[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.
____________________