[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 108 (Wednesday, July 21, 2010)]
[House]
[Pages H5885-H5892]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    WAIVING REQUIREMENT OF CLAUSE 6(a) OF RULE XIII WITH RESPECT TO 
CONSIDERATION OF CERTAIN RESOLUTIONS AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF 
                      MOTIONS TO SUSPEND THE RULES

  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee 
on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1537 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 1537

       Resolved, That 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 23, 2010, providing for consideration 
     or disposition of a measure addressing unemployment 
     compensation.
       Sec. 2.  It shall be in order at any time through the 
     legislative day of July 23, 2010, for the Speaker to 
     entertain motions that the House suspend the rules. The 
     Speaker or her designee shall consult with the Minority 
     Leader or his designee on the designation of any matter for 
     consideration pursuant to this section.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Serrano). The gentleman from Florida is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, 
I yield the customary 30 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from 
North Carolina (Ms. Foxx). All time yielded during consideration of the 
rule is for debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I ask unanimous consent that all Members be 
given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on 
House Resolution 1537.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 1537 waives the requirement of clause 
6(a) of rule XIII, requiring a two-thirds vote to consider a rule on 
the same day it is reported from the Rules Committee.

                              {time}  1430

  This would allow for the same-day consideration of any resolution 
reported through the legislative day of July 23, 2010, relating to 
consideration or disposition of a measure addressing unemployment 
compensation.
  Finally, the resolution allows the Speaker to entertain motions to 
suspend the rules through the legislative day of July 23, 2010. The 
Speaker, or her designee, shall consult with the minority leader, or 
his designee, on the designation of any matter for consideration 
pursuant to this section.
  These are not unusual procedures, as some of my colleagues on the 
other side are wont to argue. I want to point out that in the 109th 
Congress the Republican majority reported at least 21 rules that 
allowed for same-day consideration. In fact, five of those rules waived 
this requirement against any rule reported from the committee. This 
rule is for a specific bill.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4213, the Restoration of the Emergency Unemployment 
Compensation Act of 2010, ensures that absolutely essential funds 
continue to reach the millions of American citizens struggling to find 
a job, keep their homes, and provide for their families. This 
legislation is unconscionably overdue, with unemployment benefits 
having expired on June 1 of this year.
  While I'm pleased to point out that this legislation is retroactive 
to that date, nevertheless, millions of Americans who desperately 
needed our support were left hanging by an egregious obstructionism 
that prevented this legislation from moving forward.
  This Congress, and I include both the House and the Senate, has a 
responsibility to act in the best interest of the American people and 
to ensure that, in this time of extreme economic hardship, Americans 
can rely on essential government services to help them through the hard 
times. Unemployment insurance is one of those services, part of a range 
of urgently needed activities that are necessary to rebuild our economy 
and recover from the recession. There is no excuse for delay.
  That only two Republican Senators saw fit to vote to ensure that 2.5 
million Americans could claim lapsed benefits demonstrates a complete 
lack of concern for struggling Americans. The fact is that for every 
open job there are five applicants, leaving the vast majority out of 
work. Unemployment insurance is not a luxury; it is a necessity. Why 
Members of this Congress are able to vote in favor of massive tax cuts 
for the wealthy one day and against unemployment insurance for 
hardworking Americans the next day is beyond me.
  And so, Mr. Speaker, I kind of like would rather that we not have to 
do a same-day rule. What we should be doing is a 6-weeks-ago rule so we 
can go back in time and relieve some of the great anxiety and financial 
hardship endured by millions of Americans while they waited for this 
Congress to act.
  Over the past few days and weeks, much of the debate about the 
emergency measure has revolved around its cost. While I don't dismiss 
these concerns, bringing our economy back from the brink of disaster 
doesn't come cheap, and we have a responsibility to

[[Page H5886]]

support Americans during this most painful and difficult time.
  In fact, I would argue that Democrats and Republicans have a 
significant difference of opinion when it comes to what it means to be 
fiscally responsible. Seemingly, my Republican colleagues think that 
being fiscally responsible means that when our economy is prospering, 
and it has prospered in the past and will again, when it's prospering, 
you will have free rein to cut taxes for the wealthiest and the well to 
do among us and spend with abandon, as they did when we were 
prospering. But when their irresponsible fiscal policies come back to 
bite them, well, then it's too expensive to invest in our economy, to 
provide for those who can't provide for themselves, or to spend what is 
necessary to jump-start the economy.
  Republicans say they aren't opposed to spending these funds on 
unemployment insurance; they just want to cut the same amount from 
other programs. Well, I'll tell you what they can cut. How about not 
doing any further tax cuts for wealthy people? How about cutting 
missiles to nowhere? How about cutting some of this Pentagon money and 
war in this world? How about cutting huge tax subsidies for offshore 
oil drilling? How about cutting out people taking their money and 
running to tax havens away from America and not fulfilling their 
responsibilities?
  Mr. Speaker, I don't see Republicans offering to cut those things. 
Instead, I see them blocking essential legislation with vague 
platitudes about the need for cuts. They see nothing wrong with leaving 
the people who are most suffering the effects of their misguided 
economic views out in the cold. The Republicans' track record has 
proved them to be nothing but fair-weather deficit hawks.
  Democrats, on the other hand, see things a bit differently. We, too, 
believe that balancing the budget is vital for our long-term 
prosperity. And I've been here and others, as well as the sitting 
Speaker, have been here when we did just that, balance the budget. But 
it can't be done on the backs of struggling Americans. In order to grow 
this economy, we need to invest in the American people. The Federal 
Government has a responsibility to help our communities meet their 
needs and ensure that anyone who wants to find work for a decent wage 
can do so.
  Our economy is already showing considerable signs of recovery, but a 
jobless recovery is unacceptable. Make no mistake, job creation is the 
number one priority for Democrats. That is why we're working hard to 
find ways to create jobs and grow our economy again. But, in the 
meantime, we cannot simply let millions of Americans fall into 
financial ruin, lose their homes, be unable to pay their rent, and 
jeopardize their futures and the futures of their families and 
children.
  Unemployment insurance can make the difference between whether 
families can afford to put food on the table or pay rent while they 
devote themselves to finding new employment or to get by, just get by, 
until the economy improves and jobs are more forthcoming.
  I urge my colleagues to support this rule, Mr. Speaker, so that this 
much-needed, much-overdue legislation can be considered in a timely 
manner. The American people are waiting. And waiting 1 more minute, not 
30 minutes on the U.S. Senate, or 30 hours as they are taking now, 
waiting 1 more minute is 1 minute too long.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Florida for yielding 
time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  You know, he mentioned that we have no problem on one day voting for 
tax decreases and then the next day voting against unemployment 
benefits. Unfortunately, our colleagues across the aisle haven't given 
us an opportunity to vote for tax decreases in this session of 
Congress. Would that we'd had that opportunity, we certainly would 
have, because the money that the hardworking people of this country 
earn belongs to them. It doesn't belong to the government. That's what 
our colleagues across the aisle think. They want to control everything 
in this country, including all of the money that the good citizens of 
this country work hard to earn.
  Mr. Speaker, today I rise in opposition to this same-day rule on 
unemployment insurance.
  When the White House economic advisors released their report back in 
January 2009, they concluded that if we just borrowed $1 trillion, the 
stimulus would stop the unemployment rate from increasing beyond 8 
percent. Here we are with a 9.5 percent unemployment rate, the largest 
deficit in our history, and the national debt at almost $14 trillion. 
The response of the liberal Democrat leadership is to add $30 billion 
more to the deficit by not offsetting another extension of Federal 
unemployment benefits.
  The American people want real economic growth and private job 
creation. If job creation is the number one priority for the Democrats, 
I'd hate to see what the number two priority is, given the dismal 
numbers that they've created, particularly in the last 18 months.
  During consideration of H.R. 5618, the Democrats' $34 billion unpaid 
for Restoration of Emergency Unemployment Compensation Act, before the 
July 4 recess, Democrats opposed the Republican motion to recommit, 
which would have paid for the extension.
  Specifically, the Republican motion to recommit would have used $34 
billion in unspent stimulus funds to cover the cost of extending 
expired unemployment benefits through November 30. This was a fiscally 
responsible motion which recognized that the American people want 
Washington to stop spending money we don't have. Adding insurmountable 
amounts of spending to our soaring deficit helps no one.

                              {time}  1440

  Painting Republicans as being unfeeling and uncaring about those who 
have lost their jobs is inappropriate. We are very concerned with those 
people, and we want to do everything that we can to help them. But 
putting us more and more into debt and increasing the deficit is not 
going to do that. And our colleagues across the aisle should have 
learned that by now with their very, very bad policies.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, just to answer my distinguished 
colleague from North Carolina very briefly, when she began her remarks 
by indicating that we haven't given them an opportunity to vote on tax 
cuts, my last look at the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act gave 
95 percent of Americans a tax cut. I would be interested to know how 
many Republicans supported that measure.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).
  Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, as was correctly pointed out, Republicans 
had ample opportunity to vote for tax cuts for Americans. As was amply 
pointed out just a moment ago, 95 percent of the American people got a 
tax cut under the Recovery Act, and 0 percent of the Republican Caucus 
voted in favor of it. So there again, when average Americans get a 
chance for a tax cut, no. When rich folks get a chance for a tax cut, 
absolutely.
  By the way, those tax cuts don't have to be set off. During the Bush 
administration, well over $700 billion worth of tax cuts were not set 
off at all. And now we're just asking for a little bit of money for 
average working Americans who have worked for a benefit, Mr. Speaker, 
to get a little bit of help when they really, really need it. No, we're 
not asking for a set-off for unemployment insurance benefits because 
it's an emergency.
  It's an emergency for that mom trying to get some cereal to put it on 
the table for her kids. It's an emergency for that dad who's trying to 
pay rent so they don't get thrown out. It's an emergency for that 
family who is facing foreclosure because they cannot pay their mortgage 
because they have been out of work. It's an emergency. It is 
appropriate not to have to set it off because those are the rules that 
we have been living by in this body for years and years and years. Now, 
because of partisanship, Republicans don't want to go by those rules, 
they want to make political hay and delay, delay people's help when 
their help should be coming.
  Mr. Speaker, the fact is 2.5 million Americans have to wait another 
day because Senate Republicans have to make a political point. That is 
a

[[Page H5887]]

shame. That is too bad. If the caucus opposite, if the Senate 
Republicans really have a heart for the American people, they will 
prove it by stopping their unsympathetic and relentless delay of 
unemployment insurance benefits.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, when asked on July 4th are we headed in the 
right direction, Vice President Biden answered, ``The economic 
initiatives that we took, they're working. They're working.'' Vice 
President Biden's repeatedly touted the failed stimulus package, and 
has recently coined what he calls ``the summer of recovery.'' Yet when 
asked about concerns that the stimulus is not working he acknowledges 
that unemployment remains, ``unacceptably high.''
  You know, if we are in a summer of recovery, we can't quite 
understand why we continue to have high unemployment in this country. 
When asked by ABC's This Week host Jake Tapper in an interview aired 
Sunday if the administration ``is getting enough credit'' for the Wall 
Street bill, the health care bill, and the economic recovery act in 
light of polls showing the majority of Americans believe the country is 
on the wrong track, Mr. Biden said, ``The vast majority of the American 
people and a lot of people really involved don't even know what's 
inside the packages.'' On the contrary, for the first time in a long 
time the American people are taking a very strong interest in what 
Congress is doing, reading the bills and voicing their opinions.
  Eighteen months after President Obama's $862 billion so-called 
stimulus, which really cost $1.2 trillion if you include the $347 
billion that the Congressional Budget Office estimates for interest 
payments on the borrowed money, as my colleagues said across the aisle, 
there are still five job seekers for every job opening, and we have a 
9.5 percent unemployment rate. I appreciate my colleague from Florida 
helping me make that point that we still have a problem despite the 
fact that there have been so many policies passed here and so much 
money spent. We have a 9.5 percent unemployment rate.
  Instead of facing reality, we are hearing that everything is going 
great. That is, everything except that which they might be able to 
somehow blame on the previous administration. Ignoring that virtually 
all of the jobs they are touting are government jobs, this misleading 
statistic doesn't represent net job growth, thereby omitting all the 
jobs lost since the liberals seized complete control of Washington.
  Doesn't it really seem discordant to be promoting unemployment 
benefits when Democrats are touting this as the summer of recovery? If 
the Democrats' stimulus were so successful, why do we need to increase 
our debt by $30 billion more for additional Federal unemployment 
benefits? Rather than acknowledge their stimulus plan failed and the 
American people were sold a bill of goods, the President and his 
administration continue to propose new government programs that 
increase the deficit. This is wrong. The American people know it.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 
minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts, my good 
friend and colleague on the Rules Committee, Mr. McGovern.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, extending help to the unemployed is the right thing to 
do. It's the decent thing to do. We should have done it a long time 
ago. My colleagues on the Republican side have frustrated attempt after 
attempt after attempt after attempt to extend these benefits to people, 
most of whom have lost their jobs through no fault of their own.
  My friends on the other side of the aisle say, well, we can't afford 
to do it, that we need to pay for this, even though they are emergency 
benefits. Well, why don't we pay for the Bush tax cuts, which added 
hundreds of billions of dollars to our debt? Why don't we pay for the 
wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, all funded through borrowed money? Why is 
nation building in Afghanistan more important than our own people? Why 
is giving Donald Trump another tax cut that is unpaid for, that adds to 
our deficit, more important than helping those who are unemployed?
  I ask my friends on the other side of the aisle, What are you 
thinking? Why don't you care? Whose side are you on? I urge my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle to leave the Beltway every 
once in a while and go back and talk to your own constituents, and you 
will see that people are struggling, that there are people who are 
suffering because of this economy.
  This is a difficult economy that is slowly but surely beginning to 
recover. It is a difficult economy that President Obama inherited from 
George W. Bush. We are trying to dig ourselves out of this mess that my 
Republican friends have created. It's going to take time. I remind my 
friends on the other side of the aisle that when George Bush was 
President we were losing an average of nearly 750,000 jobs per month in 
the last 3 months of the administration.

                              {time}  1450

  Twenty-two consecutive months of job losses, that's what they gave 
us.
  When they talk about the deficit, I remind them that President Bill 
Clinton left George W. Bush a record surplus that they squandered on 
tax cuts for the rich and two wars that were unpaid for.
  And, you know, the reason why we talk about President Bush's record 
is because the head of the Republican Congressional Campaign Committee, 
Pete Sessions, when asked what the Republican plan was, he said, We 
need to go back to the exact same agenda: the exact same agenda that 
produced these record deficits, the exact same agenda that put millions 
of people in this country out of work. Now, I've heard a lot of scary 
things in this Chamber, but I've got to tell you, that is the scariest 
thing I've ever heard.
  I don't want to go backwards. I don't want to go back to the time 
where we were losing hundreds of thousands of jobs per month. President 
Obama to his credit and the Democratic Congress here are trying to fix 
the mess that they created, and we are now beginning to see job 
increases in this country. Not as much as we want, but we're moving in 
the right direction.
  But in the meantime, we cannot turn our backs on those who are 
unemployed. So I say to my Republican friends in the United States 
Senate, stop your obstructionism. Stop playing politics with 
unemployment benefits and move out of the way and allow this bill to 
move forward so we can vote on it here on the House floor.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to address their 
remarks to the Chair.
  Ms. FOXX. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I know our colleagues again continue to want to rewrite history, but 
it's just not something we're going to let you do.
  Our economy was doing great until you all took over the Congress in 
January of 2007. You keep blaming what happened in the last few months 
of President Bush's Presidency on President Bush. But you were in 
control of Congress. You've been in control. And you have to take the 
responsibility for what happened. The job losses came on your watch.
  We had a $200 billion deficit when you took over the Congress, and 
you have caused the deficit to go up. It is Democrat policies which 
have created the problems, not the Republican policies.
  On Monday, President Obama took to the Rose Garden to criticize 
Republicans for insisting that new government spending to extend the 
Federal unemployment insurance program be paid for by cutting 
government spending elsewhere. Ironically, in another speech in the 
Rose Garden last November, President Obama took the opposite position, 
touting his signing an extension that was ``fully paid for.'' And this 
is his quote: I would also like to announce I just signed into law a 
bill that will help grow our economy, save and create new jobs, and 
provide relief to struggling families and businesses. Now it's 
important to note that the bill I sign will not add to our deficit. It 
is fully paid for and so it is fiscally responsible.
  Those remarks were made by President Obama on November 6, 2009. So he 
was for paying for spending before he was against it.
  On June 28, Speaker Pelosi made statements indicating the best way to

[[Page H5888]]

create new jobs is to hand out more unemployment checks. This is her 
quote: This is one of the biggest stimuluses to our economy. Economists 
will tell you this money is spent quickly. It injects demand into the 
economy and it is job-creating. It creates jobs faster than almost any 
other initiative that you can name.
  This is news to a lot of economists.
  I wanted to share also a portion of a Wall Street Journal article 
from Tuesday entitled, ``Stimulating Unemployment.'' This is the quote: 
``Only last week, Vice President Joe Biden was hailing the stimulus for 
saving and creating three million jobs. This week the White House says 
we need even more stimulus in the form of jobless checks to make up for 
the jobs his original spending stimulus didn't create.''
  The one possibility the President and congressional Democrats won't 
entertain is that their own spending and taxing and regulating and 
labor union favoritism have become the main hindrances to job creation. 
Since February 2009, the jobless rate has climbed to 9.5 percent from 
8.1 percent, and private industry has shed two million jobs. The 
overall economy has been expanding for at least a year, but employers 
still don't seem confident enough to add new workers. The economists 
who sold us the stimulus say it's a mystery. But maybe employers are 
afraid to hire because they don't know what costs government will 
impose on them next.
  In the immediate policy case, Democrats are going so far as to 
subsidize more unemployment. If you subsidize something, you get more 
of it. So if you pay people not to work, they often decide not to work 
or at least to delay looking or decline a less-than-perfect job offer 
holding out for something that may or may not materialize.
  The economic consensus which includes Obama administration economists 
in their previous lives couldn't be clearer on this. In a 1990 study 
for the National Bureau for Economic Research, labor economist Lawrence 
Katz found that the results indicate that a 1-week increase in 
potential benefit duration increases the average duration of the 
unemployment spells of unemployment insurance recipients by 0.16 to 20 
weeks, 16 to 20 weeks.
  A March 2010 economic report by Michael Farrell of JP Morgan Chase 
examined several studies and concluded that lengthened availability of 
jobless benefits has raised the unemployment rate by 1.5 percent 
points.
  A 2006 NBER study by Raj Chetty of U.C. Berkeley on a related subject 
begins: It is well known that unemployment benefits raise unemployment 
durations.
  President Obama has said that this is a misguided notion and that 
attitude reflects a lack of faith in the American people. Yet Democrats 
have consistently passed legislation which takes away the choices and 
freedoms of the American people. That is the true reflection of a lack 
of faith in the American people.
  And with that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 
minutes to a good friend of mine at this time, the distinguished 
gentleman from Memphis, Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).
  Mr. COHEN. I want to thank Congressman Hastings for the opportunity 
to speak on this issue.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a very important issue to the American economy 
and the American public. My friend from North Carolina suggests that 
economists don't think this is a good thing. Well, Mark Zandi, who's 
the chief economist at Moody's, who was one of President Bush's 
economists and supporters, says, ``No form of the fiscal stimulus has 
proved more effective during the past 2 years than energy UI benefits, 
providing a bang for the buck of $1.61,'' for every dollar put in.
  Paul Krugman, Nobel Prize-winning economist--that's not a bad little 
opportunity prize to win--``One main reason there aren't enough jobs 
right now is weak consumer demand. Helping the unemployed, by putting 
money in the pockets of people who badly need it, helps support 
consumer spending. That's why the Congressional Budget Office rates aid 
to the unemployed as a highly cost-effective form of economic 
stimulus.''
  Timely, targeted, and temporary are the three keys to stimulus 
spending; and unemployment compensation goes to people who are the 
Purple Hearts of this economic recession, an economic recession caused 
by George W. Bush.
  My friend from North Carolina says we're forgetting history. I'll 
tell you about history. Under Bill Clinton, we had a budget surplus. 
Under George Bush with a misguided war built on lies and tax breaks to 
the wealthiest people in the country, we built up budget deficits, 
which we have had to increase because of the need to get out of this 
worst economic recession since Herbert Hoover--George Bush's 
ideological father--put us into the Depression some 80 years earlier.
  No more American, independent, private-spending person than Warren 
Buffet has said that unemployment compensation should be passed. It 
helps the economy and it's just the right thing to do. This is the 
right thing to do for the economy, for the people who've gotten the 
Purple Hearts of this economic downturn, and for our country. And I 
urge everybody to use their brains and their hearts and to support this 
proposition.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I will just point out again to our colleagues 
across the aisle that the reason we had a surplus when Bill Clinton was 
President was because Republicans were in charge of the Congress, and 
the reason we had a deficit the last 2 years of the Bush administration 
is because Democrats were in charge of the Congress.
  We'll continue to remind you of that.
  I now would like to yield such time as he may consume to my 
distinguished colleague from California (Mr. Dreier).
  (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Grandfather Community 
for the great job that she's doing managing this rule, and I even 
recognize my friend from Fort Lauderdale is doing a reasonably decent 
job of managing the rule from his side.

                              {time}  1500

  You know, the focus of this institution is right now on what it is 
that the American people want us to focus on, jobs. Everybody here, 
Democrat and Republican alike, is talking about getting our economy 
back on track, creating job opportunities. The problem is that the 
policies that are emanating from this institution are tried and failed 
policies of the past.
  I listened to my friend from Tennessee just a moment ago talk about 
the Great Depression. Well, Mr. Speaker it's very obvious that the 
policies of tax-and-spend that were pursued during the Great Depression 
exacerbated the Great Depression. In fact, very famously in testimony 
delivered before the House Ways and Means Committee in the fall of 
1939, the Treasury Secretary, Henry Morgenthau of Franklin Delano 
Roosevelt, had these words to say. He said, We've tried spending money. 
We've spent more than we've ever spent before. Now, after 8 years of 
this Roosevelt administration, we have unemployment that is just as 
high today as it was when we started and an enormous debt to boot.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, if you look at the Treasury Secretary of John F. 
Kennedy, Secretary Douglas Dillon, who pursued a pro-growth economic 
policy, you would not find him critical of President John F. Kennedy's 
economic policy. If you look at Treasury Secretary James Baker, who had 
been an opponent of Ronald Reagan's vision of putting into place pro-
growth economic policies during the 1980s or, actually, when he was 
running his friend George H.W. Bush's campaign, he called it voodoo 
economics. But if you talk to Jim Baker today, he is a huge proponent 
of those policies, having seen the empirical evidence of their success.
  So as we look at Secretary Douglas Dillon, as we look at Secretary 
James Baker, and look at Secretary Henry Morgenthau, it's very clear 
what it is that works. And so that's why, while Democrats and 
Republicans alike, Mr. Speaker, talk enthusiastically about getting the 
economy back on track, getting jobs created--because we all know how 
the American people are suffering. In part of the area I represent, Mr. 
Speaker, I have a 14.4 percent unemployment rate. It was just announced 
this week. My Statewide unemployment rate in California, a State with 
nearly 40 million people, the largest State in the Union, the greatest

[[Page H5889]]

and most important State in the Union I should add as well, has 
tragically an unemployment rate of 12.3 percent.
  We all know that with the policies that we've gone through in the 
last 18 months, we were promised that if we pass the trillion-dollar 
stimulus bill we would not see the unemployment rate exceed 8 percent. 
We were told at this point following implementation of the stimulus 
bill that the unemployment rate would be at 7.4 percent. Well, as I 
said, in my State it's 12.3 percent, the largest State in the Union. 
Nationwide we all know, very sadly, it is 9.5 percent.
  So clearly everybody's talking about the need to create jobs and get 
our economy back on track, but the policies have been the tried and 
failed policies of the past.
  I had an interesting conversation 2 years ago with one of the leaders 
in Latin America who had been the President of his country in the 
1980s. He was President for 5 years, and during that period of time, he 
pursued an extraordinarily statist, big government, high tax, 
regulatory vision for his country, and they had serious problems. He 
became President again and governed like Ronald Reagan governed. He 
focused on reducing the size and scope and reach of government. He 
reduced taxes to stimulate economic growth. He put into place an effort 
to reduce the regulatory burden, and he said to me in this meeting 2 
years ago that the worst 5 years in the modern history of his country 
had been when he was President from 1985 to 1990. And he asked 
rhetorically, how can you in the United States of America contemplate 
moving in the direction that the rest of the world has learned to have 
failed?
  I was just talking to the son of Ronald Reagan a few minutes ago, 
Michael Reagan, on the phone. He told me that he was just in France, 
and we all know that we have not used France as our economic model for 
the future. But Mike Reagan was telling me that he was there, and 
people are scratching their heads wondering why it is that we would be 
pursuing in the United States of America, the greatest Nation the world 
has ever known, a policy that has led to an 84 percent increase in the 
last 18 months in nondefense discretionary spending.
  So, Mr. Speaker, we're here under a martial law rule, and since it's 
part of my job as a member of the Rules Committee to focus on 
procedure, I want to congratulate my friends in the majority for 
establishing martial law rule only for the issue at hand here and not 
providing blanket consideration of martial law rule.
  I will say as I said in the Rules Committee last night, we have since 
mid- to late May every single week extended suspension authority 
through the rest of the week. Last week, we took a little break from 
that and we didn't do it, but this week again in this rule we have 
blanket extension of suspension authority. I know those are very inside 
baseball things, but they are indicative of an arrogance that we have 
seen from the majority that is really undermining the deliberative 
process the American people deserve and desperately seek for this 
institution.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I'm going to join with my friend from Grandfather 
Community, North Carolina, in urging my colleagues to vote ``no'' on 
this rule in hopes that we can come together with a very decent and 
bipartisan approach following the John F. Kennedy-Ronald Reagan model 
to make sure that we get our economy back on track.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I'm very pleased at this time 
to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Andrews), who is a good friend of mine.
  (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ANDREWS. It must, Mr. Speaker, be a luxury to have the ability to 
think about the great sweep of economic history since the 1930s, and I 
enjoyed very much the remarks of my friend from California, but we're 
here to talk today about 2.5 million Americans who don't have that 
luxury. These are people who have been out of work for a very long 
time, and as the first of the month rolls around very soon and there's 
no rent payment or no mortgage payment in their checking account, as 
they find it difficult or impossible to pay their utility bills, their 
health care bills, and they're slipping away, these are the Americans 
that we're here to talk about this afternoon, 2.5 million Americans.
  The extension of unemployment benefits should have been done a very 
long time ago. There should not have been this wait to extend the 
benefits. Some people said that we should delay the benefits because 
people aren't looking hard enough for a job who are on unemployment. I 
would challenge those who make that assertion to go walk in the shoes 
of someone on unemployment a little while and see just how difficult it 
is to find a job.
  The problem in America today is not that people aren't looking hard 
enough for work. It is that frankly not enough jobs are being created. 
We can all agree to that. How to fix that problem is a subject of 
debate in this country and on this floor.
  But as we have that debate, isn't it the right and good and decent 
and necessary thing to do to look after the interests of those 2.5 
million Americans, and should it not have been done a while ago? Now, 
why wasn't it? There are Members who in good faith in the other body 
argued that the bill should not even be voted on, not even be taken up, 
until there was money set aside to pay for the cost of the extension of 
the unemployment benefits. That was their argument. Sounds like a 
fairly plausible argument until you look a little bit beneath the 
surface and understand these are many of the same Members of the other 
body who are calling for a permanent extension of tax reductions to the 
wealthiest Americans.
  Let me explain what that means. These are people who are saying in 
the days of a person who owns an office building and a person who was 
laid off from a job cleaning the office building, that the following 
rules ought to apply.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ANDREWS. I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I will yield additional time.
  I just want to share with you as a segue of what you're saying, these 
are remarks from Senator Kyl on the other side:
  On extending President Bush's tax cut, despite the cost, his quote, 
``You should never have to offset cost of a deliberate decision to 
reduce tax rates on Americans.''

                              {time}  1510

  These are the people that are holding up unemployment.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 
seconds.
  Mr. ANDREWS. I think my friend would say this: that that philosophy 
says that the person who got laid off from her job cleaning the office 
building at night can't get unemployment benefits unless we find a way 
to pay for it, but the guy who owns the office building, who would get 
a half million dollar a year tax break, should get that tax break 
whether or not there is money to offset that expenditure.
  Now, I just don't understand that. I don't understand a philosophy 
that says that you have to offset and pay for help to a person who 
cleans office buildings, but by no means do you have to offset a tax 
break for a person who owns the building.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has again expired.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 
seconds.
  Mr. ANDREWS. If you have that philosophy, shouldn't it, at the very 
least, have been put up for a vote? Wasn't it wrong for people in the 
other body to deter that from even coming up for a vote?
  They have gotten beyond that hump. Too little, too late in many ways, 
and we have an opportunity today to do our duty, put that issue 
squarely on the floor. Our colleagues on both sides should vote ``yes'' 
and let this House have its say and work its will so that we can 
address the very real needs of 2.5 million of our fellow citizens.
  I urge Members to vote ``yes.''
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I would point out to my colleagues across the 
aisle, Mr. Speaker, that Democrats are totally in control of Congress. 
They have been since January of 2007. In the House, the number is 255-
178. There are two vacancies. In the Senate, it's 59-41, so the 
Democrats are clearly in charge,

[[Page H5890]]

but they continue to blame Republicans who are very much in the 
minority. The American people are seeing through that, Mr. Speaker. 
They understand who has the responsibility. And I think, what the quote 
from Mr. Kyl is saying is that the money belongs to the citizens of 
this country.
  I thank my colleague from Florida for bringing it up. It proves the 
point. Our friends on the other side of the aisle think that all the 
money in this country belongs to the government and that it's up to the 
Members of Congress to decide who is going to get that money. They 
joined in with President Obama in believing that they should spread 
around the wealth, take from some and give to others. I think we have 
heard that philosophy before, but that isn't what the American people 
believe. They believe that they worked hard for their money; they 
should keep it.
  And I would also say to my colleague across the aisle, is it right 
and decent to saddle the American people with debt that is going to 
haunt us for many, many generations? Children not yet born are going to 
be given this debt while our friends across the aisle fund their pet 
projects and take from those that they wish to take from and spend 
where they want to.
  There wouldn't need to have been any kind of wait because, again, you 
are in the majority. You could do this.
  I want to say again, Republicans are very sympathetic to those who 
have lost their jobs, but the problems came when our colleagues across 
the aisle began irresponsible spending when they took over the 
Congress, adding rules and regulations. We know what drives jobs away. 
It's increased government spending and it's increased rules and 
regulations.
  I think that we have to point out the liberal Democrat agenda has 
failed. Our friends across the aisle need to go back to the drawing 
board and come back to the American people with real solutions to their 
real problems.
  We are in touch with those folks. I go home every weekend and I talk 
to the people in my district and they tell me they are very concerned 
about the future of this country. I can't tell you, Mr. Speaker, how 
many people tell me every weekend, I am frightened to death for the 
future of this country based on what is happening in Washington these 
days.
  This isn't the time to dither and blame the Republican minority for 
the disappointing collapse of governments we have seen since the 
liberal majority seized control of Congress in 2007.
  As I said, my colleague from Florida said earlier that job creation 
is the number one priority for Democrats. Well, obviously, they are 
missing the mark. Their spending programs have destroyed, not created, 
jobs.
  Albert Einstein is credited with saying the definition of insanity is 
doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different 
results. Well, our colleagues keep doing the same thing over and over 
again and expect different results. They are not going to get different 
results as long as they have these irresponsible policies.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased at this time 
to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from not very far 
from here, Maryland, Donna Edwards.
  Ms. EDWARDS of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, look, at 3 o'clock this 
afternoon, 2,742,660 Americans were denied an extension of their 
unemployment benefits. It's just that simple. And I have heard the 
arguments on the other side, but when a liberal goes in to buy bread, 
nobody says that's liberal bread. When a conservative goes in to buy 
cereal, nobody says that's conservative cereal. When Republicans go in 
to pay their rent, nobody says that's Republican rent. When Democrats 
go in to pay that electric bill, nobody says that it's a Democratic 
electric bill.
  Yet here on this floor, we have heard time and time again about 
liberals and conservatives and Republicans and Democrats. And when 
Americans are unemployed, it really doesn't matter what any of those 
labels are because they are trying to feed their families. They are 
trying to take care of their responsibilities. They have paid in, in 
many cases, for years and years and years, into an unemployment 
compensation insurance fund, and now that it's time to draw on it, our 
Republican colleagues want to deny them the opportunity to get what is 
justly theirs.
  Now, our Republican colleagues a number of times, first in March of 
2010 this year, 85 percent of them voted ``no'' for extending 
unemployment benefits. April 15, 93 percent of them voted ``no'' for 
extending unemployment benefits. On the 20th of July, we don't know. 
Are we going to again vote not to extend unemployment benefits to those 
who have run out of employment benefits, those who are not employed, to 
those who work hard every day going out there searching for jobs?
  So the Republicans want to extend tax benefits for the wealthiest of 
Americans, billions and billions of dollars, but they don't want to 
extend unemployment benefits for people who have done everything that 
we have asked them to and they can't find a job. Republicans don't want 
to create jobs. They don't want to give unemployment benefits.
  I have to ask. I mean, I just think that at home people are saying, 
What in the world is going on here? It's time to stop it. It's time to 
extend unemployment benefits, and it's time for Republicans to stop 
playing games, because this is about jobs.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  In response to my good friend from California, firstly, I would argue 
with you that California is not necessarily the greatest State in the 
Union. We happen to have 50 great States and six wonderful territories 
in this great country of ours. But coming from Florida, I find that 
rivalry worthwhile. We will match him any day.
  This Congress, when he speaks in terms of the measure that we are 
proceeding on, from the standpoint of process, this Congress alone 
provided suspension authority on a day other than Monday, Tuesday, or 
Wednesday, has allowed for passage of the Iran sanctions conference 
report, a paid-for doc fix, the Small Business Microlending Expansion 
Act, the Medicare Premium Fairness Act, and a resolution recognizing 
Israel's right to defend itself against attacks from Gaza, sponsored by 
the Speaker along with Representatives Boehner and Cantor.

                              {time}  1520

  This same-day authority has allowed for passage of several bills that 
have already become law, including a bill authorizing the Oil Liability 
Trust Fund for the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, legislation expanding 
the Small Business Loan Guarantee program, legislation for the 
Temporary Extensions Act and the Worker, Homeownership, and Business 
Assistance Act. All of these bills passed with overwhelming support 
from the House.
  This same process has not only benefited majority Members, it 
benefited Republican Members as well. Representatives Luetkemeyer, 
Gingrey, Tiberi, Calvert, Reichert, Platts, Fallin, Schock, 
Fortenberry, Carter, and Lee have all benefited from this provision by 
having their legislation adopted under suspension of the rules in spite 
of what day of the week it was. So much for that. Back to the point 
dealing with unemployment.
  People think that this stuff is done in a vacuum sometimes. Well, 
Senate Republicans have repeatedly obstructed job creation legislation 
that extended critical unemployment insurance benefits to help 
Americans who lost their job through no fault of their own make ends 
meet as they look for their next job opportunity.
  The Republican obstruction is unprecedented. Since 1959, Congress has 
never allowed unemployment benefits to expire when unemployment is more 
than 7.2 percent. There are a considerable number of economists--Alan 
Blinder, Ralph Martire and, then more important, the Center on Budget 
and Policy Priorities--who say that for every $1 spent on unemployment 
it creates $1.90. So, really, the best stimulus for this economy 
suggests, as the economists do, that it is stimulated much more by 
spending on unemployment than we would tax cuts.
  I want to say one final thing on tax cuts. I have two personal 
friends that are fortunate enough in this country to be billionaires. 
They earned their money the hard way; they earned their money during 
good and bad times, and

[[Page H5891]]

none of us hold any truck with either of those billionaires. I know two 
other billionaires personally, and not one of them before has ever said 
that they favored tax cuts--just to talk about some of the American 
people--they manage regardless.
  Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Oregon, a good friend of mine, Mr. 
DeFazio.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I was in my office and heard this debate, 
which was sort of a departure from reality on the Republican side of 
the aisle. They say we should blame the victims of the Wall Street-led 
crash in America. These people are lazy; they don't want to work. Why, 
if we just cut off their unemployment benefits, maybe they will go out 
and find a job. The jobs don't exist. They were destroyed by greed on 
Wall Street, by the reckless Republican policies of deregulation at any 
cost, of tax cuts for the wealthiest among us because trickle down 
would help the working people of America and put them back to work. 
Craziness.
  I have 60,000 Oregonians, a State with over 10 percent unemployment, 
hard hit who will benefit from this bill. Now, they would say that's a 
special interest or an earmark to help 60,000 Oregonians who have 
exhausted their unemployment benefits. Let me just talk about one who I 
met in the unemployment office. Shame on you on that side of the aisle. 
Shame on you.


                Announcement By the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members will address their remarks to the 
Chair, not to other Members in the second person.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Shame on those who would not extend unemployment 
benefits, whoever they might be--I think they're on that side of the 
aisle.
  Now, this gentleman, hardworking construction worker, older guy, 
fifties, 30 years never been unemployed, 30 years. He lost his job. 
Kind of a tough market for an older construction worker. He was in the 
unemployment office, initially pretty hostile; and afterwards he came 
over and he apologized and he said, I know you're not responsible for 
this. I know it was the Bush administration, and their policies put us 
in this mess, but I'm desperate, I'm desperate because my wife is 
really sick. And I can get extended health care benefits under COBRA 
for 900 bucks a month because I had a pretty good plan, but my 
unemployment is only about 1,200 bucks a month--Easy Street, the 
Republicans talk about, these people are living on Easy Street with 
$1,200 a month. $900 a month for health insurance for a desperately ill 
wife. How does he pay the mortgage? How does he feed the kids?
  Now, come on, let's get real here. You don't want to pay for tax cuts 
for the wealthy. You didn't pay for a $1 trillion war in Iraq that we 
didn't need, but now we've got to pay for the emergency unemployment 
benefits. Humbug.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will note that the gentleman from 
Florida has 2 minutes remaining and the gentlewoman from North Carolina 
has 7\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this 
same-day rule, reject the liberal agenda that continues to distract 
from private sector job creation and getting our economy back on its 
feet.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, he fought his way all the way 
over here, and even though I have but 2 minutes, I would like to share 
1 of my minutes with Mr. Langevin.
  I would inquire of my good friend from North Carolina if she would be 
so kind as to yield 30 seconds to Mr. Langevin as well.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to reclaim my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from North Carolina?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I would be more than happy to yield 30 seconds 
to Mr. Langevin.
  Mr. LANGEVIN. I thank both the gentleman and the gentlelady for 
yielding time on this very important issue. I am very grateful.
  I do rise in strong support of this rule for consideration of H.R. 
4213, the Restoration of Emergency Unemployment Compensation Act. This 
very important bill provides a critical boost for more than 2.5 million 
Americans across the Nation, including 6,000 Rhode Islanders right now 
who are struggling to find employment. Not only that, but for every $1 
spent on unemployment benefits, $1.90 is put back into the economy. 
These benefits are crucial for working families as they search for new 
opportunities in a very tight job market.
  In my home State of Rhode Island, we have the country's fourth 
highest unemployment rate at over 12 percent. Through recovery funds, 
we have recently implemented Jobs Now Rhode Island, a job training 
program that in the past 2 months has successfully put more than 300 
Rhode Islanders back to work. I recently met with some of these workers 
at Capco Steel. A couple had been out of work for a few months, while 
for others this was their first job in a few years. This visit reminded 
me that as Members of Congress we have the obligation not only to help 
create jobs, but also to give hardworking Americans another chance to 
continue their job search and provide for their families.
  I encourage my colleagues to pass this bill and help those who are 
most vulnerable right now during these trying times. We are going to 
get through this tough economy, but we have to help people with their 
immediate needs, and unemployment extension does that.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, we stand ready to provide those 
struggling to find work this small reprieve; and Democrats in Congress 
are also committed to putting forth the necessary effort to create 
jobs, spur economic growth, and put our country once again on the road 
to prosperity.

                              {time}  1530

  But, in the meantime, we have a responsibility to ensure that those 
most profoundly affected by these difficult times are able to stay 
afloat--to feed their families, to keep their homes, and to continue to 
search for new jobs. We must not play political football with 
unemployment insurance. It is simply too fundamental to the livelihoods 
of millions of Americans. Our economy is starting to turn around, and 
the American people cannot afford to wait another second, let alone 30 
hours for the United States Senate to act.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Gohmert).
  Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I was hearing my friend across the aisle. 
He was yelling about things not being paid for when, actually, what 
happened was, in my first 2 years here, in 2005 and 2006, our friends 
across the aisle pointed out to voters, These guys are running a $100 
billion, $200 billion budget, so elect us, put us in the majority, and 
we will stop the insane deficit spending. We will make sure every bill 
is paid for.
  So the voters took them up on that. They gave our friends across the 
aisle, Mr. Speaker, the majority, and said, Okay, you guys say you 
won't deficit spend like the Republicans had started doing.
  The Republicans balanced the budget in the late 1990s, but they got 
away from it and got giddy when President Bush got elected. So, in 
January 2007, it was the Democrats' job to do what they had promised 
the voters they would do. That promise has not been kept.
  PAYGO was passed as a rule, but then that promise was not kept. I 
voted for PAYGO previously but not this last time because I found out 
it was a joke, that it was not intended to do what it said because, 
every time a bill comes along that they want to pass, they just do a 
rule that goes around it. There was no sense in that. This could be 
easily paid for.
  For all of those people whose eyes we look into who have lost their 
jobs--we see them at job fairs, and we see them around, looking for 
jobs--we've got to tell them that we have all of these little pet 
projects that we don't want to give up the money for. So, therefore, 
you're going to stay out of work because we're not going to let the 
private sector have the capital they need to create jobs.
  Yes, we're going to provide the unemployment benefits. That would be 
fine. But don't force other people not to

[[Page H5892]]

have jobs because we don't create the capital by stopping the insane 
deficit spending. You hurt people. Yes, you help people by giving them 
unemployment benefits further, but you hurt people because they can't 
go get jobs because the jobs can't be created because we won't give up 
the little pet projects.
  Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in full support of this emergency 
legislation that will restore the safety net to millions of American 
families. Those families have been desperately waiting for this relief 
since June. Their faith in us had been tested, but today, I am pleased 
to say we can extend them the help that they need.
  My colleagues have heard me speak of the legendary mayor of Boston, 
James Michael Curley. A truly gifted orator.
  Curley spoke with great empathy about the forgotten man, those 
individuals who for whatever reason have found themselves outside of 
the mainstream of economic life. He also would suggest that, in 
simplicity, that the great ally of civilization was a full stomach. And 
we need to be reminded of that with the grim economic statistics that 
America is currently witnessing.
  Now, also another very pertinent reminder here that I think that we 
all ought to recall: in October of 2008, in record time this House 
voted to come to the aid of Wall Street. It didn't take us long, with 
the Troubled Asset Relief Program, to keep standing many of those 
institutions that helped create the problem that we find ourselves 
currently in.
  Is that relevant today? There are millions of people across this 
country who have simply found themselves without work. What does that 
do to an individual who has spent a career, and after 30 years finds 
the job is gone? And we treat them as though they are simply a 
statistic after perhaps they served us in an honorable manner in 
Vietnam, or currently in Iraq, or Afghanistan, or other theaters around 
the world?
  America's about building community, Mr. Speaker. America's about a 
place where nobody's to be abandoned and nobody's to be left behind. 
The great bounty of God's work has been to ensure that most people in 
America have shelter and food. This opportunity to extend unemployment 
benefits for the American people ought to meet this moment.
  I urge adoption.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the 
previous question on the same-day rule.
  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 noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. 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 1537 will be followed by 5-minute votes 
on suspending the rules with regard to H.R. 5566 and House Resolution 
1411, if ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 233, 
nays 185, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 458]

                               YEAS--233

     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
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     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 (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ellison
     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
     Kissell
     Klein (FL)
     Kosmas
     Kratovil
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney
     Markey (MA)
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McMahon
     McNerney
     Meeks (NY)
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy (NY)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Nadler (NY)
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     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
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--185

     Aderholt
     Adler (NJ)
     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-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Cao
     Capito
     Carney
     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
     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)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kirkpatrick (AZ)
     Kline (MN)
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lee (NY)
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Markey (CO)
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Minnick
     Mitchell
     Murphy, Tim
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Nye
     Olson
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     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
     Teague
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Capuano
     Clarke
     Fallin
     Hoekstra
     King (NY)
     Lee (CA)
     Mack
     Meek (FL)
     Melancon
     Moran (KS)
     Ortiz
     Radanovich
     Tiahrt
     Wamp

                              {time}  1602

  Messrs. MANZULLO, TIBERI, CULBERSON, BAIRD, MINNICK, and Ms. MARKEY 
of Colorado changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. LOEBSACK changed his 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.

                          ____________________