Congressional Record, Volume 148 Issue 98 (Thursday, July 18, 2002)

[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 98 (Thursday, July 18, 2002)]
[House]
[Pages H4909-H4916]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5120, TREASURY AND GENERAL
GOVERNMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2003

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 488 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

H. Res. 488

Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the

[[Page H4910]]

House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on the
state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R 5120)
making appropriations for the Treasury Department, the United
States Postal Service, the Executive Office of the President,
and certain Independent Agencies, for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 2003, and for other purposes. The first reading
of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order
against consideration of the bill are waived. 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. 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 12, line 19, through ``2003'' on line
23; beginning with ``Provided'' on page 74, line 15, through
``law'' on line 25; page 81, line 22, through page 82, line
7; page 102, line 19, through page 103, line 10. 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. The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole
shall accord priority in recognition to Representative Goss
of Florida or his designee to offer the amendment printed in
the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this
resolution, which may be offered only at the appropriate
point in reading of the bill, shall be considered as read,
and shall not be subject to amendment. All points of order
against the amendment printed in the report are waived.
Except as otherwise specified in this resolution, during
consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chairman of the
Committee of the Whole may accord priority in recognition on
the basis of whether the Member offering an amendment has
caused it to be printed in the portion of the Congressional
Record designated for that purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII.
Amendments so printed shall be considered as read. At the
conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the
Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with
such amendments as may have been adopted. The previous
question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and
amendments thereto to final passage without intervening
motion except one motion to recommit with or without
instructions.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder) is
recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
McGovern); 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. Speaker, H. Res. 488 is an open rule providing for the
consideration of H.R. 5120, the fiscal year 2003 Treasury, Postal
Service appropriations bill. It provides for 1 hour of general debate,
equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Appropriations, and it waives all points of
order against consideration of the bill.
H. Res. 488 also waives points of order against provisions in the
bill for failing to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI, which prohibits
unauthorized appropriations or legislative provisions in an
appropriations bill, except as specified in the resolution itself.
H. Res. 488 provides that the amendment printed in the Committee on
Rules report accompanying the resolution may be offered only at the
appropriate point in the reading of the bill, shall be considered as
read, and shall not be subject to amendment. The rule provides that the
Chairman of the Committee of the Whole shall accord priority in
recognition of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) or his designee to
offer the amendment printed in the report.
The rule also waives all points of order against the amendment
printed in the report. Further, the rule also authorizes the Chair to
accord priority in recognition to Members who have preprinted their
amendments in the Congressional Record.
Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit with or without
instructions.
Once H. Res. 488 is approved, the House can begin its consideration
of fiscal year 2003 Treasury, Postal Service appropriations bill, which
is the fifth regular appropriations bill to come to the House floor.
H.R. 5120 provides roughly $18.5 billion in funding for a variety of
Federal departments and agencies. The committee included funding
supporting State and local law enforcement efforts, enhancements in
Federal information technology, and homeland security.
I urge my colleagues to adopt the rule so that the House can proceed
with general debate and consideration of the underlying bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Georgia
for yielding me the customary time, and I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in very strong opposition to this rule. My
colleagues should know from the very outset of this debate that the
vote on this rule is about one simple issue: The issue of corporate
accountability. Members must decide if they support giving billions of
dollars of taxpayer money to corporations that dodge their taxes by
running off to the Bahamas or to Bermuda.
During the Committee on Appropriations' markup of the Treasury,
Postal appropriations bill, the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms.
DeLauro) offered an amendment to prohibit government contracts from
being awarded to companies that reincorporate overseas to avoid paying
U.S. taxes. The Committee on Appropriations approved her amendment by a
bipartisan vote of 41 to 17.
But the majority in the Committee on Rules, and I assume in
consultation with the Republican leadership, has decided that they do
not like the work done by the Committee on Appropriations on this
particular issue. This rule leaves the DeLauro amendment vulnerable to
a point of order, essentially stripping it from the bill. That is
wrong, Mr. Speaker, and this rule should be defeated because of it.
The DeLauro amendment does not even seek to close the overseas
loophole, which we should have done long ago and which Democrats have
been trying to do for months. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
Neal) and the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Maloney) introduced a
bill to eliminate the loophole over 4 months ago. It has been
languishing in this House ever since. That is why Members right now are
signing a discharge petition to free the Neal-Maloney bill from
legislative purgatory.
All the DeLauro amendment says is that companies who shirk their
responsibilities should not be rewarded with billions of American
taxpayer dollars. For the life of me, I cannot figure out what is so
controversial about that.
Now, the majority will argue that they are merely using the regular
order of the House; that there are jurisdictional issues between the
Committee on Appropriations and the Committee on Government Reform.

{time} 1630

Well, I find it extraordinary that the majority has suddenly found
religion on the virtues of regular procedure, because for months we
have watched them treat regular order like the skunk at the garden
party. Major trade legislation has been written by a single Member and
then shoved through the House without hearings or proper committee
action. Please, do not suddenly proclaim the virtues of following the
regular procedures of this House or about the sanctity of committee
prerogatives.
Now confronted with an issue that they do not like and that scares
the political wits out of them, the Republican majority hides behind a
parliamentary smoke screen. Well, I can see through that smoke screen,
my colleagues can see through it, and the American people can see
through it.
Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Appropriations, to their credit,
decided to act in an overwhelming bipartisan way. Sadly, the majority
on the Committee on Rules is attempting to dismantle that bipartisan
work, once again siding with the greediest and most self-serving of
corporate interests.
The Republicans say this issue is complicated. Complicated? What is
so complicated about it? What is so hard to understand? What do they
not get? Is there ever a point when the leadership on the other side of
the aisle says enough is enough?
We can give all of the speeches we want about how concerned we are,
but talk is cheap. The time for action is now, not tomorrow, not next
week, not after Labor Day, but now. Again, the DeLauro amendment is
modest in its scope. It does not even try to close the

[[Page H4911]]

loophole that allows companies to renounce their citizenship while
continuing to reap the benefits that come with it.
All this amendment says is that those companies do not deserve to be
rewarded with billions of dollars in government contracts. They do not
deserve a pat on the back for bad behavior. If there are legitimate
technical issues with the drafting of this amendment, they can be
addressed in the conference committee. This issue is too important to
keep sweeping it under the rug.
Mr. Speaker, the families in my district work hard and pay their
taxes. The small businesses I represent in Worcester and Attleboro and
Fall River pay their fair share. I do not believe that their hard-
earned tax dollars should be funneled to corporations that skip out on
their responsibilities. This is about fairness. It is about respecting
the companies that actually play by the rules.
I say to my colleagues again, this issue is very clear. This vote is
very simple. The vote on this rule is a vote up or down on whether
these Cayman Island corporations that dodge their tax responsibilities
deserve to receive billions of dollars in taxpayer money.
Let us draw the line in the sand against corporate misbehavior. Let
us send a signal to the American people that we in this Chamber
actually get it, that we are taking steps to fix the problem. No more
stalling. I urge Members to vote ``no'' on this rule.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Utah (Mr. Matheson).
Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today advocating a vote against the
previous question, and doing so in opposition to a Member pay raise.
Today we are considering a bill that is vital for the continued
operation of our government, the safety of our citizens, and the
security of our economy. But hidden deep within it is another
congressional pay raise.
Mr. Speaker, since this session of Congress began, the Dow has lost
15 percent of its value. The Nasdaq has lost almost a third of its
value. Unemployment is up. Profits are down. Retirement accounts are
down. People are hurting, and we in this Congress should not be raising
our pay. We cannot afford it.
Last year's government surpluses are long gone. We are swimming in
red ink. We are fighting a war. We should not be asking the taxpayers
to pay us more. I urge Members to vote against the previous question.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) because corporations are cheating the U.S. out of
$4 billion in tax revenue by fleeing for international tax havens, and
this government rewards these companies with billions of dollars in
Federal contracts. This is wrong. This is unpatriotic, and this House
should not run away from its responsibility to the fiscal health of
this Nation by ignoring this issue.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Goodlatte). The gentleman will state it.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, do those 30-second editorials work against
their time?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. They certainly do.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, every week when I go home to my district and
also here in my office, I talk to business people who work hard, who
worry about their communities, their investors, and their workers. They
try to produce a good product. They do their duty as citizens. They pay
their fair share of taxes and they help pull the wagon, as a Senator
from the other body often describes it. They help pull the wagon and
meet their share of community and national responsibilities.
When they see corporations maneuver the Tax Code and avoid paying
taxes by ostensibly moving their address while they do not move their
operations, they move their address to exotic places such as Bermuda,
they ask me, What in God's name are you guys doing? When are you going
to put a stop to it? They resent carrying their fair share of the load
while somebody else is ducking their responsibility to carry theirs.
So the DeLauro amendment which was offered in committee, which I was
pleased to cosponsor, simply said, and it is an outrageous idea to some
Members, I suppose, it simply said to these companies, Look, buster, if
you are going to ignore your responsibilities to this society and the
taxpayers who help see to it that you get police protection, the
transportation system that you need to sell and move your products, if
they see those folks abandoning their duty, they want us to do
something about it. And most of all, they do not expect Uncle Sam to be
Uncle Sucker by continuing to do business with the companies that
refuse to pay taxes to the United States Government.
Now, the rule under which this bill is going to be considered will
not protect the language of the DeLauro amendment, so there will be an
easy way for this House to avoid bringing those companies to heel. That
is why you are going to see a good many of us vote against the rule,
because we believe that one of the first responsibilities of the most
privileged of the taxpayers among us is to meet their own obligations
to this society. It is unpatriotic for those companies to change their
address in order to avoid pulling their fair share of the load, and it
is outrageous that this Congress does not have enough anger and enough
guts and enough determination to stand up to those actions and say
enough is enough, buster, this is not going to happen any more.
We ought to be taking that stand immediately on this and every other
appropriation bill so that no company that welches on their
responsibility to this country can do a dime's worth of business with
Uncle Sam. Until we take that position, these kinds of outrageous
things are going to continue. I hope this House does the right thing on
the rule.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Kingston).
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I want to speak in favor of the rule and
the bill itself. I want to say in this time of uncertainty when
homeland security is foremost on everybody's mind and agenda, this bill
is probably one of the more significant votes we will take this year.
I have often heard Members say I am not going to vote for Treasury-
Postal Service because it is Washington, it is bureaucratic, it is
something that does not affect my constituents back home; but I want to
remind Members about some of the important government functions that
are in this bill.
One of the examples is the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center,
which is in New Mexico and Georgia which trains 71 law enforcement
agencies in the government, the Drug Enforcement Agency, the Secret
Service, the Capitol Hill police, who we know and love and work with
every single day. All that training takes place because of the Federal
Law Enforcement Training Center, which is in this bill. In these times
of homeland security, just look at all of the other things.
I am going to sort of bounce around, but this bill affects the
Treasury Department; Air Transportation Stabilization; the Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms; the Bureau of Engraving and Printing;
counterterrorism funding; and the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network.
Who would want to vote against that during these times?
The Internal Revenue Service, and I can see why people may not be too
fired up about that, but, frankly, Mr. Speaker, we need to have the
IRS. Continuing on, the Interagency Crime Drug Enforcement Agency, the
Office of Inspector General, the U.S. Mint, the United States Secret
Service.
Moving on, the White House is funded in this, and all of the security
concerns of the White House to protect the President of the United
States is in this bill. The list goes on and on, Mr. Speaker.
What I want to say, Is the rule perfect? No. In my 10th year in
Congress, I can say that I have not seen a perfect rule yet. Despite
the good work of our very capable Committee on Rules, it is not always
the way I would write it.

[[Page H4912]]

Is the bill perfect? Certainly not. There again, there are things I
would change if I were the only Member of this 435 body. But to nitpick
this bill and to nitpick this rule at this time is not the best thing
in the security interests of our country because this, as I said
before, is probably one of the number one homeland security votes we
will take this year.
Mr. Speaker, I am going to support the rule, and certainly I am going
to support the bill.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, last week the Committee on Appropriations
adopted a bipartisan amendment that I offered along with my colleague,
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), to prohibit corporate
expatriates from winning Federal Government contracts. This rule
wrongly strikes the amendment from this legislation.
These are corporations that set up an operation overseas in order to
avoid paying U.S. taxes. They enjoy all of the benefits of corporate
citizenship in America. They look like U.S. companies. The principal
market that their stock is traded on is in the United States. Their
physical assets are protected by our police, our firemen, our Armed
Forces. They just refuse to pay for the benefits as every other
American citizen and company does.
My own State of Connecticut witnessed this firsthand when Stanley
Works tried to incorporate itself in Bermuda. They go to Bermuda,
Barbados, the Cayman Islands, Switzerland and Luxembourg. Companies who
put profit before patriotism, they continue to enjoy one more benefit.
They still win hefty Federal contracts. Corporate expatriates benefit
from over $2 billion in lucrative government contracts. That is $2
billion of taxpayer money going to companies who avoid taxes here in
the United States.
Mr. Speaker, that is wrong. The government should not be doing
business with those who want all of the benefits of citizenship without
any of the responsibilities that come along with it. Congress must not
allow these companies to leave individual Americans stuck with the tax
bill while they put profits over patriotism. All we are saying is pay
American taxes on American profits.
The President has told us that we are at a wartime footing, and we
are: $45 billion for defense; $38 billion we want to spend for homeland
security. And when these companies leave the United States, average
American taxpayers have to pick up the bill.

{time} 1645

I urge my colleagues, stand up to these corporations who are
unpatriotic. At a time in our lives when we are asking people to pull
together to do what we need to do for America, they take their business
offshore and will not pay the taxes that are owed to the American
government. Oppose this rule. More importantly, it is about opposing
these corporations who truly do not have the well-being of the American
people at heart. When they are doing business and enjoying every single
benefit, they should not have the benefit of Federal contracts.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's yielding time
and I rise in opposition to the rule.
The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) in the last rule talked about
a missed opportunity. This is another missed opportunity. We say, all
of us, most of the people that I have heard say that the act of moving
overseas to avoid participating in supporting the government, our
defense, our fight against terrorism, our homeland security is an act
which they condemn. Each and every one of us have said that. The
American public thinks that that is an unpatriotic effort. The average
person in the street is not going to move to Bermuda. The average
person in the street is not going to move to some far-off place so that
they can avoid taxation.
The chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means in the debate on the
last bill said, ``Well, we're changing that. We're changing the death
tax, which is why most people move overseas.''
The average taxpayer, who does not have any liability for the death
tax, has to pay a FICA tax, the average working guy, and 50 percent of
them pay more FICA tax, Social Security tax, than they do income tax.
They cannot move overseas to avoid that and, in fact, they do not. They
pay their fair taxes. They do not want to pay more than their fair
share, but they pay their fair share.
But what the gentlewoman from Connecticut is speaking to and what
this amendment speaks to is saying that we are not going to tolerate in
America people who earn their money here, become rich here, successful
here, to move overseas to avoid participating in continuing to make
this country strong and free. We ought not to miss that opportunity. I
would tell my friends in this body that this amendment was adopted
overwhelmingly and bipartisanly in the Committee on Appropriations.
Reject this rule. Adopt a new one. Let us pass the DeLauro amendment.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Florida (Mrs. Meek).
Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the
proposed rule that will allow the DeLauro amendment on corporate
expatriates to be struck on a point of order even though it passed the
Committee on Appropriations by a decisive vote of 41-17. Why should we
allow companies to move offshore to avoid Federal taxes but nonetheless
receive the benefits of future government contracts? That is not right,
Mr. Speaker.
It is unconscionable that the Committee on Rules would refuse to
protect the DeLauro language from being struck on a point of order. If
any Member of this House believes that companies who incorporate
outside the United States to avoid taxes should nonetheless receive
Federal contracts without limitation, then they should offer an
amendment to strike the DeLauro language from this bill and we should
debate and vote on that particular amendment.
Instead, the Committee on Rules proposes to protect Republican
Members who oppose controlling this type of corporate abuse from
casting the politically difficult vote that would be required if they
offered an amendment to strike the DeLauro language. It is
understandable why Members who want to allow corporations to continue
this type of tax abuse would want to remain faceless and anonymous.
What is not understandable, Mr. Speaker, is why any of us who want to
pass a rule that would assist them in doing so. This rule is an act of
cowardice.
As a member of the Subcommittee on Treasury, Postal Service and
General Government of the Committee on Appropriations, I would like to
be able to support the rule so that we could move to consideration of
our bill that deals with so many extremely important issues, ranging
from homeland security to tax collection, Federal employee benefits and
election reform, but I cannot be a party to such fundamental
unfairness.
I say to all the Members, if you truly believe that the DeLauro
language is improper, offer an amendment to strike it and let us debate
and vote on it. Defeat this rule.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The silence on the other side is deafening. I submit for insertion in
the Record an editorial that appeared in today's New York Times
entitled Congressional Cowardice.
The editorial referred to follows:

[From the New York Times, July 18, 2002]

Congressional Cowardice

While a panicky Congress has rushed in recent days to
reform the business world, it has not entirely lost its well-
developed instinct for catering to special interests. On two
issues critical to cleaning up corporate malfeasance,
Congress has opted to put the preferences of big business--
and big campaign contributors--ahead of the public good.
The first involves the notorious Bermuda tax loophole that
allows companies to avoid paying taxes by nominally moving
their headquarters to Bermuda, even while they continue to
operate from the United States. This is a blatant scam that
should be eliminated. Closing the loophole would bring in an
estimated $6.3 billion over 10 years.

[[Page H4913]]

Democrats and Republicans in the House have introduced
dueling bills. The Republican version would temporarily close
the tax loophole, but it is also larded with special-interest
tax breaks that add up to almost 10 times the amount that
would be realized from doing so. General Motors and Ford
would be among the big winners under the Republican bill,
which would make it easier to accumulate untaxed profits
overseas.
Congress is also fearful of challenging corporate practices
in the awarding of stock options, intimidated by the
possibility that wealthy corporate executives will withhold
campaign contributions from lawmakers who dare to tinker with
the current system. Now that Coca-Cola and a few other
companies are moving to reform the system themselves by
counting stock options as an expense, Congressional action
could speed the changeover to a more responsible approach.
Senator Carl Levin, Democrat of Michigan, introduced an
amendment that would require the Financial Accounting
Standards Board to review the issue within a year. It is
likely that the standards board, which sets the rules for
corporate accounting practices, will force companies to
report options as expenses. But amid intense lobbying by
corporations--particularly Silicon Valley companies, which
rely heavily on options--the Levin amendment was blocked
earlier this week.
The Senate majority leader, Tom Daschle, has promised an
eventual vote on the Levin amendment. That is a good start,
but some Democrats who normally support the leadership, like
Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, are opposed to
expensing stock options. If the amendment fails to pass
backers of tougher reform can add the Senate Democrats to the
list of politicians caving in to pressure from big campaign
contributors.
It is always troubling when special interests call the
shots on Capitol Hill, but it is particularly disturbing that
they are being allowed to hijack significant reform
legislation. On matters like taxation, what's good for
General Motors may not necessarily be good for the country.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Doggett).
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, silence is the only defense that our
Republican colleagues can offer on this rule because a vote for this
rule is a vote for more permissiveness, to condone those corporations
that abandon our country, and it is nothing but a vote in favor of the
same kind of permissive atmosphere that has resulted in investors,
retirees and the Federal Treasury all suffering as a result of ongoing
corporate corruption.
Seven years ago, I stood here at this same podium to challenge the
Gingrich ``Contract on America'' as protection for plutocrats. Today,
little has changed, because our Republican colleagues through this rule
are rushing to defend corporations who have fled to Bermuda and other
isles in the Caribbean, maintaining that these tax dodgers deserve
contracts with America.
If in a time of war these corporate citizens must put profits over
patriotism and cash over country, then we need to talk to them in the
only language that they understand and that is money. They add insult
to injury by not only refusing to pay their fair share but for asking
for your share that you contribute, turning around and asking for
government business after they have refused to help finance the
government and our national security and our schools and all of our
other needs in this country.
I presented this same language in the Committee on Ways and Means on
another bill and the Bush administration was there, just like our
Republican colleagues, opposing that and defending these corporations
that flee our country but ask for more money from the government. I
believe we need to take a pro-business stance. We need to level the
playing field so that the thousands of businesses that stay here and
pay their fair share are not put at a competitive disadvantage by those
who flee to other shores and still have a hand out asking for
assistance to work on government business.
Do not support those that give up on America. Reject this rule.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to note that the
permissiveness that led to such problems in this country with WorldCom
and Enron and others was the permissiveness of the 1990s, and we know
who was in charge of the institutions of regulation during that time.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Mississippi (Mr. Taylor).
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, in the 1,300 days that you
have been Speaker, you will not let us vote on a balanced budget
amendment to the Constitution, yet you have added through your
leadership $511,040,208,939 to the Federal debt. That is more debt than
was accumulated from the day this Republic started to 1975.
You will not give us an up-or-down vote on base closure. And now you
will not give us an up-or-down vote on whether or not you want to
reward your buddies who move their corporations overseas in a paper
transaction, so while the average Joe in Mississippi pays his taxes,
your big contributors do not have to pay theirs.
That is just one more reason why you should not be Speaker.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, let me again remind my colleagues what this vote is
about. Essentially this vote says that no government contract shall be
awarded to corporate tax dodgers who go to Bermuda or the Cayman
Islands in order to escape paying U.S. taxes.
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, next week we are supposed to have completed
the work on the new homeland security agency. Is the gentleman aware
that there are lobby disclosure reports that have been filed right here
in the Capitol by Pricewaterhouse Consulting which declared a new day
in the Caribbean by calling itself Monday, has fled, is not paying its
fair share of taxes but has filed a lobby disclosure report that it is
up here lobbying ultimately for business from the new homeland security
agency that we were told originally would cost no new dollars but now
is apparently going to cost at least 3 billion new dollars? And
apparently though they do not want to pay for our homeland security,
they have already got their hand out looking for some business from the
taxpayers with that new government agency.
Are you aware of that?
Mr. McGOVERN. I thank the gentleman for making us all aware of that.
I should also point out that since he brought up
PricewaterhouseCoopers, on March 27, 2002, PricewaterhouseCoopers fled
from New York for Bermuda, but this company continues to receive
taxpayer dollars from the IRS, the Treasury Department, the GSA and the
Postal Service, including three contracts worth up to $35.5 billion.
Mr. DOGGETT. Under the amendment that the gentleman is trying to get
added that our colleagues, a vote in favor of this rule will be a vote
to approve, of course, Pricewaterhouse, now called Monday, and all of
these other corporations that will not pay their fair share, if you
vote for the rule, you are voting to do that, but under the amendment,
the reasonable amendment that you are advancing, that the gentleman
from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms.
DeLauro) have advanced, we do not punish those corporations, we simply
say, if I understand it correctly, that they would not be able to seek
help from the government and do business with the government at
taxpayer expense if they did not want to contribute to the cost of the
government.
Mr. McGOVERN. The gentleman is correct. The DeLauro amendment, which
was approved by a bipartisan vote in the Committee on Appropriations,
which the majority is now attempting to strip out of the bill,
basically refuses to reward bad corporate behavior. A vote for this
rule would strip out of the bill the DeLauro language which says that
we will not give government contracts to corporate tax dodgers, plain
and simple. That is what this debate is all about.
So if you vote for this rule, you are voting to strip out that
provision from this bill.
Mr. DOGGETT. One of these companies, Stanley Flees is the way one of
my neighbors refers to Stanley Tool Company that has left, moved its
mailbox from Connecticut to Bermuda, they would be under this amendment
in no way restricted from doing business with the government of their
fellow citizens in Bermuda or if they moved to Luxembourg or
Lichtenstein

[[Page H4914]]

or one of these other tax havens, you would not restrict them from
doing business there, would you?
Mr. McGOVERN. The gentleman brings up Stanley Tools. I should also
point out for my colleagues that that is a company that left the U.S.
in 1997 to deprive the U.S. of $30 million every year. These funds
could be used to pay for the salaries and other costs of the Secret
Service as a result of the September 11 attacks.
We need to get serious about holding some of these corporations
responsible. These corporations that open up these little tax havens in
Bermuda or in the Cayman Islands and in other countries, they still
take advantage of all the benefits of this country. They still enjoy
all the benefits that this country has to offer, but they are not
paying their fair share. In this time of war when we are all being
asked to sacrifice, and everybody is sacrificing, I do not think it is
too much to ask that these big corporate interests pay their fair
share. That is what this is about, fairness.
Mr. DOGGETT. When I offered this same language in the Committee on
Ways and Means, there was such concern by the chairman of that
committee that he accepted the amendment. He did not want any
Republican member on record against the amendment. Perhaps they will
try to hide, saying this is a procedural vote, but there will probably
not be another vote on the floor of this House other than this vote
that is about to occur on which Members can so clearly record their
views on whether they approve of corporations fleeing to Bermuda or
Jamaica or Barbados.

{time} 1700

I think there was a Beach Boys song about this some time back, but
where they flee to one of these Caribbean islands that they will be
able to still do business here on unfair competitive grounds against
those companies that have stayed here. There will not be a clearer
vote, will there, that we can foresee?
Mr. McGOVERN. This vote is crystal clear; there is no confusion. A
vote for this rule is a vote for rewarding corporate misbehavior, it is
a vote to reward these corporations that dodge paying their fair share
of U.S. taxes. There is no other way that this vote can be interpreted.
The Committee on Rules could have protected this language from a
point of order like they do so many other provisions, not only in this
bill, but in other bills, but they chose not to. I think it is
unconscionable that after a strong vote in the Committee on
Appropriations, that this language is being scuttled. I think it is
wrong. I think the American people would be outraged over the fact that
this language is being stripped from this bill.
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, it
is okay for these corporate executives to head off to the Caribbean
Isles and get a tan, but not a tax break or a government contract. I
certainly applaud the gentleman's leadership and his work to see that
this is done.
It is not just corporations in the Northeast that have taken
advantage of this loophole. We had one down in Houston, Texas that did
the same thing, and it was the president of a competing company who
recently wrote me to express his outrage, because he is loyal to this
country. His workforce is here; his executive offices are here. He is
willing to pay his fair share, but thinks it is mighty unfair that this
Congress will not stand up and level the playing field and give his
company the same fair basis for competing as those who fled and have
decided they will not contribute their share of taxes.
I think it is also important to note that those who want to hide
behind the fiction that this is just to avoid double taxation on
foreign earnings need look no further than the prospectus on the
Stanley Tool, or Stanley Flees, Company to note that they are planning
to save much more in taxes than they pay in foreign taxes. I just
really thank the gentleman for his leadership on this issue.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I appreciate the
gentleman's remarks. As always, he says it like it is.
Mr. Speaker, again, I would like to say to my colleagues that this
vote turns on a very simple issue: Do you believe that companies that
incorporate in other countries to avoid U.S. taxes deserve billions of
dollars in taxpayer money or not? I believe they do not. We are at war,
Mr. Speaker. All of us need to contribute our fair share, and that
includes big corporations. There has been a lot of rhetoric and a lot
of talk about corporate responsibility and the need for Congress to
act. Well, the time has come for this Congress to back up its rhetoric
with real action.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may
consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of
the Committee on Rules.
(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this very fair
and balanced rule which will allow us to proceed with the very
important work that we have of appropriating the dollars that are
necessary for our homeland security, among other things.
Let me say to my colleagues that as I have listened to this debate, I
think that some might conclude that we are dealing with something other
than an appropriations bill here. This is one of the 13 appropriations
bills that must pass the House of Representatives and the Senate and
get to the President's desk for signature. This is one of the most
important. It is the Treasury-Postal appropriations bill. It deals with
Customs, Secret Service; it deals with a wide range of very important
issues that must be addressed.
Now, I sort of inferred from the debate that I was listening to that
we were discussing a bill that will, at some point, possibly come from
the Committee on Ways and Means. As I have listened to a number of my
colleagues argue that this has to do with corporate greed and rewarding
people who are less than patriotic, it is absolutely ridiculous.
If one looks at what has been described by even people on the other
side of the aisle, Mr. Speaker, as a less than perfectly crafted
amendment, this measure, as was pointed out to me by the chairman of
the subcommittee just a few minutes ago, deals not with corporations,
but with a subsidiary of that corporation here. So I think that the
language in the amendment itself makes it very clear that the Committee
on Ways and Means has to continue the work that it has already begun.
Now, when I listened to the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr.
Speaker, talk about the fact that if we vote for this rule, we are
somehow voting to reward corporate greed and all of this sort of stuff,
I cannot help but think about the fact that we have taken very strong
and vigorous action here to deal with an issue that the President is
outraged about and that both Republicans and Democrats are outraged
about, and that happens to be corporate mismanagement and corruption
that has taken place within the corporate community. We know it is
there.
I will tell my colleagues, corporate CEOs, the President of the
United States, Members of Congress, the American people are outraged at
those who, in fact, have been responsible for wrongdoing. They need to
be convicted, they need to do jail time. And guess what? By a vote of
391 to 28, we voted in this House 2 days ago to move ahead with
language to do that. Back on April 24, just a few weeks after the
President asked us, as a Congress, to step up to the plate and deal
with the issue of corporate accountability, we passed a very good and a
very strong bill in this House that will deal with the issue of
transparency. I am very happy, while it took several months, the United
States Senate has now acted and, just last night, the Speaker of the
House appointed conferees who will be dealing with this issue.
So to somehow say that because we are proceeding with what is the
proper order here; we are allowing committees of jurisdiction to deal
with this very important question and doing it in a proper way is the
right thing to do. Why? Because we do not want to jeopardize the free
market process.
I will tell my colleagues that as angry as we are at those corporate

[[Page H4915]]

CEOs who are responsible for wrongdoing, we do not want to penalize the
job-creators in this country. We do not want to paint with a broad
brush everyone who happens to believe in the free market process. That
is why proceeding with the language that was proposed and passed in the
Committee on Appropriations would be very irresponsible. I will tell my
colleagues that even my very good friend from Maryland, who is the
ranking minority member of this subcommittee, said that it is his
intent to work with the Committee on Ways and Means to make sure that
we craft the kind of language that is addressed here.
So even he is acknowledging that this kind of work needs to be done
in the Committee on Ways and Means. So that is why we are doing exactly
what the Framers of our Constitution wanted. They wanted this to be a
deliberative body. We can act quickly when we need to, but let us do it
through the legislative process itself. We need to support this rule.
It is a very balanced measure; it is the right thing to do. Let us get
our appropriations work done on this measure so that we can proceed
with the proper homeland security that we need to ensure that we will
never face the kind of threat again that we faced this past September
11.
Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder)
for his fine work on this.
Mr. MALONEY of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to
oppose the rule.
During committee consideration of this important legislation, my
colleague from Connecticut added an that would prohibit the awarding of
Federal contracts to corporate expatriates who move their legal
headquarters to a foreign tax haven. The rule before us today will
allow my colleagues from the other side of the aisle to strip this
provision from the underlying legislation.
I fail to see why the House would allow companies who abandon their
corporate responsibilities to our country to continue to be awarded
Federal contracts. Corporate expatriates benefit from over $2 billion
in lucrative government contracts, from large consulting deals with
U.S. government agencies, to equipping airport screeners, to helping
the IRS collect taxes. They turn their backs on America at the same
time that they reach their open hands out to America. Mr. Speaker, this
is outrageous!
Because of the efforts to stifle consideration of this important
issue on the floor of the House, I filed a discharge petition
yesterday, and I urge those who have not already signed it to do so. To
those who have signed it, thank you. The discharge petition will force
a straight up or down vote on the Corporate Patriot Enforcement Act,
H.R. 3884, introduced by myself and the gentleman from Massachusetts,
Mr. Neal.
Vote no on the resolution and tell tax evaders that they will no
longer be able to feed at the Federal trough. If you leave this country
to evade your tax obligations, you are no longer eligible to benefit
from Federal contracts.
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this
rule which prohibits important amendments from being fairly debated and
voted on. However, I support the underlying bill and thank my
colleagues on the subcommittee for continuing contraceptive coverage
for all Federal employees. This important provision ensures that
prescription contraceptives are covered by government employees' health
plans, while it respects the rights of religious organizations.
Eighty-seven percent of Americans support access to birth control
because it's smart policy. Though I support this language, I regret
that it does not cover all necessary medical procedures. Similar women
in the military, Federal employees, are prevented from access to
coverage for abortion.
As the Nation's largest employer, I hope that the Federal Government
will continue to work to consider all of the needs of its employees and
their families.
Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express very serious
concerns about one provision in the legislation that affects the
consumers of financial services.
I am troubled by the restrictions this bill places on the First
Accounts grants program. The First Accounts program provides grants to
financial institutions and community groups to help bring the millions
of un-banked American families into the financial mainstream. This
Treasury Appropriations legislation sets a completely arbitrary per
account limit of $100 for these grants. If this restriction were in
place in FY 2002, 13 of this year's 15 recipients would not have been
eligible for grants.
One of the keys to the long-term economic security of lower- and
middle-income families is easy access to affordable mainstream
financial institutions and community oriented financial institutions.
American families who operate outside of the financial services
mainstream are forced to rely on high-cost alternative financial
services companies, which often subject these families to predatory and
abusive practices. Research suggests that once an un-banked family
enters the door of a mainstream institutions for account services, they
often become customers of the institution for loans and other services,
and they begin to save and accumulate assets. That is why we should
support programs like the First Accounts program, which provides
critical financial support for efforts to bring America's un-banked
families into the financial mainstream.
There has been no evidence of abuse of First Account grants or other
problems with the program that would justify the restrictive language
of this bill. I hope that these restrictions will be eliminated before
the legislation is sent to the President.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Goodlatte). The question is on ordering
the previous question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair will reduce to 5 minutes
the minimum time for electronic voting, if ordered, on the question of
adoption of the resolution.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 258,
nays 156, not voting 20, as follows:

[Roll No. 322]

YEAS--258

Ackerman
Akin
Andrews
Armey
Baca
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barton
Bass
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berman
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Borski
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capuano
Cardin
Clay
Clyburn
Combest
Condit
Conyers
Cox
Coyne
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Culberson
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Tom
Deal
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Dunn
Ehlers
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Foley
Frank
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gephardt
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Goss
Granger
Green (TX)
Greenwood
Grucci
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hansen
Harman
Hastings (WA)
Hefley
Herger
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Honda
Horn
Houghton
Hoyer
Hunter
Hyde
Issa
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kennedy (RI)
Kerns
Kilpatrick
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kleczka
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
Larson (CT)
LaTourette
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCrery
McDermott
McKeon
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, Dan
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler
Neal
Nethercutt
Ney
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Pence
Pombo
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reyes
Reynolds
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schrock
Scott
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Simpson
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Solis
Souder
Stark
Stenholm
Sununu
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Towns
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walsh
Waters
Watkins (OK)
Watson (CA)
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)

[[Page H4916]]

Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NAYS--156

Abercrombie
Aderholt
Allen
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldacci
Baldwin
Bartlett
Berry
Blagojevich
Boozman
Boswell
Boucher
Brady (TX)
Bryant
Capito
Capps
Carson (IN)
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Clement
Coble
Collins
Cooksey
Costello
Cramer
Davis (CA)
Davis, Jo Ann
DeFazio
DeMint
Deutsch
Duncan
Edwards
Emerson
English
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Ferguson
Flake
Fletcher
Forbes
Ford
Gekas
Gibbons
Goode
Gordon
Graham
Graves
Green (WI)
Hall (TX)
Hart
Hayes
Hayworth
Hill
Hilleary
Holden
Holt
Hostettler
Hulshof
Inslee
Isakson
Israel
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Jones (NC)
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kildee
Kind (WI)
Kucinich
LaHood
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Latham
Leach
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (KY)
Luther
Lynch
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Matheson
McCollum
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
Meehan
Mica
Miller, Jeff
Mink
Moore
Moran (KS)
Napolitano
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Paul
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Phelps
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Ramstad
Riley
Rivers
Ross
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sanchez
Sandlin
Schaffer
Schiff
Sensenbrenner
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simmons
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Spratt
Stearns
Strickland
Stupak
Sullivan
Tanner
Taylor (MS)
Terry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Tierney
Toomey
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Vitter
Walden
Wamp
Wu

NOT VOTING--20

Barrett
Berkley
Bonior
Carson (OK)
Clayton
Crane
Ehrlich
Fossella
Hastings (FL)
Hooley
Lowey
Mascara
McCarthy (NY)
McHugh
McInnis
Miller, Gary
Roukema
Stump
Thomas
Traficant

{time} 1740

Messrs. COOKSEY, LINDER, MORAN of Kansas, LEACH, SULLIVAN, JEFF
MILLER of Florida, TIAHRT, GIBBONS, TANNER, PETRI, PETERSON of
Pennsylvania, OSBORNE, RILEY, SIMMONS, SCHAFFER, BACHUS, Ms.
NAPOLITANO, and Mrs. NORTHUP changed their vote from ``yea'' to
``nay.''
Ms. WOOLSEY, Mr. OWENS, Ms. PELOSI, and Messrs. DICKS, BROWN of Ohio,
WELLER, ROHRABACHER, and WALSH changed their vote from ``nay'' to
``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Goodlatte). The question is on the
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 224,
noes 188, not voting 22, as follows:

[Roll No. 323]

AYES--224

Abercrombie
Akin
Andrews
Armey
Bachus
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barr
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bereuter
Berman
Biggert
Bilirakis
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boozman
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Castle
Chambliss
Collins
Combest
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dingell
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Emerson
English
Everett
Fattah
Ferguson
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Graham
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Grucci
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hansen
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
John
Johnson, Sam
Kanjorski
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kerns
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lofgren
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
Matsui
McCrery
McDermott
McKeon
Menendez
Mica
Miller, Dan
Miller, Jeff
Mink
Moran (KS)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Osborne
Ose
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pombo
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Regula
Rehberg
Reynolds
Riley
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Skeen
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stupak
Sullivan
Sununu
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Udall (CO)
Upton
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins (OK)
Watson (CA)
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOES--188

Ackerman
Aderholt
Allen
Baca
Baird
Baker
Barcia
Becerra
Bentsen
Berry
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson (IN)
Chabot
Clay
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Condit
Conyers
Coyne
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Filner
Flake
Ford
Frank
Frost
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Green (TX)
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hill
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lucas (KY)
Luther
Lynch
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Matheson
McCarthy (MO)
McCollum
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Nadler
Napolitano
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Otter
Owens
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Phelps
Pitts
Platts
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Ross
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schaffer
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott
Serrano
Sherman
Shows
Simmons
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thune
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Whitfield
Woolsey
Wu

NOT VOTING--22

Baldwin
Barrett
Berkley
Bonior
Carson (OK)
Clayton
Ehrlich
Evans
Fossella
Gordon
Hooley
Lowey
Mascara
McCarthy (NY)
McHugh
McInnis
Miller, Gary
Neal
Roukema
Smith (MI)
Stump
Traficant

{time} 1752

Mr. BLUMENAUER changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
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.

____________________