Cynthia McKinney

Ms. McKINNEY

Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? I am so glad that the gentleman is talking about this. Now I have got a newspaper article here from the New York Daily News where Mr. Gingrich says, ``I'm against affirmative action for rich people,'' and he was urging the repeal of this tax break. Now I am also further reading here that the exception cleared by the House leaders was so tightly crafted that, by rearranging the dates in the legislation, it hands the break only to Murdoch. I ask, ``Can you believe that we were duped just like that?''

Ms. McKINNEY. We were sent here to change things, but, as it stands, nothing is being changed. These people are going too far, the Gingrich revolution has gone too far in the special interests category, benefiting one person, and I cannot believe that we began this hundred days with a discussion about Newt Gingrich and Rupert Murdoch with their arms entwined, and now here we are ending this hundred days. What? With the same discussion, about the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Gingrich] and Mr. Murdoch with their arms entwined again.

Ms. McKINNEY

Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, it appears my colleague from the Sixth District of Georgia has set a new global standard in blatant, unabashed audacity. One would think that after the controversy over his $4.5 million book deal with Rupert Murdoch, he would have made an effort to distance himself from the British billionaire. But no, not this speaker. While slashing heating assistance for the elderly poor, he and his confederate colleagues conspired to protect a $63 million tax break specifically for Rupert Murdoch. No one knew about this grand heist until after it was slipped in during the conference committee. Mr. speaker, when my colleague delivered his opening day speech after accepting the gavel he said, and I quote, ``here America comes to work and here we are preparing for those children a better future.'' End of quote. I didn't realize that by children he meant Rupert Murdoch. Mr. Speaker, now more than ever, it is time for an outside counsel.

Ms. McKINNEY

Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, as the Republicans continue their class war on behalf of the junk bond traders of this country, the poor and the middle class are once again going to face their social Darwinist guillotine. Education is the single most important factor in determining whether or not a person will live in poverty. With this in mind, the GOP is now going to slash student loans which allow working families to send their children to school. Going to school is expensive enough as it is, yet now the Republicans want to make it almost impossible. While Newt Gingrich plans a $500 per child tax credit for people who can afford to send their kids to Yale, the working people in my district now will even have the money to watch his bogus college course on TV. Mr. Speaker, the Republicans not only want to deny a future for the poor of this country, they also want the middle class to keep them company.

Ms. McKINNEY

Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, as the Gingrich Republicans prepare for their blitzkrieg against the poor, and say things that I hope they do not mean, I would like to read a letter from one of their supporters, obviously inspired by their rhetoric. The letter reads: After watching your Negro boss do her jungle act about bringing back the brown shirts, I think we need some color shirts to control these Negro females who pop out ------ Negro children like monkeys in the jungle. No, I think the monkeys are more civilized. We real Americans don't intend to support ------ Negro children who live like rats in a hole and don't have a chance to become human. The welfare system is the cause. Even whites are becoming trash just like Negroes who pop out all these ------ Negro children. Don't you understand that we Americans are trying to civilize you? Why do you fight it so hard? The jungle is in Africa, though you have turned D.C. into an American jungle. Grow up and become an American. these words.

Ms. McKINNEY

Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, my colleague from the Sixth District of Georgia wants to restore a notion of shame and touts the value of shame in discouraging public drunkenness, child abuse and encouraging kids to do their homework. He continues that through the use of shame, we will be able to reassert standards in America's future. Now is it not curious that this particular notion of shame could seriously be advanced by someone who: First, misstates the facts on purpose; second, denigrates women by talk of infections; and third, has an ethical cloud over him so big and heavy that dewdrops now glisten on his neo-victorian halo. Let us get real on the value of shame and as my teacher used to say, ``The emptiest wagons always clap the loudest.''

Ms. McKINNEY

Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, it appears my colleagues from the Sixth District of Georgia has a problem recognizing the truth and making up facts to support his medieval ideology. Examples of this include the wasteful Federal shelter that does not even exist, the heart pump that the FDA allegedly refused to approve regardless of the fact that they have not seen it, and his claim that D.C. schools are the most expensive in the country when they are not. Now it appears that information was withheld from the Ethics Committee about his controversial college course. The ultimate purpose of this tax-exempt course, according to Jeffrey Eisenach, is to, ``train by April 1996, 200,000-plus citizens into a model for replacing the welfare state * * *.'' Sounds like the brown-shirts to me, Mr. Speaker, it is time for an outside counsel.

Ms. McKINNEY

Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, as bigots and supremacists across the Nation bask in their new Republican majorities, this weekend's reenactment of the Selma to Montgomery march couldn't have come at a better time. Thirty years ago, my friend and colleague John Lewis had his head bashed in on the Edmund Pettus Bridge because he dared to march for voting rights in the South. That historic march to Montgomery gave us the Voting Rights Act which is now under attack from every sector: Majority and minority districts are being challenged in the courts, Governors are trying to kill motor-voter, and now affirmative action has become the new Republican wedge issue to divide people. Mr. Speaker, while the bigots and supremacists feel emboldened by a Republican Congress, I invite them to come to Selma this weekend and witness our resolve to fight.

Ms. McKINNEY

Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, it appears that the web known as Newt Incorporated is beginning to unravel. A recent Los Angeles Times article details the intricate link between GOPAC, the Progress and Freedom Foundation and the Speaker's college course. While denying commingling all along, it appears that Newt Incorporated has been promoting a weird thirst for power at taxpayers expense. Meanwhile my friends wax indignant about illegitimacy, nutrition programs, and Big Bird. It looks like the real welfare cheats might be some corporate sugar daddies. I have a rhyme: Hickory Dickory Dak, it is time to investigate GOPAC. It is time for an outside counsel to clear all of the smoke arising from revelations about Newt Incorporated.

Ms. McKINNEY

Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, today marks the first 50 days of the 104th Congress, and my Republican colleagues are boasting about how much they have accomplished. The fact of the matter is, they have produced a lot of icing, but there ain't no cake. While the Contract With America does a great deal for you if you earn over $200,000 a year, for the rest of us it is nothing more than a con job. Tax cuts for the rich will be paid for by cutting student loans, child nutrition programs, Head Start, and Medicare. Regulatory reform will allow corporations to circumvent health, food, consumer protection, and environmental standards. Their tort reform will let corporate giants get away with murder. The contract does not address health care, the minimum wage or job security. Once again, this leads to the question, who really is controlling the contract? I think it is time for an outside counsel.

Ms. McKINNEY

Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. The question I want to ask is, why in the world would the Republicans want to revive star wars? They'll use any euphemism to fool the American people, but the bottom line is that among the other foolish ideas presented in this bill, probably the most foolish idea is that we need to knee-jerk ourselves all the way back to star wars. Aside from totally upsetting all of the arms control agreements that both Democratic and Republican Presidents have been able to hammer out with nuclear nations, this bill might just encourage those missiles that no longer are aimed at us, to make an about face. The subject matter of national security policy is much too serious to be cooked up by a few pollsters and spinmeisters. Remember star wars. For the $36 billion already spent did we get our invisible, global, protective shield against missiles? No. For the $36 billion already spent, did we protect ourselves from terrorist acts like the World Trade Center bombing? No. And do we really want to go back to space-based ballistic missile defense when there are other critical domestic needs that are tearing at our own social fabric? It was Dwight D. Eisenhower who said: Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone; it is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, and the hopes of its children. This group of Republicans that came up with this bill make Dwight D. Eisenhower look like a flaming liberal. The fact of the matter is, however, that: When we choose star wars over feeding the hungry; and When we choose star wars over housing the homeless; and When we choose star wars over even our own children. We surely make a grave mistake. Let us support the Edwards amendment.

Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Chairman, does this debate sound like a time warp? I would not be surprised if I heard evil empire, iron curtain, and Berlin Wall. Let me just remind my colleagues that that was yesterday, and now we need to talk about today and tomorrow. This bill is a prescription for disaster. The Republicans are rushing as a part of their contract to penalize the poor, discriminate against legal immigrants, pander to the rich, and now, through this national security part of their contract, they add insult to injury by also asking this House to invest scarce dollars in yesterday's boondoggle. The Republicans have chosen to look through the rearview mirror as if blinded by the light of the future. Instead, they choose to look behind. This is the same party that says that Government is too big. This is the same party that says that kids do not deserve to eat subsidized lunch in school, that pregnant women do not need to have subsidized nutrition so that they can give birth to healthy babies. This is the same party that said we do not have enough money to put 100,000 cops on the streets. But Government spending for an elaborate and controversial missile defense in space, well, that is all right. Rather than asking for money for Star Wars, the Republicans could have asked for money to clean up the contaminated bases that coexist within our communities. And rather than railing on about foreign command and control, they could have focused instead on constructive engagement with the rest of the world through multilateralism and collective security. The specter of foreign command is not true. The President is and always have looked at promising weapons systems that bear more relation to the type of defense that we need in the future. This bill does not provide for the forward looking vision of this country. It robs us of our peace dividend, and I say vote ``no.''

Ms. McKINNEY

Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, I find it amazing and unfortunate that the real vestige of the cold war thinking is right here in the U.S. Congress. Now that democracy is at the doorstep of nations formerly a part of the Communist block, this bill takes $30 billion steps backward. The American taxpayers want every nation to play a role in the global march toward democracy. The tragedy of this bill, however, is that it will force the United States to go it alone when the world finds itself in crisis. This bill hamstrings the President and undermines his constitutional authority as Commander in Chief. This is just another buzz bill filled with buzz words, cooked up by a Republican pollster to try and make Republicans appear to be responsible in the area of foreign policy. The Devil, however, is always in the details, and this bill is short on details and long on the Devil. If this bill passes, we cannot say, ``The Devil made us do it,'' but ``A Republican-led Congress made us do it.'' Vote ``no'' on the rule and vote ``no'' on the bill. In fact, Mr. Speaker, this bill could be dubbed the ``Terminator'' since it will wipe out all supranational options for the United States when peace and democracy are in danger. Just like the Terminator, if this bill passes, we, too, can say ``Hasta la vista, baby.'' And in the process, we'll be saying so long to future contributions to operations like Cyprus, the Sinai, Haiti, and Kashmir. And in the process, this Terminator bill hamstrings the President and undermines his constitutional authority as Commander in Chief. This bill also has an unfunded mandate for NATO expansion, but sidesteps the fact that it is also committing the United States to defend every country that becomes part of the new NATO. And let me say a word about this buzz word of foreign command and control. The forces of the United States are never under foreign command. This is just another buzz word cooked up by a Republican pollster to make them appear to be responsible in the area of foreign policy. This bill paves the way for early NATO entry for a few, but isolates the majority of burgeoning democracies committed to the partnership for peace. Many of those left out are more viable than some of those put in. This is recklessness to say the least. We must demand that those entering a new NATO must not only uphold our shared values upon entry, but that they continue to uphold human rights, avoid acts of armed aggression, and cease providing lethal weaponry to third parties--in order to remain part of NATO. The Devil is always in the details. This bill is short on details, but long on the Devil. If this bill passes, we cannot say that the Devil made us do it, but we can lay this reckless piece of foreign policy legislation squarely at the doorstep of a Republican-led Congress. We ought to say ``Hasta la vista, baby'' to this bill.

Ms. McKINNEY

Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening as a member of the International Relations Committee and as a mother of a small child. Throughout our lives, we are confronted with tough choices. As a Member of this body, I am constantly faced with tough choices. The Republicans came up with a program that included their tough choices. The Contract With America is a political platform of tough choices. I respect that they presented us a program of tough choices. I just happen to vehemently disagree with the choices that they've made. When I sit down in my car, before I start the engine, I check my side mirrors and my rear-view mirror. But when I set out on the road, I'd better have my eyes fixed on what is in front of me. Or else, my experience on the road could be a disaster for me and for everyone else trying to share the road with me. Well, that's kinda like what the Republicans have done with H.R. 7, now H.R. 872, the national security plank of the Republican contract. They've made some tough choices, but I must stop right here and say that their choices could be disaster for the world. Yes, they strapped in their seatbelts, but they want to take us backward, not forward. They have revved up the engine, stepped on the gas, but the car is in reverse. And they're looking at the world from the rear-view mirror. This is a prescription for disaster. The Republicans are rushing, as a part of their contract, to penalize the poor, discriminate against legal immigrants, pander to the rich, and--what brings me here this evening--through the National Security part of the contract, they add insult to injury by also asking this House to invest scarce dollars in yesterday's boondoggle. The Republicans have chosen to look through the rear-view mirror--as if blinded by the light of the future--they chose to look behind instead. Why in the world do we need to go back to star wars? We have already spent $36 billion on missile defense, $20 billion more are in the works. Isn't that enough? And they don't even define the threat, anyway. This is the same party that says that Government is too big. This is the same party that says that kids don't deserve to eat subsidized lunch in school; that pregnant women don't need to have subsidized nutrition so that they can give birth to healthy babies. This is the same party that said that we don't have enough money to put 100,000 cops on the streets, but Government spending for an elaborate and controversial missile defense in space is OK. Rather than asking for money for star wars, the Republicans could have asked for money to clean up the contaminated bases that coexist with our communities. Rather than asking for star wars, the Republicans could have looked at ways that we could constructively engage with the rest of the world through multilateralism and collective security. And, finally, they could have looked at promising weapons systems that bear more relation to the type of defense we need for our future, based on a forward looking projection of U.S. global interests and the U.S. global threat. Instead, the Republicans have jerked their knees so far into the past that this bill, just like many of the other contract bills, just flat out lacks credibility. Tomorrow, we will debate the so-called National Security Revitalization Act. The choices will be made perfectly clear. We can go back to yesterday's boondoggle and revive star wars, but only at a critical cost. This bill does not provide for us a forward-looking vision of the world and the U.S. role in it. This bill does not provide us with a rationale of a cooperative relationship with the rest of the world. Unfortunately, this bill does not even leave jingoism behind. And finally, this bill just makes some bad choices for the millions of moms like me who care about the world and the country that we leave for our children.

Ms. McKINNEY

Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, while many people in this House feel that institutional and political discrimination are a thing of the past, I would like to draw their attention to the tiny town of Butler, GA. After 10 years of no elections, the town of Butler will finally have free and fair elections which do not exclude its 46 percent black population from being represented. The Eleventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had to order the town's all-white council to open its polls and put an end to rigging elections that kept African-Americans off the town council. To my Republican colleagues who are anxious to repeal motor-voter, the Americans With Disabilities Act, and the voting rights acts, I say beware. We spend billions of dollars every year to protect and promote democracy abroad, and you want to spend billions more for a star wars defense of democracy at home. Mr. Speaker, the bottom line is that we are yet to achieve democracy and equality right here at home, and the last thing we need is a bunch of politicians saying that inequality and injustice at home are all right with them.

Ms. McKINNEY

Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, there is an ever-growing empire lurking on Capitol Hill called Newt, Inc. While Big Bird, school lunches, and the handicapped face savage cuts this year, that new empowerment television will host an obscene $50,000-a-plate tax deductible dinner this evening. While the rich and powerful escape paying taxes, this new empowerment television will propagandize to the poor and working people of this country that $4.25 is more than enough on which to live. Moreover, with in-kind GOPAC contributions, a questionable book deal, and the phenomenal group of Newt, Inc., an outside counsel is required. Mr. Speaker, there is something rotten in Washington, DC, and, ``It ain't the cookie monster.''

Ms. McKINNEY

Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, yesterday's Atlanta Journal and Constitution reported that my colleague from the 6th District of Georgia not only likes his frequent flyer perks, he also prefers to fly first class at the taxpayer's expense. It appears that Government spending is only a problem for my colleague when it is used to help people who actually need it. While many people are scraping by on a minimum wage that makes welfare look attractive, they are supposed to take comfort in knowing that some in this body are using tax dollars for wide-body seats. Mr. Speaker, the article referred to follows: Coming Up Today: Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-Ga.) and Sen. Mark Hatfield (R-Ore.) reintroduce the ``Arms Trade Code of Conduct,'' which would prohibit the government from selling or giving weapons to regimes that violate human rights or are undemocratic. A quick look at today's activities involving House Speaker Newt Gingrich of Georgia: schedule 8 a.m.: Speaks at Capitol Hill Club Headliner Breakfast. 10:40 a.m.: Regular morning news conference on C-SPAN. 2:30 p.m.: Speaks to National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities. 7 p.m.: Speaks to National Association of Wholesaler Distributors, receives national leadership award. What fear of flying? New York Magazine says Gingrich, who has been battling to keep frequent-flier miles accruing from government-paid tickets, seems to be partial to flying first class. The AJC reported that in the year and a half before assuming the speakership, Gingrich flew back and forth between Atlanta and Washington 125 times, traveling first class nearly half of the time. When accompanied by reporters and Delta chairman Ron Allen on a recent flight, says the magazine, he flew economy, boasting that he always travels that way. On the very next flight, he was back in first class, with its wide seats and free liquor. Now he's in on Out: Gingrich's new fame and position have made him cover boy of a slew of magazines lately. In his latest such sighting, his smiling face graces the cover of Out, on newsstands today. The article, ``The Newt Era: Is it good for the gays?'' by Newsweek correspondent Mark Miller, considers whether Gingrich's recent statements about tolerance for homosexuals are ``a small step in the right direction or an insidious act of political pragmatism.'' The Constitution article goes on to say that Gingrich flew back and forth between Atlanta and Washington 125 times, traveling first class nearly half of the time, but when accompanied by reporters and Delta chairman Ron Allen on a recent flight, he boasted that he always travels economy. On the very next flight he was back in

Ms. McKINNEY

Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday evening the President stood in this Chamber and called on the American people to join him in reforming our Government. More importantly, he issued a challenge to Members of Congress to voluntarily refrain from taking lobbyists' gifts. I am proud to say that I rise to the President's challenge and will no longer accept gifts from lobbyists. From now on this sign will grace the door of my office, and any Member who signs this pledge sheet will also get a sign to hang on their door. Mr. Speaker, I issue a special challenge to my colleague from the Sixth District of Georgia to take this pledge and illustrate his commitment to a gift ban by abandoning, and I will have to say it in piglet Latin, his ook-bay eal-day. All of us have accepted one gift or another from lobbyists. However, as the President reminded us, we cannot change our yesterdays, but our todays and tomorrows we can.

Ms. McKINNEY

Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, since the Republicans have decided that in their so-called open house that Democrats are not allowed to say certain things, I would like to relate the following children's tale. Once upon a time, there was a little piglet who spent most of his days rolling around in a filthy ditch, throwing mud and insults at the giraffes walking around outside. He was so good at doing this, he started an organization called GOPIG, which distributed tapes to his piggy friends teaching them how to use such words as ``sick,'' and ``grotesque'' to describe the giraffes. One day, the piglet came out of his ditch and the giraffes began to chase after him. As he ran, the little piglet squealed and squealed that what they were doing was unfair and that he might get an infection. Mr. Speaker, the moral of this story is, it is time for an outside counsel to put the book deal to rest once and for all.

Ms. McKINNEY

Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my extreme concern over the judgment displayed by colleagues from the Sixth District of Georgia. His need to fire long-time friend and associate Christina Jeffrey from the office of House Historian only demonstrates his folly in trying to politicize every aspect of the administration of this House. He first fired our bipartisan Historian in order to have a personal biographer. I wonder, had Ms. Jeffrey been retained, how she would have recorded the Ethics Committee investigation of GOPAC. Well, it turns out Ms. Jeffrey feels that the Nazis and the Ku Klux Klan do not get to tell their side of the story to our children in their history classes. Mr. Speaker, such are the fruits of extreme partisanship. It deserves no place in this House.

Ms. McKINNEY

Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, I support many of the important rules changes being presented here today. But, Mr. Speaker, it seems strange to me that the first opportunity that the Republicans get, they start doing what they have complained about for years. They claim to be willing to open up this body's proceedings, but the first day's business is being conducted under closed rules. That means that any Democratic ideas, regardless of merit, will not even see the light of day. We will start this Congress with business as usual and a gag on the voice of Democrats. This is not the way to start the 104th Congress. The Republican resort to closed rules is as unbelievable as their last-minute defeat of lobby reform and the gift ban last year. Mr. Speaker, I say to my colleagues, ``Saying that this is open debate just don't make it so.''

Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this section. This rule would require a three-fifths majority to pass any legislation raising income tax rates. This rule flies in the face of the Constitution. It will only strengthen the ability of special interest lobbies to paralyze this Nation. Let us be clear that this rule would only govern taxes on earned income. Income taxes are progressive taxes. Republicans do not propose a three-fifths requirement to change the tax rate for capital gains. Republicans do not propose a three-fifths majority to create tax shelters for tax avoiders. Republicans do not propose a three-fifths requirement to increase deficit spending or raise the national debt. This is one more gimmick. Its a gimmick that will spawn more gimmicks. Its a gimmick that will undermine the constitutional provisions for majority rule in the House of Representatives. I urge my colleagues to respect the pledge they made to uphold the Constitution. Don't give in to gimmicks.

Ms. McKINNEY

Ms. McKINNEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me. Mr. Speaker, to paraphrase Yogi Bera, its deja vu all over again. This bill ought to look familiar because this House overwhelmingly passed it last year. I am happy to vote for congressional compliance 25 times if need be. Mr. Speaker I find it ironic that on the day we cut committee staff by a third and put thousands of people out of work we celebrate. Mr. Speaker, I also find it ironic that as we cut the committee staff by a third, the office budgets of the new Speaker and the new majority leader have increased by nearly 50 percent. Mr. Speaker, it is important that we enact this legislation that protects employees.