Luis Gutiérrez

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, every American who cares about pork--and believes my colleagues' claims that we have a new Congress that is putting America on a pork-free diet--should pay close attention to the debate about defense spending today. You will learn that my friends on the other side of the aisle have not stopped the pork from sizzling, they have simply put a new name on the menu. You see, the bill we are considering adds more than $600 million to our deficit. Why? Largely because my Republican colleagues have tacked on close to a billion dollars in spending that the Secretary of Defense does not even want. But of course, my friends, that billion is not pork. You see, in the Republican restaurant, investment in job training, or building new schools--now that is pork. So today, my colleagues will work to eliminate $300 million to train our kids for better jobs and help them learn in decent schools. Think about those priorities the next time you hear one of my colleagues talk about pork. Remember, it is not the size of the spending. It is where it is spent that makes them squeal.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, our majority leader tells us that the minimum wage is a bad idea, and that he should know. After all Mr. Armey was a college economics professor. Well, maybe he should have taught home economics instead. Every home economics teacher knows about food costs and how far you have to stretch dollars to feed your family. A home economics teacher shows students how to make meals and bake cookies, but also tells that you have to skip some dinners and desserts if you cannot afford them. And, even though it is a concept far too complicated for someone with a Ph.D. in economics, the fact is that you cannot afford those dinners and deserts if your wages never go up, but minimum wage opponents are not looking at you and your family, they are looking at charts and graphs. They are not looking at your kitchen table, they are looking at tables of statistics. Well, hard-working Americans earning minimum wage are not statistics. They are real people trying to earn a decent, livable wage. So, I say to minimum wage opponents, maybe you got a Ph.D. in economics, but you get an ``F'' when it comes to the real economics of real families.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, this morning, Academy Award nominations were announced. And it made me think, we need a new category for the so-called anticrime proposals we're debating. We could call it, best performance by Members of Congress in pretending to make our communities safer. Sure, nominees would be hard to choose. It could be trampling on the fourth amendment to make illegal searches easier. Or greatly increasing the chances of executing an innocent person. Or talking of repealing the Brady bill and assault weapons ban. And finally, this week, passing legislation that will very likely take police officers off the streets of America. In fact, too many of our colleagues could win an award for saying yes to the gun lobby, but saying no to our Constitution. So, we might have to wait until March 27 to see who wins an Oscar. But we know today who loses because of these fake, ineffective crime proposals. Our children lose. Our families lose. Our constituents lose. Every American who wants a safer neighborhood loses--in a category that is far more important than favorite movies.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this very important amendment to a very bad bill. Earlier today I heard my colleague, the gentleman from Florida, criticize the President's support for more police officers, calling it a pet project. Legislators and Presidents have had a lot of pet projects through the years, and my colleague is right. Many times what pet project means in plain English is simply more pork. But today the pork is not in the President's frying pan. It is sizzling on the other side of the aisle, and it is called H.R. 728, a terrible bill that represents a huge step backward from making our communities safer. The argument in favor of this amendment is very simple. Will we put 100,000 new police officers on the streets, or will we not? If we pass H.R. 728, we side with chance, we side with luck, and we side with crossing our fingers and worrying about whether these block grants will make our communities safer. If we pass this amendment, we side with confidence, we side with safety, and we side with knowing that $7.5 billion is headed toward our communities for the single, specific purpose of putting more police officers on our streets. We do not need hope or luck or worry. We need police officers walking our streets. All across our cities, all across our country, more police officers are making a difference. Community policing has meant that finally a connection has been made between neighborhoods that are living in fear and police officers who are pledged to protect them. Instead of impersonal, infrequent visits by patrol cars, people now see and talk to real police officers. The passage of President Clinton's crime bill meant that neighborhoods like the ones I represent knew that more help was on the way, that the kids who worry about walking to school and the senior citizens who worry about riding the bus could count on more police officers. It meant that people who tell me again and again to bring back more help and resources from Washington in their fight against crime were finally getting another weapon in that battle. Finally, instead of more promises, Congress was sending more police, but thanks to H.R. 728, we are retreating again. Unless we pass this amendment, the seniors and the young families and working people in American are getting another big batch of rhetoric out of Washington, DC. Here is some money. Maybe it will help, but maybe it will not. But whatever you do, I say, don't look out your front window for the cop on the beat. Don't look to the corner store for an extra police officer, because the Contract With America has called them home. H.R. 728 says that you do not really need those police officers after all. But if you are concerned about crime, stay on the lookout for some money that might help you sometime, somewhere, for something. That is our choice. Do we want a real contract for more police officers on our streets, where we need them, helping to keep our communities safe, or a fake contract of more empty promises out of Washington? Mr. Chairman, we can fulfill that contract by passing this amendment. Support safety. Support real crime control. Support more police officers. Support this critical amendment.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, last week, our President issued a challenge to Members of Congress. He asked that this Congress take a stand for Americans who work and sweat and toil ever day, yet earn only $4.25 an hour. And how have we responded to that challenge? The majority of my colleagues--colleagues who make $64.40 an hour-- have responded with a simple answer--$4.25 is enough; $5.15--the level the President has asked the minimum wage be increased to--is too much; and $5.15 an hour is too much to pay the millions of Americans who carry lunch pails to work every day, who sweep the floors of our hospitals, who crouch behind assembly lines putting together our appliances. This decision means that more painful decisions will have to be made. My legislation says that if we dismiss this increase from $4.25 to $5.15, my colleagues and I will feel a little bit of the pain as well. Just a little bit of pain. It isn't the pain that day laborers feel at the end of long hours of manual labor. It isn't the pain that young mothers feel at the end of a long day on the assembly line. It isn't the pain garment workers feel after a long day of piecing together our clothing. it isn't the pain of not having the means to support your family or feed you kids. Almost five months of sweat and toil in jobs that most people don't even want. A Member of Congress has to work from January 1 until January 11 to make $3,500. Eleven days of work. I am not suggesting that many of my colleagues are not dedicated, hard-working and conscientious leaders. However, many of those same conscientious leaders simply dismiss the necessity of paying our people a livable wage. Well, that belief has real effects on real people. For many of my colleagues saying no to a livable minimum wage is simply a sound bite about economic policy and job creation. But for millions of Americans who work hard every day this decision is much more important than any sound bite. My legislation calls for Member salaries to decrease by 2.6 percent every year until the minimum wage increases to at least $5.15. Why 2.6 percent? That is the size of the cost-of-living increase Members of Congress were scheduled to receive in 1995. If Americans earning $4.25 an hour--less than $9,000 per year--can live where their buying power decreases every time the cost of living goes up--then certainly members of Congress can survive it. This 2.6 percent pay cut will save the U.S. Treasury almost $2 million. This 2.6 percent decrease comes to about $3,500. The average American earning minimum wage has to work from January 1 until May 18 to earn $3,500. How easy it is for those of us with salaries that place us in top .5 percent of wage earners in this Nation, to say to millions of Americans who can only dream of someday making our salary--``You earn enough.'' Well, I would like to take my colleagues at their word, and issue a challenge of my own. That is why, today, I introduced legislation tying the salaries of Members of Congress to the action--or lack of action--we take on minimum wage. If $4.25--$4.25 that in real earning power is less and less every day--is enough for millions of hard-working Americans, then certainly $133,000 is too much for a Member of Congress. My legislation is clear. Until we have the courage to join our President and increase the minimum wage to $5.15, then I think Members of Congress should also see their buying power deteriorate. Even today, 5 years after the last increase in minimum wage, $4.25 is still enough. Even though the cost of living has increased by more than 10 percent since the last time the minimum wage was increased, we still believe that $4.25 is enough. The price of homes has increased. The price of bread and milk and eggs has increased. The price of college tuition has increased. The price of rent has increased. The price of clothes has increased. But the minimum wage has not increased. And yet a great many of my $65-an-hour colleagues have responded to our President's challenge by saying that $4.25 is enough. It's just a little bit of pain--pain that will be easily forgotten. Not the pain of working 40 hours a week, and still not having enough money to support your family. I will be calling on my colleagues in the next few days to support my bill. I hope every person who is listening tonight who is making $4.25 will call on their Representative to support my bill, because this bill is really about the value of work. The value of the American workers' sweat and sacrifice and pain. I value the work of my colleagues. But I don't find it 15 times more valuable than that of the people who take care of our children, who tend to our sick, who clean our homes, and build our cities. So, if my colleagues continue to say no to a livable minimum wage, then I will work to say no to our maximum salaries. I encourage my colleagues to join me. I include for the Record a copy of my bill.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, we hear daily updates on the Contract With America. But my colleagues omit the fact that this contract was built by pollsters and consultants. It was designed for easy popularity, not for the American people. Well, their consultants must have forgotten to ask about minimum wage. Because when NBC News asked the American people, 78 percent said they favored an increase. I guess 78 percent of America was not around when our opponents took their poll. I think I know who they missed. They missed the 78 percent who carry around something other than the contract in their back pocket. They missed the 78 percent who instead carry a lunch pail to their work site, who carry their children to day care, who carry a bus token so they can get to work, who carry a Medicare card for their health care. So the next time our Speaker waves around a piece of paper and a hole puncher, remember that until we honor the hard work of every person in our Nation with a decent, livable minimum wage, all he is waving is an exclusive contract with some of America.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I do not mean to harangue the distinguished major leader. However, I heard Mr. Armey say that he would fight an increase in the minimum wage with ``every fiber in his body.'' Well, I want him also to consider the fibers on his body: the fibers that make up his shirt, his suit, his socks, his tie. If his clothes were made here in USA, then I would bet that some of those fibers were sewn together--by workers earning the minimum wage. As public servants, we should be willing to give our constituents the shirts off our back. Instead, in Mr. Armey's world, we take the shirts that they make for us, put them on our backs, and then tell them that they are not even worth the $4.25 an hour that they got making that shirt. Mr. Armey may be the majority leader in this House, but he does not speak for the majority of Americans, most of whom want us to honor our workers with a decent, liable wage. We have all heard the story of the ``Emperor who had no clothes.'' Well, if it were not for minimum wage employees, we would hear the story--the true story--of the majority leader who had no clothes. Let us keep that in mind as we debate the minimum wage.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, my colleague, the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt], has offered a reasonable and sensible amendment to this very unreasonable bill today, and I congratulate my friend and colleague for his spirited defense of the Constitution. Standing up for the Constitution puts you in a minority in this body these days. Standing up for the ideas of our forefathers is considered a radical idea in this body these days. Looking to the sacred document that has guided our ideas for what is right and wrong for more than 200 years is apparently no longer part of our contract with the people anymore. So I thank the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt], for this important amendment, and for reminding us that the Constitution still matters. This amendment simply states that prisoners sentenced to death will be able to file a second habeas petition if newly discovered evidence shows that the person is likely to be found innocent. Let me repeat, because this should sound so logical to everyone that you might think that I have somehow misstated the Watt amendment: newly discovered evidence that shows that a person is likely to be innocent. Now, I understand the desire to get tough on crime and criminals. I share the desire to crack down on crime. I believe we should get tough on criminals. I was proud to support a crime bill during the last session that moved our Nation toward that goal. It made it harder to get military-style weapons. It increased funding for prisons. It increased preventive measures. It was an important start, Mr. Chairman. We should continue to build on that start. I think we should do more to make criminals pay for their crimes. I think we should do more to protect our families from criminals. That is the real purpose, or should be, of anticrime legislation. Yet my colleagues have lost sight of the true goal of anticrime legislation. The goal is to protect our families, Mr. Chairman, to protect our homes, to protect our neighborhoods. I challenge any of my colleagues who support this measure to demonstrate to me how this bill helps us reach any of those goals I just stated. How have we reached a point in our anticrime debate that we have lost interest in the Constitution? Have we reached a point in our anticrime debate that newly discovered, clear, credible evidence of innocence does not win you the opportunity in America, just the opportunity for a new trial, in this, the greatest country in the world? How does denying the possibility, the mere possibility of a new trial for a person who may be innocent, Mr. Chairman, help us make our families and streets safer? How does it make our families feel safer in their homes? How does it make our kids feel safer on the way to school? We all know the answer. Denying habeas when new evidence suggests innocence does not protect our communities. We all know it. It merely gives us a sound bite for the news this evening. It gives us a headline to cheer about tomorrow morning. It merely allows us to pat ourselves on the back and convince ourselves that we are doing something to protect the neighborhoods that we are all so concerned about. But we are not, Mr. Chairman. This is not, and I repeat, this is not about the right of criminals. This is about the right of all of us, including the Members in this body, all of us in this room, all of our families, all of the people that we represent, their right, their fundamental right, their constitutional right as Americans not to be punished for a crime that they did not commit. Their right, our right to have a chance, a fair chance to prove our innocence. Justice and fairness can be frustrating at times. Sometimes justice and fairness takes a little more time than we want it to take. But what separates us from nations that value vengeance over justice, revenge over fairness? It is this, that we have a way of doing things differently in this country. That is what this amendment is all about.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I know that to many Members of Congress, another 90 cents is nothing more than pocket change. But to Americans making minimum wage it is not pocket change--it is real change. A change from worrying about paying the rent, or food, or buying new shoes for their kids. A change to a life with some economic security. It amazes me that our opponents say ``yes'' to a book deal that is worth more than four and a quarter million, but ``no'' to anything over four and a quarter an hour for the people who will print, pack, ship, and sell that very book. Well, I want to speak to everyone earning $4.25 today. If your wage is not $5.15 an hour when that book hits the shelves, I say, ``don't buy it.'' Because I think our Speaker should read a book about the hopes and dreams of America's working families rather than the other way around. So I say to our opponents--you defend your millions and we Democrats will defend ours. Your millions, of course, are the millions of dollars earned on a book, and our millions are the millions of Americans trying to earn a decent livable wage.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, based on a 40-hour week, Members of this body make $64.40 an hour. When we leave the floor today, at 3 p.m., we will have earned $325. For the millions of Americans who earn minimum wage, $325 means 2 weeks of work, 2 weeks sweeping the floors in our nursing homes; 2 weeks crouched behind a sewing machine putting together our clothes, 2 weeks changing the bedpans in our hospitals, 2 weeks, for what my colleagues and I will earn in the next 5 hours. Today, the President has proposed increasing the minimum wage by 90 cents. Congressmen earn 90 cents every 45 seconds. Yet, how easy it will be for so many of my $65 an hour colleagues to dismiss this increase. ``Not needed,'' they will say. ``Bad economic policy.'' Let me tell my colleagues what I believe is bad economic policy: A minimum wage that leaves millions of Americans with children who are hungry, with college that cannot be paid for, with homes that cannot be bought and with dreams that will never be fulfilled. That is bad economic policy. Do the right thing. Support a livable minimum wage.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

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

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I would just simply suggest one thing. We all know what happens in the committee. We all know how Members get on these committees. But here we are, in the Committee of the Whole. We can correct and rectify any problem. Because we know they make mistakes in that committee. They get too cozy with each other in that committee. They spend so many years together. It is get along, come along. This is the Committee of the Whole right here. Let us do the right thing right here. The gentleman and I can do it. I ask the Republicans to join us. They are in the majority. Let us do what we have got to do and let us eliminate these tax breaks.

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

Mr. GUTIERREZ. I tell the gentleman from Massachusetts, he and I know each other. He knows I have been for a line-item veto. My record is clear. There are many of us on this side, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Barrett], many of us. So do not chastise us. Do not ridicule us by saying that somehow we are hypocritical and Johnny-come-latelies on this when we have stood up and now that the gentleman is in the majority, it is bipartisan, too, when I am with him, just like it was bipartisan when other Members of my party joined the gentleman in the past 2 weeks.

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to rise in support of this essential amendment. We have heard a lot of rhetoric today about the importance of eliminating wasteful spending from our budget. And I agree with much of that rhetoric. Far too often taxpayers have been forced to carry the burden in this Nation for our inability to stand up for them and to say no to pet projects of lobbyists and pork barrel projects of special interest groups. However, today supporters of this bill, despite all of the rhetoric about protecting the taxpayers and promoting fiscal responsibility, have engaged in a sneaky end run around the American people. This bill does help the President go after pork, some pork. But this bill, without the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Slaughter] and the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Barrett], also goes on record as saying, you know what, some pork is okay. We might be able to go on a little diet, but we are not kicking the habit completely. Yes, wasteful spending is a problem that is diverting money from the real needs of America. But just as importantly, just as importantly, so are those targeted tax giveaways designed to give a break to your favorite lobbyist, powerful interest group or a privileged group of people. These free rides cost the treasury just like wasteful spending does. Every time we pass a tax credit, a refund or a break that benefits a particular group or special interest at the expense of America, we are creating more pork. Without the Slaughter-Barrett amendment, we are saying that with one swipe of the pen, the President can eliminate any spending, any spending he so chooses. What if the President decides he wants to eliminate tax benefits for foreign corporation or giveaways to foreign investors? More importantly, what if the President decides that a capital gains tax cut that overwhelmingly benefits only the richest 5 percent of America deserves the swipe of his veto pen? What if our President decides that we absolutely cannot afford to drain our treasury of billions, yes, my colleagues, billions of dollars for a tax cut for the wealthiest Americans at a time when we are trying to save and cut every dollar that we possibly can? What if our President decides he wants to side, for a change, with working men and women and say no to a tax giveaway, to a narrowly- directed group of people? Well, this bill says he cannot do it. You cannot do it, Mr. President, because we are not interested in that to stop tax giveaways. That, my colleagues, is a fatal flaw in this bill. But the remedy is simple. There is a cure. The remedy is this amendment. If we are truly on the side of the American people and against wasteful spending today, then let us go all the way. Let us kick the habit. Let us not protect the special interests, the lobbyists, the favor seekers in these halls who want to leave here today with their tax breaks intact. My colleagues, I did not know until today that this Contract With America could be amended. I knew there were a lot of amendments to the Constitution in this contract, but I did not know this could be amended. But today we have heard that is was unartfully crafted, not my words, the gentleman from Massachusetts stated that it was unartfully crafted. Well, I am going to read it again with a good lawyer by my side. Another gentleman on the other side said, well, we have finally come up, these are not my words, with the best definition to date. It is written, it is printed, but today we came up with the best definition. Maybe we will have to add an appendage for definitions to this so we can all know what it really means. And lastly, it is certainly good to raise the flag of bipartisanship when it is on the balanced budget amendment, applaud for the bipartisanship; when it is on unfunded mandate, applaud for the bipartisanship; and when Democrats stand up to say, let us do the right thing together and it is good, but I am with you.

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding, because I want to make one point very clear: This Democrat in the last Congress of the United States voted for the strongest line item veto that was proposed, including this provision. So do not try to argue as though no one on this side of the aisle was supporting the strong kind of line item veto. As a matter of fact, I suggest to the freshmen and the sophomore who I am in the same class, he defy your leadership. True, it was a little difficult in water to drink, and, as you can see, I am still here. So stand up for what you believe in and do the right thing and vote your conscience. you know what is right. Do it. Others have done it, and we are still here, alive and well, and, thank, God, healthy.

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I have not quite gotten the committee assignments I have asked for, but I have been able to work well here with the gentleman from California [Mr. Cunningham] with my Democratic colleagues, and look forward to working with all of them. However, I just suggest that there are some of us, a few of us, maybe, that were for the line item veto, the strongest line item veto. To simply suggest that now, with a stroke of the pen, that we were all against it, just is not quite fair to us and our position. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I just want to suggest that, No. 1, we are all friends on the committees. We are close to one another on the committees and we do a lot of work there.

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, that is simply my point. I do not want anybody to make any other inference of that point, and I apologize if anyone took it any differently, No. 1. No. 2 is, the gentleman is lucky if he gets the complete assignments he wished. I bought a book called ``Adventures in Pork Land,'' sent it out to the 75 winners of the primary, of the general election in November 1992, sent it out to them. Really, they all got it. I said, for us to get to when we organize as a freshman class in 1992.'' How do I get on the Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs? Great committee, but I got there because there were four slots they could not fill. They could not deny me that committee slot.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, today we will begin an important bill that once again my friends on the other side of the aisle have almost gotten right. Giving the President the line-item veto authority is important but again the bill we are debating today omits an element critical to making this legislation true and effective. They are more than willing to allow the President to eliminate spending, but they seem to be more than a little nervous about allowing the President to eliminate unfair tax giveaways. I want our President to stand against wasteful spending. But he should also be able to stand up against unfair tax breaks for the wealthy and the privileged. If the President can eliminate spending with the stroke of a pen, let us give him the authority to eliminate tax giveaways that cheat working people, drain our treasury, and pile up our debt with that very same pen. If my colleagues are serious about this reform, let us make it a serious reform that addresses our serious problems, not a pretend reform hiding a huge tax loophole for the powerful and the privileged.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, we have heard my friends on the other side of the aisle talk a lot about change. That is good. This institution needs some change. But in the past 3 weeks, Mr. Speaker, the American people have found out what type of change many of my colleagues were really talking about. We have discovered that a new criteria exists for being able to speak the truth on the floor of the House. We found out when the subject is questionable dealings by powerful Members of the House leadership, speaking the truth on the floor of the people's House is often prohibited. But that is not the only change, Mr. Speaker. We passed a Congressional Accountability Act that is far worse than what was passed by this House just last year because it did not eliminate a ban on gifts from lobbyists and allows Members to continue to use their frequent flyer miles for personal use. There are other changes, too. We are no longer talking about lobbying reform or campaign finance reform, the real critical changes that will truly make a difference in the way we conduct the people's business. Yes, many of my friends marched into this institution waving a banner that said, ``reform and change,'' but all we see today is the white flag.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, 1 week ago the President had the courage to talk about real change--not the fake, pretend change that my friends on the other side of the aisle have been promoting. The American people did not send us here for fake change, and the American people cannot be fooled. They sent us here because they want a Government that understands their problems and is working to make their lives better. They want a House of Representatives that is not afraid to improve the way it does business so that it can improve the way it does the people's business. Real change means altering the way campaigns are financed, the way we deal with lobbyists, the ethics laws that govern us, and the free gifts and perks we are allowed to take. Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot of talk from the other side of the aisle about change but not a word about these changes, real changes. This institution can be judged by answering a simple question: Will we provide a government that is ruled by Americans with extraordinary influence of a government that is influenced by ordinary Americans? The answer so far is not very promising.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, tonight our President will come to this Chamber to speak on the state of our Union. Many pundits have suggested that this is a time to re-evaluate our President. Let me suggest that perhaps it is time to place fair value on what he has accomplished. In the storm of myths and misrepresentation, much of it from the other side of the aisle, we lose sight of real accomplishments that affect real people. President Clinton, despite partisan opposition, fought for an earned income tax credit that brought tax relief to 40,000 families in my congressional district alone, and millions in this Nation. President Clinton, despite partisan opposition, has achieved the largest deficit reduction plan in history, while still creating almost 6 million jobs. President Clinton, despite partisan opposition, has expanded Head Start for the children of Chicago and America. And President Clinton, despite partisan opposition, has battled to take guns off our streets and put more police officers on them so we can be safer. Mr. Speaker, I urge President Clinton not to re-evaluate but to continue to work for working people.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, if we are going to guarantee, if we are going to talk about fairness in this the People's House, then we should not say that while we have a deficit here in this country, that while we have a looming deficit that is going to affect the children of this country, that is going to affect the families of this country, that the only tax cut that we can give is a capital gains tax cut; that the only way that we can ensure that men and women earn more money, lift themselves from poverty, is the earned income tax credit. Mr. Chairman, just to finish, we have been into striking words of Members when we do no like them here. We should probably have a new rule. When we use the word ``we'' as I heard it expressed by one of my colleagues from Texas on the other side of the aisle in reference to the earned income tax credit, when the ``we'' on that side of the aisle, not a single ``I'' on that side of the aisle contributed to the ``we'' for the American men and women, I think that we should move to strike those kinds of words, also.

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Excuse me, I have not spoken on this House floor in 2 years and I am going to speak today. It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that if we are truly going to be about life and the sanctity of life, it should be at all phases, at all steps along the way, not merely here on a debate. And it seems incredulous to me that we will pass a law that will make it more difficult to guarantee minimum wage and the same proponents will say to the richest, the wealthiest Americans here in the United States of America, we are going to give you a tax cut on your capital gains, on your investments, but we are not going to make a real investment in American men and women in this country by affording them a decent salary. Mr. Chairman, that is what this debate should be all about. We were sent here to do the people's work. I do not know, there may be young people, I see them, flipping hamburgers and trying to make a living in high school so they can help their parents and their economy of their household along. But I also see them early in the morning, Mr. Chairman, grown men and women working very hard.