Congressional Record, Volume 149 Issue 82 (Thursday, June 5, 2003)

[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 82 (Thursday, June 5, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H5012-H5022]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF S. 222, ZUNI INDIAN TRIBE WATER RIGHTS
SETTLEMENT ACT AND S. 273, GRAND TETON NATIONAL PARK LAND EXCHANGE ACT

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the
Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 258 and ask for its
immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

H. Res. 258

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 (S. 222) to approve the
settlement of the water rights claims of the Zuni Indian
Tribe in Apache County, Arizona, and for other purposes. 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) 40 minutes of
debate on the bill equally divided and controlled by the
chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Resources; and (2) one motion to recommit.
Sec. 2. 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 (S. 273) to provide for the expeditious
completion of the acquisition of land owned by the State of
Wyoming within the boundaries of Grand Teton National Park,
and for other purposes. 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) 40 minutes of debate on the bill equally
divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Resources; and (2) one motion to
recommit.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings)
is recognized for 1 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 258 is a
closed rule providing for the consideration of two measures, S. 222,
the Zuni Indian Tribe Water Rights Settlement Act, and S. 273, the
Grand Teton National Park Land Exchange Act.
The rule provides that S. 222 shall be debatable in the House for 40
minutes, equally divided between the chairman and ranking member of the
Committee on Resources. The rule also waives all points of order
against consideration of the bill and provides one motion to recommit,
with or without instruction.
The rule further provides that S. 273 shall be debatable in the House
for 40 minutes, equally divided between the chairman and ranking member
of the Committee on Resources.
Finally, the rule waives all points of order against consideration of
the bill and provides one motion to recommit, with or without
instructions.
Mr. Speaker, both of the bills covered by this rule were considered
by the House under suspension of the rules on June 3. Neither bill was
adopted, having failed to receive the required two-thirds of the votes
cast, but each bill was supported by a clear majority in the House.
The Zuni Indian Tribe Water Rights Settlement Act approves a
settlement of the water rights claims of the Zuni Indian Tribe in
Apache County, Arizona. The bill resolves all of the claims of the Zuni
Tribe to water rights in the Little Colorado River basin and elsewhere
in Arizona. The bill also provides resources to restore riparian
wetlands to the Zuni Heaven Reservation that are of great religious and
cultural significance to the tribe and its members.
The Grand Teton National Park Land Exchange Act provides for the
acquisition of land owned by the State of Wyoming within the boundaries
of the Grand Teton National Park. These lands, rich in wildlife
habitat, will be exchanged for other Federal lands or assets of equal
value. In turn, the State will be able to acquire lands that have
greater potential to generate revenue for public schools, ensuring that
the State of Wyoming meets its constitutional mandate to maximize
revenues from its school trust lands.
Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that we are forced to take up the
valuable time of the House to consider for a second time this week two
measures that have been previously approved by a solid majority in this
House. The measures have been fully debated.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule
and pass the underlying bills without further delay.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 6 minutes. I thank the
gentleman from Washington for yielding me the time.
Mr. Speaker, this morning during the debate on the Check 21 open
rule, I warned this body that open rules are a rarity, an endangered
species, if you will. Well, here we are about to consider not an open
rule but a closed rule on two noncontroversial bills. But what do you
expect? This is the norm. This is business as usual in this House.
I also want this Chamber and the American people to remember this
moment, because it is historic. This also is a rarity here. We finally
have seen a tax cut that the Republicans do not like. In the dead of
night, faced with the decision of either providing tax relief for 12
million working families or giving a tax cut to Donald Trump, the
Republicans chose Donald Trump and left the children out in the cold.
And who exactly is left behind by this glaring omission? Nearly one
in five children of our active duty military. These families are only
making around $27,000 a year. They did not

[[Page H5013]]

have the good fortune to be born with the last name of ``Gates'' or
``Buffett'' or ``Cheney.'' But they are trying to make a living, and
they are doing so by serving their country. These are children of
people who are fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq, but the Republicans,
in their greed and zeal for tax cuts for their rich friends, decided
these families do not need any tax relief.

{time} 1400

Now, of course, Republicans claim that they provide tax relief only
for people who pay income tax, but we all know people pay more than
just income tax. There is a payroll tax. There is property tax. There
is a sales tax. But the Republicans in their warped thought process
consider payroll tax relief and child tax credit a new form of welfare.
We heard this argument earlier this morning, and it is outrageous; and
quite frankly, it is insulting to these hardworking Americans.
As we all know, this could not be farther from the truth. It is the
Republicans who encourage welfare in the Tax Code by giving tax breaks
to corporations that flee this country for tax havens in other
countries. Their disingenuous argument does not fly with the American
people.
Mr. Speaker, the legislative process in this body is broken. There is
no excuse for the majority's actions. We are here today to reconsider
two bills that should have been passed under suspension of the rules.
The bills are not controversial, but the majority's actions are.
As we all know, on Tuesday three bills were defeated under suspension
of the rules. House Democrats using one of the few procedural tools at
our disposal, voted against these bills, not on their merits but to
express our frustration that the House leadership refuses to allow for
consideration of a bill that would give our working families the tax
relief that they deserve.
So today is also payback day. I think it is shameful and spiteful;
and it is, unfortunately, very typical around here. They will not say
it on the other side of the aisle, so I am going to say it right here
now.
What is the payback? Among other things, showing disrespect for one
of the finest individuals ever to grace the halls of Congress. The one
bill that was defeated on Tuesday that is not on today's schedule is
the bill to name a Federal building in Indianapolis for former Senator
Birch Bayh. We should be naming multiple courthouses in this country
for Birch Bayh.
Their tactics will not work. We are not going to be intimidated. We
are going to keep talking about the issues that matter to working
Americans, and issues like tax fairness are high among them. If the
Republicans were serious about tax relief and if they were serious
about their support for working families, they would schedule a vote to
reinstate this provision. That is what we are fighting for. That is
what we are asking for. But they will not, because they are not serious
about this. They are merely providing lip service, telling Americans
what they want to hear while padding the pockets of their wealthy
friends.
Mr. Speaker, at the end of this debate on the rule I will ask my
colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question. If the previous
question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to provide for the
consideration of the Rangel-Davis-DeLauro bill to help the people the
Republicans would rather leave behind.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones).
(Mrs. Jones of Ohio asked and was given permission to revise and
extend her remarks.)
Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding
time to me.
Mr. Speaker, the two bills that are being considered here today were
great suspension bills that were on the Journal a couple of days ago.
However, Democrats, in an effort to voice our concern about leaving
behind millions of Americans who are low-income families, voted against
those suspension bills.
In fact, Mr. Speaker, to borrow a recent popular phrase, I am shocked
and awed by the consummate arrogance, fiscal irresponsibility, and
candid lack of compassion of the Republican lawmakers of this body.
I have been on the floor many times in the past several months
expressing my outrage at the unfairness and untimeliness of the various
GOP tax plans, and once again I find myself at the podium in a state of
disbelief about the efforts of the self-proclaimed ``compassionate
conservative party'' to exclude some of the neediest families in our
Nation from tax relief in the tax bill that was signed into law last
week.
In an administration that has claimed to want to leave no child
behind, we are now realizing that, indeed, 12 million of them were left
behind, and 521,000 in my State.
In a time where special attention is being given to our brave men and
women of our Armed Forces who served so well in Iraq, I think it is
inappropriate to see how these last-minute shenanigans have actually
left many of them out. The majority of our military members are in the
pay grades of E5 and below. These are the sergeants, petty officers,
lance corporals, specialists, and airmen, whose round-the-clock efforts
made the military victory in Iraq swift and decisive. But an E5 with 6
years in service makes just $24,000. His family is left behind.
Mr. Speaker, to borrow a recent popular phrase, I am shocked and awed
by the consummate arrogance, fiscal irresponsibility, and candid lack
of compassion of the Republican lawmakers of this body. I have been on
this floor many times in the past several months expressing my outrage
at the unfairness and untimeliness of the various GOP tax plans, and I
again find myself at the podium in a state of disbelief about the self-
proclaimed ``compassionate conservative' party's efforts to exclude
some of the neediest families in our Nation from tax relief in the tax
bill that was signed into law last week.
In an administration that has claimed to want to ``Leave no Child
Behind,'' we are to realizing that there will indeed be children left
behind--12 million of them in fact; 527,000 in my State of Ohio.
In a time where special attention is being given to our brave men and
women of the Armed Forces who served so well in Iraq, I think it is
appropriate to note how the last minute shenanigans of Republican
lawmakers to strip out a provision of their tax bill that would have
ensured that families making between $10,500 to $26,000 would get the
full child tax credit other taxpayers get, will affect our military
personnel.
The majority of our military members are in the pay grades of E-5 and
below. These are the sergeants, the petty officers, the lance
corporals, specialists, and airmen whose round the clock efforts made
the military victory in Iraq swift and decisive. But an E-5 with 6
years in the service makes just $24,000 in base pay per year. An E-2
just new to the military makes just $15,840 in base pay. And these are
just some of the millions of family members who will suffer, and their
children will suffer, their spouses will suffer, because of the back
door wrangling by Republicans to give even more money to the wealthiest
of American taxpayers.
Mr. Rangel has introduced a fair and responsible alternative to
address this injustice, but I am afraid it will be to little avail.
Rather than focus on the important issues facing our Nation, the
Republican leadership seems intent to focus on solutions in search of
problems--such as this week's constitutional amendment to flag
desecration. I haven't been made aware that flag desecration is a
problem in this country--but every week when I return to my
congressional district, I am made keenly aware that the economic health
of our country is a problem. Unfortunately, ti seems to be a problem
some Members of this body choose to ignore.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ 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, I rise to oppose a rule that does not allow
the House to consider providing working families with the child care
credit. The current situation imposes the injury of denying these
working families $400 that they need and then adds the insult of
telling these families that they are not taxpayers, so they do not
deserve any tax relief. Of course, looking at their paycheck stubs,
they see the taxes they are paying.
Allowing corporations to avoid American taxes just by renting a hotel
in the Bahamas, $8 billion; allowing millionaires to pay virtually
nothing on their dividend income, $80 billion;

[[Page H5014]]

eliminating the estate tax even on the largest estates, $138 billion;
telling working families that they do not deserve relief and that they
are not taxpayers, that is priceless.
There are some things campaign contributions just will not buy. For
everything else, there is RepubliCard, accepted at the finest country
clubs in the Bahamas. Members will want to get the Deficit Express
card, now that the Republican Congress has increased the credit limit
to $12 trillion. The Deficit Express card? Do not leave the House
without it.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Rangel), the distinguished ranking member on the
Committee on Ways and Means.
(Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the motion for the previous
question so that we might have the opportunity to amend a rule and to
bring to the House legislation that would bring some equity to the
recently passed tax bill.
I do not think many Members of the House knew that those that were
making the decision would deliberately exclude the benefit of the child
tax credit for people making less than $26,000. I refuse to believe
that people can be so callous that they would deliberately try to make
adjustments to a tax bill that was geared to, as the leadership would
say, those who pay the taxes, and exclude the privilege and the
opportunity for people to get credit that are in low income merely
because they do not pay ``the taxes.''
We have 6.5 million working families that do pay taxes, albeit those
taxes may be perceived by the majority not to be important. But they do
pay taxes, and they have lost the benefits of receiving tax credits for
their children.
But Mr. Speaker, even worse than that, yesterday we passed the
resolution paying honor to those brave men and women that were placed
in harm's way as a result of the so-called ``victory'' in Iraq. As I
said yesterday, parades are important, saluting the flag is important,
having a bumper sticker is important; but how we treat these veterans
is even far more important.
I know that Republicans do not know, and Democrats are learning, that
as a result of so-called tax benefits given to these people that were
in combat, that over 200,000 that served in Iraq will be denied the tax
credit for their children. Why? Because the language of the tax law is
that they have to have taxable income. Out of the benevolence of our
hearts we have said that if they served in combat, they do not have to
pay taxes.
I hope Members will consider to speedily bring up my bill so that we
can remedy this error that has been made. Nobody thought that by
removing tax liability we would be actually taking away the benefit of
the child tax credits.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record an article that appeared in USA
Today on this day that says, ``Military Kids Get Slighted on Tax
Credit.''
The article referred to is as follows:

[From USA Today, June 5, 2003]

Study: Military Kids Slighted on Tax Credit

Parents earn too little to qualify for the provision

(By William M. Welch)

Washington.--Nearly one in five children of active-duty
U.S. military families won't benefit from the increased tax
credit signed last week by President Bush because their
parents earn too little to qualify, a study being released
today concludes.
The finding by the Children's Defense Fund, a liberal
advocacy group, comes as Bush and Republican congressional
leaders are under increasing fire for agreeing to omit
working poor families from the increased child credit
included in the $350 billion, 10-year tax cut plan and aid
for states.
Those military families would have received a check of up
to $400 per child under a provision that the Senate added to
the bill. But that ``refundable'' credit to families who pay
little or no federal income tax, but do pay payroll taxers,
was deleted in final negotiations between Bush and Republican
leader of Congress.
Families who have children and earn more than about $27,000
a year are due to receive checks next month of up to $400 per
child, as an advance on an increase in the credit from $600
to $1,000.
The group said 250,000 of the 1.4 million children in
active-duty military families will not qualify for the
benefit because of the omission.
An additional 750,000 children denied the benefit have
parents who are military veterans, the fund concluded. It
based its findings on latest U.S. Census data.
Democrats, liberal groups and some moderate Republicans in
Congress are trying to build pressure on Bush and GOP leaders
to pass legislation quickly extending the credit, to those
families that were left out.
Democrats immediately invoked U.S. troops still in Iraq as
a political justification for another bill expanding the
credit.
``Thousands of military personnel, people who put their
lives on the line for our country, won't receive the child
credit unless we correct the child credit unless we correct
the bill,'' Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., said.
The $3.5 billion cost would be paid for by cracking down on
business tax avoidance schemes under the Democrats' proposal.
They said fast action was needed to assure 12 million low-
income families are able to receive a check when the
government begins mailing them to more affluent families
starting July 1.
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., and Minority
Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., were negotiating a possible
agreement that would permit the Senate to vote, perhaps this
week, on competing proposals aimed at providing just such a
remedy to the working poor.
Republican leaders of the House of Representatives are
resisting the move. They say Bush didn't propose giving the
added credit to the working poor as part of his original
economic stimulus plan, and that sending tax refunds to
people who pay no federal income tax may be bad policy.
``This is something that has been blown out of
proportion,'' said Rep. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, who is on the
tax-writing Ways and Means Committee. ``It was not part of
the original bill, nor was it part of the bill in the House.
. . . We never debated it. . . . It is a new idea, and it is
one we ought to think about.''
In another effort to build pressure, a coalition of liberal
groups today begins airing TV ads in Washington blasting Bush
for leaving the working poor out of the child credit benefit
increase.
The Center for Community Change is buying a relatively
modest amount of airtime, but it is encouraging hundreds of
like-minded groups to air the same ad in other cites.
The ad shows two children: one too poor to qualify for the
increased credit and another, whose parents make more money,
who receives it. ``President Bush chose the most fortunate to
get the most,'' an announcer says.''

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms.
Woolsey).
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule because
working families should be our priority today, families like Cori's.
Cori came to a local Head Start in my district at a low point in her
life. She was a single parent without any support system and very
little money and very little self-esteem. She had just completed a
recovery program and was seeking to put her life back together.
Cori went on to volunteer for Head Start, completed an AA degree in
early childhood development, and now Cori is a Head Start employee for
the past 3 years and wants to get her bachelor's degree. Mr. Speaker,
Cori and her two daughters will be denied the child tax credit, while
those making more than $1 million a year receive overall tax cuts
totalling $93,500.
Our priority today should be, must be, the Rangel-Davis-DeLauro bill,
which will expand the child tax credit and marriage penalty relief for
lower-income working families. Passing it can be the first step to
reversing the wrong done to these hard workers.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Alabama (Mr. Davis).
Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot of heated
debate about this issue all morning, but I think there is a basic
undisputed fact that frankly should rise above the fray: there was no
effort to limit this tax break until the end game of the conference
report process, when the administration and those who were shaping the
tax cut needed to find $3 billion.
When they needed to do that, they did not search the high end of the
bracket; they did not search the offshore loopholes. They went into the
pockets of people who need tax relief more than anyone else. That was a
choice of priorities. It was a statement that the people who do the
hardest work in this country are, frankly, the ones who would be asked
to sacrifice first.
I wonder what the people of this country will think, what our
constituents will think, when they hear that

[[Page H5015]]

under the rules of this House they do not even deserve a vote. I wonder
what the people who work every single day will think when they hear
that a child tax break for them will be welfare. I wonder what these
individuals who bear the brunt of payroll taxes will think when they
hear that they do not need a tax credit because they really are not
taxpayers. I wonder what the parents in my district, who begin paying
taxes in the State of Alabama at $4,000, will think when they hear that
they do not need tax relief.
This plan, as we knew from the beginning, strikes the wrong
priorities. It leaves out people who are most in need of help, Mr.
Speaker. I think that it is incumbent on us as a matter of conscience
that we correct this imbalance.
This is the work that we ought to do for the people, that of
correcting imbalances where they exist and that of correcting
inequities where they exist, and not looking into the pockets of our
weakest people to balance our budget.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).
(Mr. EMANUEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, tomorrow morning the new unemployment
numbers come out, and we are probably close to nearly 3 million people
that will have lost their jobs in the last 2 years. We have added $3
trillion to the Nation's debt. That has been the end result of this
economic plan.
Now, what we are looking for here is 12 million children of working
parents to get a tax cut and be treated like the rest of America's
children. These are children of working people. Some, as the Children's
Defense Fund report shows, are the children of our Armed Forces. They
are also children of the law enforcement community, firefighters,
first-year teachers, people who work in security in our office
buildings across this country, people who work day in and day out
putting their hours in and trying to teach their children right from
wrong.
What has gone on here is what is wrong with this House today. We came
here not just to be votes but to give voice to our values. I know there
are good people with good values on the other side of the aisle. There
is nothing just in the notion of denying 12 million children, 6\1/2\
million families who work full-time, denying those children who are
also America's children a tax cut. We can depreciate the machinery of
our corporations, depreciate the value of their machinery; but we
cannot appreciate America's children.
I was part of an administration that created and extended the $500-
per-child tax credit and gave health insurance to 10 million uninsured
children whose parents worked full time.

{time} 1415

We balanced the budget. We also provided tax cuts in capital gains,
but we balanced the budget. It was in balance with our values. These
are not the values we espoused on Memorial Day when we welcomed home
our veterans and remembered them for what they had done for this
country. This vote should also be remembered.
We can do right. We can correct the wrong, hold our heads up high,
not wear this in shame for what it does.
These are 12 million of America's children. Let us do right. Let us
remember them as we do every day, trying to do right by our values.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).
Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Massachusetts for
yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I just want to point out for my friends on the other
side of the aisle that I was prepared, as were my colleagues earlier
this week, to vote in favor of this bill and suspension that would
protect lands around the Grand Tetons, Wyoming. In fact, my in-laws are
homesteaded around the Grand Tetons in Wyoming and I know they were
very much in favor of seeing this land preserved for ages to come,
including my children and their grandchildren.
We voted to strike it down to make a point, that there are 12 million
children who would not be served by the recent tax cut that you imposed
upon this country. In fact, in USA Today today, there is an article
that says one out of five of those 12 million children who will not be
getting a benefit, the families that will get a benefit of the child
tax credit, are serving in our military today. Their parents are
serving in the military, the same military that brought us the victory
and did so much to preserve what this country stands for in the
conflict in Iraq.
I have news for my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. Working
people, believe it or not, working people have children. Working people
have children. Working people make and made this country what it is
today. Do not forget the working people of this country.
Do not forget the working people of this country. They deserve and
need a child tax credit just as much as the wealthiest people in this
country. They are the men and women who, day in and day out, provide
for this country, for the backbone of this country.
It is interesting that there was a move on earlier this week as well
and a bill that was supposed to come before us today that would have
eliminated comp time as well. This week has been an attack upon the
working families of our Nation, and the Republican party should be
ashamed of themselves.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise to discuss the very real concerns of
the Zuni tribe and its children.
This bill would provide critical access to the Little Colorado River
Basin to allow the Zuni Indian Tribe acquisition of surface water
rights and development of groundwater. The acquisition of water rights
and associated lands are vital to the Zuni Indian Tribe's future
economic development; and, along those same lines, the child tax credit
is critical in helping low-income families, including Zunis, achieve
some level of economic security.
This bill secures tribal rights to assured water supplies for present
and future generations, while at the same time providing for the sound
management of an increasingly scarce resource. Because of the
importance and sacredness all forms and sources of water, all prayers
and songs of the three major components of the Zuni religion contain
language asking for rain and snow to ensure that all crops have enough
water to finish their life paths to provide sustenance for their Zuni
children. Likewise, enduring access to the child tax credit will help
Zuni families provide economic sustenance to their children.
By now, the whole Nation knows what happened 2 weeks ago. They know
that a tax credit which would have helped nearly 12 million children
from 6.5 million low-income families, including Zuni families, was
secretly eliminated by the administration and the gentleman from Texas'
(Mr. DeLay) Republican majority.
These families, these Zuni families earn between $10,500 and $26,625
per year, families who really need this tax cut and, yes, they do pay
taxes and they are important.
The gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) said we have more important
matters. These Zuni children are important. In Arizona, 138,000
families with children, 21 percent of the families in the State, are
not helped by the child tax credit increase because of the Republicans'
last-minute actions. 403,000 Arizona children would be eligible if the
child tax credit were made fully refundable, with an additional
$259,000 million in credit going to families in the State.
This House ought to be about the working families in this country,
those who are Zunis and those who are not. We promised them a child tax
credit, and this majority removed it to provide the opportunity for
$93,000 in tax cuts to the richest 184,000 millionaires in the country.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Strickland).
Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my Republican
colleagues in this House. Why would you, in a fit of anger because you
were not able to get the size of the tax cut you wanted, hold poor
little children hostage in order to extract a larger tax cut for those
who were already wealthy?
It is a fair question.
In the middle of the night, over one-half million Ohio children were
excluded from this benefit. Those are

[[Page H5016]]

children who have moms and dads who are working but their incomes are
so low that they may not be required to pay income taxes. But let me
tell you, they pay property taxes. They pay Social Security/payroll
taxes. They pay all kinds of other taxes. Oh, it is very clever of you
to say they do not pay income tax.
I am absolutely disgusted with what has happened in this House. CNN
reported that the conservative leader of your party, the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. DeLay), brushed aside criticism that the tax bill did not
expand the child tax credit and make it available to millions of poor
families. But, he said, House Republicans might support doing so if it
prodded senators to vote for a broader tax package. In other words, you
may be willing to help the poor kids if it means you can get more money
for your rich friends. It is as simple as that, as simple as that.
These are just not the rantings of a Democrat. Let me tell you what
Senator John McCain said about it. Senator McCain said, My God, what
kind of message are we sending when we leave out low-income families,
exactly those who are in that category of the enlisted men and women
who are fighting for us in Iraq today? It is beyond belief.
And it is beyond belief, but you have got time to redeem yourself.
You have got time to change this policy and take care of the kids,
500,000 in Ohio, who need your help.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Members should refrain from
quoting members of the other body.
The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) has 9 minutes
remaining.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on the other side?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings)
has 27 minutes remaining.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, how many speakers does the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Hastings) have to discuss this issue?
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. The issue, of course, we are discussing
is the rule for the two suspension bills that we, unfortunately, had
majority vote earlier this week but, unfortunately, did not have the
two-thirds. But we may have, counting myself, two speakers between now
and the time we close.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, does the gentleman want to use some of his
time now?
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, we have used up several speakers. I think
for balance, if one of the gentleman's speakers is here, they could go.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Who yields time?
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may
consume to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).
(Mr. KINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks, and include extraneous material.)
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
time.
I wanted to say to my colleagues in the House, I certainly intend to
stay on the subject matter of this rule equally as much as all the
Democrats who have been speaking at least.
I want to talk to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle about
this child tax refundable credit which they are so indignant about.
Because I want to remind them, you all had nothing to do with putting
it on the books, nothing. We were glad that you like it because it was
a Republican idea, but every single one of you, every single one of
your speakers has voted against it.
Mr. Speaker, I want to help you a little bit out here and just kind
of remind you so far we have heard from the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Crowley), the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), the
gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones), the gentleman from California (Mr.
Sherman), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Strickland), the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey),
and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), all good folks.
However, they have all voted against this refundable tax credit, May
16, 2001, when the Republicans put it on the books. I do not know what
you were thinking.
This thing that you were pretending to champion, you voted against.
It was a Republican idea. Where were you when the battle was being
fought? I am going to review a little bit of history, and let me say to
this, you all are looking around stunned which I understand.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KINGSTON. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, if it was such a good idea, number one,
why did you remove it? Number two, I do not recall us ever having voted
on this in the House. It was inserted in the Senate. Let us be
accurate.
Mr. KINGSTON. Reclaiming my time, let me jog the gentleman's memory.
Here is what the situation was, and the gentleman is a distinguished
member of the Committee on Rules and has lots of bills that pass
through his desk, so I will not hold you responsible for knowing
everything.
Prior to 2001, the child tax credit was $500 per child. It was passed
under a Republican bill and, as the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Emanuel) pointed out, it was signed by President Clinton. So you can
claim a little bipartisanship there, even though that was passed by
Republican votes when it was in the House, but prior to 2001 the child
tax credit was $500. The credit was not refundable for most families.
However, for a family with three kids or more, the credit was
refundable; and it was not offset by the earned income tax credit. That
was prior to 2001.
Now enter President Bush and the 2001 tax cut. Under that, the
proposal was to increase the child tax credit from $500 to $1,000. The
credit was $600 for the year 2003, and it was scheduled to reach $1,000
per child in 2010. That law made the child tax credit partially
refundable for all families with children, not just those who had three
kids or more.
Now, we had the vote on that May 16, 2001, and I have got the Roll
Call from that, and at that time every one of you all voted against it.
As a matter of fact, 197 Democrats voted against this.
So, Mr. Speaker, when the Democrats come out here looking for some
rhetoric, and the big rhetoric of the Democratic party this year really
that has been led by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) is,
we could have torn that statue down a lot cheaper.
I know a lot of folks are against the war. And then it was, well, the
plan is not working when we were going up the Euphrates. And then as
soon as they tore down the statue, I know a lot of folks on the left,
and I want to say not all the members of the Democrat party but a lot
of folks on the left were disturbed that a 23-year-old Marine corporal
who was in theater had the audacity of hanging an American flag on a
Saddam Hussein statue. Of course, he was denounced in the liberal,
left-wing community for doing that.
Mr. FORD. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KINGSTON. I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee.
Mr. FORD. Mr. Speaker, that is a little unfair. I do not think anyone
objected to flags being flown and so forth. You make a good point on
some of the other things, but that is a little unfair on the flag.
Mr. KINGSTON. Let me say to my friend from Tennessee, that is why I
said not all the Democrats but a lot of folks on the left denounced the
fact that that flag was hung.
Mr. FORD. That is unfair.
Mr. KINGSTON. I would also point out that you were not one of them.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KINGSTON. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. McGOVERN. That is outrageous.
Mr. KINGSTON. Reclaiming my time, I will yield further to you in just
one second.
I am very pleased that you all are listening. Let me do this, because
I am being generous here, but my ranking member of the Committee on
Rules says that maybe we should do this a little bit more on your time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
McGovern).

[[Page H5017]]

Mr. McGOVERN. Let me say for the record what I am outraged at what is
in the paper today, that nearly one in five children of U.S. military
families will not benefit from the increased tax credit signed by
President Bush.
Mr. KINGSTON. I am glad that not only does the gentleman listen to
fine speeches like mine, but he also reads the paper, which is very
good.

{time} 1430

I suspect it is probably The New York Times or The Washington Post.
Let me just say this, does that article point out that my colleagues
voted against phasing in the tax cut, the refundability, in 2001? That
is all I want to say.
What I would love to hear from our Democrat colleagues, Mr. Speaker,
who are saying I voted against this tax cut and a tax cut which was a
jobs bill, took 3 million working families off the tax roll, 3 million,
and I understand they wanted them on. We thought it would be helpful
for the working families of America to get off the tax roll. The
reality is they voted against it. They wanted to keep them on. I
understand that. I just wish they would acknowledge in the year 2001
that they voted against the child tax refundability clause, and I have
the vote in my hand; and I can submit it for the Record, Mr. Speaker,
and do that.
If my colleagues want to be helpful, what they ought to do on some of
these tax bills that are aimed at creating jobs is say, hey, we want to
amend the bill and we will do this. We will do this in a spirit of a
democratic, small D, democratic House and process. We are going to vote
for the bill if we put in some of their ideas, because this is the way
it really should work, the best of their party and the best of our
party combined together to put out just the best thoughts and do what
is right for working families.
Let me point out that a family of four making $11,000 a year pays no
income tax, pays about $842 in payroll taxes and receives $4,140 under
the earned income tax credit. We think that is good. We think it also
would be helpful, though, if my colleagues could join us in making
these child tax credits permanent because their idea that they are
concerned about now might have some merits. Why do they not join us in
saying we are going to make these child tax credits permanent? We are
not going to do a bait and switch, when in the year 2011 they are gone.
While we are at it, because we all know that a family of mom and dad
have great potential for stability, why do we not end the marriage tax
penalty together? Again, I throw out an olive branch to my colleagues,
could they join us in making the marriage tax penalty permanent? That
would be very helpful for the working poor. There are so many things
that we could do together.
Another idea is the 10 percent tax bracket, the 10 percent rate.
Could my colleagues join us in making that permanent? These are all
things that could help the working poor.
We are not going to say we have the franchise on helping the working
poor just because we voted to take 3 million off the payrolls and my
colleagues voted against it. We are saying maybe they can join us on
the next job creation package and come up with something that is in the
best interest of all of us.
I would love to yield to the gentleman from Tennessee, but we are
getting to the point we have got a lot of Members who want to go ahead
and have a vote, and I am a little concerned about that.
Mr. FORD. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield for a quick question?
Mr. KINGSTON. I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee.
Mr. FORD. Mr. Speaker, what is the problem then if my colleagues
believe in removing all these taxes, which I think there is a lot of
merit to, I am a big tax cutter like the gentleman is? I support those
ideas. How is that consistent with the taking 3 million, or I should
say up to 12 million, children or removing them from the target of a
tax cut which my colleagues did, they voted for it?
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, let me say this. Our
objective is to get people working, and that was the real goal of this
to get folks working.
Let me say this to my friend from Tennessee: if the gentleman wants
to join us in making the child tax credit permanent; the marriage tax
penalty, eliminate it permanently; the 10 percent tax credit, make that
permanent, he and I need to get together because I think we can move
the ball down the road, and that is all we want to do.
I am just saying that the planned, orchestrated campaign of the
Democrat Party to denounce something that they all voted against in the
year 2002, I just wish the speakers would say I voted against this in
2001, but it is a great idea and now I am mad that the Republicans are
not doing it this way; I want it done even though I did not share any
of the burden by being responsible and voting for it.
I want to end with this. There are a lot of differences between the
Democrat and the Republican parties. They seem to be the group of
frivolous lawsuits and starving trial lawyers. We are the party of tort
reform, ending frivolous medical liabilities, making health care
affordable and accessible. They seem to like unemployment checks and
government handouts. We like paychecks, jobs and opportunities.
They like welfare and low expectations. We like welfare reform, jobs.
Mr. FORD. . . .
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from Tennessee is
definitely out of order, has not been recognized, and the Chair would
appreciate it if the gentleman would not speak when the other gentleman
has the time.
Mr. FORD. . . .
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Tennessee is not
recognized. The Chair would ask the gentleman to take his seat. The
Chair would ask the gentleman to take a seat. The gentleman from
Georgia may continue.
Mr. FORD. . . .
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, here is the situation with welfare reform,
Mr. Speaker. We passed welfare reform at a time when there were 14
million people on welfare. At that time, we were called all kinds of
names, and they were saying it was heartless and we were mean-spirited
and everything else and that these folks were unable to help
themselves. What is interesting is in 1996 when we passed welfare
reform, we had 14 million people on welfare. Today, that number is down
to 5 million people, too high; but we need to continue working on that.
The 9 million people are now tax paying, working, enjoying the
opportunity, sharing in the American Dream. They are glad that we
passed welfare reform.
There is a component in this that the Democrats are proposing which
is simply welfare, and I think there may be some merit in that. I have
no trouble at all in a healthy discussion on tinkering with welfare
reform. This is good for everybody, but what our tax package was about
was creating jobs, and we are going to continue to be the party of
welfare reform, jobs and opportunity.

Committee on Ways and Means

child credit refundability fact sheet

What was the child credit prior to 2001?
Prior to 2001, the child credit was $500 per eligible
child. The credit was not refundable for most families.
However, for families with 3 or more eligible children, the
credit was refundable to the extent the family had payroll
tax liability that was not offset by the Earned Income Credit
(EIC).
How was the child credit expanded in 2001?
The Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of
2001 significantly expanded the child credit in two important
ways.
(1) The law gradually increased the credit from $500 to
$1,000. The credit was $600 for 2003 and was scheduled to
reach $1,000 in 2010.
(2) The law made the child credit partially refundable for
all families with children--not just those with 3 or more
children. The credit is now refundable by an amount equal to
10 percent of the family's earned income in excess of
$10,000. The $10,000 threshold is indexed annually for
inflation (it is $10,500 for 2003), and the 10 percent
refundability rate will increase to 15 percent in 2005.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------
NAYS--197
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ackerman Harman Neal
Allen Hastings (FL) Oberstar
Andrews Hill Obey
Baca Hilliard Olver
Baird Hinchey Ortiz
Baldacci Hinojosa Owens
Baldwin Hoeffel Pallone
Barcia Holden Pascrell
Barrett Holt Pastor
Becerra Honda Payne
Bentsen Hooley Pelosi
Berkley Hoyer Peterson (MN)
Berman Inslee Phelps
Berry Israel Pomeroy
Blagojevich Jackson (IL) Price (NC)

[[Page H5018]]

Blumenauer Jackson-Lee (TX) Rahall
Bonior Jefferson Rangel
Borski Johnson, E. B. Reyes
Boswell Jones (OH) Rivers
Boucher Kanjorski Rodriquez
Boyd Kaptur Roemer
Brady (PA) Kennedy (RI) Ross
Brown (FL) Kildee Rothman
Brown (OH) Kilpatrick Roybal-Allard
Capps Kind (WI) Rush
Capuano Kleczka Sabo
Cardin Kucinich Sanchez
Carson (IN) LaFalce Sanders
Carson (OK) Lampson Sandlin
Clay Langevin Sawyer
Clayton Lantos Schiff
Clyburn Larsen (WA) Scott
Conyers Larson (CT) Serrano
Costello Lee Sherman
Coyne Levin Skelton
Crowley Lewis (GA) Slaughter
Cummings Lipinski Smith (WA)
Davis (CA) Lofgren Snyder
Davis (FL) Lowey Solis
Davis (IL) Luther Spratt
DeFazio Maloney (NY) Stark
DeGette Markey Stenholm
Delahunt Mascara Strickland
DeLauro Matheson Stupak
Deutsch Matsui Tanner
Dicks McCarthy (MO) Tauscher
Dingell McCarthy (NY) Taylor (MS)
Doggett McCollum Thompson (CA)
Dooley McDermott Thompson (MS)
Doyle McGovern Thurman
Edwards McKinney Tierney
Engel McNulty Towns
Eshoo Meehan Turner
Etheridge Meek (FL) Udall (CO)
Evans Meeks (NY) Udall (NM)
Farr Menendez Velazquez
Fattah Millender-McDonald Visclosky
Filner Miller, George Waters
Ford Mink Watt (NC)
Frank Moakley Waxman
Frost Mollohan Weiner
Gephardt Moore Wexler
Gonzalez Moran (VA) Woosley
Green (TX) Murtha Wu
Gutierrez Nadler Wynn
Hall (OH) Napolitano ......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman from Georgia
his tax package is about welfare for the rich. I yield 2\1/2\ minutes
to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, what incredible nonsense we have heard here
on the floor of the House this afternoon, this attempt to raise the
flag and besmirch Members of this House over their stance on the
American flag practically on the eve of Flag Day.
Let me tell the gentleman (Mr. Kingston), there are two kinds of
people today that have the American flag wrapped around them. Some of
them are young men and women who come back in coffins with the flag
draped around it, who gave their all in the ultimate sacrifice for this
country; and all of us honor them, whatever our views about the
President's policy. But the other kind of people we do not honor, and
it is those who choose to wrap their own bad policies that they cannot
defend by stretching the flag around themselves.
What are the merits of the argument about the child tax credit? Who
came up with it in the first place? I think the names are Al Gore and
Tom Downey, who both served in this body who long ago presented a child
tax credit proposal. How did it become law? It eventually became law
with the signature of a Democratic President in 1997 when we passed the
Balanced Budget Act with the support of a large number of Members on
both sides of this aisle, balancing the budget, not busting it as this
Republican tax bill would do.
The child tax credit has had strong Democratic support within our
caucus and within the Committee on Ways and Means on which I serve, and
the only reason any Democrat has voted against that child tax credit on
this floor was when it was used, much as the flag has been misused this
afternoon, as the reason for voting for a bill that gave most all of
the help to the people at the top and none of the people at the bottom.
I am glad that my colleague from Texas (Mr. DeLay) has joined us this
afternoon. He has announced to the American people that there are more
important things to do than to ensure that the child tax credit is
available to people that earn a mere $20,000, $25,000 a year. Who are
those people? They are the people that empty the bed pans at the
nursing homes. They are the cafeteria workers in our public schools.
They are the people that we check out with at the gas station when we
go in to pay for our gas. They are people that are sweeping the floors
today at the hospitals around America.
Why do those young women and men not have an opportunity to get the
same type of child tax credit available to those at the top? They are
working. Some of them are working two and three jobs to have a chance
to advance out of poverty and share in the American Dream. They respect
the flag just as much as the gentleman from Georgia does, but they
would also like to share in a little of the American Dream.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2
minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the distinguished
majority leader.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, my, my, my, what a heated debate we are
having today. I came to the well to talk about what this debate is all
about. A lot has been left out by those Members on the other side of
the aisle because they are afraid for the truth to surface, so I wanted
to bring the real facts about what is going on here.
The child tax credit provision in this new tax law is refundable, and
it is refundable to the extent 10 percent of earned income in excess of
$10,500, people that make $10,500 get a refundable tax rebate. In 2005,
the 10 percent rate goes up to 15 percent.
What this fight is over is there was a provision in the Senate that
basically said they wanted to accelerate that 2 years, and we may want
to do that in the proper way under regular order; but what the
Democrats are angry about is that we did not accelerate that spending
increase; and thanks to the tax relief passed by Republican Congresses
over the last 8 years, 13 million American families have had their
entire income tax liability eliminated, eliminated.
The gentleman from Texas brings up who are these people. I would like
to show my colleagues one. Here is a married couple earning $30,000
with three children. Before the 2001 law, that they voted against, this
married couple would be paying a marginal rate of 15 percent, which
means their income tax liability is over $1,000 and their payroll tax
liability is $2,160. Before the 2001 law, they would get a $1,500
credit, and they would get an earned income tax credit of $782, which
means that their income tax liability was zero. They still had a
payroll tax liability; but because of EITC, the payment from the
government was zero.
So after 2001, this same family would have an income tax liability of
$688, $2,160 from their payroll tax liability; but they get $1,800 in a
child tax credit, and they get a $992 earned income tax credit, which
means that their income tax liability is still zero, but their payroll
tax liability goes down to $48.
After this law that the President passed that they voted against,
that the President signed a week ago, this same family is going to have
an income tax liability of $525, payroll tax liability of $2,160, but
they get a child tax credit of $2,475, and they get an earned income
tax credit of $992, which actually helps them pay not only for their
payroll taxes; it reimburses them for their payroll taxes. They pay no
income taxes. They actually get a check for $782.

{time} 1445

A check from the American taxpayers. No tax liability, but they get
to put $782 in their pocket.
Now, let us take a single mother that makes $20,000 and has two
children. They are going through the same thing. What has happened to
her is she gets a check of over $1,000. Over $1,000. She pays no
payroll taxes, she pays no income taxes, and she gets a check for
$1,000. They voted against that. They voted against that.
Now they want to come and tell the American people they are all tax
relievers. Now all of a sudden they are tax relievers, and they want to
give more tax relief to the taxpaying public and to people that do not
have a tax liability.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DeLAY. They fail to----
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield for a question?
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, may I have order?
Ms. DeLAURO. I just want to ask the gentleman if he will yield for a
quick question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from Texas has
the time.
Ms. DeLAURO. I understand.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is not yielding to the
gentlewoman. The gentleman may proceed.
Ms. DeLAURO. . . .
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is not yielding. The gentleman
may proceed.

[[Page H5019]]

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, what has happened here is they also do not
want to mention that in the bill signed by the President last week we
raised by 10 percent and added more people to the rolls that do not pay
income taxes. So this notion that we are not taking care of the poor
working families of this country are completely false; and, most
importantly, they voted against it. We passed it without their votes,
moved forward, gave tax relief to poor working families in this
country; and we will continue to do so.
When the Senate does something, we always take it into consideration
and we will move forward. I would just remind the Members of this House
that we have now almost a trillion dollars left in the budget to do
more tax relief for the American people, and we are coming back. We are
going to have at least two if not three more tax relief packages for
the American people. Because we feel very strongly that we need jobs in
this country, we need economic growth in this country, and American
families need to keep more of their hard-earned money
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Will the gentleman
yield on the tax question?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Rangel).
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I would hope that the distinguished majority
leader would extend the courtesy to his Members and not leave the
floor. It is so important when Members have something to say to correct
their position that they stay on the floor, not for Democrats but for
Republicans as well.
This is a very edifying thing that he said in the well of the House.
He is trying to rebut the allegations that we have made that in the
last tax bill that the working people in the lower incomes were
deliberately left out of the bill. Now, my colleague can go back to
last year, the year before last, 10 years from now, but the accusation
was made and still stands. The accusation is that the Republican
leadership cared more about accelerating tax relief for the wealthiest
people than they did for working people.
So let us not come here and mislead and make these statements and
walk off the floor. There is a tendency for all of us to be out of
order when we see the arrogance, the indifference, and the lack of
respect that certain Members, especially those in the leadership, have
for those that have to work here each and every day.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on each side?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
McGovern) has 5\1/2\ minutes remaining and the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Hastings) has 13 minutes remaining.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
As I pointed out earlier, this is a rule on two suspensions that were
unfortunately defeated earlier this week that deal with serious matters
in the southwestern part of the United States, at least one of them
does.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr.
Renzi) to speak on one of these matters.
Mr. RENZI. Mr. Speaker, I just want to point out to my colleagues
that what we are here to debate is the rule as it affects the Zuni
tribe of New Mexico and Arizona as it affects the sacred lands and
those lands right now that have no water.
We were able to provide them with enough land in 1984 to establish
Zuni Heaven in Arizona, a reservation, and yet without Senator Kyl's
intervention we would not have been able to achieve the kind of water
that we see the communities in rural Arizona supplying now.
This summer, while we debate separate issues, the Zuni people are
hoping to engage in their 4-year migration and trek to their holy
lands, to their holy site. So the delay that we imposed 2 days ago, the
delay we impose today affects their ability to plan and celebrate this
agreement. And there is all kinds of agreement, I think even from both
sides, if my colleagues will allow us to get to it. We need to be able
to restore the tribe's ability to perform not only the religious duties
but the farming and subsistence that they need in order to care for
their children.
So when we talk about children today, the Zuni people themselves are
waiting to plant their crops and feed their children. They are waiting
to take their children to their sacred lands, their wetlands, to teach
their children their sacred rights. There will be no more delay if we
can get this to a vote. Each day, each hour, each minute we allow to
pass, the Zuni people feel there are inequities and that the agreement
cannot be reached.
For the record, I want the Zuni people to know that what they see
here today does not reflect upon them as a people. There are hours and
times, Special Orders available in this House for this issue to be
debated. Instead, my colleagues have taken their issue and turned this
into a side show.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time. And since I could not get the gentleman from Texas to answer a
simple question for me, maybe I can pose a question to his colleagues
and see if we can get an answer.
It appears in fact that the Senate has come to some agreement; that
the Senate has said on a bipartisan basis that we need to address the
fact that 12 million children were left out of the equation; that they
were supposed to be able to have the benefit of a $400 tax credit,
these 6.5 million families. The Senate has come to an agreement with
about a $10 billion package.
I want to get an answer from the Republican side of the aisle as to
whether or not they will bring up the Senate package for us to be able
to deliberate and help those 12 million children and those 6.5 million
households. The Senate has done it; we ought to be able to do it here
and to address that issue.
If we can, we would like to get an answer to that question.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume
to see if anyone on the other side wants to respond. We are waiting.
Mr. Speaker, I guess we are not going to get an answer to that
question.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee
(Mr. Ford).
Mr. FORD. Mr. Speaker, I want you to know I mean no disrespect to you
personally or to the institution, but the notion that somehow welfare
has any role in this debate is asinine. My colleagues know and we know,
as do those watching know, certainly our colleagues in the Senate know,
that everyone we are discussing today with regard to this child tax
credit are working people.
The welfare reform package that passed this Congress passed before I
got here, so it is easy for me to say I would have voted for it, since
I was not here. But I can assure my colleagues that my votes since that
time are consistent with that.
Now, I appreciate the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) coming down
here, but what he did, I think, was to lay out pretty clearly for those
on our side and the other side just the difference in priorities. Our
priorities differ in great ways from the Republicans. Many of us like
tax cuts; my Republican colleagues like tax cuts. We think tax cuts
should benefit more people, the Republicans think they should benefit a
lesser group of people. No disrespect to you. Do not mean to ridicule
my colleagues personally, but there are complete differences in
priorities and realities.
The reality is what we are discussing today. People earning $25,000 a
year or less make up a good portion of America. Frankly, those of us on
this floor, that is a fraction of what we earn year in and year out.
And how dare we, as we pass a tax cut bill, how dare we say that we
have done enough for people that make $11,000, $12,000, $13,000,
$14,000 and $15,000 a year. How dare we say that to their children,
when the facts betray everything that you believe and I believe.
Frankly, if these children whom we are denying this tax credit to
could vote, they would vote all of us out of office. As many times as
we have lied to them about building new schools and putting more
teachers in the classrooms, they would fire the President, might have
even fired the former President.

[[Page H5020]]

So let us be honest. We deny 12 million children a tax credit. No
funny math, no Enron accounting, no Arthur Andersen accounting can
refute that. We should do better and we can.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time. A question was posed and unanswered. We can wait for an answer,
if my colleagues have one.
Is there no answer to the question?
Apparently, there is no answer, I tell the gentlewoman from
Connecticut, to the question she posed. Let me tell her and my
colleagues why.
Mr. Speaker, yesterday syndicated columnist Arianna Huffington, no
Democrat and no liberal, and very wealthy, said this in the Los Angeles
Times, and I quote: ``A magnetic compass always points north; a moral
compass should always point out that heaping billions on the rich while
ensuring that one out of six American children do not get a penny is
dead wrong.''
Dead wrong. Arianna Huffington. Not the gentleman from Maryland (Mr.
Hoyer), not the Democrats, not those fuzzy-headed liberals my
Republican colleagues like to talk about, but Arianna Huffington. She
continued: ``But that's exactly what congressional Republicans did in
pushing through tax cut legislation last month, and that's what
President Bush signed off on.'' Arianna Huffington.
Mr. Speaker, America now knows that the GOP's moral compass lies
shattered on the conference room floor where the final deals on the
Republican tax bill were cut 2 weeks ago.
Why did the majority leader leave the floor? The majority leader left
the floor because he used an example just above the $28,000, where he
would have been wrong. My colleagues, the moral compass is absent.
There was a report that showed that the policies in 2001 and 2003 are
leading to a $44.4 trillion deficit. Who did that? Two people in the
Bush administration asked to do that report and OMB. And guess what?
They stonewalled the report. Why? Because they did not want the
magnitude of the debt tax that we are imposing on every American family
known while at the same time, when they had no lobbyist in that hall,
those 12 million children, who did not have somebody highly paid to sit
in that hallway and say do not cut us, found themselves cut out of the
bill that in the still and dark of the night, with no Democrats
present, was brought out to this floor, pages and pages of bill, with
minutes to review it.
Arianna Huffington is correct. Shame, shame, shame.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining 30 seconds. I
urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so that we
can help millions of children and working families. We have heard the
other side defend the indefensible.

{time} 1500

Mr. Speaker, if they do not want to help millions of working
families, they should at least have the guts to go on record as voting
no instead of hiding behind procedures. So let this House work its
will. Let us have a little democracy in this Chamber. Vote on the
previous question so we can bring up the Rangel bill and literally help
millions of children in this country.

Working Families Tax Credit Act of 2003--Summary of H.R. 2286, June 4,
2003

Republicans have left moderate-income families behind in
their zeal to cut taxes on millionaires, contrary to their
``leave no child behind'' rhetoric.
H.R. 2286 helps moderate-income working families and is
revenue neutral.

provisions

Provides Child Credit to More Working Families: Lowers to
$7,500 (from $10,500) the amount of the wages a family must
have before refundability of the child credit begins. This is
identical to a provision that was included in the house
Democratic alternative on the economic stimulus legislation.
The credit would be allowed for approximately 19 million
additional children by reason of this change.
Increases Benefit for Working Families: Increases partial
refundability from 10 percent of wages to 15 percent of
wages. Again, this is identical to a provision that was
included in the Democratic alternative. This would result in
an average credit increase of over $300 per child.
Helps Families of Soldiers in Combat: Allows refundability
for families of soldiers in combat zones even though combat
wages are not taxed.
Speeds up Marriage Penalty Relief for Lower Income Working
Couples: Makes effective immediately the marriage penalty
relief in the Earned Income Tax Credit that was provided in
the 2001 tax cut. This is the only marriage penalty relief
not accelerated in the recently enacted tax bill.
Does Not Increase the Deficit: Closes corporate loopholes:
prohibits tax shelters, and taxes corporations that move
headquarters offshore (expatriates).
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the amendment
and description of the amendment be printed in the Record immediately
before the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance
of my time.
Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned earlier, this is a rule on two suspension
bills that were, unfortunately, not passed earlier this week. They are
very important bills to those areas that are affected.
Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the chart that the
distinguished majority leader discussed earlier today.

EXAMPLES: REFUNDABILITY OF CHILD CREDIT FOR 2003
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pre-2001
law 2001 law 2003 law
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Example 1: Married couple earning $30,000 with 3 children

Tax liability before credits:
Earnings........................... 30,000 30,000 30,000
Standard deduction................. (7,950) (7,950) (9,500)
Personal exemptions................ (15,250) (15,250) (15,250)
--------------------------------
Taxable income..................... 6,800 6,800 5,250
Marginal tax rate.................. 15% 10% 10%
--------------------------------
Income tax liability............... 1,020 680 525
Payroll tax liability.............. 2,160 2,160 2,160
Child credit........................... 1,500 1,800 2,475
Earned income credit................... 782 992 992
Tax liability after EIC and child
credit:
Income tax liability............... 0 0 0
Payroll tax liability.............. 898 48 0
Payroll from government................ 0 0 782

Example 2: Single mother earning $20,000 with 2 children

Tax liability before credits:
Earnings........................... 20,000 20,000 20,000
Standard deduction................. (7,000) (7,000) (7,000)
Personal exemptions................ (9,150) (9,150) (9,150)
--------------------------------
Taxable income..................... 3,850 3,850 3,850
Marginal tax rate.................. 15% 10% 10%
--------------------------------
Income tax liability............... 578 385 385
Payroll tax liability.............. 1,440 1,440 1,440
Child credit........................... 578 1,200 1,335
Earned income credit................... 2,888 2,888 2,888
Tax liability after EIC and child
credit:
Income tax liability............... 0 0 0
Payroll tax liability.............. 0 0 0
Payment from government................ 1,748 2,263 2,398
------------------------------------------------------------------------

The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:

Previous Question for H. Res.--Rule on S. 222 & S. 273

At the end of the resolution add the following new section:
``Sec. 3. 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. 2286) the Working
Families tax Credit Act of 2003. 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) 40 minutes of debate equally
divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Ways and Means; and (2) one motion
to recommit.''

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of
my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
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.
Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair will reduce to 5 minutes
the minimum time for electronic voting, if ordered, on adoption of the
resolution, which will be followed by a 5-minute vote on the question
of passage of H.R. 1474 which was postponed earlier today.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 220,
nays 194, not voting 20, as follows:

[[Page H5021]]

[Roll No. 244]

YEAS--220

Aderholt
Akin
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Bradley (NH)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole
Collins
Cox
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Emerson
English
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Janklow
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
McCotter
McCrery
McHugh
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner (OH)
Upton
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NAYS--194

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Ballance
Becerra
Bell
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Case
Clay
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley (CA)
Doyle
Edwards
Emanuel
Engel
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall
Harman
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Kleczka
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lynch
Majette
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Sandlin
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Skelton
Slaughter
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn

NOT VOTING--20

Ballenger
Brady (TX)
Burton (IN)
Carson (OK)
Delahunt
Dicks
Eshoo
Gephardt
Hastings (FL)
Larson (CT)
Lewis (KY)
Lofgren
McInnis
Ortiz
Reyes
Ryan (WI)
Smith (MI)
Smith (WA)
Toomey
Watt

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood) (during the vote). Members are
advised that there are 2 minutes remaining to vote.

{time} 1521

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas and Mr. MEEKS of New York changed
their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
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.

Recorded Vote

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 229,
noes 175, not voting 30, as follows:

[Roll No. 245]

AYES--229

Aderholt
Akin
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Bradley (NH)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Cardoza
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole
Collins
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dooley (CA)
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Emerson
English
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Honda
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Janklow
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
McCotter
McCrery
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner (OH)
Upton
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOES--175

[[Page H5022]]

Jefferson
John
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Kleczka
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Lee
Levin
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lynch
Majette
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McGovern
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Sandlin
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Skelton
Slaughter
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn

NOT VOTING--30

Ballenger
Brady (TX)
Brown (OH)
Burton (IN)
Carson (OK)
Cubin
DeFazio
Delahunt
Dicks
Eshoo
Frank (MA)
Gephardt
Hastings (FL)
Herger
Jenkins
Larson (CT)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Lofgren
McDermott
McInnis
Meeks (NY)
Ortiz
Reyes
Rogers (MI)
Ryan (WI)
Smith (MI)
Smith (WA)
Toomey
Watt

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised that
there are 2 minutes remaining to vote.

{time} 1527

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.

____________________