[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 9]
[House]
[Pages 12539-12547]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




  PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5618, RESTORATION OF EMERGENCY 
   UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION ACT OF 2010, AND WAIVING REQUIREMENT OF 
   CLAUSE 6(a) OF RULE XIII WITH RESPECT TO CONSIDERATION OF CERTAIN 
                              RESOLUTIONS

  Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 1495 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 1495

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 
     5618) to continue Federal unemployment programs. All points 
     of order against consideration of the bill are waived except 
     those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The amendment 
     printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying 
     this resolution shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as 
     amended, shall be considered as read. All points of order 
     against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, 
     as amended, to final passage without intervening motion 
     except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled 
     by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Ways and Means; and (2) one motion to recommit with or 
     without instructions.
       Sec. 2.  The requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII for a 
     two-thirds vote to consider a report from the Committee on 
     Rules on the same day it is presented to the House is waived 
     with respect to any resolution reported through the 
     legislative day of July 3, 2010.

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


                             General Leave

  Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks 
on House Resolution 1495.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

[[Page 12540]]

  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 1495 provides for consideration of H.R. 
5618, the Restoration of Emergency Unemployment Compensation Act of 
2010, under a closed rule. The resolution provides 1 hour of debate 
equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member 
of the Committee on Ways and Means. The amendment printed in the Rules 
Committee report shall be considered as adopted. The resolution waives 
all points of order against the bill as amended. The resolution 
provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions. Finally, 
the resolution allows for certain resolutions reported from the 
Committee on Rules to be considered the same day they are reported. The 
resolution applies the waiver to any resolution reported through the 
legislative day of July 3, 2010.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to not traffic the well 
when another Member is under recognition.

                              {time}  1120

  Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, as we all know, our country is facing 
enormous troubles like we have not seen since the Great Depression. At 
the national level, there is clear evidence that some of the actions 
that the Democratic Congress have taken are, in fact, working. The 
economy is again growing, and employers are starting once again to 
hire.
  In 2009, we saw the Nation's GDP grow by 2.8 percent in the third 
quarter, representing the biggest 6-month turnaround in our economy 
since 1980. In each successive quarter, we have continued to see 
positive GDP growth. Since the end of 2009, we have created jobs every 
single month; and in the last 3 months alone, we have created an 
average of over 300,000 jobs per month. This is a dramatic change in 
direction from when President Obama took office and the economy had 
previously been shrinking at minus 5.4 percent and we were losing jobs 
at an average of 726,000 jobs per month under the Bush administration.
  However, although our economic indicators continue to show that we 
are making significant progress towards recovery, this does not mean 
that we are out of the woods yet by any stretch of the imagination. We 
know that all too well in many pockets of the country, including my own 
district in the Central Valley of California, the recovery continues to 
lag well behind the national economic picture. In far too many areas of 
the country, businesses continue to shed payroll, job losses continue 
to mount, and hardworking families across America continue to struggle.
  Mr. Speaker, as I said, we have not seen times like this since the 
Great Depression. These are extraordinary circumstances, and they call 
for extraordinary measures. Despite what my friends on the other side 
of the aisle may say, what people who are struggling right now need is 
a hand up; and this Democratic Congress, despite all the obstacles from 
the other side of the aisle and the other body, will continue to reach 
out and try to assist Americans with that hand up.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5618 would retroactively restore the emergency 
unemployment compensation benefits and restore funding for the extended 
benefits program through the month of November of this year. It would 
also ensure that States do not cut the level of regular unemployment 
benefits when they receive these extended Federal benefits, and it 
would protect workers from having their benefits cut if they experience 
intermittent earnings which requalify them for regular State 
unemployment benefits. Without the sort of help provided by this bill, 
more people will lose their homes, fall behind on their bills and be 
unable to feed their families. There is a very real risk that the 
economic crisis could get worse, not better, if we pull the safety net 
out from under the 1.7 million Americans that are facing these economic 
conditions right now.
  Mr. Speaker, never before in our history has Congress allowed 
extended unemployment benefits to lapse when the unemployment rate was 
anywhere close to 10 percent; yet here we are again trying to extend 
this critical program to keep food on the table for millions of 
households, including millions of American children across this great 
Nation simply because the other side of the aisle repeatedly can only 
say ``no.''
  The current emergency unemployment compensation program began to 
phase out at the end of May, and many of those now losing benefits have 
only received 26 weeks of regular State-provided unemployment 
compensation or one of the first tiers of Federal benefits. This means 
individuals exhausting their 26 weeks of unemployment benefits are not 
eligible for emergency unemployment benefits at all. This bill will 
retroactively restore those benefits and continue them and the program 
through November.
  Without this extension, as I said before, an estimated 1.7 million 
individuals who have lost their jobs will lose their unemployment 
benefits by July 3. Mr. Speaker, that's no way to celebrate America's 
independence holiday. This includes well over 300,000 people in 
California, where our unemployment level is over 12 percent, well above 
the national average of 9.3. In my own district, the unemployment rates 
are much higher than even that. In fact, we have numbers that are near 
the 20 percent mark; and I have in my district the fourth, fifth and 
sixth highest unemployment rates in my counties in the country.
  Nearly every economist will tell you that cutting off unemployment 
benefits will undermine the economic recovery by suppressing consumer 
demand at a critical time when we should be enhancing it, and by 
exacerbating problems, like the home foreclosure crisis that plagues 
many areas of our country.
  I want to thank the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott) for 
bringing this bill forward and for his steadfast commitment to 
America's hardworking families. It is vitally important that we pass 
this bill and provide the much-needed help that our constituents need 
during these trying times.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. I thank my colleague from California for yielding time, Mr. 
Speaker, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I rise in opposition to this closed rule which rewrites H.R. 5618, 
the Restoration of Emergency Unemployment Compensation Act and provides 
martial law/same-day authority for any resolution reported from the 
Rules Committee through Saturday, July 3.
  This bill has been rushed through Congress, avoiding committee 
action. When the Democrats, who are in charge, brought the bill up 
before the House for consideration on June 29, it failed to garner the 
necessary two-thirds majority required for passage. There was 
bipartisan opposition to this bill.
  But why are our colleagues rushing this through? The Senate is not 
meeting, except to honor Senator Byrd. They know the bill is going 
nowhere. They say ``extraordinary circumstances require extraordinary 
measures'' and that the economic crisis is going to get worse if we 
don't pass this. But this bill is going nowhere, and they know it. They 
want to be able to go home and say, We voted to extend unemployment 
benefits and that Republicans voted ``no.''
  Well, Republicans want to reduce the deficit; and if the underlying 
bill had been offset with reduced spending elsewhere, Republicans would 
have supported it. But it is not. Instead, Democrats are relying on 
budgetary tricks to avoid their own PAYGO rules. They are waiting until 
the last minute to address important issues and labeling the cost as 
``emergency spending'' so they don't have to account for it in terms of 
our spending rules.
  Frankly, the need for this bill in the first place is a direct 
admission of the failure of the Obama-Pelosi policies because the many 
spending bills, which have already been passed, have failed to create 
the jobs promised by Speaker Pelosi and President Obama. So they're 
admitting by saying, We have to extend unemployment benefits, that all 
the spending has failed. Economists

[[Page 12541]]

on both sides of the political spectrum are expressing concern over the 
fiscal health of the U.S. Government. Yesterday, CBO said, ``Our debt 
is now 62 percent of GDP, up 20 percent in 2 years''--the 2 years when 
Democrats controlled all of Congress and had a Democratic President--
and it's the ``highest since World War II.''

                              {time}  1130

  Congress cannot continue this spending spree. We're simply living 
beyond our means, and I fear the consequences of our actions are not 
far off.
  Here are a few lines from an article written by John Goodman on June 
28 entitled How Bad is Our Fiscal Crisis?
  ``Already, we've seen some local governments declare bankruptcy. 
Expect more of that. In the next several years I believe some very 
large cities are going to announce they cannot pay their bills. State 
governments will be next. Whereas local governments can declare 
bankruptcy, State governments can only default. A default by the State 
of California seems almost inevitable.
  ``But is it conceivable that the U.S. Government could default? 
Actually, yes. Every projection shows the gap between spending and tax 
revenues rising through time.
  ``Two years ago the first of the baby boomers started claiming early 
retirement under Social Security. Next year they'll start signing up 
for Medicare. Before they're through, 78 million people will quit 
working, quit paying taxes, quit contributing to our retirement system 
and start drawing benefits instead.''
  That's the end of Mr. Goodman's quote.
  The underlying bill adds $34 billion to our ever-increasing debt. 
When Democrats passed their only unemployment insurance extender bill 
that was offset by other spending cuts last November, the 
administration hailed it as a ``fiscally responsible approach to 
expanding unemployment benefits,'' adding that ``fiscal responsibility 
is central to the medium-term recovery of the economy and the creation 
of jobs.''
  The cost of extending the Democrats' unemployment insurance policy is 
growing because their failed stimulus bill has not created the promised 
jobs. Democrats predicted their trillion-dollar 2009 stimulus bill 
would create 3.7 million jobs. Instead, the debt has grown by $2 
trillion, and nearly 3 million more private sector jobs have been 
eliminated since then.
  Democrats promised unemployment would remain under 8 percent if their 
stimulus passed. Yet it remains stuck near 10 percent today. A total of 
48 out of 50 States have lost jobs since the stimulus passed.
  However, our colleagues keep spending and keep ignoring economic 
realities. That is totally irresponsible.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, I understand that the gentlelady and her 
party don't understand what's happening in Middle America. They don't 
appreciate what's happening to folks like in my district. They may not 
hang out in places like my family's bowling alley, where a person who 
loses their job, and 20 percent of my constituents are nearly out of 
work, there isn't jobs around every corner. She may have plenty of jobs 
in her home State. She may not have to worry about that for her 
constituents.
  But in my world, Mr. Speaker, when someone who comes to our bowling 
alley loses their job, they have nothing else. They don't have the Wall 
Street bonuses. They don't have the big pension, retirement systems, 
and the big 401(k) set-aside. They don't have the situation that so 
many of us need.
  We have to provide a safety net for these people, these hardworking 
Americans.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Kucinich).
  Mr. KUCINICH. There are some numbers that bear reflection right now 
that came out of the marketwatch.com report today that the Labor 
Department estimates 3.3 million people could lose extended 
unemployment benefits by the end of July if they're not renewed. And 
all together, 9.2 million people were collecting some type of 
unemployment benefits in the weekend of June 12.
  It goes on to say that the 4-week average of initial claims rose by 
3,250, to 466,500, the highest level in almost 3 months. And then it 
says the claims data, however, had little impact on the U.S. stock 
market.
  So there's a separation between Wall Street, which is still doing 
well, because the taxpayers bailed out Wall Street, and Main Street, 
which, in many places across the country, is falling apart.
  Now, I've traveled my district at countless meetings and events, 
parades and church services, festivals; and I hear the same thing. 
People are calling out from crowds asking for help. And this 
unemployment compensation issue is huge because people are having 
trouble putting food on the table.
  We're going to give them a lecture about the budget? Who among us, if 
our brother asks for a loaf of bread, we give him a stone instead?
  This Congress this afternoon is due to appropriate $33 billion to 
keep the war in Afghanistan going. And yet the amount of money we're 
asking here for the unemployed workers of America, for those who are 
trying to support their families, almost an identical amount, about $34 
billion. And we're saying, well, we can't afford that. But you don't 
hear many people saying we can't afford the war, because the truth is 
we can't afford the war. We have to afford to put people back to 
economic sustenance and pass the unemployment compensation bill.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, my colleague from California may have been 
trying to be a little humorous in his comments, but job loss in this 
economy is very serious business.
  The American people are asking this Congress controlled by the 
Democrats, Where are the jobs?
  I yield 5 minutes to my distinguished colleague from Indiana (Mr. 
Pence).
  Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and to the 
underlying bill, but it pains me to do so.
  As the Record will reflect, I, and most of my colleagues in this 
body, have supported repeated extensions of unemployment benefits. And 
as I told my constituents yesterday, I was anxious to do so again.
  American families are hurting. This economy is struggling in the 
aftermath of the worst recession in a quarter of a century. And as my 
colleague just suggested, this economy is also struggling in the midst 
of the failed economic policies of this administration and this 
Congress.
  Millions of American families are struggling to make ends meet. Since 
the passage of the so-called stimulus bill, 2.6 million jobs have been 
lost, and unemployment hovers near 10 percent.
  So I was anxious to be able to come to this floor before heading home 
for the Independence Day break, having supported an extension of 
unemployment benefits. But I rise in opposition because I think what 
the American people expect us to do is what they've been doing at 
kitchen tables and sitting around desks and small businesses and on 
family farms, and that is making the hard choices.
  We can provide an extension of unemployment insurance benefits in 
this Congress, and we can make the decisions to pay for it. And I'm 
sure it is a mystery to millions of Americans that will be looking on 
as to why we didn't even try. This Democrat majority, after adopting 
so-called PAYGO rules, after hearing from so-called fiscal conservative 
Members of the Democrat majority early in this Congress about how we 
were going to pay for what we spent, has waived their own PAYGO rules 
to add $34 billion to the national debt. And I just have to think 
millions of Americans are asking why.

                              {time}  1140

  There are any number of actions that we could take, decisions we 
could make, reordering our priorities to provide for the families at 
the point of the need here.
  The gentleman from Ohio just said that many of us in the minority 
were saying that we can't afford to extend unemployment benefits. We 
can afford it. But at my kitchen table when we say we can afford 
something, it means

[[Page 12542]]

 we can afford to pay for it. Not just simply--when my wife comes to me 
and says, I want to make a major expenditure, I say can we afford it? 
That means can we pay for it. Here it just means getting out the credit 
card of our children and grandchildren and running up the national debt 
by $34 billion.
  I also rise with a heavy heart in opposition to this bill because we 
are here extending unemployment benefits again because the economic 
policies of this administration and this Congress have failed. Would 
that the economic policies of the so-called stimulus had worked. The 
President said we needed to borrow about a trillion dollars from future 
generations of Americans a year-and-a-half ago or unemployment, he 
said, that was then 7.6 percent, would go over 8 percent. Now it's 10 
percent on average around the country, and higher, as has been said, in 
many jurisdictions.
  Remarkably, yesterday the President of the United States goes to 
Racine, Wisconsin, a place that has a 14 percent unemployment rate, and 
he made these comments. He said, Things just aren't as bad as they 
could have been. There could have been a catastrophe. And in that 
sense, the stimulus worked. The President of the United States 
yesterday in Racine, Wisconsin, said the stimulus worked. And then 
remarkably he went on to suggest that the Republican leader in Congress 
was out of touch.
  It's mind-boggling that at a time when so many--I mean what would 
this administration and this majority say to a father who's been 
struggling to make ends meet, who has been borrowing money from family 
members to pay the mortgage because he can't find work? What would he 
say to the word of the President of the United States that ``the 
stimulus worked''? What would the single mother say who has been out of 
work persistently, who has applied for dozens and dozens of jobs, and 
has gone deeper and deeper in debt during these difficult times? What 
would she say to word that the stimulus worked?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Ms. FOXX. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.
  Mr. PENCE. The reality is that we have got to bring new ideas to bear 
on this economy. The American people know what's necessary to get this 
economy moving again. It's fiscal discipline in Washington, D.C., and 
it's fast-acting, across the board tax relief for working families, 
small businesses, and family farms.
  What we hear from corporations across this country is that there is 
over $2 trillion in idled capital. We need to release the inherent 
power in this economy. We need to restore the confidence of capital 
markets in our commitment to fiscal discipline in Washington, D.C. And 
we can do all of that today and meet the needs of families struggling 
with unemployment.
  By passing a fiscally responsible extension of unemployment 
insurance, we would send a message that we get it. We know people are 
hurting, we know the policies aren't working, but we want to practice 
fiscal responsibility. And for heaven's sakes, let's stop saying the 
stimulus worked. Let's try some new ideas. Let's come together across 
this aisle and do what's necessary to get America working again.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, I look at today's Hill newspaper and I look 
on page 31. And I oftentimes believe that cartoons and political satire 
speak much more clearly than the words that we can use in big long 
speeches. And in today's cartoon, although I can't say that it's very 
funny to the American people who are being affected by it, you see an 
American citizen bungee jumping off an unemployment benefit bridge. And 
the elephant in the cartoon, signifying the other party, snips the line 
as the American's jumping off. And the comment in the caption reads, 
``Don't worry, I'm sure you will land on your feet.'' I think too 
oftentimes we have this situation where we just expect that Americans 
are going to land on their feet, and we don't care about those who get 
left behind. That's what my discussion was today.
  The gentleman just referred to the President's comments in Wisconsin 
about Mr. Boehner. And I would just refer to those comments that Mr. 
Boehner equated the financial bill that we passed yesterday, the 
regulatory reform bill that so many Americans are yearning for, he said 
it was a nuclear weapon to be used on an ant. The problem was an ant. 
Well, my constituents certainly don't think they were ants until they 
started being walked over by Wall Street.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. 
Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Cardoza, I thank you for sharing with 
us what is not a funny anecdotal story or cartoon. I think from your 
words you are saying to the American people that their predicament is 
not a cartoon. And it is interesting when one of my colleagues comes to 
the floor of the House and poses a question, What do we say to the 
unemployed mother or what do we say to the person who is trying to 
manage themselves and pay their mortgage? Or what do you say to the 
caller that called in I believe from Florida this morning on C-SPAN and 
said he's laid off from a furniture store that closed and he is looking 
for work. And if I might paraphrase him, he said something about 
getting off our rears here in Congress and helping him. Why are we 
blocking his unemployment insurance?
  Now, I can quote a lot of statistics, and somebody said something 
about numbers of individuals who are unemployed. There are double-digit 
communities with high unemployment, 13 percent, 15 percent, 16 percent, 
high numbers among our youth in their twenties, recent college 
graduates, individuals who are likewise looking for work as those who 
have been employed and are now unemployed.
  Ladies and gentlemen, unemployment insurance is the prerogative, it 
is the owned by the worker who has worked. Unemployment insurance is 
what this is called. Why do the Republicans want to block it, why do 
the Republicans in the other body stand against unemployment insurance, 
this is an outrage. There is no explanation for it.
  For the people who can get unemployment insurance, they are paying 
their mortgage. It churns back into the economy. They are buying 
groceries. They're paying car payments. Maybe they will have an 
opportunity to keep a young person in a community college by putting 
their pennies together. But here we stand today having to go back again 
because the Republicans had the audacity to vote against unemployment 
insurance coverage. So to the man who is saying, I'm going out looking 
for a job every day, to the mother who is saying, I am looking for a 
job every day, no hope is being given to them. This is not explainable.
  So I am on the floor today, because we must go forward on a 
supplemental. Maybe my colleagues will join me and vote against the war 
supplemental so we will be able to balance the budget. But if they are 
not going to be serious about saving money, they cannot stop the vote 
to help provide unemployment insurance for Americans out of work. We 
have created 200,000 jobs in the last month; some are public jobs, but 
you cannot get the private-sector engaged until you begin to see the 
churning of the overall economy.
  The Federal Government is the umbrella for a rainy day. We are in a 
rainy day. But I have faith in this Nation. We always rise. We are 
going to rise now. We are going to stand with the unemployed so they 
can soon get work and we are going to give this money to them today. 
And I dare my Republican friends to vote against this effort to help 
our fellow Americans.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to direct their remarks 
to the Chair, and to not traffic the well when another Member is under 
recognition.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished ranking 
member of the Rules Committee, Mr. Dreier.
  Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend from Grandfather Community, North 
Carolina, for yielding me the time.

[[Page 12543]]

  I would like to say that it's very sad and unfortunate that we are 
here. And, Mr. Speaker, let me say that I believe that it's really 
unnecessary, really unnecessary for us to be here. Why? Because if we 
had 17 months ago put into place a bipartisan vision for economic 
growth that was utilized very effectively by John F. Kennedy during the 
decade of the 1960s, and Ronald Reagan during the decade of the 1980s, 
that's why I call it bipartisan, I am convinced that we would in fact 
have attained what President Obama promised us would have happened with 
passage of the trillion-dollar stimulus bill.

                              {time}  1150

  You'll recall he said that if that measure passed, that the 
unemployment rate would not exceed 8 percent and that at this point we 
would be at an unemployment rate of somewhere around 7.4 percent.
  Mr. Speaker, my friend from California is joining in managing of this 
rule, and he knows very well that we not only don't have a 7.4 percent 
unemployment rate, we not only don't have an 8 percent unemployment 
rate as was promised by the President, but we nationally have just 
under 10 percent unemployment. And tomorrow we're going to be getting 
numbers which, according to reports, are not going to be terribly 
positive.
  But in our State of California and the area that my friend 
represents, the unemployment rate is far beyond that. The area I 
represent in southern California has unemployment in the Inland Empire 
of right around 14 percent. And I know that it's well in the double 
digits in the Central Valley of California.
  So when I say it should be unnecessary for us to be here, Mr. 
Speaker, the reason I say it is that if we were to take the bipartisan 
John F. Kennedy-Ronald Reagan model and use that for economic growth, 
we could have an unemployment rate which would be significantly less 
than we are facing today, and we could have a GDP growth rate which 
would be significantly higher.
  Now, what is that model? That model, the one that worked, that 
actually doubled the flow of revenues to the Federal Treasury during 
the 1960s and the 1980s, is one which is designed to bring about 
marginal tax rate reduction to encourage savings and productivity. Now, 
Mr. Speaker, that's the kind of thing that we should be doing to avoid 
where we are today facing this continued extension of unemployment 
benefits.
  The notion that somehow those of us who want to put into place pro-
growth economic policies aren't concerned about those who are today in 
need of unemployment benefits is a preposterous argument because we 
believe very passionately that the level of compassion of a government 
should be based not on the number of people who have to draw 
unemployment benefits but based instead on the number of people who do 
not need to draw unemployment benefits.
  That's why we found that over the past 17 months clearly the economic 
plan, which was put into place by President Obama and Speaker Pelosi 
and the Democratic leadership, is one that has not met up to what was 
promised. In fact, from my perspective, it's been an abject failure 
when you have an unemployment rate that nationally is nearly 2 percent 
greater than the level that we were promised.
  I also believe, Mr. Speaker, that we have an opportunity that emerged 
from the discussion that took place last weekend at the G-20 meeting. 
That plan that the President--and I congratulate him for putting 
forward--calls for moving ahead in a lame duck session after 
renegotiating a U.S.-South Korea free trade agreement. And I look 
forward to working with my friend, the distinguished chair of the 
Committee on Ways and Means, on this just as soon as we are able to 
move forward with it.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Ms. FOXX. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding.
  Let me say, Mr. Speaker, that I believe that if we were to take that 
vision of opening up markets when 96 percent of the world's consumers 
are outside of our borders and pass not only the U.S.-South Korea 
agreement but right here in this hemisphere, if we were to pass the 
Panama and Colombia agreements, which were negotiated before the South 
Korea agreement was put into place, we would have tens of millions of 
new consumers. In Colombia alone, 40 million consumers. American jobs 
could be created for Caterpillar, John Deere, Whirlpool. Other great 
U.S. companies could create U.S. jobs.
  And I hope very much, Mr. Speaker, that we're able to put those kinds 
of pro-growth policies into place so we don't have to face what we're 
facing today.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire how much time each 
side has remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California has 16 minutes 
remaining. The gentlewoman from North Carolina has 14\1/4\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to respond to my 
colleague from California by saying that the gentleman is once again 
talking about the long-term questions--whether we need tax cuts or 
whether we need to have more stimulus. All of those things are open to 
debate.
  What is not open to debate is the fact that 1.7 million Americans 
today and over the next 3 days and over the last few weeks have lost 
their unemployment benefits. That is an emergency. That's why we have 
emergency spending provisions. We have to take care of those Americans 
who will not be able to feed their families, pay their mortgage 
payments. That's why we have an unemployment insurance compensation 
program, to protect those Americans when they find themselves in this 
kind of a situation.
  We can have the other debates on other days. And we certainly have 
had and we will have. But on today's question of whether we're going to 
extend those benefits, we need to have the Republicans join us in 
supporting the American people, in supporting those out-of-work folks.
  Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
  Mr. ANDREWS. I thank my friend from California for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, there's been discussion on the floor of the long term. 
For the long-term unemployed in this country, the long term happened 
yesterday, or today, actually, the first of the month when the rent 
comes due and you can't pay it or your mortgage comes due and you can't 
pay it. They're living in the long term right now, and they need some 
help. And I think that considering this bill today is the right thing 
to do.
  I do want to reference the remarks which preceded me a few minutes 
ago by my friend from California, the senior member of the Rules 
Committee, about how, had the Congress embarked on the path he 
suggested early in 2009, that the economy would be so much stronger. 
And he is a fierce and articulate advocate of that point of view. But 
let's examine what that point of view is and what its track record is.
  The gentleman from California argued for cuts in marginal tax rates, 
mostly distributed to people at the top end--not all, but mostly. He 
argued for deregulation of the domestic markets and for a policy that 
pursues that goal. That is a quite accurate description of the economic 
policies of the administration of President George W. Bush. They cut 
marginal tax rates--mostly at the upper end of the scale--almost all at 
the upper end of the scale. They engaged in a systematic practice of 
deregulation of Wall Street and other industries. And it yielded, quite 
frankly, the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression.
  Were those policies the sole cause of that? Of course not. Is what 
the American people need a rehashing of that failure? Of course not.
  The American people need a policy that will grow jobs, and although 
the jobs are growing much more slowly than I think any of us hoped, the 
reality is the economy shed 8\1/2\ million jobs following the policy 
that my

[[Page 12544]]

friend from California would like us to go back to; and it has gained 
just over a million jobs since the beginning of this year. Those are 
the facts.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.
  Our colleagues across the aisle are saying yes, what the American 
people want is to see jobs and they keep asking where are the jobs. We 
keep being told that these failed policies passed by this 
administration and this Congress are going to produce jobs. That is not 
the case.
  They like to tout the May employment report issued by the Bureau of 
Labor Statistics which appears to be positive with the addition of 
431,000 new jobs. However, 412,000 of those new positions are for 
temporary government census workers. In other words, 96 percent of 
May's job growth will be eliminated in just a few weeks. That's almost 
half of the jobs that my colleague from New Jersey wants to point out.
  The June unemployment rate we believe, as my colleague from 
California said, will edge up to 9.8 percent from 9.7 percent in May. 
But they keep bragging about how effective they've been at providing 
jobs.

                              {time}  1200

  The bottom line is, since February 2009, with Democrats in charge of 
Congress and the White House, more than 3.3 million jobs have been lost 
in the private sector. The Federal Government has gained more than 
590,000 jobs over the same period. I hate to tell you, but the 
government jobs don't provide a viable solution in helping get the 
economy back on its feet. Government jobs are supported by tax dollars, 
and that tax burden is ultimately borne by the entrepreneurs and small 
businesses that are the engines of economic growth. Further strain on 
these employers will not help facilitate a healthy economy over the 
long term.
  Now, my colleague from New Jersey just talked about a myth that our 
colleagues continue to perpetuate, which is about how many jobs were 
lost in the Bush administration and about how many jobs were gained.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to insert into the Record a piece by Keith 
Hennessey.
  This is a fairly new Democratic claim about job creation. Our 
colleagues are really searching for ways to justify their terrible 
policies; but as Mr. Hennessey points out, the Democrats are picking 
their time frames very carefully. They ignore the 4 million jobs lost 
during the first 11 months of a Presidency that is, so far, 16 months 
old. What they don't point out is the fact that President Bush 
inherited a recession and that their statistics, again, are totally 
unfounded.
  If you will look at the Bureau of Labor Statistics' payroll survey 
that was done in 2001 to mid-2003, you will see a steady employment 
decline, followed by a steady, strong, and sustained period of job 
growth for almost 4 years.
  This is the chart put out by Keith Hennessey. He notes that, in the 
46 months that we had job growth in the Bush administration, it is the 
second longest in recorded history for sustained job creation in the 
U.S. More than 8 million jobs were created during this period. A mild 
recession began in late 2007--who was in charge of the Congress at that 
time? The Democrats. They always fail to mention that--followed by a 
severe contraction in the second half of 2008 and continuing into the 
Obama administration.
  So this chart shows it very well, and it is very objective, Mr. 
Speaker. It isn't opinion on my part. It's the numbers. As I said, our 
colleagues are very, very selective in how they make the comparison.

                [From Keith Hennessey.com, June 8, 2010]

              The New Democratic Claim About Job Creation

       A new claim about job creation appears to be bubbling up 
     through the Democratic ranks. Here is the clearest statement 
     of that claim, from Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) on 
     Stuart Varney's show:
       On the pace that we're on, with job creation in the last 
     four months, if we continue on that pace, and all the leading 
     economists say that it is likely that we will, we will have 
     created more jobs in this year than in the entire Bush 
     Presidency.
       Ms. Wasserman Schultz is picking her timeframes carefully, 
     in particular by ignoring the four million jobs lost during 
     the first 11 months of a Presidency that is so far 16 months 
     old.
       Even today, after five straight months of job growth, three 
     million fewer people are working than when President Obama 
     took office. That's hardly something to brag about.
       And looking just at last month's strong net increase of 
     431,000 jobs, we see that nine out of ten net new jobs were 
     temporary government jobs for census takers. We all hope the 
     pace of private job creation accelerates, but it's too soon 
     to declare this a strong and consistent employment recovery 
     or to project its trend into the rest of the year.

  Let me point out one other chart that has been put together, and that 
is to compare the unemployment over time between administrations, or 
among administrations, using the average unemployment rate. You will 
see it is very low under President Johnson at 4.2 percent. Under 
President Eisenhower, 4.9 percent. The average under President Bush 43, 
5.3 percent. The average under President Obama, 9.5 percent.
  This is what the American people are interested in. They are asking: 
Where are the jobs? Why do the Obama administration and Pelosi policies 
continue to have us lose jobs? Unemployment is at almost 10 percent.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Salazar). The time of the gentlewoman 
has expired.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would like to take this time to correct the statistics and the 
statements that we just heard from my colleague from North Carolina.
  My colleague forgets that in the Clinton administration we created--
not ``we,'' because I wasn't here--but the Democrats and Mr. Clinton 
created 22 million new jobs for America.
  Mr. Bush, when he took over, did not, in fact, inherit a recession. 
That recession happened after he was in office, and it was a severe 
one. We started to come out of that. Again, the Bush administration 
policies caused a second recession. When you look at Mr. Bush's term of 
office, there were some jobs created; but they were not private-sector 
jobs, as the gentlelady is so fond of talking about. In fact, if you 
look at the statistics, there were no new private-sector jobs created 
during the Bush administration. When Mr. Bush left office, he left a 
recession that was shedding 750,000-plus jobs a month.
  When the good lady from North Carolina talks about the fact that 
there have been job losses during the Obama administration, many of 
those are the carryovers. You don't turn around the economy overnight. 
Mr. Obama can't flip a light switch and create the jobs overnight. It 
took time to get the policies in place to start bringing the country 
out of the Bush recession. In fact, in the last 3 months, we have 
averaged 300,000-plus jobs instead of losing 750,000 a month under the 
last few months of the Bush administration.
  This rewriting of history, this total denial of the economic policies 
that got us into this mess, is something that, frankly, the American 
people understand very well. The 20 percent of the population which are 
unemployed in my district right now understand that very well. The 30 
percent of my constituents who have lost their homes to foreclosure 
understand who got them into this situation. I think that we will, in 
fact, see a situation where the American people will judge what is 
going on here.
  We will have to work hard to create more jobs in the future. As I 
said before, we are going to debate those policies. There have been 
discussions on tax cuts and on the stimulus. The statistics tell us 
that the average American has not paid this low of a percentage of his 
taxes in quite some time, since Mr. Truman was in office, I believe it 
is.
  So I believe that there are significant facts that we need to set 
straight here, facts which represent a positive side of the ledger to 
my party and to the policies we are advocating.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, it is not we Republicans who are rewriting 
history. It is our colleagues on the other side of the aisle.

[[Page 12545]]

  I will point out once again that Republicans were in charge of the 
Congress during 6 of the 8 years of Mr. Clinton's administration, and 
that is when we had the job growth--when Republicans were making the 
policy here. Mr. Obama did promise to create the jobs. He promised that 
unemployment would not go above 8 percent. He made lots of promises. As 
far as I've been able to see, none of the good ones have been kept.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my distinguished colleague from 
California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren).
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I thank the gentlewoman for the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I was listening intently to the debate. I must say that 
the people in my district would not recognize the America that has been 
described by the gentleman from California. They would not believe that 
the economy is moving up. They would not believe that jobs are being 
created. They would not believe that they have low taxes. Frankly, they 
believe all of the opposite because that is what their reality is.
  All of us have been home in our districts, as have I. All of us, I 
hope, have polled our constituents, both informally and formally. I 
find what my constituents say in my district is similar to what I see 
in the national polls.
  The number one thing they are concerned about are jobs. They are 
concerned about good jobs, permanent jobs. They understand the agony of 
those who are unemployed and of those who are having difficulty, if not 
discovering the impossibility, of finding prospects for jobs at the 
present time; and we understand that on this side, though the other 
thing my constituents have said to me over and over again is, while 
``jobs'' is the number one issue, the number two issue is the spending, 
which is out of control by this Congress.
  So I hear my friends on the other side of the aisle who say we have 
an emergency in terms of the unemployment benefits running out. I 
understand that. Yet what my constituents are telling me and what 
Americans are saying all over the country is that there are at least 
two emergencies. Jobs, yes, are an emergency; but spending, out-of-
control spending, irresponsible spending by this Congress under this 
Democratic leadership is a major concern to them.
  Under this rule, we can't deal with both emergencies. We can only 
deal with the question of jobs in the unemployment compensation arena, 
but we are prohibited from dealing with how you pay for the government 
spending here. That's what we have been asking for. Deal with the 
second emergency so that you don't have further people unemployed for 
years and so that you don't impose your debt on my children and my 
grandchildren so that they will not have the prospect of jobs in the 
future.

                              {time}  1210

  It is not original with me, but it often has been said the best 
social welfare program is a job. While we want to have unemployment 
insurance to cushion people, to transition people from a period of 
employment to unemployment to employment, that is not the prospect we 
want for them short-term or long-term. What we want is creation of 
jobs, and the irresponsibility of this administration and this 
Democratic leadership in not facing up to the fact that our persistent 
irresponsibility in not paying our bills is something that exacerbates 
the problem--
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. So as I hear the people on the 
other side of the aisle try and say, look, Republicans are those 
Scrooge-like people who are not concerned about people who are 
unemployed, let me just say we have people unemployed as well as you do 
in your districts. We have friends and family members who are suffering 
under this. We understand that. But we also understand they are saying 
at the same time, when you pass legislation in the Congress that costs 
money, find a way to pay for it. Find a way to pay for it.
  You can be both for creation of jobs as well as being responsible in 
the carrying out of our duties. That is all we are saying. Don't 
promise the American people a free lunch, and don't say, well, we will 
think about that in the future, because we have got to think about 
spending right now.
  Now, I understand this rule doesn't allow us to do this. The 
leadership on the Democratic side doesn't want to face up to the 
concerns we have. We are not even going to have a budget. But at some 
point in time we have to stand up for what is right, and we can do two 
things at once.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Doggett), a member of the Ways and Means Committee.
  Mr. DOGGETT. I thank the gentleman.
  This rule makes it possible for us to consider today a supplemental 
appropriations bill that contains some vital support for public 
education across America.
  Now, most schoolchildren learn that 3 plus 3 equals 6. Last year, the 
schoolchildren of my State of Texas received an unfortunate lesson in 
State Republican math. In Texas, 3 plus 3 only equaled 3. How is that?
  Well, last year, Texas received more than $3 billion in State 
Stabilization, economic recovery, or stimulus funds designated for our 
local school districts, for our schoolchildren. But by exploiting 
ambiguous language, for every dime of Federal support in State 
Stabilization moneys that went to Texas, the State took away money that 
it had already committed for the same purpose. So instead of a historic 
boost in local school support, our schoolchildren were left no better 
off than if we had not passed the Economic Recovery Act with these 
provisions at all. The $3 billion more made no difference for our local 
schools.
  Congressional support for our local school districts reflects a two-
fold understanding. First, that our local districts know best what the 
needs of their students and their teachers and administrators are. 
Second, that especially in times of a difficult economy, we need to 
invest in public education. A solid education is the foundation on 
which our economy and our democracy rests.
  Now, our Texas Republican leadership disagreed with both those 
propositions. They balanced the State budget with Federal economic 
recovery funds at the same time our Governor was out talking about 
secession and attacking the economic recovery, much as we have heard 
this morning.
  I am hopeful that this supplemental appropriation will include 
specific language for Texas made at the request of our Texas Democratic 
Congressional delegation to ensure that this never happens again.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. CARDOZA. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. DOGGETT. To ensure that any money that goes for teachers and 
public education in Texas actually goes to improve our schools and the 
lives of our schoolchildren.
  Earlier this month, statewide groups representing teachers, 
principals, school boards and school administrators joined about 40 
superintendents from across the State to endorse this approach. Through 
this bill today, with specific language for Texas, we can ensure that 
our goals last year are achieved and we do something at this difficult 
time to address the needs of our Texas teachers and our Texas 
schoolchildren.
  I hope this rule can be adopted in order to approve this important 
language.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, Republicans want to help the long-term unemployed, but 
agree with the American people that new spending needs to be offset by 
cuts otherwise.
  During the Rules Committee markup of the Democrats' H.R. 5618, Mr. 
Heller from Nevada offered a Republican amendment in the nature of a 
substitute which was not made in order by

[[Page 12546]]

a vote of two to seven. This fiscally responsible alternative would 
have extended unemployment insurance, COBRA, and the current poverty 
guidelines until September 25th, and paid for it with unused funds from 
the failed stimulus bill.
  Again, the bill before us extends Federal unemployment benefits only 
through November 2010 and is not paid for, adding its $34 billion price 
tag to our $13 trillion debt.
  Democrats claim their bill satisfies their PAYGO requirements by 
declaring it is spending in an emergency. But that is simply an excuse 
for not paying for it. Let me tell you how an emergency is defined in 
their rules.
  In general, the criteria to be considered in determining whether a 
proposed expenditure or tax change meets an emergency designation 
includes, one, necessary, essential, or vital, not merely useful or 
beneficial; two, sudden, quickly coming into being and not building up 
over time; three, an urgent, pressing, and compelling need requiring 
immediate action; four, unforeseen, unpredictable, unanticipated, and 
not permanent, but rather temporary in nature.
  We have known about this for a long time. This does not meet the 
criteria for emergency spending. Declaring it emergency spending is 
just a gimmick. It is a way to not have to comply with PAYGO. In fact, 
there are 160 spending programs already exempt from PAYGO or operating 
under special rules.
  You know, just because our colleagues say that it is so, doesn't make 
it so. Saying that it is PAYGO compliant doesn't mean that there is an 
offset to it. So our colleagues are very clever in the way they say 
things.
  President Obama said in February 2010, Now Congress will have to pay 
for what it spends, just like everybody else. After a decade of 
profligacy, the American people are tired of politicians who talk the 
talk but don't walk the walk when it comes to fiscal responsibility.
  Both the President and our colleagues across the aisle are talking 
out of both sides of their mouths. They go out and announce that they 
are making something PAYGO compliant, but they don't. Rather than face 
facts and support sound economic policies like lowering taxes and 
reducing regulatory burdens, the Democrats continue to advocate 
misguided policies that expand the government's control and increase 
the Nation's debt.
  This is not the way to create jobs. The American people continue to 
ask the question, where are the jobs? Mr. Speaker, this bill is not 
going to create the jobs, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
  Mr. Speaker, the President has said that every economist that has 
looked at his stimulus plan and all the plans that he has put forth 
agree with him.

                              {time}  1220

  But let me quote Carnegie Mellon economist Allan H. Meltzer, in an 
article in the Wall Street Journal op-ed June 30: Why Obamanomics Has 
Failed. ``The administration's stimulus program has failed. Growth is 
slow and unemployment remains high. The President and his friends and 
advisers talk endlessly about the circumstances they inherited as a way 
of avoiding responsibility for the 18 months for which they are 
responsible. Two overarching reasons explain the failure of 
Obamanomics. First, administration economists and their outside 
supporters neglected the longer-term costs and consequences of their 
actions. Second, the administration and Congress have, through their 
deeds and words, heightened uncertainty about the economic future. High 
uncertainty is the enemy of investment and growth.''
  Economists get it, Republicans get it, and the American people get 
it. It's high time the Democrats wake up to the fact that the stimulus 
isn't working as promised. We need to cut government spending, repeal 
nonsensical regulations, and lower taxes. We should not be passing this 
extension without an offset in spending.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule, and ``no'' on the 
bill. Let's answer the question the American people are asking, Where 
are the jobs? Let's put in policies that really create jobs.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, I would like to close today by discussing a 
little bit of what the gentlelady just talked about with regard to 
PAYGO. I'd like to point out that I'm quite sure that the gentlelady 
from North Carolina did not vote for the PAYGO resolution in the House 
rules that we passed at the beginning of this Congress, nor did she 
vote for statutory PAYGO. They have always talked about tax cuts as the 
answer to all of America's problems. We could take the tax cut to zero 
and my, wouldn't we pay for government well?
  The reality is that they only want to pay for things that affect 
common folks--the common Americans that get up every day, put their 
shoes on, and just want a job to make a living and pay for their 
family, pay for their home, and earn a better life. They don't want to 
pay for the tax cuts for the Wall Street big shots. They never want to 
pay for that. They don't want the PAYGO rules to apply to them.
  As I said before in this debate, I grew up in my parents' bowling 
alley. I saw firsthand what happened to those folks--those hardworking 
American folks that would come into my parents' establishment just 
wanting a little bit of fun on a Friday or Saturday night. I saw what 
happened when they lost their job. They lost their home, they couldn't 
feed their family. Families disbanded because of the stress and tension 
under those economic situations.
  My colleagues on the other side of the aisle voted against, for the 
most part, the financial regulatory reform bill. They were protecting 
their friends on Wall Street, the very people that got us into this 
calamity. Thirty percent of my constituents--around that--have lost 
their home to foreclosure because of the financial collapse that was 
caused by the greed on Wall Street. Yet my colleagues on the other side 
of the aisle continue to defend them. But, for the most part, they will 
not vote for emergency funding to put food on unemployed workers' 
tables or to allow them to keep their homes in this time of crisis. I 
say that it's not all of them because on June 29, 2010, 30 courageous 
Republicans voted with the Democrats--the 231 Democrats--to extend 
unemployment benefits and to protect those workers who have lost their 
job in this economic situation.
  Mr. Speaker, I can't sit here today and tell you that every policy 
that we've put in place since Mr. Obama has been in place has worked as 
well as I'd like. Frankly, I've been critical on a number of issues 
that I thought the administration could have done a better job. But I 
will tell you that when it comes time to taking care of Americans who 
are in an emergency situation, who have lost their job for no fault of 
their own but for the fact that the economic situation was a tsunami 
that swamped them, it is our party who is standing up to make sure that 
those workers can survive for another day. And for those workers, this 
absolutely is an emergency.
  Mr. Speaker, no one can legitimately doubt that the situation we face 
right now is an emergency for the American people who are unemployed. 
And until our economy is firmly on track and moving forward, I believe 
we must provide help for those unemployed workers to pay their bills 
and feed their families. If not, we risk falling further into a further 
economic crisis and we risk leaving way too many families behind.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to support this rule and to support 
the underlying bill. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question, 
and on the rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this 15-
minute vote on House Resolution 1495

[[Page 12547]]

will be followed by 5-minute votes on suspending the rules with regard 
to House Resolution 1321, if ordered; and House Resolution 1405, if 
ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 231, 
nays 189, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 418]

                               YEAS--231

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

                               NAYS--189

     Aderholt
     Adler (NJ)
     Akin
     Alexander
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bright
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Cao
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Castle
     Chaffetz
     Childers
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Djou
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Ellsworth
     Emerson
     Fallin
     Flake
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Guthrie
     Hall (TX)
     Harper
     Hastings (WA)
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hill
     Hunter
     Inglis
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan (OH)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kirkpatrick (AZ)
     Kline (MN)
     Kratovil
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lee (NY)
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Markey (CO)
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Minnick
     Mitchell
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Nye
     Olson
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Baird
     Edwards (MD)
     Ellison
     Hoekstra
     Lynch
     Moran (VA)
     Payne
     Rodriguez
     Wamp
     Welch
     Woolsey
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1253

  Messrs. GALLEGLY, NUNES, SESSIONS, POSEY, and KLINE of Minnesota 
changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Messrs. COHEN and CLEAVER changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________