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; Congressional Record Vol. 156, No. 167
(House of Representatives - December 16, 2010)

Text available as:

Formatting necessary for an accurate reading of this text may be shown by tags (e.g., <DELETED> or <BOLD>) or may be missing from this TXT display. For complete and accurate display of this text, see the PDF.


[Pages H8545-H8551]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 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.

                          ____________________