Norm Dicks

Mr. DICKS

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

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

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

Mr. DICKS. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Today was a very dramatic day on the stock market. The Dow Jones dropped 500 points because investors are worried that we're headed into a second recession; and what we get from the majority party is to cut out a program that creates jobs. The Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing program has already created 39,000 jobs. It's going to create another 39,000 with the $2.5 billion that remains, and the $1.5 billion that we're taking out of there would create another 10,000 jobs. These are jobs. The only way we're going to get unemployment down is to put people back to work. And here we are again. After savaging all these other programs-- cutting people out of work in the public sector--now we're going to cut out automobile jobs. Let me read to you what the National Association of Manufacturers has to say, which is not an organ of the Democratic Party: ``The NAM is the largest trade association in the United States, representing over 11,000 small, medium and large manufacturers in all 50 States. We are the leading voice for the manufacturing economy, which provides millions of high-wage jobs in the U.S. Two-thirds of our members are small businesses, which serve as the engine for job growth. Our mission is to enhance the competitiveness of manufacturers and improve American living standards by shaping a legislative and regulatory environment conducive to U.S. economic growth. ``The NAM is writing to express our support for the Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing program--'' this is the program that we're taking $1.5 billion out of ``--authorized under the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 with bipartisan support and signed into law by President Bush. The ATVM program is an example of what government/industry partnerships can accomplish. It has helped create and preserve thousands of auto sector jobs and put our Nation on a path towards greater energy security. The NAM believes defunding ATVM will hurt manufacturers and their employees.'' I mean, if you had to go out and find a business group in this country that has more credibility, I don't know what it would be. It's the National Association of Manufacturers. The Chamber of Commerce, which is also not an organ of the Democratic Party, says: ``As Congress sets spending priorities, the Chamber wishes to highlight a few important facts about the Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing loan program. ``First, the program was authorized in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, which was supported by both Republicans and Democrats as an important step in reducing America's dependence on oil from unstable regimes. ``Second, ATVM loans, which will be repaid with interest, incentivize automakers and suppliers to build more fuel-efficient advanced technology vehicles in the U.S., providing new opportunities for American workers in a sector of the economy that is critical to the Nation's recovery. ``Third, the fact that the Department of Energy has yet to use the funds Congress appropriated for the program is not the fault of industry. Numerous loan applications have been in the queue for years, waiting for the administration to complete its due diligence.'' That line started in the previous administration. So this is a jobs program. I say to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, we want to take care of those people who have suffered disasters. We want to take care of them. We will take care of them, but we also want to provide jobs for Americans who are unemployed. If I were in your shoes, I'd support jobs for workers and also take care of those people who are suffering because of a disaster. Now, these are Republican-leaning organizations. They get it. Just vote ``no,'' and let's get a clean bill and do the right thing for the country. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?

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

Mr. DICKS. I yield the gentleman 15 additional seconds. The program was started under the previous administration, the Bush administration. The last day they tried to force it out, to have it approved, and it was turned down by the good staff at the Department of Energy.

Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?

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

Mr. DICKS. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute. Don't they all create jobs, these alternative energy programs? So instead of just having the automobile program that creates jobs cut by $1.5 billion, now they are taking $100 million out of another program that creates jobs for the American people, so this is a double header.

Mr. DICKS. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DICKS. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DICKS. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. DICKS

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

Mr. DICKS. I yield the gentleman 2 additional minutes. And so we are seeing that this program actually works. I mean, if there was some question that it was something that hasn't worked, but it is creating jobs and it will create jobs in the future. And there is a whole bunch of people in there making applications from many of these States that you and I just talked about.

Mr. DICKS. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise in reluctant opposition to the continuing resolution. For the most part, it is a clean CR. It provides funding at $1.043 trillion through November 18. The amount reflects the Budget Control Act cap on FY 2012 appropriations. The CR continues funding as provided in FY 2011 with a 1.503 percent across-the-board cut to come down from approximately 1.059 to 1.043. The CR adds a handful of anomalies requested by the administration through OMB, including provisions to cut back on overseas contingency operations funds from the level of 2011 down to the level that was passed in the Defense appropriations bill, which is approximately 118; authorize DHS work on national special security events; extend flood insurance; and delay the Postal Service payment obligation. The last provision will allow mail service to continue while Congress pursues legislative reforms. The matter that concerns me and the Democratic Caucus is the way the majority has provided disaster relief funding. FEMA's Disaster Relief Fund is precariously short on money in FY 2011. Americans are trying to rebuild their lives after the devastating effect of floods, wildfires, and hurricanes in a record year of natural disasters, and FEMA is running out of resources to help them. FEMA has deferred funding for all long-term rebuilding projects to focus on immediate needs. The administration requested a $500 million supplemental appropriation for the remaining days in the fiscal year. They requested 2011 emergency funds. They did not recommend an offset. This has been the practice for supplemental disaster relief. Since 2002, Congress appropriated $95 billion in supplemental disaster relief. All of it was designated as an emergency, and none of it was offset. Some other emergencies may have been paid for during the Clinton administration; however, during the Bush administration, this was not so for disaster relief. Now, there were other categories of emergency spending and other supplementals that were offset but not disaster relief. For fiscal years 2002 through 2006, President Bush requested supplemental disaster relief funding eight times. Each of the eight times was designated as an emergency and none were offset. With Republicans in the majority, some of the Bush emergency disaster relief bills, without offsets, were approved by voice vote and some were considered under unanimous consent. Nonetheless, House Republicans today insist on departing from this practice. They take $1.5 billion from the Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing program at the Department of Energy to pay for $1 billion in disaster relief, disaster and emergency relief. We have discussed compromise with the other side. They have been unwilling to accept our suggestions. The Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing program was started in 2008 to reinvigorate American manufacturing. To date, this program has awarded $3.5 billion of credit subsidy to promote energy efficient advanced vehicles and their component parts. The Department of Energy estimates that loan guarantees have created or maintained, in total, 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 2009 CR. I say the loan review process is and ought to be strenuous. One company, Tesla, 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. Having read many of the press releases that went out when there was another DOE program that ran into difficulties, I didn't note anybody there saying we shouldn't take time for due diligence. Due diligence is required. By the way, the company in question, Tesla, employed about 400 workers before receiving the loan. Today, they have 1,400 employees in the fields of engineering research and development, design, manufacturing, assembly, maintenance, service, sales, and support. The ATVM program has an additional 18 loan applications in progress that are projected to create 50,000 to 60,000 more jobs, in total, 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, and they are adding nearly 9,000 new workers since 2009. Some of the jobs will be at risk by using this offset. This is not the time to put American manufacturing jobs at risk. If you want to make it in America, you can't take away this funding. If there is one thing we've learned on the economic forefront, it's that we need a growth policy, we don't need a cut policy. Cut and grow just ain't so. I would point out that we need to get people back to work. And the way you do that is programs like this that are going to hire people instead of fire people. We have been doing a lot of firing, and it hasn't worked. When are we going to wake up? When is the majority party going to realize that we have to do something to create growth and stimulate the economy and put people back to work? The only way we're going to get the deficit down is to bring unemployment down. This is an employment program. It should be supported. We should defeat the continuing resolution and come up with--either take this out or come up with another offset that doesn't hurt job creation in our country. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DICKS. I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price).

Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DICKS. Isn't it true that the industrial States are the ones that are getting most of this money because that's where the automobile industry has over the years been located?

Mr. DICKS. Isn't it true we already know this program works, this program received $7.5 billion, and $3.5 billion of it has been obligated and is out there as loans? I think it tripled under the loan guarantee program.

Mr. DICKS. I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).

Mr. DICKS. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Mr. DICKS. Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Rothman), a member of the Appropriations Committee.