we just can't sit here and bicker and bicker and let people lose their homes. and let people not be able to pay their bills or put food on their table. the fact of the matter is, madam speaker, this president has accomplished a great deal in a very short time. and my expectation is that we continue to fall -- follow his economic agenda we'll see this economy get on stronger footing. the bill that's before us, the telework bill, i think is a good bill, it will save the taxpayers lots of money. . i.b.m. says it saves them tens of millions of dollars each year. it should save the government hundreds of millions of dollars. put it toward deficit reduction or helping our people who are

in deep trouble as the economy tries to recover. madam speaker, i would again close by urging my colleagues to support the rule. i would urge a yes vote on the previous question on the rule. i yield back the balance of my time and i move the previous question. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the question is on ordering the previous question on the resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. ms. foxx: on that, madam speaker, could we have the yeas and nays. 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 raise risen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 8 and rule 9 of rule 20, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be followed by five minute votes on adopting house resolution 1509, if

ordered, and suspending the rules and passing h.r. 2864. 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 232.

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 232. the nays are 184. the previous question is ordered. the question is on adoption of the resolution. all those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the -- ms. foxx: on that could we have a recorded vote? the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. 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 representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 235.

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 238, the nays are 180. theres. solution adopted. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the gentlewoman from guam, ms. bordallo to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 2864, as amended, on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 305, h.r. 2864, a bill to amend the hydrographic services improvement act of

1998 to authorize funds to acquire hydrographic data and provide hydrographic services specific to the arctic for safe navigation, delineating the united states extended continental shelf and the monitoring and description of coastal changes. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill as amended? members will record their votes 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 420. the nays are zero. 2/3 having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed, and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the house will be in order. members will please remove their conversations from the aisles.

the house will be in order. for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts seek recognition? mr. lynch: good afternoon, madam speaker. pursuant to house resolution 1509, i ask to call up the bill h.r. 1722 and ask for its immediate consideration in the house. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 269. h.r. 1722, a bill to improve teleworking in executive agencies by developing a telework program that allows employees to telework at least 20% of the hours worked in every two administrative workweeks, and for other purposes.

the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 1509, the amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in the bill modified by the amendment printed in house report 111-535 is adopted and the bill, as amended, is considered as read. the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. lynch, and the gentleman from california, mr. issa, each will control 30 minutes. the gentleman will suspend. the house will please be in order. members will please take their conversations from the floor. the chair recognizes the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. lynch: thank you, madam speaker. as chairman of the house subcommittee -- first of all, let me yield myself three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. lynch: madam speaker, as chairman of the house oversight committee i am pleased to offer house resolution 1722 for

legislation. it responds to the telework process for federal employees in the executive branch. the bipartisan measure before us today was introduced by congressman john sarbanes of maryland along with myself and representatives frank wolf, gerry connolly of virginia, jim moran of virginia, dutch ruppersberger of maryland and danny davis of illinois back in march of 2009. the bill was then amended and ordered reported favorably by our subcommittee on march 24 and again shortly thereafter by the oversight and government reform committee on april 14, 2010. madam speaker, despite the evolving nature of the way the federal government conducts its affairs, fellow work, which allows an employee to regularly perform work from a remote location other than their usual workplace continues to be underutilized by federal agencies. experiences that demonstrated that the private and public sector employers who utilize

telework experienced increased productivity and retention rates. more specifically, the u.s. patent and trademark office and the defense information systems agency have successfully used telework programs which show potentially how telework can transform and enhance agencies' customers service offerings for our people and do so with greater efficiency and a lower cost. h.r. 1722 increases the number of federal employees that requires agencies to develop comprehensive telework policies within one year that allow authorized employees to telework and by directing the office of personnel management to develop regulations on overall telework policies and to annually evaluate agency telework programs. h.r. 1722 also seeks to elevate the importance of incorporating telework into continuity of operations planning for our federal agencies. for example, the office of personnel management director

john berry estimates that the use of telework reduced the estimated cost of loss productivity during the recent snowstorms this past winter in the district of columbia by approximately $30 million per day. i urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote in favor of moving telework forward by passing h.r. 1722, the telework improvement act. this legislation has long enjoyed bipartisan support in the oversight committee and in the house over several congresses and will help ensure the government operates more efficiently and effectively as a modern-day employer. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. issa: thank you, madam speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. issa: madam speaker, i rise with serious concerns with h.r. 1722, the telework improvement act. this began as a bipartisan bill , and a motion to recommit --

and if our motion to recommit is passed it will have an opportunity to end as a bipartisan bill. there's no question in my mind that telework is the future, it in fact is the present. virtually every member of congress has remote access. virtually every member of congress and many of their staff carry blackberrys and use other tools so we can work here and around the world. it would be just about impossible for a member of congress and their key staff to bounce back and forth between their faraway districts and here on the hill between here and various meetings if we didn't have the ability to be portable in our information access. so we are not here to talk about telework as though it is a bad thing because it can be an extremely effective tool. we do have concerns. one of our specific concerns in the underlying legislation is

at a time in which we are borrowing more than 40% of our operating cash of our government, put in another way, once you get past entitlements, everything we spend is borrowed. it would seem ridiculous that something that can save money, that is argued to save money in fact is not required to be at least neutral in its expenditure. this bill is expected to cost millions of dollars per year, and like most government estimates, is likely to cost far more than that if it is expanded to its logical conclusion. so, madam speaker, it is my hope that as we begin offering what we were not allowed to offer under the rule, which would be any amendment that would curtail the millions of dollars in cost over five years or to deal with the reality that if you're going to claim that you can save the construction of office buildings, you should be required to show that you're

saving it. if you claim that you're going to be more efficient by not having commute time, you should at least be required to show it. additionally, we're very concerned that recent discoveries that there are vulnerabilities have not been properly cared with in this bill. the bill authorizes but does not require. i am, however, pleased that in a number of areas the majority has made improvements and has taken many suggestions. the committee did work, as you would expect us to, in favor of the efficiency and effectiveness of the federal work force in getting this bill as far as we could go. it is my sincere hope that one and only one opportunity to further amend will be accepted and that this will be a broadly bipartisan bill at the end. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. lynch: i thank the gentleman for his remarks.

for the record, madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks with respect to h.r. 1722. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. lynch: i would now like to recognize for five minutes the lead sponsor of this measure, mr. sarbanes of maryland. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland is recognized for five minutes. mr. sarbanes: thank you, madam speaker. i thank the gentleman for yielding. i want to thank him for his work in shepherding us through the process and bringing it to the house floor. i'm delighted that we are going to be voting today on the telework improvements act of 2010, a bill that i introduced sometime ago with bipartisan co-sponsorship. and i want to acknowledge congresswoman norton is here, congressman davis, congressman connolly, jim moran of virginia and other co-sponsors. i do, also, want to salute the fact that we had bipartisan support for in from the outset.

congressman wittman, shelly moore capito, and, of course, frank wolf, who has really been a leader on this issue from the git-go. he was working on telework before i even came to congress and understood what a valuable contribution telework can make to our federal work force and its productivity. what this bill will do is expand the federal telework policy which is -- was a survey done that indicated that about 10% of the federal work force is now teleworking at least one day a week. but it can take that up to the next level by establishing a policy across our federal agencies that promote telework and make it clear to employees how they can go about taking advantage of that opportunity. it would instruct the office of personnel management to develop telework regulations, a

uniformed governmentwide telework policy for federal employees and that's important because if you look at the different agencies, some of them have been very successful in pushing telework forward. others have not been as attentive to it, and what this is going to do is establish the expectations that cut across our federal work force and encourage this opportunity. critical to that is to designate a telework managing officer within each agency who takes responsibility, who has accountability for making sure that the telework policy is being distributed broadly within that agency, is helping to evaluate it, make sure that it's working properly. there will be greater access provided as a result of this bill to telework training and education for employees and supervisors.

and the office of personnel management is also going to make sure in cooperation with the government accountability office that there's periodic evaluation conducted so that we can see how this telework policy is advancing forward. so these are some of the key elements of the bill that is on the floor today. i'm appreciative that congressman issa recognizes the inherent value of pursuing telework. and as i say, we did have bipartisan support at every step along the way. why is it important to do teleworking? i would say this is a win times five when you look at it. first of all, it's going to help the federal work force recruit better out in the market. private sector is doing this and they're recruiting people using this as an opportunity for more flexible work arrangements. the federal work force should be doing the same thing. it will help to improve

productivity and morale among the work force. those agencies that have taken full advantage of teleworking have shown that productivity has been enhanced within their agencies and frankly it it leads to more of a culture of looking at performance and delivery of important functions in the workplace so that you're seeing that productivity rise, not just among those that are teleworking but across an entire agency where teleworking is being implemented in a meaningful way. at one point in the evolution of this legislation we actually are going to attach it to an energy bill because it will reduce the carbon footprint of the federal government. people won't need to be in their cars as much going back and forth to work if they can take advantage of teleworking opportunities to some extent. so that's a third win here.

a fourth win, very important, is the continuity of operations. we've seen situations where the federal government may be forced to shut down. if you've got telework in place, you can continue to run the operations of these agencies even in that situation. and the best example of this we had this past winter was when we had a snowstorm that shut down the federal government except 30% of the work force was able to engage in their operations. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. sarbanes: and i'll yield back my time. thanks very much. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. issa: thank you, madam speaker. at this time i'd like to yield five minutes to one of the co-sponsors of the bill, mr. wolf of virginia. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for five minutes. mr. wolf: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend. i rise in strong support of the bill. but let me just say, mr. issa said that the republicans wanted to be part of this, and i think we got to start doing

things in this institution in a bipartisan way. quite frankly, i skimmed the motion to recommit and it looks pretty good. the more we can work together the better, the better it will be for all of us. and so i appreciate the gentleman giving me this time. . i have been involved in this issue for many years. i.b.m., both members say, we should be more like -- i.b.m. has 115,000 employees every day teleworking. you want the government to be like the private sector allow the federal employees to do the same. it saves them roughly $450 million a year. there's nothing magic about strapping yourself into a metal box and driving 25 and 35 miles a day to a place that's sitting before a laptop when you can do it at home. simon an garfunkle in the song called "the boxer" says man hears what he wants to hear and

disregards the rest. this congress on both sides many times only hears what it wants to hear and more often than not disregards the rest. let me tell you, 9/11, if you were here on 9/11, nothing worked. we had more telework, we could have had a continuity of government. the government shut down. it shut down. would you rather have somebody not working at home and getting paid or working? the earthquake in california, the so-called world series earthquake, you remember that? norm mineta was secretary of education. that's when telework took off. because had they had to go into work the people of california wouldn't have had highways. they wouldn't have been able to get search and rescue people there. continuity of government. hurricanes, has anyone ever heard of careena? -- katrina? you want to shut down the government in the south, louisiana, and texas and say go

home and we'll pay you? or do you want them to telework at home where they can do, where they can get and connect to a veterans administration that someone is having a difficult problem. maybe somebody with prostate cancer, how can i get my treatments? telework. telework makes all the difference. a tornado? a tornado hits and destroys, telework gives you that ability to do it. continuity of government, saving money. man hears what he wants to hear but what he's disregarding. this is disimportant. this is a good yes vote for continuity of government. this is a good yes vote so you can serve your constituents. this is a good yes vote if you really want to save money. the vote to save money today, the vote that will save money, will be the vote for this bill. i want to thank again mr. issa. and i urge you, mr. chairman, if you can take -- i think the motion, the recommit has a lot of good things, but i think it's

more important that we come together and find some things that we can come together and work in a bipartisan way. but for continuity of government, to save money, i ask for a yeah vote on this bill. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california reserves the balance of his time of the the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. lynch: thank you, mr. speaker. at this time i'd like to recognize the full committee chairman, energetic and wise chairman of the oversight committee, mr. towns, the gentleman from brooklyn, for three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized for three minutes. mr. towns: thank you very much. let me thank you, mr. lynch, for the hard work that you have done on this bill. let me begin by saying to the other side, i hope we are talking about the same legislation here. because in the committee the only -- as i remember very

vividly, the only amendment that was offered was accepted. we accepted the amendment. and of course the committee voice voted the legislation out. now i hear about this motion to recommit. well, i understand working together, i do believe in that. i think you accomplish a whole lot more when you do that, but the point is we have not even seen the motion to recommit. so therefore you are talking about working together and sharing information at the same time you are withholding information. that to me i find very, very strange. this is a committee that would welcome the ideas and suggestions, but the point is that we can't go through a whole process and at the end of the process you complain about the fact that it did not have an opportunity. i want you to know that we recognize the importance of the amendments in 24 legislation we

would have accepted it. of course -- i want to thank all the folks that worked on this. and it seems hard, i understand now, to imagine with the sweltering summer heat has arrived, but during february's record breaking snowstorm the federal government and the d.c. area shut down for nearly an entire workweek. we now have almost forgotten that. the government lost productivity which significantly reduced the cost of so many employees were not able to get to work. after the storm, o.p.m. director reported that the government saved approximately $30 million, i repeat that, saved almost $30 million a day in the productivity cause because of the growing number of teleworking employees. h.r. 1722 would help the government do even better, and i think that we should not lose

sight of that. the legislation builds on the government's current telework capability. and will strengthen it by requiring the head of each agency to establish a telework policy. the legislation also holds agencies accountable for successful implementation of their telework policies. i should note that similar bipartisan legislation sponsored by senator daniel akaka and george voinovich passed the united states senate by unanimous consent as well. i am pleased to offer my support for this bipartisan, good government bill that will save the taxpayers money while reducing energy consummings. air pollution, and traffic congestion. it will promote more flexibility for federal employees and allow the government to attract top talent for every state and every district in the country.

this is a win-win-win legislation. i urge all members to support the bill and of course i say to my colleagues, let's move forward. let's mott look back. let's move forward. we know what we need to do. and of course again let me say that any amendment that was offered was accepted. on that note i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york's time has expired. the gentleman from massachusetts reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. issa: thank you, mr. speaker. at this time i'd like to yield four minutes to the gentleman from virginia. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for four minutes. >> thank you, mr. speaker, i'd like to thank ranking member issa for his great work on this bill. telework is a nonpartisan issue. it just makes sense. it's how do we create efficiencies, and these days we want to be able to do more with less and what is definitely a

resource challenged environment. mr. wittman: despite the fact there are numerous benefits of teleworking, such as reduced traffic congestion and reduced energy consumption, cost savings, competitive hiring and retention, emergency preparedness as we saw during the snowstorm, many federal agencies continue to underutilize telework. this bill is going to help ensure federal employees who are eligible are able to do so without diminishing agency operations and performance. under this legislation federal employees handling classified information, though, would not be eligible to telework. folks, that's a group of people we are missing out on. there is a great opportunity there to bring those folks that work in secure networks to the table to participate in telework. and i offered an amendment that was rejected by the rules committee that would have required the office of personnel management to report on the status of any programs for teleworking by federal employees whose primary duties require

access to secure networks and to identify at least two sights for a possible teleworking pilot program. i look forward in the future of working with my colleagues to further explore the potential for security teleworking. we all know in this region there are a number of agencies that have their employees working on secure networks. we ought to make sure we are looking at bringing those folks in. we saw during the snowstorm $30 million of efficiency we picked up during that period of time. so this truly is a nonpartisan issue of looking at increased efficiencies. we ought to be looking across the board all the way so we can lift telework up. make it available for every different aspect of federal work operations to make sure we are doing all we can to increase efficiencies. folks, an this is entirely possible. we have had conversations with folks within the agencies. they are ready, willing, and able to pursue this. we need to give them the mechanism to get this done. the desire is there. the need is there. whenever we watch those two

together, we have the ability to get this done. so again this is a nonpartisan issue. i urge all of my colleagues to vote in favor of this. and let this be the first step in making sure we have telework as an opportunity for the entire federal work force. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia yields back the balance of his time of the the gentleman from california reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. lynch: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to thank the gentleman from virginia for his thoughtful comments. at this time i would like to yield to our distinguished minority leader, mr. hoyer, for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the distinguished majority leader is recognized for one minute. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i want to thank mr. lynch and certainly my colleague from maryland, congressman sarbanes, for his leadership and for his efforts on this bill. i also want to thank those members of the subcommittee, mr. issa, for facilitating this bill coming to the floor. i have been working on this issue along with frank wolf for

a very long time. indeed over two decades. congressman wolf and i, congressman wolf from virginia, a republican, myself, serve on the treasury postal committee which is now called the financial services subcommittee of the appropriations committee. that committee many, many years ago, and interestingly enough john berry, who is now the directoff of the -- director of the office of personnel management, was on my staff at that point in time, we worked on this issue of telework which makes so much sense for so many reasons. it saves gas, that's an important issue. it helps the environment in doing so. reduces road congestion. lowers commuting costs for all drivers. helps employees balance work and family and saves employers money. let me speak about the family aspect of this. think to yourself the average commuter certainly in the washington metropolitan area spends some 35 minutes on the road. if you are in my district you

spend 45 to an hour on the road. mr. connolly is shaking his head. many of his constituents do the same. the gentleman from virginia is in the same aspect. think of that time that is not necessarily very productive but could be family time and a less stressful worker could be performing their services. when now we deal with so much work being done from a technology aspect when you don't need to be at a given site. that is what this legislation seeks to enhance. again i congratulate mr. sarbanes from my state for his leadership and for the bipartisan leadership. it would bring flexibility to the 21st century federal workers by creating guidelines for increased teleworking. or telecommuting some call it. with today's technology many

employees perform at least some of their work and indeed some -- all of their work functions at their homes or at the alternate work site closer to their homes. eliminating or reducing the need to commute. that's what the gentleman from virginia was talking about in terms of a secure site which could be -- woo had one in prince frederick. we have one at the community college in waldorf, maryland. i don't know whether they are secure sites, i think they are not, but a secure site for a group of employees who need such a secure site closer to their home affects all the same kinds of efficiencies that i have talked about. that's why this bill is such an important encouragement to the federal government, one of the world's largest employers, to affect this efficiency. it is also, i think, a lesson that we have learned from the private sector. many of whom telecommute. or telework. many insurance agencies when you call your insurance agent or --

for information, you have no idea where they are sitting and don't care. all you want to know is that they respond to the question you have and can access the information you need. which of course they can could on their -- can do on their computer. so this is a very effective, efficient, family friendly, environmentally friendly action for us to take. and i commend mr. sarbanes, i commend mr. lynch, he and the committee for their leadership on this and commend mr. issa as well for his leadership. i thank the gentleman for yielding and yield back the balance of my time. . the speaker pro tempore: the majority leader yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from massachusetts reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. mr. issa: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. issa: the majority leader made great points. the chairman, who've i had a

good working relationship with, said this passed out of the committee with nothing unresolved. to a certain extent i agree with him. we didn't have a score on this. we never do. we didn't know what this bill would cost and when we discovered this would cost millions of dollars every year we made it clear before the last round of request for vote that we would have to find an offset or modify the bill to ensure it would not cause the taxpayers to look at this as a perk for government because ultimately we can talk about morale but the federal work force makes on the average $60,000 more than their private sector counterparts. so morale should already be good in an organization the size of the government that's added a quarter of a million new workers since we went into real estate session. there's no question that telework can justify this if it's done properly. our amendment is going to seek

our one motion to recommit. we weren't allowed any amendment. to trim around the edges to have our members go home and say we supported telework but we wanted to make sure there were safeguards to the people's money. please do not suggest -- create a process problem that i hope, mr. speaker, you'll be sensitive, along with the american people, to. our committee has 40 or so members. that's roughly 1/10 of the congress. so nine out of 10 members of the house never get an opportunity to be there. as a matter of fact, including the delegates who work, it is exactly 10%. so 400 people didn't have input while we were working this through committee. some may have noticed the bill. as the majority leader said, he's been working on this for 20 years.

who would have thought it would come to the floor now? so can we as a body deny the process of 400 people, 400 voters, if you will, or representatives of voters, including yourself, mr. speaker, how can we deny you the ability to look at something when it's going to become a bill on the floor and offer constructive amendments? the process of the rules committee is to post a deal with germaneness. it is supposed to be whether your bill is properly written, whether it seeks to amend a portion of the bill that's allowed to be amended. that's not the way it is in the house right now. we had amendments perfectly allowable. they simply were ruled out because you could. so we will use our one opportunity, our motion to recommit. we trust that we have written it properly and that it will be found to be in order. and we trust that both sides will see that it is modest, it's moderate, it's intended

simply to deal with cost and other concerns in the bill. there's no killer in this bill. there's nothing the american people would not be happy with in this bill the way it is and there's nothing they'll be unhappy with if the motion to recommit passes. we structured it that way. we'd like to have something that started off as bipartisan and is bipartisan. mr. speaker, i truly believe we're going to have that opportunity. i would hope that everyone in this body will view it that way, look at it carefully, come to the same conclusion and we will leave here today on a bipartisan basis. and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. lynch: thank you, mr. speaker. i just want to ask for clarification. did the gentleman say that the federal employees make an average of $60,000 more than their counterparts? mr. issa: that's correct. i'm sorry, mr. chairman.

it's pay and benefits. mr. lynch: $60,000 more. mr. issa: at $175,000, one congressman to another, yes, the typical american making $35,000 to $40,000, understand we make a lot more. limpling lynch the typical federal employee makes $60,000 more? mr. issa: in pay and benefits. mr. lynch: if the gentleman would produce some type of -- i'm sure we have kids working for $30,000 or $45,000. how are they making $60,000 more than their counterparts? mr. issa: i'd be glad to, even though it's not germane today, to make that available to the gentleman. mr. lynch: mr. speaker, at this time i'd like to yield five minutes to the gentlelady, congresswoman eleanor holmes norton from the district of columbia. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from the district of columbia is recognized for five minutes. ms. norton: i thank the gentleman from massachusetts

for yielding. i particularly thank him for his leadership on many issues in our subcommittee, not the least of which is this issue which he has shepherded it to the floor so rapidly. and i certainly want to thank mr. sarbanes, add my kudos. he's already heard from the leadership. he's already shown when he was a member of our subcommittee. mr. speaker, this bill does nothing more than make -- give us a presumption in favor of teleworking. and i believe that's the most important thing the bill does. you have heard that we've been doing something called teleworking for decades, but that was whatever agency chose to move forward, whatever employees chose to participate. i can't imagine what the ranking member is talking about when he says millions of dollars this is going to cost

the federal government. mr. wolf, from his side, essentially rebutted that by getting up and talking about how much money it saves and citing examples. let me cite an example of some of this. i had occasion to speak to a practitioner, small practitioner, and he was glowing about how his practice has in fact developed and expanded -- he doesn't have an office anymore. he has a tiny hole on k street and he has about 15 lawyers working out of their homes. in a real sense, the federal government is behind. in no case did he make that when you allow people to work from home you somehow are costing the government more money. perhaps it costs a few dollars in administrative costs,

transaction cost to set up this system. but anybody from the private sector hearing the federal official get up and say, we are going to teleworking and, boy, that's going to cost us an arm and a leg, will scratch his head and say, what are they talking about? don't they know this was the first and most important thing to the private sector? this was done precisely to save money. they look at the bottom line. this is the conclusion they reached long before today. when i speak of the presumption in favor of telework, you got that an agency has a 20% goal every two weeks of doing telework. we wouldn't have set that goal if they were already doing it. and the fact that you have to do it gives us some uniformity across the government. and with the appropriate exceptions allows many, many workers, many, many employees to buy into what has now become

essentially a work force practice everywhere with a work force as large as ours. the bill is very careful. managers are going to have to be trained. many are old school managers. they do not know perhaps as well, do i feel as instinctively at home with employees under their supervision who telework? they are going to learn how it's done and importantly teleworking as opposed to coming in, does not affect your job performance evaluation. so people are not going to have to think if i'm in the boss's face for eight or nine hours a day i got to do better than this mother who is at home and producing as much work as i do. continuity of operations has been talked about here. post-9/11. the closest thing we have even

had to continuity of operations is the kind of teleworking that goes on anywhere in the federal government. everybody in the federal government at certain levels does have teleworking. they take their work done. employees have been voting with their feet, managers have been allowing them to vote with nair feet and take the work home. the flexibility, we cannot say enough about the flexibility. we're in an era where fathers and mothers feel responsibility for children and where because they are adapt to technology they're able to get as much done and more done at home rather than spending what in this region could easily be an hour or so back and forth each way. everybody teleworked in the snowstorm. there weren't a lot of people just sitting at home. we are doing it anyway. we are just not doing it systematically. we are doing it ep sodically. doing it -- episodically.

doing it that way is in fact wasting money. let's in fact save money by making sure that as many as are capable are doing what they can given the new technology. i thank the gentleman for yielding. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from massachusetts reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. mr. issa: thank you, mr. speaker. i note the gentlelady acts as though everybody already teleworks. it's very clear that the people who were able to telework that, quote, saved us $30 million during that snowstorm, were the people who had redundant activities for the most part, people who had a duplicate computer, duplicate capacity. that costs money. that is an item that we want to make sure is cost justified. you know, many people on the other side of the aisle, including the next speaker, have talked about the private sector, the private sector. well, i for one came from the private sector and i very much

understand that we do a cost benefit. the previous speaker talked about an insurance salesman. you don't care where they are. that's right. the insurance salesman is usually a commissioned person. it's somebody who's very accountable for their pay because it's earned and it's justified against revenue. more importantly, even their package of perks is figured into that. so in the private sector if somebody costs, if you will, $190,000, or as the average federal worker, nonuniformed, $119,000 per worker versus $51,000 in the private sector, in the private sector they know what their sales or revenues or profits are relative to that cost. in the public sector we don't. all we're seeking to do, all we're talking about here today is we want telework, we want telework to be used and rolled out extensively where it can be at least revenue -- cost

neutral relative to alternatives of bringing people in. that's all we're asking for. we believe it's reasonable. reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. lynch: thank you, mr. speaker. i do want to know that we do have one study here that i think is probably the most extensive done on comparing private sector jobs to federal employees and that is by the bureau of labor statistics and they compared occupation to occupation. they took an engineer in private sector versus an engineer working for the federal government and they have reported that federal employees are paid 22% less, 22% less than their private sector counterparts. at this point i'd like to yield to an energetic and diligent member of our subcommittee for five minutes, mr. connolly of virginia. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for five minutes. mr. connolly: thank you, mr. speaker, and i thank my good

friend and colleague from massachusetts, mr. lynch, for his leadership on this and so many other issues on the government oversight and reform committee. i want to thank mr. issa for his friendship on our committee as well. i particularly want to thank my colleague from virginia, mr. wolf, who's been a longtime leader in telework and my colleague and friend from maryland, mr. sarbanes, for his leadership on this legislation. without that leadership we wouldn't be here today. and we leaf wouldn't be on the way to our federal work force and hard-pressed commuters here in the national capital region. mr. speaker, before i came to congress i represented major jurisdiction in the national capital region, fairfax county, for 14 years, the last five being as chairman. and i, like mr. issa, came from the private sector. i spent the last 20 years of my career before coming here working for a number of information technology companies and i saw firsthand the value of telework in the

private sector. one of the major employers in my district, for example, is at&t. i went and visited a major facility they have in my district. 33% of their work force teleworks regularly. 33%. and their estimated cost savings in terms of reduced absenteeism is $2,000 per employee. so if we took that kind of statistic and superimposed it on the federal work force we would obviously save a lot more than whatever the implementation of this bill might be. i believe this is critical. this is critical for federal operations. every federal agency now needs to have a continuity of operations plan in place. and in the national capital region, tragically, that is underscored. frank wolf, my colleague from virginia, talked about 9/11. he was here in congress while i

was a supervisor in fairfax county. my office was in the -- fire station 33. they were at the pentagon the day it was attacked, the second worst terrorist attack in american history and i saw what they went through and i know what happened to this region that day and a continuity of operations plan, if we needed a reminder, a tragic reminder of how critical that is to our national security, 9/11 was it. . we have had event in the region that further remind us how important it is the largest single employer in our region, the federal government, have a vigorous telework program in place because without that there is no continuity of operations plan of any meaning. for national security reasons and in service to the taxpayers we serve through the federal agencies, we must have a

vigorous telework program in place. in the national capital region if we could reach 20% of our daily commuters of 2.5 million people, teleworking at least one day a week, we could take 4% to 6% of the cars off the road every day. improving air quality, improving congestion and productivity. the federal government being the largest employer has a special responsibility. i mentioned at&t has 33% teleworking in its work force. the average in the federal government ranges from 6% to 10%. far below what the private sector is doing. we can and must do better. the federal work force lends itself to telework in some way that is are unique to the federal work force and we know the benefits. we have heard some arguments here that only 10% of the congress sits on the oversight and government reform committee and therefore we need more time to make sure we can examine this legislation and its cost. i would argue there are no net costs to this bill.

i would argue that this bill has been scored before in many incarnations. in legislation that was before the previous congress and voted on. in legislation in the other body. so it's not like we didn't know. and we know that the productivity gains and savings are considerable that more than wipe out any potential implementation costs. whatever costs there are can and will be absorbed by the implementing federal agencies and we know that. that ought not to be an excuse for inaction. this is something that can bring us together in a bipartisan basis. i do find it a little ironic, however, to hear about the need to come together and maybe we can use the motion to recommit to do that when our side of the aisle has not seen the motion to recommit. and obviously we can't buy something in the hopes that it's going to do something positive and i would urge my colleagues to share the motion to recommit so that perhaps we can come to common ground on that. at the end of the day this legislation is critical for the future work force of the federal

government and frankly for the national security of the national capital region. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from massachusetts reserves the balance of his time and has seven minutes remaining. the gentleman from california is recognized and has 16 minutes remaining. mr. issa: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minutes. mr. issa: thank you, mr. speaker. my good friend from virginia was accurate in almost everything he said but we don't -- the one part i would like to correct is we don't need more time. we had sufficient time once the scoring was in to figure out what needed to be changed among the various 100 or so republicans who were not on the committee, and we offered them. and the gentleman from virginia is not on the rules committee so he's not part of that hidden hand that simply doesn't allow any dissent or any amendments or any corrections once a decision has been made by the majority. so i appreciate the fact he has

been good to work with and he was not somebody who would have limited that and we would be happy to share all of our amendments if we had a chance of having them ruled in. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. lynch: thank you, mr. speaker. at this time i would like to yield two minutes to the distinguished gentleman from illinois, mr. davis, who has been a long time advocate on this issue. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for two minutes. mr. davis: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i rise in support of h.r. 1722, the telework improvement act. this legislation is similar to a bill i introduced last congress that passed the house with bipartisan support by voice vote. unfortunately the senate never acted on that bill so i'm pleased we once again have the opportunity to move telework legislation forward with the leadership of representative sarbanes. we currently know that telework continues to be underutilized by

federal agencies and improvements are needed to allow more federal employees to participate in telework programs. telework provides numerous benefits including increased flexibilities for both employers and employees. plus we have heard the tremendous cost savings that exist as well as the anti-pollution measures that take place. i have been very fortunate in my office to have had individuals who have effectively used telework i guess to the nth degree, and it has proven to be not only cost savings but it also has provided them the opportunity to spend time with young children, with their family to the extent of which they needed to do, this gives us an opportunity to recruit the best and the brightest and have them be productive. it's a great measure. i'm pleased to support it. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman from illinois yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from massachusetts reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. issa: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for as much time as he may consume. mr. issa: as i begin my staff is bringing over to the chairman a copy of something i'm going to include in the record from the bureau of economic analysis, department of commerce. the chairman may recognize the department of commerce's part of the administration and part of the government, their assessment in 2008, it has only become greater, is that we have as federal workers against average, this is not against average of job for job but against the work ing whatever they do in the outside work versus the working stiff in government, 29,169.63 of additional wages. what makes the huge difference

the american people don't always see is that in the private sector a typical benefit package is about $9,881. while a civilian federal government employee has a benefit package on the average worth about $40,784, or $30,900 more. so, mr. speaker, we do have the department of commerce currently during the obama administration telling us very clearly not the engineer versus engineer, i appreciate the way you can match up various jobs, but the federal work force is a highly skilled and highly paid work force. and we should understand that if we are going to have telework go greater and greater, and i approve of it doing it, we have two reasons to do it. one is continuity of government. sometimes continuity of government can cost more.

it can be for redundant computers, redundant centers and so on. no question at all. but often it is and as it is justified in this bill by many of the people speaking on both sides of the aisle, it is also about avoiding traffic, avoiding building new buildings, avoiding heating and air conditioning, avoiding costs. all the minority would like to make sure is that this expansion meet one of those requirements or the other. if it's necessity and it costs more, fine. of course you can have redundant facilities. but if it is intended to be cost savings, let's make sure it is cost savings. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. lynch: thank you, mr. speaker. i do want to note i thank you for -- i thank the gentleman for the sheet but this does not compare job to job nor does it indicate there is anything close to a $60,000 delta between the

private and federal employee. i cannot. we are out of time. at this point i would like to yield two minutes -- one minute to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. sires, who has also been a very energetic worker on this issue. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for one minute. mr. sires: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise today in strong support of h.r. 1722, the telework improvement act of 2010. this bill would modernize the federal government and establish our federal agency as a model for telework during the month of february when snowstorms shut down d.c. and other parts of the east coast, telework was used to keep our government operating. however according to the office of personnel management, only 56% of government agencies have formally introduced telework into their continuity of operations plan. federal working benefits are economic, social, and environmental. the congressional budget office scored this legislation as deficit neutral and telework

will reduce office space as well as increase productivity. h.r. 22 will allow employees more flexibility and create a higher quality of life. also this legislation will reduce traffic congestion. it costs our nation billions of dollars in wasted fuel time and productivity. congestion is a very prevalent -- is very prevalent in my district in new jersey just across the river from new york. however it also -- transportation contributes nearly 28% of the greenhouse gases emitted in the united states. teleworking can act as a tool to lower this number. i urge my colleagues to support the passage of 1722. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey's time has expired. the gentleman from massachusetts reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. mr. issa: i reserve at this time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. lynch: mr. speaker, at this time i would like to yield one minute to the gentleman from

connecticut, mr. himes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from connecticut virginia tech for one minute. mr. himes: thank you, mr. speaker. a sincere thank you to the gentleman from massachusetts for his leadership on this issue. i, too, rise in strong support of h.r. 1722 the telework improvement act. we have heard articulated today a set of very powerful arguments around security, productivity, and cost savings for the passage of this measure. i'd like to note that i represent, like my friend from new jersey a. district whose economic vitality -- new jersey, a district whose economic vitality is compromised by computing situation. many of my constituents spend otherwise what could be productive hours looking at the tail lights of other cars on 95 and on the parkway as it runs through connecticut. one additional reason why the federal government should lead and why we should pass this act today is that the federal government should lead on telecommuting on increasing not just its productivity but increasing the productivity of the private sector in places like connecticut which i

represent. i'm a strong backer of the telecommuter tax fairness act, h.r. 2600, and a variety of other measures which will help with telecommuting and appreciate the leadership and urge my colleagues to support and pass this bill. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from connecticut's time has expired. the gentleman from massachusetts reserves the balance of his time and has 3 1/4 minutes remaining. the gentleman from california is recognized and has 12 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. issa: i'll continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california reserves the balance of his time of the the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. lynch: is the gentleman prepared to close? mr. issa: close. mr. lynch: we have one more speaker but he's in a markup so you don't need to yield -- i don't need to reserve for his benefit. mr. issa: you reserve? mr. lynch: i yield. mr. issa: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. issa: although we have 12 minutes left i don't intend to

use it. i also don't intend to continue to have the american people here haggling on the house floor about how much one side gets paid or another. for that reason i will today post at republicans.oversight.house.gov the department of commerce report in sufficient detail for people to realize that $60,072.97 is roughly the additional amount that is paid in benefits the federal workers receive as the average private sector. the interesting thing about the federal work force versus the gentleman who was talking about commuting from bridge port and other parts in his state, is they are not laid off. they are not suffering. as a matter of fact they have net hired. the growth that has occurred over the last two years has been in government. the pay increases have been in

government. the benefit increases have been in government. we are not talking about telework as a benefit, although some speakers have talked about family time because you can telework and so on, we are talking about telework for one of two reasons that are justified and republicans will today i hope vote for the motion to recommit and then vote for final passage because it either is part of the job of government to sustainability, the continuity of government and we want to make sure that we use telework in order to advance that or remote access, if you will, or it saves the taxpayers dollars. . if someone drives for an hour or more that's a good thing. but if we're simply having beater quality of life, have several more thousand in

maintenance and renewal and software support, now, mr. speaker, we're not doing what the american people expect us to do. the american people expect us to start being safeguarders of their precious money which isn't even current, the money we have to take from them in the future to pay back what we're borrowing today. if we don't start counting the pennies, the nickels and the dollars to make sure they're well spent then it's clear that we won't get to any kind of affordable government, a balanced budget and it will be an evidentibility that america will look too much like greece rather than the country we celebrated this past fourth of july. we have a small government and large private sector. mr. speaker, i want to make sure that our government works more efficiently so we can have a smaller government that meets the basic requirement, not that we simply expand government with one after another program. so with that i fully expect

that we will make this bill better, we will continue to work on telework being to the advantage of the american taxpayer and not simply an additional item to be spent. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman from california yield back the balance of his time? mr. issa: does the gentleman have the right to close? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts has the right to close. mr. issa: mr. speaker, at this time i have no further speakers and i'd yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california yields back the baffle his time. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. lynch: i thank the gentleman for that courtesy. i'd like to express my strong support for the passage of h.r. 1722. i'd like to thank mr. sarbanes, our lead sponsor on this measure, which is before us today and promotes good and commonsense governance policy which will ensure a more efficient, responsive federal

government especially at times during weather-related emergencies. it will act more like other 21st century employers, like private sector employers which for years haveuality liesed and reaped -- have reaped the benefits. i want to paraphrase the words of my republican colleague, mr. wolf of virginia, who said that the vote for saving money and the vote for cutting costs here is a yes vote on this measure. so with that i urge my colleagues to vote in favor of h.r. 1722, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts yields back the balance of his time. all time having been yielded back, pursuant to house resolution 1509, the previous question is ordered on the bill as amended. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the yice have it.

third reading. the clerk: a bill to improve teleworking in executive agencies by developing a telework program that allows employees to telework at least 20% of the hours worked in every two administrative workweeks and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? mr. issa: mr. speaker, i have a motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: is the gentleman opposed to the bill? mr. issa: in the current form. the clerk: mr. issa of california moves to recommit the bill h.r. 1722 to the committee on oversight and government reform with instructions to report the same back to the house forth with with the following amendment. page 5, strike 11 and all that follows through page 6, line 9 and insert the following -- b, limitations. one -- mr. issa: mr. speaker, i'd ask unanimous consent to waive the reading. mr. lynch: i object, mr. speaker. i wish to reserve a point of order. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will read. the clerk: one, certain employees not authorized to telework. an employee may not telework under a policy established under this chapter if any of the following applies to the employee.

a, the employee has a seriously delinquent tax debt as determined under paragraph 2. b, the employee has been officially disciplined for a violation of subpart g of the standards of ethical conduct for employees of the executive branch for viewing, downloading or exchanging pornography including child pornography on a federal government computer or while performing official federal government duties. c, the employee received a payment under the low-income home energy assistance act of 1981. 42 u.s.c., 8621, but was ineligible to receive the payment under the criteria described in 2605-b-2 of such act. d, the employee has been officially disciplined for being absent without permission for more than five days in any calendar year. two, determination of seriously delinquent tax debt. a, in general, for the purposes

of paragraph 1-a, a seriously delinquent tax debt means an outstanding debt under the internal revenue code of 1986 for which a notice of lien has been filed in records pursuant to section 6323 of such code except that such term does not include, i, a debt that is being paid in a timely manner pursuant to an agreement under section 5159 or section 7122 of such code. ii, a debt with respect to which a levy has been issued under section 6361 of such code upon adude salaries or -- accrued salaries or wages. a debt with respect to which the applicant issued under such section upon accrued salary or wages. and iii, a debt with respect to which a collection due process hearing under section 6330 of such code or relief under

subsection a, b or f of section 6015 of such code is requested or pending. b, regulation. the office of personnel management shall for purposes of carrying out this paragraph describe any regulations which the office considers necessary except that such regulations shall provide an individual, provide that an individual shall be given a reasonable amount of time to demonstrate that the individual's debt is described in clause i, ii or iie of subsection paragraph. -- iii of subsection paragraph. three, savings. they may not telework under such policies established under this chapter unless the head of the agency certifies to the director of the office of personnel management that the implementation of the policy will result in savings to the agency. four, provisions relating to certain circumstances.

nothing in subsection a shall be considered. a, to require the head of an agency to authorize teleworking in the case of any employee whose duties and responsibilities, i, require daily handling of classified information or ii, or such that their performance requires onsite activity which cannot be carried out from a site removed from the employee's regular place of employment or, b, prevent the temporary denial of permission for an employee to telework if in the judgment of the agency head the employee is needed to respond to an emergency. c, prohibiting collective bargaining activities while teleworking. notwithstanding any provision of chapter 71 anytime during which an employee teleworks may not be treated as official time for purposes of the authority to carry out any activity under section 7131 of this title. d, requirement that presidential and vice-presidential records created on nonofficial

electronic mail or social media accounts while teleworking be copied to official electronic mail accounts. in the case of any employee who while teleworking pursuant to a policy established under this chapter creates or receives a presidential record or vice-presidential record within the meaning of chapter 22 of title 44, united states code, through a nonofficial electronic mail account, a social media account or any other method, electronic or otherwise, the employee shall electronically copy the record into the employee's official electronic mail account. e, rule of construction. nothing in this chapter shall, one, be considered to require any employee to telework or, two, prevent an agency from committing an -- permitting an employee to telework as part of the continuity of operations plan. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts' point of order is reserved. pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from california is recognized for five minutes in

support of his motion. mr. issa: thank you, mr. speaker. this is a straightforward motion. it is a motion that if passed will cause the republicans to vote for this, if not unanimously, virtually unanimously. if we take out the $30 million in cost by insisting that there be reasonable offsets, then we will in fact have fixed one of the problems that was unnecessary in the bill. additionally, as was so well-read by our clerk just a moment ago, it is very, very clear that there are some small areas but meaningful areas. we do not want the american people to believe that telecommuters are downloading pornography full time the way $200,000-plus executives at the s.e.c., securities and exchange commission, were doing. now i wanted to include in the motion to recommit that if you were found out by doing this

you would be fired. i am not allowed under the rules to insist on behalf of the american people that somebody be terminated if they've downloaded endless pornography while telecommuting. so instead we simply have said in the motion to recommit that if they're found downloading pornography they can no longer telecommute. likewise, on a number of other areas, we feel that the american people should know that there's accountability, accountability as to the presidential records act. mr. speaker, as you know, the presidential records act is extremely important, that if somebody is working offsite we want to ensure that they do not use a gmail account or in some other way go offsystem and have that lost for the rest of eternity. it is too important and it is too uniform a law to not make sure that it is included in this act. additionally, the question of official business. now, often motion to recommits

include poison pills. this is not one. we wanted to make sure that if there's a union contract in which there's union negotiation or other time allotted official time that it not be done clandestinely, using it around telecommuting. the fact is if a union leader who is also a federal employee has a right to have so much time spent doing that this would not stop them but it would make it very clear that you can't simply be working out of your house and use that as collective bargaining time or other work that would not be manageable. it's very clear that we were limited in this. this does not fix everything, mr. speaker. it simply makes the bill revenue neutral and in a couple of important areas assures the american people that their taxpayers are not being misused while they're tall commuting. with that i'd like to yield to the gentleman from georgia.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for -- the gentleman is recognized. mr. gingrey: mr. speaker, i want to thank mr. issa for offering this motion to recommit. since the stimulus passed last february, the private sector has shed over 3.2 million jobs and unemployment now stands at a staggering 9.5%. now is not the time to give another perk to federal employees while the rest of america is struggling to make ends meet. by requiring federal agencies to duplicate existing law and spend 20% of their official time out of the office and on a mobile work site, we are costing the taxpayers another $32 million while promoting inferkt federal work force. i'm proud -- inefficient federal work force. if adopted this motion would require that each agency must tell the office of personnel management say that this telework will save money rather than increase spending. telework will not be granted to

employees who have been disciplined by poor work performance and behavior, such as viewing poshe graphy on work compute -- pornography on work computers, who are delinquent on paying their taxes. finally, mr. speaker, i'm very proud that this motion will prohibit federal employees from engaging in union or collective bargain activities while teleworking. o.p.m. reported that in fiscal year 2008 alone nearly three million official time hours used in collective bargaining or arbitration agreements is against an employer equating to over $120 million spent on union activities. it's irresponsible, mr. speaker, to use these dollars for nonrelated official duties while on official time. so, mr. speaker, this motion to recommit is necessary to save precious tax dollars and ensure the integrity of the federal work force. i commend mr. issa for bringing this forward. i urge my colleagues to support this motion and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia yields back the balance of his time.

the gentleman from california yields back the baffle his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts -- yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts seek recognition? mr. lynch: thank you, mr. speaker. i would like to claim time in opposition to this measure. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman continue to reserve his point of order? mr. lynch: no. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. lynch: i thank the speaker. there are a number of points i would like to make at the outset, i appreciate the spirit in which the gentleman has offered these amendments. many of the concerns that the gentleman has raised in his motion to recommit have been addressed in the bill. i'd like to begin by saying right now with respect to tax delinquency, in enforcing the tax laws against federal employees, we have greater protections right now in place against those federal employees than exist against any other

employee in america today. we have the ability to remove them from their jobs, we have the ability to garnish their wages, we have the ability to demand of them compliance with the tax law that is much more difficult to implement against the average private sector employee. i do not think that the measures here and the quote, serious delinquent category, that does not exist under the i.r.s. tax code, well serves the underlying purpose of this bill. i do want to say that in prohibiting collective bargaining activity while teleworking is also a question of possible violation with other statutes that i believe may be infringed upon by this

motion. so i would be very, very concerned about, obviously we were given this motion about a minute ago, a couple of minutes ago. i'm not sure how that would affect collective bargaining rights but it would appear they would do a carve out here for those who -- those workers who are teleworking and yet unable to exercise the rights that otherwise might exist in those employees. so i am very, very concerned about that. i understand the restrictions, further the amended version of h.r. 17 2 already incorporate -- h.r. 1722 already incorporates language allowing employers to restrict the ability to telework based on previous disciplinary issues that might have been presented. with respect to the concern raised by my friend and

colleague with respect to accessing pornographic sites, i should note that history has shown us that those who rail against weaknesses of the human spirit are usually the very people who succumb to those very weaknesses but we would certainly agree that that is inappropriate behavior and should be punished. i tend to think that that is a point of agreement, i think, it's just a matter of how to inch thament prohibition. -- how to implement that prohibition. there's also a difficulty at the heart of this, which is that the gentleman's motion to reconsider requires us to demonstrate a savings now at this level. here's the problem. we are not in an appropriations committee.

we have not appropriated any money for this. we don't have the ability to do that. this is authorization. so how are we supposed to know when savings, where the break point on savings might be, when we don't know in this forum how much money might be spent? i have not yielded. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman from massachusetts yield? mr. lynch: no, i have not yielded. those are structural flaws, i think, in the bill that prevent us from accepting the amendment at this time. however, i understand that some members may see one or two of these issues as decisive on

their behalf and i would understand and respect the members' rights to vote as they might on this measure. but i stand bush but because of the issues i have raised, one, because it creates a level of impossibility for us to demonstrate savings when we don't know how much money is going to be used in implementing this measure, that will be decided by the appropriators, and as well, we realize that to set this up, in order to establish the teleworking protocols there will be an expenditure to begin with which the savings will result at a later time. so i urge my colleagues to vote against this and i yield back the balance of our time. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit.

the question is on the commegs, those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the motion -- mr. lynch: i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman requests the yeas and nays. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having risen, the yeas and nays are ordered. 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 recommit will be followed by five-minute votes on h.r. 1722 if ordered and the motion to suspend the rulesed on s. 1508. 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 304, the nays are 118, the motion is adopted. for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts rise? mr. lynch: pursuant to the instruction of the house and the motion to recommit, i report h.r. 1422 back to the house with an amendment. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: instert the fol logue, b, limitation, one, certain employees not authorized to telework. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will suspend.

the house will be in order. the clerk will proceed. the clerk: an employee may not telework if any of the following apply to the employee, if the employee has a seriously delinquent tax debt, b, the employee has been official dities plinned -- disciplined under the standards if -- official standards for employment for down loading pornography or -- including down loading child pornography. mr. lynch: i move that the read being dispensed with. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the reading is dispensed with. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the question is on engrossment

and third reading of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes visit. third reading. the clerk: allowing employees to telework at least 20% of the hours work in every two administrative workweeks and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on passage of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts rise? mr. lynch: i would like to request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. the yeas and nays -- those supporting a vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing. the yeas a nays are 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 representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 29240erk yeas are 131, zero answering present, without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the tavenl without objection, the title amended. the unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the

gentleman from illinois, mr. davis, to suspend the rules and pass s. 1508 on which the yeas and nays were ordered. the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: senate 1508, an act to amend the improper payments act of 2002, 31 u.s.c., 3220, note, in order to prevent the loss of billions in tax par dollars. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill. 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 representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 414, the nays are zero. 2/3 having responded in the

affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed, and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to have my name removed from h.r. 5621. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the house will be in order. please take your conversations off the floor. the house will be in order. members, please take your conversations off the floor.

the chair will entertain requests for one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from florida rise? the house will be in order. the house will be in order. without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you so much, madam speaker. as the massive federal spending and overregulating continue, so does the ongoing economic crisis. the labor department reported this week that job openings dropped in may from the previous month and layoffs edged us. businesses added a net total of

only 83,000 jobs in june and 33,000 in may after average net gains of 200,000 in march and april. a major reason for this weak hiring is that small businesses, which create about 60% of new jobs, are having trouble getting the credit they need to expand and hire more workers. meanwhile, in the middle of this recession the liberal leadership in the house is about to unload another 2,500 pages of hundreds of new regulations on the very businesses that provide credit. madam speaker, we need to act now to reverse course, to lower the tax burden on small firms and simplify the regulations in order to encourage job creation and we need it now. thank you, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: are there further requests? for what purpose does the

gentleman from texas rise? mr. smith: madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. smith: madam speaker, it's hard to find any organization that is less trusted than the national media. just 8% of americans trust the media, according to a public opinion poll. 88% say they have little or no trust in the media, by far the worst rating of any organization mentioned. in comparison, the poll found that americans trust major high-tech companies and even the social networking website facebook more. this is the latest of many recent polls showing the public has lost faith in the national media. if the media want to restore americans' trust, they should stop the liberal spin and report the facts. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from oregon rise? mr. defazio: to address the house for one minute.

the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. defazio: press reports show today that our trade deficit with china jumped $22.3 billion in one month. now, president obama wants to double down on afghanistan with a counterterrorism strategy for $30 billion that many of us believe won't work. but that's because he's a war-fighting president. this is a war with china. it's a trade war, and we have surrendered to china. secretary geithner pretends they aren't manipulating their currency. our special trade representative say they aren't precluding trade barriers. we never file complinets precluding our items going into their china. we're losing the trade war with china. we're losing our manufacturing base. we need those jobs. we can't keep borrowing money from china to buy things we used to make in america. that's not a sustainable system. wake up downtown at the white house, please. the speaker pro tempore: for

what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? mr. gingrey: to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. gingrey: madam speaker, i rise today to recognize a very distinguished business woman, sandy morris, the founder and c.e.o. of bradley morris, incorporated based in ken saw, georgia -- kennesaw, georgia. her goal was to create the biggest and best military recruiting firm in the country and nearly 20 years later i would say sandy has more than surpassed her goal. b.m.i. is now the largest military recruiting firm in the country, and they have helped more than 20,000 military personnel find careers after serving our country. madam speaker, sandy's career influenced by her father's service in world war ii has taken her all the way to the top 3% of all women-owned firms with revenues of $1 million or more. she is truly an impressive woman, and i wish her the best of luck. and i yield back.

the speaker pro tempore: are there further requests for one minutes? >> i'd like to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> thank you, madam speaker. ms. berkley: i'm going to be putting into the congressional record an article in -- which says early disaster response in haiti, the israeli field hospital experience. it talks about the israeli defense forces' medical corps field hospital was fully operational in 89 hours after the earthquake struck and was capable of sophisticated medical care. in the 10 days the hospital was operational. the israelis treated over 1,100 patients, hospitalized 737 patients and performed 244 operations. at the same time the iranians were shipping scud missiles

through syria to hezbollah to rearm them on the northern border of israel. the turks were trying to create an international incident with their ridiculous flotilla. the iraqis, the sunnis and the shiites kept killing each other. in pakistan, the government seems to be immobile when it comes to the terrorist attacks in that country. in afghanistan the taliban keeps killing americans and hamas continues to terrorize its own palestinian people in the gaza. all of that while the israelis are actually doing something important for humanity. i yield back the balance of my time and i think we ought to wake up and appreciate what the israelis do. the speaker pro tempore: are there others who wish that to the address the house. mr. westmoreland: i ask unanimous consent to address the house and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore:

without objection, the gentleman is recognized. >> during this time, business leaders in all 15 counties i represent took time from their busy day to join me and discuss the idea for job creations. you know what was unanimous from each of these business leaders? it was stop the crazy spending going on here in washington and start sending clear signals that washington is serious about creating jobs through the expansion of the private sector not the expansion of government. this starts with lowering taxes, stopping runaway debt, repeel obamacare and get our house in order. in fact, congress should block all tax increases, freeze discretionary spending to at least 2006 levels, stop all proposed regulations that have any negative economic impact. in other words the business district is saying, washington, you're not helping. let the free market work, and i couldn't agree with them more.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from connecticut is recognized. >> to adress the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> i visited a company, their business of making light strips has almost doubles. they have increased purchasing from other domestic firms. i vit another company, olson brothers who saw their business increase 20% to 30% because of the purchasing done by integro. they buy raw products from a company in massachusetts. hopefully in the august break, i'll visit them as well. the point is, when you enforce buy american regulations you don't just create business with one company you create business with three companies work five companies work 10 companies thavepls why buy america works,

that's why we should reinvest and strengthen that policy here in congress. the speaker pro tempore: are there further one-minute requests? the chair lays before the house the following personal requests. the clerk: leaves of absence requested for mr. hastings of florida for today the balance of the week and mr. olson of texas for july 13 and the balance of the week with. -- of the week. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the requests are granted. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. poe: ski unanimous consent that today, following legislative business and any special orders heretofore entered into, the following members may be permitted to address the house, revise and extend their remarks and include therein extraneous material. myself, mr. poe, for july 21,

mr. jones for july 21, mr. garrett for today, ms. ros-lehtinen for july 19 and 20, mr. pence for today and mr. lun bren for today. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. for what purpose does the gentleman from alabama rise? >> madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent that today following legislative business and any special orders heretofore entered into, the following members may be permitted to address the house for five minutes. myself, five minutes, ms. wool seve california, five minutes, mr. mcdermott of washington, five minutes, mrs. kirkpatrick of arizona, five minutes, ms. kaptur of ohio, five minutes, mr. defazio of oregon for five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2009, and under a previous order of the house, the following members are recognized for five minutes

each. pll price of alabama -- mr. bright of alabama. mr. price: i rise to pay tribute to -- mr. bright: i rise to pay tribute to army specialist, brean dan was the third generation of his family to be part of the 82nd airborne division. he was stationed at fort bragg, north carolina, and a member of the 508 infantry parachute regiment. after high school he enrolled at enterprise state junior college, where i went to school where, like his older brother tim he showed an interest in comedy. but brendan had a higher calling and believed he should

serve his country first before doing anything else. without question, he adhered to the concept of america first hisms brother tim noted to the "southeast sun" newspaper in enterprise, quote, brendan was a third generation 82nd airborne. him, my dad and my grandfather did the exact same thing in the military. he was proud of being a third generation 82nd. he absolutely, not in a political way but in an altruistic way, believed in doing something and that something was serving his country. even when he was preparing to delay to afghanistan, brendan was worried more about his family than himself. he told his sister katy to keep her grades up he encouraged his brother tim to continue his career in comedy. his father, hugh, said, and i quote, he was a very gentle soul, the nicest soul you'd ever want to meet but he was a tough, tough young man, end quote.

when brandon passed away, the loss was not only for the neenan family but for the entire country. america lost a true hero, someone dedicated to standing up for the values we hold dear. he was an outstanding young american. when i spoke to hugh after his son's passing, brendan's character shone through despite the fact that mr. neenan was distraught from using -- losing a son. brendan was doing his duty, following a proud family tradition. delivering these speeches is one of the toughest duties any member of congress has to do in his or her tenure here. what with doe here -- do here pales in comparison to what our soldiers are doing overseas. they deserve unending gratitude for their sacrifices. he was laid to rest in arlington national cemetery are alongside 300,000 other american patriots. his tomb there will be an

eternal reminder of the loss to our country. the loss was a blow to his father, his stepmother, his brother sim, his sister katy, as well as the entire area in southeast alabama. enterprise and the area surround that part of alabama have seen more than its fair share of loss in recent years. may our thoughts and prayers be with that area and the family in their time of mourning. i thank you and i yield back the remainder of my time. spro mr. moran of kansas. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. poe: request permission to address the house for five minutes and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. poe: madam speaker, i bring

you news from the third front. we have the first front, the war in afghanistan, the second front is the war in iraq, and the third front is the border with our neighbors to the south, mexico. we are finally beginning to learn that there is concrete evidence of a new border plan by this administration. the administration's new plan is this -- let me show you. the plan is to put up warning signs. signs like this one right here. i happen to have a photograph of one of these signs, it's on interstate eight in arizona. the bureau of land management began posting these signs recently in locations along interstate eight between casa grande and east bend. phoenix is 30 miles to the north, the border with mexico

is 80 to 100 miles to the south. several of these, about a dozen of these signs have been post. you probably can't see this, madam speaker, so let's go through it. of course at the top, it's in red. danger, public warning, not recommended. the federal government, the administration and its new border security plan is to tell us, don't travel this highway. it's not recommended by the federal government. the administration has issued travel warnings to citizens to not travel in parts of america. it's just too dangerous for americans to go through america. the sign goes on and says some more. right here, the first bullet point, active drug and human smuggling area. so now we know why we're not to be in that part of arizona because it's not safe. there's an active area of drug smuggling and human trafficking. so the remedy of the federal government is, warn americans to stay away. further, the sign says this --

visitors may encounter armed criminals and smuggling vehicles traveling at high rates of speed. another reason americans are encouraged not to go through america, it's just not safe now would those visitors be americans? they must be, because the sign is written in english, supposedly for americans traveling this interstate highway across america. the sign gives more warning comments. stay away from trash, clothing, backpacks and abandoned vehicles. we're not supposed to get near those items when we travel interstate eight you see, it continues to say if you see suspicious activity, and this must be important because it is underlined, do not confront. move away. call 911. let's go over this warning on this interstate highway sign telling americans not to travel through america because it's too dangerous because of the illegal activity in the area.

it says if you see something you think is suspicious, don't confront those people. move away and call 911. now let's go through this a little bit. call 911. pick up the phone, call 911. normally when you call 911, you get local law enforcement to answer the phone you don't get the federal government because they don't answer 911 calls. so our government is suing arizona and doesn't want arizona local law enforcement to enforce immigration laws and border security, but local security police officers who answer 911 will probably say, we're not supposed to be enforcing immigration laws, we'll turn you over to i.c.e. they turn you over to i.c.e., immigration and custom enforcement. what will they say? they'll probably say read the rest of sign and move away because we have really not tried to enforce the law along interstate eight in arizona. seems to be a little nonsense

to me. here's my favorite one here at the bottom, it says b.l.m., the bureau of land management they manage federal lands in the united states to take care of us. the bureau of land management encourages visitors to use public lands north of interstate eight. in other words, don't go south of interstate eight, you know that 80 miles to 90 miles to mexico. go north of interstate eight. phoenix is only 30 miles from here, by the way system of are we ceding, as a country, land south of interstate eight to mexico? the drug cartels, to the human smugglers to the drug trafficers? are we giving that land back because our federal government says, sorry, we're not protecting that part of america, we're not going to keep that safe. that is unfortunate, giving this land over to the crime cartels system of ceding the land to mexico is not a border

security plan at all. our government's plan seems to be simple. erect a few signs, tell americans to run and hide in their own country and sue the state of arizona for trying to protect its citizens. that's not a plan. that's nonsense. the federal government is missing in action. we need to send the national guard to the border and protect americans. that's just the way it is. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: ms. woolsey of california. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington rise? >> unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. mcdermott: i rise today to congratulate the crew of the sailing ship ocean watch a 16-foot sailboat which just completed a 28,000 mile journey around the americas. a little more than a year ago, mark schrader, herb mccormick, and david lawson sailed north through alaska and the

northwest passage, area usually too full of ice to pass because is now navigable because of the rapidly warming area. they arrived safely in the atlanta i think ocean. they sailed south along the atlantic coast to the challenging route around cape horn where they once again met the watts of the pacific. after traveling for over a year and completing more than 28,000 nautical mile they finished the expedition and returned home to seattle. they set sail with the mission of inspiring, educating, and engaging the citizens throughout the americas to protect our fragile oceans. this amazing journey was envisioned by david rockefeller jr. and captain mark schrader of washington. to implement their shared vision, mr. rockefeller enlisted the assistance of a nonprofit organization he helped to found, sailors for the sea, that

encourages sailors to become more active stewards of the world's oceans. over the course of their journey, the crew that included experienced sailors, photographers, journalists, educators and scientists visited 13 countries at 45 ports of call. at alaska they visited with the indians of british columbia and were educated on the destruction of the local habitat by industrial logging and overfishing. they docked in new york city for a presentation at the new york club, where they shared their experience and mission to a standing room only crowd. at each stop the crews shared their experiences and raised awareness of important ocean health issues like polar ice melts, ocean pollution, collapsing fisheries, acidification and coastal erosion due to sea level rise. to aid in their mission, the ocean watch carried with it various instruments and cameras,

coordinated data collection with various nasa and noaa satellites and took vangs of the unique -- advantage of the ewe teak opportunity to -- unique opportunity to track global networks. these measurements will be shared and used to compliment other ocean graphic, atmospheric and climate science research programs, the majority of which originated at a physic lab and the joint institute for the study of atmosphere and oceans at the university of washington. to help in accomplishing the educational goals this project, they used a set of curricular and educational resources developed by seattle's pacific science center and brought with with them trained bilingual educate horse shared lessons linked to the onboard scientific research with with the communities they visited. the completion of the ocean watch's extraordinary voyage cannot come at a more critical time in our nation's ecological history.

as we watch helplessly as the oil gushes into the gulf of mexico and it devastates the region's ecosystem, the far-reaching potential of consequences that ex tend well into the gulf, we -- extend well into the gulf, we need more advocates that understand the importance of protecting our franl aisle oceans. while the crew of the ocean watch successfully completed their voyage, their work has home just begun. after both of exxon valdez and the disaster in the gulf, i'm not sure how many more wakeup calls we need. but i do know that we're going to need people like mark schrader and his crew to help us educate on what's happening to our oceans. i commend the crew of the ocean watch for moving us forward on this difficult path. i recently read a quote by a british man named thomas fuller, in 193 he said, we never -- in 173 rks he said, we never know the worth of water until the

well is dry. i sincerely hope that with the advocates like of the crew of the ocean watch, we will prove mr. fuller wrong. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the chair announces that the correct tally on roll call vote 440 was 331 ayes and 119 nays. mr. burton of indiana. without objection. >> madam speaker, when we were debating the issue of afghanistan a couple weeks ago, during the three-minute time that i had, i brought up the issue of rules of edge gainlment. these are the rules that our men and women in uniform in afghanistan and iraq have to follow if they're going to be confronted by the enemy. well, i have been very disappointed that we put so many restrictions on our men and women in uniform, that i and alodge with two -- along with

two other members of the house, we wrote to the chairman, ike skelton, and the ranking member, buck mckeon, and we've asked for a classified hearing on this issue of rules of engagement. and, madam speaker, in the letter that we wrote to the chairman and ranking member, we cited in there a article from "the washington post" that was entitled, "this is not how you fight a war." one example, one of the united states army officers serving in southern afghanistan quoted in this article, i will read this quote, madam speaker, minimizing civilian casualties is a fine goal, but should it be the best and end all of the policy? if we allow soldiers to die in afghanistan at the hands of a leader who says we're going to protect civilians rather than soldiers, what's going to happen on the ground? the soldiers are not going to

want to execute the mission to the best of their ability. they won't put their hearts into the mission. that's the kind of atmosphere we're building in afghanistan. another soldier in the same article was quoted as saying, this is not how you fight a war, at least not in kandahar. week of been handcuffed by a chain of command. madam speaker, also from that article i'd like to read another paragraph, for troops on the ground, however, the directive has lowered their morale and limited their ability to pursue insurgents. they note that the taliban fighters seem to understand the new rules and have taken to sniping at troops from inside homes and retreating inside houses after staging attacks. madam speaker, this is an ongoing issue and problem for our military. in fact, in a june article is a syndicated column by george will and i'll read just one

paragraph, in a recent email from a noncommissioned officer serving in afghanistan, he explains why the rules of engagement for u.s. troops are too prohibitive for coalition forces to achieve sustained tactical success. and, madam speaker, also during that debate a couple weeks ago i held up these two articles from marine times. left to die, they call for help, neglect army leadership refused and abandoned them on the battlefield. four marines and one army were killed because they did not get the support that they needed because of rules of engagement. madam speaker, also i have spoken to a father from maine who was quoted in another marine times article, caution killed my son, marine family's blast -- marine families blast suicidal tactics in afghanistan. he said that, my son and the platoon, if they'd gotten the cover that they needed the day before when they saw taliban

soldiers going into a cave, they called for air support, the helo came over, the gun ship, but did not fire into the cave because the pilot said, we cannot see the enemy. yet the young lieutenant had just reported to them, we saw the taliban soldiers go into the cave. madam speaker, it is time to get out of afghanistan. we are putting our troops over this in harm's way and we're not letting them fight as they should be able to fight. and, madam speaker, before i close, a poll of cbs just two days ago, should u.s. set a timetable for withdrawing troops from afghanistan? 54% said yes, 41% said no. and 5% were undecided. madam speaker, i want to close by saying, to ask god to please bless our men and women in uniform, to please bless the families of our men and women in yasm, god, in your loving arms hold the families who have give an child dying for freedom in afghanistan and iraq and i'll ask god to please bless the

house and senate that we will do what is right in the eyes of depod and i will ask god to give wisdom, strength and courage to the president of the united states that he will do what is right in the eyes of god and three times, god, please, god, please, god, please continue to bless america and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: thank you. the gentlelady from arizona, mrs. kirkpatrick, is recognized for five minutes. kerk kirk thank you, madam speaker -- mr. kirk: thank you, madam speaker. on -- mrs. kirkpatrick: thank you, madam speaker. on sunday, two leading voices from both sides of the aisle outlined as clearly as ever the consequences of washington's unrestrained spending. the co-chairs of the nonpartisan debt and deficit commission, former republican senator allen simpson, and former clinton administration, chief of staff, said that if the government stays on its current path our crushing federal debt will destroy the country from within.

he went on to describe it as a cancer on our nation. these are not just the latest wordings of the disaster we face if congress does not begin make the tough choices to restore fiscal disminute. washington politicians have heard it from policy experts, from public servants and above all from the people. when will they start to listen? how much plainer can we make the stakes? what more will it take to get the message through? i was proud to fight for the strongest possible debt commission and i will push congress for an up or down vote on each of their recommendations. but the co-chairs have already laid out what needs to be done to get our fiscal house in order and this house must not waste any opportunity to take action.

as members put together the appropriation bills for the next fiscal year, they should work creatively and aggressively to cut spending levels and do more with less. as i have proposed, they should start by reducing congressional pay by 5%. congress needs to lead by example. before they ask the rest of the federal government to make cuts, they must go on to find big and small ways to save billions of taxpayer dollars. paying down the debt and balancing the budget will not be easy. this will be politically unpopular decisions to be made. but as senator simpson and mr. bowls reminded us, leaving the hard calls for another day is no longer an option. and i yield back the rest of my time.

the speaker pro tempore: thank you. the gentlelady from florida, ms. ros-lehtinen, is recognized for five minutes. ms. ros-lehtinen: i thank you, madam speaker. over a year ago more than 3,000 veterans in the miami veterans affairs medical center were notified that they could have been exposed to life-threatening diseases like h.i.v. and hepatitis because the miami b.a. was not properly sterilizing its equipment for collinonoscopies. these are vet raps who went in for routine screenings, who put their trust in the medical professionals and could have been possibly infected with any number of viruses. our veterans who sacrificed so much for our country deserve better than this. when this matter first came to light last year, immediate hearings into the matter were called. my colleagues and i were told multiple times that every veteran who underwent a

colonoscopy during the risk period would be contacted and would be tested. during follow-up site visits at the miami v.a., i was again personally assured that the v.a. had informed every impacted veteran. most importantly, both local and national v.a. officials were certain that real positive changes had been made to restore accountability and trust. now, madam speaker, one year later we find out that an additional 79 veterans might have been exposed to these life-threatening viruses but were in fact never notified of their risk. now, we are blessed to have excellent doctors, excellent nurses, excellent health care professionals working at the miami v.a. and i'm sure that they are saddened by this repeated problem. i thank the dedicated group of health care professionals for caring so deeply about our veterans. they should not be faulted for the problems of a few.

this most recent mistake was only discovered by the miami v.a. when one of the veterans himself came forward. he wondered why the hospital had not contacted him about his colonoscopy which was performed during the risk period. without his coming forward these 79 potentially impacted patients could have easily gone completely unnoticed. h.i.v. and hepatitis are much more easily treated and survivability is greatly enhanced, obviously, if the diseases are caught early. the failure of some in the miami v.a. to identify those veterans is near unfathomable when considering the supposed microscope that the v.a. had promised they would be held under. yet 79 veterans still fell through the cracks. nationally, the v.a. has promised to deliver on its pledge of greater management,

accountability and trust. the v.a. must follow basic procedures to protect its patients and implement a process for examining its faults and resolving them. the miami v.a. is again contacting every sengle patient who may have been exposed -- single patient who may have been exposed so he can be tested and if need be treated. the v.a. must make sure that this tragedy is never repeated and that accountability and oversight are restored. our country is deeply indebted to the sacrifices made by our courageous men and women who have served in our armed forces. we owe it to them to make sure that they are taken care of upon their return home. this terrible mistake that led our veterans to be potentially impacted with life-threatening diseases cannot be repeated. to restore that lost credibility, the v.a. must enact new procedures to ensure that similar problems never occur in the future and make sure that

there are proper mechanisms in place to resolve any issues that do arise. i know that the miami v.a. health care professionals have a lot of work ahead of them to rebuild the trust and they will do so. they will re-establish -- re-establish that bond between each veteran and the most excellent miami v.a. center. our veterans know that they deserve to know what went wrong and, more importantly, that it will never happen to a fellow veteran from here on out. thank you, madam speaker, for the time, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: thank you. ms. kaptur of ohio. without objection. >> i rise to give the house an update concerning the irquo -- iroquois national lacrosse team

trying to travel to the finals in great britain. they are traveling on their own passports as an indigenous people. they were not allowed to board the plane multiple times. since i last reported to the house, the state department, because of the direct intervention of the secretary of state hillary clinton, has become involved and they have issued abassurance to the british government that indeed these folks, this team, who have already subjected themselves to all the security considerations including a full bioscan, fingerprints and other background checks, that this team would be allowed back in the united states and was indeed a legitimate team. mr. maffei: however, the british have not yet decided whether or not to let the team into this international competition. madam speaker, the 2010 world lacrosse championships are being hosted in great britain. this team that represents the

six nations of the iroquois confederacy, this team was invited not to compete for the united states or canada or any other country other than the iroquois country. they were invited because of their own national identity. it seems particularly odd and contradictory that the british government would require them to have passports of a country they don't feel they're representing. we do have many examples of times in our history when we've had people who have stood up to principle and have in the been able to compete. in 1924, a scottish olympic star did not want to compete on the sabbath. he was told that he would not be able to participate in the 1924 olympic because of that. in the movie "chariots of fire," an academy-award winning movie, he was called a true man of principle a true athlete. his speed is a mere extension of his life force.

we sought to sever his running from himself. madam speaker, if the british, or any national entity, seeks to sever this national team from their own national identity, they are asking them to not be the athletes they are. i urge the british government to do everything in their power to make sure that once safety considerations are considered, that this team be allowed to travel to great britain and be allowed to compete. these iroquois were the inventors of the game of lacrosse. it would be an international embarrassment if they're not allowed to compete and they have been allowed to compete in other countries, such as australia and japan. we cannot lose the forest for the trees. we cannot look for a bureaucratic excuse especially from the country hosting the

olympics in london in 2012. if they're going to host an international event, they must be prepared to have international teams. the speaker pro tempore: thank you. mr. garrett is recognized. mr. garrett: thank you, madam speaker. it was john adams who once wrote, liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge of the people. when i first came to congress, i resolved that promoting knowledge of the u.s. constitution would be one of my primary responsibilities and priorities. to that end, i founded and continue to this day to chair the congressional constitution caucus. i come here to the floor tonight to say i'm not alone in this effort in working to preserve our freedoms through education and specifically of the u.s. constitution. tonight i would like to recognize a group whose mission is to inform america's youth and her citizens about the importance of the u.s. constitution and the foundation

it sets regarding our freedom and rights. the name of this group is constituting america. i commend the efforts of the two founders, jeanine turner and kathy gillespie. it is these two women, along with jeanine's daughter juliette, who are working hard to inspire students across the country to learn more about this fundamental primary document, the u.s. constitution. they're doing it by launching the first ever annual we the people contest. students had until last week, july 4, to submit either a poem or an essay or a song or even a short film or any other type of creative work. i come here tonight to offer to every one of the participant misheart felt congratulations for their hard work in this endeavor this concept and the concept of createing -- of

constituting america, we are a civilization that prizes individual freedom that prizes personal responsibility, continuing education, great innovation and most importantly, civic virtue. so i thank jeanine and kathy for providing relevant means to further our nation's values and history and founding documents. the american story is filled with great intrigue and bravery and remembering its past, remembering and having an understanding of these founding documents of the u.s. constitution, that is what helps secure us as we write the next chapter. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: thank you. mr. pence of indiana. mr. burton: madam speaker, i get concerned sometimes when

there's a real inconsistency in our policy toward illegal aliens in this country. the administration and the justice department has said they're going to take the state of arizona to court because the state of arizona has passed a law which deals with stopping illegal immigration and it parallels, it mirrors almost exactly the federal statute. so the federal government is not doing what it should in enforcing the law, dealing with our southern border. arizona who is dealing with drug traffickers, criminals, illegal aliens and possibly terrorists coming across the border, they have decided to do what the federal government won't. the federal government is supposed to do what arizona is doing and because arizona is doing it, the federal

government is suing them. now, at the same time, we have what's called sanctuary cities, cities where illegals are encouraged to go and they are in effect being protected. that is against the law. and so here you have the federal government, the justice department and the president, saying we're not going to go after the sanctuary cities who are protecting illegal aliens that are in this country and at the same time they're not going to enforce the law which says that we've got to protect the border against illegals coming in in the first place. it really is a real inconsistency. it bothers almost everybody who thinks about it to say we're not enforcing one law, and we're opposing another law. the government of the united states, the justice department is opposing the very law that they're suing arizona for in trying to protect that southern border. at the same time there is a law

that deals with illegal aliens in sanctuary cities and the federal government will not go after them. and the appearance is the federal government under the president, president obecause marx and the justice department wants to protect those who are here illegally in sanctuary cities but they do not want to police the border as prescribed by law. that is just dead wrong. it's an inconsistency and the justice department and the administration should be take ton task for this. if i were talking to the american people, i'd tell them to contact their congress nan they're concerned about illegal immigration. we've got 12 million to 15 million illegals in this country and they're being protected in sanctuary cities against the law and the justice department will do nothing about it and the administration will do nothing about it and at the same time, because arizona is facing a tragic situation down there, and they passed a law consistent with federal

statute the federal government is going after them. it makes no sense and it begs the issue and the question about whether or not this administration and this justice department does want to protect our border from illegal aliens. it doesn't appear they really want to do that. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: mr. defazio of oregon. mr. lungren of california. mr. lungren: thank you, madam speaker. i rise today to recognize and honor the late california state senator and former california assembly republican leader dave cox, who passed away at his home last -- yesterday, surrounded by his loving family. i had the great pleasure of working with dave and i admired not only his energy but his tireless service to the people he represented.

i was pleased i was able to represent some of those same people in my congressional district which overlapped his state senate district. he constantly strove to make government work better for people and i do believe he accomplished this mission. his public service spanned more than two decades and it goes without saying he will be sorely missed across the entire sacramento region. dave served on the sacramento municipal utility board and was a six-year sacramento county supervisor before joining the california assembly in 1998 and then the california senate in 2004. much can be said about dave cox, the public servant, but let us remember that he was a devoted husband, father, and grandfather as well. dave, along with his wife maggie, raised three daughters and were the proud grandparents of six grandchildren. i was pleased to be able to

speak with him just a few weeks ago when he had returned from receiving some treatment for the cancer, and he told me he was going to return to the state senate which he did several days later. here was yet another example of a man serving the people he loved to the very end he said to me at that time, he was only about 90%. i said, well 90% of dave cox is better than 100% of most of the people in public service. i'm honored to remember my friend, the late senator dave cox. a devoted family man, an exam player public servant and a trusted colleague. eternal rest grant unto him, o lord and may your light shine upon him and may he rest in peace. the speaker pro tempore: thank you. under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2009, the gentleman from california, mr.

garamendi is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. mr. garamendi: madam speaker, thank you. following on congressman lungren's, my colleague from the neighboring district, i didn't realize that senator dave cox had died and i join him in the eulogy that he so graciously gave here on the floor.

an extraordinary individual, represented my mother in the mountain counties and was dedicated, as was said to the betterment of california. so i'll start with that. but i had -- what i had intended to discuss here today was jobs. american jobs. what the situation we're faced with today and the extraordinary burden placed upon so many americans who have lost their jobs in the last years of this great recession. but i wanted to really start with, was to try to get a sense of what has happened over the last thee years, 2 1/2, almost three years -- three years, 2 1/2, almost three years now. the great american recession began during the george w. bush period. and we began to lose jobs, largely as a result of the

subprime mortgage, the lack of regulation that was going on, loans being made to people that didn't qualify and all the gains of wall street that began to unravel and cause the american economy to literally crash. as that wall street problem magazinify inside and grew, the number of jobs that were lost deprue. so that between december of 2007, when there was actually some modest job growth, and december of 2008 we saw an extraordinary decline in jobs so that in december of 2008 you were looking at over 750,000 jobs lost. now, in january, at the end of january, the obama administration came in and again in january we faced another 700,000 jobs lost. but almost all of that period of time was the previous administration and the new obama administration did not have any opportunity until the last five

days of the month to even take over the administration of government. thereafter and most every month since then we have seen a decline in the number of jobs lost so that now in the fall of 2009 we actually began to see the first signs of job growth. so that in october, september, october of 2009 there's actually a small very modest increase in jobs followed the next month by depen a decline. but then in the following months sips the fall of 2009 to this period -- since the fall of twane to this period, we've seen a growth in the number of jobs in this america. and that's good news. we're not anywhere where we need to be. and i think we all need to understand what has been done to be effective to all of this job loss. i might go to another chart here so that we can set the foundation for what we're depg to talk about.

the numbers basically lay it out this. during the great recession, beginning in the fall of 2007 and then continues on until the fall of 2009, eight million jobs were lost. nearly all of those were lost during the george w. bush administration. for americans that depended upon their savings, their retirement counties, $17 trillion in retirement savings were lost during this period of time. you just compare that to the previous eight years of the clinton administration when 22 million jobs were created during the clinton administration. the question arises, why? what was the ditches? what happened that caused -- difference? what happened that caused during the last year's of the bush administration, the loss of these eight million jobs compared to 22 million jobs created under the clinton

administration? we're going to come to that during this discussion. it's a fundamental question because it is the question of national policy. during the entire period of the bush administration, by contrast, one million jobs were created in america. again, enormous difference, 2 million versus one million -- 22 million versus one million. again, why? what's the reason for this? and the policy decisions that were made that led to this emore mouse difference here. i tell what you -- enormous difference here. i tell you what we'd like to do for the remainder of this year, create some 900,000 jobs and we're on course to do that. it's going to take a lot of work and it's going to take a lot of changes in policy. beginning with the obama administration, a series of pieces of legislation were put into place. and i'd hike to -- like to just review those pieces of legislation and what they were doing. many of these were designed specifically to deal with the

great recession and to prevent the american economy from falling into a 1930 depression. we're on the edge. we were teetering on the edge of that. some of this was done in the last days of the george w. bush administration, which was the bailout of wall street, the tarp program. that program pumped some $700-plus billion into wall street, a lot of controversy about it. other nations around the world were doing the same thing and the result was a stabilization of the financial industry. for me i would have liked to have seen it done differently but it was done that way during the bush administration and it did actually stabilize the economy. now because of bills that have been passed since that time, we're seeing a good portion of that money returned to the american treasury. now, beginning with the obama administration, immediate action was taken here on the floor of

this house and in the senate to try to stabilize the job market. to try to put americans back to work. and the very first bill that was enacted, i believe within the first 30 days, was the american recovery and reinvestment act. now, economists looking at that today have said that that legislation alone created 2.8 million jobs, including police, firemen, construction workers and the like. it also provided american middle class with the largest tax cut ever for the middle class. 98% of americans received a reduction in their taxes as a result of that, so that today the average -- or the amount of money collected from the american taxpayers at a rate as low as it was in the 1950's. there was also a mainly element of it that was called rebuilding america with clean energy jobs and with infrastructure. so 2.8 million jobs were

enacted. i'm going to quickly go through these others. i'll come back to them during the course of this discussion. but also i want to just tell you the way we're going to do this and that is we're going to talk about what's going on in various parts of america. so, from time to time i'll come back and talk about the other six fundamental pieces of legislation that have been signed into law by president obama, passed by this house, all six, all seven, including the american recovery and reinvestment act, have created jobs in america and turned around the american economy so that they're growing, not as much as we should and not as much as is necessary but we're growing there. i'd like now to reach out, well, i guess i'm a californian, but basically i'm from northern california, i represent a district in the san francisco bay area, north -- east of the san francisco bay. but there's another part of california that is rather big, that would be the los angeles

basin. and specifically joining me from orange county is the gentlewoman from orange county, loretta sanchez. you can talk to us about what's happening there and the nature of the economy and the jobs situation? ms. sanchez: absolutely. i live in an incredibly wonderful area called orange county, the o.c., that many of you have seen on television before. it's not clearly the way it's pictured this, but we have one of the largest concert arenas in the nation. we also have a beautiful coast line that so many people want to come to in newport beach and laguna beach. it's a very, very special place. but the housing issue affected orange county in a dramatic way. we had in orange county four of the six largest subprime lenders , were located right there

across the nation, in orange county. so almost overnight we lost 40,000 jobs just to the housing issue. well, i would like to let people know that it was reported in today's "los angeles times" that housing is coming back in california. and specifically it noted, of course, this whole tax issue. because my wolf colleague from the northern portion of my -- wonderful colleague from the northern portion of my state noted the tax cuts that we had in the american recovery and reinvestment act in particular. for people who say that democrats, and i am a democrat, never like tax cuts, that's just not true. the fact of the matter, in the stimulus package, in the american resolvey act, we actually had a third of the money go -- had 1/3 of the money go to tax cuts. but we put them to specific

areas, to help people get an education, to help them keep their homes, to help them, encourage them to buy homes, to keep the economy going. and so today we have found in the newspaper that there is a 7.2% jump in southern california home sales. and orange county, out of anyplace in the nation, leads the way in selling homes, putting homes on the market, getting new families excited to get into these new homes, yes, a lot of people that i represent have lost their homes. right next door there's a foreclosure to my home. and so it is difficult. but in order to keep people in their homes we've also passed legislation that would help to help modify some of those home loans so that people would actually get a chance to stay in their home. and if they did have to leave

their home before we could get somebody else in to buy that home, we also passed funds to help cities, for example $10 million and $6 million to the cities of santa ana and anaheim that i represent, to make sure that homes were taken care of as we transition them from one family or person to the next. so, we have actually passed quite a few pieces of legislation that have helped the housing market and in helping the housing market this is beginning to create some of the jobs that we see, especially in orange county. so i'm so glad that my colleague has taken this hour to talk a little bit about how slowly we are beginning to come back and the effect of that very important piece of legislation we passed a year ago, the american recovery and reinvestment act. and the additional pieces that we have passed to help.

depar gar i thank you so very much for -- mr. garamendi: i thank you so very much for talking about down home and what's going on there. i will note that the american recovery and reinvestment act, which the economists suggest has created 2. million jobs, provided the -- 2.8 million jobs, provided the largest tax cut ever and also did the infrastructure, streets, roads, sanitation facilities, and renewable green energy programs, not one republican voted for that. ms. sanchez: absolutely. if my colleague will give me just a little bit more time, i'll say to him, we have felt that in orange county. 2.-- $2.2 billion for the first piece of the high speed rail that will connect anaheim all the way up to san francisco to your area, that $2.2 billion given to the anaheim-los angeles portion of that high speed rail. so, looking to the future. other pieces of that legislation , research in the greening of

america, research in new technologies for energy independence and also research into changing over our hospitals to electronic filing rather than to have paperwork being shuffled between doctors. so it carried a lot of future-looking pieces and of course when you look at innovation, that is what california is about, that is what's going to lead us out of a bad economy and that is what we will in fact sell to the rest of the world after we established those new areas of innovation. mr. garamendi: i thank you for bringing up the question of inowe veavation and research. it was -- innovation and research. it was a very big portion of that. i'm going to come back to another piece of legislation later. with regard to the american recovery and reinvestment act, it was the democrats that carried the ball that shouldered the burden and passed and provided the votes, not one republican vote. you mentioned the home buying

situation in orange county. the first time homebuyer credit, i think it's $6,000, was made available through a piece of legislation that once again was pushed forward by the democrats in this house and over in the senate and 93% of the republicans on this floor voted against that provision that gives first-time homebuyers that additional money that they needed for that down payment so they could buy that home. it goes on and on and on. one of the issues that confronts us, since we're not back where we need to be with our employment, is the unemployment insurance situation. now, representing a part of the nation that's been really harmed by the loss of manufacturing jobs over the last two decades is the ohio valley region. representative charlie we willson who's from the willson who's from the youngstown area