[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

     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, Corrine
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Case
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frost
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Grijalva
     Hall
     Harman
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holt
     Hooley (OR)
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)

[[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.

                          ____________________