[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 9]
[House]
[Pages 12927-12937]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1200
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1722, TELEWORK IMPROVEMENTS ACT OF 
                                  2010

  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, 
I call up House Resolution 1509 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 1509

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 
     1722) to improve teleworking in executive agencies by 
     developing a telework program that allows employees to 
     telework at least 20 percent of the hours worked in every 2 
     administrative workweeks, and for other purposes. All points 
     of order against consideration of the bill are waived except 
     those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The amendment 
     in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on 
     Oversight and Government Reform now printed in the bill, 
     modified by 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 of 
     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 Oversight and 
     Government Reform; and (2) one motion to recommit with or 
     without instructions.

[[Page 12928]]

       Sec. 2.  House Resolution 1496 is laid on the table.

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


                             General Leave

  Mr. McGOVERN. I ask unanimous consent that all Members may be given 5 
legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House 
Resolution 1509.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, H. Res. 1509 provides for consideration of H.R. 1722, 
the Telework Improvements Act. The rule provides 1 hour of debate 
controlled by the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. The 
rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill 
except those arising under clauses 9 and 10 of rule XXI. The rule makes 
in order the substitute reported by the Committee on Oversight and 
Government Reform as modified by an amendment printed in the Rules 
Committee report. The rule also provides one motion to recommit the 
bill with or without instructions.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this rule and in 
strong support of the underlying bill. Even in this July heat, it is 
hard to forget the historic snowfall that blanketed the Washington 
region this past winter. OMB estimated that for each day the Federal 
Government was shut down during the storms, the government lost $71 
million worth of productivity. Had some agencies not allowed their 
employees to telecommute, the cost of lost productivity would have been 
$100 million.
  With today's mobile technology, we can do better to ensure that 
Federal employees can effectively telecommute regardless of weather 
conditions. The Telework Improvements Act will provide a framework to 
expand the current telecommuting program so that all Federal employees 
can enjoy the benefits. Telecommuting also helps to reduce traffic 
congestion. I don't think you will find too many Federal employees 
complaining about missing out on rush-hour traffic in metro D.C.
  Now, some may argue that telecommuting will just allow lazy 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 U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, the Defense Information Systems 
Agency, and the General Services Administration have already 
established efficient and effective telework policies.
  For those concerned about the deficit, the bill is deficit neutral 
and, therefore, PAYGO compliant. CBO's estimated cost of $30 million 
over 5 years pales in comparison to the $71 million per day the 
government lost due to snow last winter.
  Madam Speaker, I want to remind all of my colleagues that a 
bipartisan majority of them supported this bill when it came to the 
floor under suspension in May of this year. I urge them to once again 
support this rule and the underlying bill.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. I thank my colleague from Massachusetts for yielding time, 
and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, as has become routine in this Congress, it's my sad 
duty to come before you yet again today to speak in opposition to 
spending this House's valuable time to consider a bill that would do 
absolutely nothing to respond to the very real concerns facing 
Americans every day.
  Here we are with a 9.5 percent unemployment rate, the largest deficit 
in our history, and the national debt at almost $14 trillion. The 
response of the liberal Democratic leadership? A bill making it easier 
for Federal employees to stay at home to work and creating more 
government union jobs.
  Here we are with a financial crisis of global proportions resulting 
from an unprecedented expansion of government. The response of liberal 
Democratic leadership? A resolution recognizing National Train Day.
  Here we are with a torrent of oil gushing into the gulf day after 
day, depriving untold numbers of people of their livelihoods. The 
liberal Democratic response? A resolution supporting the goals and 
ideals of RV Centennial Celebration Month to recognize and honor a 
hundred years of the enjoyment of recreational vehicles in the United 
States.
  In fact, this Congress so far has considered no fewer than 73 bills 
naming post offices, 36 measures recognizing sporting events and 
achievements, and 145 designations or recognitions for various days, 
weeks, months, or years.
  Despite these very real problems, the liberal Democrats ruling 
Congress are running around the country trying to convince the American 
people that everything is just fine and they don't need to worry 
because the Democrats are solving their problems. While government 
employees and their union handlers might be satisfied with the liberal 
Democrat jobs agenda, try asking the small business men forced to close 
their doors or the 7 million private business employees who've lost 
their jobs since the liberal Democrats took control of Congress in 2007 
and want to get back to work. This is the wrong bill at the wrong time.
  And with that, Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, the gentlelady mentioned the deficit and 
how concerned she is about the deficit. It's somewhat puzzling to me 
then that she hasn't been out front wanting to pay for the Bush tax 
cuts that cost hundreds of billions of dollars, that there's been no 
effort on the other side to want to pay for the George Bush 
prescription drug bill which cost hundreds of billions of dollars all 
on to our credit card, that there is no effort on the other side to 
want to pay for these wars which have now cost $1 trillion--$1 trillion 
in borrowed money.
  I should say, with one exception. The minority leader, Mr. Boehner, 
suggested that we could pay for the wars with the Social Security Trust 
Fund, that we should raise the retirement age and whatever savings we 
have should not go into the Social Security Trust Fund, should go to 
pay for our wars so our senior citizens who have paid into the system 
year after year after year should be robbed of a solid program and, 
instead, that money should go to pay for the wars.
  When they talk about deficits and debt, it is laughable, because they 
inherited from Bill Clinton one of the biggest surpluses in history and 
they squandered it on tax cuts that weren't paid for--mostly for the 
rich, mostly for their big contributors--and on wars that were not paid 
for.
  And what this President and this Congress is trying to do is clean up 
their mess. And I'm sorry that that bothers some of my friends on the 
other side, but we're going to clean up their mess, and we're going to 
move this economy forward.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  As I have said before on the floor here to my colleagues who want to 
rewrite history, they can't blame everything on President Bush. They 
can't continue to do that. And they want to give President Clinton all 
the credit.
  But, of course, the Congress was controlled by the Republicans for 6 
of the 8 years that President Clinton was in office. It's the Congress 
that controls the spending. Our Democratic colleagues know that. They 
simply choose to ignore it when it suits their arguments.

                              {time}  1210

  Let me quote from the Wall Street Journal article of the 13th of 
July. It's

[[Page 12929]]

very recent, so my colleague may not have seen it.
  The Bush Tax Cuts and the Deficit Myth--and I won't read the entire 
article; but, Madam Speaker, I insert the entire article into the 
Record.
  Let me read again a little bit from it: In short, it's all President 
Bush's fault. But Mr. Obama's assertion fails on three grounds.
  First, the wars, tax cuts and the prescription drug program were 
implemented in the early 2000s, yet by 2007 the deficit stood at only 
$161 billion.
  When our colleagues across the aisle took over the Congress, the 
deficit stood at $161 billion. I go back to quote: How could these 
stable policies have suddenly caused trillion-dollar deficits beginning 
in 2009? Obviously, what happened was collapsing revenues from the 
recession along with stimulus spending.
  Second, the President's $8 trillion figure minimizes the problem. 
Recent CBO data indicate a 10-year baseline deficit closer to $13 
trillion if Washington maintains today's tax-and-spend policies, 
whereby discretionary spending grows with the economy, war spending 
winds down, ObamaCare is implemented, and Congress extends all the Bush 
tax cuts, the alternative minimum tax patch and the Medicare doc fix, 
i.e., no reimbursement cuts.
  Under this realistic baseline, the 10-year cost of extending the Bush 
tax cuts, $3.2 trillion, the Medicare drug entitlement and Iraq and 
Afghanistan spending add up to $4.7 trillion. That's approximately one-
third of the $13 trillion in baseline deficits, far from the majority 
the President claims.
  Third and most importantly, the White House methodology is arbitrary. 
With Washington set to tax $33 trillion and spend $46 trillion over the 
next decade, how does one determine which policies ``caused'' the $13 
trillion deficit? Mr. Obama could have just as easily singled out 
Social Security, $9.2 trillion over 10 years; anti-poverty programs, $7 
trillion; other Medicare spending, $5.4 trillion; net interest on the 
debt, $6.1 trillion; and the article goes on and on with nondefense 
discretionary spending.
  Madam Speaker, I have a chart here which we have put together which I 
think does a very good job of showing deficit spending as a percent of 
GDP. That's what really is the way we should look at this; and let me 
point out that in 1992 under Democrat control the deficit as a percent 
of GDP is this line; 1993, this line; 1994. Republicans then take over 
the Congress in 1995, and look how the deficit goes down, significantly 
goes down. It does go up some in 2002 under a Republican Congress and 
Republican President but we go into war in 2003, 2004, and then what 
happens when the Democrats take back over? It shoots back up. The red 
lines are the projected deficits as percent of GDP.
  Madam Speaker, this argument just won't hold. Our friends very 
selectively come up with numbers, and we're going to point out the 
facts each time that they try to make up facts.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, would the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. FOXX. I would be happy to yield to my friend from California.
  Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I'm really struck having seen that chart with a 
fascinating juxtaposition that I've pointed out a couple of times here 
on the House floor.
  There is a requirement for membership in the European Union. The 
requirement for a new country to join the European Union, Madam 
Speaker, is that they not have a debt that exceeds 60 percent of the 
gross domestic product of that country. Now, what does that mean? As we 
look at that chart today, the United States of America, Madam Speaker, 
interestingly enough, could not qualify for membership in the European 
Union because of that debt burden which is continuing to be passed on 
and on and on to our children and future generations.
  Ms. FOXX. Reclaiming my time, I thank my colleague for pointing out 
the very important issue of the percentage of debt to the GDP because 
it is an important issue and our friends across the aisle have created 
much of that problem along with our President. They have been in charge 
since January 2007, and that's where the problem comes from.

             [From the Wall Street Journal, July 13, 2010]

                 The Bush Tax Cuts and the Deficit Myth

                            (By Brian Riedl)

       President Obama and congressional Democrats are blaming 
     their trillion-dollar budget deficits on the Bush tax cuts of 
     2001 and 2003. Letting these tax cuts expire is their answer. 
     Yet the data flatly contradict this ``tax cuts caused the 
     deficits'' narrative. Consider the three most persistent 
     myths:
       The Bush tax cuts wiped out last decade's budget surpluses. 
     Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass), for example, has long blamed the 
     tax cuts for having ``taken a $5.6 trillion surplus and 
     turned it into deficits as far as the eye can see.'' That 
     $5.6 trillion surplus never existed. It was a projection by 
     the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) in January 2001 to 
     cover the next decade. It assumed that late-1990s economic 
     growth and the stockmarket bubble (which had already peaked) 
     would continue forever and generate record-high tax revenues. 
     It assumed no recessions, no terrorist attacks, no wars, no 
     natural disasters, and that all discretionary spending would 
     fall to 1930s levels.
       The projected $5.6 trillion surplus between 2002 and 2011 
     will more likely be a $6.1 trillion deficit through September 
     2011. So what was the cause of this dizzying, $11.7 trillion 
     swing? I've analyzed CBO's 28 subsequent budget baseline 
     updates since January 2001. These updates reveal that the 
     much-maligned Bush tax cuts, at $1.7 trillion, caused just 
     14% of the swing from projected surpluses to actual deficits 
     (and that is according to a ``static'' analysis, excluding 
     any revenues recovered from faster economic growth induced by 
     the cuts).
       The bulk of the swing resulted from economic and technical 
     revisions (33%), other new spending (32%), net interest on 
     the debt (12%), the 2009 stimulus (6%) and other tax cuts 
     (3%). Specifically, the tax cuts for those earning more than 
     $250,000 are responsible for just 4% of the swing. If there 
     were no Bush tax cuts, runaway spending and economic factors 
     would have guaranteed more than $4 trillion in deficits over 
     the decade and kept the budget in deficit every year except 
     2007.
       The next decade's deficits are the result of the previous 
     administration's profligacy. Mr. Obama asserted in his 
     January State of the Union Address that by the time he took 
     office, ``we had a one-year deficit of over $1 trillion and 
     projected deficits of $8 trillion over the next decade. Most 
     of this was the result of not paying for two wars, two tax 
     cuts, and an expensive prescription drug program.''
       In short, it's all President Bush's fault. But Mr. Obama's 
     assertion fails on three grounds.
       First, the wars, tax cuts and the prescription drug program 
     were implemented in the early 2000s, yet by 2007 the deficit 
     stood at only $161 billion. How could these stable policies 
     have suddenly caused trillion-dollar deficits beginning in 
     2009? (Obviously what happened was collapsing revenues from 
     the recession along with stimulus spending.)
       Second, the president's $8 trillion figure minimizes the 
     problem. Recent CBO data indicate a 10-year baseline deficit 
     closer to $13 trillion if Washington maintains today's tax-
     and-spend policies--whereby discretionary spending grows with 
     the economy, war spending winds down, ObamaCare is 
     implemented, and Congress extends all the Bush tax cuts, the 
     Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) patch, and the Medicare ``doc 
     fix'' (i.e., no reimbursement cuts).
       Under this realistic baseline, the 10-year cost of 
     extending the Bush tax cuts ($3.2 trillion), the Medicare 
     drug entitlement ($1 trillion), and Iraq and Afghanistan 
     spending ($515 billion) add up to $4.7 trillion. That's 
     approximately one-third of the $13 trillion in baseline 
     deficits--far from the majority the president claims.
       Third and most importantly, the White House methodology is 
     arbitrary. With Washington set to tax $33 trillion and spend 
     $46 trillion over the next decade, how does one determine 
     which policies ``caused'' the $13 trillion deficit? Mr. Obama 
     could have just as easily singled out Social Security ($9.2 
     trillion over 10 years), antipoverty programs ($7 trillion), 
     other Medicare spending ($5.4 trillion), net interest on the 
     debt ($6.1 trillion), or nondefense discretionary spending 
     ($7.5 trillion).
       There's no legitimate reason to single out the $4.7 
     trillion in tax cuts, war funding and the Medicare drug 
     entitlement. A better methodology would focus on which 
     programs are expanding and pushing the next decade's deficit 
     up.
       Declining revenues are driving future deficits. The fact is 
     that rapidly increasing spending will cause 100% of rising 
     long-term deficits. Over the past 50 years, tax revenues have 
     deviated little from their 18% of gross domestic product 
     (GDP) average. Despite a temporary recession-induced dip, CBO 
     projects that even if all Bush tax cuts are extended and the 
     AMT is patched, tax revenues will rebound to 18.2% of GDP by 
     2020--slightly above the historical average. They will 
     continue growing afterwards.

[[Page 12930]]

       Spending--which has averaged 20.3% of GDP over the past 50 
     years--won't remain as stable. Using the budget baseline 
     deficit of $13 trillion for the next decade as described 
     above, CBO figures show spending surging to a peacetime 
     record 26.5% of GDP by 2020 and also rising steeply 
     thereafter.
       Putting this together, the budget deficit, historically 
     2.3% of GDP, is projected to leap to 8.3% of GDP by 2020 
     under current policies. This will result from Washington 
     taxing at 0.2% of GDP above the historical average but 
     spending 6.2% above its historical average.
       Entitlements and other obligations are driving the 
     deficits. Specifically, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid 
     and net interest costs are projected to rise by 5.4% of GDP 
     between 2008 and 2020. The Bush tax cuts are a convenient 
     scapegoat for past and future budget woes. But it is the 
     dramatic upward arc of federal spending that is the root of 
     the problem.

  With that, Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  My friends on the other side of the aisle can pull out all their 
charts and artwork that their Republican National Committee wants to 
put together for them; but some facts are undeniable, and that is, that 
when this President came to office, he inherited from George W. Bush 
the worst economy since the Great Depression. That is undeniable. This 
economy was in a tail spin, and if it wasn't for the stimulus package, 
this economy would have continued to go further down the tubes. There 
was no question about that.
  When they talk about deficits, they conveniently leave out the fact 
that hundreds of billions of dollars in deficit spending went to pay 
for their tax cuts for their rich friends. That's what they did when 
they were in power, tax breaks, tax loopholes, all kinds of special 
interest breaks, for oil companies, for the wealthiest people in this 
country, and we went deeper and deeper into debt and they didn't care.
  Two wars, none of it paid for. None of it paid for, and it should be 
paid for. The only people sacrificing in these wars are our soldiers 
and their families. The rest of us are asked to do nothing, and the 
only possible solution to that that we heard from the other side of the 
aisle came from the minority leader who said that we should raise the 
retirement age for those receiving Social Security and take that money 
and pay for the war. Our senior citizens should pay for these wars? 
Shouldn't we want to protect Social Security, and shouldn't we find 
other ways to pay for these wars?
  In today's Washington Post, the editorial entitled, ``GOP has no 
problem extending tax cuts for the rich,'' let me quote from a couple 
of lines in this editorial: ``Senate Republicans, committed as they are 
to preventing the debt from mounting further, can't approve an 
extension of unemployment benefits because it would cost $35 billion. 
But they are untroubled by the notion of digging the hole $678 billion 
deeper by extending President Bush's tax cuts for the wealthiest 
Americans.''
  And this is how the editorial ends: ``The issue is whether the tax 
cuts for the wealthiest Americans should be extended, adding another 
$678 billion to the deficit over the next decade. The tax cuts, it's 
worth remembering, passed originally in 2001 with the argument that the 
surplus was so large that rates could be cut with budgetary room to 
spare. Now that the fiscal picture has deteriorated so badly, the 
questions remains: How are you going to pay the $678 billion? And if 
you don't, how are you going to justify the added damage to an already 
grim fiscal outlook?''
  I insert this article in the Record at this point.

               [From the Washington Post, July 14, 2010]

           GOP Has No Problem Extending Tax Cuts for the Rich

       Senate Republicans, committed as they are to preventing the 
     debt from mounting further, can't approve an extension of 
     unemployment benefits because it would cost $35 billion. But 
     they are untroubled by the notion of digging the hole $678 
     billion deeper by extending President Bush's tax cuts for the 
     wealthiest Americans. On Fox News Sunday, Chris Wallace asked 
     Republican Whip Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) about this contradiction. 
     Mr. Kyl's response is worth examining because of what it says 
     about the GOP's refusal to practice the fiscal responsibility 
     it preaches.
       Mr. Kyl's first line of defense was to dismiss Mr. 
     Wallace's query as ``a loaded question'' because ``the Bush 
     tax cuts applied to every single American.'' Mr. Wallace 
     pointed out that he was only referring to the top tax 
     brackets, but Mr. Kyl persisted in his refusal to answer. 
     ``So let's, first of all, start with those that don't apply 
     to the wealthy. Shouldn't those be extended?'' Never mind 
     that no one in a policymaking position--not President Obama, 
     not Democrats in Congress--is arguing against extending those 
     tax cuts, at least temporarily. So when Mr. Kyl contends that 
     ``all of that goes away,'' he is just blowing smoke.
       Eventually, Mr. Kyl trotted out the tired and 
     unsubstantiated argument that the tax cuts for the wealthy 
     must be extended because otherwise ``you're going to clobber 
     small business.'' Mr. Wallace persisted: ``But, sir, . . . 
     how are you going to pay the $678 billion?''--at which point 
     Mr. Kyl descended into nonsense. ``You should never raise 
     taxes in order to cut taxes,'' he declared. ``Surely Congress 
     has the authority, and it would be right to, if we decide we 
     want to cut taxes to spur the economy, not to have to raise 
     taxes in order to offset those costs. You do need to offset 
     the cost of increased spending, and that's what Republicans 
     object to. But you should never have to offset [the] cost of 
     a deliberate decision to reduce tax rates on Americans.''
       Huh? No one's talking about cutting taxes on the wealthy to 
     stimulate the economy. The issue is whether the tax cuts for 
     the wealthiest Americans should be extended, adding another 
     $678 billion to the deficit over the next decade. The tax 
     cuts, it's worth remembering, passed originally in 2001 with 
     the argument that the surplus was so large that rates could 
     be cut with budgetary room to spare. Now that the fiscal 
     picture has deteriorated so badly, the questions remains: How 
     are you going to pay the $678 billion? And if you don't, how 
     are you going to justify the added damage to an already grim 
     fiscal outlook?

  Madam Speaker, my friends on the other side of the aisle have been 
fighting with all their might to deny Americans who have lost their 
jobs, mostly through no fault of their own, they have been fighting 
with all their energy to deny them unemployment benefits during this 
very difficult time where people who can't get these benefits and whose 
savings are drying up are not going to be able to afford to pay their 
bills, be able to keep their home; and my friends on the other side of 
the aisle say we can't afford that, we can't afford that, 
notwithstanding the fact it's a one-time expenditure.
  But you know, when it comes to the wars, let's vote to add another 
$33 billion in borrowed money on to our children's credit card and no 
questions asked.
  I'd like to do a little nation building, Madam Speaker, here in the 
United States. I think we have an obligation to take care of the people 
here in this country, and so I'm all for working on trying to reduce 
our deficit and our debt. That's what the Democratic Party is dedicated 
to. The President is dedicated to that. He's formed a bipartisan 
commission, but to come on the floor and to say that somehow the 
policies of the previous President, the tax cuts for the rich, billions 
and billions and billions of dollars in added deficit spending, the 
war, the prescription drug benefit bill, not even paid for, to suggest 
that that didn't occur is ludicrous.
  The bottom line is that you delivered to this President, my friends 
on the other side of the aisle delivered to this President, the worst 
economy since the Great Depression and he has been working overtime to 
try to dig this country out of the ditch that the Republicans dug, and 
we need to continue to move forward.
  I will add one other thing, Madam Speaker, and that is, during the 
first year of President Obama's administration more jobs were created 
than during the 8 years of George W. Bush, and that's a fact.
  I reserve the balance of my time, Madam Speaker.

                              {time}  1220

  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I just want to quickly respond to two things 
that my colleague from Massachusetts said.
  He talks about the fact that the Federal Government is paying for 
wars. Well, let me say that the Constitution of the United States says, 
``We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect 
Union, establish

[[Page 12931]]

Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, 
promote the general Welfare,'' et cetera. It is the role of the Federal 
Government to protect us in this country. It is the only entity in our 
country who can do that. It is our role.
  The other comment he makes is ``tax cuts for the rich.'' My 
colleague, just like almost all my colleagues across the aisle, have an 
assumption that all the money that is generated in this country belongs 
to the government and that if there is a tax cut provided, that that is 
a gift from the government to the people getting the tax cut.
  No, Madam Speaker, that is not right. The government is not in 
control in this country. The people are in control. And for them to 
have that assumption is the biggest part of the problem that we have 
here right now.
  Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
distinguished ranking member of the Rules Committee (Mr. Dreier).
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, let me at the outset say I twice asked my 
friend from Worcester to yield, and I will say that at any time during 
my remarks that he would like to challenge me, I look forward to 
yielding to him.
  Now, Madam Speaker, let me say first and foremost that this issue of 
who is in fact responsible for the security of the United States of 
America, my friend from Grandfather Community, North Carolina, is 
absolutely right. The five most important words in the middle of that 
preamble to the Constitution that she just read are ``provide for the 
common defence.'' Virtually everything else that we do can be dealt 
with by individuals, families, churches or synagogues, cities, counties 
or States. But the national security of the United States of America 
can only be dealt with by the Federal Government, and we should never 
forget that.
  Now, as we listen to some of the specious charges that have been 
coming from the other side of the aisle, like this chart that my 
colleague on the Rules Committee offered, saying that this was from the 
Republican National Committee, this is from usgovernmentspending.com, a 
completely nonpartisan entity and they are facts. We have seen a 
dramatic increase in spending.
  My friend regularly talks about the fact that this administration, 
this President, inherited a bad economy. We all acknowledge that. But 
what is it that has happened since then, Madam Speaker? Contrary to 
what my friend just said, we have seen the economy get worse and worse 
and worse.
  We were promised, and I will be happy to yield to my friend if he 
would like to, we were promised that the unemployment rate would not 
exceed 8 percent if we were to pass the $1 trillion stimulus bill. 
Where is it today? At 9.5 percent.
  Across the country, many of us are hosting job fairs. There are 
people who are hurting. In the area that I represent, Madam Speaker, 
part of it has an unemployment rate that exceeds 14 percent.
  The American people know one thing that they have learned over the 
past year-and-a-half, and that is you cannot spend your way to 
prosperity.
  Now, Madam Speaker, what is it that we are trying to do? We want to 
ensure that future generations are not saddled with this tremendous 
debt burden that has been imposed.
  This morning I had the opportunity to meet a young man who is very, 
very inspiring with what he has done over the past 39 days. He visited 
me. His name is Joseph Machado, and he is here with his parents and his 
brother Robert and his sister Mercedes. What this young man did, 13 
years of age, having gone through tremendous physical adversity, having 
suffered over the past few years because of an accident, he has been 
wheelchair-bound. But what has he done over the past 39 days, Madam 
Speaker? He rode a bicycle from Southern California to the White House. 
He came here, I met him this morning here in the Capitol, and he has 
been doing this to raise money and focus resources on the challenges 
that young people are dealing with.
  Now, I raise the name of Joseph Machado to say that as we look at 
this 13-year-old boy and the challenges that he has gone through, the 
idea that we will be thrusting on to his shoulders and his brother 
Robert and his sister Mercedes the responsibility of paying for such 
profligate spending that has been going on is just plain wrong.
  We feel strongly about the need to ensure that we do not do that, 
that we do everything we can to decrease that. That is one of the 
reasons that we are going to urge our colleagues today to vote no on 
the previous question, and in voting no on the previous question we 
will allow the House to have a chance to vote on a proposal that our 
colleague from Peoria, Mr. Shock, has offered that is going to deal 
with training to rein in spending.
  The people of this country have driven around, and I laugh, I mean 
sadly laugh, when I see the signs along the side of the road that 
credit the Reinvestment Act with the job creation that is supposedly 
going on in dealing with infrastructure issues. Millions and millions 
of dollars are being expended putting up the signs along the side of 
the road. The burden of those is going to be passed on to Joseph 
Machado and other young people in this country, and we believe that 
that is an example that the American people can get so they don't have 
to see signs that they are paying for along the side of the road.
  Every Member of this House, Madam Speaker, is going to have an 
opportunity to vote no, to say that we shouldn't be continuing to spend 
millions of dollars on road signs crediting the stimulus bill for the 
construction that is taking place on those roads.
  So I am going to join in urging my colleagues under this YouCut 
proposal to vote ``no'' on the previous question, because that vote in 
and of itself will allow us the opportunity to consider this measure.
  Madam Speaker, with that, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous 
question and a ``no'' vote on the rule, because this is a completely 
closed rule, having had this measure considered under suspension of the 
rules.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Let me remind my colleagues, Madam Speaker, that when President Obama 
came to office, he inherited an economy that was losing on average 
750,000 jobs a month. That is what President Obama was left with.
  My friends talk about the fact that the economy is still struggling. 
It is still struggling. But the June numbers, as much as we wish they 
were better, we were told that 83,000 private sector jobs were created 
and 9,000 manufacturing jobs. I would rather be creating jobs, again, I 
would like to create 100 times more jobs than we were able to do in 
June, but I would rather be creating jobs than going back to where we 
were losing hundreds of thousands of jobs a month.
  My friend mentioned job fairs, all my colleagues are doing job fairs. 
What I find particularly ironic is that my colleagues are hosting job 
fairs touting stimulus money. The distinguished minority whip on the 
Republican side from Virginia has been one of the Recovery Act's most 
vocal critics, uniformly whipping the Republican Caucus into opposing 
the stimulus. But despite his withering attacks and despite the 
withering attacks of others on the other side, they continue to host 
job fairs filled with employers hiring directly because of stimulus 
grants and programs.
  We are told that over half the GOP Caucus, 114 lawmakers who voted to 
kill the stimulus, then took credit for its success, hosting job fairs, 
touting the stimulus, doing press releases every time a stimulus award 
was announced.
  So, I guess they want to have it both ways. They want to be out here 
criticizing the Recovery Act, but when they go home, they are standing 
and posing for pictures, handing checks to their constituents and small 
businesses with stimulus money.
  So I would again urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to 
at least be consistent. If you are going to oppose the Stimulus Act, 
the American Recovery Act, don't go home and take credit for it. Don't 
go home and say ``I did this for you'' when you were here in

[[Page 12932]]

Washington and you voted to deny your communities the very money that 
is helping to create some jobs.
  I reserve the balance of my time, Madam Speaker.

                              {time}  1230

  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I can assure my colleague across the aisle that I wasn't one of those 
people who went home to take credit for the Stimulus Act. So he needs 
to take that issue up with those who have done it and not paint us all 
with the same brush.
  Madam Speaker, the underlying bill proposes spending $30 million 
creating a variety of initiatives promoting telework opportunities to 
allow Federal employees to work at home. This bill would require each 
Federal agency to create a teleworking managing officer. But there are 
many people who wonder if creating this kind of a situation is going to 
improve efficiency among Federal employees, and it may even reduce the 
productivity of the Federal Government.
  While the 3 million Americans who have lost their jobs since 
President Obama took office are asking, Where are the jobs we 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 coming to work. 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.
  New data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics show that a majority of 
American union members now work for the government. That's 52 percent 
of all union members now work for the Federal, State, or local 
government, representing a sharp increase from the 49 percent in 2008. 
A full 37.4 percent of government employees belonged to the unions in 
2009, up six-tenths of a percent from 2008. This shift toward 
representing government employees has changed the union movement's 
priorities, as unions now campaign for higher taxes on Americans to 
fund more government spending.
  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 the government, which they see as having 
the deepest of all pockets and a host of sympathetic liberal Democratic 
politicians eager to please their political base. In fact, as reported 
by USA Today, overall, Federal workers earned an average salary of 
$67,691 in 2008 for occupations that exist both in government and the 
private sector, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics data. The 
average pay for the same mix of jobs in the private sector was $60,000. 
These salary figures don't include the value of health, pension, and 
other benefits, which average $40,785 per Federal employee in 2008 
versus $9,882 per private worker, according to the Bureau of Economic 
Analysis. So the average Federal employee's benefits are worth four 
times what the average benefits are worth in the private sector.
  A March 26, 2010, Wall Street Journal editorial entitled ``The 
Government Pay Boom'' reveals that ``the real windfall for government 
workers is in benefits.'' And it goes on to talk about how these 
benefits are growing, growing, growing. We know that the number of 
Federal employees making over $100,000 has increased by almost 5 
percent since 2007, since the Democrats took over in Congress. 
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 raise of 3.9 percent, and an 
average pay increase of 3.5 percent in 2008. In 2007, 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.
  Madam Speaker, we are growing the Federal Government while we have a 
9.7 percent unemployment rate in the private sector. This is 
unacceptable to the American people. That's why we should vote ``no'' 
on this rule and ``no'' on this bill, because we are not heeding what 
the American people want us to do.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I think the gentlelady from North 
Carolina kind of just summed it all up. The Republican message to 
workers all across the country is, We don't want you to have good 
wages; we don't want you to have good benefits; we don't want you to 
have good retirement. We want to go back to the days when you get paid 
less; when one job doesn't earn enough for you to be able to support 
your family. I've never heard anybody get up before and talk about and 
advocate lower wages for people. They're all upset that a researcher at 
NIH trying to find a cure for cancer or a cure to Alzheimer's disease 
or Parkinson's disease is somehow being overpaid. I've heard a lot of 
things on this floor, but I've never had anyone come out and decry the 
fact that workers in this country should be paid less.
  My friend from North Carolina always likes to talk about the fact 
that government should act more like a business. Well, I want to remind 
her that the bill that we are talking about here today, the telework 
bill--telework practices have been adopted by the private sector all 
throughout the country. I will give you an example. Teleworking allows 
IBM to reduce office space and save $56 million per year every year. 
Well, it works in the private sector. Why don't we take that example of 
where the private sector is able to save some money and bring it to the 
government sector where we may be able to save some money. If we can 
save tens of millions of dollars each year, that is a good thing. Maybe 
we can take that money and put it toward deficit reduction. But the 
idea to come out here and to be against this bill because of unions and 
all this other stuff, I think, is ridiculous.
  This is a commonsense measure that's going to save the American 
taxpayer a lot of money. I urge all my colleagues, Democratic and 
Republican alike, to support this commonsense measure.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I now yield 4 minutes to the distinguished 
Republican whip, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor).
  Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentlelady for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today to ask Members to join me in voting 
``no'' on the previous question. For the past couple of years, the 
American people have been forced to make some extremely difficult 
budgeting decisions. Because when times are tough and your back is up 
against the wall, you have no choice but to rein in your expenditures 
and pare down your debts.
  This vote today on the previous question, the reason why we're 
standing in opposition, is because Republicans would like to see us 
include in this rule the opportunity to vote on this week's winning 
YouCut proposal. This proposal would prohibit funding for the droves of 
puzzling and flamboyant signs attributing various projects to last 
year's stimulus bill. Often visible along highways, these signs do not 
provide any meaningful information and do not create any jobs. They are 
the public face of an administration PR campaign that taxpayers are 
unwittingly financing. While the precise cost of these signs is 
unknown, press reports peg it in the tens of millions of dollars.
  The painful sacrifice borne by families and small businesses are 
hugely disconnected from the status quo here in Washington. Inside this 
Chamber of Congress, the excessive, untargeted, and ineffective 
spending binge that gives us the failed stimulus is alive and kicking. 
But now, Madam Speaker, the American people are fed up. Across the 
country, from big cities to quiet suburbs to rural towns, Americans of 
all

[[Page 12933]]

backgrounds are demanding that Washington stop the wasteful spending.
  Today, here in this body we will hold the seventh YouCut vote--and 
the American people will once again be able to see which Member of 
Congress hears their plea and gets the message. This week's proposal, 
by Representative Schock of Illinois, would require agencies to report 
on the amount already spent on the signs. And it would recapture those 
funds by reducing the agencies' administrative expenses by that same 
amount.
  Madam Speaker, America is at a crossroads. The Federal Government 
needs to stop spending our country out of prosperity and into a 
quicksand of unsustainable debt. We need to change the culture in 
Washington and tip the balance in the direction of savings. I urge my 
colleagues to vote ``no'' and to bring this week's YouCut proposal to a 
vote before the full House.

                              {time}  1240

  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, this is laughable. If we're talking about trying to 
reduce the deficit and get the debt under control, this is the best 
that we can get, you know, not putting up signs? I mean, how about 
paying for the tax cuts for the rich that my friends on the other side 
of the aisle passed? Hundreds of billions of dollars in debt that you 
put on the backs of my kids and my grandkids so that the wealthiest of 
the wealthy in this country can get a tax break? Why don't you pay for 
that, if you want to get this deficit or this debt under control? 
Signs, that's the best we can do?
  Again, with respect to the distinguished minority whip, who I heard 
again beat up on the stimulus package, it's funny that he beats up on 
the stimulus package here, but when he goes home, he holds a job fair 
that so everybody can take advantage of the of the stimulus package. 
Employer after employer after employer in the gentleman from Virginia's 
district has received money from the stimulus package so they can 
create more jobs, and the gentleman takes credit for it, and so do a 
great many people on the other side of the aisle.
  I find it somewhat hypocritical that on one hand we're here saying, 
``We don't like it,'' but when you go back home, you tell everybody, 
``Oh, this is what I'm doing for you.''
  But if you want to get serious about reducing our deficit, we have a 
bipartisan commission set up to try to make recommendations to this 
Congress. We need to do it holistically. It's going to be tough. We all 
want to do it. But to come up and say, ``Oh, you know, our suggestion 
is to eliminate the signs on projects that benefit from money from the 
Recovery and Reinvestment Act,'' I think that's just silly.
  I would urge my colleagues again to remember the underlying bill that 
we're talking about, this telework bill, will save tens of millions of 
dollars for the taxpayers. Those tens of millions of dollars I would 
bet is a lot more than the signs and could be put toward deficit 
reduction or could be put toward what I think needs to happen right 
now, which is that we need to extend unemployment benefits to those who 
are struggling in this difficult economy. Unfortunately, my Republican 
friends don't agree to that, and they are blocking it in the Senate.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I will invite my colleague from 
Massachusetts, when he speaks again, to give us the citation for the 
study that he's talking about that shows that this bill will save tens 
of millions of dollars. I have done a little research on it myself, and 
I will be talking about that study. But I would invite him to prove to 
the American people that this will save money.
  And I want to point out to him that he's poking fun at Republicans on 
recommending that we save money on signs, but what he was really doing 
is poking fun at the American people. It wasn't the Republicans on this 
side of the aisle who came up with this. It's the American people who 
voted on this, and the American people understand the biblical 
admonition, If you are a good steward of small things, you will be a 
good steward of big things. We should start where we can save money. 
And I agree with the people. This is a good place to start.
  With that, I yield 3 minutes to my colleague from Illinois (Mr. 
Schock).
  Mr. SCHOCK. I thank my good friend, Dr. Foxx, for the time here 
today.
  Madam Speaker, at the President's first news conference after his 
first official Cabinet meeting, he addressed the Nation, and he said 
that he was asking his agency heads to come together and collectively 
come up with $100 million in savings that they could bring forward for 
this next budget year to eliminate over last year's spending. His quote 
was, ``We've got to earn their trust.'' The President said, ``They've 
got to feel confident that their dollars are being spent wisely.'' I 
couldn't agree with the President any more.
  So that is really what today is about. We bring forward House 
Resolution 5679, which is really quite simple. It says we don't need to 
tell the American people with propaganda signs that we're spending 
their tax dollars wisely. More specifically, we don't need to put up 
road signs all over the country when we're doing paving projects at the 
tune of hundreds, sometimes thousands. We've found signs that cost over 
$10,000 apiece simply to say this is your tax dollars at work.
  First of all, I would suggest to you that it's an insult to the 
intelligence of my taxpayers to suggest that they drive by a public 
works project and think that anyone other than they, as taxpayers, are 
paying for it. Second, I would suggest to you that this is a dangerous 
precedent. Think if every unit of government, from your school board, 
your township officials, your State government, your Federal Government 
put a label on everything that they were using to spend your tax 
dollars on. The unnecessary bureaucratic expense, the unnecessary 
overhead that it creates.
  We have found in 1 year since the stimulus bill was passed that we 
have spent over $20 million just on signs. The Illinois Department of 
Transportation, in my home State, has spent over $650,000 on signs. The 
State of Ohio reports they've spent over $1 million just on signs--not 
creating jobs, not the infrastructure that was promised, not to lower 
unemployment, but rather a bunch of sheet metal along the road.
  This is not only the financially smart thing to do. I would argue 
it's the environmentally right thing to do. And then my friends on the 
other side of the aisle stand up and suggest, well, gee, you know, 
Aaron, it's only $20 million. The estimates, if we don't stop doing 
this, are that by the time the stimulus program has run its course, we 
will spend $192 million on these signs. Now, I don't know about you, 
but whether you supported the stimulus program or you voted against the 
stimulus program, I hope we can come together and say, You know what? 
At the end of the day, this $192 million, this $20 million that's 
already been spent, would better be spent on road projects, on filling 
potholes, on fixing bridges, on something that we can show for that 
we're going to ask the next generation of Americans to pay for. And 
that's all we're doing. We're saying, from this day forward, you can't 
spend money on signs. Put it into the infrastructure.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, again, I am always interested in what my 
colleagues have to say today. But where were they when President Bush 
and the administration sent out a press release on the prescription 
drug bill that they didn't pay for that cost millions and millions of 
dollars to all the senior citizens of this country? There was silence. 
And if we want to have a serious discussion about deficit reduction, 
which I think we should, this is where we begin? Why don't we talk 
about paying for the Bush tax cuts for the rich? Why not offset those 
tax cuts? Why not pay for them? Why not have that discussion? My 
friends talk about the deficit, but they didn't have any problem adding 
hundreds of billions of dollars onto the credit card for the 
prescription drug bill. They didn't think it was important to pay for 
it.
  Under the Democratic leadership, we're abiding by PAYGO. We're paying

[[Page 12934]]

for things as we go forward. My friends on the other side of the aisle, 
when they were in charge, they didn't do that. That's one of the 
reasons why we're in such trouble right now. But if you really want to 
reduce the deficit in this country, if you really want to get at the 
debt, if you really want to do this right, then we need a serious 
discussion; and the President, I think, has taken the first step toward 
that discussion by putting together a bipartisan commission to figure 
out how we do this.
  And you know what? The recommendations are going to be such that none 
of us are going to like them, and we are going to have to make some 
tough decisions, and hopefully we'll do it together. If not, we'll do 
it alone. But I think the fact of the matter is getting the deficit 
under control is a priority. But I'll tell you this: You're not going 
to get the deficit under control unless you get the economy back on 
track, unless you put people back to work.
  And I really regret that my friends on the other side of the aisle, 
every chance they get, try to undercut this President's economic agenda 
to try to create and incentivize more jobs. Every chance, every single 
chance, they object or they try to obstruct. Again, I will go back to 
what I said earlier. They come on the floor and they decry the American 
Recovery and Reinvestment Act, but then they go back to their districts 
and they do press conferences and they do press releases and they take 
all kinds of bows for all the money that they voted against. A lot of 
that money, Madam Speaker, is creating jobs in their districts. And the 
reason why, I guess, they're taking bows is because they see that some 
of the help to some of the small businesses and to some of their 
manufacturers and to some of the States and cities and towns for 
building their infrastructure is important to job creation.
  So, again, let's get back to what we're here to talk about, which is 
this telework bill, which I think will save the Federal Government a 
great deal of money. I'm not the only one who thinks that. There are 
others in the private sector and in the public sector that have made 
the argument that if we do this right, we could save not just tens of 
millions of dollars but maybe hundreds of millions of dollars, and I 
think that's a good step for us to take. If my friends on the other 
side of the aisle don't want to take that step, fine. They can do what 
they usually do and obstruct everything. But this is good for the 
taxpayers of this country, and I hope that it passes with an 
overwhelming margin.
  I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1250

  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I just want to point out to my colleague 
from Massachusetts that the Republicans can't obstruct the President's 
effort because we are in the minority. And we don't have to obstruct 
him anyway because they've all failed. Nothing has worked that the 
President and our friends across the aisle have tried, and so they're 
going to fail of their own weight.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Shuster).
  Mr. SHUSTER. Madam Speaker, I agree with my colleague from 
Massachusetts that we need to get this economy back on track, but you 
don't get it back on track by creating the great uncertainty that your 
side has created in the economy, raising health care costs, raising 
energy costs--potentially raising energy costs--raising taxes. 
Businesses aren't going to invest when there's this much uncertainty 
out there. And I hear it every single day from my colleagues from 
around the country, from businesses that I speak to.
  But what we can do is start to find out ways to cut wasteful 
spending. And I support Mr. Schock from Illinois's proposal today to 
cut the wasteful spending on these signs that are across this country. 
$20 million. They're not creating a single job. They're not improving 
safety in this country. In fact, as my colleague said, I find it silly 
that this administration is spending $20 million on signs.
  In my State of Pennsylvania, which has more structurally deficient 
bridges than any other State in the Nation, we could take these $20 
million and apply it to some of these bridges in Pennsylvania and 
across this country. And I'll just point out three of them in 
Pennsylvania, while I'm sure there are hundreds if not thousands across 
this country:
  $1.1 million to replace the Bolden Ridge Bridge in Fayette County, a 
project that would create 33 jobs and improve safety for the traveling 
public;
  $3 million to replace the Fair Grounds Bridge in Somerset County, 
Pennsylvania, a project that would create 92 jobs and, again, improve 
safety for our citizens;
  And, finally, $5.5 million to repair a sinkhole that's occurring in 
Huntington County, Pennsylvania, that is going to pose a serious risk 
to the traveling public in Huntington County, Pennsylvania, and those 
people that cross that road. $5.5 million will create 167 jobs, and it 
will make our roadways safer.
  These projects will create jobs. They will improve our 
infrastructure. And most importantly, they'll improve safety.
  So I ask my colleagues on the other side to stand up with us today 
and say, let's stop this silliness. Let's stop spending $20 million on 
these signs that aren't creating jobs and are nothing more than 
propaganda. So I ask them to support my colleague's, Mr. Schock, H.R. 
5679.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I'm a little bit confused. I don't know 
whether the gentleman supports the stimulus package or opposes the 
stimulus package.
  On one hand, you know, Pennsylvania was one of the top recipients of 
aid from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. A lot of bridges 
are being repaired; a lot of highways are being fixed. Does the 
gentleman want to take that money back? Does he think that the people 
who worked on constructing those bridges and building those roads are 
somehow, those jobs aren't worth it?
  The fact of the matter is, you know, it's another example of where, 
on one hand, my colleagues are saying we want more money for bridges 
and roads and infrastructure. And the very bill that delivered a lot 
more money for bridges and roads, they all voted against.
  So I would again urge my colleagues to be consistent. And I would 
also urge them to support the underlying bill, this telework bill, 
which I think will save the taxpayers millions and millions of dollars.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McGOVERN. I'm happy to yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. SHUSTER. When we did the stimulus bill, we spent money on all 
different kinds of programs, many of which don't create jobs. Only 8 
percent went to infrastructure in this country, 8 percent, which is a 
very small amount.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I reclaim my time. But the fact of the matter is a lot 
of infrastructure projects are going on in Pennsylvania right now. And 
the people who are working on those jobs are happy to have a job. And 
the people who run the State are happy that they are able to make some 
improvements because States have been suffering greatly as a result of 
this economy.
  So, you know, I would also point out again that, for all the talk of 
jobs, when they were in charge, we were losing on average 750,000 jobs 
a month; 750,000 jobs a month we were losing when they were in charge.
  We're now gaining jobs, not as many as we would like, but we're 
moving in a different direction. I don't want to go backwards. I don't 
want to go backwards to 22 consecutive months of job loss.
  Barack Obama has created more jobs in 1 year than George Bush created 
in 8 years, and that is a fact. And so to all my colleagues who are 
talking about jobs, here's your choice: you can go backwards and 
experience once again historic job losses, or you can stick with this 
economic agenda, get through this difficult time, put people

[[Page 12935]]

back to work, get this economy moving again and start paying down our 
debt.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, my colleague again is very selectively using 
statistics. He knows that he cannot back up the data that says that in 
the first year of President Obama's administration he has created more 
jobs than in all the Bush administration.
  I have this chart which shows the unemployment rate under President 
Obama, under President Bush; and, again, we had many more jobs created 
under President Bush than have been created under President Obama, 
because all we've done is lose jobs under President Obama and create 
government jobs.
  That's the whole issue here, Madam Speaker. We've lost four million 
jobs since President Obama took office. That's it.
  And, you know, my colleague across the aisle says we need to be 
consistent. Well, he should be consistent. This will bring savings 
immediately, what we're proposing. What he's talking about might bring 
savings 30 years down the road. In fact, the study that I asked him to 
talk about, there's no study, Madam Speaker. I asked for a copy of the 
study. You know what it is? An article that was in the newspaper last 
February when we shut the government down, or the Democrats shut the 
government down for a week. They were losing $100 million a day. But 
they found out 30 percent of the people were logging into their 
computers, so they call that a savings of $30 million per day.
  Listen, the American people are tired of that kind of thing being 
passed off as a study. There is no study.
  Madam Speaker, this bill does not need to be passed. This rule does 
not need to be passed.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield the gentlelady an additional 20 
seconds to finish her statement.
  Ms. FOXX. 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.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has 8 minutes remaining.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I won't take the full 8 minutes, but I 
again want to point out a couple of facts to my colleagues here. We are 
faced with a very difficult economy, and this is an economy that 
President Obama inherited. He is trying to dig this economy out of the 
ditch that my friends on the other side of the aisle dug us into. It is 
not easy, and it's not going to happen overnight.
  But it is a fact that Barack Obama has created more jobs in 1 year 
than George Bush created in 8 years. We were losing hundreds of 
thousands of jobs on average each month when President Bush was in 
office. We are now gaining jobs; not as many as we would like, not as 
fast as we would like, but we are moving in a very different direction. 
We're moving in the direction where we are creating more jobs, and 
we're moving toward a healthier economy. That is just the fact.
  And the question is, Do we try to work with this administration to 
get this economy back on a strong footing, or are we going to try to 
obstruct everything and root for failure?
  I mean, my friends on the other side of the aisle, their whole kind 
of, their whole platform is based on this President failing, on this 
economy failing. How cynical can you get?
  The fact is, we have a lot of work to do, and we need to focus on 
jobs. Jobs is the issue. We need to extend unemployment benefits to 
those who have lost their jobs, mostly through no fault of their own.

                              {time}  1300

  We need to help them get through this difficult time. I regret that 
my Republican friends in the Senate continue to obstruct the extension 
of unemployment benefits. I hope nobody goes home for an August recess 
until unemployment benefits are extended.
  My friends say we can't afford to pay for it. Can't afford to pay to 
help people in our own country. Yet last week $33 billion in borrowed 
money for nation building that supports a corrupt government in 
Afghanistan. They all support it. No questions asked. All borrowed 
money. And I get it. You know, if you think it's important, fine. But 
if nation building in Afghanistan is important, a little bit more 
nation building here in the United States of America is important.
  We have to take care of our people here who are experiencing very 
difficult times because of the troubled economy. We just can't sit here 
and bicker and bicker and bicker and let people lose their homes and 
let people not be able to pay their bills or put food on their table.
  The fact of the matter is, Madam Speaker, this President has 
accomplished a great deal in a very short time. And my expectation is 
that if we continue to follow his economic agenda, that we will see 
this economy get on stronger footing. The bill that's before us, the 
telework bill, I think is a good bill. It will save the taxpayers lots 
of money. IBM, a private-sector company, says it saved them tens of 
millions of dollars each year. If it can save IBM tens of millions of 
dollars each year, it ought to save the Federal Government hundreds of 
millions. Let us take that money, put it toward deficit reduction or 
put it toward helping our people who are in deep trouble as this 
economy tries to recover.
  Madam Speaker, I would close by urging my colleagues to support the 
rule. I would urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question on the rule.
  The material previously referred to by Ms. Foxx is as follows:

    Amendment to H. Res. 1509 Offered by Ms. Foxx of North Carolina

       At the end of the resolution add the following new section:
       Sec. 4. 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. 5679) to prevent funding from the American Recovery and 
     Reinvestment Act of 2009 from being used for physical signage 
     indicating that a project is funded by such Act, 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. 5679.
                                  ____

       (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

[[Page 12936]]

     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. McGOVERN. 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 8 and clause 9 of rule 
XX, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be 
followed by 5-minute votes on adopting House Resolution 1509, if 
ordered; and suspending the rules and passing H.R. 2864.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 232, 
nays 184, not voting 16, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 437]

                               YEAS--232

     Ackerman
     Adler (NJ)
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boccieri
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Dahlkemper
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Driehaus
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foster
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Gonzalez
     Gordon (TN)
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Halvorson
     Hare
     Harman
     Heinrich
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     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
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney
     Markey (CO)
     Markey (MA)
     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)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy (NY)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Nadler (NY)
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     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, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schauer
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     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
     Welch
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--184

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Austria
     Bachmann
     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
     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
     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
     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
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Space
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden
     Wamp
     Westmoreland
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--16

     Bachus
     Capuano
     Cummings
     Delahunt
     Deutch
     Garamendi
     Grijalva
     Hastings (FL)
     Hinojosa
     Hoekstra
     Kagen
     Marshall
     Olson
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Tiahrt
     Whitfield

                              {time}  1329

  Mrs. CAPITO, Messrs. BARTON of Texas, CRENSHAW, LUETKEMEYER, and ISSA 
changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Ms. SPEIER changed her 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 will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 238, 
noes 180, not voting 14, as follows:

[[Page 12937]]



                             [Roll No. 438]

                               AYES--238

     Ackerman
     Adler (NJ)
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boccieri
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Bright
     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
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Driehaus
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foster
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Gordon (TN)
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Heinrich
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kilroy
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick (AZ)
     Kissell
     Klein (FL)
     Kosmas
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney
     Markey (CO)
     Markey (MA)
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     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, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schauer
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     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
     Welch
     Wilson (OH)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--180

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     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
     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)
     Halvorson
     Harper
     Hastings (WA)
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hill
     Hunter
     Inglis
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan (OH)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Kratovil
     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
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Minnick
     Mitchell
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     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
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden
     Wamp
     Westmoreland
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Bachus
     Deutch
     Hastings (FL)
     Hinojosa
     Hoekstra
     Kagen
     Marshall
     McKeon
     McMahon
     Olson
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sires
     Tiahrt
     Whitfield

                              {time}  1338

  Mr. REICHERT changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  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.
  Stated for:
  Mr. McMAHON. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 438, had I been present, 
I would have voted ``yes.''

                          ____________________