[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 84 (Tuesday, June 10, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H5129-H5136]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2143, UNLAWFUL INTERNET GAMBLING 
                        FUNDING PROHIBITION ACT

  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 263 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 263

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 2143) to prevent the use of certain bank 
     instruments for unlawful Internet gambling, and for other 
     purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed 
     with. General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall 
     not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the 
     chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Financial Services. After general debate the bill shall be 
     considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. The bill 
     shall be considered as read. No amendment to the bill shall 
     be in order except those printed in the report of the 
     Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. Each 
     amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the 
     report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the 
     report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for 
     the time specified in the report equally divided and 
     controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be 
     subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand 
     for division of the question in the House or in the Committee 
     of the Whole. All points of order against such amendments are 
     waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for 
     amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the 
     House with such amendments as may have been adopted. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill 
     and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder) is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), 
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. Speaker, H. Res. 263 is a structured rule that provides for the 
consideration of H.R. 2143, the Unlawful Internet Gambling Funding 
Prohibition Act. This is a fair, structured rule that merits the 
House's approval.
  This rule provides for 1 hour of general debate equally divided and 
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee 
on Financial Services.
  This rule makes in order only those amendments printed in the 
Committee on Rules report accompanying H. Res. 263. It provides that 
the amendments printed in the report may be considered only in the 
order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member designated 
by the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the 
time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the 
proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall 
not be subject to a demand for a division of the question in the House 
or in the Committee of the Whole.
  This rule waives all points of order against the amendments printed 
in the report, provides one motion to recommit, with or without 
instructions.
  With respect to the underlying legislation, H.R. 2143, I want to 
acknowledge the efforts of my friend and colleague, the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Oxley), chairman of the Committee on Financial Services, in 
bringing this important bill to the floor today. This rule we have 
before us today will give the House the opportunity to consider

[[Page H5130]]

H.R. 2143 and three additional amendments made in order under the rule.
  In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 263 is a structured rule that 
will give the full House an opportunity to work its will on the major 
issues it raises, and I urge my colleagues to support the rule so that 
we can move on to consideration of the underlying legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, first, let me thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Linder) for yielding me this time.
  The Unlawful Internet Gambling Funding Prohibition Act has the 
potential to eradicate illegal Internet gambling by disallowing 
merchants from accepting credit card, debit card, or other bank-
sanctioned transactions as payment for online wagering.
  Mr. Speaker, because online gambling has grave societal consequences, 
I support this legislation that aims to eradicate it. As the ``crack 
cocaine'' of gambling, Internet betting often leads to severe personal 
and family hardships, including debt, bankruptcy, foreclosed mortgages, 
and divorce.
  Although I am pleased that three amendments were made in order, I 
find it especially disappointing and frustrating that the Pombo 
amendment will not be debated today.
  The gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) presented an amendment that 
would have treated Indian tribes on a par with State governments. The 
interests of the Native American people, a community that has been 
disenfranchised for all of their history, should always be heard and, 
in this case, should have been debated.
  The price of Internet gambling can be measured best in terms of the 
human costs. As we debate the pros and cons of this act, the most 
important question we should be asking is, What does Internet gambling 
cost our children, and is this a price we are willing to pay?
  Mr. Speaker, we are debating a bill that has the potential to stop 
the gambling with our future, because Internet gambling hurts children. 
I have learned of one young man that racked up debts of $70,000 and was 
kicked out of his house because he was stealing from his family, and of 
another teen who blew his tuition and 3 days after his father repaid 
it, he withdrew from his courses, demanded a refund, and spent the 
refund on gambling. Stories like these are innumerable.
  The American Psychiatric Association is so concerned about the 
increase in youth gambling, primarily on the Internet, that it recently 
issued the following statement: ``In virtually all studies of the rates 
of gambling problems at various ages, high school and college-aged 
individuals show the highest problem areas.''
  The APA says the increase in problems among young people can be 
attributed, in part, to the ease with which they can gamble on the 
Internet, where there are no enforceable restrictions on age.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill is intended to help reduce the extent of 
existing illegal Internet gambling in the United States; and I support 
it as it is presently constituted, with hopes of continuing revision.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my good 
friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I am the ranking minority 
member on the committee of jurisdiction, and I am pleased that we 
forestalled a suspension proposal here and that we do have a chance to 
debate some of the amendments. I will talk about that bill in due time.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I did want to note today, though, and I 
guess I may need the Parliamentarian, Mr. Speaker. I know under our 
rules it is forbidden to speak ill of the Senate and from time to time 
people get exasperated and they speak ill of the Senate and they are 
duly chided.
  But the question I have, Mr. Speaker, is, is it permissible to speak 
well of the Senate? Is it within the rules to lavish on the Senate the 
praise they deserve for passing the child tax credit bill?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. It is not in order to characterize the 
Senate in any way.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. In any way. Well, I regret my inability 
to give credit where credit is due. I was hoping that an example 
recently given would be followed in this side of the Capitol; but I 
will abide by the rules, though as foolish as I think this particular 
rule is, and not comment on the Senate.

                              {time}  1515

  I will, though, have to say that the refusal of the Republican 
leadership in the House to allow the House to vote on a proposal that 
would extend to hard-working, low-income people financial relief after 
all of the financial relief we have given to people in the upper 
brackets is truly distressing.
  I know there has been an effort on the House floor to portray our 
interest in providing a tax credit to people, and let us be clear, we 
are talking about here people who work. They work very hard. They work 
at jobs that are not very pleasant, and that, by definition, are not 
well paid. Many of them have families.
  It is true that because they work hard at jobs that this society has 
devalued in many cases they do not pay much or any income tax. They do, 
however, pay a significant percentage of their income in taxes. They 
pay the Social Security tax and the tax on Medicare. They pay the 
withholding tax.
  For many of them because there are no exemptions from that, there are 
no deductions, they pay the full thing no matter how many children they 
have, no matter how many other expenses they have. For some of those 
people this is a larger percentage of their income paid in tax than is 
paid by many wealthier people. That reduction will be further.
  What this House says is, no, they get no relief out of this bill 
comparable to what others get. It is unworthy of this House to say that 
to these hardworking people struggling to provide for their children 
when the Republicans have said, in the tax bill, this looks like $350 
billion, but we are going to convert it into hundreds of billions more.
  A bill is going to be introduced that would cost a total of $10 
billion, or would expend $10 billion; but it would be neutral revenue-
wise to help these low-income people. We are told we cannot do that.
  When there was a parliamentary situation that the President 
confronted, and he was told he could only get $350 billion in tax 
relief over the next 10 years, he said that he did not think people 
should be for such a little bitty piece of tax relief. So $350 billion 
is a little bitty. We are asking for a very small percentage of that 
little bitty for the poorest, hardest-working people in this country.
  The Republican leadership, I can understand in the core Republican 
philosophy that they would say no to these people, but to refuse to 
allow the House of Representatives to vote on it seems to me 
unpardonable. We are just asking, okay, let it come to the floor. Let 
us have a debate. Are they so afraid that their resistance to helping 
these low-income people is so out of sync with the American people that 
they will not let it come forward?
  I hope we will see that bill on the floor fairly soon.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney).
  Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to actually speak on the underlying bill and the 
rule in support of both of those, and, as well, if I could take the 
opportunity to speak against one of the amendments.
  I am from New York's 20th Congressional District, the home of 
Saratoga, New York. We like to say it is the home of horse racing. It 
certainly is the home of the oldest flat track in the Nation, the proud 
home of Funny Cide, the winner of the Kentucky Derby and the Preakness.
  While we are a little less jubilant today than we were, maybe, a 
couple of days ago, we are still very bullish on the whole idea and the 
whole horse racing industry.
  I am also the cochairman of the Congressional Horse Caucus. I want to 
talk a little bit about how important this rule is and this underlying 
bill is to horse racing and the horse racing industry. U.S. horse 
racing is regulated

[[Page H5131]]

by Federal and State laws. It is in fact the most highly regulated form 
of entertainment sports initiative in this Nation.
  The specific concerns expressed by many in this Congress about 
offshore international wagering, the integrity of operators, the 
identity of the participants, consumer fraud, and money laundering are 
not an issue as it relates to horse racing. Horse racing is a $34 
billion domestic industry, along with the agribusinesses that it 
supports. It is critically important not just to the economy of my 
district but through vast regions throughout the Nation.
  The underlying bill respects existing Federal and State gambling law. 
It does not make any unlawful gambling lawful; it does not make any 
lawful gambling unlawful. It does not override any State prohibitions 
or requirements. It does not expand or contract wagering. It simply 
maintains the status quo with respect to the underlying substantive law 
on gaming.
  There will be an amendment later today brought forward sponsored by 
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the gentleman from 
Utah (Mr. Cannon), and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Conyers) that 
would prohibit State license activities and represents a broad overuse 
and abuse of Federal power.
  I want to congratulate the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder) for 
bringing this rule forward. I want to congratulate the chairman of the 
Committee on Financial Services, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), 
for recognizing the importance of this underlying legislation and how 
important, critically important, it is to vast areas throughout the 
Nation.
  I want to ask my colleagues to support both this rule and to support 
the underlying legislation and oppose the so-called Sensenbrenner-
Cannon-Conyers amendment.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to yield 3 
minutes to my friend, the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on this rule. This bill requires U.S. 
credit card companies and other financial entities to develop 
reasonable policies and procedures to identify and block financial 
transactions made in connection with unlawful Internet gambling.
  Online gambling can have a severe impact on family life. It can be 
done anonymously easily from someone's home and requires little more 
than a computer and a credit card. We know the dangers of online 
gambling: lost savings, excessive debt, bankruptcies, foreclosed 
mortgages.
  This is an important issue that we discuss today. Equally important 
as an issue is the restoration by the House of the child tax credit to 
6.5 million families that have been in fact left behind, families of 12 
million children which are taxpaying families, Mr. Speaker, who deserve 
tax relief. They have bills to pay, mouths to feed, children to take 
care of. With the economy continuing its slide downward, they do not 
know where their jobs will be the week after next.
  Let me be clear: as has been indicated, these families do pay taxes. 
They pay payroll taxes, sales taxes. They may not know week to week 
whether their next paycheck is forthcoming; but they know that if it 
does, that 8 percent will come off the top on the first dollar earned.
  So we should not be kind of lulled or fooled into thinking that these 
families do not pay any taxes, because they pay a greater share of 
their income in taxes than a corporation like Enron did in 4 of the 
last 5 years. Just because these families do not have a powerful lobby, 
we must be their lobby in this institution. We must lobby for their 
hard-earned money and not take it from them.
  Before we consider bills like the Internet gambling bill, this House 
should take up the other body's child tax credit legislation. The White 
House has said that the House should take up this bill, and if we do, 
that the President will sign our bill.
  This is not a partisan issue; this is an issue of values, of 
character. Each individual, those of us who serve in this marvelous 
institution, come here to do the right thing. This reflects doing the 
right thing, and also it reflects what our national character is all 
about.
  That is why, Mr. Speaker, though I support this underlying bill, I 
also support the motion for the House to take from the Speaker's table, 
agree to, and pass the Senate amendment on the child tax credit. It is 
time the House votes to extend the full $1,000 tax credit to the 
families of 12 million children, just like 25 million other families in 
America. Quite simply, it is the right thing to do. We should meet that 
July 1 deadline when others will be getting their tax cut.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus).
  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, illegal Internet gambling, that is something that many 
Americans do not know much about. They have not heard much about it 
until they look at their credit card and there is $4,000 or $5,000 
worth of charges on their credit card because their son off at a 
university, or even their 14-year-old son, has gotten their card, gone 
in his bedroom, got on the Internet, and began to gamble.
  Harvard University Medical School, the University of Connecticut, 
newspapers all over this country have looked at this problem. They 
estimate that as many as 5 million of our youth, as well as compulsive, 
what they call ``pathological gamblers,'' are gambling on the Internet 
today.
  This is basically a new phenomenon. In 1997 it was first brought to 
our attention when groups came before the Congress and asked that we do 
something about it. At that time, there were about 24 sites offshore, 
and it is estimated at that time that anywhere from $50 million to $300 
million being bet.
  In 2001, an Internet gambling bill was killed by this Congress, 
despite the urging of groups as diverse as Major League baseball, the 
NCAA, the NFL, various faith-based groups, and the AARP, because AARP 
represents a lot of grandparents whose grandchildren are becoming 
addicted to gambling in these sites, and they urged us to act.
  In 2001, and again in 2002, this Congress began to argue not about 
illegal Internet gambling, but they began to attach amendments to this 
bill that would make lawful gambling unlawful or unlawful gambling 
lawful. Everybody wanted to improve their position. Some Members wanted 
to eliminate certain types of lawful gambling. Others wanted to create 
lawful exceptions to what was illegal gambling in this country. These 
bills continued to go down.
  Today, we are not faced with a situation where we have a half a dozen 
sites and maybe $10 million of gambling on these sites; we are faced 
with a situation where we have $6 billion a year bet on these sites, $6 
billion. That we know. We also know that there are somewhere between 
1,500 and 2,000 sites offshore.
  What else do we know about these sites? We know that they are 
untaxed. Not one dime of tax is collected. We know they are 
unsupervised. In fact, we do not know the identity of these people, 
except in two cases when the FBI prosecuted them and found out. The 
reason they prosecuted them is because they were laundering money. We 
found out they were money-launderers.
  We do know, because the FBI has reported it, that organized crime is 
heavily invested in these sites, and they believe that organized crime 
controls these sites. We know that.
  We know some other things about these people. We know they are not 
good people. We know they link these sites with pornographic sites, and 
we know some of these sites specifically target preteens. When they go 
on those sites, they also get a pop-up that exposes them to 
pornographic sites. We know that because various organizations have 
come before us and over the last 3 years testified that our youth, our 
preteens, are being led into addictive gambling.
  The University of Connecticut, Harvard University, The New York 
Times, all of them have exposed this problem; but this Congress 
continues to take the occasion when these bills come up to try to have 
a turf fight on gambling.
  In fact, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon) will offer an amendment 
which is another turf fight. Senators have said that if the Cannon 
amendment is attached that this bill will be

[[Page H5132]]

killed in the Senate. So we again have a choice to make: Do we want to 
continue to let this industry grow, a mob-run industry? Do we want to 
continue to not know who these people are? Do we want to continue, in 
the words of a professor at Harvard University, to allow what he calls 
the ``crack cocaine of gambling'' to take hold in America?

                              {time}  1530

  Do we want to continue to do that or do we want to vote down the 
Cannon amendment and vote up this legislation?
  One final thing that I would like to remind this body. There is a 
trial that went on last week in Florida. Adrian McPherson, Adrian 
McPherson was Mr. Football in the State of Florida. He was also Mr. 
Basketball in the State of Florida. Imagine such a talent, both the 
best high school football player, the best high school basketball 
player, and he went to Florida State University. And what do we know 
from the testimony last week? We know that he, and this is according to 
testimony, he has not been convicted, but we know this: We know he has 
been suspended from the team; not suspended, but he has actually been 
thrown off the Florida State team. We know he has been accused of going 
in a business and stealing checks from that business. We know that he 
is accused of going to a grocery store and bouncing a number of checks. 
We know that he is facing time in jail. We know that if he is convicted 
in the trial that he will be going through in the next month or two, 
that he will be banned from organized college athletics for life.
  And all because what? The accusations, the testimony is he became 
addicted to Internet gambling, and he had massive debts and that is why 
he went out and stole these checks. But that young man and his family 
have been devastated. Florida State University has spent over a million 
dollars investigating this case.
  What if 3 years ago this Congress had quit fooling with these turf 
battle Cannon-type amendments and adopted this legislation? I wonder if 
this young man would be taking the field for Florida State? I wonder if 
we had listened to the NCAA when they testified before our committee 3 
years ago when they said, please take action, do something; when the 
NCAA warned us 2 years ago in testimony that we are going to have a 
scandal one day because illegal Internet gambling is making it very 
difficult for us to protect the integrity, the integrity of this sport.
  There was one Gallup poll which said that 25 percent of college 
athletes today are betting on the Internet on sports, and most of those 
are betting on their own teams, and almost all of them were betting on 
college sports. What are we going to do? Are we going to continue to 
stand by while families are broken apart?
  This morning I was on C-SPAN and when I got off, a man from Georgia 
called and said, I support this legislation. He was asked why. He said, 
I am a compulsive gambler. And he said, If I have to go 50 miles or 100 
miles to gamble, I feel like I can keep that under control. But, he 
said, If it is in my home, if it is in my bedroom, if it is on my 
computer, I have a difficult time handling that. That man was saying to 
us: Take action.
  In a few minutes we will get an opportunity to do two things. We will 
get an opportunity to do what the National Governors Association, in a 
letter dated yesterday, has urged us to do. We will do what the 
attorney generals, when they urged us, the Attorney Generals 
Association usually says, hands off, let the States handle it. But the 
Attorney Generals Association has said do something about this, we 
cannot.
  When the Methodists, the Presbyterians, the Southern Baptists, we 
received a letter, Focus on the Family have written us, different 
faith-based groups; when even major league baseball says there is a 
growing problem, it is time to take action. If we do not, there will be 
other Adrian McPhersons. There will be other lives ruined. There will 
be families broken up. There will be children addicted to gambling. 
Because if there is one thing these illegal Internet gamblers know is, 
they know that our children are fascinated with and very literate on 
the computers. They use the computers.
  We have seen the statistics. The average teenager is on the computer 
20, 30 hours a week. We hear incredible numbers, and what do they enjoy 
doing as much as anything? Sports. You combine the computer with sports 
and you get what the Harvard Medical School said is an explosive, the 
crack cocaine, as I said earlier, of gambling. Let us take action 
before any more lives are ruined. We have had suicides. We have had at 
least five suicides.
  Let us take action. Let us vote down these killer amendments and let 
us vote up this legislation, and let us finally take action.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Alexander), a new Member, new in the 
sense that this is his first term; however, he has distinguished 
himself in many ways among freshmen and all of us.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the rule 
and I have a motion to the House to take from the Speaker's table and 
pass the Senate amendment to the Child Tax Credit.
  This body continues to refuse to address the problem that we have 
created. Extending the child tax credit to low-income working families 
is the right thing to do, and we should do it today. The Senate has 
already passed and the President is calling for it now.
  Now, I have heard people say that those who did not vote for the tax 
cut should not be complaining about the way it turned out. Well, I 
supported the tax cut. I was 1 of only 4 Democrats to vote for it from 
day one, and I stand by that vote today. But by neglecting to provide 
the child tax credit to the low-income families, we have made a drastic 
mistake. We need to correct that now. These are hardworking people who 
pay taxes, too, and they deserve relief like everyone else.
  Because of our actions, in Louisiana 1 out of every 4 families is 
being told that their children are not as valuable as other kids. That 
is wrong. We have the power to easily correct that mistake. Instead, we 
are playing games.
  Now, last night I joined with the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. 
Tanner) and the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) to introduce an 
exact replica of the Senate bill that has already passed. If they 
wanted, the House leadership could bring up our bill today and we could 
send it to the President.
  The time for playing games is over. We made a mistake and we need to 
correct that today so that all working families can receive the needed 
relief when the checks go out next month.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, would the Speaker inform us of 
how much time remains on each side?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Duncan). The gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Hastings) has 18\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from Georgia 
(Mr. Linder) has 15 minutes remaining.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), my very good friend.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I am going to speak against the rule, and it is not 
because I am against the underlying bill. It is because, Mr. Speaker, 
hardworking families need a break more than anyone else in this country 
and hardworking families are the ones that are bearing the brunt of 
this weak economy. But for some reason the Republicans leadership feels 
that the privileged few are more important than the 12 million children 
who are left out of the Republican tax cut and that Internet gambling 
is more important to discuss today than our children. And that is just 
plain wrong.
  Voices across the country are speaking out in great numbers. It is 
overwhelming what we are hearing in our offices. And it must be 
overwhelming what the administration is hearing about supporting 
increasing the child tax credit and making it permanent, especially for 
those 12 million children who were left out of the recent tax package, 
because President Bush is finally urging the House to follow suit with 
the other body, saying that he wants to sign legislation that will 
restore tax credits for lower-income families and put the majority 
party's bad decision behind him.
  Why is the Republican leadership in the House dragging its feet when 
we can help American families now?

[[Page H5133]]

  Let us hold off on debating issues, even though we agree with them, 
like the underlying bill we are talking about, Internet gambling. Let 
us hold off on those issues until all working families are provided the 
benefits of the child tax credit. And at the same time, Mr. Speaker, 
while it is imperative that we swiftly extend the child tax credit to 
lower-income families, it absolutely should not be part of a broad 
package that extends even more benefits to the wealthy.
  We must pass a clean bill that solves the injustice that has been 
done to these hardworking families. Our priority must be the 12 million 
forgotten children, not more tax breaks for the rich, not debate about 
Internet gambling, not anything except giving the tax breaks to those 
hardworking families.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), my good friend.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule, not only 
because I believe the House should finally address the child tax 
credit, but also because the Committee on Rules refused to include an 
amendment by the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) to allow 
American Indian tribes to operate Internet gambling sites on their 
reservations, the very action the overall bill gives to the States. 
Without the inclusion of this amendment, Indian tribes are unfairly 
singled out and cannot reap the same benefits States will receive if 
this legislation becomes law.
  Mr. Speaker, I join my Democratic colleagues in calling on the 
Republican leadership to follow the Senate's lead and immediately 
approve legislation that will provide a child tax credit to 12 million 
children, children Republicans left out of their bill last month. 
Included among these 12 million children are the children of U.S. 
military families.
  A report out last week showed nearly 1 in 5 children of active duty 
U.S. military families will not benefit from the increased tax credit 
because their parents earn too little to qualify.
  Mr. Speaker, it appears the only Republicans who do not fully 
comprehend the huge mistake they made in their tax bill are my 
Republican colleagues here in the House. Last week the Senate passed a 
bill. Yesterday the President's press secretary said his advice to the 
House Republicans is to pass it, to send it to him so he can sign it. 
And yet House Republicans continue to fight against common fairness.
  Just today in an AP story that I will quote, the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. DeLay) said, it ``ain't going to happen.''
  ``DeLay said the House will not pass the Senate's bill. Instead, it 
will use the child tax credit as a bargaining chip to encourage the 
Senate to pass bigger tax cuts favored by the House.'' And I have a 
quote of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), ``What we are interested 
in is real solid tax relief for those who are paying taxes,'' he said.
  So the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), on behalf of the House 
leadership, continues to stop the child tax credit from becoming law 
for these 12 million working families.
  Now, let me point out that these workers do pay Federal taxes; 7.65 
percent of their earnings go to pay for Social Security and Medicare. 
These hardworking parents also pay State and local taxes as well. An 
analysis released earlier this year by the New York Times found that 
families pay 14 percent of their income.
  These people pay taxes and they deserve the child tax credit, too. 
Pass the bill.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley), my good friend.
  Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I support the Unlawful Internet 
Gambling Funding Prohibition Act.
  Online gambling has a huge impact on individuals and families. But I 
am not supporting the rule because we have not been able to bring up 
the child tax credit. I went to the Rose Garden today for the 
celebration of Leave No Child Behind. And they were celebrating all of 
the States having plans and about what they were going to do about 
education and how they were going to move forward. And I supported that 
plan.
  But today we are leaving children behind, 12 million children. These 
are children whose parents earn $6, $7, $8, $9, $10, $11, $12 an hour. 
These are people that get up every morning, every noon, every 
afternoon, whatever their shift is. They go out and work hard, and yet 
they were denied the child tax credit.

                              {time}  1545

  It is time that we change that. The time is now. When I saw the quote 
from the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) that said there are a lot of 
other things that are more important than that, referring to the child 
tax credit, I wanted to say to the gentleman, say it isn't so, say it 
isn't so. We need to pass this and get on with our business.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my good 
friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Baca).
  (Mr. BACA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BACA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this unlawful Internet 
funding prohibition act and in support of the Sensenbrenner-Conyers 
amendment.
  I oppose this bill as a strong defender of tribal government, a 
strong advocate for tribal sovereignty, a strong believer in fairness 
and equity. I state, a strong believer in fairness and equity.
  This bill does not treat solvent tribe governments with the same 
level of respect it does States. Section four of this bill provides for 
a carve-out for States that allows States to license Internet gaming 
operations for lottery, horse track, and corporate gambling operations.
  Although the bill grants States with this exception, it does not 
provide tribal governments with the same exception. Have we not learned 
that it is wrong to treat our Native American brothers and sisters as 
second class citizens? One would think that we would know better.
  Let me be clear, I will not be standing here today in opposition to 
this bill if tribal governments were treated equal, if tribal 
governments were treated equal.
  I do not disagree with the principle behind this legislation, but I 
disagree with the effects on Native Americans and their economy. H.R. 
2143 gives an unfair advantage to private gaming enterprises, and it 
treats tribal governments and their industry as inferior.
  Just when we think that the centuries of mistreatment and 
discrimination are ending, something like this comes up or shows up. 
Once again, Congress is trying to put tribal government at a 
disadvantage. Once again, Congress is trying to put tribal government 
at a disadvantage; and once again, I will stand up and defend the 
sovereignty of our tribal governments. I will stand up and make sure 
that our government lives up to its responsibility, lives up to their 
responsibility.
  Gaming provides the financial resources the tribes need to survive 
and bring economic development to their people. It provides resources. 
The tribal governments need to provide health, education and hope for 
their people. It is the livelihood of our Native American brothers and 
sisters.
  I will not stand by and watch Congress put tribes behind the eight 
ball once again.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 2143 and ``yes'' on the 
Sensenbrenner amendment.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes 
to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown), my classmate and good friend, 
former Secretary of State of the State of Ohio.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Florida for 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous 
question so we can take the Senate tax bill off the Speaker's table for 
immediate consideration.
  On May 22, this House passed a bill that gives a tax break of $93,500 
to the average millionaire in our country. As Republicans rushed 
towards the Memorial Day recess, Vice President Cheney cut a deal that 
left working, tax paying families out of the child tax credit 
expansion. That is right, $93,500 for millionaires, not one cent to 
working lower-income families.

[[Page H5134]]

  As the tax bill advanced in the House, I joined my colleagues and 
sent out three Dear Colleagues alerting Members of all parties to the 
fact that it left low-income, working, tax-paying families out in the 
cold by denying them marriage penalty relief under the earned income 
tax credit.
  Republicans knew they were making low-income Americans wait years for 
the same benefit that they would offer more affluent families right 
now. Republicans of the House knew that their leadership and knew that 
the Bush White House had stuck it to low-income families again by 
denying them relief under the child tax credit, $93,500 to millionaires 
and not one cent to lower-income working families. Republicans knew 
that the bill they supported offered that $93,000 to millionaires and 
was a slap in the face to millions of tax-paying, working American 
families.
  Democrats believe simple fairness demands that we act immediately to 
remedy the injustice; but the majority leader of the House, the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), says we will not do it, not while he 
is the Republican leader. He says there are a lot of other things that 
are more important than that. The majority whip, the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Blunt), says we do not need to rush through this. 
Remember, $93,500 for millionaires, not a cent for lower-income working 
families.
  We had to rush to give millionaires this $90,000 tax break; but when 
it comes to tax breaks for working tax-paying families, Republicans 
need time to think it over. While Republicans have left working 
families out in the cold by refusing to advance tax fairness 
legislation, they have moved on other bills.
  For example, since that May 22 date, since Republicans were rushing 
out of town for the Memorial Day recess, Congress has renamed Federal 
buildings and post offices, congratulated baseball star Sammy Sosa, 
commemorated the 20th anniversary of National Tourism Week, and made it 
easier to clear bank checks. There is nothing wrong for any of those 
bills. I voted for all of them. But was any of them more important than 
helping 12 million children who were intentionally left behind by the 
Bush-Cheney-DeLay-GOP tax bill? Was any one of them more important, any 
of those pieces of legislation more important than helping 3.7 million 
working, low-income, tax-paying families whose marriages this House 
said were not worth as much as the marriage of their bosses? Not by a 
long shot, not in the wake of a tax bill that gives $93,000 to 
millionaires, not one cent to tax-paying working families.
  Vote ``no'' on the previous question so we can take the Senate tax 
bill off the Speaker's table.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  (Mr. HASTINGS of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, if the previous question is 
defeated, I will offer an amendment to the rule; and my amendment will 
provide that as soon as the House passes this rule, it will take from 
the Speaker's table and immediately consider the Senate-passed version 
of H.R. 1308, which restores the refundable child tax credit that was 
removed from the recently passed Republican tax bill.
  Let me make very clear to my colleagues in the House that a ``no'' 
vote on the previous question will not stop consideration of the 
Unlawful Internet Gambling Funding Prohibition Act. A ``no'' vote will 
allow the House to vote on H.R. 2143 and on the Senate-passed version 
of H.R. 1308 as well. However, a ``yes'' vote on the previous question 
will prevent the House from voting on this badly needed tax package to 
provide real relief to America's working families.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question so we can send this 
bill to the President today.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the amendment 
and a description of the amendment be printed in the Record immediately 
before the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Duncan). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would just like to point out in the light of the conversations we 
have heard today that by definition a tax credit is a credit against 
income taxes paid. People who are left out supposedly were people who 
do not pay income taxes and do not get a credit because there is no 
place against which to lay that credit. I am sorry that we are turning 
the income tax system into a welfare program, but it appears that we 
are about to do that.
  Mr. BACA. Mr. Speaker, I rise to urge my colleagues to defeat the 
previous question. Defeating the previous question allows us to discuss 
H.R. 2286 introduced by Congressman Rangel to grant the Child Tax 
Credit to the thousands of needy families wrongfully ignored by the 
Republican majority.
  When the conference report on the Republican tax cut was finished, 
the dividend tax cut got bigger and tax credits for working families 
got smaller. It is unconscionable that we are willing to sacrifice 
Child Tax Credits for the poorest in our society, so that we can give 
more money to the wealthiest.
  Six and a half million families in this Nation earn $10,500 to 
$26,625 per year. If we do not pass a child tax credit for these 
families, 19 million children will be ignored. In my home State of 
California, nearly 1.3 million families alone, will not receive a child 
tax credit under the Republican's plan. These families need tax relief.
  By not passing a child tax credit, 250,000 kids of active duty 
military families, many of whom are right now fighting overseas, will 
be ignored. Military families need tax relief.
  Our economy is in desperate need of stimulation. Unemployment across 
the Nation has risen to 6.1 percent. The Hispanic unemployment rate 
alone is currently at 8.2 percent. America's families are suffering. 
They need immediate relief from the burden of a weak economy.
  During this time of economic downturn we must not leave out those who 
are working harder for less pay or those who have recently joined the 
ranks of the unemployed. It is time to put working families back into 
the equation. America's families need our help. They need a child tax 
credit.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Florida is as 
follows:

  Previous Question for H. Res. 263--Rule on H.R. 2143: The Unlawful 
                   Internet Gambling Prohibition Act

       At the end of the resolution add the following:
       Sec. 2. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the 
     House shall be considered to have taken from the Speaker's 
     table the bill (H.R. 1308) to amend the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986 to end certain abusive tax practices, to provide tax 
     relief and simplification, and for other purposes, with 
     Senate amendments thereto, and a single motion that the House 
     concur in each of the Senate amendments shall be considered 
     as pending without intervention of any point of order. The 
     Senate amendments and the motion shall be considered as read. 
     The motion shall be debatable for one hour equally divided 
     and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of 
     the Committee on Ways and Means. The previous question shall 
     be considered as ordered on the motion to final adoption 
     without intervening motion or demand for division of the 
     question.

  Mr. LINDER. 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. HASTINGS of Florida. 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 the question of 
adoption of the resolution.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 222, 
nays 196, not voting 16, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 252]

                               YEAS--222

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn

[[Page H5135]]


     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burr
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     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
     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
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     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)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     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
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (MI)
     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)

                               NAYS--196

     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)
     Carson (OK)
     Case
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley (CA)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gonzalez
     Green (TX)
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     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
     Larsen (WA)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     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
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     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)
     Towns
     Turner (TX)
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--16

     Cole
     DeGette
     Eshoo
     Fletcher
     Gephardt
     Gordon
     Herger
     Houghton
     Lantos
     Larson (CT)
     Rush
     Smith (WA)
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Waters
     Young (FL)


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Duncan) (during the vote). Members are 
advised 2 minutes remain in this vote.

                              {time}  1615

  Messrs. MARSHALL, WEINER, SCOTT of Georgia and RODRIQUEZ 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. HASTINGS of Florida. 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 259, 
noes 158, not voting 17, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 253]

                               AYES--259

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burr
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carter
     Case
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Collins
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dooley (CA)
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harman
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hill
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Janklow
     Jefferson
     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)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     Marshall
     Matheson
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pascrell
     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
     Ross
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sandlin
     Saxton
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner (OH)
     Turner (TX)
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Wu
     Young (AK)

                               NOES--158

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Ballance
     Becerra
     Bell
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carson (IN)
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cummings
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gonzalez
     Green (TX)
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hastings (FL)
     Hinchey
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley (OR)
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)

[[Page H5136]]


     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Majette
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Slaughter
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--17

     Carson (OK)
     Cole
     DeLay
     Eshoo
     Fletcher
     Gephardt
     Gordon
     Houghton
     Jenkins
     Lantos
     Larson (CT)
     Rush
     Smith (WA)
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Waters
     Young (FL)


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Duncan) (during the vote). Members are 
advised that there are 2 minutes remaining in this vote.

                              {time}  1623

  Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida changed her vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  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.

                          ____________________