Providing for consideration of the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 79) making continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2012, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 405 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

For the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlelady from New York (Ms. Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time is yielded for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 405 provides for a closed rule for the consideration of H.R. 2608. It's a temporary continuing resolution that will fund the operations of the

United States Government through November 18 of this year. It is important to note that the funding levels in this CR are the very same fiscally responsible levels that this Congress and President Barack Obama approved in the Budget Control Act just 1 month ago. This is not a departure from our path of restoring fiscal sanity, Mr. Speaker. We are committed to continuing on that path. But, unfortunately, the actions of the other body leave us no choice but to consider this continuing resolution today.

I take no pride, Mr. Speaker, in sharing with you--actually, that's not true. That's not true at all. I take great pride in sharing with you what the House has done over the last 6 months, 7 months, 8 months; but I take no pride at all in pointing out what has not happened on the other end of this Capitol to do the work that needs to be done.

Constitutionally, we are required to fund the operations of the government. June 2 of this year, the House passed the Homeland Security appropriations bill. To date, the Senate has not.

On June 14 of this year, the House passed the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs bill. This is the one bill that our friends in the Senate have passed as well.

June 16, the House passed the Agriculture appropriations bill. To date, the Senate has taken no action at all.

July 15, the House passed the Energy and Water appropriations bill. To date, the Senate has not.

July 22, the House passed the Legislative Branch appropriations bill. To date, the Senate has not.

Mr. Speaker, I did not run for Congress last November, I did not show up here as a freshman to continue business as usual, passing continuing resolution after continuing resolution after continuing resolution. And I know my friends on both sides of the aisle believe that's a process which has long since exceeded its usefulness.

I am so proud that we as a body have begun to pass those appropriations bills one by one by one. And what have we gotten because of that? We've gotten oversight. We've had the opportunity to discuss line by line by line what are our priorities as the House. Now, those priorities differ from time to time between my friends on the Democratic side of the aisle and my friends on the Republican side of the aisle, but we have an opportunity at least to discuss those priorities.

When the other body fails to pass the appropriations bills, what choices do we have left? What choices are available to me as a new freshman Member of the House? I could choose to abrogate responsibility. I could choose to say no. No, we're just going to wait, and if the Senate fails to act, then so be it. Let the government shut down and let the chips fall where they may. That's not the kind of operation I want to run. That's not why I came to the United States Congress. I came to the United States Congress because this is the people's House. This is where thoughtful discussion of the people's priorities takes place.

What brings me to the floor today is to consider this continuing resolution that for just 1\1/2\ short months, through November 18, will extend the operations of the government so we can continue that thoughtful discussion that I know so many of the Members here came for.

With that, I urge my colleagues to thoughtfully consider this rule today, thoughtfully consider the underlying bill; and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 5 minutes to a gentleman who has presided over the most open Rules Committee in recent memory, not just a chairman, but my chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).

(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I yield the gentleman an additional 5 minutes.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

I appreciate the gentleman yielding.

You may have some information that we did not have in the Rules Committee. My understanding is that this program, which has billions that were appropriated in 2008 and have not yet been spent, not only can----

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to speak to what's inexcusable here. And I hate that that's where we have to end up.

The truth of the matter is what we have down here today is the re- litigation of something that we already litigated in July and August, and that is that this bill today funds just until November 18 at the level that we, as a body, agreed to. You may not like it, I may not like it, but we agreed to it: a level that's 1043, $1.043 trillion. That's a big number. That is a big number.

This resolution today, this continuing resolution to get us through November 18, does not re-litigate that decision. We spent a lot of time on that in July and August, and again, we come from different places on whether or not that's the right number. I probably say it's too high, you may say it's

too low, but this is simply a resolution that implements the will of this House.

I would be happy to yield to my friend.

Reclaiming my time from my friend, you're absolutely right that this bill does not define where those $1.043 trillion go, and I take issue with that too.

I go back to what you called rhetoric, the 10 minutes that we spent at the beginning where we went through line by line to talk about, golly, the work I'm so proud of that you and I have done together, the individual appropriations bills that you and I have worked through together, doing what was supposed to be done in this House. That was the time to do these things, one by one, and, golly, we did. We did.

Reclaiming my time, as I'm not the chairman of the committee, I will quote the chairman of the committee, who tells us that not only can we use this offset here today, but there remains not millions, but billions of dollars in the account to be used for this purpose; dollars that were appropriated, Mr. Speaker, in 2008, 3 years ago. They remain unspent, but we leave them there just in case. Just in case.

And what I would say to my friend is, if we can just get around to doing this process right again, and I have great hope that we can, if we can get back to doing the process right, we'll have this discussion not on a $1.043 trillion continuing resolution, and not even on a half- trillion dollar continuing resolution, but on the Energy and Water appropriations bill. We'll be able to get back to it, and I have that great wish for this House, Mr. Speaker.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, to correct what may be a misunderstanding about the swiftness with which this Congress is reacting to those tragedies, I yield 5 minutes to the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, who has moved immediately on these issues, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

To get back on the topic of this continuing resolution today, that is, this number that we agreed on just a month ago, $1.043 trillion, to fund the operations of this government.

Mr. Speaker, I go back and I look at emergency requests that this body has made. Now, I'm a freshman. I was just elected in November, began my service in January. But over the last 10 years, there have been 30 emergency and supplemental bills passed.

Now, what I would say to my friends who have been here longer than I have is perhaps if you have to do it three times a year, it's really not a surprise. Perhaps we ought to be able to budget for it.

And to his great credit, and to the committee's great credit, and candidly I would say to the House's great credit, we are trying for the first time in a long time to say you know what, we can't prevent tragedy. Tragedy is going to happen. But we can plan ahead for tragedy so that the American people have the security of knowing the money's going to be there when they need it.

And when I look, Mr. Speaker, at the way we're pouring money out of this body, I worry will the money be there when the American people need it. This budget makes sure that it does.

I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Reclaiming my time.

I thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Because I hope where my friend was going to go was an acknowledgment that this process has provided twice the amount of disaster funding that the President requested, twice that amount in FY11, plus it forward-funds FY12.

Mr. Speaker, again, I am proud that we are trying to grapple with these issues. There is not a person on the floor of this House that is saying ``no'' to Americans in distress. What folks are saying is ``yes'' to making sure that when those distresses come again, we budgeted for it.

I would now like to yield 2 minutes to my friend, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds just to say that we have the distinguished Appropriations chairman here on the floor, who has said, not only have we doubled the President's request here, but there is a commitment to making the dollars available to everyone who is in need in these disasters. That's the kind of commitment this Nation has always made to its citizens. That's the kind of commitment that this bill continues to make to America's citizens.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud that we have been able to have a conversation with one another and yield that time throughout the day.

In order to continue that, I yield 1 minute to the chairman, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers).

I yield 1 minute to the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers).

I say to my friend to from New York, I have no more speakers and am prepared to close.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

I think one thing that unites us as Republicans and Democrats, and actually unites us as Americans, is when we face adversity, we say: Can we do better? Can we do better? You know, it's one thing to muddle through, but it's something else to learn from that experience and come back the next time and do better.

Now, I'm proud to be here as part of a freshman class, Mr. Speaker; 89 new Republican freshmen, 10 new Democratic freshmen. Ninety-nine Members of this House are brand new this year; 99 Members of this House. And so we look back. We look back on profligate spending where even though American families are asked to prioritize their spending each and every day, for some reason the Congress didn't. Even though small businesses are asked to prioritize their spending every day, for some reason Congress didn't.

What this new Congress has done, Mr. Speaker, this 112th Congress has done, is to say: Can we do better? And the answer is yes. Why are the American people so cynical about Congress, Mr. Speaker? Why are our approval ratings in the tank? It was less than 2 months ago, less than 2 months ago we agreed that for next year we should spend $1.43 trillion. And we're already talking about that we've got that number wrong and we want to spend more. Folks, we have to make those priority decisions. Thirty times, Mr. Speaker, thirty times in the last 10 years we came up with emergency spending. Thirty times, Mr. Speaker.

Let me just ask you, the Defense Iraq-Afghanistan supplemental in 2004, is anybody surprised that it took more money in those places than we had budgeted? Anybody think that's a surprise? I'm not surprised by that, Mr. Speaker. I wasn't here, but I'm not surprised. What I wish we could have done was budgeted better for that. Did we know in 2004 that it was going to take more money? Of course we did. But what did we do? We gamed that system.

What is this Appropriations Committee doing? What is this Appropriations Committee doing? They're saying that they know tragedy is going to befall Americans. They don't know what; they don't know when; but they know that it's going to happen. And so they're going to budget for it. Why? Because we tell Americans day after day after day that programs that they count on might not be there tomorrow. Why? Because we're broke. We tell Americans every day something that they might want to do, something they thought might be available, it might not be available. Why? Because we're broke.

But I agree with my friends on the Democratic side of the aisle, when folks are facing disaster, they don't want to have to ask that question. When folks are facing personal tragedy, they don't want to have to ask that question: Will there be money there? Will there be help there?

No, in our communities, we know the help is going to be there. We know our neighbors are going to be there for us, and we know our families will be there for us. And for the first time in a long time, Mr. Speaker, we now know that the American Congress is going to be there, too, because we are changing business as usual.

We asked the question: Can we do better? And the Speaker and the committee chairmen said, Yes. Yes, we can. I encourage support for the rule, and I encourage a vote on the underlying resolution.

I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

I thank my colleague for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, we are here today because our colleagues in the Republican majority have failed. They failed the most basic responsibility of this institution, as my colleague has mentioned, to pass regular and routine bills to keep the government's doors open, to keep retirement checks in the mail, and vital government services available to the American people.

In a few days the fiscal year will end; and without a stopgap measure, funding for essential government services will run out. Despite 9 months of claims from the Republican majority that things have changed and despite a pledge to America that promised a different Washington, and despite endless calls for a regular appropriations process, not a single appropriations bill has been enacted for the upcoming fiscal year which begins October 1.

Throughout this failed process, the majority has blamed everyone but themselves. They have pointed fingers at President Obama, complained about our colleagues in the Senate, and blamed the Washington status quo that they say they can't control. Throughout the process, the one group of people they won't lay responsibility with is themselves.

After 9 months with not a single bill successfully making its way through Congress, finger-pointing rings hollow. Not only has no appropriations bill been enacted, but half of the necessary appropriations bills haven't even been brought to the floor for a vote. The majority controls this body and has used their powers to pursue sideshow legislation and dangerous games of default, but they can't schedule a vote for the most fundamental pieces of legislation that we consider every year.

As I stand here today to vote on a billion-dollar Band-Aid that will allow us to scrape by until November, the hope is by November the majority will be able to do the job they failed to do all year. Growing up, every child hopes for such a homework extension. By the time we are elected to Congress, however, we should know that our work must be handed in on time.

Sadly, today's legislation isn't even the biggest failure of leadership that we are facing in the House. If the press reports are accurate, we may be headed for an even bigger failure in November. In recent days, reports have surfaced that the majority plans to fund the entire Federal Government with one massive, trillion-dollar omnibus bill.

This bill would explicitly break a promise that the Republican majority made to the American people. In the Pledge to America, their leadership included a goal entitled ``advance legislative issues one at a time.'' In the document they explain, ``we will end the practice of packaging unpopular bills with must-pass legislation to circumvent the will of the American people. Instead, we will pass major legislation one issue at a time.''

During a speech at the American Enterprise Institute in 2010, Speaker Boehner affirmed the need to consider appropriations legislation one bill at a time, saying he wanted to do away with the concept of comprehensive spending bills. On the eve of assuming the majority in the House, Speaker Boehner elaborated, saying, ``I do not believe that having 2,000-page bills serves anyone's best interest. Not the House, not for the Members and not the American people.'' But, if press reports are correct, a 2,000-page bill or more is what we will get.

Let's be clear. The prospect of omnibus funding is happening for two simple reasons: First, our colleagues on the other side will not work in a bipartisan manner. There are no Democrat fingerprints on any bills that come to the floor to make the compromise necessary to reach consensus. They continue to pass legislation filled with special interest favors and ideological pursuits that the American people never asked for and don't want. As a result, the legislation is built to fail, and fail it does--over and over again.

Secondly, instead of doing the tough, unglamorous, work of the House, we have spent most of the time on ideological quests and political games. Instead of fulfilling the pledge to uphold the Constitution, the majority has worked to fulfill campaign pledges to Grover Norquist and the far right. Instead of creating jobs, our colleagues on the other side have spent months on end pushing a partisan agenda that has covered everything from the trivial to the very real dangers of default.

Instead of funding the Department of Energy, the majority has tried to micromanage our lightbulbs. Instead of funding the Nation's schools, they tried to eliminate Big Bird. Instead of funding the EPA, they tried to sell the land surrounding the Grand Canyon to the state-owned mining companies of Russia and South Korea. Instead of funding cancer research conducted by the NIH, they have tried, repeatedly, to repeal health care reform. And instead of setting a responsible budget for the next fiscal year, they brought our economy to the brink of default and led to the first-ever downgrade of our Nation's credit.

Even today, our colleagues on the other side are injecting politics into a stopgap CR. Today we are considering legislation that will only provide disaster relief to hurricane victims if billions of dollars are taken from a successful alternative energy program that has created 39,000 jobs to date and is poised to create 60,000 more. We were told in the Rules Committee that this was money simply lying there.

In effect, the other side of the aisle is telling the American people that Congress will either help rebuild shattered communities or Congress will create new green jobs, but we refuse to do both. This immoral approach reflects a House of Representatives that is void of responsible leadership from those in charge.

Today I'll do the little bit that I can to provide leadership sorely lacking from those in charge. Mr. Speaker, if we can defeat the previous question at the end of this debate, I will offer an amendment to the rule to ensure that disaster victims get the help they need. My amendment will allow Representative Dingell to offer a motion to strike the unacceptable House language that says all disaster aid must be offset and substitute the bipartisan Senate approach.

Since 2004, American taxpayers have spent over $3.4 billion on infrastructure in Afghanistan and even more in Iraq. Not a single one of those $3.4 billion was held hostage or offset by any program in our budget. But now, as many Americans are struggling to rebuild and get their lives back to normal, the majority refuses to help unless they are allowed to defund a successful program they happen to dislike. Remember, what this says is that the American public is financing the reconstruction of Afghanistan and Iraq with taxpayer money, but taxpayer money without an offset will not be used to help the American taxpayer. That takes a lot of explaining.

Because the majority decided that pursuing a partisan agenda was more important than meeting the basic needs of the country, we face the prospect of a trillion dollar, 1,000-page bill to keep the government running because the other side will not stop playing politics and start governing as we are all expected to do. This failure is a disservice to the American people, an abdication of our responsibilities as legislators, and a shame to the expectations, responsibilities and duties of the House.

The majority rode into Washington vowing to change the ways of the past, but over the last 9 months, the American people have witnessed a case study in abandoned responsibilities and misguided priorities. Until the Republican majority begins to govern with responsibility, I fear this Congress will continue to live up to the low regard our Nation has for it, which brings shame on us all. I urge my colleagues on the other side to stop serving their political interests, start doing bipartisan bills, and start serving our country.

In closing, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on today's rule and the underlying legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts, a member of the Rules Committee, Mr. McGovern.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

(Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I want to yield myself 10 seconds to say that I said in my opening statement that this program has already yielded 39,000 jobs, on its way to 60,000, which will not be able to be met because you are using this as the offset.

I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), who suffered great damage in the hurricane.

I yield the gentleman another 10 seconds.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York, a

member of the Committee on Appropriations, Mr. Hinchey.

I'm going to give myself another second here just to say I keep hearing that we're all set for next year in the budget, but who's going to tell Mother Nature just how much we can afford and hope that we don't get more than that?

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch). We watched Route 4 in Vermont crumble like a cookie in the rain and wash away.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt).

(Mr. WATT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell).

(Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).

I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Peters).

I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

I yield the gentlewoman 1 additional minute.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to make in order a motion to strike the unacceptable House disaster funding language and substitute the bipartisan Senate approach.

I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the Record along with extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I want to urge my colleagues to vote ``no,'' defeat the previous question, and if we are successful in defeating the previous question and offering our amendment, then we will get on with the underlying House amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

I thank my friend for yielding and congratulate him on his stellar management of this very important rule.

Mr. Speaker, I've been listening to the remarks of my very good friend and distinguished colleague, the ranking minority member of the Committee on Rules, the gentlewoman from Rochester, New York (Ms. Slaughter) and I have to say that as I listen to the remarks, I'm going to keep my hands to my side. I'm not going to point the finger of blame at anybody. I'm simply going to state a few facts that I think are important for all the Members of this House to look at.

It's true, the last 9 months under this Republican majority have been very difficult, very painful, and very challenging for us as we've been tackling the challenge of job creation and economic growth. There's a reason that we have had such a difficult time in the last 9 months here in this Congress. And the reason is very simple: Last year, for the first time in nearly three decades since the 1974 Budget and Impoundment Act was established, we didn't even have a budget proposed from the then-majority.

And the fact that there was no budget proposed in the last Congress to deal with the very important spending priorities that we, as a Nation, needed to address, and the fact that we had not one single appropriations bill, not one single appropriations bill, completed in the last Congress--we inherited at the beginning of this year, and Democrats and Republicans alike will acknowledge it, we inherited a hell of a mess. It was a big mess that we inherited. And guess what? We decided that we were going to tackle that mess in a bipartisan way.

My friend who has just talked about the need for bipartisanship, we began in dealing with the appropriations process with, as Members will recall, being here for hours and hours and hours because Democrats and Republicans alike were able to put their mark--their mark--on this spending bill which we, because of the lack of action in the last Congress, inherited in this 9 months.

And so my friend is absolutely right. The last 9 months have not been easy. They've not been easy at all. And I appreciate the fact that she has worked in a bipartisan way in a number of areas, because as she knows very well, the bill that we're going to be considering this week, the regulatory relief bill, we make every amendment that complied with the rules of the House in order. So many more Democratic amendments have been made in order than Republican amendments on a number of pieces of legislation, and that's so that we can do exactly what my friend has said hasn't happened, and that is work in a bipartisan way.

Now I think that probably the single largest bipartisan achievement that we've had in this past 9 months has been the agreement that we came to at the end of July, and that was an agreement that Democrats and Republicans alike recognized had to be addressed, we needed to increase the debt ceiling.

We didn't like the fact that there had been so much spending that had taken place, but we recognized that it had to be done. So Democrats and Republicans came together to make that happen.

We have further opportunities for bipartisan agreement coming right down the pike. Democrats and Republicans, alike, have said we need to open up new markets around the world for us to create union and nonunion jobs so that we can export more manufactured products from the United States of America into these markets. And we have three pending trade agreements with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea that will go a long way towards doing what it is Democrats and Republicans, alike, want to do.

I'm not going to accuse a single Democrat of not wanting to create jobs in this country. Everybody wants to make sure that their constituents aren't hurting, that their constituents aren't losing their homes, their jobs, their businesses. I know that everybody, Democrat and Republican, alike, wants to make that happen. We will have an opportunity, in a bipartisan way, to do just that, Mr. Speaker, when it comes to these market-opening agreements in these very, very, very important countries that will help us again create union and nonunion jobs.

And I think when it comes to the issue of job creation and income growth, we need to look at the unfortunate mischaracterization that has been made time and time again of things like the tax cuts that have enjoyed bipartisan support, what I call the Bush-Obama tax cuts.

First, the '01 tax cuts, I will acknowledge, were not real growth creators, but the '03 tax cuts generated economic growth that actually enhanced the flow of revenues to the Federal Treasury. And that's not my speculation. All one needs to do is simply look at the raw numbers.

In 2003, Mr. Speaker, the Federal Treasury had $1.782 trillion in revenues from all sources. That was in '03. At the time we saw those tax cuts put into place, $1.782 trillion in revenues. Up until the economic downturn in 2007, we saw an increase of 44 percent in the flow of revenues that came into the

Federal Treasury to $2.567 trillion. Now, that's an increase, Mr. Speaker, of $785 billion that came in.

I thank my friend for yielding.

That, Mr. Speaker, was a 44 percent increase, increasing by $785 billion the flow in revenues from the '03 revenue flow of $1.782 trillion to the '07 revenue flow of $2.567 trillion.

The reason I use these numbers is that we all are focused on job creation and economic growth. We all know that increased gross domestic product will go a long way towards dealing with our deficit challenges and the difficulties that we face. And, Mr. Speaker, what I want us to do is recognize that, as my friend from Lawrenceville very generously said, I presided over more open rules than we had in the Republican Congress in the past and certainly than we had in the 4 years that preceded this. And I'm proud of that. I'm very proud of the fact that we've been able to make so many amendments in order that my Democratic colleagues have offered. We have a Hastings amendment that we made in order on the bill that we're going to be considering later. I'm happy that we've done that. We will have a chance to debate these issues and I hope come to a bipartisan agreement.

Mr. Speaker, I will just say in closing that we have had a difficult 9 months. My friend from Rochester is absolutely right. It's been a challenging 9 months. And as long as Americans are hurting, it's going to always be difficult for us here. But being able to establish priorities, to come together in a bipartisan way, is important.

This measure that we're considering today is being done at the request of the bipartisan leadership of our colleagues in the other body who want to be able to move this continuing resolution through as expeditiously as possible to, as my friend from Lawrenceville said, recognize that between now and November 18 we simply want to ensure that the resources are there.

I see my friend from Vermont, and I will say to my friend that I read and looked at the photographs of the flooding that has taken place in Vermont. It has been devastating. I've looked at the disasters that have taken place across this country. My State of California suffers from earthquakes, fires, flooding, lots of disasters. An earthquake was felt in this Capitol during the month of August. We know that disasters occur. We must do everything we can to address those. But calling for an $8 billion increase in spending beyond the $1.43 trillion that this continuing resolution calls for is not the answer.

We need to prioritize to ensure that those who are really suffering can, in fact, have their needs addressed, and I believe that this House, in a bipartisan way, can and should and, I hope, will do that.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

As to the point, Mr. Speaker, of whether or not we offset these emergency bills, over the last 10 years, we have used offsets in over half of the emergency spending bills and supplementals, over half, 15 of 30, actually, including war supplementals, emergency supplementals, military construction, defense supplementals, disaster relief and recovery, in 2008, for example, and on and on.

Using offsets to pay for disaster relief is the rule here. This is not an exception. And we're only offsetting $1 billion of it. In fact, when the Homeland Security bill passed a few months ago, it included this very offset, and the bill passed by bipartisan support throughout the body. You've already voted for this, and, I might add, successfully.

Now, on that green car fund--I'm going to call it that--there's over $4 billion this minute sitting idle in that account, and it's been sitting idle for 3 years. The $1.5 billion rescission in subsidies we propose will not have a significant impact on the program, contrary to what some people say. All applications for those loans in late-term stages and negotiations will not be affected. Talk to the agency downtown, which we have. They will not be affected.

The factory in Michigan or Indiana will not be affected. In total, eight pending applications for loan guarantees totaling over $6 billion will not be impacted by this offset. Michigan has the largest stake: four applications totaling $4.7 billion in loan guarantees, which are free and clear.

Other States with applications in the queue that are safe from this round of cuts include Indiana and Louisiana.

Now, Mr. Speaker, this bill contains $3.65 billion for immediate disaster relief, which our people need and deserve. As this bill works its way through the process until November 18, no doubt FEMA will have by then completed their surveys and investigations of disasters and can tell Congress, through the White House, how much more money is needed; and we'll provide it. It's covered in the debt ceiling bill that passed this body a few weeks ago.

I'm telling you the Appropriations Committee will provide whatever relief is required when we get the documentation, which is traditional, as all of the Members of this body know because they helped prepare those investigations.

So this is a clean bill. This merely extends the time for us to work with the Senate to perfect a continuing bill for the balance of 2012. It gives us 5 or 6 weeks, but only 3 or 4 of those weeks will be available because both bodies will not be here all that time. This is a clean bill. And it provides disaster relief in the appropriate way. And there's plenty of money there for the immediate needs that we've been told about by FEMA.

Mr. Speaker, I urge the adoption of the rule and the underlying bill.

Let me just reiterate.

The $1 billion in the fiscal '11 portion of this bill is two times the amount the President requested. We doubled it. The amount that's in the bill for fiscal 2012, $2.65 billion, is more than the initial request that was made to us by the White House. We're here to tell you--and I've repeated this now four times--whatever the amount is needed that we see FEMA coming to us requesting, we're going to provide. Now, we've got until November 18 by this extension, by this CR, and during that period of time we will get the documentation from the White House and from FEMA about additional funds that are requested.

I assure the gentleman from New York who spoke, your concerns will be addressed during these next few weeks, and the money will be there that's documented from the White House and from FEMA for disaster relief. We will not let our people hurt.

Will the gentleman yield?

Thank you for yielding.

The previous speaker doesn't understand the bill. The $2.65 billion in the 2012 portion of the bill is not offset, only the portion for fiscal 2011 is required to be offset. And I would remind the gentleman, as well as everyone else, many of whom voted for the Homeland Security bill a few months ago, it included this provision.

The disaster relief money, twice what the President requested of us, we doubled his request. That part is offset, the fiscal 2011 moneys, but the bulk of the money in this bill, the $2.65 billion for fiscal 2012, it's not offset. So the gentleman is incorrect.

I thank the gentleman for yielding again. I'll be very brief.

The gentlewoman who just spoke mentioned Katrina and that we should not offset expenses of emergency disaster spending. In fact, in 2006 that's exactly what we did do. We required offsets for aid for Katrina and other matters, $33.5 billion in offsets in Katrina aid in 2006. And then again in 2007, we offset $939 million in offsets for, among other things, Hurricane Katrina recovery.

As I have said before, over the last 10 years, we have offset more than half of

the disaster emergency relief bills we have passed here. It's not unusual, and the gentlelady is mistaken that we did not request offsets for Katrina. We did.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and more broadly to the manner in which the House has dealt with disaster relief funding.

This year, our country has experienced some of the worst natural disasters in more than a generation. The cost of Hurricane Irene alone is estimated to be over $1.5 billion and Tropical Storm Lee's costs are still being tallied.

Yet despite these overwhelming needs, the disaster aid included in this bill is grossly inadequate and would not sufficiently help the millions of Americans who are recent victims of floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, and wildfires.

My district took a one-two punch from Hurricane Irene and Tropical Storm Lee. In the southern tier of New York, we've just seen the second 500-year flood in 5 years both in Broome and Tioga counties. Scores of homes were completely destroyed, and there are over a hundred people who are still living in an emergency center in Binghamton not knowing when they'll be able to return to their homes, if they can return ever at all.

Major companies have been shut down because their facilities are flooded. The total cost to rebuild the region will likely exceed $250 million.

In the Hudson Valley, Hurricane Irene caused massive power outages and record flooding. In Ulster County, 60 percent of residents lost power; seven bridges were destroyed. In fact, two of those bridges were just washed away and not found.

Vegetable farmers in Ulster, Orange, and Sullivan Counties suffered devastating losses; and because the crop insurance program remains wholly inadequate for them, these farmers may get no assistance at all. Ulster and Orange Counties alone have an estimated $62 million in agricultural losses. Yet this bill does nothing for these farmers.

And just when some of these communities began building from Irene, a second round of flooding from Lee washed away much of their hard work. Now they need to start the recovery work again.

The Senate has already passed a $7 billion standalone disaster bill that funds the President's FEMA budget request and provides additional emergency assistance for the Department of Agriculture and other agencies that are seeing their disaster funds dwindle. This is absolutely necessary.

This bill that we are dealing with here today is a half job. It's playing politics with the lives of people who are desperate and are begging us to set aside games and get this done. Let's put an end to it now so that we can take up the Senate's bill so that we can adequately deal with this problem and solve the problems for all of these people in so many ways.

Will the gentleman yield?

Thank you very much. I deeply appreciate it.

The situation that we're dealing with here is critically important. It's harming huge numbers of people.

What the Senate has done is an adequate solution to this problem. They've provided the adequate funding that is going to deal with this. There have been at least seven Republicans over there in the Senate who supported that bill and voted for it. Why are you not dealing with an adequate solution to this problem? Why are you insisting on half ways, not dealing with the kinds of issues that need to be dealt with?