[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 11]
[House]
[Pages 14361-14369]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




   PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2115, FLIGHT 100--CENTURY OF 
                      AVIATION REAUTHORIZATION ACT

  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the 
Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 265 and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 265

       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. 2115) to amend title 49, United States Code, 
     to reauthorize programs for the Federal Aviation 
     Administration, 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 Transportation and Infrastructure. 
     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 Transportation and 
     Infrastructure now printed in the bill, modified by the 
     amendment printed in part A of the report of the Committee on 
     Rules accompanying this resolution. That amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. All 
     points of order against that amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute are waived. No amendment to that amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed 
     in part B of the report of the Committee on Rules. Each such 
     amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the 
     report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the 
     report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for 
     the time specified in the report equally divided and 
     controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be 
     subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand 
     for division of the question in the House or in the Committee 
     of the Whole. All points of order against such amendment are 
     waived. 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 amendment in the nature of a substitute made in 
     order as original text. 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.


[[Page 14362]]


  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln 
Diaz-Balart) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose 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. During consideration of this resolution, all time 
yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 265 is a structured rule providing for 
the consideration of 2115, the Flight 100 Century of Aviation 
Reauthorization Act. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate, 
equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. The rule 
provides ample opportunity to discuss this important reauthorization 
before us today.
  H.R. 2115 is a bipartisan bill introduced by the gentleman from 
Alaska (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica) as well as 
the ranking members, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and 
the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio). This reauthorization of the 
Federal Aviation Administration, appropriately titled for the 100th 
anniversary of powered flight, continues a tradition of funding the 
promotion of safety in our skies.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to highlight some of the important 
provisions in the underlying legislation.
  First, this legislation reauthorizes the FAA at $3.4 billion next 
year raising $200 million in the year after that. The FAA, nearly 45 
years after it was created, takes an ever-present role as we take 
important steps to ensure America's security. The FAA is primarily 
responsible for the safety of our Nation's skies through activities 
ranging from the continued monitoring by air traffic controllers to the 
development of new air space technologies.
  Within my district is Miami International Airport, which I have the 
privilege to represent, and is consistently one of the Nation's busiest 
for both international and domestic travel. I am impressed by the level 
of public-private cooperation between organizations such as the FAA and 
Miami International Airport.
  Mr. Speaker, following the tragedy of September 11, 2001, our 
Nation's airports and airlines were forced to deal with the ever-
growing and obvious problem of security. I believe that this bill 
contributes to this endeavor while ensuring that those affected by 
these horrible acts are helped.

                              {time}  1130

  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2115 provides for an extension of war risk 
insurance for both international and domestic flights while ensuring 
that this important insurance is extended to manufacturers and airline 
vendors through the Department of Transportation.
  This Congress was quick to assist airlines following September 11, 
and rightfully so. The economic benefits from the movements of people 
and goods that airlines provide, I think, demanded our attention. I 
think we also have to consider that smaller aircraft that were 
restricted for months following September 11 would also need attention 
of the Congress. Congress, I think, should act, and I think it will 
through this underlying legislation to help general aviation return to 
some stability by providing compensation for the hardships on their 
businesses. The bill authorizes $100 million for these general aviators 
that were also greatly affected by increased security requirements.
  H.R. 2115 is a good piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker. It is 
important to the continued needs of the FAA, obviously, and to the 
flying public. The underlying legislation was reported favorably out of 
the committee by voice vote.
  I take this opportunity to thank the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. 
Young), the chairman, for his great leadership on this issue, as well 
as the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the distinguished 
ranking member.
  Due to the importance of the FAA's role in the security of the United 
States, as well as in the economic well-being of the United States, I 
urge my colleagues to support both the rule and the underlying 
legislation. I think it is important that we move forward and 
reauthorize the FAA, and we are doing that today.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 6 minutes.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, today we consider the bipartisan FAA 
reauthorization bill. The gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Oberstar), and the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) in the best 
tradition of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure worked 
long and hard to produce a sensible bipartisan bill, and they should be 
commended.
  I also want to thank the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure for including an important provision that will benefit 
smaller airports like the one I represent in Worcester, Massachusetts.
  This provision will allow airports like Worcester, known as primary 
airports, to continue to receive Air Improvement Program Entitlement 
Funding, or AIP, for fiscal years 2004 and 2005 based on prior year 
emplanement levels. It specifically grants the Secretary of 
Transportation the authority to maintain current AIP funding levels for 
primary airports based on a discrete set of criteria related to the 
dramatic reduction in commercial air service since September 11.
  AIP entitlement is a critical source and oftentimes the only source 
of funding for capital improvements at these airports. These airports 
rely on AIP funding to make a number of upgrades which now also include 
necessary, but costly, safety enhancements. In Worcester's case, this 
bill could mean the difference between receiving more than $1 million a 
year annually or $150,000.
  This is an important provision, and I thank the Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure for its inclusion.
  If only the Committee on Rules and the leadership of this House could 
act in a bipartisan way, because although I support the FAA bill, for 
the life of me I cannot figure out why the Republicans will not let us 
consider the child tax credit.
  For a second straight week, the leadership is playing a nasty game 
with millions of hardworking American families. Two weeks ago, the 
President, Vice President, and the Republican leaders deliberately left 
12 million families, including hundreds of thousands of military 
families, out in the cold by deleting the child tax credit extension 
from the recently passed tax cut.
  We just fought a war in Iraq; we still have soldiers fighting in 
Afghanistan. And instead of a warm thank you, the Republican leadership 
gives our troops the cold shoulder. The average base pay of a 
serviceman in Iraq is about $16,000; but according to the Republicans, 
that soldier's family does not need any tax relief because they are not 
subject to Federal income tax.
  This is wrong. These families work hard and they pay taxes. They pay 
sales taxes and payroll taxes and State taxes and local taxes and 
property taxes, most of which are going up because of the policies of 
this administration; but according to the Republican leadership, giving 
them a small tax credit would be welfare. How insulting.
  My colleagues want to talk about welfare, well, let us do that. Enron 
paid no income taxes at all in 4 of the past 5 years, despite $1.8 
billion in profits. Enron's taxes over 5 years were a negative $381 
million, and its corporate tax welfare totaled $1 billion.
  WorldCom paid no taxes at all in 2 of the last 3 years, despite $15.2 
billion in profits before going bankrupt. WorldCom's total tax rate 
over the 3 years was only 1.6 percent. Corporate tax welfare slashed 
WorldCom's tax bill by $5.3 billion over the past 5 years.
  All the while these corporations are not paying taxes, other 
companies are relocating to the Caribbean to avoid paying them 
altogether.
  These corporate robber barons have saved billions and billions of 
dollars

[[Page 14363]]

through loopholes supported by the Republican majority, and yet those 
same Republicans say that providing a hardworking American family a few 
hundred extra dollars is bad policy.
  The Republican policies are crystal clear, Mr. Speaker; and they are 
wrong.
  Last week, in this Chamber, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), 
the distinguished minority whip, challenged the Republicans to defend 
their actions. Their response? Dead silence. Yesterday, President Bush 
and his staff, at long last bowing to public demand, implored House 
Republicans to take up and pass the child tax credit passed by an 
overwhelming bipartisan vote in the other body. That bill is targeted, 
it is sensible, and very importantly, it is paid for by other offsets.
  But the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the majority leader, still 
refuses to bring this bill to the floor. Last week, the majority leader 
said there are more important priorities than tax relief for low- and 
middle-income families, and yesterday he brushed aside the White House 
request.
  Instead, they are playing a game, pushing a much larger tax cut that 
will cost over $80 billion. They are betting that the other body will 
engage in a long, protracted debate over the House proposal because 
they know that the other body will not pass an $80 billion tax cut that 
is not paid for, and they are hoping that the whole issue will just go 
away.
  Mr. Speaker, it will not go away because, as we have said over and 
over, we will not let it go away up till the Republican leadership in 
this House does the right thing and fixes the mistake that they made 
when they removed the child tax credit for millions of low-income and 
middle-income families.
  So I say to the Republican leadership, are you really that cynical, 
are you really so consumed by the thrill of your own power that you 
refuse to do the right thing? Why can you not simply admit that it was 
wrong to drop these hardworking, tax-paying families from the tax bill 
and fix your mistake?
  The answer may lie in an article in today's Washington Post. 
According to the article, the administration had no intention ever of 
implementing the child tax credit as approved by the other body. 
Treasury officials assumed in May, weeks before the House and Senate 
met to work out the differences in the two tax bills, that the child 
tax credit would not become law; and now the White House claims to 
support it.
  I insert this article in the Record at this point.

               [From the Washington Post, June 11, 2003]

             House GOP Responds to Senate Child Credit Bill


          $82 billion plan offers breaks for military families

                          (By Juliet Eiperin)

       For the second time in two weeks, House leaders are pushing 
     a sizable tax cut bill, seizing the debate over expanded 
     credits for parents of minor children to propose several new, 
     unrelated tax cuts.
       House Republicans yesterday unveiled their $82 billion 
     plan, which features tax breaks for military families (and 
     for the estates of astronauts who die on space shuttle 
     missions). The proposal sets up a likely fight with the 
     Senate, which approved a more modest tax cut package last 
     week.
       For several days, Republicans have been trying to quell 
     protests over the fact that the tax cut enacted last month 
     excluded 6.5 million poor families from receiving a credit of 
     as much as $1,000 per child. The Senate reacted swiftly, 
     passing a $10 billion bill last week that would give the 
     expanded child credit (now $600) to families making from 
     $10,500 to $26,625 a year.
       House Republicans rejected that approach yesterday, saying 
     they wanted a broader bill that would extend the child credit 
     and other tax breaks through 2010.
       ``We've not in the business of politics, but rather in 
     policy,'' said Ways and Means Chairman Bill Thomas (R-
     Calif.), noting that the expanded child tax credit phases out 
     in 2005 under the existing law. ``If these people need help 
     between now and the election [of 2004], they need it for the 
     rest of the decade.''
       House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) told reporters 
     yesterday that passing a bill dealing only with the child 
     credit ``ain't going to happen,'' because GOP leaders prefer 
     a broader package that ``provides tax relief, creates jobs 
     and [helps] the economy grow.''
       The House proposal would provide a $1,000 per-child credit 
     for families from Jan. 1, 2003, through 2010. The credit now 
     begins to phase out when married couples make $110,000 or 
     more. House GOP leaders would raise start of the phaseout to 
     $150,000.
       Their plan also would help military families, giving them a 
     tax break on home sales, death benefits and dependent-care 
     assistance. It would suspend the tax-exempt status of 
     designated terrorist organizations and provide income and 
     estate tax relief for astronauts who die on space shuttle 
     missions, including those in the Columbia disaster.
       The House is poised to pass the plan Thursday. Its 
     prospects in a conference with the Senate are unclear. The 
     Senate bill's costs are offset by higher Customs Service 
     fees, adding nothing to the deficit. The House plan includes 
     no such offsets, which could cause problems with Senate 
     Democrats and some moderate Republicans.
       ``I philosophically support the House Ways and Means 
     Committee proposal, ``Senate Finance Committee Chairman 
     Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) said yesterday, but ``I don't 
     know if there are enough Senate votes to pass it.''
       Treasury officials informed Senate aides yesterday that the 
     government will not be able to mail child credit checks to 
     low-income families for 8 to 10 weeks. Administration 
     officials assumed in May that the Senate child credit 
     proposals would not become law, according to a Senate 
     Democratic aide who met with Treasury officials.

  The American people are smart. They can see through all the politics. 
They want Congress to fix the child tax credit, and they deserve 
action.
  Mr. Speaker, the other body has already acted. We can solve this 
problem by taking up the bill right now. With quick action, we can send 
this bill to the President; and he can keep his word and sign it by the 
end of this week.
  That is why, at the end of this debate on the rule, I will ask my 
colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question, and should the 
previous question be defeated, I will bring up the Senate-passed child 
tax credit so we can send it to the President immediately.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Inslee).
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, this bill may be fine, but we need to defeat 
this question on the rule to get to the business at hand, because the 
business at hand is we want to free the goodly number of Republicans 
who want to vote for a child care tax credit, but who are under the 
tyranny of a Republican leadership who will not let them do it. We need 
to free those 228 Republicans to exercise some of their conscience 
because I believe there is a goodly number of them who realize why we 
are right; and we are right because it is indefensible to have decided 
to give these tax breaks to the wealthy and deny it to families as a 
child tax credit.
  It is indefensible, and if my colleagues want to know why there has 
been such silence from this side of the aisle defending this, it is 
because they do not want to defend the indefensible. It is not because 
of massive laryngitis on this side of the aisle. If my colleagues want 
to know why there have been so few coming to this Chamber to try to 
excuse this, it is because they do not want to try to excuse the 
inexcusable.
  I believe we should defeat this rule and go to the business at hand, 
and we should have a goodly number of Republicans join us to do it; and 
here is why I think this is possible. It is possible because there are 
a fair number of Republicans who share two basic values with the 
Democrats on this side of the aisle. Those values are work, number one, 
and two, responsibility.
  We believe that work should be honored; and when we have heard the 
few Republicans that have come to defend this indefensible position, 
they have not honored work because what they have tried to say is that 
these people that are owed this child care tax credit, they have said, 
well, they are not working or they are not working for enough money. 
Hogwash. All work ought to be respected in this country whether one 
gets paid a million bucks a year or $12,500 a year, and there are a 
goodly number of Republicans who share that view.
  I am here to call on my friends on the Republican side of the aisle 
who share that view to come defeat this

[[Page 14364]]

rule and bring up the Senate bill so that we can pass a responsible 
bill that does not bust the budget and create another $80 billion of 
debt for the very kids subject to this child care tax credit.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished 
member of the Committee on Rules for yielding the time to me; to the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart) for bringing forward a 
very forward-thinking legislative initiative, Flight 100--Century of 
Aviation Reauthorization Act; to the chairman and ranking member of the 
full committee, the excellent work that they have done; and the 
chairman and ranking member of the subcommittee. They have truly 
brought forward a bill that raises and promotes the question of 
security.
  As a member of the Select Committee on Homeland Security, this 
legislation includes grant programs for local airports. It also 
increases the number of flights that we can utilize out of Reagan 
National, indicating that we are secure and we are not afraid, and 
prohibits a very important aspect of a very important traffic 
controller from being privatized.
  I have met with my traffic controllers, particularly in Houston. The 
kind of expertise that they have and the importance of their 
independence and their relationship to the government in our effort of 
security is crucial. It is imperative that we not privatize those 
individuals.
  As well, it is important that we have other security measures that 
are being provided by this legislation.
  Let me make one quick point. I am disappointed that the Gibbons 
amendment was not allowed in, the amendment that I supported, that 
raised the age of pilots to 65.

                              {time}  1145

  I think we are making a mistake by not having a vigorous debate on 
this question, particularly in light of the fact that it is well known 
that we are as a Federal Government opposed to age discrimination. This 
is supported by a number of members of the pilots union, meaning small 
groups or local chapters, and it certainly is questioned by the Black 
Pilots Association as to the issue of discrimination. I think we are 
making a mistake. I think it was a very effective amendment and I hope 
we will have a time to address that question.
  Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that we are bringing this bill up, but 
yet we have a difficulty in helping the children of America, 
particularly with bringing to the floor a freestanding bill that has 
now been passed by the Senate since last week that provides for 
minimally $154 for 12 million children, or families representing 12 
million children in America. We understand that America believes in its 
children, but we are not believing it by putting our money where our 
mouth is. We only spend at this point between 1 and 2 percent of the 
GDP on our children. Yet today this House, the Republican leadership, 
is fighting against passing a freestanding tax credit for children, a 
refund to allow for 12 million children to be provided for and 
protected.
  Under the tax cut plan passed in 2001, while most families with 
children receive the child tax credit, nearly 10 million low-income 
children receive nothing and another roughly 10 million children did 
not receive a full child tax credit. It seems ridiculous that this 
House can find its way to pass a number of suspension bills between 
this week and the end of the week. We did find it to move forward on 
this FAA legislation which is a positive step. But when the Senate 
moved quickly last week to pass the child tax credit refund, it does 
not seem to make any sense that we cannot support the Rangel-DeLauro 
bill or, in this instance, the freestanding Senate bill that simply 
provides the children of America of those making $10,000 to $26,000, 
working families, a tax credit refund. But we can provide, it seems, a 
number of our families, 190,000 families in America, we can give them a 
$93,000 check.
  Mr. Speaker, it is a shame that we would bog down the tax bill and 
give all but the kitchen sink so that we know it will go to conference 
and takes ages and eons and months and weeks, but we cannot pass a 
freestanding bill. I hope that we will come to our senses and pass a 
freestanding bill and work on behalf of America's working families and 
children of America.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on this rule. This bill 
reauthorizes $58.9 billion over 4 years for the activities of the 
Federal Aviation Administration, including the grant program to local 
airports. It also increases the number of flights at Washington's 
Reagan National Airport, prohibits air traffic controllers from being 
privatized and allows airports to use some of their Federal grant 
resources to install explosive detection systems for checked luggage.
  Funding our aviation infrastructure is an important component of 
ensuring the safety of the American public. But I would like to talk 
about another issue of great importance, and that is extending the 
child tax credit to the 6.5 million American families who were left out 
of the Republican tax bill, 200,000 of those military families while 
their spouse is at war. After the furor that erupted during the last 2 
weeks over the Republicans' secret elimination of the child tax credit 
for the families of 12 million children, after the other body passed 
legislation to undo that wrong, late yesterday comes word from this 
House that this House has finally decided to act. But instead of 
accepting a simple extending of this tax cut to the taxpaying families 
who need it most, those who were left out of the package, the 
Republicans use the opportunity to try to pass another round of 
irresponsible tax cuts.
  With the Thomas bill, what the Republicans are doing is very simple. 
They are holding 12 million children hostage. As I said yesterday, for 
them, extending the child tax credit to low-wage families who earn 
between $10,500 and $26,625 is simply part of a deal. They would use 
these 12 million children as a bargaining chip in their never-ending 
quest to cut taxes for only the wealthiest Americans.
  But that is not what providing tax relief to these 6.5 million 
families should be about. Helping these families is a matter of 
fairness, equity and economic justice. They work hard. They pay nearly 
8 percent of their incomes in payroll taxes and in sales taxes. Yes, 
they pay taxes, unlike Enron which the last 4 out of 5 years paid no 
taxes to this government, or those companies who go offshore for the 
direct purpose of paying no taxes and yet they are in line for very, 
very big tax cuts.
  As the White House said without equivocation the other day, the House 
of Representatives needs to right this wrong. It needs to do so without 
complication, and it needs to do so immediately without holding hostage 
12 million children. That is the right thing to do. This is why we were 
elected to this job. This issue is such a violation of all that we hold 
dear and believe. This issue is not about partisan politics. This is 
about what we hold dear, what the values of each and every one of us 
who serves in this body is about. It is about our individual character. 
It is also about our national character.
  The people of the United States of America believe that there has 
been a violation here of folks who are hardworking people, who pay 
their taxes, who were told and were supposed to have been signed into 
law that they were going to get a tax credit for their children, pulled 
out in the dead of night, money stolen from them. It is an immoral act 
and we have the moral obligation in this body to move quickly to what 
the Senate did, not with any bargaining chip to hold these 12 million 
children hostage, or their families, but to do what the President has 
asked, without equivocation, do what the Senate did, do it without 
complication, do it immediately. Let us right this wrong. Let us give 
these families what they rightfully have earned. Twelve million 
children are waiting.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

[[Page 14365]]

  Mr. Speaker, I want to highlight the difference in philosophies here, 
and I think that my colleague on the Committee on Rules, the 
gentlewoman from North Carolina, in Congress Daily said it best. 
Speaking for the Republicans, she said: ``We have a philosophical 
difference. I look at it and other Republican Study Committee members 
feel if we give people a tax break that don't pay taxes, it's 
welfare.''
  I profoundly disagree with her characterization of these hardworking 
citizens who do pay taxes, they do pay payroll taxes and sales taxes 
and other taxes, as somehow not contributing to our tax base. As a 
prominent member of my party in the other body said, and let me quote 
her, We are talking about 200,000 military families, hundreds of 
firefighters and teachers and other hardworking Americans. I don't 
think of them or view them as welfare recipients. I don't think that 
they think of themselves that way. These are taxpayers. These are 
essential people in our communities, those who are protecting us from 
fire and from criminal activity, those who are teaching our children, 
those who are stationed abroad and protecting our very freedoms. They 
are hardworking families who pay sales tax, both State and local. They 
have payroll taxes that come out of their checks.
  Mr. Speaker, this is what this debate is about, whether or not these 
people deserve to benefit from this tax cut that was passed only a few 
weeks ago in this House or whether or not they should be excluded. 
Those on our side of the aisle and a lot of moderate Republicans in the 
other body believe that these people should not have been deleted from 
the tax bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Pallone).
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my good colleague from 
Massachusetts for yielding me this time.
  It is amazing to me. The Democrats have been talking about the need 
to provide this child tax credit to the 12 million children who are in 
working families now for at least a week and we were very gratified to 
see that the other body, the Senate, on a bipartisan basis passed a 
very carefully tailored bill that would cost, I guess, $3.5 billion and 
that would essentially put the families of these children, the working 
families, back into eligibility for this increased tax credit. What 
happens when this bill comes over here to the House? Our House 
Republican leadership, which as we know has repeatedly said that they 
are not in favor of this, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) was 
quoted many times last week as saying it was not important and that he 
was not going to do it unless it was part of a larger tax break 
giveaway. That is what we are hearing now. The House Republicans are 
saying and the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) and the Committee 
on Ways and Means have said that they are only willing to provide this 
tax credit to these 12 million children if we increase the amount of 
money greatly, go further into debt and add on a number of other things 
for wealthier families. It simply is not right because what effectively 
the Republicans in the House are doing is killing this proposal.
  If the bill that passed the Senate came over here and we simply took 
it up and passed it, it would become law and the 12 million children 
would get the tax break. They would get the money going out sometime 
after July 1. And now because of the House Republican action here to 
expand this and try to help wealthier families and individuals, it is 
very likely that this whole bill is killed and that the Senate action 
will not accomplish what it should accomplish.
  I blame directly the House Republican leadership. They were not in 
favor of this from the beginning. They did not include it in their tax 
bill in the beginning, they said they were opposed to it, and now they 
are putting up more hurdles and roadblocks to it. They are also saying 
they are not going to pay for it.
  In the Senate, Senator Blanche Lincoln had put in specific pay-fors, 
increases in customs duties to make sure that this would not do 
anything to increase the debt which we understand is like $400 billion 
now. And what do the House Republicans do in the leadership here? They 
eliminate the pay-fors and they increase the funding to pay for higher-
income individuals, holding these children and their families 
essentially hostage to a tax break for wealthier individuals, and they 
refuse to pay for it. They basically come up with a bill that is about 
80 or $82 billion that is all debt and not paid for at all. I cynically 
say the reason they are doing it is because they want to kill the bill. 
They do not want these 12 million children to get the tax break, these 
working families to get the tax break. They just want to kill the bill. 
They were always against the bill. Through this action they will kill 
the bill if it passes in that way, and they are totally responsible for 
that.
  You have to understand the way this place works, and this is the sad 
part about it. It is very easy for the House Republican leadership to 
simply take something good that the other body did on a bipartisan 
basis and kill it by adding all these additional tax breaks for 
wealthier families and at the same time eliminating the pay-fors, so it 
is now being paid for out of debt which will cause so much problem for 
the other body that they will never take up the bill, it will never get 
the 50 or the 60 votes that are necessary in the Senate to pass the 
bill.
  We have to do whatever we can over the next 24 hours, because this is 
likely to come up tomorrow, to try to force the original Senate bill to 
pass just at the cost of the $3.5 billion, just for those 12 million 
children that were left out, and with the pay-fors that were in it so 
that it is acceptable to everyone. That is the way this should be done. 
Simply take up the other body's bill and pass it and not load it down 
with all these other problems. We have about 24 hours to try to 
convince and get the votes for that. It is not going to be easy, but we 
are going to make sure as Democrats that we do that so that we have a 
good bill that will pass.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, just to make clear the point that this is not a partisan 
issue throughout the country. Unfortunately it has become a partisan 
issue here in the House of Representatives, but I want to refer to two 
quotes from some distinguished Members of the other body. One, a senior 
Republican from the other body representing the State of Iowa, when 
asked about this subject said, What's going to make them, meaning the 
House Republicans, accept it is whether or not they want this group of 
people, particularly people in the military who are sacrificing their 
freedom for our freedom, to get the same benefit everybody else is 
going to get who has children in their family.
  What is really unfortunate is that by the inaction of the leadership 
in this House, it appears that the Republicans in the House do not want 
to help these military families and their children.

                              {time}  1200

  Another prominent Republican in the other body from the State of 
Maine said the base pay of a first year soldier is $16,000. Paramedics 
make an average of $22,000, and home health aides make an average of 
$18,500 per year. These people are a critical part of our 
infrastructure, and they deserve tax relief too.
  I could not agree more. People on this side of the aisle could not 
agree more. We have been fighting during these last several weeks to 
try to put back in the bill what the Republican leadership in the House 
removed from the bill in the dead of night, specifically this child tax 
credit for low-income workers, precisely because we understand the 
plight of these workers, and when we go back to our districts we hear 
from them when they say, you know, if you are going to give tax relief 
to people, we need it more than Donald Trump does, so why are you not 
helping us?
  Again, there are prominent Members of the other body representing the 
Republican Party who get it, who are fighting to try to fix this 
problem right now; and yet here in this Chamber, in this House of 
Representatives, the

[[Page 14366]]

leadership continues to try to find ways to deny these hard-working, 
taxpaying individuals, these families the benefit that they rightly 
deserve.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, in case some colleagues are perhaps listening to the 
debate on television in their offices, we have brought forth the rule 
to consider the aviation reauthorization bill, the reauthorization of 
the Federal Aviation Administration.
  The Federal Aviation Administration is of extreme importance to the 
safety of not only the flying public in the United States, but really 
to the economy of the United States. One of the pillars of the economy 
of the United States is precisely the superb system of aviation that we 
have.
  But that does not happen by chance. We have an obligation to fund and 
reauthorize the Federal Aviation Administration, and this legislation 
that we are attempting to get to today with this rule not only does 
that, but deals with a number of very important collateral issues in 
the area of aviation.
  So, again, to be clear with regard to what we are attempting to do 
today, what the Committee on Rules has done, we have passed a rule to 
bring to the floor legislation to reauthorize the Federal Aviation 
Administration in the context of very important legislation entitled 
Flight 100--Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act. That is what we 
are discussing today.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I agree with the gentleman that the underlying bill that 
we are considering here today is important. Aviation and the safety of 
our skies and the strength of our airports, all that is very, very 
important.
  We are also trying to do here, so if anybody is listening they will 
understand, we are also trying to be able to, in addition to helping 
the aviation industry and helping our airports and helping protect our 
airports, we are also trying to help protect a lot of American 
families, 12 million families, to be exact, some of them military 
families where servicemen and servicewomen are serving our country in 
Iraq. We want to make sure that they can benefit from the child tax 
credit.
  We cannot seem to get the leadership of this House to allow us to be 
able to vote on this issue, up or down. We are trying to advocate for 
millions of families in this country who not only need help, who 
deserve help.
  So part of what we are doing on this bill and what we have been doing 
on previous bills is to try to highlight this issue, helping to 
persuade, and, if not persuade, maybe shame you into doing the right 
thing.
  I guess I will ask the question that the distinguished minority whip 
asked last week during this debate. Why is it that we cannot get a vote 
up or down to reinsert the child tax credit that your leadership 
removed in the middle of the night?
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I think the gentleman from Massachusetts has laid out 
the case very effectively. The underlying bill here is critically 
important. The underlying bill also deals with airport workers whose 
interests are tied up with the child tax credit issue, as well, and the 
importance of doing what we said we were going to do.
  It is not a question of bargaining for putting back what was 
rightfully the child tax credit to these 6.5 million families, to these 
12 million children. That is the only issue that we were trying to 
address, very simply. It seems to me that what the Senate did is 
perfectly acceptable and it can be done. And I asked the question last 
week of the majority leader as well, will you accept the Senate 
language if it comes over here? The Senate language is here.
  We can do this, we can move quickly, and we can do it without holding 
hostage 12 million children. It is just not quid pro quo. It is not, as 
I said earlier, for political advantage. It is about doing what is the 
right thing. That is all we are asking.
  The President has said, do it. Take the Senate language; make it 
happen. When people of well-meaning in every part of the government, 
whether it is the House, the other body, the executive branch, want to 
come together to try to address these 12 million children, these 6.5 
million families, who pay taxes, it would just seem to me that we could 
do it quickly in this body without any hesitation.
  What we want to do is be able to provide the opportunity for these 
people to get the same benefit 25 million other people are going to get 
on July 1. Why should they not be the beneficiaries of a tax cut to 
allow them to put food on their table? It is easy. Let us get it done, 
and let us just try to take aside all of the extraneous matter.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Members should refrain from 
making improper references to the Senate.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to 
close for our side.
  Mr. Speaker, I will ask for a vote on the previous question. If the 
previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the rule. 
My amendment will provide that as soon as the House passes this rule it 
will take from the Speaker's table and immediately consider the Senate-
passed version of H.R. 1308, which restores the refundable child tax 
credit that was removed from the recently passed Republican tax bill. 
This way we can send that bill immediately to the President's desk for 
his signature and start helping America's low- and modest-income 
families right away, right this second.
  The President's press secretary, Ari Fleischer, said this week that 
``the President thinks at its core what the Senate has done is the 
right thing to do, a good thing to do, and he wants to sign it.'' I 
think we should give the President an opportunity to do just that.
  H.R. 1308, as amended by the Senate, will provide immediate tax 
relief to America's hard-working families, in contrast to the 
Republican/Bush tax bill. That bill does next to nothing to help those 
low- and moderate-income Americans who need relief the most. In fact, 
in a late night negotiating session behind closed doors, the Republican 
leadership deleted the one provision that would have helped these 
Americans, the refundable child tax credit. When it came to a choice of 
helping their rich contributors or Americans struggling to make a 
living, they chose the rich. They stripped out this tax break that 
would have helped the families of 8 million children whose parents 
serve in the military or are veterans.
  H.R. 1308, the bill amended and passed last week in the other body 
and sent back here, will give immediate help to working families by 
providing the child tax credit to 6.5 million low-income working 
families and nearly 12 million additional children. These families 
would receive an average annual increase of $150 per child.
  It will also help families of soldiers in combat in Iraq by extending 
the child tax credit to many of them. It was suggested by some on the 
other side of the aisle that this break for our brave men and women in 
the military was nothing more than welfare. Well, I strongly disagree.
  I ask for a ``no'' vote on the previous question.
  Mr. Speaker, I include the following for the Record.

   Previous Question for H. Res. 265--Rules on H.R. 2115 Flight 100--
                Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act

       At the end of the resolution add the following:
       ``Sec. 2. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the 
     House shall be considered to have taken from the Speaker's 
     table the bill (H.R. 1308) to amend the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986 to end certain abusive tax practices, to provide tax 
     relief and simplification, and for other purposes, with 
     Senate amendments thereto, and a single motion that the House 
     concur in each of the Senate

[[Page 14367]]

     amendments shall be considered as pending without 
     intervention of any point of order. The Senate amendments and 
     the motion shall be considered as read. The motion shall be 
     debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the 
     chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways 
     and Means. The previous question shall be considered as 
     ordered on the motion to final adoption without intervening 
     motion or demand for division of the question.''

  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, again, in case somebody would like to determine what we 
have brought to the floor today, because obviously any students of 
political science who may have been watching this debate will have 
confirmed today that there is certainly no rule requiring germaneness 
in debate in the House of Representatives, the issue that we have 
brought to the floor today, that the Committee on Rules passed a rule 
in order to be able to do so, we did so yesterday, is the 
reauthorization of the Federal Aviation Administration.
  In order to reauthorize the Federal Aviation Administration, the 
relevant committees worked long and hard on a very important piece of 
aviation legislation which we bring to the floor today. It is H.R. 
2115, the Flight 100--Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act. So that 
is what we are doing.
  Now, since there is obviously no germaneness requirement with regard 
to debate, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have talked 
about other issues, and they are certainly welcome to do so. The 
semantic of the day had to do with the word ``tax.''
  We are very proud of our record since we were honored by the American 
people with the majority in this Chamber with regard to the issue of 
taxes. I remember in my first term here, Mr. Speaker, as a freshman 
Member, we were still in the minority and our friends on the other side 
of the aisle controlled the agenda, they were the majority, being faced 
with one of the largest tax increases in the history of this country. 
We on this side of the aisle opposed that tax increase, and our friends 
on the other side of the aisle pushed very hard, and at that time they 
had a Member of their party in the White House, to impose that record 
tax increase on the American people.
  Every time we have been able to since we were given the majority by 
the American people, we have tried to do the opposite. We have tried to 
lessen the tax burden on the American people, and we are very proud of 
that.
  So with regard to when it is germane to the debate on taxes, we are 
extremely proud of our record. That debate will continue, and I think 
it is a fundamental difference between the parties. We believe in and 
have every time we have been able to reduce the tax burden on the 
American people.
  But today the debate that we bring forward, the legislation that we 
bring forward, is the important reauthorization of the Federal Aviation 
Administration. We believe, Mr. Speaker, that because of the importance 
of the Federal Aviation Administration, not only to the flying public 
and to the aviation industry in this country, but to the economy of the 
United States, as well as to our national security, that we should move 
forward and reauthorize that very important Federal agency, as well as 
effectuate the other important programs and initiatives that are 
included in this very significant piece of legislation.

                              {time}  1215

  With that in mind, I remind our colleagues what we are doing, the 
reauthorization of the Federal Aviation Administration.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this rule, which does not 
allow consideration of several Democratic amendments. I submitted two 
amendments regarding Los Angeles International Airport (LAX), which is 
in my district, and neither was made in order.
  The operator of LAX is proposing a major expansion project that would 
include the construction of a remote passenger check-in facility that 
would force all passengers to check-in and leave their baggage in the 
same location. This project could cost an estimated $9 to $10 billion. 
Supporters of this controversial project claim that it is necessary to 
protect public safety. Yet a RAND Corporation study concluded that this 
project will not improve public safety and could increase the 
likelihood of a terrorist attack by concentrating large number of 
people at the check-in facility.
  I submitted an amendment to require the Secretary of Homeland 
Security to review the proposed remote passenger check-in facility and 
determine whether it would, in fact, protect public safety. My 
amendment would have prohibited the construction of this project unless 
the Secretary of Homeland Security concluded that it would protect the 
safety of air passengers and the general public. I also submitted an 
amendment to ensure that taxpayer funds are not wasted on dubious LAX 
expansion projects like this one.
  I urge my colleagues to reject this rule and allow me to offer my 
amendments to protect the American people from both threats to public 
safety and unnecessary and expansion airport construction projects.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the 
balance of my time and I move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). 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 clauses 8 and 9 of rule XX, this 15-minute vote on 
ordering the previous question will be followed by 5-minute votes on 
adopting House Resolution 265, if ordered; and on the three motions to 
suspend the rules previously postponed, in the following order: H. Con. 
Res. 110; H.R. 1320; and H.R. 2350.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 219, 
nays 195, not voting 20, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 257]

                               YEAS--219

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Bereuter
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burr
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole
     Collins
     Cox
     Crenshaw
     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
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     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
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     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
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

[[Page 14368]]



                               NAYS--195

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Ballance
     Becerra
     Bell
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Case
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley (CA)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Grijalva
     Hall
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley (OR)
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lynch
     Majette
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Snyder
     Solis
     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--20

     Biggert
     Crane
     Cubin
     Davis (IL)
     Deutsch
     Emanuel
     Eshoo
     Fossella
     Gallegly
     Gephardt
     Gutierrez
     Kirk
     Larson (CT)
     Meehan
     Rush
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Smith (WA)
     Spratt
     Weldon (PA)


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood) (during the vote). Members are 
advised that there are 2 minutes remaining in the vote.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood) (during the vote). There are 10 
Members stuck in an elevator in Rayburn. We are waiting for them.

                              {time}  1305

  Mr. HINOJOSA and Mr. DICKS changed their vote from ``yea'' to 
``nay.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Pursuant to clauses 8 and 9 of 
rule XX, the remainder of this series will be conducted as 5-minute 
votes.
  The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 370, 
noes 43, not voting 21, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 258]

                               AYES--370

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Allen
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Ballance
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burr
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Carter
     Case
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cole
     Collins
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dooley (CA)
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Fattah
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (AZ)
     Frost
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Grijalva
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harman
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hill
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley (OR)
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Janklow
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Lynch
     Majette
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Mica
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schrock
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Turner (OH)
     Turner (TX)
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weiner
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NOES--43

     Andrews
     Becerra
     Bell
     Conyers
     Doggett
     Evans
     Farr
     Ford
     Hinchey
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kucinich
     Lee
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     Meek (FL)
     Miller, George
     Moran (VA)
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Rangel
     Rothman
     Sabo
     Sandlin
     Schiff
     Slaughter
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Van Hollen
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Wexler
     Woolsey

                             NOT VOTING--21

     Biggert
     Crane
     Cubin
     Davis (IL)
     Deutsch
     Emanuel
     Eshoo
     Fossella
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gephardt
     Gutierrez
     Kirk
     Larson (CT)
     Meehan
     Nethercutt
     Rush
     Sessions
     Smith (WA)
     Spratt
     Weldon (FL)


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

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

                              {time}  1313

  So the resolution was agreed to.

[[Page 14369]]

  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________