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 412 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my very good

friend from Rochester, New York, the distinguished ranking minority member of the Committee on Rules, Ms. Slaughter, pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.

All time that I will be yielding and that my friend from Rochester will be yielding will be for debate purposes only.

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

General Leave

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

Mr. Speaker, we have gone through what James Madison, the author of the Constitution, has described as an ugly, messy, difficult process. That's the legislative process. And while many of us have been frustrated, it does work at the end of the day.

Mr. Speaker, it has to work. It has to work because our fellow Americans are suffering at this moment.

I have just been talking to staff members of the House Appropriations Committee, and we have to get the resources to those people who are suffering ASAP. As of this morning, there was a grand total of $212 million in the Federal Emergency Management Agency's fund to deal with these disasters that have taken place. Last spring, the Secretary of Homeland Security, Ms. Napolitano, testified that we needed additional resources.

Now, Mr. Speaker, let's go back to last spring and realize that was before we had hurricanes. It was before we had floods. It was before we had tornadoes that hit the Midwest. Think of those poor people in Joplin, Missouri, all those homes and lives that were lost. And it was before we had this earthquake that, as we all know, damaged the Washington Monument right down the street from where we are.

Mr. Speaker, it's very important that we get those resources there, with only $212 million as of this morning. With expenditures somewhere in the neighborhood of 30-plus million dollars each day, it means as early as Monday of next week we could end up with nothing, nothing for those people who are suffering.

Mr. Speaker, we don't want the government to shut down. We want to make sure that the people who are truly in need are able to have the resources necessary. But at the same time, we recognize that we have a $14.5 trillion national debt. We have massive deficits that are before us, and we need to do everything that we can to do what people across this country are saying needs to be done--we need to create jobs. We need to generate an increase in our gross domestic product growth, and the measure that is going to be before us when we report out this rule will do just that.

Mr. Speaker, the measure that we will consider is identical to the measure that we considered in the House yesterday, the measure that had been reported out, basically the same package that we had last week. But a bipartisan request that was made by the Senate majority leader, Mr. Reid, and the Senate minority leader, Mr. McConnell, was that we have this provision considered as a Senate amendment so that the Senate would be able to move as quickly as possible to ensure that our fellow Americans have the resources that are necessary. And so that's why we have ended up with the same measure that we had yesterday.

But, Mr. Speaker, as you and I have discussed in the meeting that we were just in, there has been a change. There is a very minor change. It is one single paragraph. So of the continuing resolution that we had, which is $1.043 trillion, exactly what we had yesterday, no change, in full compliance with the 3-day layover requirement that exists in the House rules--and I will remind my colleagues the measure that's before us was put online on Monday, 4 days ago, so, again, in full compliance with time to spare to meet the 3-day layover, with one amendment. The amendment reads as follows:

``At the end of the matter proposed to be inserted by the House amendment, before the short title, insert the following:

``Section 142. Effective on the date of the enactment of this Act, of the unobligated balances remaining available for `Department of Energy--Energy Programs--Title 17--Innovative Technology Loan Guarantee Program' pursuant to title IV of division A of Public Law 111-5, $100,000,000 is rescinded.''

That is the only change that has been made. Let me tell you why that change was made, Mr. Speaker, and I don't often read The Washington Post on the House floor, but today's Washington Post has an article that explains what it is that led us to call for using the $100 million that I just mentioned as an offset.

I recognize, as one of my colleagues in the Rules Committee stated earlier, we know that this company known as Solyndra, which Democrats and Republicans alike recognize has been an abject failure for this energy program, is one that will not get resources because they have gone bankrupt.

But let me just tell you what led to us focusing on this $100 million, Mr. Speaker, to ensure that we never again have another boondoggle like Solyndra. This is, again, today's Washington Post, in an article entitled, ``Solyndra's Ex-Employees Tell of High Spending, Factory Woes.'' It reads as follows:

``Former employees of Solyndra, the shuttered solar company that exhausted half a billion dollars of taxpayer money, said they saw questionable spending by management almost as soon as a Federal agency approved a $535 million government-backed loan for the start-up.

``A new factory built with public money boasted a gleaming conference room with glass walls that, with the flip of a switch, turned a smoky gray to conceal the room's occupants. Hastily purchased state-of-the- art equipment ended up being sold for pennies on the dollar, still in its plastic wrap, employees said.

``As the $344 million factory went up just down the road from the company's leased plant in Fremont, California, workers watched as pallets of unsold solar panels stacked up in storage. Many wondered: Was the factory needed?

`` `After we got the loan guarantee, they were just spending money left and right,' said former Solyndra engineer Lindsey Eastburn. `Because we were doing well, nobody cared. Because of that infusion of money, it made people sloppy.' ''

Now, Mr. Speaker, we all know that our fellow Americans are suffering across this country because of the tremendous very, very sad disasters that we have faced over the last weeks and months, and it is very important for us to recognize that every taxpayer dollar is precious, especially in these times when there are people losing jobs, losing their homes, and losing their businesses.

This is a very sad and tragic example of the kind of waste that is there, and that is why the one very small but important modification to the measure that is before us will be to take $100 million and use that additionally as an offset to ensure that the hard-earned dollars of the American people are not wasted in the way that we have seen.

So, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule, and with that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume to simply say when Ms. Pelosi was Speaker of the House of Representatives, my friend from Rochester chaired the Rules Committee. The disaster relief provided in the response to Hurricane Katrina was partially offset. This is not in any way unprecedented. It's the right thing to do.

I urge my colleagues to support the rule, and with that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to tell my friend from Worcester that clearly jobs is the priority that we are focused on. I appreciate very much and would like to associate myself with his remarks when he talked about the need for us to focus on job creation and economic growth. And I know I'm speaking for everyone, everyone on our side of the aisle, when we say we want to work in a bipartisan way to ensure that we can get our economy growing and so that the American people who are hurting will be able to have job opportunities.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume to say to my friend that there have been 1,100 jobs lost at Solyndra. We want to make sure that there is never again, never again another Solyndra. That's the reason that we have focused on the $100 million as an offset in this measure, Mr. Speaker.

I think it's also very important to note this morning when I woke up I heard the news that General Motors is now in the midst of an international partnership in the People's Republic of China to deal with the development of electric vehicles. These are the kinds of things that the private marketplace is pursuing. I live in Los Angeles, California, where we have very serious air quality problems, and we just got the news today that Washington, D.C. is number six in the Nation when it comes to air quality problems. We want to make sure that we have energy-efficient automobiles. We are determined to do that. We need to make sure, we need to make sure that those companies that are out there pursuing these kinds of alternatives that, frankly, in most all cases are free, are free of government grants, are able to succeed with that; and that's why we have proceeded with that.

If my friend would like me to yield, I'm happy to yield to him.

If I could reclaim my time, Mr. Speaker, let me say to my friend that obviously we have seen the General Motors deal proceed. The fact of the matter is it's not solely because of that that we are seeing this kind of partnership. But, Mr. Speaker, we are seeing the private sector proceed with a policy that I believe very strongly in, and that policy is being pro-environment and is, in fact, pro-business.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume to simply remind my colleagues why it is that we're here.

We're faced with the prospect of a government shutdown. There was a grand total as of this morning of $212 million in the fund to deal with our fellow Americans who are suffering because of disasters that we've gone through over the past several weeks and months, and we want to make sure that the appropriations process, which has been dumped on us, is able to be addressed in a bipartisan way. I want Democrats and Republicans alike to come together to address this.

The $100 million additional offset, the only minor modification that has been made, is to ensure that we don't have--and I know Democrats and Republicans alike agree on this--we don't want to have another Solyndra. And that's what we believe we can do.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume to simply say that job creation and economic growth is what we are all about. The deal about which my friend just referred is one which is part of the global marketplace. The goal of having U.S. manufacturers, U.S. workers manufacturing automobiles for sale in China and vice versa is our priority.

With that, I would like to yield 2 minutes to my friend from Lawrenceville, Georgia (Mr. Woodall).

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close on our side. If my friend is prepared to close, then we can close the debate here and move to a vote on the rule, and then move directly to consideration of the appropriations bill, so that the American people will be closer to getting resources they desperately need.

I am prepared to close the debate on our side.

I reserve the balance of my time for that purpose.

Will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I've been mentioned three times, and since the gentlewoman has mentioned me--

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I'll be happy to yield to my distinguished California colleague at any moment as I make a couple of remarks here as she walks off the floor.

I asked her to yield, Mr. Speaker, because she three times referenced me as it relates to the vehicle program, the Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturers program. Let me just explain what we're faced with today, Mr. Speaker.

What we're faced with is the challenge of ensuring that we get the resources necessary to the American people who are suffering because of these disasters. Now, when my California colleague was Speaker of the House, we had disasters that took place like Hurricane Katrina. Much of that was offset. And so to act as if this is unprecedented is not a correct characterization of what has happened, because we have seen offsets for disasters in the past on numerous occasions over the last decade in excess of $59 billion in offsets that provided for supplemental appropriations that have been out there.

As it relates to the Advanced Technology Vehicle program, I was going to say to my California colleague who is no longer on the floor, and I'd like to yield to her if she would like to come back to respond to this, there is a total of $4 billion that is there. What we're doing is utilizing $1.5 billion. So as people say that this program is being completely eliminated, that is not a correct characterization of what has happened.

Let me tell you what it is we're doing, Mr. Speaker.

We're doing everything that we can to find every dollar that we possibly can to ensure that our fellow Americans who are suffering due to these disasters are able to have the resources that are necessary. Of the $1.5 billion which is utilized in the offset, it's been sitting in the coffers for 3 years. So to act as if we somehow are going to see some great loss of jobs is again a mischaracterization of what is happening.

We're establishing priorities. We have a priority, that being dealing with our fellow Americans in Joplin, Missouri, who suffered from that horrible tornado that hit that area. That's my home State of Missouri. I know how devastating. In listening to our colleague, Mr. Long, it's very clear to see in his eyes the kind of effort that he's put in to deal with the rebuilding there. That is a priority.

Dealing with the photographs that we saw from Mr. Welch's district who voted for this bill yesterday and I suspect will vote for it again this evening to ensure that those who suffered from flooding in Vermont have that. And as I said earlier in the day, our new colleague, Tom Marino from Williamsport, Pennsylvania, who just in the past several days was trudging through the mud as he reported to my colleagues in our meeting downstairs talking to the parents of children who were literally sitting on the hoods of their automobiles because their homes had been devastated. And the question asked by that parent to Congressman Marino was, What is it you are going to do? And he said that he was going to come to Washington and do everything that he possibly can, everything that he would be able to do to ensure that they have the resources they need.

Now, to argue that this is pitting a fund that has been sitting dormant for 3 years and is not in the pipeline versus utilization of those resources for the American people who are suffering is a very inappropriate thing to do.

So that was the discussion that I was looking forward to having with my California colleague as she talked about my support of the Advanced Technology Vehicle program.

Of course. I'm always happy to yield to my good friend from Detroit.

If I could reclaim my time, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman just said no one is saying that. I'm sure that my friend was not here through the entire debate.

I don't know that my friend was listening through the entire debate.

May I finish, Mr. Speaker?

What I want to say is that we were told that we on our side of the aisle are declaring war--declaring war--by the statement made by our friends from Massachusetts, and from that, one would have to infer that we were trying to obliterate a program.

When we, Mr. Speaker, have 3 years of those dollars sitting dormant, not being expended and not in the pipeline, we believe that we can utilize those dollars for the American people who

are truly in need. We need to move ahead with that as expeditiously as possible, and I think we should try to do that right now and get to the appropriations bill.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, let me yield myself 1 minute, and I will yield to my friend from Michigan.

Mr. Speaker, I reclaim my time.

We've had this read to us three times.

Mr. Speaker, I've heard it three times read on the House floor. We heard the debate earlier today. It was read by our colleagues, Mr. Speaker. I've heard this three times on the House floor.

What I want to say is that we've had, for 3 years, the dollars that we're utilizing for the offset sitting dormant.

It is true, and it is not in the pipeline to be expended, Mr. Speaker. So, for that reason, I believe the people of Joplin, Missouri, can better utilize dollars that have been sitting for 3 years for absolutely no purpose whatsoever.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to simply say to my colleagues that we're here for a very important reason. The reason is that we want to make sure that we don't face a government shutdown. We want to make sure that we do everything we possibly can so that the people in this country who have suffered from disasters over the past several weeks and months are able to have the resources that they need to do that, and we want to make sure, Mr. Speaker, that we do it in a fiscally responsible way so that we can do what every American and every Democrat and Republican in this House says needs to be done so that we can get our economy growing and put into place pro-growth, job creation proposals. I believe that we can do that. I think we can do it responsibly.

I will say that this is the identical package that we had last night, with one modification; and that one modification is to ensure, with all due respect to my friend, the distinguished dean of this House, that we don't have another Solyndra. Regardless of what some have said was the cause of their demise, when we have employees of that company coming forward and making the case that they were spending money left and right, that they were using it on some of the most outrageous things imaginable, and that the employees could not understand why they built a factory when they had all of these resources in reserve, this cannot be allowed. It's not a responsible expenditure of U.S. taxpayer dollars, Mr. Speaker, and that's the reason we believe this $100 million can be used for the people who are truly in need.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to 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.

The bill before us today is almost identical to the bill that we voted against yesterday. Mr. Speaker the bill before us will hurt jobs. The central issue before our country is jobs and the creation of jobs to secure our economy. We need to focus on talking about jobs. Instead, we are now once again focused on a measure that was rejected yesterday. The amendment added to this bill is clearly a desperate attempt by my Republican colleagues to pass their own ideological Continuing Resolution. This amendment would keep the same offset for disaster relief which will result in a $1.5 billion cut to the Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing Program (ATVM), which has been a proven job creator, it created 35,000 jobs in the private sector. The purpose of the program is to enable American businesses to build the cars of the future that could be sold to China, rather than the reverse. It is intended to give us a technological boast in the auto industry. As if this was not enough, the amendment adds an additional cut--a rescission of $100 million from the Recovery Act Renewable Energy Loan guarantee program, which is another cut to a program that creates jobs. A move to secure the votes of members concerned about the few party interests not the interests of Americans. This legislation causes the loss of American jobs!

The only broken record that I want to hear is the mantra of how to create jobs. Let us focus on putting the American people back to work, rather than bringing back measures that failed to garner support yesterday. I implore my colleagues to recall the reasons they rejected this measure in the first place and to do so again. Americans have always come to the aid of those in need, after a natural disaster.

Americans demonstrate a level of compassion that should not be damped by measures like the one before us today. Disaster relief funding is not a political football; it addresses the needs of Americans who find themselves the victims of unforeseeable natural disasters. It is born out of our nation's desire to aid those who are in need.

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 successes of their businesses are being held hostage in order to demand offsets of funds that have not required 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.

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 have 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. My colleagues have cut this funding in half. They have offset this funding by decreasing the funds allotted by ending the Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing loan program. 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 cleanup 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.

We must fund disaster relief. These are unforeseeable events. The devastating hurricanes in Texas in recent years is a perfect example. Our response to those events have demonstrated a need for significant improvement. During Hurricane Katrina, there were insufficient quantities of generators that 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.

A major strength of small businesses 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 woman-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 women and minority owned businesses aware of all of the contract opportunities available to them.

Facts: Small businesses 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 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 is important to ensuring that small business receive the support they need.

I stand here once again asking my colleagues to remember that just yesterday we opposed this bill. I implore you to do this once more. 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 measures that are job growers rather than measures that are jobs killers.

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

Mr. Speaker, my speech today will be very much like my speech yesterday, but then so is the bill. Yesterday the House on both sides of the aisle defeated the majority's first attempt to pass a continuing resolution. And here we are 24 hours later with the very same bill. Let me repeat, the bill we're debating today is barely changed from the one that was defeated yesterday. The bill still contains unacceptable cuts to an essential manufacturing jobs program to pay for equally essential disaster relief.

Homes have been destroyed. Roads have collapsed, and local economies have been disrupted by a seemingly endless stream of hurricanes, tornadoes, tropical storms, and extreme weather that has crisscrossed our land. Our moral compass makes it very clear. We know what we need to do. We

must come to the aid of our fellow Americans who need our help. The problems they are facing are monumental, and quite simply, no one can recover from such natural disasters on their own. They need our help.

Yet the majority's efforts to hold disaster relief hostage to unacceptable cuts is as unwise today as it was 24 hours ago.

As I said yesterday, when it comes to spending billions of dollars on two wars that are bankrupting us, the majority's concern for spending is nowhere to be found. Since 2004, American taxpayers have spent over $3.4 billion as emergency spending on infrastructure in Afghanistan, and even more in Iraq. Not a single one of these $3.4 billion was offset, but were paid for by the same taxpayers that are being denied taxpayer money now. While we send billions of dollars to Iraq, the Iraqi government has begun building. They announced today a high-speed rail system to connect Basra to Baghdad. That's the same week that the majority in this House took all of the high-speed rail away from the United States. And so we will be paying for 280 miles in Iraq, but we can't pay for it from Buffalo to Albany.

When it comes to Americans in need, when it comes to helping women, children, and families whose homes have been washed away, the majority has decided they just can't help unless they get to take the money from a program that has created 39,000 jobs and is poised to create 60,000 more.

The bill was wrong yesterday, and it's wrong today.

Let me just give you some information from, I believe, The New York Times. The headline says, ``Republicans Sought Clean-Energy Money for Home States.'' Senator McConnell asked for $235 million for an electric vehicle plant in Kentucky; Representative Lamar Smith asked for stimulus money for a solar plant in Texas; Congressman Fred Upton wanted five clean energy projects in Michigan; Representative Cliff Stearns asked for a lithium ion battery manufacturing plant in Florida. These requests for funding came from the very same program that has been discussed being cut these last 2 days.

I urge all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to stand by your beliefs. If you thought the bill was wrong yesterday, there is no reason to think the bill is better today; virtually nothing has changed.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule and this flawed bill.

[From the New York Times, Sept. 19, 2011]

Republicans Sought Clean-Energy Money for Home States

(By Eric Lipton)

Washington.--On the Senate floor and the television

airwaves, Senator Mitch McConnell has lambasted the Obama

administration over what he has described as its failed

efforts to stimulate new jobs through clean-energy projects

backed with billions of dollars in federal loans or other

assistance.

But Mr. McConnell, of Kentucky, is one of several prominent

Republicans who have worked to steer federal money to clean-

energy projects in their home states, Energy Department

documents show.

Mr. McConnell made two personal appeals in 2009, asking

Energy Secretary Steven Chu to approve as much as $235

million in federal loans for a plant to build electric

vehicles in Franklin, Ky.

``I hope you will realize the importance of such job

creation to Kentucky,'' Mr. McConnell said in a July 2009

memo supporting an application from Zap Motor Manufacturing.

Federal lobbying disclosure records show that Mr.

McConnell's support for the project came after Zap Motor

hired a Kentucky-based lobbyist, Robert Babbage, who has been

a frequent contributor to Mr. McConnell's campaigns and

boasts on his own Internet site about his close ties to Mr.

McConnell.

Mr. Babbage declined to comment on the project. Gary Dodd,

chief executive of Zap Motor, said the intervention by Mr.

McConnell came after the company asked him to push the Energy

Department to approve the loan.

Mr. McConnell's office, in a statement, defended his

actions, saying, ``There was no effort to push the

administration to short-circuit its due diligence simply to

plan a ribbon-cutting.''

Mr. McConnell's high-level advocacy took place despite

early struggles for the project, including the financial

collapse in 2008 of its first Kentucky business partner,

Integrity Manufacturing. Mr. McConnell made no mention of

these stumbles as he pushed for federal money, simply saying

Zap Motor might create as many as 4,000 jobs in his state.

Recently, he has joined with other Republicans in

criticizing a March 2009 decision by the Obama administration

to provide a $535 million government-backed loan to a

California solar-panel manufacturer, Solyndra, which recently

filed for bankruptcy and is now the subject of inquiries by

the F.B.I. and Congress.

``The White House fast-tracked a half-billion-dollar loan

to a politically connected energy firm,'' Mr. McConnell said

Thursday in remarks on the Senate floor. ``This place was

supposed to be the poster child of how the original stimulus

would create jobs.''

Another Republican, Representative Lamar Smith of Texas,

recently asked Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. to appoint

an outside investigator to determine how the Department of

Energy distributes clean-energy money. But in 2009, Mr. Smith

wrote to Mr. Chu asking him to approve loan guarantees from

stimulus money for a Texas project proposed by Tessera Solar,

documents show.

Representative Fred Upton, Republican of Michigan and

another critic of the Energy Department program, signed

letters along with other members of the Michigan delegation

in 2009 and 2010, pushing at least five clean-energy projects

in his state, including a $207 million loan request from

EcoMotors International. And Representative Cliff Stearns,

Republican of Florida, praised the opening last year of a

lithium-ion battery manufacturing plant in his state, which

relied upon an Energy Department grant.

Mr. Smith, along with the others, defended their actions,

saying lawmakers can be critical of the Energy Department

programs while still seeking money.

``I wanted to support Texas companies in their applications

for grants,'' Mr. Smith said in a statement. ``It is the

responsibility of the Obama administration to carry out the

necessary financial reviews of these proposals.''

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), a member of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Natural Resources. This combines a speech he would have made yesterday with one he's going to do this evening.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to yield myself 1 minute to respond to the General Motors-China issue.

Earlier this week, The New York Times had a wonderful article in the business section that the Chinese were subsidizing electric cars to the tune of $19,000 which all of us know is against every trade law the world has ever seen. But they were going to sell the Volt, and GM announced--they actually told them that in order to sell the Volt at all in China they had to give over all of their technology and all the information they had on how to build that car. I thought they weren't going to do it, but I also read yesterday that now they've got a brand- new Chinese partner, and they're giving them all the technology. I've got some legislation to bring into that, Mr. Speaker. I think it's outrageous that that's what's happening to American manufacturers.

I would like to now yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan who

knows a thing about General Motors, the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means, Mr. Levin.

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

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

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

Before I yield to my friend from New Jersey, let me respond to my friend from Georgia. Don't forget that 48 on your side voted against it. I don't know what agreement you had with them.

I now yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

I am expecting another speaker who is not yet on the floor.

My speaker has arrived, Mr. Crowley of New York, and I will yield him 3 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California, our Democrat leader, Ms. Pelosi.

I'm sorry, Mr. Levin. I don't have any more time.

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close.

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question at the end of the debate, I will offer an amendment to the rule to ensure that disaster victims get the help that they need. My amendment will allow Representative Dingell to offer a motion to strike the unacceptable House language and to substitute the bipartisan Senate approach.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell).

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

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.

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

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I know as well as anyone that Members change their minds. I've heard a lot about that the last couple of days. But here we are debating essentially the same bill that we voted on yesterday. Many Republicans who voted ``no'' last night did so because they believed $1.043 trillion is too much spending. The bill before us tonight spends $1.043 trillion.

I will be the first to say every Member is entitled to change his or her mind; however, I am eager to hear my Republican colleagues who voted ``no'' yesterday answer why it is okay to vote ``yes'' today. And I hope these Members will not hang their hat on the one fig leaf of change in the bill. The bill now includes a rescission of $100 million in emergency funding from section 1705 of the renewables DOE loan program. A rescission of emergency funds does not score as a reduction from the $1.043 trillion.

Democrats voted ``no'' for two reasons: we strongly oppose taking funding from the Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing program. This is a program that has proven to be a success in creating new jobs, and such a success that the National Association of Manufacturers and the Chamber of Commerce of the United States have both called upon the Congress to not cut out this program because, one, the money is repaid, and it is creating jobs--something the majority has not done in the months that they've been in the majority. This is a jobs program.

We strongly oppose the notion that efforts to help Americans rebuild their lives after floods, hurricanes, wildfires and other natural disasters should be put on hold until Congress can agree on offsetting reductions in spending. We will continue to vote ``no'' because the bill continues to acquire an offset to provide disaster relief funding, and that offset is misguided. Republicans take $1.5 billion from the Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing program at the Department of Energy to pay for $1 billion in disaster relief.

The Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing program was started in 2008 to reinvigorate American manufacturing. To date, the program has awarded $3.5 billion of credit subsidy to promote energy-efficient advanced vehicles and their component parts. The Department of Energy estimates the loan guarantees have created or maintained 39,000 jobs in California, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio, Michigan, Missouri, and Tennessee.

Some have suggested that this program has been slow to spend emergency funding provided in the FY 2000 CR. I say the loan process ought to be strenuous. One company originally applied under a different loan program in 2006 and received an ATVM loan in 2010. It required 4 years of due diligence and review to qualify for the loan. Republicans seem to be issuing an ultimatum to all loan programs: expedite the review process or see your funding transferred away. By the way, the company in question, Tesla, employed about 400 employees before receiving the loan. Today, they have 1,400 employees in the field of engineering research and development, design, manufacturing, assembly, maintenance, and service, sales and support.

The ATVM program has an additional 18 loan applications in progress that are projected to create 50,000-60,000 more jobs in California, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, and Ohio. One pending application would support investments at 11 plants in Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, and Ohio. The company employs over 56,000 workers, having added nearly 9,000 new workers since 2009. Some of these jobs will be at risk because of this offset.

This is not the time to put American manufacturing jobs at risk.

That is why the National Association of Manufacturers expressed their support for the ATVM program in a letter to the Senate dated September 22, noting, ``The ATVM program is an example of what government/ industry partnerships can accomplish. It has helped create and preserve thousands of auto sector jobs. The NAM believes defunding ATVM will hurt manufacturers and their employees.'' And the Chamber of Commerce agrees with them.

Now, I think it's time for us to stay with our position and vote ``no'' and get a clean CR. That's what I asked the committee to do. We need a clean CR. We don't need this offset.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price), the ranking member on the Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee and former chair.

I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), the ranking member of the Energy and Water appropriations subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the ranking member of the Commerce, Justice, Science Subcommittee, Mr. Fattah of Pennsylvania.

Would the Speaker tell us how much time both sides have.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Today was a very dramatic day on the stock market. The Dow Jones dropped 500 points because investors are worried that we're headed into a second recession; and what we get from the majority party is to cut out a program that creates jobs. The Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing program has already created 39,000 jobs. It's going to create another 39,000 with the $2.5 billion that remains, and the $1.5 billion that we're taking out of there would create another 10,000 jobs. These are jobs. The only way we're going to get unemployment down is to put people back to work.

And here we are again. After savaging all these other programs-- cutting people out of work in the public sector--now we're going to cut out automobile jobs. Let me read to you what the National Association of Manufacturers has to say, which is not an organ of the Democratic Party:

``The NAM is the largest trade association in the United States, representing over 11,000 small, medium and large manufacturers in all 50 States. We are the leading voice for the manufacturing economy, which provides millions of high-wage jobs in the U.S. Two-thirds of our members are small businesses, which serve as the engine for job growth. Our mission is to enhance the competitiveness of manufacturers and improve American living standards by shaping a legislative and regulatory environment conducive to U.S. economic growth.

``The NAM is writing to express our support for the Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing program--'' this is the program that we're taking $1.5 billion out of ``--authorized under the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 with bipartisan support and signed into law by President Bush. The ATVM program is an example of what government/industry partnerships can accomplish. It has helped create and preserve thousands of auto sector jobs and put our Nation on a path towards greater energy security. The NAM believes defunding ATVM will hurt manufacturers and their employees.''

I mean, if you had to go out and find a business group in this country that has more credibility, I don't know what it would be. It's the National Association of Manufacturers.

The Chamber of Commerce, which is also not an organ of the Democratic Party, says: ``As Congress sets spending priorities, the Chamber wishes to highlight a few important facts about the Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing 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 applications have been in the queue for years, waiting for the administration to complete its due diligence.''

That line started in the previous administration. So this is a jobs program.

I say to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, we want to take care of those people who have suffered disasters. We want to take care of them. We will take care of them, but we also want to provide jobs for Americans who are unemployed. If I were in your shoes, I'd support jobs for workers and also take care of those people who are suffering because of a disaster.

Now, these are Republican-leaning organizations. They get it. Just vote ``no,'' and let's get a clean bill and do the right thing for the country.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

I didn't put out a press release, but I'll tell you one thing. I listen. I listen to the Chamber of Commerce and to the National Association of Manufacturers. I listen.

I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished ranking member of the Natural Resources Committee, the gentleman Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

Isn't it true that these alternative energy programs all create jobs?

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Don't they all create jobs, these alternative energy programs? So instead of just having the automobile program that creates jobs cut by $1.5 billion, now they are taking $100 million out of another program that creates jobs for the American people, so this is a double header.

I yield the gentleman 15 additional seconds.

The program was started under the previous administration, the Bush administration. The last day they tried to force it out, to have it approved, and it was turned down by the good staff at the Department of Energy.

I would just point out that one of the largest investors was Walmart, and Walmart has a long history of supporting Republican candidates. And I will just say, I will just say they invested, I think, $3 or $400 million. So there was a lot of private sector investment here, too.

I appreciate it.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I yield the balance of my time to the distinguished whip of the Democratic Party, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), one of my goodest, best friends.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

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.

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