[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 177 (Wednesday, December 19, 2001)]
[House]
[Pages H10820-H10827]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3525, ECONOMIC SECURITY AND WORKER
ASSISTANCE ACT OF 2001
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, by the direction of the Committee on
Rules, I call up House Resolution 320 and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 320
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order without intervention of any point of order
to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 3529) to provide tax
incentives for economic recovery and assistance to displaced
workers. The bill shall be considered as read for amendment.
The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the
bill to final passage without intervening motion except: (1)
two hours of debate on the bill equally divided and
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Ways and Means; and (2) one motion to recommit.
The yeas and nays shall be considered as ordered on the
question of passage. Clause 5(b) of rule XXI shall not apply
to the bill or amendments thereto.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The gentleman from New York
(Mr. Reynolds) is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to 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 the purpose of debate only.
(Mr. REYNOLDS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 320 is a closed rule
providing for consideration of H.R. 3529, the Economic Security and
Worker Assistance Act of 2001, with 2 hours of debate in the House,
equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Ways and Means. The rule waives all points
of order against consideration of the bill, and it provides for one
motion to recommit, with or without instructions.
Mr. Speaker, while the images of September 11's terrorist attacks
will last forever in the minds of the American people, the fact is that
the full impact of that day goes beyond that which we could conceive in
the piles of rubble and twisted metal. While economic indicators show
this Nation's economic downturn began in September of 2000, a full year
before the attacks of September 11, that vicious assault on our Nation
and its people only exacerbated an already fragile situation.
Months before the latest crisis, this Congress showed the leadership,
the bipartisanship, and sense of purpose needed to bring our economy
back through tax reduction for working Americans. We knew then that tax
cuts put more money in the pockets of working families, increased
consumer savings and spending, and spurred our economy back to
recovery.
We came together, too, immediately after September 11, in another
strong showing of leadership, bipartisanship, and sense of purpose when
we gave this President the tools he needed to fight terrorism and
punish those responsible for the attacks on our country, and began our
financial commitment to rebuild those areas devastated by terrorism.
Today, we need to come together yet again, this time for America's
workers; and the leadership, bipartisanship and sense of purpose we
have shown the people of this great country must be evident again.
Cutbacks, layoffs, plummeting consumer confidence. These are some of
the key factors contributing to our current economic situation. Just as
we fortified our Nation's military in response to the attacks on our
shores, we have the opportunity to fortify this Nation's economy
against the attack on it by keeping jobs, by creating jobs, and by
giving needed help to displaced workers.
Mr. Speaker, as my colleagues might be aware, we have an hour on this
rule and a 2-hour debate on the economic stimulus bill yet before us
tonight.
Make no mistake. This economic stimulus is critical to the workers
and working families of America.
President Bush warned us this past weekend that without an economic
stimulus package, we stand to lose as many as 300,000 American jobs;
and no one knows of the current job struggle like my constituents and
fellow New Yorkers across my great State. In New York City alone, some
79,000 workers lost their jobs in the month of October. The ripple
effect, where an estimated 15 percent of all State revenues are
generated in Lower Manhattan, is, indeed, being felt across our State
and our Nation. In fact, between September and October, 62,000 workers
across New York became unemployed.
According to the New York State Labor Department, the Buffalo-Niagara
region where I hail from lost 2,900 jobs over the last year. This is
the longest decline in the local job market in 8 years.
The fact is that jobs just do not create themselves, and we in this
Congress have both the ability and the responsibility to help create
those jobs. This bill recognizes that we cannot create employees if we
do not work with employers to create jobs.
As Franklin Delano Roosevelt once said, ``I believe, I have always
believed, and I will always believe in private enterprise as the
backbone of economic well-being in America.''
{time} 2315
Through new incentives to compete, grow, and expand, the bipartisan,
bicameral Economic Security and Worker Protection Act of 2001 will help
business rebuild and create jobs for the American people. Workers want
and they deserve a paycheck, not an unemployment check.
Of course, this stimulus package recognizes that job creation is a
long-term project, and that assisting those out of work requires
immediate short-term solutions. For those who have lost their jobs, an
additional 13 weeks of unemployment benefits will be provided,
retroactive to March, 2001.
Part-time workers will be aided by $9 billion in surplus Federal
unemployment funds transferred to States in order to help with health
care or employment services.
Equally important to our work force is the availability and
affordability of adequate health care. With the refundable health care
tax credit provided in this legislation, no worker eligible for
unemployment insurance will be left without the means to obtain quality
health care protection.
So when my colleagues on the other side of the aisle and in the other
Chamber wanted only COBRA-eligible workers to get a tax credit, leaving
45 percent of laid-off workers in small- and medium-sized businesses
and those who never had job-based health care, let us not forget, not
for a minute, who some of those workers are.
What about those who owned or worked in the delis or dry cleaners,
those who delivered goods and cleaned offices in lower Manhattan?
Should they have been excluded from being able to have affordable
health care, as many would under the plan advanced by the Democratic
leadership in the other body?
The bipartisan compromise plan, on the other hand, provides a
refundable
[[Page H10821]]
60 percent tax credit for health insurance premiums paid by displaced
workers. Those workers who had prior health insurance coverage will
have the right to guaranteed coverage. Additionally, the bill provides
for an extension of the Archer Medical Savings Accounts, allowing
families and individuals to be in charge of their own health care
dollars.
Mr. Speaker, as we prepare to wind down the first session of this
107th Congress, we can look back on a record of great accomplishment
for the American people. We cut taxes for working families, we enacted
sweeping education reforms that provide the blueprint and resources to
ensure that no child is left behind, and we came together to lead a
global war on terrorism, a war that we and freedom-loving people
everywhere are winning.
Our action tonight sends a strong message that this House is working
to retain jobs, to create jobs, and to protect displaced workers in
their time of need.
Mr. Speaker, let us finish this year as it began, in a strong
bipartisan effort that will protect American workers and create
American jobs. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this rule and
the underlying legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. FROST asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I would like to make several basic points to
my colleagues in the discussion on this rule.
First is the question of bipartisanship. The Democrats in good faith
entered into negotiations with Republicans to try and work out a
stimulus package. Republicans broke off those negotiations and
commenced an attack on the majority leader in the Senate. That was
their response to bipartisanship.
Instead of permitting Democrats to bring a substitute up tonight,
which perhaps might attract some bipartisan votes and be a real
bipartisan solution, they crafted a closed rule. That was their
response to bipartisanship.
Mr. Speaker, one of the previous speakers earlier this evening
mentioned the visit by the President of the United States to the
Democratic Caucus today. The President came to the Caucus and thanked
us for our support in the war on terrorism. The President did not
mention the economic stimulus package, and we were advised in advance
of his visit that he would not take any questions about the economic
stimulus package.
Now, we all have a great deal of respect for the office of the
Presidency, but this was not an act of bipartisanship this morning.
Mr. Speaker, this bill will cost a whopping $250 billion over the
next 5 years. This bill has no offsets for these costs, so the entire
amount will be added to the deficits the director of OMB has predicted
for fiscal years 2002, 2003, and 2004. That means, plain and simple, we
are in the Social Security trust fund, we will not be paying down the
debt, and our fiscal picture grows bleak once again.
The substitute that we sought to offer and that we were denied by
this rule would have paid for the cost of the Democratic package and
would not have contributed to further deficits in this country.
Mr. Speaker, one of the key differences between the Democratic
alternative, which we will not be permitted to vote on, and the package
before us deals with health care.
Let me be very clear, Mr. Speaker: The core of the Republican health
care provision in this bill is a hollow promise and a cruel hoax. On
page 100 of the bill, page 100 of the bill, there is a short section,
section 757(a), that instructs the administration to establish some
sort of program sometime in the future, which is supposed to provide
the unemployed with vouchers for health care.
Republicans set no deadline for developing this new program, and they
provide no specifications for how it might work. It is little more than
a vague promise. Democrats would take an existing program, the COBRA
program, and use that to immediately provide health care for unemployed
workers.
I know Members sometimes do not have the opportunity to read
legislation that is produced hastily and presented to the floor
hastily, as the Republicans are presenting this bill, so I would like
to read the section that I just mentioned, this Republican alternative
to the existing program of COBRA:
``Advanced payments of displaced worker health insurance credit.
General rule. The Secretary shall establish a program for making
payments on behalf of eligible individuals to providers of health
insurance for such individuals. `Eligible individual.' For purpose of
this section, the term `eligible individual' means any individual for
whom a qualified health insurance credit eligibility certificate is in
effect. Qualified health insurance credit eligibility certificate. For
purposes of this section, a qualified health insurance credit
eligibility certificate is a statement certified by a State agency or
by any other entity designated by the Secretary which certifies that
the individual was unemployed within the meaning of section 6429 as of
the first day of the month, and provides such other information as the
Secretary may require for purposes of this section.''
When asked when this section would be implemented by the Secretary of
the Treasury, the chairman of the Committee, the gentleman from
California (Mr. Thomas) told the Committee on Rules ``sometime this
spring,'' he hopes.
Mr. Speaker, until this promise is somehow fulfilled, laid-off
workers are practically on their own if they want health insurance.
That is because, Mr. Speaker, Republicans offer nothing more than a
refundable tax credit for every American who is unemployed today, and
for every American who loses his job when this Rube Goldberg scheme
that I just read has been designed, developed, and put in place.
In other words, if you lose your job, the Republican bill requires
you to scrape together several thousand dollars to pay for health
insurance bills right now, at the same time you are scrambling to pay
for rent and buy groceries, and according to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Thomas), to file for a government voucher to offset
part of the cost, which may be granted sometime in the future when the
program is designed.
Mr. Speaker, we offer a very simple program: We take the existing
COBRA program that was passed many years ago by this Congress, and it
provides health insurance for unemployed workers, and extend that to
workers who have been laid off recently, and provide 75 percent of that
to be paid for by the government now, not at some future date when this
program may be set up by the Secretary.
Mr. Speaker, Americans who lose their jobs do not need refundable tax
credits, vouchers in the future; they need direct assistance right now
to pay their health insurance premiums, and they need guaranteed access
to affordable health insurance policies.
Mr. Speaker, this bill ignores the fact Democrats in the House and
Senate, including the Senate majority leader, have made good-faith
efforts and major concessions in an attempt to reach accommodation on
an economic stimulus package that is good for the country and good for
American workers.
Mr. Speaker, this bill, this rule, denies the minority the
opportunity to offer its own substitute, and I can tell the Members why
the majority denies the minority that opportunity: They are afraid we
might pass it, and they are afraid then the Senate might actually take
something up which is truly bipartisan and could be passed before we go
home.
What they have done is to design a scheme to present a bill that they
know the Senate will not consider. This is a cynical approach on the
part of the majority. First they break off bipartisan talks, and then
they try and blame us for the fact that they present a partisan bill
without an alternative that they know will not be considered by the
other body.
The American public deserves better, Mr. Speaker. Defeat this rule,
go back to the Committee on Rules, which we could very easily do, we
are going to be here all night anyway, and report out a rule that gives
the Democrats the option of offering an alternative on the floor which
could attract, I believe, Republican votes which could be passed
[[Page H10822]]
tonight and which the Senate could take up tomorrow, rather than
passing a bill that is going nowhere.
The majority knows this, and the majority is treating the American
public with the back of their hand.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the first thing when we listen to my colleague is, let
us make no mistake about it, the Committee on Rules has allowed as the
tradition of the Republican majority long before I got here, beginning
in its majority in 1995, they made a vow then, a commitment then, that
it carries out each and every time: A motion to recommit by the
minority, something that in the 40 years that the Republicans were in
the minority, they did not have that opportunity to see.
When we talk about the debate, which I hope, in the 2-hour debate
that the Committee on Rules afforded the Committee on Ways and Means
chairman and the ranking minority member to air out these important
details, that we will not lose sight, as the ranking member has talked
about some of the deficiencies he saw, that first and foremost, the
Democratic plan involves a tax increase. That is how they want to pay
for it, a tax increase.
{time} 2330
Second, when my colleague talks about the plan that is before us,
when my State has 15 percent of its revenues that were generated in the
area, in the 15 blocks around the World Trade Center, how can anyone
say repairing our economy in the wake of September 11 is not part of
the war on terrorism?
Finally, when the ranking member talked about some of the health
care, the view of the Democratic plan is if you are COBRA eligible, we
are going to take care of you. Except they have lost sight of the 45
percent of the other American workers across this country, across my
State, across the City of New York that do not have COBRA eligibility
and do not have COBRA option.
The Thomas bill addresses the opportunities of those 45 percent of
the displaced workers that need the type of help that this legislation
has.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr.
Ganske).
(Mr. GANSKE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GANSKE. Mr. Speaker, the economy is sick. Unemployment is going
up. The economy does need a shot in the arm. This bill contains
provisions to help the unemployed with health care coverage, provisions
to encourage business investment and deductions for capital losses. I
rise in support of the rule and in support of the underlying bill.
This bill will cut the current 27 percent rate to 25 percent. It will
provide tax incentives to businesses for investments and give low
income workers a one-time $300 per person tax rebate. It provides $33
billion in assistance to unemployed workers next year up from $13
billion in the original House bill. It does not include the full repeal
of the corporate AMT.
The toughest issue to reach compromise on, as you can already see
from the debate, is how to provide health insurance coverage to people
who lost their jobs. This bill gives laid-off workers a tax credit they
can use to buy health care coverage from insurers. This is a more
comprehensive approach than simply providing subsidies through existing
health plans. I think this bill will help a larger universe of
unemployed workers, particularly workers for small businesses.
This stimulus bill will also help with rebuilding New York. It will
help the September 11 victims' families. Furthermore, it provides up to
13 weeks of extended benefits for those who became unemployed after
March 2001.
I call on my colleagues to support this bill and I hope that the
Senate takes this up before they go home for Christmas.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Coming from the State with the highest unemployment rate in the
United States, I speak with a sense of urgency and all too much
familiarity with the need to stimulate the economy and employment. But
the corporations that have laid off thousands of Oregonians and
millions of others across the United States, they do not lack cash in
their coffers. Some have record amounts of cash on hand, according to
the Wall Street Journal. There is no demand for their product.
Now, the Republicans would shovel more cash into their treasuries
that are already overflowing. Every problem should be solved by a tax
cut on their side of the aisle. Surplus? Tax cuts. Terrorist attacks?
Tax cuts. Deficits? Tax cuts. Recession with a lack of demand? Tax
cuts.
It will not solve this problem. The Democratic proposal, which will
not be allowed a fair vote tonight as a true alternative, would put
people back to work, would stimulate demand and would, in the interim,
help people with unemployment and health care benefits.
The Republicans say it is about jobs. But if you read the bill, you
have got to wonder whose jobs where. Because billions of dollars,
billions, would flow overseas for overseas tax shelters for interest
income overseas. Whose jobs will that support here? No worker that I
know in the United States will benefit from those loopholes. But they
will pay for it out of their Social Security because that is what
finances these tax cuts.
$250 billion, that is what this bill costs. And it is not going to be
paid for by Santa Claus. It will be paid for by that huge sucking
sound, one massive withdrawal of the working people's retirement,
Social Security trust fund shifted all at once to the wealthiest and
largest corporations in this country.
Silk stockings stuffed with cash for the patrons of the party on that
side of the aisle. And for the working people of America, not even a
lump of coal in their worn stocking because they will cut the LIHEAP
program too. There will not even be energy assistance.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I just need to put on the record, I have heard some of
my Democratic colleagues run around with a figure of $250 billion. I
just want to make clear that as we see this cost now, it is far less
than under $150 billion.
Also, as I listened to my colleagues who preceded me, the export jobs
depend on this type of legislation. Many U.S. manufacturers have
financing arms to fund overseas sales of its products as do other
companies. Caterpillar, for example, has 16,500 export-related jobs to
suppliers that employ another 33,000.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes and 30 seconds to the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kleczka).
Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, if I were a Republican, I would not want to
get up and talk on this rule either. It seems only the Committee on
Rules representatives, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds) has
the guts to do that.
But do we know what is void in this debate today? And I cannot recall
in a previous hour and I cannot recall the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Reynolds) saying it in this rule debate, that the House has already
passed a stimulus bill. We passed one 2 weeks ago. But it seems no one
wants to talk about that because that is the bill that gave $1.4
billion to IBM, $1 billion to Ford, $850 million to GM. That is what
was in that give-away.
So why do not we have a compromise here today? Because the Senate
looked at that and said not over their lives. That was dead on arrival.
All right.
So there has been talks going on over the last couple weeks. And I
know why I am a Democrat and now I know what the Republicans are all
about. Do you know why we do not have a compromise with us today? Even
though the other body was going to swallow some of the tax cuts, the
main reason is the Republicans did not want to do anything of any
meaningful value to the unemployed in this country, and to those losing
health care.
My colleagues smile. The bill says $9 billion for health care for
unemployment. That goes to the States. There is no guarantee they are
going to extend unemployment 13 weeks. They can use those dollars in
this bill to cover their current costs, and as far as the health
[[Page H10823]]
care provision, we use two existing programs to provide meaningful
health care coverage to those losing that coverage, but the Republicans
are on a different program, and this is what really killed any
compromise.
Their long-term goal is to destroy the employer-based health care
system in the country. When we get to the bill, I will bring out some
charts that will prove that to be their agenda. That is why the Senate
said no compromise.
What their bill does is start us on the path of insurance credits. We
are going to give them an insurance credit, and we go through the
private market and find a policy, a poor family with no insurance and
small income cannot afford a credit, be it 60 percent or whatever, so
they are still going to go without.
That is what this debate is all about. It is not stimulus. We passed
a $1.35 trillion bill in June. There is more tax cuts in the pipeline
than brains in this House. This is all about doing damage to the health
care system of the country.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Just as we fortified our Nation's military in response to the attack
of the response of our shores, we have the opportunity tonight to
fortify this Nation's economy against the attack on it, keeping jobs by
creating jobs and giving needed help to displaced workers.
Make no mistake about it, this economic stimulus is critical to
workers and worker families in America. President Bush warned us this
past weekend that without an economic stimulus package, we stand to
lose as many as 300,000 American jobs. The Republicans mean to me and
the agenda we put forth on this Thomas bill as it is debated over the
next couple of hours is creating jobs and protecting workers.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 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 rise in strong opposition to the rule. I
rise in even stronger opposition to the basic bill.
I want to commend my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who
voted against the previous Martial law, making it true bipartisan
opposition. There is an old Blue Dog adage that says, ``Select
carefully your words today for tomorrow you may eat them.''
Mr. Speaker, when the House debated the Economic Growth and Tax
Relief Reconciliation Act, the bill enacting the $1.35 trillion tax
cut, I came to this well to warn that this budget bets the ranch that
the surpluses that everybody talks about are going to be there. If they
are not, we are going to have a difficult time governing in this body
in a bipartisan way.
In response to those who dismissed my warnings, I said, I hope I am
wrong, as I hope I am wrong tonight, and if I am wrong, I hope I will
be able to eat the crow you dish out to me a year from now if I am
wrong, but if I am right, get your knives and forks out.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I am going to be eating turkey on Christmas day,
and for the sake of my colleagues who argued that we could afford to
enact the tax cut and still do everything else they promised, I hope
they find some crow that tastes like turkey.
We were told the President's tax cut would provide stimulus to
prevent this country from going into recession. Today, we are being
told the $1.35 trillion was not enough; we need another $150 billion in
tax cuts plus another $120 billion in spending.
To those who stand up tonight and say if we do not pass this bill we
will fail to do anything to stimulate the economy, I have to ask was
not that what the tax cut was supposed to do we passed this spring?
When Congress first began discussing options for providing economic
stimulus, the bipartisan leader of the Committee on the Budget in this
body, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) and the gentleman from South
Carolina (Mr. Spratt) agreed on a couple of basic principles for a
responsible, effective stimulus package; that the package be temporary
in nature, focused on economic stimulus and paid for over the long term
so we did not worsen the long-term fiscal situation.
The legislation before us tonight completely ignores these common
sense principles and they know it. The Blue Dogs made a simple
proposition to the leaders of this House, take what our leaders of the
Committee on the Budget recommended that we do, make it temporary, pay
for it. The leadership said thanks but no thanks, we do not want any
part of that.
Okay. We understand. I understand, I am in the minority, you win. You
have won on issue after issue after issue. You are going to win again
tonight, but I remind my colleagues again, next February and March when
you must come to this floor and ask that the debt ceiling be increased
to $6.7 trillion, I hope the enthusiasm will be there to borrow that
money, borrow it on the future of our grandchildren because that is
what you are doing.
Why they refuse to pay for this particular package tonight defies my
understanding. It would be so simple, so simple, Mr. Speaker, I see Mr.
Speaker in the House audience tonight, so simple if we just agreed to
pay for it, paygo. What happened to the fiscally responsible
proposition of paygo?
Mr. Speaker, when the House debated the ``Economic Growth and Tax
Relief Reconciliation Act'', the bill implementing the $1.35 trillion
tax cut, I came to the House floor to warn ``this budget bets the ranch
that surpluses that everybody talks about are going to be there. If
they are not, we are going to have a difficult time governing in this
body in a bipartisan way.''
In response to those who dismissed my warnings, I said ``I hope I am
wrong. I hope I will be able to eat the crow you will dish out to me in
a year from now, if I am wrong. But if I am right, get your knives and
forks out.''
Well, Mr. Speaker, I will be eating turkey on Christmas day. For the
sake of my colleagues who argued that we could afford to enact the tax
cut and still do everything else you promised, I hope you can find some
crow that tastes like turkey.
And we were told that the President's tax cut would provide stimulus
to prevent this country from going into a recession. Today we are being
told that the $1.35 trillion tax cut the President signed into law
wasn't enough to stimulate the economy.
Now the same folks who told us that everything would be wonderful if
we enacted the President's tax cut proposal are telling us that we can
solve all of our problems if we just enact another $150 billion in tax
cuts.
To those who stand up and say that if we don't pass this bill, we
will have failed to do anything to stimulate the economy, I have to
ask: Wasn't that what the tax cut we passed this spring was supposed to
do.
When Congress first began discussing options for providing economic
stimulus, the bipartisan leaders of the Budget Committees agreed on a
couple of basic principles for a responsible, effective stimulus
package--that the package be temporary in nature, focused on economic
stimulus, and paid for over the long term so that we did not worsen the
long-term fiscal situation.The legislation before us today completely
ignores these common sense principles.
The Blue Dogs made the simple suggestion that the costs of providing
economic stimulus in the short term be offset by postponing some of the
tax cuts for upper income individuals that are scheduled to take effect
several years into the future. That would allow us to provide stimulus
in the short term without digging us deeper into debt and undermining
the fiscal discipline that is essential to the long-term health of our
economy. But the majority told us that they would not even consider
this common-sense proposal.
The proposal before us is purported to be a centrist deal because it
combines the tax cuts advocated by Republicans with much of the
spending proposed by Democrats. While that may be described by some as
bipartisanship and centrist policies, it does not represent responsible
legislating.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
What I do know is that if this legislation is passed tonight, it is
not going to be that Tom Reynolds wins. The American people and those
displaced workers are going to win because we are going to get them
some help immediately if we can get the other body to take some action
before we break now.
I want to tell my colleagues this, whether you are a Blue Dog or you
are a liberal or a Republican or a Democrat, you vote on the motion to
recommit, which is a Democratic plan, you voted for tax increases, make
no mistake about it.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from South
[[Page H10824]]
Carolina (Mr. Spratt), the ranking member on the Committee on the
Budget.
(Mr. SPRATT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost)
for yielding me the time.
Mr. Speaker, the country is in revision, businesses are failing,
people are hurting, losing their jobs by the thousands, and what do we
have as a solution? Here in the middle of the night, hours before we
adjourn, we are presented with a bill that half of us have never seen,
and what we have seen of it we do not like.
This is called an economic stimulus bill, but it could easily be
called round two of tax reduction because it is full of tax cuts that
will have a doubtful impact on the economy as a whole, but will have a
clear impact on the budget. It will bring the surplus down by $272
billion. That is the latest estimate just given to us by the Joint
Committee on Taxation.
It did not have to be this way, Mr. Speaker. Two months ago, the
principals on the Committee on the Budget, the Committee on Financial
Services, the Committee on Ways and Means met to settle on policies to
stimulate this economy. We settled instead for a statement of
principles. We agreed that stimulus was needed but we thought that it
should be temporary, short-lived to last through the recession but no
longer. Why? We wanted to keep a cyclical downswing from becoming a
structural deficit. We wanted the budget to recover as the economy
recovered.
The stimulus bill that was first reported by the Committee on Ways
and Means forsook all of these principles. It proposed more permanent
tax cuts, lasting a long time after the recession ends.
{time} 2345
Here are the stimulus principles that we proposed. Bipartisan,
bicameral principles. We said, look, if there is any lesson to be
learned from the last 10 years, it is that long-term fiscal discipline
is essential to sustain economic growth. We saw it for 8 straight
years. The bottom line of the budget got better, and we had 120
consecutive months of economic growth. We said we wanted to continue
that policy.
Secondly, we said, have a stimulus policy, surely, but make them last
no longer than 1 year.
Thirdly, we said make them broad based, not industry specific.
Reading this bill we see plenty of industry specific stuff in it.
Fourthly, we said 1 percent of GDP should do the job, about $100
billion, and take into consideration, we said, that we have spent $40
billion since August.
Finally, we said to uphold the policy of repaying the greatest amount
of national debt feasible between 2002 and 2011, out-year offsets
should make up over time for the cost of near-term economic stimulus.
Obviously, we do not want to offset the cost of this bill in this bill
today, but we can build into this bill a provision that will regenerate
the revenues we will lose from it in the future, and we can absolve the
bottom line.
Now, why does all this matter? Why does all this matter? Because a
lot of us who have been here for a long time have this sinking feeling
we are about to slip back into the old practice of borrow and spend.
Why does it matter? Because of the lesson we have learned for the past
10 years.
This year we started with the best fiscal condition the country has
ever enjoyed, a surplus projected to be $5.6 trillion just last
January. Today, that surplus stands at $2.6 trillion and is falling
fast. The economy is taking its toll, but 55 percent of the decline in
the surplus was due to the tax cuts we passed last June.
Now, this $2.6 trillion, $2.3 trillion range in which the surplus now
lies is all together Social Security and Medicare surplus. There is no
general fund surplus at all. And this is before farm bill, before
defense supplemental, before homeland security, and before assessing
the $272 billion cost of this bill. Why are we worried about this bill?
Because it is going to wipe out the surplus. It will dash our hopes
which we held together of taking the Social Security surplus, saving
the surplus, and buying off the national debt so that we prepare
ourselves for the retirement of the baby boomers.
This bill, Mr. Speaker, has doubtful effects on the economy, but it
has a clear impact on the budget, and it is a deleterious impact. It is
something we do not need to do. There is another way of doing it. There
is a principled way of doing it. We should take that path and not take
the path this bill proposes.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I inquire of the time remaining on both
sides.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Frost) has 9\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Reynolds) has 16 minutes remaining.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Woolsey).
(Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I view this stimulus package through the
eyes of a welfare mother. I can do that, because 30 years ago I was a
welfare mom. And even though I was working, I needed aid for dependent
children to get the health care and the child care and the food stamps
I needed for my three young children.
When Congress passed the welfare reform bill, I warned that getting
women off the welfare rolls and into work would not be good enough if
and when we had a downturn in our economy. Well, the downturn is here;
and these women are hit with a triple whammy: no job, no health care,
no unemployment insurance.
Our top priority in stimulating this economy must be putting money in
the hands of people who need it and will use it. Those are our American
families. The only acceptable economic stimulus package is one that
takes care of the Nation's families, not our billionaires. We must
stimulate the economy by providing for our children, giving money to
families, and providing workers unemployment insurance and health
coverage.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Bentsen).
(Mr. BENTSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Speaker, once again our Republican colleagues have
decided to choose politics over policy. And tonight, as we head into
the next morning, we are going to pass a bill that will never pass the
other body. And, quite frankly, if it were to pass, I do not think it
would have much effect on the general economy.
In fact, we were asked to pass a $1.3 trillion tax bill earlier this
year that was supposed to stimulate the economy at that point in time,
when it was apparent that we were heading into a recession, and all we
saw that happened was that the recession got deeper and the deficit
appeared and the surplus went away.
Our colleague from New York says this bill is only going to cost $150
billion, not $270 billion. But, of course, he is forgetting about the
fact we are going to have to borrow another $115 billion of debt when
we should have been paying down the national debt.
Now, if we really wanted to have a stimulus bill that would have some
economic effect, and I am glad to see our Republican friends have all
become Keynesians, I thought they were monitorists, but now they are
Keynesians this week, what we would do is extend the unemployment
benefits for 26 weeks, because we know we are going to have a longer
recession than what was projected; and we would do the COBRA extension,
like has been discussed. And if the Republicans are really serious
about trying to transform health care and they care about the 45
percent who are not in COBRA, well maybe we could do that also. But
they do not care about the 55 percent who are in COBRA.
And they want to come up with a plan that the Treasury Department,
which is now apparently taking over health care in this country, has
not even developed yet. Maybe sometime this spring we will have a
program. Maybe if someone has been unemployed for 26 weeks, and as my
colleague from Texas says, they are able
[[Page H10825]]
to scrape together enough to pay the full premium, at the end of the
year, in April of 2003, they will get a tax credit back. It is not
going to work.
So if we want to do something to help the people that are unemployed,
and I want to, and I think all of us do, let us pass a basic bill that
extends unemployment, that extends COBRA, and helps the people who have
been hurt by this recession.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Kucinich).
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, this bill could have been a lifeline for
working families suffering as a result of the economic decline. This
bill could have increased weekly payments to unemployed individuals and
extended benefits to 52 weeks. This bill could have subsidized COBRA
health insurance for those left uninsured as a result of layoff. This
bill could have boosted its spending on critical security and
infrastructure programs in order to jump-start the economy. This bill
could have been a stimulus package. Instead, it is an expensive
giveaway to those who need it least: a payback to Fortune 500
companies, who will guarantee further jobs will be cut.
Our plan supplemented weekly benefits by no less than $65. Our plan
guaranteed a full year of benefits to any individual eligible for
unemployment benefits under State law. Our plan expanded eligibility to
include part-time and other low-wage workers. This is critical, as
currently less than 40 percent of unemployed Americans receive
benefits.
Dickens' ``Christmas Carol'' had Scrooge lighten up, give Cratchet a
raise, and bring his son Tiny Tim some cheer. This bill before us would
have Scrooge firing Cratchet, canceling his pension, and beating Tiny
Tim with his own crutch.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Utah
(Mr. Matheson).
Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my opposition to
this bill.
This bill fails to meet all the criteria we ought to be looking for
to provide an appropriate economic stimulus. It should have a rapid and
temporary impact, it should increase employment and investment, it
should provide adequate assistance for those who are vulnerable to an
economic downturn, and it should be paid for in the long term to
prevent future deficits.
When I was elected to Congress, I made a promise to my constituents
to be an independent voice and to make fiscally responsible decisions.
Just as Utah families have to make responsible decisions to maintain
their households and keep their finances in order, so must the Federal
Government.
Early this year, I did support the tax cut. This bill had a number of
important provisions for Utah families, and it was enacted at a time
when we did have unprecedented government surpluses. But today we are
facing deficits, increased debt, and we are fighting a war. Winning the
war on terrorism and taking care of our homeland defense will require
significant resources. Ensuring we have adequate resources to fund
these priorities is a smart investment, as it will have the long-term
benefit of ensuring safety and protection of American lives, homes and
businesses.
We should reject this bill and work to come up with a targeted,
temporary stimulus proposal that is paid for in the long term so we do
not increase our national debt.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Sanchez).
Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Speaker, when Congress gave billions of dollars to
corporate titans after the events of September 11 and the slowdown in
the economy, we promised that we would take care of the workers.
Unfortunately, Congress has not kept its promise.
During the last 2 months, over 1 million Americans have been added to
the unemployment rolls. But this bill provides only modest benefits,
maybe, to them. Many of the people I represent are employed in jobs
directly related to the tourism industry. These are the jobs that have
been hit the hardest, and these are the workers that need the most
help. I read yesterday in my local newspaper that analysts are
predicting that Disneyland, the largest employer in my district, may
not rebound for many years to come.
This bill is not what small businesses want or unemployed workers
need. They need temporary business and individual cuts targeted at
really stimulating this economy. This is about small businesses closing
their doors and people being laid off. This is about people saying I
cannot afford rent and health care and food.
We provided relief for the airlines; we provided relief for the
insurance agencies. Let us do this. Let us do it the right way.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I would ask how much time we have remaining.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas has 3\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Turner).
Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, time after time, the Members of this House
have pledged by votes cast on this floor to protect Social Security. We
know that until just a few months ago we were projecting surpluses as
far the eye could see. And we pledged, when we passed the June tax cut,
to protect Social Security. Then came the recession, then came the war,
and the projected surpluses have turned into projected deficits for
years into the future.
Times have changed, but our principles should not change. Is it right
to pledge the lockbox for Social Security one day and to abandon it the
next? What does the abandonment of that pledge say to our senior
citizens and to our children who will be left with a bankrupt Social
Security trust fund?
Both sides of this aisle agree we need to have a stimulus package to
help the jobless workers with unemployment and health insurance. Both
sides agree that we must stimulate business investments.
{time} 2400
But it is only the Democratic proposal that protects Social Security,
only the Democratic proposal refuses to increase the national debt. In
contrast, the Republican proposal increases the national debt by $250
billion. The Democratic proposal is paid for, not by increasing taxes
on any individual or business, but by adjusting the effective tax rates
for future yet to be realized and implemented tax cuts.
Under the Democratic proposal, the total tax cuts passed by this
Congress last June will remain exactly the same. If the gentleman from
New York calls the Democratic bill a tax cut, the gentleman has a
different calculator than I do. Fiscal responsibility demands that not
only must we protect and preserve the current economic situation and
protect against the slowdown, but we must protect the economy of the
future. Recommit this bill, and let us pay for it.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, first of all, the Republican Party in this Congress
extended the life of Social Security; and the same leadership will
ensure that we preserve and strengthen it. I share with my colleague
who is under some fallacy that there is not a tax increase on the
Democratic plan. On page 2 at the bottom, a revenue offset freezing the
top rate 38.6.
Mr. Speaker, we passed law of the land that changed that tax rate. If
we are going to restore higher taxes, it is a vote to increase taxes.
Make no mistake about it.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Inslee).
(Mr. INSLEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, in the spirit of the season, I must admit
that under the Republican controlled House, it is indeed a wonderful
life. Because when the Republicans control the House, whenever the
voting bell rings, a corporate tax lobbyist gets his wings. Merry
Christmas, Enron. Merry Christmas, General Electric. To my friends
[[Page H10826]]
across the aisle and their corporate tax lobbyist friends, God bless
everyone, because when the American people find out that Social
Security was raided to take care of Republican friends, the American
people will not.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, we are going to bring out that same old thing and beat
that dog on Social Security. As I said earlier, the Republicans
extended it, and they are going to take care of it. I also remind my
colleagues on the lock box and both the speakers who spoke before me,
there were three conditions set on the lock box that we said would
cause us to have to look at the lock box. One was war; two was the
economy; and three was natural disaster. We have seen natural disaster,
we have seen our economy, and we have seen war as conditions, as we
have faced those tough decisions together on a bipartisan basis
starting the day of September 11 when this Congress came together in a
bipartisan fashion.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I would ask if the gentleman from New York
has any other speakers.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, after the gentleman from Texas closes, I
will close.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, it is very clear what the situation is. The Republicans
made a conscious decision to break off bipartisan discussions and to
bring back to the floor a bill tonight that they know cannot pass and
will not even be taken up in the Senate. This was an extraordinary
mistake on the part of the Republican majority. They were playing
chicken with the United States Senate. This is a childish game. The
American Republican will be the losers.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, there are new incentives to compete and grow and expand
the bipartisan, bicameral Economic Security and Worker Protection Act.
The Act will help businesses rebuild and create jobs for the American
people.
So far all I have heard from the other side is a lot of rhetoric
about what they would like to do, but we cannot get them to sit down
and negotiate out a compromise. So what do we have? We have the
chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means move from where his past
position was over to adding more unemployment insurance money, adding
more incentives to try to lure a bipartisan compromise that could be
completed. The reality is he has moved as far as he can until the other
body determines that they will negotiate.
Mr. Speaker, the bottom line is that the workers deserve a paycheck,
not an unemployment check. Of course this stimulus package recognizes
that job creation is a long-term project, and assisting those out of
work requires immediate short-term solutions. For those who have lost
their jobs, an additional 13 weeks of unemployment benefits will be
provided retroactive to March 2001. Part-time workers will be aided
with $9 billion in surplus Federal unemployment funds transferred to
States in order to help with health care or employment services.
Equally important to our workforce is the availability and
affordability of adequate health care. With the refundable health care
tax credits provided by this legislation, no worker eligible for
unemployment insurance will be left without the means to obtain quality
health care protection.
Some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle and in the other
Chamber wanted only COBRA-eligible workers to get a tax credit, leaving
out 45 percent of laid off workers in small and medium-sized
businesses, and those who never had job-based health care at all.
And let us not forget, not for one minute, who some of these workers
are. What about those who owned or worked in the delis and the dry
cleaners or delivered goods and cleaned offices in lower Manhattan,
should they have been excluded from being able to afford health care,
as many would under the plan advanced by the Democratic leadership in
the other body?
The bipartisan compromise plan, on the other hand, provides a
refundable 60 percent tax credit for health insurance premium paid by
displaced workers. Those workers who had prior health care insurance
coverage will have the right to guaranteed coverage. Additionally, the
bill provides for an extension of the Archer Medical Savings Accounts
allowing families and individuals to be in charge of their own health
care dollars.
Mr. Speaker, our action tonight sends a strong message that this
House is working to retain jobs, create jobs, and to protect displaced
workers in their time of need. Colleagues, let us finish this year as
it began, in a strong bipartisan effort that will protect American
workers and create American jobs. I strongly urge my colleagues to
support this rule and the underlying legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the
previous question on the resolution.
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The Chair would remind
Members it is not appropriate under the rules to characterize either
the action or inaction of the other body.
Without objection, the previous question is ordered on the
resolution.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
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 219,
nays 198, not voting 18, as follows:
[Roll No. 507]
YEAS--219
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
Castle
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
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Graham
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Grucci
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hart
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
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 (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
Mica
Miller, Dan
Miller, Gary
Miller, Jeff
Moran (KS)
Morella
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Osborne
Ose
Otter
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
Schaffer
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stump
Sununu
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Traficant
Upton
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins (OK)
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (FL)
NAYS--198
Abercrombie
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
[[Page H10827]]
Capuano
Cardin
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
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
Ford
Frank
Frost
Gonzalez
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Harman
Hill
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
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
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott
Serrano
Sherman
Shows
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson (CA)
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOT VOTING--18
Baker
Clement
Cubin
Gephardt
Gordon
Hall (OH)
Hastings (FL)
Hefley
Jones (NC)
Kennedy (RI)
Luther
Meek (FL)
Owens
Oxley
Stark
Stearns
Wexler
Young (AK)
{time} 0034
Mrs. CAPPS, Mr. RUSH and Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas 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.
____________________