[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 4]
[House]
[Pages 5251-5258]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



              SENSE OF CONGRESS ON CLINTON/GORE TAX HIKES

  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to 
the resolution (H. Res. 467) expressing the sense of the House of 
Representatives that the tax and user fee increases proposed by the 
Clinton/Gore administration in their fiscal year 2001 budget should be 
adopted.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                              H. Res. 467

       Whereas on February 7, 2000, President Clinton and Vice 
     President Gore submitted a budget for fiscal year 2001 that 
     raises taxes and fees on working families by $116 billion 
     over 5 years, creates 84 new Federal programs, places 
     Government spending increases on auto-pilot, and fails to 
     offer any serious proposal to strengthen social security or 
     medicare;
       Whereas over the next decade the Clinton-Gore budget would 
     spend $1.3 trillion on bigger Government--consuming 70 
     percent of the projected $1.9 trillion in budget surpluses--
     thus spending more for the Federal bureaucracy, and less for 
     the American family;
       Whereas as part of the $116 billion in tax and fee 
     increases--
       (1) the President proposes to raise taxes by $12.8 billion 
     on the insurance products which Americans rely on to protect 
     their families, homes, and businesses,
       (2) the President proposes a stealth tax on our children by 
     raising the death tax by $3.5 billion,
       (3) the President asks us to increase taxes on energy by 
     $1.5 billion at a time of rising energy prices and increasing 
     dependence on foreign oil, and
       (4) the President wants to raise medicare premiums and 
     other health care costs by $3.2 billion at the very time we 
     are trying to insure our seniors' health security by 
     preserving and protecting medicare; and
       Whereas the President's solution is to take hard-earned 
     money and send it to Washington where politicians can spend 
     it: Now, therefore, be it
       Resolved, That is it the sense of the House of 
     Representatives that--
       (1) despite having successfully balanced the budget and 
     created budget surpluses,
       (2) despite having protected social security and restored 
     the integrity of the social security trust fund,
       (3) despite the fact that in 1999 governments at all levels 
     collected $9,562 in taxes for every man, woman and child,
       (4) despite the fact our tax burden is at 20.0 percent of 
     gross domestic product--a post-World War II record high, and
       (5) despite the fact that our oversight activities have 
     identified billions of taxpayer's dollars that are subject to 
     waste, fraud and abuse,
     the Congress should support the adoption of the package of 
     tax and user fee increases proposed by the Clinton/Gore 
     administration in their fiscal year 2001 budget, as 
     reestimated by the Joint Committee on Taxation, and as 
     outlined below.

       

                     PROPOSED TAX AND FEE INCREASES
                          (Millions of dollars)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               2000-05
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                        I. PROPOSED TAX INCREASES
 
A. Corporate Tax Provisions
  1. Five corporate tax provisions with general application        2,340
  2. Require accrual of time value element on forward sale            41
   of corporate stock......................................
  3. Modify treatment of ESOP as S corporation shareholder.          169
  4. Limit dividend treatment for payments on self-                   10
   amortizing stock........................................
  5. Prevent serial liquidations of U.S. subsidiaries of              43
   foreign corporations....................................
  6. Prevent capital gains avoidance through basis shift             270
   transactions involving foreign shareholders.............
  7. Prevent mismatching of deductions and income                    229
   inclusions in transactions with related foreign persons.
  8. Prevent duplication or acceleration of loss through              93
   assumption of liabilities...............................
  9. Amend 80/20 company rules.............................          167
  10. Modify corporate-owned life insurance (``COLI'')             2,026
   rules...................................................
  11. Increase depreciation life by service term of tax-              66
   exempt use property leases..............................
B. Financial Products
  1. Require cash-method banks to accrue interest on short-           76
   term obligations........................................
  2. Require current accrual of market discount by accrual            52
   method taxpayers........................................
  3. Modify and clarify certain rules relating to debt-for-          136
   debt exchanges..........................................
  4. Modify and clarify straddle rules.....................           95
  5. Provide generalized rules for all income-stripping               65
   transactions............................................
  6. Require ordinary treatment for options dealers and               93
   commodities dealers.....................................
  7. Prohibit tax deferral on contributions of appreciated          NR 1
   property to swap funds..................................
C. Provisions Affecting Corporations and Pass-Through
 Entities
  1. Conform control test for tax-free incorporations,                86
   distributions, and reorganizations......................
  2. Treat receipt of tracking stock as property...........          477
  3. Require consistent treatment and provide basis                  145
   allocation rules for transfers of intangibles in certain
   nonrecognition transactions.............................
  4. Modify tax treatment of certain reorganizations in              283
   which portfolio interests in stock disappear............
  5. Clarify definition of nonqualified preferred stock....           73
  6. Clarify rules for payment of estimated taxes for                120
   certain deemed asset sales..............................
  7. Modify treatment of transfers to creditors in divisive           46
   reorganizations.........................................
  8. Provide mandatory basis adjustments if partners have            159
   significant built-in loss in partnership property.......
  9. Modify treatment of closely-held REITs................           45
  10. Apply RIC excise tax to undistributed profits of                 4
   REITs...................................................
  11. Allow RICs a dividends paid deduction for redemptions        1,911
   only if the redemption represents a contraction in the
   RIC.....................................................
  12. Require REMICs to be secondarily liable for the tax             69
   liability of REMIC residual interest holders............
  13. Deny change in method treatment in tax-free                     25
   transactions............................................
  14. Deny deduction for punitive damages..................          233
  15. Repeal the lower-of-cost-or-market inventory                 2,032
   accounting method.......................................
  16. Disallow interest on debt allocable to tax-exempt               87
   obligations.............................................
  17. Capitalization of commissions by mutual fund                   461
   distributors............................................
D. Cost Recovery Provisions
  1. Provide consistent amortization periods for                     969
   intangibles.............................................
  2. Establish specific class lives for utility grading              307
   costs...................................................
  3. Extend the present-law intangibles amortization                 245
   provisions to acquisitions of sports franchises.........
E. Insurance Provisions
  1. Require recapture of policyholder surplus accounts....        1,622
  2. Modify rules for capitalizing policy acquisition costs        5,084
   of insurance companies..................................
  3. Increase the proration percentage for property and              323
   casualty insurance companies............................
  4. Modify rules that apply to sales of life insurance              140
   contracts...............................................
  5. Modify qualification rules for tax-exempt property and           87
   casualty insurance companies............................
F. Tax-Exempt Organization Provisions
  1. Subject investment income of trade associations to tax          730
  2. Penalty for failure to file Form 5227.................            7
G. Estate and Gift Tax Provisions
  1. Restore phaseout of unified credit for large estates..          430
  2. Require consistent valuation for estate and income tax           50
   purposes................................................
  3. Require basis allocation for part-sale, part-gift                 5
   transactions............................................
  4. Eliminate the stepped-up basis in community property            229
   owned by surviving spouse...............................
  5. Require that qualified terminable interest property               8
   for which a marital deduction is allowed be included in
   the surviving spouse's estate...........................
  6. Eliminate non-business valuation discounts............        2,985
  7. Eliminate gift tax exemption for personal residence              28
   trusts..................................................
  8. Eliminate the Crummey rule and modify requirements for           45
   annual exclusion gifts..................................
H. Pension Provisions
  1. Increase elective withholding rate for nonperiodic               60
   distributions from deferred compensation plans..........
  2. Increase section 4973 excise tax on excess IRA                   39
   contributions...........................................
  3. Impose limitation on prefunding of welfare benefits...          873
  4. Subject signing bonuses to employment taxes...........           27
  5. Clarify employment tax treatment of choreworkers               RS 2
   employed by State welfare agencies......................
  6. Prohibit IRAs from investing in foreign sales                   126
   corporations............................................
I. Compliance Provisions
  1. Modify the substantial understatement penalty for                15
   large corporations......................................
  2. Repeal exemption for withholding on certain gambling             31
   winnings................................................

[[Page 5252]]

 
  3. Require information reporting for private separate             NR 1
   accounts................................................
  4. Increase penalties for failure to file correct                   47
   information returns.....................................
J. Miscellaneous Revenue-Increasing Provisions
  1. Modify deposit requirement for Federal Unemployment           1,367
   Tax Act (``FUTA'')......................................
  2. Reinstate Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund excise tax           1,022
   and increase trust fund ceiling to $5 billion (through 9/
   30/10)..................................................
  3. Repeal percentage depletion for non-fuel minerals               410
   mined on Federal and formerly Federal lands.............
  4. Impose excise tax on purchase of structured                      12
   settlements.............................................
  5. Require taxpayers to include rental income of                    75
   residence in income without regard to period of rental..
  6. Eliminate installment payment of heavy vehicle use tax          320
  7. Require recognition of gain from the sale of a                   45
   principal residence if acquired in a like-kind exchange
   within 5 years of the sale..............................
K. International Provisions
  1. Require reporting of payments to, and restrict tax              100
   benefits for income flowing through, identified tax
   havens..................................................
  2. Modify treatment of built-in losses and other                   524
   attribute trafficking...................................
  3. Simplify taxation of property that no longer produces          NR 1
   income effectively connected with a U.S. trade or
   business................................................
  4. Impose mark-to-market tax on individuals who                    500
   expatriate..............................................
  5. Expand U.S.-effectively connected income rules to                26
   include more foreign-source income......................
  6. Limit basis step-up for imported pensions.............           50
  7. Replace sales-source rules with activity-based rules..        7,828
  8. Modify rules relating to foreign oil and gas                  1,151
   extraction income.......................................
  9. Recapture overall foreign losses when controlled                 18
   foreign corporation stock is disposed...................
  10. Modify foreign office material participation                    25
   exception applicable to certain inventory sales.........
L. Other Provisions Requiring Amendment of the Internal
 Revenue Code
  1. Hazardous Substance Superfund Taxes:
    a. Reinstate environmental tax imposed on corporate            3,600
     taxable income and deposited in the Hazardous
     Substance Superfund...................................
    b. Reinstate excise taxes deposited in the Hazardous           3,853
     Substance Superfund...................................
  2. Convert a portion of the excise taxes deposited in the        6,667
   Airport and Airway Trust Fund to cost-based user fees
   (Administration's estimate).............................
  3. Increase excise taxes on tobacco products.............       37,313
  4. Repeal harbor maintenance excise tax and authorize           ^2,742
   imposition of cost-based harbor services user fee.......
  5. Accelerate rum excise tax coverover payments to Puerto           --
   Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands........................
  6. Restore Premiums for United Mine Workers of American             43
   benefit fund............................................
                                                            ------------
Total: Provisions increasing revenue.......................       88,946
 
                       II. PROPOSED FEE INCREASES
 
A. Proposals for Discretionary User Fees
1. Offsetting collections deposited in appropriation
 accounts
Department of Agriculture:
  Food Safety Inspection Service fees......................        3,098
  Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service...............           55
  Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration..          115
Department of Commerce:
  National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,                    70
   Navigational assistance fees............................
  Fisheries management fees................................          100
Department of Health and Human Services:
  Food and Drug Administration fees........................           95
Health Care Financing Administration fee proposals:
  Managed care application and renewal fees................          105
  Provider initial certification fees......................           65
  Provider recertification fees............................          250
  Paper claims submission fees.............................          415
  Duplicate and unprocessable claims fees..................          265
  Increase Medicare + Choice fees..........................          646
  Nursing home criminal abuse registry fee.................           20
Department of the Interior:
  User fees on Outer Continental Shelf lands...............           50
Department of Justice:
  Hart-Scott Rodino pre-merger filing fees.................          190
Department of Transportation:
  Coast Guard, navigational services fees..................        2,826
  Federal Railroad Administration, rail safety inspection            515
   fees....................................................
  Hazardous materials transportation safety fees...........           95
  Surface Transportation Board fees........................           85
Department of the Treasury:
  Customs, automation modernization fee....................        1,050
Federal Trade Commission:
  Hart-Scott Rodino pre-merger filing fees.................          190
National Transportation Safety Board:
  Commercial accident investigation fees...................           50
2. Offsetting collections deposited in receipt accounts
Department of Justice:
  Immigration premium processing fee.......................           85
  Increase inspection user fees............................          835
Department of Transportation:
  Pipeline safety fees.....................................           59
Environmental Protection Agency:
  Pesticide registration fees..............................           16
  Pre-manufacture notice (PMN) fees........................           36
Nuclear Regulatory Commission:
  Extend Nuclear Regulatory Commission user fees...........        1,475
                                                            ------------
    Subtotal, proposals for discretionary user fees........       12,856
 
B. Proposed Fee Increases to Offset Mandatory Spending
 
1. Offsetting collections deposited in appropriation
 accounts
Department of Agriculture:
  Federal crop insurance...................................           69
Department of Labor:
  Implement alien labor certification fees.................          626
Federal Emergency Management Agency:
  Flood map license fee for flood map modernization........          546
2. Offsetting collections deposited in receipt accounts
Department of Agriculture:
  Recreation and entrance fees.............................          162
  Concession, land use, right of way, and filming permits..           52
Department of Health and Human Services:
  Medicare premiums........................................        1,446
Department of the Interior:
  Recreation and entrance fees.............................          297
  Filming and special use permits fees.....................           19
  Hardrock mining production fees..........................           86
Department of the Treasury:
  Customs, extend conveyance/passenger fee.................          889
  Customs, extend merchandise processing fee...............        2,095
                                                            ------------
    Subtotal user fee proposals to offset mandatory                6,287
     spending..............................................
                                                            ============
Total user fee proposals...................................       19,143
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Negligible or no revenue effect.
2 Requires specification.


  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. McInnis) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) 
each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. McInnis).


                             General Leave

  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their 
remarks and to include extraneous material on H. Res. 467.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Colorado?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the resolution that we have in front of us lays it on 
the table. It was interesting to hear some of the comments from the 
people immediately preceding this about sunshine and let us open it up. 
I think that is exactly what we ought to do with the budget of the 
President and the Vice President that they have sent over to us.
  That budget raises taxes. There is no question about it. It raises 
taxes. It is hidden in the fine print. What this resolution does is 
say, hey, let us put all the cards on the table. If the President and 
the Vice President are going to raise taxes on the American taxpayers, 
let us be forthright and let us lay it on the table and see exactly how 
many Democrats are going to vote for it.
  That is what this resolution does. It says, does their party really 
follow the administration wanting to raise taxes, like death taxes for 
example? And I can go through those in specific. We are going to give 
them the opportunity to vote on it. Because I think the American 
people, while our economy is still good, I do not think are very 
excited about their philosophy to raise taxes. And the administration, 
I think under the guise of a terrific booming economy, think it is time 
to squeeze into the pocketbook.

[[Page 5253]]

  I think it is time to see under openness, under sunshine makes great 
growing, or whatever that quote was in the last speech. Now is the 
opportunity for us to see where they stand on raising taxes.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. 
Terry). I hope he addresses this issue in his comments.
  Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend and colleague from Colorado 
(Mr. McInnis) for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring to the floor another package of 
tax and fee increases proposed by the Clinton-Gore administration for 
the fiscal year 2001. This legislation proposes additional taxes and 
fees totaling $116 billion over the next 5 years.
  Now, this body a few weeks ago and the Senate just last week and this 
week, hopefully, will deal with the conference report on our budget. 
The thing to keep in mind is that our budget does not raise taxes. In 
fact, it cuts taxes by $150 billion over the next 5 years.
  Our budget protects the Social Security Trust Fund. Our budget pays 
down the public debt. And we did this without asking our constituents 
and the American public to pay one more dollar of their hard-earned 
money to the Federal Government. We think it is better that they keep 
their money in their pockets than in Washington.
  This resolution exposes the Clinton-Gore tax-and-fee package for what 
it really is, $116 billion in new fees and taxes. The President and 
Vice President propose 84 new spending programs.
  So as maybe some of the American public have watched the nightly 
news, they may have said, how do they do it? I hear them talking about 
spending or taking down the debt and expanding the size of government. 
Well, what they are not hearing is the fact that in that proposal is 
$116 billion worth of new taxes to do that. That is the smoke and 
mirrors.
  This package raises, for example, $12.8 billion on insurance products 
which Americans rely on to protect their families. Since I have gotten 
here, I fought hard to eliminate the death tax. This administration has 
proposed a stealth tax on our children, raising death taxes a whopping 
$3.8 billion.
  At the time that the price of oil and gas have risen to historic 
heights, and now leveling off, though, the President submitted a budget 
which included $1.6 billion in new energy taxes.
  Congress has made an effort to help our senior citizens by locking 
away their Social Security and protecting Medicare. Now this 
administration submits a budget raising Medicare premiums and other 
health care costs by $3.2 billion. This is what we are fighting to save 
them from.
  Now, I could go on with many more specific examples. But, Mr. 
Speaker, I will not. There is something in this resolution for everyone 
to dislike.
  I, for one, plan to demonstrate my opposition to this tax package and 
these fee increases; and I encourage all of my colleagues to join me in 
voting ``no'' to these fees and tax increases.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a great honor for me to be a part of the 
Committee on Ways and Means and see that the Republican leadership is 
now sharing the tax writing authority with other members on their side.
  This, I think, is good and healthy. That way, the chairman of the 
Committee on Ways and Means does not have the responsibility of having 
to explain this tomfoolery that we are dealing with on the floor today. 
Because it just seems to me that anybody on our committee that would be 
talking about the President's tax revenue raises would also be talking 
about the President's program.
  Because I would welcome the opportunity to vote for a $100 billion 
tax increase over a 5-year period if I thought for one minute that the 
majority party was prepared to repair the Social Security system for 
our kids and our grandkids; if I thought there was just one scintilla 
of interest in having Medicare be held whole for those that follow up; 
if I thought this was the price that we would pay so that our senior 
citizens would have affordable prescription drugs; if I thought that 
this bill, which my colleagues just pulled out the cost and the pain, 
that this would be something to allow us to reduce our Federal debt and 
the interest on that debt; if I thought for one minute that the 
Committee on Ways and Means was asking people to pay this increase in 
taxes because we were going to invest in our education system so that 
all of our kids, from whatever community, will be exposed to the 
education and the training that will be necessary for this great 
Republic of ours to maintain our competitive edge in technology.
  But I do not know who would do this on our economy to just find out 
the cost of government and pull that out and say, why do they not pay 
for the pain when the majority party is not even concerned about the 
security of our Social Security system.
  Now, the reason I am not annoyed is because I know that they are not 
serious about this. And the reason I know it is because there are a 
series of so-called ``tax bills'' that would be reaching the floor. Far 
more exciting, I would think, and far more creative and, of course, far 
more irresponsible is the idea that they are going to sunset the whole 
Code and they will do this on the week that Americans have to pay their 
income taxes. And I would suspect that when they go to sunset the 
Internal Revenue Code that they will say at some point in time in the 
distant future they will substitute the Code with something else.
  Well, back in Harlem they call that a pig in the poke, that they do 
not buy what you do not know. And certainly they have not demonstrated 
the leadership to give us any alternative.
  I have been here on the Committee on Ways and Means. The chairman has 
no bill. The Speaker has no bill to substitute the Code. But we will 
pull it up by the roots and let America decide what we are going to do 
in the future.
  I know that they have to have something to go back home to at the end 
of these 2 years that they have been down here in charge, and so it 
does not bother me that that is the reason why they are bringing this 
to the floor. But it should bother some of the people on the tax 
writing committee that have to explain this.
  I mean, give the other fellows an opportunity to talk about taxes. 
But for those who have the responsibility to explain it, give us a 
break.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1530

  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, first of all the gentleman from New York talks about the 
quote out of Harlem called a pig in a pork or something like that. Let 
us come back to America and talk about a quote in the fine print. That 
is in the fine print I say to the gentleman from New York. Those tax 
increases, they are in the fine print. Those 85 new Federal programs 
are in the fine print. It is his administration that put it in the fine 
print. I would like to see him vote for that. Is that what he really 
supports? He really supports a tax increase for the people?
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, does the gentleman want an answer?
  Mr. McINNIS. I control the floor, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman may proceed.
  Mr. McINNIS. I tell the gentleman, go ahead and stand up and vote for 
those 84 programs. Go ahead. But let us be frank with the American 
people. Let us not tuck it away in a stack of papers this high and 
stick a tax increase in there. Let us not go into this stack of papers 
and stick down there 84 new Federal programs and then under the guise 
of a great economy and under the guise of we are going to save Social 
Security for Americans, under the guise of all good words that sound 
hopeful, we are going to stick this tax increase in there. Forget the 
pig in the pork stuff. Let us talk about the fine print.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Portman) my colleague on the Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I would say to my friend from New York who

[[Page 5254]]

said he would be willing to vote for these $116 billion in new taxes 
and fees if he knew we could preserve Social Security and maintain and 
improve Medicare, I have good news for him. The Republicans are going 
to make good on our budget resolution that passed the floor and we are 
going to give him the opportunity to preserve Social Security and 
improve Medicare, including offering prescription drug coverage, 
without any tax increases. So I think we can do both. I think we can 
address the necessary problems, the problems that we face as a country 
as well as not adding to the already very high burden on the American 
people of the highest per capita tax that we have faced since World War 
II.
  This resolution is great. It is straightforward. It just says, yes or 
no, do you support or not support the President's own budget proposal? 
It is interesting a Republican is offering it because I am going to 
have to vote no on it. I hope the gentleman from Nebraska and the 
gentleman from Colorado do not mind.
  The reason I have to vote no on it and the reason they are going to 
vote no on it is that it increases taxes in a number of critical areas. 
One is Medicare premiums. It contains $3.2 billion in increased 
Medicare premiums. Again we have disagreements on where Medicare ought 
to go maybe, but I do not think we want to overburden people even 
further on the Medicare system and take away even more funding from 
Medicare by adding $3.2 billion in increased Medicare premiums. $1.5 
billion in increased energy costs at a time we are all worried about 
rising gas prices. $3.5 billion in increased death taxes, $12.8 billion 
in increased costs and fees on insurance products, primarily these are 
products that would lead to savings. These are ways in which Americans 
save for their retirement.
  At a time when all economists, right, left and center, agree we have 
a savings crisis in this country, let us not add $12.8 billion in 
increased costs and fees on savings. I think that does not make any 
sense at all. A report issued recently, just last month by the Employee 
Benefits Research Institute showed that personal savings have dropped 
by 50 percent in the last 5 years. This is a crisis. It is not 
something that we ought to tax, it is something we ought to encourage, 
which is more savings. I am pleased my colleagues will have an 
opportunity to vote on the Clinton/Gore budget today. I commend my 
colleagues from Colorado and Nebraska for raising it.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I was asking my friend from the Committee on Ways and Means to yield 
only because I wanted to respond to what I thought, what I did think 
were questions to me, and, that is, I was saying that this was a pig in 
the poke, p-o-k-e, and he was saying that this was reduced to writing, 
his proposals. It does not make it more accurate just because he has 
been able to reduce it to words. It is words that are irresponsible. We 
cannot talk about the President's increase in taxes without talking 
about a package of benefits that the President has in this package.
  But I think the American people, all I can ask them to do is that if 
you are sincere in the resolution, vote for it, because I am convinced 
that what you have done is to create a resolution to embarrass the 
President that has taken all of the facts as relate to the benefit of 
his budget and stripped that off and just talked about the pain of 
operating government. Anybody that would vote for this standing alone 
would be very, very silly. But since the proponent has come from your 
side, how you intend to handle this, I do not know.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
McDermott) a senior member of the Committee on Ways and Means, a member 
of the Committee on the Budget and someone who truly understands how to 
be responsible about facing up to the problems facing our great 
country.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I am sitting back here wondering why this 
bill was out here just now, and I think I broke the code. In the House 
we try and pick an important day to bring something up. I remember we 
came out here on Valentine's Day and we passed the marriage tax 
penalty. I do not know where it is. It went off somewhere but everybody 
thought they got a valentine from the House of Representatives. Now 
today we have the Taxpayer Bill of Rights. We get that out here and 
everybody says, Oh, well, now, I've finally got some rights, right? Now 
we go over to the Committee on Ways and Means, and it must be tax time.
  I cannot explain it any other way except over in the Committee on 
Ways and Means we are having a hearing about tearing up the Tax Code by 
the roots and imposing a 30 percent sales tax on everything. Just 
imagine you are going to buy a house and you are going to pay a 30 
percent tax on it, or you are going to buy a car and you are going to 
pay a 30 percent tax on it. Or you are going to buy a shirt, and you 
are going to pay a 30 percent tax. That is what they are talking about 
over in the Committee on Ways and Means now. If the taxpayers had any 
sense at all, they would be over in the Committee on Ways and Means 
instead of hearing these silly bills about a Taxpayer's Bill of Rights.
  This bill, the one we are on right now, is even more interesting. As 
the gentleman from New York has pointed out, you pass taxes to pay for 
something. The President put the ``something'' out there and said I am 
going to give you a prescription benefit for senior citizens, I am 
going to take care of the schools, I am going to take care of a whole 
lot of things and it will cost something. That is how you do it.
  No, no, not my distinguished colleagues from the Committee on Ways 
and Means. They bring the money out here and say, Just vote for the 
money, just vote for the money, and then trust us, we'll spend it for 
you. I brought Mr. Bush's tax bill to the Committee on Ways and Means 
and said to them, this man is running nationwide saying if you elect 
me, I will give you $500 billion worth of tax cuts. And everybody on 
the committee has endorsed Mr. Bush. But none of them would vote for 
Mr. Bush's tax proposal when it was put before them. You have to wonder 
if this is not just some kind of electioneering rather than any 
substantive policy.
  Bringing the President's bill out here, I consider it the highest 
form of flattery to be imitated. I put that bill in over in the 
Committee on Ways and Means a couple of weeks ago and everybody was all 
exercised when the headlines said, GOP in House Rejects Bush Tax Plan. 
They just were upset by that so they thought, Oh, I know what we'll do, 
we'll run out here with the President's taxes and throw it on the 
table. But it makes no sense. The President said what he would spend it 
for. We have not done anything about Medicare. We have not done 
anything about Medicaid. We have not done anything about Social 
Security. I think everybody is going to vote no on this.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
First of all the previous speaker talks about playing politics because 
of the fact that we bring out the tax increases that the Democrats want 
on the American people. I call it sunshine. Bring it out. Get into that 
big stack of papers and let us reveal exactly what is happening on 
taxes. You can take a look at the other programs, but let us talk about 
84 new Federal government programs, the creation of 84 new programs 
under this budget. It is tucked away in the fine print.
  Let us talk about those tax increases. That is not something we call 
fair game. That ought to be the legitimate practice of representing the 
people of this Nation. Tell them what you are about to do to them in 
regards to tax increases. Tell them about the fact that many Members on 
your side of the aisle oppose the death tax or at least when people are 
talking to their constituents they oppose the death tax but when the 
administration sends a bill over here, it increases the death tax. It 
does not talk about keeping it the same. It does not reduce the death 
tax. It increases the death tax. I hope the gentleman gets some expert 
advice. Come up here, and I would be happy to

[[Page 5255]]

go over those death tax increases with him.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Arizona 
(Mr. Hayworth).
  Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank my colleague from Colorado for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this proposal, but I 
appreciate the courtesy of my colleagues for bringing this to the floor 
to really show the American people what is at work here. It is true 
there are two different philosophies and it is not a matter of breaking 
a code or, shoot, even listening to cellular telephone conversations, 
it is just simply a chance to lay out for the people what is clear.
  Those on the left are committed to taking more of your hard-earned 
money to spend on more and more wasteful Washington programs. It is 
fine. It is a legitimate difference of opinion. But, Mr. Speaker, I 
would just ask my colleagues to focus on the teacher who visited me 
this morning with kids from the northern part of my district. I know it 
will shock the pundits and the spinmeisters who tell us people do not 
care about the money they send to the Federal Government, but not only 
the students but the teacher was very interested in taxation. The 
teacher shared with us the story that he and his spouse will have to 
write a check close to $600, a good portion of a paycheck for their 
salary, to the Federal Government this week begging the question, why 
do those who work hard and play by the rules always find themselves 
penalized?
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the President's multibillion-
dollar tax increase. The simple fact that I understand the money 
belongs to the people, not to the Washington bureaucrats, and that for 
years there have been those denizens of the left who tell us again and 
again and again that families ought to sacrifice so that Washington can 
do more. Mr. Speaker, I think the opposite is true. I think that 
Washington bureaucrats ought to sacrifice so that families can have 
more.
  Again not out of embarrassment but out of courtesy, since my friends 
on the left did not want to offer the current President of the United 
States a chance to have his tax increases debated, we brought this to 
the floor as a courtesy. They now have the opportunity to embrace the 
tax increases. Because, Mr. Speaker, the money has to come from 
somewhere, and it comes from the hardworking people like the teacher 
who visited with me this morning who works hard and plays by the rules 
and wonders where his money goes.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Kleczka) a senior member of the Committee on Ways and 
Means.
  Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the vice chairman of the 
Committee on Ways and Means, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), 
for giving me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I have been in Congress a couple of years now, and I 
fought like the devil to get on the Committee on Ways and Means because 
I wanted to be in a position so I could hopefully shape the tax laws of 
this country. The committee also deals with Social Security, trade 
policy, Medicare, but it seems that service on the committee is to be 
taken for granted today because bills like this just pop up out of 
nowhere. This bill was introduced yesterday. So for you folks who are 
watching this thinking that Members have public hearings on bills, read 
bills, that is nonsense. It was popped in yesterday, we have to come to 
the floor today to defend it or to argue against it.
  As I speak today, the Committee on Ways and Means, the real 
committee, is meeting across the road here in the Longworth Office 
Building and before us is a proposal to incept a national sales tax, to 
pull the tax code out by its roots, throw it away in the garbage can 
and in lieu you folks will pay a 30 percent sales tax on every good and 
service that you need or purchase.

                              {time}  1545

  But instead of being there to listen to that weighty debate, we are 
here talking about a bill that just was popped before us yesterday; but 
it is not new, because it was before us last year.
  One of my Republican colleagues indicated that this is the 
President's budget we are voting on. My friends, it is not the 
President's budget, so do not be led astray. What it is, and I will 
read the first paragraph, ``Expressing the sense of the House of 
Representatives that the tax and user fee increases proposed by the 
Clinton-Gore administration in their fiscal year 2001 budget should be 
adopted.'' So the author of the bill says these things should be 
adopted. So in a short while we are going to have a vote on this, and 
we are all going to vote no.
  Remember when we were growing up there used to be this Shmoo balloon. 
We blew up the Shmoo and put it in a knot and put it in these little 
shoes, and the game was to hit the Shmoo, the Shmoo would fall on the 
ground and it would pop back up. These folks introduced this bill, and 
the only reason is they want to knock it down.
  Well, one would seem to think that after the debate from our 
Republican colleagues that in here there is an increase for the income 
tax, an increase for the corporate tax. None of that. These are fees 
and user taxes for people who use various services. If the user uses 
the service, they should pay; and if you do not use it, you do not pay. 
Some are good, some are bad. Some I support; some I do not support.
  All right, let me challenge my Republican colleagues to respond to 
some of these suggested changes in the tax law. Under the corporate tax 
provision, prevent serial liquidation of U.S. subsidies of foreign 
corporations. Foreign corporations. What is wrong with that? There is 
not a one of them who knows what the heck that does.
  Another one, require cash method banks to accrue interest on short-
term obligations. Sounds like fair tax policy. I bet the author of the 
bill does not even know what the heck that does.
  Here is another one. Prohibit tax deferral on contributions of 
appreciated property to swap funds. Closing a tax loophole. What is 
wrong with that? How many of you guys and ladies are going to pay that? 
Zero. A tax loophole.
  But we are asked here to say no to all of these, even though in the 
entire context of the budget they make some sense. But the President's 
budget is not here. This is a little silly game we are playing today, 
and I want everyone to stay tuned, because we have got a sillier one 
coming on Thursday, and that is to repeal the income tax code, 
effective year 2002, and replace it with, we have not thought of that 
yet.
  So they are going to repeal the income tax and one day maybe the 
Committee on Ways and Means I serve on, maybe not, will come up with an 
alternative, an alternative. But that alternative is not here today.
  This is shenanigans. Let us play the game.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The Chair would remind all 
Members to address their comments to the Chair, and not to members of 
the audience and not to members outside this Chamber.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I just listened to this previous speaker. He talks about a silly 
game. Of course it does not mean much to him there is 82 new Federal 
programs coming in. Of course it does not mean much to him that the 
people of our country are going to have a tax increase. Why? He does 
not want the fine print of that Clinton-Gore budget discovered. It has 
been discovered.
  I would caution my friend up here, he talks about why do this bill? 
Why are you bringing this up today? Well, you know what, it is an old 
adage: every action brings a reaction. This is the reaction. And what 
is it a reaction to? It is a reaction to the Democrats going out there 
and not just raising user fees, but raising death taxes; not just 
raising taxes, but creating new Federal programs.
  Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I will not yield.
  Mr. Speaker, I can assure all the Members on this side of the aisle, 
the Democrats on this side----

[[Page 5256]]


  Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I have control of the floor. Would the 
gentleman recognize the courtesies of the House?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has indicated he will not 
yield.
  The gentleman may proceed.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman does not have a point of 
order, he is out of order; and he continues to be out of order in 
defiance of the Speaker's demands.
  Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I am just standing here saying nothing.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Colorado may proceed.
  Mr. McINNIS. So when you have a reaction, do you want to know why we 
are here today about these tax increases, about these 80 new Federal 
programs? It is because you guys recommended them, your administration, 
Gore, the Vice President, and President Clinton. They come up with 
these new programs, 80 new Federal programs. Of course we are going to 
have a reaction to that. Of course we are going to have a reaction to 
increasing the death taxes.
  I wish my colleague could come out to Colorado and visit with some of 
these ranching families, including some of my own, that are about to 
get nailed on this death tax. And you guys want to increase it? Of 
course you are going to have that kind of reaction.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Kleczka).
  Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, the question I was going to ask of my 
colleague from the Republican side of the aisle was in here is a 
provision to reinstate the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund excise tax. 
Evidently he is for oil spills. We want to clean them up. There is one 
going on right now in Maryland.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I hope I have not said anything to anger the Members on 
the other side. The only frustration that we feel is that it is very 
unusual for tax bills to come on the floor that are not sponsored by 
Members of the committee so that at least they could talk with us about 
them. It is even more unusual that the bill never would even come 
through the committee so that our staffs would have been attuned to 
understand better what the implications would be about the bill; and, 
of course, one has to be very suspicious when in the middle of the 
night a bill is introduced and it just reaches the floor on the 
Suspension Calendar.
  Mr. Speaker, you cannot talk about hundreds of billions of dollars, 
or I guess some people can talk about hundreds of billions of dollars, 
without having it come before the committee; but we would like to 
believe that somewhere in here it makes some sense. Obviously, you have 
not really had enough time to make any sense out of this, because you 
are bringing up a bill and you are asking Democrats to vote for it, but 
the people who drafted the bill are asking Republicans to vote against 
it.
  Now, I know people do not think much about the Congress, but this 
really confuses them. If you have a bill, at least you should be 
supporting it.
  Those of us on the other side are saying this, that if the $100 
billion we are talking about seems to be an excessive burden on the 
taxpayer, should you not in all fairness talk about what this is 
supposed to pay for? Are you not supposed to say what you have done is 
said to the President that I am prepared to ignore the Social Security 
System as it is, I am prepared to ignore the Medicare system, that I am 
not going to do anything about affordable drugs for the aged, that 
education is not on our agenda. So, Mr. President, when you talk about 
all of these things that you would like to see done, all we want to 
know is how much does it cost, and what we will do is extract these 
things, put them in a bill, bring it to the floor, and we will not vote 
for it, but we will ask Democrats to vote for it.
  No, no, Mr. Speaker. This not only does not make sense, but I do not 
really think that it is sound legislative policy. If there is something 
that you want a vote for, be creative. But if you are going to bring 
legislation to the floor, and then when people pick up the newspapers 
tomorrow they find out that the Republicans brought this bill to the 
floor, House Resolution 467, but after they understood it, they voted 
against it, what can I tell you?
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I think it is very important. The gentleman from New 
York has brought up the question of why would you bring up a resolution 
that you are going to vote no on? Do you know why? Because you are not 
bringing up the tax increases. We want to be open to the American 
taxpayers. We think the American taxpayers ought not to have 82 new 
Federal programs tucked away in several thousand pages of a budget. We 
want to bring it up. You all put it in the budget. I want to see if you 
got enough guts to vote for it on the floor. There is nothing wrong 
with that.
  I believe in sunshine. I want to remind you that the previous 
speakers talked about the sunshine and how we have to have more of an 
open process and not have these secrets. That is what we are doing.
  Everybody that disagrees with something in that budget ought to have 
a discussion right here on the House floor. We ought to discuss on this 
House floor whether or not we want 80 new Federal programs. I do not 
think we do. Certainly on the Republican side we do not want 82 new 
Federal programs. We do not want another $116 billion in tax increases 
on the Republican side, and especially we do not want an increase in 
the death tax.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I will not yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, this is the second time I told the 
gentleman I will not yield. I would appreciate the gentleman showing me 
the courtesy of controlling the floor and proceeding.
  On our side of the aisle, take a look at our position on this death 
tax.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Colorado has to yield for 
that purpose.
  The gentleman may proceed.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, on this side of the aisle, we take ardent 
opposition to the death tax; and we think in fact it should be 
expected, it should be a fiduciary duty of ours to bring it up on this 
House floor, to let people know what you are attempting to do with that 
death tax. The Clinton-Gore administration wants to increase the death 
taxes. That is hurting a lot of people out there. We ought to eliminate 
it.
  What I would suggest to the gentleman is why do you not bring up a 
bill to eliminate the death tax and get everybody over here to support 
it. We could take away one of the greatest injustices in this tax 
system, and you can get the credit for it.
  We need to have on this floor open exposure to what is happening; 82 
new Federal programs. Of course we ought to have sunshine on it.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, if I understand the gentleman correctly, if I understand 
the gentleman from Colorado correctly, the reason he is bringing up 
this bill today and asking his colleagues on the Republican side to 
vote against it was so we could kill it. In other words, he does not 
want to put this tax burden on the American people. So the gentleman 
has this new creative way of killing legislation by having Republicans 
to introduce the legislation, and then to kill it. That is his goal.
  Well, let me share with the gentleman that your side has been killing 
legislation in a different way, and you have been very effective, and 
that is you just do not bring it up. The Social Security legislation, 
you have not brought up a bill; the Medicare legislation, you have not 
brought up a bill;

[[Page 5257]]

giving affordable prescription drugs to the elderly people, you know 
how to kill that. You do not bring up a bill.
  Since when in any legislative body, in any small community, in any 
county, in any city, in any State legislature, have we come up with 
such cockamamie idea that the way you kill legislation when you are in 
the majority is to introduce it? Now, you have got to take a deep 
breath. You kill legislation when you are in the leadership by 
introducing the legislation, and then you vote against it.
  Now, I have to admit, since there has not been any positive 
legislation coming from your side in the last couple of years, that 
this keeps Members' voting records up. But can you imagine the 
precedent that you are setting, where with everything that you do not 
like, you introduce a bill and then tell people to vote against it? 
Talking about wasting taxpayers' money, this is really extreme.

                              {time}  1600

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  First of all, the gentleman asked, and I think it is a legitimate 
question, why do we bring up this bill to kill it?
  It is kind of like a tiger in the cage. We have a tax tiger in the 
cage. This tiger is proposing to raise taxes. This tiger is proposing 
to raise the death tax. This tiger is proposing 80 new Federal 
programs. Why not lure it out of the cage? Once we have it out of the 
cage, we have all kinds of people who will help to take that down.
  The American people, they want social security earnings, that waiver 
that we put in as Republicans; they wanted the Republicans' reduction 
on capital gains, when we sell our personal property; but they do not 
want 82 new Federal programs. Republicans and Democrats across the 
country do not want 82 new Federal programs.
  So of course we want to lure the tiger out of the cage, get it out of 
its safe haven, out in open territory where we have a fair fight going 
on.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina 
(Mr. DeMint).
  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, it is interesting. I do not remember, when the Clinton-
Gore administration has talked about their new budget, there is very 
seldom any publicity about the taxes and fees that are incorporated in 
this budget to pay for it. That is why I commend my colleague, the 
gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry), for introducing this bill, to show 
that not only do we bring it up and do not vote for it, but that very 
few in this House are willing to vote for the taxes and fees that have 
been proposed on the American people to pay for more giveaways from 
this administration.
  Mr. Speaker, instead of raising the taxes and fees, we need to look 
at the terrible waste in the government. I will just give one example 
from the Employment and Training Administration, that receives $9 
billion a year, more than three-fourths of the total discretionary 
Labor Department funds. But when asked by the Committee on Education 
and the Workforce for an accounting of these grants and contracts, the 
agency said the information was not available in single volume or in 
detail. In addition, they said it was too complicated to report every 
year.
  Mr. Speaker, this is $9 billion in taxpayer money that is not 
accounted for. There are people in jail who have not been able to 
account for a lot less money than that.
  We need to bring these taxes and fees to the public view, and we will 
see who votes on them and supports this part of the President's plan.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I am glad the gentleman from Colorado explained the 
reasoning behind this, that the gentleman has something in the cage and 
he wants to kill it before it comes out of the cage. That has made more 
sense than anything I have heard on the floor today. The President's 
bill is in a cage, so the gentleman now takes the President's bill, 
takes it out of the cage, because he wants to kill it.
  Mr. Speaker, well, now, that is creative legislation. I just would 
like to say that also in that cage is the social security system, the 
Medicare system, assistance to our aged for prescription drugs, the 
education system, the minimum wage system, systems for our national 
defense. All of these things are in that cage. I just hope that the 
gentleman does not kill it all.
  It seems to me that the gentleman might do better in explaining, a 
more effective way than this tiger in the cage legislative process is 
by saying that we are not bringing up any positive legislation, so the 
gentleman just wants to take those things from the President's budget 
that might prove to be painful because they do not intend to provide 
the things that are good for this Republic, for this country, that can 
make this country proud.
  We do not need Republican legislation and Democrat legislation, we do 
not need to be fighting each other over tigers in cages. What we have 
to do is pause, work together, and find out what is good for the 
Congress, but more importantly, what is good for the American people.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to my 
colleague, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry).
  Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the compliment from my 
colleague, the gentleman from New York, on my creativity, but I did 
feel the necessity to unlock that cage so the world could see this 
tiger. Because what my friends on the other side of the aisle were 
doing was putting a tarp over it so nobody could see that in this cage 
was $116 billion worth of new taxes and 84 new programs.
  I thought we needed to shed some light on this, and nobody on their 
side of the aisle took the leadership to show the public this. So I 
will back up my talk with the walk, and we can vote on it today.
  Mr. Speaker, I also heard that we were trying to embarrass the 
President. Frankly, I wish the teachers that were here today were 
listening to this and showing it to their civics classes, because 
today, Mr. Speaker, we saw the difference. We saw the difference 
between us. We saw how they will advocate for a tax increase of $116 
billion to support their 84 more programs. That is taxing and spending, 
Mr. Speaker. That is the difference.
  We are here saying that the way we help everybody in America is that 
we control the growth of government. In a time when we are dealing with 
trillion dollar surpluses, that is not a time to grow government for 
more taxes. Now is the time to start saying, how do we help the people 
that are overpaying taxes?
  Yes, I would be embarrassed to introduce a budget that included $116 
billion of new tax increases, several of which include taxation of our 
senior citizens in Medicare, the Medicare system, creating higher fees 
for nursing homes, for Medicare+Choice programs.
  When we talk about the tigers that are in the cage, what we are 
talking about is bringing out the new and the healthier tigers, the 
ones that we on the Republican side have, the healthy social security 
tigers, the healthy Medicare. I urge all of my colleagues to vote no.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, when did President Clinton tell the 
American people that the era of big government was over?
  You know, I really can't remember when he made that statement, and 
I'm willing to believe the President himself has forgotten. And I think 
it's obvious, with the $1.3 trillion in proposed spending along with 
$116 billion in tax and user fee increases included in the President's 
budget.
  I think that in actuality the era of big government prior to the 
Clinton/Gore administration is indeed over. And that's because the 
Clinton/Gore administration brought in a new era of bigger government. 
I'm sure my colleagues will remember one of the largest tax increases 
in history. That was passed by a Democrat controlled House, a Democrat 
controlled Senate and signed into law by the Clinton/Gore 
administration. And each year, the administration continues to propose 
new taxes and user fee increases.
  So we are here today to say stop! Stop spending money on wasteful 
federal programs. Stop increasing user fees and raising

[[Page 5258]]

taxes on everyday Americans. The average two-income family tax burden 
is 39% of that family's income. We need to reduce the tax burden on 
Americans, not increase it.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The question is on the motion 
offered by the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry) that the House 
suspend the rules and agree to the resolution, H. Res. 467.
  The question was taken.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds of 
those having voted in favor thereof, the rules----
  Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. RANGEL. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, on the voice vote, what was the Speaker's 
announcement?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds of 
those present having voted in favor thereof, the rules are suspended 
and the resolution is agreed to, and the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. 
Terry) asked for the yeas and nays.
  Mr. RANGEL. The Chair is saying this bill passed?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair ruled that the motion was agreed 
to, and then yeas and nays were ordered.
  Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the Chair's prior announcement, 
further proceedings on the motion will be postponed.

                          ____________________