[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.

                          ____________________