[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 167 (Wednesday, October 31, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H12244-H12252]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
{time} 1030
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3920, TRADE AND GLOBALIZATION
ASSISTANCE ACT OF 2007
Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on
Rules, I call up House Resolution 781 and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 781
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R.
3920) to amend the Trade Act of 1974 to reauthorize trade
adjustment assistance, to extend trade adjustment assistance
to service workers and firms, and for other purposes. All
points of order against consideration of the bill are waived
except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The
amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the
Committee on Ways and Means now printed in the bill, modified
by the amendment printed in part A of the report of the
Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution, shall be
considered as adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be
considered as read. All points of order against provisions in
the bill, as amended, are waived. The previous question shall
be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, to final
passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of
debate, with 40 minutes equally divided and controlled by the
chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways
and Means and 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by
the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Education and Labor; (2) the amendment in the nature of a
substitute printed in part B of the report of the Committee
on Rules, if offered by Representative McCrery of Louisiana
or his designee, which shall be in order without intervention
of any point of order except those arising under clause 9 or
10 of rule XXI, shall be considered as read, and shall be
separately debatable for one hour equally divided and
controlled by the proponent and an opponent; and (3) one
motion to recommit with or without instructions.
Sec. 2. During consideration of H.R. 3920 pursuant to this
resolution, notwithstanding the operation of the previous
question, the Chair may postpone further consideration of the
bill to such time as may be designated by the Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Vermont is recognized for
1 hour.
Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of the debate
only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from California
(Mr. Dreier). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for
debate only.
General Leave
Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their
remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Vermont?
There was no objection.
Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Madam Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I
may consume.
Madam Speaker, H. Res. 781 provides for consideration of H.R. 3920,
the Trade Globalization and Assistance Act of 2007, under a structured
rule. The rule provides 1 hour of debate with 40 minutes equally
divided and controlled
[[Page H12245]]
by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways
and Means and 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman
and ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and Labor.
Finally, the rule makes in order a substitute amendment to be offered
by Representative McCrery of Louisiana, or his designee.
Madam Speaker, let me begin by saying what we all know. Trade can be
a very good thing for the economy of this country, and this Congress
and this Member of Congress is committed to examining any trade
agreement that is brought before this House in two ways: one, whether
the terms and provisions will improve the economy of this country; and
two, whether there is a capacity to share the benefits that that trade
agreement will bring to this economy, across all sectors of it.
And what we have to acknowledge on trade agreements, and really is
the underpinning of this legislation brought before the House, is that
there is significant dislocation that can occur with trade. There can
be winners and there can be losers, and in the adjustment to some of
the consequences that have adverse impact on many of our workers across
this country, we must have a substantial and vigorous and effective
assistance program to help workers who are hurt regain jobs, regain
employment, improve their incomes and be part of this economy and be
part of the benefits, not just the downside of trade.
I want to thank Chairman Rangel, Chairman Miller, Congressman Levin
and Congressman Smith for their diligence in putting together a very
strong adjustment assistance package that we will vote for later today.
Among many others, they have been working on this bill for nearly a
decade.
Trade adjustment assistance hadn't been started in this country until
1962; even though trade has been a very difficult political issue for
this country from its inception, where there were debates about
tariffs. And in our days of our history, tariffs were used basically to
protect our industries and allow them to get a foothold. And then trade
barriers were gradually reduced, and what we're seeing as that happens
is an increase in gross domestic product and wealth, but we're also
seeing an increase in dislocation among many workers, and some of that
is concentrated in many of the old industrial sectors of our country.
This legislation recognizes that impact and is attempting to
substantially increase our ability to address the dislocation. That
underpinning is essential for the consideration of any future trade
packages that will be brought before this House.
The update is long overdue. H.R. 3920 expands trade assistance to the
service sector. That was denied under the previous adjustment
assistance legislation, even as more and more of our economy has become
service-related and even as service sector jobs are being off-shored.
So this change in trade adjustment assistance is long overdue and very
necessary.
Too often workers are not provided with the training that they need
under current training assistance bill. This bill doubles the current
training fund cap to $440 million. Beyond expanding coverage to more
workers, this TAA improves their training opportunities, as well as the
all-important health care benefits.
Many of the folks who have been adversely affected by trade have come
from older industries with strong unions where they had substantial and
very important health care benefits. This trade adjustment assistance
extends them.
It also creates new benefits for industries in communities that have
been hardest hit by creating 24 manufacturing redevelopment zones to
encourage the redevelopment of communities that have been hit the
hardest by manufacturing decline.
What this legislation starts to understand is that one of the
responses that we must have strategically to the acceleration of
globalization is the intensification of localization. Our economies
that have been hardest hit have to rebuild in part from the bottom up
using the resources that we have in those communities, keeping dollars
in those communities that can be reinvested and then create jobs and
wealth in those communities.
Madam Speaker, one of the things that has been happening over the
past generation is a widening gap between the highest and lowest paid
among us. According to a 2006 survey conducted by the Wall Street
Journal, the case right now is that the average CEO in the United
States earns 262 times the pay of the average worker. It means that the
CEO earned more in one work day than an average worker earned in the
entire year.
And we have to look at this discrepancy because one of the actual
facts that has to be recognized, whatever your position on trade, is
that there has been this widening gap, and historically, this country
has always been its best when we've had economic policies that have
shared the wealth that is generated by people working hard in this
country.
H.R. 3920 is an important bill for our economic stability and
workforce growth. It's also a bill about fairness.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume,
and on this beautiful day in our Nation's Capital, I wish you and our
colleagues a Happy Halloween and say that it is an honor to be here on
what is a very important piece of legislation.
I thank my friend for yielding me the customary 30 minutes and want
to congratulate him on his very thoughtful statement and say that I
consider him to be one of the most able Members of the new class that
has come in. I hope my saying that doesn't jeopardize his standing in
the Democratic Caucus, but I do appreciate his hard work on the Rules
Committee.
I was prepared, Madam Speaker, to rise in support of this rule, but
I've decided to oppose the rule, and the reason I've decided to oppose
the rule is not the fact that we, for the first time in the 110th
Congress, have a substitute made in order on a bill that has come forth
from the Committee on Ways and Means. I should say at the outset that
last night our colleague Mr. Hastings of Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, said
that there was only one instance in the 109th Congress where an
amendment was made in order by the then-majority for the consideration
of a Ways and Means Committee bill, when, in fact, we researched that
overnight and found that there were five instances, five instances in
the 109th Congress where our majority, in fact, made in order an
amendment to a Ways and Means Committee bill.
Madam Speaker, I would, at this point, include in the Record that
statement which outlines those measures that we have put forward.
Bills referred to the Committee on Ways and Means
considered under ``structured'' or ``modified closed'' rules
in the 109th Congress:
1. H.R. 8--Death Tax Repeal Permanency Act of 2005.
2. H.R. 6--Energy Policy Act of 2005.
3. H.R. 4297--Tax Relief Extension Reconciliation Act of
2005.
4. H.R. 4437--Border Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal
Immigration Control Act of 2005.
5. H.R. 4157--Health Information Technology Promotion Act
of 2005.
Madam Speaker, so I do say that here we are on Halloween for the
first time in this 10-month period of time having a substitute made in
order, and I was, as I said, prepared to support the rule, but I've
decided to oppose it. I decided to oppose it because of an article that
I read in the Roll Call this morning which made it very clear that the
Democratic majority is once again going down a path that they abandoned
last summer, I'm happy to say, but they've unfortunately brought it to
the forefront again, and that is the notion of casting aside the
opportunity for the single bite at the apple that the minority has, and
that is to offer the motion to recommit on measures.
Now, I know, Madam Speaker, that's a very inside baseball discussion,
but our colleagues know that the motion to recommit is something that
was often denied the Republican minority during the four decades before
1994, and when we won the majority in 1994, we made it very clear that
we would, in fact, guarantee the minority, guarantee the minority a
right to a motion to recommit, meaning at least one bite at the apple
on a measure, even if all amendments were denied.
Now, this report has come forward that the distinguished Chair of the
Committee on Rules, Ms. Slaughter of
[[Page H12246]]
Rochester, New York, is in the midst of a discussion, and she said in
this quote in the paper that she wants to not say that it is imminent
but she wants to get it right, getting it right, shutting down the
opportunity for the minority to have that single opportunity to address
an issue in the bill. And so the mere fact that this has come to the
forefront again, Madam Speaker, has led me to come to the conclusion
that I can't be supportive of this rule that we're debating here today.
I will say that I am in opposition to the underlying legislation
itself, but as I said, I'm very happy that we have the opportunity to
debate a minority substitute for a major package from the Committee on
Ways and Means.
Now, I mention this nearly 1-year period of time we've gone through,
completed 10 months here, and we saw at the beginning of the Congress
this wonderful document that I'm sure you've seen, Madam Speaker, that
was put forward by Speaker Pelosi. It's entitled ``A New Direction for
America.'' Now, in this document, she says that basically every measure
that is considered here on the House floor, and I quote from this
document. It says, ``should include procedure that allows an open, full
and fair debate consisting of a full amendment process that grants the
minority the right to offer its alternatives, including a substitute.''
Now, Madam Speaker, that was what was stated by Speaker Pelosi at the
beginning of this Congress, and today, Halloween 2007, October 31,
marks the first time, the first time in the 110th Congress that this
opportunity for the minority has been availed us.
{time} 1045
I will say that we have repeatedly considered in the Rules Committee
Ways and Means measures, and we have repeatedly asked for a minority
substitute to be made in order so that our constituents, and this has
nothing to do simply with party, this has to do with the right of each
Member of Congress who represents 600,000 and some people to have their
opportunity to be heard here. Unfortunately, throughout this entire
year, up until this point, every request for that minority substitute
has, unfortunately, been denied.
I am happy that we are finally, today, allowing what I know will be a
very thoughtful substitute that will be debated by my California
colleague, Mr. McKeon, the ranking Republican on the Committee on
Education and Labor, as well as the ranking Republican on the Ways and
Means Committee, our friend from Louisiana (Mr. McCrery).
I do commend my colleagues on the Rules Committee, the majority on
the Rules Committee, for taking this first step. I hope very much that
it is a sign of a new day at the Rules Committee. I hope that we will
have this greater transparency, openness and bipartisanship which we
were promised at the beginning of this year.
The underlying bill was actually a good place to start with this, in
part, because the issue in question is so important, and, in part,
because the proposal that has been reported from the Ways and Means
Committee is in such dire need of improvement, that's why I believe
that this substitute is one which should be able to enjoy very strong
bipartisan support.
Madam Speaker, as you know very well, and you have been involved in
the trade debate since you have come to the Congress, and I suspect you
were probably interested in it even before you came to the Congress,
the issue of trade adjustment assistance is a very, very critical and
important and a very well-intentioned program that does need to be
reformed and modernized in order to effectively help American workers
compete in the worldwide marketplace. My friend from Vermont talked
very thoughtfully about the issue of globalization and the fact that we
have seen a dramatic improvement in our gross domestic product growth.
In fact, just this morning, I know it surprised many, we got the
report that we have a 3.9 percent GDP growth rate annualized, the
report that came from the Commerce Department this morning,
demonstrating that opening up new markets and developing opportunities
for U.S. workers and consumers has, in fact, been a positive. I will
acknowledge, and I know we are going to be hearing a lot of sob stories
through this debate, and, frankly, I am sympathetic with those sob
stories, the stories about people who have been victimized by trade.
But I have got to say that one of the sad things that I have observed
in the debate on trade is that it is blamed for virtually every ailment
of society. In fact, I often am reminded of the fact that one time a
constituent came up to me a couple of years ago and said we didn't have
a single illegal immigrant coming from Mexico into the United States
until you passed the North American Free Trade Agreement.
We know very well that the North American Free Trade Agreement has
actually created a third of a trillion dollars in cross-border trade
between the United States and Mexico. I argue that the problem of
illegal immigration would have been dramatically worsened had we not
put into place the trade agreement which has improved the quality of
life and the standard of living in both countries.
I will say that the middle-class population in Mexico today is larger
than the entire Canadian population, and that is by virtue of the fact
that we have seen economic growth take place in Mexico that is a by-
product of the North American Free Trade Agreement.
But having said all of that, as we will continue to rage on with the
debate on the benefits of trade as we face, I hope, in the coming weeks
and months the trade agreements for Peru, Panama, Colombia and South
Korea, I will recognize that there are some sectors of our society that
have not benefited from trade, and that's why we are here today. We are
here today to recognize that it is very, very important for us to do
everything possible to address the concerns of those workers who have
been negatively impacted by trade.
Unfortunately, what the Democrats have done is to take an inefficient
program and compound the inefficiencies and inadequacies and block all
efforts to build more accountability into the system, which we all
believe is very important. Then they intend to self-execute the fusion
of this ill-advised proposal with another bill that imposes massive new
regulations on American job creators. Perhaps most troubling is that
this bill opens the door for TAA benefits to be granted to illegal
immigrants. If we look at that problem, potentially having illegal
immigrants benefiting from the program, if we look at the regulatory
burden which is going to impinge on those who are creating jobs, I
think we have got to recognize that we have a lot of work to do on
that. I believe the substitute is the best answer.
The Democratic majority has tried to distract us all from the mess
they have created by throwing billions of dollars at the problem. Of
course, since money sadly does not grow on trees, the Democratic
majority has once again resorted to raising taxes to pay for their
boondoggle that won't actually do what they claim, in this case helping
American workers deal with job loss. In fact, by saddling businesses,
large, medium and small, with hefty new regulations, they are further
diminishing our economic competitiveness and, in fact, exacerbating the
problem that they purport to address with the measure that they have
brought forward.
How the Democratic majority can say with a straight face that they
want to help workers and yet are determined to shut down the job
creators is beyond me. Whoever said irony was dead should just turn to
C-SPAN. It's alive and well here on the House floor.
The challenges facing Americans in 2007 are very, very different than
the challenges of just a few years ago, let alone when the TAA was
established. Fundamentally, we are still striving for the same things
we always have, good jobs that allow us to provide for our families and
ensure a better life for our children. But we are achieving these goals
in very different ways, and facing very different obstacles. The
reality is that opportunity and challenge often go hand in hand.
One enterprising young entrepreneur may be very successful at tapping
into the global economy, finding clients and contractors all over the
world, allowing businesses to grow here at home and creating lots of
good, well-paying jobs for Americans. But the company down the street
might not navigate the effects of globalization so successfully. It may
find itself struggling to compete with Indian software designers or
[[Page H12247]]
Polish manufacturers or Australian marketing firms. The opportunities
are limitless, but the challenges are broad-based. Limiting our focus
to just those whose jobs are directly impacted by trade is a hopelessly
narrow and simplistic approach. Trade is just one factor in the ever-
churning economy that we face.
As I said, unfortunately, there is this tendency by many, the moment
they witness any kind of change, the moment they witness any kind of
displacement, the moment they witness any kind of problem at all, they
want to blame it on trade, and that is just plain wrong.
There are new technologies growing exponentially and changing the
nature of jobs and job creation irreversibly.
There are new competitors halfway across the globe that are in the
marketplace whether we trade with them or not. There are 100 million
Chinese workers who have been lifted out of abject poverty and are
entering the middle class for the first time ever. Madam Speaker, you
know as a proponent of trade that these are all good things, but we
have to change our thinking in a very broad way if we don't want to
drown in a sea of changes that we aren't prepared to navigate.
We need better math and science education from kindergarten all the
way up. We need to make adult continuing education a part of everyday
life. We need to enhance the financial literacy of American families.
We need an economic agenda that is focused on growth and
competitiveness, including opening up new markets for American
producers and service providers. In other words, we need policies that
assure that individuals are always finding new and better job
opportunities.
When all else fails, we need worker assistance programs that help all
workers get the training they need throughout an entire lifetime in an
effective way that actually allows them to continue to climb up the
economic ladder. We need programs that help to keep workers
competitive, regardless of why they have lost their jobs. Whether the
blame lies with technology, lost competitiveness, or simply dying
industries that are going the way of blacksmiths and buggy whip makers,
the only thing that matters is that every American can find a job and
remain upwardly mobile throughout a lifetime.
As I said, Mr. McCrery and Mr. McKeon have crafted a very thoughtful
substitute that would work to accomplish just that. It would integrate
trade adjustment assistance into other Federal worker programs so that
we can help all workers facing tough times to get the training they
need to remain competitive. Let me say again, we are very, very
committed to ensuring that those workers who are facing tough times
because of displacement that has come about due to trade agreements,
that their concerns and their needs are addressed.
It would integrate trade adjustment assistance, as I said, in other
Federal worker programs. In particular, it focuses on the Workforce
Investment Act which has, as we all know, been very, very effective.
This substitute would provide greater flexibility for workers so that
they can actually get their training and education while they work,
over a longer period of time. It would bring trade adjustment
assistance into the 21st century, broadening its focus to reflect the
new realities of the worldwide marketplace. It would ensure that the
program remains accountable so that we can assure the taxpayers that
their money is being spent in an effective and an efficient way. It
would do all this without raising a single tax or creating any
additional barriers to innovation and entrepreneurship.
This very thoughtful substitute is based on the premise that broad,
far-reaching challenges demand broad, far-reaching solutions. And it is
based on the very logical and simple fact that workers don't benefit
when government puts job creators out of business. The Democrats' bill,
on the other hand, takes a very narrow and flawed approach, while
drastically increasing the money that we are wasting. Only the
Democrats could manage to think small and spend big all in the same
bill.
I hope today we can have a meaningful debate on the important issue
of enhancing the competitiveness of the U.S. economy and ensuring that
American workers, all workers, have access to new and better
opportunities. I believe that our substitute gets us closer to that
goal, and I anxiously look forward to the debate on this proposal.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Madam Speaker, I just want to read one section
from the bill to allay the apprehensions about benefits going to
illegal aliens: section 226, Restriction of Eligibility For Program
Benefits, states very specifically that ``no benefit allowances,
training or other employment services may be provided under this
chapter to a worker who is an alien, unless the alien is an individual
lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States.''
At this time, Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman
from California, a member of the Rules Committee, Ms. Matsui.
Ms. MATSUI. I thank the gentleman from Vermont for yielding me time.
Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the rule and the
underlying legislation, the Trade and Globalization Assistance Act of
2007.
I want to congratulate Chairman Rangel and members of the Ways and
Means Committee on bringing this bill before us.
In 1962, Congress and President Kennedy created the Trade Adjustment
Assistance Program to protect American workers and communities
adversely impacted by international trade.
{time} 1100
Back then, our Nation enjoyed a large trade surplus, our
manufacturing industry was thriving, and our economy was moving
forward.
By establishing the TAA program then, our Nation had the foresight to
recognize that even when economic times were good, international trade
and development could also cause a rift in our workforce and in our
communities.
Now it is our time to provide the foresight for future generations of
workers and companies who will face the continued pressure of
globalization. The mark of a strong Nation is this ability to create a
vision for itself and to adapt to that vision.
Like our economy, the TAA must change and evolve to meet the new
challenges of the day. Under current law, the TAA program only offers
benefits to those workers who lost their jobs in the manufacturing
industry due to international trade.
Today, no sector in our economy is safe from outsourcing or trade
activities. We are seeing IT jobs, call center jobs, and other U.S.
service jobs move abroad.
Our commitment to the American worker is more important now than ever
before. It is critical to continue to improve the benefits for
displaced workers. But it is also essential that we not ignore other
sectors of the economy that have been hard hit by outsourcing or trade
competition.
That is why I'm pleased that the bill before us today expands current
TAA coverage to include the service workers. More than 70 percent of
our workforce today is in the service industry. Updating the TAA
program to reflect this shift in the workforce is essential to the
long-term health of our country.
This bill also improves health care benefits in the TAA program to
make it a more affordable option for our workers. This bill also
doubles the current funding to better train and relocate displaced
workers.
Madam Speaker, the impact of globalization on our economy is not
limited to workers. These affected workers reside in communities that
experience massive job losses due to unfair trade practices. This bill
attempts to help those communities get back on their feet.
Now more than ever, the Trade Adjustment Assistance Program is needed
to position our workforce and economy at the forefront of an
increasingly global economy. This bill moves us forward in the right
direction.
Madam Speaker, Congress needs to be a partner to the communities in
which we serve. This bill lays the groundwork for that. The Trade and
Globalization Assistance Act of 2007 represents a big step in the right
direction.
Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I'd like to reserve the balance of my
time, if I might.
[[Page H12248]]
Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Sutton), a member of the Rules Committee.
Ms. SUTTON. Madam Speaker, I support the TAA reauthorization and
appreciate the important improvements this legislation makes in the
program. But, unfortunately, there's a larger problem at work, and TAA
only addresses the symptoms, not the cause.
So-called free trade has been anything but free. Our current trade
policies have been devastating for communities in northeast Ohio and
across this Nation. One only has to look at our record trade deficit
and this growing TAA program to see this reality.
Madam Speaker, people across this country know that our trading
system is broken. The fact is TAA became necessary because this country
kept entering into unfair and harmful trade agreements that cost
American workers their jobs and hurt businesses and communities.
While reauthorizing and improving the TAA program is important, what
our working families really need are trade policies that do not
jeopardize American jobs in the first place.
In just the last 7 years, we've lost more than 3 million
manufacturing jobs in this country, and more than 200,000 in Ohio
alone. Some estimates attribute more than 50,000 of Ohio's job losses
directly to NAFTA. And we've seen the consequence of this job loss in
the record numbers of families in foreclosure, and in families falling
off of the health care rolls, and families sustaining benefits going
out the window. These are families full of proud, hardworking Americans
who have had their futures and opportunities undercut by our trade
policies. It doesn't have to be that way. This country owes these
workers the kind of assistance TAA aims to offer, because we must
remember that very often it was our Nation's broken policies that set
in motion the loss of their jobs. And because of this, it's this
government's moral responsibility to try and help them land on their
feet.
But wouldn't it have been better if those jobs had never been lost?
And wouldn't it be better, Madam Speaker, to fix our broken policies so
that they no longer allow other countries to engage in unfair trade
tactics that leave U.S. businesses at a disadvantage and U.S. workers
out of jobs?
This reauthorization bill recognizes the disastrous consequences that
poorly conceived trade agreements such as NAFTA, CAFTA and the proposed
Peru, Colombia, Panama and South Korean free trade agreements have had
and will continue to have for our manufacturing and service industries.
Make no mistake. Our policies must not just sound good on paper. They
must work for our businesses, our workers, our farmers, and our
communities. Indeed, they must work and be fair to this country. If
this Congress does not act on this reality which is being felt in
places like Lorain and Akron and in districts across this country,
we'll need more and more TAA programs every year as more and more
American workers are let down by a broken and mismanaged system.
Madam Speaker, all the good intentions and helpful programs in TAA
cannot disguise the fact that we're going about things backwards. We
should start with American workers and communities, and end with
multinational corporations, not the other way around. We must make sure
that our trade policies do not leave our businesses and workers at an
unfair disadvantage or provide incentives to move jobs offshore.
Many displaced workers have been turned away from TAA in Ohio in the
past, due to chronic underfunding and complex eligibility rules and
requirements. And for others it's been very difficult finding new good-
paying jobs to support their families. In Ohio, only 65 percent of
workers laid off between 2003 and 2005 had found new jobs by 2006, and
only two-thirds of those jobs were remotely of similar pay.
And while the improved funding and expansions provided by this bill
are welcome and certainly overdue, the most important message we should
take away from this TAA reauthorization is the fact that it recognizes
how much damage has been caused by our broken trade policies.
We should reauthorize this program, and I certainly appreciate the
improvements in the bill. But as I said earlier, TAA only addresses the
symptoms, not the cause.
We know what the problems are, and American workers and businesses
are facing them every day. It is time for this Congress to step up and
recognize the reality that millions of Americans are facing these
issues due to our broken trade policies and finally take real and
effective action.
Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I'd like to continue to reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Arcuri), a member of the Rules Committee.
Mr. ARCURI. Madam Speaker, my colleague from the Rules Committee
talked about the fact that the American people would hear sob stories.
Well, I don't know if I have a sob story to tell, but I certainly have
a true story to tell about the people in my district and how they have
been affected by trade.
I rise today in strong support of the rule and the Trade
Globalization Assistance Act. Unfortunately, it seems some of my
colleagues only want to focus on the long-term effects of trade and
globalization and neglect the short-term consequences.
Trade clearly creates an ebb and flow of jobs coming and going, and
we have been hearing that. The problem in my district is, while the
jobs have been going, they have not been coming back. The high-tech,
the high-quality, high-paying jobs have not come back to my district.
We have only seen the grave loss of jobs.
Over the last 30 years, my upstate New York district has been
devastated by job loss. The fact is that since 1974, employees of
businesses in my district have applied for trade adjustment assistance
227 times.
This is a list of some of the companies that have applied. They're
companies like Utica Cutlery, Chicago Pneumatic, Oneida Ltd., General
Electric, IBM, Smith Corona, Burrows Packaging. These were keystone
companies in upstate New York economy, and in most cases, these
companies ended up closing their doors.
It's important to look at commercial air travel in our district and
how that's been affected by the loss of business as a result of trade.
In our district, the Syracuse Airport during the 1970s serviced about
1.6 million flights a year. The Oneida County Airport, 750,000 flights
a year. Today the Syracuse Airport has 1.2 million flights, and the
Oneida County Airport is closed. That's well over a million flights a
year that used to fly out of central New York that no longer do. The
reason? The loss of jobs, the loss of business, and the loss of people.
The drastic loss of business and slow recovery creates a dilemma that
the Trade and Globalization Assistance Act seeks to address. Most
notably, the legislation provides for creation of 24 manufacturing
redevelopment zones to encourage the redevelopment of communities that
have suffered substantial decline in their manufacturing base.
The legislation also doubles the amount of training funds from $200
million to $440 million, so that workers eligible for TAA training are
no longer turned away because the program has been inadequately funded.
Madam Speaker, we have to be realistic about trade and we need to
empower our workers with adequate training services. The Trade and
Globalization Assistance Act is not a government handout. It's not
wasteful Federal spending. It's a way to be helpful to Americans who
now need our help. And after all, isn't that what government is all
about, the ability to help people who need it when they need it?
This is a good act, this is a good rule, and it's a very good bill.
It's a commonsense plan to address the short-term consequences and
long-term effects of trade globalization.
Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
And I would say to my good friend from New York that I think he's
taken out of context my use of the term ``sob story.''
Now, as I said, I am a strong proponent of trade adjustment
assistance and want to do everything that I possibly can to ensure that
workers who have been negatively impacted by any kind of trade
agreement are, in fact,
[[Page H12249]]
able to receive the training and the benefits that can help them
improve their standard of living and their quality of life.
But, Madam Speaker, when I was using the term ``sob story,'' what I
was talking about is the fact that time and time again we have demands
made on those job creators out there, demands made of job creators
which undermine their ability to create jobs and opportunities for
people so that they can succeed. And then we, unfortunately, are faced
with complaints coming from those people who are negatively impacted by
the demands of policies that they have made to increase the regulatory
burden, to increase the tax burden, which prevents those who are
struggling to create new opportunities for U.S. workers from having an
opportunity.
It looks like my friend would like me to yield to him. I am happy to
yield to my friend.
Mr. ARCURI. You talked in your statement about the increase in the
middle class of China, and that's a wonderful thing. But I'm concerned
about the middle class here in this country.
Mr. DREIER. If I can reclaim my time, Madam Speaker, the point that I
try to make on trade is that it is a win-win. As I said in my
statement, we have just this morning gotten the news of a 3.9 percent
Gross Domestic Product growth rate, annualized, which is the largest
growth rate that we've had in a year and a half.
Now, I recognize that we have problems out there with the subprime
market. We have lots of difficulties with which we're trying to
contend.
I think it's very important, Madam Speaker, for us to note that as we
deal with these problems they are not trade related. They are not trade
related. In fact, the standard of living, quality of life, 3.9 percent
GDP growth rate that we're enjoying is due to the fact that we are in
the midst of prying open new markets for U.S. workers so that they can
sell to them.
As I said in the Rules Committee last night, Madam Speaker, 96
percent, 96 percent of the world's consumers are outside of our
borders. The world has access to our consumer market. The world can
sell to the consumers in New York, in California, and in other States
as well. That has helped improve the quality of life and the standard
of living for the American people. And so as that has happened, we have
access to our market, but unfortunately, those other markets around the
world are not as open as ours.
What is it that these agreements do that have been negotiated with
Peru, Panama, Colombia and South Korea, and I hope, Madam Speaker, that
we can do many more of these agreements. What they do is they pry open
their markets for U.S. goods and services.
{time} 1115
For example, in Colombia, the tariff rate on U.S. goods going into
Colombia is 11 times greater than the tariff rate on Colombian products
coming into the United States.
So, Madam Speaker, what we are saying is we want to create
opportunities for U.S. workers so that they can export more. And, yes,
if there is some displacement, we want to do everything that we
possibly can to ensure that those workers who are negatively impacted
by trade are, in fact, able to be trained and have the assistance that
they need.
With that, I would like to inquire of the Chair how much time is
remaining on each side.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California has 8 minutes.
The gentleman from Vermont has 11\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Arcuri).
Mr. ARCURI. I would just simply say that those are fine words and 3.1
percent is wonderful.
Mr. DREIER. It's 3.9.
Mr. ARCURI. I'm sorry, 3.9 percent. The problem is that that 3.9
percent can go to the people who are unemployed and, frankly, do
nothing whatsoever for them because they are out of work as a result of
loss of jobs, the people in upstate New York, the people in Ohio, the
people in the Northeast who have lost their jobs as a result of trade.
You can talk about what the percentages are and how much the GDP grew,
but the fact of the matter is they have lost their job and they are out
of work. Today we are here to help those people that have lost their
job by supporting this rule and by passing this bill because this will
help them in the short term to make it until they find new employment.
Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ARCURI. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding.
Madam Speaker, I will say I completely concur with my friend on the
need for us to ensure that those who are negatively impacted by trade
are, in fact, benefited.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from New York has
expired.
Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The point that I am trying to make is that people who are impacted on
a wide range of other factors that are not trade related are not those
who should be directly benefiting from this.
We need to look at ourselves, what it is that we as a Nation can do
to ensure that those individuals about whom my good friend has just
spoken, who are laid off and are looking for new opportunities and want
to have an opportunity to succeed, we need to look at what policies we
can pursue in ensuring that we create the kind of opportunities those
people deserve. Because right now government policies with a tax and
regulatory policy and a lack of opportunity to sell in new markets
around the world, because we have not proceeded with those trade
agreements, are the things that are jeopardizing the ability for those
U.S. workers to find the kind of opportunities they need.
With that, Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for
time. I will reserve the balance of my time until the gentleman has
closed for his side and yielded back his time.
Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
A couple of things. At the outset, Madam Speaker, I referred to a
statement that was made by my good friend from Fort Lauderdale on the
Rules Committee last night when he said that there was only one
opportunity in the 109th Congress for an amendment to be made in order
for a Ways and Means Committee bill when, in fact, we researched that,
as I said, and Mr. Hastings was absolutely wrong when he said it. We
have five instances in the 109th Congress where we, in fact, did make
in order amendments for Mr. Rangel on the Ways and Means Committee for
the consideration of measures.
Also stated last night, unfortunately, our friend from Worcester (Mr.
McGovern) made a statement that all trade adjustment assistance
measures have been considered under suspension or closed rules. There
was an item that was considered under suspension. As I said, if it's
considered under suspension and passed, it means that there is clearly
a strong bipartisan consensus because, as our colleagues know, Madam
Speaker, one is required to have a two-thirds vote to make that happen.
But there was another bill that dealt with this issue. It was H.R.
3090, the Job Creation and Worker Assistance Act of 2002, and it was
considered under a structured or modified closed rule in the 107th
Congress and it provided then-Ranking Member Rangel with an amendment
in the nature of a substitute. So I just think it's important for us to
make clear that we, in fact, did provide those kinds of opportunities.
Madam Speaker, as I said, I was prepared to support this rule. I do
believe that it is a monumental accomplishment that, as we have gotten
to October 31, Halloween, we are for the first time seeing a substitute
made in order for the ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee,
and I congratulate the Democratic majority, after having made this
promise in January in a New Direction for America, that great document
put forward by Speaker Pelosi in which the promise was made that
amendments, open, full, fair debate, including a substitute, and it has
taken us until October 31 before that has happened, but I celebrate,
[[Page H12250]]
Madam Speaker, the fact that we have finally gotten to this point. That
was what was going to lead me to be supportive of this rule.
But then I picked up the Roll Call newspaper, one of our
affectionately called ``rags'' on Capitol Hill here. On page 3 I
looked, and I have a printout of it right here, the article goes
through a press conference that the majority leader held yesterday and
a statement by the very distinguished Chair of our committee, the
gentlewoman from Rochester (Ms. Slaughter), in which she said the
following: ``Nothing is imminent. We want to take our time and do it
right.''
Madam Speaker, what she is referring to is this quest that was
launched by the Democratic majority to undermine the minority's right
to offer a motion to recommit. Now, again, as I said earlier, this is
all inside baseball, but the motion to recommit means that nearly half
of the American people, through their elected representatives, Democrat
or Republican, have a right to offer a motion to recommit.
There have been some very thoughtful motions to recommit, 21, 22 of
them that have succeeded in this Congress. Madam Speaker, we are in the
minority. They would not have succeeded had we not seen a large number
of Democrats join, and in a number of cases they have been passed
nearly unanimously on recorded votes. So now with what are described as
simply political moves, which are, interestingly enough, very
thoughtful proposals that have been propounded by the Members of the
minority, we are being told that once again the majority is looking to
deny nearly half the American people the right to be heard on one
single instance. So for that reason, I am going to encourage my
colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule.
I am going to ask Members also to oppose the previous question on the
rule so that I can amend the rule to allow the House to go to
conference with the Senate on the Military Construction and Veterans
Affairs appropriations bill, which passed this House with overwhelming
bipartisan support.
There have been reports that the majority leadership is planning on
playing a political game with our veterans and our men and women on the
front lines by wrapping the Defense bill and the Veterans Affairs bill
into the Labor, Health and Human Services bill.
The Military Construction bill could have been sent to the
President's desk weeks ago, but the Democratic leadership was content
to play political games with America's kids. All we have asked this
majority to do is to simply come to the table and I am asking here
today that we oppose the previous question so that I can make in order
an amendment that would allow us to proceed with this.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the amendment and extraneous
material be inserted in the Record just prior to the vote on the
previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, we are here discussing trade adjustment
assistance, and it is designed to ensure that, we as an institution,
will have an opportunity to, as I said earlier, open up those very
important markets around the world. They're all relatively small, and
the United States of America has a $13.3 trillion economy, the largest
economy the world has ever known. We have lots of things that are
trade-related that are beneficial to the United States of America.
First and foremost is our national security. I think it is critical for
us to proceed with passage of the Panama, Peru and Colombia free trade
agreements for the security of this hemisphere. Similarly, the Korea
agreement is very important because we all know about the challenges
that exist on the Korean peninsula, and engaging in greater economic
exchanges between and among these countries is very important for our
Nation's security.
At the same time, Madam Speaker, it is important that we do what we
can to ensure that we have the very important trade adjustment
assistance for those Americans who are negatively impacted by trade.
With that, I am going to urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question.
And if by chance the previous question proceeds, I am going to urge a
``no'' vote on this rule because of the kinds of things that the new
majority is trying to do to undermine the rights of nearly half the
American people.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WELCH of Vermont. I thank the gentleman from California, my good
friend and colleague on the Rules Committee, for his kind words and his
usual vigorous argument for the point of view represented on his side.
A couple of things. One, this is a good opportunity for the House to
have a full and fair debate on the substance of this legislation and on
the substitute. We will have that debate, we will have the vote, and
we'll see which side prevails. So I am delighted that all Members of
the House are going to have a full and fair opportunity to make their
case.
Second, before we get to the specific details on what is contained in
this trade adjustment assistance, there is really a bottom line that
has to be acknowledged and it's this: that the road to prosperity has
to be built on a foundation of fairness. What has happened in this
country, despite the economic growth of 3.9 percent most recently, the
highest gross domestic product in the history of the world, over $13
trillion, is that average, everyday working people are falling farther
behind.
We have had the greatest disparity in wealth in this country since
the 1920s, and there is a fundamental question that we have to answer,
and it's this: Are we going to include all Americans in the benefits of
a rising economy, or are we going to pursue policies that allow for the
intensification of that widening gap between the very wealthy and
everyone else?
Our party has made a commitment to the basic proposition of
democratic fairness that requires everyone to have an opportunity to
participate in the benefits of a rising and strengthening economy. And
that hasn't happened. But what we have done with the legislation we
have brought before this House is essentially tried to build that
foundation of fairness and provide a new direction on our economic
agenda, one that includes all Americans.
Let me just give, Madam Speaker, a few examples. We raised the
minimum wage, something that hadn't been done in over 10 years. We had
people working harder, making less, many of them paying more in taxes
because of the Social Security payroll tax increases than at any time
in history. In the average families, they found themselves working two
and three jobs in an effort to pay the light bill, in an effort to pay
the fuel bill, losing health care.
We increased access to college education by taking a free ride away
from the international banks that were literally getting a taxpayer
guarantee in subsidized profits and gave that benefit to students so
that their student loans were cut in half in the interest rate, from
6.8 to 3.4. We passed the child health care, which extends benefits to
working families, basically, to 10 million children throughout this
country, something our kids need.
{time} 1130
And these are oftentimes the children of the working poor. These are
folks working hard. They would rather not have to have any help, but
they can't afford health care. We passed prescription drug price
negotiation. Instead of giving away guaranteed legislated profits to
the drug companies, we, in the House, it's languishing in the other
body, required price negotiation so that we can get the benefit of
lower prices that we're entitled to because of bulk purchasing.
We passed many provisions that are going to strengthen our small
businesses across this country because we know the small business is a
job creator. And we stood up to an administration, at a time when our
veterans and our soldiers are doing more for this country than in
recent memory, by passing the highest increase in the budget for
veterans in the history of the Veterans Administration.
The bottom line here is that this Congress, this leadership has made
a commitment to a new direction. And the new direction is the old-time
values of making certain that workers, average families, and
communities that are fully engaged as American citizens participate in
the benefits of our economy.
Trade adjustment assistance is one more brick in that foundation of
fairness. We can't have trade agreements
[[Page H12251]]
that are tilted so that the benefits are not shared and the burdens of
dislocation are not shared.
So, Madam Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question on
the rule.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Dreier is as follows:
Amendment to H. Res. 781 Offered by Mr. Drier of California
At the end of the resolution, add the following:
Sec. 3. The House disagrees to the Senate amendment to the
bill, H.R. 2642, making appropriations for military
construction, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and related
agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and
for other purposes, and agrees to the conference requested by
the Senate thereon. The Speaker shall appoint conferees
immediately, but may declare a recess under clause 12(a) of
rule I for the purpose of consulting the Minority Leader
prior to such appointment. The motion to instruct conferees
otherwise in order pending the appointment of conferees
instead shall be in order only at a time designated by the
Speaker in the legislative schedule within two additional
legislative days after adoption of this resolution.
____
(The information contained herein was provided by
Democratic Minority on multiple occasions throughout the
109th Congress.)
The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means
This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous
question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.
A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote
against the Democratic majority agenda and a vote to allow
the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an
alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be
debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of
Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the
previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or
control the consideration of the subject before the House
being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous
question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the
subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling
of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the
House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes
the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to
offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the
majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated
the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to
a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to
recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:
``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman
from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to
yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first
recognition.''
Because the vote today may look bad for the Democratic
majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is
simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on
adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive
legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is
not what they have always said. Listen to the definition of
the previous question used in the Floor Procedures Manual
published by the Rules Committee in the 109th Congress, (page
56). Here's how the Rules Committee described the rule using
information from Congressional Quarterly's ``American
Congressional Dictionary'': ``If the previous question is
defeated, control of debate shifts to the leading opposition
member (usually the minority Floor Manager) who then manages
an hour of debate and may offer a germane amendment to the
pending business.''
Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives,
the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a
refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a
special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the
resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21,
section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: Upon rejection of the
motion for the previous question on a resolution reported
from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member
leading the opposition to the previous question, who may
offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time
for debate thereon.''
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does
have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only
available tools for those who oppose the Democratic
majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the
opportunity to offer an alternative plan.
Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my
time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Tauscher). The question is on ordering
the previous question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule
XX, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be
followed by 5-minute votes on adoption of H. Res. 781, if ordered, and
approval of the Journal.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 224,
nays 190, not voting 18, as follows:
[Roll No. 1021]
YEAS--224
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Castor
Chandler
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Doggett
Donnelly
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Giffords
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shadegg
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Tsongas
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
NAYS--190
Aderholt
Akin
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boustany
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Forbes
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Lampson
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Saxton
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
[[Page H12252]]
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--18
Alexander
Bachmann
Blackburn
Brady (TX)
Burgess
Carson
Cooper
Cubin
Davis, Lincoln
Dingell
Fortenberry
Jindal
Paul
Renzi
Schiff
Van Hollen
Weller
Wilson (OH)
{time} 1154
Mr. SESSIONS and Mr. TIBERI changed their vote from ``yea'' to
``nay.''
Mrs. NAPOLITANO and Mr. SMITH of Washington changed their vote from
``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 222,
noes 193, not voting 17, as follows:
[Roll No. 1022]
AYES--222
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Castor
Chandler
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Doggett
Donnelly
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Giffords
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Tsongas
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
NOES--193
Aderholt
Akin
Bachmann
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Forbes
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Lampson
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Saxton
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Taylor
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Wamp
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--17
Alexander
Blackburn
Carson
Cooper
Cubin
Davis, Lincoln
Dingell
Fortenberry
Jindal
Paul
Renzi
Roybal-Allard
Schiff
Van Hollen
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Wilson (OH)
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised there
are 2 minutes remaining in this vote.
{time} 1203
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________