An amendment to insert a complete new text.

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF SENATE AMENDMENT TO HOUSE AMENDMENT TO
   SENATE AMENDMENT TO H.R. 4853, TAX RELIEF, UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
             REAUTHORIZATION, AND JOB CREATION ACT OF 2010

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 1766 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 1766

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
     shall be in order to debate in the House the topics addressed
     by the motions specified in sections 2 and 3 of this
     resolution for three hours equally divided and controlled by
     the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on
     Ways and Means or their designees.
       Sec. 2.  After debate pursuant to the first section of this
     resolution, it shall be in order to take from the Speaker's
     table the bill (H.R. 4853) to amend the Internal Revenue Code
     of 1986 to extend the funding and expenditure authority of
     the Airport and Airway Trust Fund, to amend title 49, United
     States Code, to extend authorizations for the airport
     improvement program, and for other purposes, with the Senate
     amendment to the House amendment to the Senate amendment
     thereto, and to consider in the House, without intervention
     of any point of order except those arising under clause 10 of
     rule XXI, a motion offered by the chair of the Committee on
     Ways and Means or his designee that the House concur in the
     Senate amendment to the House amendment to the Senate
     amendment with the amendment printed in the report of the
     Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. The previous
     question shall be considered as ordered on the motion to
     final adoption without intervening motion.
       Sec. 3.  If the motion described in section 2 of this
     resolution fails of adoption, the previous question shall be
     considered as ordered on a motion that the House concur in
     the Senate amendment to the House amendment to the Senate
     amendment, on which the Chair shall immediately put the
     question.
       Sec. 4.  Until completion of proceedings enabled by the
     first three sections of this resolution--
       (a) the Chair may decline to entertain any intervening
     motion, resolution, question, or notice;
       (b) the Chair may postpone such proceedings to such time as
     may be designated by the Speaker; and
       (c) each amendment and motion considered pursuant to this
     resolution shall be considered as read.

                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would remind all Members that cell
phone use in the House Chamber is not permitted.
  The gentlewoman from New York is recognized for 1 hour.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).
All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only. I
yield myself such time as I may consume.


                             General Leave

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I also ask unanimous consent that all Members be given
5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House
Resolution 1766.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, since I made a rather lengthy speech at
our first rule this morning, I am going to be giving up my time to
other Members.
  So I will at this point reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Rochester for
yielding me the customary 30 minutes and yield myself such time as I
might consume.
  (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
  Mr. DREIER. I think it is very important for us to understand exactly
what is taking place here.
  About 5 minutes ago I was downstairs and told to appear on the House
floor. I am here. I know that there has been a Democratic Caucus held
to deal with the changes. I know that lots of people have been
following what has transpired over the past few hours, and I think that
before we proceed, it would be best for the distinguished chair of the
Committee on Rules, Mr. Speaker, to explain to us sort of what's
happened and what we're doing and what specific changes Members can
anticipate in this rule.
  I would be happy to yield to my friend from New York.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Thank you for yielding.
  There are very few changes, if any. The caucus in the Democratic
Party is really the most important part of our side of the House. The
Speaker is meticulous about working with them to achieve consensus.
Frankly, we had a rather raucous meeting this morning at the caucus and
it was decided that it would be better if we recessed and took some
time to see where we were and to make sure that all facets of the
caucus had been listened to. But as I said, there will probably be very
little change, if any, from the rule we had this morning.
  Mr. DREIER. Well, Mr. Speaker, if I could reclaim my time, there may
be

[[Page H8546]]

very little change, but it is my understanding, just from the brief
staff report that I got, that we are going to, under this rule,
continue to have a vote on the Pomeroy amendment, which increases the
death tax. And following that, because of a concern that was raised by
Members on the majority side of the aisle, there was concern that there
wouldn't be a final passage vote. So am I correct to infer that we can
anticipate the only change being a final passage vote on the measure?
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. The gentleman is correct. There were many Members who
felt that they needed that extra vote. At the proper time we will make
the decision as to whether we will call and ask for a change in the
rule.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time again, I am trying to get
a clear understanding so that Members of this body will know what the
proposed changes are in this rule that is before us that we are
debating now. I think that, again, looking back to what we've gone
through over the last several years, transparency, disclosure,
accountability, those are the guides that we're trying to use. And so
before we proceed, Mr. Speaker, I believe that it's very important to
have a clear understanding of exactly what it is that we are
considering, and so I would ask the chair if she would explain that to
the membership.
  I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1800

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I would be happy to respond to the gentleman.
  The only thing I can tell you, Mr. Dreier, as I said before, is that
there is no change in this bill. We may or may not ask for an ability
to have a separate vote, as you pointed out, so that people will have
an up-or-down vote on the bill.
  As you know, we are dealing with the resolution, and if the Pomeroy
portion of it should go down, then we wouldn't normally have that up-
or-down vote. If it should pass, that would normally be the end of our
proceedings, and it would go directly to the Senate. We are simply
adding, as a precaution and for a number of Members who have requested
it, an ability to have that up-or-down vote regardless of whether the
amendment passes or fails.
  Mr. DREIER. Will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DREIER. I am very appreciative of my friend for yielding.
  Let me, Mr. Speaker, explain it the way I've understood.
  So the rule is identical to the rule that we were debating earlier,
that being we are anticipating 3 hours of general debate; we are
expecting that there will be a vote then on the proposal by Mr. Pomeroy
to increase the death tax. Then, Mr. Speaker, we may or may not,
following that, have a vote on final passage before the measure is sent
to the Senate; and from there, it would then go on to the President.
  Is that a correct explanation?
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. That is correct.
  Mr. DREIER. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate my friend
for having explained it.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I am now pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Garamendi).
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Madam Chairperson, thank you so very, very much for
your leadership and for the change in the rule.
  Mr. Speaker, the earlier rule presented a significant problem to us
in that it had basically a vote on the Pomeroy amendment; and that
would be then, if that passed, the vote on the bill without a separate
vote. Separation is very, very important to many of us because we see
in this particular piece of legislation numerous serious problems.
  For example, we see that the Social Security payroll tax is being
reduced, which, for the first time ever in history, I think, has put
Social Security's security in play. In the future, we think this may be
a very, very serious detriment to the well-being of the Social Security
system.
  In addition to that, the way in which the taxes are structured, I
think, goes basically against some very fundamental principles that
were best announced and laid out by Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Etched
on the marble at his memorial here in Washington, D.C., are the words
that speak, I believe, very directly to this piece of legislation. He
said that the test of our progress is not whether those who have much
get more but, rather, whether those who have little get enough.
  This piece of legislation that we will be voting on, even with the
proposed amendment, the Pomeroy amendment, really does give those who
have much even more while those who have little get very, very little.
  We strongly support the middle class tax cut. That has always been
our position. We think President Obama was quite correct in announcing
his support for the middle class tax cut. We think that the Republican
position of even greater wealth and lower taxes for those who have
much--not just a little much but a great, great deal of the wealth of
America--is not justified. Therefore, we stand in support of the
proposed rule, and we will speak later on the bill.
  Mr. DREIER. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson).
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I, too, want to join my
colleague from California (Mr. Garamendi) in supporting the rule and
also in expressing my opposition to this bill.
  A number of Members of Congress will come and express their
opposition to the bill in the debate, and I wanted to use some of the
time during the rule to set the climate for what many Members of this
body will be hearing. I want to start with a couple of quotes that, I
think, ought to drive some of the discussion that will be taking place
here on the floor.
  The first is from The Wealth of Nations in 1776, Adam Smith: ``The
subjects of every State ought to contribute toward the support of the
government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective
abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they
respectively enjoy under the protection of the State. As Henry Home
(Lord Kames) has written, a goal of taxation should be to `remedy
inequality of riches as much as possible by relieving the poor and
burdening the rich.' ''
  William Jennings Bryan, at the Democratic National Convention, on
July 8, 1896, said, ``I am in favor of an income tax. When I find a
man''--or a woman--``who is not willing to bear his share of the
burdens of the government which protects him, I find a man who is
unworthy to enjoy the blessings of a government like ours.''
  Franklin Delano Roosevelt, in Worcester, Massachusetts, on October
21, 1936, said, ``Taxes, after all, are the dues that we pay for the
privileges of membership in an organized society.''
  There will be great debate on the floor of this Congress tonight
about extending the Bush-era tax cuts. The Bush-era tax cuts, which are
an extension of the Reagan tax cuts of the 1980s, represent one of the
most profound shifts of wealth in our Nation from those most vulnerable
to those who are well-heeled--those who are better positioned in our
society to make their way through life.
  So it is our hope, Mr. Speaker, that this debate be conducted in a
way that allows for people to participate.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Miller).
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding
this time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule, as amended, that will
give an opportunity to both sides to address what, I think, is an
egregious provision in this bill. It, unfortunately, I think, also
mirrors another provision in this bill, which is the tax cuts to the
wealthiest 2 percent of the people in this country and to a handful of
estates, to some 6,000 estates. It gives them a $25 billion tax cut at
a time when working families are struggling to keep their families
together.
  Also is the fact that it does nothing in terms of stimulus, in terms
of job creation. These tax cuts to the wealthy, so many economists have
said, is the least stimulative thing you can do. They simply don't
spend the money in a timely fashion because they don't need to spend
that money. The second one, of course, is that the estate tax provides
no stimulative impact either to the economy. In talking

[[Page H8547]]

about doing this for the sake of the economy, what we are really doing
is cutting taxes to people and to estates that will not contribute to
economic growth, so we are creating debt that is unnecessary to create.
  You know, we are a couple of weeks away from the debt commission. We
are a couple of months away from when people were concerned whether the
United States was going to look like Greece or Spain or Portugal. Along
we come now, and we're not even prepared to make the distinction as to
whether or not we would create debt for, hopefully, stimulative
purposes and/or just hand out tax breaks to people who don't need them
and who won't contribute to the improvement of the economy. Yet it will
clearly be put on the debt of this Nation, and it will clearly have to
be dealt with in the ensuing Congresses where it will drive a series of
decisions that aren't necessary, but neither was the debt necessary.
  I do think this rule is an improvement because it will give the
opportunity for those individuals who want to vote against this tax cut
for this limited number of estates to do so. Then whether they vote for
that or against that or whether that prevails or doesn't prevail, the
individuals will still have the ability to vote against this
legislation as this is not to suggest that the amendment addresses all
that is wrong with this legislation.

                              {time}  1810

  It doesn't address the tax cuts for the high income. It doesn't
address the complications of the payroll holiday and what that means to
the financing of Social Security over the long term, the ability of
this Congress to change that a year from now, the fact that that can
lead to tax increases for individuals, and that it's less progressive
than the higher provision that was in the original Recovery Act to
provide assistance to middle-income families.
  There are a number of good provisions in this legislation. There are
tax provisions in here to help educate their children, to take care of
their children, and the extension of unemployment for a year, but I
would hope that we would support the rule. As inadequate as this
legislation is, I would hope that we would support the rule.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Nadler).
  Mr. NADLER of New York. I thank the gentlelady for yielding me the
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I'm going to oppose this bill, however the rule comes
out, for several reasons. Number one, if this bill passes, we will
extend the upper income tax cuts at a cost of increase in the deficit
by $700 billion over 10 years.
  We're told that in 2 years it will expire. Of course, we also know
that our friends on the other side of the aisle will try to extend it
in 2 years, and in 2 years, we'll have the same kind of coercion. We'll
be told that if we don't extend the upper end tax cuts, the middle
class tax cuts will also expire, and I don't see any reason to believe
that we wouldn't succumb to that coercion 2 years from now in an
election year as much as we're doing now in this bill.
  So I believe that passing this bill, in effect, would make permanent
the upper end tax cuts which, in effect, would generate a $700 billion
increase in the deficit, which would make it almost impossible to fund
housing, education, everything else we need. It would be the
culmination of the 30-year Republican effort to starve the beast, to
deliberately create huge deficits in order to provide the political
cover for reducing expenditures in housing, education, Social Security,
and Medicare.
  Secondly, I hope that Mr. Pomeroy's amendment on the estate tax will
pass, but if it doesn't, that's another problem.
  Thirdly, Social Security. We are going, in this bill, to provide for
a 1-year tax reduction of 2 percent in the Social Security tax. That
will cost us $120 billion in 1 year, which will be replenished from the
general fund, but we know perfectly well that, politically, once you
make that tax cut, it will be impossible to restore it, which means it
will be $120 billion a year forever taken away from Social Security but
replaced by the general fund.
  Now, the conservatives have always told us we have to reduce Social
Security, increase the retirement age, reduce benefits, because it
contributes to the deficit. We said, no, it doesn't contribute to the
deficit. Social Security is walled off; it has nothing to do with the
deficit. But now it will be put right in the middle of the deficit
debate, and it will cost the general fund $120 billion a year, $1.2
trillion over 10 years, and we'll be told you've got to reduce Social
Security benefits, increase the retirement age because of the deficit,
and it will be in the middle of the deficit debate. We will be told a
year or two or three from now, by the way, we'll only replace $100
billion of the $120 billion we have taken away from Social Security
this year because we need the money for education and housing and
something else, and we should not want to be in that position.
  FDR decided in 1935 that Social Security would be supported by its
own tax, by its own situation of people paying into it year after year
so they take it back when they retired. Now we are going to take some
of that money away, and we're going to say the general fund will
support it. FDR knew that by setting up Social Security as self-
financing, it would be difficult to abolish or to reduce. This undoes
that genius by the New Deal and puts Social Security at great risk,
and, accordingly, Mr. Speaker, I must oppose this bill.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, assuming that my friend still has additional
speakers, I will continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Maryland (Ms. Edwards).
  Ms. EDWARDS of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to thank the
gentlewoman from New York.
  As of this morning, I was not prepared, much to my disappointment, to
support this rule, but I do support the rule now and the ability of
this House to move forward on this tax cut bill.
  It is sad that later on we're going to consider a bill that isn't
just about an estate tax that benefits only 6,600 families. It's about
what we do with Social Security for the long term, protecting the
investment that all of our seniors, people who have invested in Social
Security should be able to expect in the years to come. It is about the
debt that's going to be saddled onto our children and our
grandchildren.
  The underlying bill is so problematic in so many ways--and I'll have
an opportunity to speak on my opposition to that bill--but I do stand
here able to support a rule that allows me to take a vote as a
Democrat, to speak to the values that I hold for working people and for
working families and for our children and our grandchildren and their
future.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Vermont (Mr. Welch).
  Mr. WELCH. I thank the gentlewoman from New York.
  Mr. Speaker, America faces two great challenges: One, we have too few
jobs. Over 15 million Americans who are looking for work can't find it.
Even millions more are so discouraged, they don't even go out. Number
2, too much debt; approaching $14 trillion, in this bill would add $858
billion more.
  Now, President Obama was right in proposing legislation, absolutely
right, legislation is needed to revive our economy. And President Obama
is right, he is absolutely right, that we should extend those middle
class tax cuts for folks up to $250,000. They need the money. We can't
shrink their paycheck, and that will help revive the economy.
  But this legislation creates too few jobs and too much debt. The cost
per job is in the range of $390,000. The cost of this is largely
because of the success of the Senate Republicans to insist on $200
million both in estate tax reductions, in high-end tax reductions, that
will go to the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans.
  This is not about class warfare. This is not about soak the rich.
This is about prudent use of taxpayer dollars. If we borrow a dollar,
there should be some job bang for that dollar borrowed, and those high-
end tax cuts and the estate tax cuts do not generate jobs, but they
will be a bill that comes due and must be paid by the middle class and
working families of this country.

[[Page H8548]]

  We have a responsibility to focus on jobs, to focus on economic
revival, and to rebuild the middle class. We can do a better job. We
could have a bill that extended the Bush tax cuts up to $250,000, and
the money saved, put that into reducing the deficit and infrastructure
development. We could have a bill that focussed on an estate tax that
was less generous than what is being considered in this legislation,
and we could have a bill that would protect Social Security. Americans
know that we cannot take money out from the revenue stream and expect
to have solvency in the long term.
  So we have a chance to pass the legislation to revive us
economically, to treat the middle class right, but to limit the debt.
  Mr. DREIER. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).

                              {time}  1820

  Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the chairlady for giving me
this opportunity.
  I wasn't going to support the rule this morning, but I am going to
support it now. I am going to support it because I want to be able to
vote to make the estate tax more reasonable, even though the reality
is, what we are voting on is whether we are going to give the wealthy
with the estate tax a six-course meal with wine or a seven-course meal
with wine, and we should be talking about a meat and three.
  The fact is, the estate tax with a $675,000 exemption was started
with the Bush tax cuts, and now we are putting it up to a $5 million
exemption per person and $10 million per couple. It was at a 55 percent
rate and precipitously drops in this bill to 35 percent. The benefit to
the heirs of the richest people in this country is unbelievable,
unfathomable. And what that means, you will have a continued
concentration of wealth in a few select families, lords so to speak,
princes that have money beyond what anybody needs to have in this
Nation and not contribute to others. The fact is, this was a very
difficult vote, a very difficult decision for me. I asked my
constituents to let me know what they thought. I had hundreds of people
call and write and contribute to a poll, and it was about even, for and
against.
  The fact is, the future of our Nation is at risk. These tax cuts for
the most wealthy people in our Nation, for corporations that will not
produce jobs, in the hundreds of billions of dollars category, and the
inheritance tax will take away the children, the aged, and the needy in
years to come who will need support from this Nation. The deficit will
be so great that when it comes time for deficit cutting, the cuts are
going to come to the people who most are in need.
  Hubert Humphrey said, ``The moral test of government is how it treats
those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the
twilight of life, the aged; and those in the shadows of life, the sick,
the needy, and the handicapped.'' He and others, like Dr. King, the
Dalai Lama, and others who you look to never talk about giving more to
the rich. Mr. Garamendi started talking about Franklin Roosevelt. The
fact is, those people who are the moral tests will suffer when the cuts
are made, and I don't see that as something I should support. I cannot
be sure of that.
  Mr. DREIER. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
  Mr. DeFAZIO. The lack of response from the Republican side is a bit
interesting because we are about to add $430 billion to this year's
deficit if this bill passes. That is $430 billion borrowed, probably
from China, added to the deficit. A record $1.75 trillion.
  Now, we have been told this is the only deal, the best deal. No, we
have offered an alternative. And earlier today, I thought we had some
prospect of actually voting on it, one that's much less expensive, more
targeted to working families, average Americans, and those who are
unemployed would have created real jobs with substantial investment in
infrastructure projects, not the jobs you are going to get by giving
people small tax breaks and saying, Here is some borrowed money from
China; go out and buy some goods from China. That will put America on
the path to recovery.
  Every other industrial nation on Earth is talking about buckling down
a little bit and austerity measures and having a sustained recovery.
No, not here. We got out the credit card. A trillion dollars--well, no.
It's only $858 billion. And guess what, our kids and grandkids are
going to be paying that bill for 30 years. And the most insidious part
is that $111 billion of that will come from the Social Security trust
fund.
  But don't worry, after we take the money from the Social Security
trust fund and ask people to consume with it, present day consumption,
in order to take care of Social Security in the long term, we will go
out and borrow $111 billion from China and reinject it into the trust
fund. And then a year from today, the Republicans will say to President
Obama, You can't raise taxes on every working American. You can't
restore the Social Security tax. And, oh, by the way, we just can't
afford to subsidize that program anymore. We are just going to have to
cut it.
  This is a bad deal. It isn't going to create the jobs we could create
for a smaller price tag. It's not going to give the relief we, as
Democrats, want to give the working families and unemployed Americans
and put this country on a path to recovery.
  I would urge my colleagues to vote against the rule and get made in
order an amendment that would make major structural changes to this
deal. It should not be a take-it-or-leave-it deal dictated by the
Republican minority leader.
  Mr. DREIER. I will continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman).
  Mr. SHERMAN. Republican Senators have held America hostage, held the
American economy hostage, held hostage the middle class. And the
President agreed to pay the ransom. Now that ransom can be paid this
month with the consent not only of the President, but the Senators and
this House. So we can stop the ransom from being paid until the end of
the year. And at that point, the President will still be willing to pay
the ransom, and the ransom will go up.
  If the ransom is going to be paid, let us pay it before it goes up.
Knowing that the President had agreed to the major and expensive
changes that the Republican Senators demanded, I sought to amend this
bill only in a modest way, only to the extent that we could do the deal
by the end of the year. And I put forward an amendment that would not
increase the cost of the bill by a penny or reduce the tax cuts that
the Republicans have been asking for by a penny. I asked only that
instead of the payroll tax holiday that needlessly involves the Social
Security trust fund and comingles general funds with the Social
Security trust fund, that we send out checks as soon as possible so
that the money the Republicans have already agreed should go to working
families would get to them perhaps in time to pay this year's Christmas
bills.
  Unfortunately, no effort was made at the highest levels to secure the
support of even a couple of Republican Senators for that kind of minor
tweaking. And so we stand today with only one choice: pay the ransom
now, or pay more ransom later. This is not a place Democrats want to
be. But, ultimately, it is better to pay the ransom today than to watch
the President pay even more--and I think he'd be willing to pay a bit
more--next month.
  Therefore, we are going to have to swallow hard. We are going to see
an estate tax law so bad that for the richest families where someone
died in 2010, the tax rate is going to be less than zero. The family
will be able to choose zero, or choose huge reductions in future income
taxes. And they will be well advised, and they will pick whatever costs
the Treasury the most money, and we will collect less than zero from
those families. We will see those with an income--not mere millionaires
but people with $1 million in annual income--get tax relief that they
won't spend and don't particularly need.
  The choice is to pay the ransom now, or to watch it go up next month.
  Mr. DREIER. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page H8549]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from New York has 8\1/2\
minutes remaining.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Moran).
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, let me say to the chairperson of
the Rules Committee what a terrific job she is doing. And of course I
would urge us all to vote for the rule, but I don't think we should
vote for this tax cut.

                              {time}  1830

  The idea is that we will kick all the tax cuts down the road for
another 2 years.
  Have you ever seen anybody kicking a can? They never bend over and
pick it up and drop it in the trash can. They just keep kicking it. And
that's what we're going to do.
  We knew back in 2001 and 2003, when we were told these tax cuts are
going to expire in 2011, that they weren't really going to expire. And
they're not going to expire either in an election year. Our President
isn't going to run in 2012 on a platform that he's going to raise your
taxes.
  And with regard to Social Security, do we really think that next year
we're going to increase payroll taxes by fifty percent from 4 percent
to 6\1/4\ percent? We're not going to do that. And so what's really
going to happen is that we're going to take money out the general
revenue fund to keep Social Security solvent.
  So what we're talking about is not $900 billion. It's really about $4
trillion more of lost revenue. That's what we're committing ourselves
to over the next several years.
  And yet, back in 2001, President Bush inherited a surplus. The
discipline of PAYGO had created 3 straight years of surpluses. Imagine.
Think about that, because it's not going to happen again in our
lifetimes or the lifetimes of our children or grandchildren after this
vote is taken tonight. But we had a projected surplus of $5.6 trillion
at the end of the Clinton Administration. In fact, at the end of 2010,
we were going to have our debt paid off. Instead of having $12 trillion
plus of debt, we would have paid off all our indebtedness. And we would
have fulfilled our responsibility to our children and grandchildren's
generation. This doesn't.
  This is the wrong thing to do. It's the easy thing to do. Everybody
loves a tax cut. You know, let's be Santa Claus. Let's give something
to everyone. In fact, there are 81 provisions in this tax bill. Most of
us have no idea what they actually do. But look through it; 81
different deductions and exemptions and giveaways and accessions to
lobbyists and so on. That's not what we ought to be doing at
Christmastime.
  We ought, when we sit with our children and our grandchildren on our
laps, we ought to be proud that we have secured a better standard of
living for each of them, that we have looked into the future, and done
the right thing.
  The Native Americans who originally lived in this land, they used to
make decisions based on how they would affect the seventh generation to
come. We can't even look 7 years ahead.
  We ought to vote ``no'' on this tax bill because it's irresponsible.
So I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the bill itself but ``yes''
on the rule.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
North Carolina (Mr. Watt).
  Mr. WATT. Mr. Speaker, I oppose the estate tax provisions in this
bill, and I'm thankful that the rule would allow us to vote against
this estate tax.
  But I also oppose the extension of the high income tax cuts, and I
oppose the way we are doing the Social Security situation because I
think it will result in damage to Social Security. And this rule does
not give me the opportunity to vote against those two things. And
therefore, it's my intention to vote against the rule.
  I've tried to make it clear to my leadership that I think it's
important for me to have that vote on those two issues, and they
haven't seen fit to make that in order. So I feel like I must, under
those circumstances, vote against the rule.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
  Ms. KAPTUR. I thank the gentlelady for yielding to me, and I
regretfully oppose the rule and will oppose the bill. And the most
important reason is that this bill will not translate into job creation
in the United States of America. All it does is put our taxpayers on
the hook for another trillion dollars of borrowed debt that will be
from places like China, and from Saudi Arabia, in order to give more
tax cuts to the rich over the next 10 years. There is no guarantee that
that money will even be invested in the United States of America.
  You know, the Dow is up 42 percent. NASDAQ is up 78 percent. Wall
Street is on track to see its second-highest profitable year on record
with a projected $144 billion in bonuses going out the door. Couldn't
they take some of that and make sure this goes to those who are
unemployed and still seeking to earn their way forward in this economy?
  This bill will not be a real stimulus. In fact, it will only yield 33
cents of economic impact for every dollar that is borrowed to pay for
it. It will not create real robust growth and jobs in this country.
There is not even a ``Buy America'' provision in the bill. I'm so sad
for our Nation that we can't do better and help put America's
unemployed back to work.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Mississippi (Mr. Taylor), the last speaker I have.
  Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Speaker, May 9, 2001, was my son's 13th birthday.
Thirteen was a very unlucky year for him, and every other kid in
America. On that day, unemployment was 4.3 percent. Our Nation was
$5,600,286,010,418 in debt.
  Nine years and 7 months since the passage of the Bush budget,
unemployment is 9.8 percent, and our debt has grown by a staggering
$8,204,749,146,330.57. If there's anyone in this body who wants to tell
me that the intended effect was to double the number of unemployed
people and to add $8 trillion to the debt and, therefore, we should do
more of this--I rise in opposition to this rule, and I beg this body to
defeat this bill.
  Mr. DREIER. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I've listened to a number of my friends offer great
quotes. I listened to Mr. Jackson quote William Jennings Bryant,
Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and Adam Smith. I listened to Mr. Garamendi
quote Teddy Roosevelt. And I've listened to--was it Franklin Roosevelt?
Okay. I thought somebody was quoting Teddy Roosevelt.
  Well, I'd like to close by quoting one of our great former
colleagues, the late Jack Kemp, who, many times stood here in the well
and said, if you tax something, you get less of it. If you subsidize
something, you get more of it.
  In America we tax work, growth, savings, investment, productivity. We
subsidize non-work, welfare, consumption, debt, and leisure.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, Jack Kemp was revered by Democrats and Republicans
alike, and he was someone who understood very clearly that if you
increase that tax burden on job creators, you undermine the ability of
people who are trying to get onto that first rung of the economic
ladder a chance to do that.

                              {time}  1840

  We have a very important vote ahead of us. I don't like this bill. I
don't know of anyone who stood up and said that they liked this bill,
but I like even less the prospect of increasing taxes on every American
who pays income taxes today. That is why I believe we should move ahead
as expeditiously as possible so that, come January, we can have this
laser-like focus in our quest to grow our economy by reducing the size
and scope and reach of government so that we can increase opportunity
for all Americans.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, in a moment I will be offering an amendment to the rule,
and I want to take this opportunity to briefly describe the amendment.
  The amendment shifts initial consideration of the Senate amendment to
the House amendment to the Senate

[[Page H8550]]

amendment to H.R. 4853 into the Committee of the Whole. After 3 hours
of general debate, a vote will occur on the amendment printed in the
report of the Committee on Rules and the Committee of the Whole shall
rise. If the amendment passes, a vote will occur on a motion that the
House concur in the Senate amendment to the House amendment to the
Senate amendment with the amendment adopted in the Committee of the
Whole. If the motion fails, a vote will occur on a motion that the
House concur in the Senate amendment to the House amendment to the
Senate amendment.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote on the amendment, the rule, and the previous
question.


                   Amendment Offered by Ms. Slaughter

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I have an amendment to this rule at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Ms. Slaughter:
       Strike all after the resolving clause and insert the
     following:
       ``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
     Senate amendment to the House amendment to the Senate
     amendment to the bill (H.R. 4853), to amend the Internal
     Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the funding and expenditure
     authority of the Airport and Airway Trust Fund, to amend
     title 49, United States Code, to extend authorizations for
     the airport improvement program, and for other purposes. All
     points of order against consideration of the Senate amendment
     are waived except those arising under clause 10 of rule XXI.
     General debate shall be confined to the Senate amendment and
     the motions addressed by this resolution and shall not exceed
     three hours equally divided and controlled by the chair and
     ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means or
     their designees. After general debate, the Senate amendment
     shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule.
     No amendment shall be in order except the amendment printed
     in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this
     resolution. That amendment may be offered only by
     Representative Levin of Michigan or his designee and shall
     not be debatable. All points of order against that amendment
     are waived except those arising under clause 10 of rule XXI.
       ``Sec. 2. Upon disposition of the proposed House amendment
     made in order in the first section of this resolution, the
     Committee of the Whole shall rise and report the Senate
     amendment back to the House with such amendment as may have
     been adopted.
       ``Sec. 3. (a) If the Committee of the Whole reports the
     Senate amendment back to the House with an amendment, the
     pending question shall be a motion that the House concur in
     the Senate amendment to the House amendment to the Senate
     amendment with such amendment.
       ``(b) If a motion specified in subsection (a) fails of
     adoption, the pending question shall be a motion that the
     House concur in the Senate amendment to the House amendment
     to the Senate amendment.
       ``Sec. 4. If the Committee of the Whole reports the Senate
     amendment back to the House without amendment, the pending
     question shall be a motion that the House concur in the
     Senate amendment to the House amendment to the Senate
     amendment.
       ``Sec. 5. Until completion of proceedings enabled by this
     resolution--
       ``(a) the Chair may decline to entertain any intervening
     motion, resolution, question, or notice;
       ``(b) the Chair may postpone proceedings in the House to
     such time as may be designated by the Speaker;
       ``(c) each amendment and motion considered pursuant to this
     resolution shall be considered as read; and
       ``(d) all points of order against pending motions specified
     in sections 3 and 4 are waived (except those arising under
     clause 10 of rule XXI), and the previous question shall be
     considered as ordered on each such motion to final adoption
     without intervening motion or question of consideration.''

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the amendment,
on the rule, and the previous question.
  I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question
on the amendment and on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the amendment.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule
XX, this 15-minute vote on the amendment to House Resolution 1766 will
be followed by 5-minute votes on adoption, if ordered; and the motion
to suspend the rules on S. 987.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 230,
noes 186, not voting 17, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 643]

                               AYES--230

     Ackerman
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boccieri
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Childers
     Chu
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Dahlkemper
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Driehaus
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Giffords
     Gonzalez
     Gordon (TN)
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Halvorson
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick (AZ)
     Kissell
     Klein (FL)
     Kratovil
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney
     Markey (CO)
     Markey (MA)
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McMahon
     McNerney
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Minnick
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy (NY)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Nadler (NY)
     Neal (MA)
     Nye
     Oberstar
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Perriello
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis (CO)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schauer
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Teague
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--186

     Aderholt
     Adler (NJ)
     Akin
     Alexander
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Bright
     Broun (GA)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Cao
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Castle
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     DeFazio
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Djou
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Fallin
     Filner
     Flake
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grijalva
     Guthrie
     Hall (TX)
     Harper
     Hastings (WA)
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hoekstra
     Hunter
     Inglis
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan (OH)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kline (MN)
     Kosmas
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lee (NY)
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Myrick
     Napolitano
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Obey
     Olson
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stearns
     Stutzman

[[Page H8551]]


     Sullivan
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Wu
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--17

     Berry
     Brown (SC)
     Buyer
     Davis (AL)
     Granger
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kilroy
     Marchant
     McCarthy (NY)
     McMorris Rodgers
     Ortiz
     Radanovich
     Speier
     Tanner
     Van Hollen
     Wamp
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  1917

  Messrs. McCOTTER, McINTYRE, SIMPSON, OBEY, and Ms. KOSMAS changed
their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. WATT and Ms. FUDGE changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution, as
amended.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 214,
noes 201, not voting 18, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 644]

                               AYES--214

     Ackerman
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boccieri
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Childers
     Chu
     Clarke
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Driehaus
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Giffords
     Gonzalez
     Gordon (TN)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Halvorson
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Kagen
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick (AZ)
     Kissell
     Klein (FL)
     Kosmas
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Maffei
     Maloney
     Markey (CO)
     Markey (MA)
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Minnick
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy (NY)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Nadler (NY)
     Neal (MA)
     Nye
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis (CO)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Ross
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schauer
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Space
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Teague
     Thompson (CA)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--201

     Aderholt
     Adler (NJ)
     Akin
     Alexander
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Braley (IA)
     Bright
     Broun (GA)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Cao
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Castle
     Chaffetz
     Cleaver
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cooper
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Dahlkemper
     Davis (KY)
     DeFazio
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Djou
     Doggett
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Etheridge
     Fallin
     Filner
     Flake
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Grayson
     Griffith
     Grijalva
     Guthrie
     Hall (TX)
     Harper
     Hastings (WA)
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hoekstra
     Holt
     Hunter
     Inglis
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kline (MN)
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lee (NY)
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mack
     Manzullo
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McKeon
     McMahon
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Myrick
     Napolitano
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Olson
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Payne
     Pence
     Perriello
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Rodriguez
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stearns
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden
     Watt
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Wu
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--18

     Berry
     Brown (SC)
     Buyer
     Granger
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kilroy
     Kratovil
     Marchant
     McCarthy (NY)
     McHenry
     McMorris Rodgers
     Ortiz
     Radanovich
     Tanner
     Tierney
     Van Hollen
     Wamp
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  1926

  So the resolution, as amended, was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________