[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 85 (Wednesday, June 11, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H5190-H5197]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2115, FLIGHT 100--CENTURY OF
AVIATION REAUTHORIZATION ACT
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the
Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 265 and ask for its
immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 265
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. 2115) to amend title 49, United States Code,
to reauthorize programs for the Federal Aviation
Administration, and for other purposes. The first reading of
the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against
consideration of the bill are waived. 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 Transportation and Infrastructure.
After general debate the bill shall be considered for
amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall be in order to
consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment
under the five-minute rule the amendment in the nature of a
substitute recommended by the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure now printed in the bill, modified by the
amendment printed in part A of the report of the Committee on
Rules accompanying this resolution. That amendment in the
nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. All
points of order against that amendment in the nature of a
substitute are waived. No amendment to that amendment in the
nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed
in part B of the report of the Committee on Rules. Each such
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 amendment 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. Any
Member may demand a separate vote in the House on any
amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the bill
or to the amendment in the nature of a substitute made in
order as original text. 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 Florida (Mr. Lincoln
Diaz-Balart) is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of
debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as
I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time
yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
(Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida asked and was given permission to
revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 265
is a structured rule providing for the consideration of 2115, the
Flight 100 Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act. The rule provides 1
hour of general debate, equally divided and controlled by the chairman
and ranking minority member of the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure. The rule provides ample opportunity to discuss this
important reauthorization before us today.
H.R. 2115 is a bipartisan bill introduced by the gentleman from
Alaska (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica) as well as
the ranking members, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and
the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio). This reauthorization of the
Federal Aviation Administration, appropriately titled for the 100th
anniversary of powered flight, continues a tradition of funding the
promotion of safety in our skies.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to highlight some of the important
provisions in the underlying legislation.
First, this legislation reauthorizes the FAA at $3.4 billion next
year raising $200 million in the year after that. The FAA, nearly 45
years after it was created, takes an ever-present role as we take
important steps to ensure America's security. The FAA is primarily
responsible for the safety of our Nation's skies through activities
ranging from the continued monitoring by air traffic controllers to the
development of new air space technologies.
Within my district is Miami International Airport, which I have the
privilege to represent, and is consistently one of the Nation's busiest
for
[[Page H5191]]
both international and domestic travel. I am impressed by the level of
public-private cooperation between organizations such as the FAA and
Miami International Airport.
Mr. Speaker, following the tragedy of September 11, 2001, our
Nation's airports and airlines were forced to deal with the ever-
growing and obvious problem of security. I believe that this bill
contributes to this endeavor while ensuring that those affected by
these horrible acts are helped.
{time} 1130
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2115 provides for an extension of war risk
insurance for both international and domestic flights while ensuring
that this important insurance is extended to manufacturers and airline
vendors through the Department of Transportation.
This Congress was quick to assist airlines following September 11,
and rightfully so. The economic benefits from the movements of people
and goods that airlines provide, I think, demanded our attention. I
think we also have to consider that smaller aircraft that were
restricted for months following September 11 would also need attention
of the Congress. Congress, I think, should act, and I think it will
through this underlying legislation to help general aviation return to
some stability by providing compensation for the hardships on their
businesses. The bill authorizes $100 million for these general aviators
that were also greatly affected by increased security requirements.
H.R. 2115 is a good piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker. It is
important to the continued needs of the FAA, obviously, and to the
flying public. The underlying legislation was reported favorably out of
the committee by voice vote.
I take this opportunity to thank the gentleman from Alaska (Mr.
Young), the chairman, for his great leadership on this issue, as well
as the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the distinguished
ranking member.
Due to the importance of the FAA's role in the security of the United
States, as well as in the economic well-being of the United States, I
urge my colleagues to support both the rule and the underlying
legislation. I think it is important that we move forward and
reauthorize the FAA, and we are doing that today.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 6 minutes.
(Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks, and include extraneous material.)
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, today we consider the bipartisan FAA
reauthorization bill. The gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr.
Oberstar), and the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) in the best
tradition of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure worked
long and hard to produce a sensible bipartisan bill, and they should be
commended.
I also want to thank the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure for including an important provision that will benefit
smaller airports like the one I represent in Worcester, Massachusetts.
This provision will allow airports like Worcester, known as primary
airports, to continue to receive Air Improvement Program Entitlement
Funding, or AIP, for fiscal years 2004 and 2005 based on prior year
emplanement levels. It specifically grants the Secretary of
Transportation the authority to maintain current AIP funding levels for
primary airports based on a discrete set of criteria related to the
dramatic reduction in commercial air service since September 11.
AIP entitlement is a critical source and oftentimes the only source
of funding for capital improvements at these airports. These airports
rely on AIP funding to make a number of upgrades which now also include
necessary, but costly, safety enhancements. In Worcester's case, this
bill could mean the difference between receiving more than $1 million a
year annually or $150,000.
This is an important provision, and I thank the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure for its inclusion.
If only the Committee on Rules and the leadership of this House could
act in a bipartisan way, because although I support the FAA bill, for
the life of me I cannot figure out why the Republicans will not let us
consider the child tax credit.
For a second straight week, the leadership is playing a nasty game
with millions of hardworking American families. Two weeks ago, the
President, Vice President, and the Republican leaders deliberately left
12 million families, including hundreds of thousands of military
families, out in the cold by deleting the child tax credit extension
from the recently passed tax cut.
We just fought a war in Iraq; we still have soldiers fighting in
Afghanistan. And instead of a warm thank you, the Republican leadership
gives our troops the cold shoulder. The average base pay of a
serviceman in Iraq is about $16,000; but according to the Republicans,
that soldier's family does not need any tax relief because they are not
subject to Federal income tax.
This is wrong. These families work hard and they pay taxes. They pay
sales taxes and payroll taxes and State taxes and local taxes and
property taxes, most of which are going up because of the policies of
this administration; but according to the Republican leadership, giving
them a small tax credit would be welfare. How insulting.
My colleagues want to talk about welfare, well, let us do that. Enron
paid no income taxes at all in 4 of the past 5 years, despite $1.8
billion in profits. Enron's taxes over 5 years were a negative $381
million, and its corporate tax welfare totaled $1 billion.
WorldCom paid no taxes at all in 2 of the last 3 years, despite $15.2
billion in profits before going bankrupt. WorldCom's total tax rate
over the 3 years was only 1.6 percent. Corporate tax welfare slashed
WorldCom's tax bill by $5.3 billion over the past 5 years.
All the while these corporations are not paying taxes, other
companies are relocating to the Caribbean to avoid paying them
altogether.
These corporate robber barons have saved billions and billions of
dollars through loopholes supported by the Republican majority, and yet
those same Republicans say that providing a hardworking American family
a few hundred extra dollars is bad policy.
The Republican policies are crystal clear, Mr. Speaker; and they are
wrong.
Last week, in this Chamber, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer),
the distinguished minority whip, challenged the Republicans to defend
their actions. Their response? Dead silence. Yesterday, President Bush
and his staff, at long last bowing to public demand, implored House
Republicans to take up and pass the child tax credit passed by an
overwhelming bipartisan vote in the other body. That bill is targeted,
it is sensible, and very importantly, it is paid for by other offsets.
But the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the majority leader, still
refuses to bring this bill to the floor. Last week, the majority leader
said there are more important priorities than tax relief for low- and
middle-income families, and yesterday he brushed aside the White House
request.
Instead, they are playing a game, pushing a much larger tax cut that
will cost over $80 billion. They are betting that the other body will
engage in a long, protracted debate over the House proposal because
they know that the other body will not pass an $80 billion tax cut that
is not paid for, and they are hoping that the whole issue will just go
away.
Mr. Speaker, it will not go away because, as we have said over and
over, we will not let it go away up till the Republican leadership in
this House does the right thing and fixes the mistake that they made
when they removed the child tax credit for millions of low-income and
middle-income families.
So I say to the Republican leadership, are you really that cynical,
are you really so consumed by the thrill of your own power that you
refuse to do the right thing? Why can you not simply admit that it was
wrong to drop these hardworking, tax-paying families from the tax bill
and fix your mistake?
The answer may lie in an article in today's Washington Post.
According to the article, the administration had no intention ever of
implementing the child tax credit as approved by the other body.
Treasury officials assumed
[[Page H5192]]
in May, weeks before the House and Senate met to work out the
differences in the two tax bills, that the child tax credit would not
become law; and now the White House claims to support it.
I insert this article in the Record at this point.
[From the Washington Post, June 11, 2003]
House GOP Responds to Senate Child Credit Bill
$82 billion plan offers breaks for military families
(By Juliet Eiperin)
For the second time in two weeks, House leaders are pushing
a sizable tax cut bill, seizing the debate over expanded
credits for parents of minor children to propose several new,
unrelated tax cuts.
House Republicans yesterday unveiled their $82 billion
plan, which features tax breaks for military families (and
for the estates of astronauts who die on space shuttle
missions). The proposal sets up a likely fight with the
Senate, which approved a more modest tax cut package last
week.
For several days, Republicans have been trying to quell
protests over the fact that the tax cut enacted last month
excluded 6.5 million poor families from receiving a credit of
as much as $1,000 per child. The Senate reacted swiftly,
passing a $10 billion bill last week that would give the
expanded child credit (now $600) to families making from
$10,500 to $26,625 a year.
House Republicans rejected that approach yesterday, saying
they wanted a broader bill that would extend the child credit
and other tax breaks through 2010.
``We've not in the business of politics, but rather in
policy,'' said Ways and Means Chairman Bill Thomas (R-
Calif.), noting that the expanded child tax credit phases out
in 2005 under the existing law. ``If these people need help
between now and the election [of 2004], they need it for the
rest of the decade.''
House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) told reporters
yesterday that passing a bill dealing only with the child
credit ``ain't going to happen,'' because GOP leaders prefer
a broader package that ``provides tax relief, creates jobs
and [helps] the economy grow.''
The House proposal would provide a $1,000 per-child credit
for families from Jan. 1, 2003, through 2010. The credit now
begins to phase out when married couples make $110,000 or
more. House GOP leaders would raise start of the phaseout to
$150,000.
Their plan also would help military families, giving them a
tax break on home sales, death benefits and dependent-care
assistance. It would suspend the tax-exempt status of
designated terrorist organizations and provide income and
estate tax relief for astronauts who die on space shuttle
missions, including those in the Columbia disaster.
The House is poised to pass the plan Thursday. Its
prospects in a conference with the Senate are unclear. The
Senate bill's costs are offset by higher Customs Service
fees, adding nothing to the deficit. The House plan includes
no such offsets, which could cause problems with Senate
Democrats and some moderate Republicans.
``I philosophically support the House Ways and Means
Committee proposal, ``Senate Finance Committee Chairman
Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) said yesterday, but ``I don't
know if there are enough Senate votes to pass it.''
Treasury officials informed Senate aides yesterday that the
government will not be able to mail child credit checks to
low-income families for 8 to 10 weeks. Administration
officials assumed in May that the Senate child credit
proposals would not become law, according to a Senate
Democratic aide who met with Treasury officials.
The American people are smart. They can see through all the politics.
They want Congress to fix the child tax credit, and they deserve
action.
Mr. Speaker, the other body has already acted. We can solve this
problem by taking up the bill right now. With quick action, we can send
this bill to the President; and he can keep his word and sign it by the
end of this week.
That is why, at the end of this debate on the rule, I will ask my
colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question, and should the
previous question be defeated, I will bring up the Senate-passed child
tax credit so we can send it to the President immediately.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Inslee).
(Mr. INSLEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, this bill may be fine, but we need to defeat
this question on the rule to get to the business at hand, because the
business at hand is we want to free the goodly number of Republicans
who want to vote for a child care tax credit, but who are under the
tyranny of a Republican leadership who will not let them do it. We need
to free those 228 Republicans to exercise some of their conscience
because I believe there is a goodly number of them who realize why we
are right; and we are right because it is indefensible to have decided
to give these tax breaks to the wealthy and deny it to families as a
child tax credit.
It is indefensible, and if my colleagues want to know why there has
been such silence from this side of the aisle defending this, it is
because they do not want to defend the indefensible. It is not because
of massive laryngitis on this side of the aisle. If my colleagues want
to know why there have been so few coming to this Chamber to try to
excuse this, it is because they do not want to try to excuse the
inexcusable.
I believe we should defeat this rule and go to the business at hand,
and we should have a goodly number of Republicans join us to do it; and
here is why I think this is possible. It is possible because there are
a fair number of Republicans who share two basic values with the
Democrats on this side of the aisle. Those values are work, number one,
and two, responsibility.
We believe that work should be honored; and when we have heard the
few Republicans that have come to defend this indefensible position,
they have not honored work because what they have tried to say is that
these people that are owed this child care tax credit, they have said,
well, they are not working or they are not working for enough money.
Hogwash. All work ought to be respected in this country whether one
gets paid a million bucks a year or $12,500 a year, and there are a
goodly number of Republicans who share that view.
I am here to call on my friends on the Republican side of the aisle
who share that view to come defeat this rule and bring up the Senate
bill so that we can pass a responsible bill that does not bust the
budget and create another $80 billion of debt for the very kids subject
to this child care tax credit.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished
member of the Committee on Rules for yielding the time to me; to the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart) for bringing forward a
very forward-thinking legislative initiative, Flight 100--Century of
Aviation Reauthorization Act; to the chairman and ranking member of the
full committee, the excellent work that they have done; and the
chairman and ranking member of the subcommittee. They have truly
brought forward a bill that raises and promotes the question of
security.
As a member of the Select Committee on Homeland Security, this
legislation includes grant programs for local airports. It also
increases the number of flights that we can utilize out of Reagan
National, indicating that we are secure and we are not afraid, and
prohibits a very important aspect of a very important traffic
controller from being privatized.
I have met with my traffic controllers, particularly in Houston. The
kind of expertise that they have and the importance of their
independence and their relationship to the government in our effort of
security is crucial. It is imperative that we not privatize those
individuals.
As well, it is important that we have other security measures that
are being provided by this legislation.
Let me make one quick point. I am disappointed that the Gibbons
amendment was not allowed in, the amendment that I supported, that
raised the age of pilots to 65.
{time} 1145
I think we are making a mistake by not having a vigorous debate on
this question, particularly in light of the fact that it is well known
that we are as a Federal Government opposed to age discrimination. This
is supported by a number of members of the pilots union, meaning small
groups or local chapters, and it certainly is questioned by the Black
Pilots Association as to the issue of discrimination. I think we are
making a mistake. I think it was a very effective amendment and I hope
[[Page H5193]]
we will have a time to address that question.
Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that we are bringing this bill up, but
yet we have a difficulty in helping the children of America,
particularly with bringing to the floor a freestanding bill that has
now been passed by the Senate since last week that provides for
minimally $154 for 12 million children, or families representing 12
million children in America. We understand that America believes in its
children, but we are not believing it by putting our money where our
mouth is. We only spend at this point between 1 and 2 percent of the
GDP on our children. Yet today this House, the Republican leadership,
is fighting against passing a freestanding tax credit for children, a
refund to allow for 12 million children to be provided for and
protected.
Under the tax cut plan passed in 2001, while most families with
children receive the child tax credit, nearly 10 million low-income
children receive nothing and another roughly 10 million children did
not receive a full child tax credit. It seems ridiculous that this
House can find its way to pass a number of suspension bills between
this week and the end of the week. We did find it to move forward on
this FAA legislation which is a positive step. But when the Senate
moved quickly last week to pass the child tax credit refund, it does
not seem to make any sense that we cannot support the Rangel-DeLauro
bill or, in this instance, the freestanding Senate bill that simply
provides the children of America of those making $10,000 to $26,000,
working families, a tax credit refund. But we can provide, it seems, a
number of our families, 190,000 families in America, we can give them a
$93,000 check.
Mr. Speaker, it is a shame that we would bog down the tax bill and
give all but the kitchen sink so that we know it will go to conference
and takes ages and eons and months and weeks, but we cannot pass a
freestanding bill. I hope that we will come to our senses and pass a
freestanding bill and work on behalf of America's working families and
children of America.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on this rule. This bill
reauthorizes $58.9 billion over 4 years for the activities of the
Federal Aviation Administration, including the grant program to local
airports. It also increases the number of flights at Washington's
Reagan National Airport, prohibits air traffic controllers from being
privatized and allows airports to use some of their Federal grant
resources to install explosive detection systems for checked luggage.
Funding our aviation infrastructure is an important component of
ensuring the safety of the American public. But I would like to talk
about another issue of great importance, and that is extending the
child tax credit to the 6.5 million American families who were left out
of the Republican tax bill, 200,000 of those military families while
their spouse is at war. After the furor that erupted during the last 2
weeks over the Republicans' secret elimination of the child tax credit
for the families of 12 million children, after the other body passed
legislation to undo that wrong, late yesterday comes word from this
House that this House has finally decided to act. But instead of
accepting a simple extending of this tax cut to the taxpaying families
who need it most, those who were left out of the package, the
Republicans use the opportunity to try to pass another round of
irresponsible tax cuts.
With the Thomas bill, what the Republicans are doing is very simple.
They are holding 12 million children hostage. As I said yesterday, for
them, extending the child tax credit to low-wage families who earn
between $10,500 and $26,625 is simply part of a deal. They would use
these 12 million children as a bargaining chip in their never-ending
quest to cut taxes for only the wealthiest Americans.
But that is not what providing tax relief to these 6.5 million
families should be about. Helping these families is a matter of
fairness, equity and economic justice. They work hard. They pay nearly
8 percent of their incomes in payroll taxes and in sales taxes. Yes,
they pay taxes, unlike Enron which the last 4 out of 5 years paid no
taxes to this government, or those companies who go offshore for the
direct purpose of paying no taxes and yet they are in line for very,
very big tax cuts.
As the White House said without equivocation the other day, the House
of Representatives needs to right this wrong. It needs to do so without
complication, and it needs to do so immediately without holding hostage
12 million children. That is the right thing to do. This is why we were
elected to this job. This issue is such a violation of all that we hold
dear and believe. This issue is not about partisan politics. This is
about what we hold dear, what the values of each and every one of us
who serves in this body is about. It is about our individual character.
It is also about our national character.
The people of the United States of America believe that there has
been a violation here of folks who are hardworking people, who pay
their taxes, who were told and were supposed to have been signed into
law that they were going to get a tax credit for their children, pulled
out in the dead of night, money stolen from them. It is an immoral act
and we have the moral obligation in this body to move quickly to what
the Senate did, not with any bargaining chip to hold these 12 million
children hostage, or their families, but to do what the President has
asked, without equivocation, do what the Senate did, do it without
complication, do it immediately. Let us right this wrong. Let us give
these families what they rightfully have earned. Twelve million
children are waiting.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I want to highlight the difference in philosophies here,
and I think that my colleague on the Committee on Rules, the
gentlewoman from North Carolina, in Congress Daily said it best.
Speaking for the Republicans, she said: ``We have a philosophical
difference. I look at it and other Republican Study Committee members
feel if we give people a tax break that don't pay taxes, it's
welfare.''
I profoundly disagree with her characterization of these hardworking
citizens who do pay taxes, they do pay payroll taxes and sales taxes
and other taxes, as somehow not contributing to our tax base. As a
prominent member of my party in the other body said, and let me quote
her, We are talking about 200,000 military families, hundreds of
firefighters and teachers and other hardworking Americans. I don't
think of them or view them as welfare recipients. I don't think that
they think of themselves that way. These are taxpayers. These are
essential people in our communities, those who are protecting us from
fire and from criminal activity, those who are teaching our children,
those who are stationed abroad and protecting our very freedoms. They
are hardworking families who pay sales tax, both State and local. They
have payroll taxes that come out of their checks.
Mr. Speaker, this is what this debate is about, whether or not these
people deserve to benefit from this tax cut that was passed only a few
weeks ago in this House or whether or not they should be excluded.
Those on our side of the aisle and a lot of moderate Republicans in the
other body believe that these people should not have been deleted from
the tax bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Pallone).
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my good colleague from
Massachusetts for yielding me this time.
It is amazing to me. The Democrats have been talking about the need
to provide this child tax credit to the 12 million children who are in
working families now for at least a week and we were very gratified to
see that the other body, the Senate, on a bipartisan basis passed a
very carefully tailored bill that would cost, I guess, $3.5 billion and
that would essentially put the families of these children, the working
families, back into eligibility for this increased tax credit. What
happens when this bill comes over here to the House? Our House
Republican leadership, which as we know has repeatedly said that they
are not in favor of this, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) was
quoted many times last week as saying it was not important and that he
was not going to do it unless it was part of a larger tax break
giveaway. That is what we are hearing now. The House Republicans are
saying and the
[[Page H5194]]
gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) and the Committee on Ways and
Means have said that they are only willing to provide this tax credit
to these 12 million children if we increase the amount of money
greatly, go further into debt and add on a number of other things for
wealthier families. It simply is not right because what effectively the
Republicans in the House are doing is killing this proposal.
If the bill that passed the Senate came over here and we simply took
it up and passed it, it would become law and the 12 million children
would get the tax break. They would get the money going out sometime
after July 1. And now because of the House Republican action here to
expand this and try to help wealthier families and individuals, it is
very likely that this whole bill is killed and that the Senate action
will not accomplish what it should accomplish.
I blame directly the House Republican leadership. They were not in
favor of this from the beginning. They did not include it in their tax
bill in the beginning, they said they were opposed to it, and now they
are putting up more hurdles and roadblocks to it. They are also saying
they are not going to pay for it.
In the Senate, Senator Blanche Lincoln had put in specific pay-fors,
increases in customs duties to make sure that this would not do
anything to increase the debt which we understand is like $400 billion
now. And what do the House Republicans do in the leadership here? They
eliminate the pay-fors and they increase the funding to pay for higher-
income individuals, holding these children and their families
essentially hostage to a tax break for wealthier individuals, and they
refuse to pay for it. They basically come up with a bill that is about
80 or $82 billion that is all debt and not paid for at all. I cynically
say the reason they are doing it is because they want to kill the bill.
They do not want these 12 million children to get the tax break, these
working families to get the tax break. They just want to kill the bill.
They were always against the bill. Through this action they will kill
the bill if it passes in that way, and they are totally responsible for
that.
You have to understand the way this place works, and this is the sad
part about it. It is very easy for the House Republican leadership to
simply take something good that the other body did on a bipartisan
basis and kill it by adding all these additional tax breaks for
wealthier families and at the same time eliminating the pay-fors, so it
is now being paid for out of debt which will cause so much problem for
the other body that they will never take up the bill, it will never get
the 50 or the 60 votes that are necessary in the Senate to pass the
bill.
We have to do whatever we can over the next 24 hours, because this is
likely to come up tomorrow, to try to force the original Senate bill to
pass just at the cost of the $3.5 billion, just for those 12 million
children that were left out, and with the pay-fors that were in it so
that it is acceptable to everyone. That is the way this should be done.
Simply take up the other body's bill and pass it and not load it down
with all these other problems. We have about 24 hours to try to
convince and get the votes for that. It is not going to be easy, but we
are going to make sure as Democrats that we do that so that we have a
good bill that will pass.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. Speaker, just to make clear the point that this is not a partisan
issue throughout the country. Unfortunately it has become a partisan
issue here in the House of Representatives, but I want to refer to two
quotes from some distinguished Members of the other body. One, a senior
Republican from the other body representing the State of Iowa, when
asked about this subject said, What's going to make them, meaning the
House Republicans, accept it is whether or not they want this group of
people, particularly people in the military who are sacrificing their
freedom for our freedom, to get the same benefit everybody else is
going to get who has children in their family.
What is really unfortunate is that by the inaction of the leadership
in this House, it appears that the Republicans in the House do not want
to help these military families and their children.
{time} 1200
Another prominent Republican in the other body from the State of
Maine said the base pay of a first year soldier is $16,000. Paramedics
make an average of $22,000, and home health aides make an average of
$18,500 per year. These people are a critical part of our
infrastructure, and they deserve tax relief too.
I could not agree more. People on this side of the aisle could not
agree more. We have been fighting during these last several weeks to
try to put back in the bill what the Republican leadership in the House
removed from the bill in the dead of night, specifically this child tax
credit for low-income workers, precisely because we understand the
plight of these workers, and when we go back to our districts we hear
from them when they say, you know, if you are going to give tax relief
to people, we need it more than Donald Trump does, so why are you not
helping us?
Again, there are prominent Members of the other body representing the
Republican Party who get it, who are fighting to try to fix this
problem right now; and yet here in this Chamber, in this House of
Representatives, the leadership continues to try to find ways to deny
these hard-working, taxpaying individuals, these families the benefit
that they rightly deserve.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such
time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, in case some colleagues are perhaps listening to the
debate on television in their offices, we have brought forth the rule
to consider the aviation reauthorization bill, the reauthorization of
the Federal Aviation Administration.
The Federal Aviation Administration is of extreme importance to the
safety of not only the flying public in the United States, but really
to the economy of the United States. One of the pillars of the economy
of the United States is precisely the superb system of aviation that we
have.
But that does not happen by chance. We have an obligation to fund and
reauthorize the Federal Aviation Administration, and this legislation
that we are attempting to get to today with this rule not only does
that, but deals with a number of very important collateral issues in
the area of aviation.
So, again, to be clear with regard to what we are attempting to do
today, what the Committee on Rules has done, we have passed a rule to
bring to the floor legislation to reauthorize the Federal Aviation
Administration in the context of very important legislation entitled
Flight 100--Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act. That is what we
are discussing today.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I agree with the gentleman that the underlying bill that
we are considering here today is important. Aviation and the safety of
our skies and the strength of our airports, all that is very, very
important.
We are also trying to do here, so if anybody is listening they will
understand, we are also trying to be able to, in addition to helping
the aviation industry and helping our airports and helping protect our
airports, we are also trying to help protect a lot of American
families, 12 million families, to be exact, some of them military
families where servicemen and servicewomen are serving our country in
Iraq. We want to make sure that they can benefit from the child tax
credit.
We cannot seem to get the leadership of this House to allow us to be
able to vote on this issue, up or down. We are trying to advocate for
millions of families in this country who not only need help, who
deserve help.
So part of what we are doing on this bill and what we have been doing
on previous bills is to try to highlight this issue, helping to
persuade, and, if not persuade, maybe shame you into doing the right
thing.
I guess I will ask the question that the distinguished minority whip
asked last week during this debate. Why is it that we cannot get a vote
up or down to reinsert the child tax credit that your leadership
removed in the middle of the night?
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the
balance of my time.
[[Page H5195]]
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I think the gentleman from Massachusetts has laid out
the case very effectively. The underlying bill here is critically
important. The underlying bill also deals with airport workers whose
interests are tied up with the child tax credit issue, as well, and the
importance of doing what we said we were going to do.
It is not a question of bargaining for putting back what was
rightfully the child tax credit to these 6.5 million families, to these
12 million children. That is the only issue that we were trying to
address, very simply. It seems to me that what the Senate did is
perfectly acceptable and it can be done. And I asked the question last
week of the majority leader as well, will you accept the Senate
language if it comes over here? The Senate language is here.
We can do this, we can move quickly, and we can do it without holding
hostage 12 million children. It is just not quid pro quo. It is not, as
I said earlier, for political advantage. It is about doing what is the
right thing. That is all we are asking.
The President has said, do it. Take the Senate language; make it
happen. When people of well-meaning in every part of the government,
whether it is the House, the other body, the executive branch, want to
come together to try to address these 12 million children, these 6.5
million families, who pay taxes, it would just seem to me that we could
do it quickly in this body without any hesitation.
What we want to do is be able to provide the opportunity for these
people to get the same benefit 25 million other people are going to get
on July 1. Why should they not be the beneficiaries of a tax cut to
allow them to put food on their table? It is easy. Let us get it done,
and let us just try to take aside all of the extraneous matter.
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Members should refrain from
making improper references to the Senate.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to
close for our side.
Mr. Speaker, I will ask for a vote on the previous question. If the
previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the rule.
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.
This way we can send that bill immediately to the President's desk for
his signature and start helping America's low- and modest-income
families right away, right this second.
The President's press secretary, Ari Fleischer, said this week that
``the President thinks at its core what the Senate has done is the
right thing to do, a good thing to do, and he wants to sign it.'' I
think we should give the President an opportunity to do just that.
H.R. 1308, as amended by the Senate, will provide immediate tax
relief to America's hard-working families, in contrast to the
Republican/Bush tax bill. That bill does next to nothing to help those
low- and moderate-income Americans who need relief the most. In fact,
in a late night negotiating session behind closed doors, the Republican
leadership deleted the one provision that would have helped these
Americans, the refundable child tax credit. When it came to a choice of
helping their rich contributors or Americans struggling to make a
living, they chose the rich. They stripped out this tax break that
would have helped the families of 8 million children whose parents
serve in the military or are veterans.
H.R. 1308, the bill amended and passed last week in the other body
and sent back here, will give immediate help to working families by
providing the child tax credit to 6.5 million low-income working
families and nearly 12 million additional children. These families
would receive an average annual increase of $150 per child.
It will also help families of soldiers in combat in Iraq by extending
the child tax credit to many of them. It was suggested by some on the
other side of the aisle that this break for our brave men and women in
the military was nothing more than welfare. Well, I strongly disagree.
I ask for a ``no'' vote on the previous question.
Mr. Speaker, I include the following for the Record.
Previous Question for H. Res. 265--Rules on H.R. 2115 Flight 100--
Century of Aviation Reauthorization 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. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such
time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, again, in case somebody would like to determine what we
have brought to the floor today, because obviously any students of
political science who may have been watching this debate will have
confirmed today that there is certainly no rule requiring germaneness
in debate in the House of Representatives, the issue that we have
brought to the floor today, that the Committee on Rules passed a rule
in order to be able to do so, we did so yesterday, is the
reauthorization of the Federal Aviation Administration.
In order to reauthorize the Federal Aviation Administration, the
relevant committees worked long and hard on a very important piece of
aviation legislation which we bring to the floor today. It is H.R.
2115, the Flight 100--Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act. So that
is what we are doing.
Now, since there is obviously no germaneness requirement with regard
to debate, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have talked
about other issues, and they are certainly welcome to do so. The
semantic of the day had to do with the word ``tax.''
We are very proud of our record since we were honored by the American
people with the majority in this Chamber with regard to the issue of
taxes. I remember in my first term here, Mr. Speaker, as a freshman
Member, we were still in the minority and our friends on the other side
of the aisle controlled the agenda, they were the majority, being faced
with one of the largest tax increases in the history of this country.
We on this side of the aisle opposed that tax increase, and our friends
on the other side of the aisle pushed very hard, and at that time they
had a Member of their party in the White House, to impose that record
tax increase on the American people.
Every time we have been able to since we were given the majority by
the American people, we have tried to do the opposite. We have tried to
lessen the tax burden on the American people, and we are very proud of
that.
So with regard to when it is germane to the debate on taxes, we are
extremely proud of our record. That debate will continue, and I think
it is a fundamental difference between the parties. We believe in and
have every time we have been able to reduce the tax burden on the
American people.
But today the debate that we bring forward, the legislation that we
bring forward, is the important reauthorization of the Federal Aviation
Administration. We believe, Mr. Speaker, that because of the importance
of the Federal Aviation Administration, not only to the flying public
and to the aviation industry in this country, but to the economy of the
United States, as well as to our national security, that we should move
forward and reauthorize that very important Federal agency, as well as
effectuate the other important programs and initiatives that are
included in this very significant piece of legislation.
{time} 1215
With that in mind, I remind our colleagues what we are doing, the
reauthorization of the Federal Aviation Administration.
[[Page H5196]]
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this rule, which does not
allow consideration of several Democratic amendments. I submitted two
amendments regarding Los Angeles International Airport (LAX), which is
in my district, and neither was made in order.
The operator of LAX is proposing a major expansion project that would
include the construction of a remote passenger check-in facility that
would force all passengers to check-in and leave their baggage in the
same location. This project could cost an estimated $9 to $10 billion.
Supporters of this controversial project claim that it is necessary to
protect public safety. Yet a RAND Corporation study concluded that this
project will not improve public safety and could increase the
likelihood of a terrorist attack by concentrating large number of
people at the check-in facility.
I submitted an amendment to require the Secretary of Homeland
Security to review the proposed remote passenger check-in facility and
determine whether it would, in fact, protect public safety. My
amendment would have prohibited the construction of this project unless
the Secretary of Homeland Security concluded that it would protect the
safety of air passengers and the general public. I also submitted an
amendment to ensure that taxpayer funds are not wasted on dubious LAX
expansion projects like this one.
I urge my colleagues to reject this rule and allow me to offer my
amendments to protect the American people from both threats to public
safety and unnecessary and expansion airport construction projects.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the
balance of my time and I move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The question is on ordering the
previous question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
Pursuant to clauses 8 and 9 of rule XX, this 15-minute vote on
ordering the previous question will be followed by 5-minute votes on
adopting House Resolution 265, if ordered; and on the three motions to
suspend the rules previously postponed, in the following order: H. Con.
Res. 110; H.R. 1320; and H.R. 2350.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 219,
nays 195, not voting 20, as follows:
[Roll No. 257]
YEAS--219
Aderholt
Akin
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Bereuter
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
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
Cole
Collins
Cox
Crenshaw
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Emerson
English
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Janklow
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
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
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Turner (OH)
Upton
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--195
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 (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley (CA)
Doyle
Edwards
Engel
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Grijalva
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
Lantos
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
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
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOT VOTING--20
Biggert
Crane
Cubin
Davis (IL)
Deutsch
Emanuel
Eshoo
Fossella
Gallegly
Gephardt
Gutierrez
Kirk
Larson (CT)
Meehan
Rush
Sessions
Shimkus
Smith (WA)
Spratt
Weldon (PA)
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood) (during the vote). Members are
advised that there are 2 minutes remaining in the vote.
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood) (during the vote). There are 10
Members stuck in an elevator in Rayburn. We are waiting for them.
{time} 1305
Mr. HINOJOSA and Mr. DICKS changed their vote from ``yea'' to
``nay.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Pursuant to clauses 8 and 9 of
rule XX, the remainder of this series will be conducted as 5-minute
votes.
The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 370,
noes 43, not voting 21, as follows:
[Roll No. 258]
AYES--370
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldwin
Ballance
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
[[Page H5197]]
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Carter
Case
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Clay
Clyburn
Coble
Cole
Collins
Cooper
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Culberson
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Dooley (CA)
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Emerson
Engel
English
Etheridge
Everett
Fattah
Feeney
Ferguson
Filner
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frost
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Granger
Graves
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Grijalva
Gutknecht
Hall
Harman
Harris
Hart
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hill
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Israel
Issa
Istook
Janklow
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kleczka
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Lynch
Majette
Maloney
Manzullo
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCotter
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
McNulty
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Mica
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Oberstar
Ortiz
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pearce
Pelosi
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schrock
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Snyder
Solis
Souder
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Turner (OH)
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Velazquez
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weiner
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--43
Andrews
Becerra
Bell
Conyers
Doggett
Evans
Farr
Ford
Hinchey
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kucinich
Lee
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
Meek (FL)
Miller, George
Moran (VA)
Obey
Olver
Owens
Rangel
Rothman
Sabo
Sandlin
Schiff
Slaughter
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Van Hollen
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Wexler
Woolsey
NOT VOTING--21
Biggert
Crane
Cubin
Davis (IL)
Deutsch
Emanuel
Eshoo
Fossella
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gephardt
Gutierrez
Kirk
Larson (CT)
Meehan
Nethercutt
Rush
Sessions
Smith (WA)
Spratt
Weldon (FL)
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised 2
minutes remain in this vote.
{time} 1313
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.
____________________