[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 92 (Thursday, June 26, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H4651-H4661]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF CONCURRENT RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR 
  ADJOURNMENT OF HOUSE AND SENATE FOR INDEPENDENCE DAY DISTRICT WORK 
                                 PERIOD

  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 176 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 176

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order, any rule of the House to the contrary 
     notwithstanding, to consider a concurrent resolution 
     providing for adjournment of the House and Senate for the 
     Independence Day district work period.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Upton). The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Linder) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley), 
pending which 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. Speaker, House Resolution 176 provides for the consideration in 
the House of a concurrent resolution providing for the adjournment of 
the House and Senate for the Independence Day district work period. All 
points of order are waived against the resolution and its 
consideration.
  As Members are aware, section 309 of the Budget Act states that the 
House cannot adjourn for more than 3 calendar days in July if it has 
not completed actions on all appropriations bills. In addition, section 
310 requires that reconciliation legislation if directed by the budget 
resolution, be completed before such an adjournment.
  Ordinarily, these two potential points of order against an 
adjournment resolution for the Fourth of July District Work Period are 
waived by unanimous consent. In fact, we attempted to work with the 
minority to reach an acceptable unanimous consent agreement. When we 
were in the minority, we consistently allowed these unanimous consent 
agreements. This year, however, the minority rejected our request.
  It is true that the Congress has not completed its work on the 
appropriations bills and the reconciliation legislation, and I guess I 
can understand the despondency of the minority. The past few days have 
not been enjoyable for those who support high taxes and big government 
solutions.
  However, these are extraordinary times for those of us who support 
the axiom that the Government is too big and spends too much. In fact, 
I would say that this Congress, more than any other, has led the way in 
exhibiting fiscal sanity.
  No, the appropriations bills and the reconciliation legislation are 
not yet complete. However, balancing the budget is more difficult than 
the practice of past Congresses, which simply passed irresponsible debt 
on to our grandchildren.
  America was headed for a future in which interest on the debt would 
surpass spending on the defense of our Nation, a future in which 
Medicare would go bankrupt by 2002, and a future which had taxpayers 
giving more and more of their hard-earned money to support a bloated 
Washington bureaucracy.
  Our Nation could have lost control of its destiny, but this Congress 
took action to save Medicare, pass a balanced budget and provide 
massive tax relief for our families. These are truly historic 
accomplishments.
  Independence Day is a time to celebrate the birth of this Nation and 
the perseverance of the Founding Fathers who fought the heavy hand of 
government and oppressive taxes. The budget passed by this Congress 
reduces the oppressive taxes on American families and balances the 
budget.
  Mr. Speaker, this resolution simply allows us to go home to our 
friends and neighbors to listen to what our constituents have to say 
about issues that are important to their lives. As we celebrate the 
birth of our Nation with them, I believe they will be very pleased to 
celebrate the triumph of lower taxes, less Government and more freedom.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. 
Linder] for yielding me the customary half hour, and I yield myself 
such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this resolution is one more way for the Republican 
leadership to go on vacation before their work is done. It is one more 
way for my Republican colleagues to get out of their responsibilities 
to the people of this country, and I think it is a bad idea. Normally 
adjournment resolutions are privileged, but in the rare cases when 
Congress fails to get its work done, the Budget Act kicks in and 
exposes these adjournment resolutions to points of order.
  According to the Budget Act, Mr. Speaker, the House cannot adjourn 
for more than 3 days unless it passes all its appropriations bills and 
unless the reconciliation bill has been signed into law. Mr. Speaker, 
we all know the appropriations bills are nowhere near finished.
  The first part of the reconciliation bill passed the House only last 
night and the second part of the reconciliation bill will be considered 
for the first time later today. The Senate has just started debating 
the reconciliation bill and the conference committee has not even met 
yet. In other words, Mr. Speaker, if you are waiting for these spending 
bills to be finished, please do not hold your breath.
  Mr. Speaker, the American people sent us to Congress to act 
responsibly and the Congressional Budget Act gives us some very 
specific responsibilities. Section 300 requires that Congress complete 
action on reconciliation legislation by June 15 and pass all 13 
appropriations bills by June 30. Mr. Speaker, this Congress has not 
even come close. The appropriations bills may not seem urgent now, but 
unless the House does its work and unless the House gives the Senate 
enough time to do its work, we will be approaching another September 30 
without all appropriations bills being signed. If we fail

[[Page H4652]]

to finish the appropriations bills and they are not signed into law, 
the American people could very well see their Government shut down for 
the third time under the Republican leadership's watch. All because the 
Republican leadership has not done their work.
  That is not the worst of it, Mr. Speaker. What the Republican 
leadership has done is even worse than what they have not done. This 
week the Republican leadership unveiled their tax and entitlement 
package and, Mr. Speaker, it does not look good. Under the Republican 
bill, the families of 40 percent of American children will get no tax 
relief because their income is too low.
  Let me add, Mr. Speaker, these people are not on welfare. These 
people actually work for a living. Meanwhile, according to the Center 
on Budget and Policy Priorities, the Republican bill provides 87 
percent of its benefits to the richest 20 percent of Americans while 
the 40 million families with the lowest income may actually lose money.
  Even the Treasury Department says that when this bill has been fully 
implemented, the top 1 percent of taxpayers will get nearly 20 percent 
of the benefits, and the bottom 60 percent will get only 12 percent of 
the benefits.
  Once again, Mr. Speaker, the Republican leadership is taking from the 
poor and the middle class and giving to the rich. It is a Robin Hood 
reversal. It does not stop there, Mr. Speaker. According to today's New 
York Times, a small provision in this Republican bill will take $9 
million and split it among 1,000 wealthy taxpayers. Some of these 
taxpayers actually stand to gain $100,000 each under this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, not 5 miles from here are American children who do not 
get enough to eat during the summer because they have lost their school 
lunches, but my Republican colleagues still want to hand those enormous 
tax breaks to the very richest Americans and hand just about nothing to 
the rest.
  Mr. Speaker, the American people do not think millionaires need more 
money. They think everyone else needs child tax credits and tuition tax 
credits. The American people do not think the richest 1 percent of 
Americans need a $27,000 tax break and certainly not if it is going to 
cost the poorest 20 percent of American families $63 apiece to give it 
to them. But that is exactly what my Republican colleagues want to do.
  On the other hand, Mr. Speaker, the House Democrats have put together 
a bill that gives tax relief to the people that really need it, the 
middle class, people who are trying to send their kids to college, 
working families, and family-owned businesses.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this resolution. This 
Congress should be helping the middle class and not padding the pockets 
of millionaires.

                              {time}  1030

  And we should have finished our work a long time ago.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to respond to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts who is so concerned that we have not 
completed our work.
  The same argument came up 1 year ago on this same issue because the 
Democrats at that time were again not cooperative on unanimous consent. 
My colleague, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Diaz-Balart], went back 6 
years prior to 1996 and discovered that not once, not once during those 
6 years were all 13 appropriations bills passed by the July recess; and 
indeed, if we go back 40 years, one time, 1988, were all the 
appropriations bills passed by the July recess.
  . . . .
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I take the gentleman's words down calling 
me dishonest.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I apologize and ask unanimous consent to 
withdraw the words.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the words are withdrawn.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the gentleman to look 
at the last year of Speaker Foley when we passed all 13 appropriations 
bills.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], the chairman of the Committee on 
Rules.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I will not withdraw my words. I am not 
going to impugn anybody's integrity. But I am going to talk about two 
kinds of baloney, two kinds. One is the baloney about why we are not 
going home this week and why we ought to stay here and work, because 
that is a lot of baloney; and then I am going to talk about complaining 
about the tax cuts, and let me tell my colleagues that is a lot of 
baloney on the other side of the aisle.
  Let us talk about it for a minute. First of all, the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley], my good friend, and I have the greatest 
respect for him, I literally love him. He is my ranking member over on 
the other side of the aisle. He sings little Irish ditties, and he 
really keeps us in a good mood, so I certainly would never impugn his 
integrity. But let me just say he mentioned something about how we 
ought to stay here and deal with this business.
  As my colleagues know, back in 1993 the Democrat-controlled House and 
the Democrat-controlled Senate and the Democrat-controlled White House 
under President Clinton gave us on October 10 the biggest tax increase 
in history. Now that was, I beg my colleagues' pardon, on August 10. 
Now that is several, a couple of months down the road yet, but we 
Republicans, having taken control of the House and the Senate, are now 
giving the American people one of the biggest tax cuts in American 
history, and we are doing it way ahead of that August 10 date. So boy, 
we are on line.
  So let us just talk for a minute about not having the work done. As 
my colleagues know, we have just passed the largest spending cut bill 
in centuries here; OK. Seven hundred billion dollars in entitlement 
controls; come over here and read them. And we had about 53 good 
Democrats vote for this yesterday along with the overwhelming majority 
of Republicans, and the President of the United States, thank goodness, 
is going to sign the bill over the objections of the big spenders on 
that side of the aisle.
  Now let us talk about the big spenders for a minute because I am 
going to sit here for the next hour and I am going to keep track of all 
of the people who come over here and start complaining about this tax 
cut; OK? Mr. Speaker, I want you to listen. These Members who oppose 
the tax cuts, keep in mind that every single one of them are going to 
be on the National Taxpayers Union's list of biggest spenders.
  Now why do my colleagues think they want to oppose this tax cut? 
Because they want to keep the money in the Federal coffers so that they 
can spend it and the American people cannot.
  Now let me tell my colleagues something about this tax cut here. 
There is a $500 tax credit for people with children. Now that means a 
family of 3, and in my Hudson River Valley municipalities all 157 of 
them, that is about what we are made up with; we are an average of a 
family with 3 children, and this is going to give them $500 per child 
tax credit every year for the next 15 years. Now add that up; that is 
$1,500 a year we are putting back into the pockets of that family, 15 
years. Quick calculation: that must add up to about $22,500 a year over 
15 years; and if they invest it properly, it is going to be worth maybe 
$40,000, $50,000 or $60,000 over 15 years. Do my colleagues know what 
that does at paying college tuitions?
  I just put five kids through college. My wife and I had five children 
in 7 years, and we struggled all those years to raise those children 
and then to put them through college. Let me tell my colleagues $65,000 
would have been a godsend to us, but we did not have this $1,500 tax 
credit at that time; we are going to get it today.
  So I want my colleagues to come over here, and I want them to do what 
is right for the American people. I want them to vote for this tax cut 
package. But in the meantime we are going to keep track of all of them 
that come over here, and they will be the biggest spenders in the 
Congress, and they will have been here for years spending the 
taxpayers' money. So let us just keep track of it, and then we are 
going to send it out to all their constituents and let them know that

[[Page H4653]]

our colleagues can spend their money better than they can.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, my chairman of the Committee on Rules and I are very, 
very friendly, and this debate is strictly on the issue. But actually 
up in his office, really being ourselves, we really do get along, and 
actually I was looking forward when he talked about baloney because I 
thought he was talking about the menu of those people that I represent. 
As my colleagues know, his people are going to be eating steaks when 
this tax bill goes through; my people are going to be eating baloney.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut 
[Ms. DeLauro].
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts 
for yielding the time.
  I also want to say that I do not think that the American people do 
believe it is baloney if we stay here and do the work they sent us to 
do here.
  House rules say that we cannot go on vacation until it is finished 
with appropriations work, and we know that the work has not been 
finished, otherwise we would not be here asking for a waiver. And the 
reason why the work is not finished is because what we have seen here 
is that the Republican majority has spent their time crafting a tax 
bill that in fact benefits the rich at the expense of average American 
families. And in fact we have a historic opportunity and the American 
public has an opportunity to take a look at what is in a Republican tax 
cut proposal and what is in a Democratic tax cut proposal because the 
Democrats in fact have a very sound and solid tax cut proposal.
  My colleagues on the other side of the aisle accuse us of waging 
class warfare in this debate, but in fact it is the Republican tax bill 
that is a declaration of war on working middle-class families in 
America. Under the Republican bill, over half the tax benefits go to 
the top 5 percent of Americans, those making an average of $250,000 a 
year. And quite honestly what this bill does, it gives a $22 billion 
tax break to the largest businesses and corporations in the United 
States by scaling back the alternative minimum tax which was in fact 
proposed and supposed to ensure that large corporations pay at least 
some taxes the way that ordinary working families pay taxes in this 
country every year.
  But do not just take my word for it. Let us take a look at this 
morning's headlines. The Washington Post: No to a bad tax bill. And I 
quote: ``The tax bill will be the great atrocity'', is what the 
Washington Post says this morning. The New York Times, quote: ``Break 
for a few rich, for the rich few, sneaks into the tax cut bill''. We 
are going to see $9 million a year in lost revenue to the United States 
to give a bonanza worth thousands of dollars to 1,000 wealthy 
taxpayers. What about working middle-class families in this country?
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. DeLAURO. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I think the gentlewoman asked 
the absolutely pertinent question here, what about working middle-class 
families, and it is pointed out in this morning's Wall Street Journal. 
What we see is people who were earning $23,000 a year with two children 
will find that at the end of that year they will not get the benefits 
of this child's tax credit, they will not get the benefits because the 
Republicans have decided that the benefits will only go to those 
individuals at the top levels.
  Rather than sharing this tax cut, rather than sharing the money that 
is now being accumulated because of the efforts to balance the budget 
over the last 5 years with these middle-class families, they have 
decided, as the gentlewoman pointed out, that half of the benefits will 
go to the top 5 percent of the people in this country.
  And so people who are going to work every day as law enforcement 
officials, as fire protection people, as teachers, as oil refinery 
workers are going to find out that they will not qualify for that.
  In fact, in my State of California 56 percent of the children will 
not be eligible for the child tax credit, and I think that is what is 
going to happen to working families, and I thank the gentlewoman for 
pointing that out.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. DeLAURO. I yield to my colleague from New Jersey.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to say I am looking at some 
figures with regard to New York State, the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Solomon] who spoke before on the Republican side. It says that tax 
plans, the child credit, the child credit under the Republican plan 
would exclude 53 to 56 percent of the children in New York State; 
3,183,357 New York kids will be ineligible under the House plan for the 
child tax credit. This is from Citizens for Tax Justice, a nonpartisan 
Washington-based research organization that released a study today 
showing that the proposed child credit in the pending House of 
Representatives tax plan would exclude 56 percent of New York children. 
The Senate bill would exclude 53 percent. Obviously the families of New 
York have been promised a child tax credit for 3 years, but now many of 
them, the majority of them will actually get nothing.
  Ms. DeLAURO. That is absolutely right. I just say that there is a Los 
Angeles Times article this morning: Take from the poor give to the 
rich. The current Republican tax and entitlement package denies help to 
28 million working families.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. DeLAURO. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues ought to make 
clear the basis on which the Republicans are denying these families 
that participation in the tax cut. They are apparently under the 
impression that Social Security payroll taxes are not taxes but are a 
voluntary gift that the lowest earning people in America make to the 
Government. What the Republican bill does is to say that people who get 
the earned income tax credit will not be eligible on the whole for this 
other credit.
  Now the earned income tax credit was something that Ronald Reagan 
thought well of, but the current group has made some of us who believe 
in moderation nostalgic for Mr. Reagan from time to time because what 
they say is this. The earned income tax credit compensates people who 
have families, by and large, who make 20 and 25 and $26,000 a year and 
who pay the highest percentage of their income in taxes of any of us 
because every penny they make is fully taxed under the Social Security 
payroll tax. And what the earned income tax credit does is offset to 
some extent the regressiveness of the Social Security payroll tax, and 
people who get the earned income tax credit, they do not get the earned 
income tax credit unless they are working or paying payroll tax on all 
of their income and they are then getting some credit for that less 
than the aggressiveness. And the Republicans are now saying, ``If 
that's your situation, you're not a taxpayer.'' They said we cannot 
give this to people, they do not pay taxes.
  Mr. Speaker, if Social Security payroll taxes are not taxes, then I 
guess we need a new dictionary and that is how it becomes so 
regressive. What they are saying to people is, ``You are paying these 
very aggressive Social Security taxes,'' for which, by the way, 
according to the Senate they have to wait a couple more years to get 
anything for medical care, ``and we are going to deny you as a 
consequence of that the tax credit.''
  Ms. DeLAURO. I will just say that, if we are Bill Gates we are going 
to get a tax credit, but a police officer who is making $23,000 a year 
who might be happy to get the earned income tax, paying taxes, is going 
to be denied a child tax credit.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. The argument that we have heard from 
Republicans, from the Speaker, and others that, ``Oh, you shouldn't 
give the tax credit to these people who don't pay any taxes,'' they 
forget to say income taxes or capital gains taxes, that is true. Very 
few of these people making 23 and $24,000 a year are paying capital 
gains taxes. They are paying the Social Security taxes in the most 
aggressive way; that is the group of people who are getting hurt by 
this.

[[Page H4654]]

  Mr. MILLER of California. The fact is many young families starting 
out with young children pay more in payroll taxes, Social Security than 
they pay in income taxes. But the Republican plan will not give them 
the benefit of the $500 child credit.
  What does that mean? That means that these working families making 
20, $25,000 a year are going to find themselves without the benefit of 
this. They still have two young children. They are still struggling 
hard. But the Republicans do not understand that because one does not 
make a lot of money does not mean they do not work hard. They work very 
hard and they pay the most regressive taxes, and they refuse to give 
the child credit to those families.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, if the gentlewoman will 
continue to yield, the gentleman is absolutely right, and I think what 
we have here is something we can offer up to the dictionary. This is 
the definition of adding insult to injury. These working people who 
work in hard jobs at relatively low wages are injured by the Republican 
bill by being denied the tax credit that everybody else gets. Even if 
they have two and three children, their children do not qualify, and 
then they are insulted by being characterized as people who do not work 
and as simply tax eaters.

                              {time}  1045

  I would just close by saying we have this national effort, I thought, 
to help people get off welfare and into the wage-earning pool. Well, it 
is precisely the formal welfare recipients who are being told to go to 
work, who are being required to go to work, who will then be penalized 
by the way the Republican tax bill is crafted, because they will go to 
work at the beginning at relatively low wages, will pay a full Social 
Security tax for every penny they earn, but not get the tax credit.
  Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. DeLAURO. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I share my colleague's concern. I too am 
appalled when I hear the Republicans suggest that the Democratic tax 
plan amounts to welfare. It is basically tax fairness. They are giving 
all of the tax breaks to the wealthy. The top 5 percent are getting 
over 50 percent of the tax breaks under their proposal, and then when 
we say that the Democratic alternative provides tax relief for the 
truly working middle class, they suggest it is welfare.
  I did a little research and an article in the Wall Street Journal 
indicated that a police officer in Gwinnett County, GA, incidentally 
the Speaker's district, makes about $23,000 a year. Under their 
program, he is not eligible for a tax break, yet he pays payroll taxes. 
He is, in fact, the working middle class of people who are excluded by 
the proposal of the Republicans.
  Basically what they are offering us is not tax relief for Americans, 
it is tax relief for the rich. My grandmother used to say when I was a 
kid, the rich get richer, the poor get poorer. I think we are seeing it 
in action today.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. DeLAURO. I yield to the gentlewoman from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. Speaker, if I could just add to that, that police 
officer making $23,000 is getting a tax benefit through something 
called earned income tax credit. The Republican plan is saying, if one 
is getting one tax deduction, one cannot get a second, meaning the $500 
children's tax credit as we see it.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. DeLAURO. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to say I have just been handed 
an item from the Citizens For Tax Justice, which is a nonpartisan 
Washington-based research group, saying that 897,000 Massachusetts 
children would be ineligible under the House plan, and 850,000 would be 
ineligible under the Senate plan. That is 48 percent of Massachusetts' 
children ineligible under the House plan and 46 percent ineligible 
under the Senate plan. This is not a good bill for children.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. DeLAURO. I yield to the gentlewoman from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. Speaker, if I might just continue in talking about 
fairness, when we each do our taxes, we use tax deductions. What the 
Republican plan is saying is if one gets one tax deduction, one cannot 
get the $500 children's tax credit; but yet if one makes three times 
that salary and one gets a lot of different tax deductions, one gets 
the $500. That makes absolutely no sense. For those on the upper end 
who get lots of tax deductions, they ought to be treated the same, or 
the folks at the low end who ought to get a couple breaks ought to get 
the same benefit of the $500.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the 1,000 families who 
are going to get some, and it is quoted in the article today, could get 
up to $100,000 in that particular tax cut and are probably going to get 
many others.
  I think another area which is important to mention in this debate is 
that with the Democratic tax cut proposal, we are going to see working 
families who want to get their kids to school and provide education for 
their kids; education in this country has been the great equalizer to 
allow families to be able to have their kids succeed.
  The Democratic proposal is for the full $1,500 tax credit for college 
students, where the Republican proposal would cut that in half, would 
not allow working families to realize a HOPE scholarship and provide 
them with all of the help they might be able to get to get their kids 
to school.
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. DeLAURO. I yield to the gentleman from Maine.
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman makes a very good point. 
Because in fact, the HOPE credit, the HOPE scholarship would be offset, 
reduced dollar for dollar by the amount of a Pell grant. So here again 
we have the same situation, where if one gets a Pell grant one cannot 
get the full benefit of a HOPE scholarship.
  It seems to me that this Republican tax bill ought to be judged by 
two standards. One is fairness and the other is fiscal responsibility. 
We have talked a fair bit about fairness.
  This bill provides 41 percent of its benefits to the top 1 percent of 
the taxpayers, those whose household incomes are over $240,000 a year. 
In contrast, 20 percent of those in lower tax brackets would not 
receive any benefit. It is simply not fair.
  Also, in terms of fiscal responsibility, we look out at the second 10 
years, and we are going to be giving up $500 to $600 million in tax 
revenues that is not going to help a balanced budget. We need a 
balanced budget that we can get to and stay with, and these tax cuts 
explode in the outyears, they are not fiscally responsible, and they 
ought to be rejected for that reason as well.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes just to 
respond to some of these remarks we have been hearing.
  The liberals have always trotted out liberal so-called nonpartisan 
organizations to argue against letting people keep more of what they 
earn, and we are seeing it now. How do these people get wealthy? Let me 
tell my colleagues how the administration determines who is wealthy.
  They determine what one's income is, say it is $50,000 a year, and 
then the Treasury Department says, but, aha, if one is living in one's 
own home and one could rent it for $10,000, one must consider that as 
more income, even though one does not get it. If one owns an asset that 
has appreciated in value and have not sold it, their proposal says, if 
it has grown in value, one must consider that as part of one's annual 
wealth. So they have bogused up these numbers to make everybody appear 
wealthy so they can transfer more money as welfare to the poor. This is 
an effort to undermine last year's welfare reform.
  I would like to also point out that their arguments go against the 
Joint Tax Committee's argument, which is the only official organ for 
determining distribution tables. The Joint Tax Committee says the 
following: Ninety-three percent of the benefits go to people with 
incomes of less than $100,000 a year; 76 percent of the benefits go to 
people with incomes below $75,000 a year. That simply is a fact. It is 
not a comfortable fact for liberals, but it is a fact.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
Scarborough].

[[Page H4655]]

  Mr. SCARBOROUGH. Mr. Speaker, I do not know what it is, maybe it is 
the summer heat, maybe it is the 50th anniversary of Roswell, but the 
Democrats, the liberals, actually the radicals that control this party 
are crawling out from underneath their rocks and once again showing why 
they were voted out in 1994.
  Here we have people that increase the crushing tax burden on the 
American family from 10 percent when they gain control to something 
like 50.2 percent, according to NTU, in 1994, lecturing us on taxes. 
They gave us the highest tax increase in the history of this country a 
few years ago, and yet they are still talking about how if we actually 
give tax relief to Americans, that it is going to crush the poor 
children 5 miles from the Capitol.
  I think they have got it backward. The children 5 miles from the 
Capitol that are suffering are suffering because of higher taxes and 
bigger Government spending and more regulations that they are going to 
shove down the American people's throats this summer. I think if they 
talk about the problems in south central L.A. or in Chicago, it is 
because government has failed, the big taxing and big spending policies 
have failed.
  Let me challenge every one of these big spenders, every one of these 
people that have supported taxes over the years, to stand up and tell 
us how much they care about the children 5 miles from this Capitol when 
the delegate from Washington, DC begged for tax relief. The gentlewoman 
from the District of Columbia said please, give us a flat tax. Please 
cut taxes in Washington, DC. She was abandoned by every single liberal 
that stands up here today and acts as if they really do care about what 
happens 5 miles from this Capitol; and no, I am anticipating the 
gentleman's question, I will not yield. My colleagues on the other side 
of the aisle all have already put on their sideshow.
  I want somebody that stood up a few minutes ago talking about how 
much they care about the residents of this inner city and the residents 
of inner cities all over the country to stand up and tell me that yes, 
they do support the tax plan of the gentlewoman from the District of 
Columbia [Ms. Norton] for tax reduction in this city.
  My colleagues cannot have it both ways. They cannot say sure, we want 
to help them, and yet every time there is a chance to cut taxes and 
give tax relief to American people, my colleagues fight it time and 
time again.
  This is not about protecting the poor. My colleagues know that tax 
relief has helped the poor. History has shown it time and time again. 
This is about protecting the coffers of the Federal Treasury and 
keeping more and more money in Washington, DC and not allowing it to 
get out.
  Again, I challenge anybody, and I especially challenge the ranking 
member who I am sure does sing really good Irish ditties, and a man 
that I respect watching him work, I challenge him. I would challenge 
the ranking member and again, any other liberal that stood up here 
opposing tax relief talking about how they care about what happens 5 
miles from Washington, DC to stand up and say yes, we will support the 
plan of the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia [Ms. Norton] for 
a flat tax in Washington, DC. If so, then I think that is a good start 
to agree that Americans need tax relief.
  Like the Delegate from Washington, DC recognizes herself, big 
spending, big taxing, big government has failed. What Americans need 
now is tax relief, and tax relief helps everybody.
  My colleagues just cannot have it both ways. They cannot quote 
liberal columnists like Al Hunt, they cannot quote liberal agencies run 
by, I believe, Ralph Nader, and then come in here and say they want to 
help people in the inner cities when they turn their backs on the very 
delegates from those inner cities who beg for tax relief.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I am glad my colleague brought that up. What he is talking about is 
exactly what I am going to do. The Democratic alternative does help 
these children 5 miles from here. The Rangel alternative does help 
these children 5 miles from here, but it does not give those 1,000 
people up to $100,000 additional tax break.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], chairman of the Committee on 
Rules.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I have some good news for my 
colleagues. Well, no, it is not good news for the big spenders, because 
the Supreme Court a few minutes ago, within the last hour, just threw 
out the case of the opponents of the line-item veto for lack of 
standing. Whoopee. We won another one.
  Now, let us just answer some of the people here that are talking 
about people with children are not going to get this tax cut, this $500 
tax credit. Again, here we go with the baloney again. Anybody paying 
Federal income taxes is going to get that tax cut, make no mistake 
about it.
  Now, we are also hearing about this 5 percent, that all of the tax 
cuts are going to 5 percent of the most rich. Let me state the facts 
for you. Seventy-two percent of these tax cuts in this bill are going 
to people with incomes between $20,000 and $70,000, and that means 
people on Social Security as well, who may be working and paying a 
little income tax as well.
  Mr. Speaker, I heard the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] 
stand up here and talk about the regressiveness of the Social Security 
payroll tax. Well, what is the payroll tax and why was it established 
under Franklin Delano Roosevelt? It was a forced savings account so 
that the American people, all of them who work, would have to save a 
little bit for the rainy day so that they would not become wards of the 
State and the rest of us who did save would have to end up supporting 
them.

                              {time}  1100

  That is what it is all about. Nothing regressive about it. It means 
that with the first few thousand dollars of your income you are going 
to put away a little bit of that. That is the way it should be.
  Now people are complaining that maybe some people with incomes of 
$25,000 do not pay any income tax and therefore they do not get this 
credit. Let me tell them what we are going to do. In this spending cut 
bill we are cutting back on Federal regulation.
  If Members look at the other taxes they pay in town, city, village, 
and county taxes and all of the fees, it is caused mostly by this 
Federal Government, their mandates. We are not going to mandate on 
local governments anymore, forcing them to raise land taxes.
  So come on over here, vote for this tax cut bill, and let us give it 
to the President. I have a feeling he is going to sign it.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
South Dakota [Mr. Thune].
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, I was sitting in my office listening to the debate that 
was going on over here, and I could not help but feel the need to come 
over and respond. There is a lot of liberal drivel going on in this 
Chamber right now. I cannot help but get up here and say something in 
response to that.
  If I were on the other side I would be crushed, too, I really would. 
Because we have worked with their President to balance the budget, 
lower taxes, and save Medicare. This is an indictment of big 
Government. We are saying today we are interested in doing something to 
address a problem that has been around this place for 30 years. We have 
not had the courage to balance the budget, to lower the tax burden, or 
to address a bigger and bigger Government in this country.
  I cannot help but listen as well and respond to what is being said 
about trying to somehow gear this thing so that it affects people in 
lower-income categories.
  People in my State, in South Dakota, understand the difference 
between the income tax and the payroll tax. You pay 6.2 percent of your 
income when you get a payday, so you will have a security program, a 
retirement program when you retire. You pay 1.45 percent so you will 
have a health care program when you retire. You are paying that for a 
benefit. You cannot have a tax credit if you do not pay taxes.
  What this simply says, and I think the distinction, the difference we 
are

[[Page H4656]]

drawing here is that we want to bring tax relief to people who are 
paying taxes, and they want to increase payments, welfare payments, to 
people who are not. It is that simple. You cannot have it that way. If 
you are going to have a tax credit, you have to pay taxes.
  I used the illustration last night, if we told people with red hair 
they were going to get a tax credit, my daughter would qualify. But she 
does not pay taxes, so she cannot get a tax credit. The Medicare and 
Social Security payment are retirement programs that people pay into so 
they will get a benefit later on. They cannot have a tax credit unless 
they are paying taxes.
  I would say to my colleagues here that we have a definition problem. 
We have a definition problem here, because we have to draw a 
distinction between a tax credit and a government payment. The earned 
income tax credit today, 80 percent of it is a payment. It is not a 
credit. Let us make that very, very clear. So people who are currently 
getting an earned income tax credit are already offsetting the payroll 
tax they pay in Social Security and Medicare.
  What the gentleman is saying is that he wants to give them another 
$500 payment on top of them. That is not a tax credit, that is a 
government payment. There is an important distinction here which needs 
to be made. I am getting tired of listening to the rhetoric on the 
other side.
  This ought to be a great day for America. They ought to be working 
with us balancing the budget, lowering taxes. I was just looking at 
some statistics from the IRS here. Thirty-seven percent of the taxes 
are paid by people who make less than $75,000. The balance, 63 percent, 
is paid by those who make more than that. Yet 76 percent of the tax 
relief in this package goes to people who make less than $75,000.
  This is a good day for America, it is a good day for taxpayers. It is 
a good day for this institution. We ought to be working together to get 
this job done.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Boehner].
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I think we need to take a deep breath and 
all calm down a little bit, because all we are talking about doing is 
allowing the American people to keep a little more of what they earn so 
they do not have to send it to Washington.
  I understand some of my friends on the other side of the aisle do not 
really want to do that because they want more Washington spending. I do 
not denigrate the position that they have taken for 60 years, that 
Washington has the answers and we have to get this money to Washington 
so Washington can do great things for us. Most of us in this Chamber, 
Democrats and Republicans, believe it is time to allow the American 
people to make more of those decisions on their own.
  So this package today that lowers taxes, the first tax cut from 
Washington in 16 years, is aimed at American middle-class taxpayers who 
are bearing the biggest burden today.
  What does this plan do? It provides an IRA for parents who pay taxes 
who want to send their children to college. It lets them save tax-free. 
It provides a tax credit for parents who are sending their children on 
to college or other postsecondary education. It provides a $500 per 
child tax credit to American families that make under, roughly, 
$100,000.
  Fourth, homeowners, it allows someone to sell their home, and 95 
percent of the American people who own homes are going to be able to 
sell their homes and not pay any tax on the gain from the sale of their 
home.
  What we are trying to do here is to try to help every taxpayer in the 
country at every stage of their life. Whether they are parents with 
children, trying to raise them, parents with children trying to send 
them to college, whether it is people trying to save for their own 
retirement, with our cut in capital gains taxes and the cut in the 
taxes on the sale of their home, we are trying to help all taxpayers. 
This is good policy.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague, the 
gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Norwood].
  Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, I think for a long time we have been trying to make an 
effort to let people who pay taxes keep more of their own hard-earned 
money. Yet all we hear is that all of this is for the rich. Let us talk 
about what ``rich'' means.
  Mr. Speaker, 2.4 million elementary and high school teachers have 
family incomes, and they are considered rich; 1.7 million union members 
have family incomes, and they are considered rich; 8.1 million Federal, 
State, and local government workers have family incomes, and they are 
considered rich; 120,000 editors and reporters across the country are 
considered rich; and 4.2 million mechanics and repairmen and 
construction workers have family incomes that under the 
administration's definition of rich, they are considered rich.
  I would like to ask, if I might, for anybody on that side to stand up 
and when they say we are returning money to the rich, define what they 
mean by rich. If Members believe we should have everybody receive a 
$500 per child tax credit, even those who do not pay taxes, they should 
be honest enough to call it what they are talking about. They are 
talking about a welfare program.
  What we are trying to do is return some of the hard-earned money that 
working people in this country earn who work every day. If Members want 
other children and other families who are not paying taxes to have a 
$500 per child tax credit, say so, but be honest about it. Call it what 
it is. It is a welfare program.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey [Mr. Pallone].
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I listened to the gentleman from Georgia, 
and I want to point out exactly the type of person that the Democrats 
are trying to help, the person who is out there working.
  We mentioned the Georgia policeman. This is from the Wall Street 
Journal today. This is a starting police officer in Gwinnett County, 
GA, coincidentally part of Speaker Gingrich's district. He is paid 
$23,078 a year. If his family has two kids, it gets $1,668 in earned 
income tax credit, this is the deduction we were talking about before, 
which offsets his $675 in Federal taxes, and yields a check for $993. 
But that family pays $1,760 in payroll taxes, and another $354 in 
Federal excise taxes. That is even after this deduction that we are 
talking about.
  The out-of-pocket Federal taxes for this family would be at least 
$1,121 a year, and in reality, more like $2,800 a year. What we are 
saying is that that policeman right now, under this Republican 
proposal, does not get that $500 deduction, the child tax credit. That 
person is paying payroll taxes to the Federal Government, excise taxes 
to the Federal Government. The gentleman is saying that that Georgia 
policeman, who is out there every day on the line, is a welfare 
recipient. That is exactly what the gentleman is saying. That is what 
the Democrats are saying is not right.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PALLONE. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, we are of course back here today to discuss 
another wreckconciliation bill. We are having another big wreck in 
Congress, even bigger than the one yesterday; and of course it is true 
that the liberals in Washington are causing this wreck, those who are 
so liberal with the truth that they defy reality.
  I would ask the gentleman, in light of some of those who had been so 
liberal in the truth, if he is aware of a time in American history, in 
the entire history of this country, when a majority party would come to 
this floor and ask to adjourn for a week or 10 days and not have passed 
one single appropriations bill, not one? Is the gentleman aware of any 
time in American history when that has happened?
  We are not talking about passing them automatically, but not passing 
a single bill; but they are leaving, are they not, presenting a present 
to the limousine crowd in giving them a tax break? I am sure the 
gentleman from New Jersey, like me, we have nothing against limousines, 
we have nothing against country clubs. We just think if tax cuts are so 
good, why not share them with the working families of America and give 
them a chance to climb up the economic ladder and have a limousine of 
their own? Is that not correct?

[[Page H4657]]

  Mr. PALLONE. Exactly. I appreciate that.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PALLONE. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, under the original Contract 
With America, that police officer was going to get that tax credit. But 
what they decided this year was they wanted to give more money to the 
wealthy, so they had to cut that police officer out of their tax plan, 
but that was the original promise in the Contract With America. They 
just decided they would rather deal with the people on Wall Street 
instead of the people on Main Street.
  Mr. PALLONE. I would add also, Mr. Speaker, that Senator Lott in his 
Republican plan early this year, just like the Contract With America, 
also promised that child credit to that Georgia policeman. So now all 
of a sudden the Republican leadership has changed its mind, because 
they want to give that money to the fat cats, to their wealthy 
contributors.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PALLONE. I yield to the gentlewoman from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. Speaker, I find it humorous, as a new Member coming 
in in January from Michigan, to hear the word ``liberal'' thrown around 
all the time. I want Members to know that for someone coming from 
Michigan who was in the State Senate, I sponsored the State's largest 
property tax cut as a Democrat. I understand what middle-class tax cuts 
look like and feel like. This is not it.
  As the gentleman knows, we are talking about what we want to see 
happen for average folks, to put money in their pocket, to send their 
kids to school, pay for child care, be able to get a tax break when 
they sell their home, be able to get a tax break on their small 
business, if someone passes away, be able to get a tax break on their 
family-owned business and their family-owned farm. What we are talking 
about here is how we make sure that the majority of the dollars that 
keep this country going, to create jobs, go directly into the pockets 
of middle class Americans. Is that not what we are talking about?
  Mr. PALLONE. Absolutely. The gentlewoman pointed out, we were only 
talking about Federal taxes, payroll taxes, excise taxes. That Georgia 
policeman is probably paying property taxes. He may be paying other 
State or local taxes. They are saying he is on welfare.
  Ms. STABENOW. Not only that, he probably is investing in a home. Most 
middle class Americans are investing in savings through equity in their 
homes, and we want to make sure they are getting the tax breaks; that 
when you talk about capital gains tax cuts, that he is going to get 
protected when he sells his home; if he wants to send his kids to 
college, he is going to get the maximum tax break, and that if he goes 
on to invest in a small business at some point, he is again going to 
get a maximum tax break.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PALLONE. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, our colleagues on the other side are so 
concerned that a starting police officer at $23,000 or a young teacher 
at $23,000 might get a tax credit for their children, but they are not 
concerned that the changes they are making in the alternative minimum 
tax would give tax rebates to large corporations like Texas Utilities, 
that did not pay a penny in Federal taxes.
  The only reason they paid $19 million on their $1 billion profit was 
the AMT, and their repeal of the AMT will give them a tax rebate of $18 
million on taxes they did not even pay, and we do not have a penny for 
the police officer or a penny for the young teacher. It is outrageous.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PALLONE. I yield to the gentleman from Connecticut.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, the question is about choices: are we 
going to give the policeman a choice of buying his family and kids new 
clothes for school or having a decent diet, or is somebody going to be 
able to extend their European vacation going over on the Concorde? 
Where is this House at? Are we going to help people who have to take 
care of kids and the basic needs of a family, while the wealthiest 
Americans are trying to figure out whether they can extend their trip 
to London for the weekend?
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Solomon].

                              {time}  1115

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, it shows that some people are watching C-
SPAN. I just got a call from one of my constituents making $23,500. He 
said he hears Members on the Democrat side railing about the excise 
taxes and the payroll taxes. He said, ``Why don't you cut those, 
Jerry?'' I said, I will be glad to. Just let them make these amendments 
in order, offer them and we will accept them.
  We want to cut everybody's taxes, all kinds of taxes, and that is why 
we have got this bill. The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley], 
the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro], the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Miller], the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Wynn], the 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank], the gentleman from 
Connecticut [Mr. Gejdenson], the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio], 
all the bigger spenders in the Congress, according to the National 
Taxpayers Union.
  I include the entire list of big spenders for the Record.

             National Taxpayers Union Big Spenders of 1993


                                alabama

       Rep. Tom Bevill.
       Rep. Robert E. Cramer.
       Rep. Earl F. Hilliard.


                                arizona

       Rep. Karan English.
       Rep. Ed Pastor.


                                arkansas

       Sen. Dale Bumpers.
       Sen. David Pryor.
       Rep. Ray Thornton.


                               california

       Sen. Barbara Boxer.
       Sen. Dianne Feinstein.
       Rep. Xavier Becerra.
       Rep. Howard L. Berman.
       Rep. George E. Brown.
       Rep. Ronald V. Dellums.
       Rep. Julian C. Dixon.
       Rep. Don Edwards.
       Rep. Anna G. Eshoo.
       Rep. Sam Farr.
       Rep. Vic Fazio.
       Rep. Bob Filner.
       Rep. Dan Hamburg.
       Rep. Jane Harman.
       Rep. Tom Lantos.
       Rep. Matthew G. Martinez.
       Rep. Robert T. Matsui.
       Rep. George Miller.
       Rep. Norman Y. Mineta.
       Rep. Nancy Pelosi.
       Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard.
       Rep. Pete Stark.
       Rep. Esteban E. Torres.
       Rep. Walter R. Tucker.
       Rep. Maxine Waters.
       Rep. Henry A. Waxman.
       Rep. Lynn Woolsey.


                                colorado

       Sen. Ben Nighthorse Campbell.
       Rep. David E. Skaggs.


                              connecticut

       Sen. Christopher J. Dodd.
       Rep. Rosa DeLauro.
       Rep. Sam Gejdenson.
       Rep. Barbara B. Kennelly.


                                delaware

       Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr.


                                florida

       Sen. Bob Graham.
       Rep. Jim Bacchus.
       Rep. Corrine Brown.
       Rep. Peter Deutsch.
       Rep. Sam M. Gibbons.
       Rep. Alcee L. Hastings.
       Rep. Harry A. Johnston.
       Rep. Carrie P. Meek.
       Rep. Pete Peterson.
       Rep. Karen L. Thurman.


                                georgia

       Rep. Sanford D. Bishop.
       Rep. George Darden.
       Rep. John Lewis.
       Rep. Cynthia A. McKinney.


                                 hawaii

       Sen. Daniel K. Akaka.
       Sen. Daniel K. Inouye.
       Rep. Neil Abercrombie.
       Rep. Patsy T. Mink.


                                illinois

       Sen. Carol Moseley-Braun.
       Sen. Paul Simon.
       Rep. Cardiss Collins.
       Rep. Richard J. Durbin.
       Rep. Lane Evans.
       Rep. Luis V. Gutierrez.
       Rep. Mel Reynolds.
       Rep. Dan Rostenkowski.
       Rep. Bobby L. Rush.

[[Page H4658]]

       Rep. George E. Sangmeister.
       Rep. Sidney R. Yates.


                                indiana

       Rep. Frank McCloskey.
       Rep. Peter J. Visclosky.


                                  iowa

       Sen. Tom Harkin.
       Rep. Neal Smith.


                                 kansas

       Rep. Dan Glickman.


                                kentucky

       Sen. Wendell H. Ford.
       Rep. Romano L. Mazzoli.


                               louisiana

       Sen. John B. Breaux.
       Sen. J. Bennett Johnston.
       Rep. Cleo Fields.
       Rep. William J. Jefferson.


                                 maine

       Sen. George J. Mitchell.
       Rep. Thomas H. Andrews.


                                maryland

       Sen. Barbara A. Mikulski.
       Sen. Paul S. Sarbanes.
       Rep. Benjamin L. Cardin.
       Rep. Steny H. Hoyer.
       Rep. Kweisi Mfume.
       Rep. Albert R. Wynn.


                             massachusetts

       Sen. Edward M. Kennedy.
       Sen. John Kerry.
       Rep. Barney Frank.
       Rep. Joseph P. Kennedy.
       Rep. Edward J. Markey.
       Rep. Joe Moakley.
       Rep. Richard E. Neal.
       Rep. John W. Olver.
       Rep. Gerry E. Studds.


                                michigan

       Sen. Carl Levin.
       Sen. Donald W. Riegle Jr.
       Rep. David E. Bonior.
       Rep. Bob Carr.
       Rep. Barbara-Rose Collins.
       Rep. John Conyers.
       Rep. John D. Dingell.
       Rep. William D. Ford.
       Rep. Dale E. Kildee.
       Rep. Sander M. Levin.


                               minnesota

       Sen. Paul Wellstone.
       Rep. James L. Oberstar.
       Rep. Martin Olav Sabo.
       Rep. Bruce F. Vento.


                              mississippi

       Rep. G.V. Montgomery.
       Rep. Bennie Thompson.
       Rep. Jamie L. Whitten.


                                missouri

       Rep. William L. Clay.
       Rep. Richard A. Gephardt.
       Rep. Ike Skelton.
       Rep. Harold L. Volkmer.
       Rep. Alan Wheat.


                                montana

       Sen. Max Baucus.
       Rep. Pat Williams.


                                 nevada

       Sen. Harry Reid.
       Rep. James Bilbray.


                               new jersey

       Rep. Robert Menendez.
       Rep. Donald M. Payne.
       Rep. Robert G. Torricelli.


                               new mexico

       Rep. Bill Richardson.


                                new york

       Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan.
       Rep. Gary L. Ackerman.
       Rep. Eliot L. Engel.
       Rep. Floyd H. Flake.
       Rep. Maurice D. Hinchey.
       Rep. George J. Hochbrueckner.
       Rep. Nita M. Lowey.
       Rep. Thomas J. Manton.
       Rep. Michael R. McNulty.
       Rep. Jerrold Nadler.
       Rep. Major R. Owens.
       Rep. Charles B. Rangel.
       Rep. Charles E. Schumer.
       Rep. Jose E. Serrano.
       Rep. Louise M. Slaughter.
       Rep. Edolphus Towns.
       Rep. Nydia M. Velazquez.


                             north carolina

       Rep. Eva Clayton
       Rep. W.G. Hefner.
       Rep. Stephen L. Neal.
       Rep. David Price.
       Rep. Charlie Rose.
       Rep. Melvin Watt.


                                  ohio

       Sen. John Glenn.
       Sen. Howard M. Metzenbaum.
       Rep. Douglas Applegate.
       Rep. Sherrod Brown.
       Rep. Tony P. Hall.
       Rep. Tom Sawyer.
       Rep. Louis Stokes.
       Rep. Ted Strickland.


                                oklahoma

       Rep. Mike Synar.


                                 oregon

       Rep. Elizabeth Furse.
       Rep. Mike Kopetski.
       Rep. Ron Wyden.


                              pennsylvania

       Sen. Harris Wofford.
       Rep. Lucien E. Blackwell.
       Rep. Robert A. Borski.
       Rep. William J. Coyne.
       Rep. Thomas M. Foglietta.
       Rep. Paul E. Kanjorski.
       Rep. John P. Murtha.


                              RHODE ISLAND

       Sen. Claiborne Pell.
       Rep. Jack Reed.


                             SOUTH CAROLINA

       Sen. Ernest F. Hollings.
       Sen. James E. Clyburn.
       Sen. Butler Derrick.
       Rep. John M. Spratt.


                              SOUTH DAKOTA

       Sen. Tom Daschle.


                               TENNESSEE

       Sen. Harlan Mathews.
       Sen. Jim Sasser.
       Rep. Harold E. Ford.


                                 TEXAS

       Rep. Jack Brooks.
       Rep. John Bryant.
       Rep. Jim Chapman.
       Rep. Ronald D. Coleman.
       Rep. E. de la Garza.
       Rep. Martin Frost.
       Rep. Henry B. Gonzalez.
       Rep. Gene Green.
       Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson.
       Rep. Solomon P. Ortiz.
       Rep. J.J. Pickle.
       Rep. Frank Tejeda.
       Rep. Craig Washington.
       Rep. Charles Wilson.


                                VERMONT

       Sen. Patrick J. Leahy.
       Rep. Bernard Sanders.


                                VIRGINIA

       Rep. Rick Boucher.
       Rep. Leslie L. Byrne.
       Rep. James P. Moran.
       Rep. Robert C. Scott.


                               WASHINGTON

       Sen. Patty Murray.
       Rep. Norm Dicks.
       Rep. Mike Kreidler.
       Rep. Jim McDermott.
       Rep. Al Swift.
       Rep. Jolene Unsoeld.


                             WEST VIRGINIA

       Sen. Robert C. Byrd.
       Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV.
       Rep. Alan B. Mollahan.
       Rep. Nick J. Rahall.
       Rep. Bob Wise.


                               WISCONSIN

       Rep. Gerald D. Kleczka.
       Rep. David R. Obey.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Georgia [Mr. Norwood].
  Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I rise to tell my friend from New Jersey, 
the problem with that Georgia policeman is that he most assuredly will 
receive some tax relief on this, because you have raised taxes so high 
over the last 20 years that I guarantee you his wife is having to work, 
too. So when we combine those incomes, that family will indeed, and I 
remind you again that 2.4 million teachers are going to get some tax 
relief, 4.2 million mechanics and repairmen and construction workers 
are going to get some tax relief. I know you call everybody rich who 
has a job, but those are the people who are paying into this 
Government, and it is high time we let them have some more of their own 
income because most assuredly they can spend it much wiser than we do 
up here.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone].
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to enter into the Record the study 
from the Citizens for Tax Justice that shows just how many children are 
excluded from this tax credit and point out that in the State of 
Georgia, the previous speaker's home State, the Republican tax plan 
excludes 49 to 52 percent of Georgia kids. The Citizens for Tax Justice 
study says that the House plan, the Republican plan, would exclude 52 
percent of Georgia's children and the Senate tax plan would exclude 49 
percent of Georgia's children. They would not receive it, including 
that police officer.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maine [Mr. Allen].
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I just 
want to refer to a couple of other States here, first my home State of 
Maine, the Citizens for Tax Justice report indicates that 45 percent of 
the children in the State of Maine will not get the benefit of this 
$500-per-child tax credit. A little bit of that is because of age but 
almost all of it is because of this income floor.
  The gentleman from South Dakota who was speaking earlier should 
recognize that the number for his State is the same; 45 percent of the 
children in that State will be ineligible for the $500-per-child tax 
credit and it is the same reason. The fact is that this tax

[[Page H4659]]

credit, this tax bill is weighted very heavily for the wealthiest 
people in this society. It provides 41 percent of its benefits to the 
top 1 percent of taxpayers and those in lower tax brackets, the lowest 
20 percent, are expected to pay maybe an additional $60 a year. They do 
not get the benefits of this.
  I agree with my friend from Florida on one point he said; this is not 
about protecting the poor. It is not. It is about protecting hard-
working middle-income Americans and making sure that they get the 
benefit, they get some of the benefit of this tax bill, and they are 
not getting it now.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, we have a statistic here that just shows 
you that the billionaire, Bill Gates, would get capital gains and 
estate tax reductions and even a new IRA provision that would let him 
take a $4,000 tax break for educational expenses for his kids, but that 
Georgia policeman making $23,000 is denied a tax credit for his kids.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Michigan [Ms. Stabenow].
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. Speaker, I think it is important for people that 
are watching today, it gets very confusing when we are talking about a 
lot of different statistics about where the tax relief goes. The 
reality is that in this, in the Republican proposal, we are talking 
about the top 5 percent of Americans who make $250,000 or more. That is 
what we are talking about in terms of where the bulk of the tax relief 
goes.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Dreier].
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Atlanta for yielding 
me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to say that this has become a very, very sad time 
for me, having worked since the beginning of this Congress and actually 
in many previous Congresses on this issue of the capital gains tax cut. 
I have about 165 Democrats and Republicans who joined as cosponsors of 
H.R. 14.
  The gentleman from Florida [Mr. Scarborough] has been one of our 
great fighters on behalf of reducing the top rate on capital gains, 
knowing full well that it is not a tax cut for the rich. We have been 
able to successfully throw that us-versus-them class warfare mentality 
out throughout the debate on capital gains. We got the President in the 
agreement to acknowledge that reducing the top rate on capital gains 
will in fact benefit the middle-income wage earner. In fact a study 
that we did found that the average family of four, if we were to get to 
a 14-or 15-percent rate, would see their take-home pay increase by 
$1,500. Those are the ones who benefit from things like a capital gains 
tax rate reduction. Yes, there are people today in this country who are 
unemployed and we need to get capital invested so that we can create 
job opportunities for them.
  So the reason this is a sad day is that many of my Democratic 
colleagues who have joined as cosponsors of H.R. 14 have unfortunately 
now been drawn in by their party to this trap of saying that this is 
simply a tax cut for the rich. Nothing could be further from the truth. 
We will hear it time and time again that 76 percent of the benefits go 
to people earning between $20,000 and $75,000. Ninety-three percent of 
the benefits go to people with incomes of less than $100,000.
  So the fact is, we are there trying desperately to help those 
struggling middle-income wage earners create greater opportunities, 
improve their quality of life, and things like a capital gains tax rate 
reduction will do just that. So I just want to say that it saddens me 
that we have seen the debate come down to this level.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Maine [Mr. Baldacci].
  Mr. BALDACCI. Mr. Speaker, we have been down this road before, where 
we were offered trickle-down tax cuts in the 1980's, that benefited the 
very well to do and did not get down to working men and women and those 
families. Those incomes have been stagnant. They have not gotten any 
rewards for their work. Their tax rates and tax burdens have increased. 
What we need to do is to better focus the tax breaks on working men and 
women, as the Democratic substitute has done, and not to allow trickle-
down to happen again. All that happened with trickle-down is the heavy 
lifting was done by the working men and women and the people who are 
trying to provide for their families at the expense of those who were 
getting heavy from their lifting.
  If we are going to reform welfare, if we are going to reward work, we 
are going to need to make sure that working men and women have the 
opportunities of tax credits for education, tax credits for health 
care, to make sure that they can provide for their families and not go 
down through the trickle-down economic theories that we went through in 
the early 1980's.
  They got nothing but debt and deficit and that left people out of 
work or at very low incomes. So I think the important thing to do is to 
not support the rule and to not support the proposal that has been put 
forward.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The people watching this on C-SPAN must be thoroughly confused by 
now, because according to the comments from the other side, virtually 
everybody in America is wealthy. They have been quoting all day 
Citizens for Tax Justice, a so-called nonpartisan think tank which is 
in fact connected to Ralph Nader. The American people ought to know 
that.
  The fact of the matter is the Heritage Foundation and other studies 
such as the Tax Foundation have said that the Republican plan covers 11 
more, 11 million, the Republican plan covers 11 million more children 
than the President's plan. Indeed, the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Miller] has been concerned about the children being excluded. The 
Republican plan in his own district covers 24,735 more children than 
the President's plan.
  The President and the Treasury Department have been simply unfair to 
this debate because they recalculated wealth. And in fact they included 
in your income to consider how wealthy you are such items as employer 
costs such as payroll taxes, fringe benefits, and pensions. Their 
proposal says that those people must consider that as their income, 
even though they do not get it, and goes so far as to say that if they 
could rent their home out, the home they are living in and buying, that 
10,000 a year must be considered income also.
  Under their calculation of income and who is wealthy, 2.4 million 
elementary and high school teachers, over half of the teachers in this 
Nation are considered under their standards rich; 1 out of every 10 
union members, 1.7 million of them, under their standards are rich; 8.1 
million Federal, State, and local government workers under their 
measurement are rich. The honest deduction is this, the Joint Committee 
on Taxation has made it very clear, 93 percent of the benefits go to 
families with incomes under $100,000. Indeed the largest part of this 
package is the child tax credit, the single largest part of the benefit 
is the child tax credit and that is capped at $110,000 for couples also 
and $55,000 for singles. So this is a fair plan. It is fair for all.
  For the rest of this day, those of you watching this debate are going 
to hear the same class warfare, the same argument that the rich are 
benefiting when in fact the Joint Committee on Taxation makes it clear 
that 76 percent goes to people with family incomes less than $75,000 a 
year. They are going to be very surprised to discover how wealthy they 
are tonight.
  But when we pass this we will have for the first time in 16 years 
provided decent, honest, and across-the-board tax relief for all 
Americans at every stage in life.
  Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that if an 
electronic vote on House Concurrent Resolution 108 occurs immediately 
after an electronic vote on another question, then the minimum time for 
that electronic vote on agreeing to the concurrent resolution may be 5 
minutes.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Georgia?
  There was no objection.


                             General Leave

  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days to extend their remarks during the debate 
on House Resolution 176.

[[Page H4660]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the following:

   Methodology Problems and Multibillion Dollar Errors Produce Large 
                 Distortions in Taxpayers Union Ratings

       The tally of Congressional voting records which the 
     National Taxpayers Union Foundation released today is marred 
     by flawed methodology and multi-billion dollar errors, 
     according to a Center on Budget and Policy Priorities 
     analysis of the NTUF tally.
       The deficiencies in the NTUF analysis are sufficiently 
     serious as to make its tally of little value, the Center 
     said. The Center also reported that NTUF's mistakes and 
     methodological errors tend to have a greater adverse effect 
     on members of the minority party than on members of the 
     majority party and that some of its interpretations of its 
     vote tally appear to be marked by partisan leanings.


Entitlement Treatment Makes Many Who Voted to Reduce Spending Look like 
                    They Voted to Increase Spending

       The NTUF tallies are dominated by entitlement spending. But 
     the NTUF entitlement spending figures are flawed. Most 
     notably, the cost of federal entitlement programs will 
     automatically rise $54.5 billion between FY 1995 and FY 1996 
     because of such factors as the annual cost-of-living 
     adjustment in Social Security, veterans, and other benefits, 
     the increase in the number of Americans reaching age 65 and 
     qualifying for Social Security and Medicare, and normal year-
     to-year increases in doctor and hospital fees. NTUF charges 
     all Members of Congress with voting to increase entitlement 
     spending by this $54.5 billion, although no such votes 
     occurred. This distorts the NTUF tallies.
       One hundred fifty-one of the 172 House Democrats, the one 
     House independent, and the one House Republican who NTUF says 
     voted to increase spending in 1995--as well as all 28 Senate 
     Democrats and the one Senate Republican who NTUF said voted 
     to raise spending--should have been tallied as voting to 
     decrease spending. These are the members whom the NTUF rating 
     shows as voting to increase spending but by less than $54.5 
     billion. When the automatic increases that occurred without 
     any vote and that were due to factors such as the Social 
     Security COLA are put to the side, these members voted to 
     lower spending.
       Most citizens who hear about the NTUF tally will assume 
     these members voted to make programs more costly than they 
     would otherwise be. Few will understand that NTUF is charging 
     these members with voting to increase spending merely because 
     the member did not vote to cancel Social Security cost-of-
     living adjustments, deny Medicare benefits to those newly 
     turning 65, or make cuts yielding equivalent savings.


              ntuf exaggerates size of some spending cuts

       Those members whom NTUF shows as voting to reduce spending 
     would be given credit for reducing spending by a larger 
     amount if this $54.4 billion in automatic entitlement 
     spending were not counted against them. At the same time, 
     NTUF gives many of these same members more credit than they 
     are due for reducing spending in other areas because of 
     mistakes in counting votes for various bills the House and 
     Senate passed.
       When a member voted both for an authorization bill and an 
     appropriations bill that cover the same programs, NTUF is 
     supposed to make an adjustment to avoid a double-count. But 
     it sometimes neglects to do so. It incorrectly gives members 
     who voted for the Amtrak reauthorization bill and the 
     transportation appropriations bill credit twice for the same 
     Amtrak cuts. This also is true of cuts in the Interstate 
     Commerce Commission.
       NTUF also overstates the cuts in the FY 1996 agriculture 
     appropriations bill by $5 billion due to an error involving 
     farm price supports.
       Still other problems in NTUF's methodology stem from the 
     fact that NTUF counts votes for authorization bills for 
     discretionary programs as votes to increase or decrease 
     spending even though authorization bills do not cause 
     discretionary spending to increase or decrease. Only the 
     discretionary spending caps and appropriations bills do that.


      largest deficit reduction plan not given appropriate credit

       While NTUF sometimes presents its vote tally as a measure 
     of fiscal responsibility, this is not accurate. NTUF ignores 
     many votes to reduce or increase the deficit.
       NTUF does not count votes to increase or decrease 
     government subsidies that are provided through the tax code, 
     which many experts, the General Accounting Office, the Joint 
     Tax Committee, and individuals such as Alan Greenspan call 
     ``tax expenditures.'' If a member votes to cut health 
     programs to fund a corporate tax subsidy without reducing the 
     deficit, NTUF rates the member as voting to cut spending. A 
     member who votes against such a measure does less well in the 
     NTUF rankings.
       This approach adversely affects the rankings of a 
     substantial number of House and Senate members who voted for 
     the ``Coalition'' budget. The Coalition budget, developed by 
     a group of House Democrats, reduced the deficit more than 
     the Republican reconciliation bill. While the Republican 
     plan cut programs more, it also contained large tax cuts, 
     including expansion of a number of corporate and 
     individual tax expenditures. By contract, the Coalition 
     budget contained no tax cuts and reduced some tax 
     expenditures. Although the Coalition budget reduced the 
     deficit more, members voting for it fare less well in the 
     NTUF rankings than members voting for the Republican 
     budget.
       Particularly serious is NTUF's mischaracterization of 
     ``Blue Dog'' Democrats who supported the Coalition budget as 
     being opponents of cuts in discretionary spending. Many House 
     members voted against various appropriations bills that would 
     cut discretionary spending because of ``riders'' attached to 
     these bills that would weaken environmental protection and 
     health and safety standards--or because the members disagreed 
     with where the discretionary spending cuts were being made--
     not because the members opposed cutting discretionary 
     spending.
       In fact, a number of members who voted against various 
     appropriations bills voted for the Coalition budget, which 
     contained binding discretionary spending caps that would 
     force more than $300 billion in discretionary spending 
     reductions over seven years. NTUF fails to count votes to 
     lower the binding discretionary spending caps as votes to cut 
     spending, an egregious error. This affects all members who 
     voted for budgets that would reduce the caps.


                ntuf's remarkable scoring of voice votes

       NTUF ``scores'' a number of voice votes, even though not 
     all members may have been in favor of the measure in 
     question. In this area, NTUF has altered its methodology 
     since 1994.
       Even members who were out of town and missed the vote 
     altogether are scored as having voted to increase or reduce 
     spending on voice votes.
       The NTUF methodology on these voice votes has a more 
     damaging effect on Democrats than on Republicans. NTUF scores 
     voice votes on amendments to some bills. If the members voted 
     for final passage of the bill, NTUF then cancels out the 
     voice vote. But if the member voted against final passage, 
     NTUF leaves the voice vote in its tally. If you are in the 
     minority, you are more likely to be charged with the cost of 
     voice vote amendments that add spending, as most of the 
     amendments that NTUF counts did, since you are more likely 
     not to vote for final passage of the bill.
       NTUF's use of voice votes is different now than it was in 
     1994. At that time, it did not score voice votes on 
     amendments.
       The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities is a nonpartisan 
     research organization and policy institute that conducts 
     research and analysis on a range of government policies and 
     programs, and specializes in issues related to fiscal policy. 
     Is is supported primarily by foundation grants.


                        Parliamentary Inquiries

  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, if those extensions of remarks on this 
debate are admitted to the Record, must they be on the subject which is 
the resolution under consideration, or can they be on the tax bill?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. It would be on this subject.
  Mr. LINDER. They must be on this subject, or they would be out of 
order?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The request specified that it covered the 
subject of the resolution.
  Mr. LINDER. On the subject of the resolution.
  Mr. WISE. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. WISE. Mr. Speaker, is that saying that anyone submitting remarks 
in the context that they have been offered during the last hour would 
not be permitted or that someone would be trying to censor them in 
order to get them into the Record?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The issue before the House is on the 
propriety of the resolution making in orders a fourth of July recess 
beginning today. Under House rules, any remarks that are relevant to 
the rubric of that resolution would be in order and would come within 
the unanimous-consent request and printed in distinctive style.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 230, 
nays 194, not voting 10, as follows:

[[Page H4661]]

                             [Roll No. 242]

                               YEAS--230

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boswell
     Brady
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dixon
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kelly
     Kim
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pappas
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paul
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Redmond
     Regula
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Upton
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--194

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Goode
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith, Adam
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Turner
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Bentsen
     Castle
     Cox
     Cubin
     Flake
     Gonzalez
     Kasich
     Owens
     Rush
     Schiff

                              {time}  1149

  Mrs. ROUKEMA and Mr. McINTOSH changed their vote from ``nay'' to 
``yea.''
  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.

                          ____________________