Jim Moran

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. It is exactly the way I read it, and it is the way that Mr. Dreier, who is one of the leaders on the Republican majority, reads it as well. In the Committee on Rules, consideration of this legislation said, well, what a minute, the way this is worded is that if you cut capital gains, and it does as we say that it does, we purport that it will substantially increase revenue in the first couple years, and that is probably true. As far as I am concerned, I think it probably does do that. In the outyears it may be a more problematic situation, but in the initial years people are going to sell their stocks and assets more quickly. It will raise revenue, but that means that you are going to have to get two-thirds of this body and two- thirds of the Senate to approve it because it increases revenue certainly by more than a de minimis amount. Talk about the law of unintended consequences.

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I thank my friend for underscoring that point. In fact, it might strike one as the height of arrogance to think that after our Founding Fathers put together a Constitution that has withstood the test of time and made us the strongest country in the world economically, socially, and militarily and every other way, that after they debated this issue at length and decided several times that a supermajority would not work to come up with the revenue necessary to finance the expenses of our Government, now we want to come up, without committee hearings, and to second-guess, to change their decision. It strikes me, Mr. Speaker, as not particularly wise or, more importantly, consistent with the intent of our Founding Fathers. Mr. Speaker, we may sometimes be in the posture of taking the less conservative approach. I think right now we are taking a very conservative approach. Do not treat our Constitution as a rough working draft. Recognize the wisdom that went into this Constitution. My friend, the gentleman from Texas, has said that de minimis, the term de minimis was chosen because it was the least offensive term. I do not think that really ought to be the criteria by which we make legislation. When we define it now, for the first time that I am aware of, as one- tenth of 1 percent of the Federal gross revenue, which is about $1.5 billion, I need to ask the gentleman, does this apply to that expatriate loophole where a few families can save themselves millions and millions of dollars by simply renouncing their American citizenship? That is a loophole that I would hope many of us would want and eventually will be able to close. Does that preclude us from being able to do that with a majority vote of this House?

Mr. MORAN. If I could suggest to the gentleman, $360 million is not exactly getting down to the penny. That is the amount of money that we would recoup if we simply made people pay taxes on gains generated here in the United States, rather than being able to denounce their citizenship and claim another residence to avoid taxes. That is $360 million annually, $3.6 billion over 10 years. But you are saying that if it is less than $1.5 billion, it does not count, it is de minimis. I do not know a lot of American families that consider $1.5 billion de minimis. We need to know how many of these tax loopholes are going to be precluded from being closed with your legislation.

Mr. MORAN. If I might suggest to my colleague from Texas, we are not suggesting that our colleagues need to be physics majors but they ought to be responsible legislators, particularly when we are attempting to change the Constitution of the United States. We ought to know the definition of some of the terms. You just threw out the idea that de minimis means $1.5 billion. Does that mean annually, or does that mean if you raise $1.5 billion over 5 years or 7 years or 10 years? None of these answers are evident. Also, user fees, we are talking about going to a system where we can have user fees for bridges and for roads and for national parks and the like. Are user fees included here? If you read the language of the legislation we were given, the constitutional amendment, certainly they are because that is internal revenue being generated. I do not think we ought to be, as I suggested, treating the Constitution as some kind of working draft that we can amend as the notion comes to us, either on the floor of the House or even in committee or in any personal way. What we ought to be doing is enabling all the Members of this body to understand fully the consequences of their actions. We have that responsibility, and that is not the responsibility of a nuclear physicist but it certainly is the responsibility of a Member of the House of Representatives.

Mr. MORAN. It is absolutely correct. You know, I think that this amendment in some ways shows almost a contempt for the wisdom of our Founding Fathers. They tried to do what this does because they knew the political expediency of making it very difficult to increase taxes. But it brought our country into gridlock, and so that is why they had to go back in 1787 to say the only way we are going to move forward and realize our potential as a nation is if the majority rules; in other words, if every Representative has an equal vote. If you say that you require two-thirds, then the majority does not have an equal vote. The people who have a disproportionate vote are those in the minority because it only takes one-third plus one to prevent the will of the majority from becoming law. Now this is particularly applicable in the Senate. In the Senate, as you know, every State, no matter how many people are in that State, have two Senators. There are 17 States that represent less than 10 percent of the American population. Those 17 States just happen to be represented by 34 Senators, one-third plus one. So that 10 percent has a disproportionate influence upon the course of legislation. Now imagine, why should 10 percent of the people be represented by people who can thwart the bill of the majority of 90 percent of the population? That is not democracy, that is not equal representation. When you get into issues like a gas tax or any number of things that might affect rural areas more than urban areas, this becomes particularly apt.

Mr. MORAN. If I might suggest to my friend from Texas, the Constitution is not a rough working draft. You know, here we are, for the first time you are telling us what the words ``de minimis'' mean, which you want to put into the Constitution. Well, what you are saying is, as I calculate it, anything that is less than $1\1/2\ billion, $1,500,000,000 could be considered de minimis. Is that----

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman from California [Mr. Stark] has explained, I think we know why MSA's are included in this legislation and why the Republican Party wants so much to make them into law. The principal beneficiary of this legislation would be Golden Rule Insurance Co. All we have to do is to track the campaign contributions to the Speaker and GOPAC and the Republican committee. Let me explain why the Democrats are not supporting Golden Rule Insurance Co. and their medical savings accounts. In the 1992 annual statement, only 54 cents out of every premium dollar was actually going into medical costs. Imagine. Half of the revenue went into shareholder profits and the like. Let me explain why the State of Vermont kicked these medical savings account of Golden Rule Insurance Co. out of the State. It is because half of the people in Vermont, 5,000 people have these policies, half of them found that in the tiny writing at the bottom that Golden Rule had excluded whole body parts from coverage. They excluded their arms, their breasts, their backs, their hips, their hands, their legs, their circulatory system. Imagine excluding these things from coverage. Let me tell my colleagues why the State of Kentucky had so much problem with Golden Rule Insurance Co. Golden Rule Insurance Co. does not want to cover newborns. They will not cover them until they prove that the newborn is healthy. Kentucky passed a law that says you have to cover newborns for the first 30 days of life. Golden Rule sued the State because they do not want to cover newborns for the first 30 days of life. Mr. Speaker, let me tell my colleagues about some other folks who had specific experience. Carol Schreul of Aurora, IL, Golden Rule rejected her insurance for a brain tumor, $39,000. They would not cover it. They said that she listed her weight as 190 pounds but that it was actually 210 pounds. Let me tell my colleagues about another Golden Rule policyholder who suffered a stroke, $20,000 in bills. James Anderle was a Milwaukee barber. It turns out that they said he had a preexisting condition, that he had the flu, and that this was a preexisting condition. And so they did not want to cover it. Claims for $49,000 were denied Harry Baglayan, a self-employed repairman. He underwent bypass surgery. They said that he did not tell them that he had nausea 4 months earlier, and that was a preexisting condition. I will just quote from the Wall Street Journal, which, it seems to me, probably has a little bit of credibility around these parts. The Wall Street Journal says that they are a sham, that in fact they are most known for cherry picking. In fact, when a claim actually is accepted, they wind up suing the beneficiary and the State. They have piled up $1 billion in assets. It is a sham, Mr. Speaker. We should not include this in our bill.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, there is a lot that could and should be said about MSA's. I am going to save that for another time. Right now I would like to spend maybe a minute and a half and talk about the subject of hypocrisy. Tomorrow the Committee on Rules is going to bring up a rule for a constitutional amendment that would require a two-thirds vote to raise income taxes, and then, the very next legislative day, April 15, when we get back from vacation, we are going to bring that bill up on the floor to require a two-thirds vote. Now on the first day of this legislative term back in January 1995, we passed a law that was supposed to govern all of our actions that said we require a three-fifths vote to raise taxes, and do you know, every single time it has applied, it has been waived, and here is the third time that the Committee on Rules again waives the three-fifths requirement. We had to waive it, with that Contract With America, Tax Relief Act that was a big issue. Remember I raised a point of order. It turns out that, sure enough, it did include a tax increase. So the Parliamentarian recognized we had to waive it. The second time we had the budget resolution, we had the Committee on Rules had to waive it, and now the third time we have got tax increases here. We are going to waive the rule because it is inconvenient to let it apply to this bill, but is it not unbelievable that tomorrow the Committee on Rules--just for pure expedience, political gain--is going to bring up this rule saying that you need a two-thirds vote, putting it in the Constitution and then expecting us to vote on it April 15. Unbelievable. I think some of the members of the Committee on Rules ought to be embarrassed about this one.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Democratic minority, it is appropriate to take note of a distinguished Governor, U.S. Senator, Secretary of State, and Vice Presidential candidate. It is on Ed Muskie's shoulders that much of the intellectual foundation of our foreign policy rests in terms of the primary of human rights and the sustainable progress of economic development throughout the world. It was on Senator Muskie's watch and on his shoulders that these priorities were defined and promoted. It is also appropriate to say that it was on his giant shoulders, that were so strong with integrity, that many of us lesser public servants have attempted to stand. Senator Muskie always stood tall and made us all proud to be public servants, and we deeply mourn his passing.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Two words might be applicable here, and that is hypocrisy and cynicism. Certainly it is the height of hypocrisy to pass a rule at the beginning of a game, as we did on the very first legislative day of this session of Congress back in January 1995, when we passed a rule saying that three-fifths' vote would be required any time you raise taxes, and then every time that we have had a tax bill, the Committee on Rules has had to waive that exemption. Talk about hypocrisy; to get credit for passing a law, and then every time that it would apply, to waive it. But then cynicism, and I think the term cynicism applies here because we do not have that ability to waive it if it becomes a constitutional amendment. But the Members on the other side have got to be thoughtful enough to know that this would be unworkable if it became a constitutional amendment. And so what is driving it? Well, one would have to believe that it is a certain element of cynicism, knowing perhaps that they are not likely to be in office when it applies to subsequent Congresses or believing that better minds will prevail, that the Senate will kill it or that the American people in their State constitutional conventions will kill it, but somebody else will do the responsible thing, allowing them to do the cynical thing to get votes by voting for this constitutional amendment, believing and hoping that it will never become law.

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to make a point, too. When we look at the historical record and what is forcing this issue, I cannot really find anything other than purely appeasing those in our economy who simply do not like to pay taxes and that some Members would pander to and put their interests ahead of the national interest. But the reality is that, if we look back at taxes as a percent of gross domestic product, in 1981, during the Reagan administration, they were 20.2 percent. In 1982, they were 19.8 percent, almost 20 percent, but they have stayed under 20 percent now since for the last 26 years. It is remarkable how consistent they have been. Mr. Speaker, what needs to be done, it would seem to me, is to make that level of tax revenue fair, to make it such that it will stimulate our economy, to make it such that its priorities are representative of the American people's priorities. But to take away our ability to make those tough decisions, to exercise the judgment that we were elected to make just does not seem to be in the national interest or the interest of this body.

Mr. MORAN. Just to underscore the point that the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] made, we have had so many proposals that would have required an offset in the revenue code to do the right thing. In most cases people recommend ways to reduce taxes because that is what the public seems to prefer, obviously. But there have been several other measures that have been suggested by the Republican majority, such as phasing out much of the benefits of the earned income tax credit. That was about $32 billion, a major component of the tax reduction and budget resolution proposal that the majority suggested. Yet that never could have even been on the table because it in effect is an income tax increase and in fact would have required a two-thirds vote, which never would have passed. Mr. Speaker, obviously the situation where people renounce their citizenship so they can avoid taxes due, that would have amounted to $3.6 billion. That would never be on the table because obviously that is an income tax increase and obviously in conflict with this legislation. But we can go through virtually every significant tax proposal that has been made by both sides of this aisle and in some way violates the two-thirds income tax increase restrictions. What the measures that we mentioned earlier, the five major tax bills that have been enacted since 1980, every single one of them but one--actually one of them passed with two-thirds of the vote, but none of the others would have passed--every single one of them would have been in violation of this two-thirds requirement. Mr. Speaker, I mentioned to Mr. Frank and Mr. Skaggs earlier, sometimes we wonder why we need save them from themselves, but the point of this is that we all have an obligation to protect the Constitution. We all have really an obligation to do some reading on the history of the Constitution to understand that this very issue was debated at length by the Founding Fathers when they realized that the requirement to have 9 out of the 13 original States, at that time they were not all States, they were commonwealths and the like, but to have 9 of the 13 States proved totally unworkable. The U.S. Government was not functioning, and so they went back to majority rule. They had their turn at that time to put in a constitutional provision making it more difficult to raise taxes. They deliberately chose after extensive debate not to do that. And for us now to treat the Constitution, as the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Skaggs] described as some kind of rough working draft, I think does a great disservice to the American people and to the future of this Nation. Mr. Speaker, I know we have the most compelling arguments on our side. I cannot imagine why they would bring up this kind of legislation without debate. We are going to go on vacation for the next 2 weeks. That is why the gentleman from Colorado is bringing this up because we are not even going to have time to debate it. Yet they would bring it up and attempt to pass a constitutional amendment creating a totally unworkable situation.

Mr. MORAN. I agree it would offend mine, too. We would hasten to add all of those States are very ably served by their Senators. Here we are not talking about personalities, we are talking about the Constitution. We are trying to go back to the original tenets of that Constitution. They tried something that was not majority rule in the Articles of Confederation. You needed 9 out of the 13 States to pass any revenue- raising provision. They found it was unworkable. The country was not functioning. So they had to go back and correct it and install majority rule. Now, when you think about it, as you so ably explain, 10 percent of America's population could prevent any kind of tax increase. No matter how needed it is to keep this Government functioning, whether we are in a war, whether we are in a depression, whatever the situation, 10 percent of America's population can block any attempt to put our country on a sound fiscal footing. I think that is the most compelling argument, and then in addition to the experience we have already had with the violation of the three- fifths rule. But the other point that you so well made, Mr. Skaggs, is that the Constitution is not a rough draft. The Constitution has served this country very well for two centuries. To go mucking around with it with a piece of legislation that we know is going to be violated the first time that we have to act responsibly as a body, I cannot imagine that we would have any cosponsors of such legislation, never mind a long list of cosponsors. So I would hope they would all reconsider, look at both recent and long-term history of this country, check out our Constitution, give it a little more respect, and recognize that this is not in the national interest.

Mr. MORAN. Not only have they this year, that is absolutely true, and that is why the Committee on Rules acknowledged that when it waived the three-fifths rule. So it would not apply to any of the tax legislation that has come before us this year. But also if you look back, it applied to all of President Reagan's and President Bush's proposals. None of them would have been enacted if this constitutional amendment were in effect. So President Reagan could not have accomplished the 1981 tax cut, the 1986 tax cut, or any of the others in between. President Bush could not have accomplished the 1990 tax cut. We never could have come close to the reduction in deficit that we have experienced as a result of the 1993 Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act. So it is hard to imagine where we would be if this constitutional amendment had been put into place, say, back in the 1970's or 1980's.

Mr. MORAN. Well, you ask a very good question, Mr. Skaggs. I do not know why we are here trying to save them from themselves, which is what we are doing, but the reality is that virtually no tax reform measures could have been enacted if we had not hypocritically ignored, overruled, that three-fifths requirement. But as you say, if it is a constitutional amendment, we do not have that flexibility. The Committee on Rules just decides, well, this is an inconvenient law and so let us just ignore it. If it is part of the Constitution, it cannot be ignored. That means that we could never again reform our Tax Code, because to do so you have to raise revenue in order to cut it in other places. So we would be putting ourselves into an untenable position.

Mr. MORAN. I guess that is what they mean by regulatory flexibility.

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished colleague and good friend from Colorado for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, this amendment that we are discussing, House Joint Resolution 159, that would require a two-thirds vote to raise Federal taxes, may seem to be a simple, reasonable idea, but it invites dangerous consequences for our democracy that will weaken the power of the Federal Government to respond to national problems. Since the resolution includes any changes that would broaden the tax base, it will also effectively block passage of any fundamental overhaul of our entire tax system, be it the majority leader's call for a new flat tax or the interest of the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee in the national sales tax, or anything in between, including the most moderate and responsible alterations. Finally, this resolution will prove unworkable, as the House leadership has already discovered with its celebrated--but now ignored--rule change requiring a three-fifths vote on tax legislation. This resolution, as my colleague from Colorado has explained, violates the spirit of majority rule and will take us back to the problems our Founding Fathers experienced under the Articles of Confederation. Article 9 of the Articles of Confederation required the vote of 9 of the 13 States to ascertain the sums and expenses necessary for the States to raise revenue. In 1787, at the Constitutional Convention, our Founding Fathers recognized that this was an insurmountable defect and sought to establish a national government that can impose and enforce laws and collect revenues through a simple majority rule. Mr. Speaker, my distinguished colleague has discussed the constitutional aspects of this resolution, but I would like to focus on how unworkable this resolution will prove to be based on our experience with the much-celebrated change in the House rules that requires a three-fifths vote for any tax increase. That was enacted on the first day of Republican control of the House in January, 1995. As specified in that modified clause 5(c) of rule 21 of our congressional code, the House of Representatives' code, no bill, joint resolution, amendment, or conference report carrying a Federal income tax rate increase shall be considered as passed or agreed to unless so determined by a vote of not less than three-fifths of the Members voting. This rule was broken just as soon as we voted on the Contract With America, introduced and approved by the Republican majority of the Congress, but to approve it, we had to violate the rule. On April 5, I came to this well and raised a point or order on a provision in the Contract With America tax relief act that repealed section 1(h) of the Internal Revenue Code affecting the maximum rate for long-term capital gains. While the intent of the provision was to lower the capital gains rate, it actually increased the tax rate on the sale of small business stocks from 14 percent under current law to 19.8 percent. At the time, the Speaker's chair ruled that this tax increase was not subject to the three-fifths rule, but in a June 12 letter from House Parliamentarian Charles Johnson, it appears that this ruling was made in error and the original point of order should have in fact been sustained. Since the Parliamentarian has confirmed my original challenge, the House leadership has found it necessary to waive the three-fifths vote requirement in at least two instances, the Balanced Budget Act of 1995 and the Medicare Preservation Act, in order to pass its legislative agenda and to raise taxes. Mr. Speaker, neither measure received a three-fifths majority vote. Neither of those pieces of legislation could have passed this body if we had been good to the rule that was passed on the first day of the session of this congressional term. Back in January, we passed a law and we have had to ignore that law in order to pass the legislation that was in the Contract With America. Under the original House version of the Balanced Budget Act, the House leadership found it necessary to waive the three-fifths rule. The Committee on Rules had to do that by a simple majority vote in order to impose this tax increase, a 50-percent tax penalty on Medicare plus medical savings accounts withdrawals for any purpose other than Medicare and the part B income contingent premium. Also the repeal of the 5-year income averaging rule on lump sum pension distributions, the increase in the phaseout rate for the earned income tax credit, the new rates that are applied to expatriates, and the new tax imposed on gambling income of Indian tribes. All of these tax increases should have triggered the three-fifths vote required for approval. Now we want to increase this three-fifths vote to two-thirds? In other words, increase the hypocrisy of this body to pass one law, and then ignore it when we want to pass another? If the new majority has problems honoring its pledge not to increase the tax rate and abide by its own rules, they make even more problematic if we were to do a proposed constitutional amendment as is proposed by this joint resolution. Under this expanded requirement, Congress could not have passed last year's expansion of the health deduction for the self-employed. In that legislation we closed some tax loopholes dealing with minority broadcasting benefits to pay for the bill's revenue lost. When you are in a pay-as-you-go basis, you have to increase taxes in some are in order to reduce them in others. So when we eliminated the tax loopholes, increasing taxes on minority broadcasters, again, that violated the rule, because closing the loophole is also broadening the tax base. According to the material submitted into the Congressional Record by Congressman Joe Barton on January 4, 1995, there have been five major tax increases enacted into law since 1980. The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982, the House vote was 226 to 207; the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987, the vote was 237 to 181; the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1989, the vote was 272 to 182; the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990, the vote was 228 to 200; and Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, that vote was only 218 to 216. Only one of these measures, the Budget Reconciliation Act of 1989, could have passed the House with a two-thirds margin. In reality, the five measures that were brought up by Congressman Barton included both tax increases and spending cuts. Had these measures not been passed with bipartisan support and signed into law by President Reagan and President Bush, the deficit would be far, far worse than it is today. The one exception to deficit reduction that passed on a party line vote, the Landmark Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, has been credited with reducing the deficit 3 years in a row, and possibly an unprecedented fourth year if current economic trends continue. I find it a little ironic for all the objections the Republicans have expressed for the tax increases, and the Clinton tax increase in particular in 1993, they have yet to repeal a single one of those tax increase in 1993. Not one of the so-called notorious 1993 tax increases has been repealed in any measure sent by this Congress to the White House. What Representative Barton does not mention in the Congressional Record is that Ronald Reagan would have encountered problems enacting most of his agenda if there was a constitutional amendment requiring a two-thirds vote. Mr. Speaker, I have many other points I want to raise to buttress the argument that this does not make any sense to propose a two-thirds constitutional requirement, but at this point let me pass the baton on to my colleague from Colorado for a while to further buttress our argument.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this resolution makes an important statement, that the Congress continues to hold the Government of Iran responsible for upholding the rights of all of its nationals, including members of the Baha'i community. Concern about Iran continues to rise to the surface of our foreign policy horizon. Much of the focus has been on trade, on Iran's role in terrorism, its efforts to subvert governments in the Middle East, in North Africa, and its nuclear dealings with Russia and China. This resolution helps in keeping our focus on Iran's dismal record on human rights. Among the many other issues we have with that Government, Iran's denial of religious rights, the abuse of its citizens and violations of internationally recognized human rights are of deepest concern to this Congress. We make that message clear by passing this resolution. Our last resolution, which was adopted unanimously 2 years ago, was reiterated by the United Nations and the German Bundestag and the European Parliament condemning Iran's persecution of Baha'is. In some limited instances, Iran has responded to this pressure. There in some evidence that the persecution of individual Baha'is in Iran is less severe today than it was several years ago. But let there be no doubt. The Baha'i community is still an oppressed minority and is denied rights to organize, elect leaders, conduct religious schools and other religious activities. Their religion is really all about achieving a peaceful world brotherhood. It is not something we would consider to be threatening in this country, but it is a reflection of Iran's intent that it is threatening to them. We must continue to work to end this discrimination against the Baha'is and all who are denied basic civil rights, and so we would urge adoption of this resolution as one more appropriate step toward that goal. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, let me just say I am encouraged by what the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] shared with us in terms of the new leadership in Turkey. That is major progress, to consider opening up the supply lines, economic and humanitarian supply lines, to Armenia if we can make progress in terms of the conflict with Azerbaijan. Certainly, starting to hear the relationship with Greece is a step in the right direction. Some of us would like to see a recognition of the Armenian genocide, which has been a problem in terms of improved relations with Turkey. But perhaps with new leadership we will continue to move forward. This resolution, however, is entirely in order, and we strongly support it. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The minority applauds this resolution introduced by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] and appreciates the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman], the chairman, bringing it to the floor. It is appropriate that we express our sense of outrage over the massacre of 5,000 Kurds by gas bomb attack. It is a timely reminder that we have to continue our vigilance and pressure against Iraq with and on behalf of the international community. This resolution reaffirms our commitment to protect and to help the Kurdish people in Iraq. It supports efforts to promote a democratic alternative to the present regime in Iraq which will assure the Kurdish people the right to self-government through a federal system, and it calls on the administration to renew efforts to establish an international war crimes tribunal to prosecute Iraqi leaders involved in crimes against humanity and war crimes and their principal leader, in particular, Saddam Hussein. So this is a good resolution, and we would urge its adoption. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the Democratic minority is going to support this resolution as amended. We do wish it was a little bit more balanced. It is true certainly that the human rights situation in Cambodia has deteriorated over the past year, but the resolution does not adequately recognize the difficulties that Cambodia faces. Cambodia is not a police state. It is far more open and free than many of its neighbors. Unlike many of its neighbors, it has an active opposition press that does not hesitate to criticize the government and, in many ways, in an inflammatory language that we would be shocked at in this country. While it is true that government troops have committed human rights violations, it is also true that the Cambodian Government and military have stepped up their efforts to ensure that these abuses are not repeated. The U.S. Government is in fact funding those efforts. So I would urge my colleagues not to give up on Cambodia, given that country's tragic history over the past quarter century in which we played a significant role. We should not be surprised if it fails to fully live up to our ideals on human rights. Progress is being made. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, it is amazing that there have only been 140,000 volunteers over the last 35 years, when you consider the profound impact that the Peace Corps has had in the lives of individuals and in fact in the progress of nations around the world. But the impact has also been felt in terms of the volunteers. We just heard from one. There are several others in this body. The fact is that the leaders in government and in industry in America today in many ways share that common experience of having been Peace Corps volunteers. I hope that will continue to be the case, because not only do we share our national know-how and goodwill, but we benefit a great deal with that broadened experience. I just want to say that we in the minority, as well as the gentleman from New York, Chairman Gilman, expressed for the majority, applaud President Clinton's selection of Mark Gearan to be Director of the Peace Corps. We could not have had a better choice. We appreciate the fact that again we have a broad bipartisan support for this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter], the subcommittee chairman, and the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman], the full committee chairman, for bringing this resolution before the House. It is actually cosponsored by six Members of the House who are former Peace Corps volunteers: Mike Ward, Jim Walsh, Tony Hall, Chris Shays, Tom Petri, and Sam Farr. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California [Mr. Farr] who has come all the way from his district to speak on this.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Connecticut, who is also one of our bipartisan leaders on the issue of campaign finance reform. I mention that because I think this bill goes more to the need for campaign finance reform than it says about assault weapons. You know, the fact is that this bill is not going any place, it is going to be vetoed. There are far more important things we need to be doing. But the three-quarters of the American people support the ban, because they know it is reasonable and is working, can only conclude this bill is coming up because the NRA convention is coming up, and our Members wanted to have some of that $2 million they are going to be parceling out. So in the interest of restoring the individual reputation of the Members and the institutional credibility of this body, is it not time that Members, both Democrats and Republicans alike, when they precede their remarks in favor of this bill or who plan to vote for this bill, publicly disclose how much they in fact have taken from the NRA and whether they intend to continue taking money from the NRA? That is the kind of complete disclosure and real campaign finance reform. It is time to do the public's interest instead of PAC's.