Luis Gutiérrez

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to an individual who spent his life serving the people of the Ukraine and the people of Chicago. Roman Mycyk was one of the founders of the Self- reliance Ukrainian Federal Credit Union, which was chartered on July 2, 1951. He served as president of the Board of Directors, bringing leadership to the members of the Self-reliance FCU. The Self-reliance FCU has 12,660 members and assets totaling more than 187 million dollars. Roman Mycyk's leadership touched the lives of all those who came in contact with him and brought unheralded success to the Self-reliance. Mr. Mycyk was born in the Ukraine on April 10, 1909 and made his mark in his homeland as a scholar, achieving a Masters Degree in economics from the University of the Ukraine. He was very active on behalf of Ukrainian independence from the Soviet Union. His belief in freedom for his people and his country led to his imprisonment for 7 long years. Throughout his life, Roman Mycyk has worked with a number of Ukrainian community groups to enable immigrants to assimilate into American society. His work was proven invaluable in integrating thousands of Ukrainian immigrants into our Nation's political and economic life. I take this time today, so that the memory of Roman Mycyk will be commemorated on March 31, 1996. I would also like to pay my respects to Mr. Mycyk's family, in particular his daughter Christine and son Roman Jr.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, March 18, 1996, the INS announced the Chicago kickoff of Citizenship USA, a major nationwide initiative designed to help eligible immigrants become U.S. citizens. The goal of this worthwhile initiative is to ensure that by September 30, 1996, eligible persons who apply for citizenship will become citizens within 6 months. In Chicago alone the INS is expected to conduct more than 850 interviews each day, 4 days a week. This historic announcement was made before a crowd of 1,100 new citizens, representing 71 nations, who took the citizenship oath at the Navy pier ceremony. As a proud participant of the development of this very important initiative in Chicago I would like to include in the Congressional Record my remarks during the Chicago Citizenship USA kickoff. Citizenship USA (By Luis Gutierrez) I want to thank everyone who has worked so hard to make this day possible and make it such a success, and for giving me the opportunity to be with all of you today. I want to say a particular word of thanks to Mayor Richard Daley. In a time when far too many elected officials across our nation have found that exploiting people's fears and ignorance about the immigrant community can be the road to a few extra votes, our Mayor has demonstrated a consistent commitment to immigrants to our great city. Mayor Daley, I thank you for that commitment. And most importantly, I thank all of you who are here before us today, allowing us to share in this very special day of accomplishment for all of you. The elected and appointed officials who are on this podium today have the easy part of the program. We are fortunate enough to be able to congratulate you and share in your success. All of you have done the hard part. You have left family and friends in your native country. Overcome barriers of language and culture and custom. Endured the frustrations of government bureaucracy and paperwork and frequent indifference. And weathered the words and policies and efforts of some of us here in America who still, after 220 years of our nation growing and thriving because of the contributions of immigrants, who still don't want you in our land. And yet, here you are, about to make our country stronger and greater and better by becoming citizens of the United States of America. For your effort, and dedication, and commitment to reaching your dream, I thank you. And today, as you make your dream come true, you are doing more than just taking a big step forward for you and your family. You are sending a message to the people of Chicago, the people of Illinois, the people of America. Two days from now, I will go to Washington. And in Washington this week, we are debating H.R. 2202. It's a bill about immigration and naturalization. And the people who wrote that bill are blind to all of you who are here today. They are blind to your hopes and dreams and contributions and efforts to build a better America. And that blindness is reflected in one of the most horribly anti-immigrant bills to be introduced into Congress in our lifetime. So we will debate in Washington this week just how many of these types of ceremonies we should really have in our country. The people who wrote that bill say a lot less. I say we should have a lot more. Because when we debate the question, ``what should our immigration policy be,'' we are really asking ourselves something much more important. We are asking. ``what king of nation should we be?'' ``What kind of America should we be?'' Should we be the proud, and confident, and vibrant America that has welcomed immigrants from across our globe, and grown better and stronger because of their contributions? Or should we be a small, and fearful, and declining America that shuts our borders and closes our minds and turns our back on people who want nothing more than to help make America great? That is the real choice of our immigration debate this week. To listen to the red-hot rhetoric about the dangers of immigration, and about immigrants who are making our streets dangerous and taking away jobs and looking for a free ride, you might think that immigrant-bashing is a new invention. But the mindless immigrant-bashing we hear today from the Pete Wilsons and Pat Buchanans of America is as old as the Mayflower. Politicians have always been ready to turn real fears and legitimate concerns about crime and health care and jobs into the imaginary belief that it is all the fault of those people--those immigrants, those suspect people who are somehow different from the rest of us. Let me read you a quote. You guess who it's about. ``It is hopeless to think of civilizing these new immigrants, or keeping them in order, except by the arm of the law.'' Sounds a lot like the speeches I hear on the floor of the House of Representatives. Or the rhetoric any where Pat Buchanan happens to be campaigning. But the quote is a little less recent, It's from the New York Times. In 1875. And they were writing about Italians. Well, the immigrant bashers were wrong about Italians in 1875. And they are wrong about the immigrants to America today. Unfortunately, today's immigrant bashers are so busy closing their minds that they close their eyes to the reality of immigration and the contributions of immigrants. They don't see you. They don't see this swearing in. They don't see 1,000 people ready to work and sweat and toil to make their lives better and their families lives better. You are the reality of immigration today. I wish the bashers and politicians and fear-mongerers would come to our city, and look at the reality of your faces. Maybe then, instead of closing their minds, they could open their hearts. When friends of mine who don't know Chicago come to town, Like to take them to one of the most vibrant, thriving, successful commercial strips in our city. Do I take them to State Street or Michigan Avenue? No, I take them to 26th Street, one of the most successful urban commercial strips in America. An area rebuilt almost exclusively by immigrants from Mexico. Because of immigration, 26th Street is not another declining, nearly abandoned urban wasteland. It is an example of our city at its best. And look where we are today. At Navy Pier, a historic reminder of a Chicago that has opened its streets and ports and neighborhoods to Swedes and Poles and Irish and Lithuanians and Italians and Germans and every person from every corner of the globe and because we opened our doors instead of closing our minds we live in the greatest city in the world. And now that great city has 1,000 more recruits who will open businesses and create jobs and build housing and work and sweat and contribute and stand on the shoulders of our immigrant brothers and sisters and lead Chicago into a new century. I ask Mr. Buchanan and every person who wants to build a wall around our nation: Have you looked at the inner-cities being rebuilt by immigrants from Mexico? Have you visited the hospitals where doctors from Asia are healing our sick? Do you care about the new businesses and new jobs and new opportunities that are being created by newcomers to America from across the world? In the past, America's answer has been: Yes we see, yes we care, yes we understand. And that must be our answer today. A recent study estimated that immigrants to our country are earning more than $240 billion per year. They are paying more than $90 billion in taxes. And they are collecting only five billion dollars in welfare benefits. Almost 20 times more taxes paid than government benefits collected. Those are the facts of our immigrant community. I am honored and proud to serve a Congressional District that is filled with a diverse community of immigrants from throughout the world. When I walk down Milwaukee Avenue, I still hear the languages of my neighbors from Mexico to Poland to Ukraine to Korea. Yet, no community is more American. More proud of our nation. This is the true story of the immigrant community. I think the immigrant-bashing sweeping across our nation like a plague is a real threat to our future. Our country should remain strong and vibrant and confident. But we cannot do it if we turn our back on people who want to contribute. What would Chicago look like today if we had closed our doors before the Irish arrived, or before the Germans arrived, before the Poles arrived? If we were to close our doors today, we will gain nothing, and lose something vital. We would become a broken city of missed opportunities. Of missed economic opportunities, the missed cultural opportunities, of missed opportunities to keep our city growing and thriving changing. I see many faces here today that I have seen before. Your came to the workshops sponsored by the 4th Congressional District Citizenship Project. I'm very proud we were able to help you, yet I know that it was you who did the real work. You endured long lines and waits. You endured a backlog at the INS to have your application approved. Many of you studied hard for your test and worked to improve your English. I know it wasn't easy. But the work of months will pay off today by beginning a lifetime of opportunity. Immigration is opportunity. All of you now have a greater opportunity for you to benefit from our nation. But America gets an even better deal. Our nation receives the opportunity to benefit from you. As I speak on the floor of the House of Representatives this week, as people attack immigration and say we need fewer new American citizens, I will think of all of you today. And I will do my best to spread the word. The word of your dedication and commitment and what it means to our country. The word of how much our nation would lose if we stop having days just like today. You've kept your end of the bargain by overcoming the obstacles and becoming citizens. I promise you, I'll do everything I can to make sure our government keeps their end of the deal. Thank you again and congratulations to every one of you on your outstanding accomplishment.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, this vote boils down to one question: How much is a life worth? How large a campaign check from the gun lobby is big enough to convince you to put these guns back on the street, $1,000 from the NRA, $5,000? To put the life of a police officer in grave danger, to put a child in an early grave? Because of these guns, they mean combat, they mean assault, they mean killing. This vote shows that the Republicans never wanted a Contract With America; they wanted to combat within America. How many children were able to avoid a drive-by shooting? How many police officers made it safely back home because of this ban? Let us keep the ban and keep our children and our communities safe.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, in the extremist world of this Republican Congress, things just get stranger every day. Today's outrage is the Republican concept of rights. What rights do the American people have? Quality, affordable health care for our seniors? That's not a right. Head Start and student loans and immunizations for our children? Those aren't rights. How about job training, a decent minimum wage, and economic security for American workers? No rights there. But owning an Uzi submachinegun that can fire over 100 rounds a minute and is designed to terrorize our communities? Now that is a right. What my Republican friends have really forgotten is a sense of right and wrong. What is absolutely right is for this Congress to take every step possible to protect our families, our children, and our neighborhoods from senseless gun violence. What is absolutely wrong is to care more about a few thousand bucks from the NRA than keeping our kids and communities safe. Today let's vote for our kids instead of for the cash. Vote to protect our families and save the assault weapons ban.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the Brownback-Gutierrez amendment deletes the new Immigration and Nationality Act sections 201(g)(2) and 201(g)(3). This is a rather simple amendment that would preserve a very simple idea. America's immigration policy should continue to allow families to be reunited with their loved ones. At first glance, the section of the bill we seek to delete might appear to do nothing more than require a periodic congressional review of the numerical limits placed on immigration. Unfortunately, this is not the case. The bill actually requires specific legislation reauthorization as early as the year 2004 for our Nation to continue to allow any family-based and employment-based immigration. Let me be clear. This Congress will have to pass a specific legislative reauthorization in the year 2004 if our Nation is to allow any family-based or employment-based immigration. Reuniting with family members accounts for 60 percent of all legal immigration to the United States, and this bill puts that type of critical legal immigration in danger. The bill says that without congressional action, brothers and sisters, parents and children, husbands and wives will be prevented from reuniting in the United States. In effect, this bill creates a sunset provision on the most important and positive reason people come to the United States. It creates a sunset provision on our basic and fundamental commitment to any immigration policy at all. Well, I do not want this Congress to allow the Sun to set on our Nation's desire to offer opportunity to newcomers from throughout the world. I do not want the Sun to set on our Nation's commitment to serving as a source of hope and for those who desire to work and contribute to make America a better, stronger nation. I do not want the Sun to set on America's commitment to one of the most basic family values, allowing immigrants to reunite with the people they love. Yet, this is precisely what the proponents of this bill are suggesting. Passage of this bill with this provision would be a huge victory for extremists whose only interest in immigration is ending it forever. But do not take my word for it. The Wall Street Journal wrote on their editorial page last week that the sunset clause would ``stop all job-based legal immigration and provide a powerful lever to immigration restrictionists after the turn of the century.'' The bipartisan Brownback-Gutierrez amendment is our opportunity to take away that powerful lever from those who would like to completely abandon our Nation's commitment to legal immigration. I urge my colleagues not to be swayed by the argument that reauthorizing this bill is just a formality, that it is really no big deal. The history of the U.S. Congress clearly shows that immigration legislation is never a formality. It is always a big deal. Mr. Chairman, the author of this legislation has said over and over again that this represents only the third time this century that Congress has dealt with an immigration bill of this magnitude. I believe the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Smith] recognized the facts and he does not oppose this amendment, which I appreciate very much. So we should all realize that reauthorization, which will decide whether mothers are reunited with sons, will not come easily unless we correct this potential problem today. The sunset provision is a silver bullet that is aimed at every heart of our commitment to immigrants. By passing this amendment, we can unload that silver bullet. To use the language that so many of my friends on the other side of the aisle are using, we can truly take a stand for family values. We send a clear signal that we value keeping family members united and together, that we value a policy of fairness for every person who wants to come to our country legally, to be with family they love and care about, that we value the history and character of our Nation and that the United States values inclusion and understanding and opportunity, rather than exclusion, blame, and fear. If my colleagues value these ideas, I urge them to join us in supporting this amendment today. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Hawaii [Mrs. Mink].

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I simply want to end by saying I want to thank the chairman, the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Lamar Smith, for his support of this amendment, and I want to apologize for any inference that I might have made with the probably bungling of the reading of my statement, because that is the only way I can come to that conclusion that I might have stated in any way, shape or form that it was his intent to have a moratorium. I do not believe that, and so I probably just misread something into the Record. But, fortunately, we sent a copy up there that I am sure will clarify what I really meant to say, and I apologize to the gentleman and thank him for his support on what I think is a very important amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Pastor], chairman of the Hispanic Congressional Caucus.

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, the Republicans believe they have a great plan to put a downpayment on a balanced budget. They believe they have found a perfect method to cut what they consider to be excessive ``social spending.'' They have proposed legislation that slashes funding by $900 million for veterans health care, veterans employment programs, and the construction of new veterans psychiatric care facilities. They have said ``No'' to needed VA hospitals and outpatient clinics which would have served up to 700,000 veterans. These cuts are for below President Clinton's budget request and are even below the House-passed level with regard to health care issues. On top of all that, they have now given themselves a safety mechanism. They have invented a sure-fire way to guard their plan from criticism. How? By removing these indefensible provisions? By realizing the errors of their huge budget cuts? No. Instead they choose to silence someone who has the courage and the expertise to point out the flaws in their budget plan, our Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Jesse Brown. In the Republicans believe their plan is such a marvelous solution to our budget woes, why then are they trying to muzzle the Secretary of Veterans Affairs from during his job, advocating for adequate funding for VA programs? Why else would the Republicans aim their funding cuts at the Secretary of Veterans Affairs travel budget and staff support? I think I know the answer. Maybe the Republicans themselves don't believe their plan is so wise. Maybe they know their downpayment unfairly cuts funding for those men and women who served under our Nation's flag. Maybe they fear that veterans will be informed of these cuts and will vote their concerns at the ballot box next November. Maybe they are worried that the next time they drape themselves in the flag the American people won't buy it. They know that Secretary Brown is speaking the truth. They know that he is a strong and knowledgeable advocate for veterans. I can find no other explanation. The Republicans must doubt their own commitment to veterans. They must fear that Jesse Brown will expose their budget for what they know it is. Why else would they prevent the Secretary of Veterans Affairs from speaking out on the issues that he knows best? I urge my colleagues to oppose the rule for this continuing resolution. It prevents those who really care about our Nation's veterans from striking punitive language aimed at silencing the Secretary of Veterans Affairs. It attacks the independence of a cabinet level agency and silences the best voice America's veterans have. It compromises Congress' commitment that the Secretary of Veterans Affairs would be an effective advocate for the millions of men and women who served in our military. This rule is bad for veterans and bad for the United States.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of S. 1494 that seeks to authorize a variety of housing programs for fiscal year 1996. Two programs contained in this bill are critical to the well-being and safety of residents and will assure the continuation of decent, affordable housing. The problems in housing inhabited by both seniors and persons with disabilities are much too serious and dangerous to ignore. I am very glad to see the attention this issue has received. Seniors in my district are frightened and they are angry. HUD and many housing authorities, including the Chicago Housing Authority, have been slow to take this problem seriously. I believe the bill before the House today will aid housing authorities in evicting those people who pose a serious threat to other residents. As I have indicated since January of last year, the need to address this issue is critical. On January 15, 1995, I wrote to Chairman Lazio asking that the Housing Subcommittee hold hearings on this issue. Unfortunately, another year passed while many seniors have continued to live in fear. I believe S. 1494 is a good bill. I believe this legislation will assist housing authorities in the critical area of keeping problem residents out of elderly housing from the start. I commend the will of this House to address this most troubling problem and trust that the final solution will provide seniors and persons with disabilities who reside in public housing with some measure of relief. In addition, I am pleased to see that S. 1494 includes provisions authorizing the housing preservation program. This program has provided thousands of Chicago's low-income elderly citizens and families with safe, affordable, and quality housing. Although additional reforms may be needed, S. 1494 does include those reforms contained in H.R. 2099, the VA-HUD appropriations bill for 1996. One important reform measure gives funding priority to tenant and nonprofit purchasers. For many buildings I believe this is a preferable option and will help ensure that the property is retained as affordable housing for the remainder of its useful life. One building in my district, Northwest Tower, will benefit greatly from this provision. HUD is currently reviewing the application of the Northwest Tower Residents Association to purchase the building. This would not only save the building as a valuable affordable housing source, but, after the initial renovation, will significantly decrease the subsidy currently being provided by HUD. I believe the authorization of these two programs will prove beneficial to those concerned with the provision of safe and affordable housing for low-income tenants. Congress must protect the elderly from those residents who are disruptive and often violent. We also must continue to support the preservation program and the tenants currently residing in these buildings. S. 1494 accomplishes those two objectives. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, across the county, Americans are looking for some signs. Signs of progress. Signs of leadership. Signs of decency. Unfortunately, this is still the only sign they see. ``Closed.'' Why? Simple. Because of the close-minded radical right-- Members who refuse to see any side to this issue other than their own. But it is not just their minds that are closed. The Gingrich Republicans have closed their eyes, too. They close their eyes to the pain that their gutless gamesmanship has caused. Seniors and children are denied nutrition programs, unemployed workers can not get benefits, and all the GOP does is talk about ``holding the President's feet to the fire.'' Meanwhile, innocent Americans huddle around a fire to keep warm. Yes--this GOP majority has opened its backrooms to big business lobbyists to help them write new laws. But it closes the door on hardworking Government employees who implement and enforce those laws. Mr. Speaker, I urge you and your side of the aisle, to open up our minds, and say ``Yes, we are open.'' Open the Government, now.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, compromise: It is a simple concept. A 7- year-old understands it. For a child, it might mean something like having an ice cream cone or a candy bar, but not both. Well, maybe I should have a child explain this concept to some of the extremist Republicans in this house. Because even though they are all older than 7, they are acting a lot less mature than that. You see, they want it all. Tax giveaways to the wealthiest Americans. Cuts in student loans and Head Start. Gutting regulations that protect clean air and water. Making our seniors pay more for health care. And they will not give up, no matter how much suffering they cause, until they impose their radical demands on every American family. It is too bad. You see, if a 7-year-old insists on ice cream and a candy bar, it just means a little disagreement. But when the Republicans will not give up any of their anitfamily demands, every American, students, seniors, children--must pay. Come on. It is time to grow up. Stop holding your breath and stomping your feet and join the fight for a decent budget that puts American family first.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, all around Washington, we hear the sounds of the season. Not the holiday season--the budget season. We hear the word furlough float through the air. Who gets furloughed if the Government keeps shutting down? But the key question is not furlough--it is how low? How low will the Speaker stoop to satisfy special interest sponsors? How long will Gingrich sink America's seniors into debt just to pay-off his own political debts? With every shutdown, we hear the question: Who is essential? But the key question is not who is essential, but what is essential? To Republicans, essential means the wealth of the upper-class rather than the health of the middle-class. To the GOP, essential means the priorities of powerful political patrons--rather than public programs that protect people. You hear the GOP say they are making history. But you will not hear them discuss the history of the Reagan-Bush era--and the trillions of dollars of debt they racked up. Those Republicans busted the budget by shifting the tax burden to working families and cutting the safety-net for the most vulnerable. Sound familiar? As we have all heard one Republican say, ``there they go again.''

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, after the President's wise veto of the radical right budget, Newt Gingrich tried to bash the Great Society. Well, I wonder if Gingrich even wants a good society. A good society protects the health and welfare of its most vulnerable--the Gingrich society hangs them out to dry. But the Speaker thinks he can get away with that rhetoric since he used to be a history professor. Well, let's talk history: the proud history of the Democratic party-- and compare it with the sad history being written by today's GOP. And the latest chapter: the Speaker's sharp rebuke by the Ethics Committee. We Democrats are the party of FDR's New Deal that gave America economic security. Today's Republicans are the party of the Newt Deal-- a shady book deal to give himself economic security. We are the party of Harry Truman who said the ``Buck Stops Here.'' The Gingrich party tells GOPAC contributors ``The Bucks better get here'' if you want any help. Democrats are the party of JFK's ``Camelot''--today's Republicans are the party of ``Scam-a-lot,'' as one Gingrich ethics scam after another comes to light. Republicans try to defend the Speaker's millions in illegal contributions. We Democrats will defend millions of Americans looking for a better life.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, let me quote some Republicans. Like Abraham Lincoln, who said ``malice toward none and charity for all''--an idea that today's Republicans seem to have forgotten. And I love Newt Gingrich's quotes from a few years back--when he used to talk about the ethics of the Speaker of the House. And, how about George Bush's line about reading his lips--no new taxes? Well, I have a new version: ``Read our lips. No Newt Taxes.'' That is what working families are saying as the GOP raises their out- of-pocket expenses for health care and education. The Republicans will not admit that they are raising taxes--they will even say they are cutting them. [[Page H 14026]] Well, if you are a senior, and the GOP raises your Medicare premium-- that is a new tax. If you are working 40 hours a week, and the GOP takes away your earned income tax credit--that is a new tax. In fact that is a Newt tax. So, Mr. Speaker, ``Read our lips. No Newt Taxes.'' George Bush broke his word, and Newt Gingrich is breaking his. But, we Democrats will stand by our word--and stand up for working families. ``Read our lips. No Newt Taxes.'' Mr. Speaker, that is our Contract With America.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, only 25 more shopping days until Christmas. All around the country, children wonder what goodies they will unwrap. Now, kids, what do you think you will get? Well, I hope you do not have your heart set on a college education. The Republicans cut student loans, so a diploma is going to be pretty hard to come by this year. How about a clean environment? Well, I hope that is not too high on your list either. Even if you do not find a lump of coal in your stocking, you will find more coal--and soot and ash--in the air you breathe and the water you drink. Why? Because the GOP had to give a present to their big business buddies. After all--those lobbyists gave them some very nice campaign checks. And, sorry, we cannot go ``over the river and through the woods to Grandma's house.'' You see, when the Republicans scrapped Medicare and Medicaid, Grandma had to get rid of her house. So kids, load up on all the candy canes you can find--it is not too nutritious, but if the GOP takes away your school lunch, that might be the only thing to eat this season.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, we keep hearing the same old songs in this House. It wasn't long ago that many of my Republican colleagues were singing the gospel of Voodoo Economics--that tax cuts for the rich and more money for defense that would magically add up to lower deficits. The result? A budget deficit that more than quadrupled during the 12 years Ronald Reagan and George Bush ran our Nation. But now, many of my colleagues who stood in this Chamber and voted for 12 years to burden working Americans with 300 billion dollars' worth of deficits and now singing loudly in the choir of fiscal responsibility again. They have a plan for getting our deficit under control. But it is the same old song, with a new twist. Tax cuts for the wealthy, more money for defense and devastating cuts in education, Medicare, and the programs that most American rely on every day. I think it is time to change our tune to supporting a responsible budget that puts our children, our students, our families, and our seniors first. My Republican friends might not know the words, but that would be a song that more working Americans could sing along to.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I had a traumatic experience on an airplane Monday. I asked for an aisle seat and they gave me a window. The pilot never came back to say hello, and when we landed, I, a Member of Congress, had to walk out with all of the rest of the passengers. So I drafted a bill to shut down Government until the airline apologizes to me. Unfortunately, as a Democrat, I was ignored. But there is hope, Mr. Speaker. A Republican is fighting for Congressmen whose feelings are hurt on airplanes. Newt Gingrich feels bad. He says he was mistreated on the trip to Israel. I quote, ``Every President we had ever flown with had us up front. Having to exit through the rear of the plane is part of why you ended up with us sending you down a tougher continuing resolution.'' Because our President thought that respecting Yitzhak Rabin's death was more important than stroking Newt's ego, we must threaten the services of our seniors, our veterans, and our students. Newt, have some decency. The future of our Nation is more important than where you sit on an airplane. The next time you throw a temper tantrum, leave the American public out of it.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I want to offer a quick vocabulary lesson for any American who wants to follow this beltway budgetary battle. You see, the Republicans are now trying to tell us that this new version of the concurrent resolution is so simple that we just have to accept it. They are right--their plan is simple. In fact, it's so simple, it can be summed up in three simple words. That is right--there are only three simple words you need to know to follow the Republicans' budget antics. Here they are: Cut. Gut. And shut. The Republicans will cut the safety net that helps the poor and elderly live healthy lives. They will gut every environmental law that protects the food we eat and the air we breath. And until they get their way--they will shut the door of government services that help veterans who served our country and students who want to serve. Cut. Gut. And shut. That is the entire GOP plan. Now, Republicans are outraged that the President would use his veto. Well, for them, I offer not a vocabulary lesson, but a civics lesson. Remember--this is just a part of our American system of ``checks and balances.'' Unfortunately, when many Republicans think about ``checks,'' they can only picture the huge campaign checks that paid for their election. When they hear ``balances,'' they only think about a budget ``balanced'' on the backs of working families. Mr. Gingrich: instead of ``cut, gut and shut,'' please cut out the political posturing, show some guts, and shut the door on the special interest lobbyists who financed your election. That's the simple solution that all Americans want. And that's why we need to defeat this rule.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, all across our Nation, millions of Americans wake up every day, go to work, and do their jobs. Sometimes it is tough. Some days it would be easier just to stay home. But our people do it. Because it is a duty, you might even call it a contract. Well, the Members of the House of Representatives also have a duty, a contract, to do our jobs. And our job is to pass administration bills on time and keep our country running so veterans and seniors and students and families get the services they pay for and deserve. Well, for all the Republican talk about a Contract With America, this body has failed spectacularly in honoring its contract to do our job. Let us be clear--Government is closed--and people are suffering-- because the Republican Congress cannot do its duty and pass these bills. On the Democratic side of the aisle, we hear the alarm clock, and we are ready to do the people's work. I hope my friends on the other side of the aisle are ready to rise and shine and do something more than talk about a contract.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Madam Speaker, we all know the ship of Government is stuck. It has hit a reef and it cannot move. But do not worry--Newt Gingrich and the Republicans have a solution-- a simple way to get our ship of Government moving again. Just throw some people overboard. Start with the elderly. Toss some students. Then abandon America's veterans. The Republican plan? Cut some Medicare payments, threaten student loans, and lower VA benefits, and we'll get this ship moving again. Well, thankfully for the millions of Americans who work hard every day and expect a fair deal from their Government, our President has said no. He believes the ship of Government moves much better when we bring everyone along--the elderly, our children, our veterans. The Democratic Party believes that we are all better, and stronger-- more American--when we solve our problems together, move forward as one people, and leave no one behind. This Republican posturing about the continuing resolution is no more than a ransom note. Throw some people over--or we'll sink the ship. Mr. President--stand firm. Do not let the ship sail by abandoning our people.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I hear my friends on the other side of the aisle say that they are making history. I see them patting each other on the back for devising a budget scam that protects the wealth of the powerful and the privileged. I hear them say that they are doing this because it takes a lot of courage on their part. Well, I would like to ask them to put their own self-congratulations on hold for a moment and to think about the people who truly made history, who truly protected our Nation, and those who truly demonstrated courage. Who has the answer to that question? America's veterans. With all of the grand rhetoric you hear, the Republicans would have you believe that they would never harm the men and women who have served our Nation. Well, let us listen to some of the facts instead. Let us start with the cuts proposed over the next 7 years to the VA. One result, increased copayments for veterans who need a prescription. It might sound like a good example of self-sacrifice to some. Well, Members of this House have that luxury. We are not living on an income of $12,000 or $10,000 a year, but many veterans do. Members of this House talk about how hard a job this is to be a Member of the U.S. Congress. Well, most of us do not have to sacrifice our health for the sake of serving our country, but many veterans did sacrifice their health. Yet this House will force the VA to care for 1 million fewer veterans by the year 2002. By the year 2002, it is estimated that over 175,000 veterans will lose coverage under Medicaid, one-third of whom are severely disabled, with crippling diseases or mental illnesses. About 20,000 veterans a year depend on Medicaid, not the VA, not Medicare, but Medicaid, for their nursing home care. What do they have to look forward to during the next 7 years? The possibility that their spouses will have to give up their homes in order to retain eligibility for long-term care. The threat that a widow's VA pension gets counted against her in determining her edibility for Medicare. The likelihood that in States like California, Florida, New York, and Illinois, thousands of veterans will have no alternatives for health care. Let us keep in mind that just a few short years ago, one State, Tennessee, proposed denying health care to veterans. More importantly, it is not the job of the States to take care of this issue. When I speak to veterans back in Chicago, they did not fight for the great State of Illinois, they fought for our Nation, our country. Veterans in the district of the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich], they did not fight for Ohio, they fought for our country, the United States of America. If you are a Republican and you have not found a reason to oppose this budget, please make sure you have thought this through. This budget is antiveteran. Your tax cuts for millionaires are being paid for by millions of veterans. Instead of veterans' health, you have chosen to protect someone else's wealth. It is wrong. Vote against this proposal.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, we've heard a lot lately about possible bulk sales of Newt Gingrich's book. Yes, reports say Gingrich is doing exactly what he accused a former Speaker of. But, guess what? His $2 million book is not the only thing Newt Gingrich is trying to sell in bulk. Here's the new book--the GOP's 1,500 page, budget-busting reconciliation package. In it, Newt Gingrich is going to try to sell--in bulk--some gems of fiction that you just won't believe. He'll try to sell you on the idea that we should give a tax cut to the wealthy few while we cancel tax credits for the working poor. And he wants you to buy into the fiction that students don't ever need a college loan. Newt Gingrich called his first book: ``To Renew America.'' He should call this one: ``How to Undo America,'' undoing decades of what is good and decent and fair. This book might not be a best-seller, but it certainly is a good example of how to sell-out.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, today is a historic day. A day that House Republicans, to fulfill their unsatiable desire to give a tax cut to their wealthiest contributors, will try to slash Medicare by $300 billion. We Democrats remember historic days. We remember when 30 years ago Lyndon Johnson and Harry Truman stood together and said, ``the time has come to guarantee health care for all of our seniors.'' We feel as much pride in that day as Republicans should feel shame on this day. So maybe it is time for them to remember their history too. In 1865, facing a challenge far greater than rising Medicare costs, our greatest President--a Republican President--stated that we would heal our Nation's wounds ``with malice toward none, with charity for all.'' I say to my colleagues in the majority--slashing $300 billion from seniors' health care for a tax giveaway to your rich friends is malice, pure and simple. With malice toward none, with charity for all. How empty and distant those words seem to the party of Abraham Lincoln today.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, you just cannot run from the truth. As the Republicans try to hide that they want to take health care from our seniors for a tax giveaway to the wealthy, their justifications are becoming laughable. I think the silliest one is this: This isn't a cut in Medicare. We are only slowing the growth. Let me explain the Republican definition of slowing growth: Say I own a cruise ship, and it seats 100 passengers. It only makes sense that I would have 100 life preservers. Now, say I build a bigger boat. One that seats 150 people. If I say to my passengers I am only going to have 125 life preservers, but don't worry--that's not a cut, I'm only slowing the growth of life preservers--I do not think that is going to help the 25 people who drown when my boat crashes. Well, my friends, Medicare is a life preserver for our seniors. One that protects them when they are sick, one that saves them when they are ill. One they have paid for and earned and deserve. This week, we have a chance to keep all the life preservers on board. Vote to save Medicare.