[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.

                          ____________________