[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 137 (Saturday, September 28, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H11630-H11633]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1330
    TREATMENT OF CERTAIN FEDERAL EMPLOYEES AT FEDERAL HYDROELECTRIC 
                       FACILITY ON COLUMBIA RIVER

  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill 
(H.R. 3163) to provide that Oregon may not tax compensation paid to a 
resident of Washington for services as a Federal employee at a Federal 
hydroelectric facility located on the Columbia River.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 3163

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. CLARIFICATION OF STATE AUTHORITY TO TAX 
                   COMPENSATION PAID TO CERTAIN FEDERAL EMPLOYEES.

       (a) In General.--Section 111 of title 4, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(a) General Rule.--'' before ``The 
     United States'' the first place it appears, and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(b) Treatment of Certain Federal Employees Employed at 
     Federal Hydroelectric Facilities Located on the Columbia 
     River.--Pay or compensation paid by the United States for 
     personal services as an employee of the United States at a 
     hydroelectric facility--
       ``(1) which is owned by the United States,
       ``(2) which is located on the Columbia River, and
       ``(3) portions of which are within the States of Oregon and 
     Washington,

     shall be subject to taxation by the State of Oregon or any 
     political subdivision thereof only if such employee is a 
     resident of such State or political subdivision.''
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall apply to pay and compensation paid after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). Pursuant to the rule, the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas] and the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Lofgren] each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas].
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3163 and urge its adoption.
  We have a very unique situation which this bill will address and 
which, if passed, will cure. This is an anomaly whereby citizens of one 
State working near another State are being taxed by the other State, 
and they, the disaffected taxpayers, have been seeking relief from this 
problematic situation for a long, long time.
  The States involved are the States of Washington and Oregon on the 
Pacific Coast. The Columbia River, which divides the two States, also 
is the site of several dam sites which employ people under the Federal 
aegis, thereby designating them as Federal employees. Yet the residents 
of Washington, bona fide residents of the State of Washington, have for 
a long time been paying Oregon taxes. Therein lies the problem.
  We will shortly yield to the Members of Congress who know in detail 
and from a personal standpoint the diameter and the extent of this 
particular problem.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time, hoping to yield to 
them for a full explanation.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I am not planning to object to this legislation, but I 
do think it is important to note that this bill is being brought up 
under a most unusual process and under procedures that do not allow for 
the appropriate degree of consideration by Members.
  First, this bill is being brought to the House floor on less than 24 
hours' notice. There is no reason for taking action in this manner. The 
bill was in the Judiciary Committee for more than 6 months without any 
action being taken whatsoever.
  Second, we have absolutely no legislative record or background on the 
legislation before us. We do not know how many taxpayers will be 
affected, although it appears that it may affect only some 79 
taxpayers. We do not know the current practice by the State of Oregon 
for taxing these individuals and do not know how much money this will 
cost the State of Oregon.
  It is ironic that a Congress that began the session solemnly 
declaring its opposition to unfunded Federal mandates on the States 
would end the session by passing an unfunded mandate on the State of 
Oregon. Because of this unusual expedited process, we have no CBO 
scoring letter, so we are completely in the dark about the degree of 
the mandate.
  Congress should be very careful in adopting special laws that limit 
State taxation prerogatives. At a time when we are sending more and 
more responsibility to the States, we need to preserve maximum 
flexibility for them.
  We need to be particularly careful when we adopt laws of special 
applicability that provide a benefit to only a small number of 
individuals, as this bill does. This may be the right thing to do in 
these circumstances, but unfortunately we do not have enough 
information to make that determination in a thoughtful, prudent manner.
  Given the late hour, I do not expect that we will seek a record vote 
on this bill, but I am certainly hopeful that in the future we can 
utilize a more deliberative and serious process when adopting a bill 
such as this. We owe this much to our constituents.
  This is a very bad process that would not be tolerated were it not 
for the complications of today's anticipated adjournment and the need 
to adopt an emergency spending measure to avoid another Government 
shutdown Monday, and also, I might add, because I fully expect that the 
Senate will undoubtedly kill this measure.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Washington [Mr. Hastings].
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  Mr. Speaker, this legislation is really what I would characterize as 
commonsense legislation because no American citizen should be forced to 
pay taxes in two separate States at the same time. But that is exactly 
what is happening to several dozen Army Corps of Engineers workers in 
the Pacific Northwest.
  The State of Oregon has mistakenly determined that it has the 
authority to impose its Oregon income tax on 79 corps employees who 
live in Washington State. These workers do not work in Oregon. They do 
not cross into Oregon during the workday. In fact, many of them work 
entirely on the Washington side of the Columbia River, and seldom, if 
ever, step onto the four dams which separate the two States.
  This is not the first time this issue has come before Congress. 
Several years ago, we had a similar concern for the tax treatment of 
Federal employees working for Amtrak. They frequently would travel into 
other States, and those States had attempted to impose their State tax, 
in addition to the State tax of the State of residence. Congress 
recognized that this double taxation was unfair, and corrected the 
problem in the Amtrak Improvement Act of 1990.

[[Page H11631]]

  This situation is even more clear cut. In the case of Amtrak, workers 
would actually cross into the work in the second State. In the case of 
these workers, they do not cross into Oregon. They do not use Oregon 
facilities. They do not drive on Oregon roads. And since they already 
pay all applicable Washington State taxes, they should not be forced to 
pay twice.
  In addition, this Congress just passed the Source Tax reform bill. We 
established a precedent by determining that pension taxes should be 
taken by the State of residence. The very same principle applies in 
this case. Taxes should be imposed by the State of residence.
  Mr. Speaker, the impact of this bill is minimal. As I mentioned, we 
believe that it applies to approximately 79 workers at four Federal 
dams. It would have no fiscal impact on the United States. It would 
have minimal impact on the State of Oregon. But it would have a 
tremendous impact on 79 working families who are struggling to make 
ends meet. That is why the union which represents not only these 
workers, but also the several hundred Oregon workers who work at these 
dams, strongly supports my legislation.
  As a result, I would strongly urge a ``yes'' vote on this important 
bill.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
I just wanted to make a couple of additional comments.
  We have been contacted by the Federation of State Tax Administrators, 
who have expressed very serious reservations about this bill and the 
precedent it might set. We have also heard from the Oregon Department 
of Revenue expressing reservations, concern, and perhaps even 
objections to this bill.
  The comments made by the previous speaker are some that would have 
been better explored in committee if we had had a hearing on this bill. 
In fact, the rule of law generally is that many States tax the income 
of nonresidents that is generated within those States. Oftentimes, and 
I would say it is the general rule, the State of residence of the 
taxpayer then gives a credit to the taxpayer for income that was earned 
and taxed in another State. The Constitution of the United States gives 
States the authority to tax residents' income and this does disrupt to 
some extent the constitutional scheme.
  It may be that this is a good exception. Many good rules sometimes 
require an exception. I think my point, however, is that the exception 
and the need to create one in this case, if it needs to be made, was 
not pursued properly. There were no hearings, there were no markups, 
there was no committee action whatsoever, and I think this is a cause 
of some concern.

  Mr. SPEAKER. I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio].
  Mr. DeFAZIO. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, we are really into the middle of the political silly 
season here. Nobody knows how many people exactly are impacted by this 
bill. No one knows exactly what the revenue impact is to the State of 
Oregon. The State of Oregon has been afforded no opportunity to 
comment. No hearings have been held. Not a single hearing, not one day, 
not one minute, not one second of hearings.
  Before yesterday, nobody had the slightest idea that this bill might 
come forward. Here we are. Reelect the majority. They can delivery 
bills at the last minute that no one has read, no one understands, and 
no one is going to have an opportunity to review. I am going to object 
to this and call for a vote.
  Mr. Speaker, this is ridiculous. Just like in a few hours we are 
going to vote on a continuing resolution for the entire Government of 
the United States of America larded down with thousands of special 
interest provisions that no Member of this body will have read. Not a 
one. The President of the United States has not even read it. He does 
not know what is in it. His people just made some deals for him.
  Why are we not doing it tomorrow? Why are we not doing it Monday? Why 
do they not give us 36 hours to read it? Why do we not hold this bill 
over? If this is important, let us keep Congress in session until next 
week. We get paid. We do not get paid to campaign. We get paid to work. 
Let us stay in Washington and work. Let us not just jam bills through 
that no one understands.
  There are a few constitutional implications here. Yes, there are some 
pretty extraordinary constitutional implications here. The Federal 
Government is going to tell the State of Oregon that it cannot tax 
people who it thinks it can rightfully tax given its jurisdiction.
  What about New York? Let us do away with their commuter tax. We might 
get a little more excitement if we were doing away with New York's 
commuter tax. Or let us look at some of the other jurisdictions that 
levy commuter taxes.
  This is an extraordinary precedent, possibly unconsititution, but the 
worst thing is it has not been heard, it has not been understood, it 
has not been properly noticed, and it is being jammed through here at 
the last moment.
  I am going to at least put everybody on record and then when we 
revisit these issues in the future, a couple of Republicans from 
Washington State can go home and say, ``Hey, we were able to jam 
through a bill that would do something for some unspecified number of 
people from our State. Reelect us.''
  I know you have got some tight reelections. Good luck. If you are 
back, I only hope that you are in the minority so we can discuss this 
in a different vein next year.
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the 
gentlewoman from Washington [Mrs. Smith] for a further description of 
the simple justice that is included in this bill.
  Mrs. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill 
with a very extensive background in Oregon tax law, as well as 
preparing nonresident and resident taxes for nearly 15 years along the 
border. We come to a lot of decisions when you straddle a border, and 
quite often the State that can get the most tax out of the citizens 
will.
  We have found that in the past we have had to come to the Federal 
Government because we do have a sales tax on one side and an income tax 
on the other. Out of one of those trips came the Amtrak law, we call 
it, but it just simply said, ``When a train goes back and forth across 
the river, then that train engineer doesn't have to pay tax on both 
sides of the river.''
  That made sense. We passed it here in Congress. But we left some 
people behind. On the river are a group of people that work on dams. 
They work right on the river, which is kind of no man's land in our 
State. Halfway through the river sort of, it is supposed to be Oregon 
and halfway it is Washington. All these people get up each morning, 
they pick up their lunch pail, they go out and they work, and they get 
on the river.
  What Oregon decided to do was make them keep track of the time they 
walked back and forth across the river, depending on what they were 
doing, so they could pay part of it to Oregon income tax, although when 
they got in their car, went home to their families, bought their 
groceries, it was all in Washington State where they pay tax, drive on 
the roads and never do anything in Oregon.
  This is more unjust than it was for the poor railroad engineer, my 
husband. My husband used to have to go through this, breaking down his 
hours, breaking down his time, declining how much Oregon tax we paid. 
But he never, ever went to work in Oregon. It was when he drove his 
train into Oregon and back out again.
  Sometimes we do not need studies anymore. We have had major studies. 
We already looked at this issue extensively when we looked at this 
provision for truckers and railroaders and those that went back and 
forth across borders.

                              {time}  1345

  If that was just, this is more just, and it makes a whale of a lot of 
sense. Commonsense provisions for working families, that is what this 
Congress has been all about. You try to defend taxing a man and woman 
that goes to work, never gets any benefits out of a State, but they get 
their payroll check and they find 10 pervent went to a State that they 
do not live in.
  It does not make sense, it is not fair, it is taxation without 
representation, and that is the wherein we had a tea party. I urge my 
colleagues to vote ``yes'' for this. This makes sense.

[[Page H11632]]

  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would note that the other tax measures referred to by 
the prior speaker were indeed passed, but they were passed before I was 
here. Both the prior speaker and I are freshmen Members of the House of 
Representatives. Accordingly, I was not here in Congress to observe the 
hearings and to study those measures, nor were any of the freshmen 
Members.
  This may in fact be a good thing to do, or it may not be. The point I 
am making is that this measure received no scrutiny by the Committee on 
the Judiciary. It was introduced on March 26 of this year. The 
Committee on the Judiciary held no hearings, and held no markup. So I 
do not think it is the right process, frankly.
  I am one who always likes to achieve sensible, easy, streamlining. 
The problem here is that we do the not know if that is what this is in 
this case.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio].
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I guess my question would be if this is so 
simple and such a no-brainer, and there may well be some equity issues 
here, why was it not brought up under the famous Corrections Day 
procedure when some scrutiny could have been applied? Why is it being 
brought up with less than 24 hours notice the day of the adjournment of 
the House of Representatives to run home for reelections without 
reading or understanding what we are passing in the last 24 to 48 
hours?
  It is simple. This body is a full-blown majority party, and let us 
have a process that makes sense for the people of the United States. 
This bill might have good arguments, but the arguments have not been 
made. The State of Oregon and the State of Washington have not been 
heard before the committee.
  The persons to be impacted have not been heard before the committee. 
We have not understood the constitutional implications. I always heard 
States rights from that side of the aisle. States rights, States 
rights. We are preempting a State here today. What precedent are we 
setting by presenting one State with this? What other States have 
transborder issues?
  Washington State does not have an income tax. That is one of the 
issues before us is, these people do not pay income taxes in the State 
of Washington, because they do not have an income tax. There are many 
thousands of people that live across the border in Washington State who 
commute over the bridge to go daily to work, all the way over into 
Portland and other places across the river.
  So there is a host of issues here. Certain jurisdictions, cities, 
counties, and others, have commuter taxes. I do not know if any other 
States have them. I do not know if other States are in a similar 
situation. I do not believe anybody on that side of the aisle can 
answer that question if I ask it. No one knows, because no hearings 
were held, not a single one. If this is such a slam-dunk, you could 
have had one hearing, 2 hours, brought the bill up under Corrections, 
last week, the week before, back in July. Why not? This is wrong.
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Oregon has been very eloquent in his 
railing against the system that would try to ram a piece of legislation 
through without hearings, and yet I am sure, the veteran that he is, he 
recalls countless instances of unanimous consent, both when the 
Democrats were in charge of the House and when now that the Republicans 
are, where the gentleman may not have known, maybe he did, maybe not, 
the consent of the hundreds, hundreds of unanimous-consent agreements 
that have been reached between the parties that allow the House to act 
on something of simple justice, to move a piece of legislation along.
  We were under the impression when we came here that the gentleman 
from Oregon himself was not going to object. Second, that the 
Corrections Calendar gambit that we felt, as the gentleman has felt, 
might have been a proper procedure, was met with some distrust on his 
part or maybe he agreed not to allow it to be presented to the 
Corrections Calendar, something like that. But we were under the 
impression that the parties involved here, sensing the equity and 
justice inherent in this bill, agreed, much like a unanimous consent, 
in which the gentleman from Oregon perhaps has entered into in his 
veteran status on this floor, many, many times, maybe not, and maybe he 
has read all those documents that were inherent in those unanimous 
consents, maybe not. But now he has the courage to come and say to us 
they did not read the bill, there were no hearings on it, as if this 
was something we were foisting on the public for the first time in the 
history of the House of Representatives, when he knows that by 
unanimous consent, we, not he, we are not sure about him, we, other 
Members of the House, Democrat and Republicans, have agreed to let a 
simple agreement reach final stages.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he might consume to the gentleman 
from Washington [Mr. Nethercutt].
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, this debate really boils down to one simple question: 
Are we willing to allow blatant discrimination against Federal workers? 
I think the answer clearly to that question is simply no, we should not 
tolerate any State or organization which seeks to unfairly single out 
Federal workers for discriminatory tax treatment.
  That is what is happening here, Mr. Speaker. In addition, Congress 
has already spoken clearly on this issue. This past year we took much 
of the same approach in determining that seniors' pensions should be 
taxed by the State of residence.
  In 1990, this Congress resolved a remarkably similar situation 
affecting Amtrak workers who crossed State lines. At that time we 
determined that double taxation was not appropriate for Federal 
workers.
  This is no different. Washington citizens with their residence in 
Washington who happen to work in Oregon are being taxes by Oregon. 
Oregon would not tolerate it, and Washington should not either, and the 
Congress should not as well. It is a simple issue of fairness for these 
Federal workers, and something that we should have no problem 
supporting in this body.
  I want to thank not only the manager of this bill, but my colleague, 
the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Hastings], and the gentlewoman from 
Washington [Mrs. Smith] as well, who have really championed this cause 
of fairness for workers, fairness for all Federal workers, as they are 
imposed upon by unfair taxing obligations of a sister State.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Martinez].
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Speaker, let me say, I was listening in my office 
and I heard the opening statement made by the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas], and I was singularly impressed with the one 
statement that this is a commonsense idea.
  I do not have to have a lot of hearings and a brick does not have to 
fall on my head to know a good idea when I see it. This is a good idea. 
Let me explain from a very personal perspective.
  I have had a staff person working for me for 15 years, a staff 
director. In that time, 15 years, she has paid income tax in California 
and income tax in Virginia, because there is no reciprocal.
  There are a lot of Federal employees right here in our House, and on 
the Senate side too, I imagine, that are in exactly the same posture.
  Let me tell you something. It is unfair that people should pay double 
taxation. I though one of the ideas of our Constitution was to make 
sure people weren't double taxed.
  Now, I have never met a tax collector anywhere who would not argue 
that they needed the tax. Yes, they need the tax, but that is not the 
question. The question is equity. Why should a person pay taxes on 
income they did not earn in that State? That staff director earns that 
money here in Washington, DC, but she pays taxes in Virginia, and she 
pays taxes in California. Tell me how that is fair? That is not fair. 
And where this issue might open a Pandora's box to all kinds of people 
asking for the same exemption, I think all Federal employees should 
have this exemption. I see nothing wrong with that. I only see fairness 
and equity in it.
  I wish my colleagues on this side would see the fairness of it. This 
is not an issue that has to be partisan. This is an issue that has to 
deal with people who work for both our side and for their side and 
every side.

[[Page H11633]]

  I actually think the gentleman came forth with a good piece of 
legislation, and this may be an expedited way of getting it through, 
but hallelujah to him and hallelujah to people who will not wait on a 
prolonged system to bring about equity for people and justice for 
people who have suffered as long as my staff director has, for 15 
years, paying taxes in two places, earning that money in a different 
place altogether.
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California. He said it best 
thus far, and he has personal experience, does the gentleman from 
California, with a staffer, on the simple injustice which we are 
attempting to cure here today, albeit we did not conform to the 
procedures that the gentleman from Oregon would force upon us on a 
question that many times would have been cured by unanimous consent in 
any event.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to point out that when I began my 
statement this afternoon, I indicated that I was not going to object 
only because of the need here at the end of the session to move along, 
noting that the process is dreadful. I am a member of the subcommittee 
chaired by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas], and I know that 
we could have sorted through issues such as those raised by my 
colleague form California that are broad and potentially national in 
scope. I certainly would be willing to do that. But as I am hearing 
more and more, I am seeing that what in fact may be a sensible, small 
exception, has raised questions about a nationwide scheme.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio].
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, in response to my colleague on the opposite 
side of the aisle, there were a number of times when I objected to the 
procedures under my own majority party, and there were times I voted 
against continuing resolutions, because I said we had not been given 
the opportunity to read them and understand them even if they were 
written by Democrats in the majority.
  To say that because the Democrats, which I am fully willing to admit, 
at times abused their power or abused the rush to adjournment, then we 
should do it too, would it not be nice to change things around here? I 
thought we were going to have a revolution and do things in regular 
order.
  This is not something that began last week, last month, this year, 
last year. This bill was originally introduced by Jay Inslee from 
Washington when the Democrats were in the majority. It received no 
action then. For some reason, whatever reason, it received no action, 
no hearings, no markup.
  The esteemed gentleman from Pennsylvania chairs the subcommittee. I 
am certain in his busy schedule he could have found 2 hours, sometime 
in the last 6 months, to hold a hearing on this issue, and invite in 
the opposing parties and understand fully what we are entering into and 
doing here.
  But that was not done. That was not done. It was not done under the 
Democrats, it has not been done under the Republicans. The only 
difference is in this case a few Members from Washington, despite the 
fact the former Speaker was from Washington, apparently had more clout 
with the leadership and they can jam something through that has not had 
hearings, it has not been heard, and no one fully understands the 
implications of.
  The gentleman from California [Mr. Martinez] opened an extraordinary 
Pandora's box here with what he is proposing, although I think there is 
a mistake. I think his staffer needs a new accountant. When I was a 
staffer and lived in Maryland, I paid taxes in Oregon. They once asked 
me to pay taxes in Maryland and I sent them my Oregon return. They 
said, are you crazy? Your taxes are much higher. You should be paying 
taxes here, but since you paid taxes in Oregon, you do not have to pay 
them here. So I am a bit puzzled by what is happening to his poor 
staffer.
  But there are a whole host of issues here and a whole host of 
commuter taxes out there that are being paid across the country, and 
what precedent are we setting, if this is legal and constitutional?
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas, Ms. Sheila Jackson-Lee, a member of the committee.

                              {time}  1400

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from 
California for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise really on a point of inquiry that I will probably 
have a colloquy with myself on. The concern I have, and as a member of 
local government we had the same experience----
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. If the gentleman would be kind enough to 
let me finish.
  Mr. GEKAS. If the gentlewoman would yield, I simply want to tell her 
I am available for any inquiry that she might want to pose, and I would 
be glad to engage in a colloquy.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, having this experience with 
local government, we are familiar with the concept of one entity and 
its citizens benefiting by salary from another entity and the question 
of taxation. The question that I would raise that I think is important, 
even as we may be trying to remedy this for certain isolated areas, 
process is important.
  This does not fall into the category of correction or one that can be 
aptly categorized as appropriate for suspension, for as far as I may 
know this may be an appropriate procedure for the entire Nation.
  Have we determined that there is in fact a problem between Oregon and 
Washington? Have we determined in fact that that problem does not find 
itself relevant to California, to Texas, to Virginia, to Ohio, to New 
York? If we are doing this isolated legislation, why should it not then 
create an opportunity for precedent to solve problems across the 
Nation?
  I do not want double taxation, but what I am concerned about is that 
I am not being helped in the State of Texas. Those in Ohio are not 
being helped. Those in New York are not being helped. Those in the 
Washington-Virginia area are not being helped.
  So we have a piece of legislation that has no basis in credibility 
for us on the Federal level to be dealing with, without hearings, to 
suggest that there is need to correct the entire problem.
  I would hope that we would have an opportunity to address this not 
from the question of whether it is right or wrong, because I do not 
think anyone would rise to the floor of the House and support double 
taxation. They do raise the question, however, what is the precedent, 
the data, the basis for making this decision, whether there is a fair 
applicability of State laws in Oregon and Washington, and whether or 
not there is a penalty that is being assessed against those citizens by 
this legislation without precedence, hearing and process.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas] that the House suspend the 
rules and pass the bill, H.R. 3163.
  The question was taken.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 5 of rule I and the 
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be 
postponed.

                          ____________________