[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 30 (Thursday, March 4, 2010)]
[House]
[Pages H1115-H1123]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF SENATE AMENDMENT TO H.R. 2847, COMMERCE, 
    JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2010

  Ms. MATSUI. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 1137 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 1137

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 
     2847) making appropriations for the Departments of Commerce 
     and Justice, and Science, and Related Agencies for the fiscal 
     year ending September 30, 2010, and for other purposes, with 
     the Senate amendment to the House amendment to the Senate 
     amendment thereto, and to consider in the House, without 
     intervention of any point of order except those arising under 
     clause 10 of rule XXI, a motion offered by the chair of the 
     Committee on Ways and Means or his designee that the House 
     concur in the Senate amendment to the House amendment to the 
     Senate amendment with the amendment printed in the report of 
     the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. The 
     Senate amendment and the motion shall be considered as read. 
     The motion shall be debatable for 1 hour equally divided and 
     controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Ways and Means. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the motion to final adoption without 
     intervening motion.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from California is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Ms. MATSUI. For the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 
minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions). All time yielded 
during consideration of the rule is for debate only. I yield myself 
such time as I may consume.


                             General Leave

  Ms. MATSUI. I also ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 
legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House 
Resolution 1137.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. MATSUI. Madam Speaker, House Resolution 1137 provides for 
consideration of the Senate amendment to H.R. 2847, the Hiring 
Incentives to Restore Employment Act. The rule makes in order a motion 
offered by the Chair of the Committee on Ways and Means, or his 
designee, that the House concur in the Senate amendment to the House 
amendment to the Senate amendment with the amendment printed in the 
report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution.
  The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the 
motion, except those arising under clause 10 of rule XXI. The rule 
provides the Senate amendment and the motion shall be considered as 
read. The rule provides 1 hour of debate on the motion equally divided 
and controlled by the Chair and ranking minority member of the 
Committee on Ways and Means.
  Madam Speaker, in today's economy, many families are struggling to 
make ends meet. As we know, the economic recession began in 2008 as a 
direct result of reckless and irresponsible financial decisions. We are 
still dealing with the wreckage today. Over the last few years, I have 
heard countless stories of people struggling to put food on the table, 
pay their mortgages, and provide for their children, and millions of 
America's seniors are making decisions every day to skip meals or cut 
their pills in half just to survive.
  California and, in particular, my constituents in Sacramento, have 
been greatly impacted by this economic crisis. Many of my constituents 
were and continue to be victims of predatory home loan lending, unfair 
credit card practices, payday loans, and other forms of unscrupulous 
business practices. They turned to Congress for help, and we responded 
with the CARD Act. And the ink was hardly dry on that legislation 
before credit card companies tried to find loopholes to arbitrarily 
raise credit card interest rates and fees on consumers.
  This Congress also passed the Wall Street Reform and Consumer 
Protection Act, which will bring much-needed oversight and 
accountability to Wall Street. This bill also creates a new consumer 
financial protection agency to protect consumers from unfair and 
deceptive financial practices. Meanwhile, small businesses are seeking 
assistance to help make payroll, retain their employees, and pay for 
the skyrocketing costs of health insurance. These are the reasons why 
it is time to once again put the American people first and provide them 
with the support they need from their Representatives in Congress.
  We need to pass the jobs bill before us today as a significant step 
towards helping hardworking Americans get back to work. The American 
people are hurting, and the top priority of this administration and 
this Congress must be

[[Page H1116]]

jobs, jobs, jobs. In December, the House passed a jobs package, the 
Jobs for Main Street Act that would make $156 billion in targeted 
investments in our economy. The projects supported by this bill will 
improve our highways and transit infrastructure, renovate schools, and 
help small businesses rebuild, support job training initiatives, and 
affordable housing programs.
  While the jobs package we are considering today is not as broad as 
the version passed by this House, it is an important step in the right 
direction and one we cannot afford not to enact. Today's bill is one 
that I hope will be the first of a series of job creation proposals 
that we will consider in the coming weeks and months because the 
reality is that the unemployment rate in this country is at an 
unacceptable level of 9.7 percent, and this bill will help incentivize 
employers to start hiring immediately. Already the Recovery Act, put 
forth by congressional Democrats, has saved or created more than 2 
million jobs. That is according to CBO. The Recovery Act has clearly 
helped us rebound from this recession and saved us from the brink of 
another Great Depression.
  The Recovery Act has greatly benefited my district and the entire 
Sacramento region, providing almost $700 million for dozens of 
projects. Such projects include $21 million for improving and enhancing 
Sacramento's levees from flood protection, public transportation 
facilities, developing clean energy technology, and hiring 30 new 
officers at the Sacramento Police Department. It is also helping 
struggling homeowners avoid foreclosure, investing in new community 
health facilities, and the list does go on and on and on. My 
constituents can see where and how every dollar is being spent in our 
district by visiting my Web site.
  One of the most important results of the Recovery Act is that it 
helps school districts minimize budget cuts. However, as the economy 
declines, school districts are now considering shorter school years, 
larger class sizes, and looking to lay off teachers. We cannot let this 
happen. So our path towards economic recovery must continue to invest 
in our Nation's workforce to spur additional job creation, innovation 
and long-term economic growth. And by supporting the rule and the 
underlying bill, we will do just that.
  I have heard from small business owners who are eager to be connected 
to business counseling and resources, to learn more about financing 
opportunities, SBA loan products, and government contracting 
opportunities. There is a great demand for immediate and real 
assistance for our small businesses to get back on their feet and for 
workers to get back into the labor market. Over the last few months, I 
have held two small business workshops to help existing small business 
owners understand the recovery legislation, obtain financing, and find 
new opportunities for government programs. And I have seen firsthand 
how eager people are to start working again or get retrained in new 
fields and to take an active part in our country's economic recovery.
  The proposal before us today offers a key strategic tax incentive for 
employers to hire new workers. The proposal would exempt employers from 
paying Social Security taxes through the end of this year for hiring 
new workers who have been out of work for at least 60 days. If the 
newly hired workers remain on the payroll for at least a year, the bill 
provides an additional $1,000 income tax credit to employers. This new 
hiring tax credit could spur as many as 250,000 jobs, according to 
leading economists. To help small businesses, the proposal offers an 
immediate writeoff, up to $250,000 for equipment purchased this year. 
To invest in additional transportation infrastructure, the proposal 
extends the Highway Trust Fund, otherwise known as SAFETEA-LU, for 15 
months to pay for transportation projects ready to break ground.
  Using the rule of thumb in highway contracting where every $1 billion 
in transportation spending creates about 35,000 jobs, this $77 billion 
investment means that more than 2 million jobs will be retained or 
created, including high-quality jobs in the construction and building 
trades.

                              {time}  1200

  Finally, the bill expands the Build America Bonds Program to allow 
investors to claim Federal subsidies up to 45 percent of the borrowing 
cost for bonds issued for public works projects.
  There is no doubt that this package will incentivize and spur much-
needed job creation and economic growth in our neighborhoods and 
communities. And to my colleagues, concerned, as I am, that this bill 
does not go far enough to create jobs, I want to be clear that this is 
the first in a series of steps we will be taking to continue to get the 
economy back on track.
  Together with the continued economic assistance of the Recovery Act, 
we are laying the groundwork for continued job creation and future 
economic growth to lead us to our prosperity.
  It is my hope that this Congress continues to find new ways to get 
Americans back to work, stabilize our economy, and help rebuild our 
middle class. This is not the end of our work, but it is a critical 
step forward for the American people. I, therefore, urge my colleagues 
to support this rule and the underlying legislation.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding the time.
  Madam Speaker, the Republicans in this body are in a quandary again 
today because of the way this bill was brought to the floor, and I 
would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Houston, Texas (Mr. 
Culberson) to ask some questions.
  Mr. CULBERSON. I would like to, if I could, ask Ms. Matsui, how long 
has the public had to read this bill? It is my understanding that this 
bill was posted on the Internet about 2\1/2\ hours ago. There was no 
committee hearing, and this contains approximately $15 billion in tax 
increases. I am committed to transparency. The Speaker says she is 
committed to transparency. Yet isn't it true that this bill has only 
been on the Internet, available for the public to read, for about 2\1/
2\ hours, and there was no committee hearing on this legislation; is 
that correct?
  Ms. MATSUI. I would like to say this job creation package has been 
discussed in the headlines and the Halls of Congress for weeks now. In 
addition, the pay-fors that are proposed here have been debated 
numerous times in the House previously. There are no surprises here.
  Mr. CULBERSON. I understand, and that is typically the rhetoric that 
we hear from the leadership is that this concept has been discussed, 
this idea has been discussed. But my question is: Has this specific 
piece of legislation had a full committee hearing, number one? And how 
long has this specific piece of legislation, this $15 billion tax 
increase, how long has this $15 billion tax increase been available for 
the public to read on the Internet? Isn't it true it has only been 
posted for about 2\1/2\ hours? It was posted at 9:30; is that correct, 
Ms. Matsui?
  I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. MATSUI. Madam Speaker, I just want to say that I just received 
this amendment as well this morning. It is fairly short, 15 pages, 
double-spaced. I read it, and it took less than 10 minutes for me to 
see that the amendment was fully paid for.
  Mr. CULBERSON. Just confirming for the record, Madam Speaker, that 
once again this liberal leadership of the Congress is shutting out the 
American public, utterly untransparent, denying the American taxpayers 
the ability to read and see the legislation before the Congress. This 
$15 billion tax increase, Madam Speaker, has only been available for 
the American people to read for about 2\1/2\ hours. No committee 
hearing, no transparency, consistent with the cap-and-tax legislation, 
a 300-page amendment in the lobby, consistent with every major piece of 
legislation, the ``spendulus'' package, all of the other massive tax 
and spending increases that this liberal leadership and this new 
liberal President have pushed through Congress. You have shut out the 
American people. You have shut out the ability of we who represent them 
to debate the legislation, to offer amendments.
  It is an affront to this great institution, the greatest democracy in 
the history of the world. You are denying the public a chance to 
participate. That's why you see the Tea Party rallies all over America. 
This is why there will be a tsunami this November to sweep out this 
liberal leadership, this tax-and-spend majority in Congress,

[[Page H1117]]

which is using up the good will that this President had when he came in 
as a new President. And I am just very disappointed, frankly, that this 
Congress, this Speaker, has not allowed the public to read important 
legislation.


                Announcement By the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair reminds Members to direct their 
comments to the Chair.
  Ms. MATSUI. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar).
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, I was so troubled by the remarks of the 
gentleman from Texas, for whom I have great respect. I think he was 
making more of a political argument than a substantive discussion of 
the matter at hand.
  In December, the House passed the Jobs for Main Street bill. It 
included the piece that is before us today. That measure went over to 
the Senate. It was held up in its entirety, and in the specific that we 
are dealing with today, by a hold, a series of holds, and then a 
filibuster by the Senator from Kentucky. Eventually, the Senate 
overcame that filibuster. This measure, this $15 billion, has been 
before the Congress for 2\1/2\ months. It is no surprise to anyone.
  The measure before us does what Republican leadership did with our 
support on this side on SAFETEA-LU in 2004 and 2005; 12 extensions of 
current law, 12 extensions, in order to muster the support we needed, 
in order to buy the time necessary to pass the 5-year surface 
transportation bill.
  This measure before us provides $77 billion for a 15-month extension 
of current law. It restores the $8.7 billion rescission that was 
required in SAFETEA-LU, at the insistence of the Bush administration, 
which required, for the President's signature, a rescission at the end 
of the 5-year period, and that occurred September of 2009. That meant 
that programs were underfunded, that is, underfunded below the 
authorization level of SAFETEA-LU, for the past several months. The 
bill restores that funding level.
  I will yield to the gentleman in just a moment.
  So what we are doing here is restoring stability to the highway, 
bridge, SAFETEA, and transit program, providing certainty for States so 
they can advertise for bids, award bids, and keep contracts going. The 
filibuster of the Senator from Kentucky resulted in numerous bid 
lettings being cancelled and others being withheld, jobs lost, a great 
disruption to the program because there were not Federal Highway 
Administration personnel on the job to be able to make the overnight 
electronic transfers to the States for their vouchers. This bill 
restores stability to the program.
  Mr. CULBERSON. Would the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBERSTAR. I am happy to yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. CULBERSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  My concern, if I could focus on the transparency of the process, 
these wonderful new technology tools, Mr. Chairman, and I know you are 
committed to transparency. You have run your committee that way. The 
concern we all have on behalf of the American taxpayers is that the 
bill has only been available for about 2\1/2\ hours.
  I have called for legislation, and I think you are a coauthor of 
requiring bills to be laid out for 72 hours. And I understand the 
urgency of some of the provisions in here, but this is a $15 billion 
tax increase, Mr. Chairman, and my concern is that it was not posted on 
the Internet for the public to read but 2\1/2\ hours ago.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, I would just point out to the 
distinguished gentleman from Texas, there isn't a single new provision 
in this bill that hasn't been available since last December.
  Ms. MATSUI. Reclaiming my time, Madam Speaker, I want to say that the 
motion to concur with the amendment that is made in order under this 
rule is a very simple one that will bring the bill into compliance with 
statutory pay-as-you-go rules. It changes very little, as Mr. Oberstar 
says, with the underlying bill which was intended to create jobs and 
spur hiring by America's small businesses. Delaying this package of 
job-creation measures today would delay our ability to get Americans 
back to work. Time is not on our side, which is why we have to act 
quickly here today.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I do appreciate the gentleman--and I am 
extending my words to him at this time. I do appreciate the gentleman, 
Mr. Oberstar, for being available to come down to the floor, but that 
is not the process. The process is the gentleman should have been 
upstairs at the Rules Committee. There was not one person available on 
behalf of the majority to come up to the Rules Committee to explain the 
bill. An explanation of, ``Well, none of this is new,'' is an 
inadequate explanation to the American people and to this body, and the 
Speaker should be embarrassed. This is not open. This is not, I 
believe, ethical, because the decisions were made and there was no 
discussion.
  I believe we are calling into question, Republicans are calling into 
question today about how this House is being run. And I do appreciate 
the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), and, in fact, I admire him 
a lot. Despite its being only perhaps 15 or 18 pages, that is an 
inadequate explanation. This House should not stand for it. The Members 
of this body should say we will not tolerate this. And I am deeply 
disappointed once again.
  Madam Speaker, I yield such time he may consume to the ranking 
member, the gentleman from San Dimas, California.
  (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DREIER. I thank the gentleman from Dallas, a very hardworking 
member of the Rules Committee, for yielding me this time.
  Yesterday, Madam Speaker, I stood here in the well and began talking 
about a date that may only be in my head, but I have been talking about 
it. The date was June 24, and my friend from Dallas, of course, 
remembers it. It was 3 a.m. on June 24, and we were sitting upstairs in 
the Rules Committee considering the so-called cap-and-trade bill, and 
as the motion was being offered by my friend from Worcester, Mr. 
McGovern, to move the special rule to the floor for consideration, as 
that motion was being offered, I had a nice, warm, hot-off-the-press, 
300-page amendment dropped in my lap, as did Mr. Sessions, Mr. Diaz-
Balart, and Ms. Foxx. Within a matter of hours, we considered that 
measure. And it was a very important time, Madam Speaker, because that 
is when the American people got it. They began this chant, ``Read the 
bill. Read the bill.''
  The next day, we will all recall, that when the customary 1 minute 
was yielded to the distinguished minority leader, the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Boehner), he spent 1 hour going through the 300 pages in that 
amendment that Members of this House had not yet read and had only had 
before them for a matter of a few hours.
  I talked about that just yesterday when we were, for the second time 
in as many weeks, proceeding under martial law rule, and I was arguing 
that takes place at the end of a Congress when we are dealing with 
very, very pressing situations, not in the third month of the second 
session of the 111th Congress, which is where we are today.
  Madam Speaker, once again we have it again, and I know that my 
friends from Texas, Mr. Culberson and Mr. Sessions, have both referred 
to the fact that we met this morning for a grand total of 2 minutes in 
the Rules Committee, and this measure is now before us.
  The American people are hurting. They want us to focus on job growth 
and economic growth. They know full well that it is absolutely 
imperative that we create good, long-term private sector jobs. We know 
how important that is. But we also have a responsibility to do what 
James Madison envisaged this institution as being, and that is a great 
deliberative body. We have the responsibility to deliberate on these 
matters.
  Now, I understand the urgency. I understand the urgency, but when you 
look at the legislative schedule we have had over the past several 
weeks, and some of our colleagues have gone through them, I can't name 
them all, but post offices and recognition of items, we have not 
extended the time and energy and effort that we clearly could here in 
this institution doing it.

[[Page H1118]]

                              {time}  1215

  Now, I know that Mr. Oberstar was speaking earlier, and others have 
spoken. It's not a question of our not trusting the process we're under 
right now, but I'm reminded so vividly of the famous exchange that took 
place between Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev. ``Doveryai, no 
proveryai'' was what the Russian used to say: ``Trust, but verify.''
  Madam Speaker, I think that that's all we're saying. We have a 
responsibility--not to Republicans, not to Democrats, but to all of the 
American people--to hold accountable this institution, which saw this 
majority come to power based on a document, a document that was 
entitled ``A New Direction for America.'' In that document, Speaker 
Pelosi pointed to the fact that legislation would be considered under 
an open amendment process whenever possible. It talked about minority 
rights, the kinds of things that James Madison regularly focused on 
when he talked about the rights of the minority.
  And what is it that's happened, Madam Speaker? Unfortunately, we are 
now, as I said, in the third month of the second session of the 111th 
Congress, and guess what? We've gone through the entire first session 
of Congress for the first time in the history of the Republic and not 
had a single piece of legislation considered under an open amendment 
process, not a single piece of legislation considered under an open 
amendment process, and now we're in the third month of this second 
session, nothing considered under an open amendment process.
  Then we have, as we deal with the very important pressing jobs issue, 
we have legislation that is brought here under martial law rule, 
considered for a grand total of 2 minutes in the House Rules Committee 
just 3 hours ago, and now we're here on the floor dealing with it.
  Madam Speaker, we can do better. I urge my colleagues to join with 
Mr. Sessions in opposition to this rule so that we can come back with a 
work product that will do the kinds of things that will get real jobs 
created out there.
  I know that in this measure there is a provision that provides a tax 
incentive for people to hire new employees. Well, that sounds great, 
but the heads of one of the top companies in this country had this 
proposal offered to him by the former Treasury Secretary, one of the 
top economic advisers to President Obama, Larry Summers, and his 
response was, Don't offer me a tax credit to hire someone. What we need 
to do is increase the demand for our product. Those are the kinds of 
things that we should be doing.
  So, Madam Speaker, again I say, as I regularly do from this well, 
when it comes to job creation and economic growth, what we should be 
doing is pursuing the bipartisan John F. Kennedy/Ronald Reagan vision: 
marginal rate reduction and a reduction of the top rate on capital 
gains. Job creators deserve the kind of relief that is necessary since 
Japan is the only nation in the world with a higher tax on those job 
creators than ours.
  We know what it takes; we know what it takes. It worked under a 
Democratic administration, and it's worked under a Republican 
administration. So let's defeat this rule and go back and come up with 
a bill that will, in fact, create exactly what I said at the outset: 
good, long-term private sector jobs.
  Ms. MATSUI. Madam Speaker, before I yield to my next speaker, I just 
want to point out my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are 
quite concerned that we are using same-day authority before the end of 
a session. In the 109th Congress, when the Republicans were in the 
majority, the Rules Committee reported two same-day rules in March and 
early April. These were hardly end-of-the-session times, Madam Speaker, 
and they had nothing to do with reviving our economy. These particular 
same-day rules were about the Federal Government interfering in a case 
of Terri Schiavo. Now, without reopening that divisive debate, I just 
want to say that the issues we are dealing with today under this same-
day rule are important to the lives of millions of Americans.
  With that, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Doggett).
  Mr. DOGGETT. I thank the gentlelady.
  I oppose neither the rule nor the transportation funding in this 
bill, but I do oppose the so-called ``jobs'' tax credit. I only have 
one big problem with it, that it does so little to create jobs while 
adding to our very big debt.
  In deciding whether to waste more resources on such legislation that 
will not accomplish its purpose, I think it's important that we look at 
one of the last jobs bills that this Congress considered. We were told 
that the only way to extend unemployment benefits to families in need 
through Christmas was to simultaneously approve a measure that sent $33 
billion to corporations with no requirement that they use their cash 
windfall to create or preserve jobs.
  The so-called ``loss carry-back'' provision simply directed the 
Treasury to begin writing checks, $33 billion in checks this year, to 
corporations. One corporation, a bankrupt financial services company, 
Washington Mutual, got $2.6 billion in checks this year from the 
Treasury. That just happens to be a little more than all of the 
unemployed people in America combined got from this piece of 
legislation. So I think we need to take a close look at every piece of 
legislation to see whether it really creates jobs as this one did not.
  Today, we have another tax break that is weak on policy, strong on 
politics. It's a retread proposal that this Congress rejected last 
year, and it doesn't smell any better this year. Indeed, one former 
Treasury Department economist has described ``a general consensus among 
tax experts that the credit is a [real] stinker'' because it simply 
encourages conduct that would occur anyway.
  Amazingly, one current top leader at the Treasury Department has 
said, Don't worry, it may be 10 percent effective in creating new jobs. 
I don't think that passes the sniff test. Surely there are better ways 
to promote job growth than a proposal whose own advocates say it may be 
90 percent ineffective.
  And being ineffective does not mean that it is harmless since it 
disadvantages some businesses in the marketplace versus their 
competitors. Those small businesses in Central Texas who have hung on 
to their employees, even though it hurt, even though it was painful to 
do so, get absolutely no benefit from this job tax credit, although 
they certainly could use it, but a company that dismissed its employees 
last year or a new competitor that moves into town down the street will 
gain a benefit.
  As the Congressional Budget Office has noted, this jobs credit would 
provide no incentive to maintain employment in struggling firms and 
provides less incentive to maintain employment overall in industries 
and regions that are hurting the most. While it may deliver a few 
temporary minimum-wage jobs at considerable expense to the United 
States Treasury, this credit won't deliver help where it is needed 
most, and to whom or with whom it is needed the most. It is off-target 
and off-budget. I think it has the same problem as a bill that gave 
more money to one bankrupt corporation than to all the unemployed 
people in our country.
  It's great that the United States Senate could finally find 
bipartisan agreement on something, but this bill, this job tax credit, 
is not just bipartisan from the Senate, it's bi-wrong.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, the gentleman said it best about this 
bill: Nobody even really knows what's in it. There was no general 
discussion. There was no one made available to come to the Rules 
Committee to answer questions. There were no committee hearings on 
this. This isn't the way to run this House, and it's not just 
Republicans that are down saying this. It's Members of the majority 
party also. It is this kind of unthoughtful and unprofessional conduct 
that is being put off on this body to where Members don't even know 
what's in the bill, have not had the time. And once again, Republicans 
are down saying it's not open, it's not honest, and certainly not 
ethical.
  I would like to yield 3 minutes at this time to the favorite son of 
Winterpark, Florida (Mr. Mica).
  Mr. MICA. I thank you for yielding and for the opportunity to stand 
up and talk on the rule here that is before us that would allow the so-
called ``jobs'' bill to move forward.

[[Page H1119]]

  I've had to think long and hard about my position on this because I 
do favor every opportunity to increase jobs. I have one county with 
nearly 18 percent unemployment. Florida is in the top 10 States with 
unemployment with 11.8 percent, and I understand we're going to get 
some even grimmer news tomorrow on the job front nationally.
  I have to oppose the rule, and reluctantly I'm going to oppose the 
bill. Many people, because I'm the Republican leader of the 
Transportation Committee, have asked me how I'm going to vote on the 
final bill and final passage, and it's a reluctant ``no.'' And let me 
tell you why.
  The substance of my opposition really lies in what the Rules 
Committee did. If we ever needed a time to amend, we should have had an 
opportunity to amend this. And we have time to send it back to the 
Senate.
  The previous speaker, a Democrat from the other side of the aisle--I 
believe the gentleman from Texas--stated his opposition to a tax 
provision, but let me tell folks that are listening, Madam Speaker, and 
the Members that may be concerned about this. When the Senate passed 
the transportation provision, four States take 58 percent of the new 
money in this in transportation projects of national significance. 
Those States, I believe, are California, Illinois, the State of 
Washington and Louisiana. Twenty-two States get zero, the big goose 
egg, including my State, the State of Florida. Now, this isn't a 
parochial issue just for Florida, but 46 States are in fact 
disadvantaged by the way the Senate passed the bill in giving an 
advantage to four States. So it's unfair.
  Now, Mr. Oberstar, my Democrat counterpart, the Chair, he has a 
letter of intention from the Speaker, and also from Mr. Reid, to 
correct this after we pass this. But to do this in a proper legislative 
fashion to actually create jobs, we should be fair to everyone and 
distribute this equitably among all States.
  Also missing from this is a 6-year bill, which we really need. This 
only extends transportation authorization through December 31 of this 
year, which will leave many States behind.
  So this bill leaves many jobs behind. It leaves fairness behind. And, 
again, it doesn't do the job that it should do in creating jobs that we 
so badly need in this Nation.
  So I will reluctantly oppose the so-called ``jobs'' bill on the basis 
that I stated. It's my hope that we can correct this measure. I will do 
everything I can, working in a bipartisan fashion, to correct it so 
that we have fairness for all 50 States in the distribution of the 
funds that they sent to Washington.
  Ms. MATSUI. Madam Speaker, I just want to say, while this bill 
distributes some highway funds in a way that disproportionately 
benefits a handful of States, it's important to remind my colleagues 
that these concerns will be addressed in subsequent legislation.
  With that, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  (Ms. JACKSON LEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the distinguished gentlelady from 
California, and I rise to thank the Rules Committee. This is a tough 
business. They had to do their work in the backdrop of Senator Bunning, 
who didn't care about the unemployed, thousands upon thousands and 
millions, and held up this bill and the negotiations for this bill for 
as long as he thought it was relevant. And so here we stand trying to 
address this question.
  I would offer to say, there are some good things: the fact that 
employers have a $1,000 income tax credit for every new employee that 
continues to work for 52 weeks; the fact that there is an incentive to 
hire new employees and to keep them hired; the fact that there is an 
extension of the small business expensing to allow small businesses, 
the backbone of America, to be able to write off certain capital 
expenditures so they can hire new people.
  The SAFETEA-LU, the infrastructure bill, is a good thing that deals 
with the rebuilding of the infrastructure that is so important and, of 
course, protecting minority-owned business that likewise go into those 
hard-hit communities and should be hiring people.

                              {time}  1230

  Yet we are dealing with a Senate bill. The other body has a different 
understanding so that some States, for example, are not getting the 
money that they should--Texas. It raises a lot of concern.
  Then I have to rise on this floor to talk about young people and the 
summer youth program. Why isn't that in the bill? The chronically 
unemployed whom I see walking the streets of my district over and over 
again, what are we going to provide for them?
  It is key to recognize that there is obstruction in the other body 
that now pours over into this body. So we had to stymie the 
unemployment benefits, which all of us should have rallied around to 
support. My State alone rejected just a couple of months ago $515 
million for the unemployed. Where is the compassion there?
  Where is the compassion for individuals who have served their time--
who have their families, who are trying to do well in our faith houses, 
being worked with by faith organizations, and who persistently cannot 
find jobs?
  There is a lot to be desired. The Rules Committee, however, worked 
with what they had to work with.
  My message is that we have to go back to the drawing board, not for 
what my colleagues are talking about--more tax cuts, more tax cuts, 
more tax cuts--but to help the people who are walking the streets of 
America who ask us, Can you put jobs in our hands? They are qualified, 
and there is nothing in this bill that would suggest that you are 
putting jobs in their hands.
  Let me say this: The infrastructure work is important. If this is 
going to generate jobs in their hands, then it is important for us to 
hear that jobs in the hands are going to get to the folk who are 
walking the streets in the Fifth Ward, in the Fourth Ward, in Acres 
Homes, and in places around America. Those places are in the 18th 
Congressional District.
  I am fighting for jobs, and I want to make sure that we have the 
right kind of vehicle for this job language to go forward on. Let's not 
forget the chronically unemployed.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, there is an answer to the gentlewoman 
from Texas, which is to vote against this rule. Vote against this rule. 
Then become a part of the process for the things which you would hope, 
would expect, and would want to be in the bill so at least your 
feedback can be accepted.
  We've been told now that the Senate is the problem, but the problem 
is this House, Madam Speaker. The problem is the way we are doing 
things. The gentleman Mr. Oberstar said, Yes, we've been waiting for 
months to get this from the Senate. We took 2\1/2\ minutes upstairs 
this morning--not one hearing, not one person who represented the 
Democratic Party who would explain what is in this bill. Now we are 
down on the floor, trying to figure out what is in the bill, getting it 
just hours ago. This is a flawed process.
  Madam Speaker, hearkening back to February 5, 2009, over a year ago, 
in the CQ article, `` `Regular Order' Will Prevail in House After 
Stimulus Is Complete, Pelosi says,'' the article reads, ``Speaking at 
House Democrats' annual policy conference, Pelosi said in her opening 
speech, `Of course we will go forward under regular order. We now have 
a large majority and a President who will sign legislation.' ''
  It's not happening. It's not happening again today. It did not happen 
even after February 5, 2009. We should be embarrassed, but as the old 
saying goes, beatings will continue until morale improves.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
Bainbridge Township, Ohio (Mr. LaTourette).


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. LaTOURETTE. Madam Speaker, before I begin my 5 minutes, I have a 
parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his inquiry.
  Mr. LaTOURETTE. I didn't want to interrupt the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Texas, but is it proper in debate to utter words that 
Senator Bunning does not care about the unemployed? Is that an 
appropriate observation?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair cannot answer hypothetical

[[Page H1120]]

questions posed as parliamentary inquiries.
  Mr. LaTOURETTE. Well, excuse me. It is not a hypothetical. The 
gentlewoman said it, so it is not a hypothetical. She said it 2 minutes 
ago.
  Are you saying that I am asking you a hypothetical?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair is constrained not to give 
advisory opinions.
  The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. LaTOURETTE. Madam Speaker, I think regular order has prevailed in 
the House. The regular order is that we don't follow the rules and that 
we issue gag rules. This is another gag rule. It is a closed rule, and 
we are going to talk about, not only the bad underlying bill, but the 
bad rule. This isn't a jobs bill.
  I have great admiration for the gentlewoman from California, the 
manager on the majority side of this rule, but my admiration has grown 
today because she has been able during this debate to call this a 
``jobs bill'' with a straight face. She has not giggled once. But she 
should have. This isn't a jobs bill. This is a no jobs bill. This is a 
faux jobs bill. This is a snow jobs bill.
  Mr. Doggett, with whom I rarely agree, I think was right on the 
money. The centerpiece of this bill is $13 billion for a tax credit--
$13 billion out of $15 billion. The way this things works is, if you're 
a small business person in this country, struggling, and if you hire 
somebody at $30,000 a year, do you know what? You don't have to pay the 
payroll taxes, 6.2 percent payroll taxes, which is about $1,500.
  I had three chambers back in Ohio--chambers of commerce, small 
business people, Republicans, Democrats, Independents. I said, You know 
what? Here's the deal. How many of you are going to hire anybody? 
Nobody. Nobody raised their hands. This is not going to create one job, 
and it's the centerpiece of the bill.
  So, Madam Speaker, I will be asking Members to defeat the previous 
question so I may amend the rule. If the previous question is defeated, 
I would propose to amend the rule to make in order an amendment to 
modify the proposed further House amendment, which would eliminate the 
$13 billion in this stupid tax provision and would transfer it to 
infrastructure spending and, further, that that infrastructure spending 
be distributed pursuant to the House-passed formula and not the Senate-
passed formula.
  I want to get now to the underlying policy on the infrastructure 
side. I spent 14 years on the infrastructure committee--love the 
infrastructure committee, love Chairman Oberstar--but I can't figure 
out why people would vote for this thing based on the infrastructure 
spending. I understand, if you're from California, you might like this 
bill because, under this bill, California gets $277 million and, under 
the House bill, only $85 million. Illinois, the President's home State, 
I understand why he might like it--$151 million under this bill and $15 
million under the House bill. Oregon, I don't know why a person from 
Oregon would vote for this bill: $40 million under this bill and $11 
million under the--well, actually, you should vote for this bill, 
people from Oregon. You'll do better.
  Texas. Really, I saw Ms. Jackson Lee, who apparently can say that 
Senator Bunning doesn't care about unemployed people in this country. I 
don't know why anybody from Texas would vote for this bill, Mr. 
Sessions. Under this bill, you will get $1 million and change. Under 
Mr. Oberstar's proposal, Texas would have gotten $78 million.
  Now, why is that fair? Why is that fair that 22 States get zero? Why 
is it fair that you have winners and losers? Why is it fair that 
California gets 30 percent of the money under this bill? Well, it's 
not, and you know it's not.
  Finally, to the process. You know, I was tipping my hat to the 
Democratic majority a little earlier today because the original plan 
was just to bring the Senate amendment to the House bill over here, 
which of course, would have cut off the minority's ability to offer an 
amendment and a motion to recommit--but no, they didn't do that. I 
thought that was pretty crafty. What they did do is amend it with these 
15 pages that were available 3 hours ago for our consideration. I'll 
give the gentlewoman from California the nod that, yes, these ideas 
have been talked about for a long time. Nobody had seen the 15 pages 
before 9:30 this morning. So they amended it. They had a Rules 
Committee hearing. What did they not permit under this rule? A motion 
to recommit.
  I can't believe it. You should be ashamed. Excuse me, Madam Speaker. 
They should be ashamed. This is a fraud. This is an anti-democratic 
rule.
  What are you afraid of? You have 256 votes. Let us offer my motion to 
recommit that transfers this stupid $13 billion to infrastructure 
spending that will put people to work in a sector of the economy that 
has 30 percent unemployment. It will distribute it according to the 
House proposal, not the Senate proposal so that California, Oregon, and 
Illinois don't walk out of this place with 58 percent of the money. 
It's not fair.
  Ms. MATSUI. Madam Speaker, I want to say this again, that I believe 
it's important to note that the chairman of the authorizing committee 
has reached an agreement with the House and Senate leadership on the 
contentious highway funding issue that was included in the other 
Chamber's jobs package.
  I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Thank you. I appreciate the gentlewoman's courtesy.
  Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to follow my dear friend 
from Ohio with whom I look forward to the day when we can come to this 
floor and we can deal with a broad-based approach to renew and to 
rebuild America. That is how we are really going to create jobs.
  I commend the gentleman from Ohio for having the courage to stand up 
to his leadership when they tried to pull the plug on extending the 
Highway Transportation bill. I think it's interesting that he has a 
proposal that he would like to transfer some of this money into 
infrastructure. Would that we were playing with two Chambers that were 
playing by the same rules and were committed to the well-being of 
America, I'd be happy to see that happen.
  One of the reasons we have the bill before us today in the forum is 
that we have seen what has happened when one member of the Senate 
decides that his personal pique is more important than millions of 
people, their welfare, causing thousands of people to be laid off, 
stopping critical money going to the State. It's an example of how the 
nondemocratic operation on the other side of the Chamber puts us at 
this point.
  If we monkey with this, there is no guarantee that we will, in fact, 
have an extension of the part of this bill that is the great jobs 
generator--and that's the extension of the Surface Transportation Act--
through the end of this calendar year and stop this stupid game of 
Russian roulette, that sadly, my friends on the other side of the aisle 
have decided they are going to play games with.
  As my friend from Minnesota pointed out, the distinguished Chair of 
the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, we never, when we were 
in the minority, played games with the critical infrastructure needs. 
When they were stumbling around when they were in control and required 
not one, not two, not three, but 12 extensions, we never made it 
partisan. We always helped them. We didn't play parliamentary games.
  Yet the combination of parliamentary games from my dear friends on 
the Republican side of the aisle and the meltdown of responsibility in 
the Senate has left us with this. This is the vehicle. I am not 
contending that the best the Senate can do in terms of job creation is 
going to be a panacea. I think it's relatively minor, and I'm not 
impressed, but it is a small price to pay to guarantee the $77 billion 
to make sure that America's transportation system continues while we 
try and get people here to act like grownups. With all due respect, to 
somehow seize on less than $1 billion out of $77 billion and claim that 
only four States benefit is not true. It's not true.
  I mean, first and foremost, what we have had is the chairman, who 
happens to agree that he wants that formula changed. He is committed. 
The Senate is committed. We're going to work with the administration 
and refine that. But even if you put aside the $800 million, we have 
$77 billion that we are relying on, and I think that ought not to 
obscure.

[[Page H1121]]

  It's kind of ironic that our friend from California got up and talked 
about doing what----
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Ms. MATSUI. I yield the gentleman an additional minute.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. It's kind of ironic that our friend from California 
got up and talked about why we don't do what Ronald Reagan and 
President Kennedy would have done. We've done that. We've cut taxes. We 
cut taxes several times before that. In fact, his facts are completely 
wrong when he says that American taxes on companies that create jobs 
are the second-highest in the world except for Japan. That is the 
effective tax rate. That's what's on the books. That's not what they 
pay. When we get through all of the gimmicks, and loopholes, and 
exemptions, those tax rates for American businesses are actually the 
second-lowest in the world. Effective tax rates and what people 
actually pay, that's not the problem.
  The problem is we need to get the economy unfrozen. We need to have 
people stop playing political games. We need to invest in 
infrastructure to rebuild and to renew America, and we need to do so in 
a way that doesn't have us talking past one another and playing games 
with jobs across America that are at risk if we don't pass this Bill.

                              {time}  1245

  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, you know, we have heard all this before, 
and it is not working. The bottom line is what this Democratic 
leadership and this Democratic President are proposing is not working, 
and that is why we are back at the well, so to speak, again.
  Over and over and over again we have a bunch of people that want to 
claim, ``Oh, we know how to get this done. Look at what President 
Clinton did.'' That was a Republican House of Representatives. Those 
were free market ideas. That was encouraging this country to be 
competitive. That was doing things that would encourage America and 
American business to go hire people.
  The three largest political items of Speaker Pelosi and President 
Barack Obama have lost this country 10 million net jobs. No wonder 
American business is not hiring people. They are getting things jammed 
down their throat.
  The President of the United States when he was a candidate talked 
about all the great things that could be accomplished, and since the 
President has been in the White House, he has done nothing but call 
people names, pick on them, belittle them, bully them, and then turns 
around and wonders why we have no jobs, why his agenda is not working. 
It is obvious why it is not working, because it is not made to work. It 
is made to bully the free enterprise system.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. MATSUI. Madam Speaker, I would like to inquire of the gentleman 
from Texas if he has any remaining speakers.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the gentlewoman for asking. I appear to have 
one additional speaker plus myself.
  Ms. MATSUI. I reserve my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, if I could inquire of the time that 
remains on both sides, please.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas controls 6\1/2\ 
minutes; the gentlewoman from California controls 5 minutes.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker. I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, I want to reiterate that this House of Representatives 
is made up of 435 Members who take time every week to come here to 
Washington. Perhaps they live here, but they still come to work, I 
believe, with a sense of obligation and duty, all 435 of us, to be 
fully participatory and to be a part of a moving body and a process 
that should work for the American people.
  We are now in our fourth year of leadership that denies the American 
people and the Members of this body an opportunity, I believe, to even 
participate; not just fully participate, but to participate.
  This bill that is on the floor again today is an example of a process 
that is very deceptive, because our friends, the Speaker and the 
Democratic leadership, talk about being open and honest, and yet the 
bill is here today with just hours' notice, with no one up in the Rules 
Committee on behalf of the Democrat leadership even explaining what is 
in the bill. I believe, again, the American people will reject this 
kind of leadership when the American people want to be engaged and 
Members of Congress want to be engaged.
  So, today, Republicans are going to ask that we reject this, and we 
should reject this, because we know that Republicans have better ideas.
  At this time I yield to the gentleman from Ohio, the Republican 
leader (Mr. Boehner).
  Mr. BOEHNER. Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for yielding 
and suggest to my colleagues that here we go again. We are bringing 
this bill to the floor, a bill that no one has read.
  The bill was filed at 9:35 a.m., and here we are at 12:50 p.m. We are 
operating under what is normally called a martial law rule, passed 
yesterday, that allows the majority to bring any bill to the floor at 
any time this week. So there was this hastily called Rules Committee 
meeting after this bill was filed. Now it is here on the floor.
  Members haven't had time to read this bill. In addition to that, 
there is no score on this bill from the Joint Tax Committee on the so-
called pay-fors on this bill and what impact they will have on taxes. I 
just think it is outrageous and another example of how the majority 
continues to ram through partisan legislation here on the floor of the 
House without the transparency and accountability that the American 
people deserve and expect.
  If this is a dress rehearsal for how we are going to handle the so-
called health care bill, I think the majority had better be ready to 
endure the wrath of the American people.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I believe that our Republican leader, 
John Boehner, has said it very clearly, and that is that the way we are 
operating is not in the best interests of this House, the institution, 
or the Members.
  We have heard lots of colleagues on the other side cut down and argue 
about this isn't even a job bill because it is not even going to create 
jobs and how inefficient it is. But until this Democratic leadership 
agrees that they want to be open, that they want to be honest about 
what is in the bill, and that they want to be ethical about how 
decisions are made, Republicans are going to keep coming down to this 
floor.
  Many times I have argued openly in front of our Rules Committee 
chairman, Louise Slaughter, and said, Please know that the Republican 
Party wants to be better at our job, not as loyal opposition, but as an 
alternative party, and you do not even allow us an opportunity to know 
what is in the bills.
  It is ridiculous. We find ourselves in the role of asking questions, 
making statements, and doing things that, to the American people, look 
awkward and, quite honestly, unprofessional.
  I lay at the feet of the Speaker of the House and the Democratic 
leadership and my great Rules Committee chairman, Louise Slaughter, 
once again a request: If you want this body to have a chance to not 
look unprofessional and perhaps stupid, like we don't know what we are 
doing, and to gain back some trust of the American people, you have got 
to open up the process to where we as Members of Congress are able to 
come down with an educated opportunity to understand what is in the 
bill, to engage our colleagues on a professional basis, and to be able 
to thoughtfully talk about the content of the bill.
  This is an embarrassment. It is an embarrassment that after we heard 
a year ago that we will start going through regular order now, we are 
still not doing that, that Members of Congress cannot even see the bill 
hours before they read it, nor do we know the content because nobody 
came to explain it.
  It is wholly inadequate to people who are back home, Madam Speaker, 
to expect their Member of Congress, who comes up here 40 weeks a year 
to represent people, to be told we don't even know what is in the bill.
  I encourage a ``no'' vote. I encourage a ``no'' vote on this rule. I 
will say once again to my friends that are Democrats, if you want to 
read the bill, if

[[Page H1122]]

you want to open up the process, your vote is the one that will make it 
happen. Don't blame that on somebody else. I have said it over the 
years. If you want to read the bill, then vote ``no'' on the rule. If 
you are perfectly happy with the process that is happening, go ahead 
and support this rule. But don't go back home and tell people, well, 
you know, I really didn't have a chance. That is a bad thing. Their 
vote matters on this floor.
  Madam Speaker, every single one of us is issued a voting card that 
should be controlled by the Member, not by somebody else. Today, the 
Republican Party is coming down once again on this floor and saying 
directly to the American people and the Speaker of the House of 
Representatives, We are not happy. The process is flawed. And we are 
going to hold accountable every Member that votes for this rule today, 
just like we are for the others.
  So if you bring what we consider to be a less than stellar bill to 
the floor and the process is part of that participation and you shut it 
out, you can expect to hear the same from the Republican Party. We want 
to be a part of this process, the American people do, and I even heard 
today your own Members again.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. MATSUI. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Madam Speaker, calling up and passing rules using same-day authority 
is a legitimate legislative tool, with precedent. In the 109th 
Congress, when the Republicans had the majority, when they passed the 
fiscal year 2006 budget resolution, same-day authority was used to 
bring it before the House. During debate on that rule, the then 
chairman of the Rules Committee called it ``a very fair rule.'' That 
was followed by Mr. Dreier's assertion that ``Members have had a great 
deal of time over the past several weeks and months to focus on this 
issue. Let us continue what we have done throughout this great 109th 
Congress--get the work of the American people done.''
  Madam Speaker, getting the work of the American people done is 
exactly what we aim to do today by passing the jobs bill under an 
expedited procedure. Creating jobs must be our top priority, until we 
get our economy completely back on track and put more Americans back to 
work.
  The legislation we are considering today had bipartisan support in 
the Senate, with 13 Senate Republicans voting for this much-needed jobs 
package. That bill was not even paid for. Well, the House version is 
and has full PAYGO language included.
  The jobs package includes key provisions to spur job creation and 
investment in our workforce. It includes a new jobs payroll extension, 
offering employers exemption from paying Social Security payroll taxes 
for hiring new workers who were previously unemployed. This specific 
provision is estimated to create an additional 250,000 jobs alone. The 
bill also provides relief to small businesses by allowing them to write 
off more of the costs of their 2010 expenditures.
  The package extends the Highway Trust Fund for 15 months for existing 
highway programs to allow for billions to be invested in infrastructure 
projects and make a real difference in communities across our country.
  The bill also expands the Build America bonds to allow States and 
local governments to borrow at lower costs to finance infrastructure 
projects and put more Americans to work.
  Together with the ongoing investment by the Recovery Act, this jobs 
package will further incentivize and spur job creation and economic 
growth in this country. This Congress must continue to invest wisely in 
proposals that will train our workers, create new, good-paying jobs, 
grow our economy, and rebuild the middle class.
  Madam Speaker, we must lead by example and demonstrate our continued 
commitment to help our middle class families, our seniors, and the 
economy move forward. With that in mind, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the 
previous question and on the rule.
  I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question 
on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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. SESSIONS. 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 House Resolution 1137, if ordered; and
  Suspending the rules and agreeing to House Resolution 362, if 
ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 236, 
nays 184, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 87]

                               YEAS--236

     Ackerman
     Adler (NJ)
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boccieri
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Engel
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foster
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Giffords
     Gonzalez
     Gordon (TN)
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Halvorson
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kilroy
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick (AZ)
     Kissell
     Klein (FL)
     Kosmas
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney
     Markey (CO)
     Markey (MA)
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McMahon
     McNerney
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy (NY)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Nadler (NY)
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Nye
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Perriello
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis (CO)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schauer
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Space
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--184

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bright
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cantor
     Cao
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Castle
     Chaffetz
     Childers
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dreier
     Driehaus
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Flake
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Griffith
     Guthrie
     Hall (TX)
     Harper
     Hastings (WA)
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hunter
     Inglis
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Kratovil
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lee (NY)
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Minnick
     Mitchell
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Myrick
     Neugebauer

[[Page H1123]]


     Nunes
     Olson
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Taylor
     Teague
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Buyer
     Campbell
     Dahlkemper
     DeLauro
     Eshoo
     Fallin
     Hoekstra
     Jordan (OH)
     Linder
     Massa
     Tiahrt


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members have 2 minutes 
remaining to vote.

                              {time}  1324

  Messrs. GRIFFITH, BURTON of Indiana, WITTMAN, Mrs. MILLER of Michigan 
and Mr. MINNICK changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. DOYLE changed his 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 ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. SESSIONS. 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 212, 
noes 209, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 88]

                               AYES--212

     Ackerman
     Adler (NJ)
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boccieri
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Childers
     Chu
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Edwards (TX)
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Engel
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Garamendi
     Giffords
     Gonzalez
     Gordon (TN)
     Grayson
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Halvorson
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Johnson (GA)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilroy
     Kind
     Kissell
     Klein (FL)
     Kosmas
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney
     Markey (CO)
     Markey (MA)
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McMahon
     McNerney
     Meek (FL)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Nadler (NY)
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Nye
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis (CO)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schauer
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Teague
     Thompson (CA)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--209

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baird
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bright
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cantor
     Cao
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Castle
     Chaffetz
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dreier
     Driehaus
     Duncan
     Edwards (MD)
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Flake
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Fudge
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Green, Al
     Griffith
     Guthrie
     Hall (TX)
     Harper
     Hastings (WA)
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hunter
     Inglis
     Issa
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kirkpatrick (AZ)
     Kline (MN)
     Kratovil
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lee (CA)
     Lee (NY)
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meeks (NY)
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Minnick
     Mitchell
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy (NY)
     Murphy, Tim
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Olson
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Payne
     Pence
     Perriello
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Quigley
     Radanovich
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Richardson
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Space
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Towns
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Buyer
     Campbell
     Dahlkemper
     Eshoo
     Fallin
     Foster
     Hoekstra
     Jordan (OH)
     Linder
     Massa
     Tiahrt

                              {time}  1334

  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.
  Stated against:
  Mr. FOSTER. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 88 due to an inadvertent 
error, I was not recorded. I would have voted ``no.''

                          ____________________