[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 10]
[House]
[Pages 12979-12986]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




  PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2185, UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION 
                           AMENDMENTS OF 2003

  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the 
Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 248 and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 248

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order without intervention of any point of order 
     to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 2185) to extend the 
     Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 2002. The 
     bill shall be considered as read for amendment. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill to final 
     passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of 
     debate on the bill equally divided and controlled by the 
     chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways 
     and Means; and (2) one motion to recommit.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln 
Diaz-Balart) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of 
debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as 
I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time 
yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 248 is a closed rule, providing for the 
consideration of H.R. 2185, an extension of the Federal Temporary 
Extended Unemployment Compensation Program. The rule provides 1 hour of 
general debate, evenly divided and controlled by the chairman and 
ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  The rule also provides one motion to recommit, with or without 
instructions. This is a fair rule and one that will expedite the debate 
of this important extension so that we can provide needed economic 
security to the unemployed.
  H.R. 2185 will provide for a 13-week extension of benefits for the 
unemployed. This legislation once again provides a total of 26 weeks of 
benefits to those in designated ``high unemployment'' States.
  The extension of benefits under the Federal Temporary Extended 
Unemployment Compensation Program is set to have expired at the end of 
this month. I am pleased to bring this rule to the floor as this House 
responds to those who are without work. With passage of this bill, we 
ensure there is no break in essential benefits to families across the 
country.
  H.R. 2185 provides over $7 billion in extended Federal unemployment 
benefits in addition to the $16 billion that this Congress has 
previously approved for both State and Federal unemployment. With the 
original legislation in March of 2002 and the first extension in 
January of this year, Congress has succeeded in assuring those families 
in need will have the funds precisely to put food on the table and pay 
for child care so that they can focus on becoming employed once again. 
In fact, this extension will help 2.5 million people in addition to the 
5 million that have been helped through previous extensions.
  I would like to highlight the previous work by this body to not only 
provide Federal unemployment benefits but also $8 billion to the 
individual States for use in their individual unemployment programs.

                              {time}  1500

  I would like to thank the gentleman from California (Chairman Thomas) 
for his leadership and the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Dunn) for 
sponsoring this important legislation. H.R. 2185 is important 
legislation, important to the continued economic health of families in 
all of the 50 States.
  Mr. Speaker, hopefully this should be a bipartisan effort to provide 
benefits to the unemployed, and this rule allows this Chamber to 
consider it and consider it today. Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, I urge my 
colleagues to support both the rule and the underlying legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule. Once again, the 
Republican leadership is turning its back on working Americans. Last 
night, President Bush told over 7,500 wealthy Republican donors that 
this is a strong and compassionate country.
  Mr. Speaker, this economy is anything but strong, and this leadership 
is anything but compassionate. I am sure the people in that crowd, the 
crowd that raised $22 million for the Republican Party, cheered and 
clapped their hands every time somebody mentioned the Republican tax 
bill, or, as some have called it, the ``No Millionaire Left Behind 
Bill.'' But what about the rest of the country? What about the people 
struggling to find work? They do not have as much to cheer about.
  Let us look at the facts: over 2.7 million jobs have been lost since 
President Bush took office in 2001; long-term unemployment is at a 30-
year high; the average length of unemployment is the highest since 
1984; the economy has lost 500,000 jobs in the last 3 months; there are 
currently three unemployed workers competing for every available job.
  Mr. Speaker, people are out of work, and they need help. The 
Republican leadership's solution is to be dragged, kicking and 
screaming, into doing the absolute minimum. Their proposal will 
continue to leave over 1 million unemployed workers in the cold.
  We have seen this rerun before. The Republican leadership voluntarily 
let unemployment insurance expire last December, forcing millions of 
Americans to worry about how they would provide for their families 
during and after the holidays. Two weeks later they proposed a plan 
that denied 1 million people unemployment insurance.
  That is compassionate? These unemployed Americans are not deadbeats. 
They are our neighbors, friends, and relatives. They do not want a 
handout, they want a job, but they need help while they search for a 
job.
  It is well established that unemployment insurance provides a better 
stimulus than dividend tax cuts. In fact, we will see a $1.73 return 
for every dollar invested in unemployed Americans. As an investment 
tool, expanding unemployment insurance is good policy, but it is also 
the morally right thing to do. Unemployment insurance is a safety net 
for American workers who lose their jobs through no fault of their own, 
and we have a moral responsibility to not let these workers down.
  Now, before this current economic crisis, no Congress had ever 
extended unemployment insurance without including workers who already 
exhausted their Federal unemployment. But for the second time this 
year, the Republican leadership lets these workers down by cutting out 
the unemployed who have already exhausted their coverage.
  This leadership should be ashamed of themselves for this disingenuous 
and insufficient bill. But they are not.
  The unemployed deserve better until the job market improves, and the 
ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means has a bill to do just 
that. His bill would provide unemployment insurance for workers who are 
currently unemployed and are exhausting their coverage, and I support 
that plan.
  But the Republican leadership has once again tossed aside the 
democratic process by denying the House the right to debate and vote on 
the proposed substitute offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Rangel). At the end of this debate, I will move the previous question; 
and if defeated, I will offer an amendment to make the Rangel 
substitute in order.
  The only reason I can think of to deny the Rangel substitute is that 
the Republican leadership is terrified that it might actually pass. It 
is the same reason we were not allowed to vote on the amendment offered 
by the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cooper)

[[Page 12980]]

and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen) on worker rights at 
the Pentagon.
  Instead of fostering the free and open debate that the American 
people deserve on these issues, we are once again forced into this 
unfair, closed procedure. In the long run the democratic process will 
suffer, but today it is the unemployed workers of America who are hurt 
by the actions of this leadership.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in defeating the previous question, 
and, if that effort fails, voting ``no'' on the rule.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I just want to reiterate and make clear that the 
legislation before us that we are bringing to the floor with this rule 
will provide for a 13-week extension of unemployment benefits in the 
Nation, and the legislation once again provides a total of 26 weeks of 
benefits to those in designated high-unemployment States.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I remind the gentleman that his proposal still leaves 1 
million American workers out in the cold.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, sometimes when a President 
flies somewhere, part of his trip is charged to his party's political 
committee because the trip is partly governmental and partly political.
  The expenses for running the House for the next hour ought to be 
charged to the Republican Congressional Campaign Committee, because the 
purpose of this rule and of other rules we have seen so far is 
incumbent protection for the Republican Party.
  What they have done is to shut down democracy within the House. It is 
democratic in the sense that you get elected to get here, but then it 
becomes authoritarian. There will be no free speech, there will be no 
chance to consider tough issues. Why? Not simply because we do not have 
enough time. We do not work very much around here. We do this to 
protect Republican incumbents from having to vote on difficult issues.
  The purpose of the Committee on Rules is to make sure that 
Republicans can follow an extremely conservative leadership and do 
things that would be unpopular and then pretend that they had no 
choice. How does that happen? They vote for rules which prevent them 
from voting on these issues. They then go in a great act of fakery to 
their constituents and say, Gee, I would have been with you, but I did 
not get a chance to vote on that issue, having themselves voted on the 
procedure which kept the issue off the floor. We cannot vote on 
important issues in the defense bill; we cannot vote on an alternative 
unemployment compensation.
  It is a conscious and deliberate pattern, and it is particularly to 
accommodate that extraordinary breed known as the ``moderate 
Republican.'' They specialize in razzle-dazzle. They specialize in 
being loyal executors of extreme right-wing policies, but in a way that 
allows them to go home and disclaim any responsibility for what they 
were doing. It would not be plausible to claim they were drunk for an 
entire session. That is usually the way people explain that sort of 
thing.
  So what they do is to vote for rules, procedures that keep 
controversial issues off the floor, so they can then go and mislead 
their constituents by saying that they would have supported their 
position, but they did not have a chance to do it.
  It is a self-inflicted constraint. It is the reverse Houdini. Houdini 
used to have people tie him in knots, and he would go before the people 
and untie the knots. What moderate Republicans do is the reverse 
Houdini. The moderate Republicans tie themselves in knots, and then 
they go before the voters and say, Gee, I'm sorry I couldn't help you, 
but I was all tied up in knots.
  Let us vote against this rule and put an end to the most fundamental, 
political and intellectual dishonesty.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, it is wonderful to see the imagination on the other side 
of the aisle. In case somebody is watching this debate or listening to 
it, I would like to get us back to what we are debating.
  H.R. 2185 will provide for a 13-week extension of benefits for the 
unemployed in the United States, and the legislation once again 
provides a total of 26 weeks of benefits to those in designated high-
unemployment States.
  I recall the debate we had last week when the ``theme du jour'' was 
that these unemployment benefits were going to expire before the end of 
May. Well, we are acting today so that they will not expire, and there 
will be another 13 weeks of benefits, plus 26 weeks in the high-
unemployment States that are designated as such.
  So that is what is before us today. It is an important piece of 
legislation. That is why I will continue to urge my colleagues to 
support both the rule and the underlying legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, again I remind those watching that under their bill, 1 
million American workers will be left in the cold with no benefits.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Dakota 
(Mr. Pomeroy).
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, this is quite a day in the life of 
Congress. We are going to pass a $350 billion tax cut, 75 percent of 
which goes to the wealthiest 5 percent of the households in this 
country. We are going to authorize the Federal Government to borrow 
almost an additional $1 trillion. The day of the big tax cut is the day 
we vote the largest extension of borrowing authority to this country, 
in light of the red ink we will run, ever enacted.
  So, in the middle of all of this, it appeared certain that nothing 
would be done to address the fate of our unemployed workers. Only in 
the last few hours has this plan emerged; and we are glad it has, as 
far as it goes. Certainly something needed to be done, because the 
economic performance of the country has been abysmal: 2.7 million 
private sector jobs lost over the last 2 years, an extraordinary 
decrease; 3.4 unemployed workers for every single job opening.
  Now, under this circumstance, people try to find work, but they 
cannot find work, so their unemployment benefits run out.
  I am going to ask for a ``no'' vote on this rule, however, because 
the proposal brought before us has a fatal flaw. It only extends 
benefits if your benefits have not lapsed. If you were unfortunate 
enough to lose your job, been on the job market, pounding the shoe 
leather, sending out resumes, looking everywhere for employment, but 
have not found employment before your unemployment benefits lapsed, 
guess what? You will not get any extension, you will not get any 
relief, under the measure brought before the House.
  Now, we have an amendment to offer to cure this fatal flaw of the 
majority proposal so that people whose benefits have lapsed also get 
some help. Lord knows they need it. But we are not allowed to offer 
that amendment.
  What could be more ridiculous? We will extend benefits if you have 
not lapsed yet; but if you have lapsed, you get no help whatsoever. 
Well, you think, that must have been inadvertent somehow. Let us fix 
that.
  They will not let us fix that with an amendment. That is why the rule 
is unfair. That is why the response is inadequate. Vote ``no'' on the 
rule.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Cardin).
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, last week Democrats tried to get a vote on extending 
unemployment benefits three times on the floor of this House. Each time 
the Republican majority said no. So we are happy that the Republican 
leadership has finally agreed to consider this very

[[Page 12981]]

important issue. However, we are concerned that the bill being brought 
to the floor today will exclude more than 1 million unemployed workers.
  The legislation filed with the Committee on Rules last night extends 
unemployment benefits only for those exhausting their regular 
unemployment compensation. It does nothing for those who have exhausted 
their Federal unemployment, 13 weeks.
  This is certainly an important step in the right direction. However, 
the Republican bill does not provide any assistance for those workers 
who have already run out of their 13 weeks of extended benefits. More 
than 1 million Americans now fall into this category.
  Given that we are in the longest period of negative job growth since 
the Great Depression, I cannot understand why we would want to deny 
unemployment benefits to Americans suffering from long-term 
unemployment.
  As my friend from North Dakota pointed out, for every person who is 
unemployed, there are three people looking for a job, for every job 
available. These individuals are looking for jobs that simply cannot be 
found.
  We recently had a report that came back that showed there are 70 
percent more workers who have exhausted their Federal benefits during 
this recession than during the 1990s; yet in the 1990s we extended the 
number of weeks beyond what we are extending in this legislation.
  Without unemployment compensation, how are these families going to 
pay their rent or mortgage? Last month, Mr. Speaker, one of these long-
term unemployed workers came and testified before the Committee on Ways 
and Means. His name was Joe Bergmann. Over the last year and a half, 
Joe has sent out 2,000 resumes, searched 32 job sites on the Internet, 
and has taken extra training classes; but he still is unable to find a 
job. Joe has worked his entire adult life, but is now having a hard 
time in an economy that has lost 2.7 million jobs.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject the previous question so 
that we can extend unemployment benefits for every worker that has lost 
their job during this very difficult economy. It is the right thing to 
do, to extend the benefits to all who need the help.
  We have the money in the Federal unemployment trust funds; $21 
billion is in those funds. It will adequately cover not only the 
extension of the 13 weeks, but the extra benefits for those who have 
exhausted their Federal unemployment compensation benefits.

                              {time}  1515

  We have the money. By defeating the previous question, we can have 
the right legislative solution. We can do it before we adjourn.
  I urge my colleagues to reject the previous question.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Levin).
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, they say a half a loaf is better than none. 
This is a half a loaf. It will help one million workers who have been 
left out or threatened to be left out in the cold. But there are 
actually more than one million people who have been out of work or will 
be out of work for longer than the 9 months who are going to be just 
given the cold shoulder by what the Republicans are doing here today.
  They refuse to give us the chance to provide some benefits for those 
who have been looking for work but have been out of work for more than 
9 months. It is ironic, those out of work the longest get the cold 
shoulder from the Republicans.
  Mr. Speaker, it was just a few days ago that the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. DeLay) said, ``I think it is a stretch to say that we are at a 
crisis point.'' So there was no action on unemployment comp. I guess 
Mr. Rove called up and said, politically, you had better cover your 
base. So here we are today. But covering a political base is not going 
to help close to two million people who have either exhausted their 
benefits or will soon do that altogether.
  I was looking at the data, and it is really sad. They talk, the 
gentlemen from the Committee on Rules, about the States that have 
triggered in to extended benefits beyond the 39. That is only six 
States. The majority of workers in the majority of States are also left 
out in the cold.
  By the way, it is not only their needs, it is the need of the 
country. When we provide unemployment comp benefits, we provide money 
into the economy to grow the GDP, because people who are unemployed 
tend to spend the money they receive through benefits.
  So what are they afraid of? Why do they not let us bring before the 
floor the second half of that loaf? What are they afraid of? Answer 
that question. Why not give us a chance to bring it up? Why a rule that 
turns the cold shoulder in the end to two million Americans? I would be 
glad to have an answer.
  Instead, the Republicans sit silently. They say there is no crisis 
and, at the last minute, act. I urge that we reject the rule.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. McDermott).
  Mr. McDERMOTT. A few minutes ago, Mr. Speaker, I came out and talked 
about this being a rubber stamp Congress. We now have a perfect 
example.
  We brought up in the Committee on Ways and Means at least three or 
four times, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) did, the issue of 
unemployment. The chairman said, whoa, we cannot do anything about 
that. We cannot do anything about that. The person who sponsors the 
bill today voted no against it in the committee again and again and 
again.
  Then we come out here on the floor and they say, oh, no, we cannot 
vote for unemployment.
  Then they must have done a poll and the poll must have come back real 
bad, because we have a bill here that we are going to vote on what 
about 90 percent of the people in this House will have never even seen. 
They will not know what it says here. It was filed on May 21. Would 
that be yesterday?
  This has not had any hearings, no testimony from anybody to come in 
and talk about this issue, and we run it out here and we put it under 
martial law and we run it through the House. If that is not a rubber 
stamp for the White House, I do not know what is.
  They have Mr. Rove down there. He gins up all kinds of destruction in 
Colorado and Texas. He also runs what happens on this floor. The junta 
up in the leadership office, that junta says, Mr. Thomas, you cannot 
handle this. We will send it straight to Rules. You are not smart 
enough to get a bill out or handle any kind of discussion about what is 
going on.
  It is an absolute destruction of the process. They ought to allow us 
to have amendments to fix this. We heard from the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Levin) that there are problems. There are one million 
people who are not covered by this.
  Even Mr. Greenspan says that probably people who are not getting jobs 
now are not doing it because they like being on unemployment. They 
cannot find work. Why would we leave $20 billion in the unemployment 
fund put there by these very people? Why would we not give it to them 
during this period? It is because the rubber stamp at the White House 
has come out, boom, this is what we are doing. And our leadership on 
the other side, they get all in line and say, folks, this is what we 
are doing.
  Here, the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Dunn), put this bill in. 
They put it in last night. They have a Committee on Rules meeting at 11 
o'clock after they have a $22 million fundraiser. They all troop back 
in and say, great, now let us get things ready for tomorrow. This is 
what we get. Maybe we will be here tomorrow doing more rubber stamp 
stuff. We are going to do unemployment and this tax bill so they can go 
home and say they have handled unemployment.
  I come from a State with the highest unemployment in the country. 
When that happened before, we had people who were defeated who voted 
against it, so they remembered. Now we must come with this bill, so 
rubber stamp it. ``Get ready, guys. Bring your rubber

[[Page 12982]]

stamps from the office when you come over.''
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Solis).
  Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  I rise, Mr. Speaker, and I am also happy to see that our colleagues 
on the other side of the aisle have finally agreed to consider an 
extension of unemployment compensation. It is about time.
  But Mr. Speaker, it is only half a loaf. It is a bill that is much 
needed to help 2.7 million Americans that have lost their jobs, but it 
does not go far enough. I am again disappointed that my colleagues on 
the other side of the aisle refuse to allow us the opportunity to 
improve upon that bill.
  I say that very genuinely because in my own State of California over 
351,000 workers have lost their jobs since President Bush took office. 
I know this because in my own district I represent a portion of Los 
Angeles County, East Los Angeles. The cities of El Monte and Azusa have 
had upwards of 10 percent unemployment for over 2 years.
  Where is the relief for our communities? Where is the relief for 
people wanting to earn good money and good-paying jobs? Even that tax 
cut that we are going to be voting on that some of them are supporting 
is not even going to provide any relief to those workers.
  I ask Members to please allow our party, our side of the aisle, to 
amend the bill and promote goodwill for those millions of workers and 
the chronically underemployed Latinos, disadvantaged folks, that have 
been waiting for something to happen here in the House of 
Representatives. I am ashamed to go home and not provide relief for 
those more than one million workers and a large number that I represent 
in California.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time 
to me.
  I do not doubt for a minute that the Republicans would have been 
perfectly happy, probably preferred, to go home for a week letting 
unemployment benefits expire; give tax cuts to the rich today, that is 
the number one priority, $350 billion, most of which goes to the 
richest Americans, and zip to the unemployed. Actually, they did it at 
Christmastime, right before Christmas, let those benefits expire.
  But after the Democrats pushed and pushed, and maybe there was some 
polling done, they decided to not only do something for the Bush class 
but to do something for the middle class and for the unemployed 
workers, $5 billion compared to $350 billion. Okay, we are grateful for 
that.
  But over a $100,000 tax cut to Secretary of the Treasury Snow and 
still zero dollars for the more than one million workers who are still 
out of work, 53,000 in Illinois. Some over on the other side of the 
aisle have fretted about, oh, unemployment benefits, they just 
encourage people to stay home and not look for a job. How dare they? 
These people want a job, and this administration and its economic plan 
has been nothing but a job-killer, a job-killer. We have seen the loss 
of over 2.5 million jobs since this President has come in. The economy 
is going down.
  These people want to work. People in my own family who have been laid 
off, they want nothing more than a good job. These people do not want 
unemployment insurance benefits. They want a job. But at the very 
least, we should be making sure that all those people who play by the 
rules, are looking for a job every day, get something.
  On this floor of this House we should be able to debate alternatives. 
We are just cut off. Why? Because our alternative is better. It 
addresses the need for the American people, and that is exactly what 
the Republicans do not want to hear. They do not want to give anyone a 
chance to vote on our better plan. We should be voting no on the rule.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to 
my colleague and friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica).
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. 
I apologize for my voice, which I am unfortunately losing. But before I 
lose my voice, I think it is important that someone respond to the 
rhetoric we have heard from the other side of the aisle.
  Once again, the other side of the aisle offers the American people 
their solution for the economy. That is unlimited unemployment 
benefits. I think Republicans are compassionate people, and we are 
taking care of those who have lost their jobs. The other side of the 
aisle, their solution has been increased taxation, increased 
regulation, increased litigation. Unfortunately, from the other side of 
the aisle, my friends and colleagues, they do not have a clue, a clue 
as to how we create jobs in business.
  I have $20 here. If I send this $20 to Washington, I do not have $20 
to spend, I do not have $20 to invest.

                              {time}  1530

  It takes capital. I do not think they have a clue as to basic free 
enterprise or business investment tenets. People have to have money in 
their pockets. They want to put more money in Washington. They want 
them to rely on the government for unemployment benefits. If you want 
to stimulate business, well, first of all, most of them should go out 
and try to start a business. When you have increased taxation and you 
send more money to Washington, you have fewer people to invest in that 
business. A basic tenet. When you send more money to Washington, you 
have less money to spend, and it hurts the poor the most because they 
have the least amount of money, and you cannot start a business. When 
you have increased regulation, which they have spent 30 and 40 years 
piling regulations on the business man and woman, it is impossible to 
start a business.
  Would you start a business? I cannot tell you how happy I am to be 
out of a business because of government regulation, taxation, and then 
finally litigation, the protectors of litigation. So we become the most 
lawsuit-happy land in the world. And we drive businesses overseas 
because of taxation, because of regulation, and because of litigation.
  Would you want to get into business in the United States of America 
today with the opportunity to be sued at every corner? Small business 
people, the largest employer in this country, by far the largest 
employer, they are backing off of providing health insurance benefits. 
We have more people without health insurance benefits. Why? Because the 
other side blocks litigation reform and they have gone crazy with 
lawsuits. And a few people are benefiting and the rest of us are 
paying. People who can least afford it are not having health care 
coverage; small business operators are unable to provide health care 
coverage.
  So that is their plan, increased taxation, increased litigation, 
increased government regulation. And then finally, here they offer 
their grand plan, unlimited unemployment extension. No one has come up 
to me and said, I want unlimited unemployment benefits from the Federal 
Government. I want a job. I want an opportunity to share in the 
American Dream. I want health care coverage. I do not want more suits, 
more money to go to Washington, less control of my life, less control 
of my money.
  I have heard it, and I think we have all heard it. The song and dance 
from the other side just does not work, will not work. Even the former 
Soviet Union tried a full government plan. It did not work. So now we 
have a choice. We will have a tax and economic package before us that 
puts more money in the hands of the American people. It gives them an 
opportunity. It gives people an opportunity for a job, not just for an 
extension of unemployment benefits.
  The Republicans are compassionate. They have provided for both an 
extension of unemployment benefits but also for hope and opportunity 
and for an America we all want for the future.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would say to the gentleman that what we want is help for unemployed 
workers, and your plan leaves a million workers out in the cold, and 
that is not the least bit compassionate.

[[Page 12983]]

  Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. Frank).
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I just have to express my 
dismay at the anti-American diatribe we have just heard. I am sorry to 
hear this defeatist attitude about the American economy. The American 
economy continues to be a vibrant one overall, and to have it so 
thoroughly denigrated and to be told that no one ought to want to go 
into business in America is a shockingly anti-American approach.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lofgren).
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, this rule should be rejected because the 
bill is unfair.
  Under this bill, thousands of jobless Californians will get an 
additional 13 weeks of unemployment instead of the 26 weeks that other 
States will get because California is not considered a high-
unemployment State.
  Well, tell that to the people of Santa Clara County. An editorial in 
today's San Jose Mercury News lays out the facts. Since President Bush 
took office in January of 2001, 2.6 million jobs have vanished in 
America, 239,000 of them in Santa Clara County gone.
  We have had a 42 percent decrease in venture capital. The 
unemployment rate in San Jose is now a whopping 8.5 percent, and San 
Jose has lost nearly 16 percent of its jobs. Yet this bill does not 
treat Santa Clara County as a high-unemployment area, even though my 
county has more population than many States, including North and South 
Dakota, Montana, Wyoming, Delaware and many others to name just a few.
  This rule does not even let us debate whether a 26-week extension is 
appropriate, not just for the 6 States the Republicans consider to be 
high unemployment, but for cities like San Jose who are well above the 
national unemployment rate. I hear and get e-mails from people all the 
time, qualified, educated people who have been laid off, who send out 
thousands of resumes and cannot even get an interview, people who have 
run through their savings, who have refinanced their house, and who 
have run through that, whose unemployment is running off and the lay-
offs are continuing.
  My friends on the other side of the aisle do not get it. It is not a 
recession in Silicon Valley right now. It is a depression. A 26-week 
extension is justified, and I wish we had a chance to debate that. I 
urge my colleagues to reject this rule so that we will.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as 
he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the 
chairman of the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule.
  I will admit that my number one economic priority is not the 
extension of unemployment benefits. My number one economic priority is 
to create jobs and to put into place the kinds of mechanisms that we 
can to encourage job creation and economic growth.
  My very good friend from Santa Clara County who just talked about 
what she described as a depression in the Silicon Valley and I will be 
offering an amendment later this afternoon which will, I believe, play 
a role in creating the kind of jobs in the Silicon Valley which are so 
important to improving the quality of life not only for people in that 
part of our country, but throughout the rest of the Nation.
  I also believe that as we look at the jobs and economic growth 
package which we are going to be considering, it is geared towards job 
creation and economic growth. Now, having said that, I will acknowledge 
Chairman Greenspan is absolutely right when he says that there are a 
lot of people out there who through no fault of their own have been 
victimized by this downturn which, by the way, began during the last 
two quarters of 2000.
  Now my friend, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren), just 
described the job loss since President Bush took office; but virtually 
every economist has acknowledged that the downturn began during the 
last two quarters. We also know, and I do not need to remind my 
colleagues again, that we have suffered greatly over the past couple of 
years through the tragedy of September 11, and we are just emerging 
from a war with Iraq, and we are still in the midst of this very costly 
war on terrorism.
  We are working together in a bipartisan way to deal with these 
issues; but quite frankly, they have played a role in creating the 
economic downturn. And that is why we as Republicans are proud to step 
up to the plate and deal with the extension of unemployment benefits.
  I know that there are parts of States as have been described by the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren) that are suffering more than 
other parts of States and the overall level is not as high as it is in 
other States that will, in fact, end up receiving a 26-week extension. 
But I believe that our dealing with this question before we get to the 
expiration is the right thing for us to do. Let us move ahead. This 
will be a problem that we will continue to address as we face it. But I 
hope and pray that passage of the Dreier-Lofgren amendment this 
afternoon, that passage of the jobs and growth package that we have 
will deal with the challenges that we have. And so I encourage my 
colleagues to provide support for this measure.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would just respond that under this limited bill over 150,000 
workers in California will be left out in the cold and close to 60,000 
workers in Florida will not get their benefits.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Emanuel).
  Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this rule.
  The underlying bill does very little for those working Americans 
whose benefits have run out. In my home town of Chicago unemployment is 
up to 6.7 percent. My State of Illinois has lost 17,400 jobs in the 
last month alone. We have lost in this economy 2.75 million jobs, 2 
million manufacturing jobs. Two weeks from today, on June 6, the new 
unemployment figures will come out; and we will get close to, as 
indications are now, losing 3 million jobs. Since the first economic 
package that the President has passed, 2.5 million Americans have lost 
their jobs, 5 million Americans have lost their health care. Nearly a 
trillion dollars' worth of corporate assets have been foreclosed on, 
and 2 million Americans have gone out of the middle class to poverty.
  That has been the net result of the economic program put together. 
And as Ronald Reagan used to say, ``Facts are a stubborn thing.''
  USA Today reported just the other day that they have the lowest 
amount of job-wanted ads since 1964. The only two things that seem to 
be growing in the President's growth package is the deficit and 
unemployment.
  We have gone from a surplus to a slump. Now to the earlier speaker 
who took a $20 bill out of his pocket and my colleague, the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Mika), that $20 is the same amount of money our 
government and our taxpayers are paying individual workers in Iraq and 
Iraqis. That is what we are paying them. We are offering them $20 as a 
form of employment to get the economy in Iraq moving. We have an agenda 
for Iraq. It is investing in 20,000 schools, 25,000 units of housing, 
text books for schools, 4 million children get early childhood 
education in Iraq.
  We have an economic plan for Iraq, and we have an economic plan for 
America; and it does not just count on stimulating only the stock 
market. We have to stimulate the job market as well as the stock 
market. And our economic plan does exactly that. It does not force 
Americans into an either/or choice. And there will be people who will 
be left out, unlike the tax cut that leaves no millionaire behind.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), our ranking member on the Committee on 
Appropriations.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate our friends on the Republican 
side of the aisle. This day perfectly summarizes what Republican Party 
values are all about.

[[Page 12984]]

  Under President Bush we have lost well more than 2 million jobs in 
this economy, and today we have the Republican answer. Their answer is 
to leave behind one million working Americans who have been out of work 
and cannot find work and are now no longer even eligible to receive 
unemployment. At the same time they are going to pass a tax bill in the 
dead of night which gives a huge share of the benefits in that bill to 
people who make over $300,000 a year. That warped and misguided and 
misbegotten sense of values is the major reason that I left the 
Republican Party a long time ago and joined the Democratic Party.
  The Republican Party practices the tired old game of trickle down 
economics. They practice the idea that if you just give John D. 
Rockefeller a tax break, eventually some of it will trickle down to Jay 
Rockefeller. Well, that is not good enough.
  My old friend Harvey Dueholm from Wisconsin used to say, ``The 
problem with Republican economics is that they want to give the poor 
and the rich the same amount of ice but they give the poor theirs in 
the winter time.''
  That pretty much sums up what is happening today. We have seen a 
miserably mismanaged economy under this administration. We have seen 
this Congress swallow whole budget proposals that walk away from our 
commitments to education, walk away from our obligation to do something 
about the health care problems in this country, walk away from the 
problems of the people who have lost their jobs and are down on their 
luck and have nowhere to turn. And yet, oh, they have plenty of money 
for the top dogs in this society.
  Just once be for the average dog; be for the under dog. I know that 
is too much to expect, but nonetheless I would like to see it.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, simply to reiterate what we are about today, we are 
extending unemployment benefits for 13 weeks throughout the Nation and 
for 26 weeks in the States that are classified as high-unemployment 
States. We have also provided previously $8 billion to the individual 
States for use in their individual unemployment programs, and almost $6 
billion of those $8 billion that the Federal Government has provided to 
the States are still available to the States for use for their 
unemployment programs.
  It is important to realize what we are talking about today with this 
legislation; this is not theory. We have legislation before us, we are 
bringing to the floor legislation to help 2.5 million unemployed people 
in this country. And we think that is an important piece of 
legislation, and we think that it should be passed. And that is why we 
seek to bring it forward with this rule. And that is why we urge 
support for this rule and then for the subsequent underlying 
legislation, to get that aid, that continued aid to 2.5 million people 
in this country.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from 
Massachusetts has 2\3/4\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire if the gentleman has any 
further speakers, because I am the final speaker on my side.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I will close.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I will be calling for a vote on the previous question. 
And if the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to 
the rule. My amendment will make in order the Rangel substitute 
amendment which is identical to the text of H.R. 1652, the Unemployment 
Benefits Extension Act.
  H.R. 1652 will extend Federal unemployment benefits by 26 weeks and 
will also give an additional 13 weeks to those unemployed workers whose 
benefits have been exhausted. The Republican bill only extends benefits 
by 13 weeks and does nothing for workers whose benefits have run out.
  Mr. Speaker, unemployment rates continue to rise. They increased to 6 
percent in April, the third month in a row that the economy has lost 
jobs. For every one available job, there are three Americans looking 
for work.
  Out-of-work Americans need relief, and they need it immediately. 
Current Federal unemployment benefits run out at the end of this month, 
less than 2 weeks away. Without an extension, 2.1 million Americans 
will lose their unemployment benefits. Since the current recession 
began in 2001, 2.7 million jobs have disappeared in this country. In 
the last 3 months alone over half a million private sector jobs have 
vanished. The number of unemployed people is at the highest point in a 
decade; and, sadly, there is no indication that the economic situation 
in our Nation will provide relief anytime soon.

                              {time}  1545

  Republicans in the House have voted against extending these critical 
benefits four times in the last 2 weeks, and I am glad they are finally 
bringing up this legislation today. But I am very disappointed that 
they will not let the House vote on the Rangel substitute, which will 
bring relief to far more people in need.
  Under the Republican bill, 1 million people will be left behind, and 
that is unconscionable. Why will they not let us bring the Rangel 
substitute up? What are they afraid of? We are just about to pass a 
massive tax bill later today. If we took a tiny percentage of the money 
from that bill, we could help millions of unemployed American workers 
go through this very difficult time. But, no, we are going to instead 
give massive tax cuts to the very richest in this country.
  Let me make very clear that a ``no'' vote on the previous question 
will not stop the consideration of the legislation to extend Federal 
unemployment benefits, but a ``no'' vote will allow this House to vote 
on the Rangel substitute, which will provide more benefits to more 
unemployed Americans. However, a ``yes'' vote on the previous question 
will prevent the House voting on a more generous and more far-reaching 
extension of Federal unemployment benefits to our unemployed workers. I 
would urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question.
  This is an important issue. We should have an open debate. We should 
be able to consider and vote up or down on the Rangel substitute. The 
fact that we are being denied that opportunity is wrong, it is 
unconscionable, and I would urge my colleagues again to vote ``no'' on 
the previous question.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the amendment 
and a description of the amendment be printed in the Record immediately 
before the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, today we are extending the unemployment benefits for 
2\1/2\ million Americans, and in doing so this Congress is 
appropriating $7 billion for that purpose. Again, it is 2\1/2\ million 
Americans who are unemployed that this legislation will help. That is 
in addition to the $16 billion that we have appropriated before for 
that purpose.
  This is important legislation. It is to help people who need help, 
and I feel proud to have brought forward this rule. I urge support for 
the rule and that then we get to the underlying legislation and that we 
pass the underlying legislation to get extended unemployment benefits 
to 2\1/2\ million people in this country.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:

   Previous Question for H. Res. 248--Rule on H.R. 2185 Unemployment 
                    Compensation Amendments of 2003

       In the resolution strike ``and (2)'' and insert the 
     following:
       ``(2) an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting 
     of the text of H.R. 1652 if

[[Page 12985]]

     offered by Representative Rangel or a designee, which shall 
     be in order without intervention of any point of order, shall 
     be considered as read, and shall separately debatable for 60 
     minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent and 
     an opponent; and (3)''

  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the 
balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair will reduce to 5 minutes 
the minimum time for electronic voting, if ordered, on the question of 
agreeing to the resolution.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 217, 
nays 203, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 213]

                               YEAS--217

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burr
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole
     Collins
     Cox
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Istook
     Janklow
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--203

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Ballance
     Becerra
     Bell
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Case
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley (CA)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley (OR)
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lynch
     Majette
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner (TX)
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Bonilla
     Combest
     Conyers
     Cunningham
     Gephardt
     Gingrey
     Hunter
     Issa
     Lewis (GA)
     Napolitano
     Norwood
     Oxley
     Quinn
     Tauzin


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood) (during the vote). Members are 
advised that 2 minutes remain in this vote.

                              {time}  1606

  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 216, 
noes 201, not voting 17, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 214]

                               AYES--216

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burr
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole
     Collins
     Cox
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Istook
     Janklow
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich

[[Page 12986]]


     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--201

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Ballance
     Becerra
     Bell
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Case
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley (CA)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley (OR)
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Majette
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner (TX)
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--17

     Barton (TX)
     Bereuter
     Bonilla
     Combest
     Conyers
     Cunningham
     Gephardt
     Hall
     Issa
     Lewis (GA)
     Lynch
     Norwood
     Oxley
     Portman
     Quinn
     Walden (OR)
     Wilson (SC)


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised 2 
minutes remain in this vote.

                              {time}  1613

  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.

                          ____________________