for asbestos for the first time and named protecting endangered wetlands a top priority while subsequently opening the new office of wetlands protection. and contrary to what many of my friends across the aisle believe, history did not end with president reagan. president jomplet h.w. bush implemented the new cap and trade policies that successfully address the growing policy of acid rain. president bush's e.p.a. also started the wildly successful energy star program, helping americans save money through adopting energy-efficient products and practices. since then, energy star has saved americans $17 billion on utility bills. . on a more personal level, i grew up at times with asthma as did a cousin of mine who still suffers the effects of it.

several of the employees that work with me now and some before have had asthma, and i genuinely believe that if we did not have the clean air standards that we have today, some of us may not be here. in light of all these accomplishments, it's clear that h.r. 2041 is nothing more than an effort at the behest of a big, big set of businesses to delay and block necessary and important regulations that will keep our country safe and clean. republican claim that this bill assists agencies with their economic analysis of e.p.a. regulations. this is nothing more than a convenient ad hoc justification. firstly, all major regulations already receive years of

extensive cost benefits analysis before implementation. at the same time, this bill failed to take into account any of the health and environmental benefits of the regulations in question rendering the one-sided cost only analysis set forth by this bill unnecessary. second, the version of the energy and commerce that was reported out suspends two major regulations that have been the subject of analysis, litigation, re-examination, and rewriting for over two decades. both the national environmental policy act and the executive order 12866 signed by president clinton require federal agencies to perform the type of analysis required in the bill. including a comprehensive cost benefit analysis. by requiring unnecessary and

duplicative studies, my friends on the other side could not make their desire to indefinitely block these regulations any more clear. i introduced an amount that carves out an exception for rules and regulations drafted to the rules already on the books, freeing these important regulations to proceed along as scheduled. madam speaker, based on what i have seen by this republican-led congress, it's clear to me that they obviously have no intention of using their real power to create jobs. instead they prefer to waste time on measures such as this bill that are designed to do one simple thing and that is to further delay both past and future regulations. let me make it clear, i have

quearled as have some of my colleagues with the environmental protection agency as rightly we should when the circumstances permit, and that is in my case with the numeric nutrient standards that are proposed in florida. a court has made a decision regarding the enforcement of those nutrient standards, and i believe that the communities involved are prepared to undertake to do what's necessary. and i do not believe the e.p.a. has to involve itself at this point in time. but when i karl with e.p.a. -- quarrel with e.p.a., as i do, i don't do it in a way that demonizes the agency. i do it in a way that's looking for a solution. one thing that i have learned in the years that i have been in this institution is that whether you have a right or left or center ideological

perspective, to begin demonizing certain people suggests to me that those people probably have been successful. i don't know lisa jackson, the environmental protection agency cabinet official. but i do know that the way people are screaming about the work that she has done suggests that she must be having some success. it's time to call my friends out on the other side for their shenanigans and show the american people that they are more interested in helping big business and the wealthy than the middle class and working poor americans who continue to struggle all across this nation every single day. if we start cutting the regulations that protect the environment when we are down, there will be -- where will we be when we recover?

i have seen firsthand what happens in places that disregard environmental protections for the sake of business. i remember being in china with departed colleague, gerald solomon, who was chair of the rules committee, and holding my hand in front of my face and not being able to see it. also had that same experience in los angeles, california, in the late 1950's. this certainly is not the kind of home that we want to leave for our grandchildren. the air that we breathe, the water that we drink, the soil on which we produce our crops is the earth that we call home, and in my view we must keep it clean. let me tell you what ronald reagan said. if we have learned any lesson during the past few decades, perhaps the most important is that preservation of our environment is not a partisan

challenge. it's common sense. our physical health, our social happiness, and our economic well-being will be sustained only by all of us working in partnership as thoughtful, effective stewards of our natural resources. president reagan made those remarks on signing an annual report of the council on environmental quality. additionally, he said, in a radio address, that i'm proud of having been one of the first to recognize that states and the federal government have a duty to protect our natural resources from the damaging effects of pollution that can accompany industrial development. more importantly what he said is, what is a conservative but after all one who consoives.

one who is committed to protecting and holding close the things by which we live. we want to protect and conserve the land on which we live, our countryside, our rivers, and mountains, our plains and meadows and forests. this is our pattry moany. this is what we -- patry moany. this is what we leave to our children and our great moral responsibility is to leave it to them either as we found it or better than we found it. he made those remarks at the dedication of the national geographic society new headquarters building in 1984. president george w. bush said our country, the united states, is the world's largest emitter of man-made greenhouse gases. we account for almost 20% of the world's man-made greenhouse gas emissions. in addition, in a joint address

to congress, he said i also call on congress to work with my administration to achieve the significant emission reductions made possible by implementing the clean energy technology proposed in our energy plan. our working group study has made it clear that we need to do a lot more. those words from two presidents that are revered rightly by many of us in this institution and certainly by my colleagues that are republican that share the same ideological perspectives should be sufficient to put the rest of this polluting bill that we could rename the toxic polluting america measure. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from utah. mr. bishop: thank you. i thank the gentleman for not demonizing me and our motives on this bill. i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida. mr. hastings: i'll try to do better about that as we progress. madam speaker, i yield two minutes to my good friend, former member of the rules committee, distinguished member of this body from maine, ms. pingree. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from maine is recognized for two minutes. ms. pingree: i thank the gentleman from florida for his eloquent words and allowing me a moment to speak on the floor. madam speaker, the train act will repeal two critical clean air standards. the proposed mercury and air toxic standards and the final cross state air pollution rule for power plants that burn coal and oil. i'm from the state of maine and maine is the tailpipe of the nation for most spheric pollution. nearly 130,000 people in maine have been diagnosed with asthma.

and yesterday in my office, i met with a wonderful young man named jake, one of 28,000 children in the state of maine who suffer from asthma. i also met with his parents, small business owners who struggle to pay more than $1,000 a month in insurance and medication to keep jake healthy. since 1970, the clean air act has saved hundreds of thousands of lives and decreased air pollution by 60%. implementing clean air standards will mean fewer kids and parents will struggle with lifelong costs of dirty air. improved standards will also mean reducing the amount of mercury and toxins in the air and water. in 2000 the government determined that major coleburning entities are the single largest source of man-made emissions of mercury in the united states. it's estimated that 6% of women in the u.s. of childbearing age have dangerous levels of mercury in their blood. and more than 410,000 children

born each year in the united states are exposed to levels of mercury in the womb high enough to impair neurological development. madam speaker, improved clean air standards will dramatically reduce spheric pollution and decrease dangerous healthy effects of dirty air. the train act would delay those standards. companies are prepared to meet improved clean air standards by making further investments in technology that would create over 1 million jobs in the united states between 2011 and 2015, the train act will delay those investments. 30 seconds? mr. hastings: an additional 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for 30 seconds. ms. pingree: the train act will delay those investments and delay those jobs in this country. the train act is bad for business, it's bad for our health, and it's bad for the state of maine. i urge a no vote on the train act and a no vote on delaying clean air standards. i yield back the balance of my time.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from utah. mr. bishop: reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from florida. mr. hastings: thank you, madam speaker. madam speaker, if we defeat the previous question i will offer an amendment to the rule to provide that immediately after the house adopts this rule it will bring up h.r. 13666 -- 13 6, the national manufacturing strategy act of 2011. madam speaker, i'm very pleased to yield three minutes to the distinguished gentleman from illinois, mr. lipinski, whose father i had the privilege of serving with as well. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for three minutes. mr. lipinski: thank you. madam speaker, i rise today to urge my colleagues to oppose the previous question so we can bring to the floor a bipartisan bill i reintroduced earlier this year. h.r. 1366, the national manufacturing strategy act. i know what my colleagues on both sides of the aisle recognize our near term and long-term economic challenges,

and understands the american people want us to help them get back to work. so rather than considering a bill that's tied up in regulations and red tape, we should be bringing to the floor a bill we can agree will improve our competitiveness and help the private sector create good jobs. the national manufacturing strategy act requires the president to establish a bipartisan public-private manufacturing strategy board. this board would analyze the various factors that affect manufacturing, including trade, taxes, regulations, among others, it would also consider the government's programs, policies and role in promoting manufacturing, that identify goals and recommendations for federal, state, and private sector entities to pursue in order to achieve the greatest economic opportunity for manufacturers in america. this would be every four years so it would reflect the implementations of prior

recommendations, reassess global markets, and technological development, and plot a revised strategy. the federal government already has significant and broad influence under the domestic environment for manufacturing. in certain areas of the government rely greatly on a strong manufacturing base, particularly our national defense. . if there's little to unify the multitude of programs and policies that exist throughout the government toward the common goals and agenda to promoting our domestic manufacturing base and securing our place in the world's markets. unfortunately, the government's promotion to manufacturing has being ad hoc. instead, we need to be proactive and organize and efficient across our government. most of our competitors understand the need for a strategy, not just china and india, but also germany, canada, united kingdom and others have developed and

implemented strategies. this idea enjoys widespread support in america from a wide range of industrial sectors, labor and the public. a poll conducted by alliance manufacturing found that 86% of americans favor a national manufacturing strategy aimed at economic, tax, labor and trade policies working together. this public support already has been echoed in this chamber when last year we passed this bill by a bipartisan vote of 379-38. i urge my colleagues in the house to join me in calling for action on jobs in the economy. we cannot to sit idly as our manufacturing base, well-paying jobs depart for china, india or elsewhere. mr. hastings: i yield the gentleman an additional one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. lipinski refor those who

continue to -- mr. lipinski: we can defeat the previous question and then passing the national manufacturing strategy act. the american public is waiting. they need jobs. they want us to act. so let's move forward together on something we can agree to and get americans back to work. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from utah. mr. bishop: thank you. i'm pleased to yield as much time as he may consume, the chairman of the rules committee, the gentleman from california, mr. dreier. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. dreier: madam speaker, i thank my extraordinarily quick witted colleague from the rules committee for yielding me time and i rise in strong support of this rule and i take the floor to do my doggonedness of why we are here and what it is we are doing. i think at the outset i think most everybody acknowledges if you're a job creator that often

government regulation and government control has undermined your potential to create new jobs and streamline your operation and make sure you can deliver a product or a service to a consumer at a lower price. so let's just at the outset say that the notion of trying to tackle the issue of the overreach of government overregulating businesses and individuals is a challenge that needs to be addressed. so that's really what came to the introduction by our colleague, mr. sullivan, and the very hard work done by mr. whitfield in the energy and commerce committee of this so-called train act, t-r-a-i-n. and don't ask me what the acronym means. it's an entity we will put in place and look at both the costs as well as the benefits for dealing with the issue of

regulation. now, my friend from fort lauderdale regaled us in the rules committee when we were marking this up a couple days ago about the time he spent in los angeles, and he told a story about awakening and not being able to open his eyes because the air pollution was so great in los angeles and he may have shared that with our colleagues on the house floor as he did in the rules committee. i don't know. i didn't follow the debate that closely. i was in another meeting. i have to say i live in los angeles today and i represent the los angeles basin, and i'm a republican and i'm a republican who likes to breathe clean air and i'm a republican who likes to drink safe water. i don't have, as a goal, as a priority the obliteration of air quality or water quality. it's not a priority for me. i frankly don't know of any democrat or republican in this institution who has a desire to do that. and i'm also one who recognizes

that many of the things that have been done at the governmental -- governmental level have played a role in actually improving air quality and played a role in improving drinking water. i will say that there is no desire on the part of anyone to undermine the assurance that we have of clean air and safe drinking water. now having said that, i think it's important for us to recognize that we are going to do everything that we can, though, to say when we see duplicative regulation, when we see the kind of burden that has -- that's imposed, we should see action taken. but guess what, this committee is not empowered to do anything, anything at all like what has been described or implied by my colleagues on the

other side of the aisle. this committee will not be able to repeal any regulation as it relates to drinking water or clean air or any of these ideas. and i also want to say i happen to believe that good environmental policy happens to be good business. i know there's often this sense that if you're pro-environment you must be anti-business, and if you're pro-business you must be anti-environment. and i see the two really going hand in hand. but it's important for us to make sure that we don't go overboard in undermining business's potential to address environmental needs with a regulatory burden that is as great as some have reported it to be. so to me we've made every single amendment that complied with the rules of the house in order so we'll have a free-flowing debate with

democrats, including an amendment, that the democratic floor manager of this rule will have that has been made in order by the rules committee. so we're going to have an opportunity for a free-flowing debate. and i urge my colleagues to support this very commonsense measure, and with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from florida. mr. hastings: my colleague from california spoke about what the committee would do. i understand that congress is doing it for them with this measure. madam speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hastings: i'd like very much with your permission, madam speaker, to ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the record along with extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. hastings: madam speaker, day before yesterday francis,

the president of the natural resources defense council, said the following -- g.o.p. lawmakers would have us believe that the public health and environmental safeguards stemming from the clean air act , a 40-year-old law signed by president nixon thwarting economic growth. it's not the unregulated market and mortgage debt, it's not the u.s. trade deficit with china, it's not the shaky state of european banks that's freezing growth. it's the e.p.a.'s effort to reduce toxins from old power plants. madam speaker, millions of americans are hurting and in

desperate need of our help. instead of working to create jobs, my colleagues on the other side would rather consider do nothing bill. we've been doing nothing around here for a very long time now, and considering do nothing to get our economy back on track. this do nothing bill does not create jobs, and it does nothing to help the struggle of middle class and working poor americans. please know this that the -- let me give just some examples of the timeline on the environmental protection agency's laws and listed in part by administration. i spoke earlier about the clean air act of 1970. the clean water act that president nixon vetoed. his veto was overwritten and then he signed it on october 18

of 1972. under president ford we got the safe drinking water act. the cancer-causing pesticides were banned. toxic substances control act in 1976 under president ford. under jimmy carter we got the clean water act of 1977. then the e.p.a. set new national air pollution standards for lead, and i'm sure families with children would understand that dynamic. the phaseout of chlorofluro carbon gases took place in 1978. and we got the asbestos testing in -- in schools which was critically important throughout this nation. we got the chesapeake bay

pollution cleanup. a 90% reduction of lead and gasoline. during that same period of time, although it was not his discovery, the ozone layer problem was discovered. in 1986 president reagan signed the wetlands protection act in 1986. the right to know laws list in 1986. the moorpt protocol was signed by the president in 1987. standards for underground storage tanks in 1988. sewage ocean dumping ban came about in 1988. pesticide ban use on foods came under president bush. the pollution prevention act. acid rain controls enacted. the energy star program. he has just a few, and i won't go into the many under

president clinton and the few that have taken place under president obama. but with that said, there seems to be this act against the environmental protection agency that suggests that they have been harmful in some way. that's another word for demonize. that they've been harmful. the e.p.a. all of these things that have been done throughout all of this time that have helped our environment i just for the life of me don't understand why it is now we want to slow down this process and allow for analysis that is already being done to be delayed. we want to protect and conserve the land on which we live. our countryside, our rivers, our mountains, our plains and meadows and forests. that's what ronald reagan said. this is our patramony. this is what we leave to our children and our great moral

responsibility is to leave it to them a la as we found it or better than we found it. does the bill that we're considering today leave the land better than we found it? i say you know the answer. i urge my colleagues to vote no on this rule and the previous question and the underlying bill, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from utah. mr. bishop: thank you, madam speaker. i have to admit that in a prior existence when i was debate teacher in high school, one of the things we taught our kids, because every team did it, was regardless of what the buildup was that the presenter presented was to come up with a series of problems. and in every instance the negative team would always end with this plan, whatever the plan was, resulting in melting of the polar ice cap which would trigger a thermal nuclear

war. it didn't matter what affirmative plan had. one of the negative arguments was it will melt the polar ice cap and trigger a thermal nuclear war. sometimes when we're here on the floor i feel we're doing those same kind of debate cases because it doesn't matter what the bill is. it can do all sorts of things. this bill simply says before you implement a rule or regulation you're going to study everything, including its impacts. one of the speakers that came to the floor says two rules that will be prohibited. there are two rules specified in this bill that says, before you implement them see what it will do to the jobs and the economic cost. i mean, these rules could increase the electricity costs for everyone, rich or poor, by 3%, 4%, 5% or more. we don't know. study it first before you do it. there was a rule passed in my state dealing with a particular matter. my area. in one of the very remote rural areas we do testing on solid rocket motors.

that testing could violate this rule. no one knows for sure because the e.p.a. didn't do that kind of analysis. one of the -- one of the private sector groups wrote us. said the new u.s. environmental protection agency disturbingly admitted that the impact on american jobs is not a consideration in rulemaking. even while the united states continues to struggle through the recession and unacceptably high unemployment. . i'm sorry that's one of the things that should be considered in rule making. is there an executive order that mandates it? yeah, but it's not being done. so we want to do is have the law pass that says, yeah, what is not being considered should be considered. doesn't stop the rule making. doesn't stop the rule. doesn't roll back anything. it doesn't kill anybody. it doesn't melt the polar ice

cap and doesn't star thermonuclear war. it simply says we'll have a commission, interagency together, and look at specific things and we'll consider it so this before you come up with another rule or regulation you know the total impact. what it does to the environment, what it does to the economy, what it does to human beings. studying is something we should all recognize and we should all want. this is what the bill does. doesn't destroy anything. doesn't cut anything. doesn't stop anything. it just says before you proceed you know what you're doing. and that should be common sense. that should be what we were doing in the first place. if it takes a piece of legislation to make sure we do what we should have been doing in the first place, let's pass this legislation. this bipartisan legislation with republican and democrat sponsors that was passed with republican and democrat votes and actually one republican voted against it as well. this is a bipartisan process. this is a bipartisan bill. this is a good piece of

underlying legislation. and it is an incredibly fair rule because, remember, 12 to 14 amendments, every one that could be made in order was made in order which could be discussed on the floor. it's a great process and i look forward to listening to the debate on all 12 amendments as well as the base bill when we finally get to the position of debating this bill on the floor. with that i understand the gentleman from florida yielded back already. i, too, yield back and move the previous question. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on ordering the previous question on the resolution. those in favor will signify by saying aye. those opposed will say no. the ayes have it. the ayes have it. the gentleman from florida. mr. hastings: i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20 , further proceedings on this question will be postponed. pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the house will stand in

recess subject to the call of the chair.

i have long supported replacing the bridge. the problems that we have rather than run away from them. now, let me say this, governing isn't behind what's happening on capitol hill. our economy's in jeopardy. the future for many families and small businesses is hanging in the balance. tomorrow's the anniversary of our pledge to america. our pledge to listen to the american people and confront the challenges that we face head on. we can't afford to wait. i think too much is at stake.

we said if the white house won't lead we will. that's a promise we made. it's a promise we're going to keep. >> last night's vote seemed like quite surprising. how are you going to modify the c.r. to get through it? [inaudible] avoid another government shutdown. >> let's just get this out there. there is no threat of a government shutdown. this continuing resolution was designed to be a bipartisan bill, and we had every reason to believe that our counterparts across the aisle were supportive, and once they began to see, they decided to play politics and vote against the disaster relief for millions of americans that were affected by this. we're going to meet with our members later on today and present some options and decide on a way forward.

but i always believed in allowing the house to work its will. i understood what the risk was yesterday. why not put the bill on the floor and let the members speak and they did? washington believes you are stuck between a rock and a hard place. if you change the -- if you change this in some way, bring the democrats across, you might pass the bill but, again, you made it rough on your conference. that's been the criticism from the start on all of the bills. >> welcome to my world. [laughter] >> mr. speaker, what is your message, then [inaudible] >> well, you know, they could vote no. but what they're in essence doing is voting to spend more money because that's exactly what will happen. >> mr. speaker. >> mr. speaker. >> you wanted the supercommittee to go big. you said that a couple weeks ago. curious, would you think $1.2 trillion is the goal, is that an acceptable outcome for you?

>> as outlined in the deficit reduction act, their job is to come up with $1.2 trillion to $1.5 trillion. if they can go bigger than that, god bless them. i'm all for it. >> democrats say the vote last night is a sign you don't have control of your republican conference. what's your response to that? >> i have no fear in allowing the house to work its will. and i long believed in it and i still continue to believe in it. does it make my life a little more difficult? yes, it does. at the end of the day every member has an obligation to represent their constituents. i'm going to respect that right of our members to do that. and it does present a little more work for us. we'll work our way through it. >> mr. speaker, you signed a litter urging the fed not to take any quantitative easing the other day. yet the fed doesn't do at that that. have you lost confidence in chairman bernanke? >> i wrote a letter the other day that was spended to raise concerns that we had that we

wanted to share with the fed. and we did. they decided to go in a different direction. i -- we continue to have concerns with the activities of the fed because it appears to us that they're taking actions because they don't believe the political system can do what needs to be done. frankly, i think that's enabling the political process rather than forcing the political process to do what it should do and that's to deal with our deficit and our debt which imperiling jobs and imperiling the future for our kids and grand kits. >> do you foresee the house being in session this weekend and next week? >> i certainly hope not. >> but do you worry how this -- body has an 82% disapproval rating, this looks like there's more chaos, do you worry about that at all? >> they gave us a committee which is now 535 individuals, and trying to get 535 people to

come to an agreement on anything around here is difficult. but that -- we've known that going in. we'll work our way through this. i've always been confident we could come to an agreement and we will. >> the direction of the 4 members of your party that didn't vote for you last night or the direction the democrats -- >> all of them will have a conversation about that later. you'll have the answer -- you'll have the answer when we get there. >> [inaudible] in the president's job plan. that seemed to be a no brainer for the past? >> the payroll tax deduction by members of both parties because there's a real question as to what it means to the entitlement programs that those payroll taxes support, and secondly on the other side, the real economic impact of those

payroll tax deductions and tax credits and whether it really does in fact help the economy. thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> john boehner from about two hours ago meeting with reporters. richard cohen is with "congressional quarterly" talking about the continuing resolution. well, it's back to the drawing board for republican leaders this amp. what are some of the possible changes they're considering making to the temporary spending bill? >> well, basically they have two ways -- two directions they could go. on the one hand they could move quickly, more immediately to reach out to democrats who most of whom voted against the bill last night. democrats have said the fair

support would be increased money for disaster assistance and they also -- the democrats want the republicans to remove the spending offsets that will pay for disaster assistance. that's one direction. the other direction that republican leaders could go now is to reach out to the 48 house republicans who voted against the bill last night. most of them are conservative and they -- those -- those republican dissidents want to see further spending cuts. >> well, what's the downside for republican leaders for taking the offsets, the pay-fors for this disaster aid out of the bill? >> it would be -- to not have the offsets argue blow would be inconsistent with the republican -- house republican promises of fiscal discipline. they say that any additional spending needs to be paid for

even disaster assistance that they all agree is necessary following recent hurricanes and tornadoes and earthquakes and whatever. to which democrats and others say that disaster assistance in the past has generally not been paid for. >> well even before yesterday's vote the senate bass on its own plan. harry reid said he would add $7 billion to the senate version of the bill. is there any indication that house leaders are working with the senate to come up with a plan that can pass muster in both chambers? >> ultimately both sides will need to come up with such a plan that will pass muster. the deadline is still eight days away. september 30 being the end of the fiscal year. but the real deadline is there's a recess. won't schedule a recess. the house and senate is supposed to be away next week. so they're hoping to finish the bill by tomorrow, friday or at

worst this weekend. >> well, what's that mean to -- how do you think a weekend session is likely to happen? how much of a chance? >> it's certainly more likely than it was 24 hours ago. there's a hope among the leaders in both parties, both chambers that cooler heads will prevail, they'll cut a deal. most everyone will be happy and go home. but before any of that -- before a deal can be cut the house and senate will have to pass their separate versions and that's what we're still trying to figure that out. >> richard cohen, thank you very much. from "congressional quarterly," cq.com. the house should be back shortly to vote on the rule for the e.p.a. bill. we'll have live coverage when they do return. just a couple of other schedule notes, too, as well. following tonight's debate in florida, the top 10 republican

presidential candidates will speak tomorrow morning at the florida conservative political action committee conference in orlando. among the candidates, texas governor rick perry. that's live coverage tomorrow morning at 8:30 eastern on c-span.org. and tomorrow we'll have the house commerce subcommittee looking into the government-backed loans to sylendra at 9:30 eastern. that will also be on -- that will be tomorrow morning on c-span3. well, we were joined this morning on "washington journal" by den us kucinich, ohio congressman talked about the president's deficit plan and his jobs plan. we'll show you as much as we can until the house comes in. joined by congressman dennis kucinich on a conversation about progressives. you are part of the reform committee.

as a job creation tool, has the obama administration those investments been worth it to you in this sector? guest: investments sometimes take a while to get a return. i had a much more aggressive approach to getting nasa involved with nasa being an incubator of green technology, then license itself to the public sector to create millions of new jobs. so many different energy technologies that we could take a new direction with. it will be interesting to see what happens in the hearing today. been a lot of concern. your committee is thinking about stepping in and doing its own investigation. there was an investigation in the spring. the republican chairman has said he's thinking about doing an investigation. guest: if you have a half

billion dollar loan that goes south, you should look at it. then't want to prejudge testimony. i want to listen to the testimony and ask questions. but as far as a green energy approach, if we don't move toward green energy, then we are trapped by oil. we are either going to plunder the earth, increase pollution, have more wars, or we will make a transition towards a greener and cleaner economy and create jobs doing it. but right now we are in a row at -- a rut caused by an addiction to oil. a few years ago wall street was cautioning investors not to go green, to stay with oil and nuclear and coal, which are all

problematic in terms of the incremental impact. so it's time -- whatever happens in this hearing, we cannot let it be the basis for trying to wreck all of the worthy enterprises that are out there and that are trying to take america and this economy in the direction that is more sustainable. host: we are talking to dennis kucinich, a democrat from ohio, a member of the oversight and government committee and the education and work force committee as well. if you would like to join the conversation, give us a call. if you are outside the united states, a different number. we have heard reports last night about republican members of the oversight committee including chairman issa, who sent letters

advocating green energy in their district. guest: i would hope most members on both sides of the aisle would be in favor of transitioning our economy away from oil dependency and towards lowering the cost of utility rates, lowering the amount of pollution to have a favorable impact on the global climate. we should be united on this because we are all affected by the environmental impact of pollution, which comes from the burning of hydrocarbons. host: the criticism on green energy, it does not surprise you? guest: congress has a right to inspect what happened with this half billion dollar loan. we should ask questions. but i think that most members realize that we cannot let the foibles over a single loan deter us from engaging in a concerted effort to move our economy in a direction that is more

sustainable and more financially independent. and so, we really should not let this hearing frame the debate over whether or not we use green energy. that would be ridiculous. host: one of the green energy projects that has been under criticism is the loan program for alternative energy vehicles, which has been the subject of some of the cuts republicans want to make for disaster aid funding. how is this going to play out? this was an article from today. guest: the american people have a right to expect that within our political system and there are democrats and republicans and they will find a way to settle differences and keep the country going forward. it is not an extravagant expectations. we are supposed to do it. are there real differences? yes, there are, but we have to

find a way to work toward -- work through those differences. there are big issues at stake. talking about a government shutdown in washington. there are 6.5 million americans on the verge of losing their homes. 14 million americans out of work. there are millions of young people who will not have a chance to go to college because their families don't have the resources any more. and elderly people word about social security. we have to start focusing on the practical applications for people and be careful that the skirmishes and political battles on capitol hill do not become the endgame. behalf to keep our eye on the bigger picture, which includes ending the war is once and for all. i am hopeful that there will be a way to work out the differences. host: you say a big part of that is getting people back to work. what you make of the president's plan to get people back to work

and his deficit reduction plan? guest: let's look at the deficit reduction plan first. $1.1 trillion is due drawdown the troops. at the same time, we hear reports that the united states may be in afghanistan through 2024, that there's a real push inside washington to stay in iraq, but the policy will drive the numbers. 10 years ago -- i have an analysis of a joint resolution on iraq that i gave the members of congress 10 years ago that stated there was no reason to go to war in iraq. joseph stieglitz, a well-known economist has said we spent over $3 trillion on the iraq war. get out of iraq and then we would have credibility on the numbers in the budget. that's a big part of the deficit-reduction.

on the jobs side, 14 million unemployed, it's good that the president will spend $140 billion on infrastructure, i believe. we need shovel-ready project. we need to get people to work now. i don't know how much that will be immediately in the pipeline. keep in mind there was a $500 million or billion dollars transportation bill that could not get the administration's approval when congressman oberstar was in congress. we need something on the scale of what he proposed two years ago to get america back to work. i introduced a bill yesterday in the house of representatives that is aimed at creating millions of new jobs by taking a different approach with our monetary policy that would

enable the government at once to finally regain its constitutional presence to be able to invest in our own country and not keep having to depend on the banks who are strangling the american economy. host: on the republican line, bill from alexandria, virginia. go ahead, bill. are you there? now to the independent line, ed from washington, indiana. caller: good morning. mr. kucinich, i wish i lived in a district where i could vote for you. i agree with almost everything you stand for and what you do. guest: thank you. caller: i will tell you, the fact that we don't have the pipeline for natural gas along our interstate systems, it burns

me up. we and the united states has no energy policy. i do not know what we have been doing since the first arab embargo back in the 1970's. i sat in line for hours and we're still doing that. it is like nobody is home. i wish you had more ability to do things and get things straightened out. host: what can you do? guest: we need an american energy policy and we need to invest in the transition and our economy away from resources that would ruin the environment. decorates a cost on individuals

in terms of their own personal health. the air that we breathe it gets polluted by certain energy sources. we need a new manufacturing policy. we need a new trade policy where we cancel -- we cancel all of our trade agreements. they are contingent on workers' rights, on cuban rights, -- on human rights, protection on the air and water. we need a different monetary policy. the big banks in this country to another banks internationally. the caller is correct that there's something wrong in america that is not being addressed.

look at this in a broadway. -- look at this in a broad way. host: what kind of poverty programs argue in support of? guest: jobs is a solution. we need to get america back to work. we have the need act that would put the fed and the treasury so it would not have the ability to be able to give $1.2 trillion to banks. this financial game would not be and in the game. they gave back the power to create the jobs.

why she would be borrowing money from banks when the constitution of the united states -- we ought to invest in our own country. we should not have to go to china to invest in america. there should not be any level of unemployment here. i have the bill anin -- host: it would dismantle the federal reserve. guest: it would create a separate monetary system. this is not about eliminating the bond market. it is a way of creating good jobs and reducing the federal deficit and having the dollar be a stable currency.

but the fed right now is out of control. they stood on the sidelines while a bubble was building. when it collapsed, they went to the taxpayer and said, bail us out. we still have banks that are not loaning money. they are standing by it -- they are accelerating the number of foreclosures so that they can clear up the housing market to set the stage for another boom- bust cycle. i reject that. we should have had mortgage modification. we need to save american homes. give people a chance of they can make their mortgage payments and send their children to school. the government has been letting a central bank play games with other banks.

mergers and acquisitions. the hell with main street. these banks are running the country for their own benefit. host: let's get some comments. caller: i believe in green energy. i have been looking into geothermal. one of the things that i learned is that the cost of drilling for geothermal, in makes it cost prohibitive. that is one area where the government can inject some money and go into the geothermal business and drove these holes and the lines for the company's and making a more affordable for

the average homeowner to put in a geothermal system and get people off propane and possibly natural-gas. gas. thank you for letting me speak this morning. guest: i appreciate the caller's interest. we need to have a search for alternatives. i'm not a scientist. i see all these earthquakes that occur. we had an extraordinary earthquake last month. i wondered how much of that drilling, that fracking that takes place has an impact on mother earth. can you do that and this without any geological impact? i am not sure of that.

i would like to see more science. think about oil as helping to lubricate various strata inside the earth. if you start to get rid of your fluids, you start to get creaky in your own body. we're messing with mother earth in a way that nature never intended. i have some concerns about the environmental impact about this drilling. host: felix is a democrat. caller: good morning. how are you on this wonderful day? host: it is good to hear from you. caller: when you need us, we are there within a few hours. if you'll allow me like you do republicans. mr. kucinich come get your pen

out and write, if you will. the payroll records for the employment records for the department of labor for 1939 until the end of bush 41. obama these quick statistics -- allow me these quick statistics. he created more jobs than bush 41 or eisenhower. 2.1 million during his term in office. increase payroll by 9.2%. six republican presidents -- five democratic republicans -- the democrats outperformed -- felix.we're losing you,

guest: we should be focusing on job creation, wealth creation. we should not have the low of poverty. listen to these figures. 120 million americans have no wealth. 13,004 under households have -- this is a systemic problem were the wealth in america it is getting into fewer and fewer hands. the middle class -- there was a report that says a third of the young people born into the middle class are going to fall out the bottom. if you don't have jobs or education, that's a problem. host: you have made comments

that the president could be moved in the right direction. guest: i have said that and i stand by that. when the president is trying to create jobs, we should support that effort. the scale of job creation that is needed to bring unemployment down to a point where the country is not in critical condition economically. the scale has to be much larger. we need the scale of a new deal that would put millions back to work. some in the administration would say that the american recovery act helped. it did help. we helped put teachers back to work, helped subsidize budgets of other governments for police

and fire. that is very important. where is the money coming from? why should the government have to borrow money from banks? banks are giving us a hard time. are the banks running america? they engaged in mergers and acquisitions. the central bank put more money for foreign banks -- how about taking care of this country? the government helps bring the private sector back. we're not doing enough right now. host: we have a tweet.

are democrats wimps? guest: from my perspective, i can maintain -- it doesn't require that i run against him. it's important to challenge the president's policies to help direct a direction that would put people back to work and what protect our basic industries. the administration has been promoting trade agreements. we have to stop the direction that we're going. i think the president has the capacity to do would. whether or not the economic advisers will give them the best set of options is another question. host: we have a headline in after the president'sagraphso

speech. guest: these labels do not mean much -- liberal, conservative. tell me what you stand for. the idea of being back in sync -- i want to see the results. get people back to work. end these wars. think of all the money we spent on war. we're spending money on the wars. if we redirect the money, we would not be in this mess that we are in. let's bring our troops back. we should be invoicing these countries for our military being

there. strengthening our economy. america should not be in the difficulty it is in today. we need a shift away from the status quo on trade policy, monetary policy, defense, war, energy, job creation. america is still can do, but we have to take a different direction to do it. dennise're speaking with kucinich. watson, are you there? hello? guest: great onions. host: don from ohio. do you have a question for the congressman? caller: i have a question on

social security. guest: our things in greenville -- how are things in greenville? caller: pretty good. why are they attacking social security? they throw it out there that is in trouble. everybody has to work and would not be a problem. why are we given breaks to people working, which takes money out of social security? i was talking about being president. as many as $1 spent to one for president. the people work for us -- you

people work for us. if people -- we give some much point that you can run for president and that is all you get, it would take out the corporations that are involved, it would take out the millionaires and billionaires. everybody will be treated the same. host: that is a lot of questions. guest: 3 questions. social security is rock-solid for many years to come. the talk about the public confidence in social security is aimed at trying to open the door for wall street to be able to gain access to social security's assets and turn it into a private pension plan. that would deprive americans who are in that system of the full benefits for which they have a

right to expect. you raise the point that tax breaks -- the money is not paid into the social security trust fund. you're right. that is a problem. it could have an adverse affect long-term on social security's finance. how we finance presidential elections or federal elections. right now our country is like an option - auction. if you have public financing of elections, you of control. -- you would have control. when the founders constructive this country, they could not imagine the kind of wealth that would be involved.

this is one of the reasons why the c-span program is so great because the people have an idea of what is going on. they know the corporations are running the government and corporate money rules. the citizens united case is one example about how we've gotten away from our mission. they can use their money to influence the outcome of elections. host: you want to create the monetary authority, a policy creation of money through lending against deposits. host: another provision was the monetary division. guest: we don't have to have any poverty. we can guarantee that people can

support their families if they fall on tough times. host: is that with this provision does? guest: that is exactly right. host: how much money are we talking? guest: what ever we need. host: you'll be willing to give whatever? guest: there will be a monetary authority, management. you want to decide how much money goes into the economy, but what does it go for? i think the republicans are concerned about this. instead of looking at the when the federal reserve was created, this was supposed to have something to do with having a moderating

effect to create jobs. the fed is famous for looking the other way while the banks were determining our assets and exposing the american economy in 2008. host: this is from "the financial times" today, a warning not to do another stimulus. guest: i am proposing a broad change that would regain control of our country from wall street and the banks. this is a question of a democracy. you cannot have a political democracy if you don't have a -- more americans losing their homes, with retirement security in jeopardy, we have to get control of the monetary power in order for us to be able to move

the economy for in the interest of the american people. look at china. we have to borrow money to keep our economy going and something is wrong. my bill is a step, a dramatic step in the direction of getting control of our economy and being in a position where we can help incentivize jobs in the private sector. i'm not for the government usurping the private sector. i want to see the government provide capital so that the private sector -- does the government have a role in incentivizing growth in the economy? i think there is. host: jim is a republican from california. caller: good morning.

my comment -- it is obvious to me that the majority of republican leaders such as james demint and eric cantor, mitch mcconnell, and john boehner truly hates our president. most americans can see that. i wanted to ask about congressman joe walsh. would you please, sir, please -- host: we will move on to the democratic line from detroit, michigan, eldin. caller: good morning. i'm right with you on everything. it doesn't seem like republicans

and democrats are on the same page as far as putting this country back to work. republicans are fighting, just fighting everything. no, no, no. i'm interested in -- as far as the lobbyists and wall street, they have a stranglehold on the house and senate that nobody can get on the same page. everybody is hurting bad, exactly like you have said. guest: the short answer to your question about lobbyists, the answer is yes, unfortunately. c-span wentnews, down the list of all of the corporations who have made

contributions the would affect the work of the supercommittee. unfortunately -- linda give you an example -- let me give you an example. are you a basketball fan? imagine five players to one. i think it was like five lobbyists -- host: giving a full-court press? guest: to walk up the steps of the capital just to be able to vote. it was like it was gone wild. we have a country, a judgment call about 10 minutes ago, he is right -- a judgment call to and about 10 minutes ago.

we need to end this system, where decisions often go to the highest contributor, or the interest that contributes the most. we have to get back our country. host: david in atlanta. caller: i keep hearing the economy. the root word of the economy is eco. a lake need certain things to survive. as a country, we need to be self-sufficient. make what we buy, buy what we make. these are generational jobs, lifelong jobs.

we should not allow corporations to talk about lobbyists. constituents should be the andle -- the ceo's lobbyists, they need to deal with the president. he is the ceo of the country. host: a steady response. guest: the caller made a plea for self-sufficiency. he is right. we are losing our self- sufficiency. i am opposed to the world trade organization because the basis for the participation is that we cannot pass laws in this country that say we want an america first steel policy, only with steel made in america.

i heard of a bridge on the west coast being produced by another country. why can we create the jobs here to help our people have the jobs, send their children to school, be able to tell the health care that they need, be able to provide for their retirement security. this is were the lack of control in our economy -- underwritten by multinational corporations who don't want to have to do with retirement benefits and who do not care about health care benefits. we have to get control of our economy again. wto.apfta,

america has to be able to make things here ,bu, buy things hern a grand scale. host: are you in for the toughest election of your life? it looks like you'll be in a battle with a colleague. guest: she is a fine lady, a good public servants. the with the lines were drawn, they give the advantage to the cleveland area, 54% of the democratic vote comes from my old districts. 34% comes from my friend's district. this that advantage mean the election is easy -- does that advantage mean the election is easy? by no means. i will say that she is my

friend and i did not draw the lines. a district as my political based in cleveland. that was not my decision. host: you have about one under $49,000 -- $149,000 in the bank, almost twice what she had. guest: we try to raise money. host: your need to defeat a fellow incumbent -- guest: i'm not going to go there. i am hopeful -- this is my friend. i know in politics is so dog eat dog. i cannot look at it that way.

republicans may have given me a advantage.agenmn i'm not happy about that. i will not same thing to diminish the fine public service that she gives to this country. host: ron paul mentioned he thought you might be a good fit for a cabinet. your thoughts on those comments. guest: we have worked together to try to stop the wars. democrat, republican, or independent, people are paying more attention to presidential candidates who are saying to stop these foreign misadventures. that is what ron paul said. we agree on the danger of fed policy.

we challenged the fed's policy and tried to -- and made a call for transparency. so ron paul is a great american. he is someone that deserves consideration for the things he says. on the international policy side, he has been right. host: would you say he is the republican candidate you agree with most? guest: ron paul and i have worked together on trying to keep america out of wars. $3 trillion is the cost of the war in iraq. the because of the war in afghanistan is over half a trillion dollars. think if people listen to ron paul and myself about these wars

and if they spend money to rebuild our an american economy. we would not be worried about whether the government is going to shut down or about unemployment. we would have america thriving. we cannot keep pursuing this policy of trying to tell everybody else what to day and forget to take care of things back at home. host: there have been reports that gaddafi tried to reach out to you in the final days of his regime before tripoli fell. can you tell us about that? guest: both sides were reaching out to me. i oppose the war in libya. it was a constitutional question about whether any president has the right to take this country into war without following a articleone one,

section 8. we're in it for over a billion dollars. we were told it will last days and now to be looking at the first anniversary of the war in libya. so people of the libyan government reached out to me to try to see if i would be willing to communicate to the administration their desire for a peaceful resolution, and to take a different approach than the gaddafi government had taken. i thought that was worth listening to. i thought it was important to bring people together on both sides. it is important we find a way to resolve conflict instead of believing that the

>> and recommend rules to eliminate initial debate has finished. they will come back and vote on the rule and consideration of the bill itself, two hours of general debate and a dozen amendments. they are going forward on the continuing resolution yesterday in the house that temporary spending measure failed to move forward. the vote was 195-230. house republicans are meeting this afternoon. the conference is meeting and being presented with options by republican leadership. we will have live coverage of the house when they return here . president obama is out of town this afternoon. he is between kentucky and ohio talking about his jobs plan. we will have live coverage coming up shortly. scheduled to start right about now. a bit later, david cameron will

be in ottowa speaking to the canadian parliament and we will have his comments live at 5:30. >> in my opinion, i think the balance of academic freedom has been pushed too far. >> there are professors of nutritional cooking who have tenure now. or a professor who is towing the party line will say well, we need someone to have security studies so they can talk about immigration, even though it is controversial. and someone in nutritional studies needs to say something controversial about obesity. >> that and other reasons why you won't get the college education that you paid for.

>> watch our live coverage of the national book festival this weekend on book tv. sunday, douglas waller on wild bill donovan. christy miller on woodrow wilson's first ladies and the greater journey, americans in paris. look for our entire schedule and including call-ins at booktv.org. >> and we are back live at the tv gallery waiting to hear from nancy pelosi. she is expected to talk about the short-term spending measure that failed to pass in the house last night. the democratic leader today doubled down on the democrats'

opposition to the bill. she said her troops won't tie the emergency disaster fund to debate over deficit reduction. nancy pelosi saying we are not going to balance the budget on the backs of people who have been affected by natural disasters. along those lines the chamber of commerce indicated support for a program that was targeted for cuts in that bill last night as part of the offsets last night. the chamber of commerce today indicated to members of the senate that support a department of energy program aimed at helping u.s. automakers more fuel efficient cars, making it more difficult for congress to make cuts to the program in order to increase disaster relief funding. last night the resolution failed to move forward. republicans are meeting this afternoon to figure out a way forward. and we spoke to a capitol hill

reporter who has been covering this story. back to the drawing board for republican leaders this afternoon. what are some of the possible changes that they are considering make to the temporary spending bill? >> there are two directions that they could go. on the one hand -- >> we will play all of that interview shortly. we will listen to democratic leader pelosi. >> a balanced approach to reduce the deficit, grow the economy and create jobs. democratses are united behind the president. we appreciate his balanced approach to this and look forward to working with them on it. as you know last week we stood united in support of the american jobs act, asking congress to pass that bill. the combination of the two, the

job creation bill and a balanced approach to reduce the deficit, we think is the way we should go and the way the table of 12 should go. do we have a short $hand way to reference the table of 12? it doesn't have a nickname? you know what i mean. yesterday the house in a bipartisan way rejected a bill that would be job destroying, not job creating. don't take my word for it, but the chamber of commerce has written to congress to oppose republican efforts to cut job creating initiatives that puts americans to work creating more efficient american cars. but you have not seen these letters until we can make them available to you. one from the chamber of commerce and the other from the

national association of manufacturors. american made, made in america. make it in america. very important to stop the erosion of our industrial and manufacturing base. build the infrastructure of america. do so in a greepway to create good paying, green jobs for the future. today the president is focusing on infrastructure. it is always been part of how we would create jobs and keep america number one. seek community recovery. we talked about that before. it is so important in this time of natural disaster. i said in order to do that we had to have a strong public sector, education of our children and the safety of our neighborhoods and et cetera. we also have to have a strong private sector. and we thabble the root to economic security and economic growth and personal success for

american workers is investments in small businesses. we are so glad the president placed an emphasis on small business in his remarks on monday, and our members stand ready to go home and continue the conversations that they have been having in their districts to talk to them about their ability of credit, the ability of a trained workforce, customers. that would be a big thing. that would help small businesses strengthen and to grow. and also there to talk about creating small businesses as well. another part of that is what the president mentioned, faster pay from the federal government for those with government contracts. we believe the s.p.a. and other initiatives, any of those entities, department of commerce to help with exports

for these small businesses. whatever agencies of government that contract or can help small businesses grow, we want to spend a good deal of time next week on. many of them have models that they are sharing with their colleagues about how -- by air or by sea, this is by air. they near their offices and communities around a roundtable or going door to door, listening one at a time to what small businesses have to say about all of this. we are very excited about that prospect. the president has been talking about it and we have been talking about it for a very long time. president made it a priority in his proposal.

at some point soon the table of 12 will be talking about initiatives to grow the economy and reduce the deficit and create jobs. we want small business to be a centerpiece of it. we want it to be about invasion . so, as you are eagerly await to see what the rest of the day's schedule will be. i am pleased to take any questions. >> you expressed concern" openness of the table of 12 in the past. they had a meeting today. between the hearings they have had some closed meetings among themselves, informal gatherings they are calling them. what do you think about that? >> we want to make sure that the american people know how these decisions are being made

by the committee for lack of a better name right now. and what the debate is around them. i can see a scenario where they may need to have conversations about what hearings they are having. i think that should be kept to a minimum. i think that it is important for the members of the community to hear from the outside, whether it is -- whatever the entity is in a public way. if there is a rejection, i said youville to ask them. having these decisions are very important to the american people. but i don't think that it means that they can ever have a meeting where they plan how they go forward.

but as i said, kept to a minimum. not where any decisions are made that will affect achieving a balanced plan that president obama has called for. >> it should create jobs in various ways, not reduce employment by that amount. do you agree? is that a good idea? >> i continuing is a good community. the committee puts it negligent a bipartisan way. i am very proud of our house democrats. i know that it was a priority for the house democrats to go forward in a writing of the rules to say as they made judgments as to how the initiatives would reduce the deficit that they should also

demonstrate how these initiatives would create jobs. the wording insisted upon is when it talked about a measure of jobs created would be applicable. no. practical. similar language. you will have to look it up. it had a little qualification on it. what the possibility is of taking every initiative and passing it through for its job creating potential is a great idea. i don't know why anybody would want to make a judgment without that evaluation, especially at this time. this table has to be different from any table people have come to before. the situation is so urgent. it is important that again it be about invasion and not just the same old, same old, what you cut and who pays for it.

it has to have a positive initiative about the future. >> the republicans are coming up with a new strategy for their c.r. is there any type of offset that would be acceptable to the house? >> we made that point yesterday. we believe that we should not go down a different path now than we have done on natural disaster assistance. that is why we fought so hard against what the republicans put forth. they were going down a different path. on top of that, we did not like the offset because it was a job killer. and as i say, taking it out of the plan that the republicans put forth is supported by the national association of manufacturors and the chamber of commerce. my hope is that they will come out so we can resolve this.

it should not be a controversial issue. it hasn't been before. we all rally around them. they are americans. they have been hit hard. it is very hard to see how they would be made whole. we should remove all doubt that we will be there in a timely fashion and we are not go to balance the budget on the backs of people who have already been hit by a disaster. so, no. >> two things are going on. i know you and many are opposed to any offsets, but at the same time you don't want to see the government shut down. the republican leadership, in order to push it through, they are trying to thread the needle. you know what you have to do.

is there a scenario that you could support an alternate offset in order to avoid the government shutting down. >> there has never been an offset for disaster assistance. you heard the distinguished chairman of the appropriations committee say we have done it with emergencies all of the time. it is a different word. there are many emergencies and natural disasters. it is something elsewhere people are directly hit. immediately they want to see how we are go to be there for them. we want to remove all doubt that the funds are there. what offset is next? especially as they went down the path that they did, they did the world a favor. it is like tens of thousands of jobs at a time when jobs are

needed and now you are going to blunt the effectiveness of this initiative. this is not about paying for disaster. they have said, and my conversations with them, they don't want to pay for it. that is not the complete story. this has been a very successful initiative. it is something that is very important to our competitiveness and our innovation in our own country. it has worked. billions of dollars has been used for this. there is a billion and a half lest in the till. what people are waiting to qualify for loans. they take a billion of it to pay for the disaster. and they take a billion of it -- half a billion to rescind it. so, it was clear to tus is not about paying for the disaster.

it is about destroying an initiative that is job creating. why would you take half a billion out of an initiative with the excuse you need it for a disaster and just erase it from the possibility of people making loans into it. we should not even be having this conversation. this is a conversation that should never have gone down this path. the fact that natural disaster strikes, the american people are in need. they need to have the confidence that we are there. they don't need to have the fear that there will be a debate as to how it will be paid for. yes, ma'am. >> if they include deeper cuts in order to garner more conservatives, how would you interpret that? >> we will see what they do. i don't want to go into that. there are many consequences to

going down that path. let's just see what they do. ok? >> at this point we know they do not seem to have a strategy yet. they are talking, trying to figure it out. replacing one offset with another. some of them are saying they are not looking for democratic support. at this point do you see a real risk of a shutdown? do you think it can be resolved by next week? >> well thas to be resolved by next week. the burden is on the majority to put something forth that not only passes the house but will be acceptable in the united states senate. if we are going to not shutdown government you have to have something that will be passed in the senate. when we opposed the bill yesterday we opposed it and our motion, not to -- senate bill has much more money for disaster assistance right at this time.

that is the bill that the senate has been considering and for which had at least 60 votes. so that is where they are. that is what we would have liked to have done here. it will be my hope that they will split the difference and republicans will come out and say we will not go as high as you wanted but we will go to the 3.6 trillion -- excuse me, billion. and we will have no offset. i think that would be a reasonable place to be. i don't think this has any political -- road to it at all. the american people need help. we are there for them.

this is a priority. it is a priority. when we have to do other things before we prepare to do that. >> one more question. >> yes, ma'am. >> you said how committed you are to the disaster relief. if the republicans propose language that would prohibit funding for planned parenthood as they would in the past, how commit would would you be to do that? >> let me say this. why don't we come back and have another press conference after what they say they will do. it is a waste of my time to speculate on the horrors they can come up with. we know they are end andls we can be here a long time. we wish them the best. we understand we need to get to 18 votes, you have to count on your own side to do that. if you don't want to do it in a bipartisan way. if you want to do the best

possible job you can on something that is not controversial. why are we even having a debate over this? it is not controversial. this is the easiest place for to us join up in a bipartisan way. federal government will be there to honor the american people in time of natural disaster as we all have. thank you very much. you can come back later if you want. >> speaker pelosi live on capitol hill. we were go to play you an update on where the house stands. republicans were considering a new spending bill that would make relatively small reductions in fiscal 2012

spending but include $7 billion in disaster. they are trying to attract votes of democrats. this is from c.q. the plan would fund the government for the early part of fiscal 2012 at an annual rate over a trillion. we will keep you posted as we find out more information. shouse still in recess. when they come back they will continue working on the bill that sets up the committee to review e.p.a. regulations. they will likely vote on the rule when they return. it will provide for two hours of general debate, a dozen amendments or so. lots more debate coming up in the house. while we wait we will show you the rule debate from a short while ago. this begins with utah republican rob bishop. objection.

mr. bishop: thank you, again, madam speaker. this resolution providesor a structured rule for consideration of h.r. 2401, the transparency and regulatory analysis of impact on the nati . train. it makes in order 12 specific amendments out of the 14 received by the rules committee of the two not made one was withdrawn by the sponsor and the other was not germane. here is a rule that's quite frankly not bad. it's going to provide for an open discussion of tse interested in this particular issue on the floor. it's a very fair rule and it continues the record of the rules committee in this congress of makingas many amendments in order as possible which simply conform to the rules of the house. that's been the goal of our chairman, mr. dreier, and say what you will, he's produced a standard of fairness in the floor discussions that we'll be having on the floor in the past

as well as in the future. there are a lot of people that say congress is simply dysfunctional. i admit the system was designed to be complex, but there are lot of people, especially those that have very little contact with the system, that simply stand up and say, why can't you just reach across the aisle, find some compromise and work in a bipartisan manner? to those people who are continually asking for that, you got it. it's here today in this particular bill. the discussion draft of this bill was a bipartisan bill. it was a republican and democrat sponsor. first hearings of this bill were done back in april, so they have done their due ligence in studying the issue and working the bill. they scrapped the first bill and reintroduced another which had a bipartisan sponsorship of the bill. you will find republicans and democrats. even in the final voting committee. one republican voted against it and 29% of the democrats voting -- actually voted for it.

this is a process to be enveed. if you want a good system -- envied. if you want a good system and a bill that comes in a bipartisan manner, this is it. we know that business is impacted by both legislation and regulation, and sometimes the blatant disregard for the cumulative negative impacts of onerous and sometimes overlapping new rules and regulations have had a disastrous effect on industry and on job the current e.p.a. appears to be driven to regulatory excess by asserting powers and control where that power has not been expressly delegated by congress. i'm sure while every member wants to have clean air and clean water, they are vital objectives and laudable gos. however, i think many would agree that some of the current issues in some areas have gone beyond what congress ever intended or ever improved and

far beyond common sense. it has not helped the economic health of this country which is why i commend the sponsors, both sides of the aisle who recognize this problem and he come up with this legislation to fix the problem. the underlying bill, h.r. 2401, simply says to the e.p.a. and potentially other agencies, stop, slow down, take a more careful look at what you're doing or proposing to do. take a serious and methodical look at whether or not what you're doing is duplicative of rules and regulations already on the books, whether or not they are overlapping and confusing orontradictory rules and regulations tohose already on the books. it tells them to do an analysis alternative strategies that may be used to avoid damage to our fragile environment as well as our fragile economy. this bill tells e.p.a. and others that before certain draft regulations go in effect that it actually needs to study and consider the cumulative

impacts of these new rules and regulations on production, on costs, on jobs, on our nation's global competitiveness. imagine that. imagine a federal agency seeking to institute rules and regulations which actually took the time to study the impacts of those plans and rules and regulations first. who could impose such a concept? it is just common sense. there will be some that will complain when the bill is discussed or even the rule, this is trying to dismantle the e.p.a. no programs are cut by this process. nothing is changed by this process. some wl stand up and say, oh, it's going to be a biased study. there are no limit to what the agency can study. what this bill does is it makes sure what has been ignored in the past is no longer ignored. are there some specific things at has to be considered? yeah, that's right. because we specifally identified whahas been

ignored. there is nothing in this bill that forbids any rules or regulations. it just says for the agencies, for heaven's sake, get the facts first. this holds the agencies accountable, enforces them to be reasonable and actually study what they're doing before they implement it. this is a good bill, and it is a very good rule, and i'd urge adoption of both. madam speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from utah reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from florida. mr. hastings: thank you, madam speaker. i rise today in strong opposition to h.r. 2401. i do thank my colleague, mr. bishop, for granting the time for the opposition. this bill is really another attempt by the republican

leadership to demonize the environmental protection agency . and dismantle any government regulation intended to protect our nation's public health and the environment. h.r. 2401 is a waste of time and an absote insult to the millions of americans without jobs. instead of crafting legislation to increase consumer confidence, instead of helping americans hold on to their homes, instead of creating jobs for the millions of people who are unemployed, instead of releaving the burden of the middle class by making the tax code more fair, my friends on the other side are asking us to vote on a bill that effectively bars the e.p.a. from finalizing and implementing two of the

most significant air quality regulations in decades. coal plants -- let me lay this out here. i do believ in clean coal. it's the biggest source of unregulated mercury emissions in the united states. they pump out 48 tons of emissions every year. mercury contaminates more than six million acres of freshwater lakes, and i just want to take a moment of talking about one. i was born in an area called mobile. at one point my grandfather could tell my grandmother, i'm going to go down to the lake and catch some fresh and guarantee that was going to be the case and bring it back home in short time. now, that lake is dead and it's because of mercury

contamination that that lake is dead. 46,000 miles of streams and the stream that led into lake mobile is dead and 245,000 acres of wetlan across the united states and all 50 states have some type of fish consumption advisory. let me repeat that. all 50 states have some type of fish consumption advisory. what's more, there are substantial economic benefits to these clean air rules that my friends are trying to block. the e.p.a. estimate that the mercury -- estimates that the mercury in air toxics alone could eliminate 36,000 construction jobs and long-term jobs that could benefit pipe fitters, boilermakers and others. the economic value of air quality improvement totals $59 billion to $140 billion

annually. that 25,300 lives lost to toxic air pollution. over 11,000 heart attacks. more than 12,000 asthma attacks, and a significant portion of them being children. over 12,200 additional visits to the emergency rooms of our country. and hundreds of thousands of missed work days. overall, the e.p.a. predicts that the monetary value of protecting americans' health through implementing the clean air act is projected to reach $2 trillion in 2020 alone. yet, this bill ignores those benefits. madam speaker, all of us know that times are tough, but this great nation has been through tough economic times before.

environmental regulations are not the problem. the economy was really tough and we are reminded of it often by my colleagues uer president carter. yet, the e.p.a. at that time managed to set new national air pollution standards for airborne lead and began the phaseout of ozone layer-destroying gases from aerosol spray product. nor has the protecting the environment always been part of the issue. the e.p.a. has also had great success under republican presidents. from founding the e.p.a. in 1970, president richd nixon said the following -- we can no longer afford to consider air and water common property. free to be abused by anyone without regard to the consequences. instead, we should begin now to

treat them as scarce resources which we are no more free to continate than we are free to throw garbage into our neighbor's yard. that was in 1970. one of the first tasks assigned to the e.p.a. was to enforce the clean air act. also sied by president nixon. since its adoption, these regulations have prevented an estimated 200,000 premature deaths. during president reagan's administration, the e.p.a. tested elementary and secondary schools for asbestos for the first time and named protecting endangered wetlands a top priority while subsequently opening the new office of wetlands protection. and contrary to what many of my friends across the aisle believe, history did not end

with president reagan. president jomplet h.w. bush implemented the new cap and trade policies that successfully address the growing policy of acid rain. president bush's e.p.a. also started the wildly successful energy star program, helping americans save money through adopting energy-efficient products and practices. since then, energy star has saved americans $17 billion on utility bills. . on a more personal level, i grew up at times with asthma as did a cousin of mine who still suffers the effects of it. several of the employees that work with me now and some before have had asthma, and i genuinely believe that if we did not have t clean air standardsthat we have today, some of us may not be here. in light of all these accomplishments, it's clear

that h.r. 2041 is nothing more than an effort at the behest of a big, big set of businesses to delay and block necessary and important regulations that will keep our country safe and clean. republican claim that this bill assists agencies with their economic analysis of e.p.a. regulations. this is nothing more than a convenient ad hoc justification. firstly, all major regulations already receive years of extensive cost benefits analysis before implementation. at the same time, this bill failed to take into account any of the health and environmental benefits of the regulations in question rendering the one-sided cost only analysis

set forth by this bill unnecessary. second, the version of the energy and commerce that was reported out suspends two major regulations that have been the subject of analysis, litigation, re-examination, and rewriting for over two decades. both the national environmental policy act and the executive order 12866 signed by president clinton require federal agencies to perform the type of analysis required in the bill. including a comprehensive cost benefit analysis. by requiring unnecessary and duplicative studies, my friends on the other side could not make their desire to indefinitely block these regulations any more clear. i introduced an amount that carves out an exception for rules and regulations drafted

to the rules already on the books, feing these important regulations to proceed along as scheduled. madam speaker, based on what i have seen by this republican-led congress, it's clear to me that they obviously have no intention of using their real power to create jobs. instead they prefer to waste time on measures such as this bill that are designed to do one simple thing and that is to further delay both past a future regulations. let me make it clear, i have quearled as have some of my colleagues with the environmental protection agency as rightly we should when the circumstances permit, and that is in my case with the numeric nutrient standards that are proposed in florida. a court has made a decision garding the enforcement of

the nutrient standards, and i believe that the communities involved are prepared to undertake to do what's necessary. and i do not believe the e.p.a. has to involve itself at this point in time. but when i karl with e.p.a. -- quarrel with e.p.a., as i do, i don't it in a way that demonizes the agency. i do it in a way that's looking for a solution. one thing that i have learned in the years that i ha been in this institution is that whether you have a right or left or center ideological perspective, to begin demonizing certain people suggests to me that those people probably have been successful. i don't know lisa jackson, the environmental protection agency cabinet official. but i do know that the way people are screaming about the

work that she has done suggests that she must be having some success. it's time to call my friends out on the oth side for their shenanigans and show the american people that they are more interested inelping big business and the wealthy than the middle class and working poor americans who continue to struggle all across this nation every single day. if we start cutting the regulations that protect t vironment when we are down, there will be -- where will we be when we recover? i have seen firsthand what happens in places that disregard environmental protections for the sake business. i remember being in china with departed colleague, gerald solomon, who was chair of the rules committee, and holding my hand in front of my face and

not being able to see it. also had that same experience in los angeles, california, in the late 1950's. this certainly is not the kind of home that we want to leave for our grandchildren. the air that we breathe, the water that we drink, the soil on which we produce our crops is the earth that we call home, and in my view we must keep it clean. let me tell you what ronald reagan said. if we have learned any lesson during the past few decades, perhaps the most important is that preservation of our environment is nt a partisan challenge. it's common sense. our physical health, our social happiness, and our economic well-being will be sustained only by all of usorking in partnership as thoughtful, effective stewards of our

natural resources. president reagan made those remarks on signing an annual report of the council on environmental quality. additionally, he said, in a radio address, that i'm proud of having been one of the first to recognize that states and the federal governme have a duty to protect our natural resources from the damaging effects of pollution that can company industrial development. more importantly what he said is, what is a conservative but after all one who consoives. one who is committed to protecting and holding close the things by which we live. we want to protect and conserve the land on which we live, our countryside, our rivers, and mountains, our plains and meadows and forests. this is our pattry moany. this is what we -- patry moany.

this is what we leave to our children and our great moral responsibility is to leave it to them either as we found it or better than we found it. he made those remarks at the dedication of the national geographic society new headquarters building in 1984. president george w. bush said our country, the united states, is the world's largest emitter of man-made greenhouse gases. we account for almost 20% of the world's man-made greenhouse gas emissions. in addition, in a joint address to congress, he said i also call on congress to work with my administration to achieve the significant emission reductions made possible by implementing the clean energy technology proposed in our energy plan. our working group study has

made it clear that we need to do a lot more. those words from two presidents that are revered rightly by many of us in this institution and certainly by my colleagues that are republican that share the same ideological perspectives should be sufficient to put the rest of this polluting bill that we could rename the xic polluting america measure. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from utah. mr. bishop: thank you. i thank the gentleman for not demonizing me and our motives on this bill. i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida. mr. hastings: i'll try to do better about that as we progress. madam speaker, i yield two minutes to my good friend,

former member of the rules committee, distinguished member of this body from maine, ms. pingree. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from maine is recognized for two minutes. ms. pingree: i thank the gentleman from florida fr his eloquent words and allowing me a moment to speak on the floor. madam speaker, the train act will repeal two critical clean air standards. the proposed mercury and air toxic sndards and the final cross state air pollution rule for power plants that burn coal and oil. i'm from the state of maine and maine is the tailpipe of the nation for most spheric pollution. nearly 130,000 people in maine have been diagnosed with asthma. and yesterday in my office, i met with a wonderful young man named jake, one of 28,000 children in the state of maine who suffer from asthma. i also met with his parents, small business owners who struggle to pay more than $1,000 a month in insuran and medication to keep jake

healthy. since 1970, the clean air act has saved hundreds of thousands of lives and decreased air pollution by 60%. implementing clean air standards will mean fewer kids and parents will struggle with lifelong costs of dirty air. improved standards will also mean reducing the amount of mercurand toxins in the air and water. in 20 the government determined that major coleburning entities are the single largest source of man-made emissions of mercury in t united states. it's estimated that 6% of women in the u.s. of childbearing age have dangerous level of mercury in their blood. and more than 410,000 children born each year in the united states are exposed to levels of mercury in the womb high enough to impair neurological development. madam speaker, improved clean air standards will dramacally reduce spheric pollution and decrease dangerous healthy effects of dirty air.

the train act would delay tse standard companies are prepared to meet improved clean air standards by making further investments in technology that would create over 1 million jobs in the united states between 2011 and 2015, the train act will delay those investments. 30 seconds? mr. hastis: an additional 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recoized for 30 seconds. ms. pingree: the train act will delay those investments and delay those jobs inhis country. the train act is bad for business, it's bad for our health, and it's bad for the state of maine. i urge a no vote on the train act and a no vote on delaying clean air standards. i yield back the balan of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from utah. mr. bishop: reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from florida. mr. hastings: thank you, madam speaker. madam speaker, if we defeat the previous question i will offer amendment to the rule to provide that immediately after the house adopts this rule it will bring up h.r. 13666 -- 13

6, the national manufacturing strategy act of 2011. madam speaker, i'm very pleased to yield three minutes to the distinguished gentleman from illinois, mr. lipinski, whose father i had the privilege of serving with as well. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for three minutes. mr. lipinski: thank you. madam speaker, i rise today to urge my colleagues to oppose the previous question so we can bring to the floor a bipartisan bill i reintroduced earlier this year. h.r. 1366, the national manufacturing strategy act. i know what my colleagues on both sides of the aisle recognize our near term and long-term economic challenges, and understands the american people wt us to help them get back to work. so rather than considering a bill that's tied up in regulations and red tape, we should be bringing to the floor a bill we can agree will improve our competitiveness and help the private sector create good jobs.

the tional manufacturing strategy act requires the president to establish a bipartisan public-private manufacturing strategy board. this board would analyze the various factors that affect manufacturing, including trade, taxes, regulations, among others, it would ao consider the government's programs, policies and role in promoting manufacturing, that identify goals and recommendations for federal, state, and private sector entities to pursue in order to achieve the greatest economic opportunity f manufacturers in america. this would be every four years so it would reflect the implementations of prior recommendations, reassess global markets, and technological delopment, and plot a revised strategy. the federal government already has significant and broad influence under the domestic environment for manufacturing. in certain areas of the government rely greatly on a strong manufacturing base,

particularly our national defense. . if there's little to unify the multitude of programs and policies that exist throughout the government toward the common goals and agenda to promoting our domestic manufacturing base and securing our place in the world's markets. unfortunately, the government's promotion to manufacturing has beg ad hoc. instead, we need to be proactive and organize and efficient across our government. most of our competitors understand the need for a strategy, not just china and india, but also germany, canada, united kingdom and others have developed and implemented strategies. this idea enjoys widespread support in america from a wide range of industrial sectors, labor and the public. a poll conducted by alliance manufacturing found that 86% of americans favor a national manufacturing strategy aimed at

economic, tax, labor and trade pocies working together. this public support already has been echoed in this chamber when last year we passed this bill by a bipartisan vote of 379-38. i urge my colleagues in the house to join me in calling for action on jobs in the economy. we cannot to sit idly as our manufacturing base, we-paying jobs depart for china, india or elsewhere. mr. hastings: i yield the gentleman an additional one minute. the spear pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. lipinski refor those who continue to -- mr. lipinski: we can defeat the previous question and then passing the national manufacturing strategy act. the american public is waiting. they need jobs. they want us to act. so let's move forward together on something we can agree to and get americans back to work.

i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from utah. mr. bishop: thank you. i'm pleased to yield as much time as he may consume, the chairman of the rules committee, the gentleman from california, mr. dreier. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. dreier: madam speaker, i thank my extraordinarily quick witted colleague from the rules committee for yielding me time and i rise in strong support of this rule and i take the floor to do my doggonedness of why we are here and what it is we are doing. i think at the outset i think most everybody acknowledges if you're a job creator that ofte government regulation and government control has undermined your potential to create new jobs and streamline your operation and make sure you can deliver a product or a service to a consumer at a lower price. so let's just at the outset say that the notion of trying to

tackle the issue of the overreach of government overregulating businesses and individuals is a challenge that needs to be addressed. so that's really wh came to the introduction by our colleague, mr. sullivan, and the very hard work done by mr. whitfield in the energy and commerce committee of this so-called train act, t-r-a-i-n. and don't ask me what the acronym means. it's an entity we will put in place and look at both the costs as well as the benefits for dealing with the issue of regulation. now, my friend from fort lauderdale regaled us in the rules committee when we were marking this up a couple days ago about the time he spent in los angeles, and he told a story about awakening and not being able to open his eyes because the air pollution was

so great in los angeles and he may have shared that withur colleagues on the house floor as he did in the rules committee. i don't know. i didn't follow the debate that closely. i wain another meeting. i have to say i live in los angeles today and i represent the los angeles basin, and i'm a republican and i'm a republican who likes to breathe clean air and i'm a republin who likes to drink safe water. i don't have, as a goal, as a priority the obliteration of air quality or water quality. it's not a priority for me. i frankly don't know of any democrat or republican in this institution who has a desire to do that. and i'm also one who recognizes that many of the ings that have been done at the governmental -- governmental level have played a role in actually improving air quality and played a re in improving drinking water. i will say that there is no

desire on the part of anyone to undermine the assurance that we have of clean air and safe drinking water. now having said that, i think it's important for us to recognize that we are going to do everything that we can, though, to say when we see duplicative regulation, when we see the kind of burden that has -- that's imposed, we should see action taken. but guess what, this committee is not empowered to do anything, anything at all like what has been described or implied by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. this committee will not be able to repeal any regulation as it relates to drinking water or clean ai or any of these ideas. and i also want to say i happen to believe that good environmental policy happens to be good business. i know there's often this sense

that if you're pro-environment you must be anti-business, and if you're pro-business you must be anti-environment. and i see the two really going hand in hand. but it's important for us to make sure that we don't go overboard in undermining business's potential to address environmental needs with a regulatory burden that is as great as some have reported it to be. so to me we've made every single amendment that complied with the rules of the house in order so we'll have a free-flowing debate with democrats, including an amendment, that the democratic floor manager of this rule will have that has been made in order by the rules committee. so we're going to have an opportunity for a free-flowing debate. and i urge my colleagues to support this very commonsense measure, and with that i yield back the balance of my time.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from florida. mr. hastings: my colleague from california spoke about what the committee would do. i understand that congress is doing it for them with this measure. madam speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hastings: i'd like very much with your permission, madam speaker, to ask unanimou consent to insert the text of the amendment in the record along with extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. hastings: madam speaker, day before yesterday francis, the president of the natural resources defense council, said the following -- g.o.p. lawmakers would have us believe that the public health and environmental safeguards stemming from the clean air act

, a 40-year-old law signed by president nixon thwarting economic growth. it's not the unregulated market and mortgage debt, it's not the u.s. trade deficit with china, it's not the shaky state of european banks that's freezing growth. it's the e.p.a.'s effort to reduce toxins from old power plants. madam speaker, millions of americans are hurting and in desperate need of our help. instead of working to create jobs, my colleagues on the other side would rather consider do nothing bill. we've been doing nothing around here for a very long time now, and considering do nothing to get r economy back on track.

this do nothing bill does not create jobs, and it does nothing to help the struggle of middle class and working poor americans. please know this that the -- let me give just some examples of the timeline on the environmental protection agency's laws and listed in part by administration. i spoke earlier about the clean air act of 1970. the clean water act that president nixon vetoed. his veto was overwritten and then he signed it on october 18 of 1972. under president ford we got the safe drinking water act. the cancer-causing pesticides were banned. toxic substances control act in 1976 under president ford.

under jimmy carter we got the clean water act of 1977. then the e.p.a. set new national air pollution standards for lead, and i'm sure families with children would understand that dynamic. the phaseout of chlorofluro carbon gases took place in 1978. and we got the asbestos testing in -- in schools which was critically important throughout this nation. we got the chesapeake bay pollution cleanup. a 90% reduction of lead and gasoline. during that same period of time, although it was not his discovery, the ozone layer oblem was discovered. in 1986 president reagan signed

the wetlands protection act in 1986. the right to know laws list in 1986. the moorpt protocol was signed by the president in 1987. standards for underground storage tanks in 1988. sewage ocean dumping ban came about in 1988. pesticide ban use on foods came under president bush. the pollution prevention act. acid rain controls enacted. the energy star program. he has just a few, and i won't go into the many under president clinton and the few that hav taken place under president obama. but with that said, there seems to be this act against the environmental protection agency that suggests that they have been harmful in some way. that's another word for

demonize. that they've been harmful. the e.p.a. all of these things that have been done throughout all of this time that have helped our environment i just for the life ofe don't understand why it is now we want to slow down this process and allow for analysis that is already being done to be delayed. we want to protect and conserve the land on which we live. our countryside, our rivers, our mountains, our plains and meadows and forests. that's what ronald reagan said. this is our patramony. this is what we leave to our children and our great moral responsibility is to leave it to them a la as we found it or better than we found it. does the bill that we're considering today leave the land better than we found it? i say you know the answer. i urge my colleagues to vote no

on this rule and the previous question and the underlying bill, and i yie back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from utah. mr. bishop: thank youtempore: t clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 75, house resolution 409, resolved that the requirement of clause 6-a of rule 13 for a 2/3 vote to consider a report from the committee on rules on the same day it is presented to the house is waived -- waved with respect to anies remain -- waived with respect to any resolution, representing to a measure making continuing appropriations for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2012. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for one hour. mr. dreier: for the purpose of debate only, i yield the

customary 30 minutes to my good friend and colleague from worcester, massachusetts, i've been corrected, madam speaker, pending which i yield myself such time as i i might condition sume. all time yielded is yielded for debate purposes only. i ask unanimous consent that all members, madam speaker have five legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. dreier: we are dealing with extraordinarily challenging times. the american people have been sending a message to us, which is powerful and overwhelming, and it's one that i believe that both democrats an republicans have heard. that is we need to get our economy back on track. we need to make sure that we have a climate that will create jobs so that people, many of whom i represent, sadly, and i know the speaker faces the same

thing in missouri and my friend in his state of massachusetts faces this, we have friends and neighbors who have lost their jobs, who have lost their homes, who have lost their businesses, and the message that has come to us overwhelmingly is that we must put into place policies that will encourage job creation and economic growth. we obviously have a very troubled global economy. the developments that have taken place in rurep have played a big role in leading to today's huge drop in the stock market. i vn looked at it in the last few minutes. earlier today it was down over 400 points. i know we have obviously difficult decisions that lie ahead for many. we as an institution, the united states congress, have a responsibility to address the fiscal needs and channels that are before us.

one of those challenges and one of the factors that's played a role in the economic downturn, i believe, very -- i believe very strongly, has been the $14.5 trillion national debt that looms before us. in a bipartisan way, democrats and republicans alike decry the $14.5 trillion national debt we have and the fact that we have deficits going as far as the eye can see. now we know that last july, just before we adjourned for the month of august, we had to deal with the question of whether or not we were going to increase the debt ceiling. and we tackled that issue. and we ended up coming to a bipartisan consensus. we all knew it was necessary for us to increase the debt ceiling because there was

responsibility to pay the bills that have been accumulated in the past from this side of the aisle, we complained about fought against the 82% increase in nondefense discretionary spending we've seen over the past four years, but that money having been spent, we recognize that the bills had to be paid. and so that led us, madam speaker, to come to a bipartisan consensus. a bipartisan consensus that we would in fact increase the debt ceiling, but we had to tackle, in a bipartisan way, the deficit and debt issues that are looming before us. so we put into place a joint select committee, which as we all know is going to be charged with, by november 23, completing its work and by december 23, having a vote in the house and senate and if they're not successful, we will deal with sequestration, which

will be across the board spening cuts that i don't think anyone wants to see happen because we want to be in a position where we make those decisions for $1.5 trillion and as many said, a group of senators the other day said, $4 trillion -- what is the number? $4 trillion, excuse me, the proverbial everett dirksen line, a billion here a billion there, before long you're talking about real money. that was five decades ago he said that. the plan as proposed would take us to as much as $4 trillion in spending cuts. now we are in a position where as i said yesterday during the debate on the rule on this issue, we last year for the first time since the 1974 budget act was put into place, we didn't have a budget

proposed to us. i'm not in the business of pointing the finger of blame, i'm just in the business of looking at the facts of where we are. we know what's been inherited. we know as we hear these very strong statements being made, that we've gone through a difficult nine months. we had to deal with the continuing resolution to simply clean up the mess and the acting speaker as a member of the appropriations committee, she knows very well the challenges that we had with that appropriations bill. that appropriations committee on which the acting speaker sits has to deal with this issue, had to deal with it earlier this year and today, madam speaker, we are in a similar position. we right now know that the fiscal year comes to an end next week and we have some very important priorities that need to be addressed. and the one that everyone is talking about is the fact that

we have seen disaster after disaster hit this nation and we are determined to ensure that those who have suffered most over the past several weeks and months from disasters, flooding, and i remember seeing my colleague from vermont, mr. welsh, here yesterday, he sent out photographs of the devastation, the flooding that's taken place in vermont. in pennsylvania we had a republican conference at which one of our new colleagues, mr. moreno was up talking about the fact that he's been walking through mud, talking to families, parents who have their children literally sitting on automobiles because they can't get into their homes, asking, asking what it is that they're going to do. we have our fellow americans who are suffering and we want to ensure that the dollars necessary for the federal emergency management agency are

there. the chairman of the appropriations committee reported to us that we're seeing about $30 million a day being expended through the fema funding and there's about $200 left. we're faced with the prospect of expiration. expiration of all the resources that fema needs by this weekend, madam speaker. and that's the reason that we are become here today. we all know what happened yesterday. the democratic majority and some republicans chose to vote no on the continuing resolution, which would simply take us from now to november 18, a very short period of time, a very short period of time, just a matter of a month and a half, so that during that time, we can as speaker baper has said, deal with the overall appropriations process. and establish the priorities. and so we are here today having had a meeting in the rules committee last night, calling

for same day consideration so that quite possibly with some modifications we can bring up that bill which had enjoyed bipartisan support. it's no secret, i'm sure the democrats will acknowledge that the minority whip, mr. hoyer, ranking member of the appropriations committee, mr. dicks from seattle, they both had indicated earlier support. they acknowledge it and they're on the record having done that. they said they had changed their mind. i respect that. members have a right to change their mind. we all have the right to change our mind. that decision was made and we went to the vote and the votes were not there. madam speaker, i think there is clearly a bipartisan understanding that ensuring that resources get to our fellow americans who are suffering due to these disasters, hurricanes, tornadoes, flooding, the disasters that have hit, is a priority that we all share.

personally, personally i'd like to see the federal government get out of being the place of first resort for the american people to look to when there is a time of disaster. in fact, the acting speaker's late husband, with whom i was elected in 1980, led an effort going back decades when he served here, that was working on proposals for us to propose -- to address the disaster relief issue that was a very, very challenging one and he explored and came up with some great proposals for how we could deal with disasters beyond having the federal government be the place of first resort for the american people when they are faced with the aftermath of a disaster. but madam speaker, those changes that were proposed by my late colleague bill emerson were not made in order, were not addressed, were not

implemented, so we are where we are. and while i'd love to see those changes down the road, today we need to address the very pressing needs that our fellow americans have for some kind of resolution to this issue. so we have this same day rule so we can today pass with what i hope will be strong bipartisan support, a continuing resolution that will simply carry us from now until november 18, during which time we will see, madam speaker, you and the other members of the appropriations committee, work to come up with some kind of resolution to this issue. so i'm going to urge my colleagues to support this measure, in the name of bipartisanship and in the name of our effort to try and resolve this pressing issue and with that, reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from massachusetts . mr. mcgovern: thank you, madam speaker. i want to thank chairman dreier for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. i ask unanimous consent to

revise and extend my remarks and i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. mcgovern: here we go again, madam speaker. republicans are once again going back on their promises for a more open, more transparent house of representatives. another marshal law rule designed to fix problems of their own doing. another effort to break the rule just to fix their own mess. and it didn't have to be this way. for months we have known that more disaster assistance was needed to address the aftermath of the tragedy in joplin and more recently the damage caused by irene as it made its way from north carolina up the east coast into new england. americans respond to natural disasters, that's what we do. we always have. we rise to the occasion when our neighbors are in need. the problem is when politicians start playing politics with people's lives. and that's where we find ourselves today. yesterday the republican leadership brought a continuing

resolution to the floor that not only provided less disaster assistance in the senate, it also offset that funding by cutting a green jobs initiative. it's not enough that we've been in session 261 days without a single jobs proposal from the republicans, with yesterday's continuing resolution, republicans actually propose cutting a jobs program just to make political points with their tea party base. yesterday democrats said enough. enough to the job-killing republican agenda. enough to the notion that fiscal austerity means turning our backs on people in need. enough to the my way or the highway attitude that seems to make up the ideology of the republican leadership. yesterday 48 republicans joined 182 democrats in defeating the continuing resolution. yesterday. according to "politico," it was, and i quote, an embarrassing setback, end quote. yesterday republicans and

democrats said, don't play games with the lives of americans. it's almost as if the republicans blame the victims of the hurricane and tornado for having the audacity to live in the paths of those natural disasters. and so here we are again, forced to consider a marshal law rule in an attempt to fix the problems that the republicans themselves created. a marshal law rule that not only waves the rules of the house -- waives the rules of the house but also allows for the immediate consideration of a new continuing resolution. no time to read the bill. even though the republicans started out the year by promising 72 hours to look at any legislation voted on in the house. no time to read the bill. no ability to amend the bill. so much for the new open congress. it wasn't too long ago that my colleague on the rules -- that my colleagues on the rules committee were touting the new open congress. look how far this new republican house has fallen. madam speaker, it is disappointing that we're here

today. it's disappointing that the republicans are making a mockery of the legislative process. it's disappointing that they continue to choose politics over the american people. the american people deserve better than this. with that, madam speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: madam speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. dreier: to say to my friend that it's very unfortunate, i mean, i -- in my opening remarks i made the best attempt that i could to be as bipartisan as possible. democrats and republicans alike recognize that we've had the most open house, most transparent process, more amendments have been made in order, i'm very proud that the rules committee has repeatedly made mcgovern amendments in order that have been proposed to the rules committee, in the measure that we have addressing the regulation issue we made every single amendment that complied well the rules of the house in order. an amendment offered by my

friend, mr. hastings. so to talk about these sort of crocodile tears, madam speaker, the house has got an new low. we need to make sure that the american people who are suffering and in need have the resources that are necessary, the measure that is before us has a higher level of funding for those who are in need than the president has proposed. to ensure that we immediately.net those dollars to the people who are suffering. and there are people all over this country who have been suffering through these disasters and it needs to be done. and, madam speaker, i will say that we are who we are. the legislative process is not always a pretty one. but i began by talking about our priority of job creation and economic growth. limiting the size and scope and reach of the federal government, trying to decrease the regulatory burden which our train act, which we just debated

the rule on a little while ago, is designed to address, these sorts of steps are designed to make sure that more americans will have opportunities to be members of the work force. to be able to support their families. and so the people won't see their small businesses lost because of the economic downturn. those are the priorities that we have and getting our fiscal house in order, while meeting our priorities which in this day and age, disaster assistance is one of, what we've got to do. so i'm proud to work closely with my democratic colleagues. i'm proud of the fact that they've been supportive, madam speaker, of a number of the measures that we've had before us and i'm proud that we have been able to take many of their ideas, madam speaker, and allow them to be considered on the house floor so that we've been able to have a free-flowing debate. that's what the american people want.

i believe that since every member of this house represents just about the same number of people, about 600,000-some under the new census -- 600,000-some, they have a right to have their ideas considered. that hasn't always been the case under republicans or democrats in the past. but today it is. we're doing our dog-gonedest to make sure more members have their ideas considered and i'm very proud of that fact and i will say that i regularly have democrats come to me and say they are very appreciative of the fact that we have been able to allow their ideas to be considered on the house floor. and so i'm proud of the strides that we've been making under speaker boehner, we have a long way to go, but this is all inside baseball stuff, as you know very well, madam speaker. the priority is job creation and

economic growth, to ensure that our fellow americans have the kinds of opportunities that they need. so let us proceed. this is a procedure that i don't particularly like but in light of the fact that there has been a bipartisan agreement yesterday that did not work, that's about the nicest way i can put it, it didn't work out, and so we had no choice other than to allow for a rule to provide for same-day consideration, simply of this measure, to ensure that we don't go through a government shutdown. i mean, we wouldn't be doing a same-day rule, madam speaker, if we weren't faced with frankly the threat, i'm not going to point the finger of blame, but i will say it hasn't been republicans who have been talking about the idea of a government shutdown. it's something that has come from some others. and some on the other side of the capitol who have talked about the prospect of that. we want to avoid it. we want to ensure it doesn't happen. and so we're going to have an

opportunity, madam speaker, to have a measure before us that will address the very important priorities of disaster assistance and other areas, which doesn't cut as much as i would like. i would love to have voted no yesterday, madam speaker, because i believe that the spending level is higher than it should be. but the republicans do in fact have a majority in the house of representatives, but our democratic colleagues have a majority in the united states senate. we know that president obama is a democrat and in light of that we have to come to some kind of bipartisan consensus. so we're turning ourselves inside out to make that happen and we've done it time and time again and this is another example of it. so i hope that we'll be able to move ahead and as expeditiously as possible provide the assurance that our fellow americans need. and with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance

of his time. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: madam speaker, i'm a little bit confused. the gentleman referred to the legislation before us, that it would provide this for the american people and that for the american people. the legislation before us is a marshal law rule which says that a bill that we have yet to see will be able to be brought up on the floor for same-day consideration. so i don't know what's in the new continuing resolution and maybe the gentleman can enlighten us, do we expect a vote on the continuing resolution today? do we expect to -- when can we see this continuing resolution? does the gentleman have any insight that he can fill us in on, when members might actually be able to see it? mr. dreier: will the gentleman yield? mr. mcgovern: i'd be happy to yield. mr. dreier: let me express my apologies. 99.99% of the time i am always riveted to the worded of my friend from -- words of my

friend when he is offering his thoughts. i have to admit i was talking to our distinguished rules committee colleague, mr. webster , over here. if the gentleman will repeat the question. mr. mcgovern: the question is that the gentleman on a number of occasions referred to -- that this bill provides this for the american people and that for the american people when the bill before us is a marshal law rule. we haven't seen the continuing resolution. when do we expect to see it? will we be voting on it today? i yield to the gentleman. mr. dreier: first of all, let me thank him and say he is right on mark in raising that question. it's not only a fair question, it's an appropriate question to ask of me. the answer is we will have a meeting in the house rules committee, right upstairs on the third floor, you're familiar with that spot, at which time we will have before us a proposal that i can tell you will be very similar to the measure that was considered yesterday. there was $1,043,000,000,000 in

that proposal. mr. mcgovern: reclaiming my time. will that be in the next hour? will that be today? mr. dreier: it's my hope that we'll be able to do this today. that's the reason, i mean, as my friend knows, we were going to pass this measure yesterday and it didn't work out. that's part of legislation. mr. mcgovern: the rules committee will consider it today and we'll vote on it tonight? is that the plan? i yield to the gentleman. mr. dreier: i thank my friend for yielding. what i would say is i hope the rules committee will be able to meet in the not too distant future. i can't say if it's now about 2 1/2 minutes before 4:00, i can't say how quickly we'll be able to meet, we certainly, as is always the case, will give the minority ample notice for them to have a chance to look at whatever modifications are made to the continuing resolution that will be before us. and when -- mr. mcgovern: is that one hour or 72 hours? will you give me one hour or 72

hours as was promised? mr. dreier: i have no idea what the gentleman's talking about. what is 72 hours? mr. mcgovern: my understanding was that one of the new pledges of the new republican majority was that we were going to have 72-hour layover to be able to read the bill. mr. dreier: there was never any such pledge made. if the gentleman looks at the rules of the house, he knows there's nothing in there that states 72 hours. mr. mcgovern: i thought in the rules of the house it was three calendar days. mr. dreier: will the gentleman yield? mr. mcgovern: i yield to the gentleman. mr. dreier: i thank my friend for yielding. that is true. as the gentleman knows very well. we're in a position right now where we're dealing with an emergency situation, the american people are hurting, we had the measure before us with a full three days, in fact it was put into the record on monday, isn't that right? it was put in on monday. it was put online on monday and so we had the full three days and it is true. we're looking at what would be

possibly a -- an amendment to that measure and so we will be in compliance. first of all, let me say, madam speaker, that there was not any 72 hours in the rules of the house, if the gentleman will look at the rules of the house, it is a three-day layover requirement and i believe we will be in full compliance with that layover. mr. mcgovern: we may or may not meet soon, we may or may not vote on it today. mr. dreier: will the gentleman yield? i thank my friend for yielding. let me just say that obviously we had a bipartisan agreement that was voted on yesterday that did not enjoy bipartisan support. and i say that based on -- i say that based on the fact that we had agreements made in colloquies that took place. mr. mcgovern: reclaiming my time, the gentleman mentioned our distinguished minority whip on a number of occasions. i don't remember him saying he supported the republican bill. mr. dreier: will the gentleman yield? mr. mcgovern: yes.

mr. dreier: mr. dicks, the ranking member of the appropriations committee, indicated before the gentleman and the other rules committee members and me that he would be supportive of the measure and he said he had a right to change his mind and second, in the colloquy that took place last week between the distinguished minority whip and the majority leader, the minority whip indicated that he was supportive of the continuing resolution. mr. mcgovern: i don't recall that, i'll check with the minority whip to check on that. i guess i'm trying to provide information to the members of the house who are watching. mr. dreier: am i correct in say -- mr. mcgovern: am i correct in saying we don't know when we'll meet and don't know when we'll see the new version of the continuing resolution? mr. dreier: let me say that first to address the issue

raised -- i don't know what the gentleman meant about 72 hours. there's a three-day layover requirement. we will not, and let me underscore again, we will not be waiving the three-day layover requirement. i think it's important for us to make that -- the gentleman repeatedly raises 72 hours and we're not in compliance with this and that when in fact we will not be waive, it's a three-day layover requirement that exists. second as far as what time, i believe that within the next few hours, we will be able to meet in the rules committee, and come to the house floor. no guarantees. there are no guarantees. but i believe there's a very good chance we will be able to, in the next few hours, meet in the rules committee and the gentleman and i will come to the floor with a rule that will allow us to make in order the continuing resolution tone sure our fellow americans who are suffering -- mr. mcgovern: i reclaim my time. could i ask the gentleman one

additional question. does he anticipate that the advanced technology vehicle manufacturing loan program will be cut in the new version of the continuing resolution we brought before us? mr. dreier: will the gentleman yields? mr. mcgovern: i yield to the gentleman. at this juncture, i cannot tell my friend exactly what this measure is going to consist of. but we're in a position right now where that will be considered by the committee on rules when we do meet upstairs. we'll be meeting upstairs. i think that might be an amendment. i thank the secret for yielding. mr. mcgovern: for the record, i'd like to have inserted a -- for the record a letter from paula yost, vice president of the national association of manufacturers and a letter from r. bruce johnston, executive vice president of the government affairs, both strongly objecting to the offset that the republicans

included in the continuing resolution that we considered yesterday that went down. and one of the reasons why there was great objection over there, madam speaker, was because this program that was cut actually is a job creating program. putting people to work. i would say to my colleagues, if you want to reduce the debt in this country, you ought to figure out a way to put people back to work and the way you put people back to work is not cut every single program that provides assistance to business and to people to be able to get on their feet an create jobs. we have a crisis in this country that's not being addressed by this house of representatives which has yet to consider a single jobs bill and instead we have a continuing resolution that gets brought to the floor that provides less disaster assistance than the senate bill does to people who are in need. and pays for it, pays, squafsets it by cuing a program

to create jobs. what sense does that make? when it comes to disaster relief, we have never, ever offset disaster relief because you can't predict with accuracy whether there'll be a tornado next year or earthquake next year. there are some things we don't offset that we should offset. for example the wars. we've been in afghanistan 10 years, i can't figure out why we're still there but we're still there. i can predict, pretty much accurately, how much it will cost to stay another year yet we borrow that money, put it on the credit card, borrow $10 million a month for military operations in afghanistan that goes on to our credit card. not paid for. but when it comes to helping people in this country who have been adversely impacted by a natural disaster, through no fault of their own, who have lost their homes, who have seen their communities devastated,

all of a sudden we say, we've got to find offsets. where do the offsets come from? they don't come from donald trump's tax cut. you know. what they come from is a program to put people to work and the gentleman, you know, the chairman of the rules committee talks about this great openness we have in the rules committee. i have offered i think about a half dozen times an amendment to go after the u.s. taxpayer funded oil subsidies. these subsidies that we provide oil companies that are making record profits. we can't even get that issue for a vote on this house floor. so look. i hope that, you know, we'll see. i hope we have enough time to read what's in the bill. i hope we have enough time to understand what's in the bill. i hope we meet today, i hope we meet at a decent hour, but we don't sthre answers to any questions. i think that's unfortunate. when it comes to a bill about

the funding, the continuing funding of the government. again, i regret that we are here, regret that we're debating a martial law rule, it's a martial law rule that shuts everything down and allows them to bring up a bill any time they want to bring a bill up. people don't -- won't even have time to read it and we will have that vote possibly today. we don't have any definite commitments from the other side as to what time. i'll close by saying that i think it is important that this house get back to the issue of jobs. and about protecting and caring for the people here in this country. and or biggest challenge, as i'm going to tell my friends on the other side, are not halfway

around the world. some of them are just halfway down the block. i regret very much that this congress has yet to deal with the issue of jobs and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: i yield myself such time as i i might consume. let my me say to my very good friend that jobs and job creation are exactly what virtually every piece of legislation that we have been addressing in this house have been designed to deal with. now, my friends on the other side of the aisle believe that the nearly $1 trillion, it was like $787 billion, i think, then if you add the interest, it came up to $1.1 trillion, that stimulus was their jobs bill. i was told if we saw that $1

trillion stimulus bill implemented, that the unemployment rate would not exceed 8%. madam speaker, in part of the area i represent, we have an unemployment rate of 14%. we have a national unemployment rate of over 9%. and it's not acceptable. i totally concur with my friend's assessment and i congratulate him for his opening statement there, when he said the best way for us to deal with the deficit is to make sure that people in this country have jobs. i believe if we had 2%, 3%, 4% more g.d.p. growth in this country, we wouldn't be here having this discussion. how is it that we get our fellow americans back to work? we believe it's essential to

create long-term good jobs in the private sector. we believe that doing things like opening up new markets around the world, when 96% of the world's consumers are outside of our borders, 96% of the world's consumers, outside of our borders, yet unfortunately, we have not been able to have yet the agreements that have been negotiated over the last several years sent to us in the congress to vote on. we have the agreements negotiated between the koreans and the united states, colombians and the united states, panamanians and the united states and we would create many, many jobs here in the united states. yesterday, madam speaker, i met with the ambassador from colombia. and on august 15, they implemented an agreement, a

free trade agreement between canada and colombia, and there's been an 18.9% increase in wheat exports from canada to colombia in one single month. now, madam speaker, i've said this time and time again here. we have union and nonunion workers. who are employed by companies, great american companies, that have manufacturing companies like caterpillar, john deere, whirlpool, and we could get these people working, we could get these people working if we could open up new markets for those manufactured products in latin america in asia. that's exactly what we've got ahead of us. i hope that the president will send to us those agreements so that we can enjoy and again bipartisan those in support of the request for a recorded vote

will rise and be counted, democrats and republicans working together to pass these ageements. if we do that, we'll do exactly what my friend just said, we'll do exactly what my friend just said in his opening state. there. and what he said was, we need to get americans into jobs so that we can have the revenues that are necessary for us to deal with the deficit and debt challenges that we have. i'm happy to yield to my friend. mr. mcgovern: i thank the gentleman for yielding to me. i just found out some news in answer to a question i had earlier about the offsets, apparently, according to "international journal," that republicans are considering tacking on as much as $100 million in additionaloff sets to the g.o.p. continuing resolution they're bringing to the floor. that's a quote attributed to house rules committee chairman david dreier. i just read in the "national journal" that there will be additional offsets to the ones -- mr. dreier: if i can reclaim my

time, madam speaker, let me say i hope we are able to see offsets for this. again, we have a $14.5 trillion national debt. we have deficits as far as the eye can see. and so as we deal with the very important priorties of ensuring that our fellow americans, who are suffering pause of these tragic dadast -- tragic disasters that have taken place across the country, we need to realize that there is a lot of waste in the federal government. and there are regulations, again, the measure that i just mentioned, my friend said we haven't had jobs bills before us, but the measure that we just -- mr. hastings was just managing the rule on, is designed to deal with the burden of regulations to undermine the potential for job creation and economic growth.

again, pursuing an economic growth ayen da is a priority of ours and making sure we have that agenda. you bet we're going to try to find areas where the federal government is expending dollar that was not been spent wisely. and use those dollars, to ensure that those who are suffering, those who are in need, have what is necessary to survive. mr. mcgovern: if the gentleman would yield. mr. dreier: i yield to the gentleman. mr. mcgovern: which brings me back to the original point. you say you want to eliminate waste but the u.s. chamber of commerce said the program is

not waste. mr. trire: reclaiming my time, let me say to my friend, we are not going to waive the three-day layover requirement and whatever changes, whatever changes are made in this measure will be addressed in the committee and then fully debated on this house floor oso members have an opportunity to decide whether or not they'll support the special rule that would then make in order consideration of this continuing resolution that will prevent a government hutdown and take us to november 18 so that very thoughtful members of the appropriations committee, like the acting speaker, will be able to deal with the appropriations priorities, between now and november 18.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: i want to make sure the record is clear. when it comes to democratic support for the continuing resolution. in his pen an pad press conference, minority whip hoyer said he was, and i quote, loath to support yesterday's c.r. of i have a copy of that and the colloquy that went on on the house floor. at this point, i'd like to yield three minutes to the gentleman from florida, mr. hastings. mr. hastings: i thank my colleague on the rules committee and my good friend for yielding and echo the sentiment he is has made previously. the national association of manufacturers in their lan last sentence in a letter directed to senator reid and mitch mcconnell, he says, during this time of economic recovery we urge to you preserve this

successful program, meaning the advanced technology vehicle manufacturing program, that is helping preserve auto sector jobs and make promise energy security. bruce johnsonton from the chamber of commerce also citing to all members of the house of representatives that the chamber understands the importance of reducing america's unacceptable debt and believes that all programs must be on the table. the chamber urges you to bear in mind the facts that the atvm loan program which promotes manufacturing in the united states is an important component of america's energy security. i only cite that for the reason that there could be no better person to know what marshal law is than the distinguished chairman of the rules committee. he and mr. mcgovern and i, ms.

slaughter and he and i have been back and forth on martial law when democrats were in charge and when republicans were in charge. and one thing you need to understand is, this is martial law, that you are bringing this rule under, and we don't even know what's in the bill. yesterday afternoon the republican leadership brought up a bill that failed american workers, failed our nation's economy and failed those struggling to recover from natural disasters. there's no surprise that their rank and file then failed them. rather than take up language that has already passed the senate with bipartisan support, republicans instead are chose to pit unemployed factory workers against hurricane victims. this is not the kind of behavior that will bring our nation out of this recession. while republicans continue their partisan squabbles, countless americans are fighting for their livelihoods. six years after hurricane

katrina, homes are being repaired and paperwork is still pending for funds that have yet to be allocated and if you've been to new orleans, you'll see a whole section of that city that is not in repair. in my home state of florida fema has already delayed $1.68 million for work resulting from 2004 and 2005 hurricanes charlie, francis, ivan, gene and david and dennis. given my colleagues' disported priorities, i can't help but wonder how long will the people of new england have to wait since we've been waiting in florida since 2004 and 2005 and some have been waiting for drought relief and flood relief -- mr. mcgovern: i yield the gentleman an additional one minute. mr. hastings: for an equal number of years. but this appears to be of no consequence to my republican colleagues. as they fail to recognize that their ideological posturing has

very real repercussions. once again their irresponsible behavior and unwillingness to compromise has put us on the brink of yet another shutdown. h.res. 409 up unnecessarily are will provide for same-day consideration of another republican continuing resolution. violating the house republicans' rules package passed in january which provided that all bills will be available to the public three days before coming to a vote. not only did we not get the required 72 hours, we didn't get 24 hours. the speaker made it very clear. he said, we will dispense with the conventional wisdom that bigger bills are always better, that fast legislation is good legislation, that allowing additional amendments and open debate makes the legislative process less efficient than our forefathers intended. legislators and the public will have three days to read bills before they come to a vote. i must be -- mr. mcgovern: i yield the

gentleman an additional minute. mr. hastings: 30 seconds. mr. mcgovern: i yield an additional 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hastings: we were told we would have three days to read bills before they couple to a vote, we were told that they would be on the internet and that technology is available so all of america could see what we are doing and as the speaker said, and i thoroughly agree, fast legislating is not good legislating. especially when there's no need to require a rushed close -- rush closed process. as far as we know we're voting for a same-day bill before we know what even exists. we should have some idea of what's going on. and it's not enough for me to hear that we're going to hear about it in the rules committee later on. i want to know what's going on right now. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: madam speaker, first may i inquire of the chair how much time is remaining on each side and then i look forward to responding. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california has six minutes remaining and the

gentleman from massachusetts has 10. the speaker pro tempore: -- mr. dreier: madam speaker, i yield myself such time as i might consume and, madam speaker, i'd like to say to my friend from fort lauderdale, mr. hastings, that i'd like to associate myself, madam speaker, with a segment of his remarks that he made talking about the priority of addressing the very pressing needs of those who are suffering because of the disasters that have taken place in this country. my friend is absolutely right and that's the rb reason that we are here. i'd like to say, madam speaker, that i don't know where it is that my friends get this 72 hours that they discuss about. this is discussed regularly. mr. mcgovern has raised that, mr. hastings has raised it, madam speaker, and i don't know where they get that. we have what is known as the three-day layover requirement. let me clarify this because obviously some of my colleagues don't completely understand. i'm talking about the rules of the house, not statements that may have been made, the rules of

the house say that there is a three-day layover requirement. on monday, madam speaker, on monday this measure was put online, the bill that we voted on yesterday was put online. it calls for $1,04,000,000,000 in spending on an annual basis as we address keeping the government going and ensuring we don't have a government shutdown between now and november 18. that was put online on monday. of course i'm happy to yield to my friend. mr. hastings: i just wanted to respond to your statement, you don't know -- mr. dreier: tell me i can't associate myself with your remarks. mr. hastings: no. that you don't know where we got the 72 hours from. if you go on the speaker's website you'll see in the very first paragraph of what he says in that regard with reference to 72 hours and perhaps that's where we got it. mr. dreier: if i can reclaim my time, i'll tell my friend that the rules of the house are what

we are complying with. the rules of the house say a three-day layover requirement. on monday this was made available an put online. and now my friend says, i want to see it now, i want to see exactly what we're considering. the reason that we will not be waiving the three-day layover requirement is that we are going to have a bill that is very similar to the measure that we had last night with possibly an amendment made to that. i'm happy to further yield. mr. hastings: does the speaker's word matter or not? mr. dreier: if i could reclaim my time, madam speaker, i'll tell you that i don't know what he means by the speaker's word. the rules of the house are what we live by. the rules of the house say that it needs to be made available online for three days. and guess what, madam speaker? we are in full compliance with the rules of the house and we have no intention to waive that and the reason i say it, i don't want members to believe that we will not -- ok, i'm looking now

at a statement that was made on some program on fox that says, i will not bring a bill to the floor what hasn't been posted online for at least 72 hours. let me say that -- thank you, i want to express my great appreciation and i appreciate the size of the type, too, making it very easy for me to read it across the aisle here. another indication of our bridging the gap between both either side of the aisle here which is something i greatly appreciate. it did turn out that the speaker did say that, but then we came forward with a rules package and that's why what i'm saying is the rules say that we will in fact have three days, three-day layover requirement need to be met and that's what the rules of the house consist of. madam speaker, i'd like to further yield to my good friend from fort lauderdale. mr. hastings: one thing i really would like to make clear and take out some of the hyperbole and the passion from my side or

yours. we know and you have said, and i echo your expressions with reference to the need for us to address -- mr. dreier: can i reclaim my time and the reason i'm doing that is i'm told we have a minute or so left. i know my friend has so ins -- 10 minutes. so could my friend yield to the gentleman and me so -- i know we're going to get the great poster with the speaker's quote up there again and i'll look forward to reading it again. mr. mcgovern: i yield the gentleman an additional one minute. mr. hastings: the only thing i'm trying to get across is i don't want the american public to believe that whenever we get through, whether it's 72 hours or whenever it is, that that means that the desperately needed money in vermont and in new england and other places is going to be forthcoming most immediately because, i'm telling you -- mr. dreier: will the gentleman yield? mr. hastings: i just have a

limited amount of time. i ask you to use yours. i'm telling you that from 2004 and 2005, from six hurricanes we are not being paid in the state of florida. mr. dreier: let me quickly say, it was explained to us by the chairman of the promingses -- promingses -- appropriations committee today that we're spending $30 million a day. there's $2 million in the account. it's scheduled to expire this weekend. passage of this measure tonight is something that ensure that we will at least have those resources and i hope we can address the needs of those floridians who continue to suffer. mr. hastings: not only floridians. mr. dreier: and others in this country. new orleans, i know my friend -- mr. hastings: i yield back the balance of my time. mr. mcgovern: can i inquire how many other speakers the gentleman has on the other side? mr. dreier: mr. speaker, i thank my friend for yielding and i would say to my friend that i'm going to close the debate over here as soon as my friend holds up that brilliant poster from the fox news interview that speaker boehner had.

with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: i yield myself the balance of our time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i'm going to hold this poster up because i want to make sure it's clear to everybody. i'm going to quote this. i will not bring a bill to the floor that hasn't been posted online for at least 72 hours. john boehner, fox news, "america's newsroom," 7/22/2010. and, mr. speaker, we can, you know, have all the verbal gyrations that we come up with here about how not to kind of get to the point which is that we're not going to be able to have three days or 72 hours or three legislative days or three anything to look at this bill. and the bill that we're going to be debating later today or tomorrow, we don't really know, is going to be different and we know it's going to be different because the chairman of the rules committee said in an interview that we have online to national journal that there's

probably going to be another money in offsets. where are those offsets coming from? we know that one of the offsets that was in the continuing resolution yesterday was an offset that actually was a job killer. that actually is something that not only democrats supported but the united states chamber of commerce supported. they came together and agreed that this is a good program and it was cut and it is going to discourage job creation in this country. so, i think it is important to know where these offsets are going to be coming and again let me repeat what i've said over and over. this is not -- this has not been a bipartisan process. the only thing bipartisan about this continuing resolution was the opposition to it. and again i would tell my republican friends that the reason why this promise by speaker boehner is important is because we do need to understand what's in the bill and i guess, you know, we're beginning to

understand that your rules don't live up to your, you know, to what you actually promised. mr. speaker, the other thing about this that i think is important for people to understand is that never, ever, ever have we ever insisted on offsets for emergency spending for disasters. we don't know whether there will be one, two, three or no emergencies that hit our country next year or the year after or the year after that. maybe my republican friends have now figured out a way to predict earthquakes and tsunamis and hurricanes and tornados but we don't know how to predict with any accuracy and this notion that we're not going to be there, that we're going to insist on offsets in order to provide people who have been thrown out of their homes, communities have been destroyed through no fault of their own, so we can find an offset, you know, when we doned neat --

don't need any offsets for nation building in afghanistan, that's all on the credit card. there's no offsets needed for that. why is it that no offsets are needed to do that kind of stuff but when it comes to helping people in this country, you know, all of a sudden we become super fiscally conservative? we need to have offsets for everything. you want to reduce the debt, put people back to work. that's how you do it. cutting programs to put people back to work, don't put people back to work. it slows down the economic recovery. here we are in september and we have yet to deal with a single jobs bill on this floor. i don't know what it's like in california but when i go home, people want to talk about jobs and the economy. they want to reduce the debt and they understand that by cutting these wars and cutting back on overseas paces we have, by asking donald trump to pay his fair share, there's something wrong when a billionaire hedge fund manager pays a lower tax rate than his

secretary. but no, we can't ask that person, that billionaire to pay his fair share. everything is aimed at working people and those who are most vulnerable. we should be talking about putting america back to work. we should be debating every day about ways to stimulate the economy and provide incentives to put people back to work, to find ways to stop incentivizing corporations to send american jobs overseas. instead my friends on the other side of the aisle are protecting the status quo. they are protecting those tax breaks that encourage jobs to go overseas. enough. enough. i'll close by saying this, mr. speaker. when it comes to protecting subsidies for big oil companies, you know, my friends are there. when it comes to rebuilding and nation building in afghanistan, they're there. when it comes to maintaining, you know, a tax code that

allows a billionaire hedge fund manager to pay a lower tax rate than his secretary, they're there. when i comes to disaster assistance, when it comes to jobs, when it comes to things that matter to everyday people, it is a struggle. it is a fight. i would urge my colleagues to work in a bipartisan way when it comes to disaster relief. let's bring the president's jobs bill to the floor. if you don't like it, vote against it but allow us to have the opportunity in this new, open house, let us bring the president's jobs bill to the throor and see whether we can pass it here. if this truly is an open house, we ought to have that opportunity. i will just say, mr. speaker, before i yield back the balance of my time, i don't know when we're going to get this bill. i don't know where the cuts will be made, i don't know what other job creating programs will be cut but again, i will not bring a bill to the floor

that hasn't been posted online for at least 7 hours. we're not going to get 72 minutes in all likelihood. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. drive: mr. speaker, mr. speaker, the gentleman is recognized. -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. dreier: the american people are hurting and have been suffering from disasters over the past several weeks and months and obviously for a long period of time in the past. we just had a meeting downstairs where one of my new colleagues, the gentleman from williams port, pennsylvania, mr. moreno stood up and talked about the fact that he -- marino stood up and talked about the fact that days ago he was drudging -- dredging through mud, meeting with the

parents of small children, young children, who were literally sitting on the hoods of automobiles in pennsylvania, where terrible flooding is taking place and they have been asking him, since they have lost their homes, what he was going to do. mr. marino made it clear he would do everything possible to -- possible to ensure that those families would have what they needed and that's why we're here right now with the measure we have before us. mr. speaker, this measure that will come before us later this evening is a measure that has been online more than 72 hours. it was put online on monday. today is thursday. so well beyond 72 hours. it's been made available. we have actually doubled from $500 million to $1 billion the f.y. 2011 request that was made

by the president. because we understand the imperative of getting these resources to the american people who are suffering. we can do that while at the same time reining in the size and scope and reach and control bauds every knows, democrats and republicans alike acknowledge in a there's waste in government and that's the reason we're saying we must pare the level of spending back. so mr. speaker, this is not martial law. this is our step to ensure that the american people get the resources they need and that we do it in a fiscally responsible way and it stems from what was a bipartisan agreement. so mr. speaker, with that, i urge an aye vote on the rule and i move the previous question. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on ordering the previous question on the

resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. mr. dreier: i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 20, the 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question on h. resolution 409 will be followed by five minute votes on house resolution 409 if orders, ordering the previous question on house resolution 406 and adopting house resolution 406 if ordered. this will be a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]