[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 101 (Thursday, July 1, 2010)]
[House]
[Pages H5311-H5319]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5618, RESTORATION OF EMERGENCY
UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION ACT OF 2010, AND WAIVING REQUIREMENT OF
CLAUSE 6(a) OF RULE XIII WITH RESPECT TO CONSIDERATION OF CERTAIN
RESOLUTIONS
Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 1495 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 1495
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R.
5618) to continue Federal unemployment programs. All points
of order against consideration of the bill are waived except
those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The amendment
printed in 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 equally divided and controlled
by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Ways and Means; and (2) one motion to recommit with or
without instructions.
Sec. 2. The requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII for a
two-thirds vote to consider a report from the Committee on
Rules on the same day it is presented to the House is waived
with respect to any resolution reported through the
legislative day of July 3, 2010.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California is recognized
for 1 hour.
Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman
[[Page H5312]]
from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx). All time yielded during consideration
of the rule is for debate only.
General Leave
Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks
on House Resolution 1495.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 1495 provides for consideration of H.R.
5618, the Restoration of Emergency Unemployment Compensation Act of
2010, under a closed rule. The resolution provides 1 hour of debate
equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member
of the Committee on Ways and Means. The amendment printed in the Rules
Committee report shall be considered as adopted. The resolution waives
all points of order against the bill as amended. The resolution
provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions. Finally,
the resolution allows for certain resolutions reported from the
Committee on Rules to be considered the same day they are reported. The
resolution applies the waiver to any resolution reported through the
legislative day of July 3, 2010.
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to not traffic the well
when another Member is under recognition.
{time} 1120
Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, as we all know, our country is facing
enormous troubles like we have not seen since the Great Depression. At
the national level, there is clear evidence that some of the actions
that the Democratic Congress have taken are, in fact, working. The
economy is again growing, and employers are starting once again to
hire.
In 2009, we saw the Nation's GDP grow by 2.8 percent in the third
quarter, representing the biggest 6-month turnaround in our economy
since 1980. In each successive quarter, we have continued to see
positive GDP growth. Since the end of 2009, we have created jobs every
single month; and in the last 3 months alone, we have created an
average of over 300,000 jobs per month. This is a dramatic change in
direction from when President Obama took office and the economy had
previously been shrinking at minus 5.4 percent and we were losing jobs
at an average of 726,000 jobs per month under the Bush administration.
However, although our economic indicators continue to show that we
are making significant progress towards recovery, this does not mean
that we are out of the woods yet by any stretch of the imagination. We
know that all too well in many pockets of the country, including my own
district in the Central Valley of California, the recovery continues to
lag well behind the national economic picture. In far too many areas of
the country, businesses continue to shed payroll, job losses continue
to mount, and hardworking families across America continue to struggle.
Mr. Speaker, as I said, we have not seen times like this since the
Great Depression. These are extraordinary circumstances, and they call
for extraordinary measures. Despite what my friends on the other side
of the aisle may say, what people who are struggling right now need is
a hand up; and this Democratic Congress, despite all the obstacles from
the other side of the aisle and the other body, will continue to reach
out and try to assist Americans with that hand up.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5618 would retroactively restore the emergency
unemployment compensation benefits and restore funding for the extended
benefits program through the month of November of this year. It would
also ensure that States do not cut the level of regular unemployment
benefits when they receive these extended Federal benefits, and it
would protect workers from having their benefits cut if they experience
intermittent earnings which requalify them for regular State
unemployment benefits. Without the sort of help provided by this bill,
more people will lose their homes, fall behind on their bills and be
unable to feed their families. There is a very real risk that the
economic crisis could get worse, not better, if we pull the safety net
out from under the 1.7 million Americans that are facing these economic
conditions right now.
Mr. Speaker, never before in our history has Congress allowed
extended unemployment benefits to lapse when the unemployment rate was
anywhere close to 10 percent; yet here we are again trying to extend
this critical program to keep food on the table for millions of
households, including millions of American children across this great
Nation simply because the other side of the aisle repeatedly can only
say ``no.''
The current emergency unemployment compensation program began to
phase out at the end of May, and many of those now losing benefits have
only received 26 weeks of regular State-provided unemployment
compensation or one of the first tiers of Federal benefits. This means
individuals exhausting their 26 weeks of unemployment benefits are not
eligible for emergency unemployment benefits at all. This bill will
retroactively restore those benefits and continue them and the program
through November.
Without this extension, as I said before, an estimated 1.7 million
individuals who have lost their jobs will lose their unemployment
benefits by July 3. Mr. Speaker, that's no way to celebrate America's
independence holiday. This includes well over 300,000 people in
California, where our unemployment level is over 12 percent, well above
the national average of 9.3. In my own district, the unemployment rates
are much higher than even that. In fact, we have numbers that are near
the 20 percent mark; and I have in my district the fourth, fifth and
sixth highest unemployment rates in my counties in the country.
Nearly every economist will tell you that cutting off unemployment
benefits will undermine the economic recovery by suppressing consumer
demand at a critical time when we should be enhancing it, and by
exacerbating problems, like the home foreclosure crisis that plagues
many areas of our country.
I want to thank the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott) for
bringing this bill forward and for his steadfast commitment to
America's hardworking families. It is vitally important that we pass
this bill and provide the much-needed help that our constituents need
during these trying times.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. FOXX. I thank my colleague from California for yielding time, Mr.
Speaker, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise in opposition to this closed rule which rewrites H.R. 5618,
the Restoration of Emergency Unemployment Compensation Act and provides
martial law/same-day authority for any resolution reported from the
Rules Committee through Saturday, July 3.
This bill has been rushed through Congress, avoiding committee
action. When the Democrats, who are in charge, brought the bill up
before the House for consideration on June 29, it failed to garner the
necessary two-thirds majority required for passage. There was
bipartisan opposition to this bill.
But why are our colleagues rushing this through? The Senate is not
meeting, except to honor Senator Byrd. They know the bill is going
nowhere. They say ``extraordinary circumstances require extraordinary
measures'' and that the economic crisis is going to get worse if we
don't pass this. But this bill is going nowhere, and they know it. They
want to be able to go home and say, We voted to extend unemployment
benefits and that Republicans voted ``no.''
Well, Republicans want to reduce the deficit; and if the underlying
bill had been offset with reduced spending elsewhere, Republicans would
have supported it. But it is not. Instead, Democrats are relying on
budgetary tricks to avoid their own PAYGO rules. They are waiting until
the last minute to address important issues and labeling the cost as
``emergency spending'' so they don't have to account for it in terms of
our spending rules.
Frankly, the need for this bill in the first place is a direct
admission of the failure of the Obama-Pelosi policies because the many
spending bills, which
[[Page H5313]]
have already been passed, have failed to create the jobs promised by
Speaker Pelosi and President Obama. So they're admitting by saying, We
have to extend unemployment benefits, that all the spending has failed.
Economists on both sides of the political spectrum are expressing
concern over the fiscal health of the U.S. Government. Yesterday, CBO
said, ``Our debt is now 62 percent of GDP, up 20 percent in 2 years''--
the 2 years when Democrats controlled all of Congress and had a
Democratic President--and it's the ``highest since World War II.''
{time} 1130
Congress cannot continue this spending spree. We're simply living
beyond our means, and I fear the consequences of our actions are not
far off.
Here are a few lines from an article written by John Goodman on June
28 entitled How Bad is Our Fiscal Crisis?
``Already, we've seen some local governments declare bankruptcy.
Expect more of that. In the next several years I believe some very
large cities are going to announce they cannot pay their bills. State
governments will be next. Whereas local governments can declare
bankruptcy, State governments can only default. A default by the State
of California seems almost inevitable.
``But is it conceivable that the U.S. Government could default?
Actually, yes. Every projection shows the gap between spending and tax
revenues rising through time.
``Two years ago the first of the baby boomers started claiming early
retirement under Social Security. Next year they'll start signing up
for Medicare. Before they're through, 78 million people will quit
working, quit paying taxes, quit contributing to our retirement system
and start drawing benefits instead.''
That's the end of Mr. Goodman's quote.
The underlying bill adds $34 billion to our ever-increasing debt.
When Democrats passed their only unemployment insurance extender bill
that was offset by other spending cuts last November, the
administration hailed it as a ``fiscally responsible approach to
expanding unemployment benefits,'' adding that ``fiscal responsibility
is central to the medium-term recovery of the economy and the creation
of jobs.''
The cost of extending the Democrats' unemployment insurance policy is
growing because their failed stimulus bill has not created the promised
jobs. Democrats predicted their trillion-dollar 2009 stimulus bill
would create 3.7 million jobs. Instead, the debt has grown by $2
trillion, and nearly 3 million more private sector jobs have been
eliminated since then.
Democrats promised unemployment would remain under 8 percent if their
stimulus passed. Yet it remains stuck near 10 percent today. A total of
48 out of 50 States have lost jobs since the stimulus passed.
However, our colleagues keep spending and keep ignoring economic
realities. That is totally irresponsible.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, I understand that the gentlelady and her
party don't understand what's happening in Middle America. They don't
appreciate what's happening to folks like in my district. They may not
hang out in places like my family's bowling alley, where a person who
loses their job, and 20 percent of my constituents are nearly out of
work, there isn't jobs around every corner. She may have plenty of jobs
in her home State. She may not have to worry about that for her
constituents.
But in my world, Mr. Speaker, when someone who comes to our bowling
alley loses their job, they have nothing else. They don't have the Wall
Street bonuses. They don't have the big pension, retirement systems,
and the big 401(k) set-aside. They don't have the situation that so
many of us need.
We have to provide a safety net for these people, these hardworking
Americans.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Kucinich).
Mr. KUCINICH. There are some numbers that bear reflection right now
that came out of the marketwatch.com report today that the Labor
Department estimates 3.3 million people could lose extended
unemployment benefits by the end of July if they're not renewed. And
all together, 9.2 million people were collecting some type of
unemployment benefits in the weekend of June 12.
It goes on to say that the 4-week average of initial claims rose by
3,250, to 466,500, the highest level in almost 3 months. And then it
says the claims data, however, had little impact on the U.S. stock
market.
So there's a separation between Wall Street, which is still doing
well, because the taxpayers bailed out Wall Street, and Main Street,
which, in many places across the country, is falling apart.
Now, I've traveled my district at countless meetings and events,
parades and church services, festivals; and I hear the same thing.
People are calling out from crowds asking for help. And this
unemployment compensation issue is huge because people are having
trouble putting food on the table.
We're going to give them a lecture about the budget? Who among us, if
our brother asks for a loaf of bread, we give him a stone instead?
This Congress this afternoon is due to appropriate $33 billion to
keep the war in Afghanistan going. And yet the amount of money we're
asking here for the unemployed workers of America, for those who are
trying to support their families, almost an identical amount, about $34
billion. And we're saying, well, we can't afford that. But you don't
hear many people saying we can't afford the war, because the truth is
we can't afford the war. We have to afford to put people back to
economic sustenance and pass the unemployment compensation bill.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, my colleague from California may have been
trying to be a little humorous in his comments, but job loss in this
economy is very serious business.
The American people are asking this Congress controlled by the
Democrats, Where are the jobs?
I yield 5 minutes to my distinguished colleague from Indiana (Mr.
Pence).
(Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and to the
underlying bill, but it pains me to do so.
As the Record will reflect, I, and most of my colleagues in this
body, have supported repeated extensions of unemployment benefits. And
as I told my constituents yesterday, I was anxious to do so again.
American families are hurting. This economy is struggling in the
aftermath of the worst recession in a quarter of a century. And as my
colleague just suggested, this economy is also struggling in the midst
of the failed economic policies of this administration and this
Congress.
Millions of American families are struggling to make ends meet. Since
the passage of the so-called stimulus bill, 2.6 million jobs have been
lost, and unemployment hovers near 10 percent.
So I was anxious to be able to come to this floor before heading home
for the Independence Day break, having supported an extension of
unemployment benefits. But I rise in opposition because I think what
the American people expect us to do is what they've been doing at
kitchen tables and sitting around desks and small businesses and on
family farms, and that is making the hard choices.
We can provide an extension of unemployment insurance benefits in
this Congress, and we can make the decisions to pay for it. And I'm
sure it is a mystery to millions of Americans that will be looking on
as to why we didn't even try. This Democrat majority, after adopting
so-called PAYGO rules, after hearing from so-called fiscal conservative
Members of the Democrat majority early in this Congress about how we
were going to pay for what we spent, has waived their own PAYGO rules
to add $34 billion to the national debt. And I just have to think
millions of Americans are asking why.
{time} 1140
There are any number of actions that we could take, decisions we
could make, reordering our priorities to provide for the families at
the point of the need here.
The gentleman from Ohio just said that many of us in the minority
were saying that we can't afford to extend unemployment benefits. We
can afford it. But at my kitchen table when we say we can afford
something, it means
[[Page H5314]]
we can afford to pay for it. Not just simply--when my wife comes to me
and says, I want to make a major expenditure, I say can we afford it?
That means can we pay for it. Here it just means getting out the credit
card of our children and grandchildren and running up the national debt
by $34 billion.
I also rise with a heavy heart in opposition to this bill because we
are here extending unemployment benefits again because the economic
policies of this administration and this Congress have failed. Would
that the economic policies of the so-called stimulus had worked. The
President said we needed to borrow about a trillion dollars from future
generations of Americans a year-and-a-half ago or unemployment, he
said, that was then 7.6 percent, would go over 8 percent. Now it's 10
percent on average around the country, and higher, as has been said, in
many jurisdictions.
Remarkably, yesterday the President of the United States goes to
Racine, Wisconsin, a place that has a 14 percent unemployment rate, and
he made these comments. He said, Things just aren't as bad as they
could have been. There could have been a catastrophe. And in that
sense, the stimulus worked. The President of the United States
yesterday in Racine, Wisconsin, said the stimulus worked. And then
remarkably he went on to suggest that the Republican leader in Congress
was out of touch.
It's mind-boggling that at a time when so many--I mean what would
this administration and this majority say to a father who's been
struggling to make ends meet, who has been borrowing money from family
members to pay the mortgage because he can't find work? What would he
say to the word of the President of the United States that ``the
stimulus worked''? What would the single mother say who has been out of
work persistently, who has applied for dozens and dozens of jobs, and
has gone deeper and deeper in debt during these difficult times? What
would she say to word that the stimulus worked?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Ms. FOXX. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.
Mr. PENCE. The reality is that we have got to bring new ideas to bear
on this economy. The American people know what's necessary to get this
economy moving again. It's fiscal discipline in Washington, D.C., and
it's fast-acting, across the board tax relief for working families,
small businesses, and family farms.
What we hear from corporations across this country is that there is
over $2 trillion in idled capital. We need to release the inherent
power in this economy. We need to restore the confidence of capital
markets in our commitment to fiscal discipline in Washington, D.C. And
we can do all of that today and meet the needs of families struggling
with unemployment.
By passing a fiscally responsible extension of unemployment
insurance, we would send a message that we get it. We know people are
hurting, we know the policies aren't working, but we want to practice
fiscal responsibility. And for heaven's sakes, let's stop saying the
stimulus worked. Let's try some new ideas. Let's come together across
this aisle and do what's necessary to get America working again.
Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, I look at today's Hill newspaper and I look
on page 31. And I oftentimes believe that cartoons and political satire
speak much more clearly than the words that we can use in big long
speeches. And in today's cartoon, although I can't say that it's very
funny to the American people who are being affected by it, you see an
American citizen bungee jumping off an unemployment benefit bridge. And
the elephant in the cartoon, signifying the other party, snips the line
as the American's jumping off. And the comment in the caption reads,
``Don't worry, I'm sure you will land on your feet.'' I think too
oftentimes we have this situation where we just expect that Americans
are going to land on their feet, and we don't care about those who get
left behind. That's what my discussion was today.
The gentleman just referred to the President's comments in Wisconsin
about Mr. Boehner. And I would just refer to those comments that Mr.
Boehner equated the financial bill that we passed yesterday, the
regulatory reform bill that so many Americans are yearning for, he said
it was a nuclear weapon to be used on an ant. The problem was an ant.
Well, my constituents certainly don't think they were ants until they
started being walked over by Wall Street.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms.
Jackson Lee).
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Cardoza, I thank you for sharing with
us what is not a funny anecdotal story or cartoon. I think from your
words you are saying to the American people that their predicament is
not a cartoon. And it is interesting when one of my colleagues comes to
the floor of the House and poses a question, What do we say to the
unemployed mother or what do we say to the person who is trying to
manage themselves and pay their mortgage? Or what do you say to the
caller that called in I believe from Florida this morning on C-SPAN and
said he's laid off from a furniture store that closed and he is looking
for work. And if I might paraphrase him, he said something about
getting off our rears here in Congress and helping him. Why are we
blocking his unemployment insurance?
Now, I can quote a lot of statistics, and somebody said something
about numbers of individuals who are unemployed. There are double-digit
communities with high unemployment, 13 percent, 15 percent, 16 percent,
high numbers among our youth in their twenties, recent college
graduates, individuals who are likewise looking for work as those who
have been employed and are now unemployed.
Ladies and gentlemen, unemployment insurance is the prerogative, it
is the owned by the worker who has worked. Unemployment insurance is
what this is called. Why do the Republicans want to block it, why do
the Republicans in the other body stand against unemployment insurance,
this is an outrage. There is no explanation for it.
For the people who can get unemployment insurance, they are paying
their mortgage. It churns back into the economy. They are buying
groceries. They're paying car payments. Maybe they will have an
opportunity to keep a young person in a community college by putting
their pennies together. But here we stand today having to go back again
because the Republicans had the audacity to vote against unemployment
insurance coverage. So to the man who is saying, I'm going out looking
for a job every day, to the mother who is saying, I am looking for a
job every day, no hope is being given to them. This is not explainable.
So I am on the floor today, because we must go forward on a
supplemental. Maybe my colleagues will join me and vote against the war
supplemental so we will be able to balance the budget. But if they are
not going to be serious about saving money, they cannot stop the vote
to help provide unemployment insurance for Americans out of work. We
have created 200,000 jobs in the last month; some are public jobs, but
you cannot get the private-sector engaged until you begin to see the
churning of the overall economy.
The Federal Government is the umbrella for a rainy day. We are in a
rainy day. But I have faith in this Nation. We always rise. We are
going to rise now. We are going to stand with the unemployed so they
can soon get work and we are going to give this money to them today.
And I dare my Republican friends to vote against this effort to help
our fellow Americans.
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to direct their remarks
to the Chair, and to not traffic the well when another Member is under
recognition.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished ranking
member of the Rules Committee, Mr. Dreier.
(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend from Grandfather Community, North
Carolina, for yielding me the time.
I would like to say that it's very sad and unfortunate that we are
here. And, Mr. Speaker, let me say that I believe that it's really
unnecessary, really unnecessary for us to be here. Why? Because if we
had 17 months ago put into
[[Page H5315]]
place a bipartisan vision for economic growth that was utilized very
effectively by John F. Kennedy during the decade of the 1960s, and
Ronald Reagan during the decade of the 1980s, that's why I call it
bipartisan, I am convinced that we would in fact have attained what
President Obama promised us would have happened with passage of the
trillion-dollar stimulus bill.
{time} 1150
You'll recall he said that if that measure passed, that the
unemployment rate would not exceed 8 percent and that at this point we
would be at an unemployment rate of somewhere around 7.4 percent.
Mr. Speaker, my friend from California is joining in managing of this
rule, and he knows very well that we not only don't have a 7.4 percent
unemployment rate, we not only don't have an 8 percent unemployment
rate as was promised by the President, but we nationally have just
under 10 percent unemployment. And tomorrow we're going to be getting
numbers which, according to reports, are not going to be terribly
positive.
But in our State of California and the area that my friend
represents, the unemployment rate is far beyond that. The area I
represent in southern California has unemployment in the Inland Empire
of right around 14 percent. And I know that it's well in the double
digits in the Central Valley of California.
So when I say it should be unnecessary for us to be here, Mr.
Speaker, the reason I say it is that if we were to take the bipartisan
John F. Kennedy-Ronald Reagan model and use that for economic growth,
we could have an unemployment rate which would be significantly less
than we are facing today, and we could have a GDP growth rate which
would be significantly higher.
Now, what is that model? That model, the one that worked, that
actually doubled the flow of revenues to the Federal Treasury during
the 1960s and the 1980s, is one which is designed to bring about
marginal tax rate reduction to encourage savings and productivity. Now,
Mr. Speaker, that's the kind of thing that we should be doing to avoid
where we are today facing this continued extension of unemployment
benefits.
The notion that somehow those of us who want to put into place pro-
growth economic policies aren't concerned about those who are today in
need of unemployment benefits is a preposterous argument because we
believe very passionately that the level of compassion of a government
should be based not on the number of people who have to draw
unemployment benefits but based instead on the number of people who do
not need to draw unemployment benefits.
That's why we found that over the past 17 months clearly the economic
plan, which was put into place by President Obama and Speaker Pelosi
and the Democratic leadership, is one that has not met up to what was
promised. In fact, from my perspective, it's been an abject failure
when you have an unemployment rate that nationally is nearly 2 percent
greater than the level that we were promised.
I also believe, Mr. Speaker, that we have an opportunity that emerged
from the discussion that took place last weekend at the G-20 meeting.
That plan that the President--and I congratulate him for putting
forward--calls for moving ahead in a lame duck session after
renegotiating a U.S.-South Korea free trade agreement. And I look
forward to working with my friend, the distinguished chair of the
Committee on Ways and Means, on this just as soon as we are able to
move forward with it.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Ms. FOXX. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding.
Let me say, Mr. Speaker, that I believe that if we were to take that
vision of opening up markets when 96 percent of the world's consumers
are outside of our borders and pass not only the U.S.-South Korea
agreement but right here in this hemisphere, if we were to pass the
Panama and Colombia agreements, which were negotiated before the South
Korea agreement was put into place, we would have tens of millions of
new consumers. In Colombia alone, 40 million consumers. American jobs
could be created for Caterpillar, John Deere, Whirlpool. Other great
U.S. companies could create U.S. jobs.
And I hope very much, Mr. Speaker, that we're able to put those kinds
of pro-growth policies into place so we don't have to face what we're
facing today.
Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire how much time each
side has remaining.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California has 16 minutes
remaining. The gentlewoman from North Carolina has 14\1/4\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to respond to my
colleague from California by saying that the gentleman is once again
talking about the long-term questions--whether we need tax cuts or
whether we need to have more stimulus. All of those things are open to
debate.
What is not open to debate is the fact that 1.7 million Americans
today and over the next 3 days and over the last few weeks have lost
their unemployment benefits. That is an emergency. That's why we have
emergency spending provisions. We have to take care of those Americans
who will not be able to feed their families, pay their mortgage
payments. That's why we have an unemployment insurance compensation
program, to protect those Americans when they find themselves in this
kind of a situation.
We can have the other debates on other days. And we certainly have
had and we will have. But on today's question of whether we're going to
extend those benefits, we need to have the Republicans join us in
supporting the American people, in supporting those out-of-work folks.
Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ANDREWS. I thank my friend from California for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, there's been discussion on the floor of the long term.
For the long-term unemployed in this country, the long term happened
yesterday, or today, actually, the first of the month when the rent
comes due and you can't pay it or your mortgage comes due and you can't
pay it. They're living in the long term right now, and they need some
help. And I think that considering this bill today is the right thing
to do.
I do want to reference the remarks which preceded me a few minutes
ago by my friend from California, the senior member of the Rules
Committee, about how, had the Congress embarked on the path he
suggested early in 2009, that the economy would be so much stronger.
And he is a fierce and articulate advocate of that point of view. But
let's examine what that point of view is and what its track record is.
The gentleman from California argued for cuts in marginal tax rates,
mostly distributed to people at the top end--not all, but mostly. He
argued for deregulation of the domestic markets and for a policy that
pursues that goal. That is a quite accurate description of the economic
policies of the administration of President George W. Bush. They cut
marginal tax rates--mostly at the upper end of the scale--almost all at
the upper end of the scale. They engaged in a systematic practice of
deregulation of Wall Street and other industries. And it yielded, quite
frankly, the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression.
Were those policies the sole cause of that? Of course not. Is what
the American people need a rehashing of that failure? Of course not.
The American people need a policy that will grow jobs, and although
the jobs are growing much more slowly than I think any of us hoped, the
reality is the economy shed 8\1/2\ million jobs following the policy
that my friend from California would like us to go back to; and it has
gained just over a million jobs since the beginning of this year. Those
are the facts.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.
Our colleagues across the aisle are saying yes, what the American
people want is to see jobs and they keep asking where are the jobs. We
keep being told that these failed policies passed by this
administration and this Congress
[[Page H5316]]
are going to produce jobs. That is not the case.
They like to tout the May employment report issued by the Bureau of
Labor Statistics which appears to be positive with the addition of
431,000 new jobs. However, 412,000 of those new positions are for
temporary government census workers. In other words, 96 percent of
May's job growth will be eliminated in just a few weeks. That's almost
half of the jobs that my colleague from New Jersey wants to point out.
The June unemployment rate we believe, as my colleague from
California said, will edge up to 9.8 percent from 9.7 percent in May.
But they keep bragging about how effective they've been at providing
jobs.
{time} 1200
The bottom line is, since February 2009, with Democrats in charge of
Congress and the White House, more than 3.3 million jobs have been lost
in the private sector. The Federal Government has gained more than
590,000 jobs over the same period. I hate to tell you, but the
government jobs don't provide a viable solution in helping get the
economy back on its feet. Government jobs are supported by tax dollars,
and that tax burden is ultimately borne by the entrepreneurs and small
businesses that are the engines of economic growth. Further strain on
these employers will not help facilitate a healthy economy over the
long term.
Now, my colleague from New Jersey just talked about a myth that our
colleagues continue to perpetuate, which is about how many jobs were
lost in the Bush administration and about how many jobs were gained.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to insert into the Record a piece by Keith
Hennessey.
This is a fairly new Democratic claim about job creation. Our
colleagues are really searching for ways to justify their terrible
policies; but as Mr. Hennessey points out, the Democrats are picking
their time frames very carefully. They ignore the 4 million jobs lost
during the first 11 months of a Presidency that is, so far, 16 months
old. What they don't point out is the fact that President Bush
inherited a recession and that their statistics, again, are totally
unfounded.
If you will look at the Bureau of Labor Statistics' payroll survey
that was done in 2001 to mid-2003, you will see a steady employment
decline, followed by a steady, strong, and sustained period of job
growth for almost 4 years.
This is the chart put out by Keith Hennessey. He notes that, in the
46 months that we had job growth in the Bush administration, it is the
second longest in recorded history for sustained job creation in the
U.S. More than 8 million jobs were created during this period. A mild
recession began in late 2007--who was in charge of the Congress at that
time? The Democrats. They always fail to mention that--followed by a
severe contraction in the second half of 2008 and continuing into the
Obama administration.
So this chart shows it very well, and it is very objective, Mr.
Speaker. It isn't opinion on my part. It's the numbers. As I said, our
colleagues are very, very selective in how they make the comparison.
[From Keith Hennessey.com, June 8, 2010]
The New Democratic Claim About Job Creation
A new claim about job creation appears to be bubbling up
through the Democratic ranks. Here is the clearest statement
of that claim, from Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) on
Stuart Varney's show:
On the pace that we're on, with job creation in the last
four months, if we continue on that pace, and all the leading
economists say that it is likely that we will, we will have
created more jobs in this year than in the entire Bush
Presidency.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz is picking her timeframes carefully,
in particular by ignoring the four million jobs lost during
the first 11 months of a Presidency that is so far 16 months
old.
Even today, after five straight months of job growth, three
million fewer people are working than when President Obama
took office. That's hardly something to brag about.
And looking just at last month's strong net increase of
431,000 jobs, we see that nine out of ten net new jobs were
temporary government jobs for census takers. We all hope the
pace of private job creation accelerates, but it's too soon
to declare this a strong and consistent employment recovery
or to project its trend into the rest of the year.
Let me point out one other chart that has been put together, and that
is to compare the unemployment over time between administrations, or
among administrations, using the average unemployment rate. You will
see it is very low under President Johnson at 4.2 percent. Under
President Eisenhower, 4.9 percent. The average under President Bush 43,
5.3 percent. The average under President Obama, 9.5 percent.
This is what the American people are interested in. They are asking:
Where are the jobs? Why do the Obama administration and Pelosi policies
continue to have us lose jobs? Unemployment is at almost 10 percent.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Salazar). The time of the gentlewoman
has expired.
Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I would like to take this time to correct the statistics and the
statements that we just heard from my colleague from North Carolina.
My colleague forgets that in the Clinton administration we created--
not ``we,'' because I wasn't here--but the Democrats and Mr. Clinton
created 22 million new jobs for America.
Mr. Bush, when he took over, did not, in fact, inherit a recession.
That recession happened after he was in office, and it was a severe
one. We started to come out of that. Again, the Bush administration
policies caused a second recession. When you look at Mr. Bush's term of
office, there were some jobs created; but they were not private-sector
jobs, as the gentlelady is so fond of talking about. In fact, if you
look at the statistics, there were no new private-sector jobs created
during the Bush administration. When Mr. Bush left office, he left a
recession that was shedding 750,000-plus jobs a month.
When the good lady from North Carolina talks about the fact that
there have been job losses during the Obama administration, many of
those are the carryovers. You don't turn around the economy overnight.
Mr. Obama can't flip a light switch and create the jobs overnight. It
took time to get the policies in place to start bringing the country
out of the Bush recession. In fact, in the last 3 months, we have
averaged 300,000-plus jobs instead of losing 750,000 a month under the
last few months of the Bush administration.
This rewriting of history, this total denial of the economic policies
that got us into this mess, is something that, frankly, the American
people understand very well. The 20 percent of the population which are
unemployed in my district right now understand that very well. The 30
percent of my constituents who have lost their homes to foreclosure
understand who got them into this situation. I think that we will, in
fact, see a situation where the American people will judge what is
going on here.
We will have to work hard to create more jobs in the future. As I
said before, we are going to debate those policies. There have been
discussions on tax cuts and on the stimulus. The statistics tell us
that the average American has not paid this low of a percentage of his
taxes in quite some time, since Mr. Truman was in office, I believe it
is.
So I believe that there are significant facts that we need to set
straight here, facts which represent a positive side of the ledger to
my party and to the policies we are advocating.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, it is not we Republicans who are rewriting
history. It is our colleagues on the other side of the aisle.
I will point out once again that Republicans were in charge of the
Congress during 6 of the 8 years of Mr. Clinton's administration, and
that is when we had the job growth--when Republicans were making the
policy here. Mr. Obama did promise to create the jobs. He promised that
unemployment would not go above 8 percent. He made lots of promises. As
far as I've been able to see, none of the good ones have been kept.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my distinguished colleague from
California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren).
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I thank the gentlewoman for the
time.
Mr. Speaker, I was listening intently to the debate. I must say that
the people in my district would not recognize
[[Page H5317]]
the America that has been described by the gentleman from California.
They would not believe that the economy is moving up. They would not
believe that jobs are being created. They would not believe that they
have low taxes. Frankly, they believe all of the opposite because that
is what their reality is.
All of us have been home in our districts, as have I. All of us, I
hope, have polled our constituents, both informally and formally. I
find what my constituents say in my district is similar to what I see
in the national polls.
The number one thing they are concerned about are jobs. They are
concerned about good jobs, permanent jobs. They understand the agony of
those who are unemployed and of those who are having difficulty, if not
discovering the impossibility, of finding prospects for jobs at the
present time; and we understand that on this side, though the other
thing my constituents have said to me over and over again is, while
``jobs'' is the number one issue, the number two issue is the spending,
which is out of control by this Congress.
So I hear my friends on the other side of the aisle who say we have
an emergency in terms of the unemployment benefits running out. I
understand that. Yet what my constituents are telling me and what
Americans are saying all over the country is that there are at least
two emergencies. Jobs, yes, are an emergency; but spending, out-of-
control spending, irresponsible spending by this Congress under this
Democratic leadership is a major concern to them.
Under this rule, we can't deal with both emergencies. We can only
deal with the question of jobs in the unemployment compensation arena,
but we are prohibited from dealing with how you pay for the government
spending here. That's what we have been asking for. Deal with the
second emergency so that you don't have further people unemployed for
years and so that you don't impose your debt on my children and my
grandchildren so that they will not have the prospect of jobs in the
future.
{time} 1210
It is not original with me, but it often has been said the best
social welfare program is a job. While we want to have unemployment
insurance to cushion people, to transition people from a period of
employment to unemployment to employment, that is not the prospect we
want for them short-term or long-term. What we want is creation of
jobs, and the irresponsibility of this administration and this
Democratic leadership in not facing up to the fact that our persistent
irresponsibility in not paying our bills is something that exacerbates
the problem--
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. So as I hear the people on the
other side of the aisle try and say, look, Republicans are those
Scrooge-like people who are not concerned about people who are
unemployed, let me just say we have people unemployed as well as you do
in your districts. We have friends and family members who are suffering
under this. We understand that. But we also understand they are saying
at the same time, when you pass legislation in the Congress that costs
money, find a way to pay for it. Find a way to pay for it.
You can be both for creation of jobs as well as being responsible in
the carrying out of our duties. That is all we are saying. Don't
promise the American people a free lunch, and don't say, well, we will
think about that in the future, because we have got to think about
spending right now.
Now, I understand this rule doesn't allow us to do this. The
leadership on the Democratic side doesn't want to face up to the
concerns we have. We are not even going to have a budget. But at some
point in time we have to stand up for what is right, and we can do two
things at once.
Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Doggett), a member of the Ways and Means Committee.
Mr. DOGGETT. I thank the gentleman.
This rule makes it possible for us to consider today a supplemental
appropriations bill that contains some vital support for public
education across America.
Now, most schoolchildren learn that 3 plus 3 equals 6. Last year, the
schoolchildren of my State of Texas received an unfortunate lesson in
State Republican math. In Texas, 3 plus 3 only equaled 3. How is that?
Well, last year, Texas received more than $3 billion in State
Stabilization, economic recovery, or stimulus funds designated for our
local school districts, for our schoolchildren. But by exploiting
ambiguous language, for every dime of Federal support in State
Stabilization moneys that went to Texas, the State took away money that
it had already committed for the same purpose. So instead of a historic
boost in local school support, our schoolchildren were left no better
off than if we had not passed the Economic Recovery Act with these
provisions at all. The $3 billion more made no difference for our local
schools.
Congressional support for our local school districts reflects a two-
fold understanding. First, that our local districts know best what the
needs of their students and their teachers and administrators are.
Second, that especially in times of a difficult economy, we need to
invest in public education. A solid education is the foundation on
which our economy and our democracy rests.
Now, our Texas Republican leadership disagreed with both those
propositions. They balanced the State budget with Federal economic
recovery funds at the same time our Governor was out talking about
secession and attacking the economic recovery, much as we have heard
this morning.
I am hopeful that this supplemental appropriation will include
specific language for Texas made at the request of our Texas Democratic
Congressional delegation to ensure that this never happens again.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. CARDOZA. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. DOGGETT. To ensure that any money that goes for teachers and
public education in Texas actually goes to improve our schools and the
lives of our schoolchildren.
Earlier this month, statewide groups representing teachers,
principals, school boards and school administrators joined about 40
superintendents from across the State to endorse this approach. Through
this bill today, with specific language for Texas, we can ensure that
our goals last year are achieved and we do something at this difficult
time to address the needs of our Texas teachers and our Texas
schoolchildren.
I hope this rule can be adopted in order to approve this important
language.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, Republicans want to help the long-term unemployed, but
agree with the American people that new spending needs to be offset by
cuts otherwise.
During the Rules Committee markup of the Democrats' H.R. 5618, Mr.
Heller from Nevada offered a Republican amendment in the nature of a
substitute which was not made in order by a vote of two to seven. This
fiscally responsible alternative would have extended unemployment
insurance, COBRA, and the current poverty guidelines until September
25th, and paid for it with unused funds from the failed stimulus bill.
Again, the bill before us extends Federal unemployment benefits only
through November 2010 and is not paid for, adding its $34 billion price
tag to our $13 trillion debt.
Democrats claim their bill satisfies their PAYGO requirements by
declaring it is spending in an emergency. But that is simply an excuse
for not paying for it. Let me tell you how an emergency is defined in
their rules.
In general, the criteria to be considered in determining whether a
proposed expenditure or tax change meets an emergency designation
includes, one, necessary, essential, or vital, not merely useful or
beneficial; two, sudden, quickly coming into being and not building up
over time; three, an urgent, pressing, and compelling need requiring
immediate action; four, unforeseen, unpredictable, unanticipated, and
not permanent, but rather temporary in nature.
[[Page H5318]]
We have known about this for a long time. This does not meet the
criteria for emergency spending. Declaring it emergency spending is
just a gimmick. It is a way to not have to comply with PAYGO. In fact,
there are 160 spending programs already exempt from PAYGO or operating
under special rules.
You know, just because our colleagues say that it is so, doesn't make
it so. Saying that it is PAYGO compliant doesn't mean that there is an
offset to it. So our colleagues are very clever in the way they say
things.
President Obama said in February 2010, Now Congress will have to pay
for what it spends, just like everybody else. After a decade of
profligacy, the American people are tired of politicians who talk the
talk but don't walk the walk when it comes to fiscal responsibility.
Both the President and our colleagues across the aisle are talking
out of both sides of their mouths. They go out and announce that they
are making something PAYGO compliant, but they don't. Rather than face
facts and support sound economic policies like lowering taxes and
reducing regulatory burdens, the Democrats continue to advocate
misguided policies that expand the government's control and increase
the Nation's debt.
This is not the way to create jobs. The American people continue to
ask the question, where are the jobs? Mr. Speaker, this bill is not
going to create the jobs, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
Mr. Speaker, the President has said that every economist that has
looked at his stimulus plan and all the plans that he has put forth
agree with him.
{time} 1220
But let me quote Carnegie Mellon economist Allan H. Meltzer, in an
article in the Wall Street Journal op-ed June 30: Why Obamanomics Has
Failed. ``The administration's stimulus program has failed. Growth is
slow and unemployment remains high. The President and his friends and
advisers talk endlessly about the circumstances they inherited as a way
of avoiding responsibility for the 18 months for which they are
responsible. Two overarching reasons explain the failure of
Obamanomics. First, administration economists and their outside
supporters neglected the longer-term costs and consequences of their
actions. Second, the administration and Congress have, through their
deeds and words, heightened uncertainty about the economic future. High
uncertainty is the enemy of investment and growth.''
Economists get it, Republicans get it, and the American people get
it. It's high time the Democrats wake up to the fact that the stimulus
isn't working as promised. We need to cut government spending, repeal
nonsensical regulations, and lower taxes. We should not be passing this
extension without an offset in spending.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule, and ``no'' on the
bill. Let's answer the question the American people are asking, Where
are the jobs? Let's put in policies that really create jobs.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, I would like to close today by discussing a
little bit of what the gentlelady just talked about with regard to
PAYGO. I'd like to point out that I'm quite sure that the gentlelady
from North Carolina did not vote for the PAYGO resolution in the House
rules that we passed at the beginning of this Congress, nor did she
vote for statutory PAYGO. They have always talked about tax cuts as the
answer to all of America's problems. We could take the tax cut to zero
and my, wouldn't we pay for government well?
The reality is that they only want to pay for things that affect
common folks--the common Americans that get up every day, put their
shoes on, and just want a job to make a living and pay for their
family, pay for their home, and earn a better life. They don't want to
pay for the tax cuts for the Wall Street big shots. They never want to
pay for that. They don't want the PAYGO rules to apply to them.
As I said before in this debate, I grew up in my parents' bowling
alley. I saw firsthand what happened to those folks--those hardworking
American folks that would come into my parents' establishment just
wanting a little bit of fun on a Friday or Saturday night. I saw what
happened when they lost their job. They lost their home, they couldn't
feed their family. Families disbanded because of the stress and tension
under those economic situations.
My colleagues on the other side of the aisle voted against, for the
most part, the financial regulatory reform bill. They were protecting
their friends on Wall Street, the very people that got us into this
calamity. Thirty percent of my constituents--around that--have lost
their home to foreclosure because of the financial collapse that was
caused by the greed on Wall Street. Yet my colleagues on the other side
of the aisle continue to defend them. But, for the most part, they will
not vote for emergency funding to put food on unemployed workers'
tables or to allow them to keep their homes in this time of crisis. I
say that it's not all of them because on June 29, 2010, 30 courageous
Republicans voted with the Democrats--the 231 Democrats--to extend
unemployment benefits and to protect those workers who have lost their
job in this economic situation.
Mr. Speaker, I can't sit here today and tell you that every policy
that we've put in place since Mr. Obama has been in place has worked as
well as I'd like. Frankly, I've been critical on a number of issues
that I thought the administration could have done a better job. But I
will tell you that when it comes time to taking care of Americans who
are in an emergency situation, who have lost their job for no fault of
their own but for the fact that the economic situation was a tsunami
that swamped them, it is our party who is standing up to make sure that
those workers can survive for another day. And for those workers, this
absolutely is an emergency.
Mr. Speaker, no one can legitimately doubt that the situation we face
right now is an emergency for the American people who are unemployed.
And until our economy is firmly on track and moving forward, I believe
we must provide help for those unemployed workers to pay their bills
and feed their families. If not, we risk falling further into a further
economic crisis and we risk leaving way too many families behind.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to support this rule and to support
the underlying bill. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question,
and on the rule.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the
previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
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.
Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this 15-
minute vote on House Resolution 1495 will be followed by 5-minute votes
on suspending the rules with regard to House Resolution 1321, if
ordered; and House Resolution 1405, if ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 231,
nays 189, not voting 12, as follows:
[Roll No. 418]
YEAS--231
Ackerman
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)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Dahlkemper
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Driehaus
Edwards (TX)
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Foster
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gonzalez
Gordon (TN)
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Halvorson
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
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
[[Page H5319]]
Kissell
Klein (FL)
Kosmas
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Maffei
Maloney
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)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (NY)
Murphy, Patrick
Nadler (NY)
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Perlmutter
Perriello
Peters
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Polis (CO)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
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
Teague
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wilson (OH)
Wu
Yarmuth
NAYS--189
Aderholt
Adler (NJ)
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-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Cao
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Castle
Chaffetz
Childers
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Djou
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Ellsworth
Emerson
Fallin
Flake
Fleming
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Guthrie
Hall (TX)
Harper
Hastings (WA)
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hill
Hunter
Inglis
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan (OH)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kirkpatrick (AZ)
Kline (MN)
Kratovil
Lamborn
Lance
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee (NY)
Lewis (CA)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Markey (CO)
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Minnick
Mitchell
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Nye
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)
Stearns
Sullivan
Taylor
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walden
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--12
Baird
Edwards (MD)
Ellison
Hoekstra
Lynch
Moran (VA)
Payne
Rodriguez
Wamp
Welch
Woolsey
Young (AK)
{time} 1253
Messrs. GALLEGLY, NUNES, SESSIONS, POSEY, and KLINE of Minnesota
changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Messrs. COHEN and CLEAVER changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
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.
____________________