Chellie Pingree

Ms. PINGREE of Maine

Ms. PINGREE of Maine. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. PINGREE of Maine. I yield to the gentleman.

Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, and I appreciate the words of my colleague and far more experienced Member from California. Thank you very much. I take your criticism that perhaps, although you didn't hear my words earlier today, that had I been here for the amount of time that you had or had the previous experience, I wouldn't have said exactly what I said about the political posturing that could go on under an open rule. You are right, 18 months I have been here. I have never had any experience in this legislative body about the process of which of you speak. So, far be it from me to say what the differences were from then until today, but I will say a little bit about my own experience. I have the good fortune of sitting on the Rules Committee, and perhaps some day, if I am here long enough, and I move my way up the chairs and I am the ranking member or the chair, I will want to advocate for doing things differently. But I only know the experience that I have had up to today, Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Rules Committee. Now, I see frequent meetings of the Rules Committee. I see a tremendous number of amendments come before us. As my fellow members well know, Mr. Speaker, we often spend hours listening to potential amendments that could be heard here on the floor. I think this afternoon we will have the pleasure of joining the other members of the Rules Committee, Mr. Speaker, and hearing 120 or more amendments to the next potential appropriation bill that could come to the floor. I hear lively debate. I have been there to submit amendments. Sometimes they are accepted; sometimes they are not. I see amendments come to the floor that I agree with and I disagree with. So I see a lot of back-and-forth about the number of amendments. Perhaps it's not an open rule. You are right, I have never had the experience of an open rule here in this Chamber, but I have also had the experience of a tremendous number of amendments, some of which are politically motivated, some of which could take up a tremendous amount of our time, and I feel that generally the Rules Committee pares down the number of amendments to a reasonable number from each side, probably more for the majority than the minority, and I am sure that happened when the other party was in control, too. But the fact is, I hear a lot of lively debate. I have only the experiences that I have had, and I can't defend what might have happened in the past or what may happen in the future.

Ms. PINGREE of Maine. I thank my friend for those words. I happen to enjoy many of the meetings we have when we have the time consider both sides, the rules on both sides and the opportunities for what discussion will come to the floor. I appreciate being a member of the Rules Committee and being a part of that filtering process. I don't know if the process will change in the future, but I will say today we have a goodly number of amendments that will be considered on this. From my perspective, the most important thing that we are doing today is moving forward on this rule, which I hope will pass with a great majority, and moving forward to the consideration of this bill which, I will remind my colleagues, holds a tremendous amount of benefit for our home communities and our veterans, and that is actually why we are here today. I wouldn't want to see extensive consideration of so many amendments that we never got to the point of what people asked us to do. In this case, it's taking care of our veterans and making sure that they get the services that they deserve after they have served our country. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. PINGREE of Maine. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley).

Ms. PINGREE of Maine. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 1559 provides for consideration of H.R. 5822, the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2011, under a structured rule. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The rule waives points of order against provisions of the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI. The rule makes in order only those amendments printed in the report. All points of order against the amendments except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI are waived. The rule provides that for those amendments reported from the Committee of the Whole, the question of their adoption shall be put to the House en gros and without division of the question. The rule provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions. The rule provides that after consideration of the bill for amendment, the chair and the ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations or their designees each may offer one pro forma amendment to the bill for the purpose of debate. Finally, the Chair may entertain a motion that the Committee rise only if offered by the chair of the Committee on Appropriations or his designee. Mr. Speaker, for more than 9 years our country has been engaged in two conflicts halfway around the world. The number of wounded military personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan has put a financial strain on the Department of Veterans Affairs. The VA expects to treat more than 6.1 million patients in 2011, including more than 439,000 veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan. In addition, the constant training, deployment, and redeployment of our troops have put a significant burden on our military. H.R. 5822 appropriates funding for military construction, veterans programs, and four related agencies. Our troops have performed admirably wherever they have been deployed, and Congress has an obligation to provide the care and compensation to every eligible veteran. This bill also provides additional funding for the Guard and Reserves to address critical unfunded requirements as a result of prolonged and repeated deployments. In my home State of Maine, thousands of Guard and Reservists have made invaluable contributions to our national defense, and I am proud to see this funding included in the bill. H.R. 5822 renews our commitment to redevelop closed military bases and their surrounding communities. The bill provides necessary funding to implement the 2005 BRAC and address the enormous backlog of environmental cleanup projects from previous BRAC rounds. This funding is essential to communities across the country, including the towns of Brunswick and Topsham in my district, which are already experiencing economic difficulties from the closing of Brunswick Naval Air Station. We must do everything we can to support the communities that the BRAC bases leave behind. While the investments in military construction are vital, they are only a small portion of this bill. The vast majority of legislation is devoted to veterans' programs. The bill provides the necessary funding for veterans' medical care, claims processors, and facility improvements, including increased funding for mental health services, assistance programs for homeless veterans, and innovative services for veterans in rural areas. The military construction projects in this bill are vital to ensure that the missions of each installation are carried out in the most efficient manner possible. One great example is the funding contained in this bill for Portsmouth Naval Shipyard in Kittery, Maine. The shipyard provides world-class overhaul, repair, and modernization of nuclear submarines. The yard has a reputation of delivering subs back to the fleet on time and under budget. This fall, the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard will welcome the first Virginia-class submarine to Maine for an overhaul. This bill contains $11.9 million to modernize the structural shops at the yard, which will improve the equipment layout and streamline process flow within the shipyard. It will help workers at the yard continue to do high quality work while increasing their efficiency. And this funding is essential to this mission. Increasing maintenance efficiencies and eliminating redundancies will no doubt make the yard more competitive for Navy sub projects in the future. The Portsmouth Naval Shipyard is an economic success story in Maine. The yard is in the middle of adding approximately 160 new jobs this year, jobs like painters, sheet metal workers, electricians, welders, and engineers. And the construction work that this bill will fund will be done by outside contractors, bringing even more jobs to the area. The funding in this bill will help this economic engine in southern Maine remain competitive and create new, good-paying jobs. Finally, I am very proud of what this bill does for our Nation's veterans. Their service has earned them world-class health care and benefits, and Congress has a moral obligation to provide the best benefits possible. This bill is an example of what happens when politics is put aside and veterans come first. I strongly support this rule which provides for consideration of this essential legislation. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. PINGREE of Maine. I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 1559.

Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart). All time yielded during consideration of this rule is for debate only. General Leave

Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Speaker, to the questions of my colleague from Arizona, I have to say you have far more experience in this body than I do. As you know, I'm a freshman Member. So I have only operated under the current process that we have today. I can't speak to what the process was like in the past. I can say, as a member of the Rules Committee, a tremendous number of amendments come before our committee. And if all of them were allowed to come to the floor, and if this were an open rule, I'm sure there would be some advantages and some opportunities for greater debate. On the other hand, on the issues that we're about to take up today, the essential issue of veterans benefits, which I'm going to look forward to speaking to in a few minutes, assuming that we vote down this current point of privilege, I am looking forward to the opportunity to move forward on taking better care of our veterans. And if we had a tremendous number of amendments before us today, I am not sure we would ever get there. In fact, when I look at some of the information that I have before me, I am reminded that during the DOD appropriations bill in 2009, when I was sitting on the Rules Committee, we actually had 606 amendments come before us. Many of them were just there, I think everybody would agree on both sides of the aisle, many of them were just there to score political points. So do our constituents want us to take up our time today with listening to political back and forth taking up day after day with 606 amendments, or do they want us to get right to the heart of the matter, and that is to move forward on the issue of taking better care of our veterans? And let me make one other point. You know, you've talked about earmarks, and you are very eloquent on the topic of earmarks; and I appreciate that. I think a lot of our constituents have great concerns about earmarks, how are they handed out, how does the budgeting process work here. But I do have to say as a freshman Member, I have taken great care to have a tremendous amount of transparency around the topic of earmarks. We hold appropriations meetings in our district. We invite individuals with any kind of issue to come before us that they would like to see appropriated, whether it's a highway bridge, or whether it's a community center, or whether it's a particular project that might benefit anyone in our district, the university, or some system. We actually ask each person who comes before us with an earmark request to make a 3-minute video. Then we post it on our Web site. Then we ask our constituents, do you have opinions on this? So while I understand much of the concerns about the earmark process, I have to say as one Member who I can't say is in the top 13 percent of the highest recipients of earmarks, I still appreciate the process which allows me to take my constituents' wishes before the Appropriations Committee and say, you know, this would benefit my district, this would benefit my university, this would create more jobs. And I do it in a fully transparent manner. So I believe my constituents have the benefit of knowing all of the information around earmarking and doing the very best we can with making sure that process isn't handled in back rooms or in the dark of the night, but is actually a very transparent process. So I appreciate the concerns that you have brought before us today. I look forward to moving forward on the debate on this rule so that we can move forward on what I think is a vital part of our appropriations process, that's taking care of our veterans. So again, I want to urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this motion to consider so we can debate and pass this important legislation today. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I appreciate the thoughts of my colleague from Arizona. I would say that I wouldn't stand up here and criticize nurses, dairy farmers, small breweries, which I have many of in my State, or even the pollinators. I actually have a daughter who's a beekeeper, and I think we all recognize the importance of pollination. But let me get serious here. Once again, my friends on the other side of the aisle, I think, are trying to block important legislation by using a procedural tactic. They want to prevent this rule and the underlying legislation from going forward without any opportunity for debate, without an opportunity for an up-or-down vote on the legislation itself. I think that's wrong. I hope my colleagues will vote ``yes'' so we can consider this legislation on its merits and not kill it with a procedural motion. I say, let's not waste any more time on unrelated parliamentary measures. Those who oppose the bill can vote against it on final passage. We must consider this rule, and we must pass the bill today. I have the right to close but, in the end, I will urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' to consider the rule. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. PINGREE of Maine. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1559 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Ms. PINGREE of Maine

Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Speaker, today I introduced a bill that will make it easier for schools to buy local food. In America, we have slowly moved further and further away from feeding our children healthy, nutritious food in school. At the same time we have watched while thousands of family-run farms have literally disappeared. In Maine, many of our schools go out of their way to purchase food from local farms. But dwindling school budgets and competing priorities have resulted in less money for local food options in cafeterias. My bill frees up money for schools to buy locally produced food by giving them the option to spend 10 percent of what they receive for government commodities on food from local farmers. This will not only bring healthy, high-quality food into our schools, it will also pump more money into our local economies. On average, an apple travels 1,500 miles from farm to school. This bill gives schools the freedom to buy apples from their neighbors and keep every dollar spent in the community instead of traveling across the country and back again. I look forward to working on this bill with my colleagues, and I thank those who have already supported it.

Ms. PINGREE of Maine

Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Speaker, 75 years ago Frances Perkins, a wonderful woman who came from a long line of Maine farmers and craftsmen, addressed the Nation as the Secretary of Labor. In addition to being the first woman Cabinet member in our Nation's history, she was also the person President Roosevelt put in charge of creating the Social Security system. In her address, she talked about creating a system to ``provide safeguards against the misfortunes which cannot be wholly eliminated in this man-made world of ours.'' Nearly 300,000 people in my State now receiving benefits are living proof that for 75 years Social Security has done just what Frances Perkins hoped for--assuring a decent standard of living in good times and in bad for seniors and for countless others. From disability insurance and survivors' benefits to providing a cushion during retirement, Social Security has allowed Americans to retain their independence and their dignity. It must be preserved.

Ms. PINGREE of Maine

Ms. PINGREE of Maine. I thank my colleague for yielding the time. Mr. Speaker, today the House will consider H.R. 5114, the Flood Insurance Reform Priorities Act. In Maine, FEMA is remapping York and Cumberland counties. The new maps will help homeowners and businesses assess the flood risk they face. In Portland, the initial models FEMA used showed much of the city's waterfront would be damaged by waves during a bad storm. FEMA's models turned out to be more appropriate for exposed or standing shorelines. Portland Harbor is not a barrier island nor is it a community built on shifting sand or even walled off from the sea by levees. Rather, Portland Harbor is a working, thriving waterfront that has endured for hundreds of years. After working with the city, FEMA recently improved the accuracy of their model, taking into account the impact of the city's working waterfront on the wave action as well as new data provided by the city. In the next few weeks, FEMA will issue preliminary maps that are a result of hard work by the city and the Maine congressional delegation. Together, we were able to save Portland's working waterfront, but other communities in York and Cumberland counties in my State face similar issues and do not have the resources to hire engineers and collect new data. Our working waterfronts are the economic and cultural hearts of our coastal communities. We need to make sure they are treated fairly in assessing the risks they face. In Harpswell, one boatyard just spent thousands of dollars to show FEMA they were not in a flood zone and that the maps were wrong. In Rockland, many of the buildings on the working waterfront probably can not be rebuilt if they burn down, and a new herring processing facility had to be built so far away from the water that they put the herring on a truck and drive it across the parking lot to be processed. You know, FEMA may be correct in their models--that these piers and buildings are in a flood zone and at risk for being damaged or destroyed in a once-in-a-lifetime storm. Frequently, though, sheltered harbors like Portland are relatively protected, and even during a bad hurricane or nor'easter, they may flood and do not get battered by heavy waves. Our Nation's working waterfronts, like all of our communities, deserve to be mapped using the best science FEMA has available. That's why I worked with the City of Portland to craft language that was included in the manager's amendment to show how these models are applied to working waterfronts and to study how it is done. We owe it to the American people to make sure that all of our communities receive accurate information about flood risks they face, and all of our communities deserve to work with FEMA in a true partnership. I urge my colleagues to support the rule, the manager's amendment, and the underlying bill. Today, the House will consider H.R. 5114, the Flood Insurance Reform Priorities Act. In Maine, FEMA is remapping York and Cumberland counties. The new maps will help homeowners and businesses assess the flood risks that they face. Unfortunately, in some places the remapping process is not as accurate as it could be. For example, in Portland, the initial models FEMA used showed much of the City's waterfront would be damaged by waves during a bad storm. FEMA's models turned out to be more appropriate for exposed and sandy shorelines. Portland Harbor is not a barrier island nor is it a community built on shifting sand or even walled off from the sea by levees. Rather, Portland Harbor is a working, thriving, waterfront that has endured for hundreds of years. After working with the City, FEMA recently improved the accuracy of their model, taking into account the impact of the City's working waterfront on the wave action as well as new data provided by the City. In the next few weeks, FEMA will issue preliminary maps that are the result of the hard work by the City and the Maine Congressional Delegation. Together, we were able to save Portland's waterfront but other communities in York and Cumberland county face similar issues and do not have the resources to hire engineers and collect new data. Our working waterfronts are the economic and cultural hearts of our coastal communities. Because businesses in working waterfronts like boatyards are located on the water's edge and often have piers that stick out into a harbor, they are more susceptible to storms and inaccurate models. In Harpswell, one boatyard just spent thousands of dollars to show FEMA that they were not in a flood zone and that the maps were wrong. In Rockland, many of the buildings on the working waterfront probably cannot be rebuilt if they burn down and a new herring processing facility had to be built so far away from the water that they put the herring in a truck, and drive it across the parking lot to be processed. FEMA may be correct in their models--that these piers and buildings are in a flood zone and at risk for being damaged or destroyed in a once-in-a-lifetime storm. Frequently though, sheltered harbors like Portland are relatively protected and even during a bad hurricane or nor'easter, they may flood but do not get battered by heavy waves. Our nation's working waterfronts, like all of our communities, deserve to be mapped using the best science FEMA has available. Our nation's waterfront businesses need accurate flood maps that don't needlessly place our businesses in the restrictive flood areas such as V or A zones and stifle the economic activity on the waterfront. This is why I worked with the City of Portland to craft language that was included in the Managers Amendment. This language will help protect our nation's working waterfronts and improve the accuracy of FEMA's flood maps in our harbors by requiring FEMA to study how their models and the assumptions that motivate those models are applied to working waterfronts and harbors. We owe it to the American people to make sure that all of our communities receive accurate information about the flood risks they face and all of our communities deserve to work with FEMA in a true partnership. I urge my colleagues to support the rule, the Managers Amendment and the underlying bill.

Ms. PINGREE of Maine

Ms. PINGREE of Maine. I thank my colleague on the Rules Committee for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the $37 billion in this bill for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. I oppose this war funding, and I believe that our presence in Afghanistan is not strengthening our national security. Instead of spending this money on a war that doesn't make us any safer, I believe we should be reducing the deficit and investing here at home. After the events of 9/11, the United States went to Afghanistan to capture or kill Osama bin Laden and dismantle al Qaeda, not to occupy the country or to build the Afghan government, a government that has proven time and time again to be one of the most corrupt in the world. June was the deadliest month for our U.S. military personnel since the war began in 2002. And while the loss of one American servicemember is tragic, the loss of over 1,000 brave Americans for a cause that doesn't make America any safer is something we cannot tolerate. Military and intelligence officials have said there are now only 50 to 100 al Qaeda operatives in Afghanistan, which begs the question, why do we need over 100,000 troops over there? Does the United States really need 1,000 troops and $1 billion a year to fight each single member of al Qaeda? We are pursuing a failed strategy in that country and have somehow confused nation building with fighting the war on terror. We have watched too many times as our colleagues here on the other side of the aisle and in the Senate vote not to extend unemployment benefits or pass funding that would help keep firefighters and teachers on the job because they said we can't afford it. Isn't it time to start asking whether we can really afford a war that costs $7 billion a month? It is time we really need to support our troops and deploy them from Afghanistan. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting to strip out the wasteful and unnecessary funding in this bill. The American people and our brave servicemembers deserve to know our intentions in Afghanistan. That is why we need the administration to develop a timetable for withdrawal immediately. The American people want us to end this war, and it is time for us to bring our men and women in uniform safely home.

Ms. PINGREE of Maine

Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Speaker, last week I introduced legislation to make sure that BP pays royalties on all of the oil from the Deepwater Horizon disaster. The Spilled Oil Royalty Collection Act, H.R. 5513, will ensure that BP pays royalties on every gallon of oil spilled without the administration having to determine whether BP was negligent or violating MMS regulations. Royalties on oil drilled at offshore locations are paid to the Minerals Management Service, MMS, in an effort to compensate taxpayers for the use of publicly owned resources. Under current regulations, leaseholders like BP are only obligated to pay royalties on gallons of oil sold. This legislation is part of responding to the disaster in the gulf and holding BP accountable. We need to clean up and repair the gulf, holding BP accountable for its oil spill, enact stronger environmental, technological and spill response standards, and invest in an American clean-energy future. BP CEO was on television saying that his company will ``make it right,'' but we should have more than just a television commercial to go on. We need the force of law to make sure they pay every penny they owe to us. I hope you will join me in supporting this important piece of legislation.

Ms. PINGREE of Maine

Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. PINGREE of Maine. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin). (Mr. LANGEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Speaker, I have to say, my colleague continues to act as though we don't have a problem out there with our economy. That somehow, as happened in the last administration, we can just take this laissez-faire attitude; we can just say it will get better on its own, we don't need to do anything or somehow this recovery has already been good enough. Well, I don't hear anybody saying it is good enough, that there is enough jobs and enough support. I want to quote from a couple of things I recently read that reinforce this issue that there isn't enough credit and lending going on, particularly to help our small businesses who are, as I have said before, are one of the important engines to drive this economy. A report by the U.S. Congressional Joint Economic Committee that was released in May found that small businesses have been severely hurt by the tighter lending standards that resulted from the 2008 financial crisis. I want to quote a couple of sentences from that report: The tightened credit conditions experienced by small businesses have curtailed their ability to meet payroll or produce the products and services that are in demand. In 2009, small business hiring was 20 percent below its 2001-2007 average. As further evidence of the impact that tight credit markets are having on small businesses, hiring in mid sized and larger establishments has been increasing since the middle of 2009 while small business hiring continues to decline. I don't know how much more evidence we need than what we hear every weekend, but it is clear small businesses in our districts are still struggling. There was some question about whether or not the bankers even wanted this to happen, whether banks already had plenty of money to lend, people were just not showing up to take it. I want to read a letter from the Independent Community Bankers of America. They say: This act would offer capital to interested community banks to use to increase small business credit. It goes on to say: Notably, leveraging the $30 billion in funds with community banks would potentially support many times that in loan volume to small businesses, as much as $300 billion in additional lending. Well, I don't know anyone who analyzes our businesses out there who says it wouldn't be good to have more credit, more availability, more lending, more growth in our businesses. We haven't been going on that path, we haven't been growing fast enough, and we haven't done a sufficient amount to support availability of credit and growth in our small businesses. Now we have done, according to this report, a fair amount for some of our bigger or midsized businesses, but yet we are always the ones who say, and now I am going to quote from Professor Campbell Harvey of Duke University, his quote, ``Small and medium-sized firms are the drivers of employment growth in the economy, and they are being squeezed.'' He went on to say, ``Results show an extraordinary 44 percent of small businesses restricted their capital spending below desired levels because of borrowing difficulties. These capital projects create jobs both today and over the longer term.'' He concludes by saying, ``Analysis suggests we need to refocus our efforts on the root of the problem. Businesses are not spending on capital projects because of borrowing difficulties. Fixing the credit problem goes a long way toward creating the conditions for robust employment growth.'' We can talk around this all we want, but it's a relatively simple problem that we have all known about ever since this economy started going bad. Banks tightened up on their lending. There hasn't been enough credit availability. Businesses have been struggling. Many of them just want to hang on. Some of them actually want to grow. And here is Professor Harvey telling us, ``Results show an extraordinary 44 percent of small businesses restricted their capital spending below desired levels because of borrowing difficulties.'' Borrowing difficulties, that's almost half of small business reporting this, borrowing difficulties mean they can't get enough money to borrow. They want to borrow money. These are legitimate businesses, many with good credit ratings, who just can't get enough out there. And here are the bankers saying to us, yeah, this would put potentially $300 billion in additional lending into our economy at a time when we are just starting to chug forward, where people are just starting to feel a little bit hopeful, where consumer credit is going up just a little bit, but we are not doing enough. It's easy to stand back and say, oh, no, no, this isn't the government's job. But remember what happened before we started assisting in this terrible recession. We were going nowhere. We were losing a tremendous amount of jobs. I don't like spending this money any more than anybody else, no matter what my colleagues on the other side of the aisle may say. Nobody likes to increase the deficit or feel we are spending more money. But are we really going to turn our backs on our small businesses and on our community banks when they are saying to us, Almost half of us are having trouble accessing the credit we need? Couldn't you just give us a helping hand? We helped out Wall Street. We helped out the big financial institutions. Now, we finally have a bill before us to help the backbone of our businesses and we are going to say ``no.'' I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Speaker, I wish to say a few things in conclusion. We have debated a little bit today about whether or not this bill is important, and I just want to say this is a critical need that we are fulfilling today. This bill will support small businesses when they need it most--access to the financing they need to survive, to grow, to expand and create the jobs that will drive our economic recovery. I don't really know how anyone could oppose this. I know this is essential because I hear it from businesses throughout the 125 towns in my district, and I know this is essential because I have owned a business myself for much of my adult life. For many years, I owned a knitting company that sold our products around the country. I grew the business, and eventually employed 10 people in a town of just 350 year-round residents. And like many women who start their own businesses, I know what it is to argue with a banker to get more access to credit, to start your business or expand your business on a credit card, or to have to go to your husband to cosign on a loan. Now I own an inn and a restaurant that uses vegetables grown on our island and locally caught seafood, and I still know what it is to meet a payroll and argue with the bank about borrowing the money to expand. Mr. Speaker, I have been lucky to own a business that's been an important part of my own community, but it never would have been able to survive without cooperative bankers in my community or access to the investment that the business needed to grow. When businesses are coming to us and saying this is their problem, how could we possibly tell them no? And when facing a tough economic crisis like this one, it is vital that we do everything in our power to support the small businesses that create 64 percent of new jobs in this country, that comprise more than 99 percent of all employer companies, and that are the backbone of the communities that most of us live in. This bill is an important step in supporting those small businesses, ensuring that they have the necessary capital to stay in business and to expand as the economy recovers. This bill is more than just simply an investment in small business. Frankly, it is an investment in American job growth. And what could be more important at this moment in time? I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule. I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.