[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.

                          ____________________