[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 78 (Thursday, June 13, 2002)]
[House]
[Pages H3515-H3518]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4019, PERMANENT MARRIAGE PENALTY 
                           RELIEF ACT OF 2002

  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the 
Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 440 and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 440

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 
     4019) to provide that the marriage penalty relief provisions 
     of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 
     2001 shall be permanent. The bill shall be considered as read 
     for amendment. The previous question shall be considered as 
     ordered on the bill and on any amendment thereto to final 
     passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of 
     debate on the bill equally divided and controlled by the 
     chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways 
     and Means; (2) the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying 
     this resolution, if offered by Representative Rangel of New 
     York or his designee, which shall be in order without 
     intervention of any point of order, shall be considered as 
     read, and shall be separately debatable for one hour equally 
     divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent; and 
     (3) one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from Washington 
(Mr. Hastings) is recognized for one hour.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate 
only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), 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. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 440 is a 
modified, closed rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 4019, a 
bill to provide that the marriage penalty relief provisions of the 
Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 shall be 
permanent.
  The rule provides 1 hour 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 further provides for consideration of the 
amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in the Committee on 
Rules' report accompanying the resolution if offered by the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Rangel) or his designee.
  The substitute shall be considered as read and shall be separately 
debatable

[[Page H3516]]

for one hour, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an 
opponent.
  Finally, the rule waives all points of order against the amendment 
printed in the report and provides one motion to recommit with or 
without instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, as with the death tax repeal provisions passed by the 
House last week, it is necessary for this body to act again today 
because when Congress enacted the Marriage Penalty Relief of 2001, an 
arcane procedural rule in the other body required that much-needed 
relief for married taxpayers be terminated on July 1, 2011. This 
clearly contradicts the original will of the House as our bill had no 
sunset provision. We passed marriage penalty relief in the first place 
because it is unfair and even morally wrong for the Federal Government 
to tax working men and women at a higher rate if they are married than 
if they instead choose to remain single while living together. We 
corrected that inequity because simple fairness demands it. And 
fundamental fairness also demands that we make that change permanent 
because to do otherwise means that on January 1, 2011, every married 
couple in America, every married couple in America, will face a 
significant tax increase. No one else, just married couples. In fact, 
failure to act on H.R. 4019 will result in a tax increase of $42 
billion in 2010 and 2011 for low and middle income taxpayers alone.
  That is not what this House intended and it is up to us to do 
something about it. For that reason I am pleased that the Committee on 
Ways and Means has reported legislation removing the ``sunset'' 
provisions of the marriage penalty relief we passed last year. This 
bill, H.R. 4019, will make the following provisions from last year's 
law permanent. It will increase the standard deduction for married 
couples to twice the deduction for single taxpayers. It will increase 
the width of the 15 percent tax bracket for married couples so that it 
is twice as wide as the bracket for single taxpayers. It will increase 
the phaseout range of the earned income tax credit by $3,000 for 
married couples and simplifies the earned income tax credit to reduce 
tax complexity for low income taxpayers.
  Mr. Speaker, as I said a moment ago, we are only taking up this 
legislation because of an obscure procedural obstacle in the other 
body. We have an opportunity today to correct that injustice, and I 
urge my colleagues to do so by adopting both this rule and the 
underlying bill H.R. 4019.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may 
consume. I thank the gentleman from Washington for yielding me the 
customary 30 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, although this rule makes a Democratic substitute in 
order and I have no problem with the rule, I believe that this is not 
the right time to be considering the underlying legislation. Our 
Nation's fiscal house is not in order, but instead of working to return 
this country back to the budget surpluses of 3 years ago, the 
Republican majority continues to dig us further into a deeper fiscal 
hole. Instead of working together for the good of all Americans, the 
majority continues to bring legislation to this floor that is 
politically designed for the November campaign. This body, Mr. Speaker, 
is sound bite central. Listen to the debate today and get used to the 
sound bites because the arguments we hear today will sound a lot like 
tomorrow's campaign ads. There is a time and place for politics but not 
here and not now.
  There is a strong desire for tax relief in both the Democratic and 
Republican parties, but we have serious disagreements about who should 
benefit from that relief. Democrats believe tax relief should go to 
working families trying to make ends meet, not billionaire CEOs and 
multinational corporations. We all agree that families who are unfairly 
penalized by the marriage penalty tax deserve relief. We could provide 
that relief right now, but, Mr. Speaker, the devil is always in the 
details and the details show that this bill is bad news for the 
people's budget.
  Consider the facts. The marriage penalty tax provisions included in 
last year's tax cuts don't begin to take effect until 2005 and they 
don't expire until 2010 and primarily benefit wealthier Americans, not 
lower and middle income families who should benefit the most from this 
relief. If the majority is so concerned about tax relief for married 
couples, why did they not make this relief effective immediately 
instead of forcing families to wait until 2005? Why is there such a 
rush to extend these tax cuts beyond any reasonable budget projections? 
As a result of last year's tax cut, the recession, and the economic 
consequences of September 11, this country now has a $200 billion 
budget deficit. Of course, this deficit comes on the heels of record 
budget surpluses created during the Clinton administration.
  But does the Republican majority do anything to help dig this country 
out of the fiscal hole we are in? No. Last week this House approved 
legislation repealing the sunset of the estate tax. This repeal would 
cost almost three quarters of a trillion dollars. The repeal of the 
sunset of the marriage penalty will cost another quarter of a trillion 
dollars over the next 2 decades. Where is this money coming from? How 
are we going to pay for it? Where are the offsets?
  The real answer is disturbingly clear. These repeals will be paid for 
by dipping into the Social Security Trust fund.

                              {time}  1015

  The American people deserve to know that the Republican majority is 
spending from the Social Security trust fund until the well is dry. The 
baby boomers will begin to retire in 2011, and we must prepare for 
their arrival into the Social Security system. Squandering the Social 
Security surplus is unacceptable, but that is what is happening here.
  Of course, if we were in the mood to be responsible, there are always 
ways to pay for this bill. We have one very reasonable offset staring 
us in the face. Certain corporations are fleeing the United States for 
tax havens overseas, skipping out on their responsibilities. This House 
has the power to close this tax loophole by approving legislation 
introduced by our colleagues, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Neal) and the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Maloney). This 
legislation would save a minimum of $4 billion over the next decade.
  During the debate on the tax limitation amendment yesterday, the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence) said, ``If you owe tax, pay taxes,'' 
and I agree. Corporations must pay the taxes that they owe. Congress 
should not allow these corporations to set up tax shelters overseas 
while continuing to operate in this country just to avoid paying taxes. 
Working families have to pay their taxes. The married couples we are 
discussing today have to pay their taxes. Why do these corporations not 
pay their taxes?
  But no, every time the Democrats try to offer reasonable ways to pay 
for these bills, the majority leadership refuses to allow our 
amendments to even be considered. So what are they afraid of, Mr. 
Speaker?
  The gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui) will offer a Democratic 
substitute that will protect Social Security for the next generation. 
This substitute still permanently extends marriage penalty relief, but 
it adds a trigger requiring the Office of Management and Budget to 
certify that this permanent repeal will not raid the Social Security 
trust fund, and let me repeat that. All this does is require the Office 
of Management and Budget to certify that this permanent repeal will not 
raid the Social Security trust fund.
  I think almost every Member of this body has voted not to spend 
Social Security funds on anything but Social Security. We have had 
votes on lockboxes and everything else, and people have centered all 
their press releases about how they want to protect Social Security. 
Here is a way to show it.
  Our substitute would protect Social Security for future generations. 
We owe it to the American people to maintain the solvency of the 
system, and I urge my colleagues, both Republican and Democrat, to 
support our substitute.
  Mr. Speaker, this debate is not about marriage. All of us support the 
institution of marriage. All of us believe that married couples should 
not be unfairly penalized. Rather, this debate is about 
responsibilities. Are we going to be responsible and pay for the bills 
we pass,

[[Page H3517]]

or are we going to steal from the baby boomers by taking funds from 
Social Security, one of the most important social programs in the 
history of the United States?
  We are witnessing an incredibly disturbing trend on the part of the 
majority. A few weeks ago, the Republican leadership buried a huge 
increase in the debt ceiling in a rule so Members could avoid taking 
responsibility for their votes, so that no one has to go home and say 
they voted to increase the debt ceiling, when, in fact, that is what we 
are doing.
  Mr. Speaker, Members of this House cannot hide forever. The American 
people know what is going on here. They know that the surplus is gone. 
They know that to pay for some of these tax measures that we have no 
offsets for, that we are going to dip into the Social Security trust 
fund; and they are very much against that. I believe they deserve a 
heck of a lot better.
  We must be fiscally responsible. We must live up to our promises; and 
in the end, we should defeat this bill and support the Democratic 
substitute.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 7 
minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller), who has been a 
champion of this issue since he first came to Congress.
  (Mr. WELLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I stand in support of this rule. I stand in 
strong support of the basic bill that will come before this House. I 
urge bipartisan opposition to the substitute and motion to recommit 
that will be offered today and ask bipartisan support for permanent 
elimination of the marriage tax penalty.
  We are already hearing in the debate that has begun basically the 
excuses. We have to remember as we look back over the previous times we 
debated eliminating the marriage tax penalty there were always those on 
the other side of the aisle who used every procedural trick they could 
come up with or argument to oppose eliminating the marriage tax penalty 
because that is what it is all about here in Washington. It is who 
controls those dollars and whether they are going be spent here in 
Washington or spent back home.
  That is part of the fundamental debate we have today in this issue of 
the marriage tax penalty. Unfortunately, because of an arcane rule in 
the Senate, marriage tax penalty relief, which was included in the Bush 
tax cut, was provided for on a temporary basis; and unfortunately when 
it expires, it will amount to a $42 billion tax increase on 36 million 
married working couples who suffer what we call the marriage tax 
penalty.
  Let me explain what the marriage tax penalty is. That is when there 
is a husband and wife who are both in the workforce, and because when 
they marry they jointly combine their income, and that is what their 
taxes are based on, that historically has pushed them into a higher tax 
bracket, forcing married working couples to pay higher taxes. And that 
is a pretty important question: Do we believe it is right, do we 
believe it is fair that married couples, married working couples, a man 
and woman, both in the workforce, should pay higher taxes just because 
they are married? Is it right that under our Tax Code, that our Tax 
Code punishes society's most basic institution? I think not.
  I have been proud that this House has led the fight in eliminating 
the marriage tax penalty. Every House Republican has voted to eliminate 
the marriage tax penalty, even 60-some Democrats joined with us because 
they recognize that it is wrong to impose taxes on marriage; and today, 
we are going to hear from those who fought every step of the way our 
efforts to eliminate the marriage tax penalty, and they are going to 
say just about anything, even saying Social Security is somehow in 
jeopardy, if we eliminate the marriage tax penalty.
  I would note that, by law, the assets in the Social Security trust 
fund cannot be spent on anything but Social Security, regardless of 
what the rest of the budget looks like for that given year.
  Let me give my colleagues an example of a couple back in my district 
that I represent who benefit from what we call the Bush tax cut, who 
benefit from our efforts to eliminate the marriage tax penalty.
  I have here before us Jose and Magdalena Castillo and their children 
Eduardo and Carolina. Jose and Magdalena are a working couple from 
Joliet, Illinois. Jose has an income of about $57,000. Magdalena has an 
income of $25,000. Because they are married, they file jointly. Their 
marriage tax penalty was $1,125 before the Bush tax cut was signed into 
law a year ago, and if we fail to make permanent marriage tax relief 
once again, the Castillo family will suffer the marriage tax penalty, 
and in their case, that is $1,125.
  Think about it. Here in Washington, $1,125 is pocket change, when we 
are talking in millions and billions and trillions, the big numbers we 
talk about; but for a working couple, the 36 million married couples 
who suffer the marriage tax penalty, it is real money. That $1,125 is 
several months of day care for little Carolina and Eduardo. It is a 
couple of months' worth of car payments. It is a down payment on a home 
or a new car. It is money that can be set aside in education savings 
accounts for Eduardo and Carolina and for their future plans and their 
future years, but it is real money for real people.

  We worked to eliminate the marriage tax penalty in several ways, and 
President Bush signed into law our legislation last year which helped 
those who do not itemize their taxes, which are 20 million married 
couples suffering the marriage tax penalty, by doubling the standard 
deduction to twice that for single filers. That benefits 20 million 
couples who do not itemize their taxes. For those who do, middle-class 
couples suffering the marriage tax penalty who happen to be homeowners 
or give to their church, their charity or synagogue or institution or 
organizations of faith, homeowners that itemize, we widen the 15 
percent tax bracket so they can earn twice as much income as a joint 
filer as a single person could make and still pay in the 15 percent tax 
bracket. That benefits 21 million married working couples in the middle 
class.
  Also, we help the working poor. There are 4 million working-poor 
married couples who now qualify for the earned income tax credit, the 
EIC, because of the marriage tax relief that we provide. As a result of 
that, we benefit 36 million married working couples. Think about that. 
What would happen to these 36 million working couples if we failed to 
make marriage tax penalty relief permanent? They are going to pay a $42 
billion tax increase in the first 2 years.
  There are those in Washington who we are going to hear from today who 
are going to say we should let it expire; we need that money to spend 
here in Washington. Well, I believe a majority of this House will side 
with the Castillo family today. I believe that a majority of the House, 
in a bipartisan way, is going to side with hardworking, middle-class 
families, like the Castillos, and say, let us protect that marriage tax 
relief.
  Let us make it permanent to ensure that couples like Jose and 
Magdalena are able to use that money for their own needs back at home 
and take care of little Carolina and Eduardo, because that is what this 
is all about. We want to make our Tax Code more fair; and of course, we 
were successful last year in eliminating the marriage tax penalty.
  Unfortunately, because of an arcane rule in the Senate, it was 
temporary. And it is funny: here in Washington it is so easy to pass a 
permanent tax increase. It is so easy to pass a permanent spending 
increase, but there are people here in Washington that will fight tooth 
and nail every effort to help working families like the Castillos by 
providing permanent marriage tax relief.
  Let us work in a bipartisan way. Let us work to help good hardworking 
people like the Castillos keep their own hard-earned dollars. Why 
should they pay higher taxes just because they are married? Often, it 
is asked in this debate who most benefits from tax relief. Well, if we 
look at the statistics, those who earn between $20,000 and $75,000, 
middle-class families are those who are hardest hit by the marriage tax 
penalty.
  So if we all claim to be friends of the middle class, we should want 
to make

[[Page H3518]]

permanent marriage tax relief, and I know we are going to hear from the 
excuses caucus who are going to come up with every excuse to oppose 
this legislation. Let us move in a bipartisan way. Let us have 
bipartisan support for this rule. Let us move for permanent marriage 
tax relief.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I want to say that I agree with the gentleman from Illinois that 
families like the ones he mentioned, Jose and Magdalena, deserve 
relief, and we all want to work to provide them that relief; but what 
we are simply saying here is we need to make sure we properly pay for 
that relief. I am sure that that family would not appreciate knowing 
that we are paying for some of these tax cut bills by dipping into the 
Social Security trust fund.
  Every time that we pass an education measure here, we have to find an 
offset. Every time we pass a bill to protect a park or to improve our 
environment, we need an offset. Every time we have a health care 
measure on the floor, we need an offset; and yet what we are asking for 
here is where are the offsets to pay for all of this.
  The American people do not want to go further into debt. The American 
people do not want to jeopardize the Social Security trust fund. They 
want us to be responsible, and I think working in a bipartisan way we 
could provide marriage tax relief and at the same time pay for it; but 
for whatever reason, the other side does not want to do that.
  Mr. Speaker, we have no further requests for time, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. 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. LaHood). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. McGOVERN. 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 SPEAKER pro tempore. This 15-minute vote on agreeing to the 
resolution will be, followed by a 5-minute vote, if ordered, on 
approving the Journal.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 385, 
nays 22, not voting 27, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 226]

                               YEAS--385

     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Allen
     Andrews
     Armey
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Boozman
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Clay
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Collins
     Condit
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frank
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kerns
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Lynch
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, Dan
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Miller, Jeff
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sanchez
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaffer
     Schiff
     Schrock
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins (OK)
     Watson (CA)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (FL)

                                NAYS--22

     Abercrombie
     Cardin
     Conyers
     Cummings
     DeFazio
     Filner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Jackson (IL)
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     Lee
     Nadler
     Pastor
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Sherman
     Stark
     Tierney
     Waters
     Watt (NC)

                             NOT VOTING--27

     Blagojevich
     Bono
     Burton
     Clayton
     Combest
     Crane
     Deutsch
     Ehrlich
     English
     Forbes
     Hall (OH)
     Hilleary
     Houghton
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kennedy (RI)
     McDermott
     McInnis
     Nussle
     Owens
     Peterson (MN)
     Price (NC)
     Quinn
     Smith (TX)
     Towns
     Traficant
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1054

  Messrs. WATT of North Carolina, STARK, SHERMAN, CONYERS, KUCINICH, 
Ms. LEE and Mr. SANDERS changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Ms. KILPATRICK, Mr. DOGGETT, Ms. CARSON of Indiana and Mr. HOLT 
changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  Mr. TANCREDO changed his vote from ``present'' to ``yea.''
  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.
  Stated for:
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, June 13, 2002, my vote was not 
recorded on rollcall vote No. 226. Had my vote been recorded, it would 
have been in the following manner: Rollcall vote No. 226--H. Res. 440 
providing for the consideration of H.R. 4019--``aye.''

                          ____________________