[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 10]
[House]
[Pages 12972-12979]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




   WAIVING A REQUIREMENT OF CLAUSE 6(a) OF RULE XIII WITH RESPECT TO 
                  CONSIDERATION OF CERTAIN RESOLUTIONS

  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the 
Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 249 and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 249

       Resolved, That the requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII 
     for a two-thirds vote to consider a report from the Committee 
     on Rules on the same day it is presented to the House is 
     waived with respect to any resolution reported on the 
     legislative day of May 22, 2003, providing for consideration 
     or disposition of the bill (H.R. 2) to provide for 
     reconciliation pursuant to section 201 of the concurrent 
     resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2004, any amendment 
     thereto, any conference report thereon, or any amendment 
     reported in disagreement from a conference thereon.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln 
Diaz-Balart) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of 
debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my colleague and 
friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), pending which I yield 
myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this 
resolution, all time yielded is for purposes of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 249 waives clause (6)(a) of rule XIII 
requiring a two-thirds vote to consider a rule on the same day it is 
reported from the Committee on Rules.
  The rule applies the waiver to a special rule reported on the 
legislative day of May 22, 2003, providing for consideration or 
disposition of the bill to provide for reconciliation pursuant to 
section 201 of the concurrent resolution, any conference report 
thereon, or any amendment reported in disagreement from a conference 
thereon.
  This rule is the starting block to allow the House to consider 
legislation that will infuse our economy with job-creating tax relief, 
investment incentives, and overall economic growth.

[[Page 12973]]

The House initially passed the Jobs and Growth Reconciliation Tax Act 
earlier this month, and with today's action we can demonstrate our 
continued commitment to spurring economic expansion and providing 
stability to American workers, businesses and families.
  Our economy needs a healthy dose of meaningful relief. This Congress 
has once before exhibited the leadership and sense of purpose needed to 
create jobs and protect workers. If we delay, we put American jobs and 
the strength of our economy at risk.
  As we prepare to consider legislation extending unemployment 
compensation, I can think of no better complimentary action for 
Congress to adopt than legislation to boost employment levels, lower 
the tax burden, and grow the economy. It is imperative that we move 
forward at once. Thus, I strongly urge my colleagues to support this 
rule so we can proceed with a debate on this very important 
legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1345

  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, it is often said if you repeat a lie often enough, 
people begin to believe it. Our record $350 billion deficit, the 
Republican Congress tells us that does not matter. The fact that this 
Republican administration has asked us not once, but twice, to raise 
the debt limit to record levels, ignore that, and maybe it will go 
away. The promise that all Members made to protect Social Security and 
Medicare funds in a lockbox, that does not seem to matter either, Mr. 
Speaker.
  This is not government. This is a complete abdication of fiscal 
responsibility.
  In 1995 the now majority leader, Tom DeLay, said, ``By the year 2002, 
we can have a Federal Government with a balanced budget or we could 
continue down the present path towards total fiscal catastrophe.''
  It is now abundantly clear that the Republicans have lost their way 
and have decided that the path of fiscal catastrophe is not such a bad 
path after all. That begs the question, Mr. Speaker, what are the 
priorities of the Republican Party that makes tripping down the path to 
fiscal catastrophe such a great idea in 2003 when it was so bad an idea 
in 1995?
  Well, we know the Republicans' top priority is to give millionaires a 
dividend tax cut. Where does that money come from? Well, the Republican 
budget conference report cuts veterans' Medicare and burial benefits by 
$6.2 billion. So if you are a millionaire and you have got a lot of 
dividend and capital gains income, the Republicans take care of you. If 
you are a veteran, this Republican Congress wants you to remember this 
Memorial Day as the one when your benefits were cut. And for what, Mr. 
Speaker? One of the most gimmick-laden tax cuts this Congress has ever 
considered. While the dividend and capital gains taxes last until 2008, 
the marriage penalty relief and child tax credits disappear at the end 
of 2004.
  So while the millionaires enjoy their rate break for the rest of the 
decade, working families are left with uncertainty.
  In 2001 the Republicans told us that their tax cut would create jobs. 
Instead, the Bush administration has presided over one of the worst job 
losses in American history; 2.7 million jobs have been lost. A dividend 
tax package is not going to help these people get jobs. It is simply 
welfare for millionaires.
  Mr. Speaker, Warren Buffett has made a lot of money. Mr. Buffett 
would, in fact, be one of the greatest recipients of the Republican tax 
plan. He wrote an op-ed in The Washington Post this week calling the 
dividend tax plan ``voodoo economics.''
  Alan Greenspan said, ``There is no question that as deficits go up, 
contrary to what some have said, it does effect long-term interest 
rates. It does have a negative impact on the economy.''
  These are two of America's leading economic minds, Mr. Speaker. And 
they know that financing this tax cut which benefits only the wealthy 
few with borrowed money is wrong. It is wrong, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, we believe it is important to move this legislation 
forward to grow our economy, to create jobs, help people who do not 
have jobs find jobs; and we strongly support it and strongly support 
this rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. McDermott).
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I received my symbol for this Congress 
just the other day. It is an official stamp from the White House, and 
they are passing them out. You will all get one in the mail I am pretty 
sure, and it says: ``Official rubber stamp. I approve of everything 
George Bush does. Member of Congress.''
  All you have to do is sign your name on there. That is what this 
Congress is about, rubber stamping the President's proposals. Bring it 
out here. No debate. Do not let us offer amendments. Do not take any 
time. Just get out the rubber stamp and put it down there and just roll 
it on in. You have now joined the rubber stamp Congress.
  This party is running a one-party government. They want no input from 
the Democrats whatsoever. They are a rubber stamp for the President. 
They are willing to give away all their prerogatives on the war. They 
said to the President, whenever you think it is time to go to war, go 
ahead. So they have rubber-stamped whatever he wanted to do. On the tax 
cut, just give it to him. It will work. On unemployment benefits, well, 
they stalled and stalled; and he said, look, we are getting bad numbers 
on those polls. We better do something about employment. So in about an 
hour we are going to come out here and rubber-stamp again his 
unemployment bill that the Democrats have been pushing for 4 months. 
But when the President says it, everybody on the other side jumps up 
and says, Where is my rubber stamp? God, I got to get over to the floor 
and cast my vote for whatever he wants.
  Whether he wants to repeal all of the environmental issues related to 
the military, give the military an open season on doing anything they 
want. They are killing whales and porpoises in Washington, they are 
doing all the rest, but over here on the other side, we do not want to 
have any debate on that. We are rubber-stamping whatever the President 
wants. I welcome everybody to the rubber stamp club. I hope you got 
yours. Do not forget to bring them to the floor when you vote.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished 
ranking member for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, it would be my greatest desire that we would have a full 
debate on the question of the next step for our economy and walk out of 
this Chamber with the mark of the Congress in the bipartisan way.
  Two days ago, Warren Buffett wrote an op-ed, and I believe everyone 
knows the portfolio of Warren Buffett is still very strong, one of the 
richest men in the Nation. And he argued vigorously with the approach 
this Congress was taking. Clearly, he said, the tax plan now moving 
through the Congress is not a gift for him. It is an outright bonus. It 
is Christmas every day, and it is for everyone in his predicament and 
condition: $40 billion-plus in assets. But he compared his status, Mr. 
Speaker, with the status of the secretary or receptionist working in 
his office or even the cleaning woman working in his office.
  He said, under this effort, this tax cut program, he would be paying 
or being given a gift and he would be paying one-tenth of the amount of 
monies required by the receptionist and the cleaning woman.
  What that says to me, Mr. Speaker, we are going up the wrong road. 
There

[[Page 12974]]

is a dead end at the end of the road and the dead end are the millions 
of unemployed who are not getting an extended unemployment package of 
26 weeks because we have got to give a tax cut to the rich. We are 
going up a dead end, Mr. Speaker, because the program that is now being 
fostered upon us does not create jobs.
  If we took the Democratic plan, Mr. Speaker, and we invested a 
million dollars in transportation infrastructure, you would get 13 
jobs. If you did it in health care, you would get 26 jobs. Mr. Speaker, 
if you use the plan that the President has put forward, you take a 
million dollars and you get two jobs.
  Now, I know that there is a difficulty in math in this great body 
because we are willing to go forward on $550 billion, which I 
understand is a compromise on $350 billion; but it does not invest back 
into America to create jobs, and the plan as proposed by the 
Republicans takes $1 million to create two jobs. And I can take $1 
million and put it in transportation and create 15 jobs, and in health 
care and create 28 jobs and on down the line. And then I could provide 
26 weeks of unemployment for those whose benefits are being cut off.
  I know the American people are focused as we honor the dead this 
coming weekend, and I will join them in cherishing those who fight for 
our freedom. But it is time for America to wake up. You are going to be 
hungry after 13 weeks. You need to stand up and fight for 26 weeks. 
That is what I believe we should be doing today.
  Putting up this marshal rule does not allow us to collaborate and to 
work together. Let us work through tomorrow, let us work through 
Saturday, let us work through Sunday. Let us leave this place with a 
tax bill that really invests in America. Let us leave this place with 
26 weeks of unemployment insurance for the single mothers and dads who 
are going to be facing eviction because they do not have the benefit.
  Let us churn the economy by ensuring that those people who are 
without work who are looking for work because there are no jobs, still 
have the benefits to pay their mortgage and their rent and to buy the 
food.
  Mr. Speaker, we are forcing this down the throats of the Members of 
Congress. I know we are better than this. This is not a good rule. We 
need to deliberate and work for a better economy for America because 
our economy is in shambles. I ask my colleagues to work together and 
vote against this.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah).
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Speaker, I rise to suggest a caution flag as we rush 
towards this free lunch-approach to governmental fiscal policy. We 
cannot have a world-class military and defense, world-class health 
care, education, cities, and culture, and suggest that no one has to 
pay for it. And we talk about tax cuts today as if they are going to 
stimulate the economy tomorrow with some type of selective amnesia, 
because it was right here on this floor just 2 years ago that we passed 
the largest tax cut supposedly in the history of the country. And it 
did not stimulate our economy.
  Let us just take a look for a minute at where we are.

                              {time}  1400

  We have moved from hundreds of billions of dollars of surpluses to 
now having hundreds of billions of dollars of deficits. We had millions 
of Americans who were working who are now unemployed; and, even today, 
the unemployment registration rate in our country has increased again. 
Consumer confidence is down. Housing starts are down. And every single 
indicator, in terms of economic health in our country, is troubling.
  We have heard from the Chair of the Federal Reserve Board, Alan 
Greenspan, suggesting that this tax cut is very problematic in both the 
short term and the long term. He cautions the Congress that our 
combination of both spending and tax cuts risks the fiscal health of 
this Nation. And the Republican majority, I am sure, wants to say, 
well, we just need to get spending under control, as if the country 
should forget that they are in the majority, that they control spending 
both in the House and in the Senate, and they control the signature 
from the executive at the White House.
  For so many years now we have been insisting on spending more on 
defense, we have been insisting on investing in a whole range of exotic 
weapons systems, and then we come to the floor and the majority offers 
us more and more tax cuts. The fiscal health of our country is in 
jeopardy. Future generations will have to pay. We should say to 
Americans, why do we not be mature, pay the bills as we go, rather than 
run the country into further deficit?
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Doggett).
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, this is a martial law rule, and that is 
appropriate because there are those in this House and in this country 
that think the role of all the representatives here is to march in a 
martial fashion behind the leadership of the majority leader, the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay).
  So it is appropriate they bring this rule out today, a gag rule, to 
gag those of us that do not share the views of the majority leader, who 
might have an amendment or an alternative way to address the problems 
that American families face. They deny us that right. They have assured 
there will be no substitutes considered on this floor. It is their way 
or the highway. It is a martial America that they are supporting and 
appropriate they bring this rule up to do it.
  Their ideas are so narrow and so extreme that they cannot stand to 
have them debated and voted upon, not so much worrying about the 
Democrats but worrying that some members of their own party could not 
be held in line against solid alternatives to do something for the 
millions of Americans that lack jobs in this Bush economy; to do 
something about the millions of Americans who lack insurance in this 
Bush economy; to do something about the children who are denied the 
opportunity to fulfill their full potential because of teacher freezes, 
because there are textbooks that will not be renewed in Texas.
  Meanwhile, the President tells us that he has to break his promise on 
the ``Leave No Child Behind'' Act. He has come up with a mere $9 
billion, that is billion with a ``B,'' billion dollars. He breaks his 
promise in the short period of time that he advanced a bipartisan 
proposal for education that we all came behind. Now he will break his 
promise and not fulfill the promise he made to the American people. 
Though we do not have the money for our children to get access to new 
textbooks, we do not have enough money for that, we do have enough 
money for more tax breaks for those at the top of the economic ladder.
  The budget deficit puts a hole in the pocket of every American every 
day of their lives. It threatens the very foundation of our culture. We 
must seize and act upon this historic opportunity to solve this, the 
most pressing issue facing the country.
  Those are not my words, though I find them rather eloquent. They are 
the words of Treasury Secretary John Snow in 1995 but forgotten by him 
now that he has a new job in the administration. No ``Snow job'' can 
hide this administration's Mt. Everest of debt. Mr. Snow got a new job 
and a new viewpoint at the same time millions of Americans were losing 
their jobs in this sorry economy.
  A few weeks ago, the President announced a tax cut of the size that 
will be imposed on America tonight and said that it was just a ``little 
bitty'' tax cut. Well, Mr. Snow is coming the same week and asking us 
to raise the debt ceiling by billions of dollars. Is that a ``little 
bitty'' increase? No, they practically need an extension ladder over 
there at the Treasury Department because they cannot get the debt 
ceiling raised fast enough before they are back having to go up a 
little higher and raise it some more.
  Of course, they turn to us and say, ``it is the people's money, give 
it back to them. It is their taxes.'' Well, it is the people's debt, 
too, and they are

[[Page 12975]]

going to have a whole lot more of it. And not billions, but trillions, 
with a ``T,'' trillions of dollars in additional debt if this lame 
economic policy, this sorry tax break, one after another writeoff for 
the rich, is imposed on the children and the grandchildren of America.
  This is a borrow and spend Republican Party, and that is why they 
have to have martial rules because they cannot permit Congress to 
consider alternative proposals. They cannot have full and fair debate. 
They need everybody to line up in a line and stand to borrow more from 
the people of this country. A ``no'' vote is a vote for fiscal 
responsibility that ensures our children will not be burdened by 
today's excesses.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Frost) for yielding me this time, and I rise in opposition 
to this martial rule, which essentially restricts debate. It does not 
permit the Democratic economic program to even be debated today.
  Why not? What is the opposition afraid of? They have the votes on 
their side. Why not even allow us to talk about our program?
  Here is why. I remember back to that old saying, if you fool me once, 
shame on you. If you fool me twice, shame on me. But if you fool me 
thrice, well, my gosh, it is just a sad and deadly shame.
  If we think back to 1981, when Vice President Dick Cheney was then a 
Member of this House and head of the Republican Policy Group, he was 
involved in the Republican tax program enacted back in 1981. We had the 
worst job washout in American history. I was elected in 1983. It took 
us 15 years to balance this budget and to bring employment up, with the 
election of Bill Clinton and 8 years of economic growth inside this 
economy. And it was not easy.
  When this administration took over, they blew $1.3 billion in the 
first year and a half. Fifteen years of work flew out the window. Then 
with their tax bill that they passed back in 2001, what have we gotten 
in terms of employment? None. We have got the biggest job loss since 
World War II, over 3 million more jobs lost in this country. We have 
three people in this economy looking for every single job that is being 
created, and most of those jobs do not pay a living wage and they do 
not have health benefits.
  So, fool me once, fool me twice, and now we have the third version 
that they are bringing up. This bill, what will it do? It is going to 
create more unemployment. It is no different than what was done back in 
1981, no different than what was done back in 2001. Strike one, strike 
two, strike three. They ought to be out.
  If we take a look at our country, we might ask ourselves the 
question: With 150,000 of our men and women, of our troops, now 
deployed in Afghanistan and Iraq, is it not amazing that what we do 
here at home under the Republican plan is reward the Wall Street 
brokers who just stole your 401(k) money? There is not a single 
American family that has not been affected. So we say to them, take 
more of our money. Take more of our money. The interesting thing about 
the Republican bill is that not a dime that is given to them has to be 
invested in the USA. We are going to have more job washout to China, to 
Mexico, and every single American community and worker knows what I am 
talking about.
  So the Democratic plan provides a million jobs this year alone. It 
invests in the United States. It gives families security. It does not 
borrow against the Social Security trust funds, which is how they are 
covering their growing deficits, and it enacts responsible economic 
programs. That is what the Democratic bill does. It creates jobs this 
year, it does not add a penny to the deficit, and it preserves Social 
Security and Medicare, our Democratic legacy.
  Fool me once, not me. Fool me twice, not me. Fool me thrice? How 
about you?
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  We are seeing a very clear difference in philosophy and opinion on 
the floor of the House today between the parties. It was said before by 
one of our friends on the other side of the aisle that when we cut 
taxes, when we reduce the burden of taxation on the American people, 
that that is an imposition. That was the word. We impose this. 
Congress, it was said, will impose a tax cut on the American people.
  We believe that when we relieve the tax burden on the American 
people, that that is not an imposition on the American people. We 
believe it is their money in the first place, and we are relieving the 
tax burden on the American people. We are imposing less taxes from 
Washington.
  So it is an interesting difference of opinion, and I think it is a 
fundamental difference of opinion. I think the American people are 
seeing it today. What we believe is that we should return as much as we 
can of the people's money to the people, and that they are best suited 
and know best how to spend their own money. So it is a fundamental 
difference.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Yes, there is a difference between the two parties here. The other 
side would impose billions of dollars of debt on my 6-year-old 
granddaughter and my 3-year-old granddaughter and my 2-month-old 
granddaughter. I do not believe we should be doing that.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Sherman).
  Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, the Bush recession continues, and this job 
killer bill ensures that it will continue to continue. It imposes 
additional deficits on our budget and additional debt on the American 
people. It imposes higher interest rates on the American people. It 
will impose upon our teachers and our firefighters layoffs at a time 
when we need more jobs in the economy, because it virtually ensures 
that we will provide only very limited and inadequate aid to our States 
and cities that are falling on hard times right now.
  If we look at the details, we become aware that this bill, whatever 
the arguments that were made in favor of it, is nothing more than an 
effort to hand as much cash as possible to the Bush class. We are told 
that it is going to help investments, but when we look at the details, 
we discover otherwise. Three details: It is temporary, it provides aid 
to children with huge trust funds, and it provides equal encouragement 
to invest in foreign corporations as domestic corporations.
  At least that is what I am told orally about a bill that, in theory, 
has not been written yet but in fact is out in the press now.
  What about it being temporary? The idea was that we were not just 
going to give a windfall to people who had already invested in stocks 
but that we were going to encourage people to invest more. Well, wait a 
minute. Municipal bonds are a nice investment for tax-free income. But 
who would buy a municipal bond today if 5 years from now all the income 
was going to be subject to tax? Nobody is going to invest in stocks 
long term because of a short-term window in which the dividends are tax 
free. Sure, if they already own the stock, they will enjoy not paying 
taxes.
  Second, I am told that these same benefits are available to 
investments in foreign corporations. So if you invest in the Chinese 
people's low-wage corporation, you pay no American tax at the corporate 
level, of course, and no American tax at the domestic level, or a very 
low tax.
  Finally, if you transfer half a million bucks worth of Rolls Royce 
stock to your 14-year-old daughter, in a couple of years she will be 
eligible to receive the dividends on that stock virtually tax free and 
then go out and buy a Rolls Royce with the dividend income. This is the 
Rolls Royce Investment Act, or I like to call it the Rolls Royce for 
Buffy Act.

                              {time}  1415

  The Bush recession continues, and this bill is carefully crafted to 
make sure it continues.

[[Page 12976]]


  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Ford).
  Mr. FORD. Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot of talk, and my colleagues 
on my side of the aisle have suggested that we are traveling down a 
course we traveled before from 2 years ago when we were promised that a 
tax bill would create millions of new jobs and new opportunities for 
people. In fact, it did not.
  Some will say there are reasons for that. The President will say, as 
he has said in speech after speech, that this country was attacked. We 
were. Our Nation responded with great resolve, determination, courage 
and charity; and our military has responded with unprecedented 
swiftness and effectiveness. Yet we in Congress have failed the 
American people, and the President has, in large part, as well. Instead 
of tailoring and adjusting a plan to conform to the realities of the 
day, we continue to offer the same rhetoric and the same plan that we 
offered when things were good, when things were bad, when things were 
really bad, and now at a time when things are compounded.
  Some of my colleagues have come to the floor to detail the challenges 
that their States face. My colleague on the other side of the aisle, 
whom I have great respect for, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln 
Diaz-Balart), comes from a State which is running a big deficit. The 
President's brother is the Governor of that State. My Governor is faced 
with a $500 million shortfall. Things are so bad in some States that 
they are releasing prisoners early to help meet or to close budget 
shortfalls. Something is wrong here in Congress and wrong with us in 
government when we pretend that these issues are either not ours to 
confront or not of our making, or somehow our ideas are the only and 
best ideas.
  We could probably come up with a number of ways to stimulate the 
economy, a number of tax cuts to stimulate the economy. I have heard 
some say this dividend tax is unfair. The Tax Code is polluted with 
areas that unfair; inequities litter it. We should prioritize if we are 
going to clean up and undo some of the unfairness of the Tax Code.
  It would seem to me the best thing we can do is to help our States. 
The President reluctantly agreed to include a $20 billion package. I 
applaud him on that front. If anything, we should provide more for the 
States. Not only do we help governors avoid doing the two worse things 
during an economic downturn, which are to cut services and/or raise 
taxes, we also help them create more jobs because as you cut State 
programs, more and more people are laid off.
  Those of us from rural areas understand the importance of rural 
hospitals and rural health care. When you close hospitals, not only do 
you compromise care, you cause a decline in the job market in those 
areas as well. I can only say to my friends, and there are those who 
have come to the floor and have talked about marching orders and even 
rubber-stamping, and there is great truth and great humor in a lot of 
the things that they have said. It is my hope that my friends on the 
other side of the aisle will pay some attention to what we are saying. 
We understand that they have the votes to ram things down and do what 
they choose to do. But remember, all of us represent people and all of 
us have to go home and explain to our Governors, to our mayors, and, 
more importantly, to our bosses whom we call constituents why we have 
not done more to assist cities and States, and for that matter the 
private sector, in creating more and more jobs.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I have been hearing some interesting arguments today. I 
thought it was very interesting that one of our colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle said that by virtue of the fact that the tax cut is 
set to expire, or parts of it at the end of the year 2008, that that 
will diminish the incentive for people to invest in the stock market 
and have the stock market thus increase and contribute to economic 
growth.
  But what was failed to be pointed out is that the opponents of the 
tax cut have so diligently fought the tax cut that they were able to 
reduce the amount of the tax cut for the American people, the reduction 
of taxes for the American people; and thus that portion will expire 
previously before we would have wanted it to have expired. I do not 
think it is logical to be able to say I am going to fight the tax cut. 
You reduce it, and then they say since it expires sooner than it was 
meant to, then its effectiveness is to be questioned. Wait a minute, do 
you want the tax cut or do you not want the tax cut?
  In a sense I thought that was somewhat incoherent, that argument; but 
of course there is a right to make any argument in this wonderful body.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from 
Tennessee.
  Mr. FORD. If my reading is correct, and I have not been a part of any 
of the meetings, it appeared to me that one of the reasons that the tax 
cut was reduced from $726 billion to $550 billion to $350 billion was 
because there was disagreement in the gentleman's own party between the 
two bodies, between the House and Senate.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. That is correct.
  Mr. FORD. So we bear some of the responsibility, but some on the 
other side of the aisle also bear some of the responsibility.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Yes, there is no doubt about 
that. But what I was pointing to was that the argument was made that 
the incentive to invest in the stock market is reduced by virtue of the 
fact that that tax cut, that tax incentive, is sunsetted.
  What I am saying is it is people who oppose the tax cut, from 
whatever party, and the argument was made against the effectiveness of 
the tax cut with regard to the dividends part by my distinguished 
colleague who is a Democrat. I was pointing out that I think it is 
inconsistent to want to have it both ways and then to say it sunsets, 
so it is not effective. I thought there was an inconsistency there, and 
some incoherence.
  Mr. FORD. Fair enough.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. But the gentleman is right, there 
are Republicans in the other body that are responsible for reducing the 
effectiveness of what we are talking about. But what we strongly 
believe and what we want to do, and we are doing it to the best of our 
ability, is to reduce the tax burden on the American people.
  The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) pointed out previously that the 
debt burden may be increased. We want to reduce the debt burden by 
incentivizing economic growth which will not only create jobs now, but 
also lessen the debt burden in the future. That is what I was pointing 
out with regard to the point on the effectiveness of the dividend part. 
If you are against the tax cut, but then say it sunsets, so it is not 
effective, I thought that was an incoherent argument.
  Mr. FORD. If the gentleman would continue to yield, with regard to 
the efforts the Congress made on behalf of the airline industry right 
after September 11 and not long ago in the war supplemental, which I 
thought was the right thing to do and I support it, does it not make 
sense also, because part of the argument on this side, and I think from 
some in the other body, to provide greater resources to States that are 
having to lay nurses and teachers off? And I could go on with our 
rhetoric, and the other side has rhetoric; but the reality is State 
governments are forced to make some bad decisions largely because the 
Governors cannot borrow money, and we can. I am just curious, the $20 
billion that was added on the Senate side, is that something that the 
other side would be supportive of? That was not included in the House 
bill.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I am not sure if it is. What we

[[Page 12977]]

are doing with this rule is making possible for us to have that debate 
today, and obviously the people who have been involved in the 
negotiations will explain the details of what they ultimately end up 
with. We are trying to have that debate today, and that is why we have 
this rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The reasoning on the other side is very curious. I do recall in 2001 
when they were promoting the first tax cut, the reason they gave for 
the tax cut was, oh, we have a surplus. Now we have this surplus, we 
need a tax cut so we can give that money back. Now we are in 2003 and 
we have a deficit, so we have to have a tax cut. Which one was it? It 
cannot be both. It cannot be we had a surplus, so we should have a tax 
cut; we have a deficit, so we should have a tax cut.
  I find their logic very curious. Everyone would like a tax cut. The 
American public obviously would like to pay less in taxes; and 
certainly we could have made the argument for a tax cut in 2001, 
perhaps not as large as they did, but we certainly could have made a 
valid argument: we are running a surplus; we do not need all of this 
money. Some of us felt like the tax cut was so large it was going to 
plunge us into a deficit, and that is what has happened.
  But it is hard to make the argument that now we are in a deficit, let 
us drive this country deeper into a deficit.
  Mr. Speaker, if the previous question is defeated, I will offer an 
amendment to the rule. My amendment will allow the House to consider 
H.R. 2046, introduced by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the 
Democratic Rebuilding America Through Job Creation plan.
  I guess I can understand why the Republicans are rushing through what 
they are claiming is a conference process to come up with a so-called 
economic growth bill. Every hour the American people have to see what 
the Republicans are up to, the less they will like it. It is a proposal 
that hurts American families, it hurts the American economy, and just 
digs the deficit hole deeper.
  In stark contrast to the conference agreement we will soon see here 
on the floor, the Democratic plan helps all Americans, not just the 
rich; and it helps the economy immediately. It provides middle-class 
tax cuts to stimulate demand; it gives tax incentives to all 
businesses, especially small businesses and U.S. manufacturing 
businesses; and unlike the Republican proposal, it is fiscally 
responsible.
  Yes, if I were a Republican, I might not want to have to explain a 
vote against the Democratic Rebuilding America Through Job Creation 
plan. But guess what, that is not a good enough reason to deny Members 
a chance to debate and vote on this measure. It is a terrible 
disservice to the American people if we let our fear of criticism 
prevent a vote on this very effective and responsible plan.
  Let me make it very clear that a ``no'' vote on the previous question 
will not stop consideration of the conference agreement. A ``no'' vote 
will allow the House to consider the Democratic job creation plan as a 
separate bill. However, a ``yes'' vote on the previous question will 
prevent the House from taking up this responsible alternative. Make no 
mistake, this vote is the only opportunity the House will have to 
consider the Rangel plan. I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous 
question.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the amendment 
be printed in the Record immediately before the vote on the previous 
question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gutknecht). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, we believe it is very important to be able to get to 
this debate. We need to pass this rule, and then we will debate this 
matter further. It is obviously a fundamental matter. We believe that 
we need to do everything that we can to incentivize economic growth and 
job creation. That is why we are bringing this matter to the floor 
today.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Frost is as follows:

                Previous Question for H. Res. 249 Waving
         \2/3\ Consideration for Conference Report on H. Res. 2

       At the end of the resolution add the following new section:
       ``Sec.   . Immediately after disposition of the resolution 
     249, it shall be in order without intervention of any point 
     of order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 2046) to 
     amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to rebuild America 
     through job creation. The bill shall be considered as read 
     for amendment. The previous question shall be considered as 
     ordered on the bill to final passage without intervening 
     motion except:
       (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by 
     the Chairman and ranking Minority Member of the Committee on 
     the Ways and Means; and
       (2) on motion to recommit with or without instructions.''

  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the 
balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair will reduce to 5 minutes 
the minimum time for electronic voting, if ordered, on adoption of the 
resolution.
  This will be a 15-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 221, 
nays 202, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 211]

                               YEAS--221

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burr
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole
     Collins
     Cox
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Janklow
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     Marshall
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

[[Page 12978]]



                               NAYS--202

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Ballance
     Becerra
     Bell
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Case
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley (CA)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley (OR)
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lynch
     Majette
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner (TX)
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Bonilla
     Combest
     Cunningham
     Foley
     Gephardt
     Hyde
     Kennedy (RI)
     Lewis (GA)
     Oxley
     Quinn
     Weldon (FL)


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson) (during the vote). Members are 
advised that 2 minutes remain in this vote.

                              {time}  1448

  Mr. GUTIERREZ changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 218, 
noes 202, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 212]

                               AYES--218

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burr
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole
     Collins
     Cox
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Janklow
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--202

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Ballance
     Becerra
     Bell
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Case
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley (CA)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley (OR)
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lynch
     Majette
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner (TX)
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Bilirakis
     Bonilla
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Combest
     Cunningham
     DeGette
     Foley
     Gephardt
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Lewis (GA)
     Nadler
     Oxley
     Quinn


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised they 
have less than 2 minutes remaining in this vote.

                              {time}  1455

  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:

[[Page 12979]]


  Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 212, I was attending the 
burial of a leading veteran from my district at Arlington National 
Cemetery. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

                          ____________________