[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 1]
[House]
[Pages 638-648]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




   EXPRESSING SENSE OF HOUSE THAT SCHEDULED TAX RELIEF SHOULD NOT BE 
                         SUSPENDED OR REPEALED

  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the 
concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 312) expressing the sense of the 
House of Representatives that the scheduled tax relief provided for by 
the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 passed by 
a bipartisan majority in Congress should not be suspended or repealed.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                            H. Con. Res. 312

       Whereas on June 7, 2001, President Bush signed into law the 
     Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001, 
     which provides millions of taxpayers with the largest tax 
     relief since 1981;
       Whereas all Americans who pay Federal income taxes will 
     benefit from the Act, which includes across-the-board income 
     tax reductions, reduction of the marriage penalty, 
     elimination of the death tax, tax rebate checks, doubling of 
     the per-child tax credit, increasing tax-free contributions 
     to Individual Retirement Accounts and a broad range of other 
     beneficial provisions;
       Whereas the Act was passed by a bipartisan majority in 
     Congress of 211 House Republicans, 28 House Democrats, 1 
     House Independent, 46 Senate Republicans and 12 Senate 
     Democrats, making the Act an important bipartisan 
     achievement; and
       Whereas several Members of Congress have recently called 
     for repealing or delaying tax relief provisions of the 
     Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001: 
     Now, therefore, be it
       Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 
     concurring), That it is the sense of the House of 
     Representatives that--
       (1) the scheduled tax relief provided for by the Economic 
     Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001, passed by a 
     bipartisan majority in Congress, should not be suspended or 
     repealed;
       (2) suspending, repealing or delaying provisions of the 
     Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 is 
     a tax increase;
       (3) increasing taxes in the midst of a recession would not 
     be helpful to the Nation's economy or American workers; and
       (4) instead of increasing taxes, Congress should be working 
     with the President to promote long-term economic growth 
     through a fair tax code that puts the least possible burden 
     on taxpayers.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Weller) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) each 
will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller).
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, today our House of Representatives has the opportunity 
to speak very clearly on whether or not we should continue to lower 
taxes for American workers or to raise taxes on American workers.
  The war on terrorism, homeland security, and economic recession has 
caused a fiscal deficit in our budget. Some are now calling for repeal 
of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act, something 
commonly know as the Bush tax cut, and they argue that higher taxes 
will give Washington more money to spend here in Washington. So today 
before us we have a choice: Higher taxes or getting the economy moving 
again.

[[Page 639]]

  Let us remember at the beginning of last year: When President Bush 
became President, he inherited a weakening economy. The President 
proposed taking 20 percent of the budget surplus resulting from our 
Congress' fiscal responsibility and giving it back to the American 
worker so they could spend it at home for their own families.
  We passed the President's tax cut in June, it was signed into law, 
and the President succeeded in lowering rates for small business and 
entrepreneurs, the engines of economic growth. We wiped out the 
marriage tax penalty, we wiped out the death tax, we increased 
opportunities for retirement savings, and we doubled the child tax 
credit. And our tax cut was working. Economists were telling us in late 
August and by Labor Day that the economy was beginning to recover.
  Then the tragedy of September 11 occurred, a terrorist attack that 
cost thousands of Americans their lives and caused a psychological blow 
to the confidence of business investors as well as consumers. Today we 
have seen as a result of that terrorist attack on our economy that over 
1 million Americans have lost their jobs.
  Mr. Speaker, today we are at war against terrorism, we are building 
our homeland security, and we are in an economic recession. We must get 
this economy moving again. We must create jobs for those who lack work.
  Today, no real-world economists have called for a tax increase in 
time of recession. They point out that tax increases hurt our economy 
and that tax increases take money out of the pockets of America's 
workers and consumers, making it harder for them to meet the needs of 
their families. We must keep spending under control, and true fiscal 
responsibility is keeping spending under control. Fiscal responsibility 
is not increasing taxes.
  This House has the opportunity to go on the record for higher taxes, 
or to maintain the Bush plan to lower taxes, which will be implemented 
over the rest of this decade. Repealing the Bush tax cut is a tax 
increase. Vote ``aye'' to not impose higher taxes and to keep the Bush 
tax cut in place.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I am going to be trying to find out where this 
resolution came from. I will be asking the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Weller), I will be asking the chairman of the Committee on Ways and 
Means. I sit on this committee. I am proud to be a member of this 
committee.
  Mr. Speaker, this concerns tax policy. This bill should not be coming 
out of the Committee on Rules, and it should have had a hearing and we 
should have had input in it. That has not happened, and in these 40 
minutes I am going to try to find out how this political resolution 
reached the floor.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased and honored to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), our distinguished minority 
leader.
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to vote ``no'' on this 
resolution. I am disappointed that the majority prevented us from 
offering a bill that would protect Social Security from further raids 
on the trust fund.
  This is not a vote about taxes; it is a vote about protecting Social 
Security. It is about honoring our commitments to the American people 
who have paid their hard-earned dollars into the Social Security trust 
fund. It is about ensuring security and retirement for every citizen.
  The resolution before us has no binding effect. It is an effort to 
divert attention from Republican mismanagement of the budget. Less than 
one year after passage of the Republican tax bill, an economic plan, 
more than $4 trillion of the surplus has miraculously vanished, wiped 
out, gone, finished; and the Social Security trust fund will be 
attacked every year for the next 10 years.
  One might say, what is happening, what is going on? Both parties 
repeatedly voted to safeguard the trust funds.

                              {time}  1215

  We voted for lockboxes. We said that they would be inviolate, that 
they could not be picked. For years we have been promising the American 
people, the baby boomers, that the trust funds would only be used to 
strengthen Social Security and pay down the national debt. In fact, the 
Republican leadership insisted many times on bringing lockbox bills to 
the floor. Now we know that they were not serious about those bills. 
They were ploys. They were ruses. And the votes that were taken were 
not serious, and they were not honest.
  We have had an historic reversal. Instead of talking about surpluses 
for as far as the eye can see, now we are again talking about deficits 
for as far as the eye can see. Instead of shoring up Social Security 
and Medicare, we are facing a situation where the trust fund will be 
tapped for other functions of government. Instead of preparing for the 
baby boomers and their retirement, instead of adding a prescription 
drug program to Medicare, we are faced with a debate about saving 
Social Security without resources and how to dig ourselves out of the 
deficit ditch. The Republican slogan seems to be: Save Social Security 
last, not first.
  This resolution has a simple purpose. It is to hide the fact that 
Republicans are breaking their promises, going back on their 
commitments. This is an effort to change the subject. The American 
people should not and will not be fooled by this transparent ploy, and 
they should be reminded that the problem is that we are operating under 
a Republican economic policy and Republican budget priorities.
  We need to invest in people. We need to pass tax cuts that promote 
long-term economic growth and opportunity, and we need to keep our 
commitments to the baby boomers who paid their money responsibly into 
the Social Security Trust Fund. That is our challenge, and that is what 
the American people want us to do. That is what we need to do this 
year, and we should do it together, not in a partisan manner.
  Mr. Speaker, let us get about doing what we need to make the budget 
whole and to invest in the priorities that the American people want us 
to be investing in. This resolution is nonsense. Let us get about 
saving Social Security first.
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, before I yield some time here, I yield 
myself such time as I may consume to remind my good friends on the 
other side of the aisle that we are at war against terrorism, that we 
are in an economic recession, and that a ``no'' vote on this resolution 
is a vote for a tax increase during an economic recession.
  Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson), a leader in the effort to help working 
families in her home State of New Mexico.
  Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Illinois. I have revised a little bit of what I will say based on what 
we have just heard from the minority leader, because I think it shows a 
very clear contrast in what we are about in this House.
  He talks about honesty and keeping promises. I take those things very 
seriously, and I take my own integrity very seriously. There has been 
an historic reversal, as the minority leader says. That historic 
reversal is that we are in a recession and that America has been 
attacked, and we are at war.
  I believe there are two things this country must do now. We have to 
win the war on terrorism, and we have to create jobs. I think we are 
united, we are together on the first, and we are resolved we are going 
to win this war on terrorism, and we will spend what it takes to win 
it. But the worst thing we could do in a recession is to raise taxes. 
All of those little small businesses out there who are worrying about 
whether they are going to have to lay off more people because they 
cannot make the rent payment on their shop this month need the 
reassurance that we are with them, that we understand, that we are not 
going to raise their taxes.
  Most of this tax relief that is going to be phasing in is for middle-
income Americans and particularly for families. We eliminate the 
marriage penalty and, as a result, 43 million Americans are not going 
to be paying more

[[Page 640]]

just because they are married. It is about time that we started 
honoring marriage in this country and stop taxing it.
  When the President of the United States came to New Mexico in August, 
he went with me to Griegos Elementary School in the north valley of 
Albuquerque, New Mexico, and as we were going down this little lane to 
get there, there was a sheet hung on a fence and in handwritten letters 
it said, Mr. President, thank you for my new bed. It cost $300.
  Maybe $1,700 in the pocket of an American family is not a whole lot 
in Washington terms, but it is in New Mexico terms. It is a lot for a 
New Mexico family. I think we should let them keep their own money and 
give small businesses the confidence to be able to hire workers this 
next year and create jobs and not abandon them in their time of need.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Stenholm), a voice that is respected on both sides of the aisle.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, this is an amazing debate. In listening to 
the gentlewoman from New Mexico talking about the recession, surely she 
does not mean that the economic game plan that was voted in last year 
is going to last us in a recession until 2004 or 2005. That is when the 
next part of the tax cuts that everybody is talking about is going to 
kick in. I believe we are going to be out of the recession before then, 
but obviously, the gentlewoman believes that we are not.
  What we are talking about today is, are we going to borrow $1.6 
trillion of Social Security Trust Funds in order to finance an economic 
game plan that this side still thinks is a good one. I do not 
understand the logic there.
  I do not care how many times the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) 
stands on the floor and says we are raising taxes; no one on this side 
is raising taxes. In fact, I voted for more of a tax cut last year for 
the economy than the gentleman did. I did.
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. STENHOLM. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I seem to recall a few years ago, my friends 
on the other side of the aisle, when we talked.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The gentleman's time has 
expired.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Weller) yield 30 seconds additional to me so that we can continue?
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, we have additional speakers.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yielded to the gentleman. Will the 
gentleman give me 30 seconds so that we can continue whatever point the 
gentleman was wanting to make?
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I will yield myself some time.
  Mr. RANGEL. I cannot believe this, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I will yield myself some time.
  Mr. RANGEL. To yield to the gentleman from Texas. The gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Weller) asked the gentleman to yield for a question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's time has expired.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Stenholm) to use himself, since he was courteous enough to 
yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller), but I will give him 
30 seconds to see whether or not the gentleman would like to respond, 
to get a response to his question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) is 
recognized for an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois 
(Mr. Weller).
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I will make my question quick.
  A few years ago my friends on the other side of the aisle said when 
we wanted to slow the rate of growth and increase some funding for 
Medicare, that was called a cut. So the same definition would apply. If 
the gentleman wants to repeal the Bush tax cut, that is a tax increase.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, no one is talking 
about repealing anything that has gone into effect. No one. The 
gentleman keeps saying this is a tax increase.
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, the Bush tax cut is already law, so it is 
already in effect.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, it does not take effect until 2004. The 
logic that the gentleman from Illinois is following today, that means 
that he voted for the largest single tax increase in history in 2010 
when the bill the gentleman voted for last year expires. The gentleman 
voted for the biggest tax raise in history. That is what he did by his 
own logic. I do not understand that logic.
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus), a real leader in helping bring 
jobs back to the great State of Alabama, as some of the American 
workers have been laid off by the terrorist attacks of September 11.
  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, we made a commitment to the American people 
to give them tax relief. Let us honor that commitment. The American 
people should get the tax cuts that they have been promised. We should 
not postpone them, we should not delay them. We are all going to have 
an opportunity in a few minutes to affirm those tax cuts. The gentleman 
from Texas says no one in this body has proposed delaying them, no one 
has proposed postponing them. We will get an opportunity to vote, yes 
or no. I say the American people should get the tax relief they need.
  Now, the gentleman from New York who is rising said, tax matters are 
before the Committee on Ways and Means. They ought to have jurisdiction 
in that. They ought to have an interest in that. They ought to decide 
that.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I say that the Congress ought to decide.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Alabama yield for a 
parliamentary inquiry?
  Mr. BACHUS. No, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman does not yield.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I cannot read the chart that is there.
  Mr. BACHUS. Now, Mr. Speaker, the passage of President Bush's tax 
cut.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Alabama has the time.
  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, the passage of President Bush's tax cut was 
an historic bipartisan achievement.


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. RANGEL. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will suspend.
  Mr. WELLER. Regular order, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, do I have to get permission from the 
gentleman in the well to make a parliamentary inquiry of the Speaker, 
of the Chair?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. While that gentleman is under recognition, 
yes.
  Mr. RANGEL. I thank the Speaker. I apologize.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Alabama is recognized.
  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I hope my time will be extended.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's time will not be curtailed 
by the interruption.
  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, President Bush's historic tax cut was a 
bipartisan achievement. Only three times since World War II have we had 
an across-the-board tax cut. The first one was in 1960 under President 
Kennedy, then under President Reagan in 1980, and finally, last fall, 
under President Bush. Yes, people are talking about delaying that. 
People are talking about postponing that. This is a joint resolution. 
Hopefully, the Members will support those tax cuts we gave, and among 
them are marriage penalty relief, the elimination of the death tax, and 
across-the-board income tax cuts. We left no one out. We doubled the 
per-child tax credit.
  Hopefully, we will all stand up and be recorded, because the American 
people

[[Page 641]]

deserve to know where each and every Member of this House and this 
Senate stands. They deserve a recorded vote.
  I say this: This resolution is plain and simple. It affirms our 
support for the tax cut. It says that it should not be repealed or 
delayed. If my colleagues want to repeal them, if they want to delay 
them, if they want to raise taxes, vote against the resolution.
  The second thing, we have to revitalize our economy. Now, there has 
been a lot of talk about Social Security. Well, let me state this: The 
best way to ensure and to protect Social Security, which we all want, 
is to stimulate our economy. OMB Director Mitch Daniels said to the 
Committee on the Budget, the best way to protect the baby boomer 
generation and Social Security retirement is economic growth. We have 
to get the economy going. Couple that with Social Security system 
reforms. If we are serious about Social Security, let us reform Social 
Security. Let us get the economy growing.
  We have had lost 800,000 jobs in the last 4 months because we had not 
passed an economic stimulus plan. Now, some in Congress have tried to 
maneuver and scheme for political advantage by blaming the President's 
tax relief plan for the deficit and recession. I am glad that the 
gentleman from Texas finally acknowledged that the tax cuts had nothing 
to do with deficits. Those that say they do are not telling the truth. 
These tax supporters try to sell the myth that we must increase taxes 
just 6 months after we started giving Americans rebate checks. The ink 
on this new tax relief bill is hardly dry, and now people are talking 
about repealing it.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BACHUS. They would like to delay or postpone it.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BACHUS. I will yield on the gentleman's time.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I was just wondering if the gentleman has 
charts to pass out, because while those charts are good for television, 
we cannot read them.
  Mr. BACHUS. Well, this is from CBO, and what it says is that 87 
percent of the deficit is because of the economic conditions are 
spending, spending, only 13 percent as a result of tax relief.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, does it say where that information came 
from?
  Mr. BACHUS. From CBO, Congressional Budget Office.
  Mr. RANGEL. I see. Does the gentleman have the date on that?
  Mr. BACHUS. Yes. I will be glad to supply the gentleman with all of 
that information.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's time has expired.
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus).
  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. As I said, we have 
got to revitalize this economy. Tax cuts stimulate the economy, get the 
economy moving. They create jobs. President Bush said it best when he 
said, the bottom line is jobs, creating good jobs.

                              {time}  1230

  Baby boomers, to protect their retirement, they need to be working; 
they need to be paying into their retirement accounts, not drawing 
unemployment checks. We have got a delay over in the Senate of the 
economic stimulus package that is being obstructed. Now it has actually 
been killed. We lost 300,000 jobs this last month while the Senate 
failed to act. Now these same people who killed the economic stimulus 
package want to kill the tax cut.
  We know in Washington that if you want to kill something, you simply 
postpone it or delay it. That is Washington-talk for kill it.
  We all know that if these taxes do not go into effect that taxpayers, 
American people will be paying more out of their pay check.
  I will close simply by saying this. There will be a vote in a few 
minutes on whether we preserve the tax cuts, whether that money stays 
in the pocket of hardworking Americans or whether we bring it up here 
and spend it. We will all have a say. We will all take a position.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The Chair would admonish 
Members that they should refrain from improper references to the Senate 
such as characterizing their actions.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Tanner), a distinguished member of the Committee of Ways 
and Means.
  Mr. TANNER. Mr. Speaker, I came here and asked the people in 
Tennessee to send me here in 1988 because I knew from my business and 
personal life that this country, not my business, not me personally and 
my wife could continue to borrow money every year, which is what we 
were doing then and pile up more and more debt without jeopardizing the 
future of this country.
  Now, here we are in 2002. Everybody knows from the budget presented 
yesterday that the country has physically deteriorated in a 
breathtaking way in the last year. We do not have the money that we 
thought we were going to have, that we were told we were going to have 
last year. And now we are in a position as the budget was presented by 
the Secretary of the Treasury to committee yesterday to be in the next 
10 years never in a surplus position from an on-budget surplus number. 
That is to say, we are going to borrow money every year for the next 10 
years. It is going to cost another trillion dollars.
  Let me state why deficits matter. Deficits matter because it is money 
you owe. And when you owe money, you have got to pay interest on it. 
Right now 13 cents out of every dollar that comes here goes to pay 
interest. They say we are paying for war. We are not paying for 
anything. We are borrowing for the war. That is wrong. We ask the young 
men and women in this country in uniform to go overseas and fight for 
us. We say no price is too high for you. We will protect you, give you 
everything you need; but we will not pay for it. We will borrow it from 
our kids. They are the ones making the sacrifice. This is a 
generational mugging, that is what is going on. It is like a 
heavyweight fight except that the kids are getting mugged and are 
paying for this because we are borrowing the money to pay for war. We 
are borrowing the money to pay for tax cuts. We are not paying for 
anything, nothing for the next 10 years, and that is absolutely wrong.
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on both sides?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) has 
8\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) has 
14 minutes remaining.
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I would once again remind my colleagues on 
the other sides that today's vote is whether or not we maintain the 
Bush tax cut or increase taxes.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Kingston), an advocate of helping working families go back to work by 
getting this economy moving again.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Weller) for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to watch the liberal psyche in this 
town. When they do not like something, they do not come out and say, I 
like bigger taxes. I like bigger government. Instead they nitpick 
things. It is like getting a great novel like ``War and Peace'' and 
saying I just did not like the novel because there is a grammatical 
error on page 352. I just could not accept it. It is like not liking 
the Superbowl because New England called the wrong play in the third 
quarter. I just could not possibly support them. It is that kind of 
mad-at-the-world, sour puss, liberal approach to issues; and it is 
always the nitpicking. Just come out and say, I am a liberal. As a 
liberal I like to spend money. I like the government to grow. And I 
want control of people from cradle to grave because that creates 
government dependency. And when the government controls you and you are 
dependent on the government, you have to keep coming

[[Page 642]]

back to Washington year after year and you have to beg for a new 
program or new relief or new regulations or a change that creates 
constituency groups, and that keeps me, a liberal, in power.
  Now, conservatives on the other hand say, I want less government. I 
do not want people who have to come groveling to Washington year after 
year for relief, for regulatory relief for more freedom. Less 
government creates more freedom. When you have money in your pocket you 
have more choices. The working man can go out there and buy more 
hamburgers, take his family out to eat on a Friday night. He can buy 
more clothes, a set of tires for the car. He can go on a few more 
vacations. He can send his kids to college. Creating freedom for the 
working family.
  What happens when the American people have more money in their 
pockets and they are buying more hamburgers and more clothes and more 
CDs? Businesses have to expand. Small businesses react by saying I have 
to increase my inventory.
  When they do that, jobs are created. Small businesses say, I have to 
hire new employees to help me handle this new demand, and there are 
more opportunities and there is more upward mobility in society. It is 
an economic truth. More people are working, more revenues come in and 
then we have more revenues to address this deficit. That is why 
conservatives want to have permanent tax relief for the American 
people.
  It is interesting. Al Gore wanted higher taxes. The American people 
said no. Dukakis wanted higher taxes. The American people said no. Bill 
Clinton said, I will give you a middle-class tax cut. He wins. Maybe 
there is a lesson there.
  The ruling elite hates it when the working people get it right. They 
cannot stand it. Well, the working folks want this tax relief. They 
want it permanently. And I proudly support the effort of the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Weller).
  I hope that my colleagues will show some independence and do the same 
thing for the working people of America.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), a leader in our party and a 
spokesperson.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, when it comes to the state of the budget, 
so much has changed in the last several months. Our economy is 
struggling, unemployment is up, and we are fighting a war against 
terrorism. But with the President's budget released this weekend, now 
with this resolution it is clear one thing has not changed, and I am 
sorry that my colleague, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston), 
left the floor, because what this resolution is about, what this budget 
is about is that, in fact, the other side of the aisle, that the 
Republican majority in this House will stop at nothing to raid Social 
Security and raid Medicare.
  Despite their protestations over the last couple of years, they 
fundamentally do not believe in Social Security and Medicare. They take 
every opportunity to dismantle the current system which plays such a 
role in the lives of working families today.
  Social Security has been a lifeline and Medicare is a lifeline to 
health care for seniors and for people who have worked all their lives, 
who, in fact, will need that retirement security. The Republican 
majority would deny that retirement security. They would move to 
privatizing Social Security. They would talk about investing in the 
stock market. And, my God, look at what has happened in recent times 
with the stock market and with Enron and with a variety of other 
companies. But that is the direction this majority would like to go.
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on both sides?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) has 
5\1/2\ minutes. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) has 12\1/2\ 
minutes.
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, it looks like they have a few more speakers 
than we do. I will reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Becerra), a distinguished member of the Committee on 
Ways and Means.
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, it is hard to believe that today as the Senate moves to 
vote to help workers left unemployed by September 11, this House 
chooses to vote to reaffirm last year's massive and imprudent tax cut 
bill. Knowing what we know today, how can we vote for tax cuts that are 
tilted towards big business and the well-to-do?
  Last year we were told in 2001 that we would have a surplus of $300 
billion into the year 2002. Now what do we know? That there is a 
deficit of $100 billion in the President's budget.
  Last year we were told that Social Security would be protected. We 
all voted for the so-called lock box. What do we know today? The 
President's budget raids Social Security over 10 years of $1.5 
trillion. Last year we were promised that we would pay down the 
national debt of $3.5 trillion. What do we know today? The Bush budget 
increases the debt.
  Last year we were told prescription drug benefits would be available 
for all seniors. What do we know today? Only some seniors will get it. 
Last year we were promised we would support public education. Today 
what do we know? The Bush budget eliminates all funding for class-size 
reduction. It eliminates all funding for school construction. It cuts 
drug prevention programs. It cuts money for drop-out prevention 
programs.
  Education came first?
  Today we also know that September 11 left us with the need to fund 
homeland security and to address our terrorism needs. By the way, the 
President said it is costing us about $1 billion a month, $12 billion a 
year to fight terrorism. Extended out for 10 years, that is $120 
billion. Why are you taking $1.5 trillion from Social Security? Stop 
showing those charts.
  We also know today that we have lay-offs and unemployment as a result 
of September 11. American workers in need. We know today the corruption 
and greed of big business commands the attention of the American public 
because of companies like Enron inflicting real and heavy hits on our 
American workers and their pensions.
  We also know that the Enrons of the world and the executives like 
Kenneth Lay who used to run Enron are the ones that would benefit from 
these tax cuts more than any of Enron's workers.
  You cannot claim innocence. You cannot claim ignorance. You know what 
you are doing if you vote for this. Vote against it. Help the Senate in 
doing the heavy lifting in helping American workers, not this.
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve my time.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. George Miller), a veteran legislator.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, as we honor President 
Reagan's birthday today, it is fitting that we remember one of his most 
famous lines, ``There you go again.'' Well, tragically, there you go 
again and here we go again.
  In the early 1980's President Reagan forced through a massive tax cut 
and military spending hikes that resulted in budget deficits over the 
next 12 years. The American tax payers paid trillions of dollars in 
additional interest costs. Long-term interest rates remained high. The 
penalty was on workers, on their families, on their children and on the 
poor of this Nation. Sounds familiar? There he goes again. President 
Bush's budget priorities.
  In spite of everything we have learned, as the previous speaker said, 
the world has changed since September 11. Everything has changed, the 
President said. Everything but this tax cut that was considered in an 
entirely different time.
  What do we see? We see Governors all over the country postponing tax 
cuts because the reality of their State budgets is they cannot continue 
to provide tax cuts and provide the services that their States need, 
whether it is education or highways or infrastructure repairs.

[[Page 643]]

  What do we see now? Republican Governors postponing tax cuts. I do 
not think they think they are raising taxes. They think they are doing 
prudent economics on behalf of the citizens of their State. We should 
reject this proposal.
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher).
  Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Speaker, I thank our ranking member for yielding 
me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I must rise in opposition to this senseless sense of the 
Congress resolution.
  I support tax cuts, and I even voted for last year's tax package 
because I believe hardworking Americans deserve tax relief. But in the 
year since we passed the tax cut, America's economic conditions have 
drastically worsened. We now face a future of budget deficits that 
threaten Social Security and Medicare. That is why yesterday I 
submitted an amendment to the Committee on Rules that would have added 
a trigger mechanism to the tax cut.
  My amendment would have ensured that the tax cuts passed last year 
continue as planned as long as future cuts are not paid for with Social 
Security and Medicare money. Unfortunately, the rule does not allow me 
to offer this amendment.
  It is simply irresponsible for Congress to jeopardize Social Security 
and its promise of a secure future. That is why I urge my colleagues on 
both sides of the aisle to vote no on this senseless resolution and let 
us get back to work.

                              {time}  1245

  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Vermont (Mr. Sanders).
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Rangel) for yielding me the time.
  The question we are debating today could not be simpler. In a time of 
a $6 trillion national debt and a growing deficit, a recession and a 
war, do we provide hundreds of billions of dollars in tax breaks to the 
wealthiest 1 percent of the population, people with a minimum income of 
$375,000 a year, and in the process raid the Social Security Trust Fund 
and endanger that system? Further, do we cut back on Medicare and other 
important needs in order to make the richest people in this country 
even richer?
  Mr. Speaker, the answer is pretty obvious. According to an L.A. Times 
poll published yesterday, 81 percent of the American people think that 
the President's tax breaks should not go through if it means taking 
money out of Social Security; 81 percent of the American people believe 
that. I believe that, and I hope the United States Congress has the 
guts to stand up to the wealthy campaign contributors and believe it 
also.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Rangel) has 7 minutes remaining. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Weller) has 5\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I understand I have the right to close.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is correct.
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I have one additional speaker.
  I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Toomey), a leader in the fight to get the economy moving again.
  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Weller) for the time.
  I rise in strong support of H. Con. Res. 312 in support of the 
Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act we passed last year.
  It seems to me one of the most important questions that we can be 
asking ourselves and should be asking is what do we do to get this 
economy moving again. Unfortunately several of my colleagues, and we 
have heard them just recently, have suggested exactly what we should 
not do. They are openly advocating that we raise taxes during a 
recession.
  Some like to spin this proposal as not a tax hike really, but rather 
a repeal of future tax cuts. I am afraid that is a distinction without 
a difference. The fact is, current law establishes a specific declining 
series of tax rates that are known to all and on which people are 
planning and making their investment decisions. To replace that 
existing law with a new series of higher tax rates is simply a tax 
increase. There is no doubt about it.
  The fact is this is a reckless plan, and it will endanger our 
economy, and that is just Economics 101. I mean, economists of all 
political parties, all stripes, people everywhere understand when we 
raise taxes, we slow the economy down, and when we slow an economy 
down, it results in job losses. Federal taxes right now are still a 
near postwar record high level, and we are in the midst of a recession 
that has cost hundreds of thousands of jobs.
  If we were to adopt the irresponsible idea of repealing or delaying 
part of this tax plan that we adopted last year, it can only result in 
a slower economy and more job losses.
  Instead of proposing that we raise taxes, frankly I think we should 
be following the example of a certain very prominent Kennedy. In 1962, 
with a Federal tax burden lower than it is today, President John F. 
Kennedy observed, and I will quote, ``The largest single barrier to 
full employment and a higher rate of economic growth is the 
unrealistically heavy drag of Federal income taxes.'' He said that when 
the tax burden was lower than it is today.
  President Kennedy then went on to lower Federal taxes dramatically 
and sparked 7 years of robust economic growth and job creation. Despite 
the lower rates, the government took in more revenue than before the 
tax cut, and the budget deficits were significantly reduced.
  The fact is every time that the Federal Government has significantly 
cut taxes in the last century, the Mellon tax cuts of the 1920s, the 
Kennedy cuts of the 1960s, the Reagan tax cuts of the 1980s, the fact 
is the economy responded, jobs were created and tax revenue grew. And 
we just heard an allegation that the Reagan tax cuts of the 1980s 
caused deficits. When will we acknowledge the truth? The fact is after 
Ronald Reagan lowered taxes in the 1980s, Federal tax revenue nearly 
doubled. The problem was that spending tripled. Sure, we had deficits, 
but it was not because of the tax relief.
  I urge my colleagues to support this resolution, support the American 
economy, support the people who are looking to get back to work.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, is it our understanding that the majority 
intend to reserve the balance of their time to close?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) has 
3 minutes remaining and one additional speaker, and the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Rangel) has 7 minutes remaining. That is correct.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Rangel) for yielding me the time.
  I rise in strong opposition to this measure. This resolution is 
nothing more than an effort to divert attention from the Enron-like 
scandal in the Republican economic plan.
  The Republicans are robbing Social Security and Medicare in order to 
guarantee additional future tax breaks to the richest Americans. In 
order to mask this irresponsible, risky and cynical behavior, they fall 
back on their old discredited mantra, that putting future tax cuts for 
the rich on hold equals a tax increase. They will say it over and over, 
but it will never be true.
  Everyone in this House is for middle- and lower-income tax cuts, 
which, by the way, benefit the wealthy as well as the economy, but now 
that this administration has presided over the disappearance of a $5 
trillion surplus, they want to go after Social Security.
  Ask the American people the real question. Should we sacrifice Social 
Security and Medicare in order to give tax cuts to make the rich even 
richer? Actually the Los Angeles Times did ask the question, and 80 
percent said

[[Page 644]]

stop the tax cut. We should vote no on this shameless resolution.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Kucinich).
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, we have not allocated a full hour in our 
short workweek to consider a resolution that would ensure the richest 1 
percent of Americans receive their tax cut on time.
  When it comes to policies that would benefit the mass of middle- and 
working-class Americans, the administration does not seem particularly 
punctual. After killing OSHA's ergonomics rules, the administration 
promised a new set of ergonomic standards. Nearly a year later 
thousands of American workers injured on the job are still waiting.
  The administration has long promised a meaningful prescription drug 
benefit for the elderly. The people are still waiting.
  Shunning the Kyoto Global Warming Protocol, the administration 
promised to develop a new plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The 
people are still waiting.
  Despite promising to control energy costs, the administration dragged 
its feet in imposing Federal price caps on electricity, allowing Enron 
and others to gouge California consumers to the tune of $6.8 billion. 
Californians waited 6 months for relief.
  After bailing out the airline industry post-September 11, the 
majority in the House promised legislation to help thousands of 
furloughed airline employees. They are still waiting.
  The people should not have to wait anymore for help, and I tell my 
colleagues, the richest 1 percent in this country, they can wait their 
turn.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Neal), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, one of the previous speakers 
noted the Kennedy tax cuts as a measure of achievement, but what he 
failed to note was that part of the revenue, at least one-third of the 
revenue generated on that occasion, came from closing tax loopholes, 
which this Congress has been reluctant to address, but let me speak 
specifically to this issue.
  The hot movie in 1981 was Smokey and the Bandit, the cool band was 
Blondie, and the prevailing fiscal theory was trickle down economics. 
While 1981 is a distant memory for most of us, we should learn from 
that experience and not repeat the mistakes of the past.
  The meaningless resolution we are considering today would 
unfortunately do just that. The budget released this week says that the 
way to climb out of this deficit is with more tax cuts, exploding tax 
cuts that we all know are going to be drawn from Social Security and 
Medicare Trust Funds, just when the baby boomers begin to retire.
  Mr. Speaker, we cannot afford these tax cuts now, and everybody knows 
it, so why do we think we can afford them when the baby boom generation 
begins to retire? Apparently the taxpayers agree with us. The Los 
Angeles Times poll is clear that the American people dispute the 
priority that the majority in this House is about to undertake. These 
tax cuts are not only skewed toward the wealthy, but they 
disproportionately go to the superwealthy.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Nadler), in whose district the Twin Towers once stood and was 
the target of this vicious attack against the United States of America.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, this resolution is a joke. I have been a 
Member of Congress for almost 10 years, and I cannot remember any 
resolution that simply supports current law. To not repeal or roll back 
tax cuts, we do not need this resolution. Nothing is coming to the 
floor. Nothing is threatened. We do not have to do anything.
  The fact of the matter is that it was the Clinton budget's deficit 
reduction package, which the Republicans called the greatest tax 
increase in history in 1993, which they predicted, and I remember the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey) on the floor saying this will lead to 
a depression, this will lead to hair-curling depression, instead led to 
the greatest economic boom in the history of this country, led to the 
lowest unemployment, lowest inflation, greatest job growth.
  It led to reversing the $5 trillion in debt that we incurred during 
the Reagan, Bush Senior, years. Instead, we got what we predicted a 
year ago after 8 years of the Clinton economics was going to be $5.5 
trillion of surplus, and 1 year with this tax cut and with the economic 
recession partially brought about by this tax cut, we now have $4 
trillion of that wiped out.
  Now they say we should not have a tax increase in a recession. Of 
course we should not. No one is proposing that unless they think the 
recession is going to last another 4 or 5 years, but the real point 
here is that with a $4 trillion in surplus wiped out, this country is 
going to face choices a couple of years down the road.
  Do we want another tax cut for the richest people in our country, or 
do we want prescription drugs coverage for seniors on Medicare? How are 
we going to pay for that? There is not enough money in the Bush budget 
for it. There is not enough money that we see in the next 10 years for 
prescription drugs under Medicare, not if we give more tax cuts to the 
richest people in our society.
  If we want to fully fund the education bill that we passed, we are 
not going to be able carry on this current economics. So we have to 
leave ourselves some adjustment room so we can make decisions in the 
future when we see do we want prescription drugs for seniors or a 
little more help for the billionaires among us.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, how much time do we have remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) has 
3 minutes remaining.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I have been waiting for an answer from the other side as to how this 
tax policy provision could come out without ever coming before the 
Committee on Ways and Means. They refuse to answer. It did not come out 
of the Committee on the Budget. They refused to answer. It must have 
come out of the Republican campaign to reelect the Congress because it 
is a political issue and should not be on this floor.
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, I would like 
to provide an answer.
  Mr. RANGEL. Well, it is too late now. My colleague sure had his 
chance, and he will get another chance to answer.
  Mr. Speaker, the remaining time that I have I yield to the gentleman 
from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy), an outstanding member of the Committee 
on Ways and Means.
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Rangel) for yielding me the time, and I thank the gentleman from 
Alabama (Mr. Bachus) for bringing this motion to the floor. I think it 
is very helpful.
  When we passed the tax bill in May, we all agreed that Social 
Security and Medicare funds would be held inviolate. In fact, that was 
the terms of the consideration of the tax bill as put forward by the 
President. He said, to make sure the retirement savings of American 
seniors are not diverted to any other program, my budget protects all 
$2.6 million.
  This was elaborated on by members of the majority as they advanced 
the budget, including the tax plan. In fact, the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Armey) said we must understand that it is inviolate to intrude 
against either Social Security or Medicare, and if that means foregoing 
or, as it were, paying for the tax cuts, then we will do that.
  Now we know, however, that the actual budget plan this year involves 
all future phase-ins of this tax cut coming out of Social Security 
funds. If we look at the green line on this chart, we will note that 
for each of the next 10 years, we are into Social Security funds to 
fund any future dimension of this tax cut. So it is a very different 
picture than we had when we passed the bill in May. It is not funded 
from general funds. This is a raid on Social Security. In fact, the 
President's budget reveals that up to $2 trillion will be diverted

[[Page 645]]

from Social Security and Medicare in order to fund all future aspects 
of the tax cut.

                              {time}  1300

  So the question before us today is really a restatement of May's tax 
cut vote, but done in light of what we now know. In May, we voted 
saying it would not touch Social Security. Today, we know in light of 
the President's budget plan that it raids Social Security to the tune 
of $2 trillion. Under those circumstances, Mr. Speaker, I cannot 
support this resolution.
  I could support this resolution if there were a credible budget plan 
advanced by the majority that showed we were not touching Social 
Security and we were not touching Medicare. But to over the next 10 
years, and not just in this period of war and recession, as the 
majority says, but over the next 10 years launch us on a plan that 
diverts $2 trillion of funds coming in for Social Security and Medicare 
jeopardizes our Nation, jeopardizes a future commitment to our seniors, 
and jeopardizes those in the work force today paying for the 
retirement.
  It is wrong to use Social Security monies in this way. They ought to 
put a plan forward that holds harmless Social Security. The vote today 
is whether we want to use Social Security on all future aspects of the 
tax cut.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The time of gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Rangel) has expired. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) 
has 3\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. WELLER. The time of the gentleman from New York has fully 
expired, Mr. Speaker?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's time has expired.
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  In conclusion, I would say to my colleagues that it is clear to me 
that we have an ideological divide. Our friends on the other side of 
the aisle are proposing a tax increase as their solution to our current 
situation. And if we look at the facts today, we are at war, a war 
against terrorism, we are rebuilding our homeland security, we are in 
an economic recession, and all those who are students of history know 
that whenever we are in a war, we have a deficit, and whenever we have 
an economic recession, we have a deficit. Of course, my hope is we can 
bring spending under control and eliminate that this year.
  Our friends on the other side of the aisle propose a tax increase. 
They say we should repeal the tax cut that President Bush proposed last 
year, and that by doing so, raise tax revenue that they could spend 
here in Washington.
  Well, let us look at what it is they propose repealing. First, I will 
mention the marriage tax penalty. Twenty-eight million married couples 
pay an average of $1,400 more in higher taxes. We, of course, passed 
legislation to wipe out the marriage tax penalty. A married couple 
making $60,000, a middle-class married couple in the district I 
represent, the south suburbs, pays on average $1,400 taxes under the 
marriage tax penalty. They are middle class. They would see higher 
taxes under the Democrat tax increase.
  They also propose wiping out the elimination of the death tax, and 
they propose wiping out the doubling of the child's tax credit. Working 
moms and working families who have children will be able to get up to a 
$1,000 tax credit. It is $500 under the current law that is in place. 
They want to raise taxes on those parents with children.
  We also provide an opportunity for families to put more tax-free 
contributions into their retirement accounts. If we go along with the 
Democrat proposal, we wipe out that opportunity and increase taxes on 
those who want to save for education and retirement.
  If we care about economic growth, we have to remember that it is the 
small-business person, the entrepreneur who is in the top two tax 
brackets, the people they call rich. And 80 percent of those who pay 
taxes under the top two tax brackets are the small-business people, the 
entrepreneurs, the people who have shops and businesses on Liberty 
Street in my hometown, our main street, and main streets all across 
America. We know small businesses and the entrepreneurs are going to 
create jobs and get our economy moving again.
  So, again, a world war, we are rebuilding our homeland security, and 
we are in a recession. And there is not one real world economist who 
has said that now is the time to increase taxes. In fact, economists 
tell us it is best to lower taxes in a recession so people have more 
money to invest and spend in the creation of jobs.
  Yesterday, Secretary O'Neill, someone who is known for his frankness 
and independent thought, was asked the question: ``Is a repeal of the 
Bush tax cut a tax increase?'' And the Secretary said yes. And he noted 
that raising taxes would stifle the process of getting Americans back 
to work. This is a bad idea as our recovery is struggling to take hold.
  My colleagues, this is a simple vote. We are in a recession, we are 
at war. Do we want to increase taxes? Those who want to increase taxes 
vote ``no.'' Those who want to make sure the Bush tax cut is fully 
implemented and we get this economy moving again vote ``aye.''
  I urge an ``aye'' vote and ask for bipartisan support for this sense 
of House resolution and preserve the President's tax cut.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to offer a few comments on the House's 
consideration of H. Con. Res. 312.
  Today our nation is at war, both here and abroad. Congress is 
considering a budget plan that is likely to spend money out of the 
Social Security Trust Fund. Our economy is trying to find its footing 
in the wake of the ongoing recession. And many central New Jerseyans 
have questions about the security of their 401K retirement plans in the 
wake of the Enron bankruptcy. Looking at that list of issues, I imagine 
most Americans feel Congress has plenty of work to do.
  But instead of coming together in a bipartisan way to deal with these 
important matters, the House is wasting time today debating a symbolic 
and politically slanted resolution that has one and only one purpose: 
To try to make it seem like some Members oppose tax cuts so that it can 
be used against them in political campaigns. That this is a purely 
political exercise is underscored by the fact that the Congressional 
Leadership rejected all attempts to modify this resolution to include 
the protection of Social Security.
  I support tax cuts. My record on that is clear. I have consistently 
voted--sometimes even against my own party--to support responsible tax 
cuts for families, be it in the estate tax, the marriage penalty tax, 
or other tax cuts. Despite that, I will vote on this resolution. It is 
the type of silly political ``gotcha'' game that Americans hate about 
Washington. And it glosses over the real budget challenges we face.
  Last year, the Congressional Budget Office projected over $5.6 
trillion in surpluses over the next ten years. Now, based on the 
President's budget presented this week, the surplus will be about $600 
billion--a difference of $5 trillion lost in less than one year.
  That budget will force the government to dip into Social Security and 
Medicare every year for the next ten years, and because it fails to pay 
off the debt, will cost the country an additional $1 trillion. That is 
one trillion dollars that won't be available for families to meet their 
needs or for the government to help with schools, energy research, 
prescription medicine, or anything else. That's a one trillion debt 
that will rest on our children.
  As many of us warned last year, Congress simply left no cushion in 
the budget resolution. Last year, no one predicted that we would enter 
a recession, and no one knew we would be at war. But many of us warned 
that unforeseen occurrences always arise and carry expenses with them. 
Set aside more of the budget, we said, and that will put us in a better 
position for the future--whatever comes.
  There is no doubt that the recession and the war on terrorism have 
contributed to the disappearance of the surplus. But the single largest 
contributor to that disappearance over the next decade is the 
President's tax package. This resolution will be presented as a litmus 
test of who wants to raise taxes. I won't raise taxes. Americans can 
rest assured that no one here is proposing to raise taxes, certainly 
not at a time of economic weakness.
  We'll see this resolution in only two places: On the House floor 
today and in campaign commercials this fall. We shouldn't be wasting 
time on finger pointing and political games. We should be working 
together to find solutions to the problems that are waiting out on the 
horizon.

[[Page 646]]


  Mr. PASTOR. Mr. Speaker, President Bush recently delivered his budget 
proposals for Fiscal Year 2003 to Congress. I was hopeful that all 
Americans would be a part of the American dream, but he has woefully 
put almost 60 percent of us in jeopardy. The most pressing question in 
Washington this year is will we support a budget that makes the 
wealthiest 15 percent of Americans wealthier, or will we pursue 
policies that will keep 60 percent of the people from becoming worse 
off.
  I wholeheartedly support the President in his efforts to improve 
homeland security and to further strengthen our military. We have 
finally adjusted to the post cold war world, and after the terrorist 
attacks of September 11, we now have an even better understanding of 
the world and those who threaten us. I fully support the President's 
efforts to strengthen our military forces through modern equipment and 
facilities and highly trained and compensated personnel.
  I also applaud the President for his efforts to strengthen our 
security at home. The concept of ``Homeland Security'' holds special 
meaning to the people of our nation for the first time in more than 50 
years. The images of that fateful day in September will haunt each of 
us for the rest of our lives. But we are a strong and proud people and 
we will not forsake our responsibilities to guard the privileges of 
freedom for which so many of our forefathers shed their own blood. We 
all support our President in his efforts to protect us and will go the 
extra mile to meet our security needs.
  Yet, we must not neglect the other principles that have made our 
nation the strongest and most productive in the history of 
civilization. We are a nation of over-achievers who strive to reach the 
top and to win. But, we are also a nation of compassion, kindness and 
giving and we have always been willing to reach down and help those who 
need assistance.
  I am fearful that the domestic side of President Bush's budget plan 
will neglect not only those who are least fortunate among us, but also 
a good many of us who are working to reach the top, but have yet to 
fulfill the dream.
  The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) recently issued a report that 
said the single biggest factor in the elimination of the estimated $5.6 
trillion surplus was last year's Economic Growth and Tax Relief 
Reconciliation Act which cut taxes by $1.35 trillion, most of which 
went to the wealthiest individuals and businesses. I strongly supported 
using this surplus to improve the lives of all Americans. I believed it 
best to divide the surplus into thirds, with one third for tax cuts, 
one third for additional funding on national priorities like education, 
Social Security, and infrastructure improvements, and one third toward 
eliminating the national debt. President Bush's tax cut was too much 
and, once hit by the recession and the attacks of September 11, it is 
clear that this huge tax cut has knocked our fiscal house into a heap 
of rubble.
  For the first time since 1997, the budget of the United States 
Government will experience a deficit. We must pay for the war on 
terrorism and we must protect the Homeland. But, we should not put 
domestic programs at jeopardy, go into further debt, and raid the 
Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds in order to give the 
wealthiest Americans large tax cuts.
  In fact, even though last year's tax cuts are scheduled to expire in 
2010, the President's new budget has proposed making these tax cuts 
permanent. This is estimated to cost an additional $675 billion over 
the next ten years. This means domestic programs will be cut by almost 
five percent below the levels necessary to maintain current services. 
This means that we will be using Social Security and Medicare funds to 
pay for these tax cuts. It means we will be forced to eliminate 28 
elementary and secondary education programs. It means we will cut rural 
health care activities by 42 percent. It means we must freeze the Child 
Care and Development Fund. It means we must cut funds for critical 
repairs to public housing. It means our federal highway program will be 
cut a drastic 29 percent.
  In my view, the price we are being asked to pay for these huge tax 
cuts is too high. I do not believe it is in the best interest of our 
nation as a whole to return to deficit spending just so the wealthiest 
15 percent of our people can become even wealthier.
  I am opposing the domestic portions of the President's budget and 
call on decision makers to join me in a common sense approach to 
meeting the priorities of America. We should continue to fight the war 
on terrorism. We should continue to protect the Homeland against 
attack. But we must not continue the ill-fated principles that drive us 
further and further into economic insecurity and debt. Let's be sure 
all Americans are given an opportunity to strive for the American 
dream.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I oppose H. Con. Res. 312, expressing the 
sense of the House of Representatives that the scheduled tax relief 
provided for by H.R. 1836, the Economic Growth and Tax Relief 
Reconciliation Act of 2001, should not be suspended or repealed.
  I oppose the resolution before us today for the same reasons I 
opposed H.R. 1836 last summer. It's the wrong tax cut at the wrong 
time. The wealthiest ten percent of U.S. taxpayers reap the greatest 
benefit from the tax cut. The tax cut is so costly that the President 
is willing to imperil Social Security and Medicare by using revenue 
from the Trust Funds to pay for the tax cut.
  I am not willing to weaken the foundations of retirement security in 
order to pay for a bloated tax cut that benefits the wealthy. Nor am I 
willing to compromise on a Medicare prescription drug benefit. The 
bottom line is, there is only a limited amount of revenue coming into 
the Federal Government. By passing last year's tax cut, the Republican 
Congress put a premium on tax cuts for the wealthy while making 
retirement security, seniors, education, and our children, a lower 
priority.
  Last January, the 10-year surplus (2002-2011) estimate was $5.6 
trillion. In one year, that surplus decreased $4 trillion. Certainly 
the events of September 11 and the fledgling economy contributed to 
some of this decrease. However, forty percent of that decrease can be 
attributed to the Republican income tax cut passed last summer. Last 
February, Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill stated before the Ways and 
Means Committee:
  ``If we lock box Social Security, that the President said we should 
do, effectively use it to pay down the public debt and you all want to 
do Medicare too, that is fine. We still have got after implementation 
of the President's proposal $1.5 trillion available, or more than 25 
percent of the total projected surplus available as a cushion against 
the prospect of running ourselves back into a deficit ditch.''
  Secretary O'Neill was wrong. Using the ``on-budget'' or non-Social 
Security baseline budget from the Administration's own budget tables, 
there is now a $298 billion deficit over 5 years from 2003-2007. This 
means that all of those Republican-promoted Congressional resolutions 
last year promising to put the Social Security and Medicare trust funds 
in a ``lockbox'' were nothing more than dog and pony shows for 
America's retirees. Sadly, the days of fiscal responsibility are over.
  Although Democrats noted last year that the figures used to calculate 
the size of the tax cut were unrealistic and too conservative, the 
Republicans ignored our warnings and proceeded full speed ahead. Then, 
to make the bloated tax cut fit into their rosy budget scenario, the 
Republicans used budget gimmicks to make their tax cut expire in 2011. 
Now, appallingly, the President has called to make these tax cuts 
permanent in the budget he released on Monday. Apparently the rich 
aren't rich enough. Meanwhile, seniors who cannot afford prescription 
drugs are reminded by this resolution, and the President's budget, that 
their concerns are not a priority.
  The Congressional Budget Office just reported that making the Bush 
tax cut permanent would decrease revenues by $569 billion resulting in 
debt service payment increases of $58 billion. This leads to a total 
cost of $627 billion in FY 2003-2012. To do a real Medicare 
prescription drug benefit will cost some $600 billion over ten years. 
We should scrap the additional tax cuts called for in the President's 
budget and instead provide a Medicare prescription drug benefit to all 
beneficiaries.
  This resolution is an insult to every American worker who expects to 
receive an adequate Social Security check at retirement. It is also an 
insult to every senior who has been anticipating a meaningful Medicare 
prescription drug benefit. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H. 
Con. Res. 312.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, this resolution is not real 
legislation intended to meet a national need or resolve a national 
problem. Instead, it is a political game. Everyone in this Chamber 
knows that--and by bringing it forward under this extraordinary 
procedure, the Republican leadership is doing us the favor of making it 
clear to everyone in the country.
  In simplest terms, the point of this resolution is to try to make the 
House again express support for last year's tax bill--a bill based on 
economic projections that were very doubtful then and that now have 
been shown to have been wildly over-optimistic.
  When the bill was passed, the economic weather seemed bright--we did 
not yet know that we already were in recession--and sponsors of the 
bill claimed that we could rely on that to continue not just for a 
matter of months but for a full decade. And now, despite the dramatic 
change in economic conditions, despite the need for increased resources 
to fight

[[Page 647]]

terrorism and for homeland defense, the sponsors of this resolution are 
calling on us to say that nothing has changed.
  With storm clouds looming and the wind shifting sharply, they are 
saying that instead of considering whether to shorten sail we should 
act as if the sun was still shining and the seas were calm--instead of 
considering adjustments, we should swear allegiance to stay the 
course--even if it was plotted in error. And that's not all. The 
resolution asks that the House insist that ``suspending, repealing or 
delaying'' any part of last year's bill ``is a tax increase.'' I guess 
that they subscribe to the theory that if you say something often 
enough and loudly enough you can get people to believe it.
  Of course, the problem is that saying something is so doesn't make it 
so. It simply is not true that changing something scheduled for the 
future is the same thing as doing something today--any more than 
revising next year's baseball schedule would be the same as adding an 
exhibition game tomorrow. I do not think that makes sense, and I cannot 
support this resolution any more than I could support last year's tax 
bill.
  I am not opposed to cutting taxes. I have supported--and still 
support--a substantial reduction in income taxes and the elimination of 
the ``marriage penalty.'' I have supported--and still support--
including the child credit and making it refundable so that it will 
benefit more lower-income families. And I have supported--and still 
support--reforming, but not repealing, the estate tax.
  But the affordability of last year's tax bill depended on uncertain 
projections of continuing budget surpluses that now may inspire 
nostalgia but are otherwise meaningless. As I said last year, the tax 
bill was a riverboat gamble. It put at risk our economic stability, the 
future of Medicare and Social Security, and our ability to make needed 
investments in health and education. For me, the stakes were too high 
and the odds were too long, and I had to vote against it. This 
resolution does not correct those problems--merely insists that they 
don't exist. That may make its sponsors feel better, but it does not 
deserve the support of the House.
  Mr. WATTS of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the tax relief 
law as Congress passed it and as the President signed it. Even in the 
middle of a recession, some lawmakers have chosen to resurrect a hatred 
of tax relief--this time giving speeches and making statements in 
support of delaying or repealing the promise we made to the American 
people last year. But a promise made should be a promise kept. Yanking 
cash out of the wallets and pocketbooks of hardworking taxpayers is not 
good policy. Their elected officials told them they would have more 
money to spend on their families and needs--and that's the commitment 
we ought to honor.
  Creating jobs and letting people keep more of the money they earn is 
the recipe for getting our economy back on track. Raising taxes would 
send the wrong message, set the wrong precedent and take the wrong 
action during a national recession.
  Mr. Speaker, let me remind my colleagues exactly what it is we are 
talking about: eliminating the death tax, reducing the marriage 
penalty, doubling the child credit and offering across-the-board income 
tax relief. This is not about ``tax cuts for the rich.'' This is not 
about special breaks for only the wealthy. Under the tax relief law, 
anyone who pays taxes pay less. These are initiatives that should be 
permanent, not delayed or repealed.
  Today's vote will put the House on record. Are we keeping our word or 
breaking our word? Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to stand behind 
our promise to hardworking taxpayers around the country and vote for 
this resolution in support of economic growth and tax relief. Our 
constituents are counting on us.
  Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker, the resolution on the House floor is a 
sham. Rather than accept responsibility for their reckless budget 
policies, they try to hide behind a feel-good resolution that does 
nothing to balance the budget, and does nothing to protect our national 
obligations to senior citizens or veterans.
  Yes, we are in a war, and we face new challenges that require a 
strong response. I support that effort 100 percent. But given that 
reality, we face a choice. One year ago, our new President told us that 
we need huge across-the-board tax cuts because the surpluses were so 
large. Now he says we need them even though the surplus is gone and 
deficits are back. He promised us that we would meet our national 
priorities first, before cutting revenues in a way that overwhelmingly 
benefit the most well-off in our society. But his budget leaves key 
priorities unmet.
  This week the administration sent us a budget that breaks the promise 
not to use Medicare and Social Security funds to fund government 
operations. Now we have a deficit with no end in sight. And we all 
know, we all know, that the deficit numbers will end up much worse once 
we work through all the budget gimmicks and tricks. This resolution 
champions fiscal irresponsibility. Let's do what the President said we 
would do: meet our national priorities first. That means we take care 
of Social Security and Medicare, that means we expand quality health 
care access for those who still find themselves outside the system, 
that means we fulfill our promises to veterans, not just next year, but 
five years from now, that means we invest in our national 
infrastructure and protect our environment so that we leave our 
children a world of clean, expanding commerce.
  The tax cuts enacted last year--especially now--are simply unfair and 
unwarranted. They help the very few at the expense of the many. 
Americans loved the $300 rebate they got last year; we could offer all 
Americans that rebate for years and years to come if we simply did not 
purse the most irresponsible aspects of the majority's tax policies. 
Instead, we will likely face rising interest rates, the most unkind tax 
hike on American consumers and a true drag on our economy. We face a 
choice. Blindly adhere to a doctrine of tax cuts first and always, or 
adopt a balanced approach that offers tax cuts to all Americans while 
still meeting our national obligations. Let's make the right choice and 
put the interests of America's working families first.
  Ms. McCarthy of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H. Con 
Res. 312, expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the 
scheduled tax relief provided for by the Economic Growth and Tax Relief 
Reconciliation Act of 2001 passed by a bipartisan majority in Congress 
should not be suspended or repealed.
  Since January, 2001, we have seen a 10-year estimated $5.6 trillion 
surplus completely dissolve. Today, Congressional Budget Office 
estimates show a meager $600 billion surplus, and this is after every 
dollar has been raided from the Social Security and Medicare trust 
funds. Instead of insisting on more tax cuts that will drive us further 
into debt and raise our long term interest rates, let us consider other 
options.
  Last year's tax cuts have already provided income tax relief to most 
working Americans, and the lowest individual income tax rate has fallen 
from 15 percent to 10 percent. By waiting to enact additional tax cuts 
until we can afford it, we can again work towards a balanced budget and 
ensure the solvency of Social Security and Medicare. In my 25 years of 
public service, I have worked under the constraints of a President who 
sought to spend outside of our means, and I had the pleasure of working 
with a President committed to paying down the debt and balancing the 
budget. It was this second strategy that allowed America to have the 
longest sustained period of economic growth in the history of the 
world. We should follow the lessons we learned then and maintain fiscal 
responsibility and balanced budgets.
  Our priority should be to retire the debt so we do not put America's 
economy at risk. I am for tax relief, but we need to do it the right 
way at the right time. It is a travesty that the Republican leadership 
did not allow us to vote on the Social Security lockbox bill that would 
have maintained continued support for fiscally responsible tax relief 
that does not take money away from Social Security. A similar bill 
passed the House last year by a margin of 407-2.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in opposing H. Con. Res. 
312, as it threatens Social Security and Medicare funds.
  Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Speaker, this resolution before us today is a sham. 
This resolution is a political tool, not an economic tool.
  If this resolution was really about improving our economy, it would 
proclaim the need to protect Social Security and Medicare and not ill 
conceived tax cuts that are plunging this country back into deficit 
spending.
  If it was about improving the economy, it would seek to explain how a 
projected $5.6 trillion in surpluses over 10 years have been reduced to 
$661 billion in just eight months.
  If it was about improving the economy, it would explain to the 
American people how we can afford $2 trillion in tax cuts, while our 
budget is in deficit.
  If it was truly about improving the economy, it would explain how 
three-quarters of that $2 trillion will be borrowed from Social 
Security, and the other 25 percent ($550 billion) will be borrowed form 
Medicare, which, by the way, is all of the projected surplus in 
Medicare.
  I am one of the fiscally responsible members of this body that 
apparently caused the tax-cut-all-all-cost sponsors of this resolution 
to draft it. I called for a freeze of still-to-be-enacted tax cuts that 
would allow us to determine how much the war on terrorism, recession 
and the already enacted tax cuts will cost

[[Page 648]]

us. I have not called for a tax increase. I have not called for a 
rollback of taxes. I have called for a common sense breather to assess 
our situation. Anyone calling this tax freeze a tax increase is 
suffering from a brain freeze.
  The President's budget, which includes many laudable items, includes 
about $80 billion in tax cuts next year. Not coincidentally, about $80 
billion is expected to be borrowed from Social Security and Medicare 
next year, according to his budget. What good does it do for the 
federal government to give money to American taxpayers with one hand, 
and take it away with the other?
  If corporate America treated pension funds like Congress treats 
Social Security, someone would be in jail. We can't steal from the 
future to pay for today's unwise fiscal policies.
  I urge my colleagues who support this resolution to stop playing 
``gotcha'', because the American people ``get it''. They understand 
that it is wrong to borrow from Social Security and Medicare. They 
understand that it is wrong to prolong deficit spending. They 
understand that every additional dollar we pay in interest on our 
national debt is a dollar that we don't use to pay down our debt.
  And because they do understand, I wholeheartedly vote against this 
ill-conceived, petty resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) that the House suspend the rules 
and agree to the concurrent resolution, H. Con. Res. 312.
  The question was taken.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds of 
those present have voted in the affirmative.
  Mr. WELLER. 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 235, 
nays 181, not voting 18, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 10]

                               YEAS--235

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

                               NAYS--181

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barrett
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank
     Frost
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCollum
     McGovern
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Phelps
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     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
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--18

     Blagojevich
     Bono
     Cooksey
     Cubin
     Fossella
     Frelinghuysen
     Luther
     McDermott
     Napolitano
     Oxley
     Riley
     Roukema
     Ryan (WI)
     Shaw
     Slaughter
     Sununu
     Traficant
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1327

  So (two-thirds not having voted in favor thereof) the motion was 
rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

                          ____________________