[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 59 (Thursday, March 30, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H3986-H3995]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


WAIVING CERTAIN POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 831, 
  PERMANENT EXTENSION OF THE HEALTH INSURANCE DEDUCTION FOR THE SELF-
                                EMPLOYED

  Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 121 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 121

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider the conference report to accompany 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. All points of order 
     against the conference report and against its consideration 
     are waived. The conference report shall be considered as 
     read.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Goodlatte). The gentleman from Tennessee 
[Mr. Quillen] is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Frost], and, 
pending that, I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose 
of debate only.
  (Mr. QUILLEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks, and to include extraneous material.)
  Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, this is an extremely simple rule. It waives 
all points of order against the conference report to accompany H.R. 
831, the bill to permanently and retroactively extend the tax deduction 
for health insurance for the self-employed, which the House passed on 
February 21. The rule also provides that the conference report be 
considered as read.
  It is my understanding that the only points of order that lie against 
the conference report are the 3-day layover requirement and scope 
violation. There are also a few technical points of order under the 
Budget Act that are being waived, but I want to emphasize that the 
conference report is deficit neutral over the 5-year period.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe that we should only waive the 3-day layover 
requirement when absolutely necessary, but this is one of those times. 
It is imperative that H.R. 831 be enacted into law before the 1994 tax 
filing season ends on April 15. Millions of self-employed Americans are 
depending on us to restore the tax deduction that allows them to keep 
themselves and their families covered by health insurance. This bill 
provides a 25-percent deduction for 1994 and 30-percent deduction 
thereafter. We have left them dangling in uncertainty for months now, 
and we must pass this conference report now to ensure that this tax 
deduction will be available to the millions of farmers, small 
businessmen, and other self-employed Americans who are counting on it.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge the adoption of this resolution.

  THE AMENDMENT PROCESS UNDER SPECIAL RULES REPORTED BY THE RULES COMMITTEE,\1\ 103D CONGRESS V. 104TH CONGRESS 
                                             [As of March 29, 1995]                                             
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  103d Congress                        104th Congress           
              Rule type              ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Number of rules    Percent of total   Number of rules    Percent of total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Open/Modified-open\2\...............                 46                 44                 19                 76
Modified Closed\3\..................                 49                 47                  6                 24
Closed\4\...........................                  9                  9                  0                  0
                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Totals:.......................                104                100                 25                100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\This table applies only to rules which provide for the original consideration of bills, joint resolutions or 
  budget resolutions and which provide for an amendment process. It does not apply to special rules which only  
  waive points of order against appropriations bills which are already privileged and are considered under an   
  open amendment process under House rules.                                                                     
\2\An open rule is one under which any Member may offer a germane amendment under the five-minute rule. A       
  modified open rule is one under which any Member may offer a germane amendment under the five-minute rule     
  subject only to an overall time limit on the amendment process and/or a requirement that the amendment be     
  preprinted in the Congressional Record.                                                                       
\3\A modified closed rule is one under which the Rules Committee limits the amendments that may be offered only 
  to those amendments designated in the special rule or the Rules Committee report to accompany it, or which    
  preclude amendments to a particular portion of a bill, even though the rest of the bill may be completely open
  to amendment.                                                                                                 
\4\A closed rule is one under which no amendments may be offered (other than amendments recommended by the      
  committee in reporting the bill).                                                                             


                                                                                                                
[[Page H3987]]
                          SPECIAL RULES REPORTED BY THE RULES COMMITTEE, 104TH CONGRESS                         
                                             [As of March 29, 1995]                                             
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  H. Res. No. (Date                                                                                             
       rept.)               Rule type             Bill No.                 Subject           Disposition of rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H. Res. 38 (1/18/95)  O...................  H.R. 5..............  Unfunded Mandate Reform..  A: 350-71 (1/19/   
                                                                                              95).              
H. Res. 44 (1/24/95)  MC..................  H. Con. Res. 17.....  Social Security..........  A: 255-172 (1/25/  
                                            H.J. Res. 1.........  Balanced Budget Amdt.....   95).              
H. Res. 51 (1/31/95)  O...................  H.R. 101............  Land Transfer, Taos        A: voice vote (2/1/
                                                                   Pueblo Indians.            95).              
H. Res. 52 (1/31/95)  O...................  H.R. 400............  Land Exchange, Arctic      A: voice vote (2/1/
                                                                   Nat'l. Park and Preserve.  95).              
H. Res. 53 (1/31/95)  O...................  H.R. 440............  Land Conveyance, Butte     A: voice vote (2/1/
                                                                   County, Calif.             95).              
H. Res. 55 (2/1/95).  O...................  H.R. 2..............  Line Item Veto...........  A: voice vote (2/2/
                                                                                              95).              
H. Res. 60 (2/6/95).  O...................  H.R. 665............  Victim Restitution.......  A: voice vote (2/7/
                                                                                              95).              
H. Res. 61 (2/6/95).  O...................  H.R. 666............  Exclusionary Rule Reform.  A: voice vote (2/7/
                                                                                              95).              
H. Res. 63 (2/8/95).  MO..................  H.R. 667............  Violent Criminal           A: voice vote (2/9/
                                                                   Incarceration.             95).              
H. Res. 69 (2/9/95).  O...................  H.R. 668............  Criminal Alien             A: voice vote (2/10/
                                                                   Deportation.               95).              
H. Res. 79 (2/10/95)  MO..................  H.R. 728............  Law Enforcement Block      A: voice vote (2/10/
                                                                   Grants.                    95).              
H. Res. 83 (2/13/95)  MO..................  H.R. 7..............  National Security          PQ: 229-100; A: 227-
                                                                   Revitalization.            127 (2/15/95).    
H. Res. 88 (2/16/95)  MC..................  H.R. 831............  Health Insurance           PQ: 230-191; A: 229-
                                                                   Deductibility.             188 (2/21/95).    
H. Res. 91 (2/21/95)  O...................  H.R. 830............  Paperwork Reduction Act..  A: voice vote (2/22/
                                                                                              95).              
H. Res. 92 (2/21/95)  MC..................  H.R. 889............  Defense Supplemental.....  A: 282-144 (2/22/  
                                                                                              95).              
H. Res. 93 (2/22/95)  MO..................  H.R. 450............  Regulatory Transition Act  A: 252-175 (2/23/  
                                                                                              95).              
H. Res. 96 (2/24/95)  MO..................  H.R. 1022...........  Risk Assessment..........  A: 253-165 (2/27/  
                                                                                              95).              
H. Res. 100 (2/27/    O...................  H.R. 926............  Regulatory Reform and      A: voice vote (2/28/
 95).                                                              Relief Act.                95).              
H. Res. 101 (2/28/    MO..................  H.R. 925............  Private Property           A: 271-151 (3/1/   
 95).                                                              Protection Act.            95).              
H. Res. 104 (3/3/95)  MO..................  H.R. 988............  Attorney Accountability    A: voice vote (3/6/
                                                                   Act.                       95).              
H. Res. 103 (3/3/95)  MO..................  H.R. 1058...........  Securities Litigation      ...................
                                                                   Reform.                                      
H. Res. 105 (3/6/95)  MO..................  ....................  .........................  A: 257-155 (3/7/   
                                                                                              95).              
H. Res 108 (3/6/95).  Debate..............  H.R. 956............  Product Liability Reform.  A: voice vote (3/8/
                                                                                              95).              
H. Res 109 (3/8/95).  MC..................  ....................  .........................  PQ: 234-191 A: 247-
                                                                                              181 (3/9/95).     
H. Res 115 (3/14/95)  MO..................  H.R. 1158...........  Making Emergency Supp.     A: 242-190 (3/15/  
                                                                   Approps..                  95).              
H. Res 116 (3/15/95)  MC..................  H.J. Res. 73........  Term Limits Const. Amdt..  A: voice vote (3/28/
                                                                                              95).              
H. Res 117 (3/16/95)  Debate..............  H.R. 4..............  Personal Responsibility    A: voice vote (3/21/
                                                                   Act of 1995.               95).              
H. Res 119 (3/21/95)  MC..................  ....................  .........................  A: 217-211 (3/22/  
                                                                                              95).              
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Codes: O-open rule; MO-modified open rule; MC-modified closed rule; C-closed rule; A-adoption vote; PQ-previous 
  question vote. Source: Notices of Action Taken, Committee on Rules, 104th Congress.                           

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this rule ruins an otherwise acceptable conference 
report.
  Republicans have taken a good idea--letting people deduct their 
health care costs--and thrown in a big juicy bone for a few very 
wealthy people and this bone will cost this country $3.6 billion over 
10 years.
  Mr. Speaker, I cannot understand why Republicans would refuse to 
provide welfare benefits to people who enter this country legally but 
would wink at billionaires who renounce their American citizenship in 
order to avoid paying taxes.
  That's right, this conference report deletes a Senate provision to 
require a few billionaires to pay their taxes. And all the while, 
everyone else will do their taxpayer duty this and every April 15.
  Mr. Speaker, $3.6 billion is a lot of money to throw away, especially 
with all this talk of balancing the budget and cutting school lunches. 
In fact the money the Republicans are losing the Treasury by giving the 
rich a tax break could buy almost 3 billion school lunches.
  Now, do not get me wrong. I strongly support the main provisions of 
this conference report. I think hardworking, self-employed Americans 
should be allowed to deduct some of the cost of their health insurance. 
This conference report will do that.
  For that reason I will support the conference report itself.
  But I do not support giving about 2 dozen billionaires a huge tax 
break while socking it to children.
  Today's rule gives us a little preview of what is to come. Next week 
we will vote on a Republican proposal to give more tax breaks to the 
very wealthy--those tax breaks will be paid for by cuts in school 
lunches for America's school children.
  Mr. Speaker, two nights ago the House missed a chance to make the 
very very wealthy who renounce their American citizenship pay their 
taxes on income they earned as citizens of this great country when it 
rejected Mr. Gibbons' motion to instruct conferees by a vote of 193 to 
224.
  Now, I would like to offer my colleagues another chance to do the 
right thing. I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question so 
that we can make rich ex-patriots pay their taxes.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                                      FLOOR PROCEDURE IN THE 104TH CONGRESS                                     
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Process used for floor      Amendments in
        Bill No.                  Title            Resolution No.           consideration              order    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 1.................  Compliance.............  H. Res. 6         Closed......................           None.
H. Res. 6..............  Opening Day Rules        H. Res. 5         Closed; contained a closed             None.
                          Package.                                   rule on H.R. 1 within the                  
                                                                     closed rule.                               
H.R. 5.................  Unfunded Mandates......  H. Res. 38        Restrictive; Motion adopted             N/A.
                                                                     over Democratic objection                  
                                                                     in the Committee of the                    
                                                                     Whole to limit debate on                   
                                                                     section 4; Pre-printing                    
                                                                     gets preference.                           
H.J. Res. 2............  Balanced Budget........  H. Res. 44        Restrictive; only certain            2R; 4D.
                                                                     substitutes.                               
H. Res. 43.............  Committee Hearings       H. Res. 43 (OJ)   Restrictive; considered in              N/A.
                          Scheduling.                                House no amendments.                       
H.R. 2.................  Line Item Veto.........  H. Res. 55        Open; Pre-printing gets                 N/A.
                                                                     preference.                                
H.R. 665...............  Victim Restitution Act   H. Res. 61        Open; Pre-printing gets                 N/A.
                          of 1995.                                   preference.                                
H.R. 666...............  Exclusionary Rule        H. Res. 60        Open; Pre-printing gets                 N/A.
                          Reform Act of 1995.                        preference.                                
H.R. 667...............  Violent Criminal         H. Res. 63        Restrictive; 10 hr. Time Cap            N/A.
                          Incarceration Act of                       on amendments.                             
                          1995.                                                                                 
H.R. 668...............  The Criminal Alien       H. Res. 69        Open; Pre-printing gets                 N/A.
                          Deportation                                preference; Contains self-                 
                          Improvement Act.                           executing provision.                       
H.R. 728...............  Local Government Law     H. Res. 79        Restrictive; 10 hr. Time Cap            N/A.
                          Enforcement Block                          on amendments; Pre-printing                
                          Grants.                                    gets preference.                           
H.R. 7.................  National Security        H. Res. 83        Restrictive; 10 hr. Time Cap            N/A.
                          Revitalization Act.                        on amendments; Pre-printing                
                                                                     gets preference.                           
H.R. 729...............  Death Penalty/Habeas...  N/A               Restrictive; brought up                 N/A.
                                                                     under UC with a 6 hr. time                 
                                                                     cap on amendments.                         
S. 2...................  Senate Compliance......  N/A               Closed; Put on suspension              None.
                                                                     calendar over Democratic                   
                                                                     objection.                                 
H.R. 831...............  To Permanently Extend    H. Res. 88        Restrictive; makes in order              1D.
                          the Health Insurance                       only the Gibbons amendment;                
                          Deduction for the Self-                    waives all points of order;                
                          Employed.                                  Contains self-executing                    
                                                                     provision.                                 
H.R. 830...............  The Paperwork Reduction  H. Res. 91        Open........................            N/A.
                          Act.                                                                                  
H.R. 889...............  Emergency Supplemental/  H. Res. 92        Restrictive; makes in order              1D.
                          Rescinding Certain                         only the Obey substitute.                  
                          Budget Authority.                                                                     
H.R. 450...............  Regulatory Moratorium..  H. Res. 93        Restrictive; 10 hr. Time Cap            N/A.
                                                                     on amendments; Pre-printing                
                                                                     gets preference.                           
H.R. 1022..............  Risk Assessment........  H. Res. 96        Restrictive; 10 hr. Time Cap            N/A.
                                                                     on amendments.                             
H.R. 926...............  Regulatory Flexibility.  H. Res. 100       Open........................            N/A.
H.R. 925...............  Private Property         H. Res. 101       Restrictive; 12 hr. time cap             1D.
                          Protection Act.                            on amendments; Requires                    
                                                                     Members to pre-print their                 
                                                                     amendments in the Record                   
                                                                     prior to the bill's                        
                                                                     consideration for                          
                                                                     amendment, waives                          
                                                                     germaneness and budget act                 
                                                                     points of order as well as                 
                                                                     points of order concerning                 
                                                                     appropriating on a                         
                                                                     legislative bill against                   
                                                                     the committee substitute                   
                                                                     used as base text.                         
H.R. 1058..............  Securities Litigation    H. Res. 105       Restrictive; 8 hr. time cap              1D.
                          Reform Act.                                on amendments; Pre-printing                
                                                                     gets preference; Makes in                  
                                                                     order the Wyden amendment                  
                                                                     and waives germaness                       
                                                                     against it.                                
H.R. 988...............  The Attorney             H. Res. 104       Restrictive; 7 hr. time cap             N/A.
                          Accountability Act of                      on amendments; Pre-printing                
                          1995.                                      gets preference.                           
H.R. 956...............  Product Liability and    H. Res. 109       Restrictive; makes in order          8D; 7R.
                          Legal Reform Act.                          only 15 germane amendments                 
                                                                     and denies 64 germane                      
                                                                     amendments from being                      
                                                                     considered.                                


                                                                                                                
[[Page H3988]]
                                FLOOR PROCEDURE IN THE 104TH CONGRESS--Continued                                
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Process used for floor      Amendments in
        Bill No.                  Title            Resolution No.           consideration              order    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 1158..............  Making Emergency         H. Res. 115       Restrictive; Combines                   N/A.
                          Supplemental                               emergency H.R. 1158 &                      
                          Appropriations and                         nonemergency 1159 and                      
                          Rescissions.                               strikes the abortion                       
                                                                     provision; makes in order                  
                                                                     only pre-printed amendments                
                                                                     that include offsets within                
                                                                     the same chapter (deeper                   
                                                                     cuts in programs already                   
                                                                     cut); waives points of                     
                                                                     order against three                        
                                                                     amendments; waives cl 2 of                 
                                                                     rule XXI against the bill,                 
                                                                     cl 2, XXI and cl 7 of rule                 
                                                                     XVI against the substitute;                
                                                                     waives cl 2(e) od rule XXI                 
                                                                     against the amendments in                  
                                                                     the Record; 10 hr time cap                 
                                                                     on amendments. 30 minutes                  
                                                                     debate on each amendment.                  
H.J. Res. 73...........  Term Limits............  H. Res. 116       Restrictive; Makes in order           1D; 3R
                                                                     only 4 amendments                          
                                                                     considered under a ``Queen                 
                                                                     of the Hill'' procedure and                
                                                                     denies 21 germane                          
                                                                     amendments from being                      
                                                                     considered.                                
H.R. 4.................  Welfare Reform.........  H. Res. 119       Restrictive; Makes in order          5D; 26R
                                                                     only 31 perfecting                         
                                                                     amendments and two                         
                                                                     substitutes; Denies 130                    
                                                                     germane amendments from                    
                                                                     being considered; The                      
                                                                     substitutes are to be                      
                                                                     considered under a ``Queen                 
                                                                     of the Hill'' procedure;                   
                                                                     All points of order are                    
                                                                     waived against the                         
                                                                     amendments..                               
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
**78% restrictive; 22% open.                                                                                    
****Restrictive rules are those which limit the number of amendments which can be offered, and include so called
  modified open and modified closed rules as well as completely closed rules and rules providing for            
  consideration in the House as opposed to the Committee of the Whole. This definition of restrictive rule is   
  taken from the Republican chart of resolutions reported from the Rules Committee in the 103rd Congress.       
****Not included in this chart are three bills which should have been placed on the Suspension Calendar. H.R.   
  101, H.R. 400, H.R. 440.                                                                                      

                            {time}  1100

  Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, for the past 40 years those on that side of the aisle 
had every opportunity to do away with what they are talking about 
today, and I do not see the sudden rise of opposition to this rule, 
when they have carried the ball for some 40 years.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to request that the gentleman from Texas 
[Mr. Frost] tell us how many speakers he has.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, we have five speakers, and we may have more. 
This is a very interesting thing that the Republicans have done in 
protecting billionaire expatriates, and I have a feeling some more 
Members may come to the floor.
  Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, I do not see why anyone could object to 
allowing the 25-percent credit on health insurance for the self-
employed. That side of the aisle is trying to use smoke and mirrors to 
defeat the rule, but this is a good rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 1\1/2\ 
minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Rangel].
  Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
New York.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Goodlatte). The gentleman from New York 
[Mr. Rangel] is recognized for 2 minutes.
  (Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the rule. That has nothing 
to do with whether or not we will get an opportunity to vote to allow 
those who are self-employed to make the dedication. Changing the rule 
only gives the Members of the House of Representatives an opportunity 
to raise the revenue to pay for what should be done, and that is to 
encourage people to be self-insured for health.
  It just seems to me that when we had American citizens running off to 
Canada to avoid their national obligations to their country, their 
draft obligations to the military, we scolded these people for being 
unpatriotic, as we should have done. What the devil is the difference 
when we find billionaires, super-wealthy people, taking advantage of 
America's free market system, taking advantage of our educated 
employees, taking advantage of their legacy and all of the 
opportunities this great Republic has given to them, and just when they 
have been able to make the profit, decide that America is no good? How 
can we possibly say that we are going to reject this notion because the 
Democrats in 40 years did not repair it? These people found the 
loophole, and we are trying to stop it before there is a hemorrhage and 
we lose billions of dollars.
  So all we are saying is let us support the self-insured, let us give 
them the deduction, but let us reverse the rule so we have an 
opportunity to get the funds, the revenues, to pay for it.
  Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. RANGEL. I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee.
  Mr. QUILLEN. I would ask my friend from New York, did he sign the 
conference report?
  Mr. RANGEL. Yes, Mr. Speaker, I did.
  Mr. QUILLEN. Has the gentleman changed his mind?
  Mr. RANGEL. Let me make it clear to the gentleman: I signed the 
conference report to get the issue before the House of Representatives 
and to make certain the American people know what we have done. When I 
go to conference, I go into conference on behalf of the Committee on 
Ways and Means, and the Republicans control it. So I am not there to 
fight in conference. I am here to fight on this floor for a rule that 
allows the voters of the House of Representatives to do the right 
thing.
  Mr. QUILLEN. I am not being critical.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. 
Christensen].
  Mr. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Speaker, it is just like liberals to talk about 
something that is not even in this bill. Let us quit talking about the 
diversionary tactics on this issue and let us talk about what is in the 
conference report. This bill is yet another step to reform health care 
reform.
  A few weeks ago we passed sweeping legal reforms capping non-economic 
damages in all health care liability cases. That will result in greater 
access to health care and lower health care costs for all Americans.
  Now we are taking the next step. Rather than the Government takeover 
proposed by my friends on the left, we are reforming health care by 
giving the American people what they wanted, the ability to help 
themselves. This bill will restore permanently the 25-percent tax 
deduction for health insurance for the self-employed, but now it goes 
one step better. For tax year 1995 and beyond, the deduction goes up to 
30 percent. Over 3 million hard-working Americans will find health care 
more affordable, thanks to this bill. This tax deduction is for 
farmers, for ranchers, for shopkeepers, and for small business owners, 
providing them with the strong incentive to purchase health care 
insurance.
  It is what is fair, it is what is right, and I commend Chairman 
Archer for swift action in getting this bill out of conference and onto 
the floor so the taxpayers can take advantage for the 1994 tax year.
  Mr. Speaker, we need to continue to focus on what is important in 
this bill, and that is treating self-employed individuals and business 
owners like the major corporations, and this is a good start. What we 
need to do is we need to pass this bill, and we need to quit talking 
about the diversionary tactics that the liberal left always wants to 
keep bringing up.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Nebraska is engaged, as his other 
colleagues, in a legislative shell game. The pea is under one shell, 
but it is not under the other shell. The Senate Republicans were 
willing to tax expatriate billionaires; Republicans in the House were 
not willing to tax expatriate billionaires. They went to conference, 
and, lo and behold, the Republicans in the House who want to forgive 
taxes for expatriate billionaires prevailed.
  Of course it is not in the bill. It is not in the bill because your 
side knocked it out in conference.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Matsui].
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.
   [[Page H3989]] Mr. Speaker, it is very interesting that the 
gentleman from Nebraska makes the statement that this is a shell game, 
that this has nothing to do with the main issue, that is, the 
deductibility of insurance premiums. This has a lot to do with it. If 
we would have left this provision in the legislation, we could have 
gotten 35 percent for the average American small business instead of 25 
percent or 30 percent. We could have gotten more deductibility on this 
thing if we would have followed the other body, Senator Dole, Senator 
Daschle, and all the Republican Senators who supported this 
legislation. It is extreme in this body here that we would actually try 
to throw this provision out, what we did in the House-Senate 
conference, because the Republican leadership did not want it.
  For those of you who do not know what this is, an American citizen 
who earned his wealth here could renounce his citizenship and not pay 
taxes. He will go to a small Caribbean country that has no taxes and 
then what he will end up doing is avoiding taxation. That means all 
other Americans, those wage earners, will have to pay more taxes.
  I might just mention one other thing which is very interesting about 
this. After this was passed in the Senate, last week my office got a 
contact. It got a contact from a New York lobbyist, and this New York 
lobbyist gave me a document. The document says these are seven talking 
points we can use in order to make an argument to eliminate this 
provision.
  He talks about this will destroy Jackson-Vanik. That is ridiculous. 
But he said this will destroy Jackson-Vanik.
  He said this is a human rights issue. Justin Dart's family can leave 
the United States, renounce his citizenship, to avoid U.S. taxes. That 
is a human rights issue? That is ridiculous.
  Then the real outrageous provision in this document here is that on 
the second page that this lobbyist gave me, he cites Soviet law. 
Comparing what Senator Dole, Senator Bradley, and Senator Daschle 
wanted to do on the Senate side to the Soviet Union and their 
immigration policies is outrageous. It is unpatriotic. Those that make 
that argument owe the Members of Congress an apology. They owe Senator 
Dole and Senator Bradley and Senator Daschle an apology.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 2 
minutes to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Levin].
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, the more I have looked into this, the more 
outraged I have become. This is not a question of smoke and mirror. The 
smoke is coming from the majority side that does not want us to see 
what is behind their opposition to changing the rules so the very 
wealthiest cannot escape taxation simply by renouncing citizenship. 
That is where the smoke is coming from.
  I am for the 30 percent. I would like it to be 80 percent. As the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Matsui] has said, we could raise it 
another 5 percent by keeping this provision in.
  Why have you taken it out? That is the issue, and all the arguments 
that have been raised are shams, pure shams, comparing it to the Soviet 
Union. Nobody believes it. It is a free country here. The question is, 
can people escape taxation by leaving?
  Look, I am not in favor of soaking the rich at all. I do not want the 
very wealthiest to soak the United States of America. That is what the 
issue is here.
  Give us a reason. Give us a reason why 12 to 24 families, that is the 
average that has been happening, get out of taxation by renouncing 
citizenship, and then they come back here and they can keep $600,000 
bucks that is not subject to taxation. They can keep their 
multimillion-dollar home. All we are saying is on gains other than that 
they should pay their taxes.
  I say this to the side of the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Quillen]. 
Let us get the names of these people. Let the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Archer] request the appropriate authorities to give us the names, and 
let us do it right now. We have an obligation to low and middle income 
families, and indeed to high income families, that the very wealthiest 
not use the artifice of renunciation of citizenship and become jet 
setters, come back here and live, while the rest of America works hard 
and they escape legitimate taxation.
  Mr. Speaker, I support the position of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Frost]. It is eminently reasonable. Let us find out the truth here. Do 
not cover it up.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder].
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I must say every time I think I have seen everything I 
am surprised. And today I must say I really am surprised. Let us review 
the play.
  The Senate Republicans said we ought to close this loophole. This is 
a loophole that a few fancy tax lawyers with well-heeled clients 
discovered a couple years ago, so these mega billionaires could bail 
out of the United States after they lived here and enjoyed the 
protection of the United States, sold things to U.S. citizens, and did 
whatever they could in this wonderful country. Now they want to bail so 
they do not have to pay their fair share.
  Now, this was recently discovered. We know many families have begun 
to do this. We know one of the families was the man who owns the 
Campbell soup thing. So every time you buy a jar of soup, think of that 
can of soup and the guy living in Ireland, thumbing his nose at 
American taxpayers. That is what this is about.
  The Senate wanted to close that loophole. They wanted to close it, 
and they wanted to give self-employed people a little higher percentage 
that they could write off their taxes for buying their own insurance. 
But the House said no. Almost every Republican in this body said no.
  So today we are forced with lowering the deduction that the average 
self-employed person can have for self-insuring themselves on health 
care so that we can continue to allow billionaires to bail on this 
country.
  I find that shocking. I was elected to represent the people who are 
working in this country, and I think anybody who has worked in this 
country who has made their fortunes in this country, who has benefited 
by the largesse of this country, to be able to have a loophole that we 
all know about and not close it is unconscionable. It also means that 
you tax much higher the citizens who are staying in this country. That 
is further unconscionable. I hope we defeat this rule.

                              {time}  1115

  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 2 
minutes to the gentleman from Hawaii [Mr. Abercrombie].
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, the other night I came on this floor 
and indicated that I had come over because I thought there was to be a 
vote taken virtually immediately, because I expected the instruction on 
this would be accepted by the Republican side.
  Now, for those who are not familiar with all of the ins and outs of 
what goes on on this floor or for those who are here today witnessing 
democracy in action and are sitting in the gallery for the Close Up 
Foundation, young people that come here, for the men and women who work 
hard and pay taxes and believe in their citizenship and raised their 
kids to believe in America, that someone like myself to come from 
Buffalo, NY, 36 years ago, can go to Hawaii and represent Hawaii today 
in a multi-cultural, multi-ethnic, multi-racial society, a rainbow of 
people, a plurality of people that make up the United States of 
America, the most unique and special country in the history of the 
world because we take immigrants in from all over the world and say, 
you can be Americans and you can achieve your dreams, I am standing 
here today because of that.
  My ancestors emigrated to the United States, proud to be Americans. 
And we have people today who say, I do not want to pay taxes, much of 
it on inherited wealth, people who have not earned anything but just 
took money out of the economy, they do not want to pay taxes and they 
renounce their citizenship. We are celebrating the end of World War II, 
some of you young people that are listening in and some of your parents 
and grandparents, commemorating World War II where people fought and 
died for freedom, and we have people who take advantage of 
[[Page H3990]] that, renounce their citizenship not to pay taxes. And 
the Republican side goes to the Senate and makes them drop this 
provision.
  That is what this is all about. This is whether or not you are for 
the rich people to denounce their citizenship or whether you are going 
to be for the ordinary working man and woman in this country, proud to 
be an American.


                announcement by the speaker pro tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Goodlatte). Members are advised to 
address their remarks to the Speaker and not to address the gallery.
  Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would like to remind my colleagues that this rule passed 
unanimously in the committee by voice vote. There were no negative 
votes. And now they come to the floor, I do not know whether it is a 
dream or whether it is just delaying tactics or what.
  I would like to remind the gentleman that this rule provides for a 
motion to recommit the conference report with instructions, if that is 
the will of the House.
  I do not know why all the argument on the rule when they have every 
avenue to accomplish their goal, if they offer the motion to recommit.
  In the Committee on Rules, the Democrats were a little bit confused 
anyway. We spent several minutes, probably 15 or longer, for a group 
who had the wrong idea about the conference report.
  Now, I do not know whether they are confused again, but apologies 
were made to the Members. We accepted that apology.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. QUILLEN. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I do not believe the Democratic members of 
Committee on Rules were confused at all.
  Mr. QUILLEN. We were not confused, but you and your group were 
confused.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, you 
indicated they might have been confused. I do not think they were 
confused at all.
  Let me say this, the language that I read in that document was a 
House offer. That was not incorporated in the conference report 
document itself. However, I will say this, I read the transcript last 
night, the entire transcript of the conference last night, to the 
gentleman from Tennessee. And that language that I recited was in fact 
adopted but it was not incorporated in the conference report document 
itself. Both Senator Packwood and the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Archer, 
agreed to that language, including that date that was incorporated in 
that agreement.
  Mr. QUILLEN. I am not being critical of the gentleman from 
California. I just think that there is a lot of confusion going on here 
in the discussion of the rule that is absolutely unnecessary.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. QUILLEN. I yield to the gentleman from Hawaii.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, perhaps, I do not want to add to the 
confusion, but I understood you, maybe you misunderstood my remarks. My 
remarks were addressed to the question of whether or not the Senate 
position would be sustained, instruction or not, with respect to this, 
to closing this loophole for these billionaires being able to escape 
fair taxation by renouncing their citizenship.
  My understanding was that the House requested and succeeded in 
getting this provision dropped from the Senate bill.
  Mr. QUILLEN. I was not confused at all in regard to your statement, I 
will advise the gentleman from Hawaii.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. So I am correct that the Senate did acknowledge or 
acquiesce to the House position to drop this particular provision?
  Mr. QUILLEN. There was no objection at all in the Committee on Rules 
bringing this rule to the floor.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. We are not discussing that.
  Mr. QUILLEN. This all developed after the rule was presented.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. The discussion is who is responsible for having 
these billionaires being able to escape taxation.
  Mr. QUILLEN. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I yield to the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Rangel].
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, there is no one that I have more respect for 
in this House than the gentleman from Tennessee. We have enjoyed that 
friendship over a number of years. There are times, however, when 
committees think that they are working their will or the will of the 
party when they are in the Committee on Rules and sometimes we do the 
same thing in the Committee on Ways and Means.
  If there was no objection by the Democratic Members when the rule was 
perfected, well, those things happen. But we do not have to accept that 
rule on the House floor when we see that.
  Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I yield 7 minutes to 
the gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas].
  (Mr. THOMAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I would be very pleased to shed some light 
on this discussion since some folks seem to be knocking about in the 
dark. I was on the conference committee, and I will tell you what 
happened, not somebody's supposition of what happened, but what 
happened.
  On the floor of the House the minority party offered a motion to 
instruct. You lost. The House then went to the conference and made a 
proposal to the Senate. The proposal to the Senate was to remove the 
Senate provision on expatriation based upon the vote on the floor of 
the House.
  The Senate accepted the House position. It was the Senate that made 
the decision to drop that provision. And the chairman of the 
conference, the gentleman from Oregon, Senator Packwood, said, ``Thank 
you. In my bones, I believe the Senate acted hastily.''
  Now, notwithstanding the agreement of the conferees to drop this 
section, the section that had been added by Senator Bradley, which was 
not President Clinton's proposal as presented to the Congress but, 
rather, a distortion of that proposal, which created a situation in 
which citizens of the United States would be treated differently than 
noncitizens and that the citizens would be subjected to harsher 
treatment than noncitizens, that was the Senate's position that Senator 
Packwood said, ``In my bones, I believe we acted too hastily.''
  Now, what did this conference agree to? In the language of the 
conference report, we agreed to not include the Senate amendment. But 
then we went on in 11 specific areas indicating to the joint tax 
committee, we want an examination in this area. We want a study of the 
issues presented by any proposals to affect the tax treatment of 
expatriation, including an evaluation of, one, the effectiveness and 
enforceability of current law; two, the current level of expatriation 
for tax avoidance; three, any restrictions imposed by any 
constitutional requirement; four, the application of international 
human rights principles to the taxation of expatriation; five, the 
possible effects of any such proposals on the free flow of capital; 
six, the impact of any such proposals on existing tax treaties; seven, 
the operation of any such proposals, on and on and on, to be reported 
back by June 1, 1995.
  Every one of the arguments that were presented by your side and our 
side on the floor of the House on the vote to instruct conferees is 
included in this study to be given to us by June 1, 1995 so we can make 
an informed decision about what we do in this area. You are back to 
rush to judgment, regardless of the fact that the Senate has said they 
probably acted too hastily, regardless of the fact that the conference 
report says by June 1 we will provide an answer to all the concerns on 
both sides on this question so that we can make an informed decision.
  And then lastly, let me say, a number of harsh words were presented 
on the floor the other night about the question of citizens and whether 
or not citizens of the United States should be treated similarly to 
citizens in Germany or any other country. Frankly, I do not think we 
should compare ourselves to any other country. Citizenship in the 
United States is something special. And that if an individual decides 
on their own they want to make a choice about that citizenship, we 
[[Page H3991]] should not have the Government of the United States and 
especially those of you on this side of the aisle institute some kind 
of a punitive action unless it violates the law, as we will examine and 
restructure it.
  I was very, very comforted by my mail this morning, in a letter dated 
March 30, on paper with the letterhead Harvard Law School, Professor 
Abram Chayes, the Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law Emeritus wrote me 
and said, ``Dear Congressman Thomas, I am writing to express my concern 
about the current proposal to impose a tax on persons leaving the 
United States who renounce their citizenship. I am the Felix 
Frankfurter Professor of Law emeritus at Harvard Law School where I 
teach international law. From 1961 to 1964, I was the legal advisor to 
the Department of State.''
  That is the President Kennedy, President Johnson era, 1961-64.
  ``In my opinion,'' says the Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law 
Emeritus of Harvard Law School, ``in my opinion, the proposed 
expatriation tax raises serious questions under the Constitution and 
international law involving the fundamental right of voluntary 
expatriation and immigration.''
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to finish my statement. Does 
the gentleman mind if I finish reading the letter? May I have the 
courtesy of finishing the letter, if the gentleman does not mind?
  Mr. MATSUI. Do not yield.
  Mr. THOMAS. I thank the gentleman very much for allowing me to finish 
the letter.
  Excuse me. I did not hear the gentleman. I will yield to the 
gentleman to repeat the statement that he just made. I will yield to 
the gentleman for the purpose of repeating the statement he just made. 
I yield only for the purpose of repeating the statement he just made.
  What was the statement you just made?
  Mr. MATSUI. Pardon me?
  Mr. THOMAS. What was the statement that you just made?
  Mr. MATSUI. That this body should calm down.
  Mr. THOMAS. A cop-out on the part of the gentleman from California. I 
will finish the letter.
  The Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law Emeritus says, ``The proposed 
tax has serious human rights implications and is inconsistent with the 
longstanding U.S. policies with respect to the right of free emigration 
expressed in the Jackson-Vanick Amendment to the Trade Act of 1974 and 
elsewhere. Indeed, this policy was the centerpiece of our effective 
opposition to the Soviet Union during the 1970s and the 1980s. If the 
United States now adopts this restrictive approach, it will give 
oppressive foreign governments an excuse to retain or erect barriers to 
expatriation and immigration.''

                              {time}  1130

  If Members want to assist oppressive foreign governments, in the 
opinion of the Dr. Felix Frankfurter, professor of law emeritus, shame 
on you. A cheap political stunt, repeated twice now, in the face of the 
conference committee responsibly investigating ways to change this law. 
Shame on you.
  You really ought to learn how to be the minority better than this. 
Pick your shots where you can be responsible and positive in trying to 
make change. Do not create a situation which would reinforce oppressive 
governments based upon the way in which Congress treats citizens of the 
United States. Shame on you.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Bonior].
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, let us be clear on what the debate is 
focused on this morning. We are talking probably about 12 to 24 very, 
very wealthy American citizens who may choose to give up their 
citizenship in order to avoid paying taxes. That is what this is about.
  The previous speaker had come to the well to shame us about this 
issue. We have nothing to be ashamed about. The shame rests with trying 
to compare these 24 individuals of enormous wealth with Jews in Russia 
trying to emigrate freely to express their views and live a life of 
independence and without repression.
  Mr. Speaker, if we ever wondered how the Republican Party came to be 
known as the party of the privileged few, all you have to do is watch 
this debate this morning. I never thought I would see the day when the 
Republicans would stand up on the floor of this House and defend the 
right of billionaires to give up their U.S. citizenship in order to 
avoid paying us taxes, but that is exactly what they are doing this 
morning, instead of standing up for fairness.
  They are saying ``Let's study it. Let's examine it.'' Instead of 
standing up for working families, the Gingrich Republicans have chosen 
to stand with the very wealthiest in our society.
  They have chosen to stand up for people like John ``Ippy'' Dorrance 
III, who made millions in America before running off to the Bahamas to 
avoid paying taxes. They are the same people that accepted the 
protection of this country, the security that this country affords, 
people who made their money off the working men and women of America, 
but instead of paying their fair share in taxes, these billionaires are 
skipping the country, and the Gingrich Republicans are standing up here 
today defending their right to do it.
  However, we really should not be surprised. Two days ago Democrats 
insisted that this loophole for billionaires be closed. We had a vote 
on it. We offered an amendment. Every Republican, with the exception of 
five, voted against our amendment which would have closed this 
loophole. We could have saved $3.6 billion over 10 years by closing 
this loophole, but when given the chance, all but five on the other 
side of the aisle said no.
  Mr. Speaker, this is not just a debate about tax loopholes. This 
debate is a symbol of the entire contract on America. The Gingrich 
Republicans are targeting women and children in order to give tax break 
to the wealthiest people in America. You can renounce your citizenship. 
As long as you are a billionaire, the Gingrich Republicans are going to 
take care of you. You are going to be okay.
  Next week we will be dealing with what Newt Gingrich called the crown 
jewel of the contract, the piece de resistance, a bill that gives the 
overwhelming majority of its tax breaks to the privileged few, a bill 
that says if you are a Fortune 500 company, you might not have to pay 
any taxes anymore. This debate today is just a small window on that 
entire contract.
  Mr. Speaker, the Republicans may march in lockstep with Newt Gingrich 
to give tax breaks to the privileged few, but we Democrats are going to 
continue to stand up and fight for working middle class families in 
this country.
  Therefore, I urge my colleagues, defeat the previous question on this 
rule. We can support the bill when we get to it, but defeat the 
previous question. Give us a chance to offer an amendment to correct 
this outrageous abuse and this outrage loophole in our tax laws. Let us 
close this loophole and make billionaires pay taxes like the rest of 
us.
  Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson].
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, yesterday we had a very 
long debate on term limits. I opposed the adoption of a constitutional 
amendment to limit terms, but I acknowledge that the interest in that 
approach springs from the American people's deep-seated belief that 
somehow this body is out of touch, that what we talk about is not real. 
It disappoints me that this debate is becoming an example of exactly 
that.
  This debate is not about Gingrich Republicans defending the 
wealthiest. That is the most misleading rhetoric, for purely political 
purposes, that I have heard on the floor.
  This debate is about the following: It is about the little people of 
America. It is about the self-employed person. That person's deduction 
for their health insurance, and we know how expensive health insurance 
is, expired, expired in December of 1993. Under the Democrat majority, 
we could have prevented that, or we could have reinstated it under the 
Republican majority.
  What we are about today is to reinstate that deduction retroactively, 
and we must do it before April 15 if we want all those little folk out 
there who establish their own businesses and are self-employed to get 
that deduction. If 
[[Page H3992]] we do not act today, they will not get it, so we want to 
pass the 30-percent health insurance deduction for little people in 
America, the people who count, the people who do think we are not 
listening for exactly the reason of the quality of the debate today.
  That is our No. 1 goal, to assure that by April 15 and the tax filing 
season, self-employed people will again be able to deduct 30 percent of 
their premiums. They could have done it, remember. They lost this right 
in December 1993. We are now into 1995. This could have been done any 
time over the last year and a half and it was not done. It is going to 
be done. I am proud of that.
  That is our No. 1 goal.
  The second goal, the second goal is to act on an issue that President 
Clinton identified. That is those people who are using expatriation to 
avoid taxes. We agree on that. However, we did not hold a hearing on 
this matter until we saw it was actually going to come forward.
  In that hearing, very significant issues were raised by the 
proponents. The supporters of it say ``If you do not fix certain 
provisions it will fall very unfairly, not on those 12 to 24 
wealthiest, but on the little people who came from Cuba.'' For example, 
a woman comes from Cuba or a family comes from Cuba fleeing Castro, 
build from nothing, from zero, their own business. Then Cuba becomes 
free, and they want to go back and help. They are going to be subject 
to this tax, so it had better be fair. That is our obligation.
  Even the proponents who testified for it said ``You have to fix two 
or three provisions.'' I said to them ``How do you fix them?'' They 
said ``It is complicated. We can do it. We have got working teams 
preparing it, but we don't have the language for you.'' I said ``How 
soon can you have it?'' They said ``Three weeks to about two months, 
because it is tough, and we do not know how much agreement in the tax 
community we are going to be able to develop.''
  We can fix it. We can do exactly what we all agree needs to be done, 
but we must do it right. I was fascinated by the minority whip's 
comment that there are 12 to 24 people affected. I asked that from the 
representative of the Treasury specifically. He did not know how many 
people were affected. He did not know what the impact would be. All he 
could tell me was how many people left, gave up their citizenship, each 
year. That is insufficient information on which to do this.
  In the other body, they held no hearing on this provision at all 
before they acted on it. After they acted on it, they did hold a 
hearing. Some of these issues were raised. We held at least a hearing 
before we came to the floor, so we have real information.
  Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate to toy with the interests of all those 
hard-working Americans who need that deduction, and to pretend that we 
are not in agreement. We want to strengthen our law to prevent people 
from leaving America and getting tax benefits as a consequence of 
citizen renunciation. We are able to do both, and I urge Members' 
support of a fair rule.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to make it very clear what we intend to do. If 
the previous question is defeated, we will propose a rule which would 
recede and concur with the Senate amendment with an amendment to 
reinstate the Senate provision regarding renouncement of citizenship to 
avoid taxes. This will have the effect of agreeing to the provisions 
included in section 5 of the Senate amendment, which changed the tax 
treatment of U.S. citizens who relinquish their citizenship to avoid 
paying taxes.
  This is exactly the same conference report that was filed yesterday, 
except for this one addition, so we agreed clearly to go forward with 
taking care of the deductibility issue for insurance. There is no 
question about that. There is no disagreement on that.
  The only thing we want to do by defeating the previous question is 
reinstate the Senate provision, making sure that people who leave this 
country and renounce their citizenship are subject to our tax law.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. 
Gephardt], the Democratic leader.
  (Mr. GEPHARDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to urge Members to vote against the 
previous question and to try to change this rule to put this provision 
into this law. This change on trying to get better compliance with our 
tax laws was suggested by the President earlier this year. It is the 
subject of a piece of legislation that I presented on request by the 
President, so we could better enforce our tax laws.
  The concern here is one that has been understood for a long time by 
the Treasury Department, and that is that a few very, very wealthy 
individuals are able to renounce citizenship, go offshore, and escape 
the payment of taxes that they owe as a result of being a citizen of 
the United States. It is believed that over a period of time this 
change would pick up $3 billion that we could use for deficit 
reduction.
  The Senate adopted it and it was in their bill, and as a result of, I 
suppose, the majority here voting down our instruction, when they went 
to the conference, it was taken out. We are simply ascertaining today 
that it should be put back in.
  How on Earth can we explain to anyone that we do not want to take 
necessary, reasonable steps to see that super wealthy individuals who 
are trying to escape taxation in America are renouncing their 
citizenship in order to escape that taxation? Why would we not want to 
do that?
  The argument is made that there is a human rights issue. I am 
speechless about it. I do not even know what to say to that argument. 
There is an America rights issue involved here. There are the rights of 
all the taxpayers of our country involved here.
  All of us represent hard-working people who go to work every day and 
pay their taxes by withholding, and now we want to say we cannot figure 
out how to enforce the tax law on some of the wealthiest people in the 
country who want to stay wealthy by renouncing their citizenship? This 
is the most incredible issue that I have encountered since I have been 
in the House.
  Mr. Speaker, if we look at Republican tax policy, taking this 
position is consistent; 51 percent of the tax bill they hope to bring 
in the majority next week goes to families who earn over $100,000 a 
year.

                              {time}  1145

  Eighty percent of the capital gains cuts go to families that earn 
over $100,000 a year. I do not criticize you for having that belief. 
That is a legitimate belief. I totally disagree with it. But if you 
believe that it is the right thing to do to invest in the wealthiest 
people in our society so that it will trickle down to everybody else 
over a period of time, stand up and argue it, be proud of it, but let 
us collect the taxes of this country, even against the wealthiest 
people in this country.
  Vote against the previous question.
  Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the minority leader had been on the Committee on Ways 
and Means for years, but he did not do a thing about it, and yet he 
comes up and preaches tax relief for the wealthy. Oh, how he cries.
  Mr. Speaker, we have just read a copy of the substitute rule the 
minority would offer if they manage to defeat the previous question. 
Contrary to what the gentleman from Texas said, their rule would kill 
the conference report and send the bill back to the Senate. This killer 
rule would kill the ability of the self-employed to file their tax 
returns on time. Is that not shameful? I think it is a disgrace.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from 
Missouri [Mr. Hancock].
  Mr. HANCOCK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, we just heard the minority leader say stand up and 
defend the rich people if in fact we believe that they ought to get a 
break once in a while. I am going to defend them because they are the 
ones, they are the ones that have worked hard enough and have used the 
system properly, they have employed people, they have provided the 
capital. These are the people that create the jobs. I do not think you 
can go to a pauper and ask him to put you to work.
  What we are talking about on that side of the aisle is we are going 
to tax 
[[Page H3993]] the rich people out of existence and then Government is 
going to provide the work. If that is not a socialist concept I do not 
know what is. The issue that we are talking about right now, the issue 
we are talking about right now does not have anything to do with the 
fact that there are certain people that have found possibly a loophole 
in the law to preserve their assets by giving up their citizenship. I 
do not approve of that in any way whatsoever. I do approve of changing 
the law to where there would be no incentive for those people. They 
should not have any incentive to give up their citizenship.
  I am going to recommend to the people that did not attend the hearing 
last Monday, there was nobody on the gentleman's side of the aisle that 
attended the hearing where we went into the details. They could have 
asked experts questions but they were not there. All of a sudden they 
show up, and I am going to recommend they read a book called ``The Good 
and Evil of Taxation.''
  Throughout history, people have disappeared from the taxing authority 
where they felt they were oppressed and that that taxing authority was 
confiscating their assets.
  Let me ask this question: Why should a citizen of a foreign country 
be able to come into this country, work on a green card and leave with 
his assets where an American citizen cannot? I do not approve of it. I 
think that we definitely need to address the law. But I am sick and 
tired of that side of the aisle talking about the people, the principle 
that people should not have the opportunity to get wealthy. You stand 
up and you criticize the wealthy people. Where are the jobs going to 
come from? I would be considered wealthy today. Forty years ago I had a 
wife and two kids and the mortgage on a Studebaker Lark, and I worked 
my fanny off, and I have employed people. And if we continue the tax 
law that you all are advocating there will not be anybody with any 
opportunity to become wealthy.
  Tax them out of existence and then see how good your social welfare 
programs are. Where is the money going to come from? Get rid of the 
rich people, get rid of them, just put them out of business, and then 
try to operate this country.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I say to the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Quillen], I 
have a copy of the amendment to the rule that we propose to offer in 
front of me and it does not send this matter back to the conference 
committee. What it does is simply amend what is before us and send it 
back to the full Senate for another vote, it does not send it back to 
the conference committee, it sends it back to the Senate for another 
vote on their original provision.
  Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FROST. I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee.
  Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, I am reading it on the seventh line. It 
says shall be deemed to be rejected.
  Mr. FROST. That is correct, and it shall be in order.
  Mr. QUILLEN. If it is rejected, it goes back.
  Mr. FROST. The gentleman is correct. That is what it says, shall be 
deemed to be rejected, and it shall be in order to consider in the 
House a motion, if offered by Representative Gibbons of Florida or his 
designee to take from the Speaker's table H.R. 831, with the Senate 
amendment thereto, and to recede and concur in the Senate amendment 
with the amendment printed in section 2 of the resolution.
  Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, does that not 
mean it goes back to the Senate?
  Mr. FROST. It goes back to the full Senate for another vote, that is 
correct. That is exactly what it means.
  Mr. QUILLEN. So it delays the tax credit for the April 15 filing.
  Mr. FROST. The Senate has not voted on the conference report yet. The 
Senate is going to have to vote anyway, so we are just giving them an 
opportunity to vote on something that makes some sense.
  There is a lot of dust on the other side. They are very nervous. It 
is obvious they are having to defend something that is almost 
indefensible.
  Let us talk about what is really going on here. We are talking about 
basic patriotism on the part of Americans and basic fairness.
  Let me give a little personal history, and I know the gentleman from 
Tennessee [Mr. Quillen] has a comparable personal history. My great 
grandfather came to this country from Lithuania on a very dangerous 
ship, almost died on that trip, came here, was a peddler with a pack on 
his back, worked a territory in Texas, got enough capital to start a 
little store on the town square in a small town, made a little money. 
He would never have renounced his American citizenship. No one in my 
family, no matter how much money they made, would ever have renounced 
their American citizenship to get a tax break.
  That is incredible, that this side is trying to defend renouncing 
your American citizenship so you can get a tax break.
  Let me give another personal example. My wife was born in Panama of 
American parents who worked at the
 Canal Zone. She had dual citizenship until she turned 18. She 
renounced her Panamanian citizenship. She would never have renounced 
her American citizenship. This is absolutely extraordinary that they 
stand here and defend the right of wealthy people to renounce their 
American citizenship to save dollars. It makes no sense whatsoever. And 
no wonder they are so nervous on that side, no wonder they are so 
agitated by a little light that is being shed.

  Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Missouri [Mr. Hancock].
  Mr. HANCOCK. Mr. Speaker, we are not saying we advocate anybody 
renouncing their citizenship. What we are saying is we change the tax 
law to remove the incentive of renouncing the citizenship so citizens 
get the same treatment that people with green cards get if they come to 
the United States. That can be done. That can be done.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Levin].
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I say to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. 
Hancock], I do not know where he gets the notion that people who have 
green cards have a different taxation provision than those who are 
citizens.
  Mr. HANCOCK. If the gentleman will yield, when it comes to taking 
their assets when they go back to their country, they would not be 
subject to what the American citizens would be.
  Mr. LEVIN. Here is the point. While they are here, they pay taxes on 
them. And here is the question. No one is saying do not build up 
wealth. Build it up. I am in favor of it.
  Here is the issue. Should someone be able to renounce their 
citizenship to avoid paying taxes on the realization of gains from that 
wealth? It is a question not of building wealth, but of paying fair 
taxes.
  I will put it this way. You have two people who have made the same 
amount of money; one stays a citizen and one avoids it by renouncing 
it. Why should the person of the same wealth who renounced his 
citizenship pay less taxes than the American who stays here, who stays 
a citizen and who continues to work here? That is the issue.
  Mr. HANCOCK. The gentleman is exactly right and we agree on that.
  Mr. LEVIN. Then vote with us.
  Mr. HANCOCK. If the gentleman will yield, the question is, should it 
be done in the tax law or should it be done here? This is not the 
vehicle.
  Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana [Mr. Burton].
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, let me just say I think that the 
minority has a point and this will be corrected, I believe, in the tax 
law before this session is over. That is my view.
  But let me just say that we are not nervous. We are in the majority 
for the first time in 40 years and we are not nervous. What I think the 
Democrats are nervous about is that they really do not have any program 
as an alternative to the Contract With America.
  I have heard all this day this class warfare theology that you 
espouse all the time, and that is that the rich are going to get richer 
and the poor are going to get poorer because of the disparity in our 
tax proposals. Let me point out a couple of things. We have a 
[[Page H3994]] deficit; we have to deal with it; and are going to try 
to cut spending to deal with that. But in addition, we have to bring 
more revenue to the Treasury. How do you do that without a tax 
increase?
  John F. Kennedy, when he was President, proposed and got passed 
through the Democratic Congress a capital gains tax cut. This is John 
F. Kennedy. And you know what happened after they cut the capital 
gains, the tax revenues went up because of the tax cut.
  We had another capital gains tax cut during the Ronald Reagan years. 
You know what happened? Tax revenues went up over 30 percent, and 
because we stimulate growth by a capital gains tax we are advocating, 
if you use a dynamic model, it will increase tax revenues and help 
reduce the deficit. So let us cut this class warfare stuff.
  If we cut capital gains, regardless of who gets a benefit, the low 
income, middle income, or high income, it is going to stimulate more 
capital investment, $2 to $3 trillion in new capital investment once 
assets are sold and recycled, and it is going to create economic growth 
and more tax revenues. So let us cut the baloney about tax warfare. It 
just will not wash with the American people.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining on each side?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Frost] has 3 
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Quillen] has 
1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, to close debate, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume. I do not intend to use all of the time.
  Mr. Speaker, it is very clear what is going on here. The other side 
wants to talk about anything else other than what is at issue here. 
They want to talk about capital gains, they want to talk about other 
issues, they want to talk about the rights of citizens. They want to 
talk about green cards. They do not want to talk about what is really 
going on here, the fact that they are trying to protect one dozen, two 
dozen people who are renouncing their citizenship to avoid taxes.

                              {time}  1200

  These people are no longer citizens. Why should we treat them with 
kid gloves when they renounce their citizenship? Why should we say give 
them special privileges when they walk away from this country and say 
they do not want to be a citizen of this country anymore even through 
it is the laws of this country that have permitted them to amass the 
fortune that they have made and they now want to pick up and walk out 
the door with it?
  Mr. Speaker, this is very clear. This is, as the minority leader 
commented, probably the most outrageous thing that I have seen since I 
have been here in Congress.
  Reject this rule. Reject the previous question. Let up put the 
original Senate provision before the House, and let us take care of 
this problem. Let us close this loophole.
  Vote against the previous question.
  Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from 
Missouri [Mr. Hancock].
  Mr. HANCOCK. Mr. Speaker, you know, the next step, I expect to hear 
form the minority party, is that when a citizen of New York decides to 
go to Florida because of the difference in the tax structure to save on 
his taxes, he is going to have to pay an exit tax from the State of New 
York to go down to Florida.
  The free flow of capital is essential to our system.
  Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I have heard all the colloquy. I did not hear any of it 
in the Committee on Rules.
  The gentleman from Texas was there. It passed unanimously, and 
somehow the basket was opened and all of the chatter came out and has 
been exemplified on the floor of the House.
  We all know that if this conference report is referred to the Senate 
that it is a round robin event, that we have to consider it again.
  April 15 is the filing date.
  I urge that the previous question be ordered. I think that it should 
be ordered.
  I think we should go forward with this conference report.
  Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, I yield back the 
balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Goodlatte). The question is on ordering 
the previous question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  Pursuant to the provisions of clause 5 of rule XV, the Chair 
announces that he will reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the period of 
time within which a vote by electronic device, if ordered, will be 
taken on the question of adoption of the rule.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 224, 
nays 201, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 278]

                               YEAS--224

     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     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
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     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
     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

                               NAYS--201

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bishop
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Chapman
     Clayton
     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
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     [[Page H3995]] 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
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Poshard
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rose
     Roth
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Studds
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Allard
     Brown (FL)
     Clay
     Gibbons
     Gunderson
     Moakley
     Pomeroy
     Reynolds
     Stupak

                              {time}  1220

  Mr. BRYANT of Texas and Mr. CONYERS changed their vote from ``yea'' 
to ``nay.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. (Mr. Goodlatte). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded that this is a 5-minute 
vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 244, 
noes 178, not voting 12, as follows:
                             [Roll No. 279]

                               AYES--244

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     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
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tate
     Tauzin
     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

                               NOES--178

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bishop
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     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
     Mollohan
     Moran
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Pickett
     Poshard
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Studds
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Brown (FL)
     Chenoweth
     Dicks
     Forbes
     Gibbons
     Gunderson
     Hyde
     Moakley
     Pomeroy
     Reynolds
     Serrano
     Stupak

                              {time}  1229

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Forbes for, with Mr. Moakley against.

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

                          ____________________