jobs, spending, obama healthcare, is what people talk to me most about each day. what keepshem awake is the spending. one of the reasons the approval ratings for congress and the president is so low is the public understands this spending has to end. it is one of the reasons we are driving consumer confidence down. host: adrian, oakland, california. democrat line. caller: i am a paying taxpayer like everyone else. i feel like nothing is getting done in congress. you take more days off than any average joe or jane in america.

you need to stick to you guns and do your job. this issue is happening in california, michigan, and in your home state of texas. people need these benefits. they need to beaking care of. at no fault of their own, they are unemployed. i understand we have this debt issue, and we need to take care of the exorbitant amount of spending, but this is a compassion issue. gue the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 410, the nays are four.

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 411, the nays are four. 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the resolution is agreed to and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. without objection, the title is amended. the unfinished business is the question on spending the rules. will the clerk -- suspending the rules. will the clerk report the title of the bill. the clerk: house resolution 1405, resolution congratulating the people of the 17 african nations that in 2010 are marking the 50th year of their national independence. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house

suspend the rules and agree to the resolution as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative -- >> mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the rules are suspended, the resolution is agreed to and -- >> mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey. >> on that i would ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their vote by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 410, the nays are zero. 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the resolution is agreed to and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order will members remove their conversations from the floor.

will members and staff please take their conversations off the floor? the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? mr. levin: mr. speaker, pursuant to h.res. 1495 i call up the bill h.r. 5618, to continue federal unemployment programs and ask for its immediate consideration.

the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 5618, a bill to continue federal unemployment programs. the speaker pro tempore: we will have members and staff please take their conversations off the floor, the gentleman deserves to be heard. members, please. the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: i yield myself -- no, you need to split the time first. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is correct. the house is still not in order.

pursuant to house resolution 1495, the amendment printed in house report 111-519 is adopted and the bill is amended, is considered read. the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, and the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp, each will control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin. mr. levin: thank you very much. i yield myself such time as i shall consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. levin: during the rule, a member of the minority came here regarding the plight of millions of unemployed who are losing their unlimit limit -- unemployment insurance, saying, he came to the floor with a heavy heart. i think the unemployed in all america, they welcome heavy hearts, but if there isn't a helping hand, a heavy heart

doesn't work. so, within this framework i want to list very briefly the basic facts for everyone to consider and for all of our country to hear. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. will members please take their conversations off the floor? the gentleman will continue. mr. levin: 1.7 million unemployed workers, unemployed through no fault of their own, looking for work, will have lost their benefits by the end of this week. 1.7 million. by the end of next week, if there weren't action, 2.1 million. by the middle of july, when

congress can address this issue again, 2.5 million. the average unemployment insurance in this country is about $300 a week. that's about half of the previous wage on average. and for a family of four that average check is only 74% of the poverty level. that should refute the notion that those who are unemployed, who would have no benefits, who lost their job through no fault of their own are not looking for work. indeed, the figure is very clear . for every job available there are five unemployed workers.

and there's one other fact, because this has been raised, the notion that this is unfunded. by the way, that's provided as an emergency under statutory pay-go. under both democratic and republican congresses, under both democratic and republican administrations it has been extended on an emergency basis. it is hard to understand how anybody can come to this floor and say for 1.7 million people and their families this is not an emergency. there is no excuse for voting no. it is said that the senate is out of session.

we must send this so it is the first item of business they take up. it did not pass the senate last night. the only reason was because there could not be found more than two republicans to vote for this extension. that is a shame and it's shameful. and we need to, within our ranks in this house, lift that shame off of the shoulders of everybody in this institution. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman is recognized.

mr. camp: i yield myself such time as i may consume. i would say to my friend from michigan that not even democrat senator ben nelson supported the bill last night, so it was not -- mr. levin: will the gentleman yield? that's one democrat. one democrat. mr. camp: mr. speaker, this is my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan controls the time. mr. camp: there were democrat senators that didn't support the bill and i mentioned one of them. i realize this is about republicans and democrat who care about the future of this country. and let me just say albert einstein once defined insanity as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. well, that's exactly what the democrats are doing today, trying to pass for the third time an unpaid for extension of unemployment benefits that the senate, republicans and democrats, and the american people have repeatedly rejected. in fact, just last night the

senate said thanks but no, thanks to this fiscal insanity. democrats should put an end to this sham and pay for this $34 billion spending bill so unemployed americans can get the help they deserve. and let me be clear, i support and republicans have supported extending unemployment benefits, but we must not do so at a cost to the deficit, to the economy and to future generations. our inability to get our fiscal house in order isn't just damaging future generations. it's reeking havoc on job creation today. surely if congress can find money to protect doctors, then we can find money to protect the unemployed. on tuesday, the house defeated this same bill, one that would add $34 billion to the deficit under a process that banned any

amendments, including any effort to pay for the bill. and, again, today we are on the floor under a process that bans all amendments, any attempt for us to offer a way to pay for this legislation is banned under the democrat's autocratic rule of this house. so we're back again today, and the only way we can address this issue is to offer a motion to recommit to actually pay for benefits. there is a way to pay for this spending and it's something we ought to do, and any member who is serious about reining in the deficit should vote in favor of this m.t.r. the unemployment benefits have been expired for months leaving them without the benefits they need and that number grows every week.

let me repeat that fact. americans are not receiving their unemployment checks because democrats refuse to pay for these benefits at a time of record federal deficits. as i said on tuesday, the american people know it isn't right to simply add the cost of this spending to our already overdrawn national credit card. they want -- they want us to help those in need. but they also know that someone has to pay when government spends money. that assistance must not put our fiscal house as a nation in worse shape, and we are already in terrible shape. stimulus hasn't worked. in its wake nearly five million private sector jobs lost. unemployment soared to 10% nationwide and 48 out of 50 states lost jobs. the american people should not be punished for the failure of stimulus, and our children and

grandchildren should not be punished for the failure of this congress to act in a fiscally responsible manner. even the administration has agreed in the past that paying for unemployment, and i quote, is fiscally responsible for unemployment benefits, and that fiscal responsibility is central to the medium-term recovery of the economy and the creation of jobs, end of quote. that is a quote from the statement of administration policy on a bill last fall extelling -- extending these same benefits, the only one of eight extension bills that was paid so far. so let's heed their admonition. reject this bill as the senate already has and vote to support the unemployed in favor of a fiscally responsible way by supporting the motion to recommit. and, mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance

of his time. the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: it's now my privilege to yield five minutes to the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from washington, mr. mcdermott. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. mcdermott: thank you, mr. speaker. well, we're back today to try again to do the right thing for america's unemployed workers and the right thing for our economy. two days ago the republicans in the house voted down a bill to continue unemployment benefits for anyone because they had lost their job through no fault of their own. but just last night the republicans in the other body followed suit locking legislation again that would have restored and continued benefits. their opposition was based on the fact that we just heard a long speech about it wasn't paid for. what a joke. it wasn't paid for. this is a sport that is played ffr by hardworking americans, maybe making $50,000, $60,000 a few weeks ago, these people

spending every day looking for work and sent out hundreds of resumes, many of which are not responded to, they paid for this by paying taxes in the past. and with five people competing for every available job, they simply cannot find work no matter how qualified and educated they are. in the worst economy in 70 years. republicans seem like they could care less. they claim we cannot afford to help the unemployed. we have to forgive my shock in hearing this as they had no problem with spending $1 trillion on two wars, not one penny of which was paid for. they voted for all those wars. now they say they can't afford to help unemployed americans. the bush administration presided over the implotion of the housing market and --

implosion of the housing market. you look around the world, they came from that era. they have asked the banks for bailouts. i remember frank paulson in here with his one sheet of paper asking for $700 billion. none of it it paid for to bail out banks and insurance companies, and republicans are happy to provide two massive tax cuts for the wealthy that also weren't paid for. and yet now they say we can't afford to help the unemployed. republicans have spent money like kids in a candy store when they were in charge, but now they say there's nothing left for unemployed americans. republicans spent years helping bush turn the largest budget surplus in our nation's history into the biggest deficit. but today they claim they're

defenders of our budget and they say we can't help the unemployed. they can help them on the top, but they can't help the people on the bottom. they can stand quietly while the bankers pass out bonuses by the billions to their managers and we don't have makele for the unemployed. here's the bottom line, if we fail to act nearly two million americans who have lost their unemployment benefits by the end of this week, and that number will grow higher in the weeks to come. more homes will go into foreclosure because if you don't pay your rent, you lose. all of this is bad for the economy. never mind the unemployed, just think about the economy, and that's ultimately bad for the federal budget. not one democrat in this room, including me, wants to add a cent to the deficit. we don't want to do this, but we also know that it's the right thing to do now, helping

millions of americans keep their head above water while they desperately look for work. last night millions of families in every corner of america had trouble putting dinner on the table because of this foolishness. and i don't know how anyone is going to go to a fourth of july parade or picnic after voting no on this, but i'm sure you will. it's hypocritical. in case you missed yesterday reading "the new york times," i suggest you get a copy and read the editorial and they wrote on unemployment, "deficits matter. we all agree on that. but not more on economic recovery and not more urgently than the economic survival of millions of americans." i sincerely hope these words affect somebody in ttis body, and when you go to that fourth of july parade, don't be surprised the response you may get if you vote no on this. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back.

the gentleman from michigan. mr. camp: at this time i yield three minutes to a distinguished member of the ways and means committee, the gentleman from georgia. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. >> i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. speaker, we're asked to say that the $34 billion thus not need be paid for. but since this is the eighth extension of u.i. benefits in the past two years, members need to ask, can the eighth bill doing anything really still be a budget emergency? and those two years and counting the bill before us, we will ask $125 billion in federal tax dollars for u.i. benefits, we have paid $2 billion of that and done so by raising taxes on jobs. mr. linder: that's a lot of unpaid for spending all because of the bankrupt -- the other side thinks that the unemployed

needs more than we cut some other spending to actually pay for them. in the real world, people set priorities. they buy one thing but not another if they can't afford both. but in this house, which can't have a budget, even a time when record deficits and debt, setting priorities is far too much to expect. yet, that sort of priority setting is exactly what we mean when we said that the democrats' pay-go rules -- excuse me -- that sort of priorities is exactly what we were promised was the democrats' pay-go rules. and here's how the president said they would work. quote, now congress will have to pay for what it spends just like everybody else. after a decade of prove -- they are tired of them talking the talk and not walking the walk. they included spending trapdoor

in their pay-go rules so anything they choose to be an emergency does not have to be paid for. the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, earlier this week repeatedly said there are no excuses for paying for this legislation. but excuses and tax hikes are all the other side offers when it comes to actually paying for their spending. what is the excuse for that? that there's not enough spending around to cut? tell that to one of your constituents over the last week. fortunately, the american people are catching on. last week, leading employers noted democrats' policies, including this record accumulation of the debt, are hostile to job creation, and more people think elvis is alive than believe the democrats' trillion dollar stimulus created jobs. unemployed workers want real jobs, not two years of unemployment benefits. but all this congress offerr is more debt and ultimately more pink slips. that is hardly what the unemployed needs.

i urge my members to oppose this bill and insist that any further spending is really paid for. that is the only hope for turning this economy around and actually creating jobs that americans need. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin. mr. levin: i now yield two minutes to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. pascrell, a member of the ways and means committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. pascrell: mr. speaker, i rise to speak for the unemployed. i've had more calls in my office in the last two weeks from those who have run out of benefits. that's a fact of life. the last speaker who talked about the unemployed that are better off without us helping them, figure that out. the unemployed are better off when they can put food on their table for their families. the unemployed are better off when they can pay the rent.

that's when the unemployed are better off. and that doesn't happen by osmosis. this legislation is incredibly important because millions of americans woke up this morning and will not be able to pay their rent, will not be able to pay their electric bill, will not be able to do at the grocery store what needs to be done. for years there were policies that placed the extraordinarily wealthy people of this country, the big banks, the well connected, above seniors, above the middle class, above the american people. just today the financial crisis inquiry commission had one of its hearings, you should have watched it. when these guys wiggled in their chairs in answering the questions of the commission of how we got to this mess. look, there's enough blame to go on both sides. but you guys were in charge, not us.

remember, eight million jobs, millions of people's retirements lost because of the recklessness of wall street and we can't dig down and help those people who are unemployed? the extent of the time of unemployment we haven't seen in so many years. but if you go back to 2005, 2005, when we were warned of the clouds that were heading towards us, you remember in those two years before that, 2003 and 2005, the average salary and wage went down 1.5%. so -- mr. levin: i yield the gentleman an additional minute. the speaker pro tempore: the chair reminds all members to confine their remarks to the chair. mr. pascrell: during that period of time which was a billion weather for what was going to come, which -- bell weather for what was going to happen, why we couldn't understand, where's this money going if everybody's making profits? then we examined the records.

where was it going? it was going to corporate profits because nobody was watching. there was no oversight. these unemployed are suffering because of those profits in times when we were starting to tighten our belt and understand what was coming our way. the emergency unemployment compensation program began to phase out at the end of may, so this bill will retroactively restore those necessary benefits. this is dignyny -- dignity we're talking about. this is a man and woman looking at their families and saying, we are going to eat tomorrow, we're going to pay the electric bill and we are going to pay the rent. i think that that's important and critical. after two wars and after two massive tax cuts would help the rich that you never paid for, you have the nerve to tell the unemployed people in this country that you must be wanting to be unemployed. i'm sorry we the company help you, but if you're part of

corporate america and you stuck it to the americans and the middle class in this country and the poor, that's all right, we'll find a way to bail you out. let's make sense. let's be fair. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan. mr. camp: thank you. i yield myself such time as i may consume. and i would say to my friend from new jersey, we agree this is important. this is important. this is so important that we believe that we should pay for this. and let me just quote the majority leader who was on abc's "this week" and said, and i quote, there's spending fatigue across the country, his words. and that he's encouraging the administration to look at last year's $787 billion stimulus package to see if some money can be redirected. and i would just say, if this is so important, why not let us offer an amendment to use unspent stimulus dollars, to cut om other wasteful part of

government, to find some way to pay for this important program? that's all i say. leven lev will -- mr. pascrell: will the gentleman yield? mr. camp: i will not yield. i'll be yielding to my colleague. if we could just get an agreement to offer an amendment, to do that and move forward. but, no, this bill comes to the floor under the most restrictive rule the house can possibly pass. we cannot offer any he amendments. if this is that important, why not let us offer an amendment to find some way to pay for this bill? at this time i yield two minutes to a distinguished member of the ways and means committee, the gentleman from louisiana, dr. boustany. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. boustany: thank you, mr. speaker. i agree with my ranking member's remarks here. the gentleman from new jersey made a very compelling, emotional argument. we all agree that we have to do something. but the american people want to us pay for this. they have been speaking very loudly and very clearly. they're tired of the fiscal

irresponsibility. now, our friends across the aisle here predicted that their trillion-dollar stimulus would create 3.7 million jobs. and since then what have we seen? let's look at the record. debt has grown by $2 trillion and nearly three million jobs have been lost, with unemployment hovering just under 10%. these policies, i think if our friends across the aisle would take the time and talk to the job creators in this country, the small business owners, the entrepreneurs, what they would find is that these tax, borrow, spend policies are creating tremendous uncertainty. for the job creators, small business owners across this country. and these policies are leading to more unemployment and more debt. look at what the administration's advocating. a job-killing moratorium on exploration for oil in the deep water. this is going to kill

potentially a couple hundred thousand jobs on the gulf coast. we need to get back to some real debate on these issues here. now this bill, what does this bill do? it's $34 billion to expand or to extend the unemployment benefits. but it's not paid for. the american people want these policies paid for. and there's no reason why this couldn't have come to the floor with the opportunity for us to amend it, to have a real debait over some of these -- the merits of these amendments on how we could pay for this. it's just not right. look, more debt, more uncertainty, more unemployment, higher taxes, the american people deserve better. i yield to the gentleman. mr. pascrell: remember when we passed the stimulus, i assume that's what you're talking about last february. mr. boustany: my time's expired.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: i just want to read quickly a report from c.b.o. regarding the recovery program and i quote, it increased the number of full time equivalent jobs by 1.8 million to 4.1 million compared with those amounts that would have been otherwise. i now yield two minutes to the distinguished gentleman from georgia, a very able member of our ways and means committee, mr. lewis. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. lewis: mr. speaker, today we have been given another chance to do what is right while un-- for our unemployed brothers and sisters. we must extend unemployment insurance, it is the right thing to do, it is the moral thing to do, it is the compassionate thing to do. those of you who have said that

the unemployed are lazy, are going to hand out, you should be ashamed of yourselves. this is not a handout. people have paid into the system their whole working lives. the unemployed in this country want to work, they are desperate to -- desperate to work and we must help them get by. i challenge each of you who plan to vote no to come to georgia, go into your own districts. i challenge to you look people in the eye and tell them that you voted no. i challenge you to tell the people that you valid yoling more than empathy and compassion for your fellow man. tell them as they swallow their pride that you don't care, that you don't have a heart, that you don't have any feeling. explain to them why you voted yes for war funding and yes for tax breaks for the rich but no

for hardworking americans who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own. it is wrong, just plain wrong. the time is always right to do what is right. do not be afraid to be compassionate, do not be afraid to vote with your heart and your conscience. vote to extend unemployment and extend it now. do it for the people. the speaker pro tempore: the chair reminds all members to refrain their remarks to the chair. the gentleman from michigan. mr. camp: at this time i yield three minutes to the distinguished member of the ways and means committee, the gentleman from nevada. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. heller: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman for yielding. last night, mr. speaker, i did a telephone town hall meeting in my district, with more than 13,000 people on that telephone line with me.

and hundreds of them wanted to ask questions, obviously i couldn't get to all of them. but those that i could get to, 50% of them, 50% of them wanted to ask about unemployment. one woman said without an unemployment extension she wouldn't be able to pay for her car registration, her insurance and was likely to lose her home soon. she worried about foreclosure and asked how, if she couldn't register her car, how was she he supposed to look for a job? others had similar stories about the sacrifices they needed to make in these tough times. these same nevadans also know that the stimulus hasn't worked. president obama promised more than -- no more than 8% unemployment. maybe i'm confused. maybe he meant 9%. or 10%. or 11%. maybe he meant 12%. but that doesn't even reach the

level of unemployment in my state of nevada at 14%. i even have counties in my district north of 18% unemployment. now, i'm one of many republicans who support helping long-term unemployed people and have voted repeatedly to extend these benefits. as i mentioned, some of the counties in my district, the largest county in my district has 13.3% unemployment, clark county for decades the fastest growing county in my state, home of los angeles, 2/3 of the state's population -- las vegas, 2/3 of the state's population has an unemployment rate of more than 14%. as i mentioned, some counties, 15%, 16%, even 18% unemployment. this is unacceptable. because these aren't just numbers. these are people. these are families who are hurting, losing their homes, unable to pay their bills,

struggling to provide for their children. but even facing these serious problems, nevadans know that the majority party either doesn't know or can't admit that obama economics is killing jobs. crippling debt is not the answer. the assistance we provide should be put -- should not put our fiscal house in even worse shape. members on both sides supporting -- support helping the unemployed. but many members oppose adding an additional $34 billion to our $13 trillion mountain of debt as this legislation does. there is an alternative. use the unused failed stimulus money to pay for this extension. there's a bill at the desk, pass it, and we can all go home knowing that we have done the responsible thing. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman is recognized.

mr. heller: thank you. we can go home having done the responsible thing and knowing that we have helped all americans. most importantly, it's long past time for congress to finally get serious about creating jobs. my constituents want pay checks, not unemployment checks. they want startups, not bailouts. and they want handups, not handouts. americans are disappointed with the government that has grown so big, promised so much yet has delivered so little. and i yield back the balance. mr. levin: i yield -- the speaker pro tempore: members will suspend. the chair will remind all persons in the gallery that they are guests of the house and that any manifestation of approval or disapproval of the proceedings is a violation of the rules of the house. the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: mr. speaker, i now

yield two minutes to the distinguished gentleman from illinois, a member of the ways and means committee, mr. davis. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. davis: thank you, mr. chairman. you know, i've been told that if you don't want to do something, any excuse is good enough. and every time i hear my colleagues talk about paying for this and paying for that, i'm reminded of frederick douglass who used to say that he knew one thing if he didn't know anything else and that is that in this world you may not get everything that you pay for, but you certainly will pay for everything that you get. and if way you're going to pay another way. well, i can tell you that the people wh are unemployed have already paid because they've already worked. they've already paid into the system, and i can wonder how we're going to feel when we go to our parades on the fourth of

july, when we're singing patriotic songs, my country 'tis of thee, my country liberty, we have 1.7 million people who are free to be broke, who are free to be unemployed, free to be hungry, free to be living in misery, wondering where their next meal is going to come from, how do they pay the rent, how do they keep their kids in school. well, i can tell you i can't believe that we would actually do this. and so any excuse is good enough. if you don't want to do it. but let's do the real and the right thing. let's vote to extend unemployment benefits to those

who deserve it. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan. mr. camp: i'll reserve at this time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin. mr. levin: it's now my privilege to yield two minutes to the gentleman from ohio, mr. kucinich. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. kucinich: i thank the gentleman. in cleveland, where i come from, unemployment is devastating our community. people are demanding that their government, our government recognize the suffering of families who can't find work. will washington tell my constituents that people like them all over america -- and people like them all over america that we have money for

war but no money for the unemployed, we have money for military contractors but no money for the unemployed, we have money, billions, for corrupt foreign governments but no money for our unemployed in the united states, we have money for tax cuts for the wealthiest of americans but no money for the unemployed, hundreds of billions for wall street but no money for the unemployed? instead, out-of-work, poor and middle class, they get lectures on balancing the budget, lectures on pay-fors. but what are people supposed to do when they don't have budgets because they don't have money, when they can't pay for food, shelter, clothing? yes, we need jobs, but people out of work can't find a job

and they have to survive. people need unemployment benefits because they have to pay for their mortgage, their rent, their utility bills because so many americans are hanging on by their fingertips. some exor the our constituents -- some tell our constituents, pull yourselves up by your boot straps. what if you don't have money to buy boots? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp. mr. camp: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. camp: what we've been hearing most of today is really a false choice, that we either do this bill unpaid for or do nothing at all, and in a $3 trillion budget we can't find the $34 billion to pay for this bill?

as i said before, i have supported the extension of unemployment benefits, i have voted for the extension of unemployment benefits, but given the fiscal shape this country is in now, we believe that it's important to offer these benefits and also pay for these benefits so that we don't help today's unemployed at the expense of tomorrow's future job seekers. and the effect on the debt -- and i could go through the litany. obviously it didn't start last year, but if you look at what has happened since january of 2009, a $410 billion supplemental that included 185 earmarks, $1 trillion stimulus, $1 trillion health care bill, we have hundreds of billions of dollars in unspent stimulus that isn't being returned to taxpayers that could be redirected to pay for these unemployment benefits that isn't. so what i hear is we just need to spend, and this is an

important need, but why not let us offer an amendment to find a way to pay for these unemployment -- these extended unemployment benefits? and with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin. mr. levin: i now yield two minutes to the distinguished gentleman from ohio, mr. ryan. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio is recognized for two minutes. mr. ryan: i thank the chairman for this opportunity. let me just go on record and say i cannot believe in the wealthiest country that has ever existed on god's green earth that we are having a debate about whether or not we should let 1.3 million people-plus over the course of the next few weeks go without unemployment when unemployment's at 10%, there's five people looking for every one job, and we can't muster up the courage in this body to pass unemployment benefits?

and our friends on the other side said this isn't an emergency. so all of those folks over the fourth of july, get your car coal out, get -- charcoal out, put your flip-flops on, put your shorts on, put the sunblock on, there's no emergency here. that's what our friends on the other side are trying to tell the 1.3 million people who will go without anything. if you think the deficit is bad now, wait until we get another wave of foreclosures, another wave of people who aren't paying their bills, another wave of bankruptcies, and our friends on the other side have consistently said no. we tried to get money from b.p. to pay for the oil spill. they said no. we took on the insurance companies. they said no. we took on wall street. they said no. we took on the banks. they said no. if you took the word no out of the dictionary, the republican

party would be speechless. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp. mr. camp: at this time, mr. speaker, i'm prepared to close if the gentleman has no further speakers. mr. levin: first, mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on h.r. 5618. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp. mr. camp: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. chairman -- mr. speaker, this bill shows what the majority will go to when paying for spending, even calling the eighth extension of unemployment benefits an emergency. one would hope that even the congress would see this coming after the first seven times. we could pass this bill with broad bipartisan support if

democrats would just agree to pay for the spending. instead, their refusal to pay for these benefits would mean hundreds of thousands of unemployed americans are losing unemployment benefits at a time when the unemployment rate is nearly 10%. and it shouldn't be this way because this bill is going nowhere. the american people know we must pay for the spending and the senate appears to have heard this message. just last night the senate rejected this bill, so it has no hope of being signed into law. given the senate vote, this isn't just an exercise in fiscal irresponsibility. it's an exercise in futility. the unemployed are facing a personal emergency in and our country is facing an emergency that affects us all and future generations. the mountain of debt this bill will only add to. if you want to help those that are out of work, let's pass something that might actually

pass the senate and won't increase the deficit such as the motion to recommit that i'll be offering in a moment. so with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin. mr. levin: i yield myself the balance of the time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. levin: i'm glad my colleague from michigan just spoke, and i think laid it out very clearly what's before us. he said this is the eighth time and we called it an emergency. this is the hurricane season. i assume that if there are eight hurricanes that when the damage is done the eighth time we'll call it for what it is, an emergency. so the fact that this is the eighth time, first of all, chose that under presidents of both parties we extended in

unfunded ways is an emergency, but i think what this shows is that indeed it is an emergency for numerous families. essentially the minority is looking for cover. this is an emergency within statutory pay-go that passed this congress, so we are following it. the senate rejected it last night short one vote only because of the death of senator byrd and there were only two republicans. his position may be filled as we mourn him. and then this bill can pass the senate. and hopefully will will be more

than two republicans, the rest standing in the way. there's been some reference here to job loss. i just want to repeat, during the eight years of the bush administration, there was a loss of 673,000 private sector jobs. in the first five months of 2010 alone, there's been a gain of 495,000 private sector jobs. so even that excuse won't work. nor the notion of the deficit when those who are trying to invoke it helped create most of it. so i just want to read some stories, because everybody

needs to go home and face people like this. i start with a gentleman from michigan. i am a u.s. navy veteran and am trying to get things going, but i just need a little more help. and next, a person in touch with us from grand rapids. and i quote, i worked 22 years in automotive 60 to 70 hours a week supporting my family, paid my taxes and work in my community. every single day i send my resume out to no avail. and i interrupt his quote. don't say these are people who are not looking for work. that's also an excuse that won't work.

and i continue. he said, i have lost my home and one vehicle and my sense of the ability to take care of my family. and now a person from madison heights, michigan. we depend on unemployment to help pay our house payment and our bills. without that check we would definitely lose our house. and now this person from frazier, michigan. and there are people like this throughout the country. as of june 2, and i quote, i will no longer be collecting unemployment on the emergency extension. i cannot stress to you enough how very hopeless this all is for me and millions of people. i have worked since i was 13 making my own way, served my

country in the vietnam war, raising a family, paying my taxes and now facing total ruin. what is being done to help people like me in my time of need? the answer on the minority side, with a few exceptions, too few, is nothing, a cold shoulder, an excuse. . i quote from a person in stirling heights, a woman who wrote this. my husband is a union electrician and is about to lose his unemployment. he has always worked and never been laid off for more than a few months until now. no matter how hard he tries to find work, there is not much

work in the building construction in michigan. this extension can't wait much longer. end of quote. what the minority has been saying, and i hope it won't say today, is the answer is, you will wait and you will wait and you will wait. the house will pass this. we'll send it to the senate. i hope with some partisan -- bipartisan support here it will go to the senate and as i said before, i hope as their first order of business they'll find the 60 votes. to do that, those in the minority will have to rise above politics. for a moment they'll have to put

down their political banner and remember the plight of not only 1,700,000 but their families and more to be added while this institution without bipartisan help has not responded. there is only one answer, no excuses. none holds any water. we are holding up the basic, basic elements of life for millions of americans. we can do better. we must do better. we shall do better in just a few moments. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: all time for debate has expired. pursuant to house resolution 1495, the previous question is ordered on the bill as amended.

the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: a bill to continue federal unemployment programs. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 1-c rule 19, further consideration of h.r. 5618 is postponed. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, proceed also resume on motions to suspend the rules previously postponed. the unfinished business is on the question of suspend the rules agreeing to h.res. 1412 as amended. which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: house resolution 14 12, resolution congratulating the government of south africa on its first two successful convictions on human trafficking. the speaker pro tempore: the request is he -- the question is will the house suspend the rules

and agree as amended. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended -- a recorded vote is requested. does the gentleman ask for the yeas and nays? mr. levin: yes. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 414. the nays are one. 2/3 of those voting having %- responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the resolution is agreed to, and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table.

let's have order in the house. members, please take your seats. take conversations outside the chambers.

the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 1 of rule 19, proceedings will resume on h.r. 56 which the clerk will report by title. the speaker pro tempore: h.r. 5618, a bill to continue federal unemployment programs. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman

from michigan rise? >> i have a motion to recommit at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: is the gentleman opposed to the bill? mr. camp: i am in its present form. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman qualifies. the clerk will report the hotion motion. the clerk: mr. camp moves to recommit the bill h.r. 5618 -- mr. camp: i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the reading. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection? mr. levin: mr. speaker, i reserve a point of order on the gentleman's motion. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the reading is dispensed with and a point of order is reserved. the gentleman from michigan. mr. camp: thank you. this motion to recommit on h.r. 5618 adds the provision to pay for the unextended -- to pay for the extended unemployment benefits proposed in the underlying bill. we think it's important to help long-term unemployed people, and we want to do it without adding another $34 billion to the

nation's record $13 trillion debt. we know that stimulus hasn't worked, and it's nearly three million private sector jobs were lost, 10% unemployment nationwide, and 48 out of 50 states lost jobs. so this motion to recommit pays for the $34 billion in federal unemployment costs by cutting that much in unspent stimulus spending. only a portion of the trillion dollar stimulus has been paid out. $414 billion as of june 18 as reported by the official recovery act website. hundreds of billions of dollars unspent in available to offset this bill. i'd like to quote from the statement of administration policy last november. and the quote is, fiscal responsibility is central to the

medium-term recovery of the economy and the creation of jobs. the administration therefore supports the fiscally responsible approach to expanding unemployment benefits embodied in the bill. that statement was about the only one of the eight unemployment benefits extenders bills so far that was actually paid for. but the same can and should be said about this motion, it is fiscally responsible, and that it's central to the recovery of our economy and job creation. i'd also like to read a quote from speaker pelosi that appeared in congress daily on monday. she said, and i quote, i am hard put to pass anymore initiatives here unless there is some reasonable prospect of success on the senate side. end quote. well, there isn't a reasonable prospect of success on the senate side unless we adopt this motion to recommit. just last night the senate

rejected the unpaid for version of this bill. rejecting this motion ensures this bill will die in the senate and that hundreds of thousands of unemployed americans will continue to go without their unemployment benefits. i urge all members to join me in supporting this motion to recommit which will help today's unemployed workers and improve the future for our children and grandchildren by not adding to our debt. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan rise? mr. levin: i rise in opposition and i want to say briefly we have already debated this issue -- the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman reserve? mr. levin: i continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman s recognized for five minutes. mr. levin: this is not a germane amendment. also what it is is an effort to

use emergency funds targeted to create jobs to fund emergency unemployment insurance. this is another excuse on the part of the minority that won't work. we pass this, this bill will go over to the senate, hopefully it will be their first order of business when they return, 1.7 million have already lost their unemployment insurance. it will be over that by several hundred thousand when they return. there's a reference here to jobs that are lost. i want to just quickly, people said during the debate, during the eight years of the bush administration there was a loss

of 673,000 private sector jobs and in the first month, five months of this administration, there has been a gain of 495,000 private sector jobs. we are proud. not enough has been done, but compared to the bush years, we have made some progress and those who are still unemployed should not suffer because of the indifference of the minority. that's what this is all about. i now insist on my point of order that the gentleman's motion is not germane to this legislation. the speaker pro tempore: does any other member wish to be heard on the point of order? mr. camp: mr. speaker, i would like to be heard on the point of order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan. mr. camp: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, at a time of record deficits, it should always be germane to consider proposals to offset higher spending.

and in light of the senate already rejecting an unpaid for version of this bill just last night, i ask that the speaker deny the point of order so that we can pay for this bill. and ensure that unemployed americans do not continue to go without unemployment benefits. the speaker pro tempore: does any other member wish to be heard? the chair will rule. the gentleman from michigan makes a point of order that the instructions proposed in the motion to recommit offered by the gentleman from michigan are not germane. one of the fundamental principles of germaneness is that an amendment must confine itself to matters addressed by the bill and to matters that fall within the jurisdiction of the committee with jurisdiction or with the bill. the bill is amended addresses the availability of certain benefits, restrictions on those benefits, and budgetary issues related thereto. such subject matters do not fall

within the jurisdiction of the committee on appropriations. the instructions proposed in the motion to recommit propose an amendment to rescind various unobligated funds contain in a prior appropriations act. that subject matter falls within the jurisdiction of the committee on appropriations. by addressing a matter unrelated to the issues addressed in the bill and the jurisdiction of a committee not represented in the bill, the instructions proposed an amendment that is not germane. the point of order is sustained. the motion is not in order. the gentleman from michigan. mr. camp: i appeal the ruling of the chair. mr. levin: mr. speaker, i move to table -- the speaker pro tempore: the question is shall the decision of the chair stand as the judgment of the house. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? mr. levin: i very much move to table the appeal of the ruling of the chair. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to table. so many as are in favor say aye.

those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, -- mr. camp: i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: the ayes have it. the gentleman from michigan. a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the recorded vote is orred. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 20, this 15-minute vote on the motion to table will be followed by a five-minute vote on passage of the bill, if arising without further proceedings a recommittal. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning madeossible by t national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 220, the nays are 196. the motion is adopted. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the question is on passage. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the speaker pro tempore: i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: -- >> i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the gentleman from michigan asks for a recorded vote. a recorded vote is requested, all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. . a sufficient number having arisen a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives.

any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 270. the nays are 153. the bill is passed. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. under clause 10-c of rule 21, the presiding officer was supposed to have put the question to consideration on h.r. 5618 but omitted to do so. that omission has been overtaken by the subsequent actions on the bill. the chair lays before the house the following enrolled bill. the clerk: senate 3104, an act to permanently authorize radio -

free asia and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina rise? >> mr. speaker, i ask for unanimous consent that my name be removed from h.r. 2555. i was inadvertently added as a co-sponsor. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the chair will postpone further proceedings today on motions to suspend the rules on which a recorded vote or the yeas and nays are ordered or on which the vote incurs objection under clause 6 of rule 20. record votes on postponed questions will be taken later. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? mr. conyers: mr. speaker, i move that the house suspend the

rules and pass h.r. 5503 as amended. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 5503, a bill to revise laws regarding liability in certain civil actions arising from maritime incidents, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from michigan, mr. conyers, and the gentleman from texas, mr. smith, each will control 20 minutes. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from michigan, mr. conyers. mr. conyers: i thank you, mr. speaker. i ask that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. conyers: and i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. conyers: ladies and gentlemen of the house, on april 20, an explosion on the deepwater horizon oil drilling platform sank the vessel resulting in the death of 11 men and injured at least 17

others. we are on honored to have the widows -- we are honored to have the widows -- four of the widows of the men there including the father of gordon jones, attorney chief jones, shelly anderson -- mrs. shelly anderson, mrs. correspondent knee kemp, mrs. natalie rush. and we come here -- they join us in the gallery to observe these proceedings. they were at the judiciary committee hearing. this april 20 disaster has now become the most massive environmental disaster in our nation's history, poisoning widespread swaps of the gulf of

mexico, killing wildlife, ruining wetlands and wreaking economic havoc in the gulf states. it has highlighted not only depths in our ability to regulate deep water drilling but also a major legal gap have been discovered in the applicable statutes that are adversely impacting victims. and so our measure from judiciary committee focuses on repairing these flaws, so that the victims of this disaster can get fair treatment. we have found that the current state of law regarding these liability issues is outdated, unfair and operates against our national interests.

the three key laws all date from the mid 1800's, the death on the high seas act, the jones act and the limitation on liability act. on the death on the high seas act -- does not allow recovery of nonpro-- of laws in contrast to all state laws and to general maritime law. the jones act allows recovery for a family's loss, if a seaman is injured but survives but denies the same if he dies. don't ask me how that ever got into law.

the limitation on liability act enacted in 1851 caps a ship owner's legal responsibility at the value of the ship and its carg o'no matter how massive -- cargo no matter how massive the magnitude of the harm caused. the unfairness of these laws is grossly apparent. and makes no sense, is highly immoral in my judgment and so the judiciary committee's job to scan these ancient statutes and repair them. and so that's what we've done. we've made a few changes and i'd like to just identify them and we will have some of our other

learned members of the committee go into more detail. under the current laws, take gordon jones, for example, who ironically his youngest son was born just a couple weeks after his death, they can only recover gordon's lost wages but they are not entitled to any nonfinancial benefits. so, that needs to be taken care of. and we do. before i reserve my time, there have been heard claims that the

process was not adequate or it was inadequate and the committee on judiciary held on may 27 of this year a hearing on the legal liability issues surrounding the gulf coast oil disaster and it lasted over five hours. it covered 11 witnesses who discussed and addressed the laws that i mentioned in this act before us and then they held an extensive markup of the following month, on june 23, where we debated a number of amendments and reported the bill . it was a bipartisan vote and

then in the manager's amendment we addressed some concerns that were raised by my colleagues on the other side. now, this bill focuses on fixing these gaps and i am hopeful that we can move this bill as expeditiously as we can and i would reserve the balance of my time. except to mention that i wanted to acknowledge my colleague, sheila jackson lee, a senior

member who has helped us craft not only the legislation in the manager's amendment and along with her and our colleague from florida, corrine brown, we've been able to make some modifications that have been generally agreed to by many of the members in the committee. we reached an understanding and -- although we've not developed statutory language. with that, mr. speaker, i would reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. smith: mr. speaker, although i believe this legislation is well intended, i have serious concerns about h.r. 5503 and the process under which it is being

considered today. it is important that b.p. and other responsible parties pay all costs associated with the oil spill and that they be held fully accountable for this catastrophe of the 11 lives tragically lost in the explosion on the deepwater horizon. however, h.r. 5503 will have unintended consequences that reach well beyond the gulf coast disaster. in fact, very little in this bill is directed solely at oil spill-related liability. it is incredible that the sweeping changes this bill makes have made their way to the house floor without the benefit of even one legislative hearing. it is also incredible that we are considering this bill under suspension of the rules, denying those with concerns the opportunity to offer even one amendment. had this bill been considered under regular order, i would have offered an amendment to limit it to claims arising out of oil spills. this amendment would ensure that

those responsible for oil spills are held fully accountable while at the same time restricting the bill's unintended consequences. because h.r. 5503 is not limited to oil spills, its unintended consequences will be severe. for example, the changes it makes virtually rewrite u.s. maritime liability law and in some instances make it out of step with the laws of nearly every other maritime nation. maritimeeaccidents usually involve numerous parties with competing claims, loss of life or personal injury and multiple jurisdictions in which claims may be filed. the ship owner's liability -- excuse me, the ship owner's limitation of liability act addresses these problems by allowing for consolidation of all claims arising out of a maritime accident in one federal form. it also creates a fund to pay personal injury and death claims over and above the act's general

liability limit. this bill repeals the act without adopting any replacement legislation to fill the void. this introduces uncertainty and in many cases may lead to inadequate compensation to personal injury and wrongful death claim ants, since repealing the act repeals the personal injury fund. let me repeat that, mr. speaker. this bill repeals the personal injury fund. which every vessel owner is required to create to pay personal injury claims over and above the act's general liability gap. other sections of this bill are also questionable. section 3 allows for recovery of noneconomic damages and wrongful death actions under the jones act. while this may seem like a fair result, it actually creates inequities because the jones act is the equivalent of land-based workers compensation statutes which do not apply at sea.

but workers compensation laws do not allow for the recovery of noneconomic damages, thus jones act seamen will receive greater recoveries than are provided to nearly every other american worker. this change is being made without the benefit of a legislate of hearing to understand its full impact on injured workers, employers, shippers and consumers. these extensive changes to u.s. maritime liability law, way ply well beyond oil spills, threaten to increase dramatically the cost of shipping goods and increases that will be borne by all american consumers. finally, give -- by giving oil claimant -- sales with companies, the bill effectively gives these claimants control of the bankruptcy process. however, giving o.p.a. claiments this vito power seriously curtails the rights of other bankruptcy claim ants, including secured creditors, pension funds

and other tort victims and state and local governments. because this legislation applies retroactively, there is no reason to push this bill through on suspension without having conducted a single legislative hearing on its sweeping changes. let me be clear, mr. speaker, republicans do not want to give b.p. a free pass. that's why we offered amendments in committee to narrow the scope of this legislation, to cover companies like b.p. that are responsible for oil spills. these amendments were voted down by the majority. but in the democrat's heast to act -- democrats' haste to act before the july fourth recess, it would punish all of the maritime industries for the faults of b.p. that's not fair and it's not good policy. it would also be a job killer for many hardworking americans who had nothing to do with the oil spill. rather than cave to political gamemanship and vote for a bad bill, congress should do what is

best for the american people. as we amend the federal law teen sure that b.p. and other responsible parties are held accountable for the full extent of the harm they have caused, we must avoid hampling -- harming the national interest. because we have had no legislative hearings on this bill we cannot be sure that it does not harm the economy, maritime industries and american jobs. the bill should be sent back to committee to be examined and amended properly before brought again to the floor for a vote. and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: before i recognize the next speaker, i yield myself 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. conyers: i am sure my good friend, lamar smith, is not recommending that with all the tragedy and suffering that has occurred in this area of the country, that we go back and go

over these same issues one more time. the laws are ancient, they're out of date, we have witnesses, we wrote a bill based on it, this process has been done numerous times and i now, with some pride, yield the distinguished speaker of the house, nancy pelosi, one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the distinguished speaker is recognized for one minute. the speaker: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman for yield and am most grateful to him for bringing this legislation to the floor. i saw the hope in the eyes of the victims of the oil spill come to my office. these families came, 11 of the

families were suffering from the loss of a loved one on the rig. they came to me and said that they were on their way to see chairman conyers. they were filled with hope that he would advance the spill act. i heard their stories, they made their appeal for legislation about safety and about the spill act. we held hands, we prayed, they told stories of their loved ones and they kept coming back to the point that they did not want the families to be forgotten and they did not want other families who could be the victims of future accidents or incidents of this kind to be forgotten. very hopefully and prayerfully they left the speaker's office, went to see mr. conyers.

with great emotion of the stories they had to tell but with great wisdom about their families had been affected and what a difference the spill act would make. the chairman has described it in terms of the death on the high seas act which would be changed by this legislation that was passed in the middle of the 19th century, amended dating from the 1920's, as we know, and this legislation will modernize it in terms of distance from the shore and who would be compensated for a loss. not just at the kuhl near loss but also -- peculinary loss. i want to thank the chairman because of what i saw in their eyes and the hope this legislation will send. more important than all of that, the difference that it

will make in the lives of these people who gave -- who are the backbone of america, work so hard to grow our economy, to keep the community together. i thank mr. melancon the important role that he's played in that representing those people so well and making sure this legislation addresses their concerns. with that i yield back the balance of my time and once again thank the distinguished chairman for anticipating the needs of these families and meeting them by bringing the spill act to the floor. thank you, mr. speaker. mr. smith: mr. speaker, before i yield time to my colleague from texas, i yield myself one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. smith: i want to respond to what my chairman said a minute ago and set the record straight. we did not have a single legislative hearing on this bill, so we never even went over it one time to fully appreciate the consequences and unintended consequences of this

bill. for example, this bill changes maritime law for everyone, not just those involved in the oil spill. clearly we should have explored the consequences of that. beyond that, and i want to emphasize this, this bill -- it's too late to repeal this bill -- repeals the personal liability fund. that enough is a reason to oppose this bill, that it repeals the personal liability fund that vessel owners today have to have. with that, mr. speaker, i now yield three minutes to my colleague from texas, mr. poe, a member of the judiciary committee and the deputy ranking member of the crime subcommittee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. poe: thank you. i thank the gentleman from texas for yielding. while i support some of this legislation, i certainly believe responsible parties for this disaster in the gulf of mexico near my home state of texas, those people should be held accountable to every

extent of the law and injured individuals and families of those who died should be compensated. however, i wish to address just one provision of this act, the detrimental effect of the maritime shipping in the united states if this legislation is passed. the unintended consequences of h.r. 5503 could be widespread. among other things, h.r. 5503 repeals the limitation of liability act. which is a drastic fundamental change in american maritime law. this change would end the longstanding practice in the united states that all maritime claims be determined in one federal forum. it also ends the limitation on u.s. vessels' owners liability, a limitation which is in place in virtually every other country in the maritime industry. the loss of this limitation will handicap u.s. ship owners in the competitive world of shipping.

h.r. 5503 would cause insurance rates to spin out of control, damaging american maritime industry and putting thousands of american jobs in jeopardy. american shipping is already in serious decline. in fact, there are only 220 united states flag vessels in the global shipping fleet of 37,000. i repeat, mr. speaker. there are only 220 u.s. flagged vessels in the global shipping fleet of 37,000. i fear this legislation would put our remaining 220 shippers out of business. the maritime industry in the united states will be sunk because they will not be able to obtain insurance to operate. then, more americans would be out of work. we should not purposely put any more americans out of work when jobs are scarce. just as the offshore drilling moratorium was hastily enacted by the administration and has since been declared illegal by

a federal judge, this bill is also rushed to the floor, i believe, without consideration of some of the unintended consequences. the consequences of this bill will cause a further disaster because of the deepwater explosion and put more americans out of work. and i yield back the remainder of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: mr. speaker, before i recognize the gentleman from louisiana, i yield myself 15 seconds. this is incredible. with all the suffering that has occurred, all the damage that's incurred, we now come here after five -- more than five hours' worth of hearings on this matter to say that the insurance -- the ship owners won't like the insurance rates that -- i yield myself 10 more seconds.

that they won't like the -- that they may be liable and that's what we're correcting. i deeply resent this kind of attack on a bill of this urgency. and i now turn to charlie melancon, the distinguished gentleman from louisiana, for 1 1/2 minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. mr. melancon: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to start. keith jones, father of gordon jones, and i spent several hours together in recent weeks traveling back to louisiana. a quote. when michelle tells her boys about their dad, she will not show them the pay stub. she'll tell them how much their father loved them. in cases like these, 11 deaths,

please believe me, no amount can ever compensate us for gordon's death. we know that. but this is the only means available to begin to make things right and to make them right for michelle and the two boys. mr. speaker, 11 men died in the explosion among the deepwater horizon oil rig and a 90-year-old law stands right now. the family that lost their loved ones cannot hold those responsible accountable for the harm that has caused them. i met with the families of those workers. while we cannot relieve these families from the unimaginable grief they will go through for the rest of their lives, losing a husband, a father, a brother, a son, we need to get the law current. as the law is now, it is gambling with workers

throughout the process. today we have the opportunity to change those laws and the spill act does exactly that. this bill amends the death on the high seas act and the jones act so that the surviving relatives can recover some measure of compensation for the loss they have suffered. it is impossible to replace a husband or a father. another 30 seconds, if i could. one minute would be fine. but just compensation is absolutely necessary to help these families pay their house notes, put food on the table, educate the children and live a decent life. we know that current law encourages risky behavior. we've seen through the ongoing investigations into the horizon disaster that b.p. chose to ignore safety concerns about the volatility of their well. as a result, hardworking men lost their lives and we have the worst environmental disaster in our nation's history in the gulf of mexico. we can't let current law stand. congress must act now so that we encourage safe operating policies and hold companies

accountable to the highest standard of workplace safety. i want to thank chairman conyers and the judiciary committee for working so swiftly to fix this law and i urge all my colleagues to side with the victims' families and not the irresponsible corporations. i urge a yes vote and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. smith: mr. speaker, the national bankruptcy conference, a nonpartisan organization of lawyers, professors and judges, opposes the bankruptcy provisions in this bill. according to the conference, quote, the proposed amendments are not likely to achieve its purpose and instead are likely to have pernicious, unintended and counterproductive consequences, end quote. the conference -- and this is the nonpartisan national bankruptcy conference -- explains that by granting a preference to holders of oil spill claimings in response to

creditors, the provisions in this bill represent bad bankruptcy policy, end quote. moreover, according to the conference, one of the effect of the bankruptcy provisions in this bill will be to, quote, entrench the very management that presided over the spill and led the company into bankruptcy, end quote. mr. speaker, you wonder how anyone can even consider voting for this bill. in short, we should not be rushing these bankruptcy provisions through congress today. the unintended consequences will be severe as the national bankruptcy conference just told us. mr. speaker, i'll reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: i'm pleased now to recognize the gentlelady from texas, representative njila -- sheila jackson lee, senior of the judiciary committee, 2 1/2 minutes.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for 2 1/2 minutes. ms. jackson lee: thank you very much, chairman conyers, and we owe you debt of gratitude, and we are very pleased that we have answered the call of the pain of people like michelle, who, if you could read this language, that when michelle tells her boys about their dad, she will not show them a pay stub. she will tell them how much their father loved them. and that means, of course, that we are stranded on an island with laws that do not understand the crisis that these families are facing. these are the pictures of families who have lost loved ones and pictures of their loved ones who we are now standing on the floor of the house to say that any horrific tragedy, such as the b.p. oil

spill on april 20, 2010, will not go unanswered and these families will not remain and be alone. this bill is assuring these families that they will not be alone, that the person or the entity that harm them will not be able to escape the full extent of the cost of their actions that are inflicted on the people and the community. it amends the jones act, an old law, and brings it in line with the needs of the 21st century meaning that if you're an engineer on that deepwater horizon drill you are now -- not covered by the present law. or the law that was used, that was passed in the 1800's, where they limited the amount of liability, such as one of the actors in this went to court in houston and wanted to limit their liability to $23 million or $23,000. under the act in its current form, the family members left behind by seamen killed on the

job can't be covered. this bill amends those and, of course, it provides some very, very important changes that will make the lives of these loved ones left behind better without their loved ones, they are not good but this will make it better. to the industry, i say one that i come from in the region -- i am from the gulf region. i believe what we are doing today will help the shrimpers, the oystermen. we are changing the laws to respond to the current crisis, and we will not leave them alone. i look forward today too as well introduce in the remedies act of 2010 that will further expand on the rights of families, will invest in r&d to improve what is going on in the gulf, but i want to thank the judiciary committee for being first and a leader to help these families. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas.

mr. smith: mr. speaker, how much time remains on each side? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas has 10 minutes remaining. the gentleman from michigan has 5 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. smith: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i mmy consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. smith: mr. speaker, as i mentioned in my opening statement, repealing the limitation of liability act hurts victims of maritime accidents. the limitation of liability act provides for the orderly resolution of claims arising out of maritime accidents in one federal court. it also creates a compensation fund for personal injury claims resm peeling the act eliminates these two important provisions. in many cases this will result in victims of maritime accidents receiving less compensation than they would under current law. first, victims will receive less compensation because cases will no longer be consolidated in one federal court. consolidation allows victims to

share litigation and expert costs and allows for proportional allocation of damage awards. second, victims will potentially receive less compensation because repealing the act will repeal the personal injury fund. the personal injury fund requires vessel owners to provide vessel insurance over and above the liability cap. again, madam speaker a vote for this bill is a vote to repeal the personal injury fund. let's not rush this bill through the house today and hurt the very people we're supposed to be trying to help. let's send it back to committee to be examined and amended properly. madam speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: i yield myself six seconds. i am so disappointed that my dear friends would even suggest that there's a defense for the oil companies, the

shipbuilders, the insurance companies, in a situation like this i turn now to maxine waters, our distinguished leader in the judiciary committee and would recognize her for 1 1/2 minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. ms. waters: thank you very much. madam speaker, i'd like to thank chairman john conyers. he's always on the case in a timely fashion prorkviding the leadership that's so desperately needed on issues such as this one. madam speaker, i rise in support of h.r. 5503, the securing protexts for the injured from limitation from liability act the spill act, h.r. 5503 is a good first step and must be passed to immediately assist the victims who would otherwise be denid adequate compensation under our current laws. i'm very disappointed at some of the arguments being made

against this bill by my friends on the opposite side of the aisle. one of the arguments that they make is that the provisions of spe the spill act will allow surviving families to receive undue compensation. let me set the record straight. it currently provides outdated compensation for victims on the high seas because it fails to award damages for pain and suffering and loss of care, comfort, and companionship in many cases, including in accidents like the deepwater horizon explosion. this is not intended to single out any particular industry. the spill act will make the law more consistent so that the families of all victims on the high seas can receive the compensation they truly deserve. the gross inequities that exist in dosha, it was enacted back in 1920 and has undergone only

one significant update in 2000, four years after the t.w.a. flight -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. ms. waters: i request one more minute? thank you very much, i yield back the balance of my time and i ask for support and a vote on h.r. 5503 recognizing the families who have been harmed. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expire. the gentleman from texas. >> madam speaker, at this point, i'm the remaining speaker on this side, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: i'm happy to recognize dr. judy chu, member of the judiciary committee, 1 1/2 minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. ms. chu: the gulf oil spill is the worst environmental disaster in our nation's history. it's devastated the gulf coast and taken lives, lives like gordon jones and the 10 other victims of the gulf horizon

explosion. congress is smirke the familyings of these men receive the justice they deserve. current law values the lives of those who die at sea far less than deaths on land and to relatives not financially dependent on the deceased, it provides nothing but a check for funeral expenses. this is wrong. it doesn't matter where someone dies. if it's someone else's fault, justice is due. moreover, these losses go far beyond the value of a pay stub or the cost of a funeral. that's why the spill act ends the outdated devaluation of maritime death and opens the door for family members to receive damages based on pain and suffering. but that's not all it does. current law limits the liability of transocean, the company who owned the rig, to just $25 million. now vietnamese shrimpers and all the fishermen of louisiana know the damages caused are so much greater and so does

congress. that's why our bill eliminates those caps and assures that we hold those who cause the spill accountable for the damage they've done, no matter who they might be. that's why i'm proud to co-sponsor the spill act and i call on all my colleagues to vote for it. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expire. the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: i continue to reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: madam speaker, i'm happy to recognize now the gentleman from iowa, bruce bailey -- braley a co-sponsor of the bill and recognize him for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. braley: i'm proud to be a co-sponsor of the bill and i thank the chairman for yielding. as we continue to stop the oil disaster in the gulf coast and clean it up we must also ensure that the victims of this spill

are fairly compensated for their loss and at our field hearing in louisiana, we saw firsthand that these individuals like the brave families who are here today are being inadequately coomp sated for the enormous losses they face. one of the few requests made by natalie and courtney at that hearing, who testified, was that congress take the necessary steps to strengthen these laws and ensure their husbands did not die in vain. when we had our oversight and investigation subcommittee hearing on june 17, i had a chance to question b.p. chairman tony hayward and i showed him clips of those widows' testimony, challenging him to listen to their pain and explain to them how on the anniversaries of the loss of their husbands, and the anniversaries of their marriage and the birth of their children and at their children's graduation and their weddings where is b.p. and transocean

and halliburton going to be? that's why we need to pass this bill. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: may i ask the chairman of the committee if he's prepared to close? if so, i'll proceed. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: mr. smith: i take the chairman to have said he has no further speakers other than himself so i yield myself the balance of tie -- of my time. the speaker pro tempore: think gentleman is recognized. mr. smith: this bill should be opposed for four reasons. first, the bill repeals the limitation of liability act which will hurt the victims of maritime accidents. repealing the act eliminates important protections for maritime victims, including the fund for compensating personal injury victims. this bill, incredibly, repeals the personal injury fund.

it repeals the personal injury fund. second, the bill means the bankruptcy code -- amends the bankruptcy code in a man that's right national bankruptcy conference a bipartisan organization, believes will create, quote, pernicious, unintended, and counterproductive consequences that benefit oil spill claimants at the expense of other innocent and equally deserving creditors, end quote. third, the bill was rushed through committee without a single legislative hearing and is being rushed through the house on suspension without giving members the opportunity to offer amendments. fourth, because this bill is being rushed through the house, congress has not been fully noffed the unintended consequence this is bill creates for the u.s. maritime industry which is a large part of the economy of the gulf coast region, the american economy which relies on u.s. shipping to take goods to and from market, and the victims of

maritime accidents who in many cases will actually be hurt by this legislation. madam speaker, i urge all my colleagues to vote no on this bill, send it back to committee, let's improve it, let's amend it, and then bring it back to the floor. i hope my colleagues will vote no and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas yields back he balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: i thank you, madam speaker. this is a bipartisan bill. it's uncomplicated. it revises old law that's been discriminatory and left on the books. it ensures that b.p. and other corporate violators, that caused the deepwater horizon explosion, resulting oil spill, are held accountable under the law. this is not going to hurt the victims, the victims came before the committee and testified in favor of this kind

of relief. so for us now to think that we're inadvertently doing some harm to those who have lost their loved ones is untenable and uncontemplateable. i urge that all of us cast as near a unanimous vote as possible in support of this legislation and correct the injustices that have been caused by this incredible, expensive, terrible accident. i include in the -- in my closing remarks the support of one, two, three -- of nine other organizations. i yield back any time that may remaining. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan has yielded back. his time has expired. the question is, will the house

suspend the rules and pass h.r. 5503? those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 being in the affirmative, the bill is -- the rules are suspended, the bill is passed, and without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. mr. conyers: madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan rise? mr. conyers: i move to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 5609 as amended. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title. the clerk: h.r. 5609, a bill to amend the federal election campaign act of 1971 to prohibit any registered lobbyist whose clients include foreign governments, which are found to be sponsors of international terrorism, or

include other foreign nationals, from making contributions and other campaign-related disbursementt in elections for public office. mr. conyers spks madam speaker, i ask unanimous con -- mr. conyers: madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from michigan, mr. conyers and the gentleman from california, mr. lungren, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from michigan. mr. lungren: madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman rise? mr. lungren: parliamentary inquiry. my parliamentary inquiry is this, i understand we are dealing with h.r. 5609 and i have just 20 minutes ago been given the copy of h.r. 5609 which in every respect -- every respect after the introduction

is different from the 5609 we were prepared to speak on just 20 minutes ago. my question is, under the rules of the house, is it appropriate to completely remove the text of the bill that we were prepared to deal with and exchange it for an entirely new language, which refers to new sections of the u.s. code, of the lobbying disclosure act of 1995, where the original 5609 referred to another section of the code? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan has called up the bill in its amended form. mr. lungren: further parliamentary inquiry. the speaker pro tempore: state your inquiry. mr. lungren: according to the copy of the bill i have, it says this bill is referred to the committee on house

administration. if it is referred to the committee on house administration, how is it that on this floor it is now being brought forward by the chairman of the judiciary committee whrk is -- who is not neeve committee on house administration? the speaker pro tempore: the chair has entertained a motion from the gentleman from michigan to suspend the rules. that motion has been recognized by the gentleman from michigan being recognized. mr. lungren: further parliamentary inquiry. the speaker pro tempore: that motion now before us is -- if adopted, would suspend any committee jurisdiction if that motion -- and would discharge any committee that would be refer tosmed mr. lungren: further parliamentary inquiry. the speaker pro tempore: state the parliamentary inquiry, please. mr. lungren: if i understand

what the speaker is telling me, this request for consent to bring this to the floor at this time would have the effect of discharging the committee of jurisdiction that is, the committee of house administration, and bring it directly to the floor to be handled now by another committee the committee on the judiciary. is that correct? . the speaker pro tempore: the present status and that is correct. mr. lungren: further parliamentary inquiry. is it under the rules or customary interpretation under the rules that the minority receive a copy of the bill to be brought to the floor at some time before 20 minutes before it's brought to the floor? is there no requirement for

notice of the actual contents of the bill to be considered even under a request such as has been made by the gentleman from michigan? the speaker pro tempore: a motion that the house suspend the rules macon vay an amendment and five copies of the amendment are at the desk. mr. lungren: under the rules of the house a motion made by the gentleman to suspend the rules, in effect, suspend all rules, including rules that would govern the language of the bill as introduced and as given to the minority yesterday and up until 20 minutes ago? the speaker pro tempore: as stated earlier, this motion will be in order if approved by 2/3

of the house. the motion is before us now. state your parliamentary inquestiony, please. >> i note the custom of the minority is to give three minutes' notice. is there anything under the rule requiring the majority to give more notice? the speaker pro tempore: the chair at this time cannot entertain that inquiry as a parliamentary inquiry. mr. conyers: could i ask for regular order? we have had -- this could go on all night. if the gentleman is just opposed to campaign finance reform. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan can proceed. mr. conyers: no one respects the sincerity and abilities of my

friend from california, who has raised these questions. but i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days to revise their remarks, include extraneous material. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. conyers: i yield myself as many -- much time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. conyers: ladies and gentlemen of the house, one week ago, the house passed historic campaign finance reform that was designed to curb improper corporate and foreign influences on the american electoral system. everybody in this house is in support of the attempts of this committee and the house administration committee to accomplish this aim.

to rein in, to eliminate improper corporate and foreign influences on the american electoral system. there's not a member in this house that is not in support of that. and so, this bill hones in on the most toxic foreign influences, countries whose governments the secretary of state has determined sponsor terrorism. h.r. 5609 amends the lobby disclosure act to prevent any country specifically designated as a state sponsor of terrorism from hiring a lobbyist in an attempt to influence the laws and policies of the united states of america.

by their actions, these states have forfeited many privileges of doing business in the united states. the business of government should be no different. we should not allow states that sponsor terrorism to be able to hire lobbyists to influence our lawmakers and our laws. and madam speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan reserves. the gentleman from california. for what purpose does does the gentleman rise? mr. lungren: i yield myself such time as i might consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. lungren: i'm not going to oppose this bill because this bill attempted to do in one-third of my motion to recommit last week when the vast majority of the minority party voted against it and we were told to restrict those

individuals who were subject to this prohibition, to a lesser prohibition was blatantly unconstitutional and now we are told to go even further and i don't oppose going further, but now we're told to go even further is not only the proper thing to do but it is so noncontroversial that it ought to be here on the suspension calendar. it is extraordinary to see the transformation that takes place, that the subject matter on this floor one week ago is unconstitutional and today is noncontroversial. i don't know how you change your tune that way. i don't know how you make such a difference in effect, we are talking about the same thing except now it is being sponsored by the majority side rather than the minority side. it seems strange that the underlying bill referred to by

my friend from michigan, the chairman of the judiciary committee, the disclose act, was, in fact, subsequently referred or see conventionally referred to the committee on judiciary after we had completed consideration of t in the house administration committee. and yet, rather than spending a single minute on it, it was immediately discharged by the judiciary committee and allowed to come to the floor. why do i find that extraordinary? because this dealt with how we protect the first amendment to the constitution. that part of the first amendment that specifically talks about the fact that congress shall pass no law abridging free speech. and yet, we did, just last week. perhaps if we had hearings on it in judiciary committee to review the underlying constitutional law concerns, we might have had an opportunity to reform that

bill. but of course, we did not. perhaps if we were truly concerned about how the first amendment rights are recognized, not granted, but recognized by the constitution and therefore should be protected by this branch of government as well as the judicial branch and as well as the executive branch rather than parceled out and auctioned off, perhaps it had seen the light of day in the judiciary committee, we might have been able to convince more members on the majority side that we ought not to trifle with the constitution and trivialize the first amendment. but, no, we didn't do that. we discharged that bill without a single moment of consideration by the judiciary committee. and here we have cleanup legislation. a number of members on the other side of the aisle evidently found out after they voted against the motion to recommit,

it had all three parts they supported and this is a part of it, although the language is different. the substance is the same. now, contrast that with the fact that up until 20 minutes ago, the language of this bill was different. up until 20 minutes ago, the language of the bill had this bill within the jurisdiction of house administration, not within the jurisdiction of the judiciary committee. and yet, without a moment's notice, the bill is changed in everything but its title. every word changed and i suspect that some members listening in their offices aren't aware of the rules of the house that allow for a suspension of the rules, meaning that we suspend every rule in the house, meaning that, in fact, you could have every word changed other than the title. you could deal with a different

section of the united states code and you can have it transferred from one committee to the next in the flash of a moment here. now maybe that sounds like process, but it is, of course, more than process. it goes to the question of substance. so i find -- well, i guess they say imtation is the highest form of flattery. i guess i should be thankful that they have taken a portion of my motion to recommit that they defeated so soundly last week to present it on the floor today as a clean bill without any hearings or consideration, transferring committees, changing the language up until the time they presented it on the floor, which suggests that we have plenty of time to do things around here. we have plenty of time to look at changes in bills, which would suggest that we ought to have

more open rules in this house, because evidently, we can change things up to the moment they hit the floor and everyone is supposed to then, i guess, salute sharply and march to this new drummer. this is a heck of a way to run a house. a heck of a way to run the house. you don't know from the moment you leave your office until the time you get here, what bill you are going to have. it may have the same number or name. but every word can be changed. and, of course, if it is presented by the minority as a part of an amendment it's disallowed. but if we present it on the floor with the majority, we do that and try and make up for the vote that took place last week. i hope everybody understands. when you vote for this, and i would suggest you vote for this. you are essentially voting for the first third of the motion to recommit that was presented last

week, which was declared on the floor by the major oughtor of the disclose act, mr. van hollen, as blatantly unconstitutional. so one week we auction off pieces of the first amendment and then we turn this into something that is not only imperative but noncontroversial. there is mmgic being done on the floor before your eyes, but most people don't realize what's occurring. at the very least we ought to tame the time in our rules to shed some light on the legislative process, which i thought was supposed to be the purpose of the disclose act, which should shed light on the political practice. perhaps we should practice what we preach here on the floor of the house. and i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: i yield myself one minute.

first of all, i want to applaud the parliamentary wisdom of the zwirbled the gentleman from california, who -- distinguished the gentleman from california, who supports the matter before the house but he has pointed out that the process, the procedure has not been appropriate from his point of view. as he knows, we have had a hearing on the constitutionality of citizens united on february 3, 2010. but i concede to him and apologize that there was no markup. and i hope that that will assuage the gentleman's very particular objection to the process here.

now, of course, some of the excellent points that he has raised really go to the rules of the house. and i yield myself 30 additional seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for an additional 30 seconds. mr. conyers: if we are going to go into this detail and the gentleman has presented an able case here during this debate, i think that we ought to -- and i would like to join with him in examining the rules of the house of representatives, which would have to obviously go through some revision but to satisfy the many points that my friend from california has raised. and with that, i am now pleased to recognize the author of this

measure. mr. john hall of new measure. mr. john hall of new york, the original sponsor of the bill, who i commend very much and recognize for two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. . mr. hall: i rise today to urge strong support for h.r. 5609 which will ban terrorists supporting elections. this will shine some light on the corporate campaign spend big requiring sponsors of political ads to disclose their identity, much as we candidates for congress have to stand by the ads that we fund. importantly, the disclose act includes provisions i fought for to keep corporate money from overseas out of u.s. elections. after all, mr. speaker, and mr. chairman, do we want companies

like b.p. choosing our candidates from congress? or companies from saudi arabia deciding u.s. foreign policy? i don't think so. the bill we are considering today is a natural extension of the disclose act. h.r. 5609 guards geans potential loophole that hostile foreign governments may use against our government. a government like iran could potentially influence u.s. foreign policy a danger with potentially disastrous consequences. this is the reason we cannot afford -- a risk we cannot afford to take. i think we can all agree, regardless of political party that american elections must be decided by american voters and u.s. policy must be decided by the u.s. government. i would also add that this provision is much tougher than the minority's motion to recommit. that motion would have only banned certain activities by lobbyists for states that sponsor terrorism. this bill bars such lobbying

altogether and secondly, the motion to recommit was clearly unconstitutional and destined to be struck down. the proposal would have allowed the government to prohibit an american citizen from making campaign contributions or independent expenditures on his or her own behalf on the basis of a business contract this would have clearly violated the first amendment. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for an additional minute. mr. hall: in con last, h.r. 5609 is constitutional. these foreign countries have no first amendment rights. i urge my colleagues to support h.r. 5609 and reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. the gentleman from california. mr. lungren: thank you, madam speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for such time as he might consume. mr. lungren: once again, i say arise in support of this bill. mr. hall suggested his bill is

stronger than the motion to recommit i had last week with respect to actions of those who represent state sponsors of terrorism. that is, those who lobby on behalf of those states. at that time, the minority -- the majority position was that even that limitation was blatantly unconstitutional. those are the words of mr. van hollen. on the floor, specifically referring to what now mr. hall says is a lesser prohibition than what he brings forward. i presume that, therefore, their review of the constitutionality of this now reveals to them that it is constitutional for us to do this and that the statements that were made last week on the floor against my motion to recommit are in fact inoperative. here's what mr. van hollen said. you're denying american

citizens and voters the right to contribute to campaigns to participate freely in campaigns. he's referring specifically to the section that i had in the bill talking about lobbyists. now you're saying they may not perform any lobbying activities whatsoever. i agree with the intent. i hope it is in fact constitutional. but it is remarkable that you can come on the floor and condemn something as being blatantly unconstitutional, get a majority, vast majority, 216 members of the democratic party voting against it, and then a week later come back and say, look at us, we are now presenting a real tough restriction that's even tougher than what you offered last week, which was unconstitutional. ours, which is more restrictive, is in fact constitutional. we ought to do better than that. we also ought to do better than

changing our handywork just before we hit the floor. it is interesting to see the text of the bill which still calls it a bill to amend the federal election campaign act of 1971, when in fact, the substance of it deals with amending the lobbying disclosure act of 1995, but obviously, someone just before they got to the floor, understood that and you can see some cut and peys at the bottom. doesn't even have lines for the bill, which amends the tite sol that the title now reads a bill to amend the lobbying disclosure act of 1995. when i was in high school, i guess even grade school, eighth grade, when we used to put things together, we'd call it cut and peys. i would hope we could do better than that here in the house of representatives on the floor of the house. with that, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: i yield myself

such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for such time as he might consume. mr. conyers: this is the most interesting debate i've been in in which we all are going to support the amendment but the process has been corrupteds -- corrupted and i think it's been implied more than once that this bill of mr. hall's has been borrowed from our distinguished colleagues on the other side of the aisle and the fine detail in which we have scrutinized the parliamentary improprieties is absolutely amazing. it is not reckless to suggest that all of the members of the

house on both sides of the aisle are going to obviously support this measure. it's just that the proper credit has not been allocated to all the parties that have participated so ably in bringing this matter to the floor. i only wish there was some way i could correct that. because i believe in fairness and i want my colleagues to know that we're not trying to steal their thunder. i think that we all agree, ultimately, upon the objective, but constitutionally, and no one knows this better than the former attorney general of california, constitutionally you cannot preclude an american citizen from making a contribution, and that bill

that was previously considered and discussed did that. you can, however, prohibit a foreign country from hiring lobbyists and this is what we did and do and i assure -- i am assured it can withstand constitutional scrutiny and that we can go forward into the holiday recognizing that we have done exactly what we set out to do. i'd yield to the gentleman from new york, he would like to make a further comment. mr. hall: thank you for yielding and i would comment i don't have the experience or legal knowledge of my colleague, the gentleman from

california, so far be it from me to get into the fine points of constitutionality or rules of the house, but i suspect ppthat when the other side of t aisle was in the majority, they may have made some last-minute changes in bills like this. be that as it may, the minority side's motion to recommit last week included partisan provision which is seemed to be a gotcha vote to try to ensnare members of the majority, including the one the chairman mentioned, prohibiting individual american citizens from making contributions. this is more narrowly tailored, more constitutionally sound and ultimately stronger than that motion to recommit. it simply prevents terrorist nations from having a role in %% u.s. policy. an easy yes vote for both sides. if there's a problem in sing that we've moved it too

quickly, i would apologize, i would thank the gentleman from california for the ideas that he had, some of which are in this piece of legislation, and say that we should all agree that moving quickly on this cause is a good thing. the faster we can stop foreign terrorist nations from buying their way into our political system, the better. in closing, i would urge strong support for this bill, saying that we can't afford to let a hostile government have any control over u.s. policy, directly or indirectly. i urge my colleagues to vote for this critical bill and i yield back to the chairman from michigan. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: i'd like now to recognize our friend from new york, mike mcmay -- mcmahon.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for such time as he might consume. mr. mcmahon: i am pleased to rise in support of h.r. 5609 to amend the federal election campaign act of 1971 to prohibit lobbying by foreign governments or on the united states department of state as sponsors of terrorism list. i thank the gentleman from michigan, the chairman of the judiciary committee, for his eloquent explanation and defense of this bill as we got here on the floor this afternoon. as i listen to the equally eloquent and feisty arguments from the gentleman from california, apparent opposition, i cannot make the legal aagument but certainly shakespeare would have said, methinks he doth protest too much. four countries are currently on

the state spon source of terrorism list, cuba, iran and saudi arabia. cuba is the only communist country in our hemisphere without human rights. they are limited in jobs, education, what appliances they can buy and where they can live by the castro government. iran is a thee oklahomacy which continues -- to a t -- is a thoecracy. they threaten israel, europe, and the united states. the centers of government are routine -- dissenters of government are routinely killed, minorities jailed, and people are afraid to speak out. iran threatens any progress to make iran or iraq a stable society. sudan is a company that's been -- is a country that's been in

a civil war between the south and north. the darfur region has had a humanitarian disaster killing millions, placing muslims against muslims as the world stood helpless. sue sedan a sponsor of terrorism against its own people. finally, syria, a country which continues to threaten our strongest and most reliable al-- ally in the middle east, israel. syria has fueled war in lebanon; direct implication in the assassination of the lebanese prime minister, and they continue to support hamas in gaza. i represent thousands of syrian refugees who fled the couldn't troy build a better life in the united states this bill affects -- this bill only affects people registered to represent one of these foreign governments on the state sponsors of terrorism list, not companies who are doing business in those countries.

i urge my colleagues, irrespective of the course this bill took to get on the floor to support this legislation and stop the ability of any country on the state sponsors of terrorism list from directly or indirectly influencing our congress. i thank the chairman for the time, madam speaker, i yield the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields his time. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. lungren: i yield myself the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. lungren: i rise in support of this bill, but i think it is instructive that the rather strange circumstances surrounding the process involved here. usually process is not important but i do think that we ought to use our rules to try and make it easier for members to understand what they're voting on that we try to make it as clear as possible as to the subject matter, that we give members sufficient time so they can consider the actual

language of the bill, and that we actually allow further and more robust debate on this floor. one of the laments i have, having returned to this congress in 2005, is a lessening of the importance of the dynamic of the floor of the house of representatives. rules, when my party was in charge, and now when the other party has been charged, have been far too restrictive. there have been far less amendments allowed on the floor for full debate. there have been fewer members recognized for the possibility of offering amendments from their particular perspective. . members should understand the consequence of the suspension

calendar or having something that is subject to a consent request for a suspension of the rule because it is important for members to understand that every single word of substance in a bill brought forward to the floor, other than the title, can be changed when you suspend the rules and i think it's important for people to know. but secondly, it's disappointing that one week, we will have an idea roundly criticized and even suggested to be blatant lip unconstitutional and the next week, without any further debate, any hearings, new knowledge that has changedal review of the subject -- change, a review of the subject matter

is no longer considered that. sometimes our rhetoric gets away with us on this floor. and i think you could have vigorous and robust debate without exaggeration to such an extent that you dismiss things lightly as being unconstitutional. i'm reminded what justice scalia said in a speech a few years ago. he said when he was a kid growing up and saw something you didn't like or you thought was wrong, you would say, there ought to be a law. there was a cartoon series on that. he said now, the tendency is when you don't see something you don't like and you say, it's unconstitutional. and while that may not sound that important, it's extremely important because if you say there ought to be a law, you are accepting the burden of persuading your fellow citizens to pass the law. if you say it's

unconstitutional, you are suggesting that that subject matter has been removed from the arena of public debate and democratic processes, that is removed from the legislative and executive branches and given exclusively to the judiciary, wherein they make the decision and their decision ultimately is not appealable to the other branches of government. that is a tremendous distinction and in my judgment, we have seen the courts over the last decade trespass upon the appropriate democratic rights of the american public, that is telling them they no longer have the ability to make the decision. it's going through the democratic branches of government and -- and i mean that intentionally, they aren't supposed to be as responsive to the public as we are. but where they rule on the basis

of the constitution ought to be in a very limited, relatively limited area. and so i think we ought to be more careful. when instead of engaging in the debate on the subject matter at hand, we lightly suggest that our disagreement with it is that it is unnecessarily unconstitutional. i realize i made the argument on the bill before us last week on the unconstitutionality. but i believe i did back that up with legal analysis and had extended debate on the floor on that as opposed to just throwing it out as an argument against a single amendment or single section of the bill. so, with that, i would urge my colleagues to overlook the manner in which this was brought to the floor.

accept the explanations and heartfelt concerns expressed by my friend from michigan about the manner in which it came to the floor. and with all that, support this bill. and with that, i would yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california yields back. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: madam speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan yields back. the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 5609 as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. mr. conyers: madam speaker, i call for the yeas and nays, please. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend for a moment. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 being in the affirmative -- mr. conyers: i would call for the yeas and nays.

the speaker pro tempore: gentleman calling for a record vote? mr. conyers: yes. the speaker pro tempore: and the gentleman is asking for the yeas and nays? mr. conyers: yes. the speaker pro tempore: yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking the vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20 and the chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be postponed. mr. conyers: i move a call of the house. the speaker pro tempore: the chair confers recognition for the purpose. without objection, a call of the house is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. -- members will record their presence by

electronic device. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, 15-minute call of the house will be followed by five-minute votes on suspending the rules with regard to h.r. 5609 and house concurrent resolution 290, if ordered. this is a 15-minute call of the house. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]