[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 177 (Wednesday, December 19, 2001)]
[House]
[Pages H10495-H10503]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    WAIVING REQUIREMENT OF CLAUSE 6(a) OF RULE XIII WITH RESPECT TO 
                  CONSIDERATION OF CERTAIN RESOLUTIONS

  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 319 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 319

       Resolved, That the requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII 
     for a two-thirds vote to consider a report from the Committee 
     on Rules on the same day it is presented to the House is 
     waived with respect to any resolution reported on the 
     legislative day of Wednesday, December 19, 2001, providing 
     for consideration or disposition of a bill to provide tax 
     incentives for economic recovery, any amendment thereto, any 
     conference report thereon, or any amendment reported in 
     disagreement from a conference thereon.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Reynolds) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to my colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Frost), the ranking member of the Committee on Rules, pending which I 
yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this 
resolution, all time yielded is for purposes of debate only.
  (Mr. REYNOLDS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 319 waives clause 6(a) of 
rule XIII requiring a two-thirds vote to consider a rule on the same 
day it is reported from the Committee on Rules.
  The rule applies the waiver to a special rule reported on the 
legislative day of December 19, 2001, providing for consideration or 
disposition of the bill to provide tax incentives for economic 
recovery, any amendment thereto, any conference report thereon, or any 
amendment reported in disagreement from a conference thereon.
  The rule also allows this body to once again take up stimulus 
legislation, making it possible for prompt consideration of this much-
needed and long overdue measure to create jobs and promote long-term 
economic growth.
  This body passed an economic stimulus bill nearly 2 months ago, but 
our colleagues in the other Chamber have not yet acted; and in failing 
to act, we put American jobs and the stability of our economy at risk. 
The downward trend we now face has been over a year in the making, and 
it has been compounded by the recent attacks on our Nation.
  Americans deserve this relief, and not just because of September 11. 
We owe it to them to proceed without further delay. I can think of no 
better holiday gift for America than an economic stimulus bill. It is 
imperative that we move forward at once.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to support this rule so we may proceed 
with debate on this time-sensitive legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I know we all want to finish the business of the House 
this week. I know we all have plans to be with our families in the days 
ahead.
  But, Mr. Speaker, those plans and our desires to finish our business 
for the year should not serve as an excuse for Republican leaders to 
ram legislation through this body, legislation that is just plain 
dangerous to the U.S. economy and the Social Security and Medicare 
trust funds, and which they know will not be voted on in the United 
States Senate in the next day or two.
  Mr. Speaker, the House has been kept in session all night long two 
nights in a row just to allow the Committee on Rules to meet at 8 
o'clock in the morning to report martial law rules for a so-called 
stimulus package. Negotiations have been on and then they have been off 
and then on again.
  But this morning, Republican leaders finally pulled the plug on 
bipartisanship. For Republican leaders, Mr. Speaker, it seems that 
ramming through another budget-busting wish list of Republican tax 
cuts, tax breaks for big corporations, and tax breaks for wealthier and 
presumably employed, individuals, is more important than the needs of 
real working Americans; a package, by the way, that will cost $250 
billion over a 10-year period, much greater than anything ever proposed 
by the Democrats.
  The Republican majority seems to be more interested in scoring 
partisan and ideological points than in helping unemployed Americans 
and their families make it through this recession.
  Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Rules is indeed an arm of the 
leadership, and the Republican leadership of this House is showing its 
true colors tonight as we consider this rule, which allows a bill to 
come up on the floor without anyone, except perhaps a select few, 
having had the opportunity to look at it.
  This is nothing more than political theater. This is nothing more 
than a cheap charade. The American people

[[Page H10496]]

want and deserve better from their elected representatives, Mr. 
Speaker. It is a real shame that they will not be getting it here 
tonight.
  I urge defeat of this rule and of the rule that will immediately 
follow, and of the so-called bipartisan and so-called economic stimulus 
package the Republicans are attempting to ram through this body today.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
  Mr. FRANK. Mr. Speaker, I will congratulate my Republican colleagues 
on one thing: they have enough humanity left to be completely 
embarrassed by what they are now doing: leaving the gentleman from New 
York alone at his post to defend what is really the last step in what 
has been an ongoing Republican assault on the notion that in the House 
of Representatives of the United States Congress, democracy with a 
small ``d'' ought to be practiced.
  I guess there is one other thing I can say in their defense: they 
understand that this is a wholly unserious effort. If this were in fact 
a serious legislative effort, it would be an outrage. But it is not an 
outrage; it is a farce.
  The gentleman from New York talked about how urgent this was. It is 
so urgent that now, 9:35 at night on the day before we are probably 
going to adjourn, knowing that, they bring forward a bill which no one 
has seen; and, of course, the less one has seen of this bill, the more 
one thinks of it.
  They bring forth the bill under very extraordinary procedures. It is 
going to take rules. First, they have to have a rule that suspends the 
rule that says we have to have enough time to read the bill. Then they 
bring forth a rule when they ram this through that says there will be 
no amendment in order, no substitute, no alternative.
  Yes, the Democrats will be given, as the rules of the House minimally 
require, a motion to recommit. That allows for 10 minutes of debate on 
the substance of that motion. So we have got the Republicans completely 
dismantling democracy.
  And one thing is predictable, Mr. Speaker: the Speaker and every 
Republican will vote for this. I do want to congratulate my Republican 
colleagues, as someone who has been a student of legislative bodies. 
When the Contract with America was promulgated many years ago, one 
aspect of it was a series of constitutional amendments, none of which, 
fortunately, passed. Never have so many constitutional amendments been 
proposed since the days immediately after the Civil War.
  All of them were defeated, but the Republican Party has managed to 
achieve a de facto constitutional change. We used to believe in the 
separation of powers, and we used to believe that the House of 
Representatives was an independent body, independent of the executive, 
independent of other bodies, and it was a place where Members were 
elected and came and deliberated and made decisions.
  By the extraordinary control they exercise over individual Members, 
the Republican Party has brought about a parliamentary revolution in 
America. We now have in the House of Representatives one large rubber 
stamp. Whatever the Republican leadership says is to be done is done.
  I do not think ever before in American history we have seen such 
obedience. I do not know if we are allowed to pipe music in here, and I 
know C-SPAN pipes in music when we are voting sometimes. I want to 
suggest that what they ought to be playing is the March of the Siamese 
Children, because the monarch of the day gives his orders and down they 
march obediently. They are going to all vote for this bill.
  We had an earlier stimulus. There is one other thing I can say about 
this stimulus: it is at least a repudiation of the earlier outrage they 
voted for. They voted for a stimulus very different in many ways 
previously, and they all voted for it, and they will all vote for this 
one.
  As we said before, the way the Republican leadership gets obedience 
from its Members has wrought a constitutional change. We are in a 
parliamentary situation. The only place left on this side of the 
Capitol that Members can find checks and balances is in the bank 
accounts of the Members.
  Now, what is it they are trying to do? Why did we not have a real 
stimulus package? Very simply, because the Republican Party has brought 
us back David Stockman. What we have had on the part of the Republican 
Party all year is a deliberate effort to create deficits.
  They pretend to dislike deficits, but they regard them as their 
saviors. They understand that if we were to continue the surpluses that 
were inherited from the previous administration of President Clinton, 
there would be a demand for a prescription drug program. There will not 
be one now if the Republican tax policy is followed. We will be told we 
cannot afford it.
  There would have been a demand for a housing production program to 
deal with the terrible housing crisis we have. Every witness before the 
Republican hearings this year said we needed it, but we will not be 
able to afford it. We will pull cops off the streets. We will cut back 
on environmental programs. There will be no money to help with sewer 
and water or transit.
  What we have had on the obedient Republican side is a deliberate 
effort to reduce government revenues, not to stimulate the economy; but 
because they understand that if we were fairly able to debate these 
with an adequate revenue base, the public would insist on meeting 
public needs, to the dislike of the ideologues who control the 
Republican Party, and who control it so thoroughly that they are able 
to compel the obedience of Members who will tell their voters something 
else, and then show up here and march down and vote the other way.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I came to the Congress as a majority member only 3 years 
ago; but before that I spent 10 years in the State House, 
overwhelmingly Democratic, where I could not even get a name on a bill 
as a cosponsor. Or in the 6 years before that in the Erie County 
legislature where I served in the minority, and having the opportunity 
to serve in leadership in both of those, I could hear the frustration 
of many, many years of being in the minority.
  As I sit here, I have to remember and remind my colleagues that in 
1995, when the Republicans became a majority in this House, they said 
that they would guarantee a motion to recommit on every single bill; 
take it to the bank, one bite at the apple. No matter what bill it is, 
we will have a motion to recommit, as we have today.
  I would remind the gentleman who spoke that that was not always the 
case when the Republicans were in the minority for 40 years before 
that. But it also looks at the fact that I see hope that this majority 
will be permanent, because I am listening to grousing on process. I am 
listening to the fact we are going to ram through, and only the first 
part of this year, with a majority of six, we were not going to be able 
to pass anything.
  The reality is that this House time and time again as a Republican 
majority brought together an agenda of new ideas and vision for the 
American people on the mandates they were given by its President and by 
its Members in the Congress.
  So when I listen to ``ram through'' tonight or listen to some of the 
other things, it was only so few months ago when it was said of this 
body that we will be stopped in our tracks as a majority, bringing new, 
fresh ideas, rather than the failed liberal policies of the past.
  So I am optimistic that the minority and some of those who will speak 
tonight see it as the fact that they are in a permanent minority; they 
are in a permanent minority because of some of the failed policies they 
have had over the last 40 years.
  I look forward to moving through the rule tonight on same-day, moving 
forward to the rule to bring forth the legislation on economic stimulus 
in a bipartisan, bicameral approach so that the debate can be held, not 
for a half hour, not for an hour; but for 2 full hours we will have 
that debate tonight.
  We can let America judge for itself as we conclude our work on the 
economic stimulus if we are moving forward in order to help put people 
back to work and create private sector jobs and take care of displaced 
workers, or whether we are going to talk about it and try to dismantle 
it here in the Congress.

[[Page H10497]]

  I have faith in my colleagues, and I have faith in the American 
people that we will get the job done tonight.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Rangel), the ranking member of the Committee on Ways and 
Means.
  (Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)

                              {time}  2145

  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I remember when I was in law school, one of 
my professors said when the law is not on your side, raise your voice. 
Sometimes it works. Sometimes it does not. But these new, fresh ideas, 
I guess the best time to get them is in the middle of the night when 
people are sleeping. These new, fresh ideas cannot stand the light of 
scrutiny in the committee with hearings where people can come and 
testify. These new ideas we have to wait until 8:00 at night to find 
out what is going to happen at 9:00.
  These new, exciting, fresh ideas are not bipartisan ideas. It is just 
a couple of Republicans going in the cloakroom coming out wondering 
what will sound great on television because it is abundantly clear 
there is not one Republican in this House that is so naive that he or 
she believes that what they are doing tonight is going to become law. 
The reporters know it. The television anchor people know it. So what 
are they doing?
  Well, they do not like the word rammed through. But what they intend 
to do is put out a wish list of the things that they would like to do 
for corporate America, the things they would like to do for wealthy 
Americans, and then at the same time says, oh, yes, we promised to do 
something for the displaced workers.
  What does displaced workers got to do with repugnant tax cuts? Did 
not the President and did not the leadership here say that when we were 
bailing out the airline industry that we would have compassion for the 
other people that got hit by the war, that got hit by the recession? 
Yes.
  When did this new, fresh idea for Republicans come up that we should 
help those people who are not working? If I recall, they were trying to 
get a bill passed which they did by two votes or one vote. And they 
promised Republicans, if you vote for this bad bill, we will do 
something for the unemployed. Then all of the sudden, it became a part 
of the stimulus package for the first time.
  Now, we were willing to give on a whole lot of these tax problems 
because no one likes to go home saying they did not give tax cuts, but 
we really thought that the Republicans would find the same type of 
fresh, new ideas for people who were not working as they found some 
fresh new ideas how to establish some loopholes in the tax code. But 
they did not do that. And I do hope those that come to the floor would 
start asking some questions.
  Why could there not be a new, fresh idea that if somebody was not 
eligible under existing law for unemployment compensation that they 
would be covered? Why could Republicans not come up with some new, 
fresh idea that those people who were not getting an adequate amount of 
wages to keep their families together, to keep their kids in school, to 
pay the mortgage, that we would try to meet them half way.
  Why did they not come up with a new, fresh idea that these people 
would be guaranteed coverage and not a block guarantee to be given to 
governors to do what they want but in health care. Why could we not get 
a dynamic, exciting, new, fresh idea that we only got to do this for a 
year? That is all the President has asked. Why cannot we take the 
existing health system that we have, where people who have been working 
and they are guaranteed that they would be getting health insurance as 
paid for in part by the employer, that if they lose their job, that the 
Federal Government would come in and pay 75 percent of it under COBRA, 
and if they could not pay the 25 percent, that Medicaid would come in. 
But oh, no.
  If nothing is remembered tonight, I hope someone would ask the 
majority tonight what is the new Republican health plan? What is this 
refreshing new idea that they have to cancel the care that we have now? 
The answer is the Secretary of the Treasury will tell them how to do 
this plan. They have not the slightest clue as to the provisions that 
they would have to provide health care for the unemployed. But as 
tonight goes on into the morning and as they have make this up as they 
go along, one thing I can say for my friends on the Republican side, at 
least they know it will never, never, never become law.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I am reminded of the great President Ronald Reagan when 
he would have to say, ``There you go again.'' Because some of those new 
ideas we are talking about, I think that the distinguished ranking 
member of the Committee on Ways and Means was a co-sponsor of that with 
the Liberty Zones in New York and rebuilding the lower Manhattan and 
those 15 blocks that bring 15 percent of the revenue to the State of 
which we both hail.
  That was a new idea. Maybe it worked a little different from some of 
the other ones going back to enterprise zones and other concepts. That 
was a new idea that was joined by many New Yorkers as a solution that 
the governor put forth and that many of us, including in my 
recollection, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel).
  But when you look at the failed ideas, Mr. Speaker, the failed ideas, 
I have talked about the last 40 years of liberal Democratic vision, the 
recommit proposal that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) has 
before us again, takes and raises taxes again. We spend our time trying 
to bring the tax rate down. We try to tell America that we want to have 
you invest your money, save your money but have you have control of it.
  And about the time we take our eyes off it, we have the Democratic 
minority on a recommit bill that want to raise that top rate right back 
up and raise taxes. Make no mistake about it. This is not some slick or 
other type move around here. This is a move that if you vote to 
recommit, you are voting to raise taxes in America.
  That is the same failed ideas that brought us a lot of problems. It 
is so difficult around here to look at tax cuts as part of the solution 
to get America moving again. And that is the problem we face here in 
our Congress is looking at philosophical differences from those who 
want to have a smaller, smarter government and let people have control 
of their own destinies and their own money, and those who want a large, 
bigger government that has more regulations and more control over the 
American viewpoint.
  When I say with the Thomas legislation that is coming before us 
tonight, if we pass these rules, is a compromise. It is a compromise 
that not all Members in this House are going to want to look at. They 
are going to look at it as a compromise, a consensus. Not a Thomas 
bill, not a Rangel bill, a bipartisan bill that brings the solution of 
the best of those ideas before the House and to have it pass the House 
and move forward as it goes to the Senate and have the other body make 
its consideration and its will under what the President has brought in 
his leadership is the best bill possible to get America moving again to 
protect and create new jobs and protect displaced workers.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
  Mr. FRANK. Mr. Speaker, I can see the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Reynolds) is right. To some extent we are trying to protect one of 
those ideas from 40 years ago that he so denigrates.
  One in particular is called Medicare. It is about 36 years old. It is 
part of that 40-year history. It was when it was opposed by most 
Republican. They have grudgingly accepted its existence, but they 
continue to try to whittle it away, and one consequence of this tax 
cutting for the wealthy that the Republicans have indulged in is to 
endanger Medicare, and in fact, one casualty of their policy was that 
prescription drug program for the elderly.
  The lock box to which they all pledged fealty long since went out the 
window, and we all now have clearly a

[[Page H10498]]

 policy which makes the prescription drug program for the elderly 
impossible. The President has instead offered them a card so they can 
go get some retail druggist to give a discount out of the retail 
druggist pocket.
  Yes, the gentleman is right, some of us are defending some of the 
ideas that came during the previous 40 years, and Medicare is a prime 
example of one of those policies which resulted from Democrats beating 
Republicans over that 40 years and the Republicans trying to get their 
revenge on it today.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Cunningham).
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) 
said this bill cost $250 billion and that no Democrat ever proposed 
such a thing or to that amount.
  First of all, by definition, I understand why no Democrat called for 
$250 billion because they do not call for tax cuts or relief. They call 
for tax increases. No Democrat ever calls for tax decreases but tax 
increases, and by definition, the Democrats call cost giving working 
men and women their own money.
  It does not belong to the Congress. It does not belong to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost). It does not belong to the Democrats. 
It belongs to the people. It is not cost. It is a fact that they do not 
have to send it here in the first place. So, by definition.
  Secondly, in 1993, when the Democrats controlled the White House, the 
House and the Senate, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt) 
claimed that they were going to have tax relief for the middle class, 
and they had control of the House, the Senate and the White House, and 
what did they do? They increased the tax on the middle class. They 
increased the tax on Social Security.
  The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) said, oh, look at the Social 
Security and Medicare trust fund; In that bill, they took every dime 
out of the Social Security and Medicare trust fund and used it for 
spending. They increased the Social Security tax. They increased taxes 
for Americans and increased spending forever. They also took every dime 
out of the Social Security trust fund, increased gas taxes and had 
deficits forever.
  So, no, no Democrat ever proposed $250 billion worth of tax relief. 
They only asked for tax increases.
  I would tell the gentleman, stimulus packages, why are big businesses 
laying off people today? Look across this country at the number of 
jobs, not just from September 11, but across the country because 
businesses are failing, and they need that stimulus package to go.
  The Democrats call it tax break for the rich. The socialistic jargon 
that goes on here and the class warfare on tax breaks for the rich go 
over and over and over again on this side. Quit talking about Karl Marx 
and talk about stimulus package.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California, Mr. Sherman.
  (Mr. SHERMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, let me tell my colleagues a Christmas 
story. It is the dead of night. Congress is anxious to adjourn. Members 
can hear Christmas carols in their heads. Some are so anxious to leave 
town that they are willing to vote for a so-called stimulus bill, even 
though it was revealed just an hour ago--a quarter trillion dollar 
program that virtually none of us, or any of our staffs, have had a 
chance to fully analyze.
  Ah, but the tale goes on. One party, acting alone, ignoring Democrats 
even at a time when national crisis demands bipartisan and bicameral 
consultation. One party reveals a $250 billion program that they are 
understandably reluctant to debate under the regular rules, or to 
reveal in the light of day. Because, Mr. Speaker, two-thirds of the 
cost of this program, two-thirds of the transfers from the U.S. 
Treasury to the private sector, occur in fiscal years 2003 and 2004 and 
2005 and 2006. Long after there is any perceived need for stimulus, we 
will be stimulating an economy which at that time may already be 
overstimulated.
  For this is not a stimulus bill, designed to deal with a short term 
economic downturn. Rather, it is a permanent transfer of enormous 
wealth to giant corporations, cynically disguised as an attempt to help 
the victims of September 11.
  Thank God for the United States Senate.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Kingston).
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Reynolds) for yielding me the time, and I think tonight we are faced 
with a fundamental difference between Democrats and the Republican. The 
question is simply this: Would someone rather have an unemployment 
check or would someone rather have a job. It is very simple.
  The Republican party stands on the side of jobs. The Democrats have 
the old kind of socialistic government knows best how to spend your 
money approach to economic problems, just like the country of Japan, 
just like the country of France, just like the country of Switzerland. 
When they got in their recession, they wanted to spend their way out of 
it, and as a result of such approach, Japan is now in its 12th year of 
recession.

                              {time}  2200

  They have gone from a 4 percent growth rate to a 1 percent growth 
rate.
  Take the country of Ireland, on the other hand. It said, cut 
government spending, return the money to the wage earners, who made the 
money, and let them spend it. So they did, and now Ireland has one of 
the strongest economies in Europe.
  Economic security is not about tax cuts or spending more money. It is 
about jobs, and the Republican Party is working to create jobs, jobs 
for real people with real problems. These are people that I know.
  There is Bob, who worked in an airplane factory, up until around 
September, and then he was laid off. Now he is the father of three kids 
and does not have a job.
  Or Ed, who has a small electrical contracting business in Savannah, 
Georgia. He does not have any work right now, so he is looking at his 
eight employees and deciding which one of those guys he has to lay off 
and how he should tell them that at Christmas time.
  Then there is my friend Mark, who works for the International Paper 
Company, as did his dad. My friend Mark, who is in his mid-40s, had put 
in 18 years on the clock and was a good union man. Now he does not have 
a job. Thank goodness his wife, on the side, makes birthday cakes for 
people. They decided, well, maybe we could start a bakery. It is not 
going to be as good a job, it will not be as high paying, but we cannot 
just sit around.
  Mr. Speaker, that is what this package is about. My colleagues know 
this is about jobs. It is about real people. It is not about this wage 
here and this little Tax Code change there. It is about people in 
Savannah, Georgia, people in New York City, people in Arizona.
  This House has come together after the 9-11 tragedy, but time and 
time again the Democrats in the Senate and some of the Democrats over 
here have held up the progress. They have dilly-dallied on airport 
security, they dilly-dallied on bioterrorism, they have dilly-dallied 
on the energy package. It is almost Christmas Eve. Why not give the 
people of America a Christmas present they would really like, and that 
would be an opportunity to get back to work. Give the American people a 
paycheck, not an unemployment check.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The Chair would remind all 
Members that Members should avoid characterizing Senate action or 
nonaction.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  The gentleman from Georgia made some interesting observations about 
delay and about not bringing matters to the floor. It was, of course, 
the majority whip, who hopes to be majority leader, who delayed and 
prevented the airport security bill from being passed for weeks. It was 
not the Democrats.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Visclosky).
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time, and I would follow up on the comments of the gentleman from

[[Page H10499]]

Texas (Mr. Frost) regarding the previous gentleman's comments, my good 
friend from Georgia. He also mentioned that we are very close to 
Christmas Eve. I would point out to my colleagues that we are on the 
final evening, the last day of this session of the 107th Congress, but 
I have in my hand a copy of a headline from one of my local newspapers 
talking about ``The Last Shift,'' and the death of a steel mill.
  I am not so interested tonight, I must tell my colleagues, about 
stimulating anyone. I am trying to save people's economic lives. In 
October of this year, many of us sought to be allowed to offer an 
amendment to the last stimulus package to provide relief for legacy 
costs, to remove a liability facing the domestic steel industry so it 
could save itself after the International Trade Commission, pursuant to 
an investigation initiated gratefully by President Bush, that serious 
injury had occurred because of violations of our international trade 
law. We were denied that opportunity.
  In November, a similar attempt was made by myself and others, who 
joined together because we felt this was also an issue not only of 
saving economic lives but of our national defense, to attach this 
relief to the national security appropriations bill for people who are 
losing their economic life every day. We were denied.
  It is my understanding that some of my colleagues, as late as this 
evening, attempted to try to provide relief for guaranteed loans that 
are set aside for companies such as that enumerated in ``The Last 
Shift,'' and they were denied.
  The fact is, we ought to act in a responsible fashion to preserve the 
economic and industrial base of this country, our national security, 
and our jobs. From my observations, the underlying bill that is being 
debated because of the rule that is before us, does not do that. For 
that reason I adamantly am opposed to that. I am adamantly opposed to 
these bills.
  I implore my colleagues to understand that if we do not act and act 
now we will lose the integrated steel industry in the United States of 
America. They cannot wait until March because they have already had 
their last shift.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Hayworth).
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, tonight one can only imagine the response of the 
American people as they listen to their holiday songs and Christmas 
carols. One can almost see in their mind's eye, based on the 
unfortunate but predictable reaction of my friends on the left, that it 
is the ``most cynical time of the year.''
  If we want to go back and engage in instant revisionism of history, I 
suppose that can feed the hour's time; to pose for sufficient outrage, 
to concentrate on ingenious insults, to try to claim what has gone 
before. But the fact is tonight, and this point I will agree with my 
colleague from Indiana who preceded me in the well, people are hurting. 
People need help.
  We have reached out in a sense of compromise and consensus to offer 
health plans now for people who are hurting. So let me see if I follow 
the logic. No, we are not going to vote for the rule. No, we are not 
going to vote for the bill. We will do nothing, and that way we will 
help our constituents. We will do nothing to expand health benefits. We 
will do nothing to reinvigorate the economy. We will stand here with 
our arms crossed and affect poses of outrage, but in fact be apathetic, 
disinterested, and play a game of power rather than putting people 
ahead of politics.
  That is basically the choice tonight. When we strip away all the 
rhetoric and strip away all the revisionist history and take the finger 
that points and curl it back and put it into our pockets, the question 
remains: Are my Democrat colleagues willing to meet us halfway; or is 
this a give-and-take where we give and give and give and you take and 
take and take?
  We have a chance to move forward. We have a chance this evening, Mr. 
Speaker, to get something done for the American people. It will require 
special rules, but the time grows late and the need is real. And to say 
we will respond with nothing at all, or name calling, or inaccurate, 
deliberately inaccurate, representations of the consensus plan that has 
been drafted, small wonder, Mr. Speaker, that those who look in will 
call this ``the most cynical time of the year.''
  For once, Mr. Speaker, let me appeal to my friends on the left. I 
understand what happens in terms of the pursuit of power. I understand 
the frustrations. But tonight cast a vote on behalf of constituents who 
are out of work. Let us get this economy moving again. The American 
people face challenges, but they are not insurmountable if we work 
together. Support the rule, support the legislation. Let us get people 
back to work, and let us help those who are hurting.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Rules tonight denied Democrats, denied 
the minority party, the opportunity to offer a substitute; and that is 
why we oppose this bill. We have a substitute that is paid for, that 
does not add $250 billion to the deficit. We have a substitute that 
provides health insurance now rather than much later; a substitute that 
provides real unemployment benefits, rather than what the Republicans 
offered. They denied us the opportunity to offer a meaningful 
substitute, and that is why we are against the bill.
  We would love to vote tonight, and we would love to vote on a real 
piece of legislation that does not take $250 billion out of the Social 
Security trust fund, as is being proposed by the majority.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Doggett).
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I think some of our colleagues at this 
special time of the year need to get a smile on their face and feel a 
little better about things.
  And, really, we need to give credit where credit is due. The House 
Republican leadership here got in the Christmas spirit ahead of a lot 
of other folks. Indeed, almost from the moment that they were sworn in 
last January. There are some Christmas sales underway, some pre-
Christmas clearances underway by some stores I see here in town, but 
our Republican colleagues here in the House got into the business of 
giveaways long before any of these stores: giving away public lands to 
be mined on for practically nothing; rolling back health and safety 
rules; and tax breaks, lots of tax breaks, one after another for every 
special interest that lined up with a limousine at the Capitol.
  It is the season of red and green. Well, red ink has been in favor 
here in the House all year long. This surplus is being used up by 
Republican borrowing to finance more corporate tax breaks. And green, 
well, that is the long green of special interest campaign 
contributions. And we have seen a lot of that this year too.
  Even the Wall Street Journal this week labeled what is going on 
tonight as ``a feeding frenzy among corporate tax lobbyists.'' Not to 
worry, though. They say there is enough for everyone. Well, not quite. 
Yes, Virginia, there may be a Santa Claus, but this year we are having 
a Republican Christmas. That is where Santa just stuffs the silk 
stockings. And for the working families of this country, they have a 
hole in their sock. They have heard of the story of Scrooge and of the 
Grinch, and their relief is slipping out the bottom of the stocking.
  Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan warned us that ``it is far 
more important to be right than to be quick.'' Well, this bill manages 
to fail both. It prefers to be wrong and to be late, very late into the 
evening. Who would want to do this in the light of day?
  The stimulus stalled because the Republicans insisted on putting 
billions of dollars into tax breaks to set up various Christmas trees, 
as we call them around here, loaded with favors for special interest 
well-heeled lobbyists. Enron, for example, from my State of Texas, 
which has had its problems of late, under the original Republican bill 
would get $254 million, getting its taxes rebated to 1986.
  But only a lump of coal is left for working families who are out 
there wondering this Christmas do we buy presents for the kids or will 
we have enough to pay our health insurance premium next month. Who is 
going to pay the mortgage or pay the rent when the unemployment runs 
out? I think it

[[Page H10500]]

is time to dump the corporate lobbyists from Santa's knee and make room 
for those folks who have been working hard to build this great country 
and are now facing the problems created by this economic downturn.
  Our Republican colleagues can wrap up this package tonight, they can 
slap a bow on it, they can call it a stimulus. But a pretty box that 
for most Americans is empty is not any present at all. This stimulus 
package, I believe, is a hollow Republican plan. That is why it is 
being rushed through under this martial law provision.
  There is only one gift that our Republican colleagues are equal 
opportunity on, and they are going to spread that around to every 
citizen in this country, whatever their rank, philosophy, or party, and 
that is more debt. And we are going to get a heck of a lot of 
additional debt. We have got the Bush administration planning to come 
in here in a few weeks and ask us to raise the public debt ceiling 
because of schemes and shenanigans just like those going on tonight.
  So I wish them well for the Christmas spirit. I know they have lots 
of it. But it would be nice if everybody in America could share a 
little more than packages wrapped up that only mean more public debt 
for them, their children, and their grandchildren.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Weller).
  (Mr. WELLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for 
yielding me this time.
  As I listen here very patiently to some of the partisan political 
rhetoric and excuses of why not to do something, I would like to ask 
this House to come back to why we are here. And the question is, Do we 
want to save the jobs of working Americans? Do we want to give working 
Americans the opportunity to go back to work?

                              {time}  2215

  I know I do. I know my Republican colleagues on the Republican side 
do. My hope is some of our Democratic colleagues will join with us in 
saving American jobs tonight.
  Let us remember when President Bush was sworn in, he inherited a 
weakening economy. The September 11 attack on America had a 
psychological impact on our Nation, causing consumers and business 
investors to step back from decisions to invest and decisions to buy. 
It has come at a terrible cost, a cost where we have now seen, on 
average, 8,000 Americans lose their jobs every week.
  Today in the Chicago area it was announced that Motorola was going to 
lay off 9,400 more employees. Think about that. 9,400 moms and dads are 
going home this week to tell their children that they no longer have a 
job. I want to do something about that. I want those citizens and 
constituents of mine in Illinois to get their jobs back. We have to 
remember that it was investment and creation of jobs that drove this 
economy in the past decade.
  The Economic Security and Recovery Act provides that opportunity to 
invest in the creation of new jobs. I would point to two provisions. 
Technology created one-third of the jobs in the economy in the last 
decade, according to the Federal Reserve, and it was investment in 
technology that created those jobs in companies like Motorola. I note 
that two provisions in this package can make a difference, a 30 percent 
expensing, rewarding investment in computers and pickup trucks or 
automobiles. Somebody has to make and operate them. The 30 percent 
expensing will reward investment and creation of those jobs, giving 
someone an opportunity to make that product; and, of course, the worker 
hired to operate that product. We also have to recognize there are 
companies losing money this year, particularly as a result of the 
consequences of September 11.
  While the net operating loss, the NOL carry-back allowing companies 
to go back 5 years against a profitable year, essentially get a little 
bit of a tax refund, which will free up capital so they can invest back 
in their company and protect current jobs.
  Mr. Speaker, let us remember what this is all about. I want to go 
home at the end of this year, before Christmas, having done something 
for the people that work and raise families in the district that I 
represent. There is always an excuse not to do something. We are 
hearing those excuses from the other side. Let us pass this 
legislation. It is bipartisan legislation with bipartisan support here 
in the House, as well as bipartisan support in the Senate. Our job here 
in the House of Representatives is to pass this legislation and get 
America working again.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Green).
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, normally I do not stand on the floor 
and talk about the tax cuts; but after listening to the debate tonight 
and seeing where we are at, and my frustration with this process, I do 
not know what part of reality my colleagues on the Republican side do 
not understand. America needs a stimulus plan that includes tax cuts, 
but not every half-thought-out scheme to shut down the vital functions 
of government that we need. The reality is that we are at war, and we 
have layoffs. We must pay for the defense of the Nation, and corporate 
give-backs will not pay for an increase for our troops or better 
equipment.
  A laid-off worker cannot use a tax credit to pay this month's health 
insurance premium or to buy Christmas gifts for their family. They 
cannot use a tax credit that will come up next year, but all the other 
side of the aisle wants to do is give a tax credit. They have a one-
size-fits-all. One answer for every problem. American workers out of a 
job, we will give a tax cut. A Nation at war, we will give a tax cut.
  Mr. Speaker, how do we pay for the war or assistance to the employed? 
It will come out of the Social Security trust fund and further prolong 
the prescription drug benefit needed by our Nation's seniors.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, in the remarks of the gentleman on the other side, I 
just want to correct the gentleman, it is a refundable tax credit for 
the purchase of health insurance, contrary to what the gentleman's 
remarks were according to our information.
  I think it might be a good time to talk about the fact that health 
care is something that the Thomas legislation reaches out to all 
Americans affected as they are displaced workers, not just a select few 
under COBRA, and there are an outline of a number of those.
  When I think about middle America, the fact of reducing the current 
27.5 percent tax rate to 25 percent effective January 2002 will 
strengthen working families across this country. There are a number of 
extensions of important pieces of legislation that are incorporated in 
this bill that are time sensitive, 2 years and 1 year, and permanent 
extensions of others.
  When we look at this, not only have we looked across America, but the 
2 months that the New York stimulus package has been kicking around 
that authorizes $15 billion of tax exempt bonds and bonus depreciation 
deductions, reduce the recovery period for leasehold improvements, 
increasing small business expensing and increasing time periods for 
reinvesting gains, many of those are right in the aspect of 
revitalizing New York City and the lower Manhattan area which has been 
so devastated.
  Also in this legislation is victims' tax relief. That is going to the 
Oklahoma bombing and the anthrax attacks that have occurred in this 
country.
  I also remind Members before when we listened that this was not 
enough and this was a Republican plan, we look at the Thomas plan which 
is a consensus, a bicameral approach of reaching consensus, in many 
aspects supported by the President of the United States, bringing forth 
solutions of compromise that is not just one fashion. It is a consensus 
of the best ideas. If we pass this rule, we will bring this legislation 
before the House and then see the will of this body as we consider this 
legislation tonight.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Pence).
  (Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the same day rule 
and the underlying economic recovery bill.
  The familiar sounds of the season, Mr. Speaker, silk stockings 
hanging by

[[Page H10501]]

the chimney, Republicans as Grinch. The demagoguery of the day. But, 
Mr. Speaker, I offer that this rhetoric does nothing for the 1 million 
families facing this holiday with the uncertainty, the embarrassment 
and the despair of being out of work at Christmas.
  I know whereof I speak, Mr. Speaker. In 1993, with my wife expecting 
our third, with Michael, my son, age 2, and Charlotte, my daughter, age 
1, I was out of work. I endured going to the family parties with the 
uncertainty of where the next paycheck would be from. I can tell, Mr. 
Speaker, it is a grievous time.
  Yet some even on the floor tonight complaining of the lateness of the 
hour say we should not act on this economic recovery bill, they say we 
should only help the wage earner, but not the wage payer. But the truth 
is always somewhere in between, as it is in this compromise bill, a 
bill that provides 6 times the unemployment relief of the original 
legislation that passed out of the House, and also recognizes that the 
best welfare program is a good job, and we help to create and stimulate 
the wage earner by bringing those loyal employees back into the fold.
  Let us not think about the demagoguery and the political advantage of 
the day, let us think of the moms and dads stretching to make this 
Christmas special, and trusting us in this Congress in both parties to 
pursue policies that will lead them and our Nation out of this present 
recession.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Stenholm).
  (Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I want to throw another category in the 
debate tonight that has not been mentioned, and that is the grandkids. 
We can all agree tonight that we need to do something for the workers. 
I certainly agree with most of the components of the tax cut, that it 
does something to provide jobs. But I hope the enthusiasm that I hear 
tonight from this side of the aisle will be here in February and March 
when we have to increase the debt ceiling from $5.95 trillion to $6.7 
trillion. I look for the same enthusiasm as Members are showing tonight 
for spending this money, I look for it in February and March when we 
have to increase the debt ceiling.
  I agree with the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds), it is not 
much fun being in the minority. I agree that the majority can do 
anything that it wishes to do, and the majority are doing it again 
tonight, as the majority has done time and time again this year, and 
then claim to have bipartisanship; but that dog will not hunt. The 
majority can do it, and I respect their right to do it. But I also 
expect the majority to come to the floor and be just as enthusiastic 
when they raise the debt ceiling. I want the majority to be just as 
responsible when they say to the people out there that we are trying to 
help tonight, the Social Security trust fund dollars are being spent 
for these purposes.
  What I ask for, and the Blue Dogs have asked for, is to please pay 
for it. What happened to the conservative principles of this body when 
we used to stand on this floor and argue, pay for government, pay as we 
go. There is not one word about that, but we are going to have to pay 
next year. We ought to think about the grandkids as well as the 
unemployed, as well as those who need the incentive to provide the 
jobs. We are completely ignoring that. The chickens are going to come 
home to roost next year, and I hope the enthusiasm will be there.
  Mr. Speaker, I hope Members are ready to increase the debt ceiling 
and borrow the money in order to return it for the purposes. I pray 
that the gentleman is right; I disagree with the gentleman, but the 
majority has every right to do what they are doing. Ramp it through, 
and then pay the consequences next year.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Weldon) for 3 minutes.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, this Nation suffered a great 
tragedy on September 11. Our economy was slowing down. The statistical 
analysis tells us we probably went into a recession some time in the 
spring, and we have suffered tremendous numbers of layoffs, 
unemployment is way up. The best way to make sure Social Security is 
solvent in the future is to get the economy going. I think we all agree 
the thing that brings prosperity to this country allows us to have 
programs like Medicare and Social Security.
  What allows us to have a strong military is the fact that we have a 
very, very strong and robust economy. But right now the economy is not 
good. We have got hundreds of thousands of people who have lost their 
job. The most important thing that we can do to get those people back 
to work is to make it profitable for the corporations that previously 
employed them to hire them back.
  Now, I think the product that the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Thomas) and the White House and the leadership have put together is a 
good product that has, I think, some real potential to help get our 
economy going again; and, indeed, bring more money into the treasury to 
allow us to continue to fund all of the important things that we do.
  Now there are some Members who are fond of calling this corporate 
welfare and just a big payout to business, but I would assert that we 
cannot create any prosperity here in this House, that we do not create 
jobs, that the private sector creates jobs. And the private sector 
right now is not creating any jobs. The private sector right now is 
laying people off. The best thing we can do is pass, at this time, an 
economic stimulus package that helps American business create more 
jobs.

                              {time}  2230

  To characterize this as some kind of big payoff to big business, in 
my opinion, is just demagoguery. Our stock markets have gone down in 
value. The NASDAQ has lost more than half of its value over the past 
year and a half. Millions of Americans who we all claim to represent 
have seen their retirement portfolios devastated by what is going on. 
This is the exact kind of package we need to help get this economy 
going again and put people back to work. And, yes, ultimately in the 
end achieve security for programs like Medicare and Social Security.
  I encourage all my colleagues to vote for this.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/4\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, tonight at about 10:30 I think 
what we can all ask for is a focus on priorities. I would like to be 
going home and presenting to the constituents that I represent some 
relief. Houston has been hard hit by unemployment over the last couple 
of weeks. We have certainly been well known in the news for the ups and 
downs in our economy that we have been facing. But what we have here 
tonight as I oppose the martial law rule and certainly will oppose the 
rule that has been promoted is that we do not have an establishment of 
priorities. And frankly what we have is a letting down of the American 
people and certainly those who are facing unemployment.
  It is a terrible shame in this time of unemployment that we cannot 
provide a greater relief than what this stimulus package provides. I 
might acknowledge that there has been a lot of work. We also realize 
that the other body will not be doing any work on this, and so we will 
have nothing to give to the American people.
  I noted with the good work that was done by the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) on the 
Labor-HHS bill, they still could not pass a parity proposal for mental 
health. I do not know if it was about no money, but I do believe that 
we can throw this particular legislation to the wind because it is too 
much money. It is too much money in the AMT prospectively giving away 
tax dollars that the Federal Government can ill afford; not providing 
the bridge for health insurance that these unemployed persons 
definitely need; giving to the individuals who are unemployed a tax 
credit that they cannot afford. My State alone on the 30 percent 
depreciation amendment that I offered in the Committee on Rules that 
was not accepted will lose $340 million every single year for 3 years. 
That is in this bill. They cannot afford to lose

[[Page H10502]]

$340 million in revenue for 3 years. I offered an amendment to add $5 
billion to the bill to provide for the loss of revenues that the State 
would be losing. It was not accepted.
  Giving 13 weeks of unemployment is not acceptable, Mr. Speaker. We 
need 26 weeks to be able to provide for those who are unemployed. We 
could do better. This bill gives away money out of Social Security that 
we do not have, and again taking money away from the States that they 
do not have. Our State of Texas faced Tropical Storm Allison. We are 
still paying for that, even with the FEMA moneys, and here we are 
taking $340 million for 3 years with no relief in sight.
  Mr. Speaker, again I believe that we can do better. I would ask my 
colleagues to reject this legislation. Let us go back to the drawing 
board and do better for the American people.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a very clear choice. We have a responsible bill 
that we would like to vote on tonight, a substitute put together by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the ranking member on the 
committee. The Republicans have refused to make that in order. I assume 
they fear that our substitute is sufficiently attractive that it might 
actually pass. Let me repeat. They have refused to give us a straight 
up or down vote on the substitute put together by the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Rangel). If they really wanted to act in a bipartisan way 
and if they really wanted to bring this matter to a conclusion so we 
could all help the unemployed people who need health insurance and who 
need unemployment benefits, why did they not permit a simple vote on 
our substitute? They know that the bill that they have proposed does 
not have the support of the United States Senate, so they are engaging 
in an empty act tonight. If they had permitted us to have a vote on our 
substitute, and if our substitute were to pass, that is quite possibly 
a bill that the Senate would take up and pass tomorrow. So the 
Republican leadership has guaranteed by the way they have structured 
the debate tonight that we will all go home without having passed a 
stimulus package.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would like to just bring the debate back to perspective where we 
are. We are on a rule for same day consideration. If that rule passes, 
it will allow us to consider a rule which will bring the economic 
stimulus package before this House tonight. I would like to remind not 
only the Members, but for those who might be observing the Congress, we 
have been here all year. We have had a stimulus package before Congress 
for 2 months that has been stalled in the other body. We are now 
approaching the holidays. We are now getting ready to conclude our 
year's work and go back to our families and our States. So time is of 
the essence as we consider this legislation before us tonight and have 
the will of the House speak as we conclude.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Dreier), the distinguished chairman of the 
Committee on Rules.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding me this time, 
and I would like to congratulate him on his management of this rule and 
the next rule he is going to manage after we pass this one.
  Mr. Speaker, I woke up this morning to National Public Radio. Yes, I 
am one of those Republicans who listens to ``Morning Edition'' on 
National Public Radio. There was a story about three of the most 
prominent tacticians of the Democratic Party: Mr. Greenberg, Mr. 
Carville, and Mr. Schrum. Those three have authored a memorandum in 
which they talk about the need for Democrats to praise President Bush's 
superb handling of this extraordinary war that we are facing, and the 
American people are behind him, 90 percent of them, and the world has 
united behind the President. But in this memorandum, Mr. Speaker, they 
talk about the need for Democrats to attack George Bush on the economy, 
to attack Republicans in the House of Representatives on the issue of 
the economy.
  Mr. Speaker, as I have listened to the outrage demonstrated by so 
many of my colleagues here, I wonder whether or not they have read the 
Schrum-Greenberg-Carville memorandum. I can only assume that they must 
have, because the attempts that they have made to block this 
legislation are really unprecedented.
  They are unprecedented because this morning we saw the President of 
the United States do something that I have never known of before. He 
came not only to meet with Republican Members of the House of 
Representatives and Republican Members of the United States Senate, but 
he went that extra mile to meet with the Democratic Caucus. He is 
trying so hard, having met with the leaders of this body, Mr. Gephardt, 
the leader of the other body, Mr. Daschle and the Speaker of the House 
and the Senate minority leader. Mr. Speaker, the President has done 
everything that he possibly can to put together a very decent bill.
  The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) has just talked about the need 
for the minority to have an opportunity to offer a substitute proposal. 
Mr. Speaker, while the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) said we have 
denied the minority the opportunity to offer that, we in 1994, when we 
won the majority, guaranteed the minority the right to offer a 
recommittal motion. Members of the minority will be able to put 
together that substitute, and we will be able to have an up or down 
vote on it with the motion to recommit.
  There are, in fact, Americans out there who are hurting. There are 
people who have been devastated by what took place economically here 
following the tragedy of September 11. I believe that it is absolutely 
essential that we move this legislation to the United States Senate, 
that we do everything that we can to recognize that this is a 
bipartisan package. It is one in which we have tried to build support 
from the other side of the aisle on. I am convinced that as we move 
through this very fair rule and consider the next one and have 
consideration of it, we will be able to provide that much needed 
assistance to the American people.
  I urge support of this rule, the next rule, and this compromise 
package.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 214, 
nays 206, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 506]

                               YEAS--214

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Armey
     Bachus
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boozman
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ferguson
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kerns
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller, Dan
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, Jeff
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood

[[Page H10503]]


     Nussle
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Traficant
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins (OK)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf

                               NAYS--206

     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Castle
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Flake
     Ford
     Frank
     Frost
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Harman
     Hill
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lynch
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Phelps
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schaffer
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Sherman
     Shows
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson (CA)
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Baker
     Clement
     Cubin
     Gephardt
     Hall (OH)
     Hastings (FL)
     Luther
     Meek (FL)
     Owens
     Rangel
     Stark
     Wexler
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  2303

  Messrs. BOYD, INSLEE, JACKSON of Illinois, FLAKE, NADLER, and 
SCHAFFER changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________