[Pages H4564-H4571]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

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

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

H. Res. 248

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

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

{time} 1500

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

[[Page H4565]]

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

[[Page H4566]]

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

{time} 1515

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

[[Page H4567]]

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

{time} 1530

It takes capital. I do not think they have a clue as to basic free
enterprise or business investment tenets. People have to have money in
their pockets. They want to put more money in Washington. They want
them to rely on the government for unemployment benefits. If you want
to stimulate business, well, first of all, most of them should go out
and try to start a business. When you have increased taxation and you
send more money to Washington, you have fewer people to invest in that
business. A basic tenet. When you send more money to Washington, you
have less money to spend, and it hurts the poor the most because they
have the least amount of money, and you cannot start a business. When
you have increased regulation, which they have spent 30 and 40 years
piling regulations on the business man and woman, it is impossible to
start a business.
Would you start a business? I cannot tell you how happy I am to be
out of a business because of government regulation, taxation, and then
finally litigation, the protectors of litigation. So we become the most
lawsuit-happy land in the world. And we drive businesses overseas
because of taxation, because of regulation, and because of litigation.
Would you want to get into business in the United States of America
today with the opportunity to be sued at every corner? Small business
people, the largest employer in this country, by far the largest
employer, they are backing off of providing health insurance benefits.
We have more people without health insurance benefits. Why? Because the
other side blocks litigation reform and they have gone crazy with
lawsuits. And a few people are benefiting and the rest of us are
paying. People who can least afford it are not having health care
coverage; small business operators are unable to provide health care
coverage.
So that is their plan, increased taxation, increased litigation,
increased government regulation. And then finally, here they offer
their grand plan, unlimited unemployment extension. No one has come up
to me and said, I want unlimited unemployment benefits from the Federal
Government. I want a job. I want an opportunity to share in the
American Dream. I want health care coverage. I do not want more suits,
more money to go to Washington, less control of my life, less control
of my money.
I have heard it, and I think we have all heard it. The song and dance
from the other side just does not work, will not work. Even the former
Soviet Union tried a full government plan. It did not work. So now we
have a choice. We will have a tax and economic package before us that
puts more money in the hands of the American people. It gives them an
opportunity. It gives people an opportunity for a job, not just for an
extension of unemployment benefits.
The Republicans are compassionate. They have provided for both an
extension of unemployment benefits but also for hope and opportunity
and for an America we all want for the future.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I would say to the gentleman that what we want is help for unemployed
workers, and your plan leaves a million workers out in the cold, and
that is not the least bit compassionate.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from Massachusetts
(Mr. Frank).
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I just have to express my
dismay at the anti-American diatribe we have just heard. I am sorry to
hear this defeatist attitude about the American economy. The American
economy continues to be a vibrant one overall, and to have it so
thoroughly denigrated and to be told that no one ought to want to go
into business in America is a shockingly anti-American approach.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Lofgren).
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, this rule should be rejected because the
bill is unfair.

[[Page H4568]]

Under this bill, thousands of jobless Californians will get an
additional 13 weeks of unemployment instead of the 26 weeks that other
States will get because California is not considered a high-
unemployment State.
Well, tell that to the people of Santa Clara County. An editorial in
today's San Jose Mercury News lays out the facts. Since President Bush
took office in January of 2001, 2.6 million jobs have vanished in
America, 239,000 of them in Santa Clara County gone.
We have had a 42 percent decrease in venture capital. The
unemployment rate in San Jose is now a whopping 8.5 percent, and San
Jose has lost nearly 16 percent of its jobs. Yet this bill does not
treat Santa Clara County as a high-unemployment area, even though my
county has more population than many States, including North and South
Dakota, Montana, Wyoming, Delaware and many others to name just a few.
This rule does not even let us debate whether a 26-week extension is
appropriate, not just for the 6 States the Republicans consider to be
high unemployment, but for cities like San Jose who are well above the
national unemployment rate. I hear and get e-mails from people all the
time, qualified, educated people who have been laid off, who send out
thousands of resumes and cannot even get an interview, people who have
run through their savings, who have refinanced their house, and who
have run through that, whose unemployment is running off and the lay-
offs are continuing.
My friends on the other side of the aisle do not get it. It is not a
recession in Silicon Valley right now. It is a depression. A 26-week
extension is justified, and I wish we had a chance to debate that. I
urge my colleagues to reject this rule so that we will.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as
he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the
chairman of the Committee on Rules.
(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule.
I will admit that my number one economic priority is not the
extension of unemployment benefits. My number one economic priority is
to create jobs and to put into place the kinds of mechanisms that we
can to encourage job creation and economic growth.
My very good friend from Santa Clara County who just talked about
what she described as a depression in the Silicon Valley and I will be
offering an amendment later this afternoon which will, I believe, play
a role in creating the kind of jobs in the Silicon Valley which are so
important to improving the quality of life not only for people in that
part of our country, but throughout the rest of the Nation.
I also believe that as we look at the jobs and economic growth
package which we are going to be considering, it is geared towards job
creation and economic growth. Now, having said that, I will acknowledge
Chairman Greenspan is absolutely right when he says that there are a
lot of people out there who through no fault of their own have been
victimized by this downturn which, by the way, began during the last
two quarters of 2000.
Now my friend, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren), just
described the job loss since President Bush took office; but virtually
every economist has acknowledged that the downturn began during the
last two quarters. We also know, and I do not need to remind my
colleagues again, that we have suffered greatly over the past couple of
years through the tragedy of September 11, and we are just emerging
from a war with Iraq, and we are still in the midst of this very costly
war on terrorism.
We are working together in a bipartisan way to deal with these
issues; but quite frankly, they have played a role in creating the
economic downturn. And that is why we as Republicans are proud to step
up to the plate and deal with the extension of unemployment benefits.
I know that there are parts of States as have been described by the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren) that are suffering more than
other parts of States and the overall level is not as high as it is in
other States that will, in fact, end up receiving a 26-week extension.
But I believe that our dealing with this question before we get to the
expiration is the right thing for us to do. Let us move ahead. This
will be a problem that we will continue to address as we face it. But I
hope and pray that passage of the Dreier-Lofgren amendment this
afternoon, that passage of the jobs and growth package that we have
will deal with the challenges that we have. And so I encourage my
colleagues to provide support for this measure.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I would just respond that under this limited bill over 150,000
workers in California will be left out in the cold and close to 60,000
workers in Florida will not get their benefits.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Emanuel).
Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this rule.
The underlying bill does very little for those working Americans
whose benefits have run out. In my home town of Chicago unemployment is
up to 6.7 percent. My State of Illinois has lost 17,400 jobs in the
last month alone. We have lost in this economy 2.75 million jobs, 2
million manufacturing jobs. Two weeks from today, on June 6, the new
unemployment figures will come out; and we will get close to, as
indications are now, losing 3 million jobs. Since the first economic
package that the President has passed, 2.5 million Americans have lost
their jobs, 5 million Americans have lost their health care. Nearly a
trillion dollars' worth of corporate assets have been foreclosed on,
and 2 million Americans have gone out of the middle class to poverty.
That has been the net result of the economic program put together.
And as Ronald Reagan used to say, ``Facts are a stubborn thing.''
USA Today reported just the other day that they have the lowest
amount of job-wanted ads since 1964. The only two things that seem to
be growing in the President's growth package is the deficit and
unemployment.
We have gone from a surplus to a slump. Now to the earlier speaker
who took a $20 bill out of his pocket and my colleague, the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Mika), that $20 is the same amount of money our
government and our taxpayers are paying individual workers in Iraq and
Iraqis. That is what we are paying them. We are offering them $20 as a
form of employment to get the economy in Iraq moving. We have an agenda
for Iraq. It is investing in 20,000 schools, 25,000 units of housing,
text books for schools, 4 million children get early childhood
education in Iraq.
We have an economic plan for Iraq, and we have an economic plan for
America; and it does not just count on stimulating only the stock
market. We have to stimulate the job market as well as the stock
market. And our economic plan does exactly that. It does not force
Americans into an either/or choice. And there will be people who will
be left out, unlike the tax cut that leaves no millionaire behind.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), our ranking member on the Committee on
Appropriations.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate our friends on the Republican
side of the aisle. This day perfectly summarizes what Republican Party
values are all about.
Under President Bush we have lost well more than 2 million jobs in
this economy, and today we have the Republican answer. Their answer is
to leave behind one million working Americans who have been out of work
and cannot find work and are now no longer even eligible to receive
unemployment. At the same time they are going to pass a tax bill in the
dead of night which gives a huge share of the benefits in that bill to
people who make over $300,000 a year. That warped and misguided and
misbegotten sense of values is the major reason that I left the
Republican Party a long time ago and joined the Democratic Party.
The Republican Party practices the tired old game of trickle down
economics. They practice the idea that if you just give John D.
Rockefeller a tax break, eventually some of it will trickle down to Jay
Rockefeller. Well, that is not good enough.

[[Page H4569]]

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

{time} 1545

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

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

In the resolution strike ``and (2)'' and insert the
following:
``(2) an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting
of the text of H.R. 1652 if offered by Representative Rangel
or a designee, which shall be in order without intervention
of any point of order, shall be considered as read, and shall
separately debatable for 60 minutes equally divided and
controlled by the proponent and an opponent; and (3)''

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

[[Page H4570]]

[Roll No. 213]

YEAS--217

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

NAYS--203

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

NOT VOTING--14

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

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

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

{time} 1606

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

Recorded Vote

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

[Roll No. 214]

AYES--216

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

NOES--201

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Ballance
Becerra
Bell
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Case
Clay
Clyburn
Cooper
Costello
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley (CA)
Doyle
Edwards
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Kleczka
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin

[[Page H4571]]

Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Majette
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Sandlin
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn

NOT VOTING--17

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

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

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

{time} 1613

So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________