[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 13]
[House]
[Pages 17839-17846]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1020
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF SENATE AMENDMENT TO H.R. 1722, TELEWORK 
ENHANCEMENT ACT OF 2010, AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF MOTIONS TO 
                           SUSPEND THE RULES

  Mr. ARCURI. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 1721 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 1721

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 
     1722) to require the head of each executive agency to 
     establish and implement a policy under which employees shall 
     be authorized to telework, and for other purposes, with the 
     Senate amendment thereto, and to consider in the House, 
     without intervention of any point of order except those 
     arising under clause 10 of rule XXI, a motion offered by the 
     chair of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform or 
     his designee that the House concur in the Senate amendment. 
     The Senate amendment shall be considered as read. The motion 
     shall be debatable for one hour equally divided and 
     controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the motion to its 
     adoption without intervening motion.
       Sec. 2.  It shall be in order at any time through the 
     legislative day of November 19, 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 (Ms. Richardson). The gentleman from New York 
is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. ARCURI. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. 
Foxx). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate 
only. I yield myself such time as I may consume.


                             General Leave

  Mr. ARCURI. I also ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 
legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on 
House Resolution 1721.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. ARCURI. Madam Speaker, H. Res. 1721 provides for consideration of 
the Senate amendment to H.R. 1722, the Telework Improvements Act of

[[Page 17840]]

2010. The rule makes in order a motion offered by the chair of the 
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform or his designee that the 
House concur in the Senate amendment to H.R. 1722. The rule provides 1 
hour of debate on the motion equally divided and controlled by the 
chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Oversight and 
Government Reform. The rule waives all points of order against 
consideration of the motion except those arising under clause 10 of 
rule XXI. The rule provides that the Senate amendment shall be 
considered as read. Finally, the rule allows the Speaker to entertain 
motions to suspend the rules through the legislative day of November 
19, 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 resolution.
  This is the third time this year that the House has debated and 
considered this bill. Each of the previous two times, a majority of the 
Members voted for the bill.
  I have often heard my colleagues on the other side of the aisle speak 
eloquently of how much more efficient the private sector is and about 
the need for government to take more cues from business. Telecommuting 
could not be a better example of this. There is no reason that the 
Federal Government should not make full use of the perpetual advances 
being made in mobile technologies to ensure that our government's 
workforce functions as efficiently and cost-effectively as possible.
  Telework policies are even more important during times of emergency. 
The Office of Management and Budget, OMB, has estimated that for each 
day the Federal Government was shut down during the mega-snowstorms 
that hit the Capital Region last February, we lost $71 million worth of 
productivity. It is important to point out that OMB also concluded that 
without employees at some agencies being able to telecommute, the cost 
of lost productivity would have been easily beyond $100 million.
  The Telework Improvements Act will provide a framework to expand the 
current telecommuting program so that all Federal employees can take 
advantage of these opportunities.

                              {time}  1030

  Telecommuting also helps to reduce traffic congestion. Not only does 
this save gas and emissions, but it decreases rush-hour traffic for all 
residents of the D.C. metro area, whether they work for the Federal 
Government or in the private sector.
  In the past, some have argued that telecommuting just allows lazy 
government employees to sit at home and pretend to work. That's simply 
not the case. This bill requires agencies to establish a telecommuting 
policy that authorizes employees to telecommute to the maximum amount 
possible only to the extent that it doesn't diminish employee 
performance or agency operations.
  The Senate amendments to H.R. 1722 also require agencies to maintain 
a telework database for various research and reporting requirements, 
including a confidential hotline and email address to report abuses, 
and require agencies to submit a summary of abuse reports to the 
Government Accountability Office, the GAO. These measures will ensure 
that telecommuting workers are efficient and accountable.
  I urge all Members to support the rule and the Senate amendments to 
H.R. 1722, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I thank my 
colleague from New York for yielding me the time.
  Madam Speaker, if a tree falls in the forest and there is no one 
there to hear it, does it still make a sound?
  After their thorough drubbing on Election Day, it makes sense for the 
Democrats to revisit this metaphysical question. Despite the abundance 
of evidence and warnings from pollsters, from authorities across the 
political spectrum and from the American people, the liberals maintain 
their losses were due to miscommunication and voter ignorance, all 
resulting from the sour economy and nothing more.
  They refuse to acknowledge the reality that voters rejected the 
liberals' government takeover of health care and the process that 
accompanied its passage. They refuse to recognize that their endless 
bailouts of megabanks, automobile manufacturers and unions could have 
possibly led to the historical election results. Stubbornly clinging to 
their failed prescription of bigger government and ever-increasing 
taxes, the liberals continue to defend the stimulus and their 
extravagant spending as cornerstones of their futile efforts at healing 
the economy.
  So perhaps the question should now become: If American voters roundly 
reject the failed liberal agenda, will any Democrats notice? By 
continuing to spend hard-earned taxpayer money in an irresponsible 
fashion, it appears obvious that the answer is ``no.''
  Republicans have been listening to the American people and warning 
the ruling liberal Democrats of the consequences of their Big 
Government overreach. However, those who think of themselves as liberal 
elites in Washington seem to have been the only ones in the country to 
have missed the writing on the wall and the message of November 2. The 
ruling Democrat regime ignored the clear evidence of voter discontent, 
and they continue their march lockstep with a liberal agenda which 
would embarrass many European states.
  Their minions blindly followed further expanding government with 
nearly every bill they passed. Then, on November 2, the voters showed 
their feelings by removing the gavel from the grip of San Francisco 
liberal Nancy Pelosi. The liberals' response to an election of such 
historic proportions: Blame voter ignorance and the marginalized 
minority congressional Republicans. Voters rejected unconscionable 
spending and deficit increases. They rejected a government takeover of 
health care. They rejected the Federal ownership of any industry deemed 
too incompetent to fail, but they also rejected the heavy handed, 
autocratic rule of congressional liberals.
  If we accept as truth liberal claims that unemployment is the 
exclusive issue of concern to all voters, one must wonder what the 
liberals plan to do about the stalled economy now that the voters have 
forced them to refocus.
  The answer to reducing the unemployment rate: Pass flawed legislation 
that makes it easier for Federal employees to stay at home and get paid 
for work.
  There it is, folks. The liberal Democrat elites have found the 
solution that has evaded them for so long. It is not to keep tax rates 
for small businesses from rising. It is not to look at ways to cut 
spending so that more capital is available to the private sector. It is 
not pushing for improved trade agreements that will increase exports 
and help restore our balance of trade. It is not to shrink the size and 
number of Federal regulations that are slowing job creation in the 
private sector.
  No. Madam Speaker and ladies and gentlemen, they bring us an 
opportunity to reinvigorate America's strength by spending $30 million 
more to make it easier for Federal employees to work from home.
  On September 30, 2010, the Senate passed H.R. 1722 with an 
amendment--adopted by unanimous consent--stripping out almost all of 
the provisions added to the bill by the House under a successful motion 
to recommit offered by Oversight and Government Reform Committee 
Ranking Member Issa. The bipartisan House MTR provisions that were 
stripped out by the Senate are provisions which would:
require each agency to certify that the telework program will save 
money before authorizing any employees to telework; prohibit employees 
from engaging in any union or collective bargaining activities while 
teleworking; require employees of the executive office of the President 
to carbon copy their official email accounts on any official business 
communications that are made on personal email and social

[[Page 17841]]

media accounts; make employees ineligible for telework if they have 
fraudulently applied for and received low-income home energy assistance 
payments for which they are ineligible or have seriously delinquent tax 
debts.
  The removal of these provisions by the Senate will raise the cost of 
this legislation and will provide a teleworking benefit to individuals 
who clearly should not be entrusted with increased latitude and 
autonomy. Absent these provisions, telework becomes another perk for 
Federal workers whose salaries and other compensation already surpass 
those of their private sector counterparts.
  The American people have grown tired of waiting for real solutions to 
their problems. Fortunately, help is on the way. In January, this House 
will set a new course towards protecting individual liberties and 
shrinking the unending expansion of the suffocating Federal 
bureaucracy. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule and 
``no'' on the underlying bill.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ARCURI. Madam Speaker, I guess, after the last election, I had 
naively thought that we could come back and get away from the political 
sniping and focus on governing, but it sounds like that is not the 
case, and that's unfortunate.
  This was a bill that was passed in the House with strong bipartisan 
support. It certainly was not anything that was political but was 
something that was needed and necessary. Unfortunately, I think that we 
are going to continue to hear about politics rather than about 
governing.
  With that, Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in permitting 
me to speak on this bill as I appreciate his insightful comments about 
where we are and where we are going.
  Madam Speaker, I, too, listened to what was not a debate on this bill 
but a continuation of the political rhetoric that the American public 
has enjoyed over the course of the last 3 or 4 months. Actually, I 
don't know that they enjoyed it, as the people I heard from back home 
actually got rather tired of it.
  It was ironic that I heard my good friend Ms. Foxx talking about the 
government takeover of health care after I had just been visited by 
representatives of one of the largest health insurance companies in 
America, who was talking about their role in health care reform. They 
saw it as making a path towards better health care and that they'd have 
to do some things differently but that they were working on the 
implementation of it. I met with these representatives back home after 
the election. I met with a wide variety of people from health care, who 
were talking about how we move forward in this partnership that has 
been focused and in terms of how we improve Medicare for our seniors.
  The notion that somehow this is a takeover is lost on the people who 
are actually in the health care arena, and the American public will 
find that out. We will be able to hear their suggestions going forward.
  With regard to the notion of the failed stimulus, I just left a group 
of eight large corporate representatives, who were talking about moving 
forward on some of the infrastructure and energy items that were 
important to them. Yesterday, a dozen energy executives who thought it 
was important, as well as creating and saving jobs. The disconnect 
between the political rhetoric and what any American can verify by 
talking to the health care businesses that are involved will show that 
it's rather hollow.

                              {time}  1040

  But that is why the legislation before us got bogged down, because 
there were extraneous provisions in it that looked good in a sound byte 
but actually had little to do with the legislation. For instance, the 
provision that would have required denial of the ability to telecommute 
to people who were delinquent in their taxes was actually 
unenforceable. There was no way that the IRS could do what they wanted 
to do, and so they were willing to deny the ability of the Federal 
Government to be able to have the efficiencies that people back home in 
Oregon have with telecommunication in the private sector, rather they 
would continue to bog it down.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. ARCURI. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. We in Congress can telecommute. It makes me available 
to be able to work 7 days a week whether I'm in Washington, D.C., or 
I'm in Portland. Our staff does it routinely, but they would deny the 
ability of Federal employees.
  This is, as my friend from New York pointed out, bipartisan 
legislation. It's always had Republicans and Democrats supporting it. 
It's received strong majorities. I'm sure it will pass today. But I'm 
hopeful that we can focus on the business at hand, not hang up 
important work.
  I want to make sure that any Federal employee who is delinquent in 
their taxes pays up. I'm happy to work with my friends on the other 
side of the aisle to focus specific legislation in that regard, and as 
a member of Ways and Means, I'm happy to work with them to do that. But 
for heaven's sake, let's deal with important things here, perhaps not 
repeat all the political talking points. Let's get down to some serious 
business.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I just point out to my colleague from Oregon 
that telework already exists. Federal employees can do it already. What 
this bill does is allocate $30 million and create more bureaucracy. 
We're not stopping telework. We're not creating telework. We're 
expanding it and spending more money.
  Madam Speaker, with that, I yield 3 minutes to my colleague from 
Colorado (Mr. Lamborn).
  Mr. LAMBORN. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the previous 
question and in support of this week's YouCut item, the elimination of 
taxpayer subsidies to National Public Radio.
  National Public Radio's recent firing of longtime news analyst Juan 
Williams was a wake-up call for many Americans to political correctness 
and liberal bias at NPR. However, it's not the liberal bias that 
offends me so much as that American citizens are forced to subsidize it 
with their hard-earned tax dollars.
  Long before the Juan Williams fiasco, I sponsored legislation to pull 
the plug on taxpayer funding for NPR. I enjoy some programs on NPR, but 
I have long believed that it can stand on its own.
  The question is not the quality of programming on NPR. The question 
today is whether government programs and services that can be funded 
privately should be subsidized by taxpayers. As a country, we no longer 
have this luxury, if we ever did. With the national debt over $13 
trillion, the government simply can't afford to continue funding 
nonessential services.
  Americans voted through the popular Web site YouCut to place this 
proposal on the House floor for a vote today. The selection of this 
measure shows the American people desire to rein in unnecessary 
spending. My proposal would prohibit Federal dollars from going to NPR 
through any of the various Federal grants they now access. I myself 
enjoy NPR programming, but why should Americans foot the bill for this 
when we have to borrow about 40 cents on every Federal dollar?
  NPR local radio stations directly receive congressionally 
appropriated funds that reached over $65 million in 2010 alone. Plus, 
local stations directly receive grants from other Federal sources such 
as the National Endowment for the Arts. NPR stations then use these 
taxpayer dollars on licensing fees for NPR programming, which are then 
funneled back to NPR headquarters here in Washington, DC. Taking this 
indirect funding into account, Federal funds now make up an estimated 
20 percent of NPR's annual budget.
  Let me be clear, this measure will not prohibit local stations from 
receiving any other funding. It will just prohibit them from using 
taxpayer money to acquire NPR programming.

[[Page 17842]]

  Unsustainable Federal spending is a serious threat to the United 
States economy and to the future prosperity of the American people. 
Americans know this. We shouldn't wait until the 112th Congress to 
start solving this problem. Cutting spending begins now. We must begin 
the hard work of eliminating these deficits and creating jobs by making 
tough choices on spending today.
  The American people have asked Congress to put a stop to out-of-
control spending. Millions of them have voted through YouCut that 
prohibiting Federal funding of NPR is a good place to start. I urge my 
colleagues to heed the will of the American people to get Federal 
spending under control and vote for a sensible reduction of spending by 
opposing the previous question.
  Mr. ARCURI. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 additional minutes to the 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Thank you.
  I was on my way out of the Chamber and I heard my friend from 
Colorado talk about attacking out-of-control Federal spending by making 
sure that there's no direct or indirect ability for resources from the 
Federal Government to go to NPR. Madam Speaker, I find that really a 
sad reflection on the current state of affairs.
  National public broadcasting is one of the few areas where the 
American public can actually get balanced information. It's not the 
bloviators on the right or the left. Public broadcasting, because it is 
not taking commercial advertising, because it has a commitment to 
public service and balanced information, has been the most important, 
unbiased source available to Americans from coast to coast.
  The Federal investment in public broadcasting is relatively minor. It 
is 10, 15 percent, when you add everything up, but it is an important 
portion because it leverages vast amounts of money that otherwise would 
not be available.
  I, like my friend from Colorado, participate. I go to the telethons. 
I contribute every year from my family, and I'm glad to do it. You 
know, but if this agenda, which is where the Republicans who took over 
last time were trying to go, to defund public broadcasting, is picked 
up even before they take control is successful, it's going to have very 
serious consequences. It's not going to affect Denver. It's not going 
to affect Portland, Oregon, or San Francisco or New York except that 
the quality of some of the programs will erode, frankly, because these 
are tough times and sponsorship from the business community is down and 
individuals are having to stretch to be able to contribute. These 
services are more important than ever, when we've got all these 
screaming heads on the air giving forth information that is hardly 
balanced and accurate.
  But what will happen? Not only the erosion of quality and some of the 
programs for culture and education that are not going to have a 
commercial base will be eroded. What is going to have the biggest 
impact, if they have their way, will be the areas of America that don't 
have the population base. Rural and small town America will pay the 
price.
  Oregon public broadcasting is one of the finest public broadcasting 
systems in the United States, but the most expensive persons to serve 
are the people in the far reaches of our State, where we put up 
expensive translators to be able to get the programming out there. We 
have programming that is designed to reach to the furthest extent of 
our State, and that is subsidized. If we are going to lose the modest 
amount of Federal subsidization, it will not only affect the quality in 
Denver and Portland and Charlotte, in Atlanta, in Ithaca, but it's 
going to make it harder for rural and small town America to be able to 
get this vital service.

                              {time}  1050

  You look at the costs that they bear, that will be an area that will 
suffer the cuts if we're not able to maintain funding. I think that's a 
tragedy. I think it is a tragedy to try to politicize NPR.
  I'm not going to comment on the handling of the Juan Williams 
episode. There are others that have talked about it endlessly. The head 
of NPR indicated she would have handled it differently.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. ARCURI. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. When you mix NPR and FOX News and you go back and 
deconstruct that, they have rules of journalism that they follow, that 
people are supposed to follow, and Mr. Williams had trouble following 
those rules before.
  But notwithstanding that, the point is we need to have the public in 
public broadcasting. The Federal minuscule dollars that are invested in 
that compared to the amount of money that is wasted in defense, in 
agriculture subsidy pales by comparison. And I think we are going to be 
able to work with some of the new Members of Congress to deal with 
things that have defied reform in the past. I am looking forward to 
some of what they say.
  But public broadcasting is a resource, is a treasure for Americans 
from coast to coast. It is trusted by more Americans than any other 
resource in terms of the news, and it is far more than just news. It is 
education. It is culture. It is history. And it would be a tragedy to 
eat away at NPR to make it harder to serve the difficult-to-reach areas 
of our country.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, our colleague from Oregon has just given us 
another example of how out of touch our colleagues across the aisle 
are. If he thinks that public radio is balanced and unbiased and our 
taking away that funding will have serious consequences, he is 
obviously not in touch with the American people. Republicans are in 
touch with the American people. That's why we're making this proposal. 
I live in a rural area, and I understand that.
  Again, you're blaming the victim. You're blaming the voters. Please, 
don't blame the voters. That's not what they're looking for.
  I now would like to yield 1 minute to my colleague from Kansas (Ms. 
Jenkins).
  Ms. JENKINS. Madam Speaker, folks back home in Kansas have been 
forced to tighten their belts and rein in family budgets to weather 
tough times, and we don't understand why Washington isn't willing to do 
the same. The Federal Government should have only a few foundational 
duties. Among those are protecting our citizens, maintaining a strong 
infrastructure, and upholding our rights as outlined in the 
Constitution. Notably missing from this list is the funding of 
political radio shows, particularly those that operate with a litmus 
test.
  The Federal Government is leaking money left and right, and it's time 
to plug some holes. Today's YouCut proposal will save the American 
taxpayers over $100 million and will be proof that Congress is ready to 
shrink the size and scope of the Federal Government.
  I urge your support. Please oppose the previous question.
  Mr. ARCURI. Madam Speaker, I would like to take a moment to remind my 
colleagues about the true purpose of this bill, which is to make sure 
that the Federal Government is taking the steps necessary to increase 
its ability to function, even in times of national emergencies, because 
that is what we are here in Congress to do--to make sure that the 
government continues to function, especially in times of national 
emergencies.
  The bill requires Federal agencies to implement policies and 
practices to allow employees to telecommute. It requires them to train 
their employees about how to do their work remotely so that the Federal 
employees can continue to do their jobs, even if they can't get to work 
because of a natural disaster or other emergency.
  There has been some discussion about the need to police telecommuting 
employees, so I want to talk about some of the oversight and 
accountability measures that this legislation contains.
  This bill requires the Office of Personnel Management to provide 
teleworking assistance and guidance to agencies, to maintain a telework 
database, and to establish various research and reporting requirements.

[[Page 17843]]

  The bill sets up a confidential hotline and email address to report 
abuses and requires the OPM to report to the Government Accountability 
Office about any abuse reports it receives.
  Finally, the Senate amendment to H.R. 1722 also requires OPM to 
consult with the National Archives about how to manage and preserve all 
records from telework, including Presidential and Vice Presidential 
records, something that was raised by the Republicans in their motion 
to recommit back in July.
  So, you see that there are oversight measures built into these 
telework policies. This bill doesn't just say to agencies, ``Send your 
employees home.'' No. It directs the Federal agencies to set up 
policies and trainings so that their employees know how to work just as 
efficiently outside the office as they can at their desks in times of 
emergency, and those employees know that there is oversight by the 
agency of the work that is being done.
  Those protections are included in this bill, just as they are in the 
telework policies used by companies in the private sector. That is why 
this bill makes common sense, because the Federal Government should be 
adopting policies like this that are commonly used in the private 
sector to make sure that our government functions efficiently and 
effectively, even during emergencies that prevent employees from coming 
into the office.
  I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  You know, before we took our recess to be at home for the elections, 
every bill that was brought here was about jobs. That didn't work, 
obviously, because our unemployment rate is still very high. Now, are 
we to believe that all the bills are going to be about national 
security? I hope that Osama bin Laden has been put on notice: This is 
going to improve our national security, and he'd better watch out.
  Madam Speaker, the underlying bill here spends $30 million to create 
additional opportunities for Federal employees to work at home. The 
American people are suffering because of our unemployment rate. Because 
of the failed policies of this Congress and this administration, the 
American people are learning to do more with less. Why can't Federal 
employees learn to do that? They are soon going to have to do that.
  This is a travesty, to come here with our economy in the situation 
that it's in and say, We're going to appropriate $30 million more in 
order for Federal employees to stay at home. H.R. 1722 requires each 
Federal agency to create a teleworking managing officer, even though 
some agencies may not be big enough to warrant such a position.
  So, again, the Democrats' answer to the 9.6 percent unemployment rate 
that has persisted for almost 2 years and the $1.3 trillion deficit is 
to create more Federal jobs and require that some of those Federal 
Government workers be allowed to work from home. Give me a break. The 
nearly 4 million Americans--3.811 million--who have lost their jobs 
since President Obama took office and over 6 million who have lost 
their jobs since Nancy Pelosi became Speaker in January 2007 continue 
to ask where are the jobs that they were promised.
  The Congress is pushing this initiative to make it easier for Federal 
employees, who already have it much better than the rest of the 
country, to avoid the office. So why is this bill so popular with the 
ruling liberal Democrats? Perhaps it has something to do with their 
longstanding subservience to labor unions. According to the latest 
figures available on OpenSecrets.org, big labor donated $49,710,561, or 
93 percent of its total campaign contributions, to Democrats and 
$3,444,042, or 6 percent, to Republicans in the last election cycle. 
Surely money like that isn't going to be wasted pushing legislation 
good for private sector employees.
  It's true that a majority of American union members now work for the 
government, as 52 percent of all union members now work for the 
government, representing a sharp increase from the 49 percent in 2008. 
A full 37.4 percent of government employees belonged to unions in 2009, 
up 0.6 percentage points from 2008.
  These changes in union membership are certainly not surprising, as 
unionized companies do poorly in the marketplace and lose jobs relative 
to their nonunion competitors. Government employees, however, face no 
competition as the government never goes out of business.
  The recession has left union bosses looking for new membership 
targets, and where better to look than in government, which they see as 
having the deepest of all pockets and a host of sympathetic liberal 
Democrat politicians eager to please their political base.

                              {time}  1100

  In fact, according to the Heritage Foundation, when accounting for 
wages and benefits, the total average annual compensation for a 
private-sector worker is $60,078, as compared to $111,015 for the 
average Federal worker, representing an astonishing 85 percent 
compensation differential.
  A March 26, 2010, Wall Street Journal editorial entitled ``The 
Government Pay Boom'' reveals that: ``Nearly this entire benefits gap 
is accounted for by unionized public employees. Nonunion public 
employees are paid roughly what private workers receive.
  ``The union response is that government workers deserve all this 
because they're more educated and highly skilled. That may account for 
some of the pay differential, but not the blowout benefits. The unions 
also neglect one of the greatest perks of government employment: job 
security. Short of shooting up a Post Office, government workers rarely 
get fired or laid off.''
  The Republican Study Committee released a policy brief recently 
indicating that the number of Federal employees making over $100,000 
has increased by almost 15 percent since 2007. Currently, there are 
more people in the Federal Government making in excess of $100,000 than 
those making $40,000.
  Since the recession began in 2007, public worker pay has risen 7.8 
percent. While private-sector wages remain stagnant, the 2010 pay 
increase for Federal civilian employees was 2 percent. In 2009, the 
average Federal employee received a pay increase of 3.9 percent, and an 
average pay increase of 3.5 percent in 2008.
  The average Federal salary, including benefits, is set to grow from 
$72,800 in 2008 to $75,419 in 2010.
  In 2007, when the Democrats took over the Congress, the Department of 
Transportation had only one employee making over $170,000. At the end 
of last year it had 1,690 employees making that amount.
  The Federal pay premium exists across all job categories, white 
collar, blue collar, management, professional, technical, and low 
skill.
  Again, the public is asking, where are the jobs? Why aren't the 
Democrats who are in charge of the Congress doing something about 
private-sector jobs instead of focusing on creating more perks for 
Federal employees?
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ARCURI. Madam Speaker, my friend from North Carolina talks about 
passage of this bill being a travesty. I couldn't disagree more. The 
travesty would be if there were a national emergency and we were ill 
prepared for it because of the fact that we didn't act today, because 
of something that we could have done that we didn't do. That would be a 
travesty.
  Additionally, the travesty is that she talks about this in political 
terms, when this is about governing. The days of the politics have to 
end. The days of governing need to begin. That's what this bill is 
about. It's about working together, in a bipartisan way, to govern, to 
make government run more efficiently in a time when we need it most, in 
a time of emergency. That is the travesty, not to act on it. Not to sit 
here and talk about the politics of it, but rather to talk about how, 
together, we can make this work so that government functions better for 
the people that we represent.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page 17844]]


  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I now yield 4 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor).
  Mr. CANTOR. Madam Speaker, the issue is about spending. It is about 
stopping the rampant spending in Washington. And on November 2, 
Americans spoke decisively and sent an undeniable message to Washington 
to end wasteful spending.
  In the new Republican majority next Congress, Madam Speaker, the 
YouCut program will be an integral part of our efforts to transform the 
culture of spending in Washington into one of savings. More than 2.4 
million YouCut votes provide us with a clear mandate to rein in 
spending and make the tough choices to get America back on the right 
path.
  This week's winning item, Madam Speaker, is a proposal developed by 
the gentleman from Colorado, Representative Doug Lamborn. This proposal 
would eliminate taxpayer funding for National Public Radio. When 
executives at NPR decided to unfairly terminate Juan Williams for 
expressing his opinion and to then disparage him afterwards, the bias 
of the organization was exposed.
  To be clear, it is not the government's job to tell a news 
organization how to do its job. But what's equally as certain is that 
it should not be the taxpayer's responsibility to fund news 
organizations with a partisan point of view. Eliminating taxpayer 
funding for NPR is precisely the kind of commonsense cut that we have 
to begin making if we want to fundamentally alter the way business is 
conducted in Washington.
  Over the past 2 years, Americans have become exasperated as they've 
watched the Federal Government grow to an unacceptable level of 
spending, by spending record levels of money it simply doesn't have. In 
order to get America back to opportunity, responsibility, and success, 
Republicans and Democrats must come together and begin making tough 
choices. Today's YouCut vote is an opportunity for both parties to come 
together and to tell the people that have sent us here--message 
received.
  Mr. ARCURI. Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, the evidence is in. The liberal Democrat 
agenda has failed. They need to go back to the drawing board and come 
back to the American people with real solutions to their real problems. 
This isn't the time to dither and blame the Republican minority for the 
disappointing collapse of governance we've seen since the liberal 
majority seized control of Congress in 2007.
  I urge my colleagues to take this opportunity to force the ruling 
liberal Democrats to rethink their misguided proposals by rejecting 
this rule and underlying bill to protest the liberal agenda that 
continues to distract from private-sector job creation and getting the 
economy back on its feet.
  Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the amendment 
and extraneous material be placed in the Record prior to the vote on 
the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from North Carolina?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I am going to urge my colleagues to vote 
``no'' on the previous question so I can amend the rule to allow all 
Members of Congress the opportunity to vote to cut spending.
  Republicans recently launched the YouCut initiative, which gives 
people an opportunity to vote for Federal spending they would like to 
see Congress cut. Hundreds of thousands of Americans have cast their 
votes, and this week they have directed their representatives in 
Congress to consider H.R. 5538, which is a bill that would prohibit 
Federal funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the parent 
organization of National Public Radio, after fiscal 2012.
  According to the Republican Whip's YouCut Web site, National Public 
Radio's recent decision to terminate commentator Juan Williams' 
contract because of comments he expressed on another station have 
brought newfound attention to NPR's receipt of taxpayer funds.
  NPR receives taxpayer funding in two different ways. First, they 
receive direct government grants from various Federal agencies, 
including the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the Department of 
Commerce, Department of Education, and the National Endowment for the 
Arts. Over the past 2 years, this direct funding has totaled 
approximately $9 million.
  But NPR also receives taxpayer funds indirectly. The Corporation for 
Public Broadcasting makes grants to public radio stations. While some 
of these grants can be used for any purpose, some can be used only to 
acquire and produce programming. Often this programming is purchased 
from NPR. Indeed, programming fees and dues paid by local public radio 
stations to NPR accounts for approximately 40 percent of NPR's budget, 
or about $65 million last year. A portion of these funds were 
originally Federal tax dollars provided to the Corporation for Public 
Broadcasting, to the local public radio stations.
  NPR receives a significant amount of funding from private individuals 
and organizations through donations and sponsorship. For example, in 
2008, NPR listed over 32 separate private donors and sponsors who 
provided financial support in excess of half a million dollars that 
year.

                              {time}  1110

  NPR officials have indicated that taxpayer funding makes up only a 
small portion of their overall budget. Therefore, eliminating taxpayer 
support should not materially affect NPR's ability to operate while at 
the same time saving taxpayers millions of dollars annually.
  In order to provide for consideration of this commonsense 
legislation, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous 
question.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ARCURI. Madam Speaker, as I said in my opening, this is the third 
time this year that the House has debated and considered this bill. 
Each of the previous two times, a majority of members voted for the 
bill.
  When the bill passed the House in July, the Republican motion to 
recommit was adopted on a bipartisan vote of 303-119. I know that some 
of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are greatly upset that 
a number of the provisions that were adopted as part of the motion to 
recommit were removed by the Senate. I understand your frustration. The 
number of worthy measures that this body has sent to the Senate during 
this Congress is staggering. However, we must not let that frustration 
prevent us from sending this bill to the President, because the version 
of the bill in front of us today will ensure that our government 
continues to function efficiently and effectively--even during times of 
national emergency.
  For this reason, I urge all members to vote ``yes,'' to avoid the 
politics, and get back to the governing that this Congress promised to 
do, vote ``yes'' on the previous question, vote ``yes'' on the rule, 
and vote ``yes'' on the Senate amendment to H.R. 1722.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Madam Speaker, this is a blatant attempt to politically 
interfere with the programming decision-making of America's public 
radio stations.
  Efforts to deny funding to public broadcasting for political reasons 
are a violation of America's standards of a free and independent press.
  This represents a wholesale breach of local stations' ability to make 
local, independent decisions to meet the needs of local audiences.
  Fundamentally, public broadcasting is rooted in local communities. 
Stations are locally licensed and governed, locally programmed and 
locally staffed. It is a system of local stations interconnected to 
enable local, regional and national program production and 
distribution, but committed to local service.
  For more than 40 years, the federal government has provided financial 
support for public broadcasting--to provide essential educational, news 
and cultural programming that meets the local needs of American 
communities, large and small.
  Public broadcasting is the last remaining source of independent, non-
commercial, thought-provoking broadcast media in the country. In many 
communities, public radio is the only source of free local, national 
and

[[Page 17845]]

international news and music and cultural programming. Public radio 
stations are located in nearly every major city and small town, 
delivering highly trusted, agenda-free news and information to 37 
million Americans each week.
  Federal funding has played an important role in assuring free and 
universal access to programs that inform and enrich the life of 
millions of Americans in every corner of the country.
  Vote ``yes'' on the previous question.
  The material previously referred to by Ms. Foxx is as follows:

    Amendment to H. Res. 1721 Offered by Ms. Foxx of North Carolina

       At the end of the resolution add the following new section:
       Sec. 3. Immediately upon the adoption of this resolution 
     the Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, 
     declare the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole 
     House on the state of the Union for consideration of the bill 
     (H.R. 6417) to prohibit Federal funding of certain public 
     radio programming, to provide for the transfer of certain 
     public radio funds to reduce the public debt, and for other 
     purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed 
     with. All points of order against consideration of the bill 
     are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and 
     shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by 
     the Majority Leader and the Minority Leader or their 
     respective designees. After general debate the bill shall be 
     considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. During 
     consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chairman of the 
     Committee of the Whole may accord priority in recognition on 
     the basis of whether the Member offering an amendment has 
     caused it to be printed in the portion of the Congressional 
     Record designated for that purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII. 
     Amendments so printed shall be considered as read. At the 
     conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the 
     Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with 
     such amendments as may have been adopted. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and 
     amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and reports 
     that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then on the 
     next legislative day the House shall, immediately after the 
     third daily order of business under clause 1 of rule XIV, 
     resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further 
     consideration of the bill. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not 
     apply to the consideration of H.R. 6417.
                                  ____

       (The information contained herein was provided by 
     Democratic Minority on multiple occasions throughout the 
     109th Congress.)

        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Democratic majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an 
     alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be 
     debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       Because the vote today may look bad for the Democratic 
     majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is 
     simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on 
     adopting the resolution [and] has no substantive legislative 
     or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is not what 
     they have always said. Listen to the definition of the 
     previous question used in the Floor Procedures Manual 
     published by the Rules Committee in the 109th Congress, (page 
     56). Here's how the Rules Committee described the rule using 
     information from Congressional Quarterly's ``American 
     Congressional Dictionary'': ``If the previous question is 
     defeated, control of debate shifts to the leading opposition 
     member (usually the minority Floor Manager) who then manages 
     an hour of debate and may offer a germane amendment to the 
     pending business.''
       Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives, 
     the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a 
     refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a 
     special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the 
     resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21, 
     section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: ``Upon rejection of the 
     motion for the previous question on a resolution reported 
     from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member 
     leading the opposition to the previous question, who may 
     offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time 
     for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Democratic 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

  Mr. ARCURI. Madam 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.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair 
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on 
the question of adoption.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 239, 
nays 171, not voting 23, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 576]

                               YEAS--239

     Ackerman
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boccieri
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Childers
     Chu
     Clarke
     Cleaver
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Dahlkemper
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Driehaus
     Edwards (MD)
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     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
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kilroy
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick (AZ)
     Kissell
     Klein (FL)
     Kosmas
     Kratovil
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney
     Markey (CO)
     Markey (MA)
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McMahon
     McNerney
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Minnick
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy (NY)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Nadler (NY)
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Nye
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Perriello
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis (CO)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schauer
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Space
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Teague
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--171

     Aderholt
     Adler (NJ)
     Akin
     Alexander
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blunt
     Boehner

[[Page 17846]]


     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Cao
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Castle
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Djou
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Flake
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Guthrie
     Hall (TX)
     Harper
     Hastings (WA)
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hoekstra
     Hunter
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan (OH)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kline (MN)
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lee (NY)
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     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
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stearns
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden
     Wamp
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--23

     Barrett (SC)
     Blackburn
     Boozman
     Boucher
     Bright
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     Delahunt
     Edwards (TX)
     Fallin
     Fattah
     Gallegly
     Hill
     Hoyer
     Inglis
     Kirk
     Radanovich
     Tiahrt
     Van Hollen
     Waters

                              {time}  1144

  Mr. SHUSTER changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. COURTNEY and Ms. TSONGAS changed their vote from ``nay'' to 
``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 235, 
noes 171, not voting 27, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 577]

                               AYES--235

     Ackerman
     Adler (NJ)
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boccieri
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Childers
     Chu
     Clarke
     Cleaver
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Dahlkemper
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Djou
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Driehaus
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     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
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kilroy
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick (AZ)
     Kissell
     Klein (FL)
     Kosmas
     Kratovil
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney
     Markey (CO)
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McMahon
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Minnick
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy (NY)
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Nye
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     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
     Teague
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--171

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Cao
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Castle
     Chaffetz
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Flake
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Guthrie
     Hall (TX)
     Harper
     Hastings (WA)
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hoekstra
     Hunter
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan (OH)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kline (MN)
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lee (NY)
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     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
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden
     Wamp
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Wu
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--27

     Barrett (SC)
     Boozman
     Boucher
     Bright
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     Delahunt
     Fallin
     Fattah
     Gallegly
     Hill
     Hoyer
     Inglis
     Kirk
     Markey (MA)
     McNerney
     Murphy, Patrick
     Nadler (NY)
     Perlmutter
     Radanovich
     Tiahrt
     Van Hollen
     Waters

                              {time}  1152

  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.

                          ____________________