds to make this payment. To address 
this issue, the CR includes a provision that will delay the payment to 
provide time for the Postal Service to work with Congress and the 
administration to develop a long-term solution.
  If only the on-budget effects were counted, this delay would score as 
an increase in spending in 2011, but then produce savings in 2012, 
resulting in additional room for spending under the caps on 
discretionary spending established in the Budget Control Act of 2011. 
To prevent this unintended consequence, the House Budget Committee 
scored this anomaly on a unified basis, so that both the on-budget and 
off-budget effects were counted together. As the result, the 2011 cost 
and the 2012 savings offset each other and produce a score of zero in 
the CR. This decision has precedent. A similar provision was included 
in the FY 2010 short-term CR (P.L. 111-68) where the House scored that 
provision on a unified basis pursuant to section 426(b) of the 2010 
budget resolution.
  The off-budget status of the U.S. Postal Service creates significant 
complications for budget enforcement when the agency seeks timing 
shifts or bailouts from the U.S. Treasury due to financial distress. 
The House Budget Committee will continue to monitor this anomaly 
throughout the budget and appropriations

[[Page 13992]]

process to ensure that it does not result in additional discretionary 
spending in FY 2012.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Madam Speaker, I rise to voice my strong opposition to 
HR. 2608, the short-term continuing appropriations measure on the floor 
today to fund government operations through November 18, 2011.
  Hundreds of American communities have been devastated this year by 
hurricanes, droughts, floods, wildfires and tornadoes. Dozens of 
Governors--both Republicans and Democrats--have requested federal 
assistance from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to meet 
the needs of their states' residents. These federal funds are used by 
state and local response teams to house displaced families, provide 
crisis counseling to disaster victims, remove debris, and repair or 
replace critical bridges, roads and utilities.
  With more than three months remaining, 2011 has already seen more 
billion dollar disasters than any year on record. Early cost estimates 
of this year's weather-related disasters are well above $20 billion. As 
a result, FEMA can no longer afford to help all those who need 
assistance. The Associated Press reported that FEMA's disaster funding 
is now so low that planned repairs to bridges, roads and schools in 
tornado-ravaged Joplin, Missouri have been stopped and the funds 
redirected to help the victims of Hurricane Irene.
  Caring for Americans devastated by natural disasters has always been 
a basic American value. Unfortunately, House Republicans are turning 
disaster relief into a partisan political battle by under-funding these 
urgent needs and demanding that emergency funds be offset with cuts to 
a critical job-creating initiative.
  The House legislation under debate today includes $3.65 billion in 
emergency aid--$1.8 billion less than what the Obama administration 
told Congress is needed. Even worse, H.R. 2608 cuts $1 billion from the 
Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing Program (ATVM). This public-
private partnership helps U.S. auto makers and parts suppliers build 
next generation vehicles with technologies made in America, rather than 
imported from China and other foreign countries. The ATVM is a major 
success. It has already saved or created 41,000 American jobs and will 
save or create at least 35,000 additional jobs anticipated by the end 
of this year. The cuts demanded by House Republicans to this program 
threaten to destroy thousands of American jobs and undermine the global 
competitiveness of U.S. auto makers.
  During the past decade, House Republicans voted time and time again 
for so-called emergency funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan 
without offsetting the costs. The hundreds of billions of dollars in 
deficit spending Republicans supported on these wars helped create the 
crippling debt our country now faces. And now, my House Republican 
colleagues are pretending to take a stand against deficits by 
threatening to shut down the U.S. government and deny assistance to 
American families who have had their lives destroyed by natural 
disaster.
  I call on reasonable Republicans in the House to join with Democrats 
to reject this hypocritical and callous bill, and instead commit the 
necessary funding to rescue America's devastated communities.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2608, the 
Continuing Appropriations Resolution for FY 2012.
  This legislation implements a 1.5%, nearly across the board reduction 
to current spending levels and pays for it by cutting the Advanced 
Technology Vehicle Manufacturing Program (ATVM). This program is 
essential to keeping our auto manufacturing industry competitive.
  I support the cuts to the Overseas Contingency Operations fund, which 
is used to fund our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as other 
counterterrorism operations. But the rhetoric on cuts to war spending 
does not match the reality and cost of our policies abroad.
  Last week, The New York Times highlighted the legal battle currently 
occurring in the White House over the use of lethal force, of targeted 
killings against militants abroad by ``drone strikes, cruise missiles 
or commando raids.'' We talk about ending the wars while planning to 
expand the use of lethal force--or committing acts of war--in other 
countries with little to no oversight from Congress. We impose faux 
deadlines to end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and attach cost-
savings estimates to them, while at the time same, continuing to push 
the deadline for withdrawal back. According to the Congressional 
Research Service, the cost of keeping U.S. troops in Afghanistan is 
$694,000 per soldier per year.
  The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have cost the United States 
trillions of dollars and have played a major role in our economic 
insecurity. The war in Iraq was the first time in American history that 
the government cut taxes as it went to war, resulting in a war 
completely funded by borrowing. Soaring oil prices, the ballooning 
federal debt and the global economic crisis are all intimately linked 
to our policies of endless war. These are policies we are continuing 
today.
  Any serious debate on scaling back spending must include not only 
cuts to defense spending, but also to the wars the U.S. is currently 
waging or attempting to expand in other countries such as Somalia, 
Yemen and Pakistan through our drone campaigns. I urge my colleagues to 
oppose this bill.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise today to debate 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.
  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 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 success of their businesses are being held hostage in 
order to demand offsets of funds that have not requires 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. I support the 
bipartisan Senate language.
  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 has 
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. 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 clean 
up 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.
  The devastating hurricanes that struck Texas in past years because 
the response to those events demonstrated the need for significant 
improvement. During Hurricane Katrina, there were insufficient 
quantities of generators 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,

[[Page 13993]]

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.
  One strength that small businesses are known for 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 gave them benchmarks to work toward. The targets are 
specific: 23% of contracts to small business, 5% to women-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 would make women and 
minority owned businesses aware of all of the contract opportunities 
available to them.
  Facts: Small business 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 on 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 to measures that will aid small business and to restore our 
economy.
  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 legislation 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 405, 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 noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and 
nays.

[[Page 13994]]

  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this 15-
minute vote on adoption of the motion will be followed by a 5-minute 
vote on the motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 2883.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 195, 
nays 230, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 719]

                               YEAS--195

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Amodei
     Bachus
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Buchanan
     Buerkle
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     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 (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kelly
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kissell
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lance
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Manzullo
     Marino
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCaul
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pompeo
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     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)
     Upton
     Walden
     Webster
     Welch
     West
     Whitfield
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                               NAYS--230

     Ackerman
     Amash
     Andrews
     Austria
     Baldwin
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (FL)
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chaffetz
     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
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fincher
     Flake
     Fleming
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (AZ)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Gowdy
     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 (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jordan
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     King (IA)
     Kucinich
     Lamborn
     Landry
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lummis
     Lynch
     Mack
     Maloney
     Marchant
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McClintock
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Neugebauer
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Poe (TX)
     Polis
     Posey
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rohrabacher
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Schweikert
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Turner (OH)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walberg
     Walsh (IL)
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Westmoreland
     Wilson (FL)
     Wilson (SC)
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Baca
     Bachmann
     Blackburn
     Giffords
     Paul
     Payne
     Reichert
     Sutton

                              {time}  1744

  Messrs. BISHOP of Georgia, RUSH, BURTON of Indiana, ROHRABACHER, 
TURNER of Ohio, MILLER of Florida, DUNCAN of Tennessee, BUCSHON and 
FINCHER changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Messrs. STEARNS, GARY G. MILLER of California and Mrs. BLACK changed 
their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the motion was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated against:
  Mr. BACA. Madam Speaker, I was absent from today's vote. If I had 
been here, I would have voted ``no'' on H.R. 2608, the Continuing 
Appropriations Act of 2012.

                          ____________________