Quote:
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: 16:00]
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 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
[Page: H6319] GPO's PDF
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: 16:10]
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 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
[Page: H6320] GPO's PDF
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: 16:20]
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?
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
[Page: H6321] GPO's PDF
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 gen tle lady 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 serv ice mem bers 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.
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: 16:30]
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
[Page: H6322] GPO's PDF
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.
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: 16:40]
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.
[Page: H6323] GPO's PDF
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 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 gen tle lady 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: 16:50]
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.
[Page: H6324] GPO's PDF
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. 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: 17:00]
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
[Page: H6325] GPO's PDF
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 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: 17:10]
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.
[Begin Insert]
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
[Page: H6326] GPO's PDF
$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.
Mr. 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 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
[Page: H6327] GPO's PDF
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, 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.
[Page: H6328] GPO's PDF
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.
[End Insert]
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.
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
Luján
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)
Sánchez, 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
Velázquez
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: 17:44]
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:
[Begin Insert]
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.
[End Insert]
