[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 98 (Thursday, July 18, 2002)]
[House]
[Pages H4878-H4884]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5121, LEGISLATIVE BRANCH
APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2003
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules,
I call up House Resolution 489 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 489
Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 5121) making appropriations for the
Legislative Branch for the fiscal year ending September 30,
2003, and for other purposes. 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 Appropriations. After general debate the bill
shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule.
The bill shall be considered as read through page 61, line
16. Points of order against provisions in the bill for
failure to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI are waived except
as follows: beginning with ``Provided'' on page 11, line 4,
through line 9; page 16, line 21, through page 21, line 17.
Where points of order are waived against part of a paragraph,
points of order against a provision in another part of such
paragraph may be made only against such provision and not
against the entire paragraph. No amendment to the bill shall
be in order except the amendment printed in the report of the
Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution and except
pro forma amendments offered by the chairman or ranking
minority member of the Committee on Appropriations or their
designees for the purpose of debate. The amendment printed in
the report may be offered only by a Member designated in the
report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for
the time specified in the report equally divided and
controlled by the proponent and an opponent, and shall not be
subject to amendment. At the conclusion of consideration of
the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report
the bill to the House with such amendment as may have been
adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered
on the bill and the amendment thereto to final passage
without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with
or without instructions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart)
is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms.
Slaughter); pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for
purposes of debate only.
(Mr. DIAZ-BALART asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 489 is a structured
rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 5121, the Legislative
Branch Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2003. The rule provides for 1
hour of general debate evenly divided and controlled by the chairman
and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations.
The rule further provides that the amendment offered by the ranking
minority member of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Moran), be made in order.
This is a fair rule that will allow all Members ample opportunity to
debate the important issues associated with this bill. I want to point
out again, Mr. Speaker, that the gentleman from Virginia had an
amendment that he wished to make in order with regard to the issue of
the Joint Committee on Taxation reducing some funds, I believe it is
$590,000, and even though this is a structured rule, we made it in
order in the interest of absolute fairness.
The underlying legislation funds many important programs that work to
keep our government functioning. Some of these programs include $219
million for the Capitol Police, $422 million for the Library of
Congress, $86 million for the Congressional Research Service, and $457
million for the General Accounting Office.
At this time I think it is important we highlight a particular item
of this bill. Since September 11, the Capitol Police have worked
incredibly, tirelessly, to ensure that we, the Members and all the
staff here, and the Capitol itself be safe. Their efforts have allowed
us to do our jobs without any safety concerns and worries, and I would
like to take this opportunity to commend the Capitol Hill Police, all
of the officers in that distinguished body, for their courage and their
dedication.
I would also like to thank the Committee on Appropriations for
ensuring that the brave men and women of the Capitol Police will
receive pay at least equal to other Federal law enforcement agencies.
I would also like to thank the chairman of this subcommittee, the
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor), and all the members of the
subcommittee. Mr. Speaker, this bill gives us the tools to serve our
constituents in an effective and efficient manner, and I urge my
colleagues to support both the rule and the underlying legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume, and I thank my colleague for yielding me the customary half
hour.
(Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend
her remarks.)
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule. The
measure leaves unprotected a provision of the underlying bill authored
by my colleague, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran). The
unprotected provision withholds the release of $590,000, the amount the
Joint Committee on Taxation requested above its fiscal 2002 budget
until the Joint Committee releases its Report on Expatriates.
My colleagues may remember this report. It was requested by one of
our former chairs, Mr. Archer, in 1999, to study the scope and the
impact of wealthy U.S. taxpayers who renounce their citizenship to
avoid paying their U.S. taxes.
In the wake of recent corporate scandals and in the wake of
assertions by members of the majority leadership that corporations
moving their corporations abroad do it only to avoid taxes, which was
the fault of our Tax Code and not of the corporations, the report has
taken on an added importance.
Earlier this year, the Wall Street Journal ran a story suggesting the
report was largely completed. But despite repeated requests, the report
has yet to be released. Last night, the Committee on Rules could easily
have removed this potential roadblock to obtaining this report, but it
chose not to.
Mr. Speaker, this, unfortunately, has become a pattern with the
majority leadership. Reports in recent days have suggested that the
majority leadership is joining forces with corporations who abuse tax
avoidance schemes in an effort to kill our attempts to close major tax
loopholes, with the help of the Treasury.
Specifically, the GOP leadership attempted earlier this week to strip
out a provision passed by Democrats in the Committee on Appropriations
that would prohibit government contracts from being issued to companies
that have reincorporated overseas specifically to avoid paying taxes.
{time} 1300
Accenture, formerly Andersen Consulting, is spearheading a lobbying
campaign, as their $43 million contract with the IRS could be affected.
Accenture recently moved its headquarters to Bermuda to avoid paying
U.S. taxes. The amendment to curtail this practice is the first in a
campaign by the Committee on Appropriations to force the majority to
confront corporate wrongdoing, worker pension
[[Page H4879]]
raids by executives, and stockholder deception. It is my hope that the
majority will stop blocking the efforts to address these reform
efforts.
In other respects, however, the underlying bill is noncontroversial
and provides funds for all aspects of operating the House of
Representatives, including staff and committee salaries and expenses,
mail and security. It also covers congressional agencies such as the
Library of Congress, the General Accounting Office, and the Botanical
Gardens.
I would like to highlight the bill's provisions designed to improve
Capitol Police recruitment and retention. Since September 11, the hours
and pressures of protecting staff and Members and the visiting public
have increased dramatically. It is imperative that we take steps to
ensure that the Capitol Police have the resources to maintain this
level of commitment. With this in mind, the bill contains a 5 percent
merit pay raise for Capitol Police officers, as well as a 4.1 percent
cost-of-living increase.
I would also note that the measure provides language clarifying the
structure of the Capitol Police Board and authorizing the Chief of
Police to appoint an executive director of the board. Moreover, it
authorizes the chief to hire officers at a rate higher than the minimum
rate associated with that position. The bill also includes language
authorizing the Capitol Police to run their own payroll services as
opposed to having the House and Senate pay some of the officers out of
their systems.
We owe it to law enforcement to ensure that they and their families
are provided for in this new and uncertain environment. We also owe it
to the thousands of visitors to the Capitol each year so that they have
confidence that they are being protected to the utmost of our ability.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I am frankly not quite sure what to say on
this rule. I think we need to explain what is involved in our
opposition to it. Last week the Committee on Appropriations expressed
the fact that we were fed up with corporations who, having received
support services from our communities, law enforcement services,
highways, transportation, police protection and the like, we simply got
fed up with corporations who were ostensibly moving their legal
locations from the United States of America to other more exotic
countries in order to avoid paying taxes.
We adopted the DeLauro amendment in committee, which I was pleased to
cosponsor, to try to say that if you are a company and you walk out on
your obligation to pay your fair share of taxes in this country, then
you cannot expect to get contracts with the government of the country
that you are abandoning.
At the same time, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) tried to
point out in this bill that there is a study pending in the Joint
Committee on Taxation which relates to the same nefarious practices,
only those practices are being engaged in apparently by individuals
rather than corporations. So the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran)
tried to see to it that that Joint Committee on Taxation study being
done was released because it has been held up.
Now what the Committee on Rules has done is to eliminate the
protection under the rules for the Moran amendment so that the House
can hide from this issue by having somebody move to strike that
language on a point of order.
I do not know what the majority is trying to hide, and I do not know
why after the steady stream of revelations that we have had about the
nefarious conduct of corporations by hiding the true nature of their
balance sheets, I do not know why the House is continuing to coddle
individuals who are engaging in those practices; but evidently the
House seems compelled to do that.
As long as that is the case, we feel compelled to vote against this
rule because we feel that language should have been protected. It would
be funny if it were not so sad.
What I am reminded of, with apologies to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), I was reminded yesterday by the gentleman of
the lyrics of a song done by the Beach Boys years ago. Part of those
lyrics go as follows:
Aruba, Jamaica, ooo I wanna take you, To Bermuda, Bahama
come on pretty mama, Key Largo, Montego, baby why don't we
go. Ooo I wanna take you down to Kokomo.
Mr. Speaker, that seems to be the motto of the people in this House
who are hiding the activities of the jet set, both individual and
corporate. To me it is a pretty sad day in the House.
So we will be voting against this rule, not because of our objections
to the core bill itself, but because sooner or later we believe that
the majority party leadership ought to join us in pursuing the public's
right to know which individuals and which corporations are welching on
their obligations to support the government that has given them the
opportunities to make all of that money that they are now trying to
hide and protect.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Moran).
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, we had an opportunity to pass a
rule in a nonpartisan fashion. This should have been a good bill that
we could have all agreed on and passed within a few minutes.
Unfortunately, because of the rule, we have a problem with this bill.
We tried to help out. Three years ago there was a request by Chairman
Bill Archer of the Committee on Ways and Means to give Congress a
report on the amount of money that expatriates are sheltering overseas
so they can avoid their Federal income taxes. That was 3 years ago. We
have been waiting for this report, and we have not gotten it. We were
not even getting a response from the committee.
So what we tried to do is in the most constructive way possible just
suspend the increase on the Joint Committee on Taxation; and as soon as
we got the report, they would get their increase. But the rule did not
make that in order. So now we are going to have an amendment that we
are going to have to fight over. It is unfortunate.
We do not know the specifics of what is in this report, but we
certainly cannot figure out why the other side of the aisle would not
want that information to be made public when the Federal taxpayer is
paying for the Joint Committee's activities. That is the big issue. The
Committee works for us and we work for American citizens.
There was another issue that was not made in order, and again we were
trying to do the right thing. We put in a provision that allowed the
chief of the Capitol Police to have more direct control over his
troops. It was something that people who understand the issue in terms
of management felt was called for. So we put that in. It was something
that the Committee on House Administration should do and they did not
do. We understood that it was something that they wanted us to do. We
did it, and now it is not made in order.
There is a provision for student loans, to be able to pay off student
loans by working for the legislative branch in the same way the
executive branch provides incentive so we can acquire and retain the
best personnel working for us. The Committee on House Administration
has not brought it up. We put it in this bill knowing we were doing the
right thing.
We tried to be constructive. We tried not to be controversial. We
certainly would not want to demagogue an issue like this, but here we
are in a situation where we have a rule that did not make in order two
very constructive provisions. That is why we have to object to the
rule, unfortunately.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. Holt).
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, since September 11, Congress has been
considering many issues related to terrorism and homeland security:
detection of biological and chemical agents, development of new
vaccines and therapeutic drugs, aviation security, biometric
technologies for border security, communications systems for the public
health system, the psychological effects of terrorism, and
cybersecurity.
I ask Members, particularly on the Republican side, do they feel
confident
[[Page H4880]]
in their ability to analyze these technical issues? Can they name
anyone on their staff, on their committee staff or personal staff, who
is capable of analyzing these issues? I can tell Members, the answer
for these technical issues and other technical issues in
transportation, health care, agriculture, energy is no.
Congress used to have scientific expertise at its disposal. The
Office of Technology Assessment was established in 1972 because
lawmakers recognized a need for the legislative branch to have its own
source of technical analysis. The OTA was defunded in 1995. During its
existence, the OTA provided Congress with unbiased technical analysis.
In analyzing technical issues, OTA adopted an interdisciplinary
approach. It resulted in reports that were excellent and are still
regarded as excellent. And to ensure a balanced approach, a bipartisan
12-member technology assessment board comprised of six House and six
Senate members, both Republicans and Democrats equally represented,
governed the OTA.
The OTA should not have been abolished, but we can debate that. But
no, we cannot debate that because this rule does not allow it. In 1995,
Congress voted to dissolve the OTA in a misguided attempt to institute
government reform.
I presented to the Committee on Rules yesterday a very clean
amendment. Members will not find a cleaner amendment. This amendment
would have provided $4 million to refund the OTA, which is still
authorized. There would be no legislating done here in the
appropriations bill. The $4 million would be taken without an offset
against any other program, nobody's ox is gored, except perhaps the
memory of a former Speaker of the House. But no. This clean amendment
was not ruled in order.
The Office of Technology Assessment could be revived, but because
Republicans since 1995 have been denying this body unbiased technical
analysis, they would rather depend on biased sources for their
scientific advice.
Mr. Speaker, this should not have happened. The Republican leadership
certainly has given up any claim to want to have informed decisions on
technical issues here in this Congress.
{time} 1315
This was an appropriate amendment, a simple amendment. It could have
been debated. Perhaps they would like to defend their abolition of the
Office of Technology Assessment in 1995. Fine. Let us have that
discussion. But do not pretend that you have here on Capitol Hill at
your disposal the technical analysis to deal with biological and
chemical agents, vaccines, aviation security, biometrics, public health
communication and so forth.
Mr. Speaker, I will vote against the rule for this reason and I urge
my colleagues to do the same.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I was of the impression that our friends on the other side of the
aisle perhaps had listened too much to the Beach Boys and had a few too
many margaritas after hearing their arguments this afternoon until I
heard the gentleman from Wisconsin's rendition of the Beach Boys song.
I think maybe a couple of more margaritas would improve the rendition.
But in all seriousness, Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat confused. The main
allegation being made is that the Committee on Rules is not permitting
the gentleman from Virginia's issue to be discussed. This is a
structured rule that required us to make in order any amendments, and
the Committee on Rules made in order an amendment by the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Moran) precisely dealing with the issue that the
gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) and he brought up. The
amendment is made in order. I kind of wish we had not made it in order,
but we did. In the interest of full fairness and the opportunity to
debate issues, knowing the passion which the gentleman from Virginia
feels on this issue, that amendment was made in order.
Maybe it is too many margaritas, I am not sure what, but I wanted to
reiterate that the amendment was made in order and that we look forward
as we proceed, since we did make it in order, to debate on the
gentleman from Virginia's amendment and obviously then on the
underlying legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Moran).
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I just want to respond to my
friend from Florida. Our problem is that we did not want to have to cut
the funding for the Joint Committee on Taxation. We just wanted to
suspend the money until we get the report. That is the issue. We really
do not want to be punitive and cut the funding. You only gave us the
option of cutting the funding. That is our problem with the decision of
the Committee on Rules.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Davis).
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, on November 12, 2001, President
Bush signed permanent legislation which permits Federal agencies at
their discretion to use appropriated funds to assist their lower income
employees with the high cost of quality child care. In order to
qualify, the total family income of the employee parent cannot exceed
$60,000. Additionally, the children cannot exceed the age of 13, 18 if
disabled, and must be placed in licensed day care, home care or after-
school care. Employees meeting these criteria could have had from 20
percent to 50 percent of their total child care cost covered. Employees
qualifying for this benefit must be working in the United States.
I attempted to have an amendment included that would have provided
for a study to determine the feasibility of providing child care
services to low-income employees of the legislative branch.
Unfortunately, that rule was not included. We need to create an
affordable child care plan for legislative branch employees. I could
not understand and still cannot understand why such an amendment could
not have been included so that those individuals could have the
possibility of receiving benefits that would assist them to have their
children in licensed day care programs.
For that reason, I too must vote against this rule because I think it
could have allowed certainly this amendment which would have done no
harm to anything or anybody.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Rangel).
(Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I am resisting and voting against the rule
because it does not allow the House of Representatives an opportunity
to work its will. We have in this bill a provision that would allow us
to hold back the fundings of the Joint Committee on Taxation until such
time that they release to the Committee on Ways and Means, and the
House of Representatives, information which they have that would tell
us with some degree of accuracy the cost to the United States for
companies that have decided to leave the United States and to go abroad
in order to avoid paying United States taxes. I want to thank the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) for using this vehicle for us to
get what we are entitled to get.
At the end of the day, we are not asking anyone to vote up or down.
All we are saying is that when a committee that has been formed for the
purpose of providing information for us to work our will based on that
information, that we should have it. And whether we are under
Democratic leadership or Republican leadership, the ability to stop a
legitimate committee from reporting that information is against the
best interests of the committee, the Congress and, indeed, our country.
When that flag is up and waving as a result of the terrorists' cowardly
attack on the United States of America, it would seem to me that all of
us have to find some sense of responsibility as to what do we owe this
great Republic, this great country of ours. And even though I have not
reached the position that it is a privilege to pay taxes, I do reach
the position it is a responsibility to pay taxes in order to appreciate
the rights and the privileges that we have in this great country. When
someone decides that they do not want to pay taxes here, that they do
not like our
[[Page H4881]]
tax laws, what they should be doing is petitioning this Congress to
change those laws, but not flee the jurisdiction of the United States
and take the jobs with them abroad just for the sole purpose that they
do not want to do it.
We are asking for information, and when we get so partisan that we do
not like the reports, that we tell the employees we do not want to hear
it, then it is up to us to say that we do not fund that type of
activity. And when we are able to persuade the committee to put it in
there, then the least that you can expect from the Committee on Rules
is that they would protect us, because it is not Moran, it is not
Democrats, it is not Republicans, it is the integrity of this great
House.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Neal).
(Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Florida
said that the issue was too many margaritas. The issue really is too
few opportunities to vote on Bermuda. I am in opposition to this rule
today. I am going to continue to be in opposition to these rules until
there is an opportunity for this full House to vote on the issue of
runaway corporations moving offshore to avoid American taxes in a time
of war. The President has requested $48 billion more for national
defense, $38 billion for homeland security, and these corporations in
the dark of night are sneaking out of the country without ample
opportunity for this body to take a vote on stopping it. Whether it is
Stanley Tools running off to Bermuda to avoid taxes or J. Paul Getty's
grandson turning in his U.S. citizenship to avoid individual income
taxes, the American taxpayer wants us to act to stop these tax dodgers.
We have known that these penalties are insufficient for those who
renounce U.S. citizenship for tax purposes, but since 1996 we have had
no opportunity to do anything about it. These expatriates still visit,
work and even live here while avoiding U.S. income taxes. The
Republicans have stopped this vote from coming up, and now they even
stop the report on individual expatriates from coming to the House
floor. We deserve a vote and I will predict what I have said all along.
Give us a vote on the Bermuda tax dodge, what these corporate traitors
are doing in the dark of night, and 300 Members of this body at a
minimum will vote to do something about it.
Stop blocking this opportunity. We need the report to find out what
is happening with these billionaires and our tax revenues. Let me say
this. We can stand here and hold hands and sing ``God Bless America,''
but part of the blessings that we enjoy in this country are paying for
the benefits that we have as well. Give us a vote on the Bermuda tax
dodge.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Tennessee (Mr. Wamp).
(Mr. WAMO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. WAMP. Mr. Speaker, I rise to engage Chairman Taylor in a
colloquy.
Mr. Chairman, in the Southeast we are facing a major problem with a
veterans' health care system that is outdated and no longer able to
meet the needs of those who have placed their lives on the line to
preserve our freedom. We have seen a recent trend of veterans moving
southward, yet the medical facilities that are in place in these States
seeing the greatest influx are not sufficient to meet their needs.
In July of 2000, the Veterans' Administration entered into a contract
in my district with Erlanger Hospital in Chattanooga, Tennessee that
created a pilot project to provide quality medical service to our
veterans closer to home. There are currently veterans in my district
who are forced to wait months for appointments in Murfreesboro or
Nashville when by utilizing services at Erlanger Medical Center, our
regional safety net public hospital, they can reduce their wait time as
well as their travel.
Since the inception of the program in July 2000, I believe that the
VA never truly committed to this contract. In the first year of this
pilot program, there were only 24 referrals to Erlanger from the VA.
When Erlanger renewed for a second year, we negotiated contract changes
to increase the volume of veterans eligible to be referred to Erlanger.
However, the second year of the program saw only a meager increase in
referrals to 34. Despite the fact that Erlanger is being reimbursed at
the Medicare rate, the VA refuses to refer the vast majority of the
veterans in the area and instead forces them to make the long trip to
the veterans' hospital 2 hours away. The current contract is set to
expire next month, August 31, and the VA received zero bids for their
requests for proposals.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for agreeing to join me in sending
a letter to the GAO requesting a study of this pilot project and the
reasons for its failure. We have asked the GAO to undertake a study of
the VA Tennessee Valley Health Care System-Erlanger Medical Center
contract in Chattanooga, Tennessee. The focus of the study should be
for the GAO to evaluate the 2-year contract, the volume of referrals,
system for referring veterans, the funding allocated to the contract
and the total amount expended. The study should also focus on the
specific reasons for contract termination, adjustments of future
contracts, diagnosis and medical services list, like surgery, the
number of veterans that qualified under the terms of the contract that
were not referred, and the cost estimate to continue this contract with
the focus on quality care closer to home for veterans.
Furthermore, we would like the GAO to review and update an inspector
general's report on the Chattanooga outpatient clinic. This update
should include wait times for appointments, referral times to a VA
hospital, staffing issues and physical capacity to accommodate
increasing patient load, specialty care provided by the Chattanooga
outpatient clinic, and report back to the subcommittee and me as soon
as possible.
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WAMP. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I do share the gentleman's
sentiments about the accessibility of quality care for our Nation's
veterans. North Carolina has also experienced an influx of veterans in
recent years and the failure of this VA pilot program is a setback in
our efforts to provide all veterans with quality and convenient health
care. I am pleased to work with you on this matter and look forward to
receiving and reviewing the GAO study.
Mr. WAMP. I commend and thank our distinguished chairman for working
with me on this important issue for our veterans in the Southeast. The
recent migratory trends in our veteran population affect much of the
South and I know that the chairman shares my concern about the medical
attention that they are being provided.
{time} 1330
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this
time.
I am going to support the underlying bill, as I know the ranking
member and certainly the chairman will. I will speak at greater lengths
on the substance of the bill, which is excellent, and I appreciate the
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor) working with us.
Mr. Speaker, we are in an environment that is very dangerous. It is
an environment in which secrecy in the marketplace has undermined the
confidence of investors. It has undermined the confidence of the
investors to the extent that the market has plummeted, and millions of
people have lost very substantial amounts in their 401(k)s, their
Keoughs, and other savings plans.
One might say, well, that is interesting. What does it have to do
with this bill? What it has to do with this bill is that we ought to be
in an environment of making sure that investors, in this case taxpayers
who invest in America, know what is happening with their tax dollars,
and know what is happening with those around them in terms of
contributing to the war on terrorism, to homeland security, to
education, to health care, to the welfare and greatness of this Nation.
That
[[Page H4882]]
is what the Moran amendment seeks to do.
Very frankly, self-respect, if nothing else, should compel us to
adopt the Moran amendment. Self-respect to the extent that the House
says to one of its committees, produce a report, in this case, the
Republican chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, not a Democrat.
Notwithstanding that request, and notwithstanding the fact that the
Joint Committee on Taxation conducted a study about tax absconders, tax
dodgers, that report is being kept secret.
Mr. Speaker, we ought to oppose this rule and put the Moran amendment
back in this bill.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Levin).
(Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, there is just one basic issue relating to
this rule: Why is the Republican majority hiding a report on
individuals who flee America and give up their citizenship, in a sense,
in name, in order to avoid paying American taxes? Why are our
Republican colleagues hiding it? They should use some of their time to
answer that question.
In 1999, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) tried to address
this, and in order to avoid it, the Republican majority said there will
be a study with a report back by 2000. As far as I know, this is the
year 2002.
Why are all other provisions that have some legislating in them, why
are they all protected except this one? I yield any remaining time to
the gentleman from Florida to respond.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Doggett).
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, what does it mean to be an American? We all
have our personal reflections, sometimes finding an answer in a school
child's essay, a veteran's speech, or a visit to the Lincoln Memorial.
Most Americans understand that freedom is not free, and that the price
of being a part of the greatest Nation in the history of the world is
accepting the responsibility to pay for our security at home and
abroad.
But some of our wealthiest Americans have shirked their
responsibility and fled to foreign shores. These individual ex-
patriots, just like their corporate cousins at Stanley Works, have
elected personal gain over patriotism.
More than three years have passed since the Joint Committee on
Taxation was first asked to evaluate whether existing rules for these
ex-patriots were being applied as we intended them here in Congress. It
only took Forbes Magazine a short while. Three years ago, in three
words they concluded, ``It ain't working.'' And it is still not.
Now, some cynics suggest that the Joint Committee on Taxation has
stonewalled and delayed this report because they want to thwart the
efforts of Democrats to ensure that billionaires are paying their fair
share. As I said, in 1995, when this issue was up, Newt Gingrich and
the Republicans had as their agenda a ``pattern of protection of
plutocrats'' in what they called the ``Contract on America.''
Today, though, I offer a more humble suggestion. Perhaps the Joint
Committee on Taxation is simply shorthanded and understaffed, because
too many of its staff members have moved on to greener, indeed, much
greener pastures. Ken Kies, who was the chief of staff of this very
same committee from 1995 to 1998 under the Republicans, left to join
Pricewaterhouse Coopers where, in 2000, he lobbied on behalf of the
same Section 877 Coalition to weaken the already modest limitations on
these billionaires, who renounce America. The Coalition members, of
course, like this Joint Committee report, remained secret because he
never revealed the clients, who were paying for the lobbying in his
official lobbyist disclosure reports.
Pricewaterhouse Coopers Consulting has since itself renounced
America, reemerged and reincorporated abroad to dodge taxes under the
unusual name ``Monday.''
Nor did Ken Kies devote all of his time in this manner. He took time
out in March of this year, according to a solicitation from the
National Republican Congressional Committee, to meet with contributors,
together with the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, the
gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), to, according to this
solicitation, instruct those who were invited ``how to cut your taxes
and stimulate your business.'' No doubt this was a most insightful
presentation.
Nor is Ken Kies the only former staff member of this particular
committee to find greener pastures elsewhere. Barbara Angus, who served
on this Joint Committee on Taxation, moved over to Price Waterhouse and
joined the same coalition fighting on behalf of the billionaire ex-
patriots. That, of course, is not where Republican Barbara Angus is
today. Today, President Bush has appointed her as the international tax
counsel for the United States Department of Treasury, where she is
undoubtedly seeking to ensure that her former clients pay their fair
share.
To protect the public Treasury, the Bush Administration supported by
its allies here in Congress, is anointing lapdogs instead of appointing
watchdogs. The same reason why the Republicans bar the public from
reading this report is why they are obstructing the legislation I have
introduced on abusive tax shelters and to end this Bermuda tax dodge.
Their watchword is ``friends do not let friends pay taxes,'' or, in the
memorable words of Leona Helmsley, ``taxes are for the little people.''
And there is a cycle: Draft weak laws. Lobby on behalf of
billionaires to keep them weak, and then return to government to police
the same laws.
Mere requests in English to produce this report for three years have
been unsuccessful, so we must talk in the only language that these
folks understand money: no report, no money. Support the Moran
amendment.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I would inquire, has all the time on
the other side expired?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gillmor). Yes. All time of the
gentlewoman from New York has expired.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. I thank the Speaker for the clarification.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I want to point out again, because I have been trying to
follow the arguments that have been coming from the other side, and I
saw in one of the publications here on the Hill today that they have
all gotten their orders and they are going to talk on this issue from
now until eternity, no matter what the matter at hand is about.
I want to point out that the amendment from the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Moran) was requested of the Committee on Rules. We did
not impose it on the gentleman. We did not in the Committee on Rules
say we are going to force the amendment down onto the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Moran). He requested of us, and we made it in order. We
have made the Moran amendment in order precisely because of the fervor
with which it was made clear that the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Moran) wanted it to be heard and discussed.
With regard to the statement of a colleague who got up, I forget who
he was, and said that we were hiding something, this report, not only
are we not hiding anything, this report is of the Joint Tax Committee.
The chairman of the Joint Tax Committee, it is my understanding, is Mr.
Baucus, a Senator from, I believe it is Montana. I would hope and
assume that they would talk with the chairman of the committee that
they think is hiding something. It happens to be a member of their
party. But I saw in the paper today what the strategy is, and that is
part of the process.
But also part of the process is something serious, which is the
legislative branch appropriations bill, including the Capitol Police,
that we have brought to the floor and, as I said before, with
commendations and admiration for the men and women of the Capitol
Police. So I would urge my colleagues to pass this rule and pass the
underlying legislation, get on with the business, despite what we see
in the little papers about strategies and tactics and dreams; everyone
is entitled to dreams. Let us get on with the Nation's business, and
let us pass the rule.
Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
[[Page H4883]]
Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, if I understand this amendment correctly, it is to
reduce the Joint Committee on Taxation's appropriation or budget by
some $590,000, because of a report. That report is not going to change
why people expatriated. Mr. Speaker, when they leave this country and
go anywhere else in the world to make money, they are going to pay tax.
The reason they are doing so is because of a country that has less
taxation. The liability is less. That is America: freedom to go
wherever you want to. I do not like it. I do not like it because people
are leaving.
Stanley Works has been mentioned. If I read right, Stanley Works
wants to reincorporate in Bermuda. They would save some $32 million
based on the difference in taxation. Does not that type of movement or
reason to move or incentive to move tell us that our tax codes, our tax
structure is penalizing people? Now, they are leaving the business here
and the jobs here. They are moving taxation. I would rather they stay
here. But this $590,000, we could make it $1 million, it is not going
to change the reason. The reason is the environment.
Mr. Speaker, it bothers me when, based on the current environment in
this town, that the word ``profit'' or ``profits'' is a bad word.
Profits only relate to people who are in business who are greedy,
commit fraud and do not do right with their bookkeeping. That is not
true. Profits of business, whether it is a one-man operation, one-woman
operation or a conglomerate, those profits relate directly to salaries,
to income, to retirement, to savings, to health care for their
families.
{time} 1345
It all comes from profits. And we are penalizing business in this
country with the high cost of taxation. All business does is collect it
from the private sector through their sales.
I have been into a lot of businesses to buy a product, or even buy a
vehicle or a major purchase. I have never been given two bills, one for
the purchase that I was making, and the other for the taxes they were
making off of the profit they were going to have to pay the government.
It is all-inclusive. The end result is the consumer pays the bill.
We have different tax provisions in this country than we will find in
other parts of the world. We should look at those areas. Some of the
gentlemen who have gotten up and spoken are on the Committee on Ways
and Means. They know this as well as I do.
We double-tax dividends that companies pay to their investors. We
were talking about the investors a minute ago, the 401(k)s, the IRAs.
We double-tax those dividends. Other nations do not do that. European
nations do not do that. That is the reason we have several who have
located in Europe.
A lot of industrialized nations do not have capital gains tax; we do.
I do not know of another country that has an alternative minimum tax,
but we do. Let us talk about those things and what we can do in
changing the tax law, or in the regulatory provisions and costs that we
impose on a business that will do away with that corrective to move
offshore, to reincorporate in Bermuda, to sell out to a company in
Europe or Asia.
A plant in my district just sold to a group in China. They are going
to leave the plant there, hopefully. They may close it, because they
are opening a plant, too, in China. I do not like that, but this is not
going to do any changing to it. It will not change it, I say to the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), not at all.
I would like to see the report, too. It is forthcoming, I hope. But I
hope that this Congress will spit out that bitter taste they have about
business and profits and address the real problem, that is, the costs
that we impose as a Congress on business, to do business in this
country. It directly reflects the individual worker here.
Mr. WAMP. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee.
Mr. WAMP. Mr. Speaker, I just want the record to reflect and to be
clear, we debated this expatriate issue at the full Committee on
Appropriations. An overwhelming bipartisan vote took place against
expatriate corporations, and the gentlewoman from Kentucky (Mrs.
Northup) and myself led the Republican debate to hold these companies
accountable; to say to expatriated companies, they cannot do business
with the Federal Government. It was a defense measure, to say they
could not contract with defense. I stood to say we should go further.
They should not do Medicare, Medicaid business, and should not contract
with the Federal Government.
This is not a Democrat or Republican issue. To me, this is an
American issue. I said that these corporations are un-American that
seek to set up shop in foreign countries to avoid paying taxes. We need
to hold them accountable.
This amendment is about joint taxation, where they have connected
this issue. I hope we can reach agreement with the authorization
committee to accommodate the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran). But
this issue of expatriation, in a bipartisan way I believe people of
patriotic fervor will come together to say that we have to say, if you
are going to do business in America, be American, pay your taxes, pull
your load, do what is right for the workers.
Republicans and Democrats are going to hold corporate America to a
standard; we are not going to regulate them into oblivion. The
gentleman from Georgia is right, we cannot tax them, regulate them, or
litigate them too much or they will be strangled. We want the free
enterprise system.
But we have to say to American corporations, they should pay their
taxes as they go. We say it with a unified bipartisan voice. We did it
in the committee, a bipartisan vote. So before the gentleman makes hay
out of this all the way to November, understand we stand together in a
bipartisan way to hold American corporations accountable.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, we have made the
amendment of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) in order. I think
it is appropriate that we get to the underlying legislation and that we
fund the legislative branch, which is what the business of today is.
Despite the hay we have heard, they had more than half their time on
the floor here.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the
previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gillmor). The question is on the
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 219,
nays 206, not voting 9, as follows:
[Roll No. 319]
YEAS--219
Aderholt
Akin
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilirakis
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boozman
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Coble
Collins
Combest
Cooksey
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Everett
Ferguson
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Graham
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Grucci
Gutknecht
Hansen
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kerns
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
[[Page H4884]]
Manzullo
McCrery
McInnis
McKeon
Mica
Miller, Dan
Miller, Gary
Miller, Jeff
Moran (KS)
Morella
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reynolds
Riley
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schaffer
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Stump
Sullivan
Sununu
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Upton
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins (OK)
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--206
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barcia
Barrett
Becerra
Bentsen
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson (IN)
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank
Frost
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hill
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lucas (KY)
Luther
Lynch
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Mink
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Phelps
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott
Serrano
Sherman
Shows
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson (CA)
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOT VOTING--9
Bonior
Carson (OK)
Cox
Fossella
Lowey
Mascara
McCarthy (NY)
McHugh
Traficant
{time} 1420
Mr. DELAHUNT and Mr. MEEHAN changed their vote from ``yea'' to
``nay.''
Mr. SIMPSON changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________