Jim Moran

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, we are specifically debating the rule on this bill, and the fact is that the Committee on Rules has been reasonable on this particular rule, but there is a more important, more overriding and compelling issue facing us, and it is because of this issue that we need to attach a clean continuing resolution to this bill. Let me address some of the people who have become pawns in what has become an intense, largely political, struggle between the White House and the Congress. There were 800,000 people who were sent home yesterday, people who were told when they came into work that they were nonessential, that they were not needed. Now, we have been assured that every one of them is going to get paid, but think about this. The Federal taxpayer will pay out a billion dollars this week for those Federal employees to stay home from work. Is that right? Is that fair? It certainly is not what Federal employees want. What about the 1.2 million Federal employees who are working, who will get the same compensation, who will come to work every day and get paid the very same amount that their colleague down the hallway is going to get for not working? Mr. Speaker, we should think of the situation that we have created here. Think of the disabled veteran who just came to the office which said they cannot file for his benefit that he is entitled to because that office is not open. We saw on this chart the thousands of veterans across the country who will not get their benefits; and 28,000 Social Security people who will not be able to apply for their benefits. They are all pawns in this struggle. The reality of the situation is that this is not, as the gentleman from California [Mr. Cunningham] suggested, a matter of the Democratic leftees driving us off the cliff; this is a matter of the House Republicans not being able to agree with the Senate Republicans and not getting appropriation bills to the President in time. Had the Republicans, who control the votes in both the House and Senate, been able to reach agreement any time over the last 11 months, and sent any of the 13 spending bills to the President before the end of the fiscal year, there would, quite possibly, have been no need for any continuing resolution, and certainly no need for any Government shutdown. But the more moderate Republican Senators couldn't accept the most extreme and inappropriate riders that the House Republicans insisted on adding to all of these spending bills. That's where the responsibility must lie, and that's why we need to pass a clean continuing resolution today.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, while we are all entitled to our own set of opinions, we are not entitled to our own set of facts. Let me share with you some facts: If this bill before us is passed, the payroll tax that is intended for the Social Security system that comes into the Government and is about $30 billion a month, about a billion dollars a day, it will not earn interest for Social Security recipients, because if the debt ceiling is not extended, and this will not extend the debt ceiling, then Social Security trust funds will lose about $37,000 tomorrow, and over the course of this debate it will lose millions of dollars. That payroll tax will not earn interest. Second fact: Since the Government has shut down and there is no money to pay people within the Social Security Administration to process applications, new people, eligible, applying for Social Security, will not be able to get their benefits. There is no money to pay for the processing of their applications. Third fact: Because this bill repeals provisions put into law by the Reagan administration, the thrift savings plan that Government employees have contributed to will lose about $3.5 million each day, beginning tomorrow. But the civil service retirement trust fund that [[Page H 12236]] millions of employees have contributed to will lose $10 million tomorrow and $10 million every day this is extended, because this law makes it illegal to reimburse that civil service retirement trust fund and to give it any interest for the money that you take out. We cannot do this to Federal employees. We cannot do this to this country. The last fact you need to know: That the credit watch, the European credit rating agency, just now put the United States on a rating watch for possible downgrade that will increase the interest on all of our Treasury bills for years to come. Do not pass this bill.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, there are nearly a million people around the country who do not know tonight whether they should come in to work tomorrow who have been deemed nonessential, whatever that means. We owe it to them, if we cannot take appropriate action tonight, to enable them to go to work tomorrow to at least let them know. It is the height of absurdity to bring 800,000 people to work tomorrow and then to have to tell them because the Congress did not take action the night before, that they have to turn around and go home. We ourselves do not even know whether our own employees should be coming to work tomorrow. Mr. Speaker, I would strongly urge the majority, the leadership of this body, to at least let those million Federal employees and the many millions who are dependent upon Federal activities throughout this country to know what the state of affairs is tomorrow, and we, as well, need to have some appropriate policy with regard to our own employees. It is unfair to have them come in to work tomorrow and then tell them we have decided they are not essential and that they will no longer be paid.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, the last time that we had a similar debt ceiling crisis was during the Reagan administration. It was because of the very deep tax cuts that were enacted earlier in the decade. The folly of some of those tax cuts has been outlined in the book written by President Reagan's budget director, David Stockman, called ``The Triumph of Politics,'' so I will not go into that, but we have a somewhat similar situation now. At that time, what we did was to come up with a number of mechanisms to avoid a crisis occurring again. The problem with that debt ceiling bill is that it takes away the President's ability to avert such a crisis. It deliberately repeals those provisions, and thus ties his hands. That is the biggest objection to the debt ceiling bill, as far as I am concerned. What will happen as a result is that Federal retirees will lose from their trust fund, about $3.5 million a day. We have a letter from the experts that are in charge of the board that oversees those trust funds. It is a nonpartisan board. Their opinion was requested by the Republican chairman of the Subcommittee on Civil Service of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight. They wrote back and said Federal retirees will lose $3.35 million a day if this debt ceiling bill is passed. Another thing it does is to prevent the President from being able to reimburse those trust funds, so when we look into this bill, it is an irresponsible bill. The American public deserves better. The SPEAKER pro tempore [Mr. Hayworth]. The Chair would inform the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hall] that he has 30 seconds remaining.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, every Republican has voted for a debt ceiling extension to $5.5 trillion until September 1997. What we need to do is to simply pull that out of the reconciliation bill, pass it, and keep this Government on an even keel. There is no discussion about where the debt ought to be lifted to. It should be lifted to $5.5 trillion until September 1997. Every single Republican has agreed with that. The problem is that you have added additional very harmful provisions within this debt ceiling bill. I want to address these. These provisions were enacted by President Reagan in 1987. That is the last time we had the most serious debt ceiling crisis. President Reagan signed into law provisions that would make sure that our financial markets would not collapse, that we would not go through the same kind of thing we went through back in the 1980's, largely because of the tax cuts that ultimately created a grossly unbalanced budget. I am not going to go into the reasons for that. The point is we figured out how to correct it and not let it happen again. This debt ceiling extension takes away those provisions. There is an article in the Post today. It says: ``Financial analysts say the United States is unlikely to default,'' and it talks about how blase they all are. The reason they are is because they are assuming that those provisions enacted in 1987 are still law; in other words, we can borrow from other trust funds so as to get us by a crisis. Then there is a law that requires that that money be paid back to those trust funds. This debt ceiling bill repeals those provisions. That is why it has to be defeated. That is why it has to be vetoed. One of those laws says that we can go into the civil service retirement trust fund and borrow that money, only on condition that it legally has to be repaid. We cannot do that under this law. In fact, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Civil Service wrote to the Federal Retirement Thrift Board, knowing that they are nonpartisan, there are a number of Republicans on it, and I assume that he thought he would get support for this bill. They wrote back, and I am glad he is coming to the floor, and they said that if this debt ceiling bill is passed as currently written, Federal employees will lose $3.5 million a day from their fund, because this debt ceiling bill does not allow us to repay that fund. It takes away these provisions that were designed to get us past this crisis. That is the problem. Another thing it does, incidentally, and I think we ought to mention this, because we are honoring Veterans Day, it does not even allow us to pay veterans benefits if it pushes us into this kind of crisis situation.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, in fact, I have my money in that very retirement fund. Mr. Speaker, first of all, it must be said that this legislation plays politics with people's lives. It is deliberately designed to force a default of Federal debt obligations, and specifically ties the President's hands from being able to avert a debt ceiling crisis under the excuse that this is supposed to save Civil Service retirees. That provision was put in during the Reagan administration precisely to protect the Civil Service Retirement Trust Fund. That is why it was put there. Now it is being repealed. Mr. Speaker, I have a letter from the Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board, dated today. This is a nonpartisan board designed to oversee the Federal Thrift Savings Plan. This letter says that this provision, if this bill is passed, will cost Federal retirees' $3.5 million per day, an amount that once lost, will never be recaptured. Do not do this to Federal retirees, do not do it to Social Security retirees. I urge defeat of this legislation. Mr. Speaker, the letter referred to follows: Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board, Washington, DC, November 9, 1995. Hon. James P. Moran, Jr., Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Civil Service, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Congressman Moran: I have reviewed H.R. 2586 which provides for a temporary extension of the Federal debt limit. The proposed legislation provides for the repeal, inter alia, of 5 U.S.C. Sec. 8438(g), which was enacted on May 22, 1987, to prevent harming Federal employees with investments in the Thrift Savings Plan's G Fund. It was foreseen at that time that, during periods of constraint on the issuance of Treasury securities brought about by the debt limit, the moneys of Federal employees in the G Fund would irretrievably lose interest (since they could not be invested) but for this carefully drafted, bipartisan ``make-whole'' provision. (The enclosed letter from former Executive Director Francis Cavanaugh forwarded the proposed legislation (not included) to Congress in April 1987, and it was quickly enacted.) A repeal of this provision at this time would cost Federal employees invested in the G Fund more than $3.5 million per day of debt limit constraint, an amount that, once lost, will never be recaptured. That Federal employees' retirement funds might be thus diminished is a matter of great concern to [[Page H 12010]] me and my fellow fiduciaries, as I am sure it is to you. All of the provisions of the proposed legislation can be enacted without harm to Federal employee' retirement funds except for the repeal of Sec. 8438(g) (and its administrative concomitant, Sec. 8438(h). That is, the purpose of the proposed draft legislation can be fully met, as set forth in its accompanying two-page explanation, with the deletion of the words ``, and subsections (g) and (h) of section 8438 of such title'' on page 6, lines 7 and 8. (The other provisions to be repealed pertain to the Civil Service Trust fund; because that fund is not owned by employees directly, their ultimate benefit levels as derived therefrom are unaffected.) If the bill were passed in its present form, the fiduciaries of the Thrift Savings Plan would be obligated to point out the needless and costly removal by Congress of a protection for Federal employees intended to prevent debt limit politics from impairing the integrity of their retirement funds. (The ``make-whole'' provision of Sec. 8438(g) has been employed on four separate occasions in the past to restore interest otherwise lost to Federal employees from debt limit hiatuses.) I have sent a similar letter to Congressman John Mica. I am asking your and his cooperation in preventing any repeal of Sec. 8438(g) in order to safeguard Federal employees' retirement moneys and ensure their confidence in the G Fund, which, at $21.5 billion currently, comprises approximately \2/3\ of total Thrift Savings Plan investments. Sincerely, Roger W. Mehle, Executive Director. Enclosure.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, the last time that Yitzhak Rabin spoke to us right here in the U.S. Congress, he invoked a phrase from Archibald MacLeish, and used it in reference to Israel's young dead soldiers: ``Their tombstones say, `We leave you our deaths. Give them their meaning.' '' Last week God said to us, ``I give you his death. Give it its meaning.'' Throughout the course of human history, when the mortal lives of our great leaders have been sacrificed to the cause of peace, brotherhood, and progress, the moral force of their message takes on an immortal life of its own within the human character. Yitzhak Rabin takes his place alongside those responsible for the evolution of the human spirit: Rabbi Akiba, who recited the Shema as he was being tortured to death for having preached during his life that ``Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself,'' through Jesus Christ, Mahatma Ghandi, Anwar Sadat, Martin Luther King, and so many others whose shoulders we stand upon. Today, our task, our responsibility, for which future generations will hold us accountable, is to be true to their memory, to give the life of Yitzhak Rabin its deserved, its lasting, and its great meaning.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my disappointment that the Rev. Lou Sheldon provided the invocatory prayer before the House of Representatives today. Reverend Sheldon was a poor choice to give the daily invocation. I think Members may want to know what he has advocated in his public remarks which arguably reflect on his worthiness to deliver such an invocation. He is malicious in his attacks upon lesbian and gay Americans. He is against AIDS education, information on birth control and disease prevention in the public schools, and uses scare tactics to further his hateful agenda. I, for one, believe that these aggressive provocations, which represent a radical extreme position and which have nothing to do with religious belief in God's will and forgiveness, should not be rewarded. Mr. Speaker, following are some specific quotes that I believe prove my point that Reverend Sheldon does not represent the spiritual or intellectual views of this body. On the issue of homosexuality, we are in the same place we were in the 1930s with alcoholism. Back then, we said ``once a drunk, always a drunk.'' But now we know many alcoholics can recover. (Washington Times, 2/5/90) I don't have to tell you what these homosexuals are going to be doing when they're not running a race. That's right . . . they're going to be spreading their deadly disease right here in the U.S. (Traditional Values Coalition newsletter, 4/ 94) ``Joined together in holding back satan,'' was how Mr. Sheldon signed an April 1994 letter to pastors in Los Angeles, urging them to enlist their congregations against pride month. ``We must protect our children and youth from this homosexual recruiting,'' he declared. (New York Times, 12/19/94)

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Madam Speaker, the vote that we took yesterday on Bosnia, even though it was overwhelming, was a mistake. It undermined the American President, and it undermined America's position as the leader of the free world. I think we will live to regret it. If you talk the talk, you have got to be willing to walk the walk. We have poured billions of dollars into NATO to protect the integrity of Europe's borders, to promote democracy, and to make good on our vow after the holocaust of World War II that it would never happen again. The Bosnian war is a reflection of the fact that we have allowed it to happen again. If it happens here, it can happen in other places. The fact is that the war in Bosnia occurred because of a violation of Bosnia's borders by Serbia's invasion with soldiers and armaments. The fact is that the massacre of Bosnian Moslems is the worst holocaust to occur in Europe since World War II. The fact is that America needs to be a leader in securing peace in that area of the world and in fact throughout the world, and we cannot assume that mantle of world leadership if we deliberately prevent our President from acting responsibly and effectively.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio], my friend and the ranking Democrat on this subcommittee, for whom I was very proud to serve when he was chairman of the subcommittee. Mr. Speaker, I have some things that I think need to be said and they need to be said to the Members. I am going to ask the Members that are present to listen to this for a few minutes, because I want to talk about people whose jobs and whose lives are completely, exclusively dependent upon the decisions that we make; not that the Senate and not that the President or anyone else makes. These are people whose jobs and lives are completely dependent upon us. Mr. Speaker, we are holding hearings over in the Government Operations Committee about a handful of people that served at the pleasure of the President and that the President fired who worked in the travel office. But we have ignored how we have treated our own employees, which in many cases is far worse than anything that the President did to people who worked in the travel office. One of the first acts that this Congress did was to issue pink slips to all of the nonpartisan employees who work here. These are not people with a legislative or a political agenda. These are the people that deliver our mail and who clean our offices. These are the people who have dedicated their lives to making this great institution and all that it is today. Mr. Speaker, we have inherited this legacy that they have very carefully and conscientiously established and provided a continuity for the greatness of this institution. They are aware of it; I am not sure how well we are aware of it. Mr. Speaker, 2 weeks before Christmas, we told these nonpartisan employees that we would not need their services anymore. Since then, the leadership has worked hard to fire as many people as possible. Mr. Speaker, when this new Congress took over, they hired three dozen people whose principal purpose was to fire as many of our nonpartisan employees as possible, and this bill continues this trend. The first thing this bill does is to privatize everything it can. And privatization may sound good, Mr. Speaker, but not when it is taken to this extreme. When this bill first came before us, I pointed out how ludicrous it was to privatize the flag office. It was simple to make the flag office self-funding, and thankfully the Senate fixed that part of the bill. Our constituents can still have a flag flown over the Capitol and it does not cost the taxpayers one dime, and it is a great service and one that they appreciate, oftentimes more than we appreciate it. Unfortunately, there are many parts of this bill that were not looked at so rationally. First, there is the folding room. The folding room was established because all 435 of our offices need help with their mail. We placed impossible deadlines on these people, and they would often work 12-hour shifts without overtime. Think about that, to serve our needs they worked 12-hour shifts without getting overtime. Mr. Speaker, we asked them to work in the bowels of our office buildings. No windows, no frills. Ninety percent of these people who served us are minorities and, boy, they worked hard and were dedicated to their job. Now, we fire them. We eliminated it. And what we have done is to place two big photos and I am sure all of my colleagues have seen it. Apparently, it points up the difference between modernization and the way that things used to be done. It is a before-and-after shot. It shows how nice the office is now. How nice and clean and it is all organized. The before shot shows how messy it was when all these working class people were working every day for our benefit. Mr. Speaker, the trend continues. The people that work the night shift to clean our offices and enable us to take for granted that the office is going to be clean when we come in the morning, the people that deliver all the mail without fail conscientiously, they all fear the same thing will happen to them and they will. Mr. Speaker, they are all working people with families. They want to be able to plan for their future, yet their supervisors cannot tell them today if they will have a job next week or if they will be out on the street without health insurance. And even if they are lucky enough to stay on after we privatize them, they will lose their benefits that they have today. They will be given an hourly wage and that is it. These dedicated employees will be told that we no longer can afford to care if their child is sick or if they have a preexisting medical condition. They are going to be on their own, after spending their lives serving us. Mr. Speaker, in just another minute I want to tell my colleagues some specifics about what these lives are like. It is important to anybody that is listening to this to focus on it for just a minute. Mary Ann Wise started off working for our institution as a teenager right after high school. She worked hard. She was promoted. After more than 20 years of dedicated service, she was finally promoted to the chief of office systems management, because no one else in this institution better understood office systems management. I do not know if she is a Republican or Democrat. I do not know. I do not think she knows either, but I know she did her job very well. As a reward, my colleagues, we fired her. We just fired her. Mike Heny's story is much the same. Mike began working here as a junior accountant. He worked hard and a few years ago the Clerk promoted him to chief of finance. Nonpartisan, just doing his job day in and day out. We fired him, too. John Kostelnick was in charge of property. Things like the desks and the file cabinets in our offices. I want you to listen to this, please. The leadership gave him a quota. They gave John a quota. They told him to put together a list of people to fire. The leadership did not care how good a job his employees did. They just wanted to fire them. Mr. Speaker, John Kostelnick took the high road and he refused, so he had to resign. For several years now, the voters have been frustrated with the Congress. I would suggest to my colleagues that it is not right that we take this frustration out on the people who have served this institution for most of their adult lives. I do not think that frustration carries over to those people. People still want to come up and see the Capitol. They want it to be clean and they want it to be well-maintained. They want their Congressperson's office to be well-served, well-outfitted. These are the people that enabled us to be proud of the office that we work in and the institution that we are a part of. Mr. Speaker, this is the greatest legislative body in the world. It takes more than politicians to make this institution the great symbol of democracy that it is. It takes the dedication and the hard work of ordinary, nonpartisan people. People with families, with working-class incomes, and with a lot of responsibility that they take very seriously for this institution. Mr. Speaker, we ought not forget what they do for us, what they have done for us throughout their lives, or what they do for our constituents. Mr. Speaker, I oppose this bill today.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the administration-- President Clinton--is taking an active leadership role in working to resolve the terrible conflict in the Balkans. I agree with many of my colleagues and the administration that we have reached a historical, defining moment in finding an effective strategy to the peace process. Together, the United States and the international community is resolved to press for an equitable, negotiated settlement between the parties to end this terrible war. I applaud the President for unequivocally demanding and working for this peace and for exercising strong U.S. leadership to realize it. [[Page H 11408]] This dreadful conflict in the former Yugoslavia will not solve itself. Much is at stake. This conflict is a threat to our interests in the region: It undermines European stability, our efforts to promote democracy and fee markets, respect for human rights, and ethnic and religious tolerance. The war threatens to spread to other countries. I have visited the region, and can speak firsthand of the severe repression, the systematic rape, beatings, torture, and persecution of the non-Serbian ethnic populations by the Serbs. The torrent of inhumanity is numbing. Not since Nazi Germany has the presence of genocide been so apparent, or the need to stop it been so pressing. Up until very recently, we have acted cautiously, and to my mind, too carefully throughout this war. This Congress, on August 1, by voting the arms embargo on the Bosnians, made a strong statement of support for strong United States leadership and intervention in the process toward peace in the region. Now, because of U.S. leadership and effective diplomacy, we have a cease-fire and a real chance to mediate a peace. What works is when this Government is willing to back up diplomacy with action--and that is what I see us doing now. The Serbs did not respect the U.N. safe havens, the embargoes failed, the U.N. peacekeepers were routinely fired upon and even taken hostage. The idea of peace talks were only taken seriously by the Serbs when NATO bombed Serbian heavy artillery sites and this was coupled with hardnosed negotiating by our diplomats. We have lost good men--diplomats who lost their lives in the pursuit of this peace. We are serious about helping all of the parties reach a peaceful settlement to the conflict. And, the Serbs, Croats, and Bosnians now recognize that they have an overriding interest in finding a peaceful settlement. Now is the time to take these actions that can lead to peace and not to preclude the necessity of providing troops to the region. Without U.S. leadership there will be no peace. Thank you. I urge you to vote against any bill that would harm this historical opportunity for peace in Bosnia. Mr. Roemer. Mr. Speaker, as a cosponsor of this important resolution, I firmly support House Resolution 247 in the interest of keeping the Congress and the American people fully involved in any decision regarding U.S. troop deployment. The presence of United States troops in Bosnia should not be a precondition to peace. Furthermore, no U.S. troops should be deployed to enforce a peace agreement until the Congress has enacted such a measure into law. A deployment of American troops to Bosnia would be a major long-term commitment of our military personnel. It is our responsibility to debate this. Last Week, Secretary Christopher and General Shalikashvili briefed Congress on the administration's deployment plan. After hearing their testimony, it is evident that the plan is developing into a situation which could cost lives. The American military position on this should be clear--are the troops keeping the peace or making a peace? What are the rules of engagement for our troops? What is our national interest in this region of the world? Congress must have a stronger vice in whether our Armed Forces are deployed overseas to engage in foreign conflicts, particularly in peacekeeping situations. We should assert our constitutional authority before American lives are put at risk in Bosnia. Congress should have the opportunity to approve a troop commitment to the Balkans before the first soldier sets foot in Bosnia. A Bosnian Deployment would be a major long-term commitment of American military personnel. It should not be done without a debate and a vote in Congress. We all agree that current policy has not worked and it is clear that we cannot accept the status quo. The killings continue while the number of refugees increases. The efforts of NATO, the United Nations, and the United States have not worked. Introducing as many as 25,000 troops into the Bosnian conflict would severely intensify the situation, and immerse the United States in training and logistic operations for the foreseeable future. Intensified fighting will certainly risk a wider conflict in the Balkans with far-reaching implications for regional peace. We have worked hard to contain the conflict within Bosnia, and we have seen very limited success to date. However, if the fighting spreads as a result of our decision to escalate with the presence of troops, it will be our responsibility to deal with the consequences of our interference. If the conflict spreads to other parts of the former Yugoslavia, Greece, and Turkey, then other regional powers are likely to get involved, which is likely to damage the entire European security structure. The majority of Americans are opposed to United States ground troops in Bosnia for a variety of reasons, and Congress should not be willing to overlook the concerns of our European allies who have the most to lose in an escalated conflict. American troops will be symbolic targets for those who oppose peace or the partition of Bosnia. Mr. Speaker, I voted earlier this year against lifting the arms embargo for the same reason that I support House Resolution 247: to prevent the Americanization of the Bosnian conflict and the loss of American lives. I strongly urge all of my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the Democratic chair of the Committee on the Budget for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I just noticed in an article in ``Roll Call'' magazine, it was just published today, the title of it is ``SOLOMON Wants Rewright of Three-Fifths Tax Hike Rule, After the GOP Has Waived It Twice.'' I want to put into the Record a statement by my good friend and the respected chairman of the Committee on Rules, when this rule was passed. He said, Mr. Speaker, the tax and spend Democrats are at it again. Do you believe it? The Democrats are suing the Republicans to overturn our rules change that requires a three-fifths majority to raise taxes. Now, this is the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] speaking: ``The three-fifths majority vote to raise taxes will stand as a hindrance to any Democrat's attempt to foist more taxes on the American people. There aren't going to be any more.'' He actually said ``There ain't going to be any more,'' but I wanted to correct his language. Mr. Speaker, that is the same chairman of the Committee on Rules that now wants to rewrite the rule that we passed on the first day of this session. I have 20 quotes from 20 different Members of the Republican leadership, such as ``We required a three-fifths vote to pass any kind of tax increase.'' I've got the Speaker's quote on it. I will not bore you with all the quotes because they all pretty much say the same thing, that any time there is any kind of tax increase, there will be a requirement that there be a three-fifths vote to pass that. There are actually five tax increases in this budget reconciliation bill that we will be taking to conference. The reason why we were able to take it to conference is that the chairman of the Committee on Rules decided to waive that rule that applied to the House as of the first day of the session. He waived that particular three-fifths rule as it applies to this reconciliation bill. That was the same technique that was applied to the $270 billion Medicare bill when it came before us a few days earlier. Now, there was not a waiver when the original Tax Act came before us, the Contract With America Tax Act. I raised it at that time that it really should have required a three-fifths vote because of the tax increases in it. We got a ruling that subsequently has been reconsidered, and the Parliamentarian agrees that in fact the three- fifths requirement should have applied. It should have applied here, too, because, when we pass rules for ourselves, we ought to abide by them. I do not think we ought to have the discretion to simply waive them when they are inconvenient. We passed a rule on the same day that says, when we write rules for the private sector, they ought to apply to us as well. Well, it seems to me, when we pass any kind of Federal rule, we do not waive it for the private sector. We should not waive it for ourselves. There are actually five tax increases in this bill. One would increase for some people by 50 percent the tax on Medicare part B premiums. There is an increase for some on capital gains. There is a repeal of the 5-year income averaging for others. There is an increase in taxes on income for others. Three is an increase in taxes on income that Indian tribes receive. There is increased taxes on expatriates, which I happen to agree with. But the biggest tax increase is on the people who can least afford it. There is a tax increase on those who qualify for the earned income tax credit. That is the most shameful. I wish that this House one day would apply the rules that it makes for itself consistently, and not hypocritically.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include a list of the six tax increases that require a waiver of the three-fifths vote into the Record at this point.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Is it possible to waive this rule by a simple majority which was advertised by its sponsors as requiring a 60-percent majority for income tax rate increases, or does this rule need a 60-percent majority for its adoption?

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, I am itemizing six tax rate increases that should have required a three-fifths vote, and I want to clarify that it would trigger a three-fifths vote.

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary inquiry applies to the rule that is before us and is about to be voted on.

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, I am explaining the parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. MORAN. Is it true that the bill before us today contains other tax increases that would make this bill subject to a three-fifths vote? These additional taxes include a 50-percent tax penalty on Medicare- plus medical savings accounts withdrawals for any purpose other than medical care.

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, I have a further parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. MORAN. Despite the fact that it is waiving a rule that required a 60-percent majority?

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, a further parliamentary inquiry then.

Mr. MORAN. On April 5, more than 6 months ago, I came to this well and raised a point of order on a provision of the Contract With America Tax Relief Act. It was H.R. 1215 that repealed section 1(h) of the Internal Revenue Code affecting the maximum rate for long-term capital gains. While the intent of this provision was to lower the capital gains rate, it actually increased the tax rate on the sale of certain small business stocks from 14 percent under current law to 19.8 percent. At that time, the Speaker ruled that this tax increase was not subject to the three-fifth rule. In a June 12 letter, however, from House Parliamentarican Charles Johnson, it appears that the ruling was made in error, and the original point of order should have been sustained. Mr. Speaker, am I correct in my summation?

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, am I correct that the rule that we are about to vote on waives the requirement of a 60-percent majority for a bill carrying an income tax rate increase?

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, a further parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.