Jim Moran

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. I move to strike the requisite number of words, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I rise because I want the leadership of the full Committee on Appropriations and the subcommittee to know that there are a number of people, Members, who have consistently and strongly supported this bill, but that if this amendment is attached, will vote against this appropriations bill. I think they know this, and I think they know how much we respect the leadership on the Committee on Appropriations. But I think they also understand what is at stake here. There are, as I see it, three reasons why this amendment should not be passed and why in fact our action in the Balkans today is justified. The first is our interest in having a strong and resolute NATO. The second is our past experience with Mr. Milosevic. The third is the strategic location of Kosovo and the Balkans. Mr. Chairman, it is in our vital national interests, Mr. Chairman, that we have a strong and resolute NATO. This is not a unilateral action, this is a multilateral action. This is a result of 19 democratic, free European nations deciding that they will now take a stand, take a stand for human rights, for democracy, for all the things that Mr. Milosevic and the Communist empire have been opposed to. We lost 292,131 American soldiers in World War II, and we would not have lost those men and women if we had had a strong and resolute NATO. That is why we invested in NATO. That is why we have put everything we stand for behind NATO, because it is in our vital national security interests. If NATO yields, if NATO does not prevail in this conflict, NATO will not be worth the paper that its charter is printed on. We cannot let NATO fail in this mission. Secondly, our experience with Mr. Milosevic. This is the man that is responsible, as my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) said, for over 200,000 deaths of innocent civilians; 40,000 women, these were not soldiers who were raped; 2\1/2\ million people displaced in the Bosnia war. This is the same man. And because we did not and NATO did not stand up to him, he knows how far he can go. What is his greatest ally? It is a lack of resolve on the part of politicians. He watches very closely exactly what we do on the floor of this House. Too often we give him comfort instead of reason to fear us. Thirdly, it must be understood, the strategic location of Kosovo, on the fault line between the Muslim and orthodox worlds. We know what Mr. Milosevic's plan was. It is not any classified intelligence. He amassed his troops to do the same thing he did in Bosnia, to drive out the Kosovar Albanians. If he went ahead and was able to do that without NATO standing up to him, do Members believe for a moment that the rest of the world would have stood by, the Muslim world? Do Members think that the extremists in the Muslim world would not have gotten engaged? Do Members think the Slavic world would not have gotten engaged? It would have spread throughout the region. It is the same kind of thing that created World War II. NATO stepped in because they realized what the alternative was. They realized that they were stepping in for the kind of principle that they and we believe in, and it was worth what resources it took. It is worth whatever resources it will take to prevail, not to yield. Milosevic is an old line Communist. He is head of the Serbian Communist league. He uses people for his own political purposes. He does not believe in human rights and individual freedom and liberty. He controls the media. He has fed the Serbian population toxic lies for over a decade. This guy is bad news. He is representing evil forces. And there are evil forces in the world, and we should be darned proud that we are standing up for principle. Let us continue to do the right thing. Support this action. Vote against this amendment and pass this bill.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my support for the prompt passage of H.R. 1664, the fiscal year 1999 Kosovo Operations Supplemental Appropriations Act. While I have some concerns about the level of spending in this measure, I believe we should act promptly to provide our service men and women with the resources they need to carry out their responsibilities in this NATO-led mission. This legislation, while not perfect, addresses a number of increasingly serious readiness, quality-of-life and infrastructure shortfalls identified by our country's military leaders. I ask my colleagues to put aside their differences and act in a bipartisan manner to support the prompt release of these funds. Whether you support U.S. participation in this operation or not, I urge you to support this supplemental funding request. We have a responsibility to ensure that our military has the resources it needs to successfully execute this mission. This legislation appropriates funds for some critical shortfalls in our military spending. For example, it provides much needed funding for spare parts, ammunition, equipment maintenance, and recruiting. All of these areas have experienced shortages and these funds will make the necessary investments in our Operations and Maintenance accounts. I would also note that this legislation provides $1.9 billion for a military pay increase and for retirement benefits, subject to congressional authorization and a Presidential emergency declaration. I think this provision will send an important message to our troops and their families of the value this nation places on their work. As I have urged my colleagues before, I believe the United States should continue to support the North Atlantic Treaty Organization's (NATO) efforts in the Balkans. NATO has been principally responsible for the relative stability and economic prosperity that Europe has enjoyed over the last fifty years. Our experience in two world wars clearly demonstrates that a stable Europe is in the national interest of the United States. There are three reasons why our actions in Yugoslavia should be supported by this Congress: Number one, the strength of NATO; number two, our experience with Milosevic; and number three, the alternative of doing nothing. It is in our vital interest that there be a strong and resolute NATO. Think of the hundreds of thousands of innocent soldiers, sailors, and airmen that were lost in Europe because we did not have NATO when we needed NATO. We need NATO now. We need to act with NATO. We need a strong NATO. And if we do, the United States will not have to be the world's peacekeeper in the future. Secondly, our experience with Milosevic, because NATO did not get involved in Bosnia when it had an opportunity. As a result, 250,000 lives were lost, 2\1/2\ million people were displaced, and 40,000 women were raped. It could have been prevented had NATO acted when it had the opportunity. And thirdly, think of the alternative. This is the fault line, my colleagues, between the Muslim and the Orthodox worlds. This is the fault line that has existed for generations. If we had not gotten involved in a multilateral action with NATO taking the lead, think what would have happened. We know what Milosevic was going to do, why he had 40,000 troops amassed on the border, why he did not want to compromise at Rambouillet. He knew exactly what he was going to do; and he did it. But if he had done that and NATO had not gotten involved, do my colleagues really think other nations would have stood by? Of course they would not have. We would have had the Mujahidin getting involved. We would have had Islamic extremists getting involved. And do my colleagues really think Russia then would not have gotten involved if there had not been the strength of NATO taking the leadership here? My colleagues, we are doing the only responsible thing. This is not the United States acting unilaterally. We are acting multilaterally. We are acting with NATO. We are acting in the long-term interests of this country. We are doing the right thing, for a number of reasons. And the Congress should be supporting it. Politicizing or slowing the release of these funds to our armed forces could ultimately jeopardize our involvement in the 19-nation NATO operation. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote ``yes'' on this emergency spending bill and support the timely release of these funds.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time, and thank the gentleman for his comments.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I refer for the record to the Consumer Alert issued by the Federal Trade Commission warning consumers of exactly the situation that this amendment addresses, the fraudulent advertising, the kind of advertising that sucks consumers into a situation where they wind up declaring bankruptcy, which was not their original intent, because they were misled by the people that would be covered by this amendment. This amendment addresses abuses by ``bankruptcy mills'' which advertise themselves as debt counseling organizations or government sanctioned sources of assistance for consumers having difficulty meeting debt repayments. According to the Federal Trade Commission, consumers are frequently using these organizations without understanding that the only relief that these groups offer is to put the debtor into bankruptcy, sometimes when the debtor could have avoided such a drastic step through voluntary repayment arrangements. The amendment requires debt relief organizations to disclose the nature of the services they offer, explain to consumers the alternatives to filing bankruptcy, disclose the rights and obligations of a debtor who files for bankruptcy and the consequences of a bankruptcy filing. The purpose of the amendment is to educate the consumer about bankruptcy and bankruptcy mills before it is too late; in other words, before the debtor has made an uninformed decision. Those who feel that the answer to the growth in bankruptcies is increased disclosure about the consequences of incurring credit card or other debt should support the up-front disclosure approach of this amendment and not try to protect these lawyers who are exploiting the ignorance of their clients. This is an amendment that is entirely appropriate. It is appropriate that it be called the Debtor's Bill of Rights. It is directly addressing a warning that the Federal Trade Commission has made available to consumers. I would hope that the House would pass this unanimously. Federal Trade Commission, For Your Information, March 26, 1997 Debt-burdened consumers who answer ads that offer to ``consolidate bills'' or ``stop credit harassment'' may be the targets of bankruptcy mills, according to a new publication from the Federal Trade Commission. ``Advertisements Promising Debt Relief May Be Offering Bankruptcy,'' the FTC Consumer Alert warns. A record one million consumers file for bankruptcy in 1996, according to the Alert. But bankruptcy can have a long-term negative impact on creditworthiness; stays on you credit report for 10 years, and can hinder a consumer's ability to get credit, a job, insurance or even a place to live. ``Although bankruptcy is one option to deal with financial problems, it's generally considered the option of last resort,'' the publication says. The Alert says that some newspaper, magazine and telephone directory ads give tip-offs that their ``debt consolidation'' ads are really toting bankruptcy mills. Ads that make claims such as: ``Consolidate your bills into one monthly payment without borrowing;'' ``Wipe out your debts! Consolidate your bills! How? By using the protection and assistance provided by federal law;'' and ``Stop credit harassment, foreclosures, repossessions'' . . . ``Keep your Property,'' may be touting bankruptcy services which can hurt consumers' credit and cost attorneys; fees, the Alert says. The FTC advises that before considering bankruptcy, consumers having trouble paying their bills should: Talk with their creditors who may be willing to work out a modified payment plan; Contact a credit counseling service. Some nonprofit organizations charge little or nothing for these services; Consider a second mortgage or home equity line of credit.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I greatly appreciate the comments of the chair of the subcommittee. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer this amendment for the purpose of adding to the consumer protections that are already contained in H.R. 833. We have all seen the advertisements. ``Consolidate your bills into one monthly payment without borrowing'' goes one. ``Stop credit harassment, foreclosures, repossessions, tax levies and garnishments'' is another advertisement. ``Wipe out your debts. Consolidate your bills. How? By using the protection that the Federal Government offers provided by Federal law.'' We have seen these advertisements. They are all opportunities to exploit the consumer, exploit the consumer's ignorance. And they would be addressed by this bill. Because only later does the consumer find out that very often these phrases involve bankruptcy proceedings which can hurt their credit and cost them substantial attorney's fees. They often do not realize that very often these are bankruptcy mills that do not advise consumers on other options that they have, including consumer credit counseling, working out a repayment plan with their creditors, or getting a second mortgage. This amendment adds to the bill provisions requiring so-called ``debt relief organizations,'' but more appropriately sometimes ``bankruptcy mills,'' to make certain minimal disclosures to consumer debtors and to prevent deceptive and fraudulent advertising practices that were identified by the Federal Trade Commission in their Consumer Alert. The disclosures are designed to ensure that debtors who retain the services of these organizations understand the nature of the services that are being provided, the cost of the services and, if the service includes placing the debtor into bankruptcy, the consequences of that action. This requirement was included in the conference report of last year's bankruptcy reform bill, which was overwhelmingly approved by the House of Representatives. The requirement is modeled on legislation enacted by Congress several years ago to address abuses by so-called credit repair organizations.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield the remaining 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer), co-chairman of the new Democrat Coalition. (Mr. ROEMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Ackerman), also a cosponsor of this amendment.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dooley). (Mr. DOOLEY of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to reclaim the time I yielded back. I did not expect there would be these comments that I understand, while they are supportive, are not necessarily wholehearted endorsements. I do have speakers that would use what time is remaining, if the Speaker would tell me how much time is remaining, and I would ask unanimous consent if I could reclaim it and use it for speakers on behalf of the amendment.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I guess I must not fully understand parliamentary procedure. I thought that the person introducing the amendment has the right to close on the amendment. How much time do I have remaining, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Bankruptcy Reform Act. I am a lead sponsor of the measure because the current system is broken. What was once the option of last resort has too often become the preferred option of choice. A legislative fix is necessary to distinguish between those who truly need a fresh start and those capable of assuming greater responsibility and making good on at least some of what they owe. It's the fair thing to do. Mr. Chairman, unless we take the steps now to reform the bankruptcy system while the economic times are good, we will not have the political resolve to fix it when the economy is not so strong. Despite this country's remarkably strong economy, wages are up, unemployment is down, interest rates and inflation are low--despite the unparalleled times that we are currently experiencing, the rate of personal bankruptcy filings has increased dramatically. That does not make sense, unless the explanation is that the system is broken. Mr. Chairman, last year bankruptcy filings reached a record high of more than 1.4 million. That is more than the number of people who graduated from college last year. Now we can vilify creditors and lenders, banks and mortgage companies and credit card companies, particularly credit card companies, and some of that vilification is deserved. All that unsolicited marketing, particularly of college students, is too aggressive, it is inappropriately deceptive, and it is imprudent, and we should not be condoning it. But while many would like to blame the credit card industry for the sharp increase in bankruptcy filings, it is very important to understand that the statistics indicate that the credit card industry is not the impetus for the current bankruptcy crisis. The vast majority of Americans recognize the personal responsibility they take in using a credit card. More than 96 percent of credit card holders pay their bills as agreed to, and only 1 percent ever end up in bankruptcy. Bank credit cards represent less than 16 percent of total debt on average bankruptcy petitions. Mr. Chairman, according to a recent Federal Reserve Board survey, credit cards account for a mere 3.7 percent of consumer debt, hardly large enough to cause a bankruptcy crisis. Regardless of how one feels about creditors, the key issue before us now is that many borrowers capable of repaying some or all of their obligations are not acting responsibly. Somewhere over the past decade, since 1990, the integrity of the bankruptcy process has been corrupted and an important moral principle has been eviscerated. The time-honored principle of moral responsibility and personal obligation to pay one's debts has been eroded by the convenience and ease with which one can discharge his or her obligations. It is unacceptable and unfair to those who do pay their bills to have to foot the bill for those who do not. Mr. Chairman, it is estimated that the majority who do make good on their debts are having to pay about an average of $400 a year to make up for the bad debt of those who do not make good on their debts. That is why this legislation addresses the process. It enables those who truly need relief to get the relief. It is fair, it is a bipartisan bill, and it should be passed.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. I thank the gentleman for his comments. Mr. Chairman, if I may briefly sum up my argument, which is simply that so-called debt relief agencies that are coming out with this kind of deliberately misleading advertising suggesting even that they are government sanctioned organizations, which they are not, they should be required to give written notice within 3 business days after the first date of services to advise the people they are allegedly assisting of their rights and responsibilities of disclosure. It would require attorneys or bankruptcy petition preparers to give the person they are assisting a written contract specifying what the attorney or bankruptcy petition preparer will do, what it will cost and the terms of payment. That is what we would want for our mother or our spouse or our children or our neighbor or any other consumer in the United States, to be able to have the value of that kind of information. This is a consumer amendment, to educate consumers so they do not get taken in by people who are designing to exploit them and exploit the bankruptcy system. Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge an ``aye'' vote on this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Since this is going to be challenged, let me again say for the Members who may be listening that this is a Debtor's Bill of Rights. It strengthens this bill. It responds to a very serious concern that the Federal Trade Commission has stipulated in its Consumer Alert. It informs debtors who retain the services of bankruptcy mills to disclose the services, the costs and the consequences, and particularly the consequences of filing for bankruptcy. We do not want people to have to file for bankruptcy, particularly people who never intended to file for bankruptcy.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this bill, as reported by the Committee on the Judiciary, already does require credit card issuers to tell consumers on every monthly billing statement that making only the minimum payment each month will increase the amount of interest paid and the length of time it takes to repay the balance on the account. Our amendment, which is cosponsored by the gentleman from California (Mr. Dooley) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Ackerman), adds four components to the existing consumer protection provisions of H.R. 833. These components have been crafted to respond to specific concerns that have been expressed about whether consumers have adequate information about certain features of their credit card accounts. First of all, in terms of minimum payments, it enhances the minimum payment disclosure requirements already contained in this bill. Under our amendment credit card issuers would be required to disclose, when the consumer first opens an account, several examples of how long it would take to repay a balance if the consumer makes only minimum payments. The number and type of examples would be tailored to the size of the card issuer's typical account balance. Secondly, disclosure of late payment penalties and deadlines: Our amendment responds to concerns that have been raised about whether consumers have the information they need in order to avoid the imposition of late fees and penalties. Credit card issuers would have to disclose on each monthly statement the amount of the minimum payment expressed as a dollar amount and the date by which it must be paid. Believe it or not, these requirements are not currently in the Federal code. The amendment would require applications or solicitations for a credit card to include a clear and conspicuous disclosure of any so- called penalty rate that may apply if the consumer does not pay as agreed. Such penalty rates are higher than the regular interest rate, and this amendment would ensure that consumers were adequately informed in advance about the circumstances under which they would apply. Thirdly, worldwide web-based credit card solicitations: We modify the Truth in Lending Act to establish for the first time disclosure requirements that specifically apply to credit card applications or solicitations that are posted on the worldwide web. The amendment would require these solicitations to post the same disclosures, usually presented in a table, that currently apply to every other credit card offer made through the traditional mail system. The amendment would require that the web site include the date the disclosures were posted and a statement that they were accurate as of that date. It would also require a statement that the information disclosed on the web site may change, and a toll free telephone number or e-mail address would have to be provided so the consumer could obtain the most current information. Lastly, related to teaser rates, our amendment would ensure that consumers receive the information they need in order to make informed decisions regarding credit card introductory rates, sometimes called teaser rates. Specifically, the amendment would amend the Truth in Lending Act to require that an application or solicitation for a credit card that has an introductory rate must include a clear and conspicuous disclosure of when the introductory rate will expire, as well as the rate that will apply after the introductory rate will expire, after the introductory period. This is the kind of information that consumers desperately need. The fact that those disclosures are not required by statute points up a glaring error, and we think that this significantly improves the bill. It gives balance to this bill by adding these consumer protections, but does not inappropriately load up the lending industry with onerous and expensive new requirements that have nothing to do with the underlying purpose of the bill, which is to provide long overdue reform to the bankruptcy bill. So I think these are appropriate, if I do say so myself, Mr. Chairman, and we would hope that this body would approve them unanimously.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment made in order by the rule.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, as a cochair of the Congressional Prevention Coalition, I stand in strong support today of a program that makes a tremendous contribution to disease prevention and health promotion. The Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) program has been educating woman and children about basic nutrition that can help them lead healthier, and therefor happier lives. Chronic disease is the cause of 70 percent of deaths in the United States and nutrition is a primary form of prevention for chronic disease. Nutrition education can start very early in life. WIC educators help expectant mothers to give their babies good nutrition, even before they are born, through prenatal counseling and care. After the baby is born, WIC educators continue to serve low income women, infants and children with pediatric health care services and nutrition education. WIC educators help babies get a healthy start on life through breastfeeding education and support. The first food a baby gets could be the most important. Breastfeeding is almost always the best form of nutrition for a baby and WIC educators help mothers to learn the wide benefits of breastfeeding including its nutrition and excellent source of antibodies that protect against infection. The preventive care that WIC provides saves us money in the long run. the National Association of WIC Directors estimates that for every dollar spent on pregnant women in the WIC program, we save $1.92 to $4.21 in Medicaid costs. For every low birth weight prevented as a result of WIC's prenatal program, Medicaid costs are reduced $12,000 to $15,000 per infant. More importantly, WIC works in helping low-income mothers and children to live healthy lives. For example, according to CDC, WIC children showed a 16-percent decrease in the anemia rate at their 6- month recertification screening than in their initial screening. WIC babies have fewer low birth weight babies and fewer fetal and infant deaths. WIC also helps spur normal childhood growth, increases immunization rates, improves access to pediatric health care and readies children to learn with proven higher test scores. I want to thank the National Association of WIC directors and all of those at WIC who do so much in improving the health care needs of the millions of women, infants, and children who participate in this lifesaving program. Thank you for 25 years of vital work and service.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, there are three reasons why it is legitimate, why our actions in Yugoslavia should be authorized by this Congress: Number one, the strength of NATO; number two, our experience with Milosevic; and number 3, the alternative of doing nothing. It is in our vital interest that there be a strong and resolute NATO. Think of the hundreds of thousands of innocent soldiers, sailors, and airmen that were lost in Europe because we did not have NATO when we needed NATO. We need NATO now. We need to act with NATO. We need a strong NATO. And if we do, we will not have to be the world's peacekeeper in the future. Secondly, our experience with Milosevic, because NATO did not get involved when it had an opportunity, such as in 1992, when it was recommended; what resulted, with the same leadership, Mr. Milosevic, 200,000 lives were lost, 2\1/2\ million people were displaced, 40,000 women were raped. It could have been prevented had NATO acted when it had the opportunity. But thirdly, think of the alternative. This is the fault line, my colleagues, between the Muslim and the Orthodox worlds. This is the fault line that has existed for generations. If we had not gotten involved in a multilateral action, NATO taking the leadership, think what would have happened. Extremists would have been involved. We know what Milosevic was going to do, why he had 40,000 troops amassed on the border, why he did not want to compromise at Rambouillet, because he knew exactly what he was going to do; and he did it. But if he had done that and NATO had not gotten involved, do my colleagues really think other nations would have stood by? Of course they would not have. We would have had the Mujahidin getting involved. We would have had Islamic extremists getting involved. And do my colleagues really think Russia then would not have gotten involved if there had not been the strength of NATO taking the leadership here? My colleagues, we are doing the only responsible thing. This is not the United States acting unilaterally. We are acting multilaterally. We are acting with NATO. We are acting in the long-term interests of this country. We are doing the right thing, for a number of reasons. And the Congress should be supporting it. They should vote ``aye'' today.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this resolution, which would prohibit funding for ground forces unless deployment is specifically authorized. The only narrow exception provided in this measure is for rescuing US service personnel. This resolution would undermine our ability to achieve NATO objectives in Kosovo and, more importantly, would send the wrong signal to President Milosevic about our resolve in the Balkans. I encourage my colleagues to consider the ramifications of this resolution, which limits our country's military leaders. If we are to ensure a stable Europe and stop the atrocities, then we must destroy Milosevic's ability to wage his campaigns of ethnic cleansing. I believe that the United States should continue to support the North Atlantic Treaty Organization's (NATO) efforts in the Balkans. NATO has been principally responsible for the relative stability and economic prosperity that Europe has enjoyed over the last fifty years. Our experience in two world wars clearly demonstrates that a stable Europe is in the national interest of the United States. By putting unwise restrictions on our armed forces, this resolution could ultimately jeopardize our involvement in the 19-nation NATO operation. In attempting to make a political statement, the Republican leadership hastily put this resolution together without involving the minority and has circumvented the committee process. I urge my colleagues to oppose this resolution, which could do more to harm our national security interests and jeopardize our men and women in uniform involved with this operation.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the enormous accomplishments and contributions made by Dr. Donald Dix of McLean, Virginia, a distinguished public servant who is retiring from the Department of Defense after 18 years of government service. Dr. Donald M. Dix will retire as Director of the Office of the Director of Defense Research and Engineering. During this time, Dr. Dix managed two critical national technology programs--the Integrated High Performance Turbine Engine Technology program and the Integrated High Payoff Rocket Propulsion Technology program. The Integrated High Performance Turbine Engine Technology (IHPTET) program aims to double the national turbine engine performance capability by the turn of the century. The F-117, B-2, F-15E, F-16C/D, and Tactical Tomahawk are possible because of the leading edge work of the IHPTET. The objective of the Integrated High Payoff Rocket Propulsion Technology (IHPRPT) program is to double the national rocket propulsion capability by 2010. Systems such as the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle, X-33, AIM-9X, and Trident D-5 Life Extension are supported by the fine work conducted by the IHPRPT. Dr. Dix's leadership on both of these programs have allowed this country to maintain its edge in these critical technology areas. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in thanking Dr. Donald Dix for his significant contribution toward maintaining this country's national security. I wish him well in his retirement and all of his future endeavors.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished and able ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary for yielding time. Mr. Speaker, this provision should be defeated, for three reasons. One, it is an exercise in hypocrisy. Secondly, history has shown that it does not work. And thirdly, it may mitigate against this Congress making the kind of very difficult decisions that may be necessitated in the near future. I say that it is an exercise in hypocrisy because, in January of 1995, in the Contract with America, the new Republican majority included this as a rule that would guide the House, and it passed in the House. But every single time that we have had a tax bill, primarily a tax cut bill, but a bill that had provisions that actually increased taxes, the Committee on Rules had to waive this very rule. So every time that we have had a tax bill, the Committee on Rules included in the rule a waiver of this very provision. So for us now to consider this and even to consider voting for it in light of our past experience, it seems to me, is an exercise in hypocrisy. We know it will not work. And yet the same Republican majority that voted this as a rule voted for each individual rule that waived this rule as it would apply to any subsequent tax bill. Secondly, my recollection is that the Articles of Confederation actually had this as a requirement as well, a supermajority for any tax increase, and it did not work. Minority rule meant that our young country was not able to function effectively. They went back and they had to change it. And there are some very extensive debates that we can consult that shows the reason why it did not work, why they had to go to majority rule to be able to make the kind of difficult decisions that this Congress has elected to make. Now, thirdly, it seems to me that there are a number of things that this Congress is going to have to do in the near future. One is to make the kinds of difficult decisions that will be necessitated to ensure that our retirement security programs are sustainable. They may, in fact, include raising some additional revenue in order to be fair and to be sustainably financed into the long term. I do not know that. But I do know that we will never get two-thirds of this House to make those kinds of votes no matter how compelling the arguments are in favor of those votes. There are other areas in which I think that we certainly should get two-thirds. Corporate welfare, some of the loopholes that are used to abuse. History tells us this does not work. We know that these tax issues are the most difficult issues. They take leadership and they take courage and they take majority rule. Almost all of these difficult issues have only passed by a slim majority no matter how compelling, as I say, are the arguments. We need to enable doing the right thing for this country, and doing the right thing is not the easy thing. Let us defeat this bill.