[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 174 (Friday, November 9, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H13417-H13426]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3996, TEMPORARY TAX RELIEF ACT OF 
                                  2007

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 809 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 809

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 
     3996) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend 
     certain expiring provisions, and for other purposes. All 
     points of order against consideration of the bill are waived 
     except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the 
     Committee on Ways and Means now printed in the bill shall be 
     considered as adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be 
     considered as read. All points of order against provisions of 
     the bill, as amended, are waived. The previous question shall 
     be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any 
     amendment thereto, to final passage without intervening 
     motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and 
     controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Ways and Means; (2) an amendment in the nature 
     of a substitute, if offered by Representative McCrery of 
     Louisiana or his designee, which 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.
       Sec. 2.  During consideration of H.R. 3996 pursuant to this 
     resolution, notwithstanding the operation of the previous 
     question, the Chair may postpone further consideration of the 
     bill to such time as may be designated by the Speaker.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
Hastings). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for 
debate only.


                             General Leave

  I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days 
within which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous 
materials into the Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 809 provides for consideration of H.R. 3996, the 
Temporary Tax Relief Act of 2007, under a structured rule. The rule 
provides 1 hour of debate controlled by the Committee on Ways and 
Means. The rule makes in order a substitute amendment to be offered by 
Representative McCrery of Louisiana or his designee. The amendment is 
debatable for 1 hour.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3996, the Temporary Tax 
Relief Act. I want to commend the distinguished chairman of the Ways 
and Means Committee, Congressman Charlie Rangel, for his usual great 
work on this bill.
  And I want to say a special thank you to my good friend and colleague 
and neighbor from Massachusetts, Congressman Richie Neal, who has been 
a champion on the issue of the alternative minimum tax for a long, long 
time. Richie Neal has been the canary in the coal mine, talking about 
the AMT when nobody else was, and he deserves an enormous amount of 
credit for his work.
  Mr. Speaker, we all know that the alternative minimum tax was never 
designed to hit middle-class families, but that's exactly what will 
happen unless Congress acts.
  In my district alone, the numbers are staggering. In 2005, 13,000 
families were hit with the AMT. That number will jump to nearly 83,000 
in 2007, a 517 percent increase, unless we do something about it.
  These middle-class workers are struggling with enough problems, 
skyrocketing fuel costs, higher tuition, higher property taxes, higher 
child care costs. And for years, President Bush and his Republican 
allies in Congress passed huge tax cuts for the wealthy, while doing 
very little or nothing to help hardworking middle-class families. That 
has to stop, and we're going to stop it today.
  My Republican friends on the Rules Committee often like to talk about 
how strong the economy is, how GDP is growing at such a rate. Well, I 
agree to a certain point, Mr. Speaker. Somebody is getting pretty rich 
in this economy, but I would point out that it usually isn't the 
workers, and they're the ones that make this country great. Last year, 
the average CEO made 364 times what the average worker did. Just 25 
years ago, CEOs made only 42 times more.
  So yes, the people at the top are having a blast, but we need to do 
more for the people in the middle and for those struggling to get into 
the middle.
  This bill before us today not only spares these hardworking families 
from the AMT, but it does so in a fiscally responsible way, and that is 
at the heart of the argument before us today.
  Some of my friends on the other side of the aisle believe that we 
should patch the AMT without paying for it. They believe that we should 
simply add the cost on to our national debt, a debt, by the way, that 
has now reached $9 trillion. That's trillion with a ``T.''
  Of course, this has been their approach for years. The Iraq War? Not 
paid for. The Bush tax cuts? Not paid for. The Medicare prescription 
drug benefit? Not paid for.

[[Page H13418]]

  But, Mr. Speaker, someday, somebody, somewhere is going to have to 
pay for all of that debt. It's going to be our children and our 
grandchildren. It's wrong and it's got to stop.
  It makes no sense to cut taxes for today's middle-class families just 
to raise taxes on future middle-class families, but that's exactly the 
kind of debt tax that my Republican friends would like to enact.
  My friends believe that these tax cuts pay for themselves. They 
believe that the magic money fairy will drop revenue from the sky with 
rainbows and butterflies. But in the real world, actions have 
consequences. The Massachusetts families that I am honored to represent 
have to make tough choices, and Congress has to make some tough 
choices, too.
  These PAYGO rules that Democrats have enacted are tough. This new 
fiscal discipline isn't easy, but it's the right thing to do. And 
rescuing tens of thousands of families in my district from the pain of 
the AMT is also the right thing to do.
  I thank my colleagues for their hard work, and I reserve the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend 
from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) for yielding me the customary 30 
minutes, and I yield myself as much time as I may consume.
  (Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, the clock is ticking and 
time is running out. At the end of the year, many of the important tax 
provisions that have helped our economy grow will expire. Unless 
Congress acts and gets a bill to the President that he will sign into 
law, workers, families and small businesses will face a tax increase 
this year.
  Congress can either accomplish this the easy way, by working together 
in a bipartisan manner, or it can be done the hard way, by dragging out 
the process, passing a bill in the House that the Senate won't even 
consider and the President has threatened to veto, only for the 
Democrats then to rush a bill to the floor at the last minute that no 
one has had time to read and that should have been considered in the 
first place.
  I'm disappointed that the Democrat majority has chosen the hard way 
on this and so many other pieces of legislation this year.
  The parts of this bill that prevent tax increases are good, and I 
support most of them, Mr. Speaker. I support ensuring over 20 million 
Americans are not caught up in paying the AMT. Over the years, this tax 
burdens more and more middle-income Americans, clearly an unintended 
consequence of the original bill.
  I support extending the State and local sales tax deduction so that 
taxpayers in my State of Washington and other States without a State 
income tax will continue to be able to deduct State sales tax from 
their Federal tax bill.
  I support extending tax incentives to enhance the affordability of 
higher education, which will help more middle-income students access 
post-secondary education.
  I support extending an important above-the-line deduction to help 
teachers contain the costs of out-of-pocket classroom expenses like 
books, supplies and computer equipment.
  I support, Mr. Speaker, extending the research and experimentation 
tax credit in order to allow the United States to remain a global 
competitor.
  And I support keeping taxes low for small businesses.
  These are reasonable parts of the bill, and I have supported them in 
the past, I support them being extended this year, and I support seeing 
that they become made into permanent law.
  However, I cannot support a bill that temporarily stops certain tax 
increases by permanently raising other taxes. Let me repeat that. I 
cannot support a bill that temporarily stops certain tax increases by 
permanently raising other taxes. It's not right and it's not fair. But 
the Democrat majority is using temporary tax relief as an excuse to 
permanently raise taxes.
  Under this bill, you may get to keep one of your hard-earned dollars 
in your right-hand pocket, but the Federal Government is right there 
taking a dollar out of your left-hand pocket year after year. This is 
the wrong approach.
  Unfortunately, if Democrats have their way, every American will face 
a tax increase sooner or later. If not this year, then next. If not 
next year, then certainly in 3 years when tax relief enacted by the 
Republican Congress will expire, tax relief that lowers rates for every 
single taxpayer in America. If these tax cuts expire, taxpayers will be 
forced to pay $3.5 trillion more to the Federal Government over 10 
years, and the Democrats plan to spend every dime of it on more 
government spending.
  But, Mr. Speaker, don't take just my word for it. Look at the budget 
the Democrats adopted earlier this year. When Democrats were faced with 
the choice of how best to balance the Federal budget, they flat out 
rejected the option of spending less and declared their allegiance to 
raising taxes. The Democrat budget would impose the largest tax 
increase in American history.

                              {time}  0930

  Their budget doesn't extend relief from the marriage tax penalty. It 
doesn't extend the $1,000 child tax credit, it doesn't end the death 
tax, it doesn't fix the AMT for middle-class families, it doesn't 
protect the lowest tax rate, and it will force lower-income Americans 
who today pay no income tax, thanks to the Republicans' tax relief, to 
start paying taxes again.
  The Democrats will call this tax relief bill a tax relief bill. They 
will deny that they are raising taxes, but the plain hard facts are 
this bill that this rule would make in order would raise taxes by over 
$80 billion.
  Congress doesn't need to be raising Americans' taxes to pay for 
Democrat plans to pay for more and higher government spending. Don't 
raise taxes; reduce spending.
  Several of my Republican colleagues that serve on the Ways and Means 
Committee submitted amendments to the Rules Committee to make this a 
better bill, a bill that would pass the House on a strong bipartisan 
basis, pass the Senate and could be signed into law. Amendments to 
increase the teacher tax credit from $250 to $400, permanently repeal 
the alternative minimum tax, or AMT, and strike tax increases from the 
bill that were denied by the Democrat-controlled Rules Committee.
  I am especially troubled that an amendment offered by my colleague 
from Missouri (Mr. Hulshof) to strike language in the bill that gives 
special treatment to State legislatures was not made in order. It is 
difficult to understand why this Democrat bill would allow State 
legislators to earn tax-free income.
  For example, in my State of Washington, the State legislators in 
Olympia have increased spending by 33 percent since 2005 and raised 
taxes by $500 million, not exactly behavior that deserves rewarding 
them with a special Federal tax break.
  A Washington Post article on November 6 says: ``An official of the 
nonpartisan congressional Committee on Joint Taxation estimated that 
the yearly deduction could reach $55,000 for a State lawmaker whose 
legislature declared enough pro forma days.''
  Of all the people in America, State legislators are not at the top of 
my list and probably not at the top of the list for most Americans. But 
apparently allowing State legislators tax-free income is a top priority 
of House Democrats.
  This provision was slipped into the bill at the last minute, and it 
only seeks to benefit a few. It will cost American taxpayers an 
estimated $4 million. It should be removed from this bill.
  This is a bad rule that brings a bill to the floor that is bad 
policy. I urge my colleagues to vote against the rule and the 
underlying bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to my colleague 
from Washington State. He began by saying there is an easy way to do 
this; there is a way for Washington politicians to do this and that is 
to provide this relief without paying for it. That is what the 
Republicans have done while they were in charge here. They have 
borrowed and spent, borrowed and spent, borrowed and spent; and we have

[[Page H13419]]

a debt that is in the trillions and trillions of dollars.
  The gentleman from Washington says that some people will have to pay 
more in order to offset this AMT relief package. Well, 50,000 tax 
returns will be affected, and that is by closing a loophole that, quite 
frankly, I think, every sensible person believes should be closed.
  But here is the return: by impacting those 50,000 tax returns, we are 
going to protect 23 million middle-class families from being hit by the 
alternative minimum tax. We will provide 30 million homeowners with 
property tax relief. We will help 12 million children by expanding the 
child tax credit. We will benefit 11 million families through the State 
and local sales tax deduction. We will help 4.5 million families better 
afford college with a tuition deduction.
  We will save 3.4 million teachers money with a deduction for 
classroom expenses, and we will provide thousands of American troops in 
combat with tax relief under the earned income tax credit.
  So what we are doing here is providing much-needed relief to middle-
income families, and we are doing it in a responsible way, and we are 
not passing the bill onto our kids and our grandkids like they have 
done for years and years and years.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Oregon of 
the committee on Ways and Means, Mr. Blumenauer.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy, and I couldn't 
agree with him more. For 12 years, our Republican friends in Congress 
looked the other way at this looming tax tsunami that was going to 
engulf every middle-income family in America with two incomes and 
raising their kids. They watched as the alternative minimum tax enacted 
in 1969 to deal with less than 200 people who didn't pay any Federal 
tax at all morphed into a tax which, next year, if we don't pass 
legislation like this, is going to subject every middle-income family 
with two earners with children to the alternative minimum tax, 
penalizing them, not for tax dodges, but for paying their taxes, for 
investing in retirement and charitable contributions.
  We are dealing with this responsibly. Instead of borrowing the money, 
we are paying for this tax relief. We are doing it, in part, with a tax 
reform so that people who drive hedge fund managers to work or answer 
their phones will no longer be paying tax rates twice what the people 
who are making, not millions, not tens of millions but, in some cases, 
hundreds of millions of dollars a year.
  This is a choice about priorities. My Republican friends for years 
have chosen to avoid the alternative minimum tax with a wide array of 
tax breaks. There are a few that they are talking about that we are 
perfectly willing to work with and extend that deal with the tax needs 
of working American families. We will extend them without debate, but 
the more elaborate, the more expensive, the ones that are concentrated 
for a few are going to be looked at, like carried interest for hedge 
fund managers.
  We are not going to be held hostage to President Bush who used the 
alternative minimum tax revenues as a way to disguise the true cost of 
his tax-cut schemes that have helped increase the deficit and are going 
to be exploding in the years in the future. They had a chance to adjust 
it, and they didn't. This is a deliberate decision on the part of the 
Republicans in Congress for the last 12 years to avoid dealing with the 
consequences of their tax cut proposals.
  In fact, they are the ones who scheduled them so they would be 
expiring at different times over the next few years, in part because 
the bond markets would have gone crazy if those would have been made 
permanent at the time and all the revenue lost, so they disguised it. 
Now they are paying the consequences for their sleight of hand having 
them go out into the future.
  We are going to be looking at each and every one of them: do we have 
to have tax breaks for Paris Hilton or Warren Buffett that even Warren 
Buffett doesn't want because he has made billions, in some cases, on 
money that wasn't taxed in the first place.
  This is an opportunity for Congress to start acting responsibly, 
making some needed tax reform, and to be able to show the American 
public that we are going to deal with the problems for tens of millions 
of Americans, and we are not going to continue to do it on the backs of 
interest that will be paid by our children for decades to come and 
special preventions for people who frankly should be paying the same 
tax rates as the rest of us.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to a 
fellow colleague on the Rules Committee, Mr. Sessions from Texas.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I appreciate the gentleman from Pasco, Washington, for 
yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, in response to our good friends on the other side, this 
economy is the greatest economy we have ever had, 130 straight months 
of economic growth.
  I am proud of what we have done. I am proud of what the Republican 
Party did by cutting taxes. I am proud of what the Republican Party did 
by making sure this country came back to work. I am proud of the 
Republican Party for doing the things that President Bush has led us to 
do.
  I know what the Democratic Party is all about. They are all about 
making sure that we will raise taxes, that we will have more rules and 
regulations and that we will make sure that we cut off the ability that 
America has to be competitive with the world. That's what this debate 
is also about.
  I rise with great regret to report to the American people that once 
again, as I have been forced to do on multiple occasions over the past 
few months and really during this entire year, to see the Democrat 
leadership bringing legislation to the House floor that stacks the deck 
in favor of Big Labor bosses at the American taxpayers' expense to the 
tune of $2.2 billion, to be exact.
  Last night the Democrat Rules Committee voted along party lines to 
prevent me, a member of the committee, from having the opportunity to 
raise government revenue while reducing the size of our government by 
striking a provision unrelated to fixing the AMT. However, it was in 
the legislation that is before us in the House today.
  I find it ironic that as this Congress works to protect American 
taxpayers from the AMT, a tax that they would pay but were never meant 
to pay, that the Democrats would include in this bill a provision 
preventing the IRS from effectively collecting other delinquent taxes, 
taxes that people were meant to pay but haven't.
  In 2004, Congress gave the IRS the ability to utilize the best 
practices and advantages created by the private sector to address its 
growing backlog of unpaid debt.
  Today, it is estimated that $345 billion of these taxes, unpaid 
taxes, exist, meaning that every single year the average taxpayer who 
plays by the rules must pay an average or an extra $2,700 to cover 
taxes not paid by others.
  This new program, which began as a small pilot program that continued 
to grow and continued to succeed, is estimated to bring in $2.2 billion 
in the first 10 years alone. Under this agreement, the IRS would get 
the first 25 cents of every dollar for them to hire new collections 
professionals, a provision that will have positive compounded effects 
by helping to bring in even greater amounts of uncollected revenue to 
the government in the future.
  This program, even in its beginning stages and despite numerous 
attempts by the Democrat majority to kill it before it can succeed, has 
been a huge success, bringing in over $30 million of uncollected taxes. 
It has received a 98 percent rating from the IRS for regulatory and 
procedural accuracy, as well as 100 percent rating for professionalism.
  I wish that I could say that I was surprised by the Democrat 
leadership by allowing politics to triumph over policy or fair 
procedure. Unfortunately, this is precisely what we have come to expect 
from the new broken-promises Democrat majority.
  I encourage all of my colleagues to vote against this tax increase 
and this attempt to stack the deck in favor of labor union bosses.
  I am opposed to this rule. I am opposed to the underlying 
legislation.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, the previous speaker began by saying he is 
so proud of this economy and it's doing so well. The thing that he may 
not know is that he thinks it's doing well,

[[Page H13420]]

but the majority of the American people do not think it's doing well. A 
recent poll showed that over 70 percent of people in this country think 
we are going in the wrong direction. Maybe he needs to get out of 
Washington a little bit more, outside the Beltway, talk to real people 
and understand the struggle people are going through.
  The gentleman also knows that tax bills are traditionally considered 
under a closed or structured process. Under this rule, the minority has 
the opportunity to offer a substitute as long as it does not violate 
any House rules. The Rules Committee made this substitute in order 
sight unseen and this rule gives the minority an opportunity to amend 
this bill if they choose.
  Again, one of the new rules that we are operating under here in the 
House is that you have to pay for whatever you do. You can't borrow 
anymore. You can't run up the natural credit card anymore. You can't 
burden our kids and grandkids anymore. You have to be responsible.
  Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from New York, a member of the Rules Committee, Mr. Arcuri.

                              {time}  0945

  Mr. ARCURI. I thank my good friend and colleague from Massachusetts 
for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the rule and the 
Temporary Tax Relief Act of 2007.
  I applaud Chairman Rangel and the House leadership for providing a 
broad-based tax relief package in a way that promotes fiscal 
responsibility by complying with pay-as-you-go rules adopted by the 
House at the beginning of this Congress.
  To be honest though, I'm a bit baffled by the comments from some of 
my colleagues suggesting that they oppose paying for the $50 billion 
AMT portion of this bill and would rather add it to the national debt, 
pushing that debt on to our children and our children's children.
  Mr. Speaker, it was that sort of fiscal irresponsible behavior that 
allowed the previous Republican Congresses to erase the budgetary 
surplus that existed in 1999 and skyrocketed the national debt by more 
than $1.3 trillion in the course of 6 years.
  While I may not agree with 100 percent of all the so-called pay-fors 
in this bill, I strongly believe that we in Congress must balance our 
own books just as all taxpayers do with their own finances.
  H.R. 3996 contains many important tax cuts for both businesses and 
individual taxpayers. Far and away, the most important of these would 
save an estimated 21 million Americans from paying the AMT. In the 
district I represent in upstate New York, this bill will save over 
36,000 people from having to pay higher taxes, nearly 6,000 of whom 
make less than $75,000 a year and have never had to pay the AMT before. 
That, Mr. Speaker, is middle-class tax relief.
  H.R. 3996 also includes an extension of the research and development 
tax credit that allows companies a tax credit for a portion of their 
R&D expenditures. Extending R&D credit is vital to ensuring that 
America remains on the cutting edge of innovation and keeps our 
companies competitive.
  American companies rely on this credit and upon its continuing to 
adequately plan their long-term research projects. I support this 1-
year extension to provide continuity, and I will continue to work with 
leaders on the committee and in the body to seek a permanent extension 
that would eliminate concerns over expirations or lapses.
  As I said earlier, I'm not in total agreement with all the revenue 
raising measures contained in H.R. 3996. I do have some reservations 
about the so-called ``carried interest'' provisions, especially as it 
relates to real estate partnerships. Specifically, I'm concerned that 
reclassification as income of carried interests paid to managers of 
real estate partnerships may create a disincentive for general partners 
to manage partnerships that seek to develop higher risk projects in 
areas that need development or redevelopment.
  In spite of these reservations, I will vote for this rule and H.R. 
3996. I will continue to work with my colleagues to address these 
concerns, and I'm confident that together we can find an appropriate 
and fiscally responsible way of ensuring that development projects in 
areas that depend on them will continue to attract necessary 
investment.
  I believe we cannot let the perfect be the enemy of the good. The 
Temporary Tax Relief Act of 2007 is a good bill that brings much-needed 
tax relief to both America's middle-class families and our businesses, 
and I'm especially proud that we are doing it in a fiscally responsible 
way, following the PAYGO provisions adopted by this House in the same 
way that every household in America does.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3\1/2\ 
minutes to a member of the Ways and Means Committee and a classmate of 
mine, Mr. English.
  Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. I would like to thank the distinguished 
Member from Washington.
  Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, I have to rise in strong opposition to 
this rule. I wouldn't normally speak out against a rule, but I think 
these are unique circumstances and they're highlighted by the comments 
of one of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who accused 
Republicans of holding hostages. That's really an extraordinary 
statement under the circumstances.
  After all, it was House Democrats who conspired to preserve the AMT 
in 1999. It's House Democrats who had talked broadly about repealing 
the AMT this year. It is House Democrats that passed a budget that used 
the revenue from applying the AMT to 23 million mostly middle-class 
taxpayers. And it is, after all, House Democrats who have come forward 
today with a placebo that doesn't do what they originally said that 
they were going to do.
  I have offered before the Rules Committee and in the Ways and Means 
Committee an amendment that would have directly addressed the 
Democrats' promise. Yesterday, an amendment was offered in the 
Committee on Rules and dismissed out of hand that, by defeating today's 
rule, may yet be preserved to fulfill the promise of the Democrats to 
get rid of the AMT. My amendment would have sunset the AMT by a date 
certain. It would have fully repealed the individual alternative 
minimum tax. And any vote against this rule, Mr. Speaker, is a vote 
against an opportunity to ultimately and permanently eliminate the AMT.
  The amendment is very simple. The AMT would be repealed and never 
seen again after 2018. That's far enough in the future that we should 
be able to plan around it.
  As Congress continues to wrestle with the ridiculous notion of how to 
pay for eliminating a tax that we never intended, this amendment allows 
us to set a firm horizon on which the AMT will be eliminated and 
require that our budgets no longer be built on the quicksand of AMT 
revenue.
  And the amendment is fully PAYGO compliant, so there's no reason not 
to have allowed this amendment to be debated if the majority is, in 
fact, serious about ensuring that the AMT is eliminated.
  Unfortunately, the bottom line is that the majority, in fact, 
believes that they need the revenue, and they want to continue to do 
things like they do in today's bill, which is pass permanent tax 
increases in order to fund temporary tax relief. If the majority, in 
fact, believes that it will find a way to repeal the AMT before 2018, 
then this amendment should be allowable. Nothing in this amendment 
would prevent the Congress from taking up a plan to get rid of the AMT 
sooner than 2018.
  What this amendment does do, though, is let the taxpayer know that 
the AMT will be history.
  As I said, we missed the chance to do that in 1999 because of the 
position that the other side took. And this amendment would have given 
Members of this body an up-or-down vote on whether or not to support 
the repeal of the AMT.
  Perhaps this is a true indication of the majority's intent to take 
this tax monster, harness it, and put it to work to allow with PAYGO 
rules that every year we churn the Tax Code to raise taxes ever higher. 
I think the AMT has got to go and that's why I'm offering this 
amendment if allowed.
  I urge the defeat of the rule.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I would just reply to the gentleman that 
if he has an amendment that is truly

[[Page H13421]]

compliant with PAYGO, he can offer it as a substitute. That is allowed 
under the rule.
  At this point, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to 
the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch), a member of the Rules 
Committee.
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. One of the ongoing challenges of democracy is 
to maintain an economy that creates opportunity for everybody, at the 
low end of the ladder, as well as at the top.
  What our Ways and Means Committee has done, in two areas, is 
recognize that we have seen our economy start skirting so that the 
wealthy are doing very well, the middle class are falling behind, and 
the poor are barely hanging on. And in two areas, trade and taxes, the 
Ways and Means Committee has brought legislation that basically says 
we're all in it together.
  On trade they want to have a policy that shares the benefits. They 
aren't just concentrated at the top, and that shares the pain. And on 
taxes, they're asking the question and giving us the opportunity to 
present a tax policy that respects work as well as capital, that 
reduces rather than increases our debt, and accepts the reality that 
one taxpayer's tax preference is often another taxpayer's tax burden.
  What is a fact is that the gap between the wealthy and everyone else 
is widening. We can ignore that or we can acknowledge it. This 
legislation is middle-class tax relief. It acknowledges that the middle 
class has been working harder, paying more in taxes, getting less in 
government services and falling farther behind.
  One of the things that pays for this is by going after a glaring 
loophole. We've heard people talk about the ``carried interest.'' But 
there's one other provision in here that is long overdue for remedy. 
It's how a corporation doing financial advising is treated differently 
than a partnership.
  It was a New York Times story, Mr. Speaker, that spoke about Goldman 
Sachs that did great work, earnings of $3.4 billion in one quarter. 
They paid $1.1 billion in taxes. They paid the corporate tax rate. Good 
corporate citizens. A private equity partnership, the Blackstone Group, 
doing the same work, had revenues of $1.1 billion. They paid $14 
million in taxes, or 1.3 percent.
  This tax bill says tax fairness requires that those two entities be 
treated the same, that they pay their fair share before we start asking 
middle-class working families to pay more.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, how much time on both sides?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Washington has 15 
minutes, and the gentleman from Massachusetts has 14 minutes.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 
minutes to a member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Hulshof).
  (Mr. HULSHOF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HULSHOF. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  It's Friday. We're about to go home. What have we done this week? 
Well, we've seen earmarks for golf courses air-dropped into the Defense 
appropriations conference report. The Woodstock Hippie Museum is now 
back in play for Federal dollars. Is there any dispute that Congress 
has earned its 11 percent approval rating.
  Today's bridge to nowhere take us to Albany, New York where lawmakers 
of that State's legislature will enjoy a per diem write-off for days 
that they are not working in their State capital.
  I say to my friend from Washington, imagine if you were an IRS tax 
compliance officer, probably with an approval rating higher than 
Congress, and this was the scenario presented to you. A hypothetical 
State, we'll call it State Y, begins its legislative session in early 
January and adjourns its legislative calendar at the end of June. 
Nothing unusual about that. But this particular State legislature 
extends its session, declares itself to be in session for the remainder 
of the year, even though no legislative business is conducted. The 
question before the IRS is, should those lawmakers be entitled to a 
$150 a day per diem for days that they are not in their State capital?
  The IRS ruled, correctly in my view, that they should not be entitled 
to this special tax break.
  Well, notwithstanding that, in this bill, tucked away, is a provision 
that basically says that this per diem is allowed for all 365 days. And 
for those of you that are quickly doing the math on the back of your 
envelope, $150 plus a day equals $55,000 a year. Now, who foots that 
bill? Taxpayers from Missouri, taxpayers from the State of Washington, 
taxpayers from Massachusetts.
  Now, I will give credit, I see my friend from Oregon is here, who, in 
committee, voted with us, as well as the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Doggett) that this was an inappropriate provision. I applaud the 
gentlemen for that.
  The IRS in its tax policy and priority guidance, in other words, the 
red flags that the IRS really wanted to take a look at was, in fact, 
this specific provision. The IRS had raised a red flag. But because of 
the powerful chairman, I see him on the floor, my good friend from New 
York, the powerful chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, and the 
powerful chairman of the Rules Committee, who coincidentally happen to 
hail from the State in question, instead of a red flag by the IRS, they 
now have to wave a white flag. And again, taxpayers across the country 
are on the hook.
  I would just say this, and I say this somewhat tongue in cheek.

                              {time}  1000

  When we get to the larger debate about the alternative minimum tax, I 
think one thing that all of us agree upon, of course, is that with the 
intent of that tax we have gone far afield. Unfortunately, I suspect we 
are going to have a lot of finger-pointing and partisanship and 
Republicans didn't do this and didn't pay attention or whatever. I 
would simply point out that facts are stubborn things in the fact that 
in 1969 I think the party in control during that session of Congress 
creating the tax was then the Democratic majority, and I seem to recall 
that the Republican Congress sent to a Democratic President a bill that 
would have completely, finally, permanently repealed the alternative 
minimum tax; and, unfortunately, the Democratic President vetoed that 
bill. So I think there is enough blame to go around if that's why 
you're coming to the floor to assign blame.
  But the AMT, as has been pointed out, was originally created by the 
then-majority to hit about 150-plus wealthy families. This particular 
provision inserted not an extended, expiring provision, but a brand-new 
provision, but this brand new provision helps 150 legislators. Of this 
rifle shot, former chairman of the Ways and Means Committee 
Rostenkowski would most certainly be proud.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, before I yield to the next speaker, I just 
want to respond to something the gentleman said. He questioned whether 
we did anything of relevance this week. Let me remind him that we did 
the Defense appropriations bill, which supports our troops. We did the 
Labor-HHS, which funds, among other things, the National Institutes of 
Health. We did the Homeowners' Defense bill to deal with natural 
disasters. There was the Peru Free Trade Agreement. There was the ENDA 
bill, which ends discrimination against people based on their sexual 
orientation. We overrode, thankfully, the President's unwarranted veto 
on WRDA so that we could actually support our infrastructure, which 
this President and the Republicans in Congress have denied funding for 
for so many years.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I think we had a good week, and I'm proud of what 
this Democratic Congress is doing.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin, a 
member of the Ways and Means Committee (Mr. Kind).
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Massachusetts for 
yielding.
  And to my good friend from Missouri with whom I serve on the Ways and 
Means Committee, I would hope that as this process moves forward, we 
can get together and have an honest discussion of what needs to be 
offset, what should be extended, and how we are going to provide tax 
relief to 23 million Americans who would otherwise get caught up in the 
creeping alternative minimum tax.
  And that's why today I rise in support of the rule and the underlying 
bill, and I commend the chairman of the

[[Page H13422]]

Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Rangel, for helping us bring forward a 
bill that is not only fiscally sound but morally responsible.
  There are some elements of common agreement. We all here agree that 
we want to stop the AMT from hitting 23 million more Americans, 56,000 
in my congressional district alone in Wisconsin. The big difference is 
we pay for it; they don't. We did, as we promised the American people 
we would do when we became the majority this year, reinstitute pay-as-
you-go budgeting rules, something that was in place in the 1990s that 
gave us 4 years of budget surpluses. We are paying down the national 
debt rather than adding to it.
  But with the expiration of pay-as-you-go budgeting, we've had the 
fastest and largest accumulation of national debt in our Nation's 
history under their watch, under their economic plan: Over 3 trillion 
new dollars added to the national debt, and by the time this President 
leaves office, it will be 4 trillion. We went over 9 trillion in 
accumulated debt this week for the first time in our Nation's history, 
and there are consequences.
  Let's make no mistake about this debate today. This bill will be paid 
for. The question is, is this generation going to have the moral 
responsibility to pay for it, or are we going to stick it to our 
children and grandchildren with more deficit financing? They are borrow 
and spend; we are pay-as-you-go.
  And I don't know how many of my colleagues noticed this week, but the 
dollar went into a free fall. And the main reason that the dollar went 
into a free fall is because there was a rumor on the market that the 
Chinese are going to start unloading their high dollar reserves and 
start buying euros. And the only tools we could possibly have to 
counter that was in hoping another Chinese official would step up and 
say, no, that's not true, it's just a rumor. Fortunately, they did; 
otherwise the Federal Reserve would have to tighten the money supply to 
prop up the dollar, and we know the consequences to economic activity 
if that happens.
  This is the economic dilemma that they have put us in by saddling us 
with huge debt. And they can talk all they want about percentage of 
GDP, but as long as more deficit is being accumulated, China will 
remain the number one purchaser of our debt today. And that is wrong 
for the future economic growth of our Nation, and it's especially wrong 
for our children.
  So the question is, do we adhere to pay-as-you-go budgeting? We can 
have an honest discussion of what appropriate offsets should be in 
order to pay for the tax relief for 23 million families. But what 
shouldn't be on the table and what shouldn't be debated today is more 
deficit financing, which is the easiest thing to do. I'll be curious to 
see what type of substitute they want to offer, what their plan is, 
because it has got to be under pay-as-you-go budgeting. And we will see 
if there are some areas of common agreement with that. But what 
shouldn't be debated and what shouldn't be open for consideration is 
pay-as-you-go budgeting so we don't leave a legacy of debt to our 
children and grandchildren.
  I encourage my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying 
bill.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the 
distinguished ranking member of the Rules Committee.
  Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I was simply hoping to engage with the distinguished 
majority manager of this measure when I was asking him very politely to 
yield. And I will say for the record I am always happy to yield to him 
at any time, and now I have had to rely on Mr. Hastings to yield me the 
time.
  I simply wanted to say, as my friend was going through that litany of 
all these great accomplishments, there is one very glaring error, and 
we are going to have a chance to vote on that for the 10th time when we 
have an effort that Mr. Hastings will be moving to defeat the previous 
question, to make sure that we go to conference to have the funds 
necessary for our Nation's courageous veterans.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5\1/2\ 
minutes to a member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, we're setting a precedent here. This is new policy that 
we are embarking on here. And let me tell you what this means. We have 
always in the past done what we call a patch for the AMT. We have 
always said let's not let the alternative minimum tax hit all these new 
taxpayers. Let's prevent that tax increase from happening. Well, what 
is now happening is the majority is saying, instead of having this tax 
increase, let's have some other tax increase. That's what their PAYGO 
rule does.
  PAYGO does not mean let's live within our means, but let's expand 
government's growth, let's raise taxes. And 73 percent of all of the 
pay-fors for the bills that have come to this Congress this year have 
been paid for with either budget gimmicks or tax increases. That's 
right. Of all the wish lists of spending that the majority has brought 
to the floor, 73 percent of those things were either budget gimmicks or 
tax increases.
  This is a tax increase. What this is, is saying you cannot come to 
the floor of this Congress and prevent this new future tax increase; so 
we're going to make another tax increase. If you want to stop this tax 
increase, you've got to raise taxes. You just simply can't stop the tax 
increase.
  Now, why are we doing this? You've got to remember, Mr. Speaker, that 
the AMT in 1969, when it was written, was to stop 155 multimillionaires 
from escaping taxes. That was the idea. No one, no one ever intended it 
to be what it is today. It was a mistake. No one planned the 
alternative minimum tax to tax 23 million people in the middle class 
this year. No one said let's tax 30 million people in 3 years, but 
that's what this does. The majority's budget includes it. The 
majority's budget plans for it. And more important than that, Mr. 
Speaker, the majority is saying we may not want the alternative minimum 
tax, but we want that tax revenue. And that is the dangerous precedent 
that is being set here.
  This chart shows you where the majority is trying to head with taxes 
in America on families and businesses and entrepreneurs. The blue line 
shows you our average. For the last 40 years, the Federal Government 
has had to tax about 18.3 percent of our economy to run the Federal 
Government. We have had good economic growth. We've been the world's 
leading economic superpower. We have been the world's superpower. And 
we have done this by taxing our economy at about 18.3 percent. What the 
majority is trying to do is take us to an all new high.
  There are only three times in our Nation's history where we have ever 
exceeded taxing our Federal economy by 20 percent. Two of those were 
during World War II. And the majority wants not only to tax us at 20 
percent; they want us to go up to 21 percent and then on up to 24 
percent with this tax plan. This is a down payment on the majority's 
planned and intended and budgeted-for $3.5 trillion tax increase over 
the next 10 years.
  And here is what is wrong with that: not only is it morally wrong to 
take more and more money out of people's paychecks, by taking more of 
their freedom and sending it to Washington, but what is really wrong is 
that it lowers our standard of living. And that is what is at issue 
here.
  For the last 15 years, we have watched Europe go down this dangerous 
path. If you take a look at the majority's plan to bring us to this 
ever-higher level of taxation, add the State government, and we are on 
our way to taxing 35 percent of GDP. That is where the countries of 
Europe are.
  And what did Europe achieve over the last 15 years? Their per capita 
of GDP, our main measurement of standard of living, is a quarter less 
than ours. Their standard of living is 25 percent less than the 
American standard of living. Their unemployment rate averages 9 
percent; ours is half that.
  So if we want to go down the road of stagnation, of high 
unemployment, of a lower standard of living, vote for this bill. Put us 
on this path.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding. The gentleman makes a 
very

[[Page H13423]]

important point, Mr. Speaker, and that is this incredible irony that 
this week we have two European leaders, Angel Merkel, who is today 
meeting with the President of the United States; and 2 days ago, we had 
Nicolas Sarkozy, the leader of France, both of whom are working very 
hard to reverse that trend about which my friend has spoken. And we in 
the United States of America seem to be following, through the actions 
of this Congress, the route of the old Europe that Merkel and Sarkozy 
are seeking to reverse.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. That is exactly the point, Mr. Speaker.
  At a time when Europe is telling us don't follow us down this path, 
look at the unemployment, look at the welfare dependency. We have got 
to get out of this.
  We are following them. We're going into the hole they've dug for 
themselves that they are trying to get out of. That is the majority's 
plan. That's a dangerous plan. They are saying you can't even bring a 
bill to the floor unless it raises taxes. That's what PAYGO means. 
That's wrong. This is the down payment on a $3.5 trillion tax increase 
on every American income tax payer. That's wrong.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a difference between our two parties. This is a 
difference between our philosophies. We believe the genius of America 
is the individual, the family, the entrepreneur, not government, not 
Washington, not elites here trying to spend your hard-earned tax 
dollars. That is the difference. We believe we should keep government 
lean and we should keep government doing what it should be doing and 
not ever growing its role because when we do that, we sap the strength 
of the American entrepreneur, of our economy.
  We need to give our children the gift that our parents gave us, and 
that is a higher standard of living. And we are at risk of severing 
that legacy, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds.
  Mr. Speaker, in the litany of accomplishments this week, I neglected 
to say that we also voted on the Military Construction bill, and we 
will continue to vote on it until it becomes the law of the land.
  And speaking of differences between the two parties, under a 
Democratic Congress, we are going to give our veterans the biggest 
single-year increase in health care benefits in the history of the 
Veterans Administration. That is under a Democratic Congress, not under 
a Republican Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the 
Temporary Tax Relief Act.
  This is sound legislation. It will provide millions of hardworking 
middle-class families with the tax cuts that they need. We all know 
this bill will protect over 23 million middle-class families from the 
encroaching alternative minimum tax. In my home State of Connecticut, 
failing to act on the AMT would mean new taxes on almost 400,000 
households including 67,000 in my district.
  Along with addressing the AMT, I want to commend Chairman Rangel for 
including in the bill a long overdue expansion of the child tax credit. 
Last year minimum-wage families working full-time were not eligible for 
the tax credit, excluding almost 7 million children, most of them 
infants and toddlers.

                              {time}  1015

  Military families, fighting and dying for the United States, were not 
eligible.
  With this bill, we get back to the intent of the child tax credit, 
providing relief to the working-class families that need it most; 2.9 
million additional children will be eligible for the tax credit, and 
the families of 10 million others will receive larger refunds. We have 
an opportunity today to provide tax relief to 23 million middle-class 
families. Let us not fail them today, and let us not fail our children.
  This bill represents the values of this Nation and its priorities. I 
urge my colleagues to vote for the rule and pass this legislation.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much 
time is remaining on both sides?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Washington has 4\1/2\ 
minutes. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 8\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I will reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 2 
minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).
  Mr. HOLT. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Speaker, today we will hear the good features of this 
legislation, the 4.5 million families that can afford college better 
because of tuition deductions, teachers who can get deductions for 
classroom expenses, the extension of the R&D tax credit, the 11 million 
families who will benefit from sales tax deduction, and of course the 
central piece of this, the relief from the alternative minimum tax. In 
fact, in my own district, which is one of the most hardest hit in the 
country by the alternative minimum tax, 88,000 of my constituents are 
unfairly caught in the AMT, and they will find relief in this bill.
  I would like to address a feature that I am particularly pleased to 
see in this legislation. Property taxes are applied locally, as we 
know, and for some years I've tried to get relief at the Federal level 
for these local taxes, which have grown far ahead of the rate of 
inflation. Several years ago, in the previous Congress, I introduced 
legislation that would provide a standard deduction for homeowners who 
do not itemize their taxes. Now the Ways and Means Committee, under the 
new leadership of Chairman Rangel, and with the strong advocacy of 
Representative Emanuel, has included in this legislation such a 
deduction. Now, more than 30 million homeowners who do not currently 
itemize their tax deductions and yet still pay high property taxes will 
find relief in this bill. It will be a standard deduction of $350 for 
those filing individually, $700 for those filing jointly, and it will 
be available, I repeat, for something like 30 million Americans, 
including those in New Jersey who pay the highest property taxes in the 
country.
  So, I thank the chairman and the committee for their wisdom in 
including this legislation. I urge adoption of the rule and the passage 
of the underlying bill.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Doggett).
  Mr. DOGGETT. We are hearing the same old tired Republican borrow-and-
spend rhetoric. They're all for our middle class tax relief and 
extension of important tax incentives; they just don't want to pay for 
it. They would rather borrow from our grandchildren. ``Borrow it, 
you'll like it.'' That's the misguided approach we've followed for 7 
long years under this Bush administration. And look at the mess it has 
gotten us into: the dollar going down by the day, the specter of 
inflation and recession occurring at the same time. And now, because of 
our Democratic commitment to pay-as-you-go government, what we do in 
this bill is to reduce the revenues coming in by about $76 billion in 
mostly middle class tax relief over the next 5 years, and then replace 
those same revenues with another $76 billion.
  It's balance. No new debt. And that is the type of fiscal 
responsibility that is anathema to our Republican colleagues and this 
administration. The best that they have been able to do is offer us 
more empty demands to just cut spending to pay for this legislation. 
President Bush sent his representative from the Treasury Department to 
our committee on this very bill, and we said, ``well, what specific 
spending cuts do you have to pay for this bill if you think that's the 
way to do it?'' And he scratched his head, and he couldn't think of a 
single spending cut, nor have our Republican colleagues sought any. 
Their approach is just more borrow and spend.
  Let's be clear about it. Over the last 7 years, no one in this 
country has spoken louder about fiscal responsibility and cutting 
spending than President Bush, and no one in this country has done less 
about it.
  Ole Rip Van Bush, he snoozed while the spending soared, and he just 
borrowed more and more with a happy face toward our children.
  Today, we Democrats fulfill our pledge to stop making things worse so 
we eventually can be able to turn them

[[Page H13424]]

around. A vote for this bill today is a vote for middle-class tax 
relief, and it is also a long overdue vote to repudiate this Republican 
fantasy.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 1 
minute to the distinguished ranking member of the Rules Committee, Mr. 
Dreier.
  (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, what absolute lunacy; paying for a tax that 
was never intended.
  I see my friend from New York. In 1969, when this tax was designed to 
go after 155 millionaires, was it ever anticipated that 23 million 
middle-income Americans would be shouldering this burden? Absolutely 
not. So we're supposed to pay for that? Well, the only thing that calls 
for paying for it is the budget that the new majority put into place.
  Mr. Speaker, the American people sent us here to make laws, not to 
play games. We know that this is not going to become law. So time and 
time again, whether it's with our veterans, whether it's with 
children's health, whether it's with the war in Iraq, and now with our 
attempt to completely repeal the alternative minimum tax, we see 
nothing but game playing from our colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle.
  We do face economic challenges in this future, we know that. We've 
got some serious problems ahead. Ensuring that we keep this economy 
growing is essential. That's why we need to completely repeal the 
alternative minimum tax.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, at this time, it's my honor to yield 2 
minutes to the distinguished chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, 
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel).
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, distinguished members of the Rules 
Committee, thank you for giving me this opportunity, and thank you for 
allowing me to follow my friend, Mr. Dreier. I just hope that I don't 
drink the water on that side of the aisle because it's very difficult 
for me to follow in the logic.
  Let's talk about where we are in complete accord. Whoever thought of 
this cockamamie idea in 1969 was wrong. And as far as the voters are 
concerned, you can call yourself Republican or Democrat, who now holds 
them hostage, but if we don't give them relief, you can bet your life 
it's going to be the Congress of the United States and this President.
  The President realizes we should eliminate this. He hasn't given us a 
plan, an idea, a thought, just get rid of it. And the Congressional 
Budget Office says that if we don't get rid of it, that $50 billion 
will be coming into our budget, we will have $50 billion. Common logic 
would dictate that if we do get rid of the AMT, which is the right 
thing to do, that we will lose $50 billion from the budget. What 
happens at home? What happens with a corporation? What happens with 
this congressional board of directors if we find with the budget that 
$50 billion that's missing? One of the things we can do is cut 
spending, by what? $50 billion. Another thing we could do is say forget 
about it. We did it before with the tax cut, just borrow the money. 
Just borrow $50 billion. I guess you can call that repealing. Or we 
could say the responsible thing to do is raise the additional revenue.
  Standing by itself, forgetting the fact that it's a pay-for, who in 
the world would believe that it's fair for corporations and 
partnerships to be doing the same work, managing other people's money, 
being successful, making this great contribution to society, except one 
group pays 15 percent because they've created the imagination that 
their work is really capital, when they take no risk, and the others 
give 35 percent. Fairness dictates this is not a tax increase. This is 
a closing of a loophole, and you should be proud to participate in 
that.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance 
of the time.
  Mr. Speaker, for the past several weeks, my colleagues on the Rules 
Committee and I have highlighted the need to pass a stand-alone 
veterans funding bill. Today is our last opportunity to pass a veterans 
funding bill and get it to the President before Veterans Day.
  The veterans funding bill passed this House this summer with over 400 
votes and passed the Senate with over 90 votes. A final veterans 
funding bill is sitting, waiting to be acted on, but Democrat leaders 
have bent over backwards to prevent Congress from passing the final 
bill. They have been stalling since September and have ignored the fact 
that the new spending year began October 1 this year.
  Every day the Democrats choose not to act to move this bill forward, 
our Nations's veterans lose $18.5 billion. Since the fiscal year began 
40 days ago, our Nation's veterans are out $740 million. It has now 
been nearly 150 days since the Veterans funding bill was approved by 
the House. The Senate passed a similar bill and appointed its conferees 
2 months ago. Sadly, the Democratic leadership in the House has refused 
to name conferees and instead has chosen to put partisanship and 
politics ahead of ensuring our veterans' needs are met.
  Once Democrat leaders appoint conferees, the House can move forward 
and pass the stand-alone Veterans funding bill. Three weeks ago, 
Republican Leader Boehner took a positive step towards naming House 
Republican conferees. Now, the Speaker must follow suit.
  Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I will be asking my colleagues to vote ``no'' 
on the previous question so I can amend the rule to allow the House to 
immediately act to go to conference with the Senate on H.R. 2642, the 
MilCon and Veterans Affairs funding bill, and appoint conferees.
  By defeating the previous question, the House will send a strong 
message to our veterans that they will have our commitment to providing 
them the funding increase they need, deserve and were promised.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have the text of the 
amendment and extraneous material inserted into the Record prior to the 
vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Washington?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to 
oppose the previous question and the rule.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on 
the previous question, I urge them to vote ``yes'' on the rule, and I 
urge them to vote ``yes'' on the underlying bill.
  Thousands of middle-class families in this country deserve relief 
from the AMT tax, and that's what this underlying bill is all about. In 
addition, as we provide relief to these middle-class families, we owe 
it to our kids not to saddle them with the bill, and that's also the 
purpose of the underlying bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I have two kids, a 9-year-old son and a 6-year-old 
daughter. I don't want to leave them with a future in which they have 
to pay for all of the mistakes and all of the mismanagement of my 
generation.
  The Republicans want to have it in a way that they can do things and 
not pay for anything. We have a war in Iraq. It's not paid for. Doesn't 
bother them in the least. Their prescription for health care is take 
two tax breaks and call me in the morning. It doesn't bother them in 
the least that the bill is going to be paid for by our kids and our 
grandkids. Tax cuts for the rich. Again, put it on the backs of our 
kids and our grandkids. Mr. Speaker, that is irresponsible.
  Our Nation is currently burdened with over $9 trillion of national 
debt. The average daily interest accruing on this debt exceeds $1 
billion. Each American share of this debt is more than $30,000. We 
cannot afford to keep taking on this additional debt.
  When the Democrats regained control of the Congress, we instituted 
PAYGO rules, pay as you go. Families in America have to live within 
their budgets. The United States Congress ought to be able to live 
within a budget. We need to be fiscally responsible.
  So, if you want to give your rich friends a tax cut, then pay for it. 
If you want to have a war, then pay for it. We need to pay as you go.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill. Vote ``yes'' on the previous 
question and ``yes'' on the rule.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Washington is 
as follows:

[[Page H13425]]

     Amendment to H. Res. 809 Offered By Mr. Hastings of Washington

       At the end of the resolution, add the following:
       Sec. 3. The House disagrees to the Senate amendment to the 
     bill, H.R. 2642, making appropriations for military 
     construction, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and related 
     agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and 
     for other purposes, and agrees to the conference requested by 
     the Senate thereon. The Speaker shall appoint conferees 
     immediately, but may declare a recess under clause 12(a) of 
     rule I for the purpose of consulting the Minority Leader 
     prior to such appointment. The motion to instruct conferees 
     otherwise in order pending the appointment of conferees 
     instead shall be in order only at a time designated by the 
     Speaker in the legislative schedule within two additional 
     legislative days after adoption of this resolution.
       (The information contained herein was provided by 
     Democratic Minority on multiple occasions throughout the 
     109th Congress.)

        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Democratic majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an 
     alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be 
     debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       Because the vote today may look bad for the Democratic 
     majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is 
     simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on 
     adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive 
     legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is 
     not what they have always said. Listen to the definition of 
     the previous question used in the Floor Procedures Manual 
     published by the Rules Committee in the 109th Congress, (page 
     56). Here's how the Rules Committee described the rule using 
     information from Congressional Quarterly's ``American 
     Congressional Dictionary'': ``If the previous question is 
     defeated, control of debate shifts to the leading opposition 
     member (usually the minority Floor Manager) who then manages 
     an hour of debate and may offer a germane amendment to the 
     pending business.''
       Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives, 
     the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a 
     refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a 
     special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the 
     resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21, 
     section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: ``Upon rejection of the 
     motion for the previous question on a resolution reported 
     from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member 
     leading the opposition to the previous question, who may 
     offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time 
     for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Democratic 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas 
and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 
XX, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be 
followed by 5-minute votes on adoption of H. Res. 809, if ordered, and 
approval of the Journal.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 215, 
nays 185, not voting 32, as follows:

                            [Roll No. 1077]

                               YEAS--215

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Castor
     Chandler
     Clarke
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     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
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Tsongas
     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--185

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

                             NOT VOTING--32

     Bean
     Bishop (UT)
     Bonner
     Boren
     Buyer
     Carson
     Cleaver
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Davis, Lincoln
     Doolittle

[[Page H13426]]


     Engel
     Everett
     Giffords
     Gutierrez
     Hastert
     Hobson
     Israel
     Jindal
     Jones (NC)
     Kaptur
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Marchant
     McCarthy (NY)
     Nunes
     Oberstar
     Paul
     Westmoreland
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1053

  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota and Mr. BAIRD changed their vote from 
``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas 
and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 220, 
nays 185, not voting 28, as follows:

                            [Roll No. 1078]

                               YEAS--220

     Abercrombie
     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)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Castor
     Chandler
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Tsongas
     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--185

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

                             NOT VOTING--28

     Ackerman
     Bishop (UT)
     Bonner
     Boren
     Buyer
     Carson
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Davis, Lincoln
     Everett
     Giffords
     Hastert
     Hobson
     Israel
     Jindal
     Jones (NC)
     Kaptur
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Marchant
     McCarthy (NY)
     Nunes
     Oberstar
     Paul
     Westmoreland
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1105

  Messrs. CUMMINGS, BACA, GRIJALVA, ORTIZ, PASTOR, SERRANO, GUTIERREZ, 
REYES, BECERRA, Mrs. NAPOLITANO, Ms. SOLIS, Ms. VELAZQUEZ, and Ms. 
ROYBAL-ALLARD changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  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.

                          ____________________