Luis Gutiérrez

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I have listened to some interesting discussion and debate here this afternoon about the justice of the tax system. I even heard one comment from the majority side that suggested that Federal income taxes have risen 25 percent over the last 4 years. I do not know who is doing the Members' taxes on that side of the aisle, but I assure them that it is not 25 percent. As Members of Congress, I think we should be serious about our discussion and our debate and not try to inflate figures or make up figures as we have a debate here. We have each earned the same salary for the last 4 years, or we have reported that same salary for the last 4 years. It has been $133,000. If Members have had the same children and the same home and the same exemptions, I do not see how Members paid 25 percent more in Federal income taxes. I would suggest that they check their accountants, and not blame it on the tax system. It just is not real. It is not happening. Mr. Speaker, I ask the American public, pull out your income taxes. If you have had the same number of children, lived in the same home, and have had basically the same salary, see if you got a 25-percent increase in Federal income taxes over the last 4 years. You can go and check. You should have the records, because the IRS does require us to keep them for the last 7 years. That is point No. 1. Point No. 2, but we see the demagoguery in many of these issues, because today is tax day. I just want to talk about a few people who not only play by the rules but pay by the rules. Much has been said. A recent CRS study says that 85 percent of those that are not citizens of the United States but are here legally in this country, guess what they did today, 85 percent of them? They filed Federal income taxes and paid them today. Moreover, you say, oh, but what about those who were born in this country? They are definitely more true blue and pay more Federal income taxes than those immigrants that came? Wrong, by 1 percent; 1 percent higher, those who were born in the United States to those who come here as immigrants, in terms of those who will file Federal income tax returns today. That is the CRS study that was just issued. No. 3, what was interesting was those today who filed a Federal income tax return, on average, if you have in your family somebody that was born not in the United States of America but became a naturalized citizen of the United States of America, he reported, on average, guess what, $5,000 more in earnings than the person that was born in the United States of America, on average, without an immigrant. It sounds to me like pretty good politics, to have somebody who comes to this country, contributes and works, and becomes an American citizen, to talk about immigrants being this drain on the economy. Last, I would like to suggest to everybody, the same study, guess what: Immigrants to the United States of America, that is, those that are here legally, under color of law, pay $70 billion. Yes, that is right, they pay $70 billion in taxes. Yet, they use $13 billion in that terrible, nasty welfare system. Sounds like a real good deal to me. Let us stop the demagoguery. Let us get on with the truth.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, the Republicans have announced that America can expect their budget plan in May. I hope they mean May 1997. I should be concerned. That is 1 month after the legal deadline for submitting a budget. But I want to be positive so I will assume this delay is caused by tireless Republican efforts to craft a budget that restores programs taken away from law- abiding legal immigrants. I will assume Republicans are crunching numbers and saying, ``How can we restore critical benefits to our needy seniors, our blind and disabled, to mothers and their children? How can we treat our legal immigrant population with decency and fairness?'' That ``should'' be the reason for the delay, because legal immigrants deserve better than this Congress has given them. Immigrants work hard. The fact is they pay far more in taxes than they receive in benefits. They play by the rules. They are in our Nation legally, contributing their energy, hopes, and dreams to our Nation. May is a long time from now. It should be long enough for my Republican friends to learn to treat legal immigrants with the same respect legal immigrants give to America.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, refresh my memory. Was not a big part of Newt Gingrich's so-called Contract With America personal responsibility? Well, Newt, here is your chance. After 2 years of distortions, distractions and delays, you can finally show some personal responsibility. The ethics committee has directed the special counsel to expand his investigation of you, to determine, in part, whether you failed to-- quote--``provide accurate, reliable and complete information'' to him. It is all about personal responsibility. You like to preach to legal immigrants about it. You like to preach to low-income Americans about it. You like to preach to vulnerable mothers and children about it. Now it is time for you to show some personal responsibility of your own. Since reasons to expand this investigation have been found, you should step down. Newt, you are fond of saying that you are a revolutionary. Why do you not show a revolutionary change in your behavior? Have enough decency to do what you screamed that Jim Wright should do 8 years ago--stop the embarrassment to this institution, stop the embarrassment to this country--step aside as Speaker of the House.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, people are talking behind your back. They say that you Republicans are not a unified party. That you're running away from the top of your ticket. But, I think you are united behind Bob Dole. Just look at the way that your hand-picked Ethics Committee is hiding the truth about the Gingrich scandals. It's a page right out of the Bob Dole playbook. Look at the similarities. Bob Dole won't tell us the truth about his tax-cut plan--and the Ethics Committee won't tell us the truth about Newt's tax-return scam. In San Diego, Bob Dole tried to write a platform saying that the GOP is a ``tolerant'' party. He's right. Just look at the Ethics Committee. They'll ``tolerate'' anything that Newt Gingrich does. Dole wants to build a bridge to the past. So does the Ethics Committee--back to the days when Congress conducted its business in the dark, out of the public eye. Speaker Gingrich, you might as well exercise some power and call on the Ethics Committee to release its report on your ethics scandals. After all, once the elections are over, you might not have any power left to exercise.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, for generations immigrants have played a vital role in our economy, but today immigrants play the role of villain in the Republican's morality play. By exploiting a false image of millions of illegal immigrants crossing the border into the United States, Newt Gingrich and his Republican allies have crossed the border from decency to indecency. After all, under this bill the simple idea of uniting with your closest family members will become a luxury that only the wealthiest will be able to afford. The Republicans say they want to get tough on crime, so how do they do that? Under this bill legal immigrants are deportable for the crime of wanting to improve their education to adding something to this country. That is right, under this bill if you are a legal immigrant and you use public benefits, including a student loan for more than a year, you are shown the door. What does that accomplish? It means that we throw our young people who are taking steps to gain an education and job skills and, yes, improve their English skills also. It means that this bill does not simply punish immigrants, it punishes all Americans who benefit from contributions that immigrants make to our Nation. Let us defeat this sad, cynical, and shortsighted legislation.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor our friend and ally, Ukraine, as it heads into its sixth year of self-rule. On August 23, the people of Kiev (Kyiv) and their countrymen throughout Ukraine celebrated independence with parades and festivals. They were joined by thousands of Americans and Canadians of Ukrainian descent, from Chicago to Calgary, who expressed their unyielding support for their ancestral homeland and the hope that democracy and freedom will continue to prosper there. On this fifth anniversary of Ukrainian independence, I believe the Ukrainian people have much to celebrate. While Ukraine is still adjusting from economic centralization and control to a more liberalized market system, economic growth has been gradually improving. Democratic institutions and traditions are slowly taking root in this land. The critics who predicated the collapse of the Ukrainian economy in the early 1990's and a return to authoritarian rule and a centrally controlled economy, have been proven wrong. This alone is reason to celebrate, for surmounting the numerous obstacles faced by the Ukrainian people in the first year of their independence was no easy task. I believe that the United States must maintain its strong financial commitment to aid Ukraine in its continued transition to a market-based economy. We must assist the people of Ukraine in shutting down the Chernobyl nuclear plant and other similarly constructed plants. We should also aid Ukraine in the development of alternative energy sources by the end of the decade. In addition, I feel strongly that we must continue to work with Ukrainian President Leonid Kuchma, who has advocated for greater market reforms, respect for human rights and the expansion of civil freedoms on a par with Western standards. Ukraine's participation in the Partnership for Peace [PFP] and the peacekeeping mission in Bosnia are also evidence of the commitment of President Kuchma and the Ukrainian people to peace in Eastern Europe and alliance within the Atlantic community. So, as we commemorate 5 years of Ukrainian self-rule, let us also recognize the role the United States can play in furthering market reforms and democracy in Ukraine. I wish the people of the Ukraine and the thousands of Americans of Ukrainian descent, in particular the Ukrainian-American community in Chicago, another year of progress, prosperity and friendship.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, despite the red hot rhetoric of those who are trying to score cheap political points, the truth is this. Diversity does not divide our Nation. Bilingualism does not burden our bureaucracy. Using Spanish or Polish or German to contact a constituent, collect taxes or cast a ballot does not lead to confusion. It enhances communication. It adds color and clarity and dignity to our ideas. That brings us closer together. English-only laws disenfranchise Americans who pay taxes, play by the rules and send their children off to war. Speaker Newt Gingrich often says that words have power. Therefore, by the Speaker's own logic, if you deny specific groups of Americans the ability to use words that are part of their culture, you strip them of their power. Poll taxes and literacy taxes which once stripped African- Americans of their God-given rights have now been reborn, renamed and retargeted to strike at other minority groups. English only is the Jim Crow of the 1990's. Americans of all backgrounds are its victim. Latinos are certainly its primary targets but English-only is also a threat to Polish and Italian Americans, to Chinese and Ukrainian Americans. In fact, Mr. Chairman, English only is a threat to America itself. It represents a rejection of America's past. There was a time when immigrants were once called upon to create a culture, not just to conform to it. English only strips America of its future as well. After all, what awaits us if we deny certain voters a role in their government, if we deny certain students the chance to learn? We deny them the chance to pursue their potential and contribute to America. We deny America of its hope. Mr. Chairman, the United States did not achieve greatness because we all speak with one voice. Our country is great because we can, if we wish, speak with many voices.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, in the afternoon of Wednesday, July 10, 1996, I was unavoidably absent from this Chamber and therefore missed rollcall, vote No. 295, rollcall vote No. 296; rollcall vote No. 297 and rollcall No. 298--on final passage of the legislative branch appropriations for fiscal year 1997. I want the record to show that if I had been able to be present in this Chamber when these votes were cast, I would have voted ``no'' on both rollcall vote No. 295 and rollcall vote No. 296 and ``yea'' on rollcall votes 297 and 298.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, without question, we've heard some puzzling arguments in favor of the Defense of Marriage Act. But at least one good thing has come from this debate. I think everyone understands better when to take my Republican friends seriously and when they are just having a good laugh at the expense of the American people. I now realize that my friends on the other side of the aisle aren't the least bit serious when they talk about how important it is for the federal government not to interfere in the lives of our people. I understand that they are just kidding--just teasing us--when they stress the importance of taking power out of Washington and giving it to local officials. And now I know that their biggest joke of all is that old line about the importance of family values--all that talk about encouraging people to care about and be committed to each other. Because the bill that most of my friends on the other side of the aisle are supporting tonight represents the polar opposite of all those lofty goals we've heard them talk so much about. The misleadingly titled ``Defense of Marriage Act'' is the ultimate in Washington bureaucracy dictating to the American people how they should live their lives. And it is an outstanding example of telling state officials how they should legislate and make policy. This should be a simple issue. Unfortunately, for many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, that simple issue is politics. It's as simple as exploiting fears and promoting prejudice. But something more important than looking for a few extra votes should be simple, too. Seeking fairness. Seeking an America where, all people are treated the same under the law, in every aspect of their lives--from choosing where they live to who they marry. And one more thing should be simple. Promoting freedom. Making sure that all Americans have the freedom to live their personal lives in exactly the way they choose. Without being discriminated against. Without being stopped or harassed by a meddling federal government. Without being prevented by legislators from deciding what is best for them. I think the debate we hear tonight is the very reason so many Americans are troubled by politicians exploiting the idea of ``family values.'' I don't know many Americans--regardless of their political party, race, religion or sexual orientation--who don't believe that family values are vitally important. But I also don't know many Americans who want a couple of hundred politicians in Washington to impose their values on everyone else's families. Let me tell you about some very basic values I think we're talking about when we stand up against this bill. The values of people who love each other. People who share each other's lives. People who care about their future and the future of those around them. People who want to make a commitment that is legal and official and is important to them. To me, that sounds like family values. And all of the noise we hear on the other side of the aisle sounds like politics as usual. I encourage my colleagues in the house today--and I don't say this very often--give my Republican friends what they say they want. Real family values. And more local control. And a federal government that stays out of American's lives. There's only one way to do that. Vote to defeat the Defense of Marriage Act.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I think that the issue is a very important one and one that is not only in New Hampshire and Maine but certainly in the city of Chicago. The energy assistance program will help a lot, and I just wanted to remind my colleagues that last summer, over 500 people died during the heat wave in the city of Chicago. Over 500 people, the immense majority of them low-income poor, senior citizens who rely heavily on this program and could really use a tightening up of their windows and their doors, because one of the major reasons, of course, is how do you pay for the electricity to run the air-conditioning and the fans? Please support this for the heat in Chicago and the cold in New Hampshire.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I want to begin my remarks by making clear that I can support a break for small businesses, but I cannot support breaking the economy of Puerto Rico to do it. The supporters of this bill will give you lots of interesting rhetoric about the great breaks they want to give small businesses today. But they won't tell you the truth about what this bill means for the 3.8 million American citizens who live in Puerto Rico. We are breaking their backs. We are breaking their dreams. And, we are breaking our promise to give the Puerto Rican economy a chance to thrive. This is a simple bill. It is a bill to destroy Puerto Rico's economy. Eliminating Section 936 will cause a stampede of companies to foreign shores where they will be warmly received for the thousands of jobs they will bring. And what will this mean for the revenue we pretend to be generating by targeting Puerto Rico's jobs for elimination? Empty factories don't create profits. Empty factories don't pay taxes. Empty factories don't create jobs. Eliminating jobs is an awfully strange way to raise revenue. Yet, it's not too surprising. Not surprising that the most powerless are once again asked to pay for this Republican election-year political payoff. The people of Puerto Rico have not been asked or consulted about this critical issue. Let's be completely clear. The people of Puerto Rico overwhelmingly support Section 936. And the people of Puerto Rico have earned the right to be consulted. The names of more than 2,000 * * * 2,000 of the sons of Puerto Rico--American citizens--are inscribed on the Vietnam War Memorial Wall; 2,000. How do we recognize their supreme sacrifice? How does this Congress show that we understand the importance and contributions of the Puerto Rican people to our Nation? The majority wishes to ram through a proposal that will eviscerate the jobs of 300,000 decent, hard working Puerto Rican working people who want only to honestly earn a living for their families. Puerto Rico has a per capita income one-third the United States average, and three times its rate of unemployment. Yet we target them for economic destruction. The voices of hundreds of thousands of workers on the island ask only for fairness for their families. They ask only not to become the pawn in an election-year political game. They have paid the price, they have paid taxes, the taxes of their blood, and I demand that this Congress respect it.

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, it is not the companies we have come here to support, it is the jobs, and I think that we all, if we honestly speak about this, those corporations are going to Singapore, those corporations are going to Mexico, those corporations are going to leave Puerto Rico. What revenues do they have? Who are you going to tax when the American corporations that are in Puerto Rico precisely because of 936 go to foreign shores? Where do our colleagues get the revenue for them? It is not the corporations that I am here to defend but the 300,000 jobs that are created. Let us look at the laws that govern Puerto Rico, but we do not want to have a debate about that.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the all-Puerto Rican 65th Infantry Regiment that fought in the Korean war. The 65th regiment, nicknamed the ``the Borinqueneers'' became one of the most decorated units during the Korean conflict. One hundred twenty-five soldiers of the 65th were awarded the Silver Star and four received the Distinguished Service Cross. The heroism of the 65th brought the unit admiration and accolades from our Nation's highest-ranking military officers. The most famous and important letter came from General Douglas MacArthur. The 65th had been ordered to do reconnaissance behind the enemy front lines and relocated to the command post of the Third U.S. Infantry Division. One night the command post was attacked by more than one thousand North Korean regulars who had penetrated U.S. lines without detection. The 65th was alerted to the threat and went into action to protect vital U.S. supply lines. Their quick reaction enabled them to counter and destroy the North Korean force, thereby saving the Third Division Commander, staff and troops from being captured or killed. In response to the actions of the 65th, General MacArthur, who had rejected the 65th for combat in World War II, wrote in 1951: The Puerto Ricans forming the ranks of the gallant 65th Infantry on the battlefields of Korea by valor, determination and a resolute will to victory give daily testament to their invincible loyalty to the United States and the fervor of their devotion to those immutable standards of human relations to which Americans and Puerto Ricans are in common dedicated. They are writing a brilliant record of achievement in battle and I am proud indeed to have them in this command. I wish that we might have many more like them. Other triumphs of note for the 65th were the rescue of the First Marine Division from Hagaru-ri where the division had been surrounded by Chinese military forces. The 65th provided a safe corridor for the Marines to escape and formed the protective rear guard on their road to Hungnam. In his book, ``Puerto Rico's Fighting 65th Infantry,'' Brigadier General W.W. Harris (Ret.) writes: I have not encountered any people more dedicated and zealous in support of the democratic principles for which the United States stands. Many Puerto Ricans have fought to the death to uphold them. General Harris commanded the 65th during the Korean War. On March 29, 1996, at Puerto Rican Affirmation Day ceremonies in Washington, thousands of people gathered at the Vietnam Memorial to pay tribute to veterans of Puerto Rican heritage and in particular to the 65th Infantry that fought so courageously in the Korean war. Secretary of Veterans Affairs Jesse Brown praised the 65th, much as Generals MacArthur and Harris had in the 1950's. So today, I rise to pay tribute to these valiant soldiers for democracy and freedom and to honor their contributions to our Nation and to the people of Puerto Rico. The memory of the 65th Infantry should never be allowed to fade.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, my Republican friends love to talk about hard work. Why, from welfare to immigration, they can fit words of praise for working Americans into just about any debate. If this were a debate contest, they could win awards for all their fine rhetoric. But rhetoric will not pay the real bills of real people. Nice rhetoric might win someone a sound bite on the evening news, but it will not send any kids to college, or pay for a mortgage, or cover the doctor bills. And unfortunately, my Republican friends are much better at rhetoric than rewarding hard work. Well, I believe it is time to stop talking and start acting for the American people. It is simple. This House should say ``yes'' to a decent minimum wage for hard-working Americans. You see, they do not have time to make nice speeches about hard work, because they are too busy doing it. It is time for my colleagues to back up their empty words. Cut out the rhetoric. Instead, let us reward the hard work of the American people. Pass a livable minimum wage.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise to strongly urge my colleagues to support the amendment that I am offering today with my friends and colleagues, Mr. Frank and Mr. Hinchey. This amendment is truly very simple. And yet, as simple as this amendment is, I strongly believe that its approval is critical to Americans who depend on public housing. If this Congress has any interest in preserving its commitment to providing decent, affordable housing to Americans who need it most, passage of this amendment is a critical step. Our amendment places a cap of 30 percent of total income as the amount a public housing resident or family can spend on rent. In addition, our amendment allows local housing authorities the flexibility to allow residents to pay less than 30 percent of their income for rent. And this flexibility is critical. Because it gives local housing authorities a greater ability to reach a goal that is important to all of us who care about public housing. The ability to encourage residents of mixed incomes to live in public housing and not create a disincentive to earning more money. But without this amendment, we do nothing more than create a situation where people who need housing most will not be able to afford it. Under the current language of the bill, families in public housing will have no protection against financially debilitating rent increases. Let me be clear. This bill does not raise the income cap to 35 percent. It doesn't push the cap all the way up to 40 percent. It doesn't take the extreme step of allowing the cap to skyrocket to 50 percent of your income. This bill eliminates the cap. And that is little different from eliminating our commitment to public housing. We cannot pretend in this House to care about providing quality housing to Americans if we are completely willing to disregard whether that housing is affordable. Affordability is the heart of America's commitment to public housing. Unless the Frank-Gutierrez amendment is passed, that heart is cut out. And we abandon our commitment to providing quality public housing that the people who need it most can afford. Now, some of my colleagues might simply say, ``what rent increase? There is nothing in this bill that requires local housing authorities to raise the rent of public housing residents.'' Don't be fooled by that argument. This bill allows local housing authorities to charge whatever they feel is necessary to stay within their budgets. And what has this Congress done to the budgets of housing authorities? Well, we have just cut the operating subsidies by $100 million. By $100 million. Let me recap. We have taken away $100 million--$100 million that was essential to keeping rents affordable. And now my colleagues suggest that we should tell them that the sky is the limit on rent increases. I do not think it takes a detective to uncover where the extra money is coming from. It is going to come from the people who can least afford it. I urge my colleagues do not force this economic hardship on Americans who rely on public housing. Paying 30 percent of your income on rent is hardly a giveaway, hardly a free ride. I strongly believe that 30 percent is a fair and reasonable contribution of a family's income. Thirty percent is logical; in fact it basically follows the guidelines that lenders use in deciding how much a family can afford to spend on their mortgage. Most lenders don't want families to spend more than 28 percent of their income on their mortgage. 28 percent--for people who can afford to own their home. Yet, incredibly, this bill proposes no cap at all for people who can barely afford to make ends meet. A fundamental goal of public housing is that it gives residents an opportunity to live in safety and dignity--and ease their financial burdens. If we ask those very people to pay 32, 35, 40 percent of their income just to meet their housing expenses, the government is not easing the burden of public housing residents--it is imposing a burden on public housing residents. Instead of helping to light a path toward a better future, we are setting hurdles in the way. Let's be clear. We are talking about a population that will be affected by even a slight increase in out-of-pocket expenses for housing. Quite simply, most of the people who will be facing a rent affected by this increase do not have the money to pay for their increase. We are talking about Americans with very, very modest incomes. How modest? The average annual income of public housing tenants is $6,400-- $6,400. And this bill suggests that they somehow have the ability to pay more for rent. They do not. And yet we have created a bill that will give them very few alternatives. They will have some alternatives. Move to worse, substandard, dangerous housing. Or have no housing at all. My colleagues who support this bill are right about one thing--public housing residents deserve better than they are receiving now. They deserve a commitment to safer, better quality housing. Congress has not been very good about keeping that commitment. But they also deserve to have decent housing they can afford. This Congress should honor that commitment as well. We can honor that commitment by passing this amendment and protecting the economic security of public housing residents. I hope my colleagues will say yes to that vital commitment.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. I yield to the gentleman from Delaware.

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman from New York, I think this is an excellent measure. I just have a question. If there is a mom with three kids and one of the kids gets caught selling drugs, do the mom and the other two kids have to leave?

Mr. GUTIERREZ. I thank the gentleman very much.

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I think that, first of all, we should be ready to stay here tonight and to fight for housing for people in the United States of America. Millions of people depend on the outcome of this debate here tonight. I think it is unfortunate that we would want to change 50 years of housing policy and do it in 1 day, and to say we are all going to wrap this up here today. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to see Members on the Democratic side of the aisle beginning to fight with the Watt amendment, which I think is a cornerstone of what it is we are going to be debating here tonight and that is: What is the future? And the fact that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are even refusing to accept what seems to me to be very basically logical language, very fair language about attempting to reach as a goal that all Americans could have affordable housing, and then to turn that into an antigovernment rhetoric as though we are trying to impose Big Brother on somebody, which is totally not the case. So, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my Democratic colleagues and I suggest we continue to fight, we continue to struggle, because this is an important struggle that millions of Americans are going to depend upon. Now, Mr. Chairman, I want to read this. And of course, I was born in the United States of America and English is my first language. It is not my only language, thank God. But I read it and it says, ``It is the goal of our Nation.'' It does not say the goal of the Federal Government. It does not say the goal of the Government. ``The goal of our Nation that all citizens have decent and affordable housing.'' Mr. Chairman, it says ``goal of our Nation.'' And how does it say, and the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt] put this splendidly, and then he says, ``Our Nation should promote the goal of providing decent, affordable housing for all citizens through the efforts and encouragement of the Federal, State, and local governments and,'' listen up, because sometimes people on that side of the aisle only hear what they want to hear. Read the whole thing. It says, ``and by promoting and protecting the independent and collective actions of private citizens.'' Not the Federal Government. Private citizens. It says it right here. Maybe that is why some people on that side of the aisle want English only because they cannot read it to begin with. ``Collective actions of private citizens, organizations, and private sector to develop housing and strengthen their neighborhoods.'' That we should help, that we should be a conduit. That we should be facilitators of that goal. That is what is says here. That is what it says here. So, I do not understand the rhetoric that denounces this side of the aisle, and specifically the gentleman from North Carolina, for wanting to impose the big hand of the Federal Government, because that is just not what it says. Now, maybe there is another English language that I have not been accustomed to or acknowledged, but I think this is what this says. Mr. Chairman, let me just say, look, to say to us that we are going to give public housing authorities across this Nation hundreds of millions, billions of dollars less and say we care about those people, I think is a little disingenuous. Then, to come back and say, where our side is saying 30 percent should be the cap. Mr. Chairman, if I went to a bank, because I know that side wants us to run everything like the private sector, and if I went to a bank today, that bank would say to me, ``Mr. Gutierrez, you cannot get a loan for your home that exceeds 28 percent of your income.'' That is banking standards across this country. But this Congress of the United States is going to say we can charge more than 30 percent of that person's salary for housing. I think let us follow the private sector.

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I have been listening with great curiosity, intensity to this debate. We are saying that we are passing this bill and we are bringing this legislation in order to give control to the local housing authorities and to get Washington out of the business of public housing. That has been the argument time and time again. But those are the very people that we say we have to take control away from because they are so corrupt and inept in providing the services, but we are going to give them more power so they can correct the corruptness and ineptness of everything that they do. Then they say, well, if they do not start behaving and they do not start providing quality, affordable housing, then what we are going to do is we are going to bring in Washington, DC. We are going to bring in HUD to take them over. I thought we were getting out of the business of managing the local housing authorities and giving them more control, but if they do not abide by whatever standards or rules that we are going to impose upon them, then of course HUD takes over. The last time I checked, HUD was a Federal agency, unless my friends on the other side of the aisle have eliminated it. So HUD then comes and takes over. But then we are expected to believe, if we listen to the chairman, that what is going to happen is that HUD, the Federal Government, who we want to get out of the business, is going to go in there and correct the problem. Because HUD has then got to go in there and correct the problem and make sure that they can find people to provide the services that the local housing authority was not able to provide, if they do not abide by the rules. I do now know whether we are in the business or trying to get out of the business or we are back in the business again. But it seems to me that we have to stop using this idiotic kind of argument that what we are doing here is empowering local governments and localities, because if that was the truth, and I just brought down because I think that this is very interesting, section (b), page 9, the tenant self- sufficiency contract: Except as provided in subsection (c), each local housing and management authority shall require, as a condition of occupancy of a public housing dwelling unit by a family and of providing. . . . The terms of a self-sufficiency contract under this subsection shall be established pursuant to consultation between the authority and the family. Now we are going to get the public housing authority to sit down with each and every family, and be their social worker and sit down with them, but we are not going to provide day care. And if they say, ``You know, if I only had a raise in the minimum wage, I might be able to do better and reach self-sufficiency,'' we are not going to do anything about that. Then it says kinds of, well, if they have a problem related to education, we are going to reduce how much money we send to the people can get an education, college loans and deduction, but we want them to receive a self-sufficiency contract. Then it says substance abuse and alcohol abuse, job training and skills training. They have to get job training, but we are going to reduce the amount of money that the House of Representatives is going to send for job training and skills training. I do not know how it is we expect them to keep this contract if at the same time the House of Representatives is going to diminish the funding for each and every one of these categories. But the one thing we will be able to do, we will allow the local housing authorities one power: That is to say to them, ``We are going to give you less money, we are going to give you fewer resources to deal with the issues,'' but we are going to give the local housing authorities the ability to raise the rent for everyone of these tenants. We are going to be able to allow those housing authorities to change the venue of people. I think that this bill is clear to anybody who really examines it and looks at it. It is not about local housing authorities and empowering local housing authorities. It is about washing our hands, as Pontius Pilate did, of the poor and the destitute and those that have no hope in America, saying that this Congress is going to turn its back on them also. Because I just cannot understand how on the one hand we want to get out of people's lives, this is a Congress that says let us get out of people's personal lives. Congress and the Federal Government is involved in people's personal lives. We want less government, we want less intrusion in the day-to-day affairs. But then they are going to tell every local housing authority, set up a contract on substance abuse, education, tell me when you are graduating from high school, how you are going to get there and when you are going to get there, but do not expect us to help you. Just tell us how you are going to get there, and I want you to sign this contract. If you do not sign it, you are out. I thought we were about less government, less intrusion in people's lives. But it seems to me we are about more intrusion, when we want to destroy an institution. But it does not surprise me very much, because as I look at the status of the House GOP Contract With America, given where that contract is at today, I do not expect this will have much success either.

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I think the point is we should be working this out. We should be sitting down with the gentleman so that we can reach a consensus here that there is a role, there is a responsibility for all of us. Mr. Chairman, we cannot cut earned income tax credit; we cannot say we are not going to give a raise on the minimum wage; we cannot say we are going to cut school lunches; we cannot say we are going to do less and less and less and you are going to do more with less. Let us come together. It should be a goal of this country, a place that we seek to reach that everybody can live in a decent and affordable home.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the 205th anniversary of Poland's first Constitution on May 3. The Polish Constitution of 1791 was the first liberal Constitution in Europe, narrowly preceded by our own Constitution in 1787. I would also like to announce my cosponsorship of the House Concurrent Resolution 165, to honor the Polish Constitution of 1791 and to promote democracy in East-Central Europe. Throughout our Nation's history, the sons and daughters of Poland have immigrated to our shores. In fact, a native son of Poland, Thaddeus Kosciuszko, fought alongside General Washington during the Revolutionary War. Upon returning to Poland, after his heroic efforts for American liberty, Mr. Kosciusko helped draft the Polish Constitution. The American concept of constitutional democracy was thus born in Europe in 1791. However, just as American independence had threatened the colonial establishment and balance of power, Poland's early democratic experiment threatened the autocratic regimes of its neighbors, imperial Russia and the Hapsburg Austro-Hungarian Empire. Two years after Poland embarked on its bold path the Russian and Austrian armies conquered Poland and ended constitutional rule. Today, 205 years after it began, the democratic experiment in Poland has been restored. A free Poland has experienced its first real open elections in several generations and the positive economic successes it has achieved are unparalleled in its history. Poland is looking to cement its economic and political achievements by joining the North Atlantic Treaty Organization [NATO] and the European Community. Poland's efforts to exercise civilian control over its military and its cooperation with the NATO alliance through the Partnership for Peace and in Bosnia are important steps toward greater military and economic integration with the rest of Europe and the United States. Today, I salute and congratulate Polish people around the world, including the thousands of Polish-Americans in the Fourth Congressional District of Illinois and in the Chicago area, as we commemorate the adoption of the first Polish Constitution. I also urge my colleagues and the people of the United States to recognize Poland's rebirth as a free and independent nation in the spirit and legacy of the Polish Constitution of 1791.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I drove by the gas station today. Premium was up. Unleaded was up. But the minimum wage--the salary earned by a lot of people who buy the gas and pump the gas--was stuck right where it had been. Gas prices might be at their highest point in years, but the buying power of the minimum wage is soon to be at its lowest point in 40 years. Our lowest paid employees are getting gouged everywhere--at the gas station, at the grocery store. But, instead of giving minimum wage employees a break, the Republicans tell them to wait. Yes, two bucks a gallon is a lot to pay--especially when you are only making four and a quarter an hour. But, of course, the Republicans are careful not to cut into the profit margin of the oil companies. After all--that is the Republicans' profit margin, too. In the past few years, oil and gas companies have pumped millions of dollars into Republican campaign coffers. Now I finally realize what GOP stands for--gas, oil, and petroleum. America's gas tanks are running on empty, but the Republican Party is out of gas.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, at the end of the afternoon of Tuesday, April 16, 1996, I was unavoidably absent from this Chamber and therefore missed rollcall vote No. 120--deploring individuals who deny the historical reality of the Holocaust and commending the vital, ongoing work of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum and rollcall vote No. 119--to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide for increased taxpayer protections. I want the Record to show that if I had the opportunity to be in this Chamber when these votes were cast, I would have voted ``yea'' for both rollcall vote No. 120 and rollcall vote No. 119.