Marcy Kaptur

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Maloney] for taking the leadership today in commemoration of International Women's Day, which is March 8, this Friday, and also during this month of March, Women's History Month. So often, I guess, I have to think back to the whole history of the country. There have only been about 165 women that have ever served in the Congress of the United States out of over 11,700 persons that have been elected to the Congress of the United States. So it has not been but until very recently that women have been able to discuss not just the plight of men in this country and children but also of themselves, the issues of concern to working women here in our country, which is the vast majority of women of all ages, as well as women around the world. I want to thank the Congresswoman from the great city of New York for taking the leadership on this and helping us put on the record on behalf of women everywhere helping us be a voice for them. I must begin with entering into the Record an article from the New York Times of February 21 of this year called Squeezing the Textile Workers. It is just an excellent story by John Holusha, and it is situated in Pisgah, AL, P-I-S-G-A-H. I have never visited there. It talks and it has a magnificent picture, compelling picture of two women, Martha Smith, saying goodbye to her fellow coworker in that town at a plant called Andover Togs, where she and approximately 100 other workers, largely women, lost their jobs sewing children's clothing. If I could describe this picture to you, I am sure that most Americans who have gone through this understand. They were saying goodbye to one another and facing a very unknown future. She was quoted as saying, ``There are no more textile jobs around here, they are all going to Mexico and overseas.'' Ms. Smith, who has lost 3 jobs due to plant closings, seems to have the evidence on her side. Two other sewing mills in this region of northern Alabama closed at about the same time, sending 550 people, mostly women, into the local labor market. In many of these towns, there just are not any other jobs to go to. So often we hear, these jobs are low skill jobs; these are not the high technology jobs of the future. If anyone has ever made a dress or have done it by hand or if you have done it with a machine or if you have ever sewn pearls on a wedding dress in a pattern, I would like to see the President of the United States do that. I would like to see most of the Members of this body do that. There is not any job that takes more skill, more concentration, more attention to detail than the sewing arts, because in fact they are the arts. And for those people that work on machines, which many of these women do, the speed at which they have to work with piece work in order to get paid is a speed beyond which most people in this society have never had to work. And they work very, very hard for a living. Many of them get carpel tunnel just in that one industry because they work so hard. Many of them being immigrants, many women it is their first job that they have really had after high school or after going through school. And many of them are the sole support of their families. So tonight we pay tribute to them and we say to them that we know who you are. And we understand the important jobs that you have done for the people of this country, and we think it is very wrong that those jobs are being outsourced elsewhere by corporations that do not value you as much as we value you in this country. And really, it is not your fault. A lot of women go home at the end of the day and think, gee, I lost my job because I did not try hard enough. Yet they have very good work records. Many of them have children at home. They have husbands. They have houses to keep. And yet they go to work every day, many times when they do not feel well, and they have done this throughout the history of this country. If you look at what has been happening over the last 20 years, what has been happening to them is so unfair, so unfair. The last 20 years, the entry level wages of women with high school educations has gone down 20 percent. That means the harder they work, the fact that they are providing many times the income that makes the difference between that family being able to survive or not survive, they are getting paid less for it. And even women who have gone to college are now earning 7 percent less than their counterparts did 20 years ago. So the stress that families feel and particularly women who still largely have the child rearing responsibilities, taking care of the home when they get home from work, even though that responsibility is more shared now, there is just a great deal of pressure on them. If it had not been for women going into the workplace, even though many of them do not want to be there today but they have to be, family incomes would have gone right through the floor. And now they are barely treading water just keeping even. If you look at where women have had the most pressure on them, where they have been losing jobs to international trade because of unfair trade laws, they are in fields like electrical machinery and electronics, apparel, which I have just talked about, the food processing industry like the women workers in Watsonville, CA, who worked so very hard for Green Giant. They then put all those women out of work and replaced them with very cheap labor in Mexico, where the women do not earn enough to buy the frozen foods that they manufacture. And in fact they cannot even afford a small refrigerator in their homes. Many of them do not have electricity. Yet those women are being exploited in Mexico while our women lose their jobs here in this country. If you look at NAFTA, since the passage of NAFTA, of the hundreds and hundreds of thousands of jobs lost in our country, about a third of those were held by women, many in the apparel industries. We know, just because of GATT and NAFTA, we have had upwards of 85,000 women lost their jobs in apparel and 30,000 women in textiles. And it is not because people in this country are not working hard. Americans work harder than any other people in the world, including overtime. We have the fewest vacation days. I think only one other nation, the Japanese, work a few more hours a week than we do. So it is not that people here are not trying very hard. I want to thank Congresswoman Maloney. I just will end with this statement: That among the laws of our country that are so important in giving women equal pay for equal work and the wage and hour laws that control overtime compensation and how many hours people can work, those laws were passed during the 1930's. There was a great women Congresswoman from New Jersey, from Jersey City, NJ, Mary Norton, who served here was responsible. She actually chaired what was then called the Education and Labor Committee. So it was a woman from you part of the country, who grew up in very humble circumstances, who was responsible during those years for coming here to Congress, waiting her turn to serve as committee chair, and responsible for the most important labor laws that have helped working women and working men across this country for the better part of the century. So we owe a lot to the east coast. We owe a lot to the Manhattan-Jersey City nexus and to the great Congresswoman from Jersey City, Mary Norton, for helping us build a middle class in this country. Congresswoman Maloney, you walk in her footsteps, and I thank you tonight for allowing me to participate in this special order.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this radical amendment because it will represent the death knell to 12,000 family farmers, including 350 in the State of Ohio, if passed, and what is really interesting is why would we want to be doing this when our sugar prices are lower than all of the other developed nations in the world that we do business with? What this is really about is, it is a fight between the farmers of this country who produce good quality sugar and the multinational corporations who want to set the price. That is what it is really about; it is about pitting our beef farmers in Ohio against the low- wage, undemocratic labor down in Cuba, in China, in Brazil, every place else that wants to ship into this country. This industry is going to go the way of TV's, apparel, VCR's. It is all written out there. I saw the offeror of the amendment eating a Snickers bar, or one of those candy bars. I thought that was a bit ironic here as we go into this debate, because that is really what it is about, multinational corporations setting the price of sugar because they are the largest users. If we look at the last time that the Government got out of the business of regulating this industry, prices shot up, and I say to every homemaker in America, remember when sugar cost $3 for a 5-pound bag? That was the last time this kind of amendment was approved.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. I will reclaim my remaining time. I thank the gentleman very much for offering that important clarification. I think one of the difficulties is when you have a large number of new Members that are elected, it takes a long time to learn the ropes, and sometimes perhaps people speak out before they check the facts. I think the gentleman's commentary this afternoon is helpful to the country. Let me say I come down here for a similar reason, and that is to offer a word of caution to Members of the freshman class, especially on the Republican side of the aisle, who this past Friday held a retreat. According to the press accounts, the purpose of the retreat was to reflect on how their best-laid plans for the so-called revolution went awry and to reflect why the American people have turned their backs thus far on their message. There was an article in my local paper, the Toledo Blade, last Saturday, which I am going to submit for the Record, which talks about the fact that this group of new Members was very concerned after the President's State of the Union that he was able to get his message across to the country, but that their leadership, according to this quote in the newspaper, that their leaders did not understand the importance of what they are calling communication. They were criticizing some of their leaders as too in your face, too extreme, too ideological. In order to help them out of this mess, one of the speakers that was invited to the retreat was the chief executive officer of Scott Paper Company. When I read down to that point in the article, I knew that I had to come down here today and speak a bit. I would just say to the Members of the new class that rather than seeking political assistance from speakers like this Mr. Dunlap, I think maybe it might be important to have some quiet reflection, more in a spiritual sense, on your own, because when I tell you about this gentleman, I am not so sure you would want to invite him back. He is one of the most well known chief executive officers in our country, who is referred to as ``Chainsaw Al,'' the meanest boss in America, the country's most notorious employee killer. In his own biography he describes himself as Rambo in pinstripes because of the way that he cut employment and laid off, terminated, thousands of workers at Scott Paper Company, his home company. In fact, the May 1995 issue of Fortune Magazine indicates a reduction in work force at Scott Paper of nearly half. Thousands and thousands and thousands of workers at that particular company were given the pink slip. Now, if I could give my colleagues some advice, it would be don't listen to Mr. Dunlap. Yet I see that he was invited. Over the last couple of years he has fired over 30,000 people in our country and shipped most of those jobs overseas. Recently he was a party to a merger between Kimberly Clark and Scott Paper, which he ended up coming out of that deal looking pretty good. He made over $100 million on the deal. I would like to ask Mr. Dunlap, in giving his advice to the new Members, I would like to know what happened to those thousands and thousands of workers that gave their loyal service to Scott Paper? What happened to them? During the time that all these workers were cut and terminated, Scott Paper enjoyed profits like it had never seen. Well, who would not, when you cut our work force in half? But he benefitted, $100 million. It is interesting to look at Scott Paper as a company, because it has manufacturing facilities all over the world. I know our listeners and Members of the House here buy their products. Viva paper towels is one you will notice on the shelves, or Scotties facial tissues, or Cottonelle, that you use in the bathroom. But the company whose products are familiar to us all is cleaning up at the expense of the U.S. taxpayers. Some of the countries that they do business in have the most dirt cheap labor anywhere on the globe. Honduras, gosh, they are a great respect for workers in Honduras. They are shot if they try to earn a decent living down there. Costa Rica, China, Thailand, Malaysis, Taiwan, South Korea. Scott Paper has a huge presence in Mexico. In fact, its Mexican subsidiary, Compania Industrial de San Cristobal, operates five manufacturing facilities in Mexico, and plans for more expansion are under way. In other words, all these people that got laid off in this country and are terminated coast to coast, they are going to be replaced by workers in Mexico who earn less than $1 an hour. Yet if you go to the store and buy any one of those products from Scott Paper, your prices did not go down. So what happened to the money? Mr. Dunlap took it. Though the productivity of the workers at Scott even prior to the layoffs was very high and their profits were high, they were not a bankrupt company, workers in Scott Paper's tissue mill in Everett, WA, and I hope there are citizens from Everett, WA who are listening, and other mills across the country, saw their jobs transferred to Mexico already. It is very interesting. In Mexico those workers have no benefits, they have no benefits. The workers in Washington made a living wage. That company really used to stand for something, before ``Chain Saw Al'' got involved. In January of 1994, Scott employed 33,000 people worldwide. But by December, when he had finished, there were 19,900 people left. Those who did not lose their job last year, imagine what it must be like to come to work every day in that company wondering whether the hatchet is going to fall on your neck in spite of how hard you work, in spite of your loyalty to the company, because every worker in that company knows they can be replaced by a worker in another country where Scott has a plant that earns almost nothing, not even enough to afford to buy Scott's products in the countries where those products are sold and made. Scott Paper essentially put U.S. employees out of work, and, by building up operations in companies like Honduras and Mexico, the company continues to undercut the wages of this country and the American people. But, wait. It gets worse. We know prices have not gone down. In fact, prices in the tissue area have been going up for years, at the same time as people like Mr. Dunlap are reaping huge profits while they take advantage of dirt cheap labor elsewhere and put our people out of work in this country. The company does not even have the decency to pass along its cost savings as a result of manufacturing and other companies in the form of price reductions at the shelves when our people go to the supermarkets to shop. In the last year alone, however, as a result of this kind of shredding of a corporate charter with the American people, where so many of our folks are thrown out of work, its stock price skyrocketed. Wall Street could not be happier, its price value going up over 100 percent. Now, what happened recently was Kimberly Clark just bought Scott Paper in July of this past year for $6.9 billion. Mr. Dunlap, that is where he managed to get $100 million on the deal, and effectively built a rising stock price on the swelling ranks of jobless people. How would you like to have him live next door to you? Kimberly Clark is the largest paper product company in Mexico, having invested over $100 million there, and millions more in other countries. It is interesting to see, a gentleman who came into address the new freshmen, who disdains Government, who disdains the laws of this country, benefits so much from Government programs. In 1994, Kimberly Clark, get ready for this, obtained $9.27 million from the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, for insurance. That is an instrumentality of the Government of the United States, paid for by our taxpayers to invest their money in other countries. In the same year, our Department of Labor certified 636 U.S. employees of Kimberly Clark as approved to receive help, unemployment help, because they were being put out of work because imports were coming in from Scott and Kimberly, the same products from these other countries, putting our workers out of work, and the American people have to pay for the families that have been put out of work by this very same company. Scott Paper, with its presence in Mexico, also had 300 workers. So that is nearly 800 workers just in the past year that we are paying for, unemployed people, that these very same companies put out of work in the United States. You could say that is a form of corporate welfare, because, on the one hand these companies are using our money to go abroad, insurance through the taxpayers of the United States, and then putting the U.S. work force out of work and having to get the money to pay for those unemployed workers through our Department of Labor. We know Americans are paying for the training of nearly 1,000 workers just over the last year because of the actions of these two companies. Now, it is amazing, because Mr. Dunlap began working for Scott Paper at the beginning of 1994. The terms of his contract, though hidden from the public, specify a base salary of no less than $1 million per year. While 13,100 workers got pink slips, Scott Paper bought Mr. Dunlap a multimillion-dollar home in Boca Raton, FL, and gave him a $333,000 hiring bonus. I sure hope that the new freshmen did not have to pay him to speak before their group, because he certainly could afford to come on his own. So I guess what I wanted to point out today, there were articles that were included in Roll Call on Monday talking about some of his comments to that group, where he said, and I can't repeat some of these words, by the way, but I will just leave a blank, where he advised the freshmen, ``Never give up. Never give up. Never let the `blank' get you down. This nonsense about the working people, don't ever apologize for being successful.'' This is the kind of person that is being listened to here in Washington. It says here, and I quote directly, The sleepy-eyed freshmen were greeted with a take no prisoners exhortation from Al Dunlap, the chief executive of the Scott Paper Company, who has been described variously as the meanest boss in America, the country's most notorious employee killer. What an attitude at the end of the 20th century for someone with this kind of rapacious greed to be invited to address Members of the Congress of the United States, which means that they are acquiescing in the actions that he has taken.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield to the distinguished Member from the great State of Montana, Mr. Williams, who announced a little earlier in the month that he would not be returning after this year, and that is a great disappointment, not just to myself as a Member of this body, but to every person in this country. Few know this man. Let me say to the people of Montana, you sent the best. Now you can say whatever you want to say.

Ms. KAPTUR. The article states that they were asking for his advice.

Ms. KAPTUR. I think it is very interesting they would invite him in as an expert and listen to a gentleman like this, and try to shape their agenda for 1996. That is why I bring it to the attention of the body.

Ms. KAPTUR. The Overseas Private Investment Corporation, they received nearly $10 million in insurance in 1994, for investment in other countries. So it shows how he is thinking.

Ms. KAPTUR. That is a fair assumption. What is interesting to look at is that, even before this is done, they were making profits in the United States. They had a good work force. They were making profits as a company. It is not that they had a work force that was not producing for them, but they wanted not to just make reasonable profits, they wanted excessive profits. They disinfested this country and used our tax dollars to do it to us.

Ms. KAPTUR. I thank the gentleman for bringing up a good point about his personal tax benefits that would flow from the tax package that they are proposing. He earns, who knows, millions and millions of dollars a year. The benefit to him would be absolutely incredible, probably in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, figuring his stock options, and so forth. So, he certainly would not be the example I would have chosen. We have so many good companies in this country that are making profits that are well-managed and that treat their workers with respect, that have respect for people. But I thought that this was just a terrible indictment on the freshman class. I hope that the caution we have given them today might encourage them to bring business leaders to this Congress that are worthy of the kind of recognition that they give to this type of gentleman. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Levin].

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, and I would be happy to yield again, talking about measures that go too far, I think part of the problem is who they might be listening to. Again this Mr. Dunlap, and this is a direct quote from Roll Call on Monday, January 29, suggested, just think about this for a second, that they should abolish the Senate, the other body. And if they did that, then they could get somewhere. Now, a lot of us have problems with the way things are set up. We are not always pleased with the way we make our laws in this country, but I do not think that that remark was made in jest. And I think there are a lot of people that would want to dismantle the very tenets of our Constitution. To me that borders on anarchy. That is not just reform. That someone would come before them and offer that as a proposal, I find not just to be off the edge, I find that to be about as extreme a recommendation as they could make. It goes to the very fundamental rights of representation that the small States and the large States have in our country. It goes back to the founding of the Republic. What gives this person the right to speak before this group in this way?

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for raising a very important matter that frankly we could have taken care of weeks ago, months ago. We do not have to be constantly operating at the edge. I think, as the gentleman says, and he is a very moderate individual in his own views, that perhaps people feel so strongly that they think this is their only alternative. But for the sake of the Nation I think it is best to put on the shelf some of the deeper urges we might have and for the sake of the Nation do what is right for all of the people, not just for a small subset or how we might personally feel about something.

Ms. KAPTUR. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would like to ask the distinguished gentleman from Mississippi, who has served in this Chamber with honor for many, many years, has he ever seen anything like this before?

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by saying that partisanship has never been the major reason that I have been serving in this Congress, and I think, over the years, I have tried very hard in my career to build bridges across the aisle on all the committees I have served on and build bridges between regions and representatives from different regions of the country. But as I witness the current impasse, and have never seen anything like it in my career, I would have to say that we have a serious problem within the Republican Party. This week we saw that the Senate, which is in Republican control, pass a bill to end the shutdown, this historic shutdown of the Federal Government. As we have seen workers temporarily laid off, without checks, across this country, the House Republicans cannot find it in either their management or their personal skills to pass the bill that was passed in the Republican Senate. So my question this afternoon, with all due respect, is what is wrong with the Republican leadership in this Chamber that is abdicating its responsibilities for governance? I would say it is not only the budget that needs to be balanced, but, I think, it is the Republican leaders in this House that are out of balance, and it has gotten to the point where it is not just the Federal workers that are being affected, but the taxpaying public of this country that is being denied services. Let me say in that regard, as someone who has taken a lifelong career interest in veterans affairs, that today I received a communication at my request from the Veterans Hospital in my region of the country, which has jurisdiction over the Ann Arbor Medical Center, as well as the Toledo Veterans Outpatient Clinic in my own home district, and I asked the chief of medical services there, Dr. Lloyd Jacobs, for a report on what was happening in our region of the country, and learned that the personal in that particular hospital, in our outpatient clinic as well, received paychecks with less than half of their normal amount, as only time worked before December 15 was credited for pay. In fact, in those checks deductions were taken out in full, and that accounted for significantly less than half a paycheck in many instances. Dr. Jacobs indicated to me that this has caused very significant hardship for people working in our clinic and hospital. For example, a clinical pharmacist, who is the sole supporter of two young children, is already having trouble meeting mortgage payments for that family. Another single mom in that hospital, with a 13-year-old child, is seriously worried about adequate food until the next paycheck. And one employee told him about the fact that she was unlikely to be able to come to work because she was having difficulty buying gas and she really did not have her full payment. Before I recognize the esteemed member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs here, let me just say that the doctor told me that his staff is now so demoralized, sufficiently distressed, and distracted that he has recommended, as medical center director in our region of the country, that they are going to diminish medical services to our veterans, including cutting back and stopping reconstructive vascular surgery, cardiothoracic surgery, interventional cardiology, and other risky and stressful procedures, because he is worried about the people who support him in the operating rooms concentrating on the operations they are supposed to be performing on our veterans. He wrote me saying he hopes this is temporary and can we not do something here in Washington so that he can begin doing the job the taxpayers expect him to do, and that is to operate on the veterans in our region who are seeking medical care. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Montgomery].

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for that. All I can say is that one quality seems to be missing in this Chamber, and that is good measure, good measure, on the part of the Republican Party. And if I could plead with the Members who are here on the floor, please heal your wounds, take us away from this edge of brinkmanship. Pass the bill that the Senate has sent over here.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to be recognized in place of the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Fields] for 5 minutes.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I looked at my dictionary, Webster's dictionary, before I came down here this evening and saw that it defines anarchy as the absence of government; a state of political disorder. Well, folks, that is where we are tonight, and I was reminded of that even more when someone from the other body, from Texas, who aspires to the highest office in this land, appeared on the David Brinkley show last Sunday. For those of my colleagues who may have missed it, that individual taunted the audience with this question about the Government shutdown. He said, ``Have you missed the Government? I mean, doesn't it strike you as funny that 280,000 Government employees are furloughed and large segments of the Government of the United States are shut down?'' Well, let me give that fellow from Texas a heavy dose of reality. I hate to burst his bubble, but I have a list here of residents of the Ninth Congressional District of Ohio who would respectfully beg to differ with him. As a matter of fact, no, it does not strike them as funny that much of our Government is shut down. For example, Jan, a student from Toledo, was supposed to start school this week, but now will not be able to because of this budget impasse. Jan called me and said, and I quote her directly, ``My financial aid papers can't be processed until the Department of Education gets up and running, and I can't start school without having the paperwork processed.'' She said there are ``millions of students like me.'' Well, she does not think it is very funny. Two disabled veterans from our community, Gary and Tom, called our office to say that they were very upset that their compensation checks are late. They asked me, ``How are we supposed to pay our bills?'' They represent millions of disabled veterans. Another veteran in my district, Charles, of Oregon, OH, is 76 years old and receives railroad retirement, which he earned. He asked me, ``How come they cut my check by $124?'' The veterans of my district, and all veterans all over our Nation, know what some elected officials clearly do not know. They do not get it. They do not know that in response to this shutdown, railroad retirement reduced its benefit payments by 64 percent; that the December 22 continuing resolution which provided continuing funding for certain veterans benefits and payments expires today; that contractors providing services and supplies to hospitals will not be paid and benefits for January will not be paid on February 1. Approximately 170,000 veterans did not receive their December Montgomery GI bill education benefits and will not receive benefits this month. These are the same men and women who have served our country in times of crisis, the soldiers and families who have given above and beyond the call of duty in defense of this Nation, yet some would dishonor their honorable service by saying it is funny that we are leaving them high and dry. Deborah, of Waterville, OH, called my office to say that she and her family departed last week for a long-awaited holiday hiking vacation at the Grand Canyon, but the canyon was closed due to the shutdown. She said, ``Please find a way to end this political nonsense now. These tactics affect the American citizens and many hard-working Government employees that now have no means to generate income for their families.'' She is right. On an average day, 383,000 people visit our National Parks System. Losses for businesses in those communities adjacent to our national parks could reach $14 million a day due to reduced tourism. It is not funny to those people. They understand what governance is all about. Loryn, of Toledo, called my office to say that she was supposed to begin to study in Spain and was scheduled to leave January 5, but will not be able to because she cannot get her passport back from the passport office. She has lost $1,000 already in nonrefundable airfare and may lose the $5,000 paid for this semester of schooling. She is not alone. On an average day the State Department receives over 23,000 applications for passports and 20,000 visas for visitors to this country. To those citizens and to those visitors it is not funny at all. Jan, of Toledo, called my office to say that her son and daughter are serving in the Peace Corps in the Ukraine, and guess what. Their stipends for service were cut off. It is not funny to them. Let us bring up the Dole bill, pass it, and put America on the right track again, and tell the gentleman from the other body that his irresponsible comments border on anarchy.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I rise to call attention to the sanctimonious advertisements in favor of the Gingrich budget that have been taken out in major newspapers across our country signed by some of the richest, most powerful chief executive officers in this Nation representing large multinational corporations like Boeing, IBM, Eastman Kodak, Zenith, Sarah Lee, and General Motors. Did you ever stop to wonder why these corporations are spending a small fortune lobbying for the Gingrich budget? In fact it costs $60,000--double the salary of an average worker in my district--just to buy one page, much less two, in major dailies like the Washington Post, USA Today, the Wall Street Journal, and many of the other ones in which they have been advertising. In fact, they spent over a half a million dollars just in four of these papers over the last couple days. Now do you believe what they say in the ads, that they really have a common concern for America's future? You know, I was trying to put this together as I was reading various articles, and I came upon the Time magazine special, the Christmas issue. It talks a lot about Speaker Gingrich in this issue. I turned to page 65 of the Christmas issue of Time. I read down here where it says, ``The Speaker invited a small group of chief executive officers'' from these very same companies to meetings here in the Capitol on the first floor, and it names names: Jack Welch of General Electric, Jack Smith of General Motors, Business Round Table, Chairman John Snow of CSX, who by the way has a very large signature in this ad, and they talked about how they could work together on this problem. I thought to myself, ``Why would the Speaker invite them, but he does not invite people from my district?'' In fact, the senior citizens of this country did not even get 1 day of hearings on the Medicare changes that are proposed. Mr. Speaker, how did they get that much access? Bingo: money. For example, CSX Corp.--one of the organizers, chief organizers of this advertising effort, and part of the group calling itself the Business Round Table--contributed nearly $100,000--to the Republican Party in the first 6 months of this year alone. Another signatory, Prudential, contributed over $90,000; AT&T over $150,000; Chevron contributed over $125,000. Listen to these numbers. This is not a new few pennies, this is not a hundred dollars, these are not a thousand dollars, these are hundreds of thousands of dollars by these very same interests. You might ask yourself, what did these corporations get in this access with the Speaker for all of their money? How about this: The Gingrich budget includes a $64 billion set of tax breaks for wealthy individuals like these very same CEO's, many of whom make up to $12 million a year. They include a $36 billion capital gains tax cut which they will all benefit from, a $16 billion cut in the corporate alternative minimum tax, $12 billion in other tax cuts, such as estate tax exemptions, which of course they personally are all interested in. It used to be in 1945, not so many years ago, that corporations paid about a third of the taxes that flowed into the Government of the United States. Today they pay about 10 percent. So we hear them crying these crocodile tears when their profits and Wall Street, the profits are going through the roof, and Wall Street has never been happier. At the same time as we see this, we see the Gingrich budget allowing these very same companies to withdraw over $20 billion of our workers' money from their pension funds to use it any way they well please. Mr. Speaker, we see pharmaceutical companies like Abbott Laboratories, American Home Products, by the way, they are listed in this very same ad, Baxter International, Johnson & Johnson enjoy multimillion dollar tax breaks through the 936 program, a subsidy that is included in the Gingrich budget; energy corporations like Amoco, Exxon, Chevron, benefit from provisions in the Gingrich budget that allow them to extract oil and gas from the Gulf of Mexico without paying any royalty to the public coffers for that privilege, making their profits at the expense of the United States of America and its people; companies like AT&T, Exxon, Ford Motor, and GTE have enjoyed millions of dollars of foreign sales assistance through the Overseas Private Investment Corporation [OPIC], and those benefits are retained in the Gingrich budget. What is interesting is these very same companies that want all these benefits and are paying all this money for access here in Washington have not created a single job in this country for the last decade and a half. For the Record, Mr. Speaker, I submit some of these names, like IBM, that has laid off over 23,000 workers in this country just over the last few years. I would like to say to Mr. Fisher, their CEO, what a merry Christmas you have given to the American people. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the following: Without a Balanced Budget, the Party's Over--No Matter Which Party You're in A bipartisan appeal from business leaders to the President of the United States Bill Clinton, House Speaker Newt Gingrich, Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole, Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, House Majority Leader Dick Armey, House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt, and all Members of Congress: There are moments in history when a single choice can mean the difference between vastly differing futures--one bright, the other dark. We believe that you, the political leaders of this country, are now confronting such a choice in your deliberations over a plan to balance the federal budget. We are convinced that the health of our economy rests on your ability to avoid political gridlock and give the American people what leaders of both parties say they favor and, indeed, have agreed to--a credible plan to balance the budget. By ``credible'' we mean that such a plan should: Use realistic projections that assume the fiscal and economic scenario developed by the Congressional Budget Office and reviewed by objective third parties; Take no longer than seven years as the maximum time period by which a balanced budget would be achieved; Ensure that the process of deficit reduction is achieved in roughly equal steps throughout these seven years, rather than ``backloading'' the politically difficult decisions into the next century; and Have everything on the table, including long-term entitlement programs as well as the size and shape of any tax cuts. Included among us are Democrats and Republicans, Liberals and Conservatives. What unites us in this appeal is our common concern for America's future. All of us are leaders of institutions keenly sensitive to interest rates and the short- and long-term outlook for the U.S. economy. We believe that the recent decline in long-term interest rates and much of the boom in the stock market is directly predicated on the financial markets' expectation that a successful bipartisan budget-balancing compromise will be reached quickly, and that a credible long-term plan will be put in place in short order. Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan recently observed: ``If there is a shattering of expectations that leads to the conclusion that there is indeed an inability to ultimately redress the corrosive forces of deficit, I think the reaction would be quite negative--that is, a sharp increase in long-term interest rates . . . I think we would find that with mortgage rates higher and other related rates moving up, interest-sensitive areas of the economy would begin to run into trouble.'' As you continue your negotiations, we ask you to reflect on the full consequences of success or failure. However Americans ultimately resolve our honest and principled disagreements over the size and scope of government, America must begin to live within it means. The time for good economics as well as good politics is

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Would the gentleman yield further?

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I have a great deal of respect for the gentleman from Cleveland, but I would like to ask him the question, ``If you truly want to serve the veterans of this country, would you vote with me to pass the VA-HUD-EPA bill with the amendments that we have been trying to offer in the committee?''

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to follow on the remarks of our distinguished minority leader here. This is a serious moment for our country. Our congressional office has now been in receipt of phone calls from constituents who are not able to get their passports processed because of the shutdown of the Government. So, in addition to veterans, whose checks are being threatened at this point because this Congress and this Speaker chooses not to move legislation through this body that will keep the various agencies operating, and not inconveniencing the public during this very busy travel season, it is truly a tragedy what is happening here just to make some sort of political point. Mr. Speaker, I think it is time for people here to grow up or get out, and to deliver the kind of services to the American public that they expect of us. We have thousands of families across this country who have filed for home mortgages that have a relationship to HUD where they insure and process those mortgages. Mr. Speaker, 20,000 of those a month cannot be processed because of this Government shutdown. We are inconveniencing the American people from coast to coast. We have tourists all around this country that cannot get into the monuments. Think of when in recent history my colleagues ever remember this happening. This does not need to happen, especially during this very important season of the year when so many people are traveling and expecting the goodwill that this season represents to govern our actions toward others. yes! toledo wins in overtime Mr. Speaker, I came to the floor this afternoon on a little bit lighter subject, and I would like to say that my good colleague from the State of Nevada has elected not to join me here this afternoon, but I am compelled to rise to tell my colleagues that if they happened to miss the first college bowl game of the 1995 season, they may have missed the best, most historic bowl game of the year. Mr. Speaker, in the Las Vegas Bowl, the still undefeated University of Toledo Rockets beat the University of Nevada Wolf Pack 40 to 37 in the first overtime game in the history of post-season college football. It was a close game, as evidenced by the 34 to 34 fourth quarter score sparkling with flashes of offensive brilliance on both sides. But in overtime, Reno's Wolf Pack defense could not withstand the onslaught of Rocket star Wasean Tate's powerful running game. Tate scored a touchdown and the game, as it is often said and this time never more true, was history. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, the gentlewoman from Nevada [Mrs. Vucanovich], for graciously honoring our friendly wager by awarding our team this Nevada Wolf Pack sweatshirt, which I intend to present to the team at an appropriate moment, for it was they who won it fair and square. Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the Rockets, because I know many of them are listening, and as this particular T-shirt indicates over here, are undefeated champs of the mid-American conference. Our newspaper had a complete front page headline: ``Toledo Rockets Win Vegas Bowl.'' We are so extremely proud of them and their hard work. Go Rockets and Go Toledo and thank you, Mrs. Vucanovich.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, this evening the undefeated University of Toledo Rockets will take to the field in the Las Vegas Bowl and once again display their awesome offensive prowess as they defeat the University of Nevada Wolf Pack--for the second time this year. It's an uncommon event to have a rematch in post-season college football, but tonight Toledo and Nevada will reprise their September contest--a game in which the Rockets beat the turnover-prone Wolf Pact 49 to 35. This is the Rockets' sixth bowl appearance. They have prevailed in all--with five solid wins and one forfeit. Now I'm sure the Wolf Pack has no intention of forfeiting, but the Rockets will prevail again nonetheless. As is the custom in the House, I offer my friend from Reno and colleague on the Appropriations Committee, Barbara Vucanovich, a congenial wager that Toledo's irrepressible Rockets will defeat Nevada tonight. So, as Toledo is known as the glass capital of the world, I will risk a set of Libbey Glass wine glasses and Ohio Catawba nonalcoholic Sparkling Grape Juice to fill them on my conviction that Toledo's Rockets will blast off from Las Vegas victorious.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, for 55 years in Toledo, hundreds of young boys and girls have danced and scampered across area stages and dozens of principal dancers have graced the stage with their artistry in a yearly production of ``The Nutcracker'' ballet. Thousands of northwest Ohioans have delighted in the Christmastime event. A production of enormous proportion has been given to us through the vision and talent of one woman, Marie Bollinger Vogt, who I rise today to honor. This year's production will be her last. Marie is retiring as the artistic director of the Toledo Ballet Association, which she founded. Intent on imbuing her own love of dance into youngsters, Marie founded the Toledo Ballet School over 50 years ago. Under her direction, the company has performed hundreds of productions throughout our region, ``The Nutcracker'' being its premiere performance. During her tenure, Marie brought to the school not only her own creative choreography but also that of internationally famous artists. She also brought to northwest Ohio world renowned dance companies and performers. Altruistic as well as artistic, under Marie's direction, the Toledo Ballet Association is involved in community service. The company stages free performances in the schools and local public housing authority. One performance of ``The Nutcracker'' is presented at no cost for children. Scholarships are provided by the school for children who could not otherwise afford lessons. These acts are surely fueled by Marie's passionate desire to inspire dance in young people. Although retiring as artistic director of the Toledo Ballet Association, Marie intends to continue in her first love, that of teaching, and will remain the Toledo Ballet School's director. She also begins the ambitious project of bringing to fruition her lifelong dream of building a professional ballet company in Toledo. In this, its 55th year, many of Marie's former students are returning to dance under her tutelage one last time. The 1995 ``Nutcracker'' performance will be a reunion for all who studied dance under her direction. Such a tribute gives testament to her teaching and quiet inspiration. We thank Marie Bollinger Vogt for her yearly Christmas gift to all of us in northwest Ohio; a family evening lost in the enchantment of ``The Nutcracker,'' her legacy.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Dornan resolution as the only crystal-clear vote this House will cast on this precedent-setting U.S. military involvement of our ground forces in an unstable former Soviet bloc nation. I rise in support of the Dornan resolution as the only crystal clear vote this House will cast on this precedent-setting U.S. military involvement of our ground forces in an unstable former Soviet bloc nation. The most assured way of maintaining our troops' safety is not sending them there in the first place. Moreover, there is no possibility that the age-old hatreds that have fueled the killings and plunder in the former Yugoslavia will be calmed in one year. Reestablishing civility in that region will require years of dedicated commitment, and the resources to back it up. Other instabilities in that corner of the globe are likely to bubble up in years ahead. Unless Europe, now rebuilt 50 years after World War II, seizes its proper leadership role, the United States cannot keep filling the vacuum. The initial cost of U.S. ground force involvement is projected at $2.6 billion including an initial $600 million for rebuilding roads, bridges and infrastructure. The cost in American lives tonight is uncertain. This operation is high risk and its ultimate resolution unclear. Thus, before committing U.S. forces, it is critical to ask the Clinton Administration: Under what Constitutional authority is your Administration committing 20,000 U.S. ground forces to Bosnia and thousands more to adjacent nations? Under what specific treaty obligation and amended obligations is your Administration committing U.S. ground forces to Bosnia? Please define peace-keeping. Please outline the mission in Bosnia and when our nation will know it has succeeded and thus withdraw. Please define peace-making. In the past, when, where and through what legal or treaty authority has the U.S. deployed ground forces through NATO, or other European Security institutions for ``peace-keeping'' operations in the former Soviet bloc? Since the administration's Bosnia initiative is precedent-setting-- U.S. ground forces in a former, unstable Soviet nation--on what basis will our forces be committed to other internal civil wars in the future? What will be the U.S. military ``peacekeeping'' relationship to the United Nations, NATO and other such international entities in the future? Has the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe formally requested NATO assistance in Bosnia? Please provide the document requesting such involvement. What is the role of the Western European Union, if any, in the Bosnia deployment? Is Eurocorps functional and what force level has it committed to Bosnia? Describe the Bosnian Commission that is to settle property disputes and its legal structure. Is it operational? If not, when will it become functional? How does the United States role in Bosnia differ from our role in Lebanon? Do the three parties to the peace accord--Presidents Milosevic, Izetbegovic, Tudjamn--represent legitimate authority for their respective constituencies? Through what legal process was each elected to preside over those countries? Please detail the nature of their respective elections. Finally, why in this post Cold War era--when the U.S. citizenry has been clamoring for more defense-burden sharing by U.S. allies--has the U.S. again been asked to assume the central role in resolving this situation, even convening the peace talks in Dayton, OH, rather than on the European continent. This matter is a defining moment in U.S. foreign policy in that the U.S. is being asked to substitute for European resolve. In the NATO nations of Europe we have thousands of European trained, deployable troops that could be dispatched immediately to the Bosnia region in the event a final peace accord is signed in Paris. Let me read to you the countries and the number of their combat ready troops: Belgium..........................................................63,000 Denmark..........................................................27,000 France..........................................................409,000 Germany.........................................................367,300 Greece..........................................................159,300 Italy...........................................................322,300 Luxembourg..........................................................800 Netherlands......................................................70,900 Norway...........................................................33,500 Portugal.........................................................50,700 Spain...........................................................206,500 Turkey..........................................................503,800 United Kingdom..................................................254,300