Providing for consideration of the Senate amendment to 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.

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.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to debate H.R. 2608, ``The Small Business Program Extension and Reform Act of 2011,'' which provides for an additional temporary extension of programs under the Small Business Act and the Small Business Investment Act of 1958 at the expense of job creating efforts.

Now . . . Now is not the time to trample on the needs of small business owners. Now is not the time to delay assistance to those who need support from FEMA. Now is not the time for a partisan position that will only cause more Americans to suffer while they have to wait on Congress to find balance. Now is the time for balance and reason.

Small businesses have long been the bedrock of our nation's economy. Even with the advent of modern-day multi-national corporations most of our day-to-day purchases take place at ``mom and pop'' small businesses.

This piece of legislation holds small businesses hostage in order to make a demand that has never been made by Republicans before. This demand changes their practice during previous administrations. In the past my colleagues declared disaster funding as emergency spending and did not require offsetting emergency spending.

This bill would offset the $1 billion in FY11 disaster relief funding using a program that is a proven job-creator, a program for small businesses. The very small businesses that are currently in need of access to loans and other

lines of credit in order to build their businesses and create jobs. The very small businesses that are the life blood of our economy. These businesses, the ``mom and pop'' shops across our nation are being held hostage by my colleagues across the aisle at the expense of jobs.

The future success of their businesses are being held hostage in order to demand offsets of funds that have not requires such an offset in the past. These funds would aid victims of natural disasters. To propose such a measure at a time when our economy is so fragile and when so many are struggling to survive is unfathomable. I support the bipartisan Senate language.

At a time when our nation needs every single job we can create. Before us is a job killing measure. We need job creation to help families survive on smaller and smaller pay checks. Before us is legislation that places a halt on this growth. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle for the first time in our nation's history has added to this piece of legislation a requirement that disaster aid be offset. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) needs the $6.9 billion in funding which has been approved in the Senate last week without requiring offset. These cuts cost Americans tens of thousands of jobs. Under the previous administration Republicans supported disaster relief without requiring an offset, on eight separate occasions but today they want to require cuts that will result in job loss.

As the Representative for Houston, which suffered severe damage in 2008 as a result of Hurricane Ike, I understand the importance of clean up and rebuilding in the wake of natural disaster. Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA) addresses the challenges our communities face when we are confronted with a catastrophic event or a domestic terrorist attack. It is important for people to understand that our capacity to deal with hurricanes directly reflects our ability to respond to a terrorist attack in Texas or New York, an earthquake in California, or a nationwide pandemic flu outbreak.

The devastating hurricanes that struck Texas in past years because the response to those events demonstrated the need for significant improvement. During Hurricane Katrina, there were insufficient quantities of generators forced hospitals to evacuate patients. Local governments waited days for commodities like ice, water, MREs, and blue tarps. Evacuees from Texas arrived in Shreveport and Bastrop shelters that were grossly unfit for occupancy, and 2,500 people were forced to use the same shower facility.

We must prepare our first responders with the best information and training to quickly analyze and share information to understand alerts and warning systems, evacuation planning, mission assignments to other agencies, contingency contracting, pre-staged resources, Regional Hurricane Plans and exercises, communications support, citizen preparedness, disaster housing, and long-term recovery planning. In order to accomplish this we must fund FEMA, not at the expense of small business but because Americans come together at times of crisis. This should be what it has always been--emergency funding.

Emergency preparedness is not the exclusive responsibility of the federal government or individual agencies within it. State and local officials, nonprofit organizations, private sector businesses, and individual citizens must all contribute to the mission in order for our nation to succeed at protecting life and property from disasters. Recovery and mitigation are critical to protecting communities from future threats, and our ability to respond will suffer if we do not focus attention and resources on those missions.

On any given day the City of Houston faces a widespread and ever- changing array of threats, such as: terrorism, organized crime, natural disasters and industrial accidents. Cities and towns across the nation face these and other threats. Indeed, every day, ensuring the security of the homeland requires the interaction of multiple Federal departments and agencies, as well as operational collaboration across Federal, State, local, tribal, and territorial governments, nongovernmental organizations, and the private sector. This collaboration and cooperation undergirds our security posture at our borders and ports, our preparedness in our communities, and our ability to effectively react to crises. Consider the devastation that was brought by the tornadoes in Alabama and the Southern United States, the flooding that has impacted the entire Mississippi river region, from Montana to Tennessee, and tornado that claimed more than 100 lives in Joplin, Missouri, have shown us that there are disasters we cannot predict, and forces of nature for which we cannot plan.

This legislation is a job killer, it is an affront to growing small businesses and will destroy thousands of jobs. I have been firmly committed to supporting small businesses and this legislation as written will fail to help create the jobs we need at this time. We should not prevent the growth of small business in order to address the unrealistic demands related to disaster relief funding.

Moreover, 99 percent of all independent companies and businesses in the United States are considered small businesses. They are the engine of our economy, creating two-thirds of the new jobs over the last 15 years. America's 27 million small businesses continue to face a lack of credit and tight lending standards, with the number of small businesses loans down nearly 5 million since the financial crisis in 2008.

According to the U.S. Small Business Administration, these small businesses account for 52 percent of all U.S. workers. These small businesses also provide a continuing source of vitality for the American economy. Small businesses in the U.S. produced three-fourths of the economy's new jobs between 1990 and 1995, and represent an entry point into the economy for new groups. Women, for instance, participate heavily in small businesses.

The number of female-owned businesses climbed by 89 percent, to an estimated 8.1 million, between 1987 and 1997, and women-owned sole proprietorships were expected to reach 35 percent of all such ventures by the year 2000. Small firms also tend to hire a greater number of older workers and people who prefer to work part-time.

One strength that small businesses are known for is their ability to respond quickly to changing economic conditions. They often know their customers personally and are especially suited to meet local needs. There are tons of stories of start-up companies catching national attention and growing into large corporations. Just a few examples of these types of start-up businesses making big include the computer software company Microsoft; the package delivery service Federal Express; sports clothing manufacturer Nike; the computer networking firm America OnLine; and ice cream maker Ben & Jerry's.

We must always ensure that we place a high level of priority on small businesses. It is also important that we work towards ensuring that small businesses receive all the tools and resources necessary for their continued growth and development.

American small businesses are the heart beat of our nation. I believe that small businesses represent more than the American dream--they represent the American economy. Small businesses account for 95 percent of all employers, create half of our gross domestic product, and provide three out of four new jobs in this country.

Small business growth means economic growth for the nation. But to keep this segment of our economy thriving, entrepreneurs need access to loans. Through loans small business owners can expand their businesses, hire more workers and provide more goods and services. The Small Business Administration (SBA), a federal organization that aids small businesses with loan and development programs, is a key provider of support to small businesses. The SBA's main loan program accounts for 30 percent of all long-term small business borrowing in America.

I have worked hard to help small business owners to fully realize their potential. That is why I support entrepreneurial development programs, including the Small Business Development Center and Women's Business Center programs. These initiatives provide counseling in a variety of critical areas, including business plan development, finance, and marketing.

We must consider what impact changes in this appropriations bill will have on small businesses.

There are 5.8 million minority owned businesses in the United States, representing a significant aspect of our economy. In 2007, minority owned businesses employed nearly 6 million Americans and generated $1 trillion dollars in economic output.

Women owned businesses have increased 20% since 2002, and currently total close to 8 million. These organizations make up more than half of all businesses in health care and social assistance.

My home city of Houston, Texas is home to more than 60,000 women owned businesses, and more than 60,000 African American owned businesses.

According to a 2009 report published by the Economic Policy Institute, ``Starting in 2004, the Small Business Administration (SBA) set goals for small business participation in federal contracts. It encouraged agencies to award contracts to companies owned by women, veterans, and minorities or those located in economically challenged areas and gave them benchmarks to work toward. The targets are specific: 23% of contracts to small business, 5% to women-owned small businesses, and 3% to disabled veteran-owned and HUBZone small businesses.''

Women and minority owned businesses generate billions of dollars and employ millions of people. They are certainly qualified to receive these contracts. A mandatory DOD outreach program would make women and minority owned businesses aware of all of the contract opportunities available to them.

Facts: Small business are important because they:

(1) Represent 99.7 percent of all employer firms,

(2) Employ just over half of all private sector employees,

(3) Pay 44 percent of total U.S. private payroll,

(4) Generated 64 percent of net new jobs over the past 15 years,

(5) Create more than half of the nonfarm private gross domestic product (GDP),

(6) Hire 40 percent of high tech workers (such as scientists, engineers, and computer programmers),

(7) Are 52 percent home-based and 2 percent franchises,

(8) Made up 97.3 percent of all identified exporters and produced 30.2 percent of the known export value in FY 2007,

(9) Produce 13 times more patents per employee than large patenting firms and twice as likely as large firm patents to be among the one percent most cited.

Republicans appear to be on a mission to cut programs that help families and will buttress small businesses at a time when there are Americans faced with the perils which arise during cleaning up after a natural disaster. Now is not the time to force those Americans to wait on a partisan battle, to pick a fight that has not been fought in eight previous authorizations of funds for disaster relief. There needs to be a balance when determining which programs to cut and when. A balance to finding the funds that will address national disasters. A balanced approach to measures that will aid small business and to restore our economy.

I support small business and job creation. I will not support small business growth being held hostage to the unrealistic demands made by my Republican Colleagues. American families need legislation that are job growers rather than measures that are jobs killers.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 2608.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 405, I call up the bill (H.R. 2608) to provide for an additional temporary extension of programs under the Small Business Act and the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, and for other purposes, with the Senate amendment thereto, and have a motion at the desk.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring to the floor the continuing appropriations resolution to keep the Federal Government operating until November 18 of this year. For procedural reasons, this is being done as an amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 2608 to speed passage through the Senate, at their request; but in substance, this is the same as the continuing resolution, H.J. Res. 79, that I introduced on September 14.

This CR, Mr. Speaker, will give Congress the time needed to complete fiscal year 2012 appropriations and to adequately fund vital government programs and services by working to put Federal spending on a more sustainable course. Just as significantly, this bill provides desperately needed funding for disaster recovery and relief.

I would have preferred to have completed the appropriations process in regular order, and I believe the House made great strides in doing so. The Appropriations Committee moved on 11 of the 12 annual appropriations bills, and six bills have cleared the House; but we still need time to collaborate with our colleagues in the Senate in order to complete this work, and a short-term bill will allow us to do so.

As we saw last year and into the spring, the threat of a government shutdown causes dangerous economic instability, and at this precarious time, we need to bolster American public confidence that their representatives in Washington are working for them and are not letting politics come before people.

The CR continues government operations at a rate of $1.043 trillion-- the total amount agreed to by the Congress and the White House in the Budget Control Act. It's clean of most policy provisions to ensure swift passage, but we've provided small changes for safety, security, and continuity of essential programs.

For instance, we've extended Federal flood insurance availability and the availability of defense survival equipment for our troops abroad. In addition, this CR will help meet the needs of the thousands of families, businesses, and communities burdened by recent natural disasters by providing an immediate $1 billion in emergency 2011 funding now as well as an additional $2.65 billion for the next year. We are helping our citizens get back on their feet.

The $776 million in the bill for the FEMA Disaster Relief Fund, which is $276 million more than the President or the Senate proposed, is time-sensitive and critical. That fund is now below $250 million and is running out of money fast. Unless we provide additional funding, within a matter of days the Disaster Relief Fund will soon be empty, leaving millions of people in the lurch.

The $1 billion in emergency funding for fiscal year 2011 has been offset by a cut to the Department of Energy's Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing loan program, which has more than $4 billion in unspent idle funds in the pipeline. It has been there for 3 years. Now is the time to use those idle dollars for true and immediate purposes: aiding our fellow citizens in their times of greatest need as they cope with the aftermath of wildfires, tornadoes, earthquakes, and hurricanes--an unprecedented string of disasters in this country.

Now, the notion of offsetting emergency spending has gotten a lot of attention as of late. Let me be very clear that offsetting emergency spending is not a unique practice. In fact, over the last 10 years, the Congress has used offsets in at least 15 of 30 emergency supplemental spending bills--half of them. In total, the Congress has passed over $60 billion in emergency offsets in the last 10 years, most of which had a large amount of support on both sides of the aisle, including the support of former Speaker Pelosi.

The loan program used as an offset in this bill has had excess funds for years, and taking the money will not negatively affect that program. All entities in final loan stages will still get the funding they've worked for. Furthermore, this offset is identical to the one already passed by the House in June as part of the Homeland Security appropriations bill. We've already voted for it.

In addition, the committee will continue to consider additional disaster funding over the next few weeks as we bring the fiscal year 2012 appropriations process to a close, hopefully by November 18, including reviewing estimates that are still coming in from recent disasters so that families and communities can get the assistance they need while making sure that every dollar is well spent.

The Budget Control Act, which both Houses in Congress and the White House agreed to, provides for 2012 disaster funding in that capacity. But with respect to this continuing resolution, at this time we do not have all of the necessary information on the cost of the recent disasters nor the time to work out a final comprehensive agreement with the White House and the Senate.

As Members of this body know, back in their home districts, the FEMA administration works to survey the damage and report that to the White House who, in turn, makes the request to Congress for disaster funds. That's the normal procedure in which we are involved now, and I assure the Members that, as we get those estimates from the White House in the next few weeks and months, they will be addressed and monies will be available.

Therefore, we must meet the most immediate need and provide additional funding now for FEMA to keep that program going for the next several months. That's what this continuing resolution does and why we, the House and Senate, have to pass this bill immediately.

This CR lives up to the guidelines set in the Budget Control Act, as well as our commitment to responsible and reduced levels of spending. We can ride our fiscal ship while still supporting the essential government programs and services and disaster aid.

With this in mind, it is my intention that Congress complete the fiscal year 2012 appropriations work without any further delay. The sooner we pass this CR, the sooner we can focus on this long-term appropriations legislation and get it done before November 18.

I urge my colleagues in both Chambers to support this bill so we can send it to the President as soon as possible.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

The gentleman mentioned in his statement that we had not used offsets to fund disaster relief; I beg to differ. In 2001, emergency supplemental, offset; 2002, emergency supplemental, offset; 2004, disaster relief for wildfire and others, offset. And in 2005, offset for relief for the tsunami. In 2006, relief for Katrina, offset. In 2008, disaster relief and recovery, $20 billion in offsets. I could go on. There are many times where we have used the offsets to pay for supplementals. In fact, over the last 10 years, 15 of the 30 emergency spending bills and supplementals were offset, for a total of $60 billion over the last 10 years.

Now, on this offset that has been mentioned, over $4 billion sits idle in that account and has so for 3 years now as the administration has been slow to obligate that money. The $1.5 billion rescission in subsidies we propose will not have a significant impact on the program. This is the same rescission, Madam Speaker, that we used in the 2012 Homeland Security appropriations bill that passed this House with bipartisan support in June. Exactly the same. And yet the Senate didn't act and that billion dollars was not available for disaster relief.

States with applications in the queue in this program, like Indiana, Louisiana, Ohio, Michigan, Florida, Missouri, California and many others, will still receive their due diligence just like before and could receive awards as well.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Aderholt), chair of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security.

Will the gentleman yield?

The gentleman is the chair of the Homeland Security Subcommittee which funds FEMA.

Now, you passed a bill back in June that provided $1 billion for FEMA for disaster relief; is that right?

What happened to that bill?

I mean, after it passed the House.

And what happened then?

Nothing has taken place in the Senate since June?

And your bill would have provided $1 billion today for disaster relief, and the other body hasn't acted?

No wonder they're operating on fumes.

I'm talking about FEMA.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations of Appropriations, the gentlelady from Texas (Ms. Granger).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a very hardworking member of our committee, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished chair of the Legislative Branch Appropriations Subcommittee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Crenshaw).

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished chair of the Labor-HHS Subcommittee, the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Rehberg).

Does the gentleman realize that back in June, in this body we passed, with bipartisan support, the Homeland Security bill, which contained $1 billion for FEMA, sent it to the Senate, and it's been laying there for the last 3 months? Did the gentleman know that?

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the very hardworking chair of the Interior subcommittee on appropriations, the gentleman whose subcommittee held more hearings than any other, I think 22 different hearings--we had 150 committee-wide, but he won the award for the most hearings--the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Simpson).

I yield 2 minutes to a very hardworking member of our committee, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bonner).

I yield 2 minutes to a new member of our committee who's doing a great job, from the State of Arkansas, Steve Womack.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, this is a simple bill. This is a simple continuation of spending until November 18.

I would not want it on my record that I voted against helping the postal workers keep their routes until November 18. We take care of that problem in this bill. I wouldn't want to vote ``no'' on that if I could help it.

I wouldn't want to vote ``no'' to refuse to continue the government and all that the government does. I wouldn't want it on my record that I voted against helping people who are flooded, the subject of wildfires, earthquakes and all other sorts of calamities. A vote of ``no'' on this bill says no other help for those people.

Now, the gentlewoman who just preceded me, the former Speaker of the House, says that we should not use offsets to pay for at least a portion of these disaster funds. In fact, while the gentlewoman was Speaker of this House, we did just that.

We voted to offset the funding for Hurricane Katrina in 2006 and 2007. We voted for offsets for disaster relief in 2008, 2009; and, lastly, in 2010 we voted to offset $10 billion for what was called the Pelosi edu-jobs stimulus bill. The gentlewoman voted for that offset.

So I urge you to vote for this bill. We will have plenty of time during the negotiations with the Senate during the next 6 weeks to take into account the additional bills we are going to get for flooding and other disaster relief, and we will take care of the problem between now and then.

Vote ``yes'' on the bill.

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

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 yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding the time, and I rise today in opposition to the combined rule for H.R. 674 and H.R. 2576.

The underlying bill, H.R. 674, repeals the 3 percent withholding for taxes on payments to government contractors, and H.R. 2576 will make health care unaffordable for 500,000 Americans--that's not according to me but according to CBO--leaving them with no choice but to drop their coverage. This bill will also increase the costs or reduce the coverage for many more Americans, including individuals with severe disabilities.

The pairing of these two bills is not, in my considered opinion, an appropriate use of our Nation's Tax Code, and in my opinion, does nothing to create jobs. It is part of the same old ``all or nothing'' majority strategy that led to the debt ceiling standoff earlier this year.

The Republicans have taken a bipartisan idea--and it is bipartisan, as my good friend from South Carolina said--that would actually put money directly in the pockets of hardworking Americans and make its passage contingent on a bill that rehashes the health care reform debate from the last Congress. Once again, my colleagues have chosen to play politics with the lives of middle class and working poor Americans.

The withholding requirement, itself, was passed in 2005 when President George W. Bush was in the White House and when Republicans had majorities in both the House and the Senate, but it was never implemented, and it has been put off a number of times.

Today, there is broad support for repealing this Republican-created provision. H.R. 674 has, as my friend said, 269 bipartisan cosponsors. Since Republicans have now brought a bill to the floor that would repeal this requirement, it is clear that this measure should not be combined, as in this rule, with H.R. 2576.

Getting rid of this provision will keep administrative costs down and assist American businesses during these challenging economic times. However, Republicans want to pay for the 3 percent bill by making it harder for retirees, the disabled, and poor to get access to health insurance. This is, yet again, an inappropriate use of our Tax Code.

This bill is known as the MAGI bill, ``modified adjusted gross income.'' It repeals the provision in the Affordable Care Act that allows individuals and families to exclude nontaxable Social Security benefits from their incomes when determining their eligibility for health care benefits. This definition would also apply when qualifying for Medicaid and Federal subsidies to buy private insurance in the State-run exchanges. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, the exclusion of nontaxable Social Security benefits is typical when applying income limitations to tax benefits.

Regardless of the facts, my friends in the majority have decided to throw retirees and disabled individuals under the bus in order to offset a completely unrelated bill.

My friends on the other side of the aisle claim that this is about equity and fairness, but is it equitable for as many as 500,000 Americans to lose all their health care coverage as a result of this measure? What are we saying to these individuals; sorry, 500,000 of you are out of luck? Is it fair to make health care less accessible to low- and middle-income individuals rather than close loopholes and cancel special tax deals for wealthy, wealthy oil companies?

In contrast, the Democrats' substitute offered by Mr. Levin, the ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee, will make oil companies pay their fair share of taxes, thereby reducing the deficit by $5.3 billion over 5 years and $12.8 billion over 10 years.

It is clear that H.R. 2576 is not about equity at all. It's about forcing individual taxpayers to shoulder the burden of business tax provisions. H.R. 2576 will impose higher costs on retirees and persons with severe disabilities, shifting them out of Medicaid coverage or requiring that they contribute significantly more of their income for health insurance coverage through reduced tax credits.

How do Republicans intend to offset the cost, such as increased trips to the emergency room? How do you offset that association with half a million Americans suddenly losing their health insurance coverage? The Tax Code should not be used to effectively reduce health care coverage and increase costs for those least able to afford it.

Make no mistake, H.R. 2576 is yet another attempt by Republicans to undermine comprehensive health care reform. Last week, the Senate Republicans forced a vote on the 3 percent withholding repeal bill, but it too failed over unreasonable Republican demands.

Where are the jobs? Instead of passing a jobs bill, Republicans are redefining the rules to make health care less accessible for a considerable number of Americans. These bills together are a new approach to cutting the deficit for Republicans. Until recently, they said that the only way to fix the deficit was to starve the beast, that is, spending cuts only. But with a bill like H.R. 2576 that takes away health care from hundreds of thousands of Americans, Republicans have decided that rather than starving the beast, it's better to feed the beast to our society's most vulnerable members.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1\1/ 2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Altmire).

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to my good friend, the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to my friend and classmate from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Keating).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I would advise my good friend from South Carolina that I am the last speaker. If he has other speakers, then I will reserve my time.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, President Obama, as has been cited, along with many of our colleagues, supports changing the definition of ``modified adjusted gross income.'' But like on other occasions, I have disagreed with this President on matters, and in this instance I do. There are many in the institution who have a different view. But there is no reason why a bill reducing access to health care for millions of Americans has to be tied to a bill that will put money back into the pockets of middle class and working poor Americans.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle made a conscious decision to make it harder for Americans to pay their medical bills. Now, they could have just as easily tied this bill to one that reduces oil and gas subsidies. But listen, I just spoke to a group of students, about 15 or 20 of them from American University, and I put the question to them regarding this rule,

explaining to them some of the dynamics of the institution. I put the question to them: What would seem more sensible to you. Would it be that 500,000 people should and may lose their coverage under a measure, or that the oil companies and gas companies--and I added GE--that those kinds of companies that cause these kinds of matters not to have to come into play at this time in our institution?

Now Democrats--Sander Levin, my good friend from Michigan, the ranking member--introduced a substitute that would eliminate oil and gas subsidies in order to repeal the withholding requirement while still allowing Americans to keep their health care coverage. Yet they wouldn't waive the rules for that, as they've done a number of times, my Republican friends, for their own amendments, proving once again that the rules are only sacred when oil and gas and big business profits are at stake.

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, an amendment will be offered to the rule to let Mr. Levin of Michigan or Mr. Bishop of New York or Mr. Keating of Massachusetts offer the amendment we tried to have made in order in the Rules Committee yesterday. As we've said, the amendment will roll back special tax loopholes for immensely profitable big oil companies. Is there anybody that doubts that?

And I'd like to hear from these oil company representatives. They're entitled. They're not a person, as some have said; they're a corporation. And they don't have, I guess, a conscience because their bottom line is to make a profit. Well, they've made a lot of it, and all we're asking them to do in this case and others--and I'll be back down here another time asking them--to share some of it with the American people and not cause the pressing down to our States, the pressing down to our counties and municipalities, and causing people who are disabled--and, indeed, some will lose their insurance because of this.

And maybe some of these persons have never had a disabled person. But I had a mother that was disabled for the last 2 years of her life, 30 years previous to that being almost bedridden, and I know what disability is, as I'm sure some of my friends do here. Had I not been alive, she would have died many years earlier because she had no ability to provide for herself, yet Shell Oil and Exxon and GE and all these people do. And they're right about their profitmaking, but they're wrong about not being able to share it with the people.

Mr. Speaker, 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 urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question, I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.