[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 63 (Thursday, April 19, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H3594-H3600]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




              ESTIMATED TAX PAYMENT SAFE HARBOR ADJUSTMENT

  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 317, 
I call up the bill, (H.R. 1906) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 
1986 to adjust the estimated tax payment safe harbor based on income 
for the preceding year in the case of individuals with adjusted gross 
income greater than $5 million, and ask for its immediate consideration 
in the House.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 1906

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. ADJUSTMENT OF ESTIMATED TAX PAYMENT SAFE HARBOR 
                   FOR INDIVIDUAL TAXPAYERS WITH ADJUSTED GROSS 
                   INCOME GREATER THAN $5 MILLION.

       (a) In General.--Subparagraph (C) of section 6654(d)(1) of 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to limitation on 
     use of preceding year's tax) is amended by redesignating 
     clauses (ii) and (iii) as clauses (iii) and (iv), 
     respectively, and by inserting after clause (i) the following 
     new clause:
       ``(ii) Individual adjusted gross income greater than 
     $5,000,000.--If the adjusted gross income shown on the return 
     of the individual for such preceding taxable year exceeds 
     $5,000,000, clause (i) shall be applied by substituting 
     `110.1' for `110' in the last row of the table therein.''.
       (b) Separate Returns.--Clause (iii) of section 
     6654(d)(1)(C) of such Code, as redesignated by subsection 
     (a), is amended by inserting ``and clause (ii) shall be 
     applied by substituting `$2,500,000' for `$5,000,000' '' 
     before the period at the end.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 317, the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. English) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I 
may consume.
  I rise in support of H.R. 1906. No one, but no one will pay more 
taxes under the bill. It merely ensures that multi-millionaires don't 
add to our tax gap.
  The bill changes in a very minor way estimated tax payments made by 
wealthy individuals with incomes of more than $5 million a year. It 
makes a technical timing change to tax payments made by these 
individuals. They do not pay more taxes. H.R. 1906 is critical to the 
pay-as-you-go pledge of this Congress.
  I am pleased to have supported H.R. 1905, the District of Columbia 
House Voting Rights Act of 2007. For 207 years, Washington, D.C. 
residents have paid Federal taxes, and for 207 years they have had not 
a voting representative in the United States Congress.
  The right to vote is precious. It is sacred. It is the cornerstone of 
our democracy.
  Americans sacrificed everything for this right. They were harassed, 
beaten, jailed and even killed for the right to vote.
  Not so long ago, many of my friends, many of my colleagues lost their 
lives. There are many more faceless, nameless heroes who suffered and 
sacrificed for this basic right.
  How can we preach this principle around the world and not practice it 
here in our Nation's Capital? It is the foundation of our democracy.
  So I urge all of my colleagues to support H.R. 1906.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, today the House is considering legislation that, in my 
view, represents the first brick in a Chinese wall of tax increases.
  Generating revenue by assuming that Americans with more than $5 
million in income will increase their annual withholding by one-tenth 
of 1 percent simply makes a mockery of PAYGO.
  The majority is exploiting a statistical quirk in the way that the 
Joint Tax Committee does its revenue estimates, and will have 
accountants, not normally known for their high spirits and good humor, 
roaring with laughter all over the country.
  Perhaps, in the aggregate, there are enough people in America making 
more than $5 million who will pay an extra $2,000 in estimated taxes to 
raise revenues as much as anticipated, but this seems more likely to be 
an instance where the Joint Tax Committee's scoring rules and common 
sense have dramatically parted ways.
  If the Judiciary Committee thinks the companion bill to create a new 
Member from Utah and add voting rights to a Member from the District of 
Columbia is such a good idea, surely they could have found some program 
within their jurisdiction to trim by an offsetting amount. And they 
didn't find a user fee in their jurisdiction to increase by just a few 
dollars.
  In fact, despite the fact the Democratic majority created a budget 
that includes more than $2 trillion in spending, they could not even 
trim $3 million from that total to pay for this rather modest 
initiative. To put this in perspective, the majority could have offset 
this bill by reducing entitlement spending by just two ten-thousandths 
of a percent.
  By not going down that route, this bill confirms what we have all 
suspected: the Tax Code is going to be the ATM machine that pays for 
all of the new majority's fondest initiatives. The bill today may be 
cheap in total dollar terms, but we will not be so lucky the next time 
around.
  In fact, Mr. Speaker, in my view, H.R. 1906 represents what will be 
the first of a series of bizarre revenue raisers, Rube Goldberg 
devices, and tax gimmicks to be trotted out to pay, first for small 
things, and then pay for the demands of the majority's budget, which 
includes the largest tax increase in American history, nearly $4 
billion over 5 years.
  It also demonstrates that the majority's PAYGO promise that new 
entitlement spending could be offset with entitlement spending cuts is 
hollow and cynical. If they can't even find $3 million of entitlement 
savings for this bill, can we expect them to pay for their new programs 
with anything other than a significant tax increase ultimately on the 
middle class?
  This makes even traditional budget gimmicks, like putting routine 
spending into an emergency spending bill, or bypassing the budget 
resolution by using ``advanced appropriations'' look pristine by 
comparison.

[[Page H3595]]

  The process for this bill's consideration is flawed, deeply and 
fundamentally. It did not go through the Committee on Ways and Means. 
This is another example of the new majority ignoring their own promises 
for regular order.
  The procedure, Mr. Speaker, for considering the broader issue of 
expanding the House of Representatives itself is deeply flawed. The 
example being set today that you can split a bill into separate 
elements so as to limit what amendments and motions will be germane is 
the triumph of form over substance.
  The proposal before us only adds more complexity to the Tax Code. And 
think about this: if you thought filling out your taxes wasn't tough 
enough, our friends on the other side of the aisle are raising the 
level of difficulty to complicate the code and increase the risk that 
an inadvertent error will have the IRS demanding interest on your 
underpayment.
  At least it is better than the last version of this proposal, which 
generated an even more ludicrous $3 million by raising the safe harbor 
amount for people with incomes over $150,000 by just three one-
thousandths of a percent.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a flawed bill. It is a silly exercise. And I 
think it is appropriate that we vote it down.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I simply want to rise to say that the bill that just passed, which I 
actually supported because I think it was the right thing to do 
constitutionally, and just good government, it violated PAYGO for 2 
hours. So what we have here is a too-cute-by-half PAYGO fix. And it is 
my hope that when the majority brings new bills to the floor that the 
bills themselves will be fixed with respect to PAYGO.
  This rule tactic that is being deployed, I think, denied the minority 
rights to have the kinds of motions to recommit that the minority 
traditionally has been given.
  But more importantly, this really is a violation of PAYGO. It is 
fixed now because it was broken just a minute ago. It is a half-hearted 
attempt for the majority to submit to their own rules. The PAYGO 
principle of pay-as-you-go ought to apply every minute, every second, 
every hour. If you believe in it, don't make it just apply for 2 hours 
and then bring it back an hour later just because you want to deny the 
minority an ability to have an effective motion to recommit.
  I would be happy to yield to the leader.
  Mr. HOYER. I appreciate my friend's comment. Aren't you the party 
that said that taxes were going to be cut up until 2010 and then 
because of the rules they will go back into effect?
  Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, may I reclaim my time? And 
instead allow the leader on his own time to pose those sorts of 
questions.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I think the gentleman mentioned something 
about sunsetting taxes. If my memory serves me, having served on the 
Ways and Means at the time that bill was written, all tax bills which 
originate in the Ways and Means Committee in the House were permanent. 
It was the Democrat Party in the Senate that made it temporary, that 
put in, because of a cloture vote, put the temporary nature of the tax 
cuts in. The tax cuts sunset in 2012 because of the Byrd rule and 
because we did not have sufficient numbers of the Democrat Party at the 
time vote for cloture so that we could make these tax cuts permanent.
  Mr. HOYER. Will my friend yield?
  Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. I am afraid, Mr. Speaker, it is my time 
and I will allow the gentleman from Wisconsin to yield to the leader on 
the leader's time.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.


                             General Leave

  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to give 
Members 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on the 
bill, H.R. 1906.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Georgia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Indiana, Congressman Hill.
  Mr. HILL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to enter into a colloquy with the 
distinguished majority leader.
  Mr. Leader, the minority side has been talking about PAYGO rules and 
that somehow we have violated them. They sound very convincing. And as 
you know, the fiscally conservative Blue Dog Coalition are also strong 
supporters of the PAYGO rule, as are all members of our Democratic 
Caucus. This pay-as-you-go rule was an important step in restoring 
fiscal discipline in Congress. The Members of the Blue Dog Coalition 
believe it is important that the House comply with this rule.
  Can you explain how this bill complies with PAYGO and specifically, 
for the benefit of the Members on both sides, I ask, will the PAYGO 
rule that we established in January be fulfilled when the House 
completes action on the District of Columbia Voting Rights Act?
  Mr. HOYER. If the gentleman will yield.
  Mr. HILL. I will yield.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his question. It is an important 
question. And the answer to that question is, absolutely. And I am glad 
that we have this opportunity to clear up any confusion. I want to 
assure the gentleman, and all Members of the House, that the District 
of Columbia Voting Rights Act will not violate PAYGO, period. The House 
just voted to approve the D.C. Voting Rights Act of 2007. We have now 
proceeded to consideration of H.R. 1906, which amends provisions of the 
Internal Revenue Code regarding estimated taxes to pay for all costs 
attendant within the D.C. House Voting Rights Act.

                              {time}  1500

  While those costs are de minimis, essentially about $1.6 million out 
of $27 trillion if there is no escalation in government revenues, 
notwithstanding that, we wanted to adhere to the PAYGO rule, as the 
gentleman from Indiana has stated and for which he has fought so hard 
and been a leader on. The rule provides that the text of H.R. 1906 will 
be incorporated into the D.C. Voting Rights Act when H.R. 1906 is 
passed; in other words, every Member who voted for the rule voted to 
honor PAYGO.
  The Congressional Budget Office and the Budget Committee have 
certified that when the text of H.R. 1906 is incorporated into the bill 
and the bill is engrossed, the bill will comply with the PAYGO rule. 
The rule further provides that if either bill fails to pass, both bills 
will be tabled. In other words, if the bill providing the offset to 
ensure compliance with PAYGO is not added to the bill, the D.C. bill 
would be rejected.
  This process guarantees that two important things will happen, first, 
that an unmitigated injustice, the denial of voting for the citizens of 
the District of Columbia, is considered on its merits and remedied; and 
secondly, that we abide by our commitment to PAYGO.
  Again I state, the gentleman from Indiana has been an extraordinarily 
consistent and strong leader on behalf of that premise.
  The House, in conclusion, will not send a bill that does not comply 
with the PAYGO rule as a result of the rule. And I commend those who 
voted for the rule to be consistent with our PAYGO pledge.
  I thank the gentleman for his question.
  Mr. HILL. Thank you, Mr. Leader. Let me try to put it in perspective, 
then. If I am in southern Indiana and I am driving from New Albany to 
Seymour, the direct route is on I-65, but if I go to Bloomington to 
Seymour, it is a longer route, but I still get to Seymour.
  Mr. HOYER. You still get to the promised land.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia may state his 
parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, we have just heard the majority 
leader

[[Page H3596]]

say that if either 1905 or 1906 fails, then they shall both be tabled.
  Mr. Speaker, can you tell me, this House having passed H.R. 1905, how 
is it possible to have a bill that has already passed the House, is no 
longer on the floor, no longer the business of the House, tabled with 
subsequent action on another bill?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. House Resolution 317 so provides.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I have a further inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia may state his 
parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, can you tell me where in the House 
rules it provides anything that allows for the tabling of a House bill, 
once passed, when there has been intervening business in the meantime?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The provision is contained in House 
Resolution 317.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Point of order, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman may state his point of order.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I appeal to the Chair and state 
that the rule under which we are operating right now is in violation of 
House rules because there is no provision in the House rules that 
states that you may table a bill after it has already been dispensed 
with by the House.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman asking for a point of order 
or a parliamentary inquiry?
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I am asking for a point of order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. If the gentleman is raising a point of 
order, would he please restate his point of order.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, my point of order is that we are 
now operating in violation of the rules of the House because the rule 
that we have adopted has no rule of the House that allows for tabling 
of a bill once it has passed the House and intervening business has 
occurred.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. House Resolution 317 has already been 
adopted by the House and not liable to any point of order.
  Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, it would be my privilege 
now to yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California 
(Mr. Campbell).
  Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania for yielding.
  The reason we have this bill and the reason we are having this debate 
is because the D.C. voting bill, which just passed this House, costs 
$2.5 million. So in order to have it be neutral, there needs to be $2.5 
million found.
  Now, what this bill proposes to do is what I would argue is basically 
a tax gimmick because no one's final tax, no one's ultimate tax pay, 
will be changed as a result of this bill. What it, in fact, does is 
change how quickly some people must pay their tax. So they will have to 
pay it a little earlier. They won't pay any different amount over a 
year. They will simply pay it a little earlier. But that is what this 
bill does.
  But what was the alternative? Well, normally you would think that if 
you were interested in fiscal responsibility, if you were interested in 
keeping budgets balanced over time, that if you are going to spend $2.5 
million extra, you would save $2.5 million somewhere else. That is what 
people at home do. That is what everyday, average American citizens do. 
If they are going to spend a little more money on something, they spend 
a little less money on something else.
  Let's talk about what you would need to have done. If the Democratic 
majority had wished to reduce spending, and reduce the growth in 
spending is all you would actually have to do, but if they had wished 
to reduce the growth in spending in order to offset this $2.5 million, 
we are talking about 0.0002 percent. That is the reduction in growth, 
not even a cut, but the reduction in growth of spending. That is all 
you would have to do to offset the $2.5 million in this bill. And then 
we wouldn't even be talking about taxes and tax gimmicks and all that. 
Point zero zero zero 2 percent.
  I ask you, if you can't find 0.0002 percent to reduce growth, not 
even to reduce entitlement spending, but to reduce growth of 
entitlement spending, where and when will you ever deal with the 
entitlement tidal wave that we have coming? By 2037 the entitlements 
will eat up 100 percent of the Federal budget as we currently know it.
  So you have a couple of choices. You can either reduce the growth in 
entitlement spending over time so we don't have that, or you can double 
taxes. Well, if you can't find today 0.0002 percent to reduce the 
growth in spending, I would have to presume, and I think people would 
have to presume, Mr. Speaker, that the doubling of taxes eventually is 
where you want to go.
  Now, we already saw a budget where you have had the largest tax 
increase in American history included in the budget, and now we can see 
why. You can't even find this amount of reduction in spending.
  I oppose the D.C. voting bill because I think it is not right and not 
constitutional. But I oppose this bill as well because if we are ever 
going to control this budget and we are not going to control it on the 
backs of the average working American person, then tinkering with the 
Tax Code to find $2.5 million is not the way to do it. The way to do it 
is to go find 0.0002 percent of the growth and reduce that amount.
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Mississippi.
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I won't need 3 minutes. I 
just want to applaud the conversion of my Republican colleagues.
  Six years ago the Nation was breaking even on an annual basis. They 
came to town with a new President and in the span of 3 years added $3 
trillion to the national debt, never once explaining any remorse, never 
once saying, we're going to turn this around.
  So I am really pleased to see the conversion, and I want to applaud 
you for it. I just wish it had happened 6 years ago.
  Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, it is a great privilege for 
me to yield 5 minutes to a gentleman who brings marvelous expertise to 
any tax debate, who is entitled to wear a green eye shade if he 
chooses, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway).
  Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's yielding the 
time.
  It is interesting, and our good colleague has left, but I would 
wonder why we constantly talk about history from 6 years ago that 
eliminates the conversation about 9/11, the recession that we went 
into, and an awful lot of things that had an impact on the financial 
circumstances or guesses at the financial circumstances over these 
intervening 10 or 12 years that seem to get lost whenever it is 
convenient.
  What I would like to speak to, though, is the mechanics of what is 
happening right here. This is a PAYGO fix and is intended to ``pay 
for'' the additional expenses for adding an additional Representative 
to this body. I disagree with that. It is unconstitutional from a 
straight reading, but that is not our issue. How do we pay for that?
  The folks back home understand the term ``PAYGO'' as if they want to 
pay for something, they have choices. They can borrow the money, which 
we have collectively done an awful lot of, or they can earn more money 
or they can cut spending in an area to pay for whatever the new 
expenditure is.
  This bill takes the first route. This is simply a cash flow issue. 
This does not actually raise the money that the Federal Government gets 
to keep to pay for these additional expenses. This bill simply looks at 
a very unsympathetic group of taxpayers out there, folks who are 
blessed to make over $5 million in AGI each year, and says, we are 
going to borrow the money from you to pay for this.
  And so our friends on the other side of the aisle have a very 
twisted, in my view, definition of PAYGO which involves simply 
borrowing money, whether it is to pay for your American Express bill 
off of this month's Visa or to sign up for a new Visa to pay the old 
Visa card. This bill doesn't pay for these added Federal expenses. It 
simply finances it through a borrowing from taxpayers who make more 
than $5 million in adjusted gross income.
  So we many times come to this floor with less than straightforward 
conversations about what we are doing. This is one of those times. This 
is not a PAYGO fix. This is simply a cash

[[Page H3597]]

flow, borrowing the money from a certain number of taxpayers, because 
the bill does not raise anyone's tax. It does increase the amount of 
advanced payment that taxpayers have to make each year, depending on 
what their tax scheme is. But their ultimate tax bill is decided by the 
code that is in existence right now and will not be changed.
  So as the other side, Mr. Speaker, brags on this bill as being their 
answer to the additional spending under the D.C. voting bill, it is not 
right. This simply borrows the money from some other group and does not 
pay for it.
  So I would oppose this bill. It does not honor the traditional 
definition of PAYGO that we are all familiar with, and I would urge my 
colleagues to vote against it.

                              {time}  1515

  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 5 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
  Ms. NORTON. I thank the gentleman from Georgia for yielding.
  I thank the gentleman from Georgia for leading this debate. Truly, 
you are the man to lead this debate on this great civil rights bill 
that the House is about to give after 206 years. I thank you for coming 
forward to do so.
  I want to praise and offer my gratitude to Democratic leaders for 
reconciling the important principle of fiscal responsibility, PAYGO as 
we call it, with the basic principle of voting rights, forsaking 
neither. H.R. 1906 is particularly appropriate, especially when you 
consider that D.C. residents have always paid taxes, notwithstanding 
that the 16th amendment says that only States shall pay taxes.
  Mayor Adrian Fenty and Council Chair Vincent Gray yesterday led a 
march in the wind and the rain on Emancipation Day because 145 years 
ago Lincoln freed the slaves in the District of Columbia 9 months ahead 
of the slaves elsewhere. My grandfather, Richard Holmes, was one of 
those slaves. His son, Richard, entered the D.C. Fire Department in 
1902. And his son, Coleman, my father, like his forefathers and like 
me, have never had a vote in this city.
  I am particularly grateful, and I wanted this time especially to 
thank the 22 Republicans who voted for the bill today, preserving the 
great tradition of the party of Lincoln for equal rights.
  The Constitution was written by men who risked everything for the 
principle of representation. We should be especially mindful today, 
perhaps, to dedicate this bill to other men who have risked everything 
in times of war. 80-year-old retired Wesley Brown, the first black 
graduate of the Naval Academy and a resident of the District of 
Columbia, who went to the same high school that I attended, served in 
three wars, and retired from the Navy as lieutenant commander, but 
never has had the right to vote. His remarkable life story is 
chronicled in the book ``Breaking the Color Barrier: The U.S. Naval 
Academy's First Black Midshipman and the Struggle for Racial 
Equality.''
  Bringing the matter forward, some young men in the District of 
Columbia are returning from Iraq, and I leave you with a few of their 
words. I quote Marcus Gray, who spent a year in Iraq in the 299th 
Engineering Company, who said, ``My father served in the 104th Airborne 
in Vietnam, and I am proud to follow him by serving my country in the 
same manner. I could be called again this year, but being called to 
active duty is what every soldier in the Reserves should expect to 
happen.
  ``We also expect equal treatment, and the Army tries hard to see that 
all soldiers are treated equally. However, I want equal treatment at 
home as well. I want the same voting representation as other soldiers, 
and as the Iraqi people have now because of our service.''
  Emory Kosh, who works in my office in the House: ``I was proud to 
serve my country as a volunteer soldier. However, I am not prepared to 
sit as an employee of the House of Representatives while every Member 
answers the bell except my Congresswoman.''
  Mr. Speaker, I ask the House to give D.C. residents on the 
battlefield and in the city itself the vote they have earned over and 
over again. Most of those who have paid the dearest price will never 
see the benefit. Those in the Vietnam War, the District had more 
casualties than 10 States; in the Korean War, more casualties than 
eight States; in World War II, more casualties than four States; and in 
World War I, more casualties than three States.
  In their name, and in good conscience, I ask that the House today 
finally give the residents of the District of Columbia the vote they 
have fought for now for 206 years.
  Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. First, Mr. Speaker, I would like to just 
briefly yield myself 15 seconds to thank the last speaker for her 
eloquence and her marvelous remarks and to say that I am very proud to 
stand with her today as one of the 22 who voted for the preceding bill. 
I am very proud of the fact that at a time when we are debating the 
needs of democracy all over the world that we have taken the time in 
the House to move forward to correct an anomaly in our own 
representation and create an opportunity for the gentlelady who has for 
many years so well represented the District of Columbia to have an 
opportunity fully and legally to vote on the floor, representing her 
people.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I would like to now yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price).
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I, too, want to add my congratulations and my commendation to the 
Delegate from the District of Columbia. As I mentioned early during the 
day, I think this has been a good debate and an interesting and a 
productive debate, and I commend her for the work that she has done on 
behalf of her constituents.
  I also want to state for the record once again that I strongly 
support the enfranchisement of the citizens of the District of 
Columbia. However, I believe that it ought to be done in a legal and a 
constitutional way. I think there is a way to do that, and we have 
talked about that. I do not believe that the bill that has just passed 
the House, 1905, in fact is a constitutional bill, and I think that 
that will play out over a period of time.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to comment about where we are right now in terms 
of the activity and the rules of the House of Representatives. We are 
further delving into Orwellian democracy. I say that because the 
majority party has been champions of saying one thing and then doing 
completely the opposite. We have been told that this would be the most 
open, honest and fair Congress. In fact, we weren't told it, the 
leadership of the other party has promised the American people that 
this would be the most open and honest Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to you that this has, in many ways, been 
the most oppressive Congress because of the majority party's actions, 
most oppressive Congress ever. You say, well, how can I arrive at that 
conclusion? Well, the way that the rules have been used and the ways 
that the rules have been changed draw one, I think objectively, to that 
conclusion because the rules that have been changed especially on this 
bill, on this issue, have disenfranchised completely anybody in the 
minority. And you say, well, how is that? Well, the rule that was 
adopted and the rule under which we are acting and the rule upon which 
I asked the Speaker multiple parliamentary inquiries states that if 
either H.R. 1905 or H.R. 1906 fails, then the other bill is tabled, 
failed based upon recommital vote.
  Now, what that means is this House has passed H.R. 1905. And normally 
what would occur is that that bill would be on its way to the Senate. 
But what we are doing now is waiting to see whether 1906 passes, and if 
it fails, then 1905 is tabled.
  Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to you that it is impossible to 
construct a rule that passes the smell test or passes the principles of 
democracy in this House that allows this House to table a bill after it 
has already passed. It is unconscionable.
  Many of us have served in State legislatures. We understand the 
process of parliamentary procedure. We understand how minorities are 
able to affect policy. But when a majority wants to, by the very rule, 
squelch the input of the minority completely, it certainly can, based 
upon the ruling from the chair. But it is circular logic at best. When 
I asked the Speaker how on Earth could that occur, the Speaker replied, 
Because of the rule. When I

[[Page H3598]]

asked, how can the rule be consistent with the rules of the House, the 
response from the speaker was, Because of the rule.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a remarkably oppressive action on the part of 
this majority. I urge my colleagues on the majority side to rethink the 
processes that they are using to make it such that the minority party 
in this Chamber is no longer able to affect policy, which means that 48 
to 49 percent of the citizens of this Nation are no longer allowed to 
have Representatives that are able to affect policy because of the 
rules adopted by this majority party.
  It makes me very sad to draw that conclusion based upon the rule that 
this House has adopted today. I urge my colleagues to reconsider.
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I don't understand it, Mr. Speaker, how my colleague, my friend, my 
brother from Georgia can come here and state in an open way that this 
is the most oppressive Congress. We have only been in the majority for 
4 months, 4 short months, not quite 4 months. You really don't believe 
that.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Yes, I will yield to my friend.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Isn't it true that the rule which we are 
adopting is unprecedented and has never been adopted in this House?
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Let me say to my friend from Georgia, I think 
it was a good and a necessary rule.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. I will no longer yield.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I thank my good friend for yielding.
  I don't want to belabor this, but I think it is important for the 
American people to understand and appreciate, and I think it is 
important for my good friend from Georgia to appreciate, that this rule 
that has been adopted is unprecedented. There has never in the history 
of the House of Representatives been a rule that has allowed for the 
tabling of a bill after it has passed the House. Ever, ever.
  I urge my colleagues to look at the rules that they are adopting in 
order to squelch minority input.
  Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I do have one other speaker 
who has appeared, and one who has made an immense contribution to the 
debate on the previous bill. So it is my privilege now to yield 7 
minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis).
  (Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. I thank my colleague for yielding.
  I am going to support the bill at hand because it is the only way we 
can implement what we just did.
  I want to thank my friends on the other side. I know this is a 
complex rule. It is unfortunate we had to go through the machinations 
we did to get where we are, but this was a historic vote today as we 
propel legislation along the great ark of our Nation's history as the 
world's most vibrant experiment in representative democracy.
  Two hundred six years ago this month, Thomas Jefferson became the 
first President to take his oath in what was called the Federal City 
here in Washington. But through the confluence of circumstances and 
accident, the great compromise that birthed our Constitution and put 
the Nation's Capital here also produced a grotesque injustice we have 
so far been unable to right. Today is a time for another great 
compromise.
  The capital of the free world doesn't provide full voting 
representation for residents. In fact, that has been true for too long, 
but today we have started the process of correcting an unhappy legacy 
left by the first Congresses.
  I have discovered over the last 4 years that there are substantial 
myths surrounding the founding of Washington, DC, so I want to take a 
few minutes today to lay out the facts of how the city became what it 
is.
  The idea for a Federal district arose out of an incident that took 
place in 1783 while the Continental Congress was in session in 
Philadelphia. When a crowd of Revolutionary War soldiers who had not 
been paid gathered to protest outside the building, the Continental 
Congress requested help from the Pennsylvania militia. The State 
refused, and the Congress was forced to adjourn and reconvene in New 
Jersey.
  After that incident, the Framers concluded there was a need for a 
Federal district under solely Federal control for the protection of the 
Congress and for the territorial integrity of the capital. So the 
Framers gave Congress broad authority to create such a Federal district 
and broad authority to govern such a place. That is the limit of what 
the Framers say about a Federal district in the Constitution, that 
there should be one, and that it should be under congressional 
authority.

                              {time}  1530

  After ratification of the Constitution, one of the first issues to 
face the new Congress was where to place the Federal District. Some 
wanted it in New York. Others wanted it in Philadelphia. And others 
wanted it near George Washington's home on the Potomac.
  These sectional factions fought a fierce political battle to decide 
the matter because they believed they were founding a great city, a new 
Rome. They expected this new city to have all the benefits of the great 
capitals of Europe. They never once talked about denying that city's 
inhabitants the right to vote.
  Finally, Jefferson brokered a deal that allowed the city to be placed 
on the banks of the Potomac in exchange for Congress paying the 
Revolutionary War debt. New York got the debt paid, Philadelphia got 
the capital for 10 years. Then, as now, those political decisions were 
shaped by the issues of the day.
  In 1790, Congress passed the Residence Act in which the right to vote 
was given to those residing in the new District. But while the capital 
was being established, those living here were permitted to continue to 
vote where they had before, in their States, on the Maryland side in 
Maryland, on the Virginia side of the District in Virginia.
  The seat of government officially moved in 1800. In his final address 
to the Sixth Congress, less than a week after it took up residence in 
the new Federal District, President John Adams reminded Members, ``It 
is with you, gentlemen, to consider whether local powers over the 
District of Columbia vested by the Constitution in Congress shall be 
immediately exercised.'' That one statement explains the nature of the 
debate to follow.
  Once again, the issues of the day shaped the actions of Congress. The 
political parties couldn't come to an agreement. Imagine that. The 
Federalists wanted to ensure a strong central control over the city. 
Anti-Federalist Republicans wanted to limit authority and distrusted 
all things urban.
  With Jefferson and his Republicans preparing to take control of the 
Presidency and Congress, a pervasive atmosphere of crisis compelled the 
Federalists into action. If a bill was not passed before Jefferson took 
over, it would never pass.
  Eventually, the Congress passed a stripped-down version of a bill 
authored by Virginia Congressman ``Light Horse Harry'' Lee. It simply 
stated that the laws of Virginia and Maryland then in effect, having 
been superseded in the District, would still apply.
  We may never know why this version was passed because no records 
survived, but there is absolutely no evidence the Founding Fathers, who 
had just put their lives on the line to forge a representative 
government, then decided the only way to secure that government was to 
deny representation to some of their fellow citizens.
  One historian aptly described the process as a ``rushed and 
improvised accommodation to political reality, necessitated by the 
desperate logic of lame-duck political maneuvering.'' But the inelegant 
compromise ultimately adopted left a decidedly undemocratic accident in 
its wake. District residents had no votes in Congress.
  This wasn't, and is not, merely a quirk of history that affects very 
few people. The problem affects the very

[[Page H3599]]

reputation of our entire Nation. Foreign visitors I have met comment 
with puzzlement on the lack of voting representation in the Nation's 
Capital. I heard it from the mayor of Hong Kong when we were discussing 
his relationship with China.
  Over the next few weeks and as this moves to the other body, we have 
to agree on this principle. So we have taken important action today.
  Our very practical Founding Fathers left us a tool in the 
Constitution to deal with future problems. The District Clause in the 
Constitution, article I, section 8, clause 17, is there for a reason. 
Congress reaches its zenith of power in dealing with issues relating to 
the District.
  Over the years, Congress has exercised its power to treat the 
District as a State when necessary, to ensure that the citizens of the 
city have substantially the same rights as all other Americans. Surely 
Members should resolve any difference of opinion they may have in favor 
of our authority to use that plenary power to provide residents with 
full voting representation.
  Scholars spanning its political and legal spectrum have concluded, as 
I do, that Congress has authority through this legislation to provide 
voting representation in Congress for local residents. What was done by 
statute in 1790, and then undone by statute in 1800, can be redone by 
statute today.
  This is often called the ``People's House,'' and rightly so. Article 
I, section 2, sets forth that ``The House of Representatives shall be 
composed of Members chosen every second year by the People of the 
several States.''
  That same language, ``People of the several States,'' among the 
several States, is why the District of Columbia pays Federal taxes, 
even though it applies to people of the several States.
  The sixth amendment's right to trial by jury, even though it says 
that it will be an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the 
crime shall be committed, has been applied to the District.
  Prohibiting district laws which interfere with interstate commerce 
among the several States, Congress has applied that to the District of 
Columbia and the courts have upheld it.
  Treat the District as a State for purposes of full faith and credit. 
That talks about States and the Constitution. But under the District 
clause, we have included the District of Columbia.
  Grant people who live in the District the ability to sue people. 
Diversity of jurisdiction again applies to States, between citizens of 
different States under the Constitution, but under the District clause 
we have applied that by statute.
  This body has taken an historic step today. I want to thank my 
colleagues who worked toward this, including my good friend from 
Pennsylvania, Mr. English, who supported this. But to continue this, we 
need to support the issue at hand, the bill that is currently on the 
floor under the PAYGO legislation.
  It is kind of a jurisdictional morass, but I urge my colleagues to 
support it.
  Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I must tell you it is a privilege to be on the floor 
today to play a role in having passed the last bill which our last 
speaker spoke about with great eloquence. It is a real privilege to be 
here with the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis) who certainly has had 
a long career of fighting for people's voting rights and civil rights. 
It is great to look across the floor and see former Secretary Jack 
Kemp, a 20-year veteran of this institution, present here today.
  Mr. Speaker, as a matter of principle, I voted for the last bill, and 
as a strong supporter of tax simplification and fiscal responsibility, 
it is my privilege to vote against the bill that is before us at this 
moment, which is a procedural grotesque, a gimmick, a trick, a ploy, a 
ruse, and one that I think represents the poorest of possible tax 
policies.
  I ask my colleagues to vote this bill down and send a clear message 
that we don't support this kind of chicanery on the floor of the House 
of Representatives.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, this is an historic day. This is a 
wonderful day for the people of the District of Columbia.
  I first came to Washington, Mr. Speaker, in May of 1961 to go on 
something called the Freedom Rides. It was impossible for blacks and 
whites to board a Greyhound bus or Trailways bus here in the District 
of Columbia, and travel together through Virginia, North Carolina, 
South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, into Mississippi and to New Orleans.
  I came back here in 1963 at the age of 23 with Eleanor Holmes Norton, 
the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia, to participate in the 
March on Washington. To be here and see Jack Kemp, an old friend, 
former colleague, on this day is a great day.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I strongly support H.R. 1906. And I want to make it 
plain and crystal clear that no one, but no one, will pay more taxes 
under this bill. It changes in a very minor way estimated tax payments 
made by wealthy individuals. This bill does not increase their taxes. 
It would affect only 4,000 multimillionaires. It is only a tiny change.
  Yes, I am going to say it again: I am pleased to have supported H.R. 
1905. Today is the day for Washington, D.C. residents to realize the 
dream that so many take for granted. The 200-year wait is over. The 
200-year wait is over.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle 
to vote ``yes'' for H.R. 1906.
  Mr. Speaker, I submit the following for the Record:

     Rules From the 109th That Added Text of House-Passed Bills to 
                            Underlying Bill

       H. Res. 151 rule for H.R. 1268, 3/14/05, 7:30 p.m., Making 
     Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for FY2005--a.k.a.
       Iraq/Afghanistan/Tsunami Relief.
       Open: waives all points of order against consideration; 
     waives points of order against bill for clause 2, Rule XXI 
     except two sections; provides for the text of H.R. 418 as 
     passed the House to be added to the end of H.R. 1268.
       H. Res. 783 rule for H.R. 4975, 4/26/06, 11:20 p.m., 
     Lobbying Accountability & Transparency Act of 2006--ethics 
     reform.
       Restrictive: waives all points of order against 
     consideration; 1 hour general debate controlled by Majority & 
     Minority Leaders; makes in order Rules Committee 4/21/06 
     print in Part A of Rules' report and self-executes its 
     adoption; allows only those amendments printed in Part B of 
     the Rules' report as specified; waives all points of order 
     against amendments; after final passage adds text of H.R. 513 
     as passed the House (527 Reform bill) to H.R. 4975; provides 
     for consideration of Senate bill (S. 2349) and substitutes 
     House passed text and calls for conference; waives all points 
     of order against consideration of Senate bill and against 
     motion to strike and insert.
       H. Res. 1100 & 1099 rules for H.R. 6406 and H.R. 6111, 12/
     7/06, 10:30 p.m., To modify temporarily certain rates of duty 
     and make other technical amendments to the trade laws, to 
     extend certain trade preference programs, and for other 
     purposes.
       Closed: Consideration in the House; waives all points of 
     order against consideration; provides that in the engrossment 
     of H.R. 6111, the text of H.R. 6406 will be added at the end.
       (H. Res. 1099) Provides for a motion to concur in the 
     Senate amendment with an amendment consisting of the text of 
     H.R. 6408 for a bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 to provide that the Tax Court may review claims for 
     equitable innocent spouse relief and to suspend the running 
     on the period of limitations while such claims are pending--
     vehicle for tax extenders and more . . . .

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 317, the bill is considered read and the 
previous question is ordered.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas 
and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 216, 
nays 203, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 232]

                               YEAS--216

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)

[[Page H3600]]


     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Castor
     Chandler
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     Davis, Tom
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth Sandlin
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Platts
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shays
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--203

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Capito
     Carney
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Donnelly
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Ellsworth
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Jindal
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Kanjorski
     Keller
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marshall
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mitchell
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Poe
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Space
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Boehner
     Cantor
     Cubin
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Fattah
     Higgins
     Israel
     Jones (NC)
     Lampson
     Millender-McDonald
     Rohrabacher
     Walsh (NY)
     Whitfield
     Wicker

                              {time}  1608

  Mr. BERRY changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Weiner). Pursuant to section 3 of H. 
Res. 317, H.R. 1433 is laid on the table and H.R. 1906 is laid on the 
table.

                          ____________________