host: david, from flint, mich., you get the last word. caller: i am so happy that gm will pay the government back, and all of these people that have been bashing us. host: i will leave it there. we'll take it to the floor the . l be in order. the prayer will be offered by our chaplain, father coughlin. chaplain coughlin: lord god of history and present in our day. help this congress to move forward in hope. each new day of land is a new day for people to venture forth alone or connected to others into the vast horizon of the future. rely on your help. give to your people vision in place of confusion and

confirmation of noble ideas and good judgment. help the representatives of your people to work for the common good with discerning eyes, listening and reasoned decision. may they lead this nation to be people of faith, by being attentive to your command, to become your instrument and accomplish your holy will both now and forever. amen. the speaker: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house her approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1 the journal stands approved. the pledge of allegiance will be led by the gentleman from south carolina, mr. wilson. mr. wilson: everyone, including our guests in the gallery, please join in. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty

and justice for all. the speaker: the chair will receive a message. miami madam speaker, a message -- the messenger: madam speaker, a message from the senate. the secretary: i have been directed by the senate to inform the house that the senate has passed the cited asian carp prevention and control act in which the concurrence of the house is requested. the speaker: thank you. the chair will entertain up to 10 requests for one-minutes on each side of the aisle. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from maine rise? ms. pin fwree: to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: -- ms. pingree: to address the house for one minute. the speaker: without objection. ms. pingree: if this house does not debate unemployment benefits today, this couldn't come at a worse time.

just weeks before christmas with winter settling in thousands of people in my state of maine will see their benefits run out. although our economy has shown some signs of improving, far, far too many people are still unable to find a job. not only are unemployment benefits an essential part of the safety net, they're critical for keeping the economy moving. when an unemployed mainer gets an unemployment check, he or she turns around and spends the money in the local economy, at the supermarket, at the hardware store. nearly $1 of unemployment benefits generates $2 in local economic activity, according to the department of labor. madam speaker, for the sake of out-of-work americans, i urge my colleagues in the house to come together and extend unemployment benefits so we can keep our economy movement. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina rise? mr. wilson: madam speaker, i ask permission to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. m wilson: madam speaker, on november 2, the american people amplified their voices to command a new way forward. they were tired of lawmakers strangling them with big government regulations instead of creating much-needed jobs, and they were tired of excessive borrowing and spending. yesterday, the republican conference listened to the concerns of americans and selected leaders who will transform the way business is done in washington. i believe our team, led by john boehner and eric cantor, will curb spending, create jobs and promote opportunities to keep money in the pockets of hardworking taxpayers. i was particularly thrilled with the election of south carolina's tim scott to the leadership team from my birthplace of charleston. congressman-elect scott's business background and proven record of bringing jobs to south carolina is a great addition to the new republican leadership. i look forward to working with him to promote limited

government and expanded freedom. in conclusion, god bless our troops and we will never forget september 11 and the global war on terrorism. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from connecticut rise? >> to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> madam speaker, today this house will take up the question of whether we should extend the temporary unemployment insurance program. if this house chooses not to do that two million americans will go into the holidays wondering not whether they will just have a holiday meal but whether they are have a meal at all. but let's set aside what each and every one should think about and those people and how the holidays will mean to them. mr. himes: let's talk history for a second. the fact is the congress of the united states has never cut unemployment insurance benefits when unemployment was anywhere near where it is today, and in fact following the 2001 recession, the

republican-controlled congress maintained temporary unemployment insurance until the unemployment rate fell below 6%. well below where we are today. let's do something else. let's talk economics. every member of this house knows that the most important thing we can do right now is to help this economy recover. jobs. financial institutions that look at this stuff tell us that if we allow unemployment insurance go away it will have a profoundly negative effect on the economy. a number of banks estimate half a percentage point -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. himes: we must renew unemployment insurance. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from missouri rise? >> to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. carnahan: thank you, madam speaker. today i rise in strong support of american manufacturing. the make it in america agenda creates jobs in america, reversing the jobs overseas and

rebuilding the manufacturing base in america, providing good jobs for hardworking americans. back home in st. louis, i had a chance to visit with lunar tools, a small business in my district. they shared with me their concerns about the future of manufacturing and with the right incentives and a level playing field they can compete with anyone anywhere. that's what we were sent here to do, to help rebuild our economy, including american manufacturing. i have and remain committed working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to give small business and manufacturing the resources they need to rebuild this economy and put americans back to work. according to the lives for american manufacturing, every manufacturing job supports four additional jobs in other industries. now is not the time to stall. we must tap american innovation, the spirit that helped make this country great, to get americans back to work and make things in america. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlelady from nevada rise?

ms. berkley: i rise to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. ms. berkley: six months ago i said the three most important issues in this country is jobs, jobs, jobs, and i said it six months before that. i say it now. but while we are working to restore our economy and put people back to work, we must extend unemployment benefits to the millions of americans, our fellow citizens through no fault of their own find themselves unemployed. in my congressional district of las vegas in the state of nevada we have been particularly hard hit. people through no fault of their own, they're not spoiled, they're not lazy, they work every day of their life, they got no job because the economy is so bad. these are the people, our fellow citizens, our next door

neighbors, our family members that we need to help by extending unemployment benefits. if we do not do this today, 27,000 nevada families will have no way to put food on their families' table. their children will do without. they will not be able to pay their rent or put food on the table. we have an obligation to our fellow citizens that we must help them until we get this economy back where it needs to be. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlelady from maryland rise? ms. edwards: to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. ms. edwards: madam speaker, i rise today to highlight the need to immediately extend unemployment benefits and to make permanent the middle-class tax cuts. to the 14,600 marylanders and two million americans across the country who are facing the loss of their unemployment

benefits, this member of congress and members on this side of the aisle understand who you are and understand what you're facing. i've stood in unemployment lines. i wasn't lazy. i wasn't not looking for a job. but i needed unemployment benefits. i stood in a food pantry and it's humiliating, the entire experience. so the idea that we are going to allow americans, hardworking american families who earned their benefits to go home at thanksgiving and not know whether they're going to put a turkey on the table to feed their families, we should be ashamed if we allow that to happen. and i know that i am committed, my colleagues are committed to make sure that the american public understand that you need your unemployment benefits and that you want to work and that you worked before and you want to work again. and so i would say to all of those out there who would choose to not allow americans to put food on their tables to ask themselves who we are as a country and i yield. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlelady from california rise? >> to revise and extend and to address for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. watson: madam speaker, as we continue to work our way out of the recession with the help of economic incentives to create jobs and to lay the foundation for long-term growth, one of the most important tools is the make it in america program. make it in america creates jobs in america, will help reverse the flow of jobs overseas and will help rebuild the manufacturing base in america, providing good jobs for hardworking americans. it will also help america lead the world economy in the years ahead by creating a national manufacturing strategy, we will ensure a new prosperity by promoting american competitiveness and innovation.

we are looking to building a strong 21st century clean energy economy that will make americans more secure. let's make it in america. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from north carolina rise? ms. foxx: i ask permission to address the house for one minute, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. ms. foxx: thank you, madam speaker. politicians like to talk about cutting deficits. president obama and his fellow democrats seem to think that tax increases are the only way to lower the deficit. earlier this year the president released a budget that called for $1.8 trillion in tax increases. in fact, since president obama took office, democrats have raised taxes by over $670 billion and have used nearly all of it to increase the size of government, not reduce the size of deficits. during the same 22 months, the federal government has spent $6.1 trillion.

but now democrats are about to hand american taxpayers the largest tax increase in our nation's history, and house republicans are determined to stop it. congress should permanently extend the tax relief for all taxpayers. higher taxes are not the way to lower deficits. washington must cut spending. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> madam speaker, i rise today to recognize the retirement of deputy director of u.s. immigration and custom enforcement office which is the eyes in the u.s. department of homeland security. he's worked to make our community safe for over two decades. mr. pena began his career as a state trooper. he was part of the a.t.f. in california.

after several years he returned back to texas and worked for the smuggling division. mr. penne served as the special agent in san antonio -- mr. pena served as the special agent in san antonio and houston. he developed a comprehensive approach to combat cross-border crime which started there in my hometown of laredo. deputy director pena worked with mexico at the u.s. embassy in mexico. as the current deputy director of i.c.e., mr. pena has driven investigations with federal, state, local and international partners. madam speaker, i'm honored to recognize the unique dedication and commitment and leadership of i.c.e. deputy director pena and his family. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlelady from texas rise?

ms. jackson lee: to address the house for one minute. thepeaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. ms. jackson lee: thank you very much, madam speaker. i have a series of thanksgiving wishes, wishes that many in this country will have the opportunity to experience, but because of the stalling and the delay of those opposition kings and queens, we don't have the opportunity to extend unemployment benefits so that many of the vulnerable in this country will have an opportunity to be thankful and to sit with their families and to be able to celebrate. these are hardworking americans who have given their best to this country. how dare we not provide an extension of unemployment benefits. we must do it now. i heard this morning someone indicate, what are they doing for small businesses? i don't know why information does not translate to all of you hardworking small businesses, but we have given

you in this congress with this democratic majority 16 tax cuts that you will be able toualityize and $30 billion right now in the -- for you to utilize and $30 billion right now in the banks because we believe in you, the job creators. and i want those in houston to feed the 25,000 that are needed to feed in houston. i need them to have resources. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from washington rise? >> to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. inslee: mr. speaker, i urge our republican colleagues to join us in doing what's right for worker families during this time of unemployment. we heard them say, we just can't afford this. well, that's interesting to me when we can blow a $700 billion hole in the federal deficit by giving away tax cuts to millionaires. we democrats stand for working middle-class folks to give them mide-class tax relief but not

grow the federal deficit another $700 billion. . what's going on here is a hostage taking situation because the republicans are holding the middle class hostage by not allowing 100% of americans tax relief just so their friends who might be hedge fund managers or otherwise can get additional tax relief on top of it. here's what we should say. americans do not negotiate with hostage takers. we ought to have the right economic policy, and i'll tell you what we are not going to allow the trickle-down economics of george bush to be foisted on america anymore. >> the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. cohen: thank you, madam speaker. i think as we look at this lame duck session and the end of the 111th how we get where we are with the deficit which was such a big issue.

this congress, the congress in 1994, president clinton, passed a bill to balance the budget. all democrats, the result of it was the democrats suffered a great election defeat in 1994. the republicans took over with newt gingrich. had the house for the next 12 years. but we balanced the budget. with a budget surplus by the year 2000. then president bush came into office and he gave these tax cuts away, to a trillion dollar war in iraq, a war in afghanistan, and passed medicaid part d, the largest extension of federal benefits ever, tremendous deficit increasing, much more so than any health care bill passed since or the one we passed, and we got this tremendous deficit. now the republicans talk about earmarks. earmarks have nothing to do with the deficit at all. it has to do with tough decisions to increase revenues or cut spending.

$700 billion cuts to the richest. you got to look at defense and other areas and be brave. thank you, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york rise? mr. arcuri: by direction of the committee on rules, i call up house resolution 1721 and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 244, house resolution 1721. resolved, that upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to take from the speaker's table the bill h.r. 1722, to require the head of each executive agency to establish

and implement the policy under which employees shall be authorized to telework, and for other purposes, with the senate amendment thereto, and to consider in the house without intervention of any point of order except those arising under clause 10 of rule 21 a motion offered by the chair of the committee on oversight and government reform or his designee that the house concur in the senate amendment. the senate amendment shall be considered as read. the motion shall be debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the committee on oversight and government reform. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the motion to its adoption without intervening motion. section 2, it shall be in order at any time through the legislative day of november 19, 2010 or for the speaker to entertain motions that the house suspend the rules. the speaker or her designee shall consult with the minority

leader or his destig knee on the designation of any matter for consideration pursuant to this section. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized for one hour. mr. arcuri: thank you, madam speaker. for purposes of debate only, i yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlelady from north carolina, ms. foxx. all time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate purposes only. i yield myself such time as i may consume. i also ask unanimous consent that all members be given five legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on house resolution 1721. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. arcuri: madam speaker, h.res. 1721 provides for consideration of senate amendment h.r. 1722, the telework improvement act of 2010. the rule makes in order a motion offered by the chair of the committee on oversight and government reform or his designee that the house concur

in the senate amendment to h.r. 1722. the rule provides one hour of debate on the motion equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on oversight and government reform. the rule waives all points of order against consideration of the motion except those arising under clause 10 of rule 21. the rule provides that the senate amendment shall be considered as read. finally, the rule allows the speaker to entertain motions to suspend the rules through the legislative day of november 19, 2010. the speaker or her designee shall consult with the minority leader or his designee on the designation of any matter for consideration pursuant to this resolution. this is the third time this year that theouse has debated and considered this bill. each of the previous two times a majority of the members voted for the bill. i have often heard my colleagues on the other side of the aisle speak eloquently of how much more efficient the private

sector is and about the need for government to take more cues from business. telecommuting could not be a better example of this. there is no reason that the federal government should not make full use of the perpetual advances being made in mobile technologies to ensure that our government's work force functions as efficiently and cost-effectively as possible. telework policies are even more important during times of emergency. the office of management and budget, o.m.b., has estimated that for each day the federal government was shut down during the megasnowstorms that hit the capitol region last february, we lost $71 million worth of productivity. it is important to point out that o.m.b. also concluded that without employees at some agencies being able to telecommunity, the cost of productivity would have been easily beyond $100 million. the telework improvements act

will provide a framework to expand the current telecommunicating program to all federal employees can take advantage of these opportunities. telecommuting also helps to reduce traffic congestion. not only does this save gas and emissions, but it decreases rain shower traffic for all residents of d.c.-metro area whether they work for the federal government or in the private sector. in the past, some have argued that telecommuting just allows lazy government employees to sit at home and pretend to work. that's simply not the case. the bill requires agencies to establish a telecommuting policy that authorizes employees to telecommute to the maximum amount possible only to the extent that it doesn't diminish the employee's performance or the agency operations. the senate amendments to h.r. 1722 also require agencies to maintain a telework data base for various research and reporting requirements, including a confidential hotline

and email address to report abuses and require agencies to submit a summary of abuse reports to the government of accountability office, the g.a.o. these measures will ensure that telecommuting workers are efficient and accountable. i urge all members to support the rule and the senate amendment to h.r. 1722 and i reserve the balance of my time. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlelady from south carolina -- excuse me -- north carolina is recognized. ms. foxx: thank you, madam speaker. i thank my colleague from new york for yielding time. and i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. foxx: thank you, madam speaker. if a tree falls in the forest and there's no one there to hear it, does it still make a sound? after their thorough drumming on election day, it makes sense for the democrats to revisit this metaphysical question. despite the abundance of

evidence, authorities across the political spectrum and the american people, the liberals blame their losses was due to voter ignorance, all due to the sour economy and nothing more. they refuse to acknowledge the reality that voters rejected the liberals' government takeover of health care and the process to the passage. they refused to believe that the bailouts could have possibly led to the historical election results. stubbornly clinging to their failed prescription of bigger government and ever-increases taxes, the liberals continued to defend the stimulus and their extraffic get spending as cornerstones to their futile efforts of healing the economy. so perhaps the question should now become -- if american voters reject the failed liberal agenda, will any democrats notice? by continuing to spend hard-earned taxpayers' money in

an irresponsible fashion, it appears the answer is obvious, no. however, those who think of themselves as liberal elites in washington seem to have been the only ones in the country to have missed the writing on the wall and the message of november 2. the ruling democrat regime ignored the clear evidence of those and continued in lockstep with an agenda that would embarrass many european states. the mignons blindly followed further expanding government with nearly every bill they passed. then on november 2, the voters showed their feelings by removing the gavel from the grip of san francisco liberal nancy pelosi. the liberals' response to election of such historic proponents, blame voter ignorance. voters rejected unconscionable

spending and deficit increases. they rejected a government takeover of health care. they rejected federal ownership of any industry deemed too incompetent to fail, but they also rejected the heavy-handed autocratic rule of congressional liberals. if we accept the blame that unemployment is the only thing -- now that the voters have forced them to refocus. the answer to reducing the unemployment rate, pass flawed legislation that makes it easier for federal employees to stay at home and get paid for work. there it is, folks. the liberal democrats elites have found the solution that has evaded them for so long. it is not to keep tax rates for small businesses from rising. it is not to look at ways to cut spending so more capital is available to the private sector. it is not pushing for improved trade agreements that will

increase exports and help restore a balance of trade. it is not to shrink the size and number of federal regulations that are slowing job creation in the private sector. no, madam speaker, ladies and gentlemen, they bring us an opportunity to reinvigorate america's strength by spending $30 million more to make it easier for federal employees to work from home. on september 30, 2010, the senate passed h.r. 1722 with an amendment adopted by unanimous consent stripping out almost all of the provisions added to the bill by the house under a successful motion to recommit offered by oversight and government reform ranking member issa. the bipartisan house n.p.r. provisions that were stripped out by the senate would require each agent to certify that the telework program will save money before authorizing any employees to telework. prohibit employees from engaging any union or collective bargaining

activities while teleworking, require employees of the executive office of the president to carbon copy their official email account on any official business communication that are made on personal email and social media accounts, make employees ineligible for telework if they fraudulently applied for and receive low-income home energy assistant payments for which they're ineligible or have seriously delinquent tax debts. removal of these provisions by the senate will raise the cost of this legislation and provide a teleworking benefit to individuals who clearly should not be interested with increased latitude and autonomy. absent these provisions, telework becomes another perk for federal workers whose salary and other compensation already surpass their private sector counterparts. the american people have grown tired of waiting for real solutions to their problems. fortunately help is on the way and in january this house will set a new course towards

protecting individual liberty and shrinking the unending expansion of the suffocating federal bureaucracy. i urge my colleagues to vote no on this rule and no on the underlying bill. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. arcuri: thank you, madam speaker. i guess after the last election i had naively thought that we could come back and get away from the political sniping and go on. it sounds like that's not the case and that is unfortunate. this was a bill that was passed in the house with strong bipartisan support. certainly not anything that was political but something that was needed and necessary. but unfortunately i think we are going to continue to hear about politics rather than about governing and that's unfortunate. and with that, madam speaker, i would yield three minutes to the gentleman from ogon, mr. blumenauer. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oregon is recognized for three minutes.

mr. blumenauer: i appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in permitting me to speak on this bill as i appreciate his inciteful comment about where we are and where we're going. i, too, listened to what was not a debate on this bill but a continuation of the political rhetoric that the american public has enjoyed over the course of the last three or four months. i'm not sure they enjoyed it. the people i heard from back home got rather tired of it. it was ironic that i heard my good friend, ms. foxx, talking about the government takeover of health care after i had just been visited by representatives of some of the large -- one of the largest health insurance companies in america who was talking about their role in health care reform, how it was -- they saw it making a path

towards better health care that they'd have to do some things differently, that they were working on implementation of it. it certainly didn't sound in meeting with these representatives as i did back home after the election with a wide variety of people from health care who were talking about how we move forward in this partnership that has been focused and in terms of how we improve medicare for our seniors, the notion that somehow this is a takeover is lost on the people who are actually in the health care arena and the american public will find that out. we'll be able to hear their suggestions going forward. the notion of the failed stimulus. i just left a group of eight large corporate representatives who were talking about moving forward on some of the infrastructure and energy items that were important to them. a dozen energy executives

yesterday who thought it was important and that was creating and saving jobs and the disconnect between the political rhetoric and what any american can verify by talking to the businesses, the health care people involved, shows that it's rather hallow. but that is why the -- hollow. but that is why the health care legislation got bogged down. it looked good in a sound bite but actually had little to do with the legislation, and, for instance, the provision that would have required denial of the ability to telecommute to people who were delinquent in their taxes was actually unenforceable. there was no way that the i.r.s. could do what they wanted to do, and so they were willing to deny the ability of the federal government to be able to have the efficiencies

that people back home in oregon have with telecommuting in the private sector continue to bog it down. we as members -- mr. arcuri: i yield an additional minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. blumenauer: we can telecommute. it makes me available to be able to work seven days a week when i'm in washington, d.c., or i'm in portland. our staff does it routinely. but they would deny the ability of federal employees. this is, as my friend from new york pointed out, bipartisan legislation. it's always had republicans and democrats supporting it. it's received strong majorities. i'm sure it will pass today, but i'm hopeful that we can focus on the business at hand, not hang up important work that i want to make sure that any federal employee who's delinquent in their taxes pays up. i'm happy to with my friends on the other side of the aisle to

focus specific legislation in that regard. and as a member of the ways and means, i am happy to work with them to do that. but for heaven's sakes, let's deal with important things here, perhaps not repeal all of the political talking points and get down to some serious business. thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlelady from north carolina is recognized. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd just point out to my colleague from oregon that telework already exists. federal employees can do it already. what this bill does is allocate $30 million and create more bureaucracy. we're not stopping telework. we're not creating telework. we're expanding it and spending more money. madam speaker, with that i would like to yield three minutes to my colleague from colorado, mr. lamborn. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado is recognized for three minutes. mr. lamborn: thams, i rise in opposition to the -- madam

speaker, i rise in opposition to the previous question and in support of this week's youcut item, the eliminate -- elimination of taxpayer funding to national public radio. however, it's not the liberal bias that offends me so much that american citizens are forced to subsidize it with their hard-earned tax dollars. long before the juan williams fiasco, i sponsored legislation to pull the plug for taxpayer funding for n.p.r. i enjoy some programs on n.p.r. but i long believe that it can stand on its own. the question is not the quality of programming on n.p.r. the question today is whether government programs and services that can be funded privately should be subsidized by taxpayers. as a country we no longer have this luxury if we ever did. with the national debt over $13

trillion, the government simply can't afford to continue funding nonessential services. americans voted through the popular website, youcut, to place this proposal on the house floor for a vote today. the selection of this measure shows the american people's desire to rein in unnecessary spending. my proposal would prohibit federal dollars from gointo n.p.r. through any of the various federal grants they now access. i myself enjoy n.p.r. program,ing, but why should americans foot the bill for this when we need to borrow 40 cents on every federal dollar? n.p.r. local programming directly receive connolly appropriated funds that reached over $65 million in 2010 alone. plus, local stations directly receive grants from other federal sources, such as the national endowment for the arts. n.p.r. stations then used these taxpayer dollars on licensing fees for n.p.r. programming which are then funneled back to n.p.r. headquarters here in

washington, d.c. taking this indirect funding into account, federal funds now make up an estimated 20% of n.p.r.'s annual budget. let me be clear, this measure will not prohibit local stations from receiving any other funding. it will just prohibit them from using taxpayer money to acquire n.p.r. programming. unsustainable federal spending is a serious threat to the united states economy and to the future prosperity of the american people. americans know this. we shouldn't wait until the 112th congress to start solving this problem. cutting spending begins now. . we must begin the hard work by making tough choices on spending today. the american people have asked congress to put a stop to out-of-control spending. millions of them voted through youcut that prohibiting federal funding of n.p.r. is a good place to start. i urge my colleagues to heed the will of the american people to get federal spending under

control and vote for a sensible reduction of spending by opposing the previous question. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. arcuri: madam speaker, i yield four additional minutes to the gentleman from oregon, mr. blumenauer. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oregon is recognized for four minutes. mr. blumenauer: thank you. i was on my way out of the chamber and i heard my friend from colorado talk about attacking out-of-control federal spending by making sure that there's no direct or indirect ability for resources from the federal government to go to n.p.r. madam speaker, i find that really a sad reflection on the current state of affairs. 8 -- national public broadcasting is one of the few areas where the american public can actually get balanced information. it's not the people on the right

or left. public broadcasting because it is not taking commercial advertising because it has a commitment to public service and balanced information, has been the most important unbiased source available to americans from coast to coast. the federal investment in public broadcasting is relatively minor. it is a 10%, 15% when you add everything up, but it is an important portion because it leverages vast amounts of money that otherwise would not be available. i, like my friend from colorado, participate. i go to the telethons, i contribute every year for my family and i'm glad to do it. but if this agenda which is where the republicans when they took over last time were trying to go to defund public

broadcasting and picked up even before they take control is followed, it's going to have very serious consequences. it's not go to affect denver. it's not going to affect portland, oregon, or san francisco, or new york. except that the quality of some of the programs will erode, frankly, because these are tough times and sponsorship from the business community is down and individuals are having to stretch to be able to do it. when these services are more important than ever, when we've got all these screaming heads on the air giving forth information that is hardly balanced and accurate. but what will happen, not only the erosion of quality and some of the programs for culture and education that are not going to have a commercial base will be

eroded. but what is going to have the biggest impact, if they have their way, will be the areas of america that don't have the base. rural and small town america will pay the price. oregon public broadcasting is one of the finest public broadcasting systems in the united states. but the most expensive person to serve are the people in the far reaches of our state where we put up expensive translaters to be able to get the tramming out there. we have programming that is designed to reach to the furthest extent of our state. and that is subsidized. if we are going to lose the modest amount of federal subscyization -- subs -- subsidization, it will not only affect the quality of atlanta, charlotte, but it's going to make it harder for rural and small town america to be able to

get this. you look at the cost that they bear and that will be an area that will suffer the cuts if we are not able to maintain it. i think that's a tragedy. i think it is a tragedy to try and politicize the n.p.r. i'm not going to comment on the handling of the juan williams episode. there will be others that have talked about it endlessly. the head of n.p.r. said she would have handled it differently. part of it was a commentator -- mr. arcuri: yield an additional minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. blumenauer: when you mix n.p.r. and fox news and go back and deconstruct that, they have rules of journalism that they follow that people are supposed to follow. mr. williams had trouble following those rules before. but notwithstanding that the point is we need to have the public in public broadcasting.

the federal minuscule dollars that are invested in that compared to the amount of money that is wasted in defense, in agriculture subsidy is -- pails -- pales by comparison. i think we'll be able to work with some of the new members of congress to deal with things that have defied reform in the past. i'm looking forward to some of what they say. but public broadcasting is a resource, is a treasure for americans from coast to coast. it is trusted by more americans than any other resource in terms of the news. and it is far more than just news. it is education, it is culture, it is history, and it would be a tragedy to eat away at it and make it harder to serve the difficult to serve areas of our country. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from north carolina is recognized. ms. foxx: thank you, madam speaker. our colleague from oregon has just given us another example of

how out of touch our colleagues across the aisle are. if he thinks that public radio is balanced and unbiased and is going -- and our funding -- taking away that funding will have serious consequences, he is obviously not in touch with the american people. republicans are in touch with the american people, that's why we are making this proposal. i live in a rural area and i understand that. again you're blaming the victim, you're blaming the voters. please, don't blame the voters. that's not what they are looking for. i now would like to yield one minute to my colleague from kansas, ms. jenkins. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from kansas is recognized for one minute. ms. jenkins: thank you, madam speaker. folks back home in kansas have been forced to tighten their

belts and rein in family budgets to weather tough times. we don't understand why washington isn't willing to do the same. the federal government should have only a few found foundational duties. among those are protecting our citizens, maintaining a strong infrastructure, and upholding our rights as outlined in the constitution. notably missing from this list is the funding of political radio shows. particularly those that operate with a litmus test. the federal government is leaking money left and right and it's time to plug some holes. today's youcut proposal will save the american taxpayers over $100 million and will be proofed that congress is ready to shrink the size and scope of the federal government. i urge your support. please oppose the previous question. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. arcuri: thank you, madam speaker. i'd like to take a moment to remind my colleagues about the

true purpose of this bill which is to make sure that the federal government is taking the steps necessary to increase its ability to function even in times of national security because that is what we are here in congress to do. to make sure the government continues to function, especially in times of national emergencies. the bill requires federal agencies to implement policies and practices to allow employees to telecommute. it requires them to train their employees about how to do their work remotely so that the federal employees can continue to do their jobs even if they can't get to work because of a natural disaster or other emergency. there has been some discussion about the need to police telecommuting employees. i want to talk about some of the oversight and accountability measures that this legislation contains. this bill requires the office of personnel management to provide teleworking assistance and guidance through agencies to maintain telework data base and establish various research and reporting requirements. the bill sets up a confidential hotline and email address to

report abuses and requires the o.m.p. to report to the government accountability office about any abecause reports it receivers. finally the senate amendment to h.r. 1722 also requires o.p.m. to consult with the national archives about how to manage and preserve all records from telework. including presidential and vice presidential records. something that was raised by the republicans in their motion to recommit back in july. so you see that there is oversight measures built into these telework policies. this bill doesn't just say to agencies send your employees home, no. it directs the federal agencies to set up policies and training so that their employees know how to work just as efficiently outside the office as they can at their desk in times of emergency. and those employees know that there is oversight by the agency of the work that is being done. those protections are included in this bill just as they are in the telework policies used by companies in the private sector.

that is why this bill makes common sense because the federal government should be adopting policies like this that are commonly used in the private sector to make sure that our government functions efficiently and effectively even during emergencies that prevent employees from coming into the office. thank you. i continue to reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlelady from north carolina is recognized. ms. foxx: thank you, madam speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. foxx: thank you. before we took our recess to be at home for the elections, every bill that was brought here was about jobs. that didn't work obviously because our unemployment rate is still very high. now are we to believe that all the bills are going to be about national security? i hope that osama bin laden has been put on notice this is going to improve our national security and he better watch out.

madam speaker, the underlying bill here spends $30 million to create additional opportunities for federal employees to work at home. the american people are suffing and because of our unemployment rate, because of the failed policies of this congress and this administration, the american people are learning to do more with less. why can't federal employees learn to do that? they are soon going to have to do that. this is a travesty to come here with our economy and the situation that it's in and say we are going to appropriate 30 million more dollars in order for federal employees to stay at home. h.r. 1722 requires each federal agency to create a teleworking managing officer. even though some agencies may not be big enough to warrant such a position. so again, the democrats' answer to the 9.6 unemployment rate

that has persisted for almost two years and the $1.3 trillion deficit is to create more deral jobs and require that some of those federal government workers be allowed to work from home. give me a break. the nearly four million americans, 3.811, who have lost their jobs since president obama took office and over six million who have lost their jobs since nancy pelosi became speaker in january, 2007, continue to ask where are the jobs that they were promised? the congress is pushing this initiative to make it easier for federal employees who already had it much better than the rest of the country to avoid the office. so why is this bill so popular with the ruling liberal democrats? perhaps it has something to do with their long-standing subservience to labor unions. according to the latest figures available, big labor donated

$49,710,565 or 893% of its total campaign -- 9 % of its total campaign contributions to democrats. or 6% to republicans in the last election cycle. surely money like that isn't going to be wasted pushing legislation good for private sector employees. it's true that a majority of american union members now work for the government. 52% of all union members now work for the government representing a sharp increase from the 49% in 2008. a full 37.7% of government employees belong to unions in 2009. up .6 percentage point from 2008. these changes in union membership are certainly not surprising. as unionized companies do poorly in the marketplace and lose jobs relative to their nonunion

competitors. government employees, however, face no competition as the government never goes out of business. the recession has left union bosses looking for new membership targets and where better to look than government which they see as having the deepest of all pockets and a host of sympathetic liberal democratic politicians eager to please their political base. in fact, according to the heritage foundation, when accounting for wages and benefits, the total average annual compensation for a private sector worker is $60,078 as compared to $111,015 for the average federal worker. representing an astonishing 85% compensation differential. a march 26, 2010 "wall street journal" editorial entitled the government pay room reveals that nearly this entire benefit gaffe is accounted for by unionized public employees. nonunion public employees are paid roughly what private

workers receive. the union response is that government workers deserve all this because they are more educated and highly skilled. that may account for some of the pay differential but not the blowout benefits. the unions also negligent one of the greatest perks of government employment, job security. short of shooting up a post office, government workers rarely get fired or laid off. the republican study committee released a policy brief recently indicating that the number of federal employees making over $100,000 has increased by almost 5% since 2007. currently there are more people in the federal government making in excess of $100,000 than those making $40,000. . since the recession began in 2007, public worker pay has risen 7.8% while private sector wages remain stagnant. the 2010 pay increase for federal civilian employees was

2%. in 2009 the average federal employee received a pay increase of 3.9% and an average pay increase of 2.5% in 2008. it is set to grow to 75,419 in 2010. in 2007, the -- when the democrats took over the congress, the department of transportation had only one employee making over $170,000. at the end of last year it had 1,690 employees making that amount. the federal pay premium exists across all job categories, white collar, blue collar, management professionals, technical and low skill. again, the public is asking, where are the jobs? why aren't the democrats in charge of the congress doing something about private sector jobs instead of focusing on

creating more perks for federal employee? with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. arcuri: thank you, madam speaker. my friend from new york talks about passage of this bill being a travesty. i couldn't disagree more. the travesty would be if there were a national emergency and we were ill-prepared for it because of the fact that we didn't act today, because of something that we could have done that we didn't do, that would be a travesty. additionally, the travesty is -- she talks about this in political terms when this is about governing, the days of the politics have to end, the days of governing need to begin. that's what this bill is about. it's about working together in a bipartisan way to govern, to make government run more efficiently in a time -- at a time when we need it the most and a time of industry. that's a travesty not to act on it, not to sit and talk about the politics of it, but rather how together we can make this work so that government

functions better for the people that we represent. thank you, and i continue to reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlelady is recognized from north carolina. ms. foxx: thank you, madam speaker. i now yield four minutes to the gentleman from virginia, mr. cantor. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for four minutes. mr. cantor: thank you, madam speaker. i thank the gentlelady from north carolina. the issue is about spending, is about stopping the rampant spending in washington. and on november 2, americans spoke decisively and sent an undeniable message to washington to end wasteful spending. new new republican majority next congress, madam speaker, the youcut program will be an integral part of our efforts to transform the culture of spending in washington into one of savings. more than 2.4 million youcut

votes provide us with a clear mandate to rein in spending and make the tough choices to get america back on the right path. this week's winning item, madam speaker, is a proposal developed by the gentleman from colorado, representative doug lamborn. this proposal would eliminate taxpayer funding for national public radio. when executives at n.p.r. decided to unfairly terminate juan williams for expressing his opinion and to then disparage him afterwards, the bias of the organization was exposed. to be clear, it is not the government's job to tell a news organization how to do its job, but what's equally as certain is it should not be the taxpayers' responsibility to fund news organizations with a partisan point of view. eliminating taxpayer funding for n.p.r. is precisely the kind of commonsense cut that we have to begin making if we want

to fundamentally alter the way business is conducted in washington. over the past two years, americans have become exs a ber ated as they watched -- exacerbated as they watched the federal government grow by spending record levels of money they don't have. in order for america to get back to opportunity, responsibility and success, republicans and democrats must come together and begin making tough choices. today's youcut vote is an opportunity for both parties to come together and to tell the people that have sent us here message received, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. arcuri: i continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlelady from north carolina is recognized. ms. foxx: thank you, madam speaker. the evidence is in. the liberal democrat agenda has failed.

they need to go back to the drawing board and come back to the american people with real solutions to their real problems. it's not good to blame the republicans for the collapse of the economy since the democrats took majority in 2007. i urge my colleagues to take this opportunity to force the rule liberal democrats to rethink their misguided proposals by rejecting this rule and underlying bill to protest the liberal agenda that continues to distract from private sector job creation and getting the economy back on its feet. madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent that the text of the amendment and extraneous material be placed in the record prior to the vote on the previouquestion. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. foxx: madam speak, i'm going to urge my colleagues to vote no on the previous question so i can amend the rule to allow all members of congress the opportunity to vote to cut spending. republicans recently launched the youcut initiative which

gives people an opportunity to vote for federal spending they would like to see congress cut. hundreds of thousands of americans have cast their votes and this week they have directed their representatives in congress to consider h.r. 5538 which is a bill that would prohibit federal funding for the corporation for public broadcasting, the parent organization of national public radio after fiscal 2012. according to the republican whip's youcut website, national public radio, n.p.r.'s recent decision to terminate juan williams' contract because of comments he expressed on another station has brought new found attention to the receipt of taxpayer fund. they receive direct government grants from various federal agencies, including the corporation for public broadcasting, the department of commerce, the department of education and the national endowment for the arts. over the past two years, this

direct funding has totaled approximately $9 million. but n.p.r. also receives taxpayer funds indirectly. the corporation for public broadcasting makes grants to public radio stations. while some of these grants can be used for any purpose, some can be used only to acquire and produce programming. often, this programming is purchased from n.p.r. indeed, programming fees and deuce paid by local public radio stations to n.p.r. accounts for approximately 40% of n.p.r.'s budget or about $65 million last year. a portion of these funds were originally federal taxpayers provided to the corporation for public broadcasting to the local public radio stations. n.p.r. receives a significant amount of funding from private individuals and organizations through donations and sponsorships. for example, in 2008, n.p.r. listed over 32 separate private donors and sponsors who provided financial support in excess of half a million dollars that year.

n.p.r. officials have indicated that taxpayer funding makes up only a small portion of their overall budget. therefore, eliminating taxpayer support should not materially affect n.p.r.'s ability to operate while at the same time saving taxpayers millions of dollars annually. in order to provide for consideration of this commonsense legislation, i urge my colleagues to vote no on the previous question and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. arcuri: thank you, madam speaker. as i said in my opening, this is the third time that the house has debated and considered this bill. each of the previous two times the majority of members voted for the bill. when the bill passed the house in july, the republican motion to recommit was adopted on a bipartisan vote of 303-119. i know that some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have greatly upset that a number of the provisions that were adopted as part of

the motion to recommit were removed by the senate. i understand your frustration. a number of worthy measures that this body has sent to the senate in this congress is staggering. however, we must not let the frustration prevent us from sending this bill to the president because the version of the bill in front of us today will ensure that our government continues to function efficiently and effectively even during times of national emergency. for this reason i urge all members to vote yes to avoid the politics and get back to the governing that this congress promised to do and vote yes on the previous question, vote yes on the rule and vote yes on the senate amendment to h.r. 1722. i yield back the balance of my time and i move the previous question on the resolution. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on ordering the previous question on the resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. ms. foxx: madam speaker, on

that i request a recorded vote. the yeas and nays. i question the yeas and nays. -- i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays having requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 9 of rule 20, the chair will reduce to five minutes the remaining time for any electronic vote on the question of adoption. 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 239 and the nays are 171. the previous question is ordered. the question is on the adoption

of the resolution. all those in favor say aye. all those opposed, no. the ayes have it. ms. foxx: madam speaker. on that i request a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from north carolina rise? ms. foxx: on that i request 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 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 235. the nays are 171. the resolution is adopted. without objection the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. the house will be in order.

the house will be in order. all members take your conversations off the floor. for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts seek recognition? mr. lunchcloin madam speaker, pursuant to house resolution 1721, i call up the bill h.r. 1722 with the senate amendment thereto and i have a motion at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: report the motion. h.r. 1722, an act to require the head of each executive agency to

establish and implement a policy under which employees shall be authorized to telework, and for other purposes. senate amendment, mr. lynch of massachusetts moves that the house concur in the senate amendment to h.r. 1722. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 1721, the motion shall be debatable for one hour equally dwileded and controlled by the chair -- divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on oversight and government reform of the the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. lynch, and the gentleman from california, mr. issa, each will control 20 minutes. the house is not in order. -- each will control 30 minutes. the house is not in order. the chair recognizes the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. limp: thank you, mad -- mr. lynch: thank you, madam chair. i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and

extend their remarks and add any extraneous materials. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. lynch: thank you, madam chair. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. lynch: thank you. madam speaker, as chairman of the house subcommittee with jurisdiction over the federal work force, postal service and the district of columbia, i rise -- >> the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. will members take your conversations off the floor. the gentleman may proceed. mr. lynch: thank you. madam speaker, i rise in support of h.r. 1722, the telework enhancement act of 2010.

i'm pleased to offer for consideration this bipartisan legislation which seeks to improve and expand the access to telework for federal employees in the executive branch as well as for the government employees within the government accountability office. the cost saving measure before us today was introduced by congressman sarbanes of maryland along with myself and representative frank wolf, jerry connolly, mr. ruppersberger, and dan yea davis in march of 2009. this is the third te this good government bill has been debated on the house floor. this past july the house considered and passed this legislation was subsequently amended and passed by unanimous consent by our senate. in september. i would like to take a moment to thank chairman akaka and senator voinovich for their hard work on this legislation and acknowledge senator voinovich's respect for federal employees. the senator will be missed greatly by the federal community. madam speaker, despite the

evolving nature of the way the federal government conducts its affairs -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman suspend. all members take your conversations off the floor. all members take your conversations off the floor. the gentleman may proceed. mr. lynch: thank you, madam speaker. despite the nature of the way the federal government conducts its affairs, telework which allows an employee to regularly perform work from a remote location tends to be underutilized by federal agencies. private and public sector employers that offer telework experience increased productivity and retention rates, thereby lowering an employer's operating cost. more specifically, independent research demonstrates that increased use of telework saves

employers money by reducing the amount of needed office space, parking facilities, and building maintenance fees and utilities. given that the federal government owns or leases over 8,600 individual buildings and spends upwards of $500 billion as a landlord annually, this legislation will translate into real world savings in the near future. successful federal telework programs such as those used by the general services administration and the defense information systems agency show how telework enhances an agency's customer service official for our citizens while at the same time achieving greater cost efficiencies and lowering taxpayer costs. h.r. 1722 provides for increased numbers of federal employees to participate in telework programs by requiring agencies to develop comprehensive telework policies within one year for authorized employees and by directing the office of personnel management to develop regulations on overall telework policies and

annually evaluate and report on agency telework programs. h.r. 1722 also seeks to elevate the importance of incorporating telework into the community of operations planning of agencies in order to ensure that they are better prepared to maintain essential operations during emergencies. i'm confident department all my colleagues appreciate the need for agencies to be able to operate during a time of crisis when access to office buildings might be impossible. a less distressing but by no means a less critical role for the program is to assist agencies in carrying out their missions during difficult weather conditions. the office of personnel management director, john berry, estimates the use of telework during the recent loss of productivity during the 2009 snowstorms here in the nation's capital was approximately $30 million per day. according to the congressional budget office, the legislation before us is pay-go neutral,

meaning there is no mandatory spending in this bill. the congressional budget office does, however, estimate that approximately $28 million will be needed over five years to implement the requirement in the bill. however it's unlikely that any additional appropriations will be necessary because federal agencies can reasonably implement the bill's requirements from existing budgets. while you may hear from colleagues on the other side of the aisle that this telework bill is a costly and unnecessary legislative mandate, i must point out that the congressional budget office estimates they are relying on -- looks only at the implementation cost and not the bill's potential cost savings. a closer look at the potential benefits of increased telework will reveal that h.r. 1722 actually saves the government money down the road, which has also been the case among telework embracing private sector companies such as i.b.m. which for example reports that it saves $56 million a year in reduced office space cost by

permitting its employees to telework. . in fact, we only have to look at the patent and trademark office to see the benefit within the government. it was able to consolidate nearly 50,000 square feet of space, avoiding $1.5 million in rent per year through use of telework. additionally, they avoided securing $11 million in additional office space as a direct result of their programs. private companies are seeing similar benefits from telework. we can expect many other government agencies to begin to reap the are rewards of overhead -- saved overhead cost with this bill. it also provides greater productivity.

the patent and trademark office reports that telework reduced the amount of sick leave taken by employees. as we see, the government can benefit from the bill by lowering overhead costs. this is a win-win for the taxpayers. when we take a common sense approach to our cost saving efforts, it's easy to see that the potential to save tens of millions is an excellent return on initial investment of $28 million over five years. lastly this past summer, our committee worked in a bipartisan fashion with mr. issa and with the senate on amending this bill. while the bill before us looks somewhat different from what was previously agreed on in the house, i would like to note that the federal employees who have been disciplined for being absent at work or for viewing, down loading, or exchanging pornography on a government computer will not be allowed to telework. i urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote in

favor of h.r. 1722, the telework improvement act this legislation is aimed at ensuring federal agencies are are able to act 24/7, and to do so more cheaply. a oat vote in favor of this bill is a vote for the future. with that, i are reserve the balance of our time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. issa -- mr. issa: in the interest of fairtons one of our members who has been engaged in this issue, i yield to mr. gingrey. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. gingrey: the private sector shed over 3.2 million jobs and our national unemployment rate stands at a staggering 9.5% with the rest of america struggling to make ends meet, it is unconscionable that my democratic colleagues think that we should give yet another perk to federal employees. by requiring federal agencies

to duplicate an existing law and allowing them to spend a portion of their official time out of the office and on a mobile work site, h.r. 1722 will cost the taxpayer another $30 million while promoting an even more inefficient federal work force. madam speaker, this is now the third time the house will consider this legislation. when h. are r. 1722 initially passed, it failed to pass, actually, under suspension of the rules in may, the democratic majority brought it up under a closed rule in july. it was only then that my republican colleagues and i had the opportunity to amend the bill through a successful motion to recommit which made a number of improvements to this legislation. however, as h.r. 1722 was considered in the senate, this motion to recommit was completely dismantled. a provision that required an agency to certify to the office of personnel management that the agency's telework program will save money rather than increasing spending was

stripped from the bill. furthermore, madam speaker a provision that would prohibit federal employees with seriously delinquent tax debt from teleworking was are removed. a third item required employees of the executive office of the president to copy their official email accounts on any business communications made on personal email and social media accounts. this would ensure that federal employees are actually working instead of socializing on official time. unfortunately, this requirement is now gone. finally, madam speaker, i am most disappointed that the provisions included in the house-passed version of h.r. 1722 that would have prohibited federal employees from engaging in union are recruing or collective bargaining activities while teleworking on official taxpayer funded time has been removed by the senate democrats. o.p.m. reported that in fiscal year 2008 alone, nearly three

million official time hours were used in collective bargaining or arbitration of grievances against an employer. it equates to over $120 million of tax money spent on union activities, madam speaker. that's irare responsible to use these dollars for nonrelated official duties while on official time. madam speaker, the motion to recommit was necessary to save precious tax dollars to ensure the integrity of the federal work force. how will we obtain the trust of the american people who are struggling every day in this economy if we allow federal employees to participate in union activities on official time, give them benefits when they're delinquent on their taxes and increase spending on federal agencies trying to make this work. mr. issa: i yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds. mr. gingrey: now is not the time to increase the bureaucratic maze in washington but torain in the overlapping

-- but to rein in the overlapping polities and work toward a more efficient government that can live within its means. i urge my colleagues to oppose the bill and i yield back. >> the gentleman from massachusetts. >> i'd like to recognize the lead sponsor of this measure, representative sarbanes of maryland, for four minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is are recognized. mr. sarbanes: i want to thank the gentleman for yielding, i want to thank chairman towns, chairman lynch, chairman davis who i worked with previously on this bill, co-sponsors jer arery connolly, jim moran, dutch ruppersberger and others who collaborated with us in bringing this forward. i want to salute frank wolf, our colleague on the other side of the aisle, he's worked on this issue for two decades and he's been a tremendous advocate

for telework and i appreciate all of his support and collaboration as we develop these ideas going forward. i was listening to the end of that statement that was just made, calling for efficiency and effectiveness in government , ways to address the bureaucracy and so forth, i can't think of a piece of legislation that does more to meet those objectives than this does. it creates a nimbleness on the part of the federal government with respect to how the work force operates, and if you look at the goals that it seeks to promote, they all make perfect sense. they make common sense. first of all, the benefits include that you can improve productivity among the work force, all the studies show that morale goes up, productivity goes up, the u.s. patent and trademark office as was referenced can demonstrate

huge increases in productivity among the work force. that is a benefit. it increases competitiveness when the federal government goes into the marketplace, go into the workplace to try to recruit good people, its ability to show that the telework opportunity is there is something that makes it more competitive in getting the best quality people. to become part of our federal government. when it comes to continuing operations, in some kind of a crisis situation, if you have the telework capacity, you've got some recourse. the best evidence of this most recently was last year when we had the snowstorm shut down the government essentially for three days but during those three days, those who had theable to telework were able to continue to operate. and the estimate by john berry, head of the office of personnel management, was that it saved

the federal government $30 million per day in terms of productivity that otherwise would have been lost. and that just gets to the cost question. again, we've heard this objection based on the cost but the savings that will be generated when our federal agencies adopt these telework policies will far outweigh any of the costs of implementing this program. it's a very common sense approach. what the bill does is very straightforward. it requires the agencies to have a telework policy in place to encourage it, to promote it, not to impose it on people who because of their particular job shouldn't be teleworking or don't want to do this, but to make that our chef the opportunity to do it and to know that the agency encourages that. there's a person designated within each agency who take responsibility for this, to

help implement it over time. it has good evaluation components. the g.a.o. and the office of personnel management will conduct evaluations on a periodic basis to determine the progress that this is making and come up with suggestions and recommendations going forward and then it also encourages, as i indicated before, that these agencies develop plans for continuing operations under difficult circumstances, taking advantage of telework. so for all these reasons, for the benefits that it bestows, for the objectives it meets, for the common sense aspect of it, i heartly urge my colleagues to -- heartly urge my colleagues to support this legislation. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expire the gentleman from california. mr. issa: i would like to yield three minutes to one of the early innovators who brought telework to the federal work force, mr. wolf. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman is recognized. mr. wolf: i would say i did support the motion to recommit. i thought there were many, many good ideas in it. this bill, though, where we were today, i think it's a good bill for the country, and i would ask permission to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: wiout objection. mr. wolf: as someone who has worked on this issue for more than 18 years, i think it is good legislation. there's nothing magic about strapping yourself into a metal box and driving 50 miles and sitting at a metal desk because that's not necessarily the way we do things in the 21st century. this bill saves money. it's important for members to know, this bill saves money. this bill reduces the footprint of the government. this bill is deficit neutral and stresses the continuation of operations plan in the event of a disaster such as a hurricane, like katrina, or the massive snowstorm, as was

previously mentioned, or in the event of the earthquake such as the 1989 world series earthquake, or in the event of a terrorist attack. i was here on 9/11. the pentagon was hit. cell phones did not work. nothing worked. the government was fundamentally shut down. we had more people tele-- if we had more people teleworking, we would have had the continuity and would have been able to function particularly during that dark day as the enemy attacked. during the february snowstorm, this bill saved money. this legislation adopts many of the best management practices that many companies, most companies now in the private sector are using, almost every major company in the private sector has teleworking and when you say you want the government to be more like the private sector, this is the answer. lastly, madam speaker, every member -- or maybe almost every

member -- of this institution, teleworks. when they pick up their blackberry or iphone. to say that you have to be sitting at your defpk office computer to be doing your work is not accurate. that's like saying every member is not working if they're not in their office sitting at their laptop that doesn't make any sense. this brings the government into the 21st century and i urge strong support of this and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. lynch: thank you, madam speaker. i thank the gentleman for his longtime, 18 years of leadership on this issue. i would like to yield t minutes to our distinguished chairman and a champion of this cause as well for many years, mr. ed towns. the gentleman from new york. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. towns: thank you very much. i would like to thank the gentleman from massachusetts

for this time. let me just say that i'm happy today to be here and of course congressman wolf indicated he's been working on this for 18 years. i think that the time is right to move this legislation forward. as chairman of the committee on oversight and government reform, i rise in strong support of h.r. 1722, the telework enhancement act of 2010. . i want to congratulate representative sarbanes for his persist tense and hard work on the -- persistence and hard work on the legislation. i also commend representative lynch the chairman of the federal work force committee for his helping guide this legislation during the process. also want to thank the ranking member on the republican side, of course, for his work as well. h.r. 1722 will increase the federal government's use of

telework. this will make the federal work force more efficient and better prepared to handle all emergencies. telework saves the government money, reduces energy consumption, and increases work productivity. this bill passed the house by an overwhelming margin on july 14, 2010. the senate amended the bill and passed it by unanimous consent on september 29, 2010. it is time for us to send this bill to the president for his signature. the senate changes in h.r. 1722 represent a compromise between the house-passed bill and senate legislation introduced by senator akaka. i fully support this bipartisan

compromise. the senate amendment includes key provisions from the house bill -- 30 additional seconds? mr. lynch: an additional 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman virginia tech. mr. towns: i thank the gentleman. the senate amendment includes key provisions from the house bill includedn language drafted by the ranking member of the oversight committee. representative issa and ranking member of the federal work force subcommittee representative chaffetz. this discussion that led to the compromise we have before us today including members from both sides of the aisle and both sides of the capitol. this will is the fruit of an inclusive and comprehensive process. i strongly support this bipartisan good government bill and i urge all of my colleagues to vote aye on this note i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. issa: madam speaker, at this

time i'd like to recognize the former chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from indiana, for three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. burton: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i support this bill but i think there's something of an immediate import that needs to be discussed so i'm going to diverse a little bit from the subject matter. yesterday ahmed gilani, 36, who was involved in the killing of americans at the embassies in tanzania and elsewhere in kenya, killed 224 people, including 12 americans, the military tribunal down at guantanamo was prepared to try him, with you the administration and our justice department said he should be tried in civil court in new york and there would be justice metted out. he was indicted on 286 counts for murdering americans and

others at our embassies in those two countries, and he was let off on all but one count. 285 counts were ruled out. he killed americans. he's a terrorist. he worked with osama bin laden. he bought the dynamite. he bought the telephone that set off the dynamite. he took the detonators to his house and stored them there. he is a murderer. he's a terrorist. now, right now we have american men and women serving in our embassies around the world and this is the kind of message we are sending. that terrorists can get away with killing americans at our embassies. it's unconscionable that this administration and the justice department should let this happen. if you look back in history, this kind of an incident would have been tried in a military tribunal and they wanted to do it. but our justice department and president said no. they would get justice in the civil court. they got justice all right. but did we, the american people?

we sent a message to terrorists around the world that, hey, you can kill americans but you'll get off light if you get into an american courtroom. isn't that tragic? it's tragic. they are cutting off heads of people. they are blowing up embassies. they are blowing up ships. they flew a plane into the world trade center on 9/11. and the master mind behind that is at guantanamo. are we going to try him in a civil case in new york? that's what they want to do. if they do that, are they going to let him off? he was the master mind behind 9/11 that killed over 3,000 people. i would say if i was talking to the president, i would say mr. president this is a travesty of justice and your justice department should be instructed to try these people in military tribunals. no more of this baloney. american lives are at stake and the security of america is at stake. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. lynch: thank you, madam speaker. at this point i would like to

yield to a gentleman who has been at the forefront of this debate and who has been a great advocate and champion on behalf of federal workers, the gentleman from virginia, mr. connolly, for three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. connolly: i thank the chair and i thank my colleague from massachusetts for his leadership and particularly cite congressman sarbanes for his leadership. and my colleague, republican colleague from virginia, frank wolf, who laid out the merits of the case for the telework improvements act. i spent the last 10 years here in the national capital region encouraging the public sector to follow the lead of the private sector in promoting telework. in my district, for example, at&t, a private employer, a third of its work force teleworks. not because it adds to corporate costs but because it detracts from corporate costs. not because it takes away efficiency but it improves productivity.

in the national capital region there is almost no region in the country that lends itself better to telework because of the nature of the white collar work force than does this. in the private sector we are looking at close to 20%. telework rates, improving productivity, improving retention and recruitment, improving the air quality of this region, and in fact contributing to the bottom line. unfortunately, in the public sector we fall behind. we are only at 6% or 7% in the federal work force. and that's the largest single employer in the national capital region. and we are a nonattainment region in terms of air quality. we can and we must do better. telework is an important and cost-effective component of efforts to reduce congestion, greenhouse gas pollution, and smog. 20% of americans telework we could eliminate 67 million

metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions annually and reduce persian gulf oil imports by 40%. something many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle i know are concerned about. reducing greenhouse gas emissions would lead to a reduction in ground level ozone in our region which is critically important to protect the health of our region's seniors and those with respiratory illness. today as i said 6% to 7% of eligible employees telework on a regular basis even though the largely white collar work force in our region is suited for it. when i was the chairman of fairfax county we started an aggressive program to get 20% of our work force telework by 2005. we met the goal, exceeded it, and sustained the rate ever since. i'm here to tell my colleagues it improved our efishency, saved taxpayer money, it improved productivity, angave us a tool to recruit and retain the work force of the future. we must remember that with the

baby-boom generation ready to retire, 47% of the entire federal work force will be eligible for retirement this decade. we've got to have flexible tools that help us to replace those skilled workers. telework is a great way and it costs us no money. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. issa: thank you, madam speaker. at this time i'd like to recognize the gentleman from the first district of virginia, mr. wittman, for three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. wittman: thank you, madam speaker. i would like to thank the gentleman from california for yielding. i'd like to thank him also for his leadership on this issue. i rise today in support of senate amendment to h.r. 1722, the telework improvement act. this legislation will foster the use of telework by federal agencies by ensuring that each agency has a telework policy and that employees are informed about their eligibility to telework. this bill would ensure that those federal employees who are

eligible to telework are able to do so with an emphasis on enhancing agency operations and productivity. virginia's first district is home to thousands of federal employees, many of whom commute hours each day. and despite the fact there are such numerous benefits to teleworking such as reduced traffic congestion and energy consumption, cost savings, competitive hiring and retention, readiness and emergency preparedness, many federal agencies continue to underutilize telework. in the snowstorm last winter as we have heard referred to today, which closed the federal government for several days, is a good example of how teleworking programs can achieve cost savings. we saw during that time that 30% of our federal workers actually teleworked during that snowstorm, achieving $30 million in reduced cost for that federal work force being off site.

as representative wolf so stated there that i think is a great example of potential savings that can be achieved through telework. under this legislation federal employees handling classified information, though, would not be eligible to telework. this policy effectively prevents the use of teleworking programs by buy employees who need access to classified information specifically in the areas of defense, homeland security, law enforcement, and intelligence. it was the director of the national intelligence agency's vision 2015 that stated, there is a definite need for cross organizational collaboration, cross functional teams, and joint duty amongst the intelligence agencies and this is going to require a much more agile infrastructure. vision 2015 as it's identified suggests that the intelligence community will have to shift from the current centralized model where employees are consolidated in a single location to a model where a

disbursed work force can rapidly come together in a virtual environment to respond to two tasks and missions. this work force will have to be flexible and spread out so that strategically we can meet whatever challenges this nation may face in the future. i look forward to working with my colleagues to further explore the potential for secure teleworking. robust teleworking programs at federal agencies will get cars off of congested roads, enhance productivity, reduce cost, and ensure continuity of operations, and i urge my colleagues to support this bill. with that, madam speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. lynch: thank you, madam speaker. i appreciate the gentleman from virginia's remarks. at this time i'd like to recognize for two minutes the gentlelady from the district of columbia, miss eleanor holmes norton. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. norton: i want to thank chairman lynch and mr. sarbanes

for this important bill which takes telework from policy to practice. what progress we have made in telework we owe largely to members of this region, but especially to mr. wolf. with the telework enhancement act takes telework all the way from a piece of policy lying on the -- on paper to be picked up at will or not picked up to a real practice of savings and productivity flowing directly to the federal government. the bill converts telework from a passive to an affirmative policy of the federal government. along with all the productivity and savings that have been documented to occur. it essentially makes going to work by telework the functional equivalent of getting on the road or getting on a crowded

metro car. although this will be implemented nationwide, the two snowstorms in this region to the shock of private and public entities alike and to telework admittedly those are exceptional circumstances, 9/11, natural disasters, continuity of operations are important, but they are far from the only reasons. government has spent wls of dollars in state-of-the-art technology. this technology is underutilized as long as telework itself is underutilized. nothinis more inefficient for employees and the government alike than compelling an employee to fight some of the worst traffic congestion in the nation to get to a federal office. nothing is more costly to the government than requiring every employee lockstep to come to a physical place, do the work that

could be accomplished with increased productivity and output at home. nothing is of greater benefit to the oil cartel and to their trade deficit than forcing people on the roads. nothing is more disruppive to two-parent and sngle family -- single parent families alike than time spent from home sometimes an hour or two each day in this region which can now be converted to family life and more work accomplished right there at home. this bill had a bipartisan vote in committee because there was no addition to the deficit because management, training limits on who can qualify and emergency measures are all in place. going to the office to do a job that can be done in less time, more output, greater savings to the government is so 20th century. this is not 1950, it is time our

government came into the 21st century. with the same alternatives to provide employees to get a better way to get the same job done. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia. mr. issa: i thank the speaker. could i inquire how much time each side has left? . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has 18 1/2 minutes remaining, the gentleman from massachusetts has 11 1/2 minutes. mr. issa: may i ask how many speakers the gentleman has left? mr. linching: i have one additional speaker. mr. issa: i yield myself such time as i may consume. madam speaker, this is a bill, an underlying bill, an underlying concept that i appreciate, but that i worked with in the private sector.

there's no question in the private sector telecommunicate -- telecommuting continues to grow. but there are a couple of things i'd like to straighten out here in this bill. every member of congress has a blackberry. so do most major members of the federal work force. many of us have portable quice -- devices like the ipad. there's no shortage of telecommuting tools presently at work in the work force. we're not talking about the ability to telecommute, we're talking about a bureaucratic mandate that requires each agency have a specific entity for that purpose and we're doing so without the safeguards that my motion to recommit offered and overwhelmingly was accepted before the election. when i say before the election, i think it's also important to note, this will be the first vote after the american people said no to government waste, fraud, and abuse, government growth, government spending, and yet the senate before the election stripped out of this bill something as innocuous as

each agency having to show that telecommuting additions would be net cost savings. in other words, with all the bravado about how this wasn't going to cost, it was going to save, what was stripped out of this was any kind of assertion, not an assertion that required an audit, but just an assertion that their efforts would save money. i was here for the snowstorm of last year. i just want the american people who may not have been able to be here in washington, d.c. to understand that it was quite a snowstorm. i appreciate the estimate of $30 million a day of savings. but i might also remind the american people that every restaurant was open and doing great business, the parks were filled with people having snowball fights, in fact, what really happened was the federal work force got a paid holiday while people who had to figure out how to make a buck found a way to get their people to work so they could still say to federal workers who were having a holiday. it is, in fact, more common for

the federal work force to say, go ahead and stay home that probably begs the question of telecommuting. but the question is where in this bill do we require people who are telecommuting not to get a day off because of snow since they're in their home where snow shouldn't be affecting them. we have a lot of safeguards not in this bill. i'm convinced today the bill will pass as it is. i intend to bring back in the next congress additional reforms that hold oversight as appropriate to make sure that we improve that which isot being dealt with ood. i expect i will have the same bipartisan support we had throughout this process in the house. i'm mostly disappointing that with an overwhelming number of votes in the house for the bill as it was, it came back to us without things we thought should be in it. i don't want to be partisan but i think it's important to consider that one of the items in this bill when it left the

house was a prohibition on basically union work outside of the cover of office. we have collective bargaining agreements almost universally within the federal government. we also have regulations about these people, whether they have to do other work or not. this bill lacks the safeguard so that somebody can basically take a blackberry and notebook, disappear forever and be almost unaccountable as to whether they ever did any of their core work while doing union organizing and running activity. that's not in the best interest of the taxpayers, it's not what the last election was about. it's not what i hoped to see with that, i are reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. lynch: thank you, madam speaker. i'd like to yield three minutes to the former chairman of the federal work force subcommittee, mr. danny davis of illinois. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is are recognized. mr. davis: thank you, madam speaker. i want to first of all thank chairman lynch for yielding

time. i also want to commend mr. sarbanes for the continuous work that he has done to bring this legislation before us today. i also want to commend mr. wolf because for a long time he has been the champion of this legislation and all of us preept his work. i'm pleased to be a co-sponsor of this deal which provides opportunities to do a number of things. first of all, it saves money. i mean, all of us have talked about saving. trying to make sure that we are as efficient and as effective as a federal government as any work force as we can possibly be. i don't think that there's any doubt in anyone's mind that we can save money. it also provides an opportunity to deal with another issue, and that's the issue of the environment. how do we reduce the smog,

emissions, how do we help clean up and clear the environment? if you could imagine, reducing not only in the washington, d.c., area, but in other large metropolitan areas, the large number of vehicles that we have moving to and from and especially in instances where we know the work can be done, i think the u.s. patent office has proven without a doubt that you can in fact be effective, you can be efficient, you can do a good job, and you can get the job done. so i commend all of those who are in support of this legislation. again, i want to thank chairman lynch for giving me time to participate and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. issa: i reserve.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. lynch: madam speaker, seeing no further speakers, i continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. issa: at this time i'm prepared to close and yield myself such time as i may consume. madam speaker. i've said most of what has to be said and i'm not going to use all the time the minority has this bill will probably pass and it will be a shame. i would hope that all republicans and democrats who know this could be better and voted for it when it was better would also vote against it. not because the outcome is certain but because we have an opportunity to say, we're not going to produce a new bureaucracy without some reservation -- bless you -- without some reservation when we know it could have been better. this is not a bill that creates the opportunity for telework.

every agency that see this is bill will say, darn, i've got to create a special entity that's a telework czar entity. they'll know that for what it is. what it doesn't do is it doesn't give them the kind of additional new guidelines that really would keep this from being in some cases just a mandate for a perk and in other cases a mandate for an agency creation within an agency. i think that's the most dangerous part of what we do. we should never, never give a federal government a requirement to do something and not give them the guidance, authority, and statute necessary to make sure they do it right. we have that responsibility. the executive branch is in fact the administrative branch. for them to administer, we either need to give them the rules or require they create rules that are sensible and create oversight for it. that's not what this bill does today. as i said in no case will this

create one new telework job. it simply will create a new bureaucracy and it does so without any protections that the motion to recommit widely accepted by the house brought in the -- before the elections. diationally, creating efficiency in government is now essential. when we are reconvene in january, our problem will be $1.4 trillion worth of spending greater -- spending greater -- than what the american people are willing to pay or able to pay to fund our government that means to us that we're going to have to find a way to have less federal workers. federal workers that cost less. federal workers that need less facilities. so i will continue to support telework if it means that we're not building new federal buildings, we're not causing the infrastructure to grow. in other words, madam speaker that we're saving money. i'm sad to say that this bill when it's signed by the

president will do none of that, but the president knows, the director of the office of management and budget knows, the vice president knows, the house knows and certainly the senatenows that we have a long way to go when we talk about private sector telecommuting to be as efficient as the private sector. we are not. what we do is in fact we use the word cle telecommute to say, look, we're using the gadgets, we must be doing better. madam speaker, we can do better, we should do better. i understand this is an important vote to many people who feel that the federal work force needs a perk a symbol that we're going to do something for them. madam speaker, this is not doing something for the federal work force unless the american people have confidence that the federal work force is becoming leaner, more efficient, more effective in doing what the people want done for them. in that case, madam speaker, i will remmend that all of my side and as many of those who will listen on the other side of the aisle vote no today as a

symbol that in fact we can do better, the guidance from the congress should be to increase effiency and to describe that in a way in which the federal work force can have confidence that we're on the same team, we're on the same side, we want them to avoid excessive commuting, we want them to be more efficient and effective, but we also want to be a congress that provides such guidelines as necessary, rather than simply a maate for a new bureaucracy in every agency that's now going to be the telecommuting agency. with that, madam speaker, i thank the house for its indulgence. i thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle because we did work long and hard to try to get a better bill, we sent the senate a bett bill and we now today can only consider at's been brought before us. i recommend a no and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. lyh sprk at this time, i want to -- mr. lynch: at this time, iant to thank mr. wolf and my other colleagues on the other side of the aisle who stood and spoke

in favor of this bill. i do want to remind, despite the highlighting of our differences, i'd like to remind our colleagues that this bill was entirely acceptable to all of the democratic and republicans on the oversight commiee prior to this bill reaching the floor. h.r. 1722 received full consideration by the federal work force scommittee that i share. it was -- that i chair. it was referred unanimous by by the subcommittee to the full oversight committee and during the full committee conderation i'm proud to say that republican amendments were ofered and they were accepted. and the legislation was then advanced to the house without a single objection by any republican member. and i'm proud of that fact. that is bipartisanship. my friends on the other side of the aisle, good republicans, had every opportunity to attempt to add additional provisions in the committee where they would have received full consideration rather than the five minutes of hurried

debate prior to the motion to recommit. today i'm pleased we have the opportunity to consider the excellent comprehensive bipartisan compromise we were able to negotiate with the senate and i'd also like to add that the house and senate committee staff, majority and minority, met following senate passage to discuss possible alternatives that were -- that would be acceptable. this has been a bipartisan process. this is something i think we can agree on. i do not ascribe to the -- well, let's put it this way. i would not want the perfect to be the enemy of the good in this case. i think we have a good bill here. i think there's been good input from both sides of the aisle here and it shows in the d product so i ask all members to vote in favorf h.r. 1722. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: all time for debate has expired. pursuant to clause 1c of rule 19, further consideration of this motion is postponed.

for what purpose does the gentleman from california -- mr. sy issa: parliamentary inquiry. the speaker pro tempore: gentleman will state his inquiry. mr. issa: at the end of debate, isn't it appropriate to call for the vote prior to postponing, i heard -- are we postponing further debate even though debate has concluded rather than a house vote and postponing a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: general debate has expired, pure sunt to the rule further consideration of the motion will be postponed. mr. issa: i understand.

the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the chair will postpone further proceedings today on the motion to suspend the rules on which a recorded vote or the yeas and nays are ordered or within which the vote incurs objection under clause 6 of rule 20. any record vote on the postponed question will be taken later. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? >> madam speaker, i move to suspend the rules and pass emergency unemployment compensation continuation act, h.r. 6419, as amended. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 6419, a bill to amend the supplemental appropriations act, 2008, to provide for the further extension of emergency unemployment benefits, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, and the gentleman from la, mr. boustany, each will control 20 mutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: i yield myself such

time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. levin: madam speaker, this is called an emergency bill because it's an emergency. for millions of people, this is an emergency. unemployment benefits will run out in a few days. therefore it's an emergency for the united states of america. and let me just indicate what's at stake here. through january 1 of next year, close to two million people will not any longer be eligible for benefits. and then a month later the amount almost doubles.

this is an emergency. i received a call last night i was in my office at :30, and a person called from atlanta, georgia -- at 9:30, and a person called from atlanta, georgia, to thank me and to thank mr. mcdermott and to thank our party for bringing up this extension. i don't know what more any of us want. i don't see how we can go home for thanksgiving when as a result of failure of benefits hundreds of thousands of people may not have a turkey on their table because they can't afford it. and the next week may not have the moneys they need to meet their daily needs. this should be a bipartisan effort.

this is a totally human effort. this is totally an urgent effort. these are people laid off, people who have been looking for work, people who cannot find work. for every job at least five people are looking for employment for that job. i don't know what other evidence needs to be brought here. it can be stated very briefly and directly. if the two million people who are going to lose their benefits looking for work were brought here so we could see them, would anyone vote no? would anyone vote no? do we need the two million here? can we put ourselves in their

homes, in their shoes, in their places with their families, with their children? this is an emergency. this house must act. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from louisiana. mr. boustany: thank you, madam speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. boustany: as yogi berra said , this bill is like deja vu all over again and not in a good way. the bill before us today is a ninth extension of unemployment benefits since mid 2008. benefits recently stretched up to 9 weeks or almost two years in most states. and with the exception of just one billion, last november every one of those extensions was not paid for.

that's a total of $135 billion added to our $14 trillion debt. meanwhile, our democrat colleagues swore their policies would create jobs but they haven't. instead of paychecks, millions of americans were left with only an unemployment check. in february of 2009, the president signed the democrats' trillion dollar stimulus plan. democrats at that time promised that the plan would create 3.7 million jobs and lower the unemployment rate to 7% by now. none of that happened. instead, over two million private sector jobs were lost and unemployment has spiked to 10% while the debt has grown by almost $3 trillion. a total of 48 out of 50 states have lost jobs since this democrat stimulus bill passed. here we are again extending unemployment benefits because

the democrats' trillion dollar stimulus failed to create the millions of jobs that they promised it would. but even more sadly, instead of doing this responsibly, this bill will simply add another $12 billion to our current mountain of debt and we can do better than this. we certainly can do better than this. both republicans and democrats support helping long-term unemployed. the chairman of the committee expressed a great deal of empathy in his opening statement. we share that empathy. every one of our congressional offices has dealt with families dealing with this tragedy of unemployment. but republicans and even some democrats wa to sonsably pay for these benefits. in fact, there are sufficient unspent stimulus funds to do just that and cover the $12 billion cost of the bill before us. this is not a new republican idea or a new idea, this is something we have discussed

before. but the other side insists on bringing this forward unpaid for. the chairman of the senate finance committee has proposed cutting stimulus to pay for certain measures. last june the democrat leader himself, mr. hoyer, admitted there was spending fatigue across the country and that if, i quote, if we have dollars not yet expended in the recovery act they should be applied to new spending like this, end quote. that would be far better than adding to the unchecked growth in spending and debt that has already cost us an estimated o million jobs. the fact is we can both provide this help and pay for it. by cutting less effective stimulus spending. that's what we should be debating today and not a bill called up under special rules that permit no amendments and no chance to offer ways to pay for this. even if this were to pass, the sad thing is there are no plans

in the senate for a vote on this bill any time soon. so the fact of the matter is this bill is going nowhere. the american people know it isn't right to add these costs to our already overgrown -- overdrawn national credit card. they want -- we all want to help thse in need. but the american people also know someone has to pay when government spends money. and it shouldn't be our children and our grandchildren. madam speaker, the american people sent us here to do a job. we should pay for this spending today. we can pay for this spending today. there is no reason why we couldn't bring a bill forward with a way to do this. a way to pay for it. i ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to reject this bill today and instead let's work together to quickly pass the bill to extend federal unemployment benefits while finding a responsible way to pay for it. madam speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: i yield myself 30

seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. levin: i say to the gentleman from louisiana, the people of this country looking for work don't want empathy. they want unemployment insurance that they worked for. and you're standing in the way. don't send them empathy. send them what they worked for. i now yield four minutes to the author of this bill, the gentleman from washington, and i ask permission that the balance of my time be taken by the gentleman from washington. mr. mcdermott. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from washington will control the time and is recognized. mr. mcdermott: may i ask what the division of minutes is at the moment?

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has 16 1/2 minutes. mr. mcdermott: on the republican side? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from louisiana has 15 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. mcdermott: thank you. i rise in support of h.r. 6419 which will extend current unemployment insurance benefits through february of next year and provide much needed help to unemployed americans during the holiday season. from the beginning of the unemployment insurance program 75 years ago, we have never cut off benefits for out-of-work americans where the unemployment rates have been this high. without this extension, temporary federal extended benefits will shut down shortly after thanksgiving, the 27th, and denying benefits to two million of our fellow citizens over the holiday season. it's unthinkable to me that we could allow these benefits to last during the holiday season

and before the economic recovery is on solid ground. despite the severity of the republican economic collapse, which started under mr. bush, there have been 10 straight months of private sector growth under this democratically controlled congress and administration. despite the huge accomplishment of digging the american economy out of the republican economic ditch, two of the americans remain unemployed. there is still only one available job for every five unemployed americans. to make matters worse, the president's now carrying reports that employers around the country are refusing to hire the unemployed. they are saying to the unemployed, we want to hire somebody who has a job to come over and fill our job. because we know you were laid off because you weren't a good employee and that's why they let you go. we don't want to hire people who

aren't worth anything. that's the message that's going out in this country to the unemployed. and many of those people are middle class people who worked very hard and through no fault of their own their industries collaed. banking, housing direct results of what the bush administration did or didn't do, really, that is regulate wall street. unfortunately the republicans who already made it clear that instead of helping the middle class one of their top rightors is to give millionaires and billionaires a huge $700 billion break. now, the same people who are saying this should be paid for will be out on this floor sometime in the next couple of weeks saying, we don't have to pay for a tax break, why that will just -- that will pump jobs into the world. all we have to do is cut taxes

everywhere and we give $700 billion to people who make more than a half a million dollars a year, that's ok. but an unemployment check for somebody to keep bread on the table and keep their mortgage paid is not ok. we can't not fund that. this is an emergency. people who talk like that on the floor of this house have never been unemployed or never have known anybody who was unemployed. you would not talk that way about unemployed people if you knew them. now, this should give every middle-class american a lot to think about the results of this last election. this is your first chance to observe what you can expect in the next two years. the majority leader -- the minority leader in the other body said, my number one priority is to prevent barack