Disaster Relief Appropriations Act, 2012

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 500 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my very good friend from Rochester, New York (Ms. Slaughter), the distinguished ranking minority member of the Committee on Rules, pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.

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

Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 500 provides for the consideration of three measures that will ensure that the government is funded through the end of the fiscal year; and this rule, as was outlined by the reading Clerk, provides very important tools to deal with important issues that have yet to be resolved.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we all know that, as we sit here at 3 minutes of 10 o'clock this morning, we are faced at midnight tonight with the prospect of a government shutdown. There is a bipartisan consensus on the need to ensure that we don't face a government shutdown; and it's very important that we take action to prevent that from taking place, and that's exactly what our opportunity is here today.

At the same time, it's important for us to realize that it is absolutely imperative, if we are going to get our economy growing and create jobs, for us to reduce the size and scope and reach of the Federal Government. That's the message the American people have sent to us overwhelmingly, and that's why I have to say that I believe this bipartisan compromise, which has been worked out with Members of the House and the Senate and the White House, moves us in the direction of doing just that.

Why? Because we are actually bringing about in this conference report a $95 billion reduction in discretionary spending, merely a drop in the bucket. We all recognize that it's not enough. We all recognize that much, much more remains to be done, but, Mr. Speaker, this is an important first step. And the fact that it's been done in a bipartisan, bicameral way, working not only with the first but the second branch of government as well, is, I believe, a positive indicator for us.

As I think about the challenges that we have--and I said this during the management of our jobs bill that we had, the so-called extenders measure that deals with the question of extending unemployment insurance, doing everything we possibly can to keep taxes low by extending for a year the payroll tax holiday, ensuring that people have access to Medicare dollars, and, of course, focusing on job creation by proceeding with the Keystone XL pipeline. As I pointed out during that debate, right now, our job is jobs. The American people want us to focus on job creation and economic growth, and I believe that this bipartisan, bicameral compromise will help us in that quest.

It hasn't been pretty getting here. We all know the famous Otto von Bismarck line, that you don't want to watch sausage or laws being made. This has been ugly.

And, actually, I was not going to say what I'm about to say right now, Mr. Speaker, but I am going to proceed and I will explain to you why.

It's been a painful and difficult and ugly and messy process which, frankly, is exactly what James Madison wanted. He is looking down at us saying, The process is working just as I envisaged it, because he wanted there to be this clash of ideas and a struggle. But, at the end of the day, he wanted there to be a compromise; and he wanted there to be an agreement at the end of the day, recognizing that that needed to be done.

We know that the chairs of the Committee on Appropriations, Messrs. Rogers and Inouye, shook hands on Monday and had an agreement. Again, I was not going to say this; but the Rules Committee completed its work early this morning, and I got a few hours of sleep, and I woke up to National Public Radio, which I do. That's what wakes me up in the morning, Mr. Speaker. And I know that there are some of my Republican friends who are not fans of National Public Radio. I like to watch MSNBC TV and listen to National Public Radio. It keeps my blood circulating very well, Mr. Speaker.

But I woke up this morning to listen to a report on this conference agreement. I am very happy to see my good friend from Seattle, the distinguished ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, arrive on the floor. And I wasn't going to say this, but because of this report on NPR, I'm going to share it.

Tamara Keith, who is the congressional correspondent for NPR on Morning Edition, characterized why it is that we are here on Friday rather than having met the 3-day layover requirement and all these things that we wanted to do when the agreement was struck on Monday, and what she said was that Senate Democrats held this bill hostage. Those are not my words, again, Mr. Speaker. Those are the words of Tamara Keith who reported on National Public Radio this morning that this measure was held hostage by Senate Democrats. And she went on a second time, using the word ``hostage.'' She said, Well, finally the hostages have been released. Again, those are not my words. Those are the words of National Public Radio.

So some people wanted me to say it, but I decided not to say it myself. But when I heard it early this morning, I couldn't help but say it. So that's the reason I'm looking across the Chamber right now at 3,000 pages stacked this high right next to the distinguished ranking minority member of the Committee on Rules, right across the aisle from the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks).

Mr. Speaker, we've had to waive the 3-day layover requirement because, again, according to NPR, we had this conference report held hostage, but we've finally gotten here. Now that we're here, I'm happy to say that, while I'm not ecstatic with every measure in it--just as I know that Mr. Dicks is not ecstatic with every measure in it; I know that Ms. Slaughter is not ecstatic with every measure in it; I'm not ecstatic with the process that has gotten us here because of the challenges and ugliness and messiness we've gone through this week. We are here because it is absolutely essential that we not see the government shut down in several hours at midnight tonight.

So I believe that we need to realize--and I know Mr. Dicks and I have had this conversation repeatedly, along with our friend Mr. Rogers of Kentucky, the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations--that we want a clean slate as we head into next year so that Mr. Dicks and Mr. Rogers will be able to go through regular order, bring the appropriations bills to the floor and, we hope and pray, get each bill done ad seriatim, the way they're supposed to be done, rather than dealing with what has been characterized as an

omnibus, a mini-bus, a megabus. But the term that I like that was given by the distinguished chair of the Committee on Appropriations last night is this is ``the rest of the bus.'' And that's really where we are.

But it's essential for the American people, for those who are representing us so diligently around the world in conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other spots, for people who rely and need to have support from government programs that do exist, it's essential that we get this measure passed, and pass it with what I hope will be strong bipartisan support.

So, Mr. Speaker, I'm not going to say that I am happy that we are doing the things that will be outlined, I know, very thoughtfully by the distinguished former chair and current ranking member of the Committee on Rules. I will say that we have got 3,000 pages.

By the way, I should say, before my friend begins this, that on Monday, virtually all of that was available, and it was put online at 12:30 Wednesday night. Right after midnight Wednesday, it was made available online. And so while we have not actually met the exact 3-day layover requirement, I should point to the fact that we always said-- and I'm so proud of the fact that we have been able to do it. But when we faced what is really a very, very important deadline, that being the closure of the government that would take place 14 hours from now, I think it is very important that we take this action and do it as quickly and as well as we possibly can.

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

Mr. Speaker, as my good friends from the Appropriations Committee, Mr. Rogers and Mr. Dicks, congratulate each other in the well, I will ask them to move out of the well so that I am able to yield 3 minutes to my good friend from Grandfather Community, who left the Rules Committee at 1 o'clock this morning and went down to her office to work before going down to the White House at 7:30 for a tour for her constituents.

So I underscore the fact that Virginia Foxx is extraordinarily dedicated, and for that reason and many others, I am happy to yield her 3 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield my colleague an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to simply make a couple of very important points, and that is we are here faced with this situation because of the inability of our colleagues in the other body, the United States Senate, to act.

I am just looking at the list of the conferees, and I listened to my friends criticize the bill--and I actually don't know whether my friend from Rochester is going to end up supporting the conference report or not. I didn't get a conclusion on that--but I will say that every single House Member, Democrat and Republican, every subcommittee chairman, every ranking member of a subcommittee, the so-called cardinals, the chairs of the subcommittees, signed this conference report. It is bipartisan.

Unfortunately, in the Senate, we have a number of Members of the Senate who didn't sign the conference report. But I believe that we need to realize that we went for 963 days--nearly 1,000 days, Mr. Speaker--without a budget having passed from the United States Senate. We know, Mr. Speaker, that we didn't have any appropriations bills done last year. We're trying to clean this process up.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 3 minutes to a very thoughtful, diligent new member of the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from Lawrenceville, Georgia (Mr. Woodall).

Will the gentleman yield?

I look forward to it.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

I say to my friend from Rochester, would you yield time to the gentleman so I can engage in a discussion with him?

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time remains on each side.

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

I'd like to yield to my friend from Worcester to engage in a discussion. I'm sorry, would the gentlewoman like me to yield? I'm happy to yield to my friend from Rochester if she would like me to yield. Would the gentlewoman like me to yield to her? I've just been recognized.

Would the gentlewoman from New York like me to yield to her, Mr. Speaker?

Then I will reclaim my time, Mr. Speaker.

I am happy to yield to my friend from Rochester if she would like to ask me a question or ask the Chair a question. I am more than happy to yield to her, I would say, Mr. Speaker.

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

In the spirit of bipartisanship, in the spirit of recognizing that we need to ensure that the government doesn't shut down at midnight, I'd like to engage in a discussion with my friend from Worcester, as I was trying to when he was in the well, to say a few things.

First of all, as we all know, last year no appropriations bills were passed. Nothing was completed in the last Congress--nothing at all. And we have spent, with Mr. Rogers and Mr. Dicks, virtually this entire year cleaning up the work of the last Congress. And the gentleman will recognize that, I'm sure. I mean, the gentleman acknowledges that, Mr. Speaker, that we have spent this year working to clean up the fact that no appropriations work was done last year.

I am happy to yield to my friend.

Yes, absolutely. If I could reclaim my time, Mr. Speaker, I would say absolutely, we're talking about this year. And the responsibility that was thrust on us this year was so overwhelming because last year nothing was done, nothing was accomplished. And so what's happened, Mr. Speaker, is we are in a position where the appropriators have been shouldering this responsibility. And, unfortunately, our colleagues in the other body, the majority leadership there, Senator Reid and others, according to the National Public Radio report, as I discussed this morning, as others have acknowledged, it was pointed out in the publications out this morning, this was held hostage, and that's why we are where we are.

Now, my friends are enjoying holding up the 2,300-page conference report and the additional 700 pages of the joint managers' report that is included in there. But guess what, Mr. Speaker, all of that was available on Monday, 5 days ago. And the only exception in this measure is one item has been pulled out. That one item pulled out happens to be the Cuba language that was there, and there was obviously a lot of concern about that. That was pulled out. Then one item was added, and that has to do with the Commodity Futures Trading Corporation. And so, as our colleagues hold up these thousands of pages, we need to realize it's been available since Monday. This is Friday, Mr. Speaker. That's more than the 3-day layover requirement. And we've pointed to these minor modifications.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the very distinguished chair of the Committee on Appropriations, my very good friend from Somerset, Kentucky (Mr. Rogers).

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield my friend an additional 30 seconds. And I would ask my friend to yield to me, if he would.

I thank my friend for yielding.

I would like to just say that I misspoke. The agreement was reached between Mr. Rogers and Mr. Inouye on Monday, and the pages were not made available until it was filed at 12:27, at just after midnight on Wednesday.

I am happy to yield my friend an additional 30 seconds.

So I just want to say that I did misspeak when I said the agreement was struck on Monday. It was made available after midnight on Wednesday.

I would like to yield an additional 30 seconds to my friend from Somerset.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.

I say to my friend, first of all, happy birthday.

And the great birthday present is that we will not shut the government down, and we obviously will see this measure passed today.

I also want to say to my friend that I believe we've made history here. To have any Member of the House stand up, especially on his birthday, Mr. Speaker, and speak in complimentary ways of the other body is, in fact, historic in and of itself.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to my good friend from Bainbridge Township, Ohio (Mr. LaTourette).

Mr. Speaker, I would inquire of my friend how many speakers she has remaining on her side.

I plan to close and then move the previous question so we can move ahead to ensure we don't shut down the government.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

We all know that the American people are hurting. We have a protracted unemployment problem that has gone on for an extended period of time, the longest period of time since the Great Depression, and it's important for us to realize the reasons for this.

One of the very important reasons for this is that we have seen a dramatic expansion of the size and scope and reach of government. During the 4 years that my friends on the other side of the aisle were in the majority, we witnessed an 82 percent increase in non-defense discretionary spending.

We now have a $15 trillion national debt, and I think Democrats and Republicans alike acknowledge that that cannot be sustained.

As I've been saying throughout this week, our job is jobs. Right now our job is jobs. We need to have a laser-like focus on creating job opportunities for our fellow Americans, people who are so frustrated they've given up the effort to look for work.

So that's why the things that we're dealing with today are so critically important to address those needs.

Now, since there has been bipartisan recognition that we can't continue down the road with an 82 percent increase in non-defense discretionary spending which we witnessed over the past several years, it's important for us to come together, and that's exactly what's happened.

This is Norm Dicks' birthday, and we're very happy about that. We're happy that on his birthday we're going to see a bipartisan agreement that will bring about a $95 billion reduction in non-defense discretionary spending. And that's what this work product does, Mr. Speaker.

And again, bipartisan recognition and even bicameral recognition, and even recognition from down Pennsylvania Avenue with the second branch

of government, that we are right now altering the course that we had been on of dramatically increasing spending. And we're doing it, Mr. Speaker, in a very fair and balanced and open way.

I don't like the process that got us to where we are right now. I said earlier that I believe that this multi-thousand-page package was available on Monday; it was agreed to on Monday; but it wasn't made available until early Thursday morning. Yet we are where we are, and there was an agreement. Mr. Inouye and Mr. Rogers came to this agreement on Monday.

We could have done this earlier, but we know that our friends in the other body chose--and as I said, I wasn't going to say it earlier, but it has been characterized in the media as having held hostage this very important appropriations bill. We also dealt with the threat of a government shutdown that would take place 13 hours from now. We are not going to see that happen. We are not going to see that happen because Mr. Dicks and Mr. Rogers and other members of the Appropriations Committees in both bodies--and the leadership--came together to ensure that that doesn't happen.

We still have a long way to go. We still have much work that needs to be done. But by the passage of this measure today, Mr. Speaker, we are going to do exactly what is necessary. We are going to finally have a clean slate. We've all commiserated over the fact that we've had this mess to clean up of the past. It's been ugly and it's been difficult; but we have, in fact, by virtue of this agreement cleaned it up so that we can continue to work down this path towards balancing the budget, getting our fiscal house in order, and doing what we need to do--our jobs, which is to create jobs.

I think we have a chance to do that.

So, Mr. Speaker, I urge support of this rule, and I urge support of the previous question so that we can move ahead and make sure that we have what's necessary to meet this very important deadline by midnight.

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

Mr. President, as chairman of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Subcommittee, I would like to take a few moments to highlight some of the provisions of the Interior division of the Consolidated Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2012.

The subcommittee's conference allocation totaled $29.175 billion. Although the Interior Subcommittee received a fair allocation, that number nevertheless represents a real cut of approximately 4 percent below the commensurate 2011 funding level. Despite the size of the cut, overall we were still able to fund critically needed infrastructure that will provide jobs for thousands of Americans in every State in our Nation.

Let me start with the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA. The conference report contains $8.5 billion in new budget authority. That is a reduction of approximately 3.5 percent below the equivalent 2011 level, but still a significant investment in our scientific research capabilities, our environmental programs, and critically needed water and sewer infrastructure.

Included in the funding for EPA is $1.4 billion for the Clean Water State Revolving Fund and $919 million for the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund. Combined, this is nearly $800 million more than was initially provided by the House. The investments we are making in the clean water fund will lead to the start of approximately 473 new wastewater projects nationwide and will put more than 81,000 Americans to work when combined with State matching funds. In addition, the funding provided for the drinking water fund translates into 353 new drinking water projects nationwide and more than 50,000 jobs all across the country when combined with State matching funds.

This is a tremendous economic boost for every State in the Nation and one that I am pleased that we could deliver. In addition to the funding, we have ensured that Davis-Bacon wage protections will be permanently applied to the use of these funds.

No less important than the EPA are the land management agencies that account for the majority of the Interior bill. The conference report provides $5.9 billion for basic operational expenses for the National Park Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Forest Service, and the Bureau of Land Management. That amount is virtually identical to the 2011 enacted level and ensures that each of those agencies will be able to continue to operate and maintain their facilities as the American people expect.

The conference agreement includes $197.5 million for the new Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement. Included in this amount is an additional $62 million for offshore oil and gas inspections that will be available from inspection fees assessed to the industry, which is appropriate given the tremendous profits generated by the industry.

The conference report also provides $322 million for the protection of land and other environmentally sensitive areas through the Land and Water Conservation Fund. This represents an increase of 7 percent over the current enacted level.

For Native Americans, the bill provides $6.8 billion to help improve the quality and accessibility of education, health care, and law enforcement programs for some of this Nation's most vulnerable populations. Included in that amount is $3.8 billion for Indian health services, an increase of more than 5 percent over last year. These funds will allow those in Indian Country to receive the necessary care they deserve and will go a long way toward stemming the crisis in health care.

The conference report provides more than $1.3 billion for our cultural and arts agencies, including $146 million for each of the National Endowment for the Arts and Humanities; $811 million for the Smithsonian Institution, including funding to begin construction of the African-American History and Culture Museum; and $36 million for the Kennedy Center.

All in all, this bill represents sound investments in the scientific, natural, and cultural resources that come under the jurisdiction of this subcommittee. Given resources at hand, not everyone will be satisfied, but I am confident that we have made wise funding decisions that will maximize our limited dollars.

It is also important to note what is not included in the conference report.

It is no secret that the Interior and Environment appropriations bill attracted more than its fair share of legislative riders that were designed to prohibit the EPA, and in some cases the Department of the Interior, from undertaking their responsibilities to protect public health and our natural resources. The bill that was considered by the House this summer was replete with riders that do not belong in an appropriations measure. This bill has eliminated or modified these legislative proposals so that agencies can continue to function effectively.

Finally, I wish to thank the subcommittee's ranking member, Senator Murkowski, for all the assistance she provided throughout our conference negotiations with the House. She has provided invaluable assistance to me this year because of her unique insights into the issues that are central to this bill. I sincerely appreciate having had the benefit of her thoughts. I also want to commend and thank the staff of the Interior Subcommittee--Peter Kiefhaber, Virginia James, Rachael Taylor, and Ryan Hunt of the majority staff and Leif Fonnesbeck of the minority staff--for their work, service, and sacrifice.

I also want to comment on a few items in the other divisions of this conference report. My colleagues who led the negotiations on these parts of the bill also faced enormous challenges in reaching agreement with the House, and I commend them for their efforts under difficult circumstances.

With respect to Labor, Health and Human Services, HHS, and Education, I am pleased that the conference report maintains the maximum Pell grant at $5,550 and continues funding the campus-based aid programs at last year's levels. Absent this Federal student aid, millions of Americans would not be able to afford college. Unfortunately, in order to maintain the maximum grant, tough sacrifices were made. The conference report rolls back provisions that I fought for to make the financial aid process easier and more substantial for families with modest incomes. Among other things, the conference report lowers the annual income threshold to automatically qualify for the maximum grant from $30,000 to $23,000. While I believe it is important to maintain support for the maximum Pell grant, I am troubled by the hurdles being erected to qualify for this assistance.

I am pleased that the conference agreement includes $28.7 million for literacy and school library programs. I want to thank Chairman Harkin, Vice Chairman Cochran, as well as Senators Grassley, Stabenow, Wicker, and Snowe, who have worked with me to maintain Federal investments in these programs because they recognize that literacy remains at the core of academic achievement for all children and is a strong indicator for long-term success and opportunity. The conference report also provides $3.48 billion for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, LIHEAP. While that level is

$900 million more than the President's request, it nonetheless represents a $1.2 billion or 25-percent cut for the main Federal program that assists low-income households with their energy bills.

Given the high price of energy, dropping winter temperatures, and the tough economy, I hope that we can revisit this issue. To that end, I have been joined by Senators Snowe and Sanders and other colleagues in introducing the LIHEAP Protection Act, which would maintain level funding for the LIHEAP at last year's level of $4.7 billion. We are urging leadership to bring up this bill soon so Congress can take prompt action to fully restore this funding.

Finally, the Labor, HHS, and Education division of the conference report includes nearly $560 million, a $34 million increase, for States to purchase immunizations for the uninsured and underinsured. I strongly support this wise investment since every dollar invested in the seven recommended pediatric vaccines saves $16.50 in direct and indirect health care costs.

Under the Energy and Water division, I am pleased that the bill increases the funding for the Army Corp's Continuing Authorities Program from the levels provided by the Senate and the House. I want to thank and commend Chairman Feinstein for working to boost the Section 205 flood control program from $5 million to more than $18.7 million.

As with LIHEAP, the Weatherization Assistance Program, WAP, which helps low-income families improve the energy efficiency of their homes and saves each participant an estimated $437 annually in energy costs, experienced a significant reduction from the fiscal year 2011 level, dropping 61 percent from $174 million to $68 million. This is the lowest funding level since 1978, the year after the program's inception in 1977, and I hope that next year we can begin to restore this funding.

The Financial Services and General Government division carries funding for the Securities and Exchange Commission, SEC, and other financial regulators. I know that Chairman Durbin shares my concern and frustration over the efforts of House Republicans to deprive these regulators of the authority and funding to oversee financial markets.

Regrettably, the conference report cuts SEC funding by $86 million from the administration's request and the Senate-passed appropriations bill. In addition, the conference report rescinds $25 million from an SEC reserve fund that Senator Shelby and I created outside of the appropriations process in order to ensure that the SEC would always have access to the funds it needs for technology and long-term funding needs. These cuts were made despite the fact that the SEC's budget is completely paid for by fees it collects on the securities industry and is off-budget. In other words, decreasing the SEC's funding has no effect on our budget deficit; it only serves to hamstring the SEC and to slow implementation of the Wall Street Reform Act.

I do want to acknowledge the fact that while the conference report does not add resources to what was provided under the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, CFTC, under the Agriculture Appropriations Act, it does grant CFTC limit transfer authority so that it will not have to lay off personnel. This is not enough to make the CFTC the cop on the beat we need it to be, but it is a critical change.

As the months pass and the financial crisis of 2008 seems further away, we should not and cannot forget that the failure to effectively regulate the financial sector came at tremendous cost to the average American. We must remind ourselves of why we passed the Wall Street Reform Act, and why it needs to be robustly funded, so that we never have to endure such staggering costs again.

In conclusion, Mr. President, the conference report we are voting on is far from perfect, but recognizing the limited resources available and the challenge of negotiating with the House, it is a reasonable agreement.

Mr. President, at the late hour, as the Senate continues to try to do its work, there is word that maybe--as the Good Book says: ``Come, let us reason together''--maybe there is some movement in bringing about some consensus-building so the people's work can be done and these issues that have kept us apart for so long can finally be resolved. Maybe they will be resolved only on a temporary basis. But at least we would be in a situation where we did not allow the tax cuts for Social Security payments that would be such--if those tax cuts did not continue, there would be an immediate amount more that people will have to pay out of their pocket. Maybe those will continue. It is certainly the right thing to do.

It is also the right thing to do to keep unemployment compensation going in a time of a recession, when so many people are out of work, and they do not have the opportunity to get work or only get what they can piece together, which is not enough to sustain their families. That is the right thing to do. Certainly passing the funding bills to keep the government going past midnight tonight is clearly the right thing to do, instead of extraneous issues holding us up, to having us all wound around the axle where we can't even fund the Government of the United States. So maybe some reasonable minds are coming together to start working out these issues. I certainly hope so.

In the meantime, what I wish to speak about is something that is even more pernicious and that is making it harder for our people to express their constitutional right of casting a vote. We have seen a pattern in 14 States, enacting new election laws that basically are a suppression of voter rights. One of those States that is glaringly, dubiously at the top of the list as being the most severe in cutting back on people's ability to vote and to know the vote they have cast is going to be counted as they intended it--and, in the first place, making it so they can register to vote--that very fundamental constitutional right for Americans is being threatened through these laws in the States, including my State, of suppressing the right to vote.

If we look at the similarities of the laws in the 14 States, we will see an obvious pattern. But in my State of Florida, we see the most severe assault on the rights of voters of all the 14 States. The present issue is joined in a court in the District of Columbia, a suit ironically brought by the State of Florida against the Department of Justice over the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and its implementation. A part of that suit actually questions the constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. That is a rather brazen attempt, but I think the courts will take care of that in short order.

But the very issue, as brought in this new Florida elections law, does a number of things to cut back on the rights of voters. In the first place, the League of Women Voters, which has been registering voters for years, has stopped its registration of voters because of the new law. Why? Because the old law on the books for decades said that once an organization such as the League of Women Voters registered the new voters, they had 10 days to turn that in to the respective supervisors of elections in the 67 counties. The new elections law amended that to 48 hours, and they attached to that the possibility of a fine that could go up to $1,000 per person on the person doing the registration if they did not turn in the names in 48 hours. Of course, we had the two cases of two civics teachers in two different parts of the State who, being good teachers, in their government class were registering their students to vote and did not meet the 48-hour deadline and the State of Florida is looking at the possibility of fining these teachers. That is the height of hypocrisy. That is the height of an assault on the right of people to vote by impeding their ability to register to vote.

The intended result is there. The League of Women Voters is just one organization. There are many. But it shows what has happened; that all the registrations that would occur of people being encouraged to participate in the political system is not being done and will not be done until this issue is settled in the courts, and that is probably going to be late summer. So for the period of over 1 year, since the passing of this new law in Florida, voters will not be registered by organizations such as the League of Women Voters. That is a sad commentary, but in fact that is what has happened. That is what has happened in the State of Florida.

But that is not all. Let me tell my colleagues what else the law does. My colleagues remember how college students got so active for the first time in a Presidential election. When the Presiding Officer and I were coming up in college, we were taught that public service was one of the highest callings a person could have. We were also taught that to be a participant in our democracy was a civic responsibility. But over the intervening years, after the Vietnam war, after a number of other circumstances, young people got turned off to politics and government. Then we saw them in this past Presidential election becoming energized once again. They went down in the cities where they went to school and they registered in great numbers. Then, on election day, they turned out in great numbers. Do my colleagues know what the State of Florida did in passing the

new elections law? They changed the law which said that when a college student goes down there on election day to vote and they bring out their identification to show they are who they say they are and they compare their driver's license identification and address to the voting registration in the college town, if that driver's license, which likely shows their parents' address, if it is in a different county, they will not give them a ballot. They will give them a provisional ballot. As a result, we saw in the last Presidential election in Florida half the provisional ballots cast were not counted.

This is a blatant attempt to cut out a certain element or to make it more difficult, all under the guise that they are trying to weed out fraud. We haven't had a lot of voter fraud in our State of Florida, and I daresay we would find the same in the other 13 States that enacted these very repressive laws.

But that is not all. The law goes on further to restrict voters' rights by cutting back on the number of days of early voting. Why did we have early voting? In our State, we went through the trauma of the Presidential election of 2000, when there was so much confusion about whether the ballot was intended to be this way, and people were confused with the way the ballot was constructed. It went on and on and on. We know the high drama that ended in the Supreme Court of Bush v. Gore. Because of that trauma, many State legislatures decided to try to make it easier to vote. One way to vote so there was less confusion was to allow what other States have done, which is to let part of the voting occur before election day--early voting. Then a person can take their time going in. People don't have to be confined to voting within a 12-hour period from 7 o'clock in the morning until 7 o'clock at night, with the long lines and perhaps inclement weather, with a pouring down rainstorm or snowstorm, to inhibit people's ability to exercise their right to vote.

So legislatures across this country started enacting early voting. In Florida, that early voting period was 2 weeks. The 2 weeks went all the way up through the Sunday before the Tuesday election. Lo and behold, in the last Presidential election, because of early voting, 40 percent of the electorate of Florida voted before election day.

You certainly know the supervisors of election liked that because then on the election day, from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., there was 60 percent of the vote--not 100 percent of the vote--and, therefore, it was much more manageable, even though there was an extremely high turnout because it was in a Presidential election.

Well, by constricting, as the Florida law did, from 14 days to 8 days, they are limiting that ability. They cut it back. Instead of the Sunday before the Tuesday election, the last day of the eighth day will be the Saturday before the Tuesday election.

On the basis of the experience of the last decade, guess who voted in record numbers on the Sunday before the Tuesday election after church. Certain minority groups, in record numbers. Therefore, it is again an attempt at suppressing that particular vote.

Why cannot we use walking-around common sense that would say we want to help people, to facilitate people, to make it easier for them to cast their vote, make it easier for them to register to vote; and then, once they have cast that vote, to do it in a manner where they know exactly what they are doing, lessen the amount of mistakes, and have the security of mind of knowing that the vote was going to be counted as they intended it? Yet we see laws have been passed in a number of States to the contrary.

It is my hope--it is the hope of a lot of people across this country, who care about one of the most fundamental rights of being a citizen of the United States of America: the right to vote; a right, a constitutional right that casts us in contrast to a lot of other countries on the face of planet Earth--it is my hope, as the court deliberates and renders its judgment, the Constitution of the United States will be upheld.

Mr. President, we are close to voting on a payroll tax extension bill that includes a House provision designed to force the President to approve the Keystone XL tar sands oil pipeline. Proponents of this tar sands project argue that it belongs on this bill for one reason: building the pipeline would create jobs.

Any construction project creates jobs, and it is no surprise that this debate has come down to this. Unable to sell the pipeline as necessary to meet the country's energy needs, which it is not, or to refute charges that tar sands strip mining and the refining and burning of high carbon oil cause egregious harm to the environment and health, which it does, the Canadian energy company TransCanada has flooded the media with dire warnings about the American jobs that will be lost if the pipeline is rejected.

Not surprisingly, our Republican friends, always ready to fight for the oil companies, have echoed these scare tactics.

What they don't tell you is that the 5,000 or 6,000 temporary construction jobs will disappear once the pipeline is built. Only a few hundred permanent jobs are needed to operate and maintain the pipeline.

And they also don't mention that the choice is not between jobs or no jobs. They ignore the tens of thousands of permanent, safe American jobs that could be created by investing in clean, renewable sources of energy, which, unlike tar sands oil, don't pollute and will not be used up in a few short decades.

People can disagree about building the Keystone Pipeline, but there is more to this than the short-term jobs it would create. Jamming it through Congress on this bill in the waning hours of the session has a lot more to do with politics than jobs.

The Keystone provision in this payroll tax extension would force the President to approve or disapprove the pipeline within 60 days. Any decision to grant a permit would be ``deemed,'' by Congress, to satisfy all the environmental requirements, even if it does not, and any modification to the construction mitigation and reclamation plan ``shall not'' require supplementation of the final environmental impact statement. In other words, don't study the consequences or give the public a chance to comment on the revised plan.

This is from Members of Congress who in the last election ran on a platform of ``open'' government. Yet when it comes to helping Big Oil, it is a different story. They cut the time for making a decision from a year to 60 days and short circuit the environmental review process. Forget the science. Forget the public. Preempt the law. Ignore the risk. The only thing that matters is pumping more oil.

Tar sands are a particularly dirty source of petroleum, from extraction to refinement. Anyone who is interested, regardless of which side of this debate they are on, should look at the photographs of the tar sands mines in the boreal forests of Alberta. What was once an extraordinarily beautiful landscape has been ravaged by heavy machinery, vast ponds filled with polluted water and sludge, and a ruined wasteland where the forests used to be.

We all know that the extraction of oil, minerals, and other natural resources harms the environment, but there are degrees of harm. Extracting heavy oil from tar sands is among the most energy-intensive and destructive.

Under the law, the State Department has the responsibility to approve or disapprove the pipeline because it crosses an international boundary. More than a year ago, I and 10 other Senators--Republicans and Democrats--sent the first of a series of letters to the State Department raising concerns about the proposed pipeline and the impact of tar sands oil on global warming.

Since then, concern about the pipeline has evolved into a heated controversy over the impact the pipeline will have on our Nation's energy policy, our continuing dependence on fossil fuels, and the environment.

From the beginning, I had misgivings about the State Department's ability to conduct a thorough, credible assessment of a project of this complexity that they were approaching with an attitude of inevitability. The State Department did not anticipate the strong reaction of Members of Congress of both parties, including several from Midwestern States that have been coping with multiple oilspills from the original Keystone Pipeline--oilspills that have caused damage costing hundreds of millions of dollars that company officials have treated as inconsequential.

Concerns about the risks of this project have united not only those living along the proposed route but people across the Nation, including in Vermont, as well as in Canada, who care about the environment and who understand the need to wean our Nation from oil and other fossil fuels.

Every President since the 1970s has spoken of the need to reduce our dependence on oil and coal, but despite all the speeches, year after year we are more dependent on these finite, polluting sources of energy than ever before.

Today, energy companies are spending staggering amounts of money in search of new sources of oil in some of the most inhospitable places on Earth, where its extraction involves great risks to the workers involved, to the environment, and to precious sources of water for drinking and irrigation.

No matter what we do today, later this week, or later this month, this country will be dependent on fossil fuels for many years to come. But while TransCanada and its supporters extol the virtues of the Keystone XL Pipeline, as the minority leader and others have done, simply by reducing waste we could eliminate entirely the need for the energy from the oil that would flow through the pipeline. It is one of those inconvenient facts they would prefer to ignore.

I come from a State that shares a border with Canada. My wife's family is Canadian. I have a great fondness for that ``giant to the north.'' But this issue is not about U.S. relations with Canada. We are inseparable neighbors, friends, and allies. There are strong views about this pipeline, pro and con, in both countries. As Americans, we have to do what is right for our country's energy future, for the environment, for our citizens.

Some have argued that if this pipeline is not built, TransCanada will simply build another pipeline to the coast of British Columbia and export the oil to China. But there are significant obstacles and no indication that such an alternative route is a viable option.

Others maintain that the carbon emissions from extracting and refining this oil would not appreciably exceed those from oil shipped by tanker from the Middle East, but they do not address the environmental harm and pollution caused by the strip mining and separation process.

Then there is the jobs issue, which has been shamelessly exaggerated in a last-ditch attempt to win votes in a time of economic hardship.

Last month, in response to concerns about the crucial aquifer that the pipeline would traverse in the Midwest, the White House announced that the State Department would consider alternative routes through Nebraska and that the President would make a decision in 2013. Now, Republican defenders of the oil industry want to short circuit this process, whatever the risks.

Fossil fuels are finite, inefficient, and dirty. The cost we pay at the gas pump bears no resemblance to the long-term environmental and health costs borne by society as a whole.

We cannot lessen our reliance on fossil fuels by continually ignoring it, nor can we do it by spending huge amounts of money, energy, and American ingenuity to search the farthest reaches of the globe for every last drop of oil, regardless of how dangerous or harmful to the environment.

This pipeline would perpetuate a costly dependence that has gotten worse year after year, for which we are all to blame. Keystone XL would once again do nothing to address the problems associated with fossil fuels. It would virtually assure more oilspills, it would do nothing to promote conservation and reduce waste, and it would do nothing to spur investment in clean energy alternatives.

Most important, it would provide yet another excuse to once again postpone for another day the urgent, national security imperative of developing a sustainable energy policy for this country. That is what the decision about the Keystone XL tar sands oil pipeline has come to represent regardless of what route it takes.

Mr. President, sometimes a bad situation can be the beginning of something better. Once this bill is passed, President Obama will have 60 days to decide if building the pipeline is in the national interest. He should reject these strong-arm tactics by the other party. He should use this blatantly political maneuver as an opportunity to inaugurate a new energy policy that will finally end our dependency on foreign oil. It is time to finally put the environment, and the health and energy security of the American people, above the interests of the fossil fuel industry.

Good morning, Mr. Speaker.

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

Mr. Speaker, my distinguished colleague is absolutely right. This is ``the rest of the bus.'' But it's going to be a little while before we realize whether we are on that bus or whether we've been thrown under it. Obviously, as Mr. Dreier called attention to it, this is the bill that we have today. None of us will make any pretense at all of having read it.

Now, I have been around long enough to know that things happen this way. The country is about to shut down tonight; the agencies are all prepared to close, and we can't have that. So we find ourselves confronted here today with this completed and going through this conference.

A lot of people are breathing a sigh of relief this morning, frankly, particularly the Federal workers and the rest of the country, that they are not going to be faced with a shutdown of Federal agencies.

But although we were able to avert that crisis today, this 2,000-page legislative package is not a cause for celebration--and I don't believe Mr. Dreier thinks it is either--but it is a demonstration of failure. As I have said, I have known cases and have been a participant in cases where things like this have happened before. But for a Congress that had promised at the beginning part of the campaign and what we were promised at the beginning of this term was that this would not happen anymore. Instead, it has happened over and over again. Over the past 12 months, we have witnessed the utter failure to responsibly legislate--a failure that has led to this massive bill that we are considering today.

You've heard all of this before, but in the fall of 2010 when the majority took over, Speaker Boehner said: We'll do away with the concept of comprehensive spending bills.

He's been around awhile too, and he knows that there are times when things happen that really don't fall in line with what we want. But nonetheless, he made that promise. Despite this call for a deliberate appropriations process, the House was recently asked to consider a $180 billion minibus, totaling 354 pages of legislation.

And today, less than 24 hours--we're about halfway, I think--we are offered a $1 trillion megabus appropriations bill. It was given to the Members of the House today, and we're asked to vote on that. We will, of course, do that because, as I've said, the looming layoff and shutdown of the Federal Government is something that we cannot stand at this juncture, or any other time.

So despite the earlier promises by the GOP to separate the controversial legislation from the must-pass bill, the megabus was delayed by a battle over controversial riders. We know this could have been done much sooner, but there were five riders that had to be resolved--everything from the reproductive rights of the citizens of the District of Columbia to energy-saving lightbulbs.

Mr. Speaker, this House has spent more time debating lightbulbs than we have putting American people to work. It has really been an outrage--we have talked about this so many times before. But nonetheless, in all the contemplations, all the conference work, lightbulbs have survived. I know that's a sigh of relief to everybody in America who had no idea we were spending so much time micromanaging their lightbulbs.

But this is a sign, I think, of a larger failure, a failure of their vision of governing. It is a vision that we've gone through all this year that was based on brinksmanship and threats--an all-or-nothing game of chicken with their colleagues and the American people. And everybody is exhausted from, will we do it? Won't we do it? Can we do it? Must we do it? Part of that has resulted in a lessening of the credit rating of the United States of America for the very first time.

So instead of spending the year finding common ground with their Democrat colleagues, the majority spent the year advancing legislation to dismantle the EPA and to talk about lightbulbs and to open federally protected lands to foreign mining companies. I find in my constituency the idea that we were going to give land to Russia around the Grand Canyon to mine for uranium mind-boggling to people. We really ought to be worried about that. This is a very serious problem.

Instead of spending the year finding common ground, we have done nothing about that. So throwing bipartisanship to the side, the majority pushed forward with its ideological battles at the expense of the Nation's welfare. And what we see this morning is the result of their divisive efforts.

What we know is that a process that began with brinksmanship and threats, and ends with this 2,000-page, $1 trillion megabus crammed through the House as the clock hits zero is all we have. This is our chance to keep the government from shutting down.

With proper priorities and a serious effort to engage legislators from both sides of the aisle, we could truly have a process and a product that would make the American people proud. But that's not what we have here today, and it is not what has been done this year.

I hope sincerely, and I know that many people on both sides of the aisle hope sincerely, that as the calendar turns to 2012, we can put an end to the zero-sum leadership that has been provided and finally give the American people the responsible, bipartisan leadership that they want and deserve.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

I yield the gentlelady an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts, a member of the Committee on Rules, Mr. McGovern.

I yield the gentleman from Massachusetts 1 additional minute.

I would like to address the Speaker.

I do not. If I could be allowed to say something here.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

Let me say all I was trying to do after last month was to say that if Mr. Dreier's 16 minutes were not adequate for him, I would be pleased to yield him one of my 13. That was my aim there.

I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington, the ranking member of Appropriations, Mr. Dicks, who has worked so hard.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi, the ranking member on Homeland Security, Mr. Thompson.

We have no further speakers.

May I inquire if my colleague has any.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question and the martial law rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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