Martin Frost

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder].

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Levin].

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Nebraska is engaged, as his other colleagues, in a legislative shell game. The pea is under one shell, but it is not under the other shell. The Senate Republicans were willing to tax expatriate billionaires; Republicans in the House were not willing to tax expatriate billionaires. They went to conference, and, lo and behold, the Republicans in the House who want to forgive taxes for expatriate billionaires prevailed. Of course it is not in the bill. It is not in the bill because your side knocked it out in conference. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Matsui].

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Rangel].

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, we have five speakers, and we may have more. This is a very interesting thing that the Republicans have done in protecting billionaire expatriates, and I have a feeling some more Members may come to the floor.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this rule ruins an otherwise acceptable conference report. Republicans have taken a good idea--letting people deduct their health care costs--and thrown in a big juicy bone for a few very wealthy people and this bone will cost this country $3.6 billion over 10 years. Mr. Speaker, I cannot understand why Republicans would refuse to provide welfare benefits to people who enter this country legally but would wink at billionaires who renounce their American citizenship in order to avoid paying taxes. That's right, this conference report deletes a Senate provision to require a few billionaires to pay their taxes. And all the while, everyone else will do their taxpayer duty this and every April 15. Mr. Speaker, $3.6 billion is a lot of money to throw away, especially with all this talk of balancing the budget and cutting school lunches. In fact the money the Republicans are losing the Treasury by giving the rich a tax break could buy almost 3 billion school lunches. Now, do not get me wrong. I strongly support the main provisions of this conference report. I think hardworking, self-employed Americans should be allowed to deduct some of the cost of their health insurance. This conference report will do that. For that reason I will support the conference report itself. But I do not support giving about 2 dozen billionaires a huge tax break while socking it to children. Today's rule gives us a little preview of what is to come. Next week we will vote on a Republican proposal to give more tax breaks to the very wealthy--those tax breaks will be paid for by cuts in school lunches for America's school children. Mr. Speaker, two nights ago the House missed a chance to make the very very wealthy who renounce their American citizenship pay their taxes on income they earned as citizens of this great country when it rejected Mr. Gibbons' motion to instruct conferees by a vote of 193 to 224. Now, I would like to offer my colleagues another chance to do the right thing. I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question so that we can make rich ex-patriots pay their taxes. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FROST. I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, to close debate, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I do not intend to use all of the time. Mr. Speaker, it is very clear what is going on here. The other side wants to talk about anything else other than what is at issue here. They want to talk about capital gains, they want to talk about other issues, they want to talk about the rights of citizens. They want to talk about green cards. They do not want to talk about what is really going on here, the fact that they are trying to protect one dozen, two dozen people who are renouncing their citizenship to avoid taxes. These people are no longer citizens. Why should we treat them with kid gloves when they renounce their citizenship? Why should we say give them special privileges when they walk away from this country and say they do not want to be a citizen of this country anymore even through it is the laws of this country that have permitted them to amass the fortune that they have made and they now want to pick up and walk out the door with it? Mr. Speaker, this is very clear. This is, as the minority leader commented, probably the most outrageous thing that I have seen since I have been here in Congress. Reject this rule. Reject the previous question. Let up put the original Senate provision before the House, and let us take care of this problem. Let us close this loophole. Vote against the previous question. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining on each side?

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Levin].

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell]. (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FROST. 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.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I want to serve notice that I intend to ask for a rollcall vote on the previous question, as well as on the passage of the rule, if the previous question is agreed to. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield the remaining time on our side to the gentleman from Rhode Island [Mr. Reed].

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, let me inquire as to the time remaining.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Nadler].

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. Collins]. (Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers]. (Mr. CONYERS asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, for purpose of debate only, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Gordon].

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I would only ask the gentleman, Mr. Cox, our meetings are publicly noticed. Members know when the Rules Committee is going to meet, particularly when we're going to vote to actually take final action on a rule, and other Members have not had difficulty in getting the language of their amendments to us in a timely manner----

Mr. FROST. I understand----

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I say to the gentleman, Well, Mr. Cox, you have submitted an amendment to the Rules Committee; isn't that correct? Originally the amendment that we made in order yesterday was one that you had actually submitted?

Mr. FROST. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman who just spoke, the gentleman from California [Mr. Cox] a question: Mr. Cox, why did you have to change the language between the time we considered the amendment yesterday afternoon in the Rules Committee and this morning? Why wasn't the language that you really wanted before the Rules Committee when we considered the rule yesterday afternoon?

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I would like to at this point continue my opening statement. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule. Mr. Speaker, this is a closed rule. This rule doesn't meet the standards set by the infamous Contract With America, nor does it meet the promises of the Speaker or the chairman of the Rules Committee. We were promised free and open debate in the House. This rule doesn't even come close to meeting that promise. Mr. Speaker, I would like to read from the January 4, 1995, Congressional Record quoting the Speaker of the House, Mr. Gingrich, on the first day of the session, Page H6, We then say that within the first 100 days of the 104th Congress we shall bring to the House floor the following bills, each to be given full and open debate, each to be given a full and clear vote, and each to be immediately available for inspection. Words of the Speaker of the House. Mr. Speaker, I am sure my Republican colleagues will protest my characterization of this rule and will complain that when the Democrats were in the majority that the Rules Committee cut off debate through the use of modified or closed rules. Mr. Speaker, that argument is not the point. The point, Mr. Speaker, is that the Republican party promised--promised--that debate in the House of Representatives would be open. Mr. Speaker, the Rules Committee majority voted down 17 amendments to the chairman's mark last night. The majority on the Rules Committee even denied the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Quillen] the opportunity to offer an amendment to this legislation. The majority opposed giving the House the opportunity to vote on amendment relating to punitive damages in the case of manufacturers or product sellers who were aware of an existing defect in that product. Mr. Speaker, is this free and open debate? Mr. Speaker, 82 amendments were submitted to the Rules Committee for inclusion in the rule. Fifteen--15 amendments, Mr. Speaker--were made in order by the Rules Committee majority. The gentleman from Georgia explained during our hearing last night that a sincere effort was made to include every major issue in the rule. Our distinguished chairman opposed including any additional amendments in the rule because the House must finish consideration of this legislation, which is a major upheaval of our civil court system in the country, by 3 o'clock tomorrow afternoon. Mr. Speaker, this does not strike me as an open process. And, Mr. Speaker, I have yet another example of how this rule has been shut down. An amendment which both the chairman of the committee of jurisdiction, Mr. Bliley, and the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Markey had agreed would be included in the rule, was not on the list presented to the Rules Committee members last night. Chairman Solomon explained to us that it was missing because of negotiations between staff--between staff, Mr. Speaker--and that he intends to ask unanimous consent to permit its consideration. Mr. Speaker, I not only oppose this rule, but I will oppose the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, it is my intention to offer an amendment to the rule which will permit the consideration of two amendments relating to punitive damages caps. I will offer an amendment to include the McCollum amendment which raises the cap to $500,000 and the Oxley-Gordon amendment to raise those limits to $1 million. Mr. Speaker, I urge defeat of the previous question. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record a chart of floor procedure on rules in the 104th Congress as follows: