Dick Gephardt

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I rise before my colleagues today to pay tribute to Fred J. Mishow on his 75th birthday. Fred fled his native Germany to escape Nazi tyranny in 1937. He began a distinguished career in the military during the years 1942-46, which earned him three Battle Stars and the Philippine Presidential Citation. Fred's tour in the South Pacific theater of war instilled in him the qualities of leadership that have served him well in civilian life. Fred has been active in democratic politics on the city, county, and State levels. He served as precinct captain in Hadley Township for 35 years. He also served as Sergeant-at-Arms at the 1968, 1972, and 1992 Missouri State democratic conventions. In addition to these achievements, Fred earned the Thomas F. Eagleton Grass Roots Man of the Year Award in 1990. Fred has unselfishly given his time and talents to our community. In addition to his political activities he has worked hard in various religious and civic organizations. I am proud to call Fred Mishow my friend, and I commend the service he has given to the St. Louis area, the State of Missouri, and the United States of America.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to implore my colleagues to defeat this rule, to defeat this short-sighted, mean-spirited package of cuts that are aimed right at the young people of this country. Mr. Speaker, let us understand why the Republicans are proposing these deep and dangerous cuts. It is not to balance the budget. It is to pay for a tax cut that gives nearly 80 percent of the benefits to people who earn $100,000 a year or more. Each and every Member of this House has to look deep inside themselves and ask a profoundly human question, a profoundly moral question: What are We should be fighting for young people, like Rusha Singleton of Baltimore. She was here yesterday in the building in a press conference. She talked about dropping out of school at age 16 when her first child was born. She was determined to do everything she could to stay off welfare. She did not have an education, she did not have skills to earn a decent wage. She was forced onto welfare. She became pregnant again. But through the Summer Youth Employment Program she was able to pay the bills while she studied for her high school diploma. She learned clerical skills, she took her high school equivalency test this Saturday. And soon she is going to get a positive result and she will be able to support her children and hold her head up high as a productive citizen of this society. Without that program, she would still be in Baltimore stuck in welfare, stuck in a cycle of lack of hope. Then there is Damon Davis of Baltimore. He comes from a single-parent household. He had to drop out of high school and take a low wage job to support his family. Again, without the Summer Youth Program he would have never had the opportunity to develop real skills and find a higher paying job. Now he is about to get his diploma and be on the road to a future as a productive citizen in this society. Mr. Speaker, this bill is about a very clear principle and idea. Do you want to invest your money in the people of this country? Do you want people to be productive citizens, and by saying that is our moral conscience, do we want to put that money in that investment in those people? Or do we want to take it from them and give it to the wealthiest, most privileged people in this society? Is that what we want to do? I do not think that is what we should do. The people who are at the top who have done well, and God love them, we need them. Everybody lives the American dream and wants to become wealthy, and everybody I hope can become wealthy. But once you have reached that status, do we need to help them again at the expense of the people who are trying to crawl out of poverty? This bill is wrong. It is morally wrong, and I urge Members to vote against this rule and to vote against this bill. Stand up for the Americans that are out there trying to pull themselves out of poverty and be productive citizens. They are the people we should be fighting for, not the people who have done well, who frankly do not even want this tax cut, but want to make an investment in the poor and the middle class citizens of our country.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Chairman, this week, House Republicans are pushing for cuts in many of our most crucial commitments to children, the elderly, pregnant women, and veterans, largely to pay for a capital gains tax cut that benefits those at the very top of the economic ladder. I believe these cuts are a grave mistake, because they punish those who are truly in need to help those who have few needs at all. But there is one proposed cut that truly strikes at every single American, and that is the wrong-headed proposal to slash funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting--wounding public television and radio out of sheer partisan enmity. Public television and radio perform a crucial public service, because they bring extremely high-quality, educational and informational programming into the homes of countless millions of Americans. These programs help young children to learn and to grow, and offer thought- provoking analyses of the world around us--programs that enrigh the minds and enhance the debate of the country at listener--as are so many Americans. Perhaps that is why I have been flooded with letters from the people of St. Louis, beseeching me to defend the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and especially KWMU and KETC, from these draconian cuts. Educators, psychologists, doctors, parents, and teachers, concerned community members from the 3rd Congressional District have all joined together in this cause. They know that public television and radio offer a depth and perspective that commercial outlets simply do not and cannot. In the most fundamental sense, the airwaves belong to the American people. A handful of partisan Republicans may not like P.B.S., but the vast majority of American families do. I urge my colleagues to defeat any and all efforts to weaken this cultural source of thought, opinion, and entertainment in America.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, for weeks now, Americans have watched in astonishment as House Republicans have voted to ravage our most basic commitments to hard-working families: School lunch for children who would literally go hungry without it; heating assistance for frail elderly who would literally freeze to death without it; a program of food and nutrition for pregnant women that saves more than three times what it costs. Yesterday, the Republican leadership added outrage to injury, by rolling out the reason behind these budget-shredding atrocities: A capital gains tax cut that is a boon for the privileged, but a bust for working people. The most affluent Americans do not need a tax cut. That is why Democrats are fighting to give a tax break to the middle-class families who have seen their standard of living slide for the past 16 years. According to the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation, the Republican tax cut would give $8,000 to those earning more than $200,000 a year--but only a meager $92 to those earning $30,000 a year. That would be bad public policy on any day, in any debate. But because it is funded by taking food from the mouths of children and heat from the homes of senior citizens, this tax giveaway is an affront to fundamental fairness and decency. Mr. Speaker, if there was ever any doubt, there is no doubt today: Elections have consequences. And with this latest assault on working America, the Republican Party is sending a powerful message: For the privileged few, the real party is just about to begin.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Madam Speaker, I rise today to call my colleagues' attention to an important finding in last week's issue of Business Week. I am speaking of an economic reality which may be new to the business press in the United States--but has been plaguing millions of hard- working middle-class families for more than 16 years. The simple fact is corporate profits are surging, but the working people who stand behind those profits are seeing their incomes fall. That is why Business Week concluded in an editorial, and I quote, The middle class has shouldered much of the pain * * * that has made Corporate America so productive and competitive in global markets. Now is the time for the middle class to share in the fruits of higher productivity. When you look at the facts, it is clear that we are in the midst of a powerful business boom. Business Week reports that, despite the Federal Reserve's efforts to halt our economy, corporate profits among 900 leading companies grew by an astonishing 71 percent in the fourth quarter of 1994. Profits grew by a whopping 41 percent for all of 1994, the biggest increase since Business Week began keeping these statistics back in 1973. But while business has never been better, for middle-income families, the economic crunch continues. Business Week reports that American household wealth has actually fallen by about half of 1 percent--only the eighth time it has dropped in 30 years. This is something to which attention must be paid, especially by those who talk about family values. Look at what is happening to the families that have given up every minute of family time while parents work two, three, even four jobs. How can you build a strong family when you are working day and night just to pay the bills? When I was growing up in the 1950's, America brought a higher standard of living to a growing number of our people. As profits flourished, the people behind those profits saw their real wages rise. But today, working people cannot even expect to share in the fruits of their own labor. The statistics are as plain as day. From 1947 to 1973, American workers gave their companies an almost 90 percent increase in productivity, and in return, their real wages increased by nearly 99 percent. They got as much as they gave. But from 1973 to 1982, workers got only half as much of an increase in real wages as they gave in new productivity. And from 1982 through last year, they got only a third as much as they gave in real productivity. For Democrats, the single, simple, fundamental task of our party--in this Congress, in this decade, in this generation--is to fight for the standard of living of working families and the middle class. We must heed the words of Business Week, and help the middle class to share in the profits and fruits of higher productivity. That means that we must question a boom in which Wall Street is strong, but Main Street is still weak. It means we must challenge an economy in which the Dow Jones keeps rising through the roof, but family fortunes keep falling through the floor. And it means that the American people have to decide which political party is willing to stand up and fight for them--and which political party is standing in their way. Democrats believe in a substantial minimum wage increase--because you cannot support a strong economy, let alone your own family, on $8,500 a year. People ought to be paid more if they are working than if they are on welfare, and too often, we know that is not the case today. Republicans not only oppose a minimum wage increase, House Republican Leader Dick Armey wants to abolish the minimum wage altogether. I ask Mr. Armey or those who agree with him, could you raise a family on $8,500 a year? Democrats believe that a capital gains tax cut is not the first priority, that we need a middle-class tax cut, to build up the community of consumers who buy America's products. Republicans not only oppose a middle-class tax cut, they want to give that tax break to the wealthiest investors, forcing deep cuts in the programs working Americans need most; school lunches for children, food stamps, Social Security, Medicare. Democrats believes that globalization of our economy should not mean the pauperization of our middle class. It should not mean throwing our workers into roller-coaster competition with third- world workers who earn as little as a dollar a day. And it does not have to mean that, if we change the way we do business, both home and abroad. We need a new economic internationalism, to bring the third world into the global economy, without submerging developed nations into the third world, to lift them up, without dragging ourselves down. We need a new economic nationalism. Not an effort to isolate ourselves, but a commitment by business, labor, and government to hard- working, middle class families here at home. We need a commitment to the notion of ``Pay for Performance''-- ensuring that productivity, quality, and creativity profit the people who are actually providing it. A powerful study by Laura Tyson and David Levine shows that if you reward workers' good results, you get even more progress. In the coming months, I will offer legislation to encourage companies to embrace such financial fairness. Republicans, on the other hand, actually like the rampant globalization of environmental standards, and lower labor standards as a problem; they see them as the solution. We have seen the results in these past 16 years: people suffer, even as profits soar. Business Week's findings are powerful proof of the challenge we face: raising the standard of living for working families and the middle class. And I think it is clear that this goal could not be farther from the Republican agenda. Just read the Contract. There is not so much as a nod or wink about real jobs or opportunities. So it is up to the Members of my party--the Democratic Party--to devise real solutions to this very real national crisis.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Further inquiring, could the gentleman confirm on the longer term schedule, does the gentleman expect the term limits and rescissions bill to come to the floor the following week, March 13?

Mr. GEPHARDT. I take it, then, that welfare reform and spending cuts and the tax bill would come in the weeks after that?

Mr. GEPHARDT. Amendments are due to the Committee on Rules this afternoon by 3 p.m. I was just wondering if it was expected that all amendments submitted will be made in order. But it is my understanding they have to be presented by 3.

Mr. GEPHARDT. Would the gentleman be able to tell us what he expects the rule to be providing for consideration of the product liability caps bill?

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I ask for 1 minute in order to inquire of the distinguished majority leader about the schedule.

Mr. GEPHARDT. I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.

Mr. GEPHARDT. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. GEPHARDT. If the gentleman would just answer one more question of mine, the distinguished majority leader and I have had a conversation before about Members being able to depend upon getting out of here for the Easter recess on or about April 7 or no later than April 8, which is the Saturday before Palm Sunday. I take it we are still on a schedule that would give Members some certainty that they could make plans for after that date?

Mr. GEPHARDT. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. GEPHARDT. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer].

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, for 2 months now, this Congress has been held hostage by the extremist trickle-down manifesto known as the Contract With America. Democrats have been saying all along that the American people do not need this contract. What they need are good jobs at good wages, more police to fight the scourge of violent crime, and access to affordable health care. Republican pollsters who wrote the contract thought they knew better, but a New York Times poll published today makes it perfectly clear. If the Republicans really want to follow the will of the people, it is time to go back to the drawing board. First of all, more than half of all Americans have not even heard of the contract. So much for the Republican mandate. And on issue after issue, we find a wholesale rejection of the contract's extremist planks. Americans overwhelmingly want the Federal commitment to 100,000 cops on the beat that the Republicans voted down. Americans overwhelmingly oppose a balanced budget amendment that puts Social Security on the chopping block as the contract does. Americans overwhelmingly oppose welfare reform that is tough on children but weak on work. I suppose that is the problem with the Republican politics-of-opinion polls. When you live by the poll, you also die by the poll. Based on today's poll results, I would offer these final words on the Contract With America: May it rest in peace, and now let us get down to the real business of the American people.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. I want to ask a couple of other questions, and we will have an answer to that question in just a moment. Can the gentleman tell us when the resolution regarding the Mexico bailout situation will be brought up? Is it fair to say members would be given 24 hours' notice prior to its consideration?

Mr. GEPHARDT. Exactly. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. GEPHARDT. I thank the gentleman. I have no further questions. We will be getting an answer on this possible unanimous consent request on the rule on Monday. As soon as we have an answer, we will try to make that request if we can.

Mr. GEPHARDT. I thank the gentleman. Finally, can the gentleman tell at this point when the tax reduction bill along with the budget cuts to pay for it might be coming onto the floor? Generally. I know you do not know the exact date but just the general time.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. That is correct.

Mr. GEPHARDT. I made the unanimous-consent request with the express purpose of making sure we did not have a vote until after 5 o'clock.

Mr. GEPHARDT. That is correct.

Mr. GEPHARDT. If the gentleman will yield, I would like to make a short statement and perhaps ask a question. The point I would like to ask is: With this unanimous-consent request, I assume we have accomplished not having a vote until at least 5 o'clock? Is that correct?

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the House may proceed to general debate in the Committee of the Whole as though under House Resolution 96 during any postponement of proceedings on that resolution pursuant to clause 5 of rule I.