[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 79 (Wednesday, June 17, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H4643-H4654]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3097, TAX CODE TERMINATION ACT OF 
                                  1998

  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, by the direction of 
Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 472 and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 472

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 
     3097) to terminate the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. The 
     bill shall be considered as read for amendment. The amendment 
     in the nature of a substitute printed in the report of the 
     Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution shall be 
     considered as adopted. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, to final 
     passage without intervening motion except: (1) two hours of 
     debate on the bill, as amended, equally divided and 
     controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Ways

[[Page H4644]]

     and Means; and (2) one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) 
is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, 
I yield the customary 30 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Frost), pending which I yield myself as much time as I may 
consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is 
for purposes of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, this rule is a fair and balanced attempt to bring to the 
floor an issue that is front and center in every American's mind. The 
rule provides for a closed rule, which is typical on tax issues. The 
rule further provides that the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying the rule 
be considered as adopted. The rule also provides 2 hours of debate 
equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking member of 
the Committee on Ways and Means. The rule provides one motion to 
recommit with or without instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, anyone who has prepared his or her own tax return 
understands why so many Americans spend hundreds of dollars to hire 
professional accountants to complete their tax returns. Considering the 
Tax Code itself is 3,458 pages long, it is not surprising that the 
preparation of tax returns is so difficult. It is also not surprising 
that our complex code requires over 110,000 Internal Revenue Service 
employees at an annual cost to the taxpayers of $9.8 billion per year. 
That is just to police the tax collection system.
  Americans want and need a tax system that is both fair and simple. 
Today's Tax Code frankly is neither. That is why the gentleman from 
Oklahoma (Mr. Largent) and others has introduced legislation to begin 
the process of overhauling the current U.S. Tax Code.
  The Tax Code Termination Act will set a date certain for the 
expiration of Federal tax laws that currently govern the collection of 
America's corporate, personal, estate, and excise taxes. Under the Tax 
Code Termination Act, the current Tax Code would continue on the books 
for 4 more years. At that time, the current system would expire and be 
replaced by a new Tax Code that would be thoughtfully and deliberately 
determined by Congress, the President, and, most importantly, the 
American people.
  In addition to terminating the Tax Code, this legislation would 
protect Social Security and Medicare, require a supermajority of both 
Houses of Congress in order to raise taxes and eliminate the bias 
against savings and investment as well as bias against families.
  The next 4 years will give Congress and the American people plenty of 
time to debate the merits of the many tax reform proposals currently 
being discussed, as well as new ideas that will undoubtedly emerge. 
Having a date certain for the expiration of the Tax Code will keep the 
issue at the top of the national agenda and force Congress and the 
President to make the Tax Code fair and simple. The rule sets the stage 
for this first critical step on the debate on tax reform. As a result, 
Mr. Speaker, I urge Members' support of the rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1100

  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill, of course, takes the cake. My Republican 
colleagues want to scrap the Tax Code lock, stock and barrel but are 
proposing nothing to take its place. Does this demonstrate a commitment 
to the responsibilities of governance? I think not, Mr. Speaker. This 
proposal, coming just 5 months before an election, is nothing more than 
a gimmick. I know it, you know it, Mr. Speaker, and the American people 
know it.
  Mr. Speaker, I have spoken with a number of prominent businessmen in 
my Congressional District in Texas about the idea of scrapping the Tax 
Code. And, quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, many of these individuals are 
Republicans themselves and hold no fondness for the current code. But, 
Mr. Speaker, to a person they have told me that scrapping the code 
without a substantial proposal ready to take its place is folly. Not 
just folly, Mr. Speaker, such an idea is dangerous. Certainty and 
predictability are absolutely critical to sound business decisions, and 
the idea that we are going to do away with our existing tax structure 
without holding a single hearing on what might come next will do little 
to engender confidence in the business community. What are we saying to 
America's businessmen and women?
  And it is not just business that worries about this idea. What about 
the countless individual taxpayers who make any number of decisions 
each year based on what might be the tax implications for them? Who 
will want to buy a home not knowing if there is a mortgage deduction? 
The National Association of Realtors said, ``Eliminating the current 
code without having a workable alternative in place would be disastrous 
for America's homeowners.'' We can only guess about the chaos this 
legislation will create in the housing market. Not knowing if mortgage 
interest and property taxes will be deductible certainly has the 
potential to create wild fluctuations in home prices, in response to 
rumors and speculation about what might or might not happen to the new 
tax system.
  Mr. Speaker, 75 percent of the families in this country who claim the 
mortgage interest deduction have incomes of less than $75,000. What are 
we saying to them? What are we saying to all the industries who depend 
upon the housing market for their livelihood?
  Without a replacement for the Tax Code on the books, Americans 
planning their retirement will not know what to do about investments 
for the future. Are KEOGH plans, or IRAs, or Roth IRAs going to be 
available, if and when the Congress gets around to implementing a new 
system of taxation? What will happen to money in their company pension 
plan? And, of course, do we really believe that Congress is going to be 
capable of passing a new tax plan when Congress cannot even pass a 
budget on time?
  Corporations will delay investments in new plants and equipment if 
they do not know what will happen to cost recovery rules. Schools and 
hospitals that depend upon tax exempt bonds to finance construction and 
maintenance will be in limbo. Who in 1998 will want to buy a tax exempt 
bond if the exemption is scheduled to end in the year 2002? And who 
knows what will happen next? States and localities will have a harder 
time coming up with capital, because investors thinking of buying 
municipal bonds will not know what will happen to their money.
  What then are we saying to everyone in the United States? I will tell 
my colleagues what we are saying, Mr. Speaker. We will be saying that 
the Republican Congress is willing to play a reckless game of chicken 
with the lives of real Americans because they will not otherwise take 
up real tax reform. The Republican majority is willing to promise 
reform without offering a clue of where they might be heading. This is 
bad business, Mr. Speaker.
  If the Republican majority really wants to reform the code, then let 
us do it and let us do it now. There are plenty of interesting 
proposals that have been tossed around for years, so let us bring them 
up, debate and vote.
  I would like to offer the Republican majority the opportunity to 
vote; to vote against ordering the previous question and to allow me to 
offer a substitute to the rule. My substitute would allow the House to 
consider the flat tax advocated by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Armey), my colleague; the value added tax advocated by the gentleman 
from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin); and the tax reform package proposed by the 
Democrat leader, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt). Those are 
three very interesting proposals that the House should consider if we 
want to force the issue of reforming the Tax Code.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous 
question. If we do not prevail there, and a majority of the House 
decides instead to bring up this reckless proposal, I would urge my 
colleagues to oppose it. The Republican leadership, in an effort to 
retain its majority, has brought us a dangerous bit of election year 
posturing that does not deserve to pass.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page H4645]]

  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller).
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend from Washington 
State for yielding me this time. I rise in support of the rule as well 
as this legislation. Really what this vote is all about, when we cast 
the vote later today on setting a date certain when we will replace the 
Tax Code, is really a simple choice for all of us in Congress, and that 
is are we happy with the status quo.
  In town meetings that I have, whether I am at the union hall, the 
VFW, the business or professional women's club meeting, the local 
chamber of commerce, or at a coffee shop on Main Street, there is a 
pretty clear message that I hear as I listen, and that is people are 
very frustrated. Over half of Americans hire someone else to do their 
taxes. They are afraid of getting audited by the IRS. They believe the 
Tax Code is much too complicated, it is clearly unfair, and the tax 
burden is too high. In fact, today the tax burden is at its highest 
level since World War II.
  One example I want to use of why we need to replace the Tax Code is 
what is really probably the most unfair provision in the Tax Code 
today, and that is the marriage tax penalty, which is suffered by 21 
million married working couples. It really is an issue of fairness, if 
we think about it. Do Americans feel it is really fair that 21 million 
average working married couples pay on the average of $1400 more just 
because they are married under other Tax Code? Of course not. That is 
unfair. And $1400 in the south suburbs of Chicago, that is real money. 
That is one year's tuition at Joliet Junior College; that is 3 months 
of day care at a local day care center in Joliet, Illinois. Clearly, we 
need to work to make the Tax Code fair.
  We have begun a lot of work in reforming and replacing the Tax Code 
already. Our efforts to restructure the IRS, to make the IRS, the tax 
collector, accountable to the folks that live by the rules and pay the 
bills back home. Restructuring the IRS is going to be a major 
achievement for this Congress when it is sent to the President and 
signed into law later this summer. That is a big step forward in tax 
reform.
  In bringing fairness to the Tax Code, we need to begin with 
eliminating the marriage penalty. I believe it should be the 
centerpiece of this year's budget and, hopefully, we will get that done 
this year. But we need to set a date certain.
  Politicians in Washington talked a long time about balancing the 
budget. Politicians in Washington said it is something we should do, 
but politicians in Washington took 28 years, over a generation, in 
order to balance the budget. Let us set a date certain. It took 28 
years before Washington balanced the budget and does something that our 
families do back home every day, and that is live within our means. We 
need to set a date certain that we are going to replace the Tax Code.
  If I ask for a show of hands, I very rarely ever find taxpayers back 
home who feel our Tax Code is simple, that our Tax Code is fair, that 
the tax burden is not enough. We need to reform our Tax Code. We need 
to make our Tax Code simpler, fairer, and we need to lower the rates 
for average, working, middle class Americans. That is the goal of tax 
reform.
  We need to set a deadline. We need to make a commitment to getting 
the job done. And of course there will be those who do not want to make 
that kind of commitment. We know how Washington can take a long time. 
We need a date certain. I support this rule and this legislation. Let 
us get the job done, let us reform the Tax Code, let us make the Tax 
Code fairer, simpler, and also let us lower taxes for average, middle 
class, working Americans.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Stark).
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, the distinguished gentleman from Illinois makes 
excellent points. I would agree with him that the Tax Code could be 
more fair and should be more fair; that the burden should be 
redistributed; that the marriage penalty is something that should be 
adjusted, taking into account the new structure in families. And that 
may well get done, if the Republican leadership decides to let it get 
done and bring it to the floor. I have serious doubts about their 
ability to do that. But if they do, they would receive a lot of support 
from this side.
  Now, having said that, the bill under discussion, if we did reform 
the marriage tax penalty, would completely negate that. If we made the 
Tax Code more fair, this silly bill that is under discussion would 
completely eliminate that. My colleagues may say, yes, we must set a 
time. Look at the experience under the Republican leadership, Mr. 
Speaker. In 1994, the Republicans shut down the government, not once 
but twice, because the Republicans could not even agree on a budget. 
Now, imagine rewriting the entire Tax Code at a time when the 
government is shut down. No money.
  Do we have any faith that the Republican leadership that has brought 
government to a standstill twice in their tenure, that has waited 28 
years for a balanced budget, could get the Tax Code revised? They 
cannot solve the marriage penalty, they cannot get anything done, they 
cannot protect people in managed care from the greedy insurance 
companies, they cannot punish the tobacco companies. The Republicans 
have shown no ability to get their act together. Why would anyone in 
their right mind think that they could put together a tax bill in its 
entirety when they cannot bring one to the floor now?
  So their way is to destroy the government. Shut it down, again and 
again. This time, if we shut down the government for the lack of a Tax 
Code, it will be gone for a long time. I urge my colleagues to think 
through the seriousness of this, the capriciousness, the 
irresponsibility, the childishness of bringing forth a bill which could 
destroy the government.
  And it certainly destroys what little, if any, credibility the 
Republican leadership of this House might have with the American 
public. They are inept and unable to run this Congress or bring forth 
bills that will help the country and, in so doing, they show their 
ineptness, their impotence to pass legislation by saying if we cannot 
do anything, let us set a time limit.
  My children, Mr. Speaker, when they were unhappy, used to say, ``I'm 
going to hold my breath and die if I don't get an extra bit of 
desert.'' Well, let us let the leadership hold their breath and see 
what happens. I urge a ``no'' vote.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan).
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Washington for 
yielding me this time, and I rise in strong support of this legislation 
and the rule that brings it to the floor.
  A few months ago Newsweek magazine had on its cover, ``The IRS: 
Lawless, Abusive, Out of Control.'' Now, when any Federal agency, but 
especially one that affects so many Americans and is so intrusive as 
the Internal Revenue Service, is described by a major national 
magazine, a mainstream magazine like Newsweek, as being lawless, 
abusive and out of control, things have gotten to a pretty sad state.
  We can do much better, Mr. Speaker. We should do much better, if we 
are going to do the job that the American people want us to do. Almost 
every poll shows that 85 to 90 percent of the people want us to 
drastically reform, drastically simplify the Tax Code. There is no good 
reason why we should have a Tax Code nearly as complicated, convoluted 
and confusing as the one we have.
  Mr. Speaker, we have a Tax Code that is something like 91,000 pages 
of rules and regulations on top of the code itself, involving five or 
six million words. Almost no one understands it. All of us have seen 
articles showing that about 40-something percent, or almost half of the 
advice that the IRS itself gives out is wrong. And almost everyone in 
this country has violated some tax law at some point in his or her 
life, unintentionally, unknowingly, and all it would take would be for 
an overzealous prosecutor or some power crazed IRS agent to come after 
them to cause them to go through all sorts of misery and heartache and 
go to tremendous expense.

[[Page H4646]]

  So we need to do what the American people want us to do. We need to 
drastically simplify this Tax Code. We need to throw out the code that 
we have got and simply start over and come up with a code that is 
simple and fair to the American people and do the job that they sent us 
here to do and give this government of this country back to the 
citizens once again.
  I am proud to be a cosponsor of this legislation and I urge its 
passage.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Traficant).
  (Mr. TRAFICANT asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)

                              {time}  1115

  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, I support the rule and I support the 
bill. And I am trying to figure out a strategy for Democrats coming 
back to the majority here today.
  With a Tax Code that is so heavy, it would give Hulk Hogan a hernia. 
We need 5 Philadelphia attorneys to try to interpret it; and after 
their session, they will all argue and not come to an agreement. The 
Tax Code rewards dependency, penalizes achievement, subsidizes 
illegitimacy, kills investment, kills jobs, and takes our hard-earned 
tax dollars and in many cases gives them outright to countries overseas 
that literally have threatened us.
  Most recent, North Korea. They said, stay out of it, Uncle Sam. We 
will sell ballistic missiles to your enemies. And if you want us to 
stop it, pay us.
  What do we expect? We reward China through our Tax Code. And they 
once threatened, some say passively, to nuke Los Angeles after they 
made a passive statement about Taiwan.
  Look, the American people are taxed off, they are tired of the taxes, 
and they know the Tax Code is not fair. They want Congress to change 
it. And there is only one way to change it. We have to scrap this Tax 
Code.
  I would hope the Democrats would take another tack by the year 2002 
and submit a substitute. I do not think either of the two major 
substitutes that the Republicans are talking about is the right answer.
  I think we should cut income taxes drastically but leave some of them 
on and add to it a value-added or a sales tax more specifically for the 
balance and see how the system works. And if it is possible in the 
future to scrap the entire income Tax Code, fine. But make it a 
limited, small, flat tax. Give the American people more of their 
income. Let them make the choices.
  I believe the Republicans are on the right track here. I cannot 
believe the Democrats are fighting this proposal. I want to say today, 
it is time to sunset the Tax Code because the Tax Code has lived out 
its days in the sun. The American people know it and they are tired.
  In addition, as one last thing, look at the whole tax structure. If 
we fix up our homes, we pay more taxes; let our homes go to hell, we 
get a tax break; work hard, we pay a lot of taxes; do not work, the 
government sends us a check. I think we have it all screwed up, folks.
  One last thing. If we find ourselves in the tax court against the 
IRS, the burden of proof is even on the taxpayer. It took 14 years to 
get us to look at that. We ought to be ashamed of ourselves.
  I support the bill. I support this rule. And I ask everybody to 
support the rule and the bill.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, one of our previous speakers, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Stark) characterized this legislation as silly. It 
would be one thing if this were just silly.
  What the Republicans are proposing is dangerous. What they want to do 
is they want to end the code and have nothing in its place. If that 
were to pass and become law, and I do not believe it will become law, 
but if it were to pass and become law to eliminate the code, with 
nothing in its place, there will not be a person in this country who 
will be able to purchase a home and rely on any type of mortgage 
deduction, there will not be a city or a county that will be able to 
issue a bond to build a school or build a highway.
  This is not just silly, this is dangerous. What the Republicans are 
suggesting is an enormous dice roll that could lead us to become a 
third-world banana republic with no Tax Code, with no structure in 
place, simply because they want to make a rhetorical point.
  What we do here on this floor is serious business. We are not here 
playing games. With this bill, the Republicans, who do not have the 
courage to bring a proposal to the floor, a reform proposal, are saying 
to the American public they do not care if this economy crashes and 
burns. If they cared about the economy of the United States, they would 
do the right thing, they would bring forward a reform proposal and say, 
here is what we stand for. Here is what we want. Vote it up or down. 
But they lack the courage to do that.
  What they want to do is say, let us risk no one being able to get a 
home mortgage, let us risk not a single municipality in this country 
being able to issue a municipal bond, so that they could say, oh, we 
did something; we abolished the Tax Code.
  There are a lot of changes that need to be made in our Tax Code. 
Everybody understands that. And we have a proposal that we are prepared 
to offer.
  I would advise my colleague on the other side that the speaker that 
we had been anticipating has come on the floor, so that I will need to 
yield some time to him. And then I will have to reclaim my time because 
I have one point I have to make before I close.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Rangel), the ranking Democrat on the Committee on Ways and Means.
  (Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, one of the great things about being a Member 
of Congress is that we follow a real tradition, that our Founding 
Fathers set up a Constitution which allowed the people to express their 
concern through us.
  They did not say that they wanted chairmen of committees to find out 
what is best for America. They did not say it should be the President 
or the Supreme Court. They said that in this House of Representatives, 
the people of the United States of America should speak.
  And that is why we have only a 2-year term so that, if we misspeak, 
the voters may not be able to get to the Senate, they may not be able 
to express their disagreement with the President, they darn sure cannot 
reach the Supreme Court, but we are here to be held accountable.
  To protect us, we have a committee system, because it is common 
knowledge that we were not elected based on our IQ rates. We were 
elected to find out and to search for the truth. And in most every 
piece of legislation, we have more than two sides of the issue; and, 
so, we have hearings and we have experts and we are able to get staff, 
Republican and Democrat, who are experts to review this so that when 
the committees report to the House, most of the work is done, the 
arguments are crystallized, and the Members have an opportunity to 
vote.
  For 200 years, the Committee on Ways and Means has had the 
constitutional responsibility to raise the revenues and to provide the 
ways and the means for this great Nation to move forward. But under 
recent majority leadership, it was decided in some back room that we do 
not need any committees, we do not need any subcommittees, we do not 
need any committee chairmen, all we need is a Speaker and one good 
press relations person.
  And, so, instead of legislation, we get press releases, we get one 
press release that the whole IRS, the whole code, is going to be 
abolished not because the Ways and Means Republicans said it, but 
because the Speaker said it.
  If he can eliminate our ability to pay taxes with legislation, maybe 
he can eliminate our ability to have to pay our indebtedness, maybe we 
can eliminate cancer, maybe we can do a variety of things just by one-
shot legislation not going through any responsible committee.
  Where is the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means? How are we 
letting the institutions of this House just fall apart? Whether we are 
for term limits or not, we have an obligation to leave this House in as 
good a shape as we found it.
  And now we find that we have an education tax bill coming out of the 
Committee on Rules because there was an amendment on the Senate floor. 
I am

[[Page H4647]]

not here to say anything about the Senate. If they wake up and want to 
pass an amendment, they can do it. They do not need hearings over 
there.
  But it is assumed that when they amend a bill that this House will be 
responsible and that we would have hearings and we will have experts 
and when people discuss and our staff discuss what does the bill mean, 
that we will be in the position to say that it is not a rip-off, it is 
sound, good tax policy that makes some sense.
  Ask any American that knows the serious nature of our education 
problem in this country whether giving them a $2,000 savings account 
interest free is going to better the education of their kids. If the 
kid goes to private school, they save 37 bucks. If they are poor enough 
to have their kid go to public school, they save 7 bucks. And if they 
do not have $2,000 to save at all, they save nothing.
  So it just seems to me that far more important than the legislation 
is the process in which this bill comes to the floor, without hearings, 
without witnesses, without any of the members of the Committee on Ways 
and Means, without a liberal point of view, without a conservative 
point of view. Where are the educators to say, what are we doing to 
help education?
  Mr. Speaker, this is a wrong way for the House of Representatives to 
proceed.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining 
on either side?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Oxley). The gentleman from Washington 
(Mr. Hastings) has 22 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Frost) has 12 minutes remaining.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the 
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Largent) the author of this legislation.
  Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the gentleman from 
Washington for yielding me the time.
  I am one of those people that believe that God created the heavens 
and the Earth and that he created man in his own image. That used to be 
indisputable. Unfortunately, we live in a time that some people now 
dispute that. I do not. And I think that it is informative to 
understand that when God created man in his own image, he gave us some 
instructions, some very simple instructions.
  I make no apologies to the ACLU. These are the Ten Commandments that 
God gave us as his instructions of how to live and conduct our lives in 
a productive and healthy way. Those are the Ten Commandments.
  Now, God expanded on the Ten Commandments through using the divine 
inspiration of man and he expanded on those and we now have the Bible, 
which again is God's expanded version on how we are to conduct our 
lives. The Creator, the wisdom of the universe, has given us the Bible 
as an instruction manual about how to conduct our lives. Here is the 
Bible. Here are the Ten Commandments.
  When Jesus came, in fact, he basically boiled down all of this into 
one simple paragraph when he said that we are to love the Lord, our 
God, with all our hearts, souls, and minds and our neighbors as 
ourselves. That sums up all of the instructions that God has given us 
of how to conduct our entire life.
  Now, let me contrast that with this. The IRS, telling us how to file 
our tax returns, this is what they do. First of all, here is the 
Internal Revenue tax code right here, this stack of books. That is the 
tax code that has been passed by Congress since 1913.
  This tax code has grown 100 pages every year since it was created in 
1913 by Congress, 100 pages. In fact, the 105th Congress just last year 
passed 400 changes in one bill, passed 400 changes to the tax code, 
added 325 pages to the tax code.

                              {time}  1130

  Here is the Tax Code. That is the commandments the Internal Revenue 
Service gives to the taxpayers about how to file your tax return.
  These are the instructions God gives us to live our lives. Here is 
the Tax Code about how to file your tax return.
  The IRS was kind enough to expand the rules on how to file your tax 
return. Here are the instructions and the forms that the IRS has given 
to us, in giving us direction about how to file our tax returns in this 
country, 6,200 pages of instructions and forms about how to file your 
tax returns in this country, right here. That is what this represents, 
from the Internal Revenue Service.
  Do I need to go on any further about what the problem is with the 
current Tax Code? I do not think so. It is too complex, it is too 
onerous, it needs to go. We need to pull it out by its roots.
  Mr. Speaker, let me quote a very distinguished colleague of mine from 
the House of Representatives. This is what he said in 1996:
  ``Let me be very clear about this: nobody likes today's Tax Code.''
  And again in 1997:
  ``But let's also understand that the complexity of our Tax Code 
undermines the confidence of the American people in their government 
and, in part, leads to the problems we're addressing today. Today's 
action is just a partial solution. The real solution is abolishing the 
IRS Code and starting over building a tax system that's fair and makes 
sense. A Tax Code that allows people to make decisions based on what's 
in their family's best interest, not because of some tax gimmick or 
loophole.''
  ``Today we're striking a blow for reform. Let's not delay the next 
step, the need to abolish the Tax Code and start over with real 
reform.''
  ``Decades of toying and tinkering at the margins have only made the 
problem worse. And I've concluded that the only way to fix anything is 
to replace everything, to overhaul the entire system, from top to 
bottom.''
  ``Tax reform is the path to achieving real progress towards 
simplicity and fairness.''
  ``The Tax Code is riddled with preferences.''
  Again finally in 1998:
  ``Our Tax Code has become a dense fog of incentives, inducements, and 
penalties that distort the most basic economic decisions, constrain the 
free market, and make it hard for Americans to run their own lives.''
  My distinguished colleague, the minority leader, Dick Gephardt, has 
been saying that what we are about to vote on, the Tax Code Termination 
Act, is needed, it restrains the economy, it keeps people from 
experiencing the freedom in this country, what we are all about. The 
Tax Code and pulling the Tax Code out by the roots and abolishing it 
and starting over and having a real comprehensive debate on tax reform 
is desperately needed.
  The Tax Code Termination Act that sunsets the Tax Code 2 years after 
the next presidential election year does several things. One is it 
assures us that we will in fact do it and quit just talking about it. 
The second thing it does, and probably most importantly, is that it 
includes all Americans in the discussion, because we will have a quasi-
national referendum through the next presidential election year that 
says, what do you want for comprehensive tax reform. This will be a 
bill that will be written not by special interests in Washington, D.C., 
but by the American people, and the genius and the creativity of the 
American people.
  I would urge my colleagues this morning to vote yes on the rule and 
yes on the Tax Code Termination Act. Let us pull the Tax Code out, have 
a comprehensive, full debate and dialogue over a 4\1/2\ year period of 
time. I believe that we can come up with a system that is more fair, 
certainly more simple than the one that we currently have.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the gentleman who was in the well a 
question. I did not want to intrude on his time but I would like to ask 
him a question if I may. The gentleman in the well pursued a very 
distinguished career as a professional athlete prior to being elected 
to Congress. Many professional athletes as a part of their salary 
negotiations come up with deferred compensation. I would ask the 
gentleman if in, during his career, if part of his compensation was 
deferred compensation that will be paid out in a future year.
  Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FROST. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.

[[Page H4648]]

  Mr. LARGENT. Yes, it was.
  Mr. FROST. Is the gentleman prepared to forgo the tax advantages that 
he negotiated as a part of his contract when he was a professional 
athlete if we wind up having no code? If we are sunsetted and we have 
no code, then he would lose all the advantages that he negotiated 
during his playing career and presumably would have to realize that as 
current income in one year.
  Mr. LARGENT. I guess the question that I would ask in reverse to the 
gentleman is are you prepared to defend the current Tax Code in its 
current form or do you really want tax reform in a comprehensive 
nature?
  Mr. FROST. I just asked my distinguished colleague who apparently 
received a considerable tax advantage in his contract negotiations 
during his professional career, which he certainly was entitled to do, 
whether he is prepared when we have the absence of a code to forgo all 
the tax advantages that he secured during his playing years.
  Mr. LARGENT. I would tell the gentleman in all sincerity that I am 
prepared to do that and would do it willingly, that I participated in a 
number of the tax shelters that the Congresses in the past created that 
were a total disaster, and I would have been far better off just to pay 
the taxes and not been allowed to do the things that were allowed by 
past Congresses.
  Mr. FROST. I would ask the gentleman why he participated in all those 
tax shelters. Was this on the advice of counsel? Was this on the advice 
of his agent? He is a grown man and could make those kind of decisions 
of course in terms of how he conducted his own affairs.
  Mr. LARGENT. Absolutely it was on the advice of counsel, to take 
advantage of the tax loopholes and shelters and everything else that 
have been created in Congresses past.
  Mr. FROST. I would only ask the gentleman one other question. He 
talked about 100 pages being added to the code last year.
  Mr. LARGENT. 400 pages.
  Mr. FROST. 400. Did the gentleman vote for the legislation that added 
those pages?
  Mr. LARGENT. I did.
  Mr. FROST. Was he concerned at the time that he voted for the 
legislation about the amount of pages that were being added to the 
code?
  Mr. LARGENT. Very much so.
  Mr. FROST. But he voted for it anyway.
  Mr. LARGENT. Yes, sir.
  Mr. FROST. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
McDermott), a distinguished member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  (Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I sat and listened to the gentleman from 
Oklahoma talk about his desire to rip the Tax Code out by its roots. By 
the analogy he used, he stood up here and told us what God did, and I 
suppose that if he did not like something in the world, he would also 
say that we should go back to the beginning when it was form and void 
and God created all the world again. He wants this country to go to a 
position where there is no Tax Code whatsoever. Now, when he points to 
all those books of rules and he admits that he himself participated in 
taking advantage of the Tax Code, he wants us to throw all that away.
  Well, first of all, in this country, three-quarters of the people in 
this country do not itemize their deductions. They do not use hardly a 
single page in that book of rules and regulations that he himself was a 
real advantage taker. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) asked him a 
question about whether or not he added these pages to the law last 
year. Now, if I had his Bible up here, it would be smaller than the 
number of pages which he voted to put into the Tax Code. Now, the 
people in his district and the people in this country ought to ask, are 
these people really serious? Are they serious? Last year they came out 
here and very proudly passed 800 pages of additions to the Tax Code and 
beat their breasts and said they made it better for every American. And 
this year they come in and say, last year what we did was stupid. We 
want to tear it all out and throw it away and start again.
  Now, you have to ask yourself, which person should you believe? The 
one that last year passed all 800 pages and was proud of every single 
thing that is in here? Or are they proud of they are now going to tear 
it out?
  Let me tell my colleagues what it means to ordinary Americans. If 
they take this bill and pass it and say in 3 years we are not going to 
have a Tax Code, how is an American going to buy a house or sell a 
house in this country when you do not know where the interest deduction 
that we all take advantage of when we buy a House, where will that be? 
Will that be included in this next Tax Code? Or will it not? I mean, 
the whole real estate industry in this country is based on the fact 
that we can take a deduction for the interest that we pay on our 
mortgages. What will that mean as to the value of our house? If you 
cannot take the deduction, does the value go up or does the value go 
down? How do you make a decision as Americans? This is the stupidest 
idea I have seen in 10 years.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Paxon).
  Mr. PAXON. Mr. Speaker, this is clearly an historic day in the 
history of this great legislative body. It is an historic day because 
it offers such a clear choice between two competing visions of how this 
institution should work. On one hand, we are hearing it today across 
the aisle, the defenders of the status quo in Washington. They like the 
5.5 million word Tax Code. They think it is just fine because they 
spent their careers building it up, for one reason: They like high 
taxes. They think government should take money from the American 
people, send it here to Washington so the bureaucracy can spend it. 
They like the uncertainty that comes with the current Tax Code because 
it confuses people and they do not know what their tax situation is 
because over half of Americans because of this code are forced to seek 
professional assistance in rendering their taxes, and that does not 
even count the folks who have to seek professional psychiatric 
assistance once they are done trying to figure all this out. They like 
the fact that the special interests drive the debate because it is done 
behind closed doors and the American people never get a chance to have 
at these reforms, so-called reforms, of the current Tax Code.
  Mr. Speaker, on the other hand, it is all the rest of the country and 
an awful lot of us here in the Congress who think this is historic 
because we are going to change it. This legislation, the legislation 
that we have put forward today, reverses the trend. We are going to let 
the American people decide. We are going to say 4 years from now, the 
Tax Code is gone, you know it, we are going to end the skepticism, the 
American people can come forward and get their representatives and tell 
them what they want in the Tax Code, not just the folks in Washington 
in the K street community. The American people will have a choice for a 
change.
  I believe it will result in a clearer Tax Code, a more understandable 
Tax Code, a Tax Code that most importantly takes less money out of the 
pockets of the American people. And would that not be a great change 
for the better in this country?
  Mr. Speaker, this is truly a moment of great history in this 
legislative body. The gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Largent) and I 
believe very strongly that the Tax Code Termination Act will help move 
this country forward in the global economy. It will help this Congress 
reestablish our credibility with the American people that for 40 years 
looked at Congress and saw it in the hip pocket not of the American 
people but of the special interests.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon).
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time, and I rise in support of this bill and encourage 
all my colleagues to vote in support of it. The current Tax Code is 
complex, confusing, corrupt, costly and coercive. Even experts do not 
agree on the Tax Code. Some studies actually show that the IRS itself 
gives the wrong answers to questions from taxpayers up to as often as 
40 percent of the time. Money magazine gave a hypothetical tax return 
to 45 different tax preparers nationwide.

[[Page H4649]]

 The result? Forty-five different responses, ranging from paying 123 
percent too much in taxes to 14 percent too little. Thirty-three of the 
45 preparers exceeded the acceptable range of error by $1,000. And for 
these erroneous tax returns, the tax preparers charged from $300 to 
$4,950.
  The current Tax Code is costly to our economy. It costs Americans 
between $157 to $22 billion per year just to prepare the taxes. This 
$157 for each person could be invested in schools, businesses or in 
savings. Enforcement for the Federal Government itself costs $13.7 
billion per year. Businesses spend between $4 and $7 in keeping up with 
the taxes they owe for each $1 in taxes they pay. It costs taxpayers 
5.3 billion hours to comply with the code. This is more than it takes 
to produce all the cars and trucks in America and is equal to 2 weeks 
of American productivity nationwide.

                              {time}  1245

  H.R. 3097, the Tax Code Termination Act, is simple. It directs 
Congress to enact a new Tax Code by July 4, 2002.
  What is so bad about that?
  It ends the existing Tax Code on December 31 of that year, six months 
after the initial enactment of the new code. Calls for a fairer and 
flatter Tax Code are made in this bill. It will enable the American 
people to have a national debate about how they want the Tax Code to 
change and become fairer and more simple. It will ensure that the Tax 
Code is replaced with one that has been vetted out by the American 
people and not decided by special interests in Washington.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill is a good piece of legislation. The American 
people are fed up with the complicated Tax Code laws that they now have 
to live under. They want more, they demand more, they deserve more. 
They deserve a better system, and what is more important, we are 
heading into a new millennium, a new century, a new age, and we need to 
have a Tax Code that will enable America to continue to be competitive 
and lead the world.
  Mr. Speaker, I encourage all my colleagues to vote in support of this 
legislation.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I hate to engage in elementary civics lessons, but I 
think it is important that we understand, and particularly people 
outside this Chamber understand, how the Congress of the United States 
works.
  The Republicans are in the majority. They control what bills come to 
the floor through the Committee on Rules that I serve on, and they also 
control what bills are reported out of the Committee on Ways and Means 
on which the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) serves.
  They are in the majority. If they want to change the Tax Code as the 
majority party, they have the ability to report a bill out of the 
Committee on Ways and Means changing the code.
  Whether it is the flat tax, whether it is the value-added tax really 
does not make any difference. They are in control. They can bring a 
bill to the floor.
  Mr. Speaker, they lack the courage of their own convictions. They 
will not bring a bill to the floor. Why will they not bring a bill to 
the floor? I do not know. Maybe they have a disagreement inside their 
own caucus, maybe some of these ideas are a little bit crazy, maybe 
they do not have enough votes to pass anything. I do not know why they 
do not bring a bill to the floor. They are in charge; they have the 
votes. If they want to reform the Tax Code, bring a bill for this House 
to vote on.
  What do they do? They risk financial chaos in this country by tearing 
down the current code which admittedly has a lot of problems and needs 
to be fixed and not offer a single alternative to the current code.
  If they really want tax reform, bring a bill to this floor and have 
us vote on it.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to vote no on the previous question. If 
the previous question is defeated, I will offer a substitute to the 
rule that will allow for a responsible debate on real tax reform for 
the Tax Code, not simply election year grandstanding. The rule I will 
offer will make in order the Armey flat tax proposal as base text. It 
will also make in order 2 substitutes to that bill, the Gephardt 
simplified tax bill and the Tauzin sales tax legislation. Members will 
have the opportunity to vote up or down on all of these proposals. The 
substitute that passes and receives the most votes will be the one that 
is considered as adopted.
  Mr. Speaker, if we are serious about reforming or replacing the 
current Tax Code, let us not fool around with meaningless and 
irresponsible legislation that could jeopardize our economy and our 
government. Let us take action on real legislation that addresses the 
issue, not frivolous legislation that does nothing except provide a 
handy campaign slogan.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my 
substitute rule and extraneous materials at this point in the Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Oxley). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  The text of the substitute rule and extraneous materials are as 
follows:

      Previous Question for H. Res. 472--Tax Code Termination Act

       Strike all after the resolving clause and insert in lieu 
     thereof the following:
       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule 
     XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 1040) to promote freedom, fairness, and 
     economic opportunity for families by reducing the power and 
     reach of the Federal establishment. The first reading of the 
     bill shall be dispensed with. General debate shall be 
     confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally 
     divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Ways and Means. After general 
     debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the 
     five-minute rule and shall be considered as read. No 
     amendment shall be in order except the amendments in the 
     nature of a substitute specified in section 2 of this 
     resolution. Each amendment may be offered only in the order 
     designated, may be offered only by the Member designated or 
     his designee, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable 
     for one hour equally divided and controlled by the proponent 
     and an opponent, and shall not be subject to amendment. All 
     points of order against the amendments specified in section 2 
     are waived. If more than one amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute is adopted, then only the one receiving the 
     greater number of affirmative votes shall be considered as 
     finally adopted and reported to the House. In the case of a 
     tie for the greater number of affirmative votes, then only 
     the last amendment to receive that number of affirmative 
     votes shall be considered as finally adopted and reported to 
     the House. The chairman of the Committee of the Whole may: 
     (1) postpone until a time during further consideration in the 
     Committee of the Whole a request for a recorded vote on any 
     amendment; and (2) reduce to five minutes the minimum time 
     for electronic voting on any postponed question that follows 
     another electronic vote without intervening business, 
     provided that the minimum time for electronic voting on the 
     first in any series of questions shall be 15 minutes. At the 
     conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the 
     Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with 
     such amendments as may have been adopted. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and 
     amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     restrictions.
       Sec. 2. The amendments described in the first section of 
     this resolution are as follows:
       (1) An amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting 
     of the text of H.R. 2001 if offered by Representative Dan 
     Schaefer of Colorado;
       (2) An amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting 
     of the text of H.R. 3620 if offered by Representative 
     Gephardt of Missouri; and
       (3) An amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting 
     of the text of H.R. 1040 if offered by Representative Armey 
     of Texas.
       Amend the title to read: Providing for consideration of the 
     bill (H.R. 1040) to promote freedom, fairness, and economic 
     opportunity for families by reducing the power and reach of 
     the Federal establishment.

  The majority argues that our attempt to defeat the previous question 
is futile because our proposed amendment is not germane. The fact of 
the matter is that the chair has not made a ruling nor heard our 
arguments as to the germaneness of our amendment. The only way to make 
that determination is to allow us to offer the amendment by defeating 
the previous question.
  This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous question on a 
special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.
  A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote against the 
Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow the opposition, at least 
for the moment, to offer an alternative plan.
  It is a vote about what the House should be debating.
  The vote on the previous question on a rule does have substantive 
policy implications. It is

[[Page H4650]]

one of the only available tools for those who oppose the Republican 
majority's agenda to offer an alternative plan.
  I ask unanimous consent to insert material in the Record at this 
point.

        The Vote on the Previous Question: What it Really Means

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an 
     alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be 
     debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's ``Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives,'' (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       Because the vote today may look bad for the Republican 
     majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is 
     simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on 
     adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive 
     legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is 
     not what they have always said. Listen to the Republican 
     Leadership ``Manual on the Legislative Process in the United 
     States House of Representatives,'' (6th edition, page 135). 
     Here's how the Republicans describe the previous question 
     vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally not 
     possible to amend the rule because the majority Member 
     controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of 
     offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by 
     voting down the previous question on the rule. . . . When the 
     motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the 
     time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering 
     the previous question. That Member, because he then controls 
     the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for 
     the purpose of amendment.''
       Deschler's ``Procedure in the U.S. House of 
     Representatives,'' the subchapter titled ``Amending Special 
     Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on 
     such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on 
     Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further 
     debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: 
     ``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a 
     resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control 
     shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous 
     question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who 
     controls the time for debate thereon.''
       The vote on the previous question on a rule does have 
     substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Republican 
     majority's agenda to offer an alternative plan.
                                  ____

                                       Department of the Treasury,


                                    Secretary of the Treasury,

                                    Washington, DC, June 16, 1998.
     Hon. Newt Gingrich,
     Speaker, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Speaker: I am writing to express my grave concern 
     over H.R. 3097, the ``sunsetting'' bill that would 
     effectively repeal the Internal Revenue Code without 
     providing for its replacement. If presented to him, I would 
     recommend that the President veto the bill.
       The President stands ready to consider carefully all 
     proposals to reform the tax system. He will evaluate these 
     proposals by using four criteria: fairness, fiscal 
     responsibility, impact on economic growth, and 
     simplification. In contrast, it would be irresponsible for 
     the Congress to enact legislation to terminate the tax code 
     without having already provided a reform plan to replace it. 
     Moreover, none of the proposals currently under discussion by 
     Members of Congress meet the President's four criteria. At a 
     time when the country is experiencing the strongest economy 
     in a decade, we simply cannot allow that economy, the 
     nation's fiscal discipline, and the well-being of its 
     families to be put at risk.
       Proposing to sunset the tax code is a deeply flawed idea 
     that, if enacted, would harm our strong economy. Many 
     families, for example, would refrain from buying homes 
     because of the uncertain tax treatment of mortgage interest 
     and property taxes (as well as other State and local taxes), 
     that would harm current homeowners. Many businesses would 
     hire fewer workers and make fewer capital investments because 
     of uncertainties in how taxes would affect the return on 
     productive assets. Furthermore, the uncertainty of the size 
     of future receipts would raise the specter of increased 
     Federal deficits which in turn would raise interest rates and 
     weaken or destroy economic growth.
       Adoption of this legislation would have many other harmful 
     effects on the well-being of families. A family's health 
     insurance would be threatened because the tax status of 
     employer-provided health benefits would be uncertain. Hope 
     Scholarships that make higher education more affordable for 
     students would be in jeopardy as would child tax credits that 
     help families with the costs of child-rearing. The structure 
     of employer-provided pensions and tax incentives for 
     retirement saving could be altered in ways that could harm 
     retirement income security. In short, enactment of this 
     legislation would create substantial risks to our economy and 
     the American people.
       The right way, the responsible way, to reform is to work to 
     reduce unwarranted complexity in our tax laws, to increase 
     their fairness and efficiency, to enact responsible 
     legislation restructuring the Internal Revenue Service, and 
     to continue to refocus it on customer service. Last year, for 
     example, President Clinton proposed and signed into law 40 
     tax simplification measures as part of the balanced budget 
     agreement. As a result of that simplification 99 percent of 
     homeowners will not have to pay capital gains tax when they 
     sell their home, 9 out of 10 corporations will not have to 
     worry about complex alternative minimum tax calculations, and 
     many dependent children will be able to earn a greater income 
     without being subject to tax. Furthermore, the President 
     wants to see a responsible IRS restructuring bill on his desk 
     as soon as possible.
       In conclusion, I urge you and all members of the House of 
     Representatives to vote against H.R. 3097 when it is 
     considered later this week.
           Sincerely,
     Robert E. Rubin.
                                  ____

                                              National Association


                                             of Manufacturers,

                                    Washington, DC, June 16, 1998.
     Hon. Newt Gingrich,
     Speaker of the House,
     Capitol Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Speaker: On behalf of the NAM's 14,000 members, 
     and of the 18 million people employed in manufacturing, I 
     urge you to oppose H.R. 3097, the ``Tax Code Termination 
     Act.''
       Let me make it clear, however, that this is in no way a 
     defense of the current federal tax code. The attached 
     resolution, adopted by our board of directors more than two 
     years ago, makes it quite clear that we believe ``the federal 
     tax system as now configured is beyond repair and should be 
     scrapped and replaced with a new model,'' [emphasis added]
       But, while we defer to no one in our enthusiasm for 
     scrapping the tax code, we do not support doing so until such 
     time as a replacement code has been agreed upon and the 
     numerous problems involved in transitioning from the old law 
     to the new law have been satisfactorily resolved.
       In our view, the numerous real problems associated with so-
     called ``expiring provisions'' already in the code--such as 
     the research and experimentation tax credit--should be enough 
     to dissuade anyone from taking the approach of H.R. 3097. 
     These provisions frequently do expire, vastly complicating 
     business and investment planning because taxpayers are 
     uncertain as to whether the provision will be reinstated and, 
     if so, whether such reinstatement will be retroactive.
       Thank you for considering our views in opposition to H.R. 
     3097.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Paul R. Huard.
       Enclosure.
                                  ____


   National Association of Manufacturers Board of Directors Meeting--
                           February 10, 1996


                     resolution on growth and taxes

       The single biggest obstacles to increased economic growth 
     is our impossibily complex and ever-changing tax code. And as 
     1996 unfolds, signs of a weakening economy make it more 
     important than ever to focus the nation's policy priorities 
     on the critical need for increased economic growth. The NAM 
     continues to believe that technological advances, worldwide 
     competitive pressures, productivity improvements and other 
     factors have substantially raised the economy's potential for 
     non-inflationary growth. Those arguing growth must be held at 
     or below 2.5 percent to avoid a resurgence in inflation are 
     ignoring the enormous transformations that have occurred in 
     manufacturing. In our view, a target growth rate of three 
     percent or more is not only attainable but also essential. We 
     can see no other way to improve incomes and living standards 
     for American wage-earners while at the same time maintaining 
     U.S. global competitiveness.
       But we can't get there with our existing tax structure. 
     There is a growing consensus among policymakers that the 
     federal tax system as now configured is beyond repair and 
     should be scrapped and replaced with a new model. We agree, 
     and believe our present anti-employee, anti-growth tax system 
     should be replaced with a pro-employee, pro-growth model 
     having these characteristics:
       Simplicity. This should be paramount. The new system should 
     be one that average wage-earners can both understand and 
     believe to be fair. The current code is not only 
     incomprehensible to most taxpayers but also gives rise to the 
     suspicion that it can be manipulated by high-income 
     taxpayers. What's needed is a simple low-rate system with 
     relatively few deductions or other adjustments.

[[Page H4651]]

     The billions of dollars currently wasted on compliance costs 
     of the current system could then be applied to more 
     productive uses.
       Elimination of Multiple Taxation. Income once taxed should 
     not be subjected to multiple taxation just because it is 
     saved or invested rather than consumed. The highly regressive 
     situation whereby wage income is subjected to both income and 
     payroll taxes must also be corrected. Similarly, business 
     income should be taxed only once so that, among other things, 
     corporate profits paid out as dividends are not taxed to both 
     the corporation and the shareholder. And, business taxes 
     under any new system should be compatible with those of our 
     trading partners so that, for example, American exports are 
     not double-taxed by the U.S. and the destination country.
       Stability. Present tax laws are both disliked and hard to 
     understand in large part because they are in a constant state 
     of flux. Once a new, simple tax system is in place, 
     procedures--such as supermajority voting requirements--should 
     be adopted to ensure that future revision is both difficult 
     and infrequent.
       Recent analysis concludes that excessive levels of taxation 
     have been a significant drag on economic growth. Reversing 
     this trend by adopting a tax system that is not biased 
     against work, savings and investment should be one of our 
     highest national priorities. The resulting dynamic growth 
     will benefit businesses and their employees alike.
                                  ____

         American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial 
           Organizations,
                                    Washington, DC, June 16, 1998.
       Dear Representative: The AFL-CIO strongly urges you to help 
     protect America's working families from serious economic 
     hardship by voting against H.R. 3097, the Tax Code 
     Termination Act.
       The AFL-CIO is very disappointed that the leadership of the 
     105th U.S. Congress has, once again, decided to waste its 
     time on an extreme measure like H.R. 3097--legislation which 
     would eliminate the Internal Revenue Code by December 31, 
     2001, without specifying which alternative tax system would 
     replace it.
       Needless to say, H.R. 3097 would hurt our nation's working 
     men and women in several different ways. It would make buying 
     a home more expensive for working families by eliminating the 
     mortgage interest tax deduction. It would reduce employer-
     provided health and pension benefits for America's workers by 
     abolishing all of the tax incentives which currently help 
     make these important benefits more affordable and more 
     available. In fact, this deeply flawed legislation would also 
     harm those who need help the most by repealing the $500 child 
     tax credits and the $1,500 Hope Scholarships which currently 
     help millions of working families raise and educate their 
     children.
       H.R. 3097 would also create economic uncertainty for all 
     American businesses. By not specifying which alternative tax 
     system would replace the current one, H.R. 3097 would 
     discourage businesses from making any new capital investments 
     until Congress decided how the new tax system would affect 
     them. In turn, this reduction in private investment could 
     substantially increase interest rates and the federal deficit 
     by dramatically decreasing productivity and federal revenues.
       Finally, H.R. 3097 would devastate thousands of America's 
     religious institutions, social service organizations, 
     cultural institutes, colleges, and universities by 
     eliminating the tax deduction for charitable contributions.
       For all of these reasons, the AFL-CIO strongly urges you to 
     vote against H.R. 3097.
           Sincerely,

                                                 Peggy Taylor,

                                                         Director,
     Department of Legislation.
                                  ____



                               Tax Executives Institute, Inc.,

                                    Washington, DC, June 16, 1998.
     Re proposal to sunset the Internal Revenue Code.

     Hon. Newt Gingrich,
     Speaker of the House, House of Representatives, Rayburn House 
         Office Building, Washington, DC.

     Hon. Richard Gephardt,
     Minority Leader, House of Representatives, Longworth House 
         Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Speaker Gingrich and Minority Leader Gephardt: On 
     behalf of Tax Executives Institute, I am writing to express 
     the Institute's serious concern about proposals to sunset the 
     Internal Revenue Code on a designated date without specifying 
     a replacement tax system. In our view, these proposals 
     reflect either a misapprehension of the importance of 
     certainty and predictability to business enterprises and 
     individuals or a disregard for the consequences of 
     ``terminating'' the tax system. They illustrate the folly of 
     making tax policy by sound bite and should be rejected.


                               background

       Tax Executives Institute is the principal association of 
     corporate tax executives in North America. TEI is a 
     nonpartisan not-for-profit membership association that 
     represents approximately 5,000 in-house tax professionals 
     employed by 2,800 of the leading companies in the United 
     States and Canada. TEI is dedicated to the development and 
     effective implementation of sound tax policy, to promoting 
     the uniform and equitable enforcement of the tax laws, and to 
     reducing the cost and burden of administration and compliance 
     to the benefit of taxpayers and government alike. TEI members 
     deal with, and are frustrated by, the complexities of the tax 
     laws on a daily basis, and know that abrupt or ill-conceived 
     shifts in the law--changes without due consideration of 
     transitional issues--exact a heavy toll.


            Sunsetting the Code: A Beguiling but Unwise Move

       Later this week, the House of Representatives is scheduled 
     to vote on H.R. 3097, which is styled ``The Tax Code 
     Termination Act.'' The legislation would sunset the Internal 
     Revenue Code on December 31, 2001. Although the legislation 
     includes a hortative declaration that any new federal tax 
     system should be approved by Congress in its final form no 
     later than July 4, 2001 (to permit a six-month transition to 
     the new system), there is no assurance that the principles 
     underlying a replacement system could be agreed upon, that 
     the new system's contours could be defined, and that 
     meaningful and comprehensive transition rules could be 
     developed in time to meet that ambitious deadline. What is 
     more, there is substantial doubt whether, even if the Fourth 
     of July 2001 target were met, the six-month transition period 
     contemplated by the legislation would be sufficient to avoid 
     major disruptions in particular industries or the economy as 
     a whole.
       Given our members' ongoing experiences with the tax laws, 
     it should come as no surprise that TEI supports efforts to 
     improve and simplify the Internal Revenue Code. Moreover, 
     while the Institute itself has not taken a position on which 
     of the competing tax reform proposals should be adopted (in 
     large measure because of the diversity of our membership and 
     the divergence of their views). We fully understand the 
     desire of many members of Congress ``to scrap the Code'' and 
     replace it with a different system. And we appreciate the 
     popular appeal of striving to make the tax law simpler and 
     fairer.
       The legislation before the House, however, is nothing more 
     than a Siren's song--alluring but ultimately dangerous--
     because it is far from clear how the legitimate objectives of 
     tax reform can best be achieved. The ongoing debate in 
     Congress and the country at large, while spirited, 
     demonstrates that finding consensus will not be easy or 
     quick. Even assuming that agreement can be expeditiously 
     achieved on ``where'' tax reform should take us, determining 
     the ``how'' of getting there will pose additional challenges. 
     Whether or not you agree with the estimates of the U.S. 
     General Accounting Office and the Treasury Department that 
     the implementation of a new tax system would require between 
     18 and 24 months, it is clear that the change cannot be made 
     overnight. It is also clear that individuals and businesses--
     the U.S. economy as a whole--cannot convert to the new system 
     with the ease of flicking a light switch. Transition rules 
     cannot be handled as an afterthought. Indeed, given the 
     intricacies of the American economy, how it interacts and is 
     integrated with the global marketplace, and the overriding 
     importance of the tax law in providing incentives to salutary 
     behavior (such as investments in plants and equipment, 
     retirement savings, home ownership, municipal bonds, and 
     charitable giving), the ``pain'' of the transition from the 
     current regime to a new one could well overwhelm the promised 
     benefits of reform.
       Supporters of H.R. 3097 argue that the legislation is 
     necessary to force action on tax reform. Even if that were 
     true--and Congress's recurring inability to renew expiring 
     tax provisions in time to forestall gaps in the law suggests 
     that future Congresses may not feel so obliged--TEI questions 
     whether the uncertainty and potential chaos is worth the 
     risk. For example, a company that otherwise would invest 
     millions of dollars in a multi-year expansion of its 
     manufacturing facilities might well demur if the pending 
     legislation were enacted because of uncertainty over whether 
     or how, after December 31, 2001, it would be able to recover 
     its costs. (There are an estimated $3 trillion in unrecovered 
     costs of existing property, and of course the current 
     economic expansion is dependent on sustained future 
     investments.) Similarly, individuals who would otherwise 
     invest and save toward retirement might pause because of 
     uncertainty over how their retirement earnings would be 
     taxed. To repeal the Internal Revenue Code without  
     specifying a replacement system--to exalt the exhilaration 
     of ``doing it now'' over the necessity of ``doing it 
     right''--is to threaten major disruptions of the economy 
     and the lives of the American people. The proposal might 
     score well in public opinion polls, but that does not make 
     it any less imprudent.
       Once again, TEI appreciates the surface appeal of calls to 
     terminate the Internal Revenue Code. H.R. 3097 and similar 
     bills, however, would create a sense of urgency for tax 
     reform much like plunging the detonator on a time bomb and 
     then scrambling to disarm it before it explodes. The action 
     might cause the adrenaline to flow, but we question whether 
     the Nation would be the better for it. Because the bill fails 
     to meet the standards of reasoned and responsible 
     legislation, Tax Executives Institute urges you to work 
     toward its rejection.


                               conclusion

       Tax Executives Institute appreciates this opportunity to 
     present its views on the proposal to sunset the Internal 
     Revenue Code.

[[Page H4652]]

     Any questions about the Institute's views should be directed 
     to either Michael J. Murphy, TEI's Executive Director, or 
     Timothy J. McConnally, the Institute's General Counsel and 
     Director of Tax Affairs. Both individuals can be reached at 
     (202) 638-5601.
           Respectfully submitted,
                                             Paul Cherecwich, Jr.,
                                          International President.

  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I ask that my colleagues vote no on the 
previous question so that we can take up actual tax reform.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to speak just a minute on the underlying bill 
that this rule will make in order, and I want to couch that, my 
remarks, in terms of what I experienced back home in the last year, 9 
months to a year. I had several town hall meetings that dealt 
specifically with the Tax Code, and I can say from those people, and by 
the way, we had a huge turnout at both those meetings that we had, and 
I can say without any qualification that those that attended the town 
hall meetings that spoke regarding a Tax Code, nobody was defending the 
current tax system, nobody was defending the current tax system. It is 
also fair to say, however, that there was no unanimity as to what 
should replace this tax system, but there certainly was a broad 
consensus and probably near unanimity that we need to do so. The 
question that faces us today then is how do we get from here to there.
  Now we heard all of the adjectives about how, and I do not know if 
the word draconian was used, but it is certainly implied, but let us 
put things into perspective. What this bill would do would simply say 4 
years from now the Tax Code will end. What will happen between now and 
the end of year 2002? Well, we will go through an election, if this 
bill were to pass, and obviously it will be the top of everybody's 
agenda, this Congress will have passed the bill to end the Tax Code. 
That means that Members in this body would have the opportunity to go 
to the polls, or to go to election this year, and voters would have an 
opportunity to go to the polls, ask us what we think would be the best 
method or best system to replace our Tax Code. We would do that this 
year, one election cycle. And probably more important, in the year 
2000, because of what this bill would allow, we would have a 
presidential election whose probably primary debate would be centered 
on the Tax Code. Now at that time I think the American people would be 
very, very well engaged, and the next Congress after that would be the 
Congress that would come up with a brand-new Tax Code.
  My friend from Texas (Mr. Frost) said that he wanted to talk about 
elementary civics lessons. Let me offer one other addendum to that. An 
elementary civics lesson as it relates to this body is this: We deal in 
deadlines. This Tax Code is some 86 years old. It is badly in need of 
an overhaul and, frankly, scrapping. This sets a time certain for that 
to happen. It sets a deadline for this body and the President, the next 
President of the United States, to come together, come up with a Tax 
Code that the American people will feel comfortable with.
  So I feel very strongly that this bill needs to be debated, which it 
will if we pass this rule, and, furthermore, that it needs to be passed 
so that the Congress can act on this legislation.
  Now as to this rule, let me make a point.
  At this time, Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert into the 
Record what the previous question vote means.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Washington?
  There was no objection.
  The document referred to is as follows:


               the previous question vote: what it means

       The previous question is a motion made in order under House 
     Rule XVII and is the only parliamentary device in the House 
     used for closing debate and preventing amendment. The effect 
     of adopting the previous question is to bring the resolution 
     to an immediate, final vote. The motion is most often made at 
     the conclusion of debate on a rule or any motion or piece of 
     legislation considered in the House prior to final passage. A 
     Member might think about ordering the previous question in 
     terms of answering the question: Is the House ready to vote 
     on the bill or amendment before it?
       In order to amend a rule (other than by using those 
     procedures previously mentioned), the House must vote against 
     ordering the previous question. If the previous question is 
     defeated, the House is in effect, turning control of the 
     Floor over to the Minority party.
       If the previous question is defeated, the Speaker then 
     recognizes the Member who led the opposition to the previous 
     question (usually a Member of the Minority party) to control 
     an additional hour of debate during which a germane amendment 
     may be offered to the rule. The Member controlling the Floor 
     then moves the previous question on the amendment and the 
     rule. If the previous question is ordered, the next vote 
     occurs on the amendment followed by a vote on the rule as 
     amended.

  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, the previous question 
procedure is simply one to end debate, and, if the previous question is 
defeated, then those that oppose it, which in this case would be my 
friend from Texas who had an opportunity to change, and actually we 
would lose control, to put it in perspective, of the floor and turn it 
over to a bill that frankly, ironically, none of the three provisions 
in that bill have been debated in the Committee on Ways and Means or on 
the floor. I find that rather ironic. But what it would do, it would 
turn over to the minority the floor, and I think that would be not 
advantageous for us.
  So, Mr. Speaker, then what I would like to do and to urge my 
colleagues is to vote for the previous question so that we can get on 
with this debate, and I would also say that I believe the debate that 
is going to ensue after this rule is passed will indeed be historic.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  Pursuant to clause 5 of rule XV, the Chair will reduce to 5 minutes 
the minimum time for electronic voting on adoption of this resolution, 
and, without objection, the proceedings will resume on House Resolution 
471 immediately thereafter.
  The Chair also will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for 
electronic voting on adoption of that resolution.
  There was no objection.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 229, 
nays 194, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 234]

                               YEAS--229

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley

[[Page H4653]]


     Packard
     Pappas
     Parker
     Paul
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     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
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Berry
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cummings
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hefner
     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
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     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

     Ford
     Gonzalez
     Hastings (FL)
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Johnson, Sam
     Lewis (CA)
     McNulty
     Ney
     Peterson (PA)

                              {time}  1213

  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois, Mr. MILLER of California, Ms. HOOLEY of 
Oregon, and Ms. KAPTUR changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. HOBSON changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

                              {time}  1215

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Oxley). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 232, 
noes 188, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 235]

                               AYES--232

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pappas
     Parker
     Paul
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Redmond
     Regula
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sandlin
     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
     Stupak
     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)

                               NOES--188

     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Berry
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cummings
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     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
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     McCarthy (MO)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith, Adam
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Turner
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Abercrombie
     Gonzalez
     Hastings (FL)
     Hilleary
     Johnson, Sam
     Lewis (CA)
     Matsui
     McDade
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Ney
     Peterson (PA)
     Waters

[[Page H4654]]



                              {time}  1224

  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.

                          ____________________