Waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on Rules.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 409 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my very good friend, my Rules Committee colleague, the gentleman from Worcester, Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I might consume. During consideration of the resolution, all time that is yielded is yielded for debate purposes only.

General Leave

I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on the matter that is before us.

Madam Speaker, we are dealing with extraordinarily challenging times.

The American people have been sending a message to us which is powerful and overwhelming, and it's one that I believe that both Democrats and Republicans have heard, and that is: We need to get our economy back on track. We need to make sure that we have a climate that will create jobs so that people--many of whom I represent, sadly, and I know the Speaker faces the same thing in the Show Me State of Missouri, and my friend in his State of Massachusetts faces this. We have friends and neighbors who have lost their jobs, who have lost their homes, who have lost their businesses, and the message that has come to us overwhelmingly is that we must put into place policies that will encourage job creation and economic growth.

We obviously have a very troubled global economy. The developments that have taken place in Europe have played a big role in leading to today's huge drop in the stock market. I haven't looked at it in the last few minutes, but earlier today it was down over 400 points, and I know we have obviously difficult decisions that lie ahead for many.

We, as an institution, the United States Congress, have a responsibility to address the fiscal needs and challenges that are before us. One of those challenges and one of the factors that has played a role in the economic downturn, I believe very strongly, has been the $14\1/2\ trillion national debt that looms before us.

Again, as you know very well, Madam Speaker, in a bipartisan way, Democrats and Republicans alike decry the $14\1/2\ trillion national debt that we have and the fact that we have deficits going as far as the eye can see.

Now, we know that last July, just before we adjourned for the month of August, we had to deal with the question of whether or not we were going to increase the debt ceiling. We tackled that issue, and we ended up coming to a bipartisan consensus. We all knew that it was necessary for us to increase the debt ceiling because there was a responsibility to pay the bills that have been accumulated in the past.

From this side of the aisle, we complained and fought against the 82 percent increase in non-defense discretionary spending that we've seen over the past 4 years, but with that money having been spent, we recognized that the bills had to be paid.

That led us, Madam Speaker, to come to a bipartisan consensus that we would, in fact, increase the debt ceiling; but we had to tackle, in a bipartisan way, the deficit and debt issues that are looming before us.

So we put into place a joint select committee which, as we all know, is going to be charged with, by November 23, completing its work and, by December 23, having a vote in the House and the Senate. And if they're not successful, we will deal with sequestration, which will be across-the-board spending cuts that I don't think anyone wants to see happen because we want to be in a position where we make those decisions for $1\1/2\ trillion. And as many have said, that group of Senators the other day said a $4 trillion--excuse me--$4 billion. What is the number? I was right, $4 trillion. Excuse me. You know the proverbial Everett Dirksen line: A billion here, a billion there; before long, you're talking about real money. And that was five decades ago that he said that, and we are where we are now.

So the plan, as proposed by some, Madam Speaker, would take us to as much as $4 trillion in spending cuts, and I hope we can do that in a bipartisan way.

Now we are in a position where we--as I said yesterday during the debate on the rule on this issue, last year, for the first time since the 1974 Budget Act was put into place, we didn't have a budget that was proposed to us.

Hey, I'm not in the business of pointing the finger of blame. I'm just in the business of looking at the facts of where we are. So we know what has been inherited. We know, as we hear these very strong statements being made, that we've gone through a difficult 9 months. We had to deal with the continuing resolution to simply clean up the mess. The Acting Speaker is a member of the Appropriations Committee, and she knows very well the challenges that we had with those appropriations bills having to be done last year. That Appropriations Committee on which the Acting Speaker sits has to deal with this issue, and had to deal with it earlier this year. Today, Madam Speaker, we are in a similar position.

We, right now, know that the fiscal year comes to an end next week. We have some very important priorities that need to be addressed, and the one that everyone is talking about is the fact that we have seen disaster after disaster hit this Nation. We are determined to ensure that those who have suffered most over the past several weeks and months from disasters--flooding--and I remember seeing my colleague from Vermont (Mr. Welch) yesterday. He sent out photographs of the devastation of the flooding that has taken place in Vermont. In Pennsylvania, we just had a Republican Conference at which one of our new colleagues, Mr. Marino, was up, talking about the fact that he has been walking through mud, talking to families--to parents who have their children literally sitting on automobiles because they can't get into their homes--and asking what it is that they're going to do.

We have our fellow Americans who are suffering, and we want to ensure that the dollars necessary for the Federal Emergency Management Agency are there. The chairman of the Appropriations Committee reported to us that we're seeing about $30 million a day being expended through the FEMA funding, and there's about $200 million left. So we are faced with the prospect of expiration--the expiration of all of the resources that FEMA needs--by this weekend, Madam Speaker. That's the reason that we are back here today.

We all know what happened yesterday. The Democratic majority and some Republicans chose to vote ``no'' on the continuing resolution, which would simply take us from now to November 18--a very short period of time, just a matter of a month and a half--so that during that time we can, as Speaker Boehner has said, deal with the overall appropriations process and establish the priorities. So we are here today, having had a meeting in the Rules Committee last night, calling for same-day consideration so that, quite possibly, with some modifications, we can bring up that bill which had enjoyed bipartisan support.

It is no secret, I'm sure the Democrats will acknowledge, that the minority whip, Mr. Hoyer, and the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, Mr. Dicks from Seattle, both had indicated earlier support. They acknowledge it. They're on the record as having done that. They said that they had changed their minds, and I respect that. Members have a right to change their minds. We all have a right to change our minds. But that decision was made, and we went to the vote and the votes were not there.

Madam Speaker, I think there is clearly a bipartisan understanding that ensuring that resources get to our fellow Americans who are suffering due to these disasters that have hit--hurricanes, tornadoes, flooding--is a priority that we all share. Personally, I'd like to see the Federal Government get out of being the place of first resort for the American people to look to when there is a time of disaster.

In fact, the Acting Speaker's late husband, with whom I was elected in 1980, led an effort, going back decades, when he served here, that was working on proposals for us to address the disaster relief issue, which was a very, very challenging one. He explored and came up with some great proposals for how we could deal with disasters beyond having the Federal Government be the place of first resort for the American people when they are faced with the aftermath of a disaster.

But, Madam Speaker, those changes that were proposed by my late colleague Bill Emerson were not made in order, were not addressed, were not implemented, and so we are where we are; and while I'd love to see those changes down the road, today we need to address the very pressing needs that our fellow Americans have for some kind of resolution to this issue.

We have this same-day rule so that we can today pass with what I hope will be strong bipartisan support a continuing resolution that will simply carry us from now to November 18, during which time we will see, Madam Speaker, you and the other members of the Appropriations Committee work to come up with some kind of resolution to this issue.

I am going to urge my colleagues to support this measure in the name of bipartisanship, in the name of our effort to try and resolve this pressing issue.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to say to my friend that it's very unfortunate. In my opening remarks, I made the best attempt that I could to be as bipartisan as possible. Democrats and Republicans alike recognize that we've had the most open House, the most transparent process, and that more amendments have been made in order.

I am very proud that the Rules Committee has repeatedly made McGovern amendments in order that have been proposed to the Rules Committee. In the measure that we have addressing the regulation issue, we made every single amendment that complied with the rules of the House in order--an amendment offered by my friend Mr. Hastings.

So, to talk about these sorts of crocodile tears, Madam Speaker, the House has gotten to a new low. We need to make sure that the American people who are suffering and in need have the resources that are necessary.

The measure that is before us has a higher level of funding for those who are in need than the President has proposed to ensure that we immediately get those dollars to the people who are suffering, and there are people all over this country who have been suffering through these disasters, and it needs to be done.

Madam Speaker, I will say that we are what we are. The legislative process is not always a pretty one, but I began by talking about our priority of job creation and economic growth; limiting the size and scope and reach of the Federal Government; trying to decrease the regulatory burden, which our TRAIN Act--which we just debated the rule on a little while ago--is designed to address these sorts of steps, designed to make sure that more Americans will have opportunities to be members of the workforce, to be able to support their families and so that people won't see their small businesses lost because of the economic downturn. Those are the priorities that we have, and getting our fiscal house in order while meeting our priorities which, in this day and age, disaster assistance is one of, are what we've got to do.

So I am proud to work closely with my Democratic colleagues. I am proud of the fact that they have been supportive, Madam Speaker, of a number of the measures that we have had before us; and I am proud that we have been able to take many of their ideas, Madam Speaker, and allow them to be considered on the House floor so that we've been able to have a free-flowing debate.

That's what the American people want. I believe that since every Member of this House represents just about the same number of people, about 600,000. Under the new census, it will be, I think, 704,000 constituents, that they have a right to be heard, they have a right to have their ideas considered.

That hasn't always been the case under Republicans or Democrats in the past, but today it is. We're doing our doggone-est to make sure that more Members have their ideas considered.

I am very proud of that fact, and I will say that I regularly have Democrats come to me and say they are very appreciative of the fact that we have been able to allow their ideas to be considered on the House floor.

I am proud of the strides that we have been making under Speaker Boehner. We have a long way to go, but this is all inside baseball stuff. As you know very well, Madam Speaker, the priority is job creation and economic growth to ensure that our fellow Americans have the kinds of opportunities that they need.

Let us proceed. This is a procedure that I don't particularly like, but in light of the fact that there had been a bipartisan agreement yesterday that did not work out--that's about the nicest way that I can put it, it didn't work out--and so we had no choice other than to allow for a rule that would provide for same-day consideration simply of this measure to ensure that we don't go through a government shutdown.

I mean, we wouldn't be doing a same-day rule, Madam Speaker, if we weren't faced with, frankly, the threat--and I'm not going to point the finger of blame, but I will say it hasn't been Republicans who have been talking about the idea of a government shutdown. It's something that has come from some others and some on the other side of the Capitol who have talked about the prospect of that. We want to avoid it. We want to ensure it doesn't happen.

And so we're going to have an opportunity, Madam Speaker, to have a measure before us that will address the very important priorities of disaster assistance and other areas which doesn't cut as much as I would like. I would have loved to have voted ``no'' yesterday, Madam Speaker, because I believe that the spending level is higher than it should be.

The Republicans do, in fact, have a majority in the House of Representatives, but our Democratic colleagues have a majority in the United States Senate. We know that President Obama is a Democrat. In light of that, we have to come to some kind of a bipartisan consensus. So we're turning ourselves inside out to make that happen, and we have done it time and time again; and this is another example of it.

I hope that we will be able to move ahead and as expeditiously as possible provide the assurance that our fellow Americans need.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

First of all, let me express my apologies; 99.999 percent of the time I am always riveted to the words of my friend from Worcester when he is offering his thoughts. I have to admit I was talking to our distinguished Rules Committee colleague, Mr. Webster, over here.

First of all, let me thank the gentleman and say that he is right on mark in raising that question. It's not only a fair question; it's an appropriate question to ask of me.

The answer is we will have a meeting in the House Rules Committee right upstairs on the third floor, at which time we will have before us a proposal that I can tell you will be very similar to the measure that was considered yesterday. As you know, there was $1.043 trillion in that proposal.

It's my hope that we'll be able to do this today. That's the reason, as my friend knows, we were going to pass this measure yesterday and it didn't work out. I mean, that's part of the legislative process.

I thank my friend for yielding.

I thank my friend for yielding.

Madam Speaker, what I would say is that I hope the Rules Committee will be able to meet in the not-too-distant future. It's now about 2\1/ 2\ minutes before 4 o'clock. I can't say how quickly we'll be able to meet.

We certainly, as is always the case, will give the minority ample notice for them to have a chance to look at whatever modifications are made to the continuing resolution that will be before us.

Excuse me?

I have no idea what the gentleman is talking about. What is 72 hours? What is that?

Well, there was never any such pledge made. If the gentleman looks at the rules of the House, he knows very well that there's nothing in there that states 72 hours.

That is true. As the gentleman knows very well, we're in a position right now where we're dealing with an emergency situation; the American people are hurting. We had the measure before us with a full 3 days. It was put online on Monday, and so we had the 3 full days. And it is true, we're looking at what would be possibly an amendment to that measure, and so we will be in compliance.

First of all, again, let me say, Madam Speaker, that there was not any 72 hours in the rules of the House, if the gentleman would look at the rules of the House. It is a 3-day layover requirement, and I believe that we will be in full compliance with the 3-day layover.

I thank my friend for yielding.

Let me just say that obviously we had a bipartisan agreement that was voted on yesterday that did not enjoy bipartisan support. I say that based on

the fact that we had agreements made in colloquies that took place----

Let me specifically say that the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, indicated before the gentleman and the other Rules Committee members and me that he would be supportive of the measure; and he had a right to change his mind.

And, second, in the colloquy that took place last week between the distinguished minority whip and the majority leader, the minority whip indicated that he was supportive of the continuing resolution.

I thank my friend for yielding.

Madam Speaker, let me say that, first, to address the issue that was raised earlier, there was confusion. I don't know what the gentleman meant about 72 hours. There is a 3-day layover requirement. We will not, and let me underscore again, Madam Speaker, we will not be waiving the 3-day layover requirement; okay? So, I just think it's important for us to make that point. The gentleman repeatedly raises 72 hours and we're not in compliance with this and that, when, in fact, Madam Speaker, we will not be waiving. It's a 3-day layover requirement that exists, and we will not be waiving that.

Second, as far as what time, I believe that, within the next few hours, we'll be able to meet in the Rules Committee and come to the House floor. There are no guarantees. There are no guarantees, but I believe there is a very good chance that we will be able to, in the next few hours, meet in the Rules Committee and the gentleman and I will come to the floor with a rule that will allow us to make in order the continuing resolution to ensure that our fellow Americans who are suffering will have the resources they need.

Madam Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding.

Let me say, at this juncture, I cannot tell my friend exactly what this measure is going to consist of, but we're in a position right now where that will be considered by the Committee on Rules when we meet upstairs. So we'll be meeting upstairs and we'll see whether that might be an amendment.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Let me say, Madam Speaker, to my very good friend that jobs and job creation are exactly what virtually every piece of legislation that we've been addressing in this House has been designed to deal with. Now, my friends on the other side of the aisle believe that the nearly $1 trillion--it was like $787 billion, I think, and then if you add the interest, it came up to like $1.1 trillion. That stimulus bill was their jobs bill. As I recall, we were told, if we saw that $1 trillion stimulus bill implemented, that the unemployment rate would not exceed 8 percent.

Well, Madam Speaker, in part of the area that I represent, we have an unemployment rate of 14 percent. We have a national unemployment rate of over 9 percent, and it's not acceptable. So I totally concur with my friend's assessment, and I congratulate him. I congratulate him for his opening statement there when he said the best way for us to deal with the deficit is to make sure that people in this country have jobs.

Economic growth is what we've been talking about. I believe if we had 2, 3, 4 percent more GDP growth in this country, we wouldn't be here having this discussion. The question is: How is it that we get our fellow Americans back to work?

We believe that it's essential to create long-term, good jobs in the private sector. We believe in doing things like opening up new markets around the world, because 96 percent of the world's consumers are outside of our borders. Ninety-six percent of the world's consumers are outside of our borders. And yet, unfortunately, we have not been able to have, yet, the agreements that have been negotiated over the past several years sent to us in the Congress to vote on. Clearly, if we had the agreements that have been negotiated between the Koreans and the United States, the Colombians and the United States, the Panamanians and the United States, we would create many, many jobs here in the United States.

Yesterday, Madam Speaker, I met with the Ambassador from Colombia. On August 15, they implemented an agreement with Canada for a free trade agreement between Canada and Colombia. And guess what? There has been an 18.9 percent increase in wheat exports from Canada to Colombia in 1 single month.

Now, Madam Speaker, I have said this time and time again here. We have union and nonunion workers who are employed by companies, great American companies that are manufacturing companies like Caterpillar, John Deere, and Whirlpool, and we could get these people working, we could get these people working if we could open up new markets for those manufactured products in Latin America and in Asia. That's exactly what we've got ahead of us. And I hope very much that the President will immediately send to us those agreements so that we can enjoy, again, bipartisan support, Democrats and Republicans working together to pass these agreements.

If we do that, we will do exactly what my friend just said, Madam Speaker, we will do exactly what my friend just said in his opening statement there. What he said was we need to get Americans into jobs so that we can have the revenues that are necessary for us to deal with the deficit and debt challenges that we have.

I'm happy to yield to my friend.

If I could reclaim my time, Madam Speaker, let me just say that I hope very much we are able to see offsets for this because, again, we have a $14.5 trillion national debt. We have deficits as far as the eye can see. So, as we deal with the very important priorities of ensuring that our fellow Americans who are suffering because of these tragic disasters that have taken place across the country--we need to realize that there is a hell of a lot of waste in the Federal Government, a hell of a lot of waste, and there are regulations.

Again, the measure that I just mentioned, my friends said that we haven't had jobs bills before us, but the measure that Mr. Hastings was just managing the rule on is designed to deal with the burden of regulations which have undermined the potential for job creation and economic growth.

Again, pursuing an economic growth agenda is a priority of ours, and making sure that we get our fiscal house in order is one of those. So that is why I will say to my friend in response to his question, you bet we are going to try and find areas where the Federal Government has been expending dollars that have not been spent wisely and use those dollars to ensure that those who are suffering and those who are in need have what is necessary for them to survive.

Madam Speaker, if I could reclaim my time, let me say to my friend we are not going to waive the 3-day layover requirement, and whatever changes are made in this

measure will be addressed in the House Rules Committee and then fully debated on this House floor so the Members will have an opportunity to decide whether or not they are going to support the special rule that would then make in order consideration of this continuing resolution that will prevent a government shutdown, make sure that the resources for those who are suffering are made available, and take us to November 18 so that very thoughtful members of the Appropriations Committee, like the acting Speaker, will be able to deal with the appropriations priorities that we need to between now and November 18.

With that, Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, first, may I inquire of the Chair how much time is remaining on each side?

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to say to my friend from Fort Lauderdale, my Rules Committee colleague, Mr. Hastings, that I'd like to associate myself with a segment of the remarks that he made talking about the priority of addressing the very pressing needs of those who are suffering because of the disasters that have taken place in this country. My friend is absolutely right, and that's the reason that we are here.

Now, I would like to say that I don't know where it is that my friends get this 72 hours that's discussed regularly. Mr. McGovern has raised that, Mr. Hastings has raised it, Madam Speaker, and I don't know where they get that. We have what is known as the 3-day layover requirement. And let me clarify this because obviously some of my colleagues don't completely understand. I'm talking about the rules of the House, not statements that may have been made. The rules of the House say that there is a 3-day layover requirement.

On Monday, Madam Speaker, this measure was put online; the bill that we voted on yesterday was put online. It calls for $1.043 trillion in spending on an annual basis as we address keeping the government going, ensuring we don't have a government shutdown between now and November 18. That was put online on Monday.

I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Are you telling me I can't associate myself with your remarks?

If I could reclaim my time, I will tell my friend that the rules of the House are what we are complying with. The rules of the House say a 3-day layover requirement. On Monday, this was made available and put online. And now my friend says, I want to see it now, I want to see exactly what we're considering.

The reason that we will not be waiving the 3-day layover requirement is that we are going to have a bill that is very similar to the measure that we had last night, with possibly an amendment made to that.

I am happy to further yield to my friend.

If I could reclaim my time, Madam Speaker, I will tell you that I don't know what he means by the ``Speaker's word.'' The rules of the House are what we live by.

The rules of the House say that it needs to be made available online for 3 days. And guess what, Madam Speaker? We are in full compliance with the rules of the House, and we have no intention to waive that.

Okay. I'm looking now at a statement that was made on some program on Fox that says: ``I will not bring a bill to the floor that hasn't been posted online for at least 72 hours.'' Let me say thank you. I want to express my great appreciation. And I appreciate the size of the type, too, making it very easy for me to read it across the aisle here, another indication of our bridging the gap between either side of the aisle here, which is something I greatly appreciate.

It did turn out that the Speaker did say that, but then we came forward with a rules package; and that's why what I'm saying is the rules say that we will in fact have 3 days. A 3-day layover requirement needs to be met, and that's what the rules of the House consist of.

If I could reclaim my time for just one moment--and the reason I'm doing that is that I'm told that we have about 1 minute or so left, and I know my friend has 10 minutes. So could my friend yield to the gentleman and me? I know we're going to get the great poster with the Speaker's quote up there again, and I will look forward to reading it again, and I will join in reading it again with you all.

Let me just very quickly say that it was explained to us by the chairman of the Appropriations Committee today that we're spending about $30 million a day. There's $200 million in the account; it's scheduled to expire by this weekend. Passage of this measure tonight is something that will ensure that we will at least have those resources, and I hope we can address the needs of those Floridians who continue to suffer.

And others in this country.

I thank my friend.

Mr. Speaker, I would say to my friend that I'm going to close the debate over here as soon as my friend holds up that brilliant poster of the Fox News interview that Speaker Boehner had.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, the American people are hurting and have been suffering from disasters over the past several weeks and months and, obviously, for a long period of time in the past.

We just had a meeting downstairs where one of my new colleagues, the gentleman from Williamsport, Pennsylvania (Mr. Marino) stood up and talked about the fact that he, just days ago, was trudging through mud, meeting with the parents of small children, young children who were literally sitting on the hoods of automobiles in Pennsylvania where terrible flooding has taken place, and they have been asking him, since they had lost their homes, what he was going to do. And Mr. Marino made it very clear that he would do everything possible to ensure that those families would have what they needed. And that's why we're here right now with the measure that we have before us.

Now, Mr. Speaker, this measure that will come before us later this evening is a measure that has been online more than 72 hours. It was put online on Monday. Today is Thursday, so well beyond 72 hours it's been made available.

We have actually doubled, from $500 million to $1 billion, the FY11 request that was made by the President because we understand the imperative of getting these resources to the American people who are suffering. We can do that, Mr. Speaker, while, at the same time, reining in the size and scope and reach and control of the Federal Government, because everyone knows, Democrats and Republicans alike acknowledge, that there is waste in government, and that's the reason that we're saying we must pare the level of spending back.

And so, Mr. Speaker, this is not martial law. This is simply our step to ensure that the American people get the resources they need and that we do it in a fiscally responsible way, and it stems from what was a bipartisan agreement.

Mr. Speaker, with that, I urge an ``aye'' vote on the rule.

I yield back the balance and I move the previous question on the resolution.

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

I want to thank the gentleman from California, Chairman Dreier, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

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

Here we go again, Madam Speaker. Republicans are, once again, going back on their promises for a more open, more transparent House of Representatives--another martial law rule designed to fix problems of their own doing, another effort to break the rules just to fix their own mess.

And it didn't have to be this way.

For months, we've known that more disaster assistance was needed to address the aftermath of the tragedy in Joplin and, more recently, to address the damage caused by Irene as it made its way from North Carolina up the east coast into New England. Americans respond to natural disasters. That's what we do. We always have. We rise to the occasion when our neighbors are in need. The problem is when politicians start playing politics with people's lives, and that's where we find ourselves today.

Yesterday, the Republican leadership brought a continuing resolution to the floor that not only provided less disaster assistance than that of the Senate, it also offset that funding by cutting a green jobs initiative. It's not enough that we've been in session 261 days without a single jobs proposal from the Republicans. With yesterday's continuing resolution, Republicans actually proposed cutting a jobs program just to make political points with their Tea Party base.

Yesterday, Democrats said enough--enough to the job-killing Republican agenda, enough to the notion that fiscal austerity means turning our backs on people in need, enough to the ``my way or the highway'' attitude that seems to make up the ideology of the Republican leadership.

Yesterday, 48 Republicans joined 182 Democrats in defeating the continuing resolution. According to Politico, it was ``an embarrassing setback.''

Yesterday, Republicans and Democrats said, Don't play games with the lives of Americans.

It's almost as if the Republicans blame the victims of the hurricane and tornado for having the audacity to live in the paths of those natural disasters. So here we are again, forced to consider a martial law rule in an attempt to fix the problems that the Republicans, themselves, created, a martial law rule that not only waives the rules of the House but that also allows for the immediate consideration of a new continuing resolution.

No time to read the bill, even though the Republicans started out the year by promising 72 hours to look at any legislation voted on in the House. No time to read the bill. No ability to amend the bill.

So much for the new open Congress.

It wasn't too long ago that my colleagues on the Rules Committee were touting the new open Congress. Look how far this new Republican House has fallen.

Madam Speaker, it is disappointing that we're here today. It's disappointing that the Republicans are making a mockery of the legislative process. It's disappointing that they continue to choose politics over the American people. The American people deserve better than this.

With that, Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I'm a little bit confused. The gentleman referred to the legislation before us that it would provide this for the American people and that for the American people.

The legislation before us is a martial law rule which says that a bill that we have yet to see will be able to be brought up on the floor for same-day consideration. So I don't know what's in the new continuing resolution.

Maybe the gentleman can enlighten us: Do we expect a vote on the continuing resolution today? When can we see this continuing resolution? Does the gentleman have any insight that he can fill us in on and when Members might actually be able to see the bill?

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Let me reclaim my time and repeat the question.

The question is that the gentleman on a number of occasions referred to that the bill provides this for the American people and that for the American people when the bill before us is a martial law rule. We haven't seen the continuing resolution. When do we expect to see it? Are we voting on it today?

If I can reclaim my time, will that be in the next hour? Will that be today?

Reclaiming my time, the Rules Committee will consider it today, and then we would vote on it tonight? Is that the plan?

I yield to the gentleman.

Is that 1 hour or 72 hours?

Will you give me 1 hour, or 72 hours as was promised?

My understanding was that one of the pledges of the new Republican majority was that we were going to have a 72-hour layover to be able to read the bill.

If I could reclaim my time, I thought in the rules of the House it was 3 calendar days.

Reclaiming my time, if I understand the gentleman correctly, we may or may not meet soon. We may or may not vote on it today.

I'm happy to yield.

If I can reclaim my time, the gentleman mentioned our distinguished minority whip on a number of occasions. I don't recall him ever saying that he supported the Republican bill.

Reclaiming my time, I don't recall that, and I'll check with the minority whip to double-check on that.

I guess I'm just trying to provide some information to the Members of the House who are watching what's going on.

Am I correct in saying that, as of right now, we don't know when we're going to meet and we don't know when we'll see a final version of the continuing resolution?

Yes.

Reclaiming my time, if I may ask the gentleman one additional question, does he anticipate that the Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing Loan Program will be cut in the new version of the continuing resolution that will be brought before us?

Reclaiming my time, Madam Speaker, just for the record, I would like to have inserted a letter from Paul A. Yost, who's the vice president at the National Association of Manufacturers, and a letter from R. Bruce Josten, who is the executive vice president, Government Affairs of the Chamber of Commerce of the United States, both strongly objecting to the offset that Republicans included in the continuing resolution that we considered yesterday that went down.

One of the reasons there was great objection over this, Madam Speaker, was because this program that was cut actually was a job- creating program putting people to work. I would say to my colleagues, if you want to reduce the debt in this country, you ought to figure out a way to put people back to work; and the way you put people back to work is not cut every single program that provides assistance to business and to people to be able to get on their feet and create jobs.

We have a crisis in this country that is not being addressed by this House of Representatives which has yet to consider a single jobs bill. And instead, we have a continuing resolution that gets brought to the floor that provides less disaster assistance than the Senate bill does to people who are in need and pays for it, offsets it, by cutting a program to create jobs. What sense does that make?

When it comes to disaster relief, we have never, ever, ever offset disaster relief because you can't predict with any accuracy whether there's going to be a tornado next year or a hurricane next year or an earthquake next year.

There are some things we don't offset we should offset; for example, the wars. We've been in Afghanistan for 10 years, and I can't figure out why we're still there, but we're still there. Ten years. I can predict pretty much--very accurately--how much it will cost to stay another year, and yet we borrow that money. We put it on the credit card. We borrow $10 billion a month for military operations in Afghanistan that goes onto our credit card; not paid for. Not paid for.

But when it comes to helping people in this country who have been adversely impacted by a natural disaster, through no fault of their own, who have lost their homes, who've seen their communities devastated, all of a sudden we're here saying we've got to find these offsets. And where do the offsets come from? They don't come from Donald Trump's tax cut. Where they come from is a program to put people to work.

The gentleman, the chairman of the Rules Committee, talks about this great openness that we have in the Rules Committee. I have offered, I think about half a dozen times, an amendment to go after the U.S. taxpayer-funded oil subsidies, these subsidies that we provide oil companies that are making record profits, and we can't even get that issue for a vote on this House floor.

I hope we have enough time to read what's in the bill. I hope that we have enough time to understand what's in the bill. I hope that we meet today. I hope that we meet at a decent hour. But we don't have the answers to any of those questions, and I think that that's unfortunate when it comes to a bill about the funding, the continuing funding of our government.

Again, Madam Speaker, I regret that we are here. I regret that we are debating a martial law rule. We're not debating a continuing resolution right now. It's a martial rule that basically shuts everything down and allows them to bring up a bill any time they want to bring a bill up. People won't even have time to read it. And we'll have that vote possibly today. But again, we don't have any definite commitments from the other side what time or even if it will be today.

I will close by saying, Madam Speaker, that I think it is important that this House gets back to the issue of jobs and protecting and caring for the people here in this country. Our biggest challenges, I'm going to tell my friends on the other side, are not halfway around the world; some of them are just halfway down the block. I regret very much that this Congress has yet to deal with the issue of jobs.

Chamber of Commerce

of the United States of America,

Washington, DC, September 22, 2011.

To The Members of the U.S. House of Representatives: The

U.S. chamber of Commerce, the world's largest business

federation representing the interests of more than three

million businesses and organizations of every size, sector,

and region, strongly supports disaster relief funding to

assist victims of natural disasters. The Chamber is also a

vocal proponent of fiscal responsibility and recognizes that

Congress must make difficult but necessary choices among

competing priorities.

As Congress sets spending priorities, the Chamber wishes to

highlight a few important facts about the Advanced Technology

Vehicle Manufacturing (ATVM) loan program. First, the program

was authorized in the Energy Independence and Security Act of

2007, which was supported by both Republicans and Democrats

as an important step in reducing America's dependence on oil

from unstable regimes. Second, ATVM loans, which will be

repaid with interest, incentivize automakers and suppliers to

build more fuel-efficient advanced technology vehicles in the

U.S., providing new, opportunities for American workers in a

sector of the economy that

is critical to the nation's recovery. Third, the fact that

the Department of Energy has yet to use the funds Congress

appropriated for the program is not the fault of industry;

numerous loan applicants have been in the queue for years,

waiting for the Administration to complete its due diligence.

Again, while the Chamber understands the importance of

reducing America's unacceptable debt and believes that all

programs must be on the table, the Chamber urges you to bear

in mind the facts about the ATVM loan program, which promotes

manufacturing in the U.S. and is an important component of

America's energy security.

Sincerely,

R. Bruce Josten.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.

I just found out some news here in answer to a question I had earlier about offsets. Apparently, according to the National Journal, the Republican leaders are considering tacking on as much as $100 million in additional offsets to their GOP continuing resolution they are bringing to the floor. That is a quote attributed to House Rules Committee Chairman David Dreier. So I just read in the National Journal basically that there will be additional offsets.

Which brings me back to my original point of why it's important for us to see this bill. You say that you want to eliminate waste, but the U.S. Chamber of Commerce says that the Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing program is not waste; it creates jobs. So I don't know where else you're going to cut.

Madam Speaker, I just want to make sure the record is clear when it comes to Democratic support for the continuing resolution. In his pen and pad press conference, Minority Whip Hoyer said he was ``loath'' to support yesterday's CR, and I have a copy of that press conference and the transcript of the colloquy that went on on the House floor here. So if anybody is interested in reading it in detail, I have it here.

At this point, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings).

I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

I yield to the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to hold this poster up because I want to make sure that it's clear to everybody. I'm going to quote this: ``I will not bring a bill to the floor that hasn't been posted online for at least 72 hours.'' John Boehner, Fox News, ``America's News Room,'' 7/ 22/2010.

Mr. Speaker, we can have all the verbal gyrations that we can come up with here about how not to kind of get to the point, which is that we're not going to be able to have 3 days or 72 hours or 3 legislative days--or three anything--to look at this bill. And the bill that we're going to be debating later today or tomorrow--we don't really know--is going to be different. And we know it's going to be different because the chairman of the Rules Committee said in an interview that we have online to National Journal that there's probably going to be another $100 million more in offsets. And so where are those offsets coming from?

We know that one of the offsets that was in the continuing resolution yesterday was an offset that actually was a job killer, that actually is something that not only Democrats supported, but the United States Chamber of Commerce supported. Everyone came together and agreed that this is a good program, and it was cut, and it is going to discourage job creation in this country.

So I think it is important to know where these offsets are going to be coming from. And, again, let me repeat what I've said over and over: this has not been a bipartisan process. The only thing bipartisan about this continuing resolution was the opposition to it.

And, again, I would tell my Republican friends that the reason why this promise by Speaker Boehner is important is because we do need to understand what's in the bill. We're beginning to understand that your rules don't live up to what you actually promised.

Mr. Speaker, the other thing about this that I think is important for people to understand is that never, ever, ever have we ever insisted on offsets for emergency spending for disasters. We don't know whether there will be one, two, three, or no emergencies that hit our country next year or the year after or the year after that. Maybe my Republican friends have now figured out a way to predict earthquakes and tsunamis and hurricanes and tornadoes, but we don't know how to predict with any accuracy.

And this notion that we're not going to be there, that we're going to insist on offsets in order to provide people who have been thrown out of their homes, whose communities have been destroyed through no fault of their own, that we can find an offset when we don't need any offsets for nation-building in Afghanistan, that's all on your credit card. There's no offsets needed for that.

Why is it that no offsets are needed to do that kind of stuff, but when it comes to helping people in this country, all of a sudden we become super fiscally conservative? We need to have offsets for everything.

You want to reduce the debt? Put people back to work. That's how you do it. Cutting programs that put people back to work doesn't put people back to work. It slows down the economic recovery.

Here we are in September, and we have yet to deal with a single jobs bill on this floor. I don't know what it's like in California, but I can tell you in Massachusetts, when I go home, people want to talk about jobs and the economy. Yes, they want to reduce the debt, and they understand, by ending some of these wars, by cutting back on some of these overseas bases that we have, by asking Donald Trump to pay his fair share.

There's something wrong in this country when a billionaire hedge fund manager pays a lower tax rate than his secretary. It's like, no, we can't ask that person, that billionaire to pay his fair share. Everything is aimed at working people and those who are most vulnerable.

We should be talking about putting America back to work. We should be debating every day about ways to stimulate this economy, to provide incentives to put people back to work, to find ways to stop incentivizing corporations to send American jobs overseas.

Instead, my friends on the other side of the aisle are protecting all that status quo. I mean, they are protecting those tax breaks, those incentives that encourage jobs to go overseas. Enough. Enough.

I'll close by saying this, Mr. Speaker: When it comes to protecting subsidies for Big Oil companies, my friends are there. When it comes to rebuilding and nation building in Afghanistan, they're there. When it comes to maintaining a Tax Code that allows a billionaire hedge fund manager to pay a lower tax rate than his secretary, they're there. But when it comes to disaster assistance, when it comes to jobs, when it comes to things that matter to everyday people, it is a struggle. It is a fight.

I would urge my colleagues to rethink their priorities, to work in a bipartisan way when it comes to disaster relief and job creation.

Let's bring the President's jobs bill to the floor. If you don't like it, vote against it. But allow us to have the opportunity in this new, open House. Let us bring the President's jobs bill to the floor. Let us see whether we can pass it here. I think if this truly is an open House, we ought to have that opportunity.

I will just say, Mr. Speaker, before I yield back the balance of my time, I don't know when we're going to get this bill. I don't know where the cuts are going to be made. I don't know what other job- creating programs are going to be cut. But again, ``I will not bring a bill to the floor that hasn't been posted on line for at least 72 hours.'' We're not even going to get 72 minutes, in all likelihood.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank my colleague on the Rules Committee and my good friend for yielding. I echo all of the sentiments that he has made previously.

Firstly, I'd like to point to the fact that the National Association of Manufacturers, in its last sentence in a letter directed to Senator Reid and Senator Mitch McConnell, says, ``During this time of economic recovery, we urge you to preserve this successful program''--meaning the Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing program--``that is helping preserve auto sector jobs and promote energy security.''

Bruce Josten, from the Chamber of Commerce, while citing to all Members of the House of Representatives that the chamber ``understands the importance of reducing America's unacceptable debt and believes that all programs must be on the table, the chamber urges you to bear in mind the facts about the ATVM loan program, which promotes manufacturing in the United States and is an important component of America's energy security.''

I only cited that for the reason that there could be no better person to know what martial law is than the distinguished chairman of the Rules Committee, who is my good friend. He and I, he and Mr. McGovern and I, Ms. Slaughter and he and I have been back and forth on martial law when Democrats were in charge and when Republicans were in charge. One thing you need to understand is this is martial law that you are bringing this rule under, and we don't even know what's in the bill.

Yesterday afternoon, the Republican leadership brought up a bill that failed American workers, failed our Nation's economy, and failed those struggling to recover from natural disasters. It is no surprise that their rank and file then failed them.

Rather than take up language that has already passed the Senate with bipartisan support, Republicans instead chose to pit unemployed factory workers against hurricane victims. This is not the kind of behavior that will bring our Nation out of this recession.

While Republicans continue their partisan squabbles, countless Americans are fighting for their livelihoods. Six years after Hurricane Katrina, roofs are still being replaced, homes are being repaired and paperwork is still pending for funds that have yet to be allocated. And if you've been to New Orleans, you'll see a whole section of that city that is not in repair.

In my home State of Florida, FEMA has already delayed $1.68 million for work resulting from 2004 and 2005 Hurricanes Charley, Frances, Ivan, Jeanne and Dennis.

Given my colleague's distorted priorities, I can't help but wonder how long will the people of New England have to wait since we've been waiting in Florida since 2004 and 2005.

And some have been waiting for drought relief and flood relief for an equal number of years. But this appears to be of no consequence to my Republican colleagues as they fail to recognize that their ideological posturing has very real repercussions. Once again, their irresponsible behavior and unwillingness to compromise has put us on the brink of yet another shutdown.

H. Res. 409 unnecessarily will provide for same-day consideration of another Republican continuing resolution, violating the House Republicans' rules package passed in January which provided that all bills will be available to the public 3 days before coming to a vote. Not only did we not get the required 72 hours, we didn't get 24 hours.

The Speaker made it very clear. He said that we will dispense with the conventional wisdom that bigger bills are always better; that fast legislating is good legislating; and that allowing additional amendments and open debate makes the legislative process less efficient than our forefathers intended. Legislators and the public will have 3 days to read bills before they come to a vote.

We were told we would have 3 days to read bills before they come to a vote. We were told that they would be on the Internet and that technology is available so that all of America could see what we're doing. And as the Speaker said--and I thoroughly agree--fast legislating is not good legislating, especially when there is no need to require a rushed, closed process. As far as we know, we're voting on a same-day rule for a bill we don't even know exists. Before we even ask to spend billions of dollars, we should have some idea of what's going on. And it's not enough for me to hear that we're going to hear about it in the Rules Committee later on. I want to know what's going on right now.

Will the gentleman yield?

I just wanted to respond to your statement that you don't know where we--

No, that you don't know where we got the 72 hours from. Well, if you go on the Speaker's Web site, you will see in the very first paragraph what he says in that regard with reference to 72 hours. Perhaps that's where we got it from.

Just one thing, Mr. Chairman: Does the Speaker's word matter or not?

Mr. Chairman, one thing I really would like to make clear and take out some of the hyperbole and the passion from my side or yours, we know, and you have said--and I echo your expressions with reference to the need for us to address--

The only thing I am trying to get across is I don't want the American public to believe that whenever we get through--whether it's 72 hours, or whenever it is--that that means that the desperately needed money in Vermont and in New England and other places is going to be forthcoming most immediately because I'm telling you that from '04 and '05, from six hurricanes we are not being paid in the State of Florida.

Well, not only Floridians.

Exactly. That's the point. From tornadoes, from hurricanes, from fires, all over the place.

Mr. Speaker, I was unable to cast the recorded votes for rollcall 721, 722, 723, and 724. During this time, I was with President Obama. We were discussing the closure of the Sherman Minton Bridge, which has severely impacted transportation and commerce in my district.

Had I been present I would have voted no for these measures.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bill Rollcall # Vote ------------------------------------------------------------------------ H. Res. 409: On Ordering the Previous Question................. 721 No H. Res. 409: On Agreeing to the Resolution..................... 722 No H. Res. 406: On Ordering the Previous Question................. 723 No H. Res. 406: On Agreeing to the Resolution..................... 724 No ------------------------------------------------------------------------