Kweisi Mfume

Mr. MFUME

Mr. MFUME. Mr. Speaker, is the ruling discretionary? Mr. Speaker, is it a discretionary ruling?

Mr. MFUME. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. MFUME. Mr. Chairman, Ringling Brothers and Barnum & Bailey came to town today with an elaborate show of elephants and clowns on the Capitol Grounds. But that does not come close to the high wire act being performed today on the floor of the House by daredevils and acrobats who are attempting, through sleight of hand, blue smoke and mirrors, to pull a rabbit out of their hats while dangling the American taxpayer in mid- air and calling this tax bill deficit reduction. Federal workers in particular know that this is the new ``greatest show on earth.'' When a Federal employee accepts a position with the U.S. Government, he or she is, in many respects, agreeing to a contract. The employee agrees to provide their knowledge, time, energy, love. The Government, in return, agrees to compensate them for their time and provide for them in their retirement. What we are effectively doing to current Federal workers is changing the rules in the middle of the game. We are telling the 2 million of them that we still expect the same quality and quantity of work, but for less compensation. We are telling them that despite the fact that they have helped to keep this Nation going, we are not fulfilling our part of the bargain. It is generally accepted that this legislation is unfair to Federal employees; Members on both sides of the aisle have said as much. Yet the Republican Party has circumvented the committee system and included the Federal employee pension provision in this legislation. What a dangerous, shameful and dastardly deed. For the average Federal employee earning $40,000 a year this proposal will impose an additional $1,000 in taxes, disguised as an increase in the contribution to their pension. More than half of the benefits from the tax package before us will go to families with incomes between $100,000 and $200,000 a year. Two hundred thousand dollars, is that middle-class? And please do not tell me that the money Federal employees are losing will go towards deficit reduction; because the fact of the matter is that this legislation actually adds to the deficit. If it becomes law, Congress will be forced to find $1.6 trillion in extra budget cuts or revenue increases over the next 7 years in order to balance the budget. Federal employees are not extravagant millionaires. They are the hard working men and women. The 2 million Federal employees, who have worked hard for years, deserve better treatment than this. They deserve our thanks. They deserve the cost of living increases which are usually denied or delayed. They deserve to be free from unwarranted furloughs, and they deserve to know that they can go to sleep at night without worrying about what Congress or the Republican party will do next to renege on their promises to them. Mr. Chairman, while Federal employees are the biggest losers under this bill, I don't want to belittle for a minute the negative impact this bill will have on our nation and its deficit. This legislation will increase the deficit. It rewards the wealthy and punishes the middle-class and working Americans who will feel the brunt of the spending cuts. And, it demoralizes the Federal employees who are necessary to make this Government run. In the end the difference between last year's Republicans and this year's Republicans is Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum. The party that gave us Voodoo economics is now about to give us Robin Hood in reverse. So listen closely my friends, that giant sucking sound that you will hear in a couple of months will have nothing to do with NAFTA, but everything to do with AFTA [Angry, Forgotten, Taxed Americans] who will say to the architects of the Contract on America ``Et Tu, Brutus,'' I can't believe what you say because I see what you do. Vote no on this misguided piece of legislation and end the charade against the truth, perpetrated in the name of deficit reduction.

Mr. MFUME. Mr. Chairman, I said earlier that Ringling Brothers and Barnum & Bailey came to town today and put on a great performance of elephants and clowns outside of this building, but it does not come close to the high wire act that is being performed here by the daredevils of the high wire of this legislation who are attempting through blue smoke and mirrors to pull a rabbit out of a hat and dangle the American taxpayer from the high trapeze bar, suggesting that this bill somehow will achieve deficit reduction. For the average Federal employee earning $40,000 a year the Republican proposal imposes an additional $1,000 in taxes resulting from increased contributions to their pension system, and I have yet to hear somebody on the regarding this. More than half of the tax benefits will go to families with incomes between $100,000 and $200,000. Is $200,000 a year middle class? You go figure. If you earn $100,000 you get $11,000 in tax reductions, but if you earn $30,000 you get $124 in tax reductions. This bill increases the deficit. It rewards the wealthy, it punishes working Americans, and I do not care what people say, when you take money out of their pocket, $1,000 per Federal employee, that is a punishment. So in the end, the difference between last year's Republican rhetoric and this year's Republican rhetoric is a matter of Tweedledee and Tweedledum. The party that gave us voodoo economics is now giving us Robin Hood in reverse. I said it earlier, so let me repeat it for those who did not hear. The giant sucking sound we will hear from now on will not be NAFTA, it will be AFTA, angry, frustrated Americans who are carrying the brunt of this and carrying the biggest weight as a result of what I consider to be foolishness on the part of those who have designed it.

Mr. MFUME. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. MFUME. Mr. Speaker, we have a ruling from the joint committee, an explanation. We have two explanations, one from Treasury, one from Small Business, both of which are very detailed in terms of their justification of their position. This Member is at a loss with respect to the ruling of the Chair and questions whether or not the Chair's ruling, pending ruling, is discretionary or is it based in fact. And if it is based in fact, could the Chair kindly advise the Member how the Chair reached that and to suggest also that it was not discretionary?

Mr. MFUME

Mr. MFUME. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for yielding me this time. I want to stand here this evening and join with other Members of this body in absolute and unequivocal opposition of this nonsense in all of its versions that have been before us tonight and state a brief but very succinct case as to why. And on this particular bill, because it allows for all sorts of limits to be placed, in other words, you could serve for 12 years or your State could have you serve for 2 years, it creates chaos in a Government that is already too chaotic, and has no uniformity that brings about any sense of resolution of problems. I keep hearing over and over and over again from Members who are in support of this, ``Well, you know, the majority of the American people want this. The majority of the American people think it is the right thing to do.'' We were sent here to govern on what was right and what was wrong and not to read some poll commissioned and published in a publication. If we have to do that, we do not need to be here, and maybe then term limits are effective. I do not want anybody representing me reading poll results and basing their work on that instead of using their judgment that they ought to have intuitively to do what is right and to see beyond the hype. The last time I looked, since someone raised the question before, slavery was considered to be all right in the minds of most people in this country, so perhaps that is why all of those former Congresses just kept on voting it through and voting it through. The last time I looked, in 1939, the majority of the people in this country turned their backs on Jewish Americans and turned around the Saint Louis from the ports of Florida and sent it back to Europe so that people could be killed and found to be in all sorts of, or all kinds of things happening to them because the majority of people wanted it. The majority of people in this country did not want women to have the right to vote. So if you read a public opinion poll in 1905 and you were in Congress, of course, you were going to vote against women's suffrage. Please, do not give me that. Between death, voters, and voluntary change of occupation, 206 Members of this body in the last 3 years are no longer here. That is almost half. You do not need term limits to do that. You will not need them in the future to do that. People make the choices as they have the right to do every 2 years, and for those who keep quoting the Constitution, well, here it is, ladies and gentlemen. I do not know when is the last time any of you read it. Beside it happens to be the Federalist papers, but, look, there is nothing in it that says you have to stay here. You can leave. And, in fact, if you believe in 6 years, please, go, so that we can carry on the people's work. Let us not be disingenuous. Every Member of this body knows that none of these measures are going to pass tonight. Everybody knows that. And if you are honest, you would say it. But we are going to play games and have a charade. The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde], the most distinguished Member I have served with on the other side of the aisle, has said over and over again we do not need the dumbing down of the Congress. This ought to be about substance and true debate and not a charade. We know that all of these measures are going to fail tonight.

Mr. MFUME

Mr. MFUME. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 4, the Personal Responsibility Act as offered. This legislation, the Republican version of welfare reform, is a wolf in sheep's clothing. This legislation has significant ramifications for Americans both poor and nonpoor. We pride ourselves on being one of the most caring, compassionate, and advanced countries in the world. Yet, for a variety of reasons, this bill takes food from the mouths of babies, and cuts mothers off welfare, for the purpose of funding an upcoming tax break for the wealthy. Clearly, the Nation's welfare system is in need of repair. No community yearns more for welfare reform than the people of my district. But they have said overwhelmingly, do not support reform for the sake of reform. Most want, and I support, reform that genuinely allows America's poor to move from welfare to work. The House GOP bill will not do that. I stand opposed to this bill both for what it will and will not do. This bill does not meet our community's desperate need for jobs. Successful reform of welfare means jobs, jobs, and more jobs; it means child care for both poor women and men, and it means a commitment to ensure the rights of all children. However, this bill fails to create a single job, but requires welfare recipients to work after 24 months and be tossed off the rolls after 5 years. This bill provides no additional funding to support the welfare- to-work transition, but requires States to have an increasing percentage of their welfare population in the work force. Since cash assistance would no longer be an entitlement and States could determine who and how many get aid, States could increase their work participation rate simply by denying aid to a large number of currently eligible families. In addition, this bill cuts resources for child care, health care, transportation, and other necessary support services; factors keeping many on welfare today. Under this act more than 7,500 children would lose their Federal child care assistance in my State of Maryland alone. Mr. Chairman, more than 1,700 children in Maryland will lose all SSI benefits and Medicaid benefits under this bill. I am mindful of the difficult fiscal choices facing us at this time and must evaluate the competing claims on our Nation's diminishing discretionary resources, but I do not believe that children should be the losers. Furthermore, the bill ignores the Nation's economic trends. In an economy in which wages have declined for the working poor since the mid-1970's and in which the number of working poor has grown phenomenally, this reform in the context of our Nation's overall economic condition. This bill forces children, who may be the object of violence and sexual abuse in some cases, back to the homes where the abuse took place. Our children are our future. Unfortunately, the Personal Responsibility Act is not likely to be an investment at our children's future. America cannot afford to leave its children dangling in the wind. We were elected to represent the views of our constituents on issues of national, economic, and social significance. The opportunity for welfare reform is one of the most important issues facing America. In this critical time in our Nation's history, we should not allow politics to interfere with the responsibility to be fair to our children. Today, we have an opportunity to demonstrate the gravity of our commitment to children, the poor, to deficit reduction, and our commitment to redirecting our efforts to the critical needs of the American people. I urge my colleagues to vote for our children, vote for our future, and vote against the bill as offered.

Mr. MFUME

Mr. MFUME. Mr. Speaker, it is rare that you find an individual with talent, ambition and humility. But those are just some of the defining and wonderful qualities of Leon Day, one of Baltimore's true heroes. Baseball legend Leon Day died this week, he was 78. It was only five days earlier that Leon had his day and was elected into the Baseball Hall of Fame. his sister said it was ``what he was waiting for.'' He was the 12th Negro league star elected to the Baseball Hall of Fame and the first since 1987. His election into the Hall of Fame was a fitting end to a life of quiet achievement, pride and skillful performance. For persons such as myself, who grew up in the little leagues and went on to coach inner city youngsters, Mr. Day was the personification of athletic excellence and someone who made us especially proud. Leon Day moved to Baltimore in 1917 when he was 6 months old. His father worked in the segregated community of Westport and the family lived in Mount Winanas, a poor neighborhood in Southwest Baltimore. Although his house on Pierpont Street had no electricity or running water it was overflowing with both pride and purpose. When Day was 12 or 13 he began playing baseball at a local athletic club. After two years at Frederick Douglass High School he left to play semi-pro ball with the Silver Moons. At 17 he joined the Baltimore Black Sox and was promised $60 a month (in reality he was lucky to get paid $2 or $3 a week). The team soon disbanded and young Leon was off to play for the Brooklyn Eagles. In 1963, the eagles moved to Newark and Mr. Day began getting paid regularly and was able to help his family financially. When he returned home to play against the Baltimore Elite Giants he was nothing short of a hero. He struck out 18 batters in one game and set the Negro National League record. The hometown fans went wild. He defeated the legendary pitcher Satchel Paige in three of their four recorded meetings. And, he put his heart into every game. He was a players' player. Although Leon Day was known for his blazing fastball he was said to have a curve ball that dropped off the table. He had a unique talent of pitching the ball without winding up, which often made batters look bad, fooled and intimidated. After the 1943 season, Mr. Day went to Europe to fight in World War II. After participating in the Normandy invasion, Mr. Day played in an integrated game at Nuremberg Stadium against white major leagues. He pitched a four-hitter and bet the major leagues 2-1. After the war, Day returned to the United States and the Eagles. Although the war had taken its toll on his strength, he was able to pitch a no-hitter on opening day against the Philadelphia Stars. After his victory, his teammates carried him off the field on the shoulders in triumphant recognition of an achievement few have ever realized. In an era of social segregation he was a part of the athletic avant guard, who had rejected the mediocrity of second class citizenship. In doing so, he helped re-define the American past time as we know it, proving once and for all that only the ball was white. When Mr. Day received word of his election into the Hall of Fame, tears of joy rolled his cheeks. To say he was elated, would be to overstate the obvious. ``I never thought it would come,'' he said. ``This has been in the back of my mind for a long time.'' It did come and not a moment too soon. Mr. Day is and always will be one of baseball's quiet heroes. A man who strived to be his best, despite his humble beginnings. A man who showed excellence on the baseball field and unmatched modesty when off it. Mr. Day is a man all of Baltimore can be proud of. On July 30th of this year in Cooperstown, NY, Leon Day will be officially inducted into the Baseball Hall of Fame. Although he will not be among the throngs of well wishers who will travel from across the nation to be there, let us resist the urge to mourn him. Instead, on that hot July day, know that not far away still sits a field of dreams. A place where the men of winter become the boys of summer. Where for nine innings, the problems of the world go away. And, where Ruth, Cobb, Paige and Gehrig all rush to the mound to welcome their newest team-mate, Leon Day, the gentle giant from Baltimore.

Mr. MFUME

Mr. MFUME. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably delayed at the White House and not on the floor to be recorded on rollcall vote 241. Had I been here, I would have voted present.

Mr. MFUME

Mr. MFUME. Mr. Chairman, I was, unfortunately, detained in my congressional district in Baltimore earlier today and thus forced to miss a record vote. Specifically, I was not present to record my vote on rollcall vote No. 200, the amendment offered by Mr. Goodlatte of Virginia. Had I been here I would have voted ``nay.'' personal explanation

Mr. MFUME

Mr. MFUME. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the H.R. 925, the Private Property Protection Act. The Private Property Protection Act comes under the guise of protecting private property rights, while in reality it pits the property rights of some against the rights of others and the rights of the community as a whole. Private property rights are sufficiently protected under the fifth amendment to the Constitution; codifying a specific interpretation of these rights is not only unnecessary, but dangerous as well. I urge a ``no'' vote on this legislation. The courts have outlined the factors to be considered on a case-by- case basis in determining if a ``taking'' has occurred, including the economic impact on the property owner, the public purpose for which the regulation was adopted, and the character of the governmental action. H.R. 925 calls for an extended, legislated, interpretation of the fifth amendment of the Constitution. This bill would require the Federal Government to pay a private property owner for any decrease in value to his/her land due to Federal regulations. The effect of this legislation would be to have the Government--i.e. the taxpayers--pay land owners not to destroy the environment. Along with property rights come property responsibilities. Nobody has the right to use his or her property in a manner that may harm the public health or damage the property of another landowner or the community as a whole. American citizens are able to use environmental laws in order to protect their property from damage at the lands of irresponsible industries and landowners. Environmental laws, in turn, have been established to preserve our natural resources for the benefit of future generations and so that Mother Earth can survive. The intent of H.R. 925 is to make it fiscally impossible to enforce such important legislation as the Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species Act, and other environmental initiatives. A broader interpretation of this bill could limit the ability of the Federal Government to enforce such laws as the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Civil Rights Act, and other laws which protect American citizens but may place a financial burden on business. The possibilities of abuse under this legislation are enormous. We must not fall for the ``what's mine, is mine'' pitch used by ``takings'' legislation advocates if it comes at the expense of the American taxpayer, or the community at large. I urge my colleagues to vote against H.R. 925.

Mr. MFUME

Mr. MFUME. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the leave of absence which I was granted yesterday, Monday, February 27, 1995, I was not present during two rollcall votes. Specifically, I was absent during rollcall votes Nos. 175 and 176. Had I been here I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 175, the rule for debate on H.R. 1022 and ``yea'' on rollcall No. 176, the Brown of California substitute to H.R. 1022.

Mr. MFUME

Mr. MFUME. Mr. Chairman, let me say to you and remind myself that this debate really is not about the deductibility of health insurance for the self-employed. That might be the intent by some, but the effect is something altogether different, and at some point in time we ought to stand up and admit that. Because if we were really serious about doing away with this second-class citizenship that they now enjoy, we would have approved the Cardin amendment, which was an 80-percent deduction, or the Mfume amendment, which has a 100-percent deduction and paid for with surplus funds. Or we would even now support the McDermott substitute. But we are not doing that. This is not about them. This is about a charade, a bigger smoke screen. Because this makes the 25 percent permanent. It says, ``You're going who are self-employed.'' So if we are real and if we are serious, we ought to give them what everybody else has, and that is an 80- or 100- percent deduction. Second point. This is not about what this bill allows. It is about what it disallows. It disallows an incentive. There are those who would argue that we should not be giving incentives to businessmen. I do not ever remember hearing that argument from the other side of the aisle until today. If we are going to talk seriously and be frank, let's say what people are thinking. People are looking at this, ladies and gentlemen, and seeing this as a race debate. That is how people are seeing it around the country. Not me. Not the chairman. Not the one who has got the substitute. The people are seeing it. Because we are playing it that way. We are. Someone said this is about affirmative action. This is not the fight about affirmative action. I want to be very clear about this. This is the flare that goes up before the firefight, that lights the horizon, that shows the way. Let me suggest that the real fight is on the horizon. I would hope and I would remind individuals who are here today who think that affirmative action will go down quietly that that is not the case.

Mr. MFUME. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. MFUME. Will the color-blind gentleman yield?

Mr. MFUME. Will the gentleman yield for a moment?

Mr. MFUME

Mr. MFUME. Mr. Chairman, I was unfortunately detained in my congressional district in Baltimore earlier today and thus forced to miss two record votes. Specifically, I was not present to record my vote on rollcall vote No. 140, the amendment offered by Mr. Hefley of Colorado and rollcall vote No. 141, the amendment offered by Ms. Harman of California. Had I been here I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 140 and ``yea'' on rollcall No. 141. personal explanation

Mr. MFUME

Mr. MFUME. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I understand the gentleman named countries, but in this particular case, lifted the name of President Mandela as if he were responsible somehow. This gentleman seeks clarification.

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

Mr. MFUME. Mr. Chairman, surely the distinguished gentleman did not mean to suggest by his comments, which are now public record, that President Nelson Mandela is responsible for readiness or the lack thereof of our armed services.

Mr. MFUME

Mr. MFUME. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Speaker, in an effort to try to make sure that we operate with some sense of comity, I direct this inquiry to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman]. There was one Member on our side of the aisle, the gentlewoman from California, who had wanted to offer an amendment in the title that has just been concluded and was not allowed to do that while she was on the floor seeking recognition. In an effort to try to move us off the impasse that we are on, would the gentleman from New York be open to this: as I understand it, the rule calls for the allowing of this amendment since amendments can be offered at any time, as I understand it, regardless of section?

Mr. MFUME. I am going to ask the gentlewoman now if it was title III or not. I thought it was the current title. It is my understanding, I say to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman], that it was title II that she was offering the amendment for.

Mr. MFUME. Could the gentleman also by unanimous consent perhaps, as he seeks his request that was previously not agreed to, indicate her amendment as part of those amendments that will be considered?

Mr. MFUME. I do not know if the gentleman who raised the objection is still objecting or not.