[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 20]
[House]
[Pages 27465-27472]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3525, ECONOMIC SECURITY AND WORKER 
                         ASSISTANCE ACT OF 2001

  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, by the direction of the Committee on 
Rules, I call up House Resolution 320 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 320

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order without intervention of any point of order 
     to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 3529) to provide tax 
     incentives for economic recovery and assistance to displaced 
     workers. The bill shall be considered as read for amendment. 
     The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
     bill to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) 
     two hours of debate on the bill equally divided and 
     controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Ways and Means; and (2) one motion to recommit. 
     The yeas and nays shall be considered as ordered on the 
     question of passage. Clause 5(b) of rule XXI shall not apply 
     to the bill or amendments thereto.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Reynolds) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), the 
ranking member of the Committee on Rules, pending which I yield myself 
such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, 
all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 320 is a closed rule providing for 
consideration of H.R. 3529, the Economic Security and Worker Assistance 
Act of 2001, with 2 hours of debate in the House, equally divided and 
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee 
on Ways and Means. The rule waives all points of order against 
consideration of the bill, and it provides for one motion to recommit, 
with or without instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, while the images of September 11's terrorist attacks 
will last forever in the minds of the American people, the fact is that 
the full impact of that day goes beyond that which we could conceive in 
the piles of rubble and twisted metal. While economic indicators show 
this Nation's economic downturn began in September of 2000, a full year 
before the attacks of September 11, that vicious assault on our Nation 
and its people only exacerbated an already fragile situation.
  Months before the latest crisis, this Congress showed the leadership, 
the bipartisanship, and sense of purpose

[[Page 27466]]

needed to bring our economy back through tax reduction for working 
Americans. We knew then that tax cuts put more money in the pockets of 
working families, increased consumer savings and spending, and spurred 
our economy back to recovery.
  We came together, too, immediately after September 11, in another 
strong showing of leadership, bipartisanship, and sense of purpose when 
we gave this President the tools he needed to fight terrorism and 
punish those responsible for the attacks on our country, and began our 
financial commitment to rebuild those areas devastated by terrorism.
  Today, we need to come together yet again, this time for America's 
workers; and the leadership, bipartisanship and sense of purpose we 
have shown the people of this great country must be evident again.
  Cutbacks, layoffs, plummeting consumer confidence. These are some of 
the key factors contributing to our current economic situation. Just as 
we fortified our Nation's military in response to the attacks on our 
shores, we have the opportunity to fortify this Nation's economy 
against the attack on it by keeping jobs, by creating jobs, and by 
giving needed help to displaced workers.
  Mr. Speaker, as my colleagues might be aware, we have an hour on this 
rule and a 2-hour debate on the economic stimulus bill yet before us 
tonight.
  Make no mistake. This economic stimulus is critical to the workers 
and working families of America.
  President Bush warned us this past weekend that without an economic 
stimulus package, we stand to lose as many as 300,000 American jobs; 
and no one knows of the current job struggle like my constituents and 
fellow New Yorkers across my great State. In New York City alone, some 
79,000 workers lost their jobs in the month of October. The ripple 
effect, where an estimated 15 percent of all State revenues are 
generated in Lower Manhattan, is, indeed, being felt across our State 
and our Nation. In fact, between September and October, 62,000 workers 
across New York became unemployed.
  According to the New York State Labor Department, the Buffalo-Niagara 
region where I hail from lost 2,900 jobs over the last year. This is 
the longest decline in the local job market in 8 years.
  The fact is that jobs just do not create themselves, and we in this 
Congress have both the ability and the responsibility to help create 
those jobs. This bill recognizes that we cannot create employees if we 
do not work with employers to create jobs.
  As Franklin Delano Roosevelt once said, ``I believe, I have always 
believed, and I will always believe in private enterprise as the 
backbone of economic well-being in America.''

                              {time}  2315

  Through new incentives to compete, grow, and expand, the bipartisan, 
bicameral Economic Security and Worker Protection Act of 2001 will help 
business rebuild and create jobs for the American people. Workers want 
and they deserve a paycheck, not an unemployment check.
  Of course, this stimulus package recognizes that job creation is a 
long-term project, and that assisting those out of work requires 
immediate short-term solutions. For those who have lost their jobs, an 
additional 13 weeks of unemployment benefits will be provided, 
retroactive to March, 2001.
  Part-time workers will be aided by $9 billion in surplus Federal 
unemployment funds transferred to States in order to help with health 
care or employment services.
  Equally important to our work force is the availability and 
affordability of adequate health care. With the refundable health care 
tax credit provided in this legislation, no worker eligible for 
unemployment insurance will be left without the means to obtain quality 
health care protection.
  So when my colleagues on the other side of the aisle and in the other 
Chamber wanted only COBRA-eligible workers to get a tax credit, leaving 
45 percent of laid-off workers in small- and medium-sized businesses 
and those who never had job-based health care, let us not forget, not 
for a minute, who some of those workers are.
  What about those who owned or worked in the delis or dry cleaners, 
those who delivered goods and cleaned offices in lower Manhattan? 
Should they have been excluded from being able to have affordable 
health care, as many would under the plan advanced by the Democratic 
leadership in the other body?
  The bipartisan compromise plan, on the other hand, provides a 
refundable 60 percent tax credit for health insurance premiums paid by 
displaced workers. Those workers who had prior health insurance 
coverage will have the right to guaranteed coverage. Additionally, the 
bill provides for an extension of the Archer Medical Savings Accounts, 
allowing families and individuals to be in charge of their own health 
care dollars.
  Mr. Speaker, as we prepare to wind down the first session of this 
107th Congress, we can look back on a record of great accomplishment 
for the American people. We cut taxes for working families, we enacted 
sweeping education reforms that provide the blueprint and resources to 
ensure that no child is left behind, and we came together to lead a 
global war on terrorism, a war that we and freedom-loving people 
everywhere are winning.
  Our action tonight sends a strong message that this House is working 
to retain jobs, to create jobs, and to protect displaced workers in 
their time of need.
  Mr. Speaker, let us finish this year as it began, in a strong 
bipartisan effort that will protect American workers and create 
American jobs. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this rule and 
the underlying legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to make several basic points to my 
colleagues in the discussion on this rule.
  First is the question of bipartisanship. The Democrats in good faith 
entered into negotiations with Republicans to try and work out a 
stimulus package. Republicans broke off those negotiations and 
commenced an attack on the majority leader in the Senate. That was 
their response to bipartisanship.
  Instead of permitting Democrats to bring a substitute up tonight, 
which perhaps might attract some bipartisan votes and be a real 
bipartisan solution, they crafted a closed rule. That was their 
response to bipartisanship.
  Mr. Speaker, one of the previous speakers earlier this evening 
mentioned the visit by the President of the United States to the 
Democratic Caucus today. The President came to the Caucus and thanked 
us for our support in the war on terrorism. The President did not 
mention the economic stimulus package, and we were advised in advance 
of his visit that he would not take any questions about the economic 
stimulus package.
  Now, we all have a great deal of respect for the office of the 
Presidency, but this was not an act of bipartisanship this morning.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill will cost a whopping $250 billion over the 
next 5 years. This bill has no offsets for these costs, so the entire 
amount will be added to the deficits the director of OMB has predicted 
for fiscal years 2002, 2003, and 2004. That means, plain and simple, we 
are in the Social Security trust fund, we will not be paying down the 
debt, and our fiscal picture grows bleak once again.
  The substitute that we sought to offer and that we were denied by 
this rule would have paid for the cost of the Democratic package and 
would not have contributed to further deficits in this country.
  Mr. Speaker, one of the key differences between the Democratic 
alternative, which we will not be permitted to vote on, and the package 
before us deals with health care.
  Let me be very clear, Mr. Speaker: The core of the Republican health 
care provision in this bill is a hollow promise and a cruel hoax. On 
page 100 of the bill, page 100 of the bill, there is a short section, 
section 757(a), that instructs the administration to establish some

[[Page 27467]]

sort of program sometime in the future, which is supposed to provide 
the unemployed with vouchers for health care.
  Republicans set no deadline for developing this new program, and they 
provide no specifications for how it might work. It is little more than 
a vague promise. Democrats would take an existing program, the COBRA 
program, and use that to immediately provide health care for unemployed 
workers.
  I know Members sometimes do not have the opportunity to read 
legislation that is produced hastily and presented to the floor 
hastily, as the Republicans are presenting this bill, so I would like 
to read the section that I just mentioned, this Republican alternative 
to the existing program of COBRA:
  ``Advanced payments of displaced worker health insurance credit. 
General rule. The Secretary shall establish a program for making 
payments on behalf of eligible individuals to providers of health 
insurance for such individuals. `Eligible individual.' For purpose of 
this section, the term `eligible individual' means any individual for 
whom a qualified health insurance credit eligibility certificate is in 
effect. Qualified health insurance credit eligibility certificate. For 
purposes of this section, a qualified health insurance credit 
eligibility certificate is a statement certified by a State agency or 
by any other entity designated by the Secretary which certifies that 
the individual was unemployed within the meaning of section 6429 as of 
the first day of the month, and provides such other information as the 
Secretary may require for purposes of this section.''
  When asked when this section would be implemented by the Secretary of 
the Treasury, the chairman of the Committee, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Thomas) told the Committee on Rules ``sometime this 
spring,'' he hopes.
  Mr. Speaker, until this promise is somehow fulfilled, laid-off 
workers are practically on their own if they want health insurance. 
That is because, Mr. Speaker, Republicans offer nothing more than a 
refundable tax credit for every American who is unemployed today, and 
for every American who loses his job when this Rube Goldberg scheme 
that I just read has been designed, developed, and put in place.
  In other words, if you lose your job, the Republican bill requires 
you to scrape together several thousand dollars to pay for health 
insurance bills right now, at the same time you are scrambling to pay 
for rent and buy groceries, and according to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Thomas), to file for a government voucher to offset 
part of the cost, which may be granted sometime in the future when the 
program is designed.
  Mr. Speaker, we offer a very simple program: We take the existing 
COBRA program that was passed many years ago by this Congress, and it 
provides health insurance for unemployed workers, and extend that to 
workers who have been laid off recently, and provide 75 percent of that 
to be paid for by the government now, not at some future date when this 
program may be set up by the Secretary.
  Mr. Speaker, Americans who lose their jobs do not need refundable tax 
credits, vouchers in the future; they need direct assistance right now 
to pay their health insurance premiums, and they need guaranteed access 
to affordable health insurance policies.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill ignores the fact Democrats in the House and 
Senate, including the Senate majority leader, have made good-faith 
efforts and major concessions in an attempt to reach accommodation on 
an economic stimulus package that is good for the country and good for 
American workers.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill, this rule, denies the minority the 
opportunity to offer its own substitute, and I can tell the Members why 
the majority denies the minority that opportunity: They are afraid we 
might pass it, and they are afraid then the Senate might actually take 
something up which is truly bipartisan and could be passed before we go 
home.
  What they have done is to design a scheme to present a bill that they 
know the Senate will not consider. This is a cynical approach on the 
part of the majority. First they break off bipartisan talks, and then 
they try and blame us for the fact that they present a partisan bill 
without an alternative that they know will not be considered by the 
other body.
  The American public deserves better, Mr. Speaker. Defeat this rule, 
go back to the Committee on Rules, which we could very easily do, we 
are going to be here all night anyway, and report out a rule that gives 
the Democrats the option of offering an alternative on the floor which 
could attract, I believe, Republican votes which could be passed 
tonight and which the Senate could take up tomorrow, rather than 
passing a bill that is going nowhere.
  The majority knows this, and the majority is treating the American 
public with the back of their hand.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the first thing when we listen to my colleague is, let 
us make no mistake about it, the Committee on Rules has allowed as the 
tradition of the Republican majority long before I got here, beginning 
in its majority in 1995, they made a vow then, a commitment then, that 
it carries out each and every time: A motion to recommit by the 
minority, something that in the 40 years that the Republicans were in 
the minority, they did not have that opportunity to see.
  When we talk about the debate, which I hope, in the 2-hour debate 
that the Committee on Rules afforded the Committee on Ways and Means 
chairman and the ranking minority member to air out these important 
details, that we will not lose sight, as the ranking member has talked 
about some of the deficiencies he saw, that first and foremost, the 
Democratic plan involves a tax increase. That is how they want to pay 
for it, a tax increase.

                              {time}  2330

  Second, when my colleague talks about the plan that is before us, 
when my State has 15 percent of its revenues that were generated in the 
area, in the 15 blocks around the World Trade Center, how can anyone 
say repairing our economy in the wake of September 11 is not part of 
the war on terrorism?
  Finally, when the ranking member talked about some of the health 
care, the view of the Democratic plan is if you are COBRA eligible, we 
are going to take care of you. Except they have lost sight of the 45 
percent of the other American workers across this country, across my 
State, across the City of New York that do not have COBRA eligibility 
and do not have COBRA option.
  The Thomas bill addresses the opportunities of those 45 percent of 
the displaced workers that need the type of help that this legislation 
has.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. 
Ganske).
  Mr. GANSKE. Mr. Speaker, the economy is sick. Unemployment is going 
up. The economy does need a shot in the arm. This bill contains 
provisions to help the unemployed with health care coverage, provisions 
to encourage business investment and deductions for capital losses. I 
rise in support of the rule and in support of the underlying bill.
  This bill will cut the current 27 percent rate to 25 percent. It will 
provide tax incentives to businesses for investments and give low 
income workers a one-time $300 per person tax rebate. It provides $33 
billion in assistance to unemployed workers next year up from $13 
billion in the original House bill. It does not include the full repeal 
of the corporate AMT.
  The toughest issue to reach compromise on, as you can already see 
from the debate, is how to provide health insurance coverage to people 
who lost their jobs. This bill gives laid-off workers a tax credit they 
can use to buy health care coverage from insurers. This is a more 
comprehensive approach than simply providing subsidies through existing 
health plans. I think this bill will help a larger universe of 
unemployed workers, particularly workers for small businesses.

[[Page 27468]]

  This stimulus bill will also help with rebuilding New York. It will 
help the September 11 victims' families. Furthermore, it provides up to 
13 weeks of extended benefits for those who became unemployed after 
March 2001.
  I call on my colleagues to support this bill and I hope that the 
Senate takes this up before they go home for Christmas.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Coming from the State with the highest unemployment rate in the 
United States, I speak with a sense of urgency and all too much 
familiarity with the need to stimulate the economy and employment. But 
the corporations that have laid off thousands of Oregonians and 
millions of others across the United States, they do not lack cash in 
their coffers. Some have record amounts of cash on hand, according to 
the Wall Street Journal. There is no demand for their product.
  Now, the Republicans would shovel more cash into their treasuries 
that are already overflowing. Every problem should be solved by a tax 
cut on their side of the aisle. Surplus? Tax cuts. Terrorist attacks? 
Tax cuts. Deficits? Tax cuts. Recession with a lack of demand? Tax 
cuts.
  It will not solve this problem. The Democratic proposal, which will 
not be allowed a fair vote tonight as a true alternative, would put 
people back to work, would stimulate demand and would, in the interim, 
help people with unemployment and health care benefits.
  The Republicans say it is about jobs. But if you read the bill, you 
have got to wonder whose jobs where. Because billions of dollars, 
billions, would flow overseas for overseas tax shelters for interest 
income overseas. Whose jobs will that support here? No worker that I 
know in the United States will benefit from those loopholes. But they 
will pay for it out of their Social Security because that is what 
finances these tax cuts.
  $250 billion, that is what this bill costs. And it is not going to be 
paid for by Santa Claus. It will be paid for by that huge sucking 
sound, one massive withdrawal of the working people's retirement, 
Social Security trust fund shifted all at once to the wealthiest and 
largest corporations in this country.
  Silk stockings stuffed with cash for the patrons of the party on that 
side of the aisle. And for the working people of America, not even a 
lump of coal in their worn stocking because they will cut the LIHEAP 
program too. There will not even be energy assistance.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I just need to put on the record, I have heard some of 
my Democratic colleagues run around with a figure of $250 billion. I 
just want to make clear that as we see this cost now, it is far less 
than under $150 billion.
  Also, as I listened to my colleagues who preceded me, the export jobs 
depend on this type of legislation. Many U.S. manufacturers have 
financing arms to fund overseas sales of its products as do other 
companies. Caterpillar, for example, has 16,500 export-related jobs to 
suppliers that employ another 33,000.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes and 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kleczka).
  Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, if I were a Republican, I would not want to 
get up and talk on this rule either. It seems only the Committee on 
Rules representatives, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds) has 
the guts to do that.
  But do we know what is void in this debate today? And I cannot recall 
in a previous hour and I cannot recall the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Reynolds) saying it in this rule debate, that the House has already 
passed a stimulus bill. We passed one 2 weeks ago. But it seems no one 
wants to talk about that because that is the bill that gave $1.4 
billion to IBM, $1 billion to Ford, $850 million to GM. That is what 
was in that give-away.
  So why do not we have a compromise here today? Because the Senate 
looked at that and said not over their lives. That was dead on arrival. 
All right.
  So there has been talks going on over the last couple weeks. And I 
know why I am a Democrat and now I know what the Republicans are all 
about. Do you know why we do not have a compromise with us today? Even 
though the other body was going to swallow some of the tax cuts, the 
main reason is the Republicans did not want to do anything of any 
meaningful value to the unemployed in this country, and to those losing 
health care.
  My colleagues smile. The bill says $9 billion for health care for 
unemployment. That goes to the States. There is no guarantee they are 
going to extend unemployment 13 weeks. They can use those dollars in 
this bill to cover their current costs, and as far as the health care 
provision, we use two existing programs to provide meaningful health 
care coverage to those losing that coverage, but the Republicans are on 
a different program, and this is what really killed any compromise.
  Their long-term goal is to destroy the employer-based health care 
system in the country. When we get to the bill, I will bring out some 
charts that will prove that to be their agenda. That is why the Senate 
said no compromise.
  What their bill does is start us on the path of insurance credits. We 
are going to give them an insurance credit, and we go through the 
private market and find a policy, a poor family with no insurance and 
small income cannot afford a credit, be it 60 percent or whatever, so 
they are still going to go without.
  That is what this debate is all about. It is not stimulus. We passed 
a $1.35 trillion bill in June. There is more tax cuts in the pipeline 
than brains in this House. This is all about doing damage to the health 
care system of the country.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Just as we fortified our Nation's military in response to the attack 
of the response of our shores, we have the opportunity tonight to 
fortify this Nation's economy against the attack on it, keeping jobs by 
creating jobs and giving needed help to displaced workers.
  Make no mistake about it, this economic stimulus is critical to 
workers and worker families in America. President Bush warned us this 
past weekend that without an economic stimulus package, we stand to 
lose as many as 300,000 American jobs. The Republicans mean to me and 
the agenda we put forth on this Thomas bill as it is debated over the 
next couple of hours is creating jobs and protecting workers.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Stenholm).
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the rule. I 
rise in even stronger opposition to the basic bill.
  I want to commend my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who 
voted against the previous Martial law, making it true bipartisan 
opposition. There is an old Blue Dog adage that says, ``Select 
carefully your words today for tomorrow you may eat them.''
  Mr. Speaker, when the House debated the Economic Growth and Tax 
Relief Reconciliation Act, the bill enacting the $1.35 trillion tax 
cut, I came to this well to warn that this budget bets the ranch that 
the surpluses that everybody talks about are going to be there. If they 
are not, we are going to have a difficult time governing in this body 
in a bipartisan way.
  In response to those who dismissed my warnings, I said, I hope I am 
wrong, as I hope I am wrong tonight, and if I am wrong, I hope I will 
be able to eat the crow you dish out to me a year from now if I am 
wrong, but if I am right, get your knives and forks out.
  Well, Mr. Speaker, I am going to be eating turkey on Christmas day, 
and for the sake of my colleagues who argued that we could afford to 
enact the tax cut and still do everything else they promised, I hope 
they find some crow that tastes like turkey.
  We were told the President's tax cut would provide stimulus to 
prevent this

[[Page 27469]]

country from going into recession. Today, we are being told the $1.35 
trillion was not enough; we need another $150 billion in tax cuts plus 
another $120 billion in spending.
  To those who stand up tonight and say if we do not pass this bill we 
will fail to do anything to stimulate the economy, I have to ask was 
not that what the tax cut was supposed to do we passed this spring?
  When Congress first began discussing options for providing economic 
stimulus, the bipartisan leader of the Committee on the Budget in this 
body, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) and the gentleman from South 
Carolina (Mr. Spratt) agreed on a couple of basic principles for a 
responsible, effective stimulus package; that the package be temporary 
in nature, focused on economic stimulus and paid for over the long term 
so we did not worsen the long-term fiscal situation.
  The legislation before us tonight completely ignores these common 
sense principles and they know it. The Blue Dogs made a simple 
proposition to the leaders of this House, take what our leaders of the 
Committee on the Budget recommended that we do, make it temporary, pay 
for it. The leadership said thanks but no thanks, we do not want any 
part of that.
  Okay. We understand. I understand, I am in the minority, you win. You 
have won on issue after issue after issue. You are going to win again 
tonight, but I remind my colleagues again, next February and March when 
you must come to this floor and ask that the debt ceiling be increased 
to $6.7 trillion, I hope the enthusiasm will be there to borrow that 
money, borrow it on the future of our grandchildren because that is 
what you are doing.
  Why they refuse to pay for this particular package tonight defies my 
understanding. It would be so simple, so simple, Mr. Speaker, I see Mr. 
Speaker in the House audience tonight, so simple if we just agreed to 
pay for it, paygo. What happened to the fiscally responsible 
proposition of paygo?
  Mr. Speaker, when the House debated the ``Economic Growth and Tax 
Relief Reconciliation Act'', the bill implementing the $1.35 trillion 
tax cut, I came to the House floor to warn ``this budget bets the ranch 
that surpluses that everybody talks about are going to be there. If 
they are not, we are going to have a difficult time governing in this 
body in a bipartisan way.''
  In response to those who dismissed my warnings, I said ``I hope I am 
wrong. I hope I will be able to eat the crow you will dish out to me in 
a year from now, if I am wrong. But if I am right, get your knives and 
forks out.''
  Well, Mr. Speaker, I will be eating turkey on Christmas day. For the 
sake of my colleagues who argued that we could afford to enact the tax 
cut and still do everything else you promised, I hope you can find some 
crow that tastes like turkey.
  And we were told that the President's tax cut would provide stimulus 
to prevent this country from going into a recession. Today we are being 
told that the $1.35 trillion tax cut the President signed into law 
wasn't enough to stimulate the economy.
  Now the same folks who told us that everything would be wonderful if 
we enacted the President's tax cut proposal are telling us that we can 
solve all of our problems if we just enact another $150 billion in tax 
cuts.
  To those who stand up and say that if we don't pass this bill, we 
will have failed to do anything to stimulate the economy, I have to 
ask: Wasn't that what the tax cut we passed this spring was supposed to 
do.
  When Congress first began discussing options for providing economic 
stimulus, the bipartisan leaders of the Budget Committees agreed on a 
couple of basic principles for a responsible, effective stimulus 
package--that the package be temporary in nature, focused on economic 
stimulus, and paid for over the long term so that we did not worsen the 
long-term fiscal situation.The legislation before us today completely 
ignores these common sense principles.
  The Blue Dogs made the simple suggestion that the costs of providing 
economic stimulus in the short term be offset by postponing some of the 
tax cuts for upper income individuals that are scheduled to take effect 
several years into the future. That would allow us to provide stimulus 
in the short term without digging us deeper into debt and undermining 
the fiscal discipline that is essential to the long-term health of our 
economy. But the majority told us that they would not even consider 
this common-sense proposal.
  The proposal before us is purported to be a centrist deal because it 
combines the tax cuts advocated by Republicans with much of the 
spending proposed by Democrats. While that may be described by some as 
bipartisanship and centrist policies, it does not represent responsible 
legislating.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  What I do know is that if this legislation is passed tonight, it is 
not going to be that Tom Reynolds wins. The American people and those 
displaced workers are going to win because we are going to get them 
some help immediately if we can get the other body to take some action 
before we break now.
  I want to tell my colleagues this, whether you are a Blue Dog or you 
are a liberal or a Republican or a Democrat, you vote on the motion to 
recommit, which is a Democratic plan, you voted for tax increases, make 
no mistake about it.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from South 
Carolina (Mr. Spratt), the ranking member on the Committee on the 
Budget.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) 
for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, the country is in revision, businesses are failing, 
people are hurting, losing their jobs by the thousands, and what do we 
have as a solution? Here in the middle of the night, hours before we 
adjourn, we are presented with a bill that half of us have never seen, 
and what we have seen of it we do not like.
  This is called an economic stimulus bill, but it could easily be 
called round two of tax reduction because it is full of tax cuts that 
will have a doubtful impact on the economy as a whole, but will have a 
clear impact on the budget. It will bring the surplus down by $272 
billion. That is the latest estimate just given to us by the Joint 
Committee on Taxation.
  It did not have to be this way, Mr. Speaker. Two months ago, the 
principals on the Committee on the Budget, the Committee on Financial 
Services, the Committee on Ways and Means met to settle on policies to 
stimulate this economy. We settled instead for a statement of 
principles. We agreed that stimulus was needed but we thought that it 
should be temporary, short-lived to last through the recession but no 
longer. Why? We wanted to keep a cyclical downswing from becoming a 
structural deficit. We wanted the budget to recover as the economy 
recovered.
  The stimulus bill that was first reported by the Committee on Ways 
and Means forsook all of these principles. It proposed more permanent 
tax cuts, lasting a long time after the recession ends.

                              {time}  2345

  Here are the stimulus principles that we proposed. Bipartisan, 
bicameral principles. We said, look, if there is any lesson to be 
learned from the last 10 years, it is that long-term fiscal discipline 
is essential to sustain economic growth. We saw it for 8 straight 
years. The bottom line of the budget got better, and we had 120 
consecutive months of economic growth. We said we wanted to continue 
that policy.
  Secondly, we said, have a stimulus policy, surely, but make them last 
no longer than 1 year.
  Thirdly, we said make them broad based, not industry specific. 
Reading this bill we see plenty of industry specific stuff in it.
  Fourthly, we said 1 percent of GDP should do the job, about $100 
billion, and take into consideration, we said, that we have spent $40 
billion since August.
  Finally, we said to uphold the policy of repaying the greatest amount 
of national debt feasible between 2002 and 2011, out-year offsets 
should make up over time for the cost of near-term economic stimulus. 
Obviously, we do not want to offset the cost of this bill in this bill 
today, but we can build into this bill a provision that will regenerate 
the revenues we will lose from it in the future, and we can absolve the 
bottom line.
  Now, why does all this matter? Why does all this matter? Because a 
lot of

[[Page 27470]]

us who have been here for a long time have this sinking feeling we are 
about to slip back into the old practice of borrow and spend. Why does 
it matter? Because of the lesson we have learned for the past 10 years.
  This year we started with the best fiscal condition the country has 
ever enjoyed, a surplus projected to be $5.6 trillion just last 
January. Today, that surplus stands at $2.6 trillion and is falling 
fast. The economy is taking its toll, but 55 percent of the decline in 
the surplus was due to the tax cuts we passed last June.
  Now, this $2.6 trillion, $2.3 trillion range in which the surplus now 
lies is all together Social Security and Medicare surplus. There is no 
general fund surplus at all. And this is before farm bill, before 
defense supplemental, before homeland security, and before assessing 
the $272 billion cost of this bill. Why are we worried about this bill? 
Because it is going to wipe out the surplus. It will dash our hopes 
which we held together of taking the Social Security surplus, saving 
the surplus, and buying off the national debt so that we prepare 
ourselves for the retirement of the baby boomers.
  This bill, Mr. Speaker, has doubtful effects on the economy, but it 
has a clear impact on the budget, and it is a deleterious impact. It is 
something we do not need to do. There is another way of doing it. There 
is a principled way of doing it. We should take that path and not take 
the path this bill proposes.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I inquire of the time remaining on both 
sides.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Frost) has 9\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Reynolds) has 16 minutes remaining.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Woolsey).
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I view this stimulus package through the 
eyes of a welfare mother. I can do that, because 30 years ago I was a 
welfare mom. And even though I was working, I needed aid for dependent 
children to get the health care and the child care and the food stamps 
I needed for my three young children.
  When Congress passed the welfare reform bill, I warned that getting 
women off the welfare rolls and into work would not be good enough if 
and when we had a downturn in our economy. Well, the downturn is here; 
and these women are hit with a triple whammy: no job, no health care, 
no unemployment insurance.
  Our top priority in stimulating this economy must be putting money in 
the hands of people who need it and will use it. Those are our American 
families. The only acceptable economic stimulus package is one that 
takes care of the Nation's families, not our billionaires. We must 
stimulate the economy by providing for our children, giving money to 
families, and providing workers unemployment insurance and health 
coverage.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Bentsen).
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Speaker, once again our Republican colleagues have 
decided to choose politics over policy. And tonight, as we head into 
the next morning, we are going to pass a bill that will never pass the 
other body. And, quite frankly, if it were to pass, I do not think it 
would have much effect on the general economy.
  In fact, we were asked to pass a $1.3 trillion tax bill earlier this 
year that was supposed to stimulate the economy at that point in time, 
when it was apparent that we were heading into a recession, and all we 
saw that happened was that the recession got deeper and the deficit 
appeared and the surplus went away.
  Our colleague from New York says this bill is only going to cost $150 
billion, not $270 billion. But, of course, he is forgetting about the 
fact we are going to have to borrow another $115 billion of debt when 
we should have been paying down the national debt.
  Now, if we really wanted to have a stimulus bill that would have some 
economic effect, and I am glad to see our Republican friends have all 
become Keynesians, I thought they were monitorists, but now they are 
Keynesians this week, what we would do is extend the unemployment 
benefits for 26 weeks, because we know we are going to have a longer 
recession than what was projected; and we would do the COBRA extension, 
like has been discussed. And if the Republicans are really serious 
about trying to transform health care and they care about the 45 
percent who are not in COBRA, well maybe we could do that also. But 
they do not care about the 55 percent who are in COBRA.
  And they want to come up with a plan that the Treasury Department, 
which is now apparently taking over health care in this country, has 
not even developed yet. Maybe sometime this spring we will have a 
program. Maybe if someone has been unemployed for 26 weeks, and as my 
colleague from Texas says, they are able to scrape together enough to 
pay the full premium, at the end of the year, in April of 2003, they 
will get a tax credit back. It is not going to work.
  So if we want to do something to help the people that are unemployed, 
and I want to, and I think all of us do, let us pass a basic bill that 
extends unemployment, that extends COBRA, and helps the people who have 
been hurt by this recession.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Kucinich).
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, this bill could have been a lifeline for 
working families suffering as a result of the economic decline. This 
bill could have increased weekly payments to unemployed individuals and 
extended benefits to 52 weeks. This bill could have subsidized COBRA 
health insurance for those left uninsured as a result of layoff. This 
bill could have boosted its spending on critical security and 
infrastructure programs in order to jump-start the economy. This bill 
could have been a stimulus package. Instead, it is an expensive 
giveaway to those who need it least: a payback to Fortune 500 
companies, who will guarantee further jobs will be cut.
  Our plan supplemented weekly benefits by no less than $65. Our plan 
guaranteed a full year of benefits to any individual eligible for 
unemployment benefits under State law. Our plan expanded eligibility to 
include part-time and other low-wage workers. This is critical, as 
currently less than 40 percent of unemployed Americans receive 
benefits.
  Dickens' ``Christmas Carol'' had Scrooge lighten up, give Cratchet a 
raise, and bring his son Tiny Tim some cheer. This bill before us would 
have Scrooge firing Cratchet, canceling his pension, and beating Tiny 
Tim with his own crutch.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Utah 
(Mr. Matheson).
  Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my opposition to 
this bill.
  This bill fails to meet all the criteria we ought to be looking for 
to provide an appropriate economic stimulus. It should have a rapid and 
temporary impact, it should increase employment and investment, it 
should provide adequate assistance for those who are vulnerable to an 
economic downturn, and it should be paid for in the long term to 
prevent future deficits.
  When I was elected to Congress, I made a promise to my constituents 
to be an independent voice and to make fiscally responsible decisions. 
Just as Utah families have to make responsible decisions to maintain 
their households and keep their finances in order, so must the Federal 
Government.
  Early this year, I did support the tax cut. This bill had a number of 
important provisions for Utah families, and it was enacted at a time 
when we did have unprecedented government surpluses. But today we are 
facing deficits, increased debt, and we are fighting a war. Winning the 
war on terrorism and taking care of our homeland defense will require 
significant resources. Ensuring we have adequate resources to fund 
these priorities is a

[[Page 27471]]

smart investment, as it will have the long-term benefit of ensuring 
safety and protection of American lives, homes and businesses.
  We should reject this bill and work to come up with a targeted, 
temporary stimulus proposal that is paid for in the long term so we do 
not increase our national debt.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Sanchez).
  Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Speaker, when Congress gave billions of dollars to 
corporate titans after the events of September 11 and the slowdown in 
the economy, we promised that we would take care of the workers. 
Unfortunately, Congress has not kept its promise.
  During the last 2 months, over 1 million Americans have been added to 
the unemployment rolls. But this bill provides only modest benefits, 
maybe, to them. Many of the people I represent are employed in jobs 
directly related to the tourism industry. These are the jobs that have 
been hit the hardest, and these are the workers that need the most 
help. I read yesterday in my local newspaper that analysts are 
predicting that Disneyland, the largest employer in my district, may 
not rebound for many years to come.
  This bill is not what small businesses want or unemployed workers 
need. They need temporary business and individual cuts targeted at 
really stimulating this economy. This is about small businesses closing 
their doors and people being laid off. This is about people saying I 
cannot afford rent and health care and food.
  We provided relief for the airlines; we provided relief for the 
insurance agencies. Let us do this. Let us do it the right way.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I would ask how much time we have remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas has 3\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Turner).
  Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, time after time, the Members of this House 
have pledged by votes cast on this floor to protect Social Security. We 
know that until just a few months ago we were projecting surpluses as 
far the eye could see. And we pledged, when we passed the June tax cut, 
to protect Social Security. Then came the recession, then came the war, 
and the projected surpluses have turned into projected deficits for 
years into the future.
  Times have changed, but our principles should not change. Is it right 
to pledge the lockbox for Social Security one day and to abandon it the 
next? What does the abandonment of that pledge say to our senior 
citizens and to our children who will be left with a bankrupt Social 
Security trust fund?
  Both sides of this aisle agree we need to have a stimulus package to 
help the jobless workers with unemployment and health insurance. Both 
sides agree that we must stimulate business investments.

                              {time}  2400

  But it is only the Democratic proposal that protects Social Security, 
only the Democratic proposal refuses to increase the national debt. In 
contrast, the Republican proposal increases the national debt by $250 
billion. The Democratic proposal is paid for, not by increasing taxes 
on any individual or business, but by adjusting the effective tax rates 
for future yet to be realized and implemented tax cuts.
  Under the Democratic proposal, the total tax cuts passed by this 
Congress last June will remain exactly the same. If the gentleman from 
New York calls the Democratic bill a tax cut, the gentleman has a 
different calculator than I do. Fiscal responsibility demands that not 
only must we protect and preserve the current economic situation and 
protect against the slowdown, but we must protect the economy of the 
future. Recommit this bill, and let us pay for it.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, first of all, the Republican Party in this Congress 
extended the life of Social Security; and the same leadership will 
ensure that we preserve and strengthen it. I share with my colleague 
who is under some fallacy that there is not a tax increase on the 
Democratic plan. On page 2 at the bottom, a revenue offset freezing the 
top rate 38.6.
  Mr. Speaker, we passed law of the land that changed that tax rate. If 
we are going to restore higher taxes, it is a vote to increase taxes. 
Make no mistake about it.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Inslee).
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, in the spirit of the season, I must admit 
that under the Republican controlled House, it is indeed a wonderful 
life. Because when the Republicans control the House, whenever the 
voting bell rings, a corporate tax lobbyist gets his wings. Merry 
Christmas, Enron. Merry Christmas, General Electric. To my friends 
across the aisle and their corporate tax lobbyist friends, God bless 
everyone, because when the American people find out that Social 
Security was raided to take care of Republican friends, the American 
people will not.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, we are going to bring out that same old thing and beat 
that dog on Social Security. As I said earlier, the Republicans 
extended it, and they are going to take care of it. I also remind my 
colleagues on the lock box and both the speakers who spoke before me, 
there were three conditions set on the lock box that we said would 
cause us to have to look at the lock box. One was war; two was the 
economy; and three was natural disaster. We have seen natural disaster, 
we have seen our economy, and we have seen war as conditions, as we 
have faced those tough decisions together on a bipartisan basis 
starting the day of September 11 when this Congress came together in a 
bipartisan fashion.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I would ask if the gentleman from New York 
has any other speakers.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, after the gentleman from Texas closes, I 
will close.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, it is very clear what the situation is. The Republicans 
made a conscious decision to break off bipartisan discussions and to 
bring back to the floor a bill tonight that they know cannot pass and 
will not even be taken up in the Senate. This was an extraordinary 
mistake on the part of the Republican majority. They were playing 
chicken with the United States Senate. This is a childish game. The 
American Republican will be the losers.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, there are new incentives to compete and grow and expand 
the bipartisan, bicameral Economic Security and Worker Protection Act. 
The Act will help businesses rebuild and create jobs for the American 
people.
  So far all I have heard from the other side is a lot of rhetoric 
about what they would like to do, but we cannot get them to sit down 
and negotiate out a compromise. So what do we have? We have the 
chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means move from where his past 
position was over to adding more unemployment insurance money, adding 
more incentives to try to lure a bipartisan compromise that could be 
completed. The reality is he has moved as far as he can until the other 
body determines that they will negotiate.
  Mr. Speaker, the bottom line is that the workers deserve a paycheck, 
not an unemployment check. Of course this stimulus package recognizes 
that job creation is a long-term project, and assisting those out of 
work requires immediate short-term solutions. For those who have lost 
their jobs, an additional 13 weeks of unemployment benefits will be 
provided retroactive to

[[Page 27472]]

March 2001. Part-time workers will be aided with $9 billion in surplus 
Federal unemployment funds transferred to States in order to help with 
health care or employment services.
  Equally important to our workforce is the availability and 
affordability of adequate health care. With the refundable health care 
tax credits provided by this legislation, no worker eligible for 
unemployment insurance will be left without the means to obtain quality 
health care protection.
  Some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle and in the other 
Chamber wanted only COBRA-eligible workers to get a tax credit, leaving 
out 45 percent of laid off workers in small and medium-sized 
businesses, and those who never had job-based health care at all.
  And let us not forget, not for one minute, who some of these workers 
are. What about those who owned or worked in the delis and the dry 
cleaners or delivered goods and cleaned offices in lower Manhattan, 
should they have been excluded from being able to afford health care, 
as many would under the plan advanced by the Democratic leadership in 
the other body?
  The bipartisan compromise plan, on the other hand, provides a 
refundable 60 percent tax credit for health insurance premium paid by 
displaced workers. Those workers who had prior health care insurance 
coverage will have the right to guaranteed coverage. Additionally, the 
bill provides for an extension of the Archer Medical Savings Accounts 
allowing families and individuals to be in charge of their own health 
care dollars.
  Mr. Speaker, our action tonight sends a strong message that this 
House is working to retain jobs, create jobs, and to protect displaced 
workers in their time of need. Colleagues, let us finish this year as 
it began, in a strong bipartisan effort that will protect American 
workers and create American jobs. I strongly urge my colleagues to 
support this rule and the underlying legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The Chair would remind 
Members it is not appropriate under the rules to characterize either 
the action or inaction of the other body.
  Without objection, the previous question is ordered on the 
resolution.
  There was no objection.
  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. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 219, 
nays 198, not voting 18, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 507]

                               YEAS--219

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Armey
     Bachus
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boozman
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hart
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kerns
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller, Dan
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, Jeff
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Paul
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schaffer
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins (OK)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--198

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank
     Frost
     Gonzalez
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hill
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Phelps
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Shows
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson (CA)
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--18

     Baker
     Clement
     Cubin
     Gephardt
     Gordon
     Hall (OH)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefley
     Jones (NC)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Luther
     Meek (FL)
     Owens
     Oxley
     Stark
     Stearns
     Wexler
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  0034

  Mrs. CAPPS, Mr. RUSH and Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas changed their vote 
from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  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.

                          ____________________