[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 57 (Tuesday, March 28, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H3845-H3852]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


APPOINTMENT OF CONFEREES ON H.R. 831, PERMANENT EXTENSION OF THE HEALTH 
               INSURANCE DEDUCTION FOR THE SELF-EMPLOYED

  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the 
Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 831) to amend the Internal Revenue Code 
of 1986 to permanently extend the deduction for the health insurance 
costs of self-employed individuals, to repeal the provision permitting 
nonrecognition of gain on sales and exchanges effectuating policies of 
the Federal Communications Commission, and for other purposes, with a 
Senate amendment thereto, disagree to the Senate amendment and agree to 
the conference asked by the Senate.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. GIBBONS. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Speaker, I only 
reserve the right to object to propound a parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ewing). The gentleman from Florida will 
state his parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to instruct conferees, and 
will I be recognized, if this unanimous consent request is agreed to, 
to then present my motion to instruct conferees?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is correct; yes, he will.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I do not object, and I withdraw my 
reservation of objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.


               motion to instruct offered by Mr. gibbons

  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct conferees.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Gibbons moves that the Managers on the part of the 
     House at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two 
     Houses on the Senate amendment to the bill H.R. 831 be 
     instructed to agree to the provisions contained in section 5 
     of the Senate amendment which change the tax treatment of 
     U.S. citizens relinquishing their citizenship.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the gentleman from Florida 
[Mr. Gibbons] will be recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Archer] will be recognized for 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Gibbons].


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, may I propound a parliamentary inquiry at 
this point?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, do I understand in this debate I have the 
right to close?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is correct.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. GIBBONS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I am going to depart from my usual practice 
of speaking extemporaneously and read a statement because the statement 
is so serious and the names that I will mention here are names of 
Americans and I do not want to defame them, I want to be very accurate 
in what I say, and so I am going to read from a prepared statement 
these remarks.

                              {time}  1815

  Mr. Speaker, section 5 of the Senate amendment to H.R. 831 changes 
the tax treatment of U.S. citizens who renounce their citizenship. 
Under the Senate proposal, individuals who renounce their citizenship 
would be subject to income taxes on the unrealized gains which they 
accrued while they enjoyed the benefits of being a U.S. citizen.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a serious loophole in our tax laws, and is one 
that the Senate has picked up and one that we must close immediately, 
because the amounts of money here are large, and the equities are very 
unfair.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe that these provisions should be enacted for 
two reasons. The Senate provisions, first, as a matter of fairness, 
individuals who have enjoyed the benefits of being a citizen of the 
United States and who have amassed enormous fortunes should not be 
permitted to not pay taxes on these gains by merely renouncing their 
citizenship. Mr. Speaker, this proposal that the Senate has put forward 
that I ask the Members to instruct the conferees to adopt, this 
proposal does not punish anyone for renouncing their citizenship. But 
it merely ensures that these people who renounce their citizenship will 
pay a tax comparable to that paid by many patriotic wealthy individuals 
who have not abrogated their responsibility through renouncing their 
citizenship. In other words, Mr. Speaker, there are many wealthy and 
fine patriotic Americans who pay their taxes. They do not like them. I 
do not blame them. But they pay them. There are only a few who escape 
paying their regular taxes by renouncing their citizenship.
  Second, Mr. Speaker, this amendment raises substantial amounts of 
revenue that should be devoted to deficit reduction as intended by the 
Senate. The Joint Committee on Taxation has estimated that these 
provisions will raise $3.6 billion over the 10-year period. I want to 
repeat that, Mr. Speaker: This is not a small loophole. This is not 
just a careless amount of money. Our joint committee estimates that the 
savings from this to the rest of us American taxpayers will amount to 
$3.6 billion over 10 years.
  Mr. Speaker, last week we debated welfare reform which reduced 
Federal 
[[Page H3846]] expenditures by reducing benefits payable to the poorest 
Americans. I think it is appropriate that this week we debate a 
proposal which requires individuals who have benefited extraordinarily 
from the American economic system to continue to contribute to reduce 
this national deficit.
  The provision we are talking about today affects a very few 
individuals. The proposal of the Senate exempts all gains of these 
individuals from real estate tax holdings, it exempts all tax-qualified 
retirement plans, and it exempts an additional $600,000 of gains from 
other assets, a very generous exemption to these people who renounce 
their citizenship.
  In addition, there are provisions for installment payments of these 
regular taxes to these people who renounce their citizenship. The 
Treasury Department estimates that individuals owning less than $5 
million in assets will rarely be impacted by these proposals of the 
Senate. The Treasury Department also estimates that fewer than 12 or 
perhaps as many as 24 individuals would be affected by this proposal 
each year.
  Mr. Speaker, several arguments have been raised against this proposal 
which I would like to respond to. First, some people have argued this 
proposal is the result of the punitive level of taxation in this 
country.
  Mr. Speaker, this is simply not correct. Compared to other 
industrialized countries, the United States has a relatively low tax 
burden. I think I am correct when I say that of all the 21 industrial 
countries, large industrial countries, on this planet, the U.S. taxes 
are next to the lowest in all of those 21 countries. I may be incorrect 
there, but I think that is my recollection of them. It should be noted 
that other countries such as Canada, Germany, and Denmark have enacted 
similar proposals to that proposed by the Senate.
  Other objectors have raised the issue of human rights. They have 
compared these provisions to efforts of the Soviet Union to prevent 
emigration by its citizens from the Soviet Union. This comparison is 
entirely misguided. The individuals affected by this proposal are not 
renouncing their citizenship because of lack of economic or political 
freedoms in this country, but, rather, these are individuals who are 
simply unwilling to contribute to a country whose political and 
economic system has benefited them extraordinarily well.
  They should be proud to be American citizens. They should not be 
renouncing their citizenship just for tax purposes.
  Recent examples of individuals who have renounced their citizenship 
include Kenneth Dart, an heir to the drinking cup businesss, and John 
Dorrance III, a Campbell Soup heir. Both of these individuals are 
billionaires, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Dart claims to have taken up residency 
in Belize, a country that we used to know as British Honduras, and a 
country not known for its political or economic freedom.
  Mr. Speaker, this tax proposal, this proposed tax of individuals who 
are fleeing, not fleeing economic or political repression, but are 
attempting to shed their moral obligations of citizenship in this 
country of ours because they can move to tax havens and because the 
rest of Americans will provide through our defense and security systems 
for their protection in these tax havens, will enable these wealthy 
Americans to live safely in other parts of the world, but they will 
probably spend most of their lives here, but they will still be wards 
of the American Government.
  Mr. Speaker, this proposal appropriately taxes the economic Benedict 
Arnolds of this country, and this proposal to instruct the conferees 
should be enacted.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Portman], a member of the committee.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding.
  I just have one small point to make.
  I think a lot of us on this side want to get at this same issue the 
gentleman from Florida has been discussing, and many of us agree this 
is a problem that should be addressed in the tax law. We are not sure 
this is the right place to do it or the right time to do it or this is 
the right proposal to do it.
  One of the things I have been hearing from some of my colleagues is 
what we would do in this legislation is similar to what other countries 
do, Australia, Canada, and so on. I have looked into it a bit as has 
the staff, both of the Committee on Ways and Means and the Joint Tax 
Committee. That is simply not true, What we do here is something 
different than is done in those other countries. There are specific 
differences.
  Other countries do impose some kind of an exit tax. They are 
Australia and Canada. But they are different than ours. As an example, 
they would allow a step-up in basis, so if you were to go, for example, 
from Hong Kong to Canada and then emigrate from Canada somewhere else, 
you would get the step-up in basis, so the gain would only be during 
the time in which you are a resident or a citizen of Canada. That is a 
big difference from our proposal that we have before us which would not 
allow that step-up in basis.
  Second, those two countries allow a deferral, so you can allow a 
deferral in the payment of the gain until the asset is actually sold. 
Again, that is a big difference.
  I just think as we go through the debate, we ought to look at all the 
proposals before us, but make it very clear what we are talking about 
doing here in this motion to instruct is to accept language that is 
very different from that imposed by other developed countries on their 
citizens.
  Perhaps the gentleman from California [Mr. Matsui] or others will 
discuss this issue later. I think it is important for us not to say we 
are going to be doing something that other countries do.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Matsui].
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
Gibbons] for yielding the time.
  You know, at a time when we are trying to deal with the issue of the 
deductibility of the self-insured insurance premium, we are paying for 
it because we want to close a loophole, and that loophole is the FCC 
loophole which gives preference to minorities, and we all know the 
Viacom case, the case in which if it went through would cost the 
taxpayers of America up to $600 million.
  The reason we have moved quickly on the FCC and the Viacom issue is 
because we did not want people to take advantage of the Tax Code, 
because one individual, Frank Washington from California, was basically 
a front for the TCI Corp. which was buying the assets of Viacom, and so 
if we are willing to take on Viacom, if we are willing to take on the 
FCC regulations, because it is unfair, because we know that it is being 
abused, the tax system is being abused, how could we possibly, how 
could we possibly not take on these people that are American citizens 
who leave the United States, only renounce their citizenship only 
because they want a tax break, they want to avoid taxation? And as the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Gibbons] has said, we have calculated over 
the next 10 years the Federal Government will lose $3.6 billion if in 
fact this loophole is not taken care of.
  And, second, even more critically, if this loophole is not taken care 
of, you are going to see more and more American citizens renounce their 
American citizenship. It could be up to $10 billion or $12 billion over 
the next 10 years. The reason for it is because they are going to 
recognize, they are going to find out that this is a basically abusive 
tax proposal that they can take advantage of, and so as more and more 
people find out about it, they are going to take advantage of it. That 
is why we have to close this loophole in this particular conference.
  I know if you want to make changes in it and clean it up a little 
bit, we can do that. The conference will have 4 or 5 days in which they 
can work.
  We have got the Treasury Department, we have the fine minds of the 
majority and minority to make sure this proposal will work.
  I think what people have to understand is American citizens are 
renouncing their citizenship not because they want to go to another 
country because they find the country is a better country to live in, 
but because they do not 
[[Page H3847]] want to pay taxes that you and I pay and we will have to 
pay more of it in fact they do this.
  Bear in mind, these people do not have to leave the United States 
physically. They can still stay in this country. They just will not be 
American citizens. They can stay in this country for up to 120 days a 
year.
  This is an abusive approach. These people are taking, as the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Gibbons] says, we know the Dart family that 
have done it. We know a lot of families that have done it.
  I have to tell you in terms of what the gentleman from Ohio has said, 
other countries have done it but not quite as abusive as we have. We 
have a list of about 10 countries that have current similar laws, 
Germany, the Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland, France, 
Philippines, Canada, and Germany, for example, will withhold 25 percent 
of one's assets if a person has been a resident of Germany for more 
than 10 years. This is much more stringent than the proposal that is 
being proposed in this conference.
  We have other countries like Norway who will deem a tax period for 
over 5 years even though that person has not been a citizen for 5 
years; he will have been deemed to be a citizen for 5 years; he will 
have been deemed to be a citizen of Finland for tax purposes. Our 
proposal is much less stringent than Finland's.
  These 10 countries have proposals that are very, very stringent. I 
would further add that both Senator Daschle, the minority leader of the 
Senate, and Senator Dole, the majority leader of the Senate, have said 
keep this provision in, keep this provision in because when we go to 
the conference, we may want to use this money not only for deficit 
reduction but maybe for giving the small-business owner, instead of 25 
or 30 percent, maybe give them up to 40 percent in terms of a 
deduction.
  Why not do that? Why not give some of these small businesses a larger 
deduction on their health insurance deduction instead of allowing these 
tax cheaters who leave the country, renounce their citizenship, the 
right to avoid U.S. taxes?
  And so I might just conclude by making one final observation in my 
time. As the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Gibbons] says, we are talking 
about $3.6 billion, or $1.4 billion over the next 4 years, and we are 
only talking about 12 to 25 citizens on average per year, and this just 
indicates exactly the amount of money that these people are trying to 
avoid in taxes.
  This is the proposal that must be taken out and put in this 
conference. This is a proposal that must become law at the same time we 
go after Viacom and others who attempt to abuse the tax system.
                              {time}  1830

  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the provisions in this motion to instruct which would 
force the House or attempt to force the House to accept the Senate 
provisions on which we have had no real deliberations over on the House 
side, and which the Senate gave only cursory attention to, were put in 
place, a new provision in the tax law, a tax increase that we are not 
really in a position to fully comprehend.
  But, more importantly, it will potentially jeopardize the very badly 
needed deduction for health insurance for the self-employed, which must 
get out of this Congress and be signed into law before April 15.
  That means out of the Congress before we recess next week.
  The gentleman from California said it is easy to fix this in 
conference, that it will only take 5 days or so. That is too late.
  We need to push through this 30-percent deductibility for the self-
employed on their health insurance and make it permanent, which this 
bill will do, and not encumber it with the type of debate that is going 
on tonight.
  It is very interesting to note that there is already a law on the 
books for over 30 years that is intended to deal with tax-motivated 
expatriation. But Treasury has never issued regulations to implement 
this provision in the law. Treasury has indicated it has no information 
about the number of taxpayers who expatriate for tax-avoidance 
purposes. We need to know much, much more about this.
  We do not need to rush into it now, and our committee will carefully 
consider this issue as the year progresses. It should not be left to 
encumber the passage of badly needed tax relief for the self-employed 
on their health insurance.
  Contrary to what the gentleman from California said, the provisions 
will make us the only country in the world that does this in the full 
dimension that is provided in the Senate bill.
  It seems strange to me that where we have held out the banner over 
the years as supporting the ability of free exit from any country where 
a citizen disagrees with the policy of that country, where we have 
criticized other countries for putting in place exit fees; where we 
have stood strong for freedom, and this being the basic freedom without 
barriers, that we now are going to perhaps jeopardize our leadership 
role in the world in this regard, by thrusting through something that 
has not been adequately considered.
  I encourage a vote against this motion to instruct, to give us the 
opportunity to adequately address this issue later on this year.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Levin].
  Mr. LEVIN. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the debate. I was not at the 
subcommittee hearing, but I have worked on it since then. And I really 
am perplexed why the majority is defending the status quo. It feels 
like you are stonewalling on this issue, and there is no reason to do 
it.
  If there are some imperfections in the Senate proposal, they can be 
looked at and they can be remedied in the conference. Compared to the 
other technical issues that are considered in a conference committee of 
the Committee on Ways and Means, this is relatively easy. It is 
relatively easy. It is not going to take 4 days.
  I talked to the Treasury just a few hours ago, and they are persuaded 
that you can work it out. So why not work it out?
  There is an abuse going on here. People are leaving the country, 
giving up their citizenship to avoid taxation. We know who they are. It 
is no mystery. You are talking about a dozen to two dozen people. All 
we are saying is tax their unrealized gains as they leave. You know 
where the money is going to come from that will go into the Treasury, 
as I understand it? It is not from the people who leave and cash in 
their gains, it is because those people will not renounce their 
citizenship. That is where the money is going to come from.
  The abuse is going to end, and we are going to pick up money as a 
result.
  What bothers me are some of the arguments. For example, with due 
respect to my friend whom I am so fond of and much admire, the exit 
thing, I do not think we should use extreme examples on this floor. To 
compare this with the Soviet Union, people can leave here if they want, 
they can renounce their citizenship; just do not let them take 
unrealized gains with them because they renounce their citizenship so 
they could take them free of charge and essentially cheat us out of 
several billions of dollars.
  That is all we are saying. It is a perfectly free country. But why 
should they take advantage, kind of use a loophole? And in terms of the 
tax treaty, there is not going to be any problem, because these people 
are not going anywhere.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. ARCHER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I know the gentleman was shoulder to shoulder with me 
when we passed the Jackson-Vanik amendment, which was then called 
Jackson-Vanik-Mills-Archer amendment, and we heard the very same 
comments out of the Soviet Union. These people owe us something. We 
educated them. They have taken advantage of our system. Therefore, they 
must pay an exit fee when they leave. It is the very same 
[[Page H3848]] thing that this country railed against, because I know, 
I was out in front railing against it. And I think we give up the high 
ground here without knowing precisely what the end result of our 
actions is going to be.
  Mr. LEVIN. I am glad the gentleman raised the question. I was not 
here at the time. I would have voted for it. I admired the gentleman's 
efforts. It was a controversial issue.
  I think Jackson-Vanik did some good. But there is no comparison. 
People were being kept in the Soviet Union. The whole purpose of the 
Soviet system was to keep people in, not to let them out. We are not 
trying to keep people here. If they want to leave, it is a 100-percent 
free country. Do not let them use the artifice of renouncing 
citizenship to avoid taxes when they just come back here and live 
anyway. That is what the issue is.
  This is a pure artifice that a few very wealthy families are using to 
avoid legitimate taxation on what they realize, what they gained in the 
United States of America. I am not trying to go after them because they 
are wealthy. I am glad they made their wealth here. But do not let them 
use a technique, a loophole to renounce citizenship to avoid taxes when 
they end up here anyway.
  I do not understand what motivates the gentleman. If it is the 
imperfection of this amendment, look, I will take your instructions of 
the last 12 years which I have been here.
  Look, we all know the thrust of these instructions. It is not that we 
are asking you to take it lock, stock, and barrel. You do not have to 
do that. What this is, is a statement of the House, it is a statement 
that we are asking you to work to perfect this and to keep it in the 
bill.
  No one is trying to sink the self-employed provision. I am very much 
for it. If we can expand it from 30 percent to 35 percent or 40 percent 
with the benefit of this money, let us do it. I am really serious here. 
I do not know why the gentleman is resisting this. Take the 
instruction, try to work it out. If you feel you cannot work it out in 
the end, you will come back without it. But at least accept the thrust 
from the House that this makes good policy sense and work out the 
details.
  I think the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Gibbons] is on the mark here, 
and I rise in support of closing this loophole and using the money for 
good purposes.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson], the chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Oversight, which has just begun hearings on this issue.
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. I thank the gentleman for yielding this 
time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion, although I do not 
rise in opposition to the concerns expressed by the gentleman from 
Florida, for whom I have great respect, or for my colleague and ranking 
member on the Oversight Committee, who also supports the motion.
  I am not defending the status quo. I think the administration has 
found a real problem. I think we need to deal with it. I do not 
believe, from the testimony we received yesterday, that it is possible 
to deal with it in 5 days. However, we can, by retaining that portion 
of this bill in conference, retain the date and therefore have the same 
effect in a month or 2 that we would have this week, if we bring it out 
of conference.
  Now, it is important that we do the right thing in creating a more 
effective law in this area.
  Let me give you an example of the kinds of misinformation that is 
afoot. For instance, in the Germany situation, Germany only taxes you 
if you own 25 percent of a corporation's stock. And then they only tax 
you at one-half of the normal rate and only on that stock that you own.
  The scope of this bill is extraordinary. It is absolutely everything 
you own.
  Furthermore, it forces you to pay taxes on something that you may 
have no way of generating income to pay.
  Now, I was very interested that my colleague from California said 
there were 24 people involved. I questioned the representative of the 
Treasury Department yesterday. He did not know how many people were 
involved. He never mentioned numbers like that. He never gave any 
examples.
  I am not confident that we are going to catch in our net so few 
people. Those people do need to be caught. There should be no tolerance 
in America for using relinquishing of your citizenship as a way of 
avoiding taxes that you are responsible to pay.
  But this bill has some very serious and very significant problems. 
First of all, as I mentioned, the scope of the bill is enormous. It 
covers every kind of asset and it treats every one of those assets as 
if you could turn them into cash so that you could pay taxes on them.
  In the area of trust, even the advocates of the bill said you must 
fix the problems in the trust area, but we do not know quite how yet. 
So, even those who testified in favor of the bill had some real 
concerns about some of its significant technical problems.
  In the area of double taxation, this will require that we renegotiate 
all our tax agreements with other nations or we will subject people to 
terribly unfair double taxation. We are a Nation where justice matters. 
If we are going to adopt a law that will guarantee that everybody pay 
the taxes that they should--and we should do that--we should not want 
them to be taxed again on those same assets in another country. And 
without renegotiation of those tax agreements, that is exactly what 
will happen.
  We had to negotiate an agreement with Canada to prevent that kind of 
action when they adopted legislation in this area. We will have to 
renegotiate all those agreements as well.
  Let me close by commenting on two other aspects of this bill.
  If we act precipitously in a way that appears hostile to foreign 
investors--and this bill from the outside, without hearing our debate, 
can easily appear
 hostile to foreign investment--we run a very grave risk. We are a 
Nation whose currency values are plummeting, we are a Nation that 
depends on foreign investments to fund our debt, a Nation that depends 
on foreign investors to fund our economic growth. We cannot afford to 
chill the interest of foreign investors in our economy by acting 
precipitously in a way that is not rational.

                              {time}  1845

  Finally I would say in regard to the human rights issue, Let me quote 
from the testimony of Robert Turner who was the staffer when they 
passed the Jackson-Vanik amendment.
  He says:

       If the proposed ``exit tax'' is designed to discourage 
     citizens from exercising their right to renounce U.S. 
     citizenship, I think it is contrary to the law. If it is 
     designed to impose an immediate and substantial financial 
     burden upon citizens--on the specific and expressed grounds 
     that they have elected to renounce their citizenship and 
     emigrate to another country--and it is a burden that would 
     not be imposed upon otherwise identically situated citizens 
     who elected to remain American citizens (and did not elect to 
     sell or dispose of their property or take other action that 
     would recognize capital gains liability), then I think you 
     have a very serious problem. In that event, I would want my 
     money ``up front'' if I were asked to argue before an 
     international tribunal that the proposed U.S. exit tax 
     complies with the spirit of the Jackson-Vanik amendment.

  Mr. Speaker, I say: My colleagues, if you impose a tax that a person 
cannot generate the resources to pay, you automatically prevent that 
person from having a choice about whether they continue to be a citizen 
or they don't continue to be a citizen. That is an entirely different 
issue than holding them liable for taxes they owe our country. To 
impose a tax that compromises the right to choose to be a citizen or 
choose not to be a citizen is a very serious human rights matter in 
this world, and it's one that we have been closely identified with over 
decades in our long struggle against communism.
  So I would urge my colleagues to be patient in this matter. We can 
address this problem. We can use the effective date in the bill that is 
in the conference, but we absolutely must address the domestic and 
international implications of this proposal and do it wisely.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Matsui].
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
Gibbons] for yielding this time to me.
  [[Page H3849]] I strongly support what the gentleman from Florida 
[Mr. Gibbons] is trying to do on this motion to recommit. Let me just 
respond, if I may, to a few of the points that were being made from the 
other side of the aisle.
  First of all, this is not precipitous action. This was in the 
original President's budget in February of this year. We held extensive 
hearings on the entire administrative budget, so this did not come up 
just last Friday or last Monday.
  Second, Steve Shay, who also testified; he was the international tax 
counsel for the Reagan administration at the State Department; he 
supports this proposal, and he says this was under deliberation under 
President Reagan, when Reagan was President.
  So, this is an issue that was vetted, talked about, and has been 
constantly discussed within the administration for years and years, so 
this is not a new proposal.
  Also, in terms of the renegotiation of treaties, as my colleagues 
know, a lot of people bring those issues up, and we find ourselves 
caught in a bind. We do not want to argue the issue substantively; we 
want to argue technical issues.
  The best way to get a foreign country to renegotiate with us is by 
passing a law. We need to pass this law, and then every country will 
start negotiating, just as Canada did, just as Germany did, just as 
these other countries did as well.
  I say to my colleagues, ``So, you don't start negotiating before we 
actually pass a law. You pass a law, and then you start negotiating. 
That's what USTR has been doing recently as well.''
  The Jackson-Vanik issue:
  We have Steve Shays, former Reagan administration official, as I 
said, who testified. He said there was no Jackson-Vanik or human rights 
issue. We have a Harvard professor who testified and sent a letter--
Professor Bats at Harvard--that says there is no human rights issue, 
and I cannot understand how Members would at all think that this 
proposal that is supported by Bob Dole, Tom Daschle, Bill Bradley, the 
gentleman from Florida, Mr. Gibbons, has anything to do with Jackson-
Vanik. I mean it is just not at all common sense to think this has 
anything to do with Jackson-Vanik, particularly since 12 other 
countries that we are aware of have similar proposals, some of which 
are more stringent than the one we have under entertainment.
  Let me just conclude by making one further observation about this 
human rights issue because I think it is very interesting that the 
opposition is bringing it up. Before this even kicks in we have to have 
about 5 million dollars' worth of assets. We are talking about couples 
who have $1.2 million of capital gains. I mean it does not even kick in 
until they go beyond a couple beyond $1.2 million of capital gains 
treatment. Most of those people end up going to the Caribbean countries 
by the way. They are not trying to emigrate to England or some other 
countries that have democracy like we have, so we are not really 
talking about human rights. We are not talking about Jackson-Vanik in 
this situation.
  I think we should really be realistic about this----
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MATSUI. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, can the gentleman name one country that has 
more stringent requirements and restrictions than what is in the Senate 
provision?
  Mr. MATSUI. I mentioned Finland which requires the citizen to be 
deemed, who renounces citizenship to be deemed, a citizen for 5 years 
beyond the time he renounces his citizenship. I mentioned Germany which 
says that, if this individual is a citizen of our country, of their 
country for 10 years, it is a 25 percent tax on assets----
  Mr. ARCHER. But what are the penalties--what country has penalties 
that are more stringent than in the Senate provision?
  Mr. MATSUI. I just mentioned two.
  Mr. ARCHER. No, those penalties are not more stringent, as I 
understood the gentleman's explanation. I am told by staff that has 
evaluated all the laws across the world that this is the most punitive 
of any country's.
  Mr. MATSUI. As my colleague knows, if one wants to say this is more 
punitive than a 25-percent tax on one's assets from Germany if they are 
a citizen for 10 years, I guess it depends upon how one looks at it, 
but I think that is a pretty punitive tax.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Missouri [Mr. Hancock], a member of the committee.
  Mr. HANCOCK. Mr. Speaker, I am not going to go into a lot of detail 
about the problems we are discussing, only to say that I strongly 
oppose the approach that we are talking to it.
  When I first heard about what had been going on and I first started 
reading in the newspaper about certain individuals that were giving up 
their citizenship of the United States for the purpose of avoiding 
taxes, I have a reputation back home of being a tax fighter, but I 
certainly, certainly think, that the idea, the mere idea, that people 
that our tax law has evolved into a situation that people would even 
consider giving up their citizenship for the purpose of the way our tax 
law is written. Therefore I was very much in favor of what this motion 
to recommit--quite frankly I was in favor of it, however, after the 
hearing yesterday in which I sat through most of, and read, and 
studied, and looked into the situation of exactly what we are doing, 
how this affects international tax law and also the fact, in my 
judgment, a green card holder working in the United States and 
accumulating a lot of wealth would be better off than our own citizens. 
He would have to give up his citizenship to get the same treatment.
  Now something is wrong with the tax law. So what we need to address 
is not on this vehicle. At this tax law at this time we need to address 
it later, and I want to go on record as being strongly opposed to the 
motion to recommit.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield, 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Hawaii [Mr. Abercrombie].
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I originally came to the floor, and I 
regret to say there are not many people on the floor at this particular 
time, and I hope some people are tuning into this discussion. I 
originally came to the floor because I anticipated there would be no 
dispute about this. I anticipated that this would be agreed to and we 
would move ahead.
  This is the most appalling debate that I have ever been a part of or 
witnessed in 21 years of public service. How is it possible? I have got 
immigrants, immigrants like my ancestors, driven out of Scotland, 
people in Hawaii today who are immigrants, paying taxes and working, 
proud to be Americans, striving for the chance to be Americans.
  We had a welfare debate in here that said we do not want people in 
this country unless they are going to be Americans and move toward 
being American citizens. Otherwise we are cutting them off, even if 
they are legal immigrants, people that I deal with every day. I say to 
my colleagues, Maybe some of you come from areas where you don't see 
many immigrants. Maybe you have forgotten where your ancestors came 
from in this country. But I see them every day, and we deal with people 
everyday who are proud to be there.
  I watched PBS on television last night where people were standing up, 
singing the Star Spangled Banner, just become being citizens of this 
country. They were not running away because they made money here.
  I say to my colleagues, I know what program you saw. I know what got 
you interested in this. These people who have left this country because 
they don't want to pay taxes, they don't even have a fundamental 
ideological motive. They are not opposed to the war unless their 
ideology is, ``I get to make everything I can or take everything that I 
can, and, when it becomes inconvenient to pay my share of taxes, like 
everybody else in America, I get to split, and once more I want my 
rights, my human rights.''
  How dare anybody bring up on the floor of this House of 
Representatives human rights and compare them to people trying to leave 
the Soviet Union, Jews trying to leave the Soviet Union, kept there in 
the iron grip of communism? I ask, ``Do you think they're able to leave 
Burma today?'' Look at all the analogies that can be 
[[Page H3850]] made with repression, and dictatorship, and 
authoritarianism, and compare someone leaving the United States. I hear 
every aspect of their assets will be looked at.
  If I had my way, this bill, this instruction by the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Gibbons] is lightweight, lightweight. This proposal is not 
designed to prevent Americans from shifting their assets and 
citizenship to another country. If it was my instruction, it would. Why 
should I give two hoots about somebody that wants to give up their U.S. 
citizenship and shift their assets to another country and then say that 
they demand human rights, demand human rights as a citizen?
  It has been brought up about double taxation. I say, ``You can triple 
or quadruple tax them as far as I'm concerned, run it up to a hundred 
percent if they want to give up their citizenship because they don't 
want to pay their taxes.''
  They say here that maybe--it is impossible for me to understand why 
we are not passing this. I will tell my colleagues this:
  I've tried mostly in my campaigns to say what I stand for and what I 
believe and not go to the other person, but I'm going to be very 
interested what the vote is. This is an instruction. This is just an 
instruction. We all know what `instruction' means. This is a guidepost 
to you to go into this. I can't believe that anybody will come down 
here and vote against this instruction, and, if you do, I tell you not 
only when I go home, but in every chance that I get to speak in this 
country, and, believe me, I get plenty of them, and to everybody here, 
I'm going to ask, `How can you be against legal immigrants? How can you 
be against the kids? How can you say that we should all do our share in 
America, including making all the kids, and the elderly people, and 
everybody else, have to contribute to the deficit, to bring it down, 
and at the same time allow these sleazy bums, who don't want to pay 
their taxes, to leave this country, and renounce their citizenship, and 
expect me to have one iota of sympathy for them.''
  Pass this instruction, and stand up for America.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the chairman from 
California [Mr. Thomas], chairman of the Subcommittee on Health, a 
valued member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  (Mr. THOMAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, in case some folks think that what we are 
talking about is what was just talked about, let us take a look at what 
we are really talking about, and that is specifically a motion from the 
gentleman from Florida to require the House conferees to agree to the 
provisions contained in section 5 of the Senate amendment, not to the 
administration's proposal, not to the Clinton proposal to change the 
law we have on the books, which is clearly flawed.
                              {time}  1900

  Not to the administration's proposal; not to the Clinton proposal to 
change the law we have on the books, which is clearly flawed. That is 
not what we are being requested to do. We are being requested to bind 
ourselves to the Senate language.
  What does that Senate language do that the Clinton administration 
language does not do? The Clinton administration language said we 
should go after noncitizens and citizens. What does the Senate language 
say? We should go after only citizens.
  In other words, if we bind ourselves to the Senate language, we will 
treat citizens of the United States worse than noncitizens. Aliens can 
come in this country, take that money, and leave, and this provision of 
the law would not apply to them. It is only to citizens.
  What happened to you folks when you moved from the majority to the 
minority? What is this, comparing us to other countries? We should not 
be compared to any countries. We should not take other countries' laws 
and say we are as good or this is not as bad as they are when it deals 
with citizens.
  When the gentleman from Florida stands up and states his position, I 
will disagree with that position, but I will defend his right to say 
it. I will never, ever oppose his right to say it. When we offer 
citizenship, we ought not to offer it qualified. If we have a problem 
with the law, let us change the law. Maybe the problem is the Tax Code 
as well, in which Americans take a look at the confiscatory tax 
structure that we have and go so far as to say in weighing choices, 
maybe I will take a look at citizenship. If we buy the Senate position, 
a holder of a green card, a noncitizen, would never have to make that 
decision. We have American citizens making that decision. There is a 
law on the books that says if you renounce your citizenship for tax 
purposes, you will be punished. Should we change that law? Yes, we need 
to change the law. It is not working. It is hard to nail those people. 
We have to perfect the law. But not here, and not now, and especially 
not with the Senate provision.
  Now, we have been told that we have to follow the Senate 
instructions. Then we have been told no, just go in and work out your 
differences. If it is not the specific instruction to buy the Senate 
provision, then let us go ahead and try to figure out a way in a couple 
of hours in a closed room how to solve this problem, when the 
gentlewoman from Connecticut came in front of you and said she held a 
hearing on it and the Treasury could not even produce accurate numbers 
of the number of people who are exercising this provision. We want to 
change the law, but not here, not now.
  If you want to see the frustration of the minority, it is a little 
bit like the fellow trying to train his dog, and it will not behave. So 
if it is sitting, he says ``sit;'' if it stands, he says ``stand;'' if 
it is lying down, he says ``lie down;'' because they are desperate for 
some kind of control.
  That is exactly what we are seeing here. You are putting so much 
weight into this motion to instruct on a flawed Senate provision, I do 
not understand. You heard the gentlewoman, who is chairman of the 
Oversight Committee saying we need to solve the problem, we need to sit 
down and resolve the law. Not here, not now.
  We have said the money in the Senate bill is tied to the deficit. We 
have heard do not have it go to the deficit, we can have it go to the 
self-employed, up their percentage. We will have it this or we will 
have it that. However it is, you want it your way.
  The answer is, this area needs to be changed. For you folks to stand 
up and get carried away about the question of citizenship is to put 
this out of complete context. You want control. You will go to the 
lengths you have just exhibited to show that control.
  We have already said we want to sit down and perfect the law. The 
Senate provision is flawed. You want us to try to get it right in a 
couple of hours on a conference that is critically timed to the tax 
bill provisions so that these people can get the relief they so 
desperately seek.
  What is the difference in a couple of months, if the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut has told you the date is locked in. Because of this 
discussion, we have the date locked in. Let us not do it fast. Let us 
do it right. If you are really honest about wanting to solve this 
problem, you will join with us in getting it right, and at the same 
time begin to change the Tax Code so no American citizen will ever 
consider renouncing their citizenship to get away from the confiscatory 
taxes that we have in this country.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Frank].
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I am glad to hear this 
pledge about taking time and doing things right and not doing them too 
hastily. I thought the contract outlawed that.
  I wanted to explain to my colleagues why our friends on the other 
side are not so worried about this. They are not worried because they 
have the solution. We are worried about wealthy people feeling that the 
Tax Code burdens them too heavily and renouncing their citizenship. But 
you forget, they are going to change the Tax Code. By the time they are 
through with the Tax Code, if they have their way, no wealthy people 
will feel bothered by it. By the time they are through weakening the 
minimum tax and giving them capital gains and giving tax credits for 
people with hundreds of thousands of dollars, there will not be any 
problem.
  [[Page H3851]] So they are solving the problem the other way. They 
are going to make the Tax Code rich-people-friendly, and no one will 
leave.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, let me simply say that what this issue is about today is 
not really substance. This issue can be discussed in the conference 
committee. But the motion to instruct would attempt, without having any 
binding force, I must say, to tie the hands of the conferees for a 
specific provision without change. This is unnecessary. We will be 
going to conference, we will be discussing this issue, and it is a 
nonbinding motion to instruct.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut 
[Mrs. Johnson].
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I do want to reiterate that 
I do not oppose amending the law so that people cannot use renunciation 
of citizenship to avoid the payment of legitimately owed taxes. But 
this bill does need amending. We cannot accede to the Senate language. 
And I want to make very clear that we are not just talking about 24 
multimillionaires.
  Do you realize that any Cuban-American who came here to escape 
Castro, started their own small business, it could be a single woman, 
the small business did very, very well over time, she bought a very 
nice house, she bought a very nice car, made some other investments, 
now Cuba gets freed, she wants to go back. She wants to for symbolic 
reasons renounce her American citizenship, but she wants to leave a 
trust for her kids here and wants to leave her business here moving 
along. But she wants to sell her house, she wants to take a lot of her 
assets back, and she wants to be a Cuban citizen.
  This bill catches her, and the trust provisions are such and the tax 
she would owe on the business she built are such that she would have to 
sell them to pay this level of tax.
  This is not just about billionaires. This is about everybody who 
renounces their citizenship, and it is going to catch a lot of Cuban-
Americans, it is going to catch a lot of Hungarian-Americans, and 
Czech-Americans and others who flew Communist nations and came here and 
worked with extraordinary energy and resources and built something for 
themselves and now decide to leave.
  So let me say that this is a tough provision. It needs some 
improvement. My colleague said it is not tougher than the taxes of 
other countries. He used Finland as an example. Listen to what Finland 
does. A Finnish citizen who leaves the country is deemed to be a 
resident for 3 more years. In other words, they are treated for tax 
purposes as being a resident for 3 more years. Current law treats 
people as deemed to be a resident for 10 years. Our current law is 
tougher than the Finnish law.
  Let us look at Germany. Germany has been held out saying they are 
tougher than we are. To pay this tax, you have to own 25 percent of the 
stock of a corporation, or more, of a corporation. You have to be a big 
stockholder in a German corporation to be caught in this tax, and then 
you are taxed only on the gain in the stock in that corporation and at 
half the regular tax ratio.
  This is an entirely different tax than the tax being proposed; it 
would have an entirely different impact on foreign investors.
  Furthermore, if you came into Germany and then left, you would only 
be taxed on the gain during the period you were in Germany.
  Now, my friends, we are absolutely obliged to support the 
administration in closing a loophole they have identified. But we must 
treat noncitizens and citizens the same way, and must not adopt a tax 
that is so extraordinarily different than that of other countries that 
it has ramifications for people who are making investment decisions. We 
also must adopt a tax that is respectful of trust obligations and other 
obligations for which it is not possible to generate cash to 
immediately pay off tax obligations as defined under this bill.
  It is perfectly possible for us to solve these problems. I only ask 
that in conference you give yourselves the time to do that, and not 
bind yourself to the Senate language. I do not ask that my colleagues, 
because this is a difficult issue, vote with me. I do not ask that. I 
do ask that this debate be considered by the conference and that we not 
adopt a policy that would be destructive for us as a Nation and 
probably in the long run destructive of our economic strength.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, on the assumption that the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Gibbons] will close, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this is not a new issue. About 2 weeks ago this came up 
in the Committee on Ways and Means. The gentleman from Washington [Mr. 
McDermott] had an amendment like this, and, Mr. Speaker, every single, 
solitary Republican on the Committee on Ways and Means voted against 
it. Let me repeat that: This amendment came up in the Committee on Ways 
and Means 2 weeks ago, and every single, solitary Republican on the 
Committee on Ways and Means voted against it. They are still here 
defending these people who would escape taxation by renouncing their 
American citizenship, the place where they made the money.
  All right. Now, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer] would scare the 
people to death about how complicated this would be in conference. If 
we adopt my motion, all that the gentleman has to do is say I have been 
instructed by the House to accept the Senate language on this matter, 
and in 15 seconds that issue will be behind us.
  All of you have been to conference. You know how it works. All the 
gentleman has to do is say, I am following instructions, and it is 
over. The Senate cannot take it off the table and it is a matter that 
becomes law. So there is nothing to that.
  Now, this does not affect foreign investment in the United States. 
This does not affect anything except those selfish people who would 
make a fortune here in the United States, or inherit a fortune here in 
the United States, and would like not to pay any U.S. taxes, so they 
just renounce their citizenship. They do not even have to leave the 
country, Mr. Speaker. They can stay here and still just renounce their 
citizenship and say I am keeping it, fellows, the rest of you slobs pay 
taxes. But not me, because I am in that privileged category. I just 
renounced my American citizenship.
  How stupid can we be? This is a tax loophole of major proportions, 
Mr. Speaker. It is a tax loophole for very wealthy Americans. They are 
the only people that are taking advantage of it, and not all the very 
wealthy Americans are taking advantage of it, Mr. Speaker. They stay 
here and they pay their taxes just like all the rest of us.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the motion to instruct.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct 
offered by the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Gibbons].
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 193, 
nays 224, not voting 17, as follows:
                             [Roll No 272]

                               YEAS--193

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bishop
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Chapman
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Green
     [[Page H3852]] Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Laughlin
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lincoln
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reynolds
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rose
     Roth
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn

                               NAYS--224

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cooley
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Graham
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martini
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paxon
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tate
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--17

     Bateman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Farr
     Frisa
     Frost
     Gephardt
     Harman
     Jefferson
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Orton
     Richardson
     Rush
     Velazquez
     Wilson
     Yates

                              {time}  1933

  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota and Mr. LATHAM changed their vote from 
``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. DUNCAN and Mr. STENHOLM changed their vote from ``nay'' to 
``yea.''
  So the motion was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Zimmer). Without objection, the Chair 
appoints the following conferees: Messrs. Archer, Crane, Thomas, 
Gibbons, and Rangel. 
  There was no objection.
  

                          ____________________