[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 10]
[House]
[Pages 13851-13862]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1474, CHECK CLEARING FOR THE 21ST 
                              CENTURY ACT

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by the direction of the Committee on 
Rules, I call up House Resolution 256 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 256

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 1474) to facilitate check truncation by 
     authorizing substitute checks, to foster innovation in the 
     check collection system without mandating receipt of checks 
     in electronic form, and to improve the overall efficiency of 
     the Nation's payments system, and for other purposes. The 
     first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points 
     of order against consideration of the bill are waived. 
     General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not 
     exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the 
     chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Financial Services. After general debate the bill shall be 
     considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall 
     be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose 
     of amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on 
     Financial Services now printed in the bill. Each section of 
     the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall 
     be considered as read. During consideration of the bill for 
     amendment, the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may 
     accord priority in recognition on the basis of whether the 
     Member offering an amendment has caused it to be printed in 
     the portion of the Congressional Record designated for that 
     purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII. Amendments so printed 
     shall be considered as read. At the conclusion of 
     consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall 
     rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as 
     may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote 
     in the House on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the 
     Whole to the bill or to the committee amendment in the nature 
     of a substitute. The previous question shall be considered as 
     ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage 
     without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with 
     or without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). The gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Sessions) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule, House Resolution 
256. This rule provides for consideration of H.R. 1474, the Check 
Clearing for the 21st Century Act.
  The Committee on Rules on Tuesday afternoon granted an open rule 
providing for 1 hour of general debate in the House on the underlying 
bill, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
minority member of the Committee on Financial Services. The rule waives 
all points of order against consideration of the bill, and provides one 
motion to recommit, with or without instructions.
  I would like to reiterate to the House my satisfaction in the open 
rule granted for consideration of the underlying piece of legislation 
that we are debating today, which is also known as CHECK-21.
  CHECK-21 is an important bill, although it may seem a bit confusing 
at first blush for America's banking customers and check writers. The 
good news is this bill garnered bipartisan support in both the 
Committee on Financial Services and the Committee on Rules, and I 
anticipate the same result as we move forward towards final passage on 
the floor today.
  The legislative work our House of Representatives will complete today 
builds on the legislative work that was started back in 1987 to foster 
innovation in the check collection system. The Expedited Funds 
Availability Act, which became law back in 1987, directed the Board of 
Governors of the Federal Reserve System to improve our check processing 
system.
  Today we are making logical extensions to the work started in 1987 by 
using our much-improved electronic transfer technology to make check 
writing speedier and more reliable for all parties involved.
  Mr. Speaker, each check that is written and used for payment must 
actually make its way back to the check writer's home bank. That is how 
each bank patron with a checking account gets the check he or she wrote 
mailed back to them so that it can appear in their monthly statement.
  When we stop to think about it, there is a lot of time, money, and 
effort invested in getting checks back to their home banks. Checks that 
are written in one corner of our country today will be trucked and 
flown to their home bank, wherever they reside, all over the country as 
a normal part of American commerce, a great expense of time and money. 
Today, American commerce bears the great expense of time and money 
associated with shipping checks around the country because it is worth 
it. Checks are an important commercial instrument that help keep our 
economy moving.
  Today, as a cosponsor of the Check Clearing for the 21st Century Act, 
I am proud to announce the introduction of a new instrument of commerce 
into the American economy, the substitute check. The substitute check 
will provide opportunities to greatly decrease the frantic highway and 
air traffic associated with the gargantuan task of shipping and flying 
billions of dollars worth of checks around this country every single 
year.
  Thanks to electronic imaging, paper checks have the opportunity to be 
converted into electronic form, transmitted in seconds to the home bank 
across the country, and printed out at their final destination as 
substitute checks.
  The bill provides all those institutions that see electronic transfer 
of commercial paper as the latest wave in modernizing our economic 
system the opportunity to use substitute checks, but does not require 
it. That way we all

[[Page 13852]]

have a chance to ease into the new potential provided by the creation 
and introduction of substitute checks into the mainstream of commerce.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to reassure customers that the 
same protections provided today under the Uniform Commercial Code for 
paper checks would also apply to substitute checks. Additionally, 
CHECK-21 provides legal indemnification protection to bank customers 
for losses arising from the receipt of substitute checks.
  CHECK-21 is a great bill, Mr. Speaker. I congratulate the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) of the Committee on Financial Services, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) of the Committee on Rules, as 
well as the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus), who is the 
subcommittee chairman that is directing this legislation today, as well 
as all the original cosponsors of this very important bill.
  Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support both the rule 
and the underlying legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 6 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, we are here today to consider the rule for H.R. 1474, 
the Check Clearing for the 21st Century Act. I urge my colleagues to 
look at this resolution very closely, to study it, because it is a 
very, very rare specimen.
  We all know some of the more famous endangered species, including the 
Virginia big-eared bat, the buff-headed marmoset, and the yellow-footed 
rock wallaby; but just as rare is the House open rule. Do not make any 
sudden moves because we might startle it.
  So far this year, the House has considered a total of 38 rules. So 
far, exactly four of them have been open, four for 38. That is a 
batting average of .105, which would get us kicked off my son's T-ball 
team.
  This is what passes for democracy around here, which brings us to the 
rule for H.R. 1474, the Check Clearing for the 21st Century Act. This 
is an open rule for a noncontroversial bill. The issue for me, Mr. 
Speaker, is not the rule or the bill, but the fact that this open and 
fair process is almost never used in this body. Whenever an issue is 
the least bit contentious, whenever there is even a hint of 
disagreement about a bill, the majority clamps down on its Members, 
chokes debates, and forces a closed rule through this House. It is a 
lousy way to run a legislature, Mr. Speaker.
  In the meantime, the Check Clearing for the 21st Century Act, also 
known as CHECK-21, is a bipartisan bill that will modernize the 
Nation's check payment system for the 21st century. This legislation 
will help consumers, businesses, and banks by guaranteeing that check 
processing and payment will be quicker, and more importantly, lead to 
more efficient banking.
  As many of us remember, the days and weeks following the tragic 
events of September 11 were filled with confusion in the banking 
industry. Because many of our planes were grounded, checks were held up 
around the country. Similar delays occurred during the anthrax crisis.
  With the passage of CHECK-21, Congress and the banking industry will 
harness the innovations of the 21st century so our banking system is 
not crippled as a result of terrorism, natural disasters, or 
transportation problems.

                              {time}  1045

  In my district, I proudly represent the largest credit union in New 
England, Digital Credit Union.
  According to Mary Ann Clancy, Senior Vice President and General 
Counsel of the Massachusetts Credit Union League, ``Digital has been 
able to make cleared checks available to members in a more timely, 
secure and efficient manner ranging from weeks to immediate access. It 
also helps keep members' information confidential and saves them time 
searching through piles of checks to balance their checking accounts.''
  Mr. Speaker, Democrats have no objection to this bill. Check 21 was 
reported unanimously out of the Committee on Financial Services. The 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) and the ranking member, the gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), and the members of the committee should 
be commended for working in a bipartisan way, something the leadership 
of this House cannot seem to do.
  Which, Mr. Speaker, brings us to the Child Tax Credit. As most people 
know, during their late-night, back-room negotiations on the tax bill, 
the Republican leadership deliberately dropped a provision that would 
have helped nearly 12 million children and their families to get the 
child tax credit.
  Their attack on American workers, on those in the middle, on those 
trying to get into the middle, continues.
  Governing is about choices, Mr. Speaker. The Republican leadership 
chose to keep the tax breaks for millionaires, and they chose to scrap 
the help for low-income working families.
  So at the end of this debate on the rule, I will ask my colleagues to 
vote no on the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, 
I will offer an amendment to provide for the consideration of the 
Rangel/Davis/DeLauro bill to help the people the Republicans would 
rather leave behind.
  In Massachusetts, for example, 225,000 children would benefit from 
the Democratic bill. Our proposal provides real relief for the people 
who need it most, not another giveaway for those who need it least. And 
we actually pay for our tax relief by closing some of the corporate 
tax-shelter scams that some greedy corporations like to use.
  I am not sure if any of my Republican colleagues remember, but they 
used to think that burdening our children and grandchildren with huge 
debt was a bad thing.
  I know my Republican colleagues would rather not talk about this. I 
know they would have been happier if their secret agreements would have 
remained secret. But I will put them on notice. We are going to keep on 
discussing this issue until you do the right thing. We are going to be 
here today and tomorrow and next week and next month, and we are going 
to fight for the people who deserve a helping hand.
  The Majority Leader made it quite clear the other day what the 
Republican priorities are. When asked whether he would consider 
granting relief to those who had been dropped by the leadership in 
their secret negotiations, he said, ``There are a lot of other things 
that are more important.''
  If anyone on the other side of the aisle could name one, I would love 
to hear it.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The Committee on Rules meets on a regular basis throughout the week, 
taking important pieces of legislation, hearing debate. It is not 
unusual for us to be in the Committee on Rules not only at odd hours of 
the day and night but also to hear hours of testimony from Members of 
Congress who have important legislation that they wish to bring 
forward; and I would like to be one member of that committee that 
stands up and says that I believe that the leadership of the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Dreier), our chairman, and his balance and wisdom 
and his dedication to a fair process is something that I believe sets 
this Committee on Rules up for success every single day. This bill that 
is on the floor is yet another example of that success that the 
chairman and this committee achieve.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Alabama (Mr. Bachus), the chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit.
  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart) 
and the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ford), along with the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Ferguson) introduced this legislation; and the 
title of this legislation, I think, basically describes what this is 
all about. It is the Check Clearing for the 21st Century Act. That is 
what we are doing.
  We are replacing what the Chamber of Commerce has described as an 
antiquated method of presenting and returning checks.

[[Page 13853]]

  It is amazing to me that we had not taken this step 10 or 15 or 20 
years ago. But I do want to commend the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania 
(Ms. Hart), and I want to commend the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. 
Ford). I want to commend a bipartisan group of Members who come 
together to push this legislation and bring it out on the floor today.
  This is a model for bipartisanship. There are 33 co-sponsors, 
Democrats, Republicans. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), 
the ranking member, and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), both made 
this a priority.
  We have an amendment that was introduced by the gentleman from North 
Carolina (Mr. Watt) which is included on page 11 in section 3, 
paragraph E. Part of that language clarifies that nothing in this act 
shall diminish in any way and everything in this act shall preserve all 
consumer protections. In fact, we have added consumer protections in 
this act.
  But let me be very brief and say what this does in a nutshell. 
Americans write 42.5 billion checks a year; and about three-fourths of 
those checks have to move physically from the bank where they were 
deposited to the bank where the original maker was, many of them all 
the way across the country. Most of them travel by air, but a good many 
of them travel by truck. When they do, they burn oil, making us more 
oil dependent. This bill as much as anything will help lessen our 
reliance on foreign oil.
  And a lot of people have probably not thought about this, but it is 
good news for those who travel by air because it will lessen the 
congestion at our airports. In fact, it is amazing that most Americans 
do not realize that literally every day tens of thousands of aircraft 
take to the sky taking back these original checks.
  Now, what we are changing today is not something we have not been 
doing. What the system will go to is actually the system the credit 
unions in this country have used for over 20 years. So this is nothing 
new. The credit unions have been using this process. In fact, some of 
our larger banks by agreement have been doing this process for years 
without any problems.
  The Federal Reserve has urged for several years that we go to this 
system. It is good for our economy. Not only will it lessen our 
dependence on foreign oil, not only will it relieve congestion on our 
highways and airports, but it will also make our process of clearing 
checks more efficient. In a world economy when we compete with European 
nations which are already doing this, we do not need costs and burdens 
to our financial system that they do not have. In fact, we need to have 
the most efficient system in the world; and, in fact, this legislation 
will assure that this happens.
  In conclusion, we will talk about the nuts and bolts of this 
legislation in the main debate. We will hear from the gentlewoman from 
Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart) on this legislation. I want to commend the 
chairman, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), for making this a 
priority. I want to commend the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ford) for 
his leadership on this issue.
  In conclusion, I want to commend all the Members of this body for 
coming together on this important legislation. We built such a 
consensus piece of legislation that we have the credit unions endorsing 
this legislation. We have the community banks endorsing this 
legislation. We have the independent banks endorsing this legislation. 
We have the largest 100 financial institutions in the country endorsing 
this legislation. We have the regulators endorsing this legislation. We 
have the Chamber of Commerce and several consumer groups endorsing this 
legislation. And I fully expect that the overwhelming vote that this 
legislation received in the committee will be repeated out here on the 
floor with a strong bipartisan majority.
  I would think that anyone that understands this legislation will vote 
in favor of it.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Cooper).
  Mr. COOPER. Mr. Speaker, the sort of checks that Americans are 
interested in hearing about are not the check clearing system 
technicality but the checks they receive as a result of their hard work 
or as a result of tax refunds.
  This July most all Americans with children will be receiving a check 
in their mailbox as a result of the child tax credit that we passed 
some 2 weeks ago. Except for the parents who are in the military, who 
are in the National Guard who do not make a whole lot of money serving 
our country, and except for the low-income parents who work hard every 
day for minimum wage or a little bit above, they and their children 
will not be receiving these checks.
  Why? Six million parents, 12 million of the most deserving people in 
our country, will not be receiving checks because of a deliberate, 
secret, back-room deal cut by Republican leadership.
  Now, most of my constituents want bipartisan government. They want 
Democrats and Republicans to work together for the greater good of this 
Nation. And now that our government is under the control of a 
Republican White House, a Republican Senate, and a Republican House 
leadership, people are asking, what decisions are they making?
  Well, they are making decisions to leave out 12 million poor 
children, 12 million deserving folks who need a future in this country; 
and $400 each would do them a lot of good. It would not only stimulate 
the economy, it would address the fundamental fairness of that 
legislation.
  Now, many of the folks on the right are saying, well, their parents 
do not pay taxes. They do pay payroll taxes. They pay property taxes. 
They pay sales taxes. I dare any of the Members to go to these people 
and say they do not pay taxes. These are not welfare recipients. These 
are hard-working people trying to build the American dream, and this 
House deliberately left out those parents and their 12 million children 
because we did not have room to fit it into a $350 billion tax bill. 
All we are asking for is 1 percent of that bill, $3.5 billion to be 
devoted to the needs of 12 million deserving American kids.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, as I recall, the debate about this tax bill was all 
about deficits and all about whether the increase of the debt, the 
public debt limit was going to be achieved. And what happened is that, 
as we deliberated about the bill, any motion to instruct conferees from 
the other party was about those two issues. It was not about the 
substance of the bill as it related to anything that was contained 
within or to be talked about by the conferees. But, rather, they were 
focussed entirely on the debt and the amount of money that would be as 
a part of bill.
  Now we find out that, oh, my gosh, there was a part of this great tax 
cut that they maybe were for even though they were voting against that. 
So it is very interesting to hear this debate today.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would just remind the gentleman that, unlike the 
Republican tax bill, we actually pay for this by closing corporate 
loopholes so we do not add to the debt or deficit.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Pallone).
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule because 
the Republican leadership is not allowing us to bring up the Child Tax 
Credit for these lower-income working families.
  Exactly what my colleague from Massachusetts said is certainly true. 
This provision which the Republicans eliminated because they did not 
want to help the working class and working people was financially paid 
for, and, again, we are trying to get it passed again and it is paid 
for completely by closing up corporate tax loopholes.
  The problem is that the Republicans, they just do not want to give it 
to these working families. Already the other side the other body is 
saying that they want to add a child tax credit for

[[Page 13854]]

people at a higher income level, or the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
DeLay) has said that he wants to add more tax cuts here for wealthy 
people and for corporate interests.

                              {time}  1100

  That is the thing that would cause an increase in deficit because 
they have not paid for it. We are saying, as Democrats, we can pay for 
this child tax credit for these working families under $26,000-or-so in 
income annually by closing tax corporate tax loopholes; and the 
Republicans are saying, oh, no, we cannot do that because the only way 
we will consider it is if we give some child tax credit to higher-
income people or other tax cuts to other wealthy people and 
millionaires, and we do not care whether we pay for that because we do 
not have any way to pay for that. That just goes into the deficit.
  The hypocrisy is unbelievable. My colleagues should simply admit that 
the Republicans really do not care about the working people at the 
lower-income levels. They are not willing to give them any kind of tax 
credit. They can pass the bill today in the other body and send it over 
here or vice versa, and it is fully paid for; but they are not going to 
do it, and I can tell my colleagues there are about 200,000 people, 
children of soldiers in the Armed Forces, that are also being left out 
of this.
  We did a little analysis and found out that these 12 million children 
that are left out, a good many of them are children of military 
personnel. So these guys and their families, they are fighting over in 
Iraq or they are stationed somewhere in the world and defending the 
country, and they cannot get a lousy child tax credit. It is 
outrageous.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  This debate has gone very quickly away from the subject that we had 
at hand, but I would like to remind my colleagues that tax cuts do 
work. They get money back to people who are able to utilize them, just 
like the families that are being talked about here.
  The fact of the matter is that this fabulous jobs and growth package 
that was signed by the President last week has already begun to work in 
the marketplace. It is seen as a catalyst now for people to want to 
come and invest more money, not only in this country but also for 
corporations to have an opportunity to begin employing people, an 
opportunity for the American people to see the opportunity for them to 
have jobs and more money back in their pockets; and it is amazing how 
the debate over all these years and even from just about 10 days ago, 
May 22, when every single tax cut was bad and every single thing that 
we would do to take money away from our precious government was seen as 
a threat to national security, and yet, today, my colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle are talking about a tax cut that would be 
necessary to help out the American people again.
  That is why we will stay after this. That is why the Republican Party 
will continue to not only believe in tax cuts that are great for people 
but an opportunity to give more money back to people who have earned 
that money and to help out families and children. This is why we have 
had as part of the bill the marriage penalty because we do not believe 
that one spouse that works even part-time should be taxed at the 
highest rate of the household income.
  We are proud of what we are doing, and we are going to keep doing it; 
and so I am pleased to hear my colleagues talk about the need for tax 
cuts for all Americans.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I just respond to the gentleman that I cannot believe he finally met 
a tax cut he did not like. Unfortunately, what we are talking about 
here is trying to help people, low-income workers and their children; 
and because of the Republicans' late-night maneuver, these people are 
being denied the tax cut that he says that they are very much dedicated 
to.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, the majority party spokesman 
for the Committee on Rules was somewhat inaccurate in describing our 
position. The effort that we are engaged in to provide some financial 
relief to some of the poorest and hardest-working people in this 
country and their children would not cost the government revenues 
anymore. It would be balanced.
  We find, unlike him, a number of unfairnesses in the Tax Code; and I 
was struck by, in his conversation, the complete absence of any defense 
of the decision to deny this benefit to these people.
  I came down here today as the ranking member of the Committee on 
Financial Services to talk about check truncation, but I would agree 
with my colleagues that fairness truncation is a far more important 
issue; and that is what we are talking about.
  The gentleman who spoke said this is a Republican Party and he is 
proud of it. I think there is too good of appreciation in the country 
today of the real differences that exist between the parties. 
Partisanship is not always a bad thing. There is a legitimate aspect in 
a democratic society to recognizing differences. The gentleman from 
Texas is proud that they passed a tax bill that excluded the poorest 
working people in America.
  He said he was proud of it, and I think we are proud on our side to 
be appalled by it. We are proud on our side to say that we can, without 
further draining our ability to pay for important public needs, provide 
help to these lower-income people; and as I said, it is a matter of 
fairness truncation.
  By the way, one of the misarguments that is used to defend stiffing 
the poorest people in this country when the wealthiest are doing very 
well is, well, they do not pay taxes. Do people in this Chamber really 
not notice something called the Social Security payroll tax? In fact, 
anybody who works pays Social Security payroll taxes. Deductions are 
made, and in fact, the people who are making $25,000, $30,000, $20,000, 
they are paying a very large percentage of their income in those taxes.
  I hope that we will soon do the noncontroversial bill that allows 
banks to truncate checks, and I hope we will then undo the Republican 
decision to truncate fairness and equity even further than it is and 
use some of the resources that we were able to use for a very large 
overall tax cut and spend a very few dollars on the poorest people in 
this country, including children.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  This rule that is before us about check clearing is really something 
that I think that consumers and the banking community are going to find 
of interest, and I am sorry that the debate is not on this 
modernization of the system.
  What we are going to do with this wonderful bill that we have before 
us today is to, once again, prove that an agenda that can move forward 
problems that are facing the American public, costs that are in its 
way, inefficiencies in our banking system which is what this bill is 
about, we are going to solve, be another part of the solution today; 
and I am very, very proud of not only the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania 
(Ms. Hart), a bright young Member that we have, and the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Ferguson) and the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ford) 
for bringing this bill, these ideas forward. But I think it shows that, 
as we talk about and move forward in this great body, the important 
aspects of that make a difference in America, just like tax cuts; that 
the American people will see that this House of Representatives not 
only works, it provides tax relief.
  It provides things in our banking system that will keep modernizing 
America. It will make sure that we are prepared for the future, and as 
we go past this bill into other areas, whether it be appropriations or 
working with intelligence or matters of national security, that this 
House of Representatives every time brings forth a full debate, not 
only on the issues but makes sure

[[Page 13855]]

that time is allocated for even the minority party to stand up and to 
talk about their frustrations.
  I think what we are doing today with this bill makes sense. I think 
the American people see that this House of Representatives and this 
administration intends to move forward in a proactive, positive way 
that all Americans can have not only confidence in their government but 
also confidence in the free market enterprise system that we are so 
proud of that produces jobs and keeps our economy going.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the gentleman 
from Texas in the discretion he showed in continuing to avoid defending 
this outrageous decision to stiff the poor people.
  As to the check truncation bill, I appreciate his discussion of the 
work. As the ranking member, let me say I appreciate we have an open 
rule here. We do have an inverse relationship here. Well, we have two.
  One, the poorer a person is, the less fairly they are going to be 
treated in the tax bill. Secondly, the less important the legislation, 
the more open-handed the Committee on Rules will be in letting us 
discuss it.
  I am glad that we are bringing this bill forward. I was the ranking 
member when it was put forward, but I have to tell my colleagues I am 
glad that it is going to pass; but it probably will not make it into my 
next biography. I do not expect being remembered as the coauthor of the 
check truncation bill will be part of my legacy. So I thank the 
gentleman for his concern.
  The reason we are not debating it is very simple. There is nothing 
left to say. The banks are going to use the different kinds of paper. 
People will be able to get a record of their checks. That is the end of 
it.
  I understand why the gentleman would rather talk about something else 
than being unfair to poor people. Unfortunately, there is not enough 
substance here.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  This Republican House has since 1997 made sure that we reduce taxes 
on people all across the board; and under this new tax cut that we are 
talking about, a single mother with two children earning $20,000 will 
receive over $2,000 in payment from the government with no tax 
liability, no tax liability and $2,000 back. So we really do care about 
people. We have reduced the tax burden on the American public and will 
keep doing that.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania 
(Ms. Hart).
  Ms. HART. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  I am sitting through this debate because I am here to talk about the 
check truncation legislation which we are going to debate shortly. 
However, my life experience and history of working as a State senator 
in Pennsylvania and chairing the Committee on Taxation compels me to 
rise regarding some of the comments made by the other side.
  I believe that the general public knows what a tax credit is. 
However, it is clear to me that the other side of the aisle does not. 
One must pay taxes, income taxes, in order to receive a tax credit; and 
in fact, in our tax bill that we passed and fortunately was signed last 
week, there is an increase in the child tax credit. The general public 
has asked us for that, and it has been provided.
  Those hard-working parents who have been paying income taxes do 
receive credit, as the gentleman stated, and additional moneys for the 
raising of their children. Claims have been made that that is not the 
case, but that is just not true. A tax credit is only paid to those who 
pay income taxes, and that is exactly what we do.
  Also regarding that issue, it is very important for us to note also 
that since I have joined this body about 2\1/2\ years ago, the 
Republican majority has consistently exempted people who are very low 
income from paying income taxes. It is important to note that because 
that is clearly something also that those on the other side of the 
aisle either are not aware of or have ignored.
  Our goal has been to encourage families to keep working, even though 
they may just recently have left the welfare rolls, even though they 
may have had a difficulty with a layoff and have taken maybe a more 
entry-level-related job. Our goal is to make sure that those who work 
and work hard to support their families have a lower burden. The goal 
is to encourage them to keep working and be promoted and make more 
money and eventually become taxpayers.
  Once they become income tax payers, they then will qualify for things 
like tax credits because, like I said earlier, one must pay an income 
tax in order to earn a tax credit. That is the way it works.
  I would also like to note a couple of other things, and I represent a 
district that is very diverse economically and, unfortunately, has seen 
more unemployment in the last couple of months. Folks I talk to tell me 
this, they are very pleased that we have made a very good effort to 
extend the unemployment which is very important for those who respect 
working and are not receiving an income.
  Our Republican majority has done that several times. We have extended 
unemployment twice now. We intend to keep watching the economy, try to 
make it move forward as we have done with this tax bill, which will 
help employers hire more people and reduce the unemployment rolls. 
While those good people are still unemployed, we are trying to make 
sure that they have enough money, and it is extended in our 
unemployment extension so they continue to support their families until 
they can find that job.
  Finally, I just need to note that the partisan rancor in this body is 
getting a bit silly. It is disappointing to me as a person who has come 
to Washington with a lot of positive ideas. I am going to continue to 
work with those who want to work with us and not create kind of their 
own version of what passed into law. I am going to continue to work for 
a positive economy, for growth, for opportunity and for more employment 
because I know people across the United States need it.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would say to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania that our side of the 
aisle would be more than happy to work with her side of the aisle. 
Unfortunately, we are always shut out of the process; and I would also 
say to the gentleman from Texas who earlier referred to this Republican 
House, this is the people's House, something that those on his side of 
the aisle seem to have forgotten by leaving millions of working 
families and children out in the cold.

                              {time}  1115

  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. 
Kaptur).
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. McGovern) for yielding me this time, and I rise against the rule 
on this check-cashing bill. And the reason I rise against the rule is 
because we are not afforded the opportunity in this House to bring up 
H.R. 2286, the Rangel-DeLauro bill, that would allow us to include all 
of America's working families in the relief for child tax credits.
  Who is left out? Who is left out are people who earn between $10,500 
a year and $26,600 a year who have children. The bill that passed last 
week left them out. The gentleman from Texas is wrong. Democrats did 
not even know what was in that bill. The ranking member on our sides of 
the aisle had to find the room the conference committee was being held 
in. No Democrat read that bill, and we know the Republicans cut a deal.
  My Republican colleagues left out working families who live at the 
bottom of this economy, and they have 19 million children, not a single 
one of whom are going to get the extra $400 refund, where those checks 
are going to be cashed out of this government when

[[Page 13856]]

they are sent out this summer. Not a one. They left out 6 million 
families, 19 million children.
  The Republicans refuse to see them, but we see them. We really 
believe in not leaving any child behind. But now, Vice President 
Cheney, what does he get? He gets $93,700. Republicans are leaving 19 
million children twisting in the wind, but that is par for the course. 
One of their favorite sports is golf. They leave a lot of people out 
there in the sand traps. But the defining difference between Democrats 
and Republicans is we include everybody. Everybody.
  We think some people got too much out of your bill. Vice President 
Cheney does not need that money. He will just go out and buy another 
yacht. But who do we see this bill leaves out? The bill leaves out moms 
who work at McDonald's. They will not get any refund from the child tax 
credit refund. It leaves out the janitors that clean the World Trade 
Towers who have children. They do not get anything either. And the 
Republicans' bill leaves out our privates and specialists in the Army, 
Navy, and Air Force who are at the bottom of the pay scale in our Armed 
Forces. They will not get the child tax credit refund either.
  These folks pay taxes. They not only pay Social Security and Medicare 
taxes, they pay property taxes, the Federal gas tax, and the cigarette 
tax. They do not have anybody giving them taxes back. They do not have 
lobbyists coming in to lobby on their behalf, who are the winners in 
this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, we have a right to include all families. We ought to 
vote down this rule and demand that the leadership bring up H.R. 2286 
to include all of America's children and families.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Prior to 2001, the child tax credit was $500 for an eligible child. 
The child tax credit was not refundable for most families. However, for 
families with three or more eligible children the credit was 
refundable, to the extent the family had payroll liability that was not 
offset by the earned income tax credit.
  What we have attempted to do, and what was signed into law on May 28, 
accelerates and increases the child credit. Certainly one has to 
qualify, but the child credit will increase from $600 per child to 
$1,000 per child in 2003 and 2004, and in 2005 the credit will revert 
back to its 2001 act-in phase. That means that what we have done is to 
move forward very quickly an acceleration, because I believe, and my 
party believes, and this bill believes that it is the right thing to 
do.
  The bottom line is that due to political constraints there was not as 
much money. So what we did is we moved forward from $600 to $1,000, but 
it is only good for 2 tax years. We have a lot of work to do, Mr. 
Speaker; but I am ready to do that work. I think this body is ready to 
do that work, and we intend to get it done.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
to ask my colleagues to review an editorial from the Washington Post 
entitled, ``Children Left Behind,'' and also today's New York Times 
editorial entitled, ``The Poor Held Hostage for Tax Cuts,'' which I now 
submit for the Record.

                [From the Washington Post, June 2, 2003]

                          Children Left Behind

       Even for a debate over taxes, the public discussion taking 
     place right now about child credits in the new tax law is 
     particularly galling, hypocritical and ill-informed. The new 
     law bumps up the credit for each child from $600 to $1,000 
     (though the benefit phases out for families that earn more 
     than $110,000). This increase, part of the 2001 tax law, was 
     pushed forward to this year under the new law. The 2001 law 
     also allowed some low-income families that don't pay income 
     taxes to benefit from the child tax credit; these families 
     receive money from the government, just as with the Earned 
     Income Tax Credit. Those amounts were set to increase in 
     2005--but that part was not speeded up under the new law. If 
     it had been, it would have cost $3.5 billion, or 1 percent of 
     the supposed cost of the tax bill, and would have helped 
     almost 12 million children whose families make between 
     $10,500 and $26,625.
       Stiffing these children was not a last-minute oversight or 
     the unfortunate result of an unreasonably tight $350 billion 
     ceiling. ``Adjustments had to be made,'' a spokeswoman for 
     the House Ways and Means Committee said, as if those on her 
     side would have preferred otherwise. In fact, the 
     administration didn't include this provision in its original, 
     $726 billion proposal. The House didn't include it in its 
     $550 billion version. The Senate Finance Committee didn't 
     include it in its original package. Most Republicans wanted 
     relief only for those who pay income tax. As White House 
     spokesman Ari Fleischer framed it, ``Does tax relief go to 
     people who pay income taxes . . . or does it go above and 
     beyond the forgiving of all income taxes, and you actually 
     get a check back from the government for more than you ever 
     owed in income taxes?''
       But it's not as if these workers pay no federal taxes; they 
     shell out 7.65 percent of their earnings in Social Security 
     and Medicare payroll taxes. More fundamentally, if it makes 
     sense to help families with children, why shouldn't the aid 
     go to those who need it most? If speeding up the tax credit 
     makes sense for some, why not for everyone? If one goal of 
     the tax bill is to pump money into the economy quickly, why 
     not give it to those most apt to spend it? Such relief could 
     be paid for by cutting the rates for those in the top 
     brackets (people with taxable income of more than about 
     $312,000) just a smidgen less. These folks already get the 
     biggest rate reduction of all, from 38.6 percent to 35 
     percent; merely edging that up to 35.3 percent would have 
     paid for the extra child credits. If anything, the question 
     lawmakers should consider is why those who make less than 
     $10,50 shouldn't be entitled to some credit as well. The 
     theory has been not to subsidize those who choose to work 
     only part time, but in this economy any number of people are 
     working fewer hours because that is all that is available. 
     Some 8 million children live in families who earn below the 
     current threshold.
       Indeed, the discussion should be broadened to include the 
     question of why the bill, in a similar fashion, speeded up 
     marriage penalty relief for everyone but the bottom tier, 
     those who qualify for the Earned Income Tax Credit. This is 
     arguably even more unfair than the failure to accelerate the 
     entire child credit: the backwardness of the social policy--
     discouraging marriage--is obvious, and the marriage penalty 
     is particularly steep in this category. For example, two 
     single parents, each with one child and each earning $10,000, 
     would receive about $2,500 through the tax credit; if the 
     married, their tax benefits would drop by more than $1,000.
       Democrats, who somehow never managed to get traction with 
     an argument about the unfairness of the cuts before the bill 
     was passed, are seizing on the new attention to the child 
     credit. Today Sens. Blanche L. Lincoln (D-Ark.) and Olympia 
     J. Snowe (R-Maine) plan to introduce a bill that would 
     accelerate the credit, paid for by curbing corporate tax 
     shelters and imposing some user fees. We're looking forward 
     to the debate.
                                  ____


                [From the New York Times, June 5, 2003]

                   The Poor Held Hostage for Tax Cuts

       Millions of low-income families were cruelly denied child 
     credits in the administration's latest detaxation victory. 
     Now, with consummate arrogance, Republican leaders in 
     Congress are threatening another irresponsible tax-cut 
     bidding war as the price for repairing the damage. ``There 
     are a lot of other things that are more important than 
     that,'' said Tom Delay, the House Republican majority leader, 
     signaling that revisiting the child-care issue will open the 
     door to even worse deficit-feeding tax-cut plans. Mr. DeLay 
     at least offered unabashed candor instead of the crocodile 
     tears of other Republicans. They are now embarrassed over the 
     furor that low-income families were deleted in the final 
     G.O.P. deal on the tax-cut boon weighted so shamelessly last 
     month to favor the wealthiest Americans.
       There is a clear and sensible solution to restore the $400 
     child-credit increase to the working poor in a Senate 
     proposal from Blanche Lincoln, Democrat of Arkansas, and 
     Olympia Snowe, Republican of Maine. Their measure, which 
     would cost $3.5 billion and help nearly 12 million children, 
     would be paid for by eliminating some of the tax-shelter 
     abuses that fed the Enron scandal.
       Republicans are scrambling for political cover now, fearing 
     the wrath of the mythic soccer-mom voting bloc next year. But 
     the rival child-care solution being offered by Senator 
     Charles Grassley, Republican of Iowa and the finance 
     chairman, introduces a whole new scale of irresponsibility to 
     the tax-cut games. This would expand the credit to 6.5 
     million low-income households, although not to minimum-wage 
     earners of less than $10,500 a year. But at the same time, 
     the upper-bracket limit would be generously, gratuitously 
     raised another $40,000 to benefit families earning up to 
     $189,000, hardly the neediest among us. Plus the credits 
     would be made permanent instead of temporary, as currently 
     enacted.
       This makes it a $100-billion-plus budget-busting measure 
     lacking the cost offsets of the sane and prudent Lincoln-
     Stowe approach. The fiction of Republican leaders' promises 
     to contain the deficit damage of their tax cuts is becoming 
     clearer with each wad of debt rolled onto future generations.


[[Page 13857]]


  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Solis).
  Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Speaker, I also rise today to voice my strong 
opposition to this rule. There is a lot of talk about what the recent 
tax cuts would do for our economy and for working families, and I would 
like to talk a little bit about what they will not do.
  The $350 billion in tax cuts leaves out working families, in 
particular, families that make anywhere between $10,000 and $26,000. 
They will not qualify for a child care tax credit. I ask my colleagues 
to look at this photograph that I have here. This is a working family, 
a representation of a family that lives in my district. They make 
$24,000 a year. They will not get a rebate. They have a son that is 
serving in our war, that is serving in our war in Iraq; but he will not 
get any benefit from this tax cut.
  Let us really talk about working families and what they do for our 
economy. They do pay Social Security taxes, they do pay sales taxes. In 
fact, they are taxed so much that they are looking to us as 
representatives of this House to do the right thing. One million 
children in military families, like these families, will get no tax 
break or credit. This is wrong.
  We know that somehow the Republicans found $90 billion to give to 
200,000 millionaire families. Imagine that. That money will not make it 
to my district because I do not have a single millionaire that lives in 
my district. We have people that make less than $20,000, so they do not 
get the benefit of that money.
  Republicans say this is class warfare that we are discussing. Look at 
the facts. The money does not come home to the districts that send 
money here to Washington because our Republican colleagues are sending 
it to their friends. In fact, in California, 31 percent of California 
families will not receive any child tax credit, and that includes 2.4 
million children in California alone. Forty-seven percent of those 
Californians will get a total tax credit of less than $100; $100 does 
not even help to pay rent in my district, where an apartment goes from 
$800 to $1,000.
  I urge Members to vote ``no'' on the rule. Let us do a child tax 
credit that is fair for working families.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Alabama (Mr. Bachus).
  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, the first time I got up, I talked about the 
subject at hand, and that was Check-21. But I do want to address what 
the Democratic Members have talked about, and that is the recently 
passed tax cut.
  One would not think there would be such an uproar from the other side 
because, in fact, the bill we passed exempts 3 million-plus low-income 
workers from any Federal tax liability. But there is still an uproar. 
It increases the child tax credit from $600 to $1,000. But there is 
still an uproar. It actually gives back, and only in Washington could 
you give back a tax refund above what people pay in, but it actually 
gives back $2,000 more to low-income families with children than they 
paid in; yet there is still an uproar.
  Why the uproar? Because the other side wants to take tax money, 
taxpayers' money that was paid in, and pay it back to people who did 
not pay taxes. In other words, an individual paying in $1,500 ought to 
get back $3,500. Well, let me tell my colleagues that there is only one 
problem with that, and that is who pays the $2,000? The answer is the 
middle class.
  In Alabama, if my colleagues talk to my constituents and say to them 
that they are going to pay back $2,000 to people who did not pay taxes, 
with their tax dollars, because they have children, they are going to 
call that welfare. And that is exactly what it is. When we pay folks 
because they have children, and we pay them back $4,000 just because 
they have children, not in money they paid in but with someone else's 
money, that is welfare.
  The other side is still upset that we cut welfare several years ago, 
and they want to use this as an opportunity to start a new welfare 
program and to fund it out of middle-class taxpayers' pockets.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Wynn).
  Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, yes, there is an uproar; and, yes, we are 
appalled. We are appalled that the children of 12 million working 
families have been excluded from this bill. They are quite content to 
give $93,000 in tax cuts to the very wealthy millionaires; but we have 
12 million children who have been excluded, 196,000 from my State of 
Maryland. Yes, there is an uproar. There is something fundamentally 
wrong with that.
  What the Republicans are trying to tell Americans is that these 
people do not pay taxes. Oh, yes, they do. Number one, they work every 
day. Every one of these families works every day. Number two, they pay 
property tax, sales tax, entertainment tax, and they pay all the other 
kinds of taxes. Importantly, many of these people are in the military. 
They are privates, they are grunts, they are the people who do the 
dirty work to defend our country. Yet our Republican colleagues say it 
is okay to give a millionaire $93,000 in tax cuts, but it is not okay 
to give someone making less than $26,000 a tax break.
  Mr. Speaker, I do not call that welfare; I call that democracy. We 
are Democrats. Every time we talk about this issue, the Republicans 
want to say that is class warfare. Yes, that is class warfare. But let 
me talk about that class. It is a class composed of people who work 
every day and make less than $26,000 a year. They have 12 million 
children, and they are not going to get the benefit of tax relief.
  Republicans want to talk about putting money back into Americans' 
pockets. What about the class of Americans that work every day but do 
not get the benefit of this big $350 billion tax deal? This tax deal 
gives a $90,000 tax cut to millionaires, but they cannot give $1,000 to 
a family that works every day and has a child. My colleagues have the 
audacity to come on this floor and say it is welfare. Yes, there is 
going to be an uproar. Yes, I am appalled, because it is undemocratic, 
it is unfair, and it is disgraceful.
  All my Republican colleagues want to do is give more money to the 
very rich; and when we tell them that people are working and need a tax 
break, they cannot see fit to do it, particularly when some of those 
people are in our military. It is a disgrace. Let us reject the 
Republican approach.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, can you inform us how much time is left on 
both sides?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Sweeney). The gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) has 10 minutes remaining, and the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) has 4\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, it seems as if we have hit a nerve here. 
We are supposedly talking about a bill that would make it easier to get 
checks, and the Republicans are clearly embarrassed that there is a 
whole lot of people, in fact 12 million children, whose families are 
not going to get checks. They know darn well that that provision that 
would have sent the check was in the legislation in the Senate, and in 
a late-night deal that money was taken out.
  Here is one of the families. They live in my district. It is Maria, 
that is the mom, Alma and Elia Narvaez. They are not going to get a 
check. They are one of the 6.8 million families that thought they were 
going to get one, but they are not. Along with them, as has been 
pointed out, there are going to be a million children whose families 
were going to get checks of people in the military, our young men and 
women who went off to serve, the low-level private first class. They 
are not going to get a check.
  So it is not just an uproar from this side of the aisle; there is an 
uproar going on in the country right now.

                              {time}  1130

  We read about it in the press, and we hear about it from our 
constituents. So who is getting the money?

[[Page 13858]]

  They are talking about it only goes to taxpayers and ask these people 
if they pay taxes, but who is getting the money?
  Well, let us look at the Bush cabinet. We are talking about Treasury 
Secretary John Snow. He was the CEO of the CSX Corporation, a 
corporation that paid no Federal income tax in 2001, 2000, and 1998. Do 
Members know how much he is going to get in a tax break? He is going to 
get $330,000 a year in dividend capital gains tax cuts. That is more 
than Maria Narvaez makes in 16 years. That is his tax cut for 1 year, 
what she makes in 16 years.
  Think about it another way, what the Secretary of the Treasury gets, 
$330,000 in 1 year in a tax break, 1,000 families could get a check. 
Members decide what is fair.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Ford).
  Mr. FORD. Mr. Speaker, let me preface by saying I rise in support of 
the rule and rise in strong support of the bill and thank the 
gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Oxley) and the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus) for all of their 
hard work.
  In light of the conversation that is occurring, there has been a lot 
of back and forth. I rise just to say two things: One, this really 
represents the difference in priorities between the two parties. While 
one cannot dispute that the bill that passed here a few nights ago in 
the form of a jobs bill or a tax cut bill, whatever Members choose to 
call it, the President has suggested that his tax bill will produce a 
million jobs, so I have taken to calling it a jobs creation bill.
  The reality is the bill cuts taxes for some people but not enough 
people. The $3.5 billion that was taken out of the bill, tax cuts that 
were removed from the bill to make room for other tax cuts, my side 
characterizes it as tax cuts for wealthy Americans. The other side 
characterizes it differently.
  The reality is $3.5 billion was taken out of the tax cut that would 
have gone primarily to families who earn under $25,000 a year. It is 
suggested that up to 12 million children will lose out.
  The gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus) is my friend, but I take 
issue with one characterization. This is not a welfare program. These 
people earning under $25,000, they work. Some may work not only in the 
military but here on this Capitol Hill where we work day in and day 
out. I believe people who work day in and day out deserve a break.
  Not only do these people need it to help feed their families and pay 
their higher energy bills, they will also spend it in ways that will 
help rejuvenate this economy.
  A point was made about the middle class, and I will submit for the 
Record yesterday's Washington Post piece that shows numerous studies 
indicate that the middle-class tax share is set to rise after the 
passage of the 2001, 2002, and 2003 tax bills. We may not like this, 
but these are the facts. It reports that people earning between $28,000 
and $337,000 a year will end up paying a higher share of taxes than any 
other group of Americans after the passage of the 2001, 2002 and 2003 
tax bills.
  Mr. Speaker, I hope that my friends who label this as an effort to 
increase welfare will take a look at the facts of the tax bills that 
this Republican House and Republican Senate have passed.

                [From the Washington Post, June 4, 2003]

                   Middle Class Tax Share Set To Rise

                 (By Dana Milbank and Jonathan Weisman)

       Three successive tax cuts pushed by President Bush will 
     leave middle-income taxpayers paying a greater share of all 
     federal taxes by the end of the decade, according to new 
     analyses of the Bush administration's tax policies.
       As critics of the tax cuts in 2001, 2002 and 2003 have 
     noted, the very wealthiest Americans--those earning $337,000 
     or more per year--will be the greatest beneficiaries of the 
     changes in the nation's tax laws. And, as administration 
     officials have argued, low-income taxpayers will also enjoy a 
     disproportionately lighter tax burden.
       The result is that a broad swath of lower-middle, middle- 
     and upper-middle-income people, as well as some rich 
     Americans, will carry a greater share of the federal tax 
     burden after the laws passed in the past three years are 
     fully implemented. While taxes are scheduled to decline for 
     all income groups, those earning more than $28,000 but less 
     than $337,000 will end up paying a greater share of the taxes 
     than they did before the changes.
       The findings, by two groups that have been critical of the 
     Bush administration's tax policies, add a new wrinkle to the 
     increasingly contentious debate over the fairness of Bush's 
     tax policies and which income groups would benefit most.
       Liberal groups have argued that the Bush administration is 
     penalizing the poor while rewarding the rich. In part to 
     answer those critics, Republicans have targeted the poor with 
     expanded tax refund checks for families with children, a new 
     10 percent tax bracket and a larger earned-income credit for 
     married couples who are poor.
       The result may be a surprise to both sides: By the end of 
     the decade, the middle class will be picking up a greater 
     share of the government's tab.
       ``It's hard to get a lot of progressivity at the very 
     top,'' said R. Glenn Hubbard, the architect of Bush's most 
     recent tax cut proposal and a former chairman of the White 
     House Council of Economic Advisers. By slashing taxes on 
     dividends, capital gains and inheritances, the cuts ensure 
     that tax burdens will no longer rise consistently with 
     income, as they would with a perfectly ``progressive'' 
     system. ``But,'' Hubbard added, ``we've very much retained 
     progressivity overall because so much money was dumped into 
     the bottom rates.''
       The two studies focused on separate issues. Citizens for 
     Tax Justice examined the percentage changes in total federal 
     taxes that would be paid by different income groups through 
     2010. The Tax Policy Center, jointly run by the Brookings 
     Institution and the Urban Institute, looked at the share of 
     federal taxes that would remain for the various groups once 
     those changes are fully phased in. But the studies reached 
     similar conclusions.
       Citizens for Tax Justice found that for the lowest fifth of 
     taxpayers--those earning below $16,000--federal taxes would 
     fall 10 percent between now and 2010, while federal taxes for 
     those in the second quintile--earning between $16,000 to 
     $28,000--would fall 12 percent. At the other end of the 
     scale, the decline for the top 1 percent of taxpayers--those 
     making $337,000 and up--would be 15 percent.
       In contrast, for taxpayers earning between $45,000 and 
     $337,000, the decline would be 7 percent, less than half the 
     cut reaped by the very wealthy.
       Citizens for Tax Justice assumed that those provisions in 
     the tax laws scheduled to expire before 2011 would expire as 
     scheduled, although administration officials have said they 
     are determined to make those changes permanent.
       The Tax Policy Center assumed that all proposed tax cuts 
     would become permanent. It found that the share of federal 
     taxes paid by the top 1 percent of taxpayers would drop to 
     22.8 percent of the total in 2011, from 24.3 percent today, 
     while the share paid by the lowest 40 percent would fall to 2 
     percent, from 2.2 percent.
       All others would have a slightly larger proportion of the 
     federal tax burden in 2011 than they do today. For families 
     earning between $22,955 and $80,903, their share of federal 
     taxes would rise from 25.5 percent to 26.1 percent.
       Both groups included all federal income, payroll, corporate 
     and estate taxes; Citizens for Tax Justice also included 
     excise taxes.
       Treasury Department officials said the studies are skewed 
     because they include Social Security and Medicare payroll 
     taxes, which the tax cuts did not seek to reduce. Pamela F. 
     Olson, the assistant Treasury secretary for tax policy, said 
     that if Social Security taxes are included, then Social 
     Security benefits should also be measured. ``Then you would 
     have a very progressive system,'' she said.
       Instead, Olson pointed to the Treasury's analysis of the 
     impact of successive tax cuts on individual income taxes 
     only. In that analysis, all taxpayers with less than $100,000 
     in income are shown to be paying a smaller percentage of 
     their income in taxes than they did before Bush took office. 
     Households earning $100,000 or more are now paying 73.3 
     percent of federal income taxes, up from 70 percent.
       Figuring out whether tax policy benefits the wealthy or the 
     poor is a hotly disputed subject. Liberals favor a 
     progressive tax system in which households pay higher tax 
     rates and a higher share of their total income as they climb 
     up the income ladder. By that measure, the Bush tax cuts have 
     made the tax code less progressive. By 2011, the poorest 
     taxpayers' after-tax income will have risen only 0.3 percent, 
     according to the Tax Policy Center, while household income 
     for the richest 1 percent of taxpayers will have jumped 8.6 
     percent.
       Conservatives say the better measure is which group winds 
     up paying a greater proportion of the tax burden after the 
     tax cut. The rich may get the largest dollar benefit from the 
     tax cuts, but the top 20 percent of households will still be 
     paying 71.5 percent of all federal taxes in 2011.

[[Page 13859]]

       Conservatives and liberals alike agree that Bush's tax 
     policies have shifted more of the tax burden to the middle 
     class. Kevin Hassett, a conservative economist with the 
     American Enterprise Institute, said it ``makes complete 
     sense'' that this would happen as a result of Bush's 
     policies.
       Changes such as the elimination of the estate tax and the 
     reduction of the stock-dividend tax disproportionately 
     benefit the wealthiest 1 percent, who have the largest amount 
     of assets and capital. Those at the other end of the income 
     spectrum benefit disproportionately from targeted tax cuts 
     such as the child tax credit.
       With the biggest gains going to the wealthiest and to low-
     income taxpayers, those in the middle inevitably get a higher 
     tax burden because they don't qualify for the targeted tax 
     breaks that go to the poor or the investment-related tax 
     breaks that go to the wealthy. ``The middle class is 
     predominantly labor income,'' Hassett said.

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Watson).
  Ms. WATSON. Mr. Speaker, it is shameful enough that the Republican 
leadership in Congress has chosen to gamble our children's future on a 
risky and unsustainable tax scheme such as the one signed into law just 
last week. But what is even more shameful is that the Republicans sold 
out the very men and women who recently fought for our country in Iraq 
by cutting many of them out of that tax cut.
  That is right. Only hours before Congress was set to vote on 
President Bush's big tax giveaway, Republicans cut out provisions to 
expand the child tax credit for working families in order to give the 
President's wealthy friends a bigger tax cut. The child tax credit 
provisions Republicans erased would have benefited millions of working 
families, including many families of Americans soldiers, sailors, 
airmen and women just as they return from war. This is outrageous, and 
my outrage grows when I hear Members of the other party's leadership 
suggesting that this is grounds to write another tax bill for wealthy 
investors and accuse us of a new welfare scheme. How can they in all 
honesty stand on this floor representing the United States and say that 
kind of thing?
  Mr. Speaker, I appeal to Members to fix this problem immediately. 
This House vote to restore the deleted provisions that would help 
millions of Americans and their children is one that needs to be taken 
immediately, so please bring H.R. 2286 to the floor.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Hensarling).
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I have been listening with a lot of 
interest to this debate concerning aspects of the Jobs and Growth Act, 
a bill that I was happy to cosponsor. America needs jobs, needs growth, 
but I think some on the other side of the aisle forget where jobs come 
from. Jobs do not come out of this United States Congress. They do not 
come out of Washington, D.C., or out of the Federal Government. If we 
want jobs, the people who need tax relief are job creators. Often when 
I listen to some of the rhetoric on the other side of the aisle, it is 
as if these people love jobs, but they hate job creators.
  Another point, tax relief ought to be for taxpayers. We have a 
welfare system. I decline those who would take our Tax Code and turn it 
into a welfare system. We already have a welfare system; and as 
Republicans have controlled Congress, we have managed to move people 
off welfare and onto work. This is an excellent debate because it shows 
the clear differences between the two parties. It is as if the other 
side will not be happy until everyone is dependent upon a government 
check. We will not be happy until every American has an opportunity to 
have a paycheck, and that is a clear difference between the two 
parties.
  So what we need to do once again, if we want to have jobs, we need to 
give tax relief to job creators. If we want to be fair, we need to give 
tax relief to taxpayers. That is the difference here, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Ford).
  Mr. FORD. I can sit and listen to a lot of this, and I have a lot of 
friends on the other side of the aisle. But let us be fair. These 
people making less than $25,000 a year get up and go to work just like 
you and I do every single day. They pay a payroll tax which is the 
highest tax paid by 82 percent of Americans. So the other side of the 
aisle can label us not being for tax cuts if you choose, but do not 
call this a welfare plan. This is a plan designed to help people who go 
to work day in and day out but who earn under $25,000 a year.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire as to the time 
remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Sweeney). The gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Sessions) has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) has 4\1/4\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I will allow the minority the opportunity 
to consume their time, and then I will close.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. George Miller).
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that 
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling) who had time remaining would 
not yield to defend his remarks. He did not have the courage to yield 
to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ford) who asked him to do so.
  Mr. Speaker, as Americans picked up their newspapers this morning, in 
USA Today they could read about the controversy about Sammy Sosa or the 
tragedy of Martha Stewart. As they thumbed through the newspaper, they 
would also read something else, they would read that the child tax 
credit is not available to 250,000 of our veterans. One in five 
children in the military will not get the tax credit. Some 750,000 
veterans, veterans, their children will not get this tax credit.
  It is a shame. How did this happen? How did 250,000 children of 
active duty veterans, people fighting for this country, their children 
will not be eligible for the child tax credit?
  Let me set the stage. It is late at night. The Republicans are 
arguing over tax cuts. Some people want to defend the corporations that 
go to Bermuda, other Members want to defend millionaires. Vice 
president Dick Cheney is running between the Republican factions. It is 
all in the record. He is putting out fires. He has to make a decision: 
Do you help these veterans? Do you help these active duty people with 
their children, give them the tax credit? Or, Vice President Cheney, if 
he does that, he will only get $93,000 in tax cuts. If he gives it to 
the children of hard-working American families earning under $26,000, 
Dick Cheney will have to take a reduction. He will only get $88,000.
  Dick Cheney is now the chief negotiator running between the House and 
the Senate. He is running between the extreme position of the House, 
Republicans who say no tax credits for these children, and the Senate 
which voted to give tax credits to the children. Dick Cheney does not 
know what to do. What does he do?
  He decides he is going to give himself a $93,000 tax cut; and these 
kids, it is tough. But one would have thought, Mr. Speaker, one would 
have thought that a former Secretary of Defense would have just dropped 
off a little change to the troops, to their families and to their 
children, and to the veterans and their families and their children. It 
would not have cost Dick Cheney much. If he just took care of the 
children, he would have still gotten over $90,000 a year in tax cuts. 
He could not see it.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair must remind the Member to refrain 
from making personally offensive remarks concerning the Vice President.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I am just reporting 
what has been reported in the press.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary 
inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from California yield for 
that purpose?

[[Page 13860]]


  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Yes.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I did not hear the gentleman 
from California say anything personally offensive to the Vice 
President. I wonder when we are being told that something was 
personally offensive to the Vice President, what would that be? He may 
be more thick-skinned than you give him credit for, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California leveled an 
innuendo of pecuniary gain.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. So the ruling is or the indication is 
that any suggestion that the Vice President might be interested in 
making money would be personally offensive?
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, regular order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would need to hear the remark in 
context.
  The gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) may proceed in 
order.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, the context is this: 
When the Vice President went into the room, the children of veterans 
and active duty service people had the tax credit. When he left the 
room, he had the big tax cut; they had nothing.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I will be asking for a no vote on the previous question. 
If the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the 
rule.
  My amendment will provide that immediately after the House passes the 
Check Clearing for the 21st Century Act, it will take up H.R. 2286, the 
Working Families Tax Credit Act of 2003. The Rangel Working Families 
Tax Credit bill will give immediate help to more working families by 
providing the child tax credit to an estimated 19 million additional 
children. It will also help families of soldiers in combat by extending 
the child tax credit to them, and it will speed up the marriage penalty 
relief to lower-income working couples.

                              {time}  1145

  It does not increase the deficit, not by one dime. It is entirely 
paid for by closing the shameful corporate loophole that allows 
corporations to move offshore simply to avoid paying taxes.
  Let me make very clear that a ``no'' vote on the previous question 
will not stop the consideration of the Check Clearing for the 21st 
Century Act. A ``no'' vote will allow the House to vote on both the 
check bill and the tax fairness bill. However, a ``yes'' vote on the 
previous question will prevent the House from voting on this bill and 
the child tax credit for working families. I urge a ``no'' vote on the 
previous question.
  The time to fix this is now. These hard-working taxpayers were left 
behind, deliberately cut from the tax bill in the middle of the night 
by the Republican leadership. That is wrong. That is also cruel. These 
are taxpayers. These are taxpayers. These are workers. I urge my 
colleagues to do the right thing. Let us come together in a bipartisan 
way to right a terrible wrong.
  I ask unanimous consent, Mr. Speaker, that the text of the amendment 
and the description of the amendment be printed in the Record 
immediately before the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Sweeney). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  We are having this debate on the rule for CHECK-21. It quickly went 
to child tax credits.
  I include for the Record information on this from the Committee on 
Ways and Means.

                                EXAMPLES--REFUNDABILITY OF CHILD CREDIT FOR 2003
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Pre-2001 Law        2001 Law          2003 Law
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            EXAMPLE 1: MARRIED COUPLE EARNING $30,000 WITH 3 CHILDREN
 
Tax Liability Before Credits:
Earnings..................................................            30,000            30,000            30,000
Standard deduction........................................           (7,950)           (7,950)           (9,500)
Personal exemptions.......................................          (15,250)          (15,250)          (15,250)
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
    Taxable income........................................             6,800             6,800             5,250
Marginal tax rate.........................................               15%               10%               10%
Income tax liability......................................             1,020               680               525
Payroll tax liability.....................................             2,160             2,160             2,160
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
    Child credit..........................................             1,500             1,800             2,475
    Earned income credit..................................               782               992               992
                                                           =====================================================
Tax Liability After EIC and Child Credit:
Income tax liability......................................                 0                 0                 0
Payroll tax liability.....................................               898                48                 0
    Payment from government...............................                 0                 0               782
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
                            EXAMPLE 2: SINGLE MOTHER EARNING $20,000 WITH 2 CHILDREN
Tax Liability before Credits:
Earnings..................................................            20,000            20,000            20,000
Standard deduction........................................           (7,000)           (7,000)           (7,000)
Personal exemptions.......................................           (9,150)           (9,150)           (9,150)
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
    Taxable income........................................             3,850             3,850             3,850
Marginal tax rate.........................................               15%               10%               10%
Income tax liability......................................               578               385               385
Payroll tax liability.....................................             1,440             1,440             1,440
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
    Child credit..........................................               578             1,200             1,335
    Earned income credit..................................             2,888             2,888             2,888
                                                           =====================================================
Tax Liability After EIC and Child Credit:
Income tax liability......................................                 0                 0                 0
Payroll tax liability.....................................                 0                 0                 0
    Payment from government...............................             1,748             2,263             2,398
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      Committee on Ways and Means


                 child credit refundability--fact sheet

       What is a refundable credit?
       Most tax credits are nonrefundable. In other words, 
     individuals are eligible for the credit only to the extent 
     they have income tax liability. A credit is refundable if it 
     is payable to individuals who have no income tax liability. 
     The ``refundable'' amount of the credit is the amount that 
     exceeds the individual's income tax liability.
       What was the child credit prior to 2001?
       Prior to 2001, the child credit was $500 per eligible 
     child. The credit was not refundable for most families. 
     However, for families with 3 or more eligible children, the 
     credit was refundable to the extent the family had payroll 
     tax liability that was not offset by the Earned Income Credit 
     (EIC).
       How was the child credit expanded in 2001?
       The Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 
     2001 significantly expanded the child credit in two important 
     ways:

[[Page 13861]]

       (1) The law gradually increased the credit from $500 to 
     $1,000. The credit was $600 for 2003 and was scheduled to 
     reach $1,000 in 2010.
       (2) The law made the child credit partially refundable for 
     all families with children--not just those with 3 or more 
     children. The credit is now refundable by an amount equal to 
     10% of the family's earned income in excess of $10,000 
     (Families with three or more children get the greater of 
     payroll tax liability or 10% of earning income over $10,000). 
     The $10,000 threshold is indexed annually for inflation (it 
     is $10,500 for 2003), and the 10% refundability rate will 
     increase to 15% in 2005.
       How was the child credit expanded in the Jobs and Growth 
     Law of 2003?
       The Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003, 
     which was signed into law on May 28, accelerates the increase 
     in the child credit. The credit will increase from $600 per 
     child to $1,000 per child in 2003 and 2004. In 2005, the 
     credit will revert to its 2001 Act phase-in schedule, and the 
     10% refundability rate will increase to 15%.
       Who will benefit from the new law?
       According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, 44 million 
     children (27 million families) will benefit from the 
     acceleration of the increase in the child credit. Some of 
     these children will receive larger refundable credits because 
     of the new law.
       Criticisms from the Very Liberal Center on Budget and 
     Policy Priorities
       The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP), an 
     extremely far left political organization, recently released 
     a ``report'' arguing that 12 million children would receive 
     more benefits if the new law included a provision to 
     accelerate the increase in the refundability rate from 10% to 
     15%. Of this 12 million, 8 million receive no new benefits 
     under the new child credit law and 4 million would receive 
     higher benefits if the refundability were accelerated. 
     However, several factors should be kept in mind.
       The new tax law includes several provisions that would 
     benefit low-income families. The expansion of the 10% tax 
     bracket and the increase in the standard deduction for 
     married couples are both targeted to low- and middle-income 
     families. Plus, $10 billion in State aid was directed to 
     Medicaid, the health care program for the poor.
       The new tax law takes an additional 3 million low-income 
     families off the tax rolls entirely.
       The child credit provision in the new law tax is refundable 
     to the extent of 10% of earned income in excess of $10,500. 
     In 2005, the 10% rate will increase to 15%.
       Accelerating the increase in the refundability rate from 
     10% to 15% would affect families who pay no income taxes, In 
     fact, these families generally have negative income tax 
     liability because they are already receiving government 
     payments from the Earned Income Credit and the refundable 
     child credit that was enacted in 2001.
       Expanded refundability was not included in President Bush's 
     $726 billion tax proposal; it was not included in the $50 
     billion tax proposal that passed the House, and it was not 
     included in Chairman Grassley's mark. Instead, expanded 
     refundability was added during the Senate Committee markup as 
     a member item. With the exception of State aid, the final 
     conference report does not include any narrow items or 
     revenue raisers that were added in the Senate.
       Expanded refundability would not benefit all children--14 
     million children would be left out. These children would 
     continue to be left out because their family income is so low 
     (less than $10,500 of earned income) that they pay no income 
     tax and quality for many other anti-poverty programs or these 
     families' incomes are too high (more than $75,000 of Adjusted 
     Gross Income for single parents and $100,000 for married 
     couples with children).
       The partisan Democrats at the Center on budget and Policy 
     Priorities vehemently opposed any tax cut of any kind during 
     the debate on the growth bill. Now they are arguing that the 
     tax cut wasn't large enough for families who don't pay income 
     taxes in the first place.
       Congress needs to expeditiously consider a significant 
     expansion of the child tax credit.

  Mr. Speaker, the American system which we are all a part of and which 
we support works. It works because we allow the free enterprise system 
to employ people, to have our economy work; but the tax policy that we 
have in this country is repressive. Too many people are paying too much 
in taxes and that is why we have had continuing tax relief. But in the 
overall system, if you just look at a book that was called ``The Myth 
of the Rich and Poor in America,'' which was published several years 
ago, it talked about 76 percent of those who were considered poor in 
the eighties became the middle class in the nineties. That was because 
here in America, we have a system, a system that is fair for people, 
that if they get up and go to work, as has been suggested that a number 
of people do, they will find in time that they will be a part of the 
American Dream, a system that works. I believe that the tax cut bill of 
the President's growths and jobs package is the right thing to do. I 
believe that our Check-21 bill is another example of the things that 
this body continues to maintain.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:

Previous Question for H. Res. 256--Rule on H.R. 1474 Check Clearing for 
                          the 21st Century Act

       At the end of the resolution add the following new section:
       ``SEC.   . Immediately after disposition of the bill H.R. 
     1474, it shall be in order without intervention of any point 
     of order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 2286) the 
     Working Families Tax Credit Act of 2003. 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) one 
     motion to recommit with or without instructions.''

  Mr. SESSIONS. 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. McGOVERN. 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 the question of 
adoption of the resolution.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 220, 
nays 198, not voting 16, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 243]

                               YEAS--220

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burr
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole
     Collins
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     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
     Foley
     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
     Hyde
     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)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     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
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Whitfield

[[Page 13862]]


     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--198

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Ballance
     Becerra
     Bell
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Case
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley (CA)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Engel
     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
     Larsen (WA)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     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
     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
     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--16

     Burton (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Cox
     Dicks
     Eshoo
     Gephardt
     Lantos
     Larson (CT)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lofgren
     McInnis
     Moore
     Ryan (WI)
     Smith (WA)
     Toomey
     Weldon (PA)


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

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

                              {time}  1208

  Mrs. LOWEY changed her vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. REYNOLDS changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________