Norm Dicks

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts, the ranking member of the Financial Services Committee, Mr. Frank.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Michaud), whom I've enjoyed working with on these important issues before our committee.

Mr. DICKS. I yield myself as much time as I may use. I just want to say that I think that this is a bill that we've worked hard on, we've worked with the other body; and I hope that the Members will support this bill. And I want to remind everybody, this has got the CR in it. We've got to keep the government open. It's clean, as clean as any one that I have seen. So I hope that we can pass this bill with a very strong bipartisan vote. I'm urging my colleagues on the Democratic side to support this bill. I want to, again, congratulate the chairman and all of our staff for the work that they've done on this bill. It's a good bill. It's not perfect, but it's a lot better than the alternative. And we need to keep moving on these appropriations bills. I hope we can pass the other nine in December, and we have to do that. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Your point is that that's why it's so important to finish these in 2011, before the end of the calendar year, so we don't have to waste time next year in finishing the job.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts, the ranking member of the Transportation, HUD Subcommittee, Mr. Olver.

Mr. DICKS. I concur with what you've said, and I concur with the direction we're going in. I just hope we can do a little better and finish the job next year. It has been done before. It's not impossible. We also have to think about the impact of these bills on the economy and the country. That's very important as well.

Mr. DICKS. I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), who has been a tireless advocate for both the COPS program and our firefighters and for local law enforcement.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to instruct at the desk.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on the motion to instruct.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. The motion instructs conferees to provide funds needed for the Federal Highway Administration to eliminate the backlog of repairs to highways, roads and bridges damaged in natural disasters. The motion also instructs the conferees to fund the Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) programs. It is not unusual for Congress to appropriate funds to address the backlog of disaster repairs for highways, bridges and roads. Since 1989, Congress appropriated additional funds to eliminate the emergency relief backlog on 20 separate occasions. This motion will put nearly 60,000 construction workers to work repairing roads and bridges in 37 States. The Federal Highway Administration needs about $1.76 billion for emergency relief repairs in States that received a Presidential disaster declaration. I would remind my colleagues that the Budget Control Act reformed the process for determining the total amount available for disaster relief funding. Funding is based on objective criteria. Disasters must be declared, and the total amount cannot exceed the rolling 10-year historical average. If conferees provide the highest level of disaster relief funding within the scope of conference, it will be within that range. The motion instructs conferees to remain consistent with the Budget Control Act. And the act makes clear that if disaster relief funding is within the average, it does not need to be offset. The motion simply asks the House to honor the agreement on disaster relief reached in the Budget Control Act. The motion also instructs the conferees to support the highest level of funding for COPS within the scope of conference. The House bill, as reported by the Appropriations Committee back in July, included no funding for the COPS programs. However, the Budget Control Act provides a higher discretionary funding total for FY 2012 than the allocation the committee was working with during the summer. This permits the House to fund some items that were difficult to provide for in July. And the COPS programs should be at the top of the list of things to fix in the CJS bill with a higher allocation. The House has supported COPS on a bipartisan basis, and it is needed now more than ever. The economic downturn of the last few years is straining the resources of State, local and tribal governments across the country. Public safety agencies have been affected along with nearly everyone else. According to the COPS office, nearly 12,000 police officers and sheriff's deputies will have been laid off by the end of 2011. Approximately 30,000 law enforcement jobs are unfilled. And an estimated 28,000 officers and deputies faced week-long furloughs in 2010. We can't fix all the financial pressures facing local law enforcement, but we can do something to help stem the tide. This motion would support the hiring or rehiring of approximately 1,500 police officers in FY 2012. Mr. Speaker, I urge the House to vote ``yes'' on the motion to instruct, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. DICKS. Absolutely, we are determined to do that. I'm glad to see that the other body is actually bringing some of these minibuses to the floor and allowing their Members to have a vote. I think we may have inspired them.

Mr. DICKS. I have one additional speaker, and then I will close very briefly. I have the right to close, I believe.

Mr. DICKS. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch), a very distinguished Member of the Congress and a person whose State has been very hard-hit by disasters, and we're going to do everything we can to work to assist him on this important endeavor.

Mr. DICKS. Yes, I am prepared to close and to yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DICKS. I want to commend the chairman for his commitment this year to return to regular order. I wish we could have finished all 12 bills, but we at least got six of them done. I just want to thank him and his staff and the staff of the minority for working together in a collegial way. I think it's important for the American people to know that the Appropriations Committee here is working together on a bipartisan basis. Now, we may have differences on economic theory and everything else, but we are committed to getting these bills passed and bringing as many as we can to the floor. I hope that, next year, we can start a little earlier and get the budget resolution and move these bills. I would love to see us in the second session of this Congress get all 12 bills to the floor where the Members can offer their amendments. I think that still should be our goal and objective.

Mr. DICKS. Speaking of a clean year, let's try to get rid of as many of those riders as we can, Mr. Chairman. You know it's the right thing to do. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the CR before us runs through November 18. The CR continues funding at last year's level minus 1.053 percent to ensure that spending is limited to $1.043 trillion, the amount agreed to in the Budget Control Act. Democrats voted ``no'' previously for two reasons: We strongly oppose taking funding from the Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing program. This is a program that has proven to be a success in creating jobs. The Department of Energy estimates the loan guarantees have created or maintained 39,000 jobs in California, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio, Michigan, Missouri, and Tennessee. The pending applications will help create more jobs. The money received by the companies is paid back to the government with interest. We also strongly oppose the notion that efforts to help Americans rebuild their lives after floods, hurricanes, wildfires, and other natural disasters should be put on hold until Congress can agree on offsetting reductions in spending. FY12 has begun, so there is no need for FY11 disaster relief funding in the CR. In earlier versions, House Republicans had insisted on offsetting FY11 disaster relief funding. The CR under consideration today no longer cuts funding for ATVM and does not require an offset. I urge a ``yes'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DICKS

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

Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?

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

Mr. DICKS. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I know as well as anyone that Members change their minds. I've heard a lot about that the last couple of days. But here we are debating essentially the same bill that we voted on yesterday. Many Republicans who voted ``no'' last night did so because they believed $1.043 trillion is too much spending. The bill before us tonight spends $1.043 trillion. I will be the first to say every Member is entitled to change his or her mind; however, I am eager to hear my Republican colleagues who voted ``no'' yesterday answer why it is okay to vote ``yes'' today. And I hope these Members will not hang their hat on the one fig leaf of change in the bill. The bill now includes a rescission of $100 million in emergency funding from section 1705 of the renewables DOE loan program. A rescission of emergency funds does not score as a reduction from the $1.043 trillion. Democrats voted ``no'' for two reasons: we strongly oppose taking funding from the Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing program. This is a program that has proven to be a success in creating new jobs, and such a success that the National Association of Manufacturers and the Chamber of Commerce of the United States have both called upon the Congress to not cut out this program because, one, the money is repaid, and it is creating jobs--something the majority has not done in the months that they've been in the majority. This is a jobs program. We strongly oppose the notion that efforts to help Americans rebuild their lives after floods, hurricanes, wildfires and other natural disasters should be put on hold until Congress can agree on offsetting reductions in spending. We will continue to vote ``no'' because the bill continues to acquire an offset to provide disaster relief funding, and that offset is misguided. Republicans take $1.5 billion from the Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing program at the Department of Energy to pay for $1 billion in disaster relief. The Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing program was started in 2008 to reinvigorate American manufacturing. To date, the program has awarded $3.5 billion of credit subsidy to promote energy-efficient advanced vehicles and their component parts. The Department of Energy estimates the loan guarantees have created or maintained 39,000 jobs in California, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio, Michigan, Missouri, and Tennessee. Some have suggested that this program has been slow to spend emergency funding provided in the FY 2000 CR. I say the loan process ought to be strenuous. One company originally applied under a different loan program in 2006 and received an ATVM loan in 2010. It required 4 years of due diligence and review to qualify for the loan. Republicans seem to be issuing an ultimatum to all loan programs: expedite the review process or see your funding transferred away. By the way, the company in question, Tesla, employed about 400 employees before receiving the loan. Today, they have 1,400 employees in the field of engineering research and development, design, manufacturing, assembly, maintenance, and service, sales and support. The ATVM program has an additional 18 loan applications in progress that are projected to create 50,000-60,000 more jobs in California, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, and Ohio. One pending application would support investments at 11 plants in Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, and Ohio. The company employs over 56,000 workers, having added nearly 9,000 new workers since 2009. Some of these jobs will be at risk because of this offset. This is not the time to put American manufacturing jobs at risk. That is why the National Association of Manufacturers expressed their support for the ATVM program in a letter to the Senate dated September 22, noting, ``The ATVM program is an example of what government/ industry partnerships can accomplish. It has helped create and preserve thousands of auto sector jobs. The NAM believes defunding ATVM will hurt manufacturers and their employees.'' And the Chamber of Commerce agrees with them. Now, I think it's time for us to stay with our position and vote ``no'' and get a clean CR. That's what I asked the committee to do. We need a clean CR. We don't need this offset. I reserve the balance of my time.

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