[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 70 (Thursday, June 8, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H4077-H4087]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 8, DEATH TAX ELIMINATION ACT of 
                                  2000

  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 519 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 519

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order without intervention of any point of order 
     to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 8) to amend the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to phaseout the estate and gift 
     taxes over a 10-year period. The bill shall be considered as 
     read for amendment. The amendment recommended by the 
     Committee on Ways and Means now printed in the bill shall be 
     considered as adopted. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any 
     further amendment thereto to final passage without 
     intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate on the 
     bill, as amended, equally divided and controlled by the 
     chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways 
     and Means; (2) the further amendment printed in the report of 
     the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution, which 
     may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, 
     shall be considered as read, and shall be separately 
     debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the 
     proponent and an opponent; and (3) one motion to recommit 
     with or without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds) 
is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Moakley); pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the 
purpose of debate only.
  (Mr. REYNOLDS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, the legislation before us today provides 
for the consideration of H.R. 8, the Death Tax Elimination Act of 2000. 
Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 519 is a modified closed rule which is a 
standard rule for all revenue measures.
  The rule provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by 
the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and 
Means. Additionally, the rule waives all points of order against the 
bill.
  The rule further provides that the amendment recommended by the 
Committee on Ways and Means now printed in the bill shall be considered 
as adopted.
  The rule also provides for consideration of the amendment in the 
nature of a substitute printed in the report if offered by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) or his designee, which shall be 
considered as read and shall be separately debatable for 1 hour, 
equally divided between the proponent and an opponent.
  Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit with or without 
instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, Benjamin Franklin once noted that ``in this world, 
nothing can be said to be certain except death and taxes.'' But while 
death may be certain, taxes are immortal. That is because our current 
tax system plays a cruel joke on farmers and small business owners.
  After years of hard work and sacrifice, building their farm, ranch or 
business, working Americans hoping to pass on their legacy to their 
children and grandchildren often find their life's work will instead be 
passed on to the Federal Government.
  The death tax is turning the American dream into The Nightmare on Elm 
Street.
  The death tax is arguably the biggest threat to the future viability 
of small businesses, family farms, and ranches. It creates a 
disincentive to expand and create jobs. It often literally taxes family 
businesses right out of the family.
  According to the National Federation of Independent Businesses, 
nearly 60 percent of business owners say they would add more jobs over 
the coming years if death taxes were eliminated.
  The death tax has turned Uncle Sam into the Grim Reaper, destroying 
family-owned farms and ranches with penalties reaching as high as 55 
percent and forcing farmers and ranchers to sell off land, buildings, 
or equipment otherwise needed to operate their businesses.
  When those farms and ranches disappear, the rural communities and 
businesses they support also suffer. A piece of community and family 
history is lost forever. The death tax impact on family farms is so 
devastating that the Farm Bureau has listed elimination as their number 
one priority.
  Think about that. An industry association concerned with all aspects 
of farming and ranching lists the death tax as the number one threat to 
the viability of family farming. That is how repressive this tax is.
  Now, many opponents of eliminating the death tax argue that estate 
planning is a viable alternative to changing our tax laws. Their theory 
that our farmers and ranchers should be huddled with accountants rather 
than growing food for America is both misguided and wrong.
  They fail to take into account the high cost of estate planning 
tools, both the time spent away from their businesses and the high 
price tag that includes attorneys fees, life insurance premiums, and 
internal labor costs. Would not we rather have small business owners 
and farmers using their resources to operate and expand their 
businesses and to create jobs?
  Too often there is a simplistic approach that we should soak the 
rich. The problem with that theory, as Ronald Reagan once said, is that 
everybody gets wet in the process. Nowhere is that more profound than 
in the death tax; for it is hard working middle American families who 
are most hurt.
  But that is not all. The death tax actually raises relatively little 
revenue for the Federal Government. Some studies have found that it may 
cost the Government and taxpayers more in administrative and compliance 
fees than it raises in revenue.
  Last year, the Public Policy Institute of New York State conducted a 
survey on the impact of the Federal estate tax on upstate New York. The 
findings were alarming. The study found that, in the past 5 years, 
family-owned and operated businesses on average spent nearly $125,000 
per company just on tax planning alone. These are costs incurred prior 
to any actual payment of Federal estate taxes.
  The study found that an estimated 14 jobs per business have already 
been lost as a result of the Federal estate tax planning. For just the 
365 businesses surveyed, the total number of jobs already lost due to 
the Federal estate tax is over 5,100.
  Mr. Speaker, a clear majority of participants in this survey indicate 
that the death of an owner would put their

[[Page H4078]]

businesses at grave risk because they would be forced to take the 
purely tax-motivated steps of obtaining loans to redeem the owners 
stock or using the stock as collateral in order to meet their Federal 
estate tax obligations.
  Simply put, death tax stifles growth, discourages savings, stymies 
job creation, drains resources, and ruins family businesses. It is time 
we phase out this unfair tax and allow the American dream to be passed 
on to our children and our future generations.
  In conclusion, I would like to commend the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Archer), the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, and the 
gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Dunn) and the gentleman from Tennessee 
(Mr. Tanner), the bill's sponsors, for bringing this measure before the 
House today.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the 
underlying measure.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.


                Announcement By The Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Those in the gallery are reminded that 
demonstrations of support or opposition are not allowed under the rules 
of the House. The Chair appreciate your cooperation.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds), my 
dear friend, for yielding me the customary half hour.
  Mr. Speaker, once again, my Republican colleagues are doing their 
level best to help the rich get richer. Today's Republican bill will 
gradually repeal estate tax which affects the richest 2 percent of 
Americans. By repealing it gradually, my Republican colleagues will 
ensure that only the descendants of the very rich people who hold out 
10 years before dying will benefit.
  People who are not very rich or who die within the next 10 years do 
not get any benefit out of this bill.
  So, Mr. Speaker, the result of the Republican bill will be to benefit 
a few very rich people. For a little while, it will cost the Government 
$50 billion every year in lost revenue, and do nothing whatsoever to 
make sure baby boomers have Social Security and Medicare when they 
retire.
  Mr. Speaker, as nearly everyone knows, Social Security and Medicare 
are headed for some very serious problems. When the baby boomers retire 
and we do not do something to shore it up now, there will be big 
problems later.
  Thanks to this rule, Mr. Speaker, there is hope. This rule makes in 
order a Democratic substitute that will help people pass on their 
estates and still retain hope of fixing Medicare and Social Security.
  The Democratic bill takes effect now so people who want to pass 
things along will not have to hold out for 10 years.
  The Democratic bill says, if one's farm or business is worth up to $4 
million, then one can pass it on immediately, without any estate tax 
whatsoever.
  Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, the Democratic substitute will cost the 
Federal government much less in lost revenue. We will still be able to 
hold out hope of saving Medicare. We will still be able to hold out 
hope of saving Social Security, and not to mention the possibility of 
enacting a prescription drug program.
  Now, the Democratic motion to recommit goes even further, Mr. 
Speaker. It makes in order the Doggett amendment to let the sunshine 
into political committees. My Republican colleagues, twice in the 
Committee on Ways and Means and once on the House floor, have decided 
to keep political committees secret. My Republican colleagues want to 
continue to allow political committees to raise and spend as much money 
as they want in complete secret, Mr. Speaker.
  But the amendment of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett) says it 
is time to lift up the shades and let the sunshine in. One cannot have 
the gift tax if one does not disclose one's contributors.
  So I urge my colleagues to oppose the previous question. If the 
previous question is defeated, I will offer the Sherman-Stenholm 
amendment which will make the repeal of the estate tax contingent upon 
the President certifying that we are on the path to reduce the debt, 
protect Social Security and Medicare.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Kansas (Mr. Ryun).
  Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and 
the underlying legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, when our time on Earth is done, we want to know that our 
families and loved ones have been provided for and protected; we want 
to know that our hard work and diligence over the years will continue 
to positively affect those that we really care about.
  Those who live the American dream, are successful in their 
profession, and have the ability to save a little money want to pass 
along the fruits of their labors on to their survivors. In Kansas and 
throughout the country, our farmers and business owners are being 
punished by the current tax system by following that dream.
  The current death tax is in fact killing our family farms and 
businesses. Less and less farmland and fewer and fewer businesses are 
being passed along to our children and grandchildren due to this 
unnecessary and unjust tax.
  It has been said that the deterioration of every government begins 
with the decay of the principles on which it was founded. If we look 
back at history, we are reminded that the unfair taxation triggered the 
revolution of 1776. We fought a war for freedom from such taxes. Mr. 
Speaker, we must cast a vote to end this oppressive taxation that falls 
heaviest on those who can least afford to pay it.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me to vote yes on the rule 
and vote yes on H.R. 8.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Sherman), who is the co-author of the Sherman-Stenholm 
amendment.
  (Mr. SHERMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, let us put this in context. This bill would 
actually cut roughly $50 billion from Federal revenues once it is fully 
phased in. It affects only 2 percent of the richest American families, 
most of the taxes collected from those who have over $10 million in 
assets. This bill provides not 1 penny in tax relief for those who make 
$10 an hour, but total tax relief for those with assets of over $10 
million.
  We went to the Committee on Rules with the Sherman-Stenholm amendment 
to say at least let us make this bill dependent upon the country being 
on the right fiscal track. At least do not give up the $50 billion 
unless Social Security and Medicare are secure, unless we are going to 
pay down the debt by 2013, and unless we have eliminated deficits.

                              {time}  1600

  And the Committee on Rules said no.
  What is particularly severe is that just a few weeks ago this House 
considered the Miller-Young bill, which would protect the legacy of all 
Americans by providing roughly $1 billion, one-fiftieth of the cost of 
this bill, $1 billion, to acquire the lands that are environmentally 
sensitive and pristine and need to be protected for prosperity. And the 
Shadegg amendment was allowed by the Committee on Rules, requiring that 
protecting the legacy of all Americans to our great outdoors be 
contingent upon these same certifications, namely that the debt would 
be paid off by 2013 and Medicare and Medicaid would be secure.
  So what we have here is a Committee on Rules that says, when we are 
trying to protect the legacy of all Americans, they will allow an 
amendment that limits that bill's effectiveness to only if certain 
fiscal certifications can be made. But when we are talking about the 
legacy of multimillionaires, literally heirs to multi-million dollar 
fortunes, then fiscal responsibility is not even an issue that this 
House can discuss on the floor.
  I will point out that this bill will assure a dramatic cut in major 
contributions to universities and hospitals. Those institutions will be 
here asking for Federal help. We will not be able to give it to them 
because $50 billion will be taken out every year of the funds available 
to the Federal Government.

[[Page H4079]]

  And, finally, this bill means higher taxes for widows and widowers. 
Under the present law, widows and widowers pay no estate tax and get a 
full step up in bases of the assets they acquire for income tax 
purposes. Under this bill that step up in bases is severely limited. So 
if my colleagues want to deprive the country of $50 billion and raise 
taxes for widows that is what this bill and this rule would do.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Cunningham).
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and the 
death tax repeal.
  Small farmers that lose their farms or are challenged after they die 
to pass it on to their children are giving them up.
  My colleagues on the other side cannot stand any kind of tax cut 
whatsoever. Their mantra is tax breaks for the rich. Well, in 1993, 
when they had the White House, the House and the Senate, they had the 
highest tax increase in history, they raised the tax on Social 
Security, and they raised the tax on the middle class. They could not 
help themselves, because they wanted to spend. They even stole every 
dime out of the Social Security Trust Fund to put up here for extra 
spending.
  Any time we want to take away that right or that control, they fight 
it. They fought a balanced budget because it limited their spending. 
They fought welfare reform because it limited their spending. They 
fought the Social Security lockbox because they used that money for 
socialized spending. And now the mantra is tax breaks for the rich.
  Well, the small farmers in my district in California are not the 
rich.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Capuano).
  (Mr. CAPUANO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CAPUANO. Mr. Speaker, I could speak all day long on why this 
particular bill is a bad one and why this particular rule is a bad one, 
but I think we will hear lots of debate on it. No one will come to this 
well on either side asking that small businesses and small farmers be 
overtaxed. I think everyone here would be happy to work on those two 
issues. That is not the point, and everybody here knows it is not the 
point.
  This bill goes way beyond that. On top of that, it does an additional 
thing no one seems to want to talk about. Many States in this country 
raise lots of money through the estate tax. That is their choice. 
Nobody makes them do it. Of our 50 States, 34 of them, plus the 
District of Columbia, raise estate tax money solely on the Federal 
income tax credit that is allowed for estate tax deductions. The 
maximum amount allowed. That is all they raise their money on. The 
taxpayer would have to pay the same amount of money no matter what, it 
is just a matter of who they cut the check to.
  Of those 35 States, right now approximately $4 billion a year are 
raised out of that money; $1 billion in New York, $730 million in 
California, $480 million in Florida, $180 million in Massachusetts, 
$200 in Illinois, $200 million in Texas, $130 million in Arkansas, et 
cetera. If this bill is passed, these States will lose that money.
  Now, I understand fully well that there are philosophical 
differences, but I ask the people that propose this bill to then turn 
around and tell these States what they are going to do, how they are 
going to help them to educate their children, to put police on the 
street, and to do all the other things that States do. Because this 
bill, the way it is written, will take that money out of those State 
coffers.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Mississippi (Mr. Wicker).
  Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and I would say to my colleagues that there has never been a tax 
cut that we have discussed on the floor of this body where my friends 
from the Democratic side of the aisle have not gotten up here and 
talked about the revenue that we would lose and the parades of 
horribles that would happen if we cut taxes on the American people.
  The fact is we cut taxes in 1997, and revenues have increased $200 
billion per year each year since then over and above what was projected 
by the Congressional Budget Office. And I predict that if this goes 
through, and it eventually will go through, we will see the economic 
return; and, actually, we will have more revenue.
  But I am up here to talk, Mr. Speaker, about a friend of mine from 
Mississippi. He is not a small businessman, he is not a small farmer, 
he is an agent of the Internal Revenue Service. I had a conversation 
with him a while back, and he said, ``Congressman, I have been doing 
this for a long time. You folks ought to go back up to Washington and 
abolish the death tax.'' He said, ``I have had to be the one to go and 
enforce the law of the land and tell a small farmer or a small 
businessman that he has got to come up with this much money to pay the 
inheritance tax on his parents' farm or his parents' business. And I 
have seen that farm have to be sold and that small business have to go 
out of business because of what the estate tax does.'' And he said, 
``Congressman, it is wrong, and it does not make us that much money. 
When you add up all the compliance costs and all the nuisance costs and 
all of the heartache it causes families and to the economy, it is not 
worth it.''
  And besides that, Mr. Speaker, it is wrong in this country to tax the 
event of death. I commend the authors of this bill. I urge a vote 
``yes'' in favor of the rule and for the underlying bill. Let us 
abolish the tax on death.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Mrs. Capps).
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I rise against this rule on H.R. 8, the 
Estate Tax Bill. And once again I call on Congress to tackle the issue 
of section 527s. These so-called 527 groups are tax exempt political 
organizations which try to influence elections. They can spend millions 
of dollars on negative ads, direct mail campaigns, and phone banks.
  I want to read to my colleagues directly from the Web page of a 527 
loophole from my home State of California. This Web page tells a 
potential donor that they can make contributions in unlimited amounts. 
These can be from any source and they are not ever going to be a matter 
of public record.
  These 527s pose a grave threat, I believe, to our current democratic 
process. Unfortunately, our House leadership will not give us a vote on 
this important issue. It is my hope that the next time I come to the 
House floor to discuss these 527s it will be to pass the bill authored 
by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett). Surely, in the House of 
Representatives, we can do something to close this loophole and to 
clean up our election laws, and we should do it now.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Isakson).
  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for 
yielding me this time.
  I was not going to speak until I heard a speech a minute ago from the 
other side, and I just wanted to make a point as simply as I could as 
to why this is such an important law for all Americans.
  There was a comment made about this bill being a legacy for the rich. 
Let me just, by using this piece of paper, give my colleagues an 
example. When a first generation American small business owner or 
family farmer passes to the second generation what he has, the United 
States gets this, and the family gets this. When the second generation 
dies, to pass to the third, this is what the government gets, and this 
is what the family has.
  If we do the math, we expect an American family who works and toils 
and hires and pays taxes to grow a business eight times its original 
worth on the death of the first owner in order for the third family 
generation, 40 years later, to have the same thing, while the United 
States Government has received 150 percent of the production of that 
business.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time. I do not think 2 minutes is going to capture the 
frustration I feel in rising today to speak about this rule.

[[Page H4080]]

  There is not one of us on this floor or in this House that does not 
recognize the value of giving relief to small business owners and 
family farms. I do know however, that the Democratic substitute that 
hopefully will be offered does address those family farmers and small 
businesses, by providing real estate tax relief, without the $50 
billion cost of the Republican proposal.
  My frustration arises, because in the middle of a debate on Labor-
HHS, we stop it to debate this, when $1.25 billion has been taken out 
of the workers' programs to exclude help for homeless reform and help 
for incumbent workers along with youth summer jobs. We stop that debate 
to debate the rule on the estate tax. And then this rule does not 
include the amendment of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett) on 
527s, that deals with exposing which donors donate to groups organized 
around advocating for certain issues yet can use the funds for any 
campaign use without real limits. Why can't we debate frankly and 
fairly an amendment that will tell the American people who is 
contributing to what group for what political purpose--let's not hide 
behind the 1st amendment to avoid simple disclosure.
  If we are not trying to take dollars from family farms and small 
businesses, why are we relying on big bloated individuals to fund these 
unknown entities with 527 funds, and we cannot even say who is it that 
is giving money.
  I am frustrated because I think the debate on Labor-HHS should have 
continued. We should have been able to discuss youth opportunity 
grants, we should have been able to discuss training of incumbent 
workers. The Nabisco plant that was closed in my district had workers 
that should have the funds to benefit from worker training dollars that 
are now cut from the Labor-HHS appropriation bill. Such dollars could 
help these individuals to be trained for possible jobs in the 
technology industry. Homeless veterans should have been able to get the 
dollars that were needed, yet we stopped the debate on Labor-HHS to 
debate an estate tax provision that costs $50 billion at the same time 
we will need the money to fund Social Security.
  Mr. Speaker, the rule is unfair in several respects, one, that the 
Doggett amendment on 527 groups was not allowed under this rule; two, 
that we are debating this estate tax legislation with its 50 billion 
dollar price tag instead of proceeding with the Labor-HHS legislation; 
and then, thirdly, we have on the floor a $50 billion bill that could 
have been done in a bipartisan manner at less costs that would have 
truly given estate tax relief to small businesses and family farmers.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Foley).
  Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the conversation today, and it 
is interesting that we are talking about giving estate tax relief for 
American families yet my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are 
changing the subject to campaign finance reform. It is interesting 
today that DNC, the Democratic National Committee, begins airing soft 
money ads for Al Gore, but nonetheless we are still talking, as the 
majority party, about giving tax relief to families.
  The premise was launched today about the rich getting a benefit under 
the bill. Well, let me tell my colleagues that the estates did not just 
materialize. The people who have created the businesses and the wealth 
in America paid excise taxes, paid property taxes, paid sales taxes, 
paid income taxes. And the wealthy that my colleagues are speaking of 
with such affection know how to avoid estate taxes. They buy high-
dollar denomination insurance policies. But the small family business 
cannot afford them because they are paying ever larger taxes.

                              {time}  1615

  I understand there is a substitute being offered by the minority. And 
it is interesting, they have had 40 years to eliminate seniors earning 
test, they have had 40 years to do something about estate relief tax, 
they have had 40 years to change the Tax Code. But know we are here 
today to try to rectify what is an egregious violation of hard work and 
equity on the American taxpayer.
  Let us remember, my colleagues, that small businesses grew through 
hard work, entrepreneuralism, and strength of families; and, lo and 
behold, when the person who created the business and prayed to God that 
all that hard work would some day benefit their children, in steps the 
Government, their new partner. They were not there to assist them 
through the growing formative years. But, lo and behold, they are here 
today to take out not only their fair share but an excessive share.
  Then we hear the hew and the cry from the other side about the 
diminution of revenue to the States. Well, let us cry for that today. 
Because the families who work their entire life have their businesses 
decimated, destroyed, subdivided, and sold off in pieces at auction to 
pay the Government's need for revenue. They are addicted to cash in the 
States and the Federal Treasury. We should do something today for the 
American families.
  I always learned growing up, my parents told me to work hard, strive 
for success, reach for excellence, build equity, make a life for 
yourself, be independent. Under the assumption today, we are passing a 
bill that furthers that independence and creates self-worth and 
dignity. Under their approach, let me take it out of their pocket. I do 
not care how hard they work. It is my money, and I will spend their 
money as I see fit.
  My colleagues, let us focus on estate taxes. Let us focus on 
families. We will deal with 527 corporations. But let us not change the 
subject. Pull the ads on the air by the DNC, and then we will talk 
about 527s.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Davis).
  (Mr. DAVIS of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, we are going to debate and adopt 
some form of estate tax relief today, as we should, as was pointed out 
by the previous speaker. But we also have an obligation to deal with an 
immediate problem that has developed in our campaign finance reform 
system which, we have to admit, is rancid. And that immediate problem 
is a gaping loophole that has developed that is referred to as the 
section 527 committee, a committee that solicits funds that are 
intended to be used to influence the outcome of an election and there 
is absolutely no disclosure whatsoever.
  As has been alluded to, this is not just a Republican problem. It has 
started off that way. I am terribly concerned the Democrats will 
succumb to the temptation to engage in this abuse. We need to stop that 
before it happens.
  What is at stake here? What is at stake here is that, when people go 
out to vote in elections this fall, they have the right to know who is 
talking to them. People should put their names on their ads if they are 
attempting to influence the outcome of an election.
  What is the only substantive argument against this? There are groups 
that have said that if their names have to go on some of the ads they 
want to run, they will not run those ads. If they are not willing to 
put their name on a message that they are sending to the voters, they 
should not have a right in this country to be engaging in anonymous 
political advertising.
  We can put a stop to that today. We can repeal the gift law 
exemption. With respect to these 527 acts, we can do that. And we can 
do estate tax relief. Let us do the right thing. Let us defeat the 
rule, and let us bring it back at the right time, and let us stop this 
abuse before it gets worse.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Linder).
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I have got to comment on the fact that the Democrats 
seem to rather talk about campaign finance reform on this than 
relieving America from an insidious tax, an immoral tax, a tax on what 
they accumulated through their lifetime and want to pass on to their 
children. Next to the gift tax, it is the least moral tax. But they 
would rather talk about 527 organizations that are used in campaigns.
  Their indignation, while seeming real, seems also very selective. 
Where were they when the peace action 527 was hammering Republicans? 
Ben and

[[Page H4081]]

Jerry's has a 527 trying to cut the Pentagon budget. I did not hear 
them talk about them. The AFL/CIO has been using them for years, and 
the Sierra Club spent millions on issue ads in 1996 through their 527. 
I did not hear anybody up here hollering about them.
  But guess what? The Republicans copied their practice, formed a 527, 
and all of a sudden it is a threat to democracy. It is a threat to 
democracy.
  This indignation is too selective to be seen as real. Let us pass 
this rule and move on with doing the right thing for the American 
people.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Florida (Mrs. Thurman).
  Mrs. THURMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I am rising in strong opposition to the rule, primarily 
because it has denied the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) the 
opportunity to offer an amendment that I believe was meant to protect 
Social Security, Medicare, and debt reduction. In fact, this was the 
same amendment that was offered on the CARIB bill that was just for $3 
billion on May 10.
  Now, we could accept it on that one. Today we are looking at a bill 
that is going to cost us $50 billion and for about 45,000 people.
  Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. THURMAN. I yield to the gentleman from New Hampshire.
  Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Speaker, I ask the gentlewoman, how did she vote on 
the Shadegg amendment?
  Mrs. THURMAN. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I voted ``yes.''
  And I am certainly glad the gentleman did point that out because, 
yes, I did. And then, of course, we revoted that vote, with every 
Democrat and Republican on this floor except for three voting to 
protect Medicare and Social Security. And if the gentleman remembers, 
that was $3 billion.
  Today they want to spend $50 billion. So today we are going to spend 
$50 billion, and we are not going to be given the same opportunity to 
offer this amendment again.
  The amendment basically says, and I will read it directly from the 
Congressional Record.
  By the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg):
  ``Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes.
  ``The American people have spoken. They agree that conservation 
funding is important. I commend the sponsors of this bill on that 
point. But there is a very important condition. They do not agree that 
we should raid the Social Security Trust Fund. They have made that 
position extremely clear last year and the year before. They want 100 
percent of the surplus set aside. They also want to know that Medicare 
is funded and solvent. They have made that very clear. They want to 
know that it is there for their health care as seniors. And they want 
to know that the public debt will be paid off by the deadline of 
2013.''

  Why can we not have this amendment? I do not understand that. I think 
we should vote against this rule and allow the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Stenholm) to have his day.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Buyer).
  (Mr. BUYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I almost have to say that demagoguery is a 
serious ailment, an illness, to a democratic form of government. It is 
unfortunate that we cannot have serious dialogue and debate about the 
issue that we have. This is about a rule on the repeal of the death 
tax. It is not about campaign finance reform.
  I served here under the minority in the 39th and 40th year of 
Democrat rule when this House was a sea of red ink, the debt exploding, 
deficits as far as the eye could see. Now they are trying to claim that 
they are the protectorates of the treasury, that they somehow are the 
protectorates of Social Security when they took the Social Security 
Trust Fund monies to grow Government? That is absurd.
  What we have here today is to repeal the death tax. This is long 
overdue. This tax hits individuals who have worked hard all their 
lives, who have worked and saved in their efforts to fulfill the 
American dream.
  My constituent from Marion, Indiana, wrote to me about her parents: 
``My parents were frugal and saved any large sum of money they ever got 
their hands on. My mother taught school. My father was a master pattern 
maker. They will were products of the Depression. They purchased land 
in Arkansas. And now their estate looks to total over $1 million. Now 
this estate is forced with a 39-percent estate tax. What a disgrace. 
Surely we do not have to take from those of whom were frugal, made sure 
that they paid their way, and are now dead.''
  This tax hits the small business owner and the family farmer the 
hardest. These are the individuals who sacrifice, who invest their time 
and money in the family business and their farm, and they want to leave 
this world comforted with the knowledge that their children and 
grandchildren can also continue their labor and hard work.
  The death tax collects for the Federal Government merely 1 percent of 
the revenues. Do my colleagues realize that if we cleaned up the fraud 
on the earned income tax credit we could more than offset this tax?
  Yet compliance costs are nearly as much as the revenue collected. And 
the time a small business owner or farmer spends to plan for the 
inevitable coming of death, is time and energy and money that is not 
spent on growing the business. A dollar that goes to the accountant or 
lawyer is a dollar that does not go to new equipment or expansion.
  This is a tax on the very behavior the government should be 
encouraging . . . Hard Work.
  Only one-third of family-owned businesses survive into the next 
generation. All too often a family business or farm has to be 
liquidated so the heirs can pay the death tax. When a family has to 
sell the family farm to pay taxes, it can mean that open space, fields 
and forests, are lost to development. There is an indirect adverse 
impact to our environment from this tax.
  The death tax is unnecessary, unfair and against the virtue of hard 
work. It is wrong to confiscate the savings of people who work hard all 
their lives.
  I urge the adoption of the rule and support the repeal of the death 
tax.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Mississippi (Mr. Taylor).
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I hope during the course of this debate someone will 
explain to me how a Nation that is $5.7 trillion in debt; a Nation that 
squanders $1 billion a day in interest on that debt; a Congress that 
during their lifetimes saw the debt rise by $4.7 trillion; a Congress 
that is delaying the pay of the troops in the military from September 
29 to October 1 in a budget game to move that $2.5 billion expense to 
the next fiscal year, no big deal for a Congressman, big deal for an E2 
or an E3 when they do not have money for diapers or formula that 
weekend; a Congress that will not vote on the Shows bill to help our 
Nation's veterans and military retirees because they say we do not have 
the $5 billion, but this same Congress is now saying we are going to 
ignore the fact that we owe the Social Security Trust Fund $800 
billion, we are going to ignore the $1 billion a day we are paying in 
interest on that debt, and we are going to give the wealthiest two 
percent of all Americans a tax break.
  If they earn $650,000, they pay taxes on it. But they can inherit 
$650,000 and pay nothing. That is the present law. So we are really 
talking about things above that. And if it happens to be a couple, then 
it is $1.3 million.
  Yes, there are some farmers who are the unfortunate victims of the 
inflation value of their acreage. Yes, there are some small business 
owners. Let us gear this bill to take care of them instead of helping 
the folks who have the most, who, in all probability, benefit when we 
borrow money because they sell us the T bills, and they are already 
getting the interest on that debt and all we are going to do is pass 
this generation's bills on to our children.
  I will not do that as an individual. I will not do that as a 
Congressman.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Gilman).
  (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.

[[Page H4082]]

  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 8, the Death Tax 
Elimination Act of 2000. I urge my colleagues to lend this bill their 
full support.
  The estate tax is an outmoded policy that has long outlived its 
usefulness. Alternatively known as the death tax, this tax was 
instituted back in the early 1900s, about 1960, to prevent too much 
wealth from congregating from the wealthy capitalist families in early 
20th century America.
  Regrettably, the law failed in its original purpose, as the truly 
wealthy are always able to shelter their income with the help of tax 
attorneys that the middle class cannot afford.
  In recent years, the estate has tax has been responsible for the 
death of 85 percent of America's small businesses by the third 
generation. Furthermore, countless number of farms have had to be sold 
in order to pay an outrageously high estate tax ranging as high as 55 
percent of the farm's assessed value.
  By forcing the sale of such farmland to outside buyers, often 
commercial developers, the estate tax has been a large contributor to 
suburban sprawl and unchecked growth in my congressional district in 
southern New York State.
  The most indefensible point about the estate tax, however, is the 
cost associated with enforcing and collecting it. Recent estimates have 
placed the cost of collecting at 65 cents out of every dollar taken in.
  Given this excessive cost, as well as the fact that the assets taxed 
under the estate tax have often already been taxed several times, it 
makes no sense for us to continue this nonsensical practice. Family-
owned small businesses certainly will do better without the taxes, as 
would family farms that still operate from generation to generation.
  Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to join in supporting this worthy 
legislation.

                              {time}  1630

  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Stenholm), the cosponsor of the amendment.
  (Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, let me first say what I am for and what I 
will vote for tomorrow, and that is eliminating the death tax on every 
estate of $4 million and less. I could be persuaded in the kind of 
debate that I would hope we would have to repeal the entire death tax 
if it was done in the context of total tax reform. But in the context 
of which we will discuss it today and tomorrow and in this rule, I 
oppose strongly this rule because it prevents the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Sherman) and I from offering an amendment to ensure 
that the estate tax repeal does not threaten Social Security and 
undermine the fiscal discipline that has produced our strong economy.
  During the debate on the Conservation and Reinvestment Act, I joined 
with the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg) to offer an amendment 
that made the new spending for conservation programs contingent upon 
certification that we were on a path to eliminate the debt by 2013 and 
protecting the integrity of the Social Security and Medicare funds. The 
gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman) and I submitted an amendment 
applying this principle to phase-in of the estate tax repeal in H.R. 8. 
Our amendment is a very straightforward proposal which would simply 
require that this tax cut fit within the context of a fiscally 
responsible budget and maintain our commitment to eliminating the 
publicly held debt as quickly as possible.
  Since the Shadegg amendment passed with strong bipartisan support, I 
would have hoped that my friends on the other side of the aisle who 
supported this principle when it applied to spending would support our 
effort to provide the same safeguards for tax cuts consuming the 
projected surplus.
  Mr. Speaker, not only did I vote with the gentleman from New 
Hampshire (Mr. Sununu) and others, I enthusiastically supported them, 
and I will be very disappointed if not any of them today support a 
similar type of an amendment.
  I do not understand how we can have this rhetoric going back and 
forth between the sides blaming us on this side when some of us are 
asking consistency and when most of us who are concerned about paying 
down the debt and protecting Social Security on both sides of the aisle 
agree that an H.R. 8 that is backend loaded that will provide a $50 
billion hole in the budget in 2010 is not the kind of fiscal 
responsibility that we stand up and talk about day after day. I do not 
understand how we can have such a dual purpose. When we can have 
bipartisan support for the Shadegg amendment but when we offer the same 
amendment or we ask under the rule to be allowed to have the same 
amendment voted on, you say no.
  Mr. Speaker, I would yield any time to anyone on this side of the 
aisle right now to explain to me why they would not allow a simple up-
and-down vote to say yes, we will have this repeal of the death tax if 
it does not materially affect the survival of Social Security beginning 
in 2010. I will be happy to yield to any Member right now to give me a 
reason why they would not allow the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Sherman) and I to offer this same amendment on this bill.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
New Hampshire (Mr. Sununu).
  Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Speaker, there is a lot of rhetoric on the floor here 
today, but this is an important and a substantive issue. I believe 
firmly it is not a question about rich and poor, it is really a 
question of right and wrong. It is a question of fundamental fairness. 
Is it right to tax an estate, a family, simply because the owner of 
that estate happens to pass away? Is it right to take up to half of 
what that family owns?
  My colleagues here today are talking about their interest in 
protecting a small business. What does that really mean? Let us take a 
closer look. That means if your estate, your home, your business, your 
farm is only worth $650,000 or $1 million, and you die, well, they 
agree that should not be taxed. But if you are successful, if you are 
too successful in their eyes, and your business or farm is worth $5 
million or $10 million or $20 million, then the Federal Government 
should be able to take half, 55 percent of everything you own. The 
Federal Government is given a presumptive claim to all of it. Is that 
right? Never. It is wrong if your estate is worth $50,000, it is wrong 
if your estate is worth $50 million. It is wrong if you are Bill Gates 
and your estate is worth $50 billion for the Federal Government to step 
in and say we get 55 percent of everything you have.
  I think that cuts to the core of what this debate is all about. It is 
morally wrong to have written into the Tax Code that kind of power to 
confiscate any individual's property, rich, poor, farmer, small 
businessman, individual, or family.
  I ask my colleagues to support the entire elimination of the death 
tax here on the floor tomorrow, not because of dollars and cents but 
because of right and wrong.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maine (Mr. Baldacci).
  Mr. BALDACCI. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, the Joint Tax Committee estimates that only 2 percent of 
all estates will pay estate taxes. Only 3 percent of that 2 percent are 
estates where family-owned businesses and farms make up more than half 
the value of the estate. To put this in further perspective, in 1998, 
the Department of Treasury estimates that only 776 family businesses 
and 642 family farms were subject to the estate tax. As a small 
businessperson, I am very much aware of the burden under which many 
entrepreneurs and working families must operate.
  My family has a family business, and I understand the concerns of 
those who want to pass their business on to the next generation. We 
have passed legislation in this Chamber which has exempted 98 percent 
of the family-owned family businesses and family farms. Still we are 
going to do more, and I support doing more. The plan that is before us 
today even in the 10-year period is $50 billion a year, but really what 
we are talking about is over $500 billion from 2011 to 2020, $500 
billion when the baby boomers are coming of age for Social Security, 
for Medicare, and Medicaid and talking about a prescription drug 
program.
  I think that the lockbox that everybody promoted earlier and all of 
us

[[Page H4083]]

have supported, the lockbox will be empty when it is opened up and it 
is already going to be taken out for less than 2 percent of the estates 
in the entire country who are going to have those resources available 
to them. The substitute plan which we are supporting which is a common 
sense approach to continuing to reduce the burden on family businesses 
and family farms is a 20 percent reduction across the board in raising 
the level, further reinforcing tax relief for these families and to 
make sure that they have an opportunity to pass it on from one 
generation to the next.
  It is something that is very important to me. We have reached across 
the aisle and tried to work bipartisanly, but the plan that the 
majority is supporting is going to break the bank and not going to 
leave any resources for any relief for any Americans.
  I think one thing that I hear from my business friends which I would 
like to bring up here today is that if we could work on reducing the 
interest rates and reducing the debt and deficit, that there would be a 
lot more economic activity and a lot more purchases of homes, lower 
student loan interest rates, lower car loans and increasing economic 
activity throughout America. That is what we ought to be doing, is 
looking to reducing the debt and the deficit and not squandering it for 
a very few families who are very, very wealthy and taking up all of 
what is left for Social Security, Medicare, and a prescription drug 
program.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Cox).
  Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, let us remind ourselves how we got here. When, 
in 1993, I introduced the first bill in the history of the income tax 
to repeal the death tax, we had just a few sponsors. By the 106th 
Congress, I had over 200 sponsors on my legislation to repeal the death 
tax. And last year the House and the Senate agreed on legislation that 
we sent to President Clinton to completely repeal the death tax. In 
September 1999, Bill Clinton vetoed death tax relief.
  Now we are back here to do it again for one simple reason. The 
gathering momentum behind repeal of the death tax is a result of the 
increasing realization of where the burden of this tax falls. It does 
not fall on the dead rich person. That is the one person who does not 
care. It does not even fall on the wealthy people in the family of the 
rich person. They might have to pay 55 percent or 60 percent because of 
a 5 percent surtax that kicks in, but the real burden of this falls on 
the low-wage worker who pays a tax rate of 100 percent when he or she 
loses a job because that medium-sized business or small business that 
is not publicly owned has to be liquidated in whole or in part to pay 
the tax man.
  That is why when in California we put this to an initiative of the 
people, even though the Los Angeles Times repeatedly said it is a tax 
break for the rich, almost two-thirds of voters agreed we should 
completely repeal California's death tax. Larry Summers, now the 
Secretary of the Treasury, when he was an economist at Harvard just a 
few years ago told us that we probably lose money on this tax, that we 
may not even make a penny even though it seems to raise 1 percent of 
our revenues because of all the tax avoidance schemes that people use 
to not pay it, such as lifetime gifts. That takes away from income tax 
they pay this year.
  It is time for the death tax to die. I am thrilled we are bringing it 
to the floor again. Let us send it to the President again and this time 
ask him not to veto it, Mr. President, but to sign it.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).
  Mr. KIND. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and also in opposition 
to the majority estate tax repeal bill that will be debated on the 
floor here tomorrow and in support of the Democratic substitute. I do 
not understand why the rule did not make in order the Stenholm 
amendment which merely demands some accountability to ensure that a 
$500 billion 10-year tax cut that is going to benefit the wealthiest 2 
percent individuals in our country does not jeopardize our chances for 
meaningful national debt reduction and the long-term solvency of the 
Social Security program. It is something that was demanded during the 
CARA bill just a couple of weeks ago when it came to conservation and 
environmental programs that will benefit the entire Nation and it 
should apply as equally well to a large tax cut bill which is going to 
be a boom to the wealthiest Americans in this Nation. The Democratic 
substitute on the other hand, will take care of the family farmers and 
small business owners but in a fiscally responsible manner.
  I want to, however, take a few moments to also speak about the latest 
scourge in the campaign finance system and that is the creation of the 
527 corporations that we are seeing in modern American politics. These 
are the unregulated, unlimited, unaccountable corporations that are 
being formed for the sole purpose of influencing the outcome of 
campaigns.
  They are unaccountable in the fact that no one knows where these 
large contributions are coming from. In fact, they could be coming from 
foreign sources and it would be legal for foreign contributors make 
contributions to the 527s in order to influence the American political 
process. And that is wrong and it should be changed. For too long in 
this Chamber, the opponents of finance reform have always claimed that 
the only thing we need to demand is more disclosure in the system.
  The Moore-Doggett bill does exactly that. All it requires is 
accountability through disclosure to apply to 527s so we have an idea 
of where all this money is coming from. It is an outrage what is going 
on. It is unacceptable. If we are to live up to the words and the 
rhetoric that has been permeating these halls for too long, we should 
at least take this very sensible and practical approach. If we cannot 
pass comprehensive finance reform or even incremental reform with 
Shays-Meehan or the McCain-Feingold bill in the Senate, let us at least 
do the right thing and demand disclosure in the 527s.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Missouri (Mr. Blunt).
  Mr. BLUNT. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to say that it is amazing to me that so much of 
the debate against this bill has been about campaign finance. I am for 
the rule, I am for the bill. If I was on the other side of it, I might 
be trying to talk about something else as well. Two weeks ago, we 
repealed a tax that we had put on the books in 1898 to fight the 
Spanish American War. This tax was put on the books in 1916 to fight 
World War I. It is time to get rid of these 100-year-old special 
purpose taxes and even the 86-year-old special purpose taxes. People do 
not have anything at their death that they have not paid taxes on many 
times. Death should not be a taxable event. You should not have to see 
the IRS agent and the undertaker the same week or you should not have 
to see the IRS agent because you saw the undertaker.
  We need to eliminate this tax. We can do this. The American people 
know it is unfair. Let me make one final point. In terms of spending 
like we were talking about in the CARA bill and so often the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) and I are on the same side, we are talking 
about spending on Federal land or for more Federal land. If a family 
budget goes in the red, they cut their spending. They do not get a new 
source of income. There is nothing wrong with cutting taxes and giving 
the American family the tax break they need. If we have a shortfall, we 
ought to find that shortfall in spending just like we said on the CARA 
bill we were prepared to do.

                              {time}  1645

  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Cardin).
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, the problem with the underlying bill that 
repeals the estate tax is that it is back-loaded. It provides the 
relief in the outyears and explodes in costs and is fiscally 
irresponsible. The substitute provides relief now and does it in a 
fiscally responsible way.
  Let me just give my colleagues one example. Under current law, if one 
has a net estate of $1 million, one pays $125,000 in estate tax. Under 
the underlying bill, if one dies in 2001, it will be reduced to 
$93,000. Under the Democratic substitute, one would pay zero

[[Page H4084]]

 estate taxes in 2001. If one's estate is $1.5 million under current 
law one would pay $335,000 in taxes. Under the underlying bill, the 
repeal bill, one would still pay $277,000, a 17 percent reduction. But 
under the Democratic substitute, one would only pay $135,000, or a 60 
percent reduction.
  The problem is that we are trying to deal with family-owned 
businesses and family farms, which represents 3 percent of the 2 
percent of the estates that are subject to the estate tax, .06 percent 
of the estates. We spend a lot of money to do it. The substitute deals 
with it directly by raising that to $4 million before it is subject to 
estate tax.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of the Committee 
on Rules.
  (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, thanks to this full, wholesome, and hard-
hitting debate, one might conclude that this is a partisan issue when, 
in fact, it is very bipartisan. There are 46 Democrats who have joined 
with the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Dunn) as cosponsors of this 
very important legislation.
  As has been pointed out several times, death should, in fact, not 
trigger a tax; and it is very, very unfortunate that there are many 
people who, upon facing death, family members have to, along with 
visiting the undertaker, visit the IRS agent, visit the tax lawyer, 
visit their accountant, and that is wrong. We want to end that.
  There are many people here who have been arguing that this is somehow 
going to create a drain on the flow of revenues to the Federal 
Treasury. That is clearly wrong. Empirical evidence has shown that if 
we would have repealed the death tax back in 1971, by 1991, the gross 
domestic product growth would have been 1 percentage point higher, 
obviously generating an increase in the flow of revenues to the Federal 
Treasury.
  As we look at a study that recently came out, it showed that 75 
percent of successful businesses failed after the death of the owner, 
and lack of capital has been the reason that 70 percent of those 
businesses reported that they failed and obviously, the death tax, 
which has created real uncertainty and great problems and a drain, have 
played a role in jeopardizing economic growth.
  So it seems to me that we have a very important obligation to realize 
that this is the responsible thing to do; the American people want us 
to do this. Double taxation is wrong, and this is a first step towards 
repealing that. This is a fair rule. We have turned ourselves inside 
out to make sure that we provided for a substitute that is going to be 
offered by the ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and 
Means, and we also suspect that there may be a motion to recommit. It 
is a tax bill. We do not open up the Tax Code. The Democrats never did 
it, we are not doing that, and yet we have provided 2 bites at the 
apple for Members of the minority; so it is a very fair measure, and I 
urge my colleagues to support the rule and to support the bill itself.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Doggett).
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from California and the other 
Republican members of the Committee on Rules have now joined their 
Republican colleagues on the Committee on Ways and Means, who have 
twice voted, on a strictly partisan basis, to ensure that this House 
does nothing to clean up the mess in our political system.
  My amendment that they rejected is to the gift tax, a critical part 
of this estate and gift tax bill. I believe that it is time for 
taxpayers to stop subsidizing those, who make unlimited, secret 
contributions to section 527 political organizations.
  What is a 527? Not some new kind of aircraft. A 527 political 
organization, quite simply, is a political hit squad. It relies on 
contributors who are hidden: they can be foreign, they can be Iraqi, 
Cuban, Chinese, whatever, or just home-grown special interest corporate 
treasury money. Its operations are secret, and its mission is character 
assassination. These are the groups that pollute the airwaves and fill 
our mailboxes with hate ads attacking one side or the other.
  Last week, before we recessed for Memorial Day, 201 Democrats and 6 
Republicans stood on this floor and said, enough of that nonsense. They 
voted to clean up this mess, and at least get disclosure, nonpartisan 
disclosure. This amendment applies to everyone, regardless of political 
philosophy or association or allies, to see that all of them meet the 
simple, narrow requirement of merely answering: ``who gave you the 
money'' and ``what did you spend it on.''
  Today, as we speak on this floor, on the other side of this Capitol, 
Republican Senators are rising to say they cannot do anything about 
cleaning up 527 political organizations because it is a tax measure, 
the very reason I offer the amendment here, and that the House must act 
first. So we have on one side, the Republican leadership saying the 
House must act first, while the House leadership hammers into 
submission the members of its caucus to keep them from doing what they 
know is right. Our Republican colleagues know that their leadership, 
and some have said this, they know their leadership's position is 
absolutely indefensible, that one cannot defend relying on secret, 
hidden money to produce these hate ads, and yet that is what the 
leadership insists that they do.
  Those who say that the Republicans, as some reports have suggested, 
now have a proposal to deal with this problem are wrong. They do not 
have a bill, they do not have a hearing, they do not have a proposal 
for which they will even provide an outline. All that they are doing is 
trying to provide their caucus some cover, because they also do not 
have any good excuse for not resolving this problem. As Senator John 
McCain has said, this is ``the latest manifestation of corruption in 
American politics,'' and we can do something about it with this bill.
  Tomorrow, there is going to be a moment of truth, a motion to 
recommit and an opportunity to vote up or down to stand and show 
whether we are in favor of more deceit, of more character 
assassinations on the television airwaves paid for with hidden money, 
or whether we are in favor of cleaning up this corruption of the 
American political system.
  The Washington Post said it best today in its editorial, ``In Love 
With the Dark'': ``It is hard to believe that a majority of the House, 
including the leadership, cannot be shamed into voting at least for 
sunlight. Why would they prefer the dark?''
  Mr. Speaker, I would challenge my Republican colleagues to answer 
that question.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I have enjoyed the special orders during 
the rule that we are now debating.
  I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. 
Johnson).
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I say to the gentleman, I 
would be pleased to set the record straight on his comments. The 
gentleman has raised a very substantial, interesting, and I think 
important issue in his proposal to require disclosure by 527 groups, 
and I believe the gentleman is aware that the Subcommittee on Oversight 
and Investigation of the Committee on Ways and Means is, as we speak--
and has been back only 2 days since this was discussed at the Committee 
on Ways and Means full committee meeting--is preparing a proposal that 
goes beyond the gentleman's proposal in a very important way. It goes 
beyond the gentleman's proposal by treating all tax-exempt entities 
that are allowed under the law to engage in political activity the same 
way.
  I agree with the gentleman's proposal. I just do not believe that it 
is evenhanded tax law, because it does not treat in an evenhanded, 
equitable, fair way all entities that are tax-subsidized, that is, 
citizen-subsidized, but allowed to engage in political activity the 
same way.
  So we are going to do a very good job on this, in my estimation. 
Sunshine is important. Entities that engage in political activity with 
taxpayer subsidies should be required, in my estimation, to report 
their contributors and their expenditures; and I believe that we will 
have the opportunity in committee and on this floor, to pass 
legislation that

[[Page H4085]]

builds on the gentleman's proposal, and does what is necessary, and 
that is, treats 501(c)(3)s, 4s and 5s and 6s the same way.
  So I urge support for the rule and opposition to the previous 
question motion.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, if the previous question is defeated, I will offer an 
amendment to the rule. My amendment will make in order the Sherman-
Stenholm fiscal responsibility amendment. The fiscal responsibility 
amendment requires that the estate tax relief will not take effect 
until, one, the OMB certifies that the public debt will be retired by 
the year 2013; and, two, that the trustees certify that plans are in 
place to keep solvent the Social Security and the Medicare trust funds. 
Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of my amendment be 
printed in the Record immediately before the vote on the previous 
question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. McHugh). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Fossella).
  (Mr. FOSSELLA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for 
yielding, and I thank the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Dunn) for 
bringing this bill to the floor, and I support the rule.
  The story of Alvin Conklin and his idea of opening up a small lumber 
shop on Staten Island represents one man's hope of securing the 
American dream for himself and his family. Established in 1888, Farrell 
Lumber remains a family-owned and family-operated business in its 
truest sense. For 112 years, Alvin Conklin and then Harry Farrell and 
his wife, and today, their children, Bob and Don, and grandchildren all 
helped make Farrell Lumber a thriving small business with an impeccable 
reputation for quality and service. They are a proud member of the 
Staten Island community.
  However, the estate tax threatens their small business much like it 
threatens so many small businesses in America today. For the Farrells, 
the estate tax could potentially confiscate the valuable family 
business and, worse, strip the Farrells of their dream to pass it on to 
their children and grandchildren. It is evident that the death tax 
discourages savings and investment and entrepreneurship and punishes 
families like the Farrells who work 7 days a week, 15-hour days to grow 
and expand their business.
  Repealing the estate tax would ensure economic fairness for all 
Americans, while encouraging expanded growth and prosperity for our 
country as a whole. Let us not forget the 35 people who work for the 
Farrells. Those are the guys who load the truck with lumber, who drop 
it off at your house, or the lady who helps you select a door. If the 
Farrells are forced to close their doors, those 35 people will be out 
of work.
  There is a story like that across America. Let us end it and make it 
a good one for the Farrells.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The death tax stifles growth, discourages savings, stymies job 
creation, drains resources, and ruins family businesses and farms. It 
is time we phase out this unfair tax and allow the American dream to be 
passed on to our children and future generations.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the material 
previously referred to.

  Previous Question Vote To Make In Order The Sherman-Stenholm fiscal 
                        Responsibility Amendment

       On page 2, line 13, strike ``and'' the second place it 
     occurs and after ``(3)'' insert the following:
       ``The further amendment printed in section 2 of this 
     resolution, which may be offered only by Representative 
     Sherman of California or Representative Stenholm of Texas, or 
     their designee, shall be considered as read, and shall be 
     separately debatable for one hour equally divided and 
     controlled by the proponent and by an opponent; and (4)''
       At the end of the resolution, add the following:
       ``Section 2. Amendment to be Offered by Representative 
     Sherman of California or Representative Stenholm of Texas, or 
     their designee:
       At the end of the bill (page ____, after line ____), add 
     the following new title:

TITLE VI--ENSURING DEBT RETIREMENT AND INTEGRITY OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY 
                   AND MEDICARE TRUST FUND SURPLUSES

     SEC. 601. ENSURING DEBT RETIREMENT AND INTEGRITY OF THE 
                   SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE TRUST FUND 
                   SURPLUSES.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     this Act or of an amendment made by this Act, a reduction in 
     the rate of tax (including the repeal thereof) under section 
     2001(c), and an increase in the exemption amount under 
     section 2001(b), of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 which 
     is scheduled to take effect in a calendar year shall not take 
     effect unless the certifications specified by subsection (b) 
     for the fiscal year in which such calendar year begins are 
     made before the beginning of such fiscal year.
       (b) Certifications Specified.--The certifications specified 
     in this subsection are the following:
       (1) The Director of Office of Management and Budget has 
     certified that a law has been enacted which--
       (A) ensures that a sufficient portion of the on-budget 
     surplus is reserved for debt retirement to put the Government 
     on a path to eliminate the publicly held debt by fiscal year 
     2013 under current economic and technical projections, and
       (B) ensures that, under current economic and technical 
     projections, the unified budget surplus for the fiscal year 
     in which such calendar year begins shall not be less than the 
     surplus of the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust 
     Fund and Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund for such 
     fiscal year.
       (2) The Board of Trustees of the Federal Old-Age and 
     Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and the Federal Disability 
     Insurance Trust Fund has certified either--
       (A) that outlays from such trust funds are not anticipated 
     to exceed the revenues to such trust funds during such fiscal 
     year and any of the next 5 fiscal years, or
       (B) that legislation has been enacted extending the 
     solvency of such trust funds for 75 years.
       (3) The Board of Trustees of the Federal Hospital Insurance 
     Trust Fund has certified either--
       (A) that the outlays from such trust fund are not 
     anticipated to exceed the revenues to such trust fund during 
     such fiscal year and any of the next 5 fiscal years, or
       (B) that legislation has been enacted extending the 
     solvency of such trust fund for 25 years.
       (c) Continuation of Prior Rate of Tax.--If a reduction in 
     the rate of tax (including the repeal thereof), or an 
     increase in the exemption amount, under section 2001 of such 
     Code does not take effect for a calendar year by reason of 
     subsection (a), the rate of tax and exemption amount under 
     such section in effect immediately before the beginning of 
     such calendar year shall continue in effect.
  Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Speaker, I rise as a cosponsor and strong supporter 
of the measure before us to eliminate the unfair Death Tax.
  The Death Tax destroys a fundamental American dream--being able to 
pass on the success we have earned to our children. Currently, more 
than 70 percent of family businesses do not survive to the second 
generation, and 87 percent do not make it to the third. My own family 
worked to build a family-owned car dealership, and we felt the punitive 
blow of the Death Tax.
  How can we continue to impose a tax that forces the sale of family 
businesses and throws Americans out of work? How can we continue to tax 
the very values we should be encouraging--work and saving for our 
families?
  Mr. Speaker, the American people understand that this tax is unfair 
and should be eliminated. The Death Tax forces families to expend 
resources on burdensome estate planning.
  Small businesses understand that it forces them to cut back 
operations, sell income-producing assets, lay off workers and sometimes 
liquidate the business.
  Conservation groups understand that the Death Tax damages the 
environment by forcing families to sell land to developers to pay the 
onerous tax.
  Mr. Speaker, the Death Tax deserves to die. This bill will kill the 
anti-family, anti-job and anti-environmental tax, and I urge my 
colleagues to support it.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. 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. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.

[[Page H4086]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair 
will reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the period of time within which a 
vote by electronic device, if ordered, will be taken on the question of 
agreeing to the resolution.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 225, 
nays 199, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 248]

                               YEAS--225

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth-Hage
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Eshoo
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kasich
     Kelly
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paul
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--199

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill (IN)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E.B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Phelps
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Shows
     Sisisky
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Clay
     Danner
     Greenwood
     Houghton
     Istook
     Klink
     Markey
     Smith (MI)
     Vento
     Watkins

                              {time}  1718

  Messrs. HALL of Texas, DICKS, ROTHMAN, BLAGOJEVICH, SANDLIN and FORD 
and Ms. KAPTUR changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. GILLMOR and Mr. LAZIO changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. McHugh). 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. MOAKLEY. 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 242, 
noes 180, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 249]

                               AYES--242

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boucher
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth-Hage
     Clement
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Eshoo
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Gutknecht
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kasich
     Kelly
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paul
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

[[Page H4087]]



                               NOES--180

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Berry
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill (IN)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Phelps
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Shows
     Sisisky
     Slaughter
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Clay
     Danner
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Houghton
     Istook
     Klink
     Markey
     Smith (MI)
     Stark
     Vento
     Watkins

                              {time}  1730

  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.
  Stated for:
  Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 249, had I been 
present, I would have voted ``aye.''

                          ____________________