Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1474) to facilitate check truncation by authorizing substitute checks, to foster innovation in the check collection system without mandating receipt of checks in electronic form, and to improve the overall efficiency of the Nation's payments system, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 227: H. Res. 159. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable vote on rollcall No. 228: H. Res. 195. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 229: H.R. 1465. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 230: S. 222. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 231: S. 273. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 232: S. 763. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 233: H. Amdt. to H. J. Res. 4. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 234: Final passage of H. J. Res. 4. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 235: Motion to suspend the rules and pass H. Res. 231. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 236: on agreeing to H. Res. 257. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 237: Motion to suspend the rules and pass H. Res. 177. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 238: Motion to suspend the rules and pass H. Res. 201. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 239: H.R. 1954. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 240: H. Amdt. 154 to H.R. 760. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 241: Motion to Recommit to H.R. 760. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 242: final passage of H.R. 760. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 243: On Ordering the Previous Question for H. Res. 256. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 244: H. Res. 258. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 245: H. Res. 258. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 246: on passage of H.R. 1474. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 247: S. 222. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 248: S. 273. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 249: H.R. 1610. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 250: H. Con Res. 162. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 251: S. 763. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 252: H. Res. 263 to H.R. 2143. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 253: H. Res. 263 to H.R. 2143. Had I been present, I would have voted ``No.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 254: H. Amdt. 159 to H.R. 2143. Had I been present, I would have voted ``No.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 255: Passage of H.R 2143. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 256: H. Res. 252: Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 257: On ordering the previous question for H.R. 2115. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 258: On agreeing to the rule for H.R. 2115. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 259: On passage of H. Con. Res. 110. Had I been present I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 260: On passage of H.R. 1320. Had I been present I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 261: H.R. 2350. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 262: H. Amdt. 5 to H.R. 2115. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 263: H. Amdt. 4 to H.R. 2115. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 264: On passage of H.R. 2115. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 265: H. Res. 269 to H.R. 1115. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 266: H. Res. 269 to H.R. 1115. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 268: H. Amdt.

168 to H.R. 1115. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 269: H. Amdt. 169 to H.R. 1115. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 270: H. Amdt. 170 to H.R. 1115. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 271: Motion to Recommit to H.R. 1115. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 272: Passage of H.R. 1115. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 273: H. Res. 270 to H.R 1308. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 274: Rule for H.R. 1308. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 275: Motion to Instruct Conferees H.R. 1308. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 276: H.R. 2254. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 277: H. Con. Res. 220. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 278: S. 703. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 279: H. Res. 276. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 280: H. Res. 171. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 281: Passage of H.R. 658. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 282: S. 342. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 283: Passage of S. Con. Res. 43. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 284: Previous Question to H. Res. 281. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 285: H. Res. 281 to H.R 8. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 286: Approving the Journal. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 287: H. Amdt. 171 to H.R. 8. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 288: Passage of H.R. 8. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 289: H. Res. 283 to H.R. 660. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 290: H. Res. 283 to H.R. 660. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 291: H. Amdt. 172 to H.R. 1528. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 292: Motion to Recommit H.R. 1528. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 293: Passage of H.R. 1528. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 294: Kind amendment to H.R. 660. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 295: On motion to recommit with instructions to H.R. 660. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 296: On final passage to H.R. 660. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 297: H. Res. 264. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 298: H. Res. 177. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 299: H. Con. Res. 209. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 300: Passage of H.R. 2465. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 301: Previous Question to H. Res. 293. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 302: Agreeing to H. Res. 293. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 303: Passage of H.R. 923. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 304: H.R. 1460. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 305: On sustaining the ruling of the chair on H.R. 2555. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 306: Sustain ruling of the chair on H.R. 2555. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 307: H. Amdt. 176 to H.R. 2555. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 308: H. Amdt. 183 to H.R. 2555. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 309: H. Amdt. 188 to H.R. 2555. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 310: Passage of H.R. 2555. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 311: Passage to H.R. 1416. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 312: S. 858. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 313: H.R. 2474. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 314: H. J. Res. 49. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 315: H. Con. Res. 49. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 316: H. Res. 199. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 317: H. Res. 294. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 318: On the Hastings amendment to H.R. 2417. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 319: On the Kucinich amendment to H.R. 2417. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 320: On the Lee amendment to H.R. 2417. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 321: H. Res. 299 to H.R. 1 and H.R. 2596. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 322: H. Res. 299 to H.R. 1 and H.R. 2596. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 323: H. Res. 297 to H.R. 1 and H.R. 2596. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 324: Ordering the previous question on H. Res. 298. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 325: Passage of H.R. 2559. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 326: Passage of H. Res. 277. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 327: On approval of the Journal. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 328: H.R. 2596. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 330: H. Amdt.

197 to H.R. 1. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 331: Motion to recommit with instructions to H.R. 1. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 332: Final passage of H.R. 1. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 333: On passage of H.R. 2417. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 6 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, we are here today to consider the rule for H.R. 1474, the Check Clearing for the 21st Century Act. I urge my colleagues to look at this resolution very closely, to study it, because it is a very, very rare specimen.

We all know some of the more famous endangered species, including the Virginia big-eared bat, the buff-headed marmoset, and the yellow-footed rock wallaby; but just as rare is the House open rule. Do not make any sudden moves because we might startle it.

So far this year, the House has considered a total of 38 rules. So far, exactly four of them have been open, four for 38. That is a batting average of .105, which would get us kicked off my son's T-ball team.

This is what passes for democracy around here, which brings us to the rule for H.R. 1474, the Check Clearing for the 21st Century Act. This is an open rule for a noncontroversial bill. The issue for me, Mr. Speaker, is not the rule or the bill, but the fact that this open and fair process is almost never used in this body. Whenever an issue is the least bit contentious, whenever there is even a hint of disagreement about a bill, the majority clamps down on its Members, chokes debates, and forces a closed rule through this House. It is a lousy way to run a legislature, Mr. Speaker.

In the meantime, the Check Clearing for the 21st Century Act, also known as CHECK-21, is a bipartisan bill that will modernize the Nation's check payment system for the 21st century. This legislation will help consumers, businesses, and banks by guaranteeing that check processing and payment will be quicker, and more importantly, lead to more efficient banking.

As many of us remember, the days and weeks following the tragic events of September 11 were filled with confusion in the banking industry. Because many of our planes were grounded, checks were held up around the country. Similar delays occurred during the anthrax crisis.

With the passage of CHECK-21, Congress and the banking industry will harness the innovations of the 21st century so our banking system is not crippled as a result of terrorism, natural disasters, or transportation problems.

In my district, I proudly represent the largest credit union in New England, Digital Credit Union.

According to Mary Ann Clancy, Senior Vice President and General Counsel of the Massachusetts Credit Union League, ``Digital has been able to make cleared checks available to members in a more timely, secure and efficient manner ranging from weeks to immediate access. It also helps keep members' information confidential and saves them time searching through piles of checks to balance their checking accounts.''

Mr. Speaker, Democrats have no objection to this bill. Check 21 was reported unanimously out of the Committee on Financial Services. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) and the ranking member, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), and the members of the committee should be commended for working in a bipartisan way, something the leadership of this House cannot seem to do.

Which, Mr. Speaker, brings us to the Child Tax Credit. As most people know, during their late-night, back-room negotiations on the tax bill, the Republican leadership deliberately dropped a provision that would have helped nearly 12 million children and their families to get the child tax credit.

Their attack on American workers, on those in the middle, on those trying to get into the middle, continues.

Governing is about choices, Mr. Speaker. The Republican leadership chose to keep the tax breaks for millionaires, and they chose to scrap the help for low-income working families.

So at the end of this debate on the rule, I will ask my colleagues to vote no on the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to provide for the consideration of the Rangel/Davis/DeLauro bill to help the people the Republicans would rather leave behind.

In Massachusetts, for example, 225,000 children would benefit from the Democratic bill. Our proposal provides real relief for the people who need it most, not another giveaway for those who need it least. And we actually pay for our tax relief by closing some of the corporate tax-shelter scams that some greedy corporations like to use.

I am not sure if any of my Republican colleagues remember, but they used to think that burdening our children and grandchildren with huge debt was a bad thing.

I know my Republican colleagues would rather not talk about this. I know they would have been happier if their secret agreements would have remained secret. But I will put them on notice. We are going to keep on discussing this issue until you do the right thing. We are going to be here today and tomorrow and next week and next month, and we are going to fight for the people who deserve a helping hand.

The Majority Leader made it quite clear the other day what the Republican priorities are. When asked whether he would consider granting relief to those who had been dropped by the leadership in their secret negotiations, he said, ``There are a lot of other things that are more important.''

If anyone on the other side of the aisle could name one, I would love to hear it.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cooper).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I would just remind the gentleman that, unlike the Republican tax bill, we actually pay for this by closing corporate loopholes so we do not add to the debt or deficit.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I just respond to the gentleman that I cannot believe he finally met a tax cut he did not like. Unfortunately, what we are talking about here is trying to help people, low-income workers and their children; and because of the Republicans' late-night maneuver, these people are being denied the tax cut that he says that they are very much dedicated to.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I would say to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania that our side of the aisle would be more than happy to work with her side of the aisle. Unfortunately, we are always shut out of the process; and I would also say to the gentleman from Texas who earlier referred to this Republican House, this is the people's House, something that those on his side of the aisle seem to have forgotten by leaving millions of working families and children out in the cold.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to ask my colleagues to review an editorial from The Washington Post entitled, ``Children Left Behind,'' and also today's New York Times editorial entitled, ``The Poor Held Hostage for Tax Cuts,'' which I now submit for the Record.

[From the Washington Post, June 2, 2003]

Children Left Behind

Even for a debate over taxes, the public discussion taking

place right now about child credits in the new tax law is

particularly galling, hypocritical and ill-informed. The new

law bumps up the credit for each child from $600 to $1,000

(though the benefit phases out for families that earn more

than $110,000). This increase, part of the 2001 tax law, was

pushed forward to this year under the new law. The 2001 law

also allowed some low-income families that don't pay income

taxes to benefit from the child tax credit; these families

receive money from the government, just as with the Earned

Income Tax Credit. Those amounts were set to increase in

2005--but that part was not speeded up under the new law. If

it had been, it would have cost $3.5 billion, or 1 percent of

the supposed cost of the tax bill, and would have helped

almost 12 million children whose families make between

$10,500 and $26,625.

Stiffing these children was not a last-minute oversight or

the unfortunate result of an unreasonably tight $350 billion

ceiling. ``Adjustments had to be made,'' a spokeswoman for

the House Ways and Means Committee said, as if those on her

side would have preferred otherwise. In fact, the

administration didn't include this provision in its original,

$726 billion proposal. The House didn't include it in its

$550 billion version. The Senate Finance Committee didn't

include it in its original package. Most Republicans wanted

relief only for those who pay income tax. As White House

spokesman Ari Fleischer framed it, ``Does tax relief go to

people who pay income taxes . . . or does it go above and

beyond the forgiving of all income taxes, and you actually

get a check back from the government for more than you ever

owed in income taxes?''

But it's not as if these workers pay no federal taxes; they

shell out 7.65 percent of their earnings in Social Security

and Medicare payroll taxes. More fundamentally, if it makes

sense to help families with children, why shouldn't the aid

go to those who need it most? If speeding up the tax credit

makes sense for some, why not for everyone? If one goal of

the tax bill is to pump money into the economy quickly, why

not give it to those most apt to spend it? Such relief could

be paid for by cutting the rates for those in the top

brackets (people with taxable income of more than about

$312,000) just a smidgen less. These folks already get the

biggest rate reduction of all, from 38.6 percent to 35

percent; merely edging that up to 35.3 percent would have

paid for the extra child credits. If anything, the question

lawmakers should consider is why those who make less than

$10,50 shouldn't be entitled to some credit as well. The

theory has been not to subsidize those who choose to work

only part time, but in this economy any number of people are

working fewer hours because that is all that is available.

Some 8 million children live in families who earn below the

current threshold.

Indeed, the discussion should be broadened to include the

question of why the bill, in a similar fashion, speeded up

marriage penalty relief for everyone but the bottom tier,

those who qualify for the Earned Income Tax Credit. This is

arguably even more unfair than the failure to accelerate the

entire child credit: the backwardness of the social policy--

discouraging marriage--is obvious, and the marriage penalty

is particularly steep in this category. For example, two

single parents, each with one child and each earning $10,000,

would receive about $2,500 through the tax credit; if the

married, their tax benefits would drop by more than $1,000.

Democrats, who somehow never managed to get traction with

an argument about the unfairness of the cuts before the bill

was passed, are seizing on the new attention to the child

credit. Today Sens. Blanche L. Lincoln (D-Ark.) and Olympia

J. Snowe (R-Maine) plan to introduce a bill that would

accelerate the credit, paid for by curbing corporate tax

shelters and imposing some user fees. We're looking forward

to the debate.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Wynn).

Mr. Speaker, can you inform us how much time is left on both sides?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ford).

(Mr. FORD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Watson).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ford).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I will be asking for a no vote on the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the rule.

My amendment will provide that immediately after the House passes the Check Clearing for the 21st Century Act, it will take up H.R. 2286, the Working Families Tax Credit Act of 2003. The Rangel Working Families Tax Credit bill will give immediate help to more working families by providing the child tax credit to an estimated 19 million additional children. It will also help families of soldiers in combat by

extending the child tax credit to them, and it will speed up the marriage penalty relief to lower-income working couples.

It does not increase the deficit, not by one dime. It is entirely paid for by closing the shameful corporate loophole that allows corporations to move offshore simply to avoid paying taxes.

Let me make very clear that a ``no'' vote on the previous question will not stop the consideration of the Check Clearing for the 21st Century Act. A ``no'' vote will allow the House to vote on both the check bill and the tax fairness bill. However, a ``yes'' vote on the previous question will prevent the House from voting on this bill and the child tax credit for working families. I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question.

The time to fix this is now. These hard-working taxpayers were left behind, deliberately cut from the tax bill in the middle of the night by the Republican leadership. That is wrong. That is also cruel. These are taxpayers. These are taxpayers. These are workers. I urge my colleagues to do the right thing. Let us come together in a bipartisan way to right a terrible wrong.

I ask unanimous consent, Mr. Speaker, that the text of the amendment and the description of the amendment be printed in the Record immediately before the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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.

Mr. Speaker, by the direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 256 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule, House Resolution 256. This rule provides for consideration of H.R. 1474, the Check Clearing for the 21st Century Act.

The Committee on Rules on Tuesday afternoon granted an open rule providing for 1 hour of general debate in the House on the underlying bill, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Financial Services. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill, and provides one motion to recommit, with or without instructions.

I would like to reiterate to the House my satisfaction in the open rule granted for consideration of the underlying piece of legislation that we are debating today, which is also known as CHECK-21.

CHECK-21 is an important bill, although it may seem a bit confusing at first blush for America's banking customers and check writers. The good news is this bill garnered bipartisan support in both the Committee on Financial Services and the Committee on Rules, and I anticipate the same result as we move forward towards final passage on the floor today.

The legislative work our House of Representatives will complete today builds on the legislative work that was started back in 1987 to foster innovation in the check collection system. The Expedited Funds Availability Act, which became law back in 1987, directed the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System to improve our check processing system.

Today we are making logical extensions to the work started in 1987 by using our much-improved electronic transfer technology to make check writing speedier and more reliable for all parties involved.

Mr. Speaker, each check that is written and used for payment must actually make its way back to the check writer's home bank. That is how each bank patron with a checking account gets the check he or she wrote mailed back to them so that it can appear in their monthly statement.

When we stop to think about it, there is a lot of time, money, and effort invested in getting checks back to their home banks. Checks that are written in one corner of our country today will be trucked and flown to their home bank, wherever they reside, all over the country as a normal part of American commerce, a great expense of time and money. Today, American commerce bears the great expense of time and money associated with shipping checks around the country because it is worth it. Checks are an important commercial instrument that help keep our economy moving.

Today, as a cosponsor of the Check Clearing for the 21st Century Act, I am proud to announce the introduction of a new instrument of commerce into the American economy, the substitute check. The substitute check will provide opportunities to greatly decrease the frantic highway and air traffic associated with the gargantuan task of shipping and flying billions of dollars worth of checks around this country every single year.

Thanks to electronic imaging, paper checks have the opportunity to be converted into electronic form, transmitted in seconds to the home bank across the country, and printed out at their final destination as substitute checks.

The bill provides all those institutions that see electronic transfer of commercial paper as the latest wave in modernizing our economic system the opportunity to use substitute checks, but does not require it. That way we all have a chance to ease into the new potential provided by the creation and introduction of substitute checks into the mainstream of commerce.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to reassure customers that the same protections provided today under the Uniform Commercial Code for paper checks would also apply to substitute checks. Additionally, CHECK-21 provides legal indemnification protection to bank customers for losses arising from the receipt of substitute checks.

CHECK-21 is a great bill, Mr. Speaker. I congratulate the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) of the Committee on Financial Services, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) of the Committee on Rules, as well as the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus), who is the subcommittee chairman that is directing this legislation today, as well as all the original cosponsors of this very important bill.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support both the rule and the underlying legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The Committee on Rules meets on a regular basis throughout the week, taking important pieces of legislation, hearing debate. It is not unusual for us to be in the Committee on Rules not only at odd hours of the day and night but also to hear hours of testimony from Members of Congress who have important legislation that they wish to bring forward; and I would like to be one member of that committee that stands up and says that I believe that the leadership of the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), our chairman, and his balance and wisdom and his dedication to a fair process is something that I believe sets this Committee on Rules up for success every single day. This bill that is on the floor is yet another example of that success that the chairman and this committee achieve.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, as I recall, the debate about this tax bill was all about deficits and all about whether the increase of the debt, the public debt limit was going to be achieved. And what happened is that, as we deliberated about the bill, any motion to instruct conferees from the other party was about those two issues. It was not about the substance of the bill as it related to anything that was contained within or to be talked about by the conferees. But, rather, they were focussed entirely on the debt and the amount of money that would be as a part of bill.

Now we find out that, oh, my gosh, there was a part of this great tax cut that they maybe were for even though they were voting against that. So it is very interesting to hear this debate today.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

This debate has gone very quickly away from the subject that we had at hand, but I would like to remind my colleagues that tax cuts do work. They get money back to people who are able to utilize them, just like the families that are being talked about here.

The fact of the matter is that this fabulous jobs and growth package that was signed by the President last week has already begun to work in the marketplace. It is seen as a catalyst now for people to want to come and invest more money, not only in this country but also for corporations to have an opportunity to begin employing people, an opportunity for the American people to see the opportunity for them to have jobs and more money back in their pockets; and it is amazing how the debate over all these years and even from just about 10 days ago, May 22, when every single tax cut was bad and every single thing that we would do to take money away from our precious government was seen as a threat to national security, and yet, today, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are talking about a tax cut that would be necessary to help out the American people again.

That is why we will stay after this. That is why the Republican Party will continue to not only believe in tax cuts that are great for people but an opportunity to give more money back to people who have earned that money and to help out families and children. This is why we have had as part of the bill the marriage penalty because we do not believe that one spouse that works even part-time should be taxed at the highest rate of the household income.

We are proud of what we are doing, and we are going to keep doing it; and so I am pleased to hear my colleagues talk about the need for tax cuts for all Americans.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

This rule that is before us about check clearing is really something that I think that consumers and the banking community are going to find of interest, and I am sorry that the debate is not on this modernization of the system.

What we are going to do with this wonderful bill that we have before us today is to, once again, prove that an agenda that can move forward problems that are facing the American public, costs that are in its way, inefficiencies in our banking system which is what this bill is about, we are going to solve, be another part of the solution today; and I am very, very proud of not only the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart), a bright young Member that we have, and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Ferguson) and the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ford) for bringing this bill, these ideas forward. But I think it shows that, as we talk about and move forward in this great body, the important aspects of that make a difference in America, just like tax cuts; that the American people will see that this House of Representatives not only works, it provides tax relief.

It provides things in our banking system that will keep modernizing America. It will make sure that we are prepared for the future, and as we go past this bill into other areas, whether it be appropriations or working with intelligence or matters of national security, that this House of Representatives every time brings forth a full debate, not only on the issues but makes sure that time is allocated for even the minority party to stand up and to talk about their frustrations.

I think what we are doing today with this bill makes sense. I think the American people see that this House of Representatives and this administration intends to move forward in a proactive, positive way that all Americans can have not only confidence in their government but also confidence in the free market enterprise system that we are so proud of that produces jobs and keeps our economy going.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

This Republican House has since 1997 made sure that we reduce taxes on people all across the board; and under this new tax cut that we are talking about, a single mother with two children earning $20,000 will receive over $2,000 in payment from the government with no tax liability, no tax liability and $2,000 back. So we really do care about people. We have reduced the tax burden on the American public and will keep doing that.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart).

(Ms. HART asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Prior to 2001, the child tax credit was $500 for an eligible child. The child tax credit was not refundable for most families. However, for families with three or more eligible children the credit was refundable, to the extent the family had payroll liability that was not offset by the earned income tax credit.

What we have attempted to do, and what was signed into law on May 28, accelerates and increases the child credit. Certainly one has to qualify, but the child credit will increase from $600 per child to $1,000 per child in 2003 and 2004, and in 2005 the credit will revert back to its 2001 act-in phase. That means that what we have done is to move forward very quickly an acceleration, because I believe, and my party believes, and this bill believes that it is the right thing to do.

The bottom line is that due to political constraints there was not as much money. So what we did is we moved forward from $600 to $1,000, but it is only good for 2 tax years. We have a lot of work to do, Mr. Speaker; but I am ready to do that work. I think this body is ready to do that work, and we intend to get it done.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire as to the time remaining.

Mr. Speaker, I will allow the minority the opportunity to consume their time, and then I will close.

Mr. Speaker, regular order.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

We are having this debate on the rule for Check-21. It quickly went to child tax credits.

I include for the Record information on this from the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, let me preface by saying I rise in support of the rule and rise in strong support of the bill and thank the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) and the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus) for all of their hard work.

In light of the conversation that is occurring, there has been a lot of back and forth. I rise just to say two things: One, this really represents the difference in priorities between the two parties. While one cannot dispute that

the bill that passed here a few nights ago in the form of a jobs bill or a tax cut bill, whatever Members choose to call it, the President has suggested that his tax bill will produce a million jobs, so I have taken to calling it a jobs creation bill.

The reality is the bill cuts taxes for some people but not enough people. The $3.5 billion that was taken out of the bill, tax cuts that were removed from the bill to make room for other tax cuts, my side characterizes it as tax cuts for wealthy Americans. The other side characterizes it differently.

The reality is $3.5 billion was taken out of the tax cut that would have gone primarily to families who earn under $25,000 a year. It is suggested that up to 12 million children will lose out.

The gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus) is my friend, but I take issue with one characterization. This is not a welfare program. These people earning under $25,000, they work. Some may work not only in the military but here on this Capitol Hill where we work day in and day out. I believe people who work day in and day out deserve a break.

Not only do these people need it to help feed their families and pay their higher energy bills, they will also spend it in ways that will help rejuvenate this economy.

A point was made about the middle class, and I will submit for the Record yesterday's Washington Post piece that shows numerous studies indicate that the middle-class tax share is set to rise after the passage of the 2001, 2002, and 2003 tax bills. We may not like this, but these are the facts. It reports that people earning between $28,000 and $337,000 a year will end up paying a higher share of taxes than any other group of Americans after the passage of the 2001, 2002 and 2003 tax bills.

Mr. Speaker, I hope that my friends who label this as an effort to increase welfare will take a look at the facts of the tax bills that this Republican House and Republican Senate have passed.

[From the Washington Post, June 4, 2003]

Middle Class Tax Share Set To Rise

Studies Say Burden Of Rich to Decline

(By Dana Milbank and Jonathan Weisman)

Three successive tax cuts pushed by President Bush will

leave middle-income taxpayers paying a greater share of all

federal taxes by the end of the decade, according to new

analyses of the Bush administration's tax policies.

As critics of the tax cuts in 2001, 2002 and 2003 have

noted, the very wealthiest Americans--those earning $337,000

or more per year--will be the greatest beneficiaries of the

changes in the nation's tax laws. And, as administration

officials have argued, low-income taxpayers will also enjoy a

disproportionately lighter tax burden.

The result is that a broad swath of lower-middle, middle-

and upper-middle-income people, as well as some rich

Americans, will carry a greater share of the federal tax

burden after the laws passed in the past three years are

fully implemented. While taxes are scheduled to decline for

all income groups, those earning more than $28,000 but less

than $337,000 will end up paying a greater share of the taxes

than they did before the changes.

The findings, by two groups that have been critical of the

Bush administration's tax policies, add a new wrinkle to the

increasingly contentious debate over the fairness of Bush's

tax policies and which income groups would benefit most.

Liberal groups have argued that the Bush administration is

penalizing the poor while rewarding the rich. In part to

answer those critics, Republicans have targeted the poor with

expanded tax refund checks for families with children, a new

10 percent tax bracket and a larger earned-income credit for

married couples who are poor.

The result may be a surprise to both sides: By the end of

the decade, the middle class will be picking up a greater

share of the government's tab.

``It's hard to get a lot of progressivity at the very

top,'' said R. Glenn Hubbard, the architect of Bush's most

recent tax cut proposal and a former chairman of the White

House Council of Economic Advisers. By slashing taxes on

dividends, capital gains and inheritances, the cuts ensure

that tax burdens will no longer rise consistently with

income, as they would with a perfectly ``progressive''

system. ``But,'' Hubbard added, ``we've very much retained

progressivity overall because so much money was dumped into

the bottom rates.''

The two studies focused on separate issues. Citizens for

Tax Justice examined the percentage changes in total federal

taxes that would be paid by different income groups through

2010. The Tax Policy Center, jointly run by the Brookings

Institution and the Urban Institute, looked at the share of

federal taxes that would remain for the various groups once

those changes are fully phased in. But the studies reached

similar conclusions.

Citizens for Tax Justice found that for the lowest fifth of

taxpayers--those earning below $16,000--federal taxes would

fall 10 percent between now and 2010, while federal taxes for

those in the second quintile--earning between $16,000 to

$28,000--would fall 12 percent. At the other end of the

scale, the decline for the top 1 percent of taxpayers--those

making $337,000 and up--would be 15 percent.

In contrast, for taxpayers earning between $45,000 and

$337,000, the decline would be 7 percent, less than half the

cut reaped by the very wealthy.

Citizens for Tax Justice assumed that those provisions in

the tax laws scheduled to expire before 2011 would expire as

scheduled, although administration officials have said they

are determined to make those changes permanent.

The Tax Policy Center assumed that all proposed tax cuts

would become permanent. It found that the share of federal

taxes paid by the top 1 percent of taxpayers would drop to

22.8 percent of the total in 2011, from 24.3 percent today,

while the share paid by the lowest 40 percent would fall to 2

percent, from 2.2 percent.

All others would have a slightly larger proportion of the

federal tax burden in 2011 than they do today. For families

earning between $22,955 and $80,903, their share of federal

taxes would rise from 25.5 percent to 26.1 percent.

Both groups included all federal income, payroll, corporate

and estate taxes; Citizens for Tax Justice also included

excise taxes.

Treasury Department officials said the studies are skewed

because they include Social Security and Medicare payroll

taxes, which the tax cuts did not seek to reduce. Pamela F.

Olson, the assistant Treasury secretary for tax policy, said

that if Social Security taxes are included, then Social

Security benefits should also be measured. ``Then you would

have a very progressive system,'' she said.

Instead, Olson pointed to the Treasury's analysis of the

impact of successive tax cuts on individual income taxes

only. In that analysis, all taxpayers with less than $100,000

in income are shown to be paying a smaller percentage of

their income in taxes than they did before Bush took office.

Households earning $100,000 or more are now paying 73.3

percent of federal income taxes, up from 70 percent.

Figuring out whether tax policy benefits the wealthy or the

poor is a hotly disputed subject. Liberals favor a

progressive tax system in which households pay higher tax

rates and a higher share of their total income as they climb

up the income ladder. By that measure, the Bush tax cuts have

made the tax code less progressive. By 2011, the poorest

taxpayers' after-tax income will have risen only 0.3 percent,

according to the Tax Policy Center, while household income

for the richest 1 percent of taxpayers will have jumped 8.6

percent.

Conservatives say the better measure is which group winds

up paying a greater proportion of the tax burden after the

tax cut. The rich may get the largest dollar benefit from the

tax cuts, but the top 20 percent of household will still be

paying 71.5 percent of all federal taxes in 2011.

Conservatives and liberals alike agree that Bush's tax

policies have shifted more of the tax burden to the middle

class. Kevin Hassett, a conservative economist with the

American Enterprise Institute, said it ``makes complete

sense'' that this would happen as a result of Bush's

policies.

Changes such as the elimination of the estate tax and the

reduction of the stock-dividend tax disproportionately

benefit the wealthiest 1 percent, who have the largest amount

of assets and capital. Those at the other end of the income

spectrum benefit disproportionately from targeted tax cuts

such as the child tax credit.

With the biggest gains going to the wealthiest and to low-

income taxpayers, those in the middle inevitably get a higher

tax burden because they don't qualify for the targeted tax

breaks that go to the poor or the investment-related tax

breaks that go to the wealthy. ``The middle class is

predominantly labor income,'' Hassett said.

I can sit and listen to a lot of this, and I have a lot of friends on the other side of the aisle. But let us be fair. These people making less than $25,000 a year get up and go to work just like you and I do every single day. They pay a payroll tax which is the highest tax paid by 82 percent of Americans. So the other side of the aisle can label us not being for tax cuts if you choose, but do not call this a welfare plan. This is a plan designed to help people who go to work day in and day out but who earn under $25,000 a year.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 1474.

A lot of people are not familiar with the legislation. We have been calling it ``check truncation.'' The official title is Check Clearing for the 21st Century Act. Our truncated name is Check 21.

This legislation holds the promise of a more efficient check collection system by removing legal barriers to the full utilization of new technologies. It is a win for consumers. It is a win for the financial services industry. It will empower banks to help prevent fraud. It will empower consumers to have more control over their accounts and more efficiency in the transfer of their funds.

Our current check system's legal framework has not kept up with technological advances and has constrained the efforts of many banks to use innovations like digital check imaging to improve check processing efficiency, providing improved service to customers and substantial reductions in transportation and other check processing costs.

This digital check imaging looks like a check. It simply is a copy that is transferable digitally, transferable more quickly, than a paper check. It also can be copied and utilized just like a canceled check.

It is important to implement the technological advances made in the field of payment systems so that we provide customers with expedited access to capital, to credit, yet they will be ensured that they are protected from fraud.

This legislation permits banks, credit unions and other financial institutions to truncate checks, just simply not have to transport that canceled check. It allows them to process and clear checks electronically, without moving those paper checks to clearinghouses and returning the original cancelled checks to customers.

The problem with the current system is that over and over these checks are processed, and it takes a lot of time. It requires physical delivery of the check from the institution of deposit through an intermediary, such as clearinghouses or the Federal Reserve Bank, to the bank of the customer who wrote the check before it can be paid. Each step of this inefficient process relies on the physical transportation of that check, resulting in billions of checks being driven or flown across the country every day.

The problem with this legal framework was highlighted in the days following the September 11 attacks when the Nation's planes were grounded, and the flow of checks transported by air came to a complete stop. During that time, the Federal Reserve's daily check float grew from its normal few hundred million dollars to over $47 billion.

Under current law, banks, credit unions, and other financial institutions are unable to truncate checks. They are only able to truncate checks if they have special arrangements with other institutions that are part of the transaction. There are over 15,000 banks, thrifts, and credit unions, and they are all negotiating separate agreements among themselves, so it is impossible to follow and keep in touch with all of those, even for the most diligent financial institution.

The way this bill would work, a Pennsylvania bank would no longer have to ship a check drawn on a California bank all the way across the country in order for it to clear, for it to be processed, and for the actual payment of the check. This is done by creating a new negotiable instrument called a substitute check.

Again, the substitute check would permit banks to truncate the original check; and it would process the information electronically, immediately, and print and deliver the substitute checks to banks and bank customers. So the customer who wishes to retain that record, such as a canceled check, would have something that looks just like it.

This shows exactly what that substitute check looks like. It looks familiar, does it not? It is just an identical copy of a canceled check.

This is the legal equivalent of the original check under our legislation. It would include all the information contained on the original check and the image of the front and back of the original check, as well as the machine-readable numbers which appear on the bottom of the check. And because the substitute check can be processed just like an original check, a bank would not need to invest in any new technology or otherwise change its current check processing operation, unless the bank chooses to update its technology.

Consumers benefit, and this is the most important part of the legislation. Customers maintain the same protections that they have with this law as they have with their original check. Reducing processing costs will result in efficiency gains and expedited services for customers. Accessing images of checks will take a fraction of the time that it currently takes to access microfilm or the physical archives or the canceled check itself. Customers will no longer have to wait for a copy of the check to be obtained from a central processing facility or the microfilm library.

Institutions that have already implemented this check imaging technology offer their customers a wide variety of ways to access these images, including in person at branches as they would today, or through the mail but also over the Internet and in image statements and advanced ATMs. So, for the customer, this is just a wonderful boost.

Customers will also benefit from the availability of check imaging to help combat fraud and the problems associated with bad checks. The ability to access check images on the Internet helps consumers to quickly and conveniently verify their transactions. They can identify potential errors. They can detect fraudulent transactions sooner, rather than waiting until the end of the month when they receive their traditional statement.

Identifying errors and potential fraud as soon as possible helps everyone. It helps the banks minimize customer inconvenience and cost. It helps control potential losses. It helps give law enforcement an advantage in tracking down the perpetrators of fraud.

Promoting this image technology can help speed processing and encourage banks to provide new and improved products and services to consumers. Financial institutions will be able to establish branches or ATMs in remote locations to further service their customers, provide more cost-effective service, provide customers with later deposit and cut-off times, and provide printed copies of checks deposited at ATMs on ATM receipts. Such changes could result in a check being credited a day earlier and interest accruing a day earlier on interest-bearing accounts. Obviously, that will make customers quite happy.

In conclusion, this is a win-win for everyone. It is a win for the industry, but it is especially a win for consumers. I encourage my colleagues to support H.R. 1474 and significantly increase the efficiency of the Nation's check clearing process.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment is actually very brief. It is one line. It is very simple; and it is, as far as I can tell, completely noncontroversial.

The amendment simply adds another name to this legislation to the title of the bill. It will be, by this amendment, also referred to as the Check 21 Act. Everyone who has been familiar with this bill has commonly referred to it as Check-21, and this amendment simply brings clarity to that issue.

I would urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

Also, I would like to add to the thanks for the cooperation on a bipartisan basis for the bill itself as well. I would like to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus), the ranking member as well, and also my fellow sponsors, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ford) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Ferguson).

Everyone's cooperated well and explained this issue; but those who have not been mentioned today, those in the private sector who will be affected by this legislation have also been extremely supportive and very cooperative in working out differences that

they had during the process of moving this legislation forward, and I wish to recognize them as well. When we as the sponsors had asked them to sit down and iron some issues out, they did so and they did so very efficiently.

Mr. Chairman, I simply offer my amendment and ask for its approval, very simply adding the name Check 21 Act.