[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 12]
[House]
[Pages 16643-16650]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5193, BACK TO SCHOOL TAX RELIEF ACT 
                                of 2002

  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 521 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 521

       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. 5193) to amend the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a deduction to certain 
     taxpayers for elementary and secondary education expenses. 
     The bill shall be considered as read for amendment. The 
     amendment recommended by the Committee on Ways and Means now 
     printed in the bill shall be considered as adopted. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, 
     as amended, to final passage without intervening motion 
     except: (1) one hour of debate on the bill, as amended, 
     equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means; and (2) 
     one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds) 
is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. 
Slaughter), 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. REYNOLDS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 521 is a standard closed 
rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 5193, the Back to School 
Tax Relief Act of 2002. The rule waives all points of order against 
consideration of the bill and provides one motion to recommit, with or 
without instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, one of the great successes of this Congress and this 
administration was the enactment of the No Child Left Behind Act, 
legislation to extend and amend the Elementary and Secondary Education 
Act.
  Containing some of the most sweeping education reforms in decades, 
the act incorporates four key principles: Stronger accountability to 
ensure results; increased flexibility and local control that sends 
dollars and decisions directly to the classroom; expanded options for 
parents; and an emphasis on teaching methods that have been proven to 
work. It is one of these principles, expanded options for parents, that 
brings us here today.
  The Back to School Tax Relief Act of 2002 will give parents the 
opportunity to take advantage of the Tax Code and take control over 
financing their child's education. According to the National Center for 
Education Statistics, student enrollment at public and private 
elementary and secondary schools peaked to a record level of 53.2 
million in the fall of 2000, a 14 percent increase since 1990. In my 
home State of New York, enrollment in grades K through 12 increased 
more than 4 percent from 1994 to 2000, and in many parts of the 
country, enrollments are expected to continue increasing through at 
least 2005.
  As more and more students hit the books, more and more parents are 
straining the family finances trying to make ends meet as they put 
their kids through school. Under present law, above-the-line deductions 
are allowed for qualified tuition and related expenses for higher 
education only. The legislation before us today simply extends that 
deduction of up to $3,000 to qualified elementary and secondary 
education expenses paid in connection with eligible K through 12 
students. This includes expenses at public, private, religious or home 
schools.
  Not every school district is the same nor is every family. By 
incorporating this tax deduction we can provide parents the flexibility 
to tailor their education expenses to best suit the needs of their 
families and their children. Quality education should be available and 
affordable to all parents.
  Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleagues on the Committee on Ways and 
Means, especially the gentleman from California (Chairman Thomas), for 
advancing this legislation through committee and bringing it to the 
House floor. With our children now back in school, there is no better 
time for this body to consider and pass legislation that will help 
families offset the cost of education.

[[Page 16644]]

  Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues to support this rule and 
the underlying legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from New York for yielding me the 
customary 30 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, anyone who plays popular sheet music knows that at the 
beginning of a piece there is always a place called ``vamp until 
ready'' where the pianist literally kills time until we are ready for 
the main act when the singer comes on. I think this bill comes into the 
category of vamp until ready.
  Obviously, we all understand, those of us who serve in Congress and 
all of the wonderful staff here, that we need the appropriations bills 
on the floor of the House to be passed by October 1 to keep the 
government running. I am beginning to think we are not going to do that 
this year and expect we will probably come up with a giant continuing 
resolution.
  But this is certainly a vamp until ready bill, and I certainly rise 
in opposition to it, because, in addition to everything else, it has a 
closed rule. The underlying bill is part of a continuing wave of 
election year gimmicks that the majority knows will never be signed 
into law.
  At a time when the body is woefully behind in the most basic task of 
passing bills funding the Nation's priorities, we should be using our 
time more constructively; but, instead, we are considering a resolution 
that shuts out consideration of a meaningful bipartisan substitute that 
would improve school facilities across the country.
  It does not have to be this way, Mr. Speaker. Surely expanding 
educational opportunities for our children would be an issue where this 
Congress could set aside its differences and work together. Education 
remains at the top of everyone's priority list, for rich and poor, 
Democrat and Republican, and any other category of persons. Instead, we 
have before us today a purely partisan bill, a bill that the minority 
leadership on the Committee on Ways and Means dubbed an embarrassment, 
and not a single member of the majority of the Committee on Ways and 
Means defended the substance of this bill when the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Rangel) and others raised concerns about its uncertain and 
likely overly broad definition of eligible expenses.
  This measure will not improve the education of a single child, 
because it is designed to make a political point and not to become law. 
The problems with the bill are numerous.
  First, the legislation is the first step towards shifting funds away 
from public schools and into private and religious schools. This comes 
at a time when States are reeling from lost revenue and being forced to 
cut everything from teachers' salaries to laying off firefighters and 
policemen. We do not need to utilize the limited time of this body 
before adjournment debating another scheme to get the Federal 
Government to pay for private school tuition.
  Ninety percent of our children are in public schools, and those 
schools need our help drastically, now more than ever. I would also 
note that the $20,000 limit for singles and $40,000 limit for couples 
will not be enough to take advantage of the tax deduction, which is not 
refundable. Therefore, we are giving them absolutely nothing.
  Several months ago you recall we passed the No Child Left Behind Act 
that reauthorized the elementary and secondary education programs, and 
the congressional leadership and the President pointed with pride to 
the enhanced levels of education spending that were authorized in the 
legislation, and it was a fine bipartisan bill. But now the 
administration and leadership have allocated funds for that program for 
the next fiscal year, and they are $7 billion short. In other words, 
Mr. Speaker, many children will be left behind. And while they are 
supporting this bill, which is estimated to cost $5 billion, it seems 
to me that it would have been much better to have put this money into 
leaving no child behind. The substitute that the Democrats were 
attempting to offer would go a long way toward addressing the reversal.
  Mr. Speaker, we cannot expect our children to learn and our teachers 
to teach unless they are provided with safe and modern school 
buildings. Forcing students to go to school in trailers or dilapidated 
school buildings is a clear message to them that they do not matter, 
and surely we can do better.
  Currently our public school system has extraordinary unmet needs for 
funds to construct and modernize our schools. The new estimates based 
on data collected by the State departments of education indicate that 
more than $300 billion will be needed to repair or replace existing 
public school facilities. That $300 billion cannot be met without 
significant commitment of funds from all levels of government, 
including the Federal Government.
  The substitute we had hoped to have made in order would provide a 
meaningful down payment for school construction and modernization. In 
my home State of New York, it would have meant an infusion of close to 
$2.5 billion, incredibly needed money for school construction and 
rehabilitation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, listening to my colleague's remarks, I just must say in 
our research of the bill that 90 percent of the families that would 
benefit have children in public schools, and $3 out of every $4 of the 
tax benefits would be spent on public school education.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Dreier), the distinguished chairman of the 
Committee on Rules.

                              {time}  1100

  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule and of 
the underlying legislation.
  We marked the tragic first anniversary of September 11 yesterday; and 
I think, as we focus on our priorities, clearly national security, 
winning the war on terrorism, dealing with the threats that exist from 
tyrants around the world is our number one priority.
  But it is important to note the very key distinction that exists 
between those evil-doers, as the President calls them, and those here 
in the United States. It is clear that before September 11 of last 
year, education was our top priority. It was the issue that both Al 
Gore and George Bush agreed on in the election; not exactly how to do 
it, but they all agreed.
  As my friend, the gentleman from Rochester, New York (Mr. Reynolds), 
has just said so well, Democrats and Republicans, rich and poor, all 
agree that it is very important for us to focus on the importance of 
education. That is why this House, in a bipartisan way, did pass the No 
Child Left Behind Act. It saw broad bipartisan support, and President 
Bush was able to sign it.
  In the tax measure, we were able to focus attention on that very 
important group of Americans who have to deal with the challenge of 
paying for higher education. So what is it that we did? We were able to 
provide tax incentives for people to deal with the horrendous costs 
that exist today for higher education. So now we have moved ahead with 
legislation to deal with those at the lower end of the economic 
spectrum, those who are trying to focus on the very important primary 
and secondary education challenges that we have.
  Now, it has been labeled ``nothing but politics,'' and it cannot be 
signed into law. I will tell the Members, we can look at a wide range 
of legislation that began in this House with Members saying it would 
not become public law that in fact did become public law, I think all 
the way back to welfare reform measures in the middle part of the last 
decade.
  I look at this tax measure that dealt with the issue of providing 
incentives for people to move with higher education costs. That 
measure, as Members will recall, we tried to move it. People said it 
would never be signed into law; but, in fact, as we repeatedly have 
proceeded with measures from

[[Page 16645]]

this House, we have been able to see them become public law.
  Similarly, this Republican majority is saying to those who are at the 
lower end of the economic spectrum, we want to make sure that they can 
get into that first rung of the ladder. We know that $3,000 would go a 
long way towards dealing with the challenge of making sure that books 
are available; and tuition, any tuition costs for those on the private 
side, although, as my friend, the gentleman from New York, has just 
said, 90 percent of those benefiting from this are in public schools; 
dealing with the issue of transportation; dealing with computer 
technology.
  These are the kinds of costs that families face today, and we believe 
that single parents earning less than $20,000, married couples with 
incomes of $40,000 or less, they should be able to specifically benefit 
from this package. It is a program that is focused on ensuring that 
those who are not in the upper income brackets have an equal 
opportunity to get the best quality education possible.
  That is why this is a very good piece of legislation. I commend my 
colleagues on the Committee on Ways and Means for proceeding with this. 
I believe that it is specifically geared towards that. That is why we 
should keep it on that issue, so we should vote against a motion to 
recommit that my colleagues want to move on the other side of the 
aisle, want to move on that, which does not even relate to this issue 
of providing incentives for those who are seeking opportunities to 
improve their education.
  Mr. Speaker, I encourage an ``aye'' vote for this rule and an ``aye'' 
vote for the very important underlying legislation, and opposition to 
any measure which would jeopardize the potential success of it.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Matsui), a valued member of the Committee on Ways and 
Means.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York for 
yielding me the 4 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I have to say that there are so many reasons why we 
should vote ``no'' on this rule that it is really hard in the period of 
4 minutes to really compress it, but I am going to do the very best I 
can.
  First of all, this will cost $5 billion over the next 3 years. The 
reason it is only for the next 3 years is because it expires at the end 
of 3 years. As we know, we have not got any of the appropriations bills 
to the President's desk, even though the fiscal year will end in about 
3 weeks.
  The reason for it is because, rightfully, the appropriators are 
having a very difficult time trying to come up with bills that would 
stay within at least some reasonable budget confines. That is because 
the tax bill that was passed last year, which incidentally was about 
$1.4 trillion, and 40 percent of it goes to the top 1 percent of the 
taxpayers, which basically makes about $1.1 billion a year on their tax 
returns; but the fact of the matter is that here we are now passing a 
bill that will cost $5 billion over the next 3 years, and we cannot 
move appropriation bills. That is somewhat odd, obviously.
  But more importantly, this $5 billion will invade the Social Security 
trust fund. As we are getting close to the election on November 5, I 
think the American public is entitled to know who really cares about 
Social Security, making it ensured as a defined benefit plan. 
Obviously, by passing this bill, we are going to make that much more 
difficult. Senior citizens of America and those people who are 
concerned about being disabled or, obviously, survivors' benefits, 
should be very concerned about what we are doing on this particular 
piece of legislation.
  But most importantly, this is bad legislation. No one gave it a lot 
of thought. We did not have a hearing on it. What is interesting is 
that one can get up to $3,000 a year on a tax credit, tax deduction, if 
one is an elementary or grammar school parent; so they go out and buy a 
flat screen television and say, we use this for our children's 
education, because we can put it up to a computer. A flat screen TV 
costs about $4,000; take $3,000 and use it for a deduction. We know 
they are going to do that. We know this is not really going to go for 
education. They can even purchase a car if they say they need a car in 
order to take the child to school in the morning, up to $3,000, of 
course.
  This tax bill is ridiculous. It makes no sense at all. It is only a 
political document. In fact, we know the Senate is going to take it up 
because they have been stopping all this bad legislation we have been 
moving out of the House.
  Obviously, I think, the Chair and the leadership is probably very 
happy about that. In fact, when I asked the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Thomas) and I said, how are you going to make this fit within the 
budget, he said, it does not make any difference until the President 
signs it. Everyone on their side of the aisle chuckled because they 
know it is not going to become law.
  We should also vote against this because there is one very important 
piece of legislation that should pass this year, in spite of the fact 
that we have Social Security problems, and others. That is school 
construction. We estimated that it would cost $127 billion over the 
next decade, $127 billion over the next decade just to repair and 
modernize the public schools throughout the United States. $127 
billion.
  The gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson), a member of the 
Committee on Ways and Means, and the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Rangel), the ranking Democrat, over the years have put together a piece 
of legislation that would cost over the next 35 years $25 billion. That 
bill would go at least as a downpayment for school construction for all 
the public schools in America. This would be a great start.
  I have a public school that I went to when I was in high school, C.K. 
McClatchy. I go there all the time. The roof is leaking. They cannot do 
anything about it. We need to pass a bill that makes sense, not bills 
for flat screen TVs or for automobiles. We need a bill that undoubtedly 
will help America's schoolchildren.
  I would suggest a ``no'' vote on this rule.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart), my colleague on the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I do not understand the opposition to 
this legislation. I am trying to figure it out, but I do not understand 
it, because education is supposed to be a top issue for everybody, 
important for everybody. So a bill that says that if a family makes 
less than $40,000 a year they get a tax deduction of up to $3,000 for 
education expenses, it would seem to me that if education is an 
important issue, this is a bill that should be important to them.
  We just heard the dear friend who spoke before say that one could 
even get a car paid for with this tax deduction. I am not sure about 
that because the school has to certify first that it is education-
related, the cost, before they can get a tax deduction.
  But let us say a family does have a situation where they do not have 
transportation, let us say, because in that school district, for 
whatever reason, there is no transportation. I do not think there is a 
situation like that; I do not think that a school is going to certify a 
car. But if there would be a need for that family to have 
transportation and that $3,000 tax deduction to solve that 
transportation problem, I think it is a worthy thing to do, like I also 
think it would be worthy to help a family with academic tutoring or 
books or uniforms or supplies, which clearly would be said by the 
school to be education related. That is what we are talking about here. 
We are talking about families who make $40,000 or less, helping them 
out with their needs.
  Other things should be done as well on education. Sign us up, of 
course. By the way, we got together in a bipartisan fashion, which is 
the way in which we should work, and the way I thought we would work 
with this legislation, as well, when we are talking about education. We 
passed the legislation that was proposed initially by the President. It 
was modified here.

[[Page 16646]]

  So I would ask my colleagues to realize that we are talking about 
education and we are talking about families who make less than $40,000, 
and to at least move the process forward, so hopefully, and whether or 
not the Senate acts, I do not know if the Senate is going to act, but I 
know education is important.
  So I would say, let us move forward and let us improve upon the 
legislation if necessary, instead of minimizing it like we are hearing 
with the opposition.
  This is a good bill. I commend the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Thomas) for it.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I think we do realize that $40,000 is the limit on that. What we are 
saying is that is not an income that one would be paying taxes on and 
would allow them to get this refund.
  Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Hastings).
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished 
colleague on the Committee on Rules for yielding time to me. I was 
hoping the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart) would stay so I 
could help to educate my good friend, the gentleman from Florida. 
Perhaps he will hear it back in his office.
  He began his remarks by indicating he does not understand. What part 
of, if you have no tax liability, this bill provides no relief, does 
the gentleman not understand, I say to the gentleman, or any of the 
other Members that rise in support of this measure?
  I am in opposition to the closed rule for the so-called Back to 
School Tax Relief Act. As soon as I hear that the teachers in my 
district, along with teachers and parents throughout the country, are 
voicing strong opposition to an education bill, that bill gets my full 
attention.
  The teachers of America have good reason, as do parents, to be wary 
of this particular measure. Under the pretense of offering tax benefits 
to low-income families, this charade, I repeat, charade, and footnote 
right there, this is not going to become the law this year, and if it 
is, that my colleagues on the other side are setting the stage for 
something that is going to pass at some point in the future, then say 
that; but do not give the impression here on this floor that this 
measure is about to become the law. It is not going anywhere.
  As matters go, this tax relief bill could cost the American taxpayer 
close to $5 billion over the next 5 years. That said, what happens when 
we take that out of the Federal Treasury is there is no additional 
money for States and localities, so some of the same parents and some 
of the other parents who have no relief here at all are going to wind 
up paying more real estate taxes.
  To add insult to injury, the actual educational benefits are 
negligible, and the actual number of families who might benefit is 
amazingly small. This bill will allow two-parent families with incomes 
of $40,000 or less and one-parent families with incomes of $20,000 or 
less, almost all of whom have no tax liability, to claim deductions for 
educational expenses in public, private, religious, or home schools.
  The fact is that most families in this tax bracket clearly do not 
have a tax liability and would not benefit from this bill. I know that 
supporters of this bill claim that it provides educational tax benefits 
to all low-income families. The truth is that this bill would provide 
educational tax benefits to a few families in America who choose to 
send their children to private school. Make no mistake, this bill 
allows tuition deductions; and it is little more than a private school 
voucher bill. They can put a diamond tiara and a ball gown on an 
elephant; but when all is said and done, it is still an elephant.
  The gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) and the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Matsui) pointed to a measure that would help these 
parents. That is the measure offered by the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) and the ranking member, the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Rangel), that would add to renovation and modification 
and new school construction.
  If that is not something that is important, I do not know what is. I 
urge my colleagues to reject this rule.

                              {time}  1115

  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would just point out as I am managing this rule that 
the discussion is on tax deductions, and my understanding, looking at 
Committee on Ways and Means, is that even the parliamentarian ruled 
that the school construction portion was not germane to the legislation 
that was brought forth out of the Committee on Ways and Means and to 
the Committee on Rules.
  So while there may be great merit on school construction, and some of 
my colleagues here are saying that we cannot afford and should not do 
the tax deductions and yet have advocated school construction, there 
ought to be another place and time in the Committee on Ways and Means 
or some other vehicle in the body to bring forth the discussion on 
school construction.
  This legislation before us is a rule bringing forth consideration by 
the entire body of the legislation introduced by the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Schaffer) which deals with a tax deduction for K through 
12.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Colorado 
(Mr. Schaffer), the sponsor of the legislation.
  Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, this rule is important. It is important because by its 
passage it will bring the underlying legislation to the floor. This is 
a bill that is about rich versus poor. And it is surprising to me to 
hear the opponents of the rule and the bill speak so viciously against 
the poor in America because that is what they are doing. See, if one is 
wealthy in America today, one gets a deduction for every donation made 
to a school whether it is public or private. But if one is poor, one 
does not get that deduction. Since most poor people do not itemize, 
they do not take the deduction.
  This is an above-the-line deduction that we are proposing in the 
legislation which means poor families, those earning $20,000 or less on 
an individual return, 40,000 for a joint return, would receive a 
deduction on money they spend on education of their children which is a 
benefit they do not get today. It is a benefit that will amount to 
about $475 for a family in America. It is a benefit they do not have 
today. And the cost of educating their children is not a cost that is 
borne exclusively by government. It is a cost that is borne by families 
as well when they buy uniforms, when they buy band equipment, when they 
buy computers, books, school supplies, transportation; and, yes, for 
maybe 10 percent of those who are part of the beneficiaries of this 
bill, maybe tuition, maybe, at a private school.
  Ninety percent of the benefit of this bill will result in more money 
being available for public schools, not private. And this is a benefit 
that occurs to poor families with children in schools and these 
families want to invest more money in their child's education. Those 
who say that $5 billion is too much to spend on the poor children of 
America, I say shame on you. We are going to squander more than that on 
every agency, department we can name, A, B, C, D departments down the 
street here.
  But all we are talking about doing here is setting aside about $5 
billion over 10 years so that poor families can afford to spend more 
money on their child's education, not on bridges, not on post offices 
in all our districts, not on new university projects, not on water 
projects, not on dams, not on agriculture research, but on education. I 
believe it is important. I believe it is one of our highest priorities, 
and I regret that there are people here who cannot agree with that. In 
fact, we agreed when we passed the budget because we built this fund, 
we built the $5 billion right into our own budget. And we have 
accommodated the spending that we are contemplating here. Let us just 
do it. Let us pass the resolution.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Wynn).

[[Page 16647]]


  Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule as well as to 
the underlying bill. When we first listened to the bill and we listened 
to the gentleman who just spoke, this bill sounds appealing. It is 
aimed at the working class whom he calls the poor. It is designed to 
help them afford education, and we would think on first blush that that 
is good idea. But on closer examination what we find is this bill is 
really a very bad idea.
  First of all, it is fiscally irresponsible. They do not want to talk 
about that, but the fact is for the same duration of this bill we will 
also be experiencing tremendous deficits in this country and this bill 
will only make that situation worse.
  Second, we find this bill is very disingenuous. They tell us they are 
trying to help the working class poor, but in fact most of those people 
will not be eligible because this is a deduction, and if they have 
other deductions that do not have the requisite income levels, they 
will not get the benefit of this deduction. So do not believe that they 
are really helping the poor. This is basically an election year gimmick 
bill.
  Third, the bill is very contradictory. In the No Child Left Behind 
bill, the appropriation, they have underfunded education by $7.2 
billion. They are indeed leaving children behind.
  Let us look specifically at special education. We made a commitment 
several years ago to fund 40 percent of special education costs for 
local school districts. We are only funding 18 percent. But now they 
have a new gimmick bill while they are not fulfilling the commitments 
they already made in the area of special education. I find that very 
disturbing.
  They want to talk about the poor. Title I is specifically the program 
designed to help the poor. The No Child Left Behind bill calls for $16 
billion in funding. But they actually only appropriate $11.3 billion. 
We are short $4.7 billion. About the same amount that they want to 
claim they can give back in their bill. Remember, most of the poor will 
not be eligible, but they will be shortchanged because we underfunded 
Title I.
  After-school programs, certainly low income residents and students 
need after-school programs. They underfund after-school programs by 
half a billion dollars, but yet they come up with an election year 
gimmick bill.
  As we will hear from the Democratic side, what we really need in poor 
communities is school modernization, technology, improved roofing, air 
conditioning. Young people come to me and say, We need air 
conditioning. It is 90 degrees and our building is not air-conditioned. 
That would really help the poor.
  But at the end of the day what we find is this is a gimmick bill. 
They do not expect it to be signed into law. It is disingenuous. It 
suggests that people will get benefits when they are really not 
eligible. It is fiscally irresponsible. And it contradicts promises 
they have already made. There are abundant reasons why we should reject 
this bill and I urge my colleagues to do so.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Tancredo).
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the opportunity 
to speak on behalf of this bill and to once again state the obvious, 
and that is, in fact, the poor will benefit.
  I do not know how many ways we can put this. This is an above-the-
line deduction that we are proposing. It does not matter about the 
deductions that they have. It is above-the-line. It will come to them 
regardless. It will, in fact, help the poor. I do not know how many 
ways there are to say that in order to, in fact, get people to 
understand the nature of an above-the-line deduction which is being 
proposed here.
  Let us also talk about the possibility that this thing may not become 
law. Well, I do not know what will happen from this point on with this 
bill. My only responsibility is to determine how I should vote on this 
bill before me at this time and why. And I recognize that it may not 
become law. I recognize that there are many forces arrayed against it, 
mostly the forces of monopoly education, those people who say there is 
only one way to educate a child. It is our way or the highway; that the 
only money that can be possibly be spent on education is in the system 
we, the government, can control.
  We know that that is where the real opposition is in this bill. It 
has nothing to do with the amount of money being spent. For heaven's 
sake, Members of the Committee on Ways and Means, Democratic Members of 
the Committee on Ways and Means have introduced 6 bills that I have in 
front of me that take an awful lot more money away from education than 
this even purports to, and this, of course, puts it into education. It 
is just not their kind of education. Not the education system that is 
run by the government that gets all of the money. It will get 90 
percent of it. But a tiny little trickle may end up going to a private 
school and God knows we cannot have that. Why? Because we do not have 
control over that process.
  Well, I tell you we should not. The only people that should have 
control over that process are the parents of the kids that are being 
sent to those schools. They are the ones who should make this 
determination as to where their kids are going to be educated, where 
the best educational experience can be obtained. We do not mind having 
that happen for people who are rich, for people who can any single day 
stand up and say I want my child in this district or in this school and 
I am willing and able to pay for it. We do not do that. Why do we do it 
to the poor?
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington State (Mr. McDermott).
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and to 
the bill which underlies it. I just came from the Committee on the 
Budget, on which I sit, and listened to Mr. Greenspan tell us about the 
chaos in our economy, and he is talking about a Congress that has 
abandoned fiscal discipline. Essentially what he said was this 
Republican Congress in this 40th act of the fiscal follies of 2001 and 
2002 has absolutely decided to eat their dessert before they eat their 
vegetables. You have been doing it for 2 solid years. You passed the 
tax cuts, but you cannot pass a budget. You have given all the goodies 
away and you cannot pass the budget. That is why we are not anywhere 
near completion here.
  This private school voucher is just one more example of the same 
stuff. The President has clapped himself on the back, and all the 
Members have, about ``we passed No Child Left Behind,'' and that 
promised an increase of 15 percent funding in education, but the 
President's budget only had 2.8 percent increase in spending. Why did 
you promise 15 percent and then the President puts out a budget for 
less than a fifth of that? That does not make any sense. You are 
leaving kids behind, and we are going to give you an opportunity to 
change your priorities.
  This picture has on it some of what we want to do in the motion to 
recommit. You can take the same money that you are giving away and 
throwing out there for people to buy gym shoes and TVs and whatever 
they want as long as they say it is for education. That is all they 
have to do is say it is for education. You take that same money and you 
can do something for public schools. With $7 billion you can leverage 
$25 billion of construction.
  I put these pictures up here because I want you to understand we are 
not talking about theoretical stuff. We are talking about drinking 
fountains, we are talking about broken steps, we are talking about 
rotten ceilings in schools. We send kids to those public schools and 
say, ``Why do the teachers not teach them well? I think people ought to 
have a choice to go to a private school to get away from this.'' 
Because we will not put the money into something that makes real sense.
  This voucher, when we questioned the people from Treasury and said 
what can one use this money for, it was appalling. You can do it for 
broadband access for your TV or maybe you do not have a TV; so because 
you want your computer to go through the TV,

[[Page 16648]]

you can buy a TV, one of those nice flat-screen ones and you can deduct 
the whole thing. You can buy gym shoes, some of those Michael Jordan 
$100 gym shoes, because your kid has to take gym and that is related to 
gym. Baby-sitters or maybe a cab ride to school. The school says we are 
not going to have any buses and you have got to get your kid there any 
way you can. All you have got to do is call a cab and deduct it from 
your income tax.
  If this makes sense when we are putting the children of the United 
States in these kinds of schools, this is San Diego, but I could bring 
some from Seattle, and I bet there is not a Member on this floor that 
could not bring pictures just like this from their district, and yet we 
have a bill. It has been in the Congress. It was introduced. It has 228 
signatures. That is more than half the House of Representatives, and we 
cannot get the chairman to even have a hearing. Now tell me, are we 
going to leave any children behind? It is pretty obvious we are because 
we have to continue the tax giveaway follies. Vote no on the rule, vote 
yes on the motion to recommit, and vote no on the bill.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Weldon).
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Reynolds) for yielding.
  I rise in support of this underlying rule and in support of the 
underlying bill. This is the first full week of school in many areas of 
our country. In Florida, where I come from, they went back into school 
in August, but for millions of Americans things are really getting 
underway right now and they are being faced by significant costs.
  Particularly I want to address the people who have their children in 
public school. Many of these families have to buy gym clothes, as the 
gentleman from Washington State (Mr. McDermott) mentioned. Some of them 
have to pay yearbook fees, they have to pay fees for new software, lots 
of additional fees. I had one parent with two kids in public school 
tell me that they were out several hundred dollars in cheerleading fees 
and other fees. Obviously for people who have their children in private 
school, this is a much greater expense.

                              {time}  1130

  This body spoke and this body voted, and the Senate approved it and 
it was signed into law; and we allowed a tax deduction of $3,000 for 
higher education.
  What this debate is really about is are we going to allow the same 
thing for K through 12 and why not? Why not? The gentleman from 
Washington State talked about putting more money into education for 
Washington. I have been here for 8 years now. When I got here, the 
education budget was $30 billion. What is it now, 48 billion or 
something like that?
  I want to address this issue of school construction. We could 
probably get a bill out of this body, but one of the things that holds 
this issue up is there are a lot of people on that side of the aisle 
that want to mandate that any school construction funds adhere to 
Davis-Bacon union work requirements; and in the State of Florida, this 
is going to drive up school construction costs by 30 percent. Frankly, 
for us in Florida, we do not want Federal money if it has those kinds 
of strings attached; and that gets me to what really is the issue here.
  We are trying to help families, and we are not trying to help rich 
families. This is targeted for the $20,000 to $40,000 range. We are 
specifically trying to help working families that have kids and have 
struggled making ends meet. Why should they send 30 cents to Washington 
for every 70 cents they spend on their kids' education? Give them the 
whole dollar to spend on their kids' education.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Florida (Mrs. Thurman).
  Mrs. THURMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York for 
yielding me the time, and I would just say to the last speaker that he 
is correct that we gave a $3,000 deduction for higher education. 
However, he also must know that that expires at the end of 2005. It is 
not a permanent tax part of this.
  Secondly, I would say that it is kind of interesting to listen to 
some prior speakers who talked about the poor and who would get this. 
First, no single mother with an income more than $20,000 is going to be 
eligible because, by the way, $20,000 is the statutory income cutoff 
for noncouples.
  Second, no single mother with less than a $20,000 income will benefit 
if she has significant child care expenses. The reason is that for 
every potential dollar of tax cut from a new K through 12 education 
deduction, she loses a dollar of benefit under the dependent care tax 
credit. The credit is nonrefundable so the usable credit is limited to 
the amount of tax liability prior to the credit if the liability is 
already as low as the credit or lower, which is the case for such a 
single mother; then reducing her tax liability with a new deduction 
just reduces the credit. There is no net gain.
  I might point out that after reading all of this, one of the things I 
think the American people are very concerned about is how we make our 
Tax Code less complicated rather than more complicated, and this 
certainly is causing us to have more complication and for people to 
even have the ability to use this.
  Third, even among mothers without dependent care expenses, for a 
single mother with two children to get a benefit, her income has to fit 
within a very narrow range of $19,250 to $20,000. A single mother, two 
children and a $19,250 income or less is not going to benefit because 
the child credit is only partly refundable and because her tax before 
credit is low. She is unable to use all of the $600 per-child credit, 
so her tax before credit is reduced by a new deduction; her usable 
child credits fall by that same amount.
  So as my colleagues can see, there are some concerns as to who would 
be able to use this and particularly at those levels.
  I also have to say that I always can tell when there is a bad bill 
because, quite frankly, the rule then governs the debate. Guess what. 
Today, we have a closed rule with no substitute allowed. Are we afraid 
to have debate in the U.S. Congress about issues that are of concern to 
the American public? I do not think the American public is concerned 
about debate. So why would we close the rule?
  What we are going to have is an opportunity to at least take 
advantage of one area that they cannot take, and that is the motion to 
recommit; and in that motion to recommit, we are going to ask this 
Congress to look at what every State is asking for and, that is, funds 
for the ability to build schools. With that, let us take down this 
rule.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  In listening to my colleague from Florida, I looked at the number of 
families and kids who could potentially benefit from the education tax 
deduction in 2000. The State of Florida, the number of families is 
722,518. The number of children is 1,283,971.
  I would also say, and I cannot speak for the Committee on Rules, but 
I can talk about our precedent in the Committee on Rules, and I can 
speak for me as an individual. I want to remind the gentlewoman that 
there was no substitute brought before the Committee on Rules that 
could have been considered and would have been routinely added as a 
substitute consideration to come to the floor.
  Then I will also point out that I have not seen any motion that has 
referred to school construction that has been made available to me as a 
member of the Committee on Rules or to anyone else that I have asked. 
So I want to make sure that my colleagues both on the floor and 
throughout the buildings clearly understand that the rule before us 
today says that it is a legislation, I will ask the gentleman from 
Colorado to speak on again, of a deduction, of $3,000 above the line 
for K through 12.
  School construction may be a worthy subject. It is one that we know 
there are sponsors on both sides of the aisle. The Parliamentarian 
ruled that school construction would not be part of this as it was 
presented in the Committee

[[Page 16649]]

on Ways and Means and was defeated on a party-line vote. There will be 
a future bill on construction, I am sure, because I have not seen it go 
away, but this does not address that.


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from Washington 
(Mr. McDermott) will state his parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, has the Parliamentarian made a decision 
on the amendment which is going to be offered later in the day?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair cannot respond with an 
anticipatory ruling or advisory opinion.
  The gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds) is recognized.
  Mrs. THURMAN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. REYNOLDS. I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida.
  Mrs. THURMAN. Mr. Speaker, let me ask this in the form of a question. 
It is my understanding, and I would like to be corrected if not, that 
in fact there was a substitute that was brought to the committee. My 
understanding is that it was out of order. But is it not customary, on 
occasion, that we have the opportunity to waive the rules?
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Number one, it is my understanding the substitute was 
not germane. Number two, we usually do not waive the rules on 
germaneness.
  Mrs. THURMAN. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would continue to yield, 
is it my understanding that the rules were waived on this bill?
  Mr. REYNOLDS. We waived points of order for technical reasons.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to gentlewoman from 
Florida (Mrs. Thurman).
  Mrs. THURMAN. Mr. Speaker, I would just say to the gentleman, the 
number he has read back to me of the children and those who would have 
been affected by this piece of legislation, let me just say also to him 
that under America's Better Classroom Act, quite frankly the State of 
Florida would have received $1.1 billion in new additional dollars for 
classrooms. This could have given us some ideas of what we could have 
done with classroom size.
  I would also say I watched after this body, and I thought we have a 
very good debate. We talked about education; we did a bipartisan bill. 
We all believed that the President was right in putting this bill of 
Leave No Child Behind. It was historic across the Nation. We watched 
people go around in a bipartisan way. I mean, we had the gentleman from 
California (Mr. George Miller) and others standing hand in hand; how 
wonderful this legislation was going to be.
  I also remember the day that the debate took place, and the debate 
went something along the lines, this is a good piece of legislation if 
the money's there. Lo and behold, we get a budget proposal this year 
that cuts $8 billion. Instead of restoring dollars to the budget, for 
things like classroom size and other things, the fact of the matter is 
we are going to end up cutting $7 billion to give $5 billion to 
probably where very few people will be able to use this because of 
their other tax liabilities.
  I would suggest to this body that if my colleagues are going to make 
promises and go out and talk about historic legislation, they ought to 
back it up with the money and quit playing tax breaks for a few.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, our last speaker is the bill's sponsor. I 
yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Schaffer) to help 
us clearly see the intent of what he has sponsored in his legislation, 
because the debate on education has taken us in varied directions.
  Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time, and I thank him for putting the final discussion here in the 
right context because the debate has drifted far away from the intended 
subject, and that subject is America's children who are in schools and 
primarily those who are poor.
  I have always appreciated the gentlewoman from Florida for her 
candor, and I appreciate it again today because she really revealed the 
motivation behind many of the votes that will take place today. It is 
motivated by unrelated issues, about school construction, other bills; 
and unfortunately, if they succeed, the casualty in the outcome of that 
debate would be poor children in America.
  The bill that precipitated the debate and brought the rule here is 
all about focusing on families that earn $20,000 per individual, 
$40,000 per married couple, and allowing them to deduct from their 
taxable income up to $3,000 of expenditures for costs associated with 
educating their children, for books, supplies, materials, tuition, 
transportation, those items that those families believe to be in the 
best interests of furthering their child's education.
  I understand there are many here who have opposed and been in 
opposition of this idea because they do not trust these parents. They 
think they might buy flat screen TVs. Guess what, the Department of 
Education buys flat screen TVs. In fact, the Department of Education 
has a very bad record over the last several years when it comes to 
waste, fraud and abuse. We have investigated it. I did not see anybody 
over on that side of the aisle stand up saying, wait a minute, since 
they spent money on Cadillacs, flat screen TVs, have lost cash, 
hundreds of millions of dollars, let us not give them anymore. Nobody 
raised that argument. In fact, my colleagues' argument then was let us 
give them more money so they do not waste as much.
  I tend to trust families and individuals to spend money right when it 
comes to their children, and I trust them more than I do government. 
That is just what I believe, and that is really what this debate is all 
about.
  For those who believe that there is not really an appreciable benefit 
for families, they should just vote for it, because as my colleague 
pointed out, this costs $5 billion. That is $5 billion of children who 
stand to benefit from this legislation. Let us spend it on them rather 
on the bureaucracy, and let us vote for the rule.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I would like to make two points. One is that we do trust American 
families on this side of the aisle. We trust them enough that we do not 
want to perpetrate a hoax on them this morning, which we think is 
exactly what is happening here, and to point out that had the gentleman 
from New York's (Mr. Rangel) substitute been allowed and passed, that 
our State of New York would receive $2.5 billion in much needed 
construction money.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1145

  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. 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 208, 
nays 201, not voting 23, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 387]

                               YEAS--208

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Coble
     Collins
     Cox
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint

[[Page 16650]]


     Diaz-Balart
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Frelinghuysen
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutknecht
     Hansen
     Hart
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kerns
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller, Dan
     Miller, Jeff
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     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
     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
     Sullivan
     Sununu
     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 (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--201

     Abercrombie
     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)
     Castle
     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
     Gephardt
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (TX)
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     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
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Phelps
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     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
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson (CA)
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--23

     Ackerman
     Bonilla
     Clement
     Combest
     Cooksey
     Gallegly
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Hastings (WA)
     Hilleary
     Issa
     Lynch
     Meek (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Neal
     Rahall
     Roukema
     Stearns
     Stump
     Towns
     Velazquez

                              {time}  1212

  Messrs. HONDA, DICKS, LIPINSKI, JACKSON of Illinois, McINTYRE, 
JEFFERSON and Ms. McCOLLUM changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. TERRY changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 387 I was unavoidably 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

                          ____________________