[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 91 (Thursday, June 19, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H5555-H5562]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 660, SMALL BUSINESS HEALTH FAIRNESS 
                              ACT OF 2003

  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the 
Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 283 and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 283

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order without intervention of any point of order 
     to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 660) to amend title I 
     of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 to 
     improve access and choice for entrepreneurs with small 
     businesses with respect to medical care for their employees. 
     The bill shall be considered as read for amendment. The 
     amendment recommended by the Committee on Education and the 
     Workforce now printed in the bill shall be considered as 
     adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered 
     on the bill, as amended, and on any further amendment thereto 
     to final passage without intervening motion except--
       (1) one hour of debate on the bill, as amended, equally 
     divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce;
       (2) the further amendment printed in the report of the 
     Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution, if offered 
     by Representative Kind of Wisconsin or his designee, which 
     shall be in order without intervention of any point of order, 
     shall be considered as read, and shall be separately 
     debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the 
     proponent and an opponent; and
       (3) 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 
Texas (Mr. Frost), 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 283 
is a rule that provides for the consideration of H.R. 660, the Small 
Business Health Fairness Act of 2003. The resolution makes in order a 
minority party substitute that provides ample opportunity to discuss 
this important legislation before us, while addressing certainly the 
concerns of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle.
  The rule provides 1 hour of general debate, evenly divided and 
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee 
on Education and the Workforce.
  This is a bipartisan bill. In fact, the legislation has 162 
cosponsors on a bipartisan basis, and many, many groups that are 
interested in this issue are supporting this legislation.
  H.R. 660 was introduced by the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. 
Fletcher). It has the strong support of the Speaker, of the Committee 
on Small Business chairman, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo), 
and the Subcommittee on Employer-Employee Relations chairman, the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson).
  Association Health Plans, or AHPs, allow access to needed health 
insurance for many who do not have health insurance. The House, I 
believe, Mr. Speaker, must act now to pass this long overdue 
legislation.
  Really, the Nation is at a crossroads. We currently have over 40 
million Americans without health insurance, approximately 60 percent of 
whom work or depend on small employers who often cannot afford these 
very important and needed benefits. This bill will help small business, 
in turn, help working families.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 660 will allow for small businesses across the 
country to band together through established and respected trade or 
professional organizations to lower health care costs. This same model 
already works for large companies. We believe that small businesses 
should also be allowed to benefit from it.
  Estimates predict that anywhere from 350,000 to 8 million uninsured 
workers will receive health care benefits through these AHPs even at 
the lowest projection, and that means positive progress for many 
currently uninsured men and women.
  Now, we may hear all sorts of arguments concerning, for example, 
state-by-state regulations. We have already, however, seen many large 
companies provide health insurance because they

[[Page H5556]]

are allowed these procedures. These same benefits will now be 
obtainable through collective bargaining by the AHPs while, at the same 
time, reducing burdensome administration fees, precisely by having to 
comply with only one set of Federal regulations and not 50 individual 
sets of State regulations.
  This bill also ensures that AHPs adhere to the important regulations 
in the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, 
meaning that coverage cannot be denied based on health or claims 
experience.
  I am very pleased that the Committee on Rules did a fine job in 
providing a full and fair process of debate through, among other 
things, permitting a Democrat substitute that addresses many of the 
points brought out through testimony in the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 660 is a good bill and House Resolution 283 is a 
fair rule. It is very important to the over 40 million uninsured 
Americans and the vitality of small business in the United States. 
Through this legislation, the House of Representatives continues its 
work to relieve many of the existing burdens on American families.
  I would like to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) and the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson) for their leadership on this 
issue, and I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying 
legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. FROST asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I support the idea behind the association 
health plans. Helping small businesses has been a priority of mine for 
a long while. At the same time, I strongly believe that we have a moral 
obligation to help every American get the health coverage they and 
their families need.
  So I am glad that the Democrats on the Committee on Education and the 
Workforce, particularly the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) and the 
gentleman from new Jersey (Mr. Andrews), have written the Democratic 
substitute. It is a sensible and affordable plan to ensure health 
coverage for small businesses and their employees that is at least as 
good as Federal employees get. If you think small businesses deserve 
the same health coverage that Members of Congress get, then the 
Democratic plan is for you.
  Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the Republican Party controls the House 
of Representatives. That gives them the power to block important 
priorities, and they have no problem using it.
  For instance, they are still blocking tax relief for millions of 
military and working families. Six times Democrats have tried to give 
the child tax credit to these families because we believe that they 
deserve at least a fraction of the tax breaks that Republicans gave to 
millionaires last month. But six times, House Republicans have used 
their power to deny these families. Today, Mr. Speaker, the Republican 
leadership is using their power and this restrictive rule to undermine 
patient protections.
  Now, perhaps Republicans will say that we should not be surprised. 
More than 90 percent of the rules in this Congress have been 
restricted, a shameful record of stifling democracy and blocking 
critical American priorities. But the rule on the floor today perfectly 
illustrates how the Republican majority has operated during this 
Congress.
  In the Committee on Rules, Democrats offered 14 amendments on issues 
that are critical to the health of the people who might participate in 
these plans, but the Committee on Rules Republicans voted down all but 
one of them, the Democratic substitute.
  Consider patients' rights, for example. Republicans have successfully 
blocked a national Patients' Bill of Rights for the past several years, 
and the base bill would undermine the patient protections that various 
States have passed, making it a kind of anti-Patients Bill of Rights.
  So the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney) and the gentleman 
from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen) went to the Committee on Rules with an 
amendment to ensure that these new association health plans comply with 
State patient protections, like prohibitions on doctor gag rules and 
access to emergency rooms, OBGYNs, and specialists. But Republicans on 
the Committee on Rules defeated their amendment on a party-line vote.
  Or take prostate cancer and breast cancer. The gentlewoman from New 
York (Mrs. McCarthy) tried to ensure that these new health plans cover 
screenings for these deadly diseases, but Republicans refused to allow 
the House to vote on her amendments.
  The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) and the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Kucinich) each tried to protect Americans with autism.
  The gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum) tried to ensure 
maternity and well-child benefits continue to be covered in States that 
require this coverage.

                              {time}  1030

  And the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) tried to protect 
small businesses and their employees from discrimination based on race, 
gender or age. Each of these is an important issue when you are 
creating a new system that could affect the health of millions and 
millions of Americans. But Republicans refuse to allow the House to 
even vote on their amendments. As a result, Mr. Speaker, if the 
Republican-based bill passes the House, millions of Americans will lose 
out on important patient protections, and that is just one example of 
how Americans are harmed by what the Republican leadership does on the 
Committee on Rules.
  Of course, none of these amendments would have been necessary in the 
Republican bill were they not so deficient, but it is. In fact, the 
Republican plan is opposed by more than 475 organizations representing 
State governors, insurance commissioners, attorneys general and State 
legislators, as well as physician groups, consumer organizations, 
Chambers of Commerce, farm bureaus and small business associations. The 
American Nurses Association, for example, wrote that it ``would 
undermine the protections provided by State laws while doing little to 
provide coverage for the uninsured.''
  The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office found that premiums would 
increase for 80 percent of small employers, while as many as 100,000 of 
the sickest people would lose coverage altogether.
  In my home State of Texas, more than 1.5 million people would pay 
higher premiums if the Republican bill passes, according to an analysis 
of a report by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.
  Despite this, Mr. Speaker, the Republican leadership refused to allow 
votes on the Democratic amendments to fix their bill. That means that 
the Democratic alternative is the only way to protect patients and 
increase coverage for small business employees.
  It sets up a Small Employer Health Benefits Plan that would work like 
health plans that now cover Federal employees. It covers all small 
businesses and their employees, offers affordable premiums, and ensures 
that people get coverage at least as good as what Members of Congress 
gets. And unlike the Republican bill, it preserves State patient 
protections.
  To pass the Democratic alternative and provide affordable and 
comprehensive health coverage to small businesses, we need Republicans 
to stand up to their leadership and vote ``yes'' on the Democratic 
alternative. But before that, Republicans have yet another opportunity 
to stop blocking tax relief for millions of military and working 
families. To do that, all they have to do is stand up to the Republican 
leadership on the important parliamentary vote on the previous 
question. If we defeat the previous question, the Democrats can amend 
the rule to allow the House to vote on the child tax credit and the 
Armed Forces Fairness Act. The President could sign both of these bills 
tomorrow if only Republicans would finally stop standing in the way.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge the Republicans to put the American people above 
their leadership today.
  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, the legislation that we are bringing to the floor today, 
what it does is that it gives small businesses the ability to come 
together and have

[[Page H5557]]

the purchasing power and the leverage, if you will, that currently only 
large corporations have with the concept, with the goal of bringing 
down health care costs and offering products, offering health 
insurance, to those workers who work the overwhelming majority of 
workers in the United States who work for small businesses. That is 
what we are trying to do.
  I heard my friend on the other side of the aisle say that they have 
other ideas. Well, we granted the Democrats the ability to bring forth 
to the floor today their substitute, and so let the debate begin. And 
if the membership believes that concerns are better addressed in their 
substitute, the membership may be swayed to support the substitute. We 
happen to believe our legislation is better. But that is why we will 
have this debate. So we granted the substitute. And we strongly believe 
that small businesses should have that ability to come together across 
State lines and acquire much more leverage and much more purchasing 
power when they are trying to provide health insurance for their 
workers. That is what we are trying to do today.
  So we hear all sorts of things because we live in a wonderful 
democracy and everything can be brought out under the sun. But that is 
what we are trying to do. We are trying to lower health care costs. We 
are trying to provide health insurance to more people in this country 
by permitting small businesses to come together. That is what we are 
trying to do today. Democrats say they have a better idea. That is why 
we granted their substitute. We do not happen to believe they have a 
better idea, but we allowed the debate.
  After hearing all sorts of confusing things, I wanted to, in case 
somebody is listening to the debate, get back to what we are actually 
trying to do, Mr. Speaker.
  We think it is a fair rule. We think it is fair in this case to 
provide the opportunity to debate by making in order the minority 
party's substitute and we think we have a good product. A lot of 
Members have worked hard on this product. So we want to get to the 
debate and we would urge support for the rule by the membership.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), the ranking member, for yielding me 
time.
  My good friend from Florida, I believe, has in some way characterized 
the dilemma that we face continuously in this body. Where there are 
opportunities for us to come together around both a common good and a 
common cause, leave it to the majority to throw a stinker in the mix. 
This bill has a number of co-sponsors and I know why. Because all of us 
have small businesses and have heard from them repeatedly about a very 
important concept and that is to be allowed to join together to promote 
good health plans for their employees.
  Any of us who have large numbers of constituents who are small 
business owners or have come to this floor at any time, we have 
remarked that small business is the backbone of America. And so the 
idea of associated health plans is a reasonable idea, Mr. Speaker. But 
what is unreasonable is the very fact that we could not have a common 
agreement around the idea that we do not want to banish the sickest of 
the group. We do not want to disenfranchise them from being able to 
join in these plans.
  We do not want women in Maryland or women in Texas who, under their 
regulated plans, can get mammograms and then find that this plan is 
subject to the management of the Department of Labor without any 
regulations, that they would, if you will, disallow or give permission 
that you do not have to grant the mammogram provision or the prostate 
cancer testing provision in these plans. That is what we are arguing 
about.
  That is why the Democratic substitute stands more worthy of our 
consideration. And that is why I am concerned about this legislation 
because I, frankly, believe it should be 435 to zero helping small 
businesses. But I have great difficulty with looking at this 
legislation, I was considering co-sponsoring it, inasmuch as it takes 
away the regulatory arm, and I do not know why we are here running away 
from regulations when we have regulated things to the positive.
  We have helped to save lives with regulations in this country; but 
yet now we want to pass legislation that leaves small businesses, of 
all groups, the very nature of their size means that they need extra 
help, the Small Business Administration. So we want to take away the 
regulations and give them plans that may be, at best, unhelpful to 
their employees who will get sick and very sick, and then give them 
simply a plan that maybe 2 or 3 of their 10-person business could be 
able to be associated with.
  Mr. Speaker, we can do better than this, and I would ask my 
colleagues to defeat the rule on the previous rule question so that we 
can get back to the drawing board of making this a better bill.
  I would add something else, Mr. Speaker, that while we are doing this 
and fixing problems, can I get the attention of my colleagues on the 
other side and ask the question why we cannot pass the low income tax 
credit for children? It was passed by the Senate more than 2 weeks ago. 
It is a $10 million plan. It will help 19 million children, 2,129,000 
in the State of Texas. I have that embossed in my brain, if you will, 
literally, in my brain and the reason is because I see these people all 
the time.
  I do not know if any Members, that Fort Hood in Texas sent more 
troops to Iraq than we sent in World War II. Many of these young people 
are in Iraq as we speak. Many of those people are in Iraq as we speak 
and the way the tax laws, Mr. Speaker, are configurated now, because 
were they in combat pay, they would not be eligible for the low income 
tax credit, even though they fall within the salary range, which is 
$10,000 to $26,000, because those young men and women are making 
somewhere around $1,000 to $1,200 a month.
  So my concern is that we have it languishing probably with a 
conference, and if any of us knows what a conference means, there is no 
way of telling how long that bickering would occur, when we could take 
the Senate bill sitting at the desk, the Speaker could lift that Senate 
bill. It could pass. That is the bill, $3.5 billion is what that bill 
would cost, and now we have an $82 billion white whale languishing in 
the shallow waters of a conference committee, never to be heard from 
again.
  Mr. Speaker, let me close by saying that the Wall Street Journal says 
that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) and others in the House 
deliberately made their child tax credit bill richer than the Senate 
version because they knew that the Senate conferees would walk away and 
pass nothing instead.
  Mr. Speaker, let me just say, we have got to do a better job of 
fixing problems for Americans.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the underlying legislation that we are bringing to the 
floor today is very important, as I stated before. We believe in small 
business. We believe in the fact that the overwhelming majority of 
workers in this country work in small businesses, and we want to 
incentivate those small businesses in providing health care, health 
insurance to their workers.
  I think it is important to reduce the over 40 million number of 
workers in this country who do not have insurance. We think we are 
going to do so in a significant way with this legislation.
  With regards to some of the allegations my friend from Texas, the 
previous speaker, said with regard to the low income tax credit, we 
passed that last week and we really do not believe, her words were, ``a 
white whale'' we passed. We do not think it is a white whale to pass 
the legislation that we passed. We do not think it is a white whale to 
include, as we did, tax breaks for military families. We do not think 
it is a whale to include tax breaks, as we did, for victims of the 
Shuttle crash tragedy. We do not think it is a whale to extend, as we 
did last week, in precisely the low income tax credit legislation, the 
child tax credit until the year 2010. We do not believe that is a 
whale. We believe it is important legislation.
  But back to the point of what we are doing this week, because that we 
did last week, despite the fact that our

[[Page H5558]]

friends on the other side of the aisle voted against it, but it is a 
free country. What we are doing this week is bringing forth with this 
rule, that permits the Democratic substitute, legislation that will 
permit small businesses to come together and pool their resources and 
increase their leverage so that they can provide, so that they can 
provide to the millions of workers who work for small businesses and do 
not have health insurance, health insurance at better rates and with 
better terms. That is what we are doing.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Crowley).

                              {time}  1045

  Mr. CROWLEY. My colleagues, when debate is completed here on the 
rule, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will order the 
previous question. And I would ask my colleagues on the Democratic side 
of the aisle to vote ``no'' on the previous question to allow the 
consideration of the Armed Forces Tax Fairness Act, which is currently 
pending before the Speaker's desk, and allow for the Senate language 
for the child tax credit to come before this House. It will allow us to 
have a vote on that legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the fact that under this rule we will have 
the opportunity to have a substitute, and I do express my appreciation 
for that. I intend to vote for the substitute and against the majority 
bill before us. But if I could, I will use this opportunity to speak 
about what will then be offered later on again today in the IRS 
substitute, the Rangel substitute, that will once again have a 
substitute that will include the Senate language on the child tax 
credit so it will give our colleagues on the other side of the aisle an 
opportunity to vote up or down on the Senate language.
  But I do not think that that substitute will pass at the end of the 
day. I am a realist. I do not think so because I believe my Republican 
friends on the other side of the aisle have, unfortunately, 
shamelessly, brought a sham child tax credit bill before the House this 
last week, a bill our President opposes, a bill that a Republican-
controlled Senate opposes as well. They knew when the House voted on 
that bill that it would never, and I say never, be enacted. In fact, 
their own Republican Senate leaders have admitted that it will never be 
enacted, the House version.
  Instead, the Republicans would rather play politics with this issue, 
politics with the lives of 6.5 million Americans and working families. 
Yes, they work. They are not on welfare, as some would have you wrongly 
believe. And they do have children. Believe it or not working people 
have families, and they do make babies, and they do have expenses to 
pay for. Playing politics is what is happening with the lives of 
260,000 children, their families on active military duty in Iraq who 
lose this credit under the Republican sham bill.
  This Republican scheme is so egregious that even Senator John McCain 
said he did not understand how the Republican leadership and President 
Bush left enlisted men and women out of this tax package.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simmons). Members should avoid 
references to statements made in the Senate.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Only in a positive way, Mr. Speaker. Only in a positive 
way did I make reference to the Senator.
  They play politics with the 3.1 million Americans who have lost their 
jobs since President Bush became President, with even more job losses 
projected.
  Again, it is shameful to be offering a tax cut to the rich while 
cutting benefits for working people, cutting benefits for our enlisted 
personnel and their families, cutting benefits for veterans, cutting 
benefits for seniors on Medicare, and allowing 3.1 million Americans 
who have lost their jobs, jobs that have dispersed since President Bush 
became President and the Republicans began their economic policies 3 
short years ago.
  Mr. President, you have the power, it is in your hands, to demand the 
Senate bill be brought before this House for a vote. You can bring the 
needed pressure to bear on our colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle for an up or down vote on the Senate bill, and you can have that 
bill on your desk this evening. Do not let us leave here today, do not 
let us finish the work of this House this week before demanding that 
the Senate bill be brought up in this House and passed so that you can 
sign it, Mr. President, this evening or sometime this week before we 
leave.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is reminded to address the 
Chair and not the President.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  I think it is important to point out, because my dear friend who just 
spoke stated that the President of the United States opposed, that is 
what the gentleman said, the legislation that we here in the House 
passed last week to provide precisely the low-income child tax credit 
and, in addition to that, provide tax breaks for military families and 
for families of the shuttle crash tragedy and extending the child tax 
credit through the year 2010.
  The President supports the legislation. In fact, I am handed here the 
statement officially put out by the administration in support of the 
legislation that the House passed. This official statement of 
administration policy is dated June 12. So I wanted to make that clear 
on the record.
  We are very proud of what we did last week, and we hope and certainly 
would encourage those who are now resolving any differences that may 
exist with our friends in the other body that they get that legislation 
to the floor of both bodies as soon as possible. That is what we did 
last week.
  What we are doing this week is we are providing incentives for small 
businesses to provide health insurance to the millions of Americans who 
work for small businesses in this country and do not have health 
insurance. We think there are few issues as important as that issue. 
That is why we want to bring that legislation to the floor as soon as 
possible, and that is why we have brought a fair rule to the floor to 
be able to do so, a rule that makes in order the Democratic substitute 
and makes in order, in addition to that, a Democratic motion to 
recommit.
  So we have been doubly fair in this rule and are very proud of the 
underlying legislation, the work product of Members that have worked 
long and hard to reduce the number, those millions of Americans who do 
not have health insurance and who work for small businesses. We want 
small businesses to have the same leverage, to have the same 
opportunities to pool their resources, to come together and do so like 
large corporations can do so today. That is why we feel so strongly 
about this legislation and are in support of it, and that is why we 
have brought it forward under a fair rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 additional minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished 
gentleman for yielding me this time and for his leadership and his 
kindness.
  Mr. Speaker, I wish to respond to some of the comments that I believe 
my very, very good friend from Florida has raised, as I think it is 
important that we understand that that big, big white whale is 
languishing in shallow waters and that is a very difficult journey for 
that whale to make. And I do maintain that that whale is languishing.
  First of all, I am disappointed that there is now a printed 
administration position, because it was very clear that we heard on the 
wings of the passage of the Senate bill, the other body, excuse me, Mr. 
Speaker, that there was great excitement and we wanted to pass the 
freestanding child tax credit bill, $3.5 billion, versus $82 billion 
that was going to help our military families immediately.
  The reason why I say we are languishing is because, Mr. Speaker, we 
are. We have a tank of a bill put forward by the Republicans not moving 
at all, and we have low-income families making $10,000 to $26,000 
literally suffering because we know that bill is not going to be passed 
any time soon. The Wall Street Journal today said, ``Mr. DeLay and 
others in the House deliberately made their child tax bill richer

[[Page H5559]]

than the Senate version because they knew the Senate conferees would 
walk away and pass nothing.'' Nothing. Instead, the whale is 
languishing.
  And with respect to this small business health bill, there is not a 
soul here who does not advocate for small businesses. But how in the 
world can we strap them with a health plan that has no regulations and 
we are going to tell women, who either own small businesses and/or work 
for them, that there is no room at the inn as relates to mammograms, or 
men that there is no room at the inn as relates to prostate cancer 
testing? Devastating diseases.
  Mr. Speaker, we do have a problem, and this rule should be defeated 
so we can get the child tax credit. My friends need to go back to the 
drawing board and bring us a small business bill that I would like to 
vote for that protects all of small business in America. I think that 
is what we need to do.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  First of all, I would tell my dear friend the legislation that we 
passed last week, number one, is not a whale; and, number two, it is 
not languishing. And I am informed, I know I am not supposed to mention 
the other body, but I would wonder how I could get this fact across 
without doing so, the conference has begun. The conference has begun 
this morning. Or they have agreed to go to conference. Today there has 
been the agreement to go to conference precisely on the legislation 
that is not a whale. And, thus, the whale that is not is not 
languishing.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I yield to the gentlewoman from 
Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. That is good news, that they have gone to 
conference. But how many of the conferees, and you know it takes a 
majority vote, are agreeing to the $82 billion package from here as 
opposed to the unanimous agreement on the $3.5 billion?
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, 
again I do not know the answer to that, but I would say the following:
  I would say to my good friend that, number one, I cannot get into the 
brain of all the conferees. I think we have to allow them to meet so 
that there will be a meeting of the minds, number one. But we certainly 
do not think that it is a whale to increase the child tax credit of 
$1,000 per child through the year 2010. We do not think that is a 
whale. We do not think it is a whale to eliminate the marriage penalty 
in the child credit. We do not think it is a whale to accelerate the 
increase in the refundable child credit. We do not think it is a whale 
to provide tax relief and enhance tax fairness for members of the Armed 
Forces. We do not think it is a whale to suspend the tax exempt status 
of designated terrorist organizations or to provide tax relief for 
astronauts' families, those who died on the space mission. So we think 
it is very important what the House did last week.
  Now, another statement was made before by one of our friends on the 
other side of the aisle that the President does not support the measure 
that the House passed last week. Oh, no, no, no. The President is fully 
in support of the measure that the House passed last week. So the 
legislation that we passed last week we are extremely proud of and the 
President supports it.
  But we are also very proud of and we are also strongly in support of 
what we are trying to do this week, Mr. Speaker. Because we believe 
that it should not only be the large corporations that have the ability 
to use their great leverage of numbers to offer health insurance to 
their workers with the best possible terms. We think small business, 
which is the backbone of the American economy, and hires the majority, 
employs the majority of the workers in this country, that small 
business also should have the opportunity to pool their numbers to 
acquire leverage in negotiating terms with those insurance companies 
and bring down the rates and offer the best possible terms to the 
millions of workers precisely because they work for the backbone of the 
American economy, small business. That is what we are doing this week.
  So, no, what we did last week is not a whale. What we did last week 
is something we are very proud of, and we have the support of the 
President of the United States. But what we are doing this week is also 
very important, Mr. Speaker, and that is why, with all due respect, I 
tell my friends on the other side of the aisle that we have brought 
this important piece of legislation to the floor today with a rule that 
is fair, a rule that provides the minority party a substitute, the 
opportunity to bring forth any concerns they may have in the form of a 
substitute; and, in addition, to be doubly fair, we grant our friends 
on the other side of the aisle the opportunity to present a motion to 
recommit with any further and additional concerns they may have.

                              {time}  1100

  So we are very fair this morning, Mr. Speaker. We are very proud of 
the legislation that we are bringing to the floor.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez).
  Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, let us talk about 
this child tax credit. When we began with the child tax credit, we were 
thinking about families. We were talking about families. We said in 
this difficult economic time, it is important for us to hold families 
together, to help those struggling, families which have to educate 
their children, provide child care, be good parents, sometimes both 
parents are working.
  It is important to keep families together and to honor the fact that 
families want to be together and bring children up in a good 
environment.
  But the Republicans proved something when they got to the child tax 
credit. It was not about all families and keeping all families together 
and working with all families, there were some families they did not 
care much about, those were poor families. They did not care if you 
were a waitress and you had to provide child care for your child and 
you had financial constraints, and you had to get them to the soccer 
game. They did not care if you were a maid or a janitor. They did not 
care if you were making minimum wage trying to afford an apartment so 
your children had a roof over their heads. They did not care about you, 
they cut you out. In the dark of the night, they cut you out.
  But can Members imagine that they did not care about our men and 
women overseas in Iraq? They did not care about them either. They did 
not care about our military families. They said it is great, they are 
doing a great job. They are so brave, but they did not care about the 
children, they did not care about those families because they caught 
cut those families out of the child tax credit also.
  So let us say, for example, that I am the wife who is staying home 
with the two kids while my husband is in Iraq. I have no problems, I 
have no financial constraints. They are over there, the President 
declared a victory on that aircraft carrier, but my husband is still in 
Iraq. By the way, every day someone is killed out there. It could be my 
husband; but I do not have any problems. I do not have any anxieties. 
The Republicans did not care about those families. I do not have to get 
my kids to soccer or worry about their education. I do not have to 
worry about additional child care or taking them over to my mom or 
something to take care of because my husband is not here. He is serving 
his country. He is keeping our freedoms safe. But the Republicans did 
not care about that kind of family.
  Okay, we would anticipate that they would not care about poor 
families; but could we anticipate that they would not care about 
military families? I am sitting there as a wife, and I have got no 
problems. But somebody who makes $80,000 a year, they got the child tax 
credit, not me. Not my children, not my husband. And then they said oh, 
they got caught. People figured it out. So they put it back in, but not 
all of them. There are still military families cut out because they 
make too little money. But in order to put some of the families back, 
they put in more tax cuts for people who make $100,000 a year and 
$150,000 a year and $3 million a year, but not someone who makes 
$10,000 a year or someone who makes $14,000. Those families do not 
count. Those children are not important enough.

[[Page H5560]]

  Mr. Speaker, they have no problems. They have no financial anxiety. 
Remember why we wanted this child tax credit, to ensure that families 
could come together and work together and be together. That is why we 
wanted the child tax credit.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, precisely because we are concerned about and care about 
the majority of the workers of this country who happen to work for 
small businesses, that we want to create the possibility that they will 
be able to have health insurance just like those who work for large 
corporations have health insurance, so precisely to mention some of the 
people who were mentioned by my friend, the previous speaker, yes, we 
think if someone is a janitor or a maid or work in a restaurant or 
drive a truck or deliver packages, you should also have health 
insurance, and your employer should be able to pool its resources to 
acquire the leverage and the purchasing power that large corporations 
have when they get into the room to negotiate terms and conditions with 
the insurance companies. That is what we are trying to do today.
  I am very pleased that this debate has given us the opportunity to 
point out to our colleagues and to the American people what precisely 
the hard-working Members who have brought forth this work product, this 
legislation today, are allowing the Congress to do for the American 
people. And that is the majority of workers in this country who work 
for small businesses should also have the right to have health 
insurance, should also have the right to have their employer have the 
purchasing power and the leverage and negotiating terms and conditions 
for health insurance for the workers of America that the large 
companies have.
  So that is the essence of what we are doing this week with regard to 
what we did last week, which was to provide the low-income child tax 
credit and to also provide an increase in the child credit through the 
year 2010 and eliminate the marriage penalty in the child credit and 
accelerate the increase in the refundable child credit, provide tax 
relief and enhanced tax fairness for members of the Armed Forces, 
suspend the tax-exempt status of terrorist organizations, provide tax 
relief for the families of astronauts who die on space missions. We 
think it is important to do that, and that is what we did last week.
  They have agreed to go to conference today on that important piece of 
legislation, but let us not focus on one important piece of legislation 
to the detriment of another important piece of legislation, which is 
the one we are bringing forth today, and that is let us allow small 
business to have the leverage, have the purchasing power to face health 
insurance like large companies can. That is what we are doing today. We 
are proud of it, and we want to get to a debate under a fair rule which 
provides the Democrats a substitute and a motion to recommit. That is 
what we are doing today.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to vote no on the previous question. If 
the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the 
rule. My amendment will provide that immediately after the House passes 
the Small Business Health Fairness Act, it will take from the Speaker's 
table the Senate passed version of H.R. 1307, the Armed Forces Tax 
Fairness Act.
  Additionally, my amendment will add to H.R. 1307 the text of H.R. 
1308 as passed by the Senate, which restores the refundable child tax 
credit that was removed from the Republican tax bill. This will allow 
the House to combine these two Senate passed bills and immediately send 
them back to the Senate and then hopefully on to the White House for 
the President's signature. If this happens, we can begin helping 
America's low and modest income working families right away and we can 
give tax relief to those brave members of the military who are in 
combat overseas.
  As my colleagues know, this is the seventh time we have tried to 
bring the child tax credit to the floor for a clean up or down vote. 
The reason we have continued to persevere is because this is so 
important to America's families, particularly those making at or near 
the minimum wage, families who struggle every day to get by. They have 
no one else to fight their battle for them. They cannot afford to hire 
expensive lobbyists, and they cannot afford to be a Bush pioneer. We 
are here for them and we will keep fighting for their voices to be 
heard.
  Vote no on the previous question so we can finally consider these two 
Senate passed tax plans, tax plans which will help those most in need 
of relief. I would like to stress that a no vote will not stop us from 
considering the Small Business Health Fairness Act. However, a yes vote 
will once again, for the seventh time, block the House from having an 
opportunity to vote to restore the child tax credit that was 
unceremoniously stripped from the Republican reward-the-rich tax bill 
that was passed last month. Again, vote no on the previous question.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the amendment 
and extraneous materials be printed in the Record immediately prior to 
the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Quinn). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, we say vote yes. We say vote yes to allowing small 
businesses to have the leverage and purchasing power that large 
businesses have, to increase significantly the number of American 
workers, the majority of whom work for small businesses, who can have 
health insurance. We think the issue is that important that we should 
vote yes. Vote yes on the previous question, vote yes on the rule, and 
let us get to the underlying legislation, legislation which is as 
important as the legislation we passed last week.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Frost is as follows:

  Previous Question for H. Res. 283--Rule on H.R. 660: Small Business 
                      Health Fairness Act of 2003

       At the end of the resolution insert the following new 
     section:
       ``Sec. 2. Immediately after disposition of the bill(H.R. 
     660), the House shall be considered to have taken from the 
     Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 1307) to amend the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 to provide a special rule for members of 
     the uniformed services in determining the exclusion of gain 
     from the sale of a principal residence and to restore the tax 
     exempt status of death gratuity payments to members of the 
     uniformed services, and for other purposes, with the Senate 
     amendment thereto, and a motion that the House concur in the 
     Senate amendment with an amendment consisting of the text of 
     the Senate amendment to the text of H.R. 1308 shall be 
     considered as pending without intervention of any point of 
     order. The senate amendment 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.''

  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. 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. FROST. 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 224, 
nays 198, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 289]

                               YEAS--224

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess

[[Page H5561]]


     Burns
     Burr
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole
     Collins
     Cox
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Janklow
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, 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, 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 (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)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--198

     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 (OK)
     Case
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley (CA)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hall
     Harman
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley (OR)
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     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
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner (TX)
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Bartlett (MD)
     Carson (IN)
     Conyers
     Gephardt
     Grijalva
     Hastings (FL)
     Johnson (IL)
     Lewis (GA)
     Miller (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Weiner


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Quinn) (during the vote). Members are 
advised that 2 minutes remain on this vote.

                              {time}  1133

  Messrs. ABERCROMBIE, POMEROY, and DAVIS of Tennessee changed their 
vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. MORAN of Kansas changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. JOHNSON of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 289 I was 
inadvertently detained had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Quinn). 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. FROST of Texas. 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 224, 
noes 199, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 290]

                               AYES--224

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     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
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     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, 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 (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)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--199

     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 (OK)
     Case
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley (CA)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall
     Harman
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley (OR)
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick

[[Page H5562]]


     Kind
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     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
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner (TX)
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Bartlett (MD)
     Carson (IN)
     Conyers
     Gephardt
     Hastings (FL)
     Hunter
     Lewis (GA)
     Miller (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Weiner


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

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

                              {time}  1140

  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.

                          ____________________