Luis Gutiérrez

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I would like to explain why the Speaker's alleged ethics violations require a full and thorough investigation. But, I do not think I can say anything original. Someone already said it best 7 years ago here on the House floor. Let me first read the quote from 1988, and then you guess who said it. I quote: The rules normally applied by the Ethics Committee to an investigation of a typical Member are insufficient in an investigation of the Speaker of the House * * * the second- most powerful elected position in America. Clearly this investigation has to meet a higher standard of public accountability * * * the integrity of the House is at stake. OK--who said it? Sound familiar? Well, here is a hint--he is from Georgia. And, he has got a big office. Yes, the speaker of that quote is the current Speaker of the House: Congressman Newt Gingrich. Well, here is a chance for the Speaker to put his money where his mouth is--or, at least, where it was. Simply ask your hand-picked Ethics Committee to select an outside counsel with broad powers, just as you wanted in 1988. The moral is this: You have to live by the words you speak, even when you are the Speaker.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, after the Supreme Court ruled yesterday on the issue of term limits, you heard a lot of complaining. One who protested the loudest was the distinguished majority leader. In fact, Mr. Armey promised that a vote on term limits would be the first vote in the next Congress. In January 1997--if he is relected--Mr. Armey will get sworn in for his seventh term, then turn around and vote for a bill that says that serving more than six terms is hazardous to the political health of our Nation. If you think term limits is such a good idea, here is the solution: Here is a map of Washington. Here is the Capitol. Here is the airport. It is a short drive, and parking is a breeze because Members of Congress still have that perk. From there, you can go back to the Sixth District of Georgia, the Eighth District of Florida, or anywhere else where someone got elected by talking about term limits. Remember, my friends on the other side of the aisle--the Supreme Court decision will not bar you from acting honorably, from following through on your campaign promises and Republican rhetoric. That decision is still in your hands.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, this country once had a system of checks and balances. Now with the Republican budget scam we have checks without balances. Here is one check, Mr. Speaker, a big check, a whopping $228 billion check made out by the senior citizens of this country who face a massive cut in Medicare, and who is this check written out to, Mr. Speaker? To the wealthiest, who will rake in billions thanks to the Republican budget scam. Yes, the oldest Americans in this country will face $3,500 in out-of- pocket medical bills, while the richest Americans will put $20,000 into their pockets. What a shame. But big checks are nothing new to the GOP. Think about all of the big campaign checks they got in 1994. So, Mr. Speaker, go ahead and protect the wealthy and the powerful, and we Democrats will protect the health of the powerless. Go ahead and help those who helped finance your victory in the last election, while we Democrats will help those seniors who led us all to victory in World War II. Seeing this huge check makes me realize that the Republicans must have checked their compassion and decency at the door, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, as you well know, posing for photo ops, listening to sound bites, and giving easy answers can be kind of addictive. Sometimes, the sound-bite addict needs a little help in kicking the habit. In this House, that Republican habit is to stand before the cameras and pretend that they are getting our budget in line without hurting working Americans. That is why this House passed a rescission package that went easy on closing tax loopholes for the rich and eliminating Government bureaucracy and boondoggles. But those rescission got tough on something. They got tough on summer jobs and worker training, and they got tough on student loans and day care. Well, these sound bite addicts are about to get some tough love. It is called a veto pen. I applaud President Clinton and his tough choice to say no to the sound bites, photo ops and easy answers that hurt our kids, hurt our students and punish working Americans. And I encourage my friends on the other side of the aisle to kick their easy answer habit before it is too late for the American people.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, the Republicans have now unveiled their slash-for-cash budget. The Republicans will slash Medicare by nearly $300 billion to get the cash for a tax cut of that same amount. How? It's simple. If you are a senior citizen, you will just have to cough up about $3,500 in out-of-pocket costs to pay for Medicare cuts. Then, the top 1 percent of the wealthiest American families can rake in over $20,000 each in tax cuts. See? Simple. Slash for cash. In fact, the Republicans could make the whole process much simpler. With this handy envelope. Elderly Americans--those who guided us out of a depression and through a world war, those who educated us, fed us and led us--you just put your money in here. Then send if off to the wealthy, in care of the Republican Party, here inside the beltway. But, look at the bright side. If the Republicans are feeling generous, maybe they will kick in for the stamps so that you seniors can send in your money.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, over the past 100 days, Mr. Gingrich has had his fun taking out his hole puncher and putting a few holes in his copy of the Contract With America. Well, I never saw what the big deal was. holes. Remember the Republican tax plan or their balanced budget amendment? Right where you thought they would tell you how to pay for it, there was a big, gaping hole. And they had special kinds of holes for different people. If you are a working family, trying to raise your kids, there is a sinkhole for your wages to fall into, but if you are looking for a capital gains cut, there is a nice loophole for you. And you know those blackholes in outer space, those things that stuff gets sucked into and nothing comes out of? It turns out you do not need the Hubble telescope to see them. Because the Republicans' cuts in home heating assistance for the elderly and child nutrition for the country's babies are a blackhole that is going to pull people into poverty and pain where they will never be heard from again. So, Mr. Speaker, instead of getting a hole puncher, you should have used something to patch up the holes that were already in your contract from day one.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, the circus came to town today. But, you know what? If you were looking outside on the Capitol Grounds, you missed it. The real circus is right inside the House, as the Republicans clown around to try to pass this tax cut for the wealthy and well-off. Step right up and you will see the Republicans juggle numbers--it will be a little clumsy, but they'll still try to pull it off. You will see elephants--that great symbol of the Grand Old Party--dance and stomp around, just as you will see the Republicans dance around the issue of deficit reduction, and stomp on the principle of tax fairness. You want to see a high wire act? Well, do not bother watching death- defying professional acrobats when you can watch professional politicians defy logic during their high-wire act. And the Republicans will even perform without a net! Unfortunately, it is your safety net: loans for college education, school lunches and nutrition programs for your kids, heating assistance for the elderly. Well, the circus came to town. But, eventually, the tents get folded, the sawdust gets swept up, and the elephants and clowns get back on the train. This week, the Republican circus closes. Let us hope it does not return.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, last week, we heard about the cycle of dependency and people living off the taxpayers' money. And who was saying it? The same Republicans who have been getting a Government salary for 20 or 25 years, and today are going to talk about fake and phony 12-year term limit. Last week, Republicans said ``you get 2 years to learn job skills on your own, no job training.'' But, the gentleman from Florida, sponsor of a 12-year limit, says he needs a longer learning curve to master this job. Last week, they pointed to pictures of alligators and said that is a welfare recipient. And then they got a pat on the back. This week, I have pointed out the hypocrisy of Republicans who support term limits as long as it does not cut into their career, and I am lucky if I don't get whacked over the head. Last week, I heard about tough love. Well, this week I want to offer that same kind of tough love to my Republican friends who are having a tough time kicking the congressional habit. If you love this place, tough. Vote for term limits that are retroactive. If you have been here 12 years, you are out.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I understand that when I left, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hoke] was wondering where I was it. I was back in my office doing the people's business and ensuring that things are carried out. We speak here, and then we go about our other duties and responsibilities, but I understand he had a question, and the question may be the motives behind my speech. And let me just be very clear with the gentleman from Ohio that he can sleep and rest assured that if a term-limit bill comes before this House that includes retroactivity, that is, immediacy, 12 years, that this gentleman intends to vote for it, and is encouraging and working with others to vote for it.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise this morning aware of the fact There is the audience in this House--Members who have various opinions about this issue, who feel strongly about the debate we are having, who have studied the pros and cons. There are some--like my friends on this side of the aisle like Mr. Conyers--who have gone about it the right way. They have taken a close look at the legal opinions. They have taken a close look at the Constitution that we live by. And, more importantly, they have taken a close look within themselves and their own conscience to decide whether they support term limits. Like them, I have decided that I cannot support term limits as they have been written by the Republicans. Unfortunately, there are others in this Chamber--mostly on the other side of the aisle--who have decided to look at public opinion polls rather than look at the Constitution. They have watched focus groups rather than focus on the real impact of this resolution. They have decided to listen more closely to the angry voices of talk radio rather than the subtle, eloquent, and ancient voices of our Founding Fathers who thought that the people had the right to decide whom to elect to Congress. In fact, the Founding Fathers did--in their wisdom--write term limits into the Constitution. Term limits that work. Every 2 years, your term is up. You want an extension, you go to the people--the people--and ask for their approval. Now, it is obvious that the Republicans understand that reality. They realize that they need to be reelected. Otherwise, we would not have the ranting and raving and pandering and posturing that you are going to hear from them today. So I very much want to speak to my colleagues here today, and engage with them in a meaningful debate. Meanwhile, thanks to the magic of cable television, there is an audience all around the country with whom I can speak this morning. There are people in my district in Illinois listening and watching. And for them I am taking a stand against fake phony term limits. But, there are also people in districts far away whom I would also like to address. I would like people in districts like Florida's Eighth District to listen closely. Not just to my words, but to those of your own Representative. Now, I hope you do not think I am picking on your Congressman, Mr. McCollum. I trust that you sent him here with some good reason. But, Mr. McCollum has thrust himself into this term limits debate. He has done so with some intensity. And all I can say is, when you do that--when you start slinging arrows, do not be surprised when one comes back at you. So, here it comes. He, McCollum, is a chief sponsor of a bill to limit Members to term of 12 years. He, McCollum, was elected in 1980. It is now 1995. Now, you do the math, and you figure out that if Mr. McCollum really believed what he said, there would be a very simple way for him to enact the 12-year term limits. Walk away. Now, you might be inclined to think that Mr. McCollum will at least support the amendment that I will speak on later today to make term limits retroactive. Nope. Not him. Even so, let us just listen to the words of Mr. McCollum, who today is proud to tell us that he sponsors a resolution for a 12-year term limit. He said: ``Those of us who believe in term limits * * * need to stay longer, unfortunately, because the system is the way it is.'' If you have been here that long, you are the system. You are the system that you say needs changing. Now, let us go on, because there is also an audience in the Sixth District of Georgia listening to me. Today I want to send a special message to them. I want to inform you that your Congressman, Mr. Gingrich--whom you first elected in 1978--supports limiting members to 12 years of service. In a press conference endorsing the 12-year limit, the Speaker, now in his 17th year, said: ``The balance of power in favor of professional politicians as incumbents * * * has made a mockery of the process of open elections.'' So, that must mean that each election held in Georgia's Sixth District since 1990--when Mr. Gingrich's 12 years were up--has been a mockery. If I lived in Georgia, I would be concerned to hear that I had voted in a mockery of an election. In fact--three of them, since 1990. Now, I have heard a lot of people talk about the Speaker and his problems with GOPAC. Well, today, I am not going to talk about GOPAC. But I am going to say go back, as in go back to Georgia, because the 12-year limit that you want to impose on everyone else has long ago passed for you. Go back, as in how do you go back to your district every week--and I know that he does, because I see him on t.v. teaching that course on ``Saving the Western World'' or whatever it is called--but, how do you go back to your district every week and tell folks that you support a 12-year limit, but you are going on serving well beyond that. No, I am not going to say GOPAC but I am going to say go back--as in how do you go back on your word, Mr. Speaker? Mr. Gingrich said that without these changes, the congressional campaigns are a ``mockery''. Well, thanks to his Republicans and their empty term limits rhetoric, they are making mockery of Congress. What is a mockery? The dictionary says ``an action of ridicule * * * false * * * and imitation.'' That is what today's debate is. Ah, but there is an answer. A way to ensure that the political power in this country is given back to the people who deserve to have it. The men and women who work hard and play by the rules. And that is with serious, substantive campaign finance reform. Campaign finance reform insures that an incumbent must earn--and continue to earn--his or her seat in the body, rather than act like they own it. Nobody owns a seat in this House. But, as long as we debate phony issues like term limits, and avoid real issues like campaign finance reform, we make it possible for lobbyists and big-dollar contributors to own Members. In their contract, this was part of the Republicans' so-called Citizen Legislature Act. You want a legislature that belongs to the citizens? Good. Let us put limits on the time we spend raising money and hustling for votes. Campaign finance reform is the answer. Term limits is not. announcement by the chairman

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I often hear Republicans say we need term limits because ``It's time to clean out the barn.'' I have never said that in a campaign. First of all, in Chicago I am not sure what kind of response we would be getting because there are not a lot of barns. Maybe in Chicago we would say something like ``It is time to shovel the snow off the street.'' When I hear someone say ``We need to clean out the barn,'' it sounds like something that is awfully important, not a few years down the road, but today, right now. And it should not wait until you have sold the farm and turned over the cleaning to someone else. So I do not understand when those who have been in Congress for 12, 20, 25 years say they support term limits, but they plan to stick around Washington just a little bit longer, because these are the same folks that said ``We have got to clean out the barn.'' Fine, grab a broom, clean out the barn. But what happens when it turns out that you are the one who is making the mess? What happens when you look at your own resume and realize that you have been here for 12 years or more and your limit is up? Well, then you better get out of the barn, too. That is what the Dingell-Peterson amendment does. It turns term limits from rhetorical cheap shot into real change. Retroactivity, Mr. Chairman, cleans out the barn now. Look, this amendment is not a cheap shot. It is not a threat to you or anyone else. It is an opportunity for everyone, an opportunity to prove that you are serious. Now, if you still want a 12-year limit and you have been here more than that, there is a very simple option. There is the door. It is very easy to get to National Airport. It takes about 10 minutes from here. And if you are a Member of Congress, they have even got a free parking lot there for you. You know, people say that they are opposed to retroactivity because the people are not for it, and as evidence for this they point to various polls. Well, Mr. Chairman, in a recent CNN-USA Today-Gallup poll, respondents were asked, if there is a 12-year term limit for Members of Congress, do you think Members should be allowed to Members who have been in Congress 12 years not run again? Seventy-one percent of the respondents replied that such Members should not be allowed to run again. Mr. Chairman, if we are going to put our faith in polls, we should put our faith in all the polls and be consistent.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, when you are given a contract read the fine print. The Contract With America suggests that those who ran on term limits actually believe in it. Well, the fine print allows those folks to hang on a lot longer unless we make term limits retroactive. Let me suggest that if your Representative campaigned on cleaning out the barn, call them up and ask them, ``OK, how long have you been in D.C.?'' Today, Mr. Speaker, I am going to submit an interesting list of names of those who support term limits of 6 to 12 years. You can get it on the Internet or in the copy. I look at the list, and I see a gentleman from Florida first elected in 1980 who is a sponsor of one of these term-limit bills. I see a gentleman from my own State of Illinois, which reminds me, I forgot to congratulate the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Crane], first elected 26 years ago, for an award citing him as a term-limits hero. So let us do that right now. Oh, yes, the Republican version, Mr. Speaker, of term limits, shows there is no limit to the length that they will go try to fool the American people. Original Sponsor and Cosponsors of the Inglis Amendment (Providing that no person may serve in Congress more than 2 full terms as a Senator, and that no person may serve in Congress for more than 3 full terms as a Representative. Also provides that service as a Senator or Representative before the amendment takes effect shall not be taken into account in determining length of service) (All Representatives who have served more than three terms are in italic.) original sponsor Inglis (1992) cosponsors Dornan (1976) Sanford (1994) Armey (1984) Goss (1988) Hutchinson (1992) Dickey (1992) Royce (1992) Hoekstra (1992) Lewis (KY) (1994) Salmon (1994) Graham (1994) Davis (1994) Heineman (1994) Chabot (1994) Smith (WA) (1994) Ganske (1994) Chrysler (1994) Ensign (1994) Cooley (1994) Christensen (1994) Fox (1994) Calvert (1992) Nethercutt (1994) Shadegg (1994) Metcalf (1994) Whitfield (1994) Bass (1994) Solomon (1978) Forbes (1994) Blute (1992) Smith (TX) (1986) Bachus (1992) Kim (1992) Riggs (1994) Longley (1994) Cox (1988) Smith (MI) (1992) Baker (CA) (1992) Weldon (FL) (1994) Coburn (1994) Radanovich (1994) Roth (1978) Packard (1982) Stump (1976) Everett (1994) Thornberry (1994) Allard (1990) Bono (1994) Cunningham (1990) Tate (1994) Dunn (1992) Talent (1992) Chenoweth (1994) Jones (1994) Burr (1994) Cubin (1994) Stockman (1994) Crane (1969) Peterson (MN) (1988) McIntosh (1994) Fields (TX) (1980) McCrery (1986) Barcia (1992) Minge (1992) Myrick (1994) Amendment (Providing that no person who has been elected to the Senate two times shall be eligible for election or appointment to the Senate, and that no person who has been elected to the House of Representatives six times shall be eligible for election to the House.) (All Representatives who have served more than 3 terms are in italic.) original sponsors McCollum (1980) Hansen (1980) Peterson (MN) (1990) Lobiondo (1994) cosponsors Lightfoot (1984) Gillmor (1988) Allard (Deleted Feb 7, 95) (1960) Armey (1984) Bachus (1992) Baker (CA) (1992) Ballenger (1984) Barcia (1992) Barr (1994) Barrett (NE) (1992) Bartlett (1992) Bass (1994) Bereuter (1978) Bilbray (1994) Bilirakis (1992) Blute (1992) Bonilla (1990) Brownback (1994) Bryant (TN) (1994) Bunning (1986) Burr (1994) Buyer (1992) Calvert (1992) Camp (1990) Canady (1990) Chambliss (1994) Christensen (1994) Coble (1984) Collins (GA) (1992) Cooley (1994) Crane (1969) Cremeans (1994) Cunningham (1990) Deal (1992) Diaz-Balart (1992) Dickey (1992) Doolittle (1990) Dunn (1992) English (1994) Ensign (1994) Everett (1992) Ewing (1990) Fields (TX) (1980) Flanagan (1994) Foley (1994) Forbes (1994) Fox (1994) Franks (CT) (1990) Frisa (1994) Funderburk (1994) Gallegly (1986) Ganske (1994) Gekas (1982) Goodlatte (1990) Goss (1988) Graham (1994) Greenwood (1992) Gunderson (1980) Gutknecht (1994) Hancock (1988) Harman (1992) Hastings (WA) (1994) Hayworth (1994) Hilleary (1994) Hobson (1990) Hoekstra (1992) Hoke (1992) Horn (1992) Houghton (1986) Hutchinson (1992) Inglis (1992) Istook (1992) Sam Johnson (1990) Kim (1992) Kingston (1992) Klug (1990) Knollenberg (1992) LaHood (1994) Latham (1994) LaTourette (1994) Lazio (1992) Leach (1976) Lewis (KY) (1994) Linder (1992) Lucas (1994) McIntosh (1994) McKeon (1992) Meehan (1992) Metcalf (1994) Mica (1992) Miller (FL) (1992) Minge (1992) Myrick (1994) Neumann (1994) Ney (1994) Norwood (1994) Nussle (1990) Packard (1982) Paxon (1988) Pombo (1992) Portman (1993) Pryce (1992) Quinn (1992) Ramstad (1990) Radanovich (1994) Riggs (1994) Rohrabacher (1988) Royce (1992) Saxton (1982) Scarborough (1994) Schaefer (1983) Seastrand (1994) Shadegg (1994) Shaw (1980) Smith (MI) (1992) Smith (TX) (1986) Solomon (1978) Souder (1994) Stearns (1988) Stockman (1994) Stump (1976) Talent (1992) Taylor (NC) (1990) Thornberry (1994) Tiahrt (1994) Torkildsen (1992) Upton (1986) Waldholtz (1994) Wamp (1994) Weller (1994) White (1994) Whitfield (1994) Wilson (1972) Zeliff (1990) Zimmer (1990) McInnis (1992) Hayes (1986) Meyers (1984) Walker (1986) Deutsch (1992) Coburn (1994) Goodling (1974)

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, assuming, for argument's sake, that term limits really will have the beneficial effect on the Congress that their proponents claim, why should we pass a term limits amendment that does not apply with full force to current members? Do current members possess some special virtue which immunizes them from the hazards of extended incumbency? My good friend Rep. McCollum has said that ``those of us who believe in term limits * * * need to stay longer'' to make sure that a term limits amendment is passed. Do I sense a contradiction here? By the same reasoning, we should encourage the alcoholic to continue drinking, so that he will be able to keep his goal of quitting one day. But the McCollum resolution doesn't just buy the alcoholic a drink; it gives him an open tab at the bar. Were the McCollum resolution to be ratified by the states and become part of the constitution immediately following next year's elections, Mr. McCollum himself would still be eligible to serve in the Congress until 2008. By the time he retired, he would have been in Congress for 28 years. Twenty-eight years. Of course, the states can take up to seven years to ratify the term limits amendment. If the states do so, then Mr. McCollum--who has already served for 14 years--will have 19 more years to talk about our need for ``citizen legislators'' while he waits for his term limit to take effect. Under this scenario, when Mr. McCollum's term limits amendment finally forces him out of this body, he will have served for 33 years. It's a tough situation for Rep. McCollum. As he himself has noted, ``The worst thing that anybody could do who supports term limits as a sitting member of Congress is to step aside right now.'' (Press Conference on Term Limits, 5/4/92) Every once in a while Members of this House are called upon to cast a truly difficult vote, one that affects their own lives directly. Such is the constitutional amendment mandating retroactive term limits, of which I am an original sponsor. Members who have already served six terms when the amendment passes will be ineligible to run again. This amendment will give Members who really believe in term limits a chance to vote for a term limits amendment with teeth. But while we're waiting for term limits to pass, there's something else we can do to clean up Congress, to make elections something more than the ``mockery'' which our Speaker has said they often are, to reduce the overpowering advantages of incumbency in the American political system. I am talking about campaign finance reform. I've noticed that the Contract With America is completely silent on the issue of campaign finance reform. Yet the rhetoric about term limits grows louder by the day. Whether you are on this floor, in your car listening to the radio, or at home watching your television, it's everywhere these days. Yes, it's true, we have too many Members of Congress who have been working here so long that they now feel that they are entitled to be Members of Congress. And we have too many lobbyists, too many ``public relations'' specialists in this town, and they certainly have a lot more influence over the legislation that is produced by this body than the average working man or woman does. But this problem does not exist because people are serving in Congress too long; many of our greatest statesmen have had unusually long Congressional careers. This problem exists because of the way elections are paid for. To hear them talk, you would think my Republican friends are boldly leading the way into the era of Citizen Legislator, and that term limits are the definitive answer to the problem of the professionalization of politics. But all the while, my Republican friends are completely ignoring the legislation that will do more than anything else to release the Congress from its bondage to the lobbyists and the special interests-- campaign finance reform. The McCollum term limits resolution is really nothing more than an incumbency protection resolution. This is why more than 30 Members who have already been in Congress for 12 years or more support it so enthusiastically. Instead of following such an uncertain and indirect path to reform, wouldn't it be much simpler to pass real campaign finance reform, and take away the money and influence that allow people to stay in this body for year after year by drowning their opponents in a sea of money? Wouldn't it be much simpler to stop talking about phony term limits resolutions and instead do something to seriously limit the influence of big money campaign donors on our political system? But the Contract With America is silent on this issue. It's time to stop posturing on this issue and do the right thing. If you are for term limits--really for term limits--support the real thing, support retroactive term limits. But even more importantly, let's reform the campaign finance laws and restore equity to the electoral process. Whether you are in your first term or your twentieth, let's try to create a political system in which the citizens rule, and in which the dollar is no longer king. quotable quotes on term limits ``This is a tool that I think will do for Congress exactly what I did with a pitchfork for my dad's stable.''--Dick Armey (first elected, 1984) (Seelye, N.Y. Times. 1/12/95) ``I have served here now in my 13th year. I am not ready to walk away from here until Teddy Kennedy and you guys want to voluntarily walk away. Those of us who believe in term limits and those of us who want to see things change around here need to stay longer, unfortunately, because the system is the way it is, in order to have the influence it takes when you get a few years in here.''--Bill McCollum (Testimony before Subcmte. on Civil and Constitutional Rights, 11/18/93) ``If the Republicans can straighten out the House, I think Americans will find their enthusiasm for term limits waning quite a bit''.--Dick Armey, after Nov, '94 elections (AP, 12/ 6/94). ``Term limits are essential for a healthy and open political system.''--Dick Armey, one week later (AP, 12/6/ 94). ``I am for them [term limits] myself, but the retroactive feature is not a fair feature. It's not the way the Florida statute reads.* * * I think that's unconstitutional.''--Bill McCollum, CNN's Crossfire, 11/29/94. ``***I think systematically the balance of power in favor of professional politicians as incumbents is so great that in fact it may--in many places it has made a mockery of the process of open elections.''--Newt Gingrich (Press Conference on Term Limits, 1/11/95). supporters of non-retroactive term limits who would be forced to step down under retroactive 12-year limits Dornan (1976), Solomon (1978), Roth (1978), Packard (1982), Stump (1976), Crane (1969), Fields (1980), McCollum (1980), Hansen (1980), Bereuter (1978), Gekas (1982), Gunderson (1980), Leach (1976), Saxton (1982), Schaefer (1983), Shaw (1980), Wilson (1972), Goodling (1974), Gingrich (1978).

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, today I want to send a special message to the people of the Sixth District in Georgia. I want to inform you that your Congressman, Mr. Gingrich--whom you first elected in 1978-- supports limiting members to 12 years of service. In a press conference endorsing the 12-year limit, the Speaker, now in his 17th year, said: ``The balance of power in favor of professional politicians as incumbents * * * has made a mockery of the process of open elections.'' So, that must mean that each election held in Georgia's Sixth District since 1990, when Mr. Gingrich's 12 years were up, has been a mockery. If I lived in Georgia, I'd be concerned to hear that I had voted in a ``mockery'' of an election. In fact, three of them, since 1990. But, there is a remedy. No, not a special election, and, no, we don't have to ask President Carter to monitor the elections, even though he lives right term limits. Now, it is hard work to be the Speaker, but, it should not be too much trouble to actually live by the words that you speak.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I submitted three amendments to this bill that were all ruled out of order. In my effort I was not simply trying to appeal to the good nature of the members of the Committee on Rules nor to their sense of charity. My amendments spoke to other values, hard work, paying taxes, playing by the rules. Those you understand are not partisan values, or so I thought until I read the Republican written rule. Two of my amendments would have ensured that those legal immigrants who pay Federal taxes for at least 5 years would remain eligible for benefits. I wanted to raise one issue that gets drowned out by the red-hot rhetoric in this body and on the radio talk shows, that have become the national outlet for passing along blame. The fact is, Mr. Speaker, legal immigrants pay taxes that we all use, and they follow the laws of this country that they have come to call home. This bill is called the Personal Responsibility Act. Many legal immigrants who work hard, play by the rules, already exhibit a level of responsibility that this House will do well to emulate. We can do so by defeating this rule. Mr. Speaker, during the welfare debate, I have heard the Republicans cite as their goal, the demolition of the Great Society. Well, with this rule, I think they've gone well beyond that. As I see it, the question now seems: Do the Republicans even want America to be a good society? In my mind, a good society protects the most vulnerable. A good society does not slash programs for those whose well-being has been put in jeopardy in so many other ways. Now, I have heard it said that the punitive measures contained in this bill are not simply there for the sake of injuring the poor or the weak. No--the Republicans tell us that these measures are supposed to change behavior. Denying benefits to young unwed mothers, I am told, is not simply a way to penalize them--but to change their behavior. Well, if that is the logic of this bill, then what am I to make of those provisions that are aimed at denying benefits to legal immigrants? I have to assume that your goal is to alter the behavior of those around the world who would otherwise think about coming--legally--to the United States. And that's a shame, because I thought that a good society opened its doors to others. It was out of that concern that I submitted three amendments to the Rules Committee for consideration. In so doing, I was not simply trying to appeal to the good nature of the members of the Rules Committee, nor to their sense of charity. My amendments spoke to other values--hard work, paying taxes, playing by the rules. Those aren't partisan values. Those are values that we all share. Or, so I thought until seeing this Republican-written rule. Let me briefly describe my amendments. The first would have made any legal alien who has paid 5 years of Federal income taxes eligible for the services that this bill would otherwise deny them--Medicaid, SSI, food stamps, Temporary Assistance, and social service block grants. A second, which I envisioned as an alternative, would grant the same eligibility to those immigrants who paid 5 years of taxes during a 10- year period. I thought that this amendment was certainly reasonable to all parties involved. I felt it was important to raise these issues because it speaks to facts that get obliterated by the red-hot rhetoric raised in this body. These facts get drowned out by the talk radio shows that have become the national outlets for ranting and raving and passing on blame to others. These two amendments point out that--yes--legal immigrants pay taxes, taxes that we all use. Just like anyone else in America, they follow the rules and laws of the country that they now call home. The third amendment that I have drafted addresses the considerable expenses that will be passed along to the States when these services are obliterated at the Federal level. Under my amendment, the Federal Government could not exclude legal immigrants from eligibility for these services if it is found that this leads to a cost of $50 million or more to a State. Pretty interesting timing, don't you think? Today, the unfunded mandates bill is being ceremoniously signed into law. Tell me--especially my friends on the other side of the aisle who pressed so hard for the unfunded mandates bill--what happens if, or when, we find that the welfare reform bill fits your definition of an unfunded mandate? I was pleased that, even though these amendments did not receive bipartisan support here inside the beltway, at least they did outside of Washington. The Republican Governor of Illinois, Jim Edgar, wrote to the Speaker recommending that these amendments be ruled in order. Isn't it the Republican Party that keeps saying they are supposedly on the side of the States? Then why ignore the wishes of a State like Illinois which will be severely burdened by the steps that you want us to take today? It's not an exaggeration to say that this bill, and the rule, that we are debating today changes--in my mind--what America represents. In the minds of many, America always held magic because it not only was a Nation that stood up to other superpowers around the world, but that it also stood up for the powerless who came here from around the world. After today's action, I don't think you can quite say the same thing. This bill is called the Personal Responsibility Act I urge all Members to remember their public responsibility and to vote no on this rule.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I hear plenty of Republicans talk tough about those who are living off of the taxpayers' money. I hear Republicans say ``it was never meant to become a way of life.'' I hear them say that ``these people need to get real jobs'' and that ``we have to cut additional benefits right away.'' Instead of cracking down on mothers and children who need some help, they should apply these same tough standards to the career politicians who have spent decades on the public payroll. Now, you will hear plenty of Republicans--including those who have spent their entire adult lives inside Washington--say that they support term limits. But, if they really mean it, then I expect them to support an amendment to make term limits immediate. If you really support a 12-year limit, and if you have been here 12 years, it is time to pack up. They talk about tough love for those receiving government assistance. Well then, I can certainly offer that same tough love to Members of this House who say that they support term limits, but are having a little trouble kicking the congressional habit.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I often hear Republicans say that we need term limits because ``we need to clean out the barn.'' Look, I do not live on a farm, so I never use that phrase. But, when I hear someone else say, ``We need to clean out the barn,'' it sounds like something important, something that should be done soon. Not a few years down the road. But today. Now. So, I do not understand when those who have been in Congress for 12, 20, 25 years say they support term limits, but they plan to stick around Washington a little longer, because these are the same folks who said, ``We have got to clean out the barn.'' Fine. Grab a broom. Clean out the barn. But if it turns out that you are the one who is making the mess, you better get out of the barn, too. I urge Members who talk about term limits to support retroactive term limits, where we count your accumulated service as of today. That would turn term limits from rhetorical cheapshot into real change. Retroactivity cleans out the barn, now.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I can report today that one part of the Contract With America is working very well: Term limits. You might say, ``Luis, the Republicans have not even let you vote on term limits yet.'' You are right. Actually, what is working is a different, very American version of term limits. It is called the ballot box. American voters have limited plenty of terms. In fact, since 1990, half the Members of this House have been sent home. That is effective term limits. But we could do even better, by passing a bill that says American elections are not only for millionaires and insiders, that says campaigns are for people--not for the powerful and privileged. A tough campaign finance reform bill would mean real term limits for all of the career politicians who talk a good game about citizen legislators by supporting the phony Republican term limits bill that are not retroactive. Funny, though, I do not see one word about campaign finance reform in their contract. I guess that issue will have to wait until the last lobbyists have turned out the lights at a few more thousand-dollar-a-plate Republican fundraisers.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, in a move that demonstrates the gulf between the rhetoric about the Contract With America and the reality of what it means for Americans, the majority ducked a vote on term limits. And they did it for a simple reason. They know they are not serious about it. For all of their talk about citizen legislators, their term limit bill is really about one thing--protecting their power. So I say to the Republicans: Stop hustling the American people. If what you really want is term limits and not limitless headlines, send us a real bill. If letting the American people decide every 2 years who should represent them doesn't sit too well with Mr. Gingrich and Mr. Armey and Mr. McCollum--three term limit supporters who have now been citizen legislators for a total of 44 years--then I say give us a real term limits bill. Make it retroactive. If you want the headlines, then clean out your desks and head for home the day we pass the bill. When the citizen legislators who have been here for decades show me they are that serious about term limits, then I am with you.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, the legal bill we are debating today can be summed up in two words. Loser pays. Loser pays. An appropriate phrase for this Congress. Because all across America, people who are winners are being treated like losers. Hard-working American families who are busy meeting their mortgage and making their car payment and saving for school supplies. Middle income Americans who are too busy trying to stretch their dollars to attend the thousand dollar a plate dinners for Republican insiders. Loser pays. Well, to my Republican colleagues, I guess the people who hold the champagne glasses and wear the designer dresses at their fundraisers are the winners, and the people who serve the drinks and clean up afterward are the losers. But today we have a chance to preserve the right of Americans to be winners in court by rejecting the lobbyist-sellout the majority calls ``legal reform.'' families, they will be the lobbyists left alone when the lights go out at their party.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, at the end of the afternoon of Tuesday, February 28, 1995, I was unavoidably absent from this Chamber and therefore missed rollcall votes Nos. 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183--all votes regarding amendments and final passage of H.R. 1022--the Risk Assessment and Cost Benefit Act of 1995. I want the Record to show that if I had had the opportunity to be in this Chamber when these votes were cast, I would have votes the following way: rollcall vote No. 178, ``yea''; roll call vote No. 179, ``nay''; rollcall vote No. 180, ``yea''; rollcall vote No.181, ``yea''; rollcall vote No. 182--``yea''; rollcall vote No. 183, ``nay.''

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Madam Speaker, you know, we keep calling these cuts rescissions. But let us face it. These are not rescissions, but rather a retreat, a retreat from recent promises to fund programs during this fiscal year, a retreat from long-standing promises to serve veterans. And, just as an army in retreat turns its back and runs, those who support this package are also turning their backs. Obviously, the Appropriations Committee has done a disservice to all Americans affected by those cuts. But, let us consider how shameful it is to do a disservice to people who have already given their service to this country. That means America's veterans. These cuts are financing 14 years of failed, phony, fiscal policy from the GOP--two sets of Republican budget-busters that are squeezing working families like a vice. In 1981, a Republican President began to cut taxes for the wealthy and build up our defense. And in 1995, a Republican Congress wants-- sound familiar?--to cut taxes for the wealthy and build up our defense. To quote that same Republican President, ``there they go again.'' Let us see how flawed these rescissions are. Just look at the decision to cancel improvements at the VA hospital in San Juan, Puerto Rico. Now I do not know whether any member of the Appropriations Committee has traveled to the facility in San Juan. But I have. I can speak firsthand of the overcrowding and long delays as patients try to access the services supposedly available to them. I can attest to the urgent need for the proposed renovation of the hospital. But rather than break ground on a new veterans' facility, the Republicans would prefer that we break a promise. And, it is not just happening in San Juan, but at 5 other facilities in the VA system affected by these cuts--areas where more than 1 million veterans reside. Furthermore, these cuts show that these rescissions are not just an abandonment of compassion, but an abandonment of reason. That is because, rather than produce the great savings that the Republicans so grandly advertise, these rescissions would cancel exactly the kind of services--like outpatient care--that rein in the escalating costs of medical care. In addition, I want to state two simple facts about outpatient care, or ambulatory care: first, it saves lives; second, it saves money. You would think that the Republicans would at least care about one of those facts. You know, many of us have accused the Appropriations Committee of using a hatchet or a meat ax to make these cuts when a scalpel would have been better. Well, it turns out that VA surgeons will not even be using scalpels pretty soon, since the Republicans will not let them buy any new ones. As I said earlier, these Republican rescissions are really a retreat. When they were young, these veterans were sent overseas, to lands far from their home. And if they wanted to, these service men had plenty of reasons to retreat. But rather than retreat from battle, they endured. Rather than shirk from duty, they stood up for principles. I want to encourage this House to show the same determination. I want this House to show the same willingness to carry through on principle. Rather than retreat, I urge the House to muster up the courage to fight, to fight for what is right, to fight for, not against, the American family, to fight for those who fought for us, to reject this rescission package.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, the Republicans have said ``no more free lunches.'' But, to whom have they said this? To themselves or to the Washington special interests? No. To well-paid lobbyists or well- connected contractors? No. Instead, they have said ``no more free lunch''--no lunch at all--to the millions of children who depend on the Federal Government's School Lunch Program. Mr. Speaker, we need congressional reform, like a gift ban, because we can only represent our constituents if we share the experiences that they go through everyday. And this latest cruel cut shows that we have very little in common with our youngest, most vulnerable constituents. Yes, it is business as usual in Washington, even though outside the beltway, belts will be worn a little tighter than usual. Members of Congress and lobbyists can keep their three-martini lunches, while our poorest children can't even get three square meals. So, I say to the Republicans, you defend your elegant lunches with lobbyists who make millions, and we Democrats are going to defend the modest lunches that feed millions of children.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues talk about a ``second Reagan Revolution.'' Well, they are right--when it comes to providing decent food and nutrition to the children of America. In the mid-1980's, millions of children suffered because the Federal Government cut funding for the school lunch program. Now, today, to pay for more defense spending and tax giveaways to the rich contributors to the Republican Party, we are going to let kids go hungry again. Maybe what we need is a revolution that reaches back a little farther in Republican Party history. In 1865, facing an enemy far more dangerous than our Nation's school children, 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--saying no to a decent lunch for our Nation's children 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, some of my colleagues like to say we have a ``new Congress.'' They are right. A new Congress that loves the photo ops of passing a so-called crime bill, but votes to take police officers off our streets. A new Congress that loves the headlines of talking about moving people from welfare to work, but scoffs at the idea of paying Americans a livable minimum wage. Yes, we have a new Congress. But it has forgotten a lot of old- fashioned ideas. Like the idea of giving those in need a helping hand-- instead of pointing the finger of blame. The idea that we should help our constituents take back their streets from criminals. The old ideal that perhaps we should give our kids a hot lunch in their schools. And the idea that every American who works hard and sweats and toils every day deserves to be able to feed their family and own their home and send their kids to college. these old ideas. But I guess we Democrats are sort of old-fashioned, so we will keep right on fighting for them.