Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that we are finally considering an omnibus appropriations bill for fiscal 2012 to fund critical Federal agencies, including the Department of Homeland Security. After a year of lurching from one manufactured crisis to another, destabilizing the American economy and sending Congress' approval ratings to record lows, it's high time we restored some measure of regular order to this critical legislative function.

I applaud Chairman Rogers, Ranking Member Dicks, and my subcommittee chairman, Mr. Aderholt, for their commitment to restoring regular order and maintaining the pattern of bipartisan cooperation that distinguishes our committee, even in today's hyperpartisan environment. I also want to thank our talented and dedicated staff for drafting and negotiating what was a very difficult package to put together.

With respect to DHS, overall funding will drop for a second year in a row to $39.6 billion. But this drop is compensated for by the separate disaster relief bill we will be considering shortly. When these two measures are combined, FEMA will receive a total of $7.1 billion for disaster relief, ensuring that families and businesses affected by recent disasters will receive assistance vital for recovery and rebuilding.

Beyond disaster assistance, the reduced allocation meant that we had to make some tough decisions. I'm pleased that sufficient funding is provided in this bill for our frontline DHS employees to conduct critical operations along our borders, protect our Nation's airports and seaports, and thwart cybersecurity attacks on our Federal Government.

Other accounts which were radically underfunded in the House bill, have been increased modestly in this omnibus bill but nowhere near adequate levels. Research and development funding has been cut by 38 percent since 2010, undermining our investments in new technologies targeted specifically at homeland security threats. And State and local grants have been reduced by more than 50 percent from the 2010 level, requiring our States and communities to delay or abandon vital preparedness efforts.

These cuts in grants will seriously hamper States and communities in their preparedness efforts. We simply have to do better next year.

While this is an imperfect bill, under the circumstances we know it could have been much worse. It's the product of bicameral and bipartisan decisions about how best to allocate our scarce resources to protect the American people. With that in mind, I urge colleagues to support the omnibus bill.

Mr. Speaker, opponents of financial regulatory reform in the Senate continue to prevent the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau from fulfilling its legislative mandate.

The CFPB has been open since July 21, but it's taken 3 months for the Senate Banking Committee to advance President Obama's nominee for the director of the bureau, Richard Cordray, to the full Senate. Now, continuing their strategy of partisan obstructionism, 44 Republican Senators have pledged to oppose any Presidential appointee for the CFPB, until the bureau's mandate is weakened.

Such naked obstructionism is a disservice to American consumers and the American economy, which is in bad need of certainty after a year of artificial crises fomented by the Tea Party-dominated Republican Party.

The American people are sick of a dysfunctional Congress. We need the CFPB at full strength to move our economy forward, protect borrowers and consumers, and promote the interests of Main Street over Wall Street.

I call on the Senate to confirm Richard Cordray as director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau now.

Mr. Speaker, I rise for the third time this year to oppose a measure that would summarily repeal our system of public funding for Presidential elections.

Once again, the House majority seems intent on dismantling the few remaining safeguards we have left against the influence of special interests in politics following the Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling. The fact that they are ostensibly bringing this bill forward as a deficit reduction measure in order to pay for a bill to undermine workers' rights is the height of cynicism.

This bill before us today would destroy one of the most successful examples of reform that followed the Watergate scandal. Dare we forget what that scandal was about? The Committee to Reelect the President, fueled by huge quantities of corporate cash, paying for criminal acts and otherwise subverting the American electoral system.

The hallmark of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1974, enacted at a time when public confidence in government was dangerously low, was our voluntary program of public financing for Presidential elections. To this day, this innovative reform stands as one of the greatest steps we have taken to bring transparency and accountability to our electoral system. And it has worked remarkably well, being utilized in the general election by every Republican and Democratic Presidential nominee from 1976 through 2004 and by John McCain in 2008, although in recent years the need for modernization has become evident.

Perhaps the best example of this program's success is President Ronald Reagan, who participated in Presidential public financing in all three of his Presidential campaigns--in 1976, 1980, and 1984. The Reagan case illustrates the positive effects public financing has had in both parties at both the primary and the general election stages. It illuminates the way in which the system benefits candidates who challenge the party's establishment. It also highlights the system's focus on small donations rather than big bucks from the large contributors. Note that this is no free ride, no willy-nilly spending program. Candidates must seek the support of thousands of small donors during the primary to prove their viability, and only then do they receive matching funds.

Today one could wish, in light of the positive history of this program and prior Republican support, for a bipartisan effort to repair the system and restore its effectiveness. I don't know of any policy that exemplifies the maxim ``mend it, don't end it'' better than this one.

Earlier this year, Congressman Van Hollen and I reintroduced a bill that would do just that. It would modernize the Presidential public financing system and again make it an attractive and viable option for Presidential candidates. Our bill would bring available funds into line with the increased cost of campaigns, adjust the program to the front- loaded primary calendar, and enhance the role of small donors. The bill has been carefully designed and deserves deliberation and debate.

Instead, we're faced with yet another Republican attempt to open the floodgates for corporate cash and special interest influence to pour into our political system.

With confidence in government at rock bottom, and the perception of government corruption through the roof, why is the majority trying to return us to the dark days of Watergate? Let's instead restore and improve our public financing system and move on to real solutions to put our Nation's fiscal house in order.

Let's not use valuable floor time to pass a bill that has no chance of becoming law. The American people want us to get to work on important measures to revive the struggling economy and put people back to work. So I urge the majority to heed that call. Get to work on passing appropriations bills, fixing the Medicare physician reimbursement, extending the payroll tax cut and unemployment benefits, patching the AMT, and reauthorizing the FAA in time for families' holiday travel.

I'm afraid such pleas are falling on deaf ears in this Chamber these days. But we need to get to work on the people's business, not on this flawed bill that threatens to allow big money to play an even larger role in our politics.

Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to the cynically named ``Workforce Democracy and Fairness Act,'' which is neither fair nor democratic and would do nothing to create a single job or improve conditions for American workers. Instead, this legislation represents just the latest Republican attack on the workers' rights that are at the core of American democracy.

Look around you today. Fourteen million Americans--our neighbors, friends, and family members--are unemployed, searching for a job. They, and millions more citizens from every congressional district in America, are demanding that we, as their elected Representatives, proactively address our nation's economic crisis, create jobs, and reduce unemployment. But these demands continue to fall on the deaf ears of the Republican majority. No wonder we see such unrest around the country. Instead of attempting to put people back to work, the House Republican majority, in between its manufactured fiscal crises, spends its time attacking the rights of American workers. Instead of crafting bipartisan legislation aimed at helping unemployed Americans find work, the majority has instead focused on stripping those Americans fortunate enough to have a job of the rights they already possess.

Today is Wednesday, the middle of the work week--a day when millions of unemployed Americans would love nothing more than to pull on their work boots, tie their ties, or put on their suits and head to work. But today on the floor of the House of Representatives, we're not considering a jobs bill. Instead, we face the latest product of the majority's single-minded obsession with the dismantling of American worker rights. H.R. 3094 does not create one single job. Instead, this legislation would undermine a private-sector worker's right to vote, to exercise his right to bargain collectively. This bill will effectively gum up, delay, and obscure the election process overseen by the National Labor Relations Board, opening the door for unscrupulous employers to undermine their employees' rights.

What's worse, in order to pay for the changes made in this bill, tomorrow we will be considering a bill to eliminate the Presidential Public Financing System and the Election Assistance Commission--key safeguards against the influence of special-interest money in politics and abuses of voting rights, respectively. The irony should not be lost on anybody who is paying attention: in order to undercut the democratic rights of organized workers, this majority is undermining the democratic rights of the entire American electorate.

Let's be clear: this bill, like all of the other unambiguously partisan, anti-worker bills brought to a vote in the House by the Republican majority over the course of this year, has no chance of being signed into law. It's simply an ode to special interests that does nothing to move our economy forward. After 11 months of control, the House majority has made clear that it has no interest in reigniting our economic recovery and helping put people back to work. I encourage my colleagues to defeat H.R. 3094 and to continue to push for the consideration of jobs legislation to help put Americans back to work.

Mr. Speaker, of all the extreme statements we've heard coming out of the Republican Presidential debates in recent weeks, perhaps none is more alarming than the idea that we should ``cut foreign aid to zero''--even for steadfast U.S. allies, even for critical global health and antiterrorism efforts.

We might dismiss this ridiculous assertion as a ``hail Mary'' from a candidate desperate to revive his flagging chances, were it not for the fact that it drew heavy applause from the Republican voters in the audience and eager agreement from the rest of the Republican field, including the presumptive frontrunner.

Is this the state of today's Republican Party, the party of internationalists such as Teddy Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower, and Ronald Reagan? ``Cut foreign aid to zero?''

Foreign aid has always been an easy target for demagogues, especially during difficult economic times, but the reality is that it is one of the most cost-effective investments our Nation makes. For about 1 percent of our annual budget, it strengthens key allies such as Israel, the Palestine Authority, Afghanistan, and Egypt; it promotes economic development that benefits American companies and creates jobs back home; it helps us respond to humanitarian disasters and supports democracy, human rights, and the rule of law. Suggestions that we should ``start at zero'' and ask our allies to come to us hat in hand are simply preposterous.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring to the attention of my colleagues the remarkable life of service of the Reverend Dr. David C. Forbes, Sr. of Raleigh, North Carolina.

Dr. Forbes is the founding Pastor of Christian Faith Baptist Church, and he is retiring from the church after 21 years of faithful ministry. His work there culminates a lifetime of service to the cause of social justice and to the betterment of the community.

Dr. Forbes came of age during the civil rights movement of the 1960s. He embraced his place in history, helping to found the Student Non- Violent Coordinating Committee, later led so ably by our colleague, Rep. John Lewis. Dr. Forbes quickly made his mark as a leader. He has spent the last fifty years answering the prophetic call to justice and leading others to join him.

After graduating from Shaw University with a degree in education, David Forbes spent his early career focused on the needs of young people. He taught middle school students in Wilson, North Carolina, and then headed north to New York, where he worked as a teacher, youth center director, and VISTA coordinator. Along the way, he earned a master's degree in social work from Adelphi University and transitioned to the world of higher education, spending more than a decade teaching at Virginia Commonwealth University.

It was during this time that Dr. Forbes found his calling as a minister, and, eventually, came home to North Carolina. He spent 6 years as senior minister of Martin Street Baptist Church in Raleigh before becoming the founding pastor at Christian Faith Baptist. Christian Faith Baptist isn't just a place of worship; it is an activist congregation dedicated to serving the least among us and to achieving what Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. called the ``beloved community.'' Through David's leadership, the church has taken on many missions both locally and internationally, such as sponsoring free HIV/ AIDS testing clinics; providing Saturday meals for the needy; funding scholarships for young men; and supporting the children of incarcerated parents.

Dr. Forbes' partner in all things was his wife of nearly 50 years, Hazel Baldwin Forbes, who passed away last year. Hazel shared David's passion for education and the church, and she and my wife Lisa found they had much to talk about as fellow social workers. She was also a gifted musician, and served as choir director and accompanist at Christian Faith.

Dr. David Forbes leaves a rich legacy at Christian Faith, one that will be both remembered and upheld. I speak for many North Carolinians in honoring him as a ``good and faithful servant'' who has helped build a better and more just world in everything he has done.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the Tea Party Caucus' latest misguided attempt to derail Federal fiscal and economic policy.

I understand the appeal of a simple, sound bite-friendly solution to all that ails us. In fact, some people think that balancing the budget is just a matter of cutting foreign aid and converting to a flat income tax. Many of our colleagues have stoked such nonsense and similar claims that are mathematically impossible. They know very well that balancing the budget through cuts alone would require eliminating every penny of discretionary spending, including the entire Department of Defense. I don't believe that's really what they want.

Why, then, would they vote for this amendment? Well, there is no real risk in establishing a constitutional requirement that can't be enforced. It would likely never, ever produce a balanced budget. In fact, it would make balance harder to achieve. It does absolutely nothing to create jobs or strengthen the economy, and it would put Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid in real jeopardy. But in the short term, proponents are counting on a political payoff. They will be brandishing their ``aye'' vote as proof that they're the most fiscally responsible folks in the land. In fact, these emperors have no clothes.

Many of my colleagues seem to have forgotten this, but we balanced the budget once before, not so long ago. It started with the bipartisan vote in 1990 and the subsequent vote by Democrats alone in 1993. Our country not only had a balanced budget, we ran 4 years with surpluses. And we did it without a balanced budget amendment. In fact, if the amendment we're considering tonight had been in place then, these critical agreements would have failed!

The other lesson of the 1990s is that the best cure for budget deficits is a healthy economy. Here, too, the so-called balanced budget amendment would actually make things worse, tying our hands during periods of economic downturn or high unemployment, locking in recessions and making them deeper.

Mr. Speaker, in earlier years, we had some true fiscal conservatives in this body. They knew that raising the revenue needed to invest in our people and secure our economic success was a lot wiser than drawing ideological lines in the sand. They didn't need a balanced budget amendment to take tough votes, to make compromises, or to stand up for the future of our Nation in the face of uncompromising ``pledges'' demanded by some group or another.

As we watch the ``supercommittee'' on the brink of failure, I don't know what further proof we need that there isn't a silver bullet in the fight for fiscal security. The real answer--and I believe colleagues know this very well--isn't a matter of gimmickry; it's about mustering the political will to do the right thing. I understand it's hard to revolt against King Norquist. But any Tea Party worth of its name ought to be prepared to challenge the monarchy, not to do its bidding. I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment.

Madam Speaker, China's policy of undervaluing its currency is undercutting American manufacturing and American jobs by giving China an artificial and unfair advantage. In this time of economic uncertainty and high employment, we need to take direct, commonsense action to protect the American worker from unfair Chinese trade practices.

The Senate has passed a bill to investigate currency cheating by China and other countries and to impose tariffs if they are found guilty. Yesterday, Democrats attempted to offer a similar bill, which has 61 Republican cosponsors, but 235 Republicans voted against it. Moreover, House Republican leaders have indicated the Senate bill will never see the light of day if they have their way. Speaker Boehner says the fair trade bill with China is ``dangerous.''

The American people don't think there is anything dangerous about protecting American workers from schemes that burden our exports, subsidize their imports, and kill jobs. Republican leadership should bring the China currency and fair trade bill to

the floor so the House can give it the bipartisan vote it deserves.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to express my support for the proposed free trade agreement with Colombia, which, of the three agreements we are considering today, is the one with which I have been most personally involved.

My support for this agreement did not come lightly. As the representative of the Research

Triangle region, I have witnessed the transformative impact of trade on our state's economy, and I have supported free trade agreements that help create a truly level playing field for American workers through the inclusion of robust labor and environmental standards. When agreements have failed to meet this test, I have opposed them, as I did the Central American Free Trade Agreement.

I am keenly aware of the unique challenges that Colombia has faced throughout its history and the relationship between these challenges and international trade. The country has only recently emerged from a long period of civil conflict and political instability, one of the darkest features of which has been a campaign of intimidation, violence, and murder against Colombian labor leaders. At best, the Colombian government failed in the past to adequately respond to this campaign, and at worst officials turned a blind eye to, or were even complicit in, the violence.

This left me with a fundamental decision to make when the Bush Administration proposed a free trade agreement with Colombia: I could reflexively oppose the agreement from the outset, notwithstanding the potential benefits it could bring to both of our countries. Or, using the relationships I have built through my work in Colombia, I could help shape the agreement, using it as a source of leverage to achieve meaningful progress on issues such as labor violence. I chose the latter.

From the beginning, I have been very clear about what it would take for me to support the agreement in the end. Any agreement that failed to strengthen Colombia's labor and environmental standards or to ensure meaningful progress toward addressing labor violence would be unacceptable. And, in the current economic environment, I wanted assurance that no agreement would be approved without an extension of Trade Adjustment Assistance for displaced workers.

In two subsequent visits to Colombia, and in regular consultations with the Obama Administration, I have carried this message to the highest levels. During a visit in 2007, in addition to meeting with President Uribe, members of the Colombian parliament, and Colombian labor leaders, I requested a briefing by the special Attorney General unit that was created to prosecute labor violence cases. I was not impressed with what I heard, and I made this clear to the Colombian government.

When I returned in 2009 and received a similar briefing, the progress made over the past two years was significant and encouraging. Since then, and particularly since President Santos came to office, the Colombian government has made further strides in prosecuting incidents of labor violence, legislating improved labor protections, adopting judicial reforms, and enforcing its new labor law. Colombia has welcomed an ILO office to Bogota to monitor labor violations and appointed a Ministry of Labor to guide the executive on pressing labor issues and reforms.

Has Colombia done enough to solve this problem? No. One incident of labor-related violence is too many. I believe it is critical for us to continue to hold the country's leaders accountable for prosecuting labor violence and protecting labor rights. I was among the group of Democratic Members of Congress urging the Obama Administration to go beyond the text of the free trade agreement on the issue of labor rights.

The result was the Labor Action Plan negotiated between the Obama and Santos administrations, which represents an unprecedented mechanism to hold a trading partner accountable to a set of concrete commitments on labor rights. The Obama Administration has made its commitment clear to ensure compliance with this Action Plan for as long as it takes, a commitment I confirmed with Ambassador Ron Kirk as recently as this morning.

I remain concerned about the potential impact of this agreement on Colombia's subsistence farmers, particularly among Afro-Colombians and other indigenous communities. The land reform law recently approved by the Colombian Congress is a step forward, and the agreement before us today (unlike NAFTA) allows Colombia to protect its most sensitive agricultural commodities for up to 19 years. But we must do more to mitigate any displacement caused when reduced trade barriers are combined with subsidized imports, leaving local farmers unable to compete. This means addressing the significant threat to small farmers in Colombia and around the world posed by the distortive agricultural subsidies some of our own farmers receive.

On balance, however, I believe the labor and environmental protections in the agreement, along with the Labor Action Plan and the extension of Trade Adjustment Assistance, largely meet the demands I made when I decided to participate in the negotiations surrounding this agreement. The Colombian government has made undeniable progress and continues to move in the right direction. By any metric, labor violence in Colombia is down. Colombia's land and agricultural reforms are working, albeit slowly. Progress on these fronts is much more likely with an agreement than it would be without.

We also have to consider the best way to encourage further reforms and further progress. Is it by walking away from an agreement at a time when Colombia is expanding trade with China, Canada, the EU, and other partners? Or is it by using a free trade agreement with the United States as a catalyst, as leverage, for further reforms to address the underlying causes of the country's conflict: poverty, inequality, and a lack of economic opportunity.

The best way forward is to support a robust and vibrant Colombian economy. A higher standard of living in Colombia results in greater social stability and a lower crime rate. It is important that we remain a powerful and progressive force in the development of its democracy and economy, and I believe the best way to do that is to approve the Colombia FTA. For me, to oppose this agreement now, after encouraging-- even demanding--that the Colombian government enact reforms, would amount to changing the rules in the middle of the game.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Dr. Robert Beichner for receiving the prestigious 2011 Harold W. McGraw, Jr. Prize in Education.

Dr. Beichner, an Alumni Distinguished Undergraduate Professor in the Department of Physics at North Carolina State University, is well-known for his work to improve teaching and learning at all levels and for a variety of science, technology, engineering and mathematics, or STEM, fields. Since 2007, he has been the Director of North Carolina State University's STEM Education Initiative, with a mission to study and improve STEM education from ``K to Gray'' in North Carolina and around the world. His contributions to science education--from co-authoring a top-selling physics textbook to promoting new ways to educate our students in the classroom--reach far beyond the boundaries of his home campus in Raleigh, North Carolina.

As a first-generation college graduate, Dr. Beichner recognizes the benefits of hands-on instruction that are not typically well represented in STEM fields. One of his major efforts is the Student- Centered Active Learning Environment for Undergraduate Programs, or the SCALE-UP program, which utilizes methodology and teaching efforts proven to be successful in small class settings--such as hands-on activities, simulations and roundtable discussions--and adapts them for use in larger classrooms. The program fosters 21st century skills such as communication, problem-solving, and teamwork, and has been shown to improve students' ability to solve problems; increase conceptual understanding of STEM material; improve attitudes; and reduce failure rates among all demographics.

Since it was launched in the late 1990's, SCALE-UP has been adopted by more than 100 universities across the country--including the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Clemson, and Wake Technical Community College--and is now moving into high schools, as well. This innovative curriculum development, evaluation, and dissemination effort is supported by the U.S. Department of Education, the National Science Foundation, Hewlett-Packard, and Pasco Scientific.

Dr. Beichner gained visibility when he co-authored Physics for Scientists and Engineers, the leading college physics textbook, which is used by more than one-third of all STEM college majors. Several years ago he created the PER-CENTRAL website, establishing an electronic ``home base'' for the Physics Education Research community, and he also consults with education researchers and reformers in biology, engineering, chemistry and statistics. In addition, he is the founding editor of Physical Review Special Topics: Physics Education Research, the leading journal for those studying ways to improve the learning of physics.

Long regarded not only as an expert in his field, but also as a teacher and a mentor who has greatly influenced the lives and careers of his students and colleagues, Dr. Beichner has received a number of accolades for his education reform efforts. In 2009, he was named the North Carolina Professor of the Year by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching and the Council for Advancement and Support of Education (CASE), and in 2010, he was recognized as the National Undergraduate Science Teacher of the Year from the Society of College Science Teachers and the National Science Teachers Association.

I am proud to see the list of honors continue with this year's awarding of the McGraw Prize in Education, which annually recognizes outstanding individuals who have dedicated themselves to improving education and who have demonstrated successes in doing so. I urge my colleagues to join me in recognizing Dr. Beichner for his achievements in improving STEM education and fostering the next generation of leaders in STEM fields.

Madam Speaker, the end this week of Don't Ask, Don't Tell shows us that we have nothing to fear and can only gain by extending liberty and equality to all of our citizens. Brave young men and women will not be denied the opportunity to serve their country, and soldiers will be judged on their ability to do their jobs, not on their sexual orientation.

This is a great step forward, but some seem eager to step back. In North Carolina, there is a ballot initiative to amend the State constitution to ban same-sex marriage. This seems to be more about turning out the Republican political base than about marriage, and many of our businesses say it would hinder their attempts to treat employees fairly. We must defeat it.

At the national level, we also have an anachronistic law, the so- called Defense of Marriage Act. This should be repealed. Repeal would ensure that marriages entered into in one State will be recognized by other States. This year, I have again cosponsored repeal and don't intend to rest until DOMA is erased from the U.S. Code.

Madam Speaker, history will judge these efforts at discrimination harshly. It is time for America's political leaders, including Members of this body, to catch up.

Mr. Speaker, here we go again. Just yesterday this continuing resolution failed because of widespread concerns with the plan to offset disaster relief funding from a key Department of Energy program. One day later we're having the exact same debate. The only thing that's changed is that the Republican majority has decided this time to target two Energy Department programs instead of one.

When the measure failed yesterday, House Republican leaders faced a basic decision. They could give up their efforts to hold disaster funding hostage to another partisan budget battle by removing the offset and passing the bill with a broad bipartisan majority.

Or they could make the measure even more extreme in order to cater to the most radical members of their party, without concern for the fact that FEMA is just days away from running out of money, and communities around the country are waiting desperately for the support that's been promised them.

Now, anybody who's been watching this Congress for the last 8 months should not be the least surprised by the majority's decision. Once again, Republicans have put partisan ideology ahead of the dire needs of the American people and are risking yet another destabilizing standoff over spending cuts in the process.

So now we're debating, under a martial-law rule, a bill that is even worse than it was yesterday. It still seeks to pay for urgent disaster relief needs by taking money from a major job-creating program at the Department of Energy.

As I said in this Chamber yesterday, this is a radical departure from the way we have treated emergency disaster relief in the past. Over the past 10 years, Congress has approved 16 supplementals that included emergency funding for FEMA disaster relief in response to disasters such as 9/11, Katrina, Rita, Gustav, and Ike, and floods on the Mississippi, Missouri, and other rivers. None of these emergency appropriations for the disaster relief fund were paid for with cuts to other Federal programs.

Yesterday I heard several of my friends on the other side of the aisle claim that we've offset disaster assistance numerous times over the past decade. This is simply not accurate. Some of the supplemental bills that included disaster relief also included offsets, but these offsets were used to pay for entirely separate programs, never for FEMA's Disaster Relief Fund.

As I said yesterday, this insistence on offsets is bad precedent, and it's bad policy. It leaves disaster-affected communities in the lurch while undermining our economic recovery by cannibalizing an Energy Department program that stands to add tens of thousands of good-paying jobs in an industry critical to our future economic competitiveness.

And it goes even further than that by including a gratuitous and arbitrary rescission to another Department of Energy loan program, a change aimed at scoring political points against the President and winning Tea Party votes. But it has very little to do with balancing the budget or providing relief for those in need.

Moreover, rather than approving a bill that would win passage in the Senate, we are now sending over a measure that the Senate majority is on record opposing, causing more economic uncertainty, risking yet another manufactured crisis.

So, Mr. Speaker, I once again urge colleagues to oppose this measure, to support the Senate's approach to disaster relief instead, which would fully fund FEMA's needs without holding them hostage to another partisan budget battle.

Madam Speaker, the fact that we are even debating the substance of this continuing resolution is a telling statement about the priorities of the current House majority.

FEMA's disaster relief fund, after all, is operating on fumes. Since late August, the agency has deferred funding for all long-term rebuilding projects in order to have enough resources to meet the most pressing emergency needs. This means that critical rebuilding efforts in over 40 States--Louisiana, Mississippi, Florida, Iowa, North Dakota, Tennessee, Missouri, Alabama, my own State of North Carolina and others--are on hold. Thousands of people who would currently be earning a good paycheck by working on rebuilding efforts are not, and communities that are still recovering from past disasters are being told to move to the back of the line to make way for those affected by the more recent disasters.

Madam Speaker, this Congress has a responsibility to make good on our promise to these communities by ensuring that FEMA has enough resources to respond to all major disasters. Regardless of where and when they occurred, we must not pit one State or one region against the other.

The administration has made clear what it will take: a $500 million supplemental appropriation for the remainder of this fiscal year, and an increase of $4.6 billion above its initial request for fiscal year 2012. This CR includes $1 billion in supplemental fiscal 2011 funding, and a $2.65 billion downpayment toward fiscal 2012. But I'm not satisfied with either the amount or with the price of inclusion.

Since 2002, Congress has appropriated $95 billion in supplemental funding for the disaster relief fund and additional disaster funding for the Corps of Engineers. Those are the two accounts we are talking about here, and that has all been designated as an emergency and none of it offset.

Now, at a time when communities up and down the eastern seaboard are still reeling from the aftermath of Hurricane Irene, at a time when millions of Americans are still struggling to find a good job, House Republicans are telling us that this time around, FEMA won't get any more disaster relief funding for the current year unless we take money from another Federal agency. This is a

radical departure from the way in which both parties have treated emergency disaster relief over the past decade, and it will undermine our economic recovery.

The Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing program which our Republican colleagues propose to cannibalize, that program stands to add tens of thousands of good paying jobs in an industry that will be critical to our future economic competitiveness. This is a bad precedent, and it's bad policy.

It's no wonder the American people are fed up with Congress. Once again the majority is putting partisan ideology ahead of the dire needs of the American people by telling our communities they won't get relief until we wage yet another budget battle here in Congress.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this approach and instead support the disaster relief measure approved by the Senate which would fully fund FEMA's needs without requiring yet another fight over spending offsets.

Mr. Speaker, we should never have reached this point. Under Democratic and Republican presidents alike, Congress has always fulfilled its responsibility to pay our nation's bills when they come due. We have disagreed vehemently about matters of fiscal policy, but we have always recognized that the full faith and credit of the United States should remain above the partisan fray.

Until now, that is. Make no mistake, this is a manufactured crisis. For the last several weeks, Republicans have held our nation's economy hostage to their narrow and extreme ideological agenda, demanding a ransom of devastating cuts to critical domestic programs while protecting tax breaks for oil companies and other special interests. No matter that Social Security benefits, military pay, and the credit rating of our country have all been hanging in the balance--apparently, economic calamity is a small price to pay for ideological purity.

I voted months ago for a clean debt ceiling increase. I voted days ago for an alternative, bipartisan Senate plan to increase the debt ceiling and cut spending in carefully targeted ways. That the House and Senate are just now considering legislation to stave off default is a tremendous failure by House Republicans, who could not bring the most extreme elements of their caucus to a more balanced legislative solution.

The result is an agreement which could have been worse but is still not good enough. From the beginning, I have said that any serious approach to deficit reduction must do two things: protect the fragile recovery, because the best cure for a budget deficit is a growing economy, and take a balanced approach to finding savings by putting all types of spending and revenues on the table. This agreement meets neither of these tests.

The President deserves credit for negotiating a package that rejects some of the worst Republican demands. It immediately moves us past this artificially created crisis by extending the debt limit through 2013, and it protects Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid against cuts from Republicans who have signaled a willingness to savage these middle class benefits as a part of deficit reduction. I am also encouraged that defense spending has finally been subjected to the same pressures as the rest of the budget.

However, these positive aspects offer limited consolation. Instead of charting a responsible path to deficit reduction while continuing to invest in economic recovery, the bill imposes severe spending caps that will become even more severe if the deficit commission created by the bill fails to achieve consensus. Instead of taking a balanced approach that includes new sources of revenue, such as an end to special- interest tax breaks, the bill asks the elderly and working-class Americans to bear the brunt of the sacrifice. Why are we not asking the wealthiest Americans to make the same sacrifices other Americans have already been asked to make?

Finally, I also vote no because I refuse to legitimize the demands of ideologues who have recklessly held the national economy hostage to their extreme agenda. Governance by brinksmanship is not worthy of being called governance. The American people deserve better than a House of Representatives that forces the entire country to lurch from one artificially created crisis to the next. We are United States Congress, not the Tea Party's Congress, and it's time we started acting like it.''

Mr. Speaker, since our Republican colleagues assumed the majority in January, we have swung from one artificially created crisis to the next.

In the spring, we barely dodged a government shutdown. Now we face an unprecedented and unnecessary crisis over raising the debt ceiling, an event that's occurred more than 70 times since 1964. And we're already hearing rumblings of another potential shutdown in October at the end of the current fiscal year.

Mr. Speaker, the most baffling part of this legislation is that it requires us to have this debate all over again in 6 months.

Time and time again, I've heard my Republican colleagues say that private capital has not found its way back into the market because of economic uncertainty. Surely the majority cannot believe that going through this debate again in 6 months would do anything to increase market stability or reduce uncertainty.

Mr. Speaker, lurching from one politically motivated calamity to the next is doing our economy great harm. It's doing our country great harm. We need a bill that addresses the default issue for the long term, not one that will require us to repeat this madness in a matter of weeks. It's past time for the majority to bring such a bill to this floor, so that we can focus on bringing jobs back and building our economy for the long haul.