Maxine Waters

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased and proud to rise in support of the Roukema amendment. We need to penalize parents who do not support their children. I think we will find that there is no disagreement in this House. Democrats and Republicans alike do not like deadbeat dads. I think this is an example of the kind of cooperation we could have had on welfare reform if we had had a little bit of reasoned cooperation. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say it is a good amendment, again, to a bad bill. I still think the bill is bad because we are taking money, we are taking food out of the mouths of children in order to provide tax cuts for the rich. I think we are punishing teenaged parents unfairly when we should be training them to become independent. Mr. Chairman, I would like to plead with my colleagues to please do something about that portion of the bill that would deny cash benefits to disabled children. I have discovered that deaf children, I have discovered that crippled children, and mentally retarded children are going to be terribly hurt by this legislation. Their parents will have no way of getting people to help them while they are working, and it is unfair. If Members want to do better and cooperate in the way that we have been cooperating on the deadbeat dads, I would ask them to eliminate that from their bad bill, and I think we could do something about real reform.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I have said maybe on two occasions today that this is one of the most important debates that this 104th Congress will be engaged in, and it is important for us to understand what we are about to do here. I know there are a lot of unhappy folks in this country, unhappy about the fact that there are too many families and too many children on welfare. I know that most people want change. We must be fair in our representations about who wants change. Republicans want change. Democrats want change. Workers want change, and recipients want change. I think it is one thing that we can agree on. No one has the corner on wanting reform. We would all like to see reform in the system, and it is absolutely incorrect to say that the President or Democrats did not have a bill, did nothing about reform. The President had a comprehensive piece of legislation that he attempted to get into this Congress, the 103d Congress, and we got caught up in the health debate, and it turned into a nightmare, and there was not the opportunity to move on welfare reform as the President had planned. So it is not true that the President did not want welfare reform. The difference between the Democrat and Republicans is the question of implementation. How will we do welfare reform? Will it be a plan that will offer real opportunities for people to get off welfare or will it simply be a plan to punish folks because for whatever reasons they have found themselves on welfare? I think it is time for us to try and speak about this in a language that the American public can understand. No, they don't really understand block grants and waivers. Let's put a face on this discussion. We are talking about, for the most part, just plain old poor people and working people. We are talking about people, some of whom were born into situations through no choice of their own that keeps them locked into the cycle of poverty, and there have been no real guidelines, rules by which they can get out of the cycle of poverty. We have some folks who work everyday, and they are poor. They can't take care of their families. They need food stamps. They need some help with their health care needs. And so these are real people. These are not pawns that should be used by politicians to gain favor with people who are very vulnerable at this time. This should not simply be a political issue where some politician stands up and says vote for me. I am going to save you money. I am going to get rid of all these bad people. And we should not have politicians simply defining all of America's problems by talking about the welfare state. And we certainly should not have politicians who talk about taking America's children and putting them in institutions, in orphanages. We need to talk about these problems in a real way. Yes, there are teenage pregnancies, too many of them, and most of us don't like the idea that babies have babies. But we live in a society where sex is glamorized, where it is promoted, where it is expected. In order for young women to be looked upon with favor, they must be sexual. Young women are sought after by young men and old men, some of them in their neighborhoods, some out of their neighborhoods, some of them who are poor young men who have not very much to offer, some of them politicians and others. We know what is going on in American society. We need sex education. We need jobs. Jobs have been exported to Third World countries for cheap labor. We need jobs for educated people and not-so-educated people. We need a better education system. We need to deal with the root causes of this problem, and we need to build into welfare reform the real opportunity for people to become independent by offering real jobs, job training and child care.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, we are entering one of the most important debates of the 104th Congress. The lives of innocent children and families are at stake. Democrats want change, and we have responsible legislation for change. Democrats want reform. However, the Republicans just go too far. The Republicans are taking America to the edge. It is scary when well-fed Republican politicians take away children's lunches. It is scary when Republicans, who claim family values, advocate putting America's children in orphanages. It is scary when Republican policymakers refuse to formulate responsible welfare reform with child care for mothers to get training for work and a guarantee of jobs for families who desperately want to work. Republicans are just scaring us all. The Republicans just go too far.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the attempt of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey] to allow the committees to meet while we are in debate on this important issue. As I recall it, it is the Republicans who required that we all attend all of our committee hearings, recording the votes to make sure that we are on record whether or not we attended. It is the Republicans who do not allow proxy voting so that those of us who would like to be here could indeed record our votes in committee. So they cannot have it both ways. Either they want Members to be involved in this or they want them to stay in the committees and be recorded and not be involved in this discussion. I wish it was mandatory for every Member to be on this floor. I wish it was mandatory for all of the networks to have to carry this debate. This is one of America's most important debates. Members will hear discussions from the Republicans where they talk about family values and they claim that they want to keep families together, that they are interested in providing education. I had two amendments that they would not make in order that would have given tax credits for those who get their GED, for those who would get their high school diplomas, tax credits for those who would be involved in getting married, but they said no in the Committee on Rules, those were not important values, when I tried to come before the Committee on Rules. I am just a little bit sick and tired of a lot of folks getting up on this floor, talking about change and what it takes to create change, and they do not know anything about welfare. Those who would give tax credits to people making $200,000 but will not give tax credits to a young mother who is trying to get educated cannot tell me anything about welfare. We need to deal with the root causes of what is going on. Yes, young people are involved in sexuality. Yes, young people are bombarded on television and other places about what it means to be fashionable in America. Yes, they want jobs. Yes, we have allowed jobs to be exported to Third World countries for cheap labor and people who want to work cannot find work. Yes, we have problems. And there are some dysfunctional families, and children who need support oftentimes do not have parents who are there for them. But should we penalize the children? Should we take away the lunches? Should we stop their opportunity to live and grow and be? This is a mean-spirited proposal and it goes much too far. We want change. We want reform. But we are not going to take food out of children's mouths. We want change, but we want child care for those mothers who want to work. You absolutely go too far and you are scaring America with what you do. I say listen to some of us who know something about this. I know because I was a child of a welfare family. My mother tried and she tried. She did not have any help. She could not get any child care. She could not get a job. She could not get any training, but she tried. I want to tell my colleagues, whatever America invested in me as a child on welfare, it has paid off. That is why I am here to speak for welfare children today. You are wrong in the proposal that you have.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me, and I rise in opposition to the rule. Mr. Speaker, this rule is an abomination. I am fundamentally opposed to several elements contained in this bill, as well as the way it will be considered. First, emergencies are emergencies. We should never have to cut programs which have already been budgeted due to an act of God. That is what this legislation would do. The State of California has been the unfortunate site of several natural disasters recently. It is absolutely the role of the Federal Government to assist in these relief efforts. But, the way this bill is structured, we will create several new emergencies as we pay for relief from earthquakes and floods. Cities cannot afford cuts in summer jobs. This program has helped avert social disasters in many communities throughout this country. Not any more. Poor people cannot go without energy assistance. But this bill will freeze elderly people in the northeast because of an earthquake in California. People need housing. But this bill would create a shelter emergency for thousands of the country. Tell veterans why they do not need health care--health care which this Congress approved last year--because of a California earthquake last year. Anyone who has visited a veterans hospital in this country understands the number of emergencies that this bill will inflict on our Nation's veterans. Last, this rule sets up false choices. It is a sham. This rule is not about robbing Peter to pay Paul. It is about taking away Peter's home to pay for Paul's tent. The American people want a discussion about budget priorities. But that is not what is before us. This is a cold-hearted, slick, political way to punish poor and middle-income families because of unpredictable weather. It is using natural disasters to affect this Republican Congress' mean-spirited political agenda. This whole process should be rejected.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, we have consulted with the ranking member on our side and have no objection to this request. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, so far the debate has been about the proposed 25-percent health deduction for the self-employed. Now I support that. And I support that part of the substitute that allows for tax deduction for workers whose employers do not contribute to their health plans. But let me speak about the unspeakable. I am opposed to this bill because it dismantles an extremely viable and important program that allows participation by minorities in the broadcast industry. And the concept is now new. Back in 1943 the U.S. Government created an affirmative action program which authorized the FCC to provide tax relief for broadcast owners who were essentially part of monopolies. That was during World War II. This was not an affirmative action law for programs for blacks or Hispanics or women. It was affirmative action for white broadcast owners. Twenty years later the FCC used the same framework, the same law to provide the tax preference for those broadcast companies who would sell to minority-owned firms. This was done to open up ownership opportunities to minorities and to basically promote diversity in an all white, male-dominated industry. Now today we are asked to vote to dismantle this program. There are those who would argue it is too expensive and those who would say it is race-based. Is it too expensive that the Viacom deal will respond to get these tax benefits? They are only using the law in the way that it was framed. It is only fair that we continue to allow those who are playing by the rules to do so. Viacom will get its tax deferments. They should not be looked on as someone who is doing something wrong. I ask Members to oppose this bill because it is basically unfair and it attempts to eliminate those who are simply trying to play by the rules.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman and Members, I rise in opposition to the Exclusionary Rule Reform Act and in support of the Watt amendment. I am inspired to speak here because I heard one gentleman, the gentleman from South Carolina, say that we should not be quoting the Constitution. We would be a lot better off it, instead of reading the Contract on America in this body every day, that we would simply quote the Constitution, remind ourselves of what this magnificent document is all about. It begins, as you know, ``We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.'' Now, let us understand what was happening at that time and the history that we should never forget. When the citizens of Great Britain decided to leave, they left because of oppression and tyranny. They left because they simply wanted a quality of life that would provide them with some freedom and justice so that they could feel secure, and when they left to establish in the new land, they were invaded. They were imposed upon. They were violated. Their homes were broken into. Not only were they overtaxed, they were simply mistreated. They could not pursue justice, freedom and equality. And they said, ``We are going to establish a Constitution. We are going to establish in this new land a document that will protect us from tyranny.'' Now, those of us who are involved in this body who are forever about the business of exporting democracies around the world, we are appalled, as we were appalled in South Africa at the fact that people's homes could be invaded, that whole towns could be torn down, that at any time of night or day the police could ride into an area, beat the people, dismantle their homes, literally invade them. This Constitution protected us from this kind of invasion and violation. This document that set out to establish freedom, justice and equality, perfected by the Bill of Rights and the amendments, the first 10 amendments to the Constitution, simply said we will not allow people to be violated in the fashion that they were violated when they left their mother country. These were not blacks. They were not Mexicans. They were basically people alike. But let me tell you, it does not matter whether you are black, white, green or any other color, if you find yourself in a situation where those who are ruling, those who are in power are so egotistical or so disrespectful or so unmindful of the fact that we all deserve the right to be free and they decide to move in your town or in your community a corrupt police force, corrupt elected officials, if they decide they are going to walk into your home, they are going to invade your property, they are going to violate the most precious of that that can be violated, the sanctity of the home, you allow them to do this when you mess around with this Constitution this way. You will see a number of African-Americans on the floor today. You may wonder, ``Why are so many African-Americans in this Congress so concerned about this exclusionary rule?'' Well, we were not there when those who were fleeing the tyranny of Great Gritain were being violated, but we were there as slaves. We were there when our doors were kicked down. We were there when children were grabbed away from their families, when people were sold into slavery, violated, and so we feel this very deeply. We understand this. We do not want anything to violate the fourth amendment of the Constitution. This is not about some game we are playing. This is not about some political posturing. This is about protection of human and individual rights for the people, and the Constitution defends that, and it guarantees that.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, all things are possible.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. WATERS. If we adopted any measures that would give 10 percent of our society 50 percent of the tax breaks, would the gentleman agree that that would be unequal and unfair?

Ms. WATERS. Will the gentleman agree that, if we take any steps that would give 10 percent in our society 50 percent of the tax breaks, that something would be wrong with that, that that would not be fair? Would the gentleman agree?

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. I would just simply close. I thought it was very important that we try and strike a blow for the people. I really do believe that we are at a time in our society when people are very unhappy with the way public policy is made, with elected officials in general. I have watched over the past 10 years or so as we have exported jobs of Americans to third world countries for cheap labor; I have watched wage earners be able to buy less with their dollars; I am watching young people with an inability to purchase their own home, to have a down payment, I am watching as the rich get richer basically, and the poor get poorer. I really do believe that somehow we have to use this forum to begin to engage each other in a debate about what are we going to do for the average wage earner. What are we going to do to represent their interest? I know that many people believe that we know best and that somehow whatever we do is all right. I do not think so anymore. I think there are a lot of bright people in this body. I think there are a lot of well-meaning people in this body. But however bright and well meaning we are, we have not done a good job for the average working person who is earning less and less, and able to purchase less and less, is extremely unhappy. They are unhappy with us because we have not been able to represent their interests. I would simply ask that we adopt this amendment. This amendment would send a signal that we in fact care about those who work every day, and that we are not here simply to do the bidding of those who were well connected, those who have already a disproportionate share of the income, and those who are very powerful.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania is to be commended for his attempt to protect that part of the bill that speaks to the 100 entities, and I understand that that is a very small attempt to talk about fairness in a certain way. Certainly we need to do that. We need to say that if there is any tax legislation that will benefit as few as 100 entities, then something is wrong with that, because both you and I and others know far too well that we have had legislation in this Congress that benefited one or two persons, and certainly it is usually those who are well connected, the rich and the powerful who have influence with a particular elected official who are able to do that. And I am saying, yes, let us have that measure of protection, but let us go a little bit further. I think it is important for us to go a little bit further, because it has been documented time and time again that the top 1 percent in this society have a disproportionate share of the wealth. And as I cited in my opening remarks, the tax income of the families in the top 1 percent of income has increased from 7.3 percent of all U.S. earnings to 12.3 percent. I think we can in this legislation put a stop to that. We are simply saying if there is anything that is put together that allows that top 1 percent to further benefit, if there is anything that is done that allows the top 10 percent to have over 50 percent of the tax breaks, then we need to give the President the opportunity to veto it, and this is no small matter. The gentleman from Pennsylvania identifies that this would in some way have too great an influence on tax policy. That is precisely what I wish it to do. I wish it to do that, because at some point in time we must send a signal to the American people that somebody is doing the business of the average working person in this Congress. The average working man or woman does not have a lobbyist here. They cannot be represented but by the people they elect to represent them. Sometimes we get a little bit too insulated, and oftentimes when we produce tax policy, as we did in 1981 during the Reagan years where we allowed the selling of tax credits and major corporations in America ended up paying no taxes, if I recall during that time, many of the top corporations, Fortune 500 corporations in America, ended up paying no taxes. General Motors ended up paying no taxes. They even got a tax rebate. At the same time, the taxes of the average working person have increased, and so I am saying we can take a big step as we give the line-item veto to the President of the United States and say: Mr. President, it looks fishy if what we have done allows the top 10 percent to get over 50 percent of the tax breaks in anything that we have done. So we want to make sure that we protect against that. And we are going to allow this line-item veto to operate under those circumstances. I do not think it is too much to ask. I know we do not oftentimes think like that. We do not oftentimes think that we can take the broad strokes on behalf of just average working Americans, but I am saying with this line-item veto, which is rather novel, which is quite different, that it is big enough. It is creative enough to allow room for some more creativity. And I am simply saying that we can broaden the measure of protection and not just do a very small thing such as protect against 100 entities, but we can protect the majority of Americans if we have the will to do so. So, Mr. Chairman, I would ask that my amendment be adopted. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the amendment I am offering today is about fairness. I am trying to bring a measure of accountability to this process. Mr. Chairman, we all know the impression of how law is made in Congress. Many people believe special interests have too much influence and that the rich are getting their way with too many politicians. Unfortunately, this impression is often too close to reality. My amendment would give the President the authority to veto any provision which gives the lion's share of benefits to the rich. Make no mistake about it, my amendment makes this bill stronger. My amendment would increase the chance that H.R. 2 would reduce the deficit. Specifically, my amendment would change the definition of targeted tax benefit in the bill to include any tax benefit which would accrue more than 50 percent of its benefit to the top 10 percent of income earners. As I said, this is only fair and this is common sense. Anyone looking at this legislation, or listening to us debate it, may concede that a targeted tax benefit should include one that goes mainly to the wealthy. This amendment goes to the heart of the legislation. We know from the pollsters who have brought us all of this information about the Contract With America that a majority of Americans support the line-item veto, but the important question is why? The answer is because the American people believe that special interests and corporate America exert too much influence on our spending and revenue decisions. My amendment would merely bring any tax break which disproportionately benefits the rich under the provisions of the line- item veto. It would not prohibit Congress from passing such a tax break, it would not require the President to veto such a tax break, it would simply give the President, Democrat or Republican, the option of striking such a regressive, narrow tax break from a bill. My amendment would not change the procedure of the bill in any way. The President, through the Office of Management and Budget, would make a determination of the beneficiaries of the tax legislation we send him. Under my amendment, if it is determined that any tax change would severely disproportionately benefit the rich, the President would be given the option of vetoing that portion of it. The majority of Americans are tired of struggling to make ends meet while they see the economic elite get more and more from Government. While economic factors in the past 20 years have exacerbated the trend toward inequality, tax policy has made matters worse. Since 1977, the effective tax rate for the top one-fifth of wage earners went from 27.2 to 26.8 percent, a net reduction of $450 in tax liability. For the top 5 percent, the effective tax rate has dropped from 30.6 to 28.3 percent, which translates into a $5,311 tax cut. Finally, the top 1 percent, those earning over $675,000 per year, have seen a reduction in their tax rate from 35.5 percent down to 29.3 percent, the equivalent of nearly $42,000 in net tax reduction. Amazingly, in the same time period the after-tax income of the families in the top 1 percent of income has increased from 7.3 percent of all U.S. earnings to 12.3 percent. This has taken place at the same time as the income of the bottom four-fifths has declined. It is no wonder that despite the economic recovery, most Americans still feel quite insecure and they think the Government is not on their side. These trends have caused Americans to distrust Washington. The tax policies enacted here in the past 15 years are a direct contributor to this mistrust. The bill before us, as currently drafted, is just too narrow. The targeted tax benefit only includes those tax breaks which affect 100 or fewer entities. While I agree that any tax benefit which benefits as few entities as this certainly qualifies as a targeted tax benefit, a broader definition better serves Congress, the President, and most importantly, the American people.Words, symbols, and definitions are important when public officials communicate to the people. Any tax break in which half the revenue would go to the top 10 percent of income earners in this country is a targeted tax benefit. It only makes common sense. I do not know how many tax breaks would fall into the category I am proposing today, but that is not important. What is important is that we set a standard. It is important that American taxpayers know that any tax provision which benefits the rich, excessively, will be carefully--not carelessly--considered by the President and Congress. Without my amendment I am afraid we are not doing all that we can to protect American taxpayers from special breaks for the wealthy and well-connected. Let us send a powerful message to the American people today. Let us show them that the days of corporate influence, the days where rich people can pick the pockets of the Federal Treasury are over. Let us make it a little more difficult for the wealthy to get more than their fair share. In conclusion, I appeal to my colleagues who support the bill before us to adopt this amendment. It strengthens the underlying legislation. This amendment would help reduce the budget deficit. My amendment could save billions in taxpayer money. So please, before Members vote, think about the budgetary consequences of what I am proposing, and at the time that we do vote I am asking my colleagues for an ``aye'' vote. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, in 1965 the Office of Economic Opportunity launched Project Head Start to help break the cycle of poverty. It provided pre-school children of low-income families with a comprehensive program to meet their emotional, social, health, nutritional, and psychological needs. In 1969, Head Start became a permanent program within the Administration on Children, Youth and Families at the Department of Health and Human Services. Since its beginning, Head Start has served over 13.1 million children and their families, representing all races, classes, and regions of this country. After nearly 30 years, Head Start is being recognized by educators, child development specialists, community leaders, and parents across the Nation as the most successful publicly funded children's program there is. However, this program is now in jeopardy--it could be cut--it could even be eliminated. The Republican Contract With America proposes to take Head Start out of the hands of local communities and make it a function of State child care block grants. This would be disastrous. First of all, Head Start is not a child care program. Head Start is a comprehensive family-focused developmental program that addresses child and family needs. Head Start puts a premium on parent involvement by encouraging parents to participate in important program decisions. Head Start staff are members of the communities they serve, many are former Head Start parents. Program decisions are based on community needs, as defined by the community. Block granting Head Start would undo local control of addressing unique community needs. At a time when so much emphasis is placed on personal and family responsibility, it is more important than ever to have a program that is family-oriented. By lumping Head Start with other children's programs, the focus on families will be lost and important elements such as parenting skills, male involvement, literacy, and employment skills would be compromised. Mr. Speaker, I have received numerous letters from concerned parents and educators urging this Congress not to destroy the Head Start Program. Many parents have shared their personal experiences with me. They tell how Head Start has helped their families, how they have learned to be advocates for their children. Many of these parents started out as volunteers with their local Head Start Programs and went on to become permanent employees. I think these are the stories that we need to hear. Head Start must remain in the hands of local communities to ensure that important program elements are maintained. Head Start makes it possible for millions of children to look forward to a better future. To change the program now will close the door of opportunity on millions of children yet to step through a Head Start classroom door. Head Start is an investment in the human potential of children-- children who often fall behind in their first years of school and find their troubles compounded in later years. These children belong to all of us; they are the children of the Nation. We must preserve Head Start as a Federal to local program. We can no longer afford to sit back and hope that logic and sense of what is right will prevail. We need a national mobilization around Head Start, a coming together of parents, educators, community leaders, and public officials. A national mobilization that will transcend the traditional political process. Together we can make a difference. Let's not turn our backs on our children.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker and Members, I am worried about this Congress, and the American people had better pay attention. This Congress is rushing to pass a constitutional amendment to balance the budget, and most people do not have any idea how their lives are going to be impacted by this vote. Did you understand the words of the Members who came before me when they talked about Social Security and the fact that it could be on the chopping block? But let us not dwell on that, as bad as that could be. I want to talk about a children's program today. I want to talk about Head Start, that program which has proven to be an excellent program, that gives little children a head start, that gets them involved with education, that helps introduce them to books, that builds self-esteem. It is in rural communities. It is in urban communities. It is for the working class. This is a program that could be cut, that could be eliminated. American people, get involved and understand what is about to happen.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, this morning I awakened to a national news report that a Republican chairman of a major committee has threatened the President of the United States of America. That chairman, Chairman Leach, threatened that Republicans will withdraw their support for the bipartisan provision to bail out the peso in Mexico if Democratic Members do not stop criticizing the Speaker. No Member is beyond criticism. No Member should be placed in a special position where we cannot unveil to the American public what we think is going on. The truth must be unveiled. Instead of threatening us, we need an independent investigation.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to offer the amendment I have at the desk.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I say to the American people I would like them to pay attention, watch closely. I have an amendment to offer now but I cannot. Republicans ran saying they wanted to open up the congressional process. Now they are in charge, but look what has happened. Today we have no chance to offer our proposals to change House rules. If Republicans believe it is fair to require a three-fifths majority to raise taxes, why can I not offer an amendment to require the same majority in order to protect Social Security? I am ready to offer it today, but I cannot. The Republicans will not allow this debate today. If the American people voted for change, I am not sure that is what they are getting. This type of reform is not what the people had in mind last November, Mr. Speaker. I would like to protect seniors, many of whom live in fear of losing their only income source. If Republicans want to use the rules to further their political ends, we Democrats would like to use that means to protect senior citizens.

Ms. WATERS. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk in this section. This is a section that increases the vote requirement for raising taxes from a simple majority to a three-fifths majority. I wish to protect Social Security from being cut by a simple majority. Why can I not add this amendment at this time?