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 >> house is in recess, and will return for -- the house rules .ommittee is in

>> fees and blessings be upon him and all of his divine messengers. and god and himself and victory. and all of those who test to this. ladies and gentleman. allah has granted me the right to appear before this assembly. joseph -- for his efforts during

his tenure, and i would like to congratulate aziz for his presidency of the 66th session. let me pay tribute to those who lost their lives as a result of natural disasters. and the domestic flooding in pakistan. the effected populations in these countries. i have spoken about different global issues. and the need for changes. the developments -- i will try to analyze the present situation. you know the dominance and the superiority of human beings over other cultures. this is in the very nature and the truth of human

consciousness. this is a divine gift and a manifestation embodying facing god, the everlasting creator, and planner of the entire universe. and showing compassion to others, generosity and the integrity, in war and peace. the quest for dignity to meet the pinnacle of perfection, to elevate your status and realize liberty. the discrimination in contrast to supporting the oppressed. with lasting security for all. these are some of the manifestations of human

attributes. and this can clearly be seen in the historical maturation of human beings as reflected in the heritage of the search, and the poetry, and the cultural and political movements of human beings in the course of history. the divine profits and social reformer -- social reformers, god has given dignity to human kind to elevate his status, to assume his successor role on the earth. colleagues and friends, mr. president, it is clear that with all of these historical achievements, including the

creation of the united nations, this was a product of the efforts of justice-seeking individuals. human society -- they are yet far from fulfilling the normal desires and aspirations. those nations of the world are unhappy with the current international circumstances and despise -- -- the wars and the mass murder, the widespread poverty and the socio-economic and political crisis, that continue with the sovereignty of nations. this will leave behind a

irreparable damage, worldwide. all nations in the world. approximately 3 billion people of the world, live on less than $2.30 per day, and 200 million people live without a sufficient meal on a daily basis. populationworld's shares 5% of the global income as 20% of the richest people share 75% of the economic earnings worldwide. destitute children die every day because of poverty. 80% of the financial systems in the united states -- this is controlled by 10% of the people, and only 20% belongs to

90% of the population. how does one remedy this injustice? they put the blame on people for religion, and the pursuit of the path of divine providence. and with a number of groups for individuals. only these prescriptions can change -- can save humanity and the world economy. that this isnk part of the prevailing international order of today. i would like to draw your condescension to the following question.

tens of millions of people are taken from their homes in africa and other regions of the world during the time of slavery. making them a victim of their materialistic agreed in the united states and europe. we have opposed this for over four centuries on this world. and to occupies land with the massive resources of other nations, alienated customs and the entity of nations. the world war left 17 million killed, and hundreds of millions, who created the war in the korean peninsula and vietnam? he harbors this. the zionist, with over 50 years

of world -- of work. mass murder of the palestinian people and the region. for decades, the military dictatorship. the african nations. the use this against defenseless people. they stockpile warheads in the arsenals. who provoked and encouraged some hussein to invade and impose an eight year war on iran.

and gave them the ability to use chemical weapons? who used the incident on 9/11 to attack afghanistan and iran. this placing millions into a couple of countries. and to undermined the system, printing trillions of dollars without the backing of the reserves. this triggered inflation worldwide, and was intended to prey on the economic gains of other nations. what country's military standing is over 1000 billion dollars more than the military budget of all the countries of

the world, combined? which governments of the most indebted in the world, and who is a government that threatens all nations and countries? who dominates the policies major establishments of the world economy. and who are responsible for the world's economic recession, and are imposing its consequences, in europe and asia, africa, latin america and all other nations. which of them are ready to drop thousands of bombs on other countries but hesitates to send food to the people of somalia or in other places.

who are the ones dominating the security council, that is responsible to safeguard international security. there are dozens of other situations, of course. the majority of the nation's and the governments in the world have no role in the creation of the current global crisis. they are the victims of such policies. the same slave masters and colonial powers that triggered the world wars have caused widespread misery and disorder, with far reaching effects. and they continue to control the international political centers.

colleagues and friends, do these arrogant powers really have the confidence to govern the world, or is it that they call themselves the sole defenders of freedom and democracy and human rights. as they attacked and occupied others. can the flower of democracy blossom from the missiles and bombs, ladies and gentlemen. some european countries still use the holocaust after six decades, to pay ransom to the zionists. should not be an obligation that the masters of all colonial powers make reparations to the

affected nations. with slavery and colonialism, what will happen to the manipulators and the political powers behind the scenes in the united states and europe? if only half of the military establishments of the united states and the allies in nato, this is to help the economic problems in their own country. will they witness any symptoms of the economic crisis? what would happen if the same amount is taken to the poor nations? what is the justification for the hundreds of u.s. military bases in different parts of the

world? 87 in south korea. 45 in the united kingdom and 21 in portugal. and hundreds of others in other parts of the world. what could this be other than military occupation. the bonds are deployed -- that undermine the security of other nations? the main question is a search -- the pot -- the prime reason is the tendencies of the establishment, and assembly of people with the inner human instincts, and disposition to

also have no faith in god and the divine profits. they place their lot with power and materialistic and. to them, they bring into purpose these sinister goals. they have no hope to support their -- to protect their rights against these powers. they keep their power with the humiliation and annihilation -- and they enjoy special privileges with no respect for others. and they violate the rights of all nations and governments. they proclaim themselves as the indisputable custodians of all

nations, through intimidation, through force and international mayhem. they insist on imposing -- imposing their beliefs in others. they weaken countries for military intervention and destroy their structures in order to take their resources, by making them all the more dependent. they trade hostilities among nations in order to prevent them from fulfilling the goals of developments. all cultural identities, the

values and the wealth of nations, women and children, their sacrifice by these tendencies to enslave and captivate other nations. they are allowed to secure their interests and materialistic intentions. the pursuit of such diabolical -- there has been a dramatic increase in afghanistan in the illegal drugs. they tolerate no questions and give this as they use their materialistic imports, influenced by colonialism, they

threaten anyone who questions the holocaust. and the sanctions and military actions, last year, when the need came for a formal investigation concerning the recent elements involved in the september 11 incident, this is also enforced by the regime -- we came under pressure and threats by the government of the united states. instead of assigning a fact- finding team, they killed the main perpetrators. and through the quality into the sea. what did not have been

reasonable to bring to justice and try openly the main perpetrator of the incident, to identify the reason behind the space for the invading aircraft to attack the world trade towers. why was it not allowed to bring him to trial, and recognize those who brought war's end to this position. is there any classified information that must be kept secret. they believe zionism is a sacred knowledge, and any questioning is condemned by them for the unforgivable sin, however, there will allow sacrilege against

other divine religions. dignity and well-being in security -- is of the rights of all nations. these values can either be achieved under the system of world government, or the world's arrogant powers, for these forces. these values can only be realized with independence and the public rights and cooperation. is there any way to address the problems using the print -- prevailing international mechanism or tools to help humanity find peace and security and equality.

the existing laws and tendencies have failed. there was a prominent individual who failed to bring monumental changes. governance and management of the fundamental reform. and what has to be done now? efforts must be made with a firm resolve. through collective cooperation. no plans on the basis of principles. and the human values -- with justice and freedom, love, and

the quest for happiness. based on happiness for everyone. the idea for the creation of the united nations remains a historical achievement of mankind and this is important and must be appreciated, and its capacity must be used to the extent possible. we should not allow the organization with the shared aspiration of the community of nations to deviate from the main course. and play into the hands of the world powers. conducive rounds must be prepared to ensure a collective participation, in an effort to promote lasting peace and security. the collective management of the world must be achieved in the

true sense, and then the underlying principles -- in international law, justice must serve as the criteria and the basis for all international decisions. we should acknowledged the fact that there is no other way than the shared management of the world. and the present disorder and tyranny, and discrimination worldwide. and there, with human society, establishing the vivid truth. and did not alleging this -- you must say that this is not enough and we have to have further faith in this and spare no efforts -- shared and

collective management of the world for all nations. and we have an obligation to defend these rights. and we continuously tried to frustrate all the international efforts. promoting the collective cooperations. and we strengthen our belief in achieving the perceived goals of establishing the shares and the collective cooperation throughout the world. the united nations was designed for the effective participation of all nations. we all know that. this goal has not yet been fulfilled because of the absence of justice in the current management structure, and the

mechanisms of the united nations. the composition of the security council is unjust, and therefore, a changing and structuring of the united nations are considered as the basic demand of the nation's that must be addressed by the general assembly. during the last sessions i emphasize the importance of this issue, and called for the designation of this decade as a decade of collective global management. and that the capacity and resources must be modernized. i reiterate my proposal, that through international cooperation, efforts are committed and world leaders --

to the assistance on justice and support, of all the other nations. we can expedite the building of a common, large future. this movements is presently on the rightful path of creation. with the assurance of the future of humanity. a future that will be billed when humanity initiates to tread the path of the divine profitsp, under the leadership of imam, the ultimate savior of mankind and the inheriter to all divine messengers and the few. generation of our great prophet.

the creation of a supreme an ideal society, with the arrival of a perfect human being, and a lover of all human beings, this is the guaranteed promise. he will come with jesus christ to lead freedom and justice lovers to eradicate tierney, and discrimination, and promote knowledge in peace, justice, freedom, across the world. he will present every single individual, the duties of the world. strength and happiness for mankind, and the promise of a better tomorrow to all of

humanity, and the sweet taste of life to all. friends and colleagues, today nations have been awakened, and they no longer succumb to oppression. and discrimination. the world is now witnessing, more than ever, the widespread awakening in islamic lands in asia and europe, and in america. every day, these movements of every family, they pursue the realization of justice and the creation of a better tomorrow.

our great nation and our nation that builds a great civilization stands ready to join hands with other nations to march on this beautiful path in harmony and in line with the shared aspirations of mankind. us salute love and freedom, let us salute justice and knowledge, and let us salute the bright future that awaits him in kind. i thank you all, ladies and gentleman.

>> i welcome the prime minister of the republic of turkey, erdogan, and i invite him to address the general assembly. >> mr. president, mr. secretary- general, excellency and distinguished delegates. ladies and gentleman. i warmly and respectfully greet you all and hope that the 66th session of the u.n. general assembly will meet fruitful results. i would like to congratulate his excellency on the assumption of the presidency and wish to

extend my sincere appreciation to joseph for his time with the general assembly. we are passing through a time when both the international community and the united nations are twisted in an unprecedented manner. but i will say very frankly that the united nations does not demonstrate the leadership that is necessary to mankind prevail over its fears for the future. therefore, the united nations has to reform itself with a renewed vision, for the rights of humanity as a whole, rather than acting under the guardianship of certain

countries. last month, in somalia, i witnessed how the united nations and international community remain helpless against the pressing problems of today. it is impossible for me to put into words the poverty and suffering that i have seen in somalia. i speak about this because i have personally seen this with my family and my ministers. this is something i have witnessed. the tragedy of somalia, where tens of thousands of children die because of a lack of water -- this is not something we can speak about in a few words.

this is a shame, and the civil war going on for the last 20 years has wiped out all of the resources and the livelihood of somalia, and the people of somalia are being tracked to death. the international community is watching the suffering in somalia as if this was a movie. however, we should urgently face this situation, a threat to our humanity. and we should look not only into the history of today, but the shameful history that has led them to this great tragedy. beneath this iceberg are great crimes against humanity, and the situation in somalia has

revealed the deep wounds from the colonial mentality. today -- this cold, colonial understanding is absent, where it has no interest. and now they watch millions of people die in need of a morsel of bread. no one can speak of peace or justice and civilization in the world, if the outcry rising from somalia goes on heard. no word is sufficient to describe the agony going on in somalia. the approach to somalia is grounded on the humanitarian principles. this is why we have launched a comprehensive campaign for

somalia with the support of the nation. we have collected a donation of about 300 million u.s. dollars within the last few months from our people. and the amount of humanitarian assistance was of the level of 30 million u.s. dollars. we also called an emergency meeting of the islamic corporations in istanbul, and exceeded 350 million u.s. dollars. turkey is also determined to help build the infrastructure facilities that would enable the country to stand on its feet. turkey has undertaken transportation and health and education, and other cultures

-- with the construction of roads and hospitals, and by reopening the embassy in mogadishu, we have also shown the world that security challenges cannot be an excuse for delaying assistance. in parallel, it is also necessary to bring an end to the civil war and provide the country with a democratic governance, an order to succeed in the fight against piracy and terrorism. in this regard, we would like to ask why the international community denies what they have shown in the rest of the world. the entire community should react with urgency to support

the efforts for peace and stability in somalia. the civil war that has been smothering them should come to an end without any further delay. in this conflict, the recent progress by the somalian leaders for national consensus gives us hope for the future. as somalia takes its place within the international community, the world will become a safer and more stable place. this understanding that lies at the heart of these efforts to somalia, -- we are making every effort to have the infrastructure investments that will help them stand on their feet, and we also want an environment of peace conducive to stable development.

we are doing this solely for our humanitarian responsibilities and no other purpose or intention. it is the greatest wish we have that the leadership demonstrated by turkey will set an example for the entire international community. according to us, the united nations is the ideal that shows the international rights and justice, with peace rather than conflict in human conscience rather than other interests, prevail. this is what i understand united nations to be. the greatest impediment to the realization of this idea is the arab-israeli conflict that has been ongoing for more than half a century. the fact that this problem is

still not resolved, and that justice is sacrificed in favor of political balance is the greatest blow to the sense of international justice. today -- israel has not abided by 89 resolutions of the u.s. security council. and in addition, there are hundreds of resolutions with the general assembly, that israel has ignored. what is even more regrettable is the fact that the united nations has been helpless in such a way, that they have taken no steps to end the human tragedy of the palestinian people.

the question i asked is, when the u.n. takes decisions with regard to implementing this in various other places, are you silence in the case of other examples, or are you following through with the resolutions -- resolutions in the sudan. we have to look at ourselves in the mirror. there is a great indignation in the international community in general, and it cannot remain unsolved, and the international community must act urgently, and he'll this bleeding wound. they so easily use the phosphate bombs, and there is no sanction

against this. but even if there is a risk of this possibility elsewhere in the region, there is an effort to prevent this from happening. and i ask whether this is fair. the problem in this context stems from the israeli government. those who govern the country take steps every day, that build new barriers preventing peace. it is the palestinian territories under occupation. but saying that this is an israeli territory -- is palestinian territory that is under occupation. and israel but is using this

proportion the disproportionate force. in this context, the legal sentiments in the occupied country of palestine, the standout in particular. i asked you, in the universal declaration of human rights isolating any people from international law and justice is impossible. i do not see such a possibility. if you want to send a box of tomatoes to palestine, you have to get permission from israel. and as i have stated before, they must make a choice.

loopholes in the u.n. system and lobbying some countries may give israel a chance to evade international law and justice in the face of its illegitimate actions, however, this will not ensure -- this will not ensure the security that they need today. those who govern israel must see that real security is possible only by building real peace. and i would like to call on israel,. nothing will substitute peace. what you face today is not a simple equation on peace and security. you must you must have the

political geography in the middle east, to understand that this will no longer be possible to carry on in an environment of conflict. >> you can see all of the speech at c-span.org. the bill h.r. 2608, to provide for an additional temporary extension of programs under the small business act and the small business investment act of 1958 and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the house calendar and ordered printed. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. dreier: mr. speaker, i send -- no, i just did that. by direction of the committee on rules, i call up house resolution 412 and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 76, house resolution 412, resolved that upon adoption of

this resolution it shall be in order to take from the speaker's table the bill, h.r. 2608, to provide for an additional temporary extension of programs under the small business act and the small business investment act of 1958 and for other purposes. with the senate amendment thereto and to consider in the house without intervention of any point of order a motion offered by the chair of the committee on appropriations or his designee, that the house concur in the senate amendment with the amendment printed in part a of the report of the committee on rules accompanying this resolution, modified by the amendment printed in part b of such report. the senate amendment and the motion shall be considered as read. the motion shall be debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on appropriations. the previous question shall be considered as ordered object the motion to its adoption -- on the motion to its adoption without intervening motion. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for one hour. mr. dreier: thank you very much,

mr. speaker. for the purpose of debate only i yield the customary 30 minutes to my very good friend from rochester, new york, the distinguished ranking minority member of the committee on rules, ms. slaughter, pending which i yield myself such time as i might consume and ask unanimous consent to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. dreier: all time that i'll be yielding and that my friend from rochester will be yielding will be for debate purposes only and i'd ask unanimous consent, mr. speaker, that all members have five legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. dreier: mr. speaker, we have gone through what james madison, the author of the constitution, described as an ugly, messy, difficult process. that's the legislative process. and while many of us have been frustrated, it does work at the end of the day. and, mr. speaker, it has to work . it has to work because our fellow americans are suffering at this moment.

just been talking to staff members of the house appropriations committee and we have to get the resources to those people who are suffering asap. as of this morning there was a grand total of $212 million in the federal emergency management agency's fund to deal with these disasters that have taken place. last spring the secretary of homeland security testified that we needed additional resources. now, mr. speaker, let's go back to last spring and realize that that was before we had hurricanes, it was before we had floods, it was before we had tornados that hit the midwest, i think of those poor people in joplin, missouri, all those homes and lives that were lost, and it was before we had this earthquake that as we all know damaged the washington monument right down the street from where

we are. mr. speaker, it's very important that we get those resources there, with only $212 million as of this morning, with expenditures somewhere in the neighborhood of $30 million-plus a day, it means that as early as monday of next week we could end up with nothing, nothing for those people who are suffering. mr. speaker, we don't want the government to shut down. . we want the people to have the resources necessary. but at the same time, we recognize that we have a $14.5 trillion national debt. we have massive deficits that are before us. and we need to do everything that we can to do what people across this country are saying that needs to be done. we need to create jobs.

we need to generate an increase in our gross domestic product growth. and the measure that is going to be before us will do just that. now, mr. speaker, the measure that we will consider is identical, identical to the measure that we considered in the house yesterday. a measure that had been reported out, basically the same package that we had last week, but bipartisan request that was made by the senate majority leader, mr. reid, senate minority leader, mr. mcconnell, so that the senate will be able to move as quickly as possible to ensure that our fellow americans have the resources that are necessary. that's why we have ended up with the same measure that we had yesterday. but, mr. speaker, as you and i have discussed in a meeting we were just in, there has been a change. there is a very minor change.

it is one single paragraph and i'll read that one paragraph. some of the continuing resolution that we had, which is $1,043,000,000, no change in full compliance with the three-day layover requirement that exists in the house rules. and i remind my colleagues that the measure before us was put online on monday, four days ago. so again, in full compliance, with time to spare, with the three-day layover, with one amendment. and the amendment reads as follows. at the end of the matter proposed to be inserted by the house amendment before the short title, insert the following, section 142, effective on the date of the enactment of this act of the unobligated balances for department of energy, energy programs, title 17, innovative

loan programs, pursuant to title 4, division a of public law 111-5, $111 million is rescinded, and that is the only change that has been made. and let me tell you why that change was made. and i don't often read the "washington post" on the house floor, but today's "washington post" has an article that explains what it is that led us to call for using the $111 billion that i just mentioned as an offset. and i recognize as one of my colleagues stated earlier, this company which democrats and republicans alike recognize has been a failure for this energy program is one that will not get resources because they have gone bankrupt. but let me tell you what focuses us on this 111 billion to ensure

we don't have another boondoggle. ths today's "washington post" and in an article, former employees, the shuttered solar company that exhausted half a billion of taxpayer money said they saw questionable spending by management as soon as the federal agency approved a $535 million government-backed loan for the startup. a new factory built with public money boasted a gleaming conference room with glass walls that with a flip of a switch, turned a smokey gray to conceal the room's occupants, state of the art equipment ended up being sold pennies on the dollars. as the $344 million factory wept

up just down the road in california, workers watched as unsold solar panels stacked up in storage, many wondered, was the factory needed. after we got the loan guarantee, they were spending money left and right, said a former engineer. because we were doing well, nobody cared. because of that infusion of money, it made people sloppy. now, mr. speaker, we all know that our fell ooveho americans are -- fellow americans are suffering across this country because of the tremendous disasters we have faced over the past weeks and months and it is very important for us to recognize that every taxpayer dollar is precious, especially in these times when there are

people losing jobs, losing their homes and losing their businesses. this is a very sad and tragic example of the kind of waste that is there and that is why the one very small, but important modification to the measure that is before us will be to take $100 million a use that as an offset to ensure that the hard-earned dollars of the american people are not wasted in a way that we have seen. so, mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues to support this rule. and with that, i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: thank you very much, mr. speaker and i thank my colleague for yielding me the customary 0 minutes and i yield myself such time as i may consume. mr. speaker, my speech will be like my speech yesterday.

yesterday, the house on both sides of the aisle defeated the majority's attempt to pass a continuing resolution and 24 hours later, we are here with the very same bill. the bill we are debating has barely changed from the one we defeated yesterday. the bill still contains unacceptable cuts to an essential manufacturing jobs program to pay for equally essential disaster relief. homes have been destroyed roads have collapsed and local communities have been disrupted by a stream of hurricanes, tornadoes, tropical storms, extreme weather that has chris crossed our land. our moral compass makes it clear. we know what we need to do. we must come to the aid of our fellow americans who need our help. the problems they are facing are monumental and quite simply no

one can recover from such natural disasters on their own. they need our help. yet, the majority's effort to hold disaster relief hostage to unacceptable cuts is unwise today as it was 24 hours ago. as i said yesterday when it comes to spending billions of dollars on two wars that are bankrupting us, the majority's concern for spending is no where to be found. since 2004, american taxpayers have spent $3.4 billion as emergency spending on infrastructure in afghanistan and even more in iraq. not a single one of this $3.4 billion was offset but paid for by the same taxpayers that are being denied taxpayer money now. while we send billions of dollars to iraq, the iraqi government has begun building they announced today a

high-speed rail system to connect major cities. that's the same week that the majority in this house took the high-speed rail in the united states. we will be paying for 280 miles in iraq that we can't pay for from buffalo to albany. when it comes to helping families, the majority has decided they just can't help unless they take the money from a program that has created jobs and poised to create 60,000 more. the bill was wrong yesterday. the bill is wrong today. let me just give you some information that we've gotten from the "new york times." republicans sought clean energy money for home states. senator mcconnell asked for

money for an electric vehicle plant in kentucky and stimulus money for a solar plant in texas. congressman upton wanted five clean energy projects in michigan. representative cliff stearns asked for a battery manufacturing plant in florida. these requests for funding came from the same program that have been discussed being cut the last two days. i ask unanimous consent to insert this in the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. slaughter: i urge all of my colleagues to stand by your beliefs. if you thought the bill was wrong yesterday, there is no reason to think the bill is better today. virtually nothing has changed. i urge my colleagues to oppose this rule and flawed bill and reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: i would like to say when ms. pelosi was speaker of

the house of representatives, my friend from rochester was chairman of the rules committee and hurricane katrina was offset. i urge my colleagues to offset and i reserve. ms. slaughter: mr. speaker, i yield three minutes to the gentleman from massachusetts, a member of the committee on rules, mr. mcgovern. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, this house is badly broken. this republican leadership is out of touch. this process is a disgrace. this is not the way the people's business is supposed to work. we are now debating a continuing resolution that has the same objectionable provisions that were rejected yesterday on a bipartisan basis, plus it has additional provisions that cut jobs. it's even worse.

so, you know, here's the deal. what's objectionable to people like me, my republican friends continue to insist on cutting programs that will result in the elimination of american jobs. their view is simple, help victims of tornadoes and hurricanes, then we have to pay for it and pay for it in their view, by cutting jobs, not tax cuts for millionaires, not subsidies for big oil, not cutting incentives that encourage sending american jobs overseas. what they are doing is cutting american jobs. mr. speaker, the republican leadership doesn't have a clue. they are obsessed with cutting government at all costs including programs that help sustain american jobs, including programs that help prevent the elimination of american jobs. and here's the deal. the issue is jobs. you know, they may not want to

hear it, but the central issue before our country is jobs. i don't care where you go in this country, people want to talk about jobs and creation of jobs as a way to secure our economy. what we should be talking about is jobs. we should be talking about on the house floor tomorrow is jobs. what we should be talking about every day until the american people are back to work is jobs. instead, under this republican leadership, we are debating trivial issues passionately and important ones not at all. i urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to allow democrats to bring up the president's jobs bill so we can can put people back to work. the best way to reduce the debt in this country is to put people back to work. even a slight drop in the unemployment rate in this country would result in an incredible reduction in our debt.

reject this continuing resolution, because it is about eliminating jobs. not about creating more jobs, but eliminating jobs. reject this continuing resolution because it plays politics with the lives of american citizens who have been victimized by natural disasters. i urge the republican leadership to try to be bipartisan. we talk about an open house and bipartisan. here is an opportunity for us to be bipartisan. let's work together on behalf of the american people and let's get this bill right and focus on jobs. that's what the american people want. this bill falls far short of that. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. dreier: i would like to tell my friend from worcester that clearly jobs is the priority that we are focused on. and i would like to associate myself with his remarks when he talked about the need for us to focus on job creation and economic growth and i know i'm

speaking for everyone, everyone on our side of the i'll when we want to work in a bipartisan way to ensure we can get our economy growing and the american people who are hurting will be able to have job opportunities. i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: i yield five minutes to the gentleman from new york. this combines a sfeach he would have made yesterday. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. markey: september 22, 2011, the republicans are now in open warfair against clean energy. yesterday was an opening. but today is the declaration of war. they have already gutted clean energy research and development

budgets by 40% for next year. their budget for the next three years promises to cut those investments by 90%. they have zeroed out loan guarantee programs for all renewable energy in their budget while leaving intact $25 billion for the nuclear industry. they are prepared to shut down the government rather than rescind one penny of the oil and gas industry, $41 billion in tax subsidies. but clean energy sector gets the hammer. . yesterday republicans tried to kill the clean car factory fund in order to pay for natural disaster relief. this is the program that is helping american companies manufacture super efficient

vehicles that reduce our dangerous dependence on foreign oil from opec. but apparently that bill wasn't radical enough for the tea party base. so tonight they come back and they're launching their full frontal assaults on clean energy. yesterday it was just clean cars, today it's solar energy, wind energy, all renewables. tonight they take out the full assault attack. but a word of warning. up to a dozen projects are prepared to receive the green light in the next week. swooping in and destroying this program now will destroy these projects and destroy the thousands of jobs that will come with them. so before you vote for this bill, check and see if your state is one of the 38 that has

received support under this program. check and see if your state is one of the 12 that could have a new project announced next week. make sure that the 66,000 people that have jobs today as a result of this program are not from your state. and by the way, those 66,000 jobs created through this program are far more than any jobs created through legislation passed out in the first nine months that the republicans have controlled the united states house of representatives. so our planet is warming. extreme weather sin creasing. 100-year floods and droughts are now striking every few years. hurricanes causing floods, massive power outages and deaths. texas has been on fire after having the hottest summer ever recorded. the president has issued disaster relief declarations in 48 states so far this year. 83 major disasters declared in

2011. the all-time record, three more months to go this year, wake up. wake up. you can't kill these programs. this is the solution are you killing. -- you are killing. republicans say, fine, we'll provide emergency relief for those who have been afflicted by this nature's wrath in an ever-warming planet but we won't do it unless we can cut the funds for the programs that promise to be the solution to the problem. that's what they're proposing here tonight. does the majority ask if we can save money by cutting the hundreds of billions of dollars we are planning on spending, the republicans are planning on spending on new nuclear weapons being constructed over the next 10 years when we don't need any more nuclear weapons? no. can we cut the tens of billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies we give to big oil and king coal? of course not. but wind, solar, clean cars, all

electric vehicles, plug-in hybrids, oh, yeah, let's cut that program tonight to fund disaster relief for people in this country suffering from weather, from floods, from hurricanes, from tornados caused by an ever-changing climate. this bill is an embarrassment. this is not worthy of this congress. vote no on this latest assault. on the republican plan. to kill the clean energy industry in this country. on behalf of the big oil and big coal industry. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: i yield myself such time as i might consume to say to my friend, there have been 1,100 jobs lost. we want to make sure there is never again, that never again another company like that. that's the reason we have focused on the $100 million as an offset in this measure, mr. speaker. i think it's also very important to note this morning when i woke up i heard the news, that

general motors is now in the midst of an international partnership in the people's republic of china to deal with the development of electric vehicles. these are the kinds of things that the private marketplace is pursuing. i live in los angeles, california. where we have very serious air quality problems and we -- we just got the news today that washington, d.c., is number six in the nation when it comes to air quality problems. we want to make sure that we have energy efficient automobiles, we are determined to do that. we need to make sure we need to make sure that those companies that are out there pursuing these kinds of alternatives that frankly in most all cases are free, are free of government grants, are able to succeed with that and that's why we have proceeded with that. i'm happy to yield to my friend. mr. markey: i thank the gentleman. i'm glad you brought out the general motors deal because the general motors deal is only possible because of the grant and the loans have a thank have been given for the bat -- that have been given for the battery

and technology for these programs. mr. dreier: reclaiming my time. if i could reclaim my time, mr. speaker. let me say to my friend that obviously we have seen, we have seen the general motors deal proceed, the fact of the matter is it's not solely because of that that we are seeing this kind of partnership. but, mr. speaker, we are seeing the private sector proceed with a policy that i believe very strongly in. and that policy is being proenvironment is in fact probusiness. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: i yield myself a minute to address the general motors-china issue. "the new york times" had a wonderful article in the business section that the chinese were subsidizing electric cars to the tune of $19,000, which all of us know is against every trade law the world has ever seen. but they were going to sell the volt and g.m. announced they

actually told on them that in order to sell the volt at all in china they had to give over all of their technology and all the information they had on how to build that car. i thought they weren't going to do it but i also read yesterday that now they've got a brand new chinese partner and they're giving them all the technology. i've got some legislation to bring into that. i think it's outrageous, mr. speaker, that that's what's happening to american manufacturers. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from california. ms. slaughter: i would like to yield three minutes to the gentleman from michigan who knows a thing about general motors, the distinguished ranking member of the committee on ways and means. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan is recognized for three minutes, without objection. mr. levin: well, here we go again. you tried to cut jobs last night , you lost. now you're trying it again. when americans need jobs the

republicans are pushing an antijobs bill. here's what the n.a.m. said about this program that you want to curtail. i quote, the atvm program is an example of what government, industry -- government-industry partnerships can accomplish. it has helped create and preserve thousands of auto sector jobs. the n.a.m. believes defunding atvm will hurt manufacturers and their employees, end of quotes. so, you listen to nobody except your empty rhetoric. and i think dangerous action. so if that wasn't enough, here's what the chame of commerce said, i quote -- chamber of commerce said, i quote, the atvm program promotes manufacturing in the

u.s. and is an important component of american energy security. well, so yesterday the chairman of the appropriations committee, we sent him the letter, says that the atvm loan program is a, quote, a government subsidy for failing industries, end of quote. g.m. failing? chrysler failing? ford failing? how misguided. well, now you're on your rampage to kill jobs and you propose to cut another program, section 1705, the loan program to help investments in new energy technology. this is a dangerous precedent.

it's also, let's be frank, a dangerous smoke screen so some republicans can change their votes. that's what this is all about. well, you don't want to listen to warren buffett on taxes and now you're thumbing your vote at bill gates. they issued a report yesterday, bill gates and a number of other technology leaders, and i quote from the report about energy and programs like what you're trying to cut, i quote, if the u.s. fails to invent new technologies and create new markets and new jobs that will drive the transformation and revitalization of the $5 trillion global energy industry -- i ask for an additional minute -- we will have lost an opportunity to lead in what is

arguably the largest and most pervasive technology center -- sector in the world. however, if the u.s. successfully innovates and clean energy, our country stands to reap enormous benefits. then it goes on. unfortunately, the country has yet to embark on a clean energy innovation program commence rat with the scale of national priorities that are at stake. in fact, and i interpret here, this is what you're doing, rather than improve the energy's energy innovation program and invest in strategic national interests, the current political environment is creating strong pressure to pull back from such efforts, end of quotes. that's exactly what you're doing today. this bill is dangerous mindlessness.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: i yield myself such time as i might consume to remind my colleagues why it is that we're here. we're faced with a prospect of a government shutdown. there is a grand total this morning of $21 million in the fund to deal with our fellow americans who are suffering because of disasters that we've gone through over the past several weers weeks and months and we want to make sure that the appropriations process, which has been dumped on us, is able to be addressed in a bipartisan way. i want democrats and republicans alike to come together to address this. the $100 million additional offset, the only minor modification that has been made, is to ensure that we don't have -- i know democrats and republicans alike agree on, we don't want to have another is a lind are a and that's what we believe we can do. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: mr. speaker, i'm pleased to yield three minutes to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. andrews. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for three minutes.

mr. andrews: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. andrews: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank my friend for yielding. tomorrow will be yet another friday without a paycheck for too many americans. for many americans this may be the week that they're unemployment benefits finally -- their unemployment benefits finally run out and they have no income left whatsoever. for many americans this might be the last weekend they spend in their home. because the eviction notice or the foreclosure process comes due next week. there has been a natural disaster this summer in america but there's been an economic disaster in america for a very long time. 15 days ago the president of the united states came to this chamber and in good faith laid out a plan to put americans back to work. in those 15 days this majority has had no hearings, no discussions and no votes on the president's plan to put the country back to work. until today it was accurate to

say they'd done nothing about the jobs situation in america. today they've done something. they put forward a bill that destroys a program that's created 39,000 jobs in the private sector. my friend from california talked about the new deal that g.m. may strike to build the new generation of cars in china. with all due respect, that's the point. the purpose of this program is to make sure that the next generation of cars is built by americans and sold to chinese, not built by chinese and sold to americans. . so if we let this bill pass, we are waiving the white flag of surrender on the next generation of vehicles. they say well, we have to do this. i think there is you nam hit in

this chamber that the victims deserve help. but the artificial excuse that is being used, we have to pay for the help. we are going to spend in the next 10 days in iraq and afghanistan what it would cost to deal with this disaster relief. how about that? instead of crushing american jobs here at home, why don't we do the intelligent thing and say time to run your own country with their own money? we shouldn't have to choose between ignoring our neighbors. the right vote is no and bring back a plan that keeps americans working and puts americans back to work and solves the disaster problem. vote know and let's fix the problem. i yield back. mr. dreier: i yield myself such

time as i might consume to say job creation and economic growth is what we are all about. the deal about which my friend just referred is one is part of the global marketplace. the goal of having u.s. manufacturers, u.s. workers, manufacturing automobiles for sale in china and vice versa is our priority. and i yield two minutes to my friend in lawrenceville. i just told my friend i would like to yield to him two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. woodall: as we talk about the president's jobs bill, i was here when the president presented his ideas and it kind of excited me, because as i look at where the president began on these jobs issues and what has been proposed, i realize how much progress we were able to make. i think about the president's proposal to eliminate oil company subsidies.

the proposal i support. i have a bill that eliminates all industrial oil subsidies so we can create those jobs. i think about the president's proposal to curtail the payroll tax and we have a proposal that does not only curtail the payroll tax to the small degree the president recommends but it's the largest tax 80% pay, eliminate it entirely. not om do we have that, i'm limited two minutes, if my friend from new york would like to me yield me time, i would yield that back. but my friend knows not only do we have that proposal introduced, but we have had hearings on it in the ways and means committee. we are moving forward. we are moving forward on those ajeopardy as. but let me just talk about why we are here tonight. if i could get some time from my friend from new york. i would like to agree with you

and i wanted to tell you how we are headed on the same track. but let's talk about the continuing resolution, despite the fact that folks bring it up. this is about getting disaster relief to families that need it. and we could have gotten it done yesterday and even though i'm new at this process, i thought we had an agreement to get it done yesterday. i thought we had an agreement because it was the right thing to do to get it done yesterday. now, only folks who are more privy than i know why that agreement came unglued but we are back here tonight and have that opportunity. please, please, let's get it done for those folks who need it. the time has long since past. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: don't forget that

48 on your side voted against it. i don't know what agreement you had with them. i would be happy to yield. mr. andrews: i would like to ask a question, would the gentleman agree we should have an up and down vote on the president's plan? mr. woodall: i don't like those complicated bills. but should we vote on those ideas, one idea at the time, america would have loved -- mr. andrews: is that a yes or no? mr. woodall: let's vote on it one at a time. not just his ideas. mr. andrews: would the gentleman vote for the tax cuts for small businesses that create jobs if they hire someone? mr. woodall: it is a tax increase. mr. andrews: reclaiming my time, the president's plan was a small business that gets -- creates jobs would get a tax cut.

is that a yes or no on that idea? mr. woodall: i will vote for any reduction incorporate rates. mr. andrews: does the gentleman favor the provision that says we should put teachers hove laid off back into the classroom? mr. woodall: i do and we are doing that today. mr. andrews: would the gentleman agree we should use federal funds for that purpose? mr. woodall: i don't believe the federal government should be engaged in that. mr. andrews: i disagree. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentlelady from new york seek to yield time? ms. slaughter: apparently i don't. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves. mr. dreier: i'm prepared to close on our side. and move to a vote on the rule and then move directly for consideration of the appropriations bill so the american people will be closer to getting the resources they

desperately need. ms. slaughter: my speaker has arrived. mr. crowley of new york and we yield three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized for three minutes. mr. crowley: i'm not opposed to keeping my government up and running and i want to support a bill as simple as keeping the federal government up and running. what i'm opposed to is ugly partisan politics when americans want to work together to address the serious problems that we are all facing. but bipartisan is not at work here tonight and it has not been here for some time. since president obama announced the americans jobs act, my colleagues on the other side have not held a single hearing on that plan. since the company announced it was going out of business, they have held three hearings and more to come.

we should get the answer, every answer about its failings, but i'm sorry, that is not a comprehensive agenda that will produce one single job. time is ticking, because while we stand here tonight quib willing about how to pay for the day-to-day functions of government and how to assist communities hurting after hurricanes, droughts, tornadoes and wildfires, europe and china are trying to outcompete us on every front. president obama and the democratic party have a plan for keeping the u.s. competitive on the global stage. we have a plan for keeping american businesses, workers stronger. it's democrats who are engaged and saved gm and chrysler and vehicle manufacturing loan program, a program that has created 40,000 auto manufacturing jobs in less than two years and democrats who have

led the way on green energy. by contrast the g.o.p. agenda can be summed up in one road, roadblock. not road building, but roadblock. they oppose trying to put detroit back on its feet. they are opposed to bringing president obama's bill to the floor and the very bill we are debating right now, they are making cuts to the manufacturing program that i just cited. my colleagues, there are americans who are hurting. they have lost jobs. been foreclosed upon and endured extreme natural disasters of all kinds. they cannot accept a congress that isn't willing to put them first. they cannot accept a congress that insists on offsets to rebuild america but not for aid for schools, hospitals and roads

in afghanistan. they cannot accept a congress that holds more hearings on the failure of one company, but not one hearing on a job plan for america. i'm sorry, but this is not acceptable. vote know on this bill and reject the g.o.p.'s roadblock agenda. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: i'm prepared to close the debate on our side. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: i would like to yield one minute to the gentlelady from ohio, ms. capture. ms. kaptur: i thank you for granting me the time. someone suggested to me that the republican party would like to defeat president obama by raising the unemployment rate. i thought that's too cynical to really believe, but in this particular proposal tonight, what we see is a proposal by the republican party to take money

from the advanced technology vehicle manufacturing program to help america compete with state-managed economies like china and japan and take it away from them to try to give to disaster victims around this country. it's a no-win game. we are hurting the american people and the greatest auto manufacturing country in the world. we don't want to put people back to work because we want to defeat the president next year? i'm starting to believe those who suggested that cynical employ ploy? why should we hurt the auto industry that is starting to help the economy. vote no on this cynical ploy to set disaster victims against unemployed auto workers, which has a right to compete. i yield back.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: i yield one minute to ms. pelosi. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california is recognized. ms. pelosi: i thank the gentlelady for yielding and i thank her for her leadership, patience and great intellect that she brings to bear on these issues. and listening to the debate, it's hard to explain to someone why we are coming back with the same old, same old warmed-over stew that was rejected by the congress of the united states. but since then, we have had some support expressed for the initiatives that is contained in this bill and against the notion that our republican colleagues have as a good idea to use this

as a pay life for. it's this provision that the republicans are trying to zero out. the advanced technology vehicle manufacturing program. you will recall, mr. dreier, that it was part of a bill that was passed when president bush was passed. it was the energy independence and security act of 2007. it was a bill that passed the congress with strong bipartisan support, including your support, mr. dreier. in fact 95 republicans voted for the bill split from the republican caucus. but you recall voting for that. mr. dreier: would the gentlewoman yield? ms. pelosi: no, i would not. she has mentioned me three times. ms. pelosi: order in the house.

order in the house, mr. speaker. the gentleman has all the time. republicans aren't showing their faces on the floor for this amendment so he has plenty of time on this bill, plenty of time to speak. if he didn't, i would be more than happy to yield to him. but since he has so much time on his own, he can use that. in any event, here's the thing. we have an initiative that is bipartisan. we have an initiative that has passed the house in overwhelming numbers, 314 to 100 that passed the house. and after coming back from the senate. yesterday, there was an attempt made to use the funds allocated to the advanced technology vehicle manufacturing program to offset the disaster assistance. i, myself, believe it is a matter of principle that we

should do with disaster assistance what we have always done, have no doubt in anyone's mind when a natural disaster strikes, the federal government will be there. fema will be funded and that we don't have to look around for a place to say, let's prioritize. no. the disaster assistance is our priority. . on top of that they use as a pay-for, zeroing out the advanced technology vehicle manufacturing. i don't want you to take my words for the merit of this initiative, i want to enter into a record the letter from the national association of manufacturers and the united states of america chamber of commerce. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. pelosi: thank you. as congress sets spending priorities the chamber wishes to highlight a few important facts, important facts about the advanced technology vehicle manufacturing loan program.

this is from the chamber of commerce. first the program was authorized in the energy independence security act of 2007 which was supported by both democrats and republicans as an important step in reducing america's dependence on oil from unstable regimes. second, atmvm loans which -- atmv lobe -- atvm loans incentivize suppliers to build more fuel efficient vehicles in the united states, providing opportunities for american workers in a sector of the economy that is critical to the nation's recovery. and then goes on to say that this is -- they go on to say that this is funded by the department of education. and it's not the fault of industry, if the funds have not been used. in the national association of manufacturers they say similarly, we express our supported for advanced

technology vehicle manufacturing program, authorized under the energy independence and security act of 2007 with bipartisan support and signed -- signed into law by president obama. it was a very proud day for us. when president bush signed this bill. it made tremendous advances in energy efficiency and conservation. it was a great accomplishment of the bush administration and a democratic congress working together but the bill passed in strong bipartisan fashion. now, mentioned that was signed by president obama. the atvm program is an example of what government-industry partnerships can accomplish. it has helped create and preserve thousands of auto sector jobs and put our nation on a path to a greater energy security. the national association of manufacturers believes defunding atvm will hurt manufacturers and their employees. i'll submit the rest of the

letters for the record so members can read further for themselves in the congressional record and for all who view the work of congress, they can see the importance of these initiatives. first by the strong bipartisan support that they received in a democratically controlled congress but signed by a republican president, president bush. a very major accomplishment, i think he believes. now the second point, though, is that again, the american people are looking for a way for us to create jobs. republicans have been in power in this congress, in this house of representatives, for over 250 days, they have not passed one bill into law which is a job creator and today they come back to the floor, a second day in a row, with a job destroyer. with a job destroyer. the repetition of it is almost

frivolous when you think that what we could be talking about here is a continuing -- a clean c.r., a clean continuing resolution that will meet our needs until november 18, is that it, mr. chairman? and then -- and i thank chairman dicks for his leadership on this important issue, mr. levin, certainly mr. dingell who was a champion of this initiative from day one and a leader in the fight to preserve it here. it could just have been so simple, let's just keep government open until november 18, with a clean continuing resolution, instead of coming to the floor and for the first time, now my colleagues will say, we've had other emergencies that were funded. i'm not talking about emergencies. there are many emergencies. i'm talking about disasters. i'm talking about natural disasters when people's homes are swept away. this isn't political, this is

very, very personal. if you've lost your home, your belongings, your livelihoods, your business, your sense of community, the character of the area in which you live, as many of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle have done, when you see the nature of the natural disasters, whether it's out of control forest fires in texas, what happened in joplin, missouri, which is almost biblical in its proportion, and what happened on east coast, earthquake followed by hurricane followed by tornado followed by bloods, floods and all that goes with -- floods and all that goes with it. you think people think we have any relevance to their lives if we're talking about something like this when all they are saying is, help? it's as if a building is on fire and you've got to figure out who's going to pay for the water instead of just running to the rescue. just running to the rescue. i urge my colleagues to vote no on this and urge my republican

colleagues to please pull this back, bring a clean c.r. to the floor. let's get serious about the people's business. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. -- the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: i yield myself as much time as i consume and i'm happy to yield to my colleague any moment. i asked her to yield, mr. speaker, because she three times referenced me as it relates to the vehicle program. the advanced technology vehicle program. let me just explain what we're faced with today, mr. speaker. what we're faced with is a challenge of ensuring that we get the resources necessary to the american people who are suffering because of these disasters. now, when my california colleague was speaker of the house, we had disasters that took place, like hurricane katrina. much of that was offset. so to act as if this is unprecedented is not a correct characterization of what has

happened. because we have seen offsets for disasters in the past on numerous occasions over the last decade in excess of $59 billion in offsets provided for supplemental appropriations that have been out there. as it relates to the advanced technology vehicle program, i was going to say to my california colleague who is no longer on the floor and i'd like to yield to her if she would like to come back to respond to this, there is a total of $4 billion that is there. what we're doing is utilizing $1.5 billion so as people say that this program is being completely eliminated, that is not a correct characterization of what has happened. let me tell you what it is we're doing, mr. speaker. we're doing everything that we can to find every dollar that we possibly can to ensure that our fellow americans who are suffering due to these disasters are able to have the resources that are necessary. of the $1.5 billion which is utilized in the offset, it's been sitting in the coughers for

three years. for three years, mr. speaker, so to act as if we somehow are going to see some great loss of jobs is again a mischaracterization of what is happening. we're establishing priorities. we have a priority, that being dealing with our fellow americans in joplin, missouri, who suffered from that horrible, horrible tornado that hit that area. that's my home state of missouri. i know how devastating and listening to our colleague, mr. long, it's very clear to see in his eyes the kind of effort that he's put in to deal with the rebuilding there. that is a priority. dealing with the photographs that we saw from mr. welch's district who voted for this bill yesterday and i suspect will vote for it again this evening, to ensure that those who suffered from flooding in vermont have that. and as i said earlier in the day , our new colleague, tom marino, from pennsylvania, who just in the past several days was trudging through the mud as he reported to my colleagues in our

meeting downstairs, talking to the parents of children who were literally sitting on the hoods of their automobiles because their homes had been devastated and the question asked by that parent to congressman marino is, what is it you're going to do? he said he would come to washington and do everything that he possibly can. everything that he would be able to do to ensure that they have the resources they need. now to argue this is pitting -- a fund that has been sitting dormant for three years and is not in the pipeline versus utilization of those resources for the american people who are suffering is a very inappropriate thing to do. so that was a discussion that i was looking forward to having with my california colleague. mr. levin: will the gentleman yield? mr. dreier: she talked about my support for the advanced technology vehicle program. of course i'm always happy to yield to my good friend from detroit. mr. levin: look, no one is

saying the total program would be obliterated. mr. dreier: if i could reclaim my time, i can tell you what was said. mr. speaker, may i reclaim my time? because the gentleman just said no one is saying that. i'm sure that my friend was not here through the entire debate -- mr. levin: i was. mr. dreier: i don't know that my friend was listening through the entire -- mr. levin: i was. mr. dreier: mr. speaker, may i finish, mr. speaker? what i want to say is that we were told that we on our side of the aisle are declaring war, declaring war by the statement made by our friends from massachusetts and from that one would have to infer that we were trying to obliterate a program. when we, mr. speaker, have three years of those dollars sitting dormant, not being expended and not in the pipeline, we believe that we can utilize those dollars for the american people who are truly in need, we need to move ahead with that, as expeditiously as possible, and i think that we should try to do

that right now, get to the appropriation bill and with that i reserve the balance of my time. mr. levin: will you yield me 30 seconds? ms. slaughter: i'm sorry, mr. levin, i don't have any more time. we're prepared to close. mr. speaker -- mr. levin: would the gentleman -- could i ask the gentleman from california -- how much time is there on both sides, please? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california has 10 1/2 minutes and the gentlelady from new york has 3 1/2 minutes. the gentlelady from new york. mr. levin: will the gentleman from california yield to me? the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes -- mr. dreier: mr. speaker, i'll yield myself -- let me yield myself one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. levin: no one has said that the program would be eliminated. what we have said is what the manufacturers association has said. it believes defunding atvm will hurt manufacturers and their

employees. there are applications -- mr. dreier: mr. speaker, may i reclaim my time? mr. levin: for every single dollar. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california -- mr. levin: you don't want to hear the facts. mr. dreier: mr. speaker, i've heard it three times read on the house floor. we've had the debate earlier today, it was read by our colleagues, mr. speaker, i've heard this three times on the house floor. what i want to say is that we've had, for three years, the dollars that we're utilizing for the offset sitting dormant. mr. levin: not true. mr. dreier: it is not in the -- it is true. and it is not in the pipeline to be expended, mr. speaker. and so for that reason i believe the people of joplin, missouri, can better utilize dollars that have been sitting for three years for absolutely no purpose whatsoever. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlelady from new york is recognized to close. ms. slaughter: mr. speaker, if we defeat the previous question at the end of the debate i will offer an amendment to the rule, to ensure the disaster victims get the help that they need. my amendment will allow representative dingell to offer a motion to strike, the

unacceptable house language and substitute the bipartisan senate approach and i yield three of my minutes to mr. dingell of michigan. mr. dingell: ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. dingell: well, here we are again. yesterday the house rebuked the republicans because they came forward with almost as bad a bill as this. they were going to destroy as they are tonight the advanced technology motor vehicle manufacturing program. one of the most successful programs we've had, made 40,000 jobs for americans. at a time when americans are losing their homes, losing their jobs, running out of unemployment compensation, they wanted to hear us say what we're doing about jobs, what we're doing about opportunity. what we're doing about making the economy go. so the republicans, when they got their heads handed to them yesterday, went back to caucus and made the bill a little bit worse so that they could appeal

to their right wing extremes. and the result is that you got a bill here that's broadcast, that nobody's had an opportunity to see, and a bill on which we haven't got any idea exactly what it does. we hear our good friend from california tell us how the private system of government is working and he says it's working in china. because they've got -- the chinese have asked g.m. to work with them to manufacture cars over there so they can sell them over here. we said that we ought to be manufacturing those cars over here with american workers to sell them in china. and in other countries and they're playing the same game with us. this is an enormously successful program and so they're submitting their successes of yesterday by trying now to cut other programs which do this. they're talking about cylindra. cylindra went broke for a very simple reason. i sat in the hearings. i don't think many other members did. and i heard that the reason they

went under was the trade practices of the chinese. that's why they're underselling, despite of the fact that we tried to bring that technology over here and make it work for the mesh people, to provide jobs -- american people, to provide jobs to the american people. you know, my republican colleagues are making the war between the american workers and american industry on the one side and those who have need of relief for the disasters. . that's not good. we should help. there is no need to have an offset for a disaster and time after time, we have not done it. but not so, the republicans. they want to kill the department of energy programs. these are programs that create jobs. take a look in your district and if they'll give you a copy of this bill and ask, what are they

cutting that is in your district or your state that is going to make an opportunity for your people. and you have to find if this legislation passes, god for delip -- forbid it does so, the american looks to make the economy go again. you are taking and striking it against the economy and well-being of this nation. shame. reject the bill and reject the previous question and reject the proposal. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: the gentlewoman got up to offer closing remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired.

mr. dreier: mr. speaker -- ms. slaughter: don't i have 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady has 30 seconds. ms. slaughter: which i would be happy to use right now. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for 30 seconds. ms. slaughter: i ask to insert extraneous material and ask my colleagues to vote no and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. mr. dreier: i simply say to my colleagues we are here for a very important reason and the reason is we want to make sure that we don't face a government shutdown and make sure we do everything we can so the people in this country who have suffered from disasters over the past several weeks and months are able to have the resources

they need to do that and we want to make sure we do it in a fiscally responsible way so we can do what every democrat and republican says needs to be done so we can get our economy growing and put in job growth, job creation proposals and i believe we can do that and do it responsibly. and i will say this is the identical package we had last night with one modification. and that one modification is to ensure with all due respect to my friend, the distinguished dean of this house that we don't have another company. regardless of what some have said was the cause of their demise. employees said they were spending money left and right and using it on some of the most outrageous things unimaginable

and why they built a factory when they had all of these resources in reserve. this cannot be allowed. it's not a responsible expenditure of taxpayer dollars and this money can be used for the people truly in need. and i yield back and i move the previous question. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on ordering the previous question. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. >> i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring the vote will rise. pursuant to clause 9 rule 20, the chair will reduce to five minutes on the question of adoption. 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.] tempore: on this

vote the yeas are 235, the nays are 177, the previous question

is ordered. the question is on adoption of the resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. ms. slaughter: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a five-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

the speaker pro tempore: the yeas are 238 and the nays are 176, the resolution is adopted and without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table.

the house will be in order. the house will be in order. for what purpose does the gentleman from kentucky seek recognition? mr. rogers: i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on h.r. 2608. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. so ordered. mr. rogers: i call up the bill h.r. 2608, with a senate amendment thereto and have a motion. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill.

the clerk: h.r. 2608, an act to provide for an additional temporary extension of programs under the small business act and the small business investment act of 1958 and for other purposes. senate amendment, mr. rogers of kentucky moves that the house concur in the senate amendment in h.r. 2608 with a senate amendment. the speaker pro tempore: the motion shall be debatable for one hour and equally divided by the chair and ranking member. the gentleman from kentucky, mr. rogers and the gentleman from washington, mr. dicks, each will control 30 minutes. the house will be in order first the house will be in order. the chair recognizes the gentleman from kentucky. mr. rogers: i yield myself such time as i may consume. i rise tonight to bring to the floor the continuing

appropriations resolution to keep the federal government operating until november 18, 2011. before you is a slightly amended version of the bill, which is necessary after last night's vote. i hope that my colleagues recognize the urgency of this situation and will join me in taking the responsible step and support this c.r. this bill must pass -- may we have order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. the house will be in order. the gentleman -- will members in the back of the chamber please take their conversations to the cloakroom. the gentleman from kentucky. mr. rogers: this bill must pass if we are going to keep our word to the american people. we need to get help to americans who need it most, those who lost their homes and businesses to

the unforgiving natural disasters. fema is rapidly burning through its emergency funding and its ability to help those people recover from tornadoes, earthquakes, and wildfires. right now, at this minute, fema had $200 million left in the coffer and spending at the rate of $30 million a day for disaster relief. at this rate, they will be out of money over the weekend. this infusion of funding, $1 billion in emergency fiscal year 2011 disaster funding and $2.65 billion for fiscal 2012 is critical. i can't stress that enough. and it will go far to relieve the burdens of those who are in need tonight. this version of the bill creates

an additional offset to the fiscal 2011 fiscal funding and the offset from the vehicle loan program, we are rescinding $111 million from the innovative loan guarantee program a section of the failed stimulus act that funded solyndra. the c.r. continues government operations at a rate of $1 ,043,000,00 and it's on the law books of the country. this reduced responsible rate will help restore our nation's fiscal health. it's vital that congress pass this legislation as swiftly as possible. we must prevent a government shutdown and we have to

replenish exhausted disaster recovery funds, which will dry up over the weekend. and just as importantly, we need time to complete work on the fiscal year 2012 appropriations legislation so we can avoid the uncertainty and instability that we saw last year when it took us until april to complete full year appropriations' legislation. i urge my colleagues to vote for this bill, not only to keep the government running and help hundreds of thousands of americans relying on us to help them get back on their feet all across the country. i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the house will be in order. the gentleman from washington. mr. dicks: mr. speaker, i yield myself as much time as i may consume. mr. speaker, i know as well as

anyone that members change their minds. i have heard a lot about that the last couple of days, but here we are debating essentially the same bill that we voted on yesterday. many republicans who voted no last night did so because they believed $1.043 trillion is too much spending. the bill spends $1.043 trillion. i will be the first to say every member is to change his or her mind. however, i'm eager to hear my republican colleagues who voted no yesterday answer why it is ok to vote yes today. and i hope these members will not hang their hat on the one if anything leaf of change in the bill. the bill insludes recision in emergency funding from section from the d.o.e. loan program,

recision of emergency funds does not score as a reduction from the $1.043 trillion. democrats voted no. we strongly oppose taking funding from the advanced technology vehicle manufacturing program. this is a program that has proven to be a success in creating new jobs, and such a success that the national association of manufacturers and the chamber of commerce of the united states have both called upon the congress to not cut out this program because one, it's -- the money is repaid and it is creating jobs, something the majority has not done in the months that they have been in the majority. this is a jobs program. we strongly oppose the notion at efforts to help americans rebuild their lives after floods, hurricanes, wildfires

and other natural disasters should be put on hold until congress can agree on offsets in reduction in spending. we will continue to vote no because it requires an offset to provide disaster relief funding and that offset is misguided. they take $1.5 billion from the advanced technology vehicle program at the department of energy to pay for $1 billion in disaster relief. the advanced technology relief program was started in 2008 to re-invigorate american manufacturing. it was awarded $3.5 billion to promote advanced energy and component parts. 9 department of energy estimates the loan guarantees have created or maintained 39,000 jobs in california, delaware, illinois,

indiana, kentucky, kentucky, kentucky, ohio, ohio, ohio, michigan, missouri and tennessee. some have suggested that this program has been slow to spend emergency funding provided in the f.y. 2000 c.r. the loan process ought to be strenuous. one company originally applied in 2006 and received an a.t.v. loan in 2010 and required four years of due diligence and reviewed to qualify for the loan. republicans seem to be shoing an ultimate umh. expedite the review process. by the way, the company in question employed 400 employees before receiving the loan. today they have 1,400 employees in the field of engineering research and development,

design, manufacturing, assembly, maintenance and service, sales and support. the program has an additional 18 loan applications in progress that are projected to create 50,000 to 60,000 more jobs in california, florida, illinois, indiana, louisiana, michigan, missouri and ohio. one pending application would support investments at 11 plants in illinois, indiana, michigan and ohio. the company employs over 56,000 workers having added 9,000 new workers in 2009. some of these jobs will be at risk because of this offset. this is not the time to put american manufacturing jobs at risk. and that is why the national association of manufacturers expressed their support for the program in a letter to the

senate dated september 223 noting that the program is an example of what government industry partners can accomplish and has helped and create thousands of auto sector jobs. the n.a.m. believes the funding atvm will hurt manufacturers and their employees and the chamber of commerce agrees with them. now i think it's time to stay with our position and vote no and get a clean c.r. that's what i asked the committee to do. we need a clean c.r. and don't need this offset and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from kentucky. . mr. rogers: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from virginia, mr. wolf. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. wolf: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise in strong support of h.r. 2698, to provide the continuing resolution for the initial weeks

and i want to be sure that we keep the government open and by passing this bill we will keep the government open. this bill is needed to keep vital government services and programs operating past the end of the fiscal year on september 30. as the gentleman from kentucky has stated, the committee on appropriations has made great progress in moving 11 of the 12 annual bills. however, additional time is needed for the consideration of the other. this continuings remainlusion for anyone who questions it conforms to the spending reduction targets that were agreed to by the house, the senate and the white house. it's exactly the same number and so no reason to vote against this. specifically the bill sets an annual rate that reduces overall discretionary spending by $1.5 -- 1.5% from fiscal year 2011. in addition, the bill provides disaster funding to provide much-needed assistance to

individuals, communities suffering from hurricane and flood damage. the state of virginia has been hit as many others. i urge all my colleagues to vote for this bill. by voting for the bill we will keep the government open, the american people sometimes think this institution and this town is dysfunctional. we can assure that we can do our work, pass this bill. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington. mr. dicks: i yield four minutes to the gentleman from north carolina, the ranking member on the homeland security appropriations subcommittee and former chair, mr. price. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for four minutes. mr. price: mr. speaker, here we go again. just yesterday this continuing resolution failed because of widespread concerns with the plan to offset disaster relief funding from a key department of energy program. one day later we're having the exact same debate. the only thing that's changed is that the republican majority has decided this time to target two energy department programs

instead of one. when it failed yesterday, house republican leaders faced a basic decision. they could give up their efforts to hold disaster funding hostage to another partisan budget battle by removing the offset and passing the bill with a broad bipartisan majority. or they could make the measure even more extreme, in order to cater to the most radical members of their party, without concern for the fact that fema is just days away from running out of money and communities around the country are waiting desperately for the support that's been promised them. now anybody who's been watching this congress for the last eight months should not be the least surprised by the majority's decision. once again, republicans have put partisan ideology ahead of the dire needs of the american people and are risking yet another destabilizing standoff over spending cuts in the process. so now we're debating and you

martial law rule a bill that -- under a martial law rule a bill that is even worse than it was yesterday. it still seeks to pay for emergency disaster relief needs by taking money from a major job-creating program at the department of energy. as i said in this chamber yesterday, this is a radical departure from the way we have treated emergency disaster relief in the past. over the past 10 years congress has approved 16 supplementals that included emergency funding for fema disaster relief in response to disasters such as 9/11, katrina, rita, gustav and ike and floods on the mississippi, missouri and other rivers. none of these emergency appropriations for the disaster relief fund were paid for with cuts to other federal programs. yesterday i heard several of my friends on the other side of the aisle claim that we've offset disaster assistance numerous times over the past decade. this is simply not accurate. some of the supplemental bills that included disaster relief also included offsets.

these offsets were used to pay for entirely separate programs, never for fema's disaster relief fund. as i said yesterday, this instistence on offsets is bad precedent and it's bad policy. it leaves disaster-affected communities in the lurch while undermining our economic recovery, by cannibalizing an energy department program that stands to add tens of thousands of good-paying jobs in an industry critical to our future economic competitiveness. and it goes even further than that. by including a gratuitous and arbitrary rescission to another department of energy loan program, a change aimed at scoring political points against the president and winning tea party votes, but it has very little to do with balancing the budget or providing relief for those in need. moreover, rather than approving a bill that would win passage in the senate, we are now sending over a measure that the senate majority is on record opposing. causing more economic

uncertainty, risking yet another manufactured crisis. so, mr. speaker, i once again urge colleagues to oppose this measure, to support the senate's approach to disaster relief instead, which would fully fund fema's needs without holding them hostage to another partisan budget battle. i yield back the balance of my time. reserve the balance of my time, i'm sorry. reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman from washington -- the gentleman from washington controls the time. the gentleman from north carolina yields his time back. the gentleman from kentucky. mr. rogers: i yield two minutes to the chairman of the homeland security subcommittee on appropriations, the gentleman from alabama, mr. ard holt. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from alabama is recognized for two minutes. mr. aderholt: i thank the distinguished chair for yielding. mr. speaker, i rise in strong support of this must-pass resolution. this c.r. not only keeps the government operating but it provides a substantial infusion of desperately needed funding

totaling $3.65 billion for disaster relief and emergency flood control efforts. that's funding to sustain disaster relief efforts in hard-hit states all across this nation, including the devastation that hit my home state of alabama back in april of this year. that's funding to address the record flooding up and down the mississippi river and along the east coast resulting from hurricane irene. that's funding to help tens of thousands of people who have lost virtually everything but the shirts on their back. mr. speaker, the time for talk and the time for politicking is over. it's time to pass this vital resolution, provide our nation with necessary disaster relief funding, avert a government shutdown, allow congress to scrub the administration's full disaster supplemental request, provide the needed oversight and complete the work on the f.y. 2012 budget.

mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues to support this vital resolution and responsibly address our nation's most pressing needs. i thank the chairman for yielding 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 washington. mr. dicks: i yield four minutes to the distinguished gentleman from indiana, the ranking member of the energy and water appropriations subcommittee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from indiana is recognized for four minutes. >> i thank the gentleman for yielding and i rise in opposition to the measure. during debt bait on the rule on this measure, joplin, missouri, was mentioned quite often. but i would mention that there is an emergency as far as tuscaloosa, alabama's, concerned and iowa is concerned, cairo, illinois, is concerned, springfield, massachusetts, certainly joplin, missouri. mr. visclosky: smithfield, mississippi, states like vermont

, subsequent to the rains and floods of this spring we've had earthquake, we've had wildfires, we've had hurricanes. the current need of the army corps is about $2.257 billion so the first observation i would make is the offsets that are set aside in this bill are certainly inadequate to cover that amount. but there is a further emergency in this country and that is the fact that as of august of this year there were $13,967 -- 13,967,000 americans without work. in the year 2000, 8% of the people who live in a great state of indiana were living in poverty. today 16% of the people in the state of indiana are living in poverty. and for those we represent who are working today for one hour's

worth of their labor, they're making 53 cents less today in real purchasing power than they did in 1977. today there are 6,643,000 less americans working at manufacturing, making a living wage, than there were in 1977. so the response is, let's take $1.5 billion out of an investment account where there are still 10 pending applications to try to make cars in this country more efficiently, more fuel efficient and more desirable for consumers, but earlier tonight we heard, don't worry, the chinese are going to help our car companies with financing. i'm affronted by that possibility. that's why we need this $1.5 billion, so maybe we could still make cars in the united states of america without the help of

the chinese government. i think this is a wrong-headed approach. and then let's pile on, there's obviously a controversy about a solar company in california. i think perhaps it is a matter to be considered not only by oversight in the united states congress but the justice department. but that's not a decision for us to make if wrong doing has occurred. but you know what? let's take it out on somebody else. let's make sure there's not money available for other legitimate companies who are trying to increase jobs in this country and who are trying to reduce our dependency on foreign oil. that wasn't the response i saw in this body in 2008. we had the major financial institutions of this country drive our economy into the ground. did we ask them to give back their tax advantages? did we punish them in any way? we gave them money.

we gave them money. we should at least pick on somebody our own size. we didn't ask anybody in iraq or afghanistan whether or not they needed an offset for emergency money for schools, for hospitals, for bridges. the people in joplin, the people in vermont, the people in these other communities, they need our help now, traditionally we have recognized emergency, we have declared the emergency, we have helped them out. and when bill clinton was president of the united states we declared emergencies like this on three occasions, in 1998, 1999 and 2001. and we balanced the budget. i oppose this measure. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from kentucky. mr. rogers: i yield three minutes to a brand new member of this body, mr. speaker, mr. marino of pennsylvania. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for two minutes.

mr. rogers: mr. speaker, that's three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. marino: my father taught me a long time ago not to make a speech or give an opinion unless i thought it was an important. i think tonight it's important and i hope that you also think it's important. i would never question anyone's motive and ideals, however we are here tonight to meet the immediate needs of the people that we represent. this vote is not about politics, this vote is not about republicans or democrats. this vote is not about cut or not cut. this vote is about coming to the aid of the american people whom we represent. the people who have been devastated by floods, people

like friends and neighbors, seniors and children in the 10th congressional district of pennsylvania and on the east coast. it is heartbreaking and it is heart wrenching. you must see it firsthand to understand it. the federal government's main purpose is to protect its citizens from disaster, both from terrorism and from natural disasters. my staff and i stood in mud, waist and stagnant water over the last three weeks along with families who lost everything. furniture, clothes, photos, toys stacked out of their homes that were destroyed or condemned. if each of you stood where i stood, i know in my heart that because you are compassionate, this bill would have been passed by now. i tried to comfort children who were sitting in cars or on car

rooftops and in truck bets -- beds because they could not get into their home that was condemned and filled with the same stagnant mud and water and waste and snakes that were outside their homes. i talked to grown men that were crying because their homes were destroyed and asked me, where am i going to safely put my family tonight? a little girl not more than 8 years old asked me, where -- asked me where she was going to sleep because she no longer had her bed and her bedroom in which she and her sister slept. . seniors were trapped because the first floor was flooded. small businesses were completely wiped out. i plead with you, i implore you, i breg you to pass this -- i beg

you to pass this flood relief for people who do not have the basic comforts that we have. the american people are depending on us to get a hand up and they deserve our immediate attention. mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from washington. mr. dicks: mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to the ranking member of the commerce, justice, science subcommittee, mr. fattah of pennsylvania. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for two minutes. mr. fattah: if we could have a vote, every member of this chamber would cast a vote in the affirmative. what we are asking to do tonight is choose between tens of thousands of jobs for americans who desperately need them and a limited amount of disaster relief.

that is not a fair choice. and i guess the majority wasn't happy with the polling that showed only 12% of the public think congress is doing a good job and we are trying to get into the single digits. what we need to do is to do our work. now, this isn't a program where ford motor company borrowed $4.9 million to put people to work in michigan, illinois, kentucky, missouri and ohio. this is a program that's working that taxpayer money is paid back through the loan guarantees. national association of manufacturers in today's national journal says that we now as we have, lead the world in manufacturing, with 21% of globally manufactured products. but china is now in second place

at 15 and japan has dropped to third at 12. why would we want to concede our leadership in this world in manufacturing? the republican decade in the bush white house, we lost 350,000 manufacturing jobs. saw tens of jobs closed down in our nation. now this administration, people talk about the number in august, but let's look at the entire 20 months of the obama recovery. 2. billion less, by increases consistently in manufacturing. i ask that we reject this c.r. and hope the majority would come to the house with an approach that would respond to the disasters we face without asking us to put more americans out of work. thank you. mr. rogers: i yield three

minutes to the gentlelady from missouri for three minutes. ms. emerson: mr. speaker, i rise in support of the resolution. it is a responsible measure. it makes good on the promises we must keep to members of our military, to our veterans and to americans who rely upon the essential functions of the federal government. it cares for the needs of millions of americans who have suffered from the effects of drafmentic natural disasters, including the folks in my state of missouri who live in joplin and live along the mississippi, who live along the missouri river in the northern part of our state. these folks can't wait another day for help because people are

playing politics with this bill. the house and the appropriations committee are dedicated to a responsible process and this bill reflects the amount of time needed to complete that work. i think we've realized this year on both sides of the aisle that we have to bring the size and spending of the federal government into line with reality. in hearings and markups that we have conducted in the house and in the negotiations to make specific and significant spending cuts not only this year but also in the next 10 and through the budget process, we have laid the groundwork for a new era of stewardship for taxpayer dollars. in addition to our covenant with the military and families depending on us and for americans who are really

suffering from true emergencies who have devastated their homes like mr. marineo said and besides this, we have a responsibility to the american taxpayer to future generations who cringe at the size of our debt and our deficit. mr. speaker, this allows us to work in good faith and make good on our promises and responsibilities and i urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to once again put politics aside and support this bill tonight. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. mr. dicks: how much time does both sides have? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington has 14 1/2 minutes and the gentleman from kentucky has 18 minutes left. mr. dicks: i yield myself such

time as i may utilize. today was a dramatic day on the stock market. the dow jones dropped 500 points because investors are worried that we are headed into a second recession. and what do we get from the majority party is to cut out a bill -- cut out a program that creates jobs. it's already created the advanced technology vehicle manufacturing program and already created 39,000 jobs and going to create another 39,000 with the 2.5 billion and what we are taking out of there would create another 10,000 jobs. the only way we are going to get unemployment down is to put people back to work. and here we are again, after savaging all these other

programs, cutting people out of the public sector, we are going to cut out automobile jobs. let me read what the national association of manufacturers which isn't an organ of the democratic party. it is the largest trade association in the united states, representing over 11,000 small, medium and large manufacturers in all 50 states. we are the leading voice for the manufacturing economy, which provide millions of jobs in the u.s. 2/3 of our members are small businesses, which serve as the engine for job growth. our mission is to enhance the competitiveness of manufacturers and approve american living standards by shaping a legislative and regulatory environment conducive to economic growth. it is write ig to express its

support for the program. this is the program that we are taking $1.45 billion authorized under the energy and security act of 2007, with bipartisan support and signed into law by prarb. the atvm program is an example of what industry partnerships can accomplish. it has preserved thousands of auto sector jobs and put our nation on a path of greater energy security. we believe defunding will hurt manufacturers and employees. if you had to go out and find a business group in this country that has more credibility, i don't know what it would be. it's the national association of manufacturers. the chamber of commerce, which is not an organ of the democratic party, it says as congress sets spending priorities, the chamber wishes

to highlight porl facts about the loan program. the loan program was supported by both republicans and democrats as an important step on reducing america's dependence on oil. second, atvm loans, which will be repaid with interest and incentivize to build more fuel-efficient vehicles in the u.s., providing new opportunities for american workers in a and use the funds appropriated for the program is not the fault of industry. loan applications have been in the pipeline waiting for it to complete its due diligence and that line started in the previous administration. so this is a jobs program.

i say to the gentleman from pennsylvania, we want to take of those people with disasters. we want to take care of them. we also want to provide jobs for americans who are unemployed. if i were in your shoes, i would support jobs for workers and also take care of those people who are suffering because of the disasters. these are republican-leaning organizations. they get it. just vote no and let's get a clean bill and do the right thing for the country. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from kentucky. mr. rogers: i yield three minutes to the chairman of the interior appropriations subcommittee, mr. simpson. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. simpson: i love listening to the gentleman from washington's

debate. if the gentleman wants to create jobs in this country, we can create hundreds of thousands, if not millions of jobs if we'll start getting oil drilling back in the gulf. we can -- the gentleman talked about -- the gentleman talked about not being rely ant on oil. there are rigs in the coast of africa because they can't get permitted in the gulf. join us on that and let's create millions of jobs. the gentleman talked about -- he doesn't understand how people could change their vote. people actually sometimes learn more information and decide that they were wrong the time before and now they'll change their vote, just like some people on that side of the aisle who issue press releases saying they were going to support this c. rmple,

changed their mind. that's ok. >> would the gentleman yield? mr. simpson: i would be happy to yield. i listened. reclaiming my time. reclaiming my time. mr. simpson: i rise in support of this continuing resolution and vital to keep our government in the next seven weeks. it is worth reminding members that this c.r. reduces spending from last year's enacted levels and saves taxpayers billions of dollars. voting against this c.r. is a vote for more spending. if you want to reduce government spending, you should vote for this c.r. it's pretty simple, fema's coffers are about to run dry and no such thing as a republican natural disaster or democrat natural disaster.

the congress shouldn't hold up disaster assistance and we need to get relief to those in need as quickly as humanly possible. i have to tell you in all honesty. i'm not one of those people who believes we have to offset every emergency. we have done some in the past. but in the past we have not had a $14 trillion deficit. that's the danger to this country, $14 trillion deficit and the $1.6 trillion we add to it every damn year. now, i got to admit in is only a billion dollars. i heard one member say it was nickels and dimes. in idaho, it isn't nickels and dimes. we didn't get into this situation a trillion dollars, but got here a million and

billion dollars at a time and that's how we will get out of this situation. but let's do our job and do what's right for the country and get this deficit under control and if we can offset it, let's offset. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will remind the members to refrain from using pro fan ti on the floor of the house. the gentleman from washington. mr. dicks: i yield four minutes to the distinguished ranking member, mr. markey of massachusetts. . mr. markey: this is not a debate over compassion. this is not a debate over who cares more about the people in joplin or the people in vermont. that -- mr. dicks: there are people over on both sides who are not conducting them in a

parliamentary fashion. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. markey: this is a debate about what the republicans, what the tea party has decided to use as an excuse, as a guise to finish off the revolution that the democrats had put in place that changes our relationship where we get our energy from. big oil and big coal have fought solar, wind, all electric vehicles, biomass, geothermal, that entire revolution because they know that it will eat into their profits. and so a disaster occurs that each of us wants to respond to.

the republicans responding to the oil and coal industry said, this is our chance to kill the revolution that makes it possible to have vehicles go 50, 60, 80, 100 miles a gallon without oil, no oil. that makes it possible for us to have wind and solar generate the electricity that will fuel those vehicles, without sending greenhouse gases up into the atmosphere which is changing our climate and leading to these storms, leading to these floods, leading to these disasters, that they need fema, need the relief that we give to these families. so they take the chance, they take the opportunity to kill the very programs which are the solution to these disasters which are being created here in

our country and around the world. the agenda of big oil and big coal. and temerity of it all is that they know that the automotive program has already created 39,000 jobs in our country over the last three years and that this one cut that they're talking about tonight will kill 10,000 jobs over the next year. in the solar industry, and by the way they cut out $100 million in solar and wind guarantees as well. right now, ladies and gentlemen, there are 85,000 jobs in the wind industry, almost all of them created in the last four years. there are 85,000 jobs in the coal industry. in other words, in the last five years wind now equals the entire coal industry. there are 100,000 jobs in the solar industry and last year we

were a net exporter to china, 100,000 jobs in solar. 85,000 jobs in wind. and it is the future, the oil industry laid off 20,000 employees over the last three years. let us talk here about the future, about young people, about this planet, about backing up the oil from opec so we can tell them we don't need their oil anymore than we need their sand. that's what this debate is about tonight. and under the guise with these congress dial tears of how much they care -- crocodile tears of how much they care about the victims, as though it's any greater than on our side, they use it as the guise to kill these programs. that's what it's all about tonight. that's why we're angry. that's what this is all about. and we resent -- i yield to the gentleman from washington state. mr. dicks: isn't it true that these alternative energy programs all create jobs? i yield him one additional

minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. dicks: don't they create jobs, these alternative energy programs? so instead of just having the automobile program that creates jobs cut by $1.5 billion, now they're taking $100 million out of another program that creates jobs for the american people. so this is a double header. mr. markey: yeah. they could have taken this money out of the $41 billion worth of tax breaks for the oil and gas industry, but, no, they take it out of solar, they take it out of wind. and by the way, wind and solar were the same amount of money but creates five times more jobs than investment in fossil fuels does so they keep the money in for the programs that create three to five times less jobs than the programs they are kneecapping here this evening. that's what this vote is all about. under the guise -- i would be more than willing to yield to the gentleman.

mr. rogers: is solyndra part of the revolution that the gentleman's talking about? mr. markey: they will receive no money under this program. who will receive the money? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. dicks: i yield 15 seconds. the program was started under the previous administration, under the bush administration. the last day they tried to force it out, to have it approved, and it was turned down by the good staff of the department of energy. mr. markey: they will not receive a nickel under this program. the oil and gas industry will receive that money. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from kentucky. the gentleman from kentucky. mr. rogers: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from florida, mr. diaz-balart, a valued member of our committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida voiced for two minutes. mr. diaz-balart: thank you, mr. speaker. what the previous gentleman did not say is that solyndra received $500 million because

they have friends in high places, despite even people in this administration said, don't do it, they received $500 million. if that was in a different country we wouldn't call it waste, we would call it corruption. but we won't do that here. the gentleman didn't say that, he talked about the revolution. this cuts $100 million from a program that gain of because of influence, because of friends in high places, because of bundlers of campaign contribution funds to a corporation that went bankrupt and laid off 1,000 people after receiving that money. mr. dicks: will the gentleman yield? mr. diaz-balart: of course. mr. dicks: one of the largest investors was wal-mart and wal-mart has a long history of supporting republican candidates. and i'll just say, i'll just say, they've invested i think $300 million or $400 million. there was a lot of private

sector investment here, too. mr. diaz-balart: i reclaim my time. mr. dicks: i appreciate it. mr. diaz-balart: despite what you say, sir, despite what the gentleman says, mr. speaker, the previous president, administration, denied the funding for solyndra because they knew it was a scam, regardless of anything elts. this administration did that -- else this administration did that. the reason we have to support this c.r., let's put politics aside, let's not talk about revolutions of money blown like stimulus money that was blown. the reason this c.r. makes sense is because there are people who are suffering from natural disasters, this c.r. funs that program, it helps them out. the reason this is important is because it controls the size and the cost of the federal government that is totally out of control. so no more gimmicks. no more giveaways to friends of friends because high pressure, let's pass the c.r. so we can keep the government rolling, so we can slow down the growth of government and so we can help the victims without corruption

and friends in high places. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from washington. the gentleman from washington. mr. dicks: i continue to reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from kentucky. mr. rogers: mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from pennsylvania, a valued member of our committee, mr. dent. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for two minutes. mr. dent: thank you, mr. speaker. i too rise in support of this continuing resolution. that will fund the government through november 18. it takes care of many of our disaster needs. as you heard from my colleague so eloquently, mr. marino of pennsylvania, you heard about the plight of so many people in towns who are living in the front yard, in the cars. people are broken. communities have been ruined. and so we need to pass this bill. i urge you to support this bill and, you know, i've heard a lot of talk tonight about

manufacturing. my dad's family spent 100 years making industrial hardware in pennsylvania. if you really care about manufacturing some of you might have considered voting for a bill last week to allow the nation's largest exporter to open up a billion-dollar facility in the state of south carolina to hire 1,000 people, to make aircraft. if you really want to help manufacturing, you should have voted for that bill. you could also help us in stopping e.p.a.'s assault on the coal industry and on the cement industry. i represent the largest cement-producing district in america. these industries are in trouble. and they're under assault by the c.p.a. help us, there will be measures considered here to deal with it. if you truly are concerned about manufacturing, innovation and research, you wouldn't have slapped a 2.3% tax on medical devices that's going to kill tens of thousands of jobs in this country. you make a lot of devices in my part of the world, in pennsylvania, new jersey, we

need help. our manufacturers need help. so rather than defending a company out in california that just wasted $500 million, down the drain, taxpayer dollars, over 1,100 people out of work, let's do something to help manufacturers, most importantly let's pass this bill tonight to help so many people who are struggling throughout this country in pennsylvania, new jersey, new york, vermont, the people of the south, joplin, missouri, and elsewhere who have been affected by these horrible natural disasters. stand up, do the right thing. vote for this continuing resolution. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from washington. mr. dicks: i continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington continues to reserve. the gentleman from kentucky. mr. rogers: i yield to mr. womack of arkansas. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arkansas is recognized for two minutes. mr. womack: thank you, mr. speaker, and i thank the distinguished chairman of the appropriations committee for the time. i know the hour is late, it's been a long day, soon we will complete action on this temporary spending measure for

2012. obviously it is work that has to be done. as my friend the distinguished rules committee chairman appropriately quoted earlier this evening, the process has been ugly, it has been messy, but it works. the good news is that most of america has gone to bed and not witness to the bickering and rancor he wased in this chamber. -- witnessed in this chamber. i can only hope when they wake up tomorrow we will have done the people's work, funding government beyond october 1, giving necessary funding to the victims of national disasters and doing it in such a way that promotes the kind of fiscal responsibility long demanded by the people of america. it will be sad, indeed tragic, if when the sun comes up tomorrow this congress instead of bringing certainty and relief to those struggling as this c.r. does, but we impose yet another threat of a government shutdown

and more uncertainty into an already skeptical populous. this legislation up until yesterday, mr. speaker, had bipartisan support and only because my friends on the other side of the aisle recognized that many on our side preferred much deeper cuts and might be predisposed to opposing the c.r., they pounced on it and quickly, in an instant, that bipartisan support disappeared into the bowels of the business as usual. in other words, mr. speaker, it was politics ahead of the people. let's remember that this c.r. we'll vote on in the next few minutes was crafted based on the numbers outlined in the b.c.a. approved in this chamber just a few weeks ago. complete with desperately needed disaster funding reasonably and responsibly offset. i urge my colleagues to support this c.r. and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired.

the gentleman from washington continues to reserve his time. the gentleman from kentucky. mr. rogers: may i inquire of the time remaining. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky has nine minutes remaining. the gentleman from washington has 4 3/4 minutes remaining. mr. rogers: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from mississippi, a member of the committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from mississippi is recognized for two minutes. >> thank you, mr. speaker. thank you, mr. chairman. i rise in support of this resolution. the question we're debating tonight is not whether we give aid and assistance to those of our neighbors that have been hit by serious disasters. we all agree that's the appropriate thing to do. the question is, do we cut spending elsewhere to pay for that assistance? now, what our friends on left have told us is, look, that's not the way we've done it in the past. in fact, week of always done it by just going ahead and spending

without any offset. doing it the way we've always done it has put us $14 trillion in debt. what we have to do is exactly what the people of monroe county, mississippi, did on the night of april 26, most families had dreams, they had hopes, they had plans and on april the 27th, the tornados hit and their plans changed. . they redirected their spending plans to take care of the disaster. now, if the families in monroe county, mississippi, have done that, they have every reason to expect their government to do the same thing. now we have been told, we need some government program to create jobs. if we will give the american

people the assurance that their government is serious about cutting spending like this bill does, we'll give them the confidence to create jobs. if we'll remove the regulatory burdens, american businesses will create jobs. and if we'll give them the assurance that we will not raise taxes, the american economy will thrive and create jobs. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington. mr. dicks: i yield our remaining time to the distinguished -- are you going to -- and that's it -- i yield 3 3/4 minutes to mr. hoyer of maryland.

mr. hoyer: mr. speaker, this is a legislative arena, not a colosseum to attack one another. it is a legislative arena to try to come together to come together and do what the american public expect us to do. there are two cries sees confronting the american people and perhaps three. first of all, they are concerned about the fiscal posture of this country. they're right. we need to address that. secondly, they're concerned about jobs. and immediately as the the gentleman from mississippi just pointed out and the gentleman from pennsylvania who spoke earlier, they are concerned about the disasters that have put them at risk. and i suggest to you the people

in your district and in my district who don't have a job who aren't sure how they are going to pay their mortgage or buy food tomorrow, believe that they, too, have been confronted with a disaster. they want us to deal with all three of those items and yes, perhaps more. many of you have stood on this floor and said, we need to act now to help these people who have been the victims of hurricanes of quakes, of fires, of floods. now if you want to act now, what you bring to this floor is a bill that is not controversial, so it does not get mired in this bickering back and forth because we care deeply about responding now.

this bill has never enjoyed bipartisan support from my perspective and i told your whip that on tuesday. there was no surprise. we believe strongly that the provision that you have put in this bill is detrimental to working people and the expansion ofure economy. you perhaps do not agree on that. perhaps we have a legitimate item of disagreement. and so if you were really concerned about those flood victims, about those hurricane victims, you would have taken that out and met that issue another day. but you chose not to do that. you chose to continue the partisan path of placing at risk the continuing funding of government through november 18,

which you have all expressed the desire to do and jobs, not the democrats say are advantaged by the provisions you want to strike, but the chamber of commerce and the national association of manufacturers. they say it puts jobs at risk. your folks in pennsylvania, i tell my friend, will not be helped if this bill continues to be mired in partisan differences and you knew there was a partisan difference and notwithstanding that, you brought it back to this floor. i understand that some of you were concerned that this was $1.043 trillion rather than $1.09 trillion. that's been changed for you and i'm sure all your tea party friends are going to be enthusiastic that for 4/10 of a

percent, you have changed your vote. my, my, my, 4/10 of a percent, that's the difference in this bill. my friends, americans need our help. they don't need republican or democratic help, they need all of our help. they need it now. they need it not mired in partisan bickering, as my friends said from arkansas. they need us to come together on that which we can agree, giving our folks help when they need it . now. and i will tell you that the senate determined that there was twice the need, indeed three times the need that you have determined.

ladies and gentlemen, let's defeat this bill and let's bring tonight or tomorrow morning, a bill that i guarantee you will pass overwhelmingly in this house. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will also remind the members to direct their comments to the chair. mr. hoyer: i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky. the chair recognizes the gentleman from kentucky. mr. rogers: i yield myself the balance of the time. mr. rogers: this is a simple bill. this is a bridge to get us until november 18 to continue the government basically as is until that time to give us time to work with the senate to put together the funding for all of fiscal 2012. norm dicks and i started out this year agreeing that we

wanted to restore regular order to the appropriation its committee and the process. and we have worked in that regard. the committee has dealt with 11 of the 12 appropriations bills. six of them you have had a chance on the floor to amend and pass, which you have. unfortunately, our brethren across the capitol have been a little bit slow. and they passed one bill. which necessitated that we do something to continue the government while we try to work with them to bring them along on their bills and fund fiscal 2012. this bill started out as a bipartisan bill. we worked to make it so. but along the way on the eastbound of the bill, all of a

sudden, we were confronted with a partisan attack from this side of the aisle and we had no choice but to respond. but still yet, this is a bipartisanly constructed bill. it doesn't attack anyone. the homeland security bill that passed the body, you will recall , carried the provision that required that the billion dollars in that bill for fema would be offset from the automobile account that's been discussed. that passed this body on a bipartisan vote. many democrats voted for it, joining republicans. no one raised the concern, until

this bill came to the floor. and all of a sudden, this great reruption of partisanship on that side of the aisle, which i am very sad about, but we'll muddle through, this is a good bill. it funds your government at the level that was agreed to by the parties in the house, senate and white house, the level that is now the law. it funds us until november 18. and by then we hope to have worked out with our senate brethren and sisters, the funding for the rest of fiscal 2012. so the hour is late, time is short. we have made up our minds, let's vote.

the speaker pro tempore: janet. all time for debate has expired. pursuant to house resolution 412, the previous question is ordered. the question is on the motion by the gentleman from kentucky, mr. rogers. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the motion is agreed to -- mr. dicks: i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is 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.]

the speaker pro tempore: the yeas are 219, the nays are 203, the motion is adopted and without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from kentucky seek recognition? mr. rogers: i send to the desk a concurrent resolution and ask for its immediate consideration. the clerk: house concurrent relution 81, concurrent resolution directing the clerk of the house of representatives to make a correction in the

enrollment of h.r. 2608 the speaker pro tempore: is there objection to consideration of the motion? without objection, the concurrent resolution is agreed to and the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana seek recognition? >> i move that the house

adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the motion is agreed to. accordingly the house stands until

it is live from a fair view friday at 8:00 eastern. learn more at c-span.org /thecontenders. >> you do not play politics. you never play politics with people's jobs. >> annual party conference is under way in the uk. what nick clegg oppose a key note. party conferences from labor party leader. >> admiral mike mullen said

pakistan is exporting violence to afghanistan in jeopardize in relations and the outcome of the afghanistan war. he testified before the senate armed services committee for a little more than three hours. this marks his first appearance before the committee. it is his final congressional testimony before requiring -- retiring at the end of the month. >> good morning. we see testimony this morning. we welcome me. it is likely to be his last appearance before he retires at the end of this month. since the appointment as the

17th chairman of the joint chiefs of staff in 2007, in reappointment by president obama in 2009, admiral mullen has led this to the complex of four years of security challenges. among the challenges occurring, had been the following. a drawdown of forces in iraq and a counterinsurgency strategy. a reduction of u.s. troops in in afghanistan, support of nato operations in libya, management of a volatile relationship with pakistan military, a counter- terrorism operations against al qaeda and other groups, including the extraordinary rate by a special operation forces

this past may that killed osama bin laden. admiral mullen has provided steady, it dedicated leadership and thoughtful courageous military judgment. he has been joined there out this time by his wife who has been promoting initiatives on behalf of our military families and wounded warriors. on behalf of everyone on this committee, thank you. afghan security forces to provide security for their country so that afghanistan will not again serve as a haven --

safe haven for extremists. the strategy calls for a surge of additional 33,000 troops to afghanistan to break the momentum, to help build the capacity of the afghan security forces. he stated they would begin to come home. our military men and women have performed magna bank assembly. forces have reversed -- magnificently. forces have reversed this and seize the initiative in key areas including television strongholds. the native training mission is at its 100,000 soldiers. their partner coalition forces

in the field. the taliban has been reduced. in this regard, and his height peace council passed with pursuing reconciliation, it talks. this despicable act only highlights that they can no longer hold territory and i detested more than ever by the afghan people because of their attacks on civilians. the decision to bring home the u.s. search forces by 2012 maintains the sense of urgency to highest levels of the asking government. as 33,000 troops drawdown, the afghan army will grow by another 70,000 to a total of over 350,000.

they will increasingly be in lead to more than willing to take on the town of them. to the growing capabilities of the afghan security forces represents the best chance for success, creating a secure afghanistan which can no longer be the staging ground for an attack against us. this committee has heard that the military commanders charged with the decision say that they support it. this includes admiral mullen and he will succeed admiral mullen, general john adams. afghan security forces will now assume the lead in seven areas the route that can stand.

it will assume responsibility for protecting the afghan people by 2014. it does not mean that the united states to abandon afghanistan. the equipment currently be negotiated between the united states and afghanistan will help define the long-term relationship between the two countries and play an important role of demonstrating to afghanistan that the united states would remain engaged in this reason and that we're not about to repeat the mistakes of 1989 following the soviet withdrawal from afghanistan. really, a great challenges remain. remain.