[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.
____________________