[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 2 (Thursday, January 5, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H139-H141]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


             A CRITICAL REVIEW OF FAIRNESS ON THE FIRST DAY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. (Mr Hefley). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 4, 1995, the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Volkmer] is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the Minority Leader.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Speaker, for the general public and for all Members 
of the House, 435 of them, that were here--there may have been one or 
two absent--yesterday was a historic day. And it is kind of a humbling 
experience, even for myself--this was the tenth time I was sworn in-- 
to realize that you are 1 of the 435 among all the people of the United 
States to be here and to be in this body and to assume the 
responsibilities of the office, to do everything you can to benefit not 
only your district and your State but the country, and do it well. 
Then, as a result, when you come to the Congress and after you are 
sworn in, you find that you are going to take up some changes in the 
rules, and when you review those, you find that you agree with a good 
many of them, and there are some that you yourself had generally agreed 
with, that we could reduce the size of our staffs here in the 
Congress--we have done that before--and we could reduce the size of our 
committees.
  The last time we were in the Congress, we eliminated four select 
committees and we reduced the number of subcommittees. This is a 
continuation of that, and we agree that those things should be done.
  But when you read the proposal that comes from the majority and from 
the gentleman who just preceded me in the special order, the gentleman 
from New York, for whom I have a great deal of respect, you find that 
for the first time--and it has been 18 years--for the first time you 
find that you have a substantive bill that is going to be brought up on 
the same day, and in that proposed rule change you find that it is a 
closed rule, that this bill, the Accountability Act or the compliance 
bill that makes the legislative branch of Government subject to those 
laws that all of our private businesses and industries and States, et 
cetera, are required to comply with. Then you find as to that bill, 
which is a very substantive bill, no amendments will be permitted to 
that bill.
  I would like to read the language of that to everyone, because I know 
the people out there and, as is obvious to me, many Members of this 
body had not had the opportunity or at least had not taken the 
opportunity to review that language. This is what it says:

       It shall be in order at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution to consider in the House, any rule of the House to 
     the contrary notwithstanding, the bill (H.R. 1) to make 
     certain laws applicable to the legislative branch of the 
     Federal Government, if offered by the majority leader or a 
     designee. The bill shall be debatable for not to exceed one 
     hour, to be equally divided and controlled by the 
     [[Page H140]] majority leader and the minority leader or 
     their designees. This previous question shall be considered 
     as ordered on the bill to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit.

  Mr. Speaker, what that language I just read meant is that when this 
large, very important, very substantive bill was brought up, we in the 
minority were given 30 minutes to talk about it. But we were not given 
one opportunity, not one opportunity to change one word in this bill.
  How, the majority has made a big to-do about this fact that they have 
given openness to this body and given fairness to this body. What is so 
fair to the 204 Members of the minority that not a one of them can 
offer 1 amendment to this bill?

                              {time}  1130

  I do not believe that that is very fair at all. In fact, I say that 
goes back to previous years in this House when we had what we call just 
strictly gag rules.
  Every Member of this body, whether Republican or Democrat, comes here 
with ideas, because that is what government is all about. Whether it is 
your Declaration of Independence or the Constitution, whether it is all 
the laws of this land, at one time they were nothing more than an idea 
in someone's mind. And that idea was promoted by that person and 
finally was accepted through everybody, and they were put down in 
writing. Back when this country was founded, they took a pen and they 
wrote it down, and that went from there to printing presses, 
typewriters, and now we use the computers. But it all starts with an 
idea in the head.
  Yet, when this bill was taken up early this morning, there was not 
one idea from a Democratic Member permitted to even be decided by the 
Members of this body.
  I call on the new Speaker and my good friend the chairman of the 
Committee on Rules to ensure that in
 the subsequent days of this session and next session of this Congress 
that that not happen again. Because what it really means, and when he 
had these special orders I brought out to him, unless they are willing 
to bring another bill up with all the legislation that is going to be 
on the agenda, I do not anticipate that will occur.

  That means that when this bill finally reaches the desk of the 
President of the United States, and it will because it is good 
legislation, that not one Member of the Democratic Party, not one 
Member of this minority, has had an idea incorporated in here that they 
would have liked to have seen included in this legislation. We will not 
have that opportunity.
  Another thing that was not done that I think is very important in all 
the rules changes that were made, and most of them, except for one, as 
far as I am concerned, most of them were very beneficial to this body, 
but that does not mean that you cannot do a little better. And we could 
have done better.
  You know, folks, one of the biggest problems in this body, and I have 
seen it and watched it and observed it since I have been here, is the 
influence of special interests over this body. If you went around in 
the halls and in the areas of this Capitol and the office buildings, 
even yesterday you would have seen the lobbyists around. I am sure that 
many Members had their dinner purchased yesterday. I am sure that 
within this nice winter day that we have here, that there are lobbyists 
proposing to take Members to nice trips and vacations, to nice warm 
climates, play some rounds of golf, pay the hotel bill and all that 
Member has to do is make a little talk.
  There is nothing in this rules change that prohibits that whatsoever. 
Many of us feel that if we are to really clean up the House of 
Representatives, that we need to prohibit the influence of those 
special interests on this body. That legislation like lobbying reform, 
that at that time the majority party, the Democratic Party, last year 
passed overwhelmingly and sent to the Senate, where it was filibustered 
by the Senator from Kansas and others, where it was killed, we need 
that legislation. Yet that legislation, those rules changes, that would 
have prohibited these Members from taking these meals, from taking 
these trips, from taking the vacations, is not in here at all.
  There is nothing in our rules today, nothing in the law. While we 
have people out in my district and all over this land freezing because 
they are too cold, because they cannot pay their heating bills, there 
is nothing in our rules that says that we cannot have Members going off 
to Jamaica, to the Virgin Islands, to the warm climates of Florida, 
Arizona, all paid by lobbyists at their expense, air fair, vacation. 
You want to go fishing out in the deep sea, we will pay for that. There 
is nothing in here that is going to prohibit that.
  We need that. Yet yesterday, when the minority in their committal 
resolution offered to have that incorporated in our rules that would 
have prohibited that, the majority refused and voted overwhelmingly 
against that.
  So I wonder how many of those, instead of being here with you and I 
today, are now being prepared to spend this nice weekend in a nice warm 
climate somewhere with some lobbyists, because they sure did not want 
that legislation yesterday to become part of the rules, because if it 
became part of the rules, they could not, would not be able to do it. I 
wonder how many in this next week, when we are not going to be working 
here, folks. You are not going to see anybody else on this floor. There 
is not going to be any more work this week, there will not be anything 
done next week. How many of them that voted against including lobby 
reform, gifts by special interests, vacations, and golf trips and what 
have you, how many of them are off on those trips in this next 10 days?
  I am very disappointed that the majority has not--has not--included 
lobbying reform, has not included prohibiting those trips, those gifts, 
et cetera, in this legislation, and in fact strongly opposed it 
yesterday, spoke against it, and actually voted against it.
  I think that I as a member, and as the general public, we should let 
the majority know in this body that you no longer feel that the 
lobbyists should have control of this body, that the lobbyists should 
be prohibited from giving gifts and vacations, et cetera, to Members of 
the House of Representatives.
                              {time}  1140

  The last thing in this rule that I would like to address is a matter 
that I opposed, and other Members opposed. That is that the provision--
I would like to read it, because it was obvious to me yesterday during 
the debate on this limitation on tax increases that they had not read 
the proposed rule change.
  As I listened to the Members from this side of the aisle, the 
majority, espousing the three-fifths requirement repeatedly, over and 
over, they said that ``We are not going to have tax increases anymore, 
because this rule says that you have to have a three-fifths vote 
required for tax increases, especially income tax increases.'' I say 
they have not read it, because it does not say that.
  I would like to read it: ``No bill or joint resolution, amendment, or 
conference report carrying a Federal income tax''--and here is the key 
word, folks, and every one of them left it out, every one of them that 
spoke. I say you take that Congressional Record of yesterday when it 
comes out and you can read it. Not a one of them mentions it, the word 
``rate.'' It is only the income tax rate increase shall be considered, 
unless by not less than three-fifths of the Members voting.
  What does that mean? The rates on income tax only take up about two 
pages of the total Revenue Code of well over 1500 pages. That means you 
can change all the rest of the Revenue Code for income tax on a 
majority vote, not a three-fifths. You can deny everyone an exemption. 
What that means is if you have a husband, wife, and four children that 
are dependent, all of a sudden your taxable income just went up by 
about $15,000. That is a majority vote, that is not three-fifths.
  As far as the average wage earner buying a house out there, it has a 
mortgage on it, now he takes a deduction on his income tax for that 
interest that he pays. Well, they can remove that if they wish to do 
so. They can remove your deduction for the taxes you pay, for the State 
taxes and property taxes you pay on that house by a majority vote, not 
three-fifths. I will 
[[Page H141]] guarantee you, your taxes are going to go up.
  What it means basically, this means, if you read it, it is a tax 
rate. What tax rate are we talking about? The top tax rate. That is 39 
percent. Who does that apply to? That only applies to people making 
over $200,000. Those are the ones they are protecting. Those are the 
three-fifths that they have to vote on.
  If you want to put it on the top people you have to do three-fifths, 
but if you want to put it on the little guy, if you want to put it on 
the middle income, you do not have to do that. You can do it by 
majority vote. Of, if you would rather, according to their rules, if 
you would rather change our whole tax system and go to the value added 
tax, the VAT, and really put it to the lower- and middle-income people, 
because that is what a VAT does, it really does, that is a majority 
vote. That is not three-fifths.
  So when they say that we are going to require a three-fifths vote for 
tax increases, that is not right, folks. It is not even right for 
income tax. It is only the rate. That is what exactly it says. It says 
``Federal income tax rate increase.'' It does not say ``a Federal 
income tax increase,'' it says ``a Federal income tax rate increase.''
  So this Congress will not take a three-fifths vote. I question the 
constitutionality of it, as others did during the debate, but folks, 
that is the top rate. It is only the wealthy. If you want to increase 
their taxes, you have got to do a three-fifths, but if you want to 
increase the tax on the lower or middle income, you can do it by a 
majority.
  That is what the Republican Party says. That is the new rule. That is 
the way they say they are going to protect those people.
  Who are those people? You ought to look at their Federal election 
returns that they filed and see who gives them the money. You ought to 
take a look at the people who do the lobbying up here in Washington, 
DC, and take the Members for the trips. They are those people that have 
that high tax rate, so we are kind of giving them a guarantee with this 
rule that we are not going to touch them, and in return, maybe you just 
take some Members for a trip now and then, so everybody--the Member, he 
gets a trip, he gets some meals, he gets some freebies, and the 
lobbyist is not going to have his taxes increased. He is going to save 
a bunch of money.
  That is basically a part of this rule that was done yesterday. What 
really amazed me during that whole debate, during that whole 20 minutes 
from this side when they discussed it, not once, not one Member, not 
even the Member from Pennsylvania, who was handling that section of the 
rule change, ever mentioned that it was only for income tax rate 
increase that we were requiring a three-fifths.
  They kept saying it was on income tax raises, that you could not 
raise the income tax except for three-fifths. That is not right. That 
is not correct. They can raise the taxes on middle and low income with 
a majority vote. It just means that you do not raise on higher income, 
except by three-fifths.

                          ____________________